So, I’m thinking. Very dangerously. With respect to a character, a playbook is one of two things: a Nature (“this is what I am”) or a Stricture (“this is how I have to be”). Okay, more honestly, a playbook is some mixture of both.
I mused over this as Monsterhearts (surprise surprise!) was simmering in the back of my brain. Specifically the Witch’s special move, leaving a sympathetic token in exchange for a sympathetic token. An impulse of mine was to say “that’s absolutely stupid! Why would you leave some sort of vulnerability like that?”
Then I started going over the various answers. “Because the Witch wants to.” “Because the Witch feels obligated to.” “Because that’s just what the Witch does.” “Because it’s a thing Witches usually do.” “Because it suits a typical Witch.”
Each of those answers lies somewhere on the spectrum between Nature and Stricture. And I think that’s very interesting. Every character you make will respond to their Playbook by way of motivation and action. You’ll give out-of-playbook advances to the characters who see their role as a constraint, and in-playbook advances who choose to embrace their role as their true nature.
And that reflects something really cool about fiction, too. Take the Destined Hero archetype (or the Chosen playbook from Monsterhearts or Monster of the Week)–the character can embrace their playbook (become a destined fighter of evil) as their nature, or rebel against it (branch out and take other moves) because they view it as a burden or an unnecessary restriction on their individualism.
That’s smokin’. I’m getting a lot of interesting ideas for if/when I make a *World hack.
This is exactly the thing that I see being criticised by people who don’t dig PbtA games. They say “Why do I have to pick my look and my eyes from a list? Why can’t I just make up what I want to?” seemingly not realising that they are already buying into a specific authorial intent by selecting a class or any other Nature/Stricture Spectrum item from a list. Whether picking the Cleric in D&D or picking it in Dungeon World, you’re saying “I accept that this game and this game world has certain structures. I am accepting that I will have a package of fictional and mechanical dongles which were predefined for me by the designer and my GM and my play group, and I will interact with them in a specific way. I am accepting guidance in play from the game designer, and from the other people I play with.”
PbtA games just tend to be – in my opinion – more obvious about what selections are open and which are closed.
Adam Drew: Absolutely. The other main difference I see is that PbtA games are more obvious about what these strictures mean to the character, in the fiction. Which makes the idea of embracing the “nature” of a playbook easier than playing to a class.
Though, interesting observation–in my anecdotal experience, it feels like a lot of players pick their first D&D class based on the “nature” of the class. They have a specific idea of what that class means to a character, and try and play to that.
Andy Hauge Exactly! It’s like the stricture is subsumed by the nature. The spectrum collapses into that one act of choice.
I also like that you point out that most (all?) playbooks have the option of picking moves from other books. It really prevents the pigeonholing that I feel people are afraid of.
Adam Drew: Yeah. And the more I think about it, the more I love the idea that picking moves from other playbooks is a sort of rebellion against the role that your character is placed in by their playbook.
Andy Hauge The Witch doesn’t leave behind a sympathetic token, she only takes one.
Monsterhearts: the Skins absolutely are Strictures, as you put it. Monsterhearts seems to be built around the mini-game of acquiring Strings, and if you’re not playing your Skin in an exacting way as it’s moves are defined then you don’t acquire Strings and are subsequently left out of the mini-game.
Apocalypse World: doesn’t have a Strings mini-game. The playbooks are more like Natures, as you define them, then they are restrictive. There is definitely a lot more flexibility in AW to define your character with other moves as well, since the XP gain in Monsterhearts is deliberately restrictive.
Patrick Henry Downs: Darn, my bad. That’s what I get for only one read-through.