OK: Weeks later, here I am!

When I see the specific PbtA logo, I think:
1) 2d6 + stat = 6-/7-9/10+.
2) Asymmetrical player/GM roles.
3) GM role that is much more “structured improv,” ie, “improvisation structured by principles and moves.”
4) Playbooks, ie, strong niche protection.
5) Heavy theming that is borne out through the principles, moves, and playbooks.

And not much more.

For a game not to be PbtA, I think just that last point would need to be absent. I am comfortable with adjustments to the language of moves, the role of the GM, the types or presence/absence of playbooks. But if a game doesn’t have a clear theme and then support that theme by saying “This is your agenda! These are the limited options you have for system engagement. If there isn’t a specific option for what you want to do, then you aren’t engaging a mechanic, you’re just doing a thing” then it doesn’t feel PbtA for me.

Of course changing the more upfront bits can make something feel not-PbtA, too. Blades in the Dark covers my 2-5, but has changed the dice far enough from 1 that I don’t think of it as a PbtA game, even though that’s definitely present in its DNA. In terms of Lumpley Games. I definitely get the PbtA-ness of Murderous Ghosts. I can’t remember most of the games in The Sundered Land, but I do remember A Doomed Pilgrim and… well.

If you just showed me ADP and told me to play it, and I knew nothing about its provenance, I wouldn’t call it PbtA. But if you told me it was part of the PbtA family, then I’d waffle. Because, frankly, my rules are not very good, because they are “principles” more than features, and there are lots of ways to pursue those principles that don’t make something PbtA, which I think BitD proves as well, as does…

Lady Blackbird. Obviously, LBB predates Apocalypse World. But I think the “community’s” reaction to both games is telling: both got hacked to all kinds of things, sometimes incredibly well, and sometimes not so much. Because they are good designs and imminently hackable, yes, but also because they do heavy theming in a rules-forward and self-reinforcing manner, which is something that a certain segment of gamer really craves. It bears comparison to the really tight freeform scenarios that have pregenerated characters and triggers and keywords and desires to incite very specific emotional responses.

So, I guess what I’ve come around to is that when I see PbtA, what I think is that I’m going to get a game where someone felt they had a really distinct vision for a tightly-focused tabletop RPG and used the tools presented, demonstrated, and modeled by Apocalypse World and Monster Hearts to accomplish their vision.