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.
Hah! I probably should have realized that. Embarrassing!
Wow, this is a really interesting way to look at PbtA games. One of the things I like about PbtA games is that it codifies tropes of the given genre/setting your playing in. I’ve never thought of this as a restriction since (a) you can always create new moves and (b) the moves are designed to give the feel/effect of the setting.
It might be interesting to make a PbtA hack where the whole system is that every character have just one move and it is “Codify what I just did into a move” and all it does is create moves. Could be a “character archetypes creation” sort of game for session 0.
I found the link to my closest attempt at something like this. There is also some discussion, and notes on application.
I am still not 100% sure that this is a good idea, but I really like the implementation I came up with.
O_O
How did I not know this before? this Roll for Shoes is brilliant!
Yeah!
All systems, and all art, are an expression of a perspective. Or what you’d call “opinionated”. It would be difficult to provide any kind of truly neutral framework. Do you want dice rolls and successes to be bold and world changing, or mild and everyday? Are we facing off against a dark and corrupting evil, a menacing and unseen threat, or hordes of violent invaders?
Perspective adds interest.
I can see that. But I’m definitely going for something that has more of a sparse, undemanding feel.
Think like… after the end. Or before the beginning. Stories that turn on a few personal choices made by the very few people who are alive and recognizably human.
I think you can get more and less opinionated versions of PBTA. Apocalypse World, for example, seems relatively unopinionated, as long as you accept it’s pretty much an action game. Or World of Dungeons, with the same caveat.
But for me the strength of PBTA is that it allows you to build focused moves that deliver a specific play experience. Without that what have you got - just the 2d6 strong/weak hit/miss mechanic? And we’ve already got Fate, BRP, Cortex and so on for more neutral takes, if that’s what you want. Still, no harm if that’s the direction you want to go in.
I mentioned in another thread that one of the things I encountered when trying to hack various non-trad games (Cortex Plus/Prime, PbtA, and FitD in my case) for settings from trad games is that I had to figure out what the original game was about and/or what part of them I wanted to focus on. My experience is that these games want to be opinionated (in the sense used in this thread); they want to say something beyond representing the physical world they take place in. (This is of course wildly generalizing and I’m sure there are non-trad games that go agains this, but this is my general impression.)
This is in clear opposition to the mainstream of the trad games where being a physics simulator in the broad sense of simulating the natural laws of the world (which may go beyond mechanical physics, such as with the sanity mechanics in CoC) is the point of the game and it’s up to the table to create any guidance or meaning beyond this.
This is not to say that either approach is superior or that preferring one or the other is bad, but I think it’s something to be aware of.