Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines

New Move: Working with a group or organization

A topic by Martin Nerurkar created Mar 19, 2021 Views: 1,210 Replies: 4
Viewing posts 1 to 2
(2 edits) (+2)

So, I'm working on a PbtA inspired game project and I want it to feature a bit of a wider social angle. So the outcome of exploits are important, as is the interaction with groups and systems. Anything from getting the DMV to cooperate with you to commanding a military unit.

To that end I made this new "basic move" and would love some feedback!

Cooperate and Coordinate
When you attempt to get a group or organization to work with you, roll+COMMAND. On a 10+ They perform their typical function. On a 7-9 same but pick one:
O They work slowly or half-heartedly
O They react with resentment, increased scrutiny or a new obligation
(+1)

Wouldn't it make more sense to call the two options "They work slowly..." and "They react with..."? I don't think the options have to be "positive". You are going to pick the outcome you prefer among the possibilities anyway. I think removing the negatives would make it much easier to understand, I myself was a bit confused at first. Also for someone unfamiliar with PbtA it might not be obvious than choosing one implies that the other one happens, so to speak.

Also, what happens on 2-6? You get both? Something else?

(+1)

Heh. You are right. It's written that way because my resolution system is a bit different from basic PbtA and I translated into that system.

On a 2-6 the GM makes a (hard) move. I'm generally not too fond of moves that describe the fail outcome. I do prefer it when the GM has more freedom here. But I am happy to hear dissenting opinions on that :D

Aha. That works. So the rules generally already cover 2-6 for all moves, instead of having every move define it?

(+1)

Yeah, that is the plan. I'm generally not a fan of defining the failure condition on pbta moves too much. I'd rather leave things up to the GM though I guess in some instances some "interpretable" circumstances are interesting.

  • Like: If this fails, you suffer harm. You have a mechanical consequence but you can still interpret the hows and whys of that.
  • Not like: If this fails, your gang despises you and abandons you.

I think this openness is especially important for the more basic and frequently used moves. If you have a rare and one-off move it's more acceptable to define what the failure state is, I feel. But if you do it on basic moves then things always move in a very similar way.

Deleted 3 years ago