I thought this point raised by Richard Sardinas deserves a dedicated thread in here:
6. Gamist approach: I’d like to hear more about that Richard (if you want, also in mail).
Did you agree with the guys on a time-limit perhaps, for the game, thus they want to squeeze out of the characters the most through successes, rather than “exploring” a story?
Bear in mind that the “Mission” concept gives the game a bit of a gamist taste, that’s true – and as long as this didn’t spoil the fun at the table or created some conflict between the players, it’s fine.
In my mind, the Mission provides focus for a group who’s playing a few sessions and then moving to another game.
On the other hand, the Mission will provide a sort of “introduction” to the characters and the story to a group that is interested in playing a long campaign. Once you’re done with two or three missions, if you all enjoy the game and are interested in the characters, and their background and stories, I guess it will become natural to start exploring alternatives, and dealing with adventures that are more characters-centered than fueled by the Iron Fist assignments to Missions.
Anybody has comments/suggestions?
on point 6 I have to say, Richard Sardinas that maybe I have, in every PbtA, the same approach of your players. I mean that usually I try to have moves and advancements that give me the best chances to overcome to achieve my goal. I don’t think it is something against the games, also I think this “gamist” approach (even if I am not skilled enough to understand if this is real “gamist”) is well tackled by the PbtA system.
For example in our play of CoJ my PC did the thing that best suit him and that could help him succed.
The thing is that not always my PCs get to use the best moves they have. This is the job of the GM to present me situations where I cannot exploit my best moves, my job is to try to succeed and to exploit both fictoning and rule-wise positioning