Like I said above. Is there a less opinionated PbtA? Something where we can build out more strongly thematic moves because of what’s happening in play?
This would be like the anti-Masks. I’ve been working on something like this for a long while, but I’ve gotten nowhere on how and when to introduce new moves to play.
I am interested In this question partly because I don’t think I understand what you are asking! A less-opinionated version of both abstracted systems?
Do you have time to give an example of an opinionated facet and, from there, a gesture in the direction you are thinking?
The way in masks all adults have pull with you.
That’s opinionated about the relationship between teens and adults, especially for the purposes of genre emulation.
A less opinionated version might be a more neutral persuasion move for the players and to use. That more neutral starting move could get upgraded with rules like one caste has +1 to persuade another caste, once we established that as something we’d seen multiple times in play.
That is a helpful example, thanks
By your measure, where would something like Homebrew World sit on the spectrum of opinionated PbtA games?
Opining on my own: There’s room for all sorts of approaches!
That said, based on my subjective experience, there is a certain point where the lack of opinion ends up being a lack of inspirational fuel (not to mention a lack of ingenuity-provoking constraint) save for at notably motivated and creative tables–and folks with that sort of collaborative compatibility often don’t need much more than a resolution mechanic.
Home brew world is definitely on the less opinionated/ more customizable from play side.
But if I start with that, I’m still starting a world where there’s some monsters that are to be killed, and doors to be kicked in.
In the same way if I start with AW, AW:FE, or AW:BO Hackbook, I’m starting a world where threats to survival are constant and don’t let up for long.
Perhaps you are not looking for PbtA ? Each game is designed to drive specific behavior in a specific setting. That’s kind of PbtA’s schtick. Neutral moves would likely not drive conflict or failing forward as well.
Perhaps if you were more specific we might be able to help? Are you looking to create a superhero game?
I think FATE is kind of a less opinionated game toolbox that agrees with PbtA on many important things.
If that’s your threshold for opinionated (and I’m not saying that’s wrong), then I don’t think there are any non-opinionated games.
If a game doesn’t have something it intends for you to do, expressed directly in the text or indirectly through how it describes the characters, then I’m not sure you could call it a game.
I hope this isn’t too contrarian. I’m trying to find out where you draw the line for what counts as opinionated.
In terms of opinionated, I think I’m looking for the most basic starting place that has interesting middle outcomes (lesser success), to let me layer on stronger themes myself / based on what’s happened at the table.
Maybe that’s the FATE version of PbtA, I’m not sure. Was there a build-your-own apocalypse engine guide at some point?
I don’t think there is a PbtA game like this. The MC is always able to create custom moves, but those sit in addition to the core moves. You could also always change any moves and modify them to suit your table — there’s nothing to stop you from removing Influence from a Mask game and then building a customize Persuade an Adult (or something) move.
But, like Christo brought up, I think you should ask if a PbtA game is really what you’re looking for. Are you more interested in the core mechanic of 2d6 and graded results instead of success/failure systems? Are you interested in moves opposed to skill/ability checks?
For Masks, you might be more successful in achieving what I think you want by removing both moves and stats and coming up with a skill system that players roll against. Make Persuade a skill and have players roll 2d6 with some subjective modifier and then you could decide in play whether an adult modifies that roll again by virtue of being an adult. But then you have to reconsider labels and conditions, etc…
However, I think FitD would be a less opinionated PbtA — position and effect are a negotiation between player and GM when players attempt anything, building a dice pool from a skill that is widely applicable. You may need to modify what skills there are, since BitD is about criminals doing heists, but there is plenty of room for that. You might consider Into the Dark, as some ($10) inspiration.
I agree with the prevailing opinion here – I think we’re using divergent definitions of “PbtA” here. _ry appears to just be using it to mean “roll 2d6, add something, and break up the results into “failure”/“partial success”/“Success””… but that’s not really what PbtA is, that’s just what mechanic most PbtA games have chosen.
The “opinions” are, in fact, a large part of what makes PbtA games PbtA games, and stripping that out leaves you with a generic system of some sort that I would not categorize as PbtA.
A very generic games based on WoDu might be close to this, but even then is this a modern, ancient world, fantasy or SF setting? Those are opinions and how you build a character will set a certain tone and impose at least some genre expectations.
The classic low-opinion game system is probably GURPS. It’s specifically designed to be able to flex into various setting and game genres. But even there the skills lusts you choose to make available to the characters influence the tools they have available to tackle problems.
The reason I think most PBTA games are very opinionated is that moves shape the characters possible it likely responses to adversity in very opinionated ways versus traditional skill mechanics. Just look at the variation in basic combat moves in various PBTA games. Famously, AW 1e doesn’t even have a simple attack move. What does a non opinionated basic social move look like? Is a non opinionated damage system even possible?
But of course this is where the system gets so much if it’s power. RPGs are about these characters doing this thing. PBTA forces the game designer to make these decisions explicit and that’s a very good thing because it clarifies the privileges given to the players. It makes the social contract very concrete and explicit.
Avery’s Simple World might be the thing for you? It’s super barebones.
Ryan,
I have a thing for you, but it’s not a complete game. It’s just five-six moves designed to cover most basic situations. I’ve never played it.
Vincent’s whole philosophy is that an RPG should take a stance on our insights into story, character, roleplaying, and game, so of course the PbtA framework is designed to do that, and strongly. It’s pretty hard to strip that out.
The idea of adding moves as the game goes along is very interesting, however. What have you tried so far?
Several PbtA games have this built in, like Monsterhearts’ “growing up moves”; it would be interesting to fool around with the way the game’s structure develops as you play. Can we change or extend the themes in play over time?
Thanks! Simple World is closer to what I’m looking for. As is WoD, in a way.
That’s a chassis where the game can get more opinionated over time.
CoD definitely wants to provide this sort of toolset.
CoD <> Call of Duty?
Whoops, apologies. You mentioned WoD, CoD is the Chronicles of Darkness, which is onyx path’s storytelling games, and is much more oriented towards providing tools to build on.
I think the “WoD” in question was World of Dungeons, not World of Darkness.