Feedback on Aproaches in PbtA/WoDu

#1

In the game I am currently working on we were using traits (akin to Vagabonds of Dyfed), but that doesn’t work that well for the game (WoDu inspired low/dark fantasy where you play nobodies who decide to adventure against the odds). So, I am trying to pivot it to a more standard pbta attribute spread, but with approaches (akin to Fate Accelerated or Wildlings) instead.

Currently I have:

  • Forceful - doing things aggressively and/or with passion, powering through
  • Quick - reflexes, speed but also quick thinking
  • Careful - cunning, planning, being perceptive
  • Wyrd - this one is “special” as it pertains to supernatural things mostly that are part of the setting.

Obviously, PbtA games traditionally have 5 stats, so there’s that, but I feel like I might be missing something. I think I can cover any action (basically anything that a player can attempt) with the 3 approaches I have, but I am not sure if just those 3 stats can describe a character well on their own.

So this is where I would love some feedback from the community. Can you think of something I am missing? Can you think of an action that would not be covered by the current approaches?

Some extra thoughts:
The game is inspired by OSR, and is basically an adventure game, but with less focus on dungeoneering and more on exploration/discovery. With the approaches, the design idea is they describe who the character is more than what they can do (other parts of the system will handle that). Having more than one appropriate approach per action is part of the system and actually encouraged. Approach to a given task would change depending on the narrative positioning. The approaches should also hint at a complication (forceful - you might destroy something, quick - you might miss something, careful - it will take too long etc.)

I am also very picky when it comes to the wording. I want the approaches to feel mundane and not heroic (Forceful is just skirting that edge, if I can find a better word, I will take it).

Any feedback is greatly appreciated.

#2

PbtA games have as many stats as they need, even… no stats at all. :smiley: Epyllion and Bluebeard’s Bride both have three stats; Masks has six stats that move around all the time; @BrandonLeon-Gambetta’s Pasíon de las Pasiones has players “roll with questions,” which means that instead of stats you just roll with a +1 for each question you answer with a “yes.”

For me, I think of stats in PbtA as really outlining how characters compare to each other. Imagine a game in which everyone has just one stat (“AWESOMENESS”); you could see that some characters might be better or worse, but it’s all on the same track. If that system instead had dozens of stats, or what we might call skills!, then you could have infinite variety but it’s tough to get folks to buy into that kind of system.

So if you are thinking about doing something PbtA-like, do these stats tie into moves? Or are they freeform with just a 10+/7-9/6- kind of structure to the results? If you want them to describe the character but not limit their action, why is stats the right place to put that work in the system?

4 Likes
#3

Similarly, stats in PbtA do no need to cover “fields of skillfulness”, either.

In a way, PbtA moves often short cut intent resolution and not specific tasks… those are the fiction we find out about through that resolution and our descriptions.

Take The Veil, for example, with emotional states as stats. Now, you might have high value in Mad. That doesn’t mean your character is Mad a lot or in any way close to choleric. In fact, choleric might be the opposite: someone with a low Mad score but who still rolls it a lot.

So there, a high score just indicates that when you are acting out of this emotion things are more likely to go your way.

I think a big question here is (and to build off of Mark’s questions):
What are you gaining out of treating PbtA dice rolls like skill checks? And what are you giving up when you do that?

And should you be interested in indulging us, what about the key phrases from Vagabonds has not been working for you?

4 Likes
#4

There is a lot to unpack in those two replies, so I will try to break it down:

No, but also, yes. Let me explain.
The game is first and foremost inspired by WoDu, where we have a main move - do something risky. This is the main move that will carry the game. So you risk something, and your approach (as player explaining how they want to overcome the obstacle) triggers the move roll with particular Stat.
However, as the game progresses more specific moves will be added to the roster (as part of the discovery mechanic). So later in the game there might be a move like Discern Realities (Roll + Careful) or Go Agro (roll + Forceful), but there also can be a move that answers questions like Pasíon de las Pasiones, no roll moves etc.

I want the Stats to say about who the character is as a person. Personal moves, and traits (akin to WoDu skills, lifepath backgrounds etc.) dictate what you can do. You might be a blacksmith’s apprentice for a living, but the Stats will say that you are a person who prefers to plan everything and take their time (high Careful, low Quick for example).
I want that because who you are is not changing as often, and I want to keep the numbers pretty static (because the game aims to be seeing impaired friendly, and we found that having some numbers on a sheet in braile is ok, as long as we don’t need to track their changes).

This is more or less what I am aiming for, but instead of emotions, we do approaches based on what the player thinks will be the best approach here (again, kinda emulating the OSR sensibility of players trying to, for the lack of a better word, out-clever the game).

We are definitely losing some good interfacing between system and narrative - as tailored moves tell us a lot about the world/setting. I am happy to loose that and reinforce the setting in other ways because of one thing - accessibility
.
The big thing I am gaining is not having to read through / trying to memorize a list of basic and playbook moves. One of the main goals for this game is for it to be very approachable to seeing impaired players. We have tried playing DW, and the AW fantasy hack, but the blind player found it annoying to keep track of all his moves

As the game has evolved over our play/testing we have found out that making bespoke characters goes against the low fantasy / mundane people overcoming the odds mood we are aiming for. Because of that we are going with a more randomized character generation inspired by OSR games like Maze Rats or Knave. Instead of making the character who is ready for life of adventure, you end up with some everyday person who decides to venture forth towards adventure.
Vagabonds phases can be randomly generated, but to go back around to my design goal of making it accessible - it is much more beneficial if you don’t have to remember all your randomly generated phases at all times, and Vagabonds needs you to know all those phases to get the most +1s.
Also, we have decided that reading a column of few numbers in braille is better for the flow of the game than either remembering or braille reading a set of phases :slight_smile:

1 Like
#5

That makes a lot of sense. I’d point out one thing about moves:
They often don’t give special permission but make the outcome more predictable for the player.
Example, everyone can try to kick in the door, depending on the situation they might have to roll Defy Danger+Str. But the Fighter gets to roll Bend Bars, Lift Gates and thus gets a much more controlled outcome.

But for the tone you are going for I can see/feel you don’t want this exceptionalism (yet).

Here is an idea for streamlining of WoDu, though:
Keep all the stats that everyone is used to (or rename them, see below). Everyone gets to nominate a high and a low stat. The high stat is +2, the low stat is +0, the rest are +1.

This way it’s easy to remember,or rather it’s only 2 stats to track. It should work because 7-9 result is always a complication that’s largely determined by the gm in WoDu.

Then you could also have more stats with a wording that suit your tone without sacrificing accessibility.

3 Likes
#6

I feel like the stats need a fifth one to cover sneaking and lying. Something about deception?

Maybe another to cover helping, healing and protecting?

2 Likes
#7

@BrianAshford - my default approach for sneaking and lying would be careful, but you can also do it quickly (quick talking, sneaking by just going for it, staying outside of where people are looking instead of sticking to the shadows).

I think that protecting (quick, forceful?) and healing (careful, quick?) is covered. The only thing that I couldn’t decide out of the box is helping, it would need to be informed by the narrative.

I think you might be onto something with deception, I need to think about it. Maybe renaming Forceful to something like Bold or Brazen and adding Sly for a deceptive approach?

@Mathias - I like the idea of nominating strong and weak stat instead of a spread. I would sacrifice some granularity, but I think I am ok with that.

I don’t think using the D&D stats (even if renamed) will really work here. They largely cover what you can do, instead of who you are, and I don’t think they are really well balanced for what each of them covers. Also, I want to distance myself a little more from D&D.

1 Like
#8

Sly is good.

I guess healing and helping could come under careful.

I like Bold better than Forceful too. It’s got more implications beyond the physical, and it’s further away from Quick.

1 Like
#9

It wouldn’t work if you are using Bold, but instead of Sly you could have Cold. Roll on it when you are doing something mean, duplicitous or sneaky.

1 Like
#10

Last I checked, PbtA games average 4.05 stats (n=75). :slight_smile:

2 Likes
#11

@BrianAshford

I am tempted to add Sly and swap Forceful. I like Cold as well. I feel like we are circling back close to AW stats. Which is not bad, I think are a really good spread, but not very low fantasy in its feel. Might take them for a spin inside a thesaurus.

@mease19 That is awesome that you have the stat. Is there some repository where you got that from, or just counted them? I would love to see stats for current PbtA games with amount of stats, moves etc :slight_smile:

#12

After some more thinking and talking with my group, we are currently going with the original 3 stats + wyrd, but we are renaming the Forceful to Tough.

While Tough does not imply the immediate complication as well as Forceful does, the extra “narrative area” it covers solves the things like defending someone by standing in front of them and taking the hits.

Hopefully we won’t find any big holes in this setup in playtesting.

Thanks a lot to everyone who helped me go through this process!

It might seem like it was coupe days wasted, as I ended up pretty much in the same place I started, but your feedback really helped me answer my questions and ask new ones when it comes to this design.

You all rock :metal:

P.S While I pretty much “solved” this issue, I still welcome any all feedback.

3 Likes