The purpose of not having multiples of the same archetype, is that it seems designed to be like a TV series. Generally TV series have a person for each skill set, but as we all know, rules are pick and pull, as needed by the GM.
I think the main thing is that PbtA is more of a philosophy than it is a hard ruleset. *DO* your action, don't think about *what you can do*. CREATE the story, don't just ride along. You're directly involved in everything, and it's a system built purely for "Collaborative Story-telling" which is why I've really gravitated towards it.
I realize I'm late to the party, but a hack like World of Dungeons would solve a lot of your issues regarding move bloat and character limitations from specific moves. WoDu really opens up the playspace and is a lot of fun to run and play.
I think the best way to explain the dice results of PbtA (because it doesn't need to have the same 2d6+ rules) is that all PbtA games are expected to produce three results or stages of a dice roll (when something happens in the fiction that needs the injection of drama): 10+ = Good 7-9 = It's complicated 6- = Oh crap. Then, what is the exact effect ou result of the roll, it depends on the fiction and the specific game rules.
I definitely like certain Apocalypse games better than others. And it's a combination of Moves and Playbooks. Some games have moves, which seem much more intuitive to me and I think it comes down to how well that particular game book may be written. And as someone who has grown to vastly prefer games without levels or classes, playbooks initially seemed WAY too restrictive and also (as you stated) the fact that there could only be one "profession" per group didn't make any sense to me, at all. Although this too, may be a constraint of that particular game, because some of my favorite Apocalypse games don't have that constraint: Uncharted Worlds being one in particular. My other favorite Apocalypse game, Worlds In Peril, doesn't even use playbooks. Regardless, I think I saw your Player XP bar fill up, because this seemed to be a step outside your comfort zone, for sure. Glad you gave it a try.
If you want a Lovecraftian PBtA you should look at Tremulus by Sean Preston, one of my favourite settings using this role play engine. Good video by the way. I liked your honest appraisal.
The playbooks are definitly not classes, neither archetypes; they're more like story arcs or character arcs. That's why, I think, you can't play four Apparatus or four Dying; it'll be redundant and the synergy won't be there as much. It's doable but I'm pretty sure it'd be boring or repetitive.
True I think it really depends upon the individual game. Some of the games I’ve read don’t use playbook at all, or they are a lot different. This allows for, let’s say, a group of investigators to all work together. However, looking deeper, it seems that the intention of most, if not all of these games is to tell a certain type of story. Instead of being a simulation of what it might be like to be an actual person in that setting, it is almost a Pitch for an idea for a movie or television special.
Playbook = Class/Archetype/Concept Move = Action/Maneuver "Move Resolution" vs. "Task Resolution" = Resolution Potatoe = Potato Some people like to craft words and when other screams"genius".
You and Jason need to try Dungeon World ... classic fantasy and it has classes. There’s some good content on Dungeon World and it’s co-creator Adam Koebel on RU-vid ( play thrus and good discussion)
if you think that conflicts should be part of the game and you force them into Powered by the Apocalypse games you are changing the game at its core. This game is fiction first. You don't want to look things aloofly and judge if you need a conflict or not: just follow the rules, i.e. if you trigger a move, play the move, otherwise keep playing. It's not about conflict, it's about moves.
At their core moves are conflicts or moments of dramatic tension ~ do you sway someone or not? Are you able to operate under fire, or do you crack? Are you successful at reading the situation, or is it opaque to you? ~ I don’t mean to imply that one should judge the need for a conflict. There’s no need to. Give players enough time and they will declare actions that generate conflict & uncertainty all by themselves. ;-)
they're not a conflict because to have a conflict you need two opposite factions and in PbTA games the spotlight is only on the player rolling the dice, there's no opposite faction. For the same reason you have to go for some workaround for Player vs Player, because there's no rule for conflicts in the game. Also, the focus is not on "does he succeed or not" like in D&D, but it's on "what will happen next?". In fact the more probable outcome is 7-9, which is a success with a complication - because a 7-9 moves the story forward more than a failure. In other words, the outcome is ternary, not binary like in D&D. I know all of this seems a mere subtlety, but the game is different only if you play the game for its differences without changing it.
Thanks no problem actually I think that would be a great follow up video topic I can see quite a few topics arising from this type of game. Part of what makes these so difficult is that they tend to support a more narrativist creative agenda, and depending upon the type of story or theme the author wishes to emulate, the moves can vary widely. I have noticed that you can be in a situation where you’re pretty sure you have just triggered a move , but you have to look around and figure out which one or if in fact you did! I have read quite a few of the games lately and it is amazing how different the moves can be for what would seem to be an identical situation at first glance.
I picked up 3 PBTA games and after reading have since sold them off. Reading the games, I didn't even see a game there...it was just like a really detailed setting book with no mechanics or system details. I too, was not a fan of playbooks, and even as a player, I'm kind of opposed to having that much player-agency. Just my opinion. I know people love these games and more power to them. I just wasn't a fan.
because you didn't understand them. Saying that they don't have mechanics or system details is just false. It's like saying that 5e doesn't have mechanics.
Fair enough. Not trying to offend anyone or say if they're game is "not a game" or anything like that. But I do think I have a valid question, as someone who has played RPGs since the 1980s and has written and published several moderately successful rpgs, shouldn't I be able to "understand" a game when I read it? Just asking, not trying to start an internet fight.
btw - the games that I read was Masks, Epyllion & Urban Shadows. I haven't read Apocalypse World or Dungeon World. I admit it's possible that I just haven't read the right games.
I haven't read Masks, Epyllion & Urban Shadows, maybe that is the problem - the choice of the game. Anyway, what I meant is that you maybe overlooked some details because they are similar to your playstyle as a GM (or maybe for the opposite reason, i.e. because they are very different). But there are great, great differences in the playstile between games based on task resolution and games based on moves.
The problem is thinking there’s a difference between PBTA games and traditional ones. PBTA games just force players and GMs to acknowledge what’s really happening in all RPGs.
