I’m interested in how PBTA games handle ‘superpower’ style moves.
So moves in PBTA are triggered by ‘The Conversation’, right? If you push the bouncer up against a wall and there is a move that starts “when you threaten or intimidate…” then that move is triggered. Brilliantly simple.
Where I’m struggling in my homwbrew game is writing ‘superpower’ moves (I imagine the same applies to spell moves). Having a list of discrete powers you can invoke that begin “When you mind control someone…” or “When you manipulate shadows…” feels incompatible with the fiction-first principles of PBTA. Is this the wrong way of thinking about it?
One alternative would be to have a “Use Your Powers” basic move and define powers loosly in the playbooks with one line statements like “you can control minds”, “you can manipulate shadows”, similar to how powers are handled in Masks
My problem with this is I’m not a fan of moves that rely entirely on player imagination to define what is achievable. Firstly it feels unfair that some players can do extra cool things because they are better at coming up with imaginative uses for their powers. Some players like being told “you can do X & Y within these limits”. Secondly it creates little room to improve powers over time.
Here are some example moves I currently have:
MIND CONTROL
When you make eye contact with a victim and bring them under your sway, roll +Resolve.
On a success pick one, on a 7-9 they will know it was you inside their mind.
Commanded – You give them a brief command to act and they will obey to the best of their ability. The command cannot risk harm to anyone. Truthful – You ask them any question and they will answer truthfully to the best of their knowledge.
PUPPET
When you successfully Mind Control you can also pick:
Sleeper – Embed your command to be actioned at a set time, or in response to a certain trigger.
SUBDUE
When you successfully Mind Control you can also pick:
Broken – They’ll agree with whatever you say for the rest of the scene.
My gut (and a couple of playtest sessions) says that without clear demarcation between the levels of powers a simple “you can control minds” statement would quickly get out of hand. Thoughts? Does this break the spirit of The Conversation?
