I enjoy reading people's Powered By The Apocalypse (PBTA) moves as statements of philosophy. It is easy to think that shared terminology makes for shared vision, but in practice, tiered success is long standing tech, and moves are just a tidy framework for an expression of the idea.

That may seem hypothetical, but consider these meta-moves

10+ You're awesome!
7-9 You're awesome, but there's a catch!
6- You're awesome, but it all goes to hell

Vs

10+ You do the thing and it's awesome!
7-9 You do the thing!
6- You do not do the thing!

Vs

10+ You do the thing, mostly
7-9 you do not entirely fail to do the thing
6- HA HA! Sucks to be you!!!

Yes, these are highly abstracted, but they are derived from actual moves, and the differences between them fascinate me and are a big part of why "PBTA" by itself is not a super useful to me as an explanation of what a given game is like (to say nothing of what it means for integrating content).

Edited to add: this is also why I'm not super sold on the idea that the solution to the capriciousness of GMs is to embrace the capriciousness of designers. :)
Shared publiclyView activity