I’m toying with a PBTA idea and wanted to see what people thought.
The idea is that instead of having stats, your character would have tags. A primary tag that kind of sums up what the playbook is about, maybe a couple of secondary tags that reflect specialized focus, and then other things on the character sheet would count too, if they seemed to apply. (Not your moves, they already give you something, but most anything else–if something in your look should really help, why not?)
Then when you roll, you just say what tags apply and count them up, to a max of +3. Like, I need to roll to intimidate this guy into shutting up, so I say that my primary tag is bruiser, so that helps, and I have a weapon with the tag big, that helps, so I roll at +2.
Theoretically, the GM might also count some things against me, like, “Hey, you have the condition Injured, so that will counter one of your tags this time.”
I worry that either the base idea or adding the GM bit might make it too messy or time-consuming, but I also kind of wonder if it could work. But maybe it’s better to just leave tags in the realm of the narrative rather than trying to tie them into moves.
Thoughts welcome.
I’m going to say the hypothetical titles “Lady Apocalypse” and “Apocalypse Core” in a positive way
Do a search for “Big Red Letter Day” over at apocalypse-world.com/forums. If I recall correctly, they started with the approach you suggest and then found it cumbersome in play, switching back to a more traditional “roll STAT” approach.
Sounds like Lady Blackbird in the Wild Blue Yonder.
This is pretty much how I play with my 9 year old player. I set an initial modifier and justify it by saying something like “Roll +1 to jump the gap since you’re unencumbered.” or “Roll +2 to attack him since you’re the son of a master swordsman and you got him cornered.” Then he can ask for an extra modifier if he has a relevant tag, is prepared etc.
I quite enjoy the bargaining for “plus ones” since he has to be creative and I don’t feel like it gets too messy, but it’s with only one player. I can see how it would be time consuming with a full table unless you codify it or restrict it in some way.
Lasers and feelings: “When you do something risky, roll 1d6 to see how it goes. Roll +1d if you’re prepared and +1d if you’re an expert.”
That said, the existing -/+0,1,2,3 system could be expanded to say something like “List two tag words that subjectively add up to this starting score.” Advancements mean you add suitable tags based on how you’re playing it.
As flavour alone it would’t change anything, just characterize how you’ve become Hotter, Sharper, etc. It would also let you try out the +Tag approach and swap back and forth to test between sessions.
The Lazers & Feelings +dice parallels AW’s highest stat and Hold/Forward for things you’ve previously established. I think double dipping those would have you rolling more outright successes than is intended, wouldn’t it?
Shawn McCarthy Double dipping in what way?
Oh, sorry, I mean if you were to pull in L&F bonuses, they’d often overlap with things that already exist.
If you could justify being an expert at something, you’ve probably already advanced to +3 in that stat. If you called in a bonus for being prepared you’d already have Read the Sitch/Person for the Hold for Questions -> “+1 Forward when Acting on the answers”
I was just referring to the use of “expert” and “prepared” tags for bonuses, not actually adding dice. (Unless I’m playing around with penalty/bonus 3d6k2.) I rarely give more than +1 for being an “expert”, sometimes +2 if two tags are relevant.
The +1s for being “prepared” or well positioned are mostly hold/forward in disguise.
Carl Gerriets How complex do you intend to make it? If you have archetypes with a bunch of moves in addition to a detailed basic moves sheet I feel like the traditional approach is practical enough.
However in my games with my stepson I’ve practically reduced it down to one move: “Take action”. Kicking the stats in favor of tags made a lot of sense for me.
A friend of mine (Magi max ) tried this approach but found it too cumbersome during his playtests. IIRC, it felt it had the effect of distancing his players from the fiction too much for his taste, because of the time they took to compile (or contrive) their tags each time they tried to do something difficult.
After a couple of months of playtest he dropped this approach for a more traditionnal (AW/DW) kind of play.
Philip Espi One of the reasons I prefer PbtA over Fate.
If you activate the move, you roll the stat. Easy. No fiddling with mechanics. (I quite like Fate too though. It’s my second biggest inspiration.)
Carl Gerriets what about this? It’s a sort of reverse of what are you thinking about. Keep the standard Stats, then for every minus or plus, you just write a word (or a short “aspect”) that help to define that Stat. So, if I have Hot at +2, I could write “androgin lovely face” and “honey voice”, while if your character has +2 Hot, you could instead write “Holy shit cleavage” and “Always the first speaking”. Then, what you do with those descriptors? Absolutely nothing. But, they help you to play “in-character”, they remind you why you have those stats, and they are nice elements that the MC could use to give color to the fiction. Of course, even the -1 should have a cool descriptor.
-2 HOT ~ tags: “apocalypse homely” and “wastelander countenance”
I say go for it, make to find out.