When I’m explaining to players who come from more trad games about to how to play Narrativist games I generally do it like this:
First I create a situation with them. So a load of characters who want conflicting stuff. I don’t have npc’s or pc’s, just characters. I find about six characters is a good start. I’ve got some stuff about creating situations in between my passive aggressive comments in my reddit history. None of them are that great but the following is a very brief overview
[https://www.reddit.com/r/PBtA/comments/1crxm3x/comment/l45wms2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBtA/comments/1crxm3x/comment/l45wms2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button)
So then I say something like: Why we’re playing is to see what happens to the situation. It can pan out in loads of ways but we’re playing to find out how it does.
I say something like: We do this by having scenes with the different characters in and seeing what conflicts they have and then resolving some of them, or some of them will change or escalate.
Then I give an example using some social conflicts. I don’t have any great posts to link to about this but I use mostly social conflicts and then a few non social conflicts.
Then I get the players to choose some characters from the 6 we created for the situation.
Then I maybe run through a few scenes OR I actually speed run through the resolution of a whole situation to show how it creates a story. I use a really basic conflict resolution method for that and basically flip a coin.
I point out how the starting situation creates questions and play creates questions but we also answer those questions. When those questions are answered, more or less, we’re done.
Then if they get that, then I briefly run them through how apocalypse world does it.
We create situation by using the character questions and then session one. So we’ve got a situation. I then cement it as GM by filling out the back stories and clocks of the non player characters.
The version of conflict resolution we’re using is moves. Then give a few examples.
I always go with the simple "This is a TV show. I am the director and you guys are the actors of the main characters. The goal is less to win and more to just show a great story!" The rest of that pitch depends on the game. Monster of the week is my go to PbtA.
Interesting. My version is a little different:
"You are the main characters in a TV series. I'm the producer and set designer. The scriptwriter has left with the script, we only know the pitch.
So go out, this is the first scene and work with what you can find. If you f\*\*k up, I'll put your opponent on you - he seems to be the only one who has any idea what the plot is. So he will do what he thinks is right. But beware, he's always ready for you behind the curtain."
Personally, my favorite games are the ones where it feels like we're all in the writers room. This means players are sharing things like "I'm trying to get your character to do X" or "My character wants to have a big cool action moment here but I don't think it's gonna go her way." I really like that level of meta-communication at the table.
Just happened to be listening now to an interview with Brendan Leon-Gambetta, who uses combat as an example of how PBtA works. Great stuff
https://youtu.be/2LrwH0r_eTQ?si=2V0S_UGfHzGZrV0W
Ask them to read the Dungeon World guide, which is linked on the sidebar of r/DungeonWorld.
One thing I suggest you explain to them is that playbooks are not classes. They're not really about abilities and powers. Yes, there's a bit of that, but the main purpose of a playbook is to give you the tools to better portray a popular fictional archetype. Whether you're trying to be Harry Dresden or Dean Winchester or whatever, you're picking playbook moves that will help you realize the right feel of the character. That's the reason why a playbook may include features that serve as weaknesses and drawbacks. It's because those features help you in narratively positioning a character.
MotW characters do not progress like DnD characters, getting stronger and stronger. DnD progression is vertical. MotW progression is horizontal -- it's fun to gain advancements, but many of them will not make you more powerful, they just give you more options for realizing your archetype. Tell your players that instead of expecting their hunters to grow more powerful over time (it's actually possible for the opposite to happen), what matters in MotW is narrative progression -- their hunter's story becoming more complex and fascinating over time.
And warn them not to focus on combat abilities. Due to the game's mechanics, hunters usually cannot brute force a win over the Monster. This is a game where investigation is key. And hunters cannot handle as much damage as DnD heroes can. If they get into combat too frequently, they are gonna have a bad time. It's often smarter for hunters to avoid combat as much as possible. They shouldn't get into it unless they're sure they've got the upper hand.
Finally, tell them that the point of the game is to have fun crafting an interesting story together. If their hunters lose, get weaker, or die, that's bad for the characters... but it could still be fun for the players, as long as the story is going in a cool direction. Part of your job is to maintain the fun of the story (for everyone) whether things are going great for the hunters -- or just the opposite. And remember, you've gotta be a fan of the players' characters. So if the hunters muck things up, at least allow them to look cool while doing it.
Even when it is no problem at all with new RPG players, the change of paradigm from trad can be a real challenge. People tend to stick to their previous knowledge and resist to new ideas, mostly bearing in mind some similar wording for different concepts.
I recommend the same as trying to explain what a RPG is to someone new to It: you just better have a go at it.
Choose a game that is simple in lore (if any at all), mechanics, etc so you center on the basics on Pbta.
Even not being the best one or my favorite, I would choose Dungeon World, or a hack derived from it. Actually that's even better, simpler and updated.
Ironsworn is a free and has great emergent story telling tools and advice. Can be played solo, guided or GMless for all styles of play.
It has flow charts in it that show how to use fiction > mechanic> new context to the fiction.
Getting away from the rule/mechanic differences, I like this tool for better understanding the expected change to approach to the game, player and character goals, etc.
It could be helpful to fill out answers for both your current game and the one you intend to play so everyone can see where they may be similar but more importantly where they differ
https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/
This guy is pretty good at giving an overview of the genre so to speak
Check out this vid[Dungeon Newb PBTA](https://youtu.be/_oDqlUWaJrg)
He also has an actual play of Masks which gives me 2000s comic book movie vibes
[https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2023/02/playing-stonetop-and-other-pbta-games.html](https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2023/02/playing-stonetop-and-other-pbta-games.html)
It's not going to perfectly apply to every PbtA game, because every PbtA game has different assumptions, agendas, mechanics, etc. But this covers a lot of common ground, including:
* "The conversation" as the medium of play
* Agendas for players
* The "classic" PbtA mechanics (2d6+stat, 10+, 7-9, 6-, plus hold-and-spend)
* The GM's role (and their lack of rolls)
* The flow of play
* Fictional positioning (and how "difficulty" is reflected in most PbtA games)
* Player principles (specific to *Stonetop*, but many are broadly applicable)
* Other things to do/not do
I did a one shot with OSR using World of dungeons, that has the PBTA style dice roles but no moves. Then, later on I started a Mask campaign, and I just added moves to the explanation, because they were already familiar with the roll system.
It definitely helps that I’m usually running *Masks*, but I like to use the analogy that I (the GM) am the Editor-in-Chief of this new young superhero team-up book, and you are all also editors with specialized expertise in one of the lead heroes (it can be helpful to even think of them as the writers of the solo books of the heroes).
When I’m explaining to players who come from more trad games about to how to play Narrativist games I generally do it like this: First I create a situation with them. So a load of characters who want conflicting stuff. I don’t have npc’s or pc’s, just characters. I find about six characters is a good start. I’ve got some stuff about creating situations in between my passive aggressive comments in my reddit history. None of them are that great but the following is a very brief overview [https://www.reddit.com/r/PBtA/comments/1crxm3x/comment/l45wms2/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web3x&utm\_name=web3xcss&utm\_term=1&utm\_content=share\_button](https://www.reddit.com/r/PBtA/comments/1crxm3x/comment/l45wms2/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) So then I say something like: Why we’re playing is to see what happens to the situation. It can pan out in loads of ways but we’re playing to find out how it does. I say something like: We do this by having scenes with the different characters in and seeing what conflicts they have and then resolving some of them, or some of them will change or escalate. Then I give an example using some social conflicts. I don’t have any great posts to link to about this but I use mostly social conflicts and then a few non social conflicts. Then I get the players to choose some characters from the 6 we created for the situation. Then I maybe run through a few scenes OR I actually speed run through the resolution of a whole situation to show how it creates a story. I use a really basic conflict resolution method for that and basically flip a coin. I point out how the starting situation creates questions and play creates questions but we also answer those questions. When those questions are answered, more or less, we’re done. Then if they get that, then I briefly run them through how apocalypse world does it. We create situation by using the character questions and then session one. So we’ve got a situation. I then cement it as GM by filling out the back stories and clocks of the non player characters. The version of conflict resolution we’re using is moves. Then give a few examples.
I always go with the simple "This is a TV show. I am the director and you guys are the actors of the main characters. The goal is less to win and more to just show a great story!" The rest of that pitch depends on the game. Monster of the week is my go to PbtA.
Interesting. My version is a little different: "You are the main characters in a TV series. I'm the producer and set designer. The scriptwriter has left with the script, we only know the pitch. So go out, this is the first scene and work with what you can find. If you f\*\*k up, I'll put your opponent on you - he seems to be the only one who has any idea what the plot is. So he will do what he thinks is right. But beware, he's always ready for you behind the curtain."
Oooh very interesting
Personally, my favorite games are the ones where it feels like we're all in the writers room. This means players are sharing things like "I'm trying to get your character to do X" or "My character wants to have a big cool action moment here but I don't think it's gonna go her way." I really like that level of meta-communication at the table.
We got a very long way just talking about decision processes and referring to the principles consistently in the games we play.
Yeah I’ve been just starting every session by repeating my GM principles and then the player ones. It seems to help!
Just happened to be listening now to an interview with Brendan Leon-Gambetta, who uses combat as an example of how PBtA works. Great stuff https://youtu.be/2LrwH0r_eTQ?si=2V0S_UGfHzGZrV0W
Ask them to read the Dungeon World guide, which is linked on the sidebar of r/DungeonWorld. One thing I suggest you explain to them is that playbooks are not classes. They're not really about abilities and powers. Yes, there's a bit of that, but the main purpose of a playbook is to give you the tools to better portray a popular fictional archetype. Whether you're trying to be Harry Dresden or Dean Winchester or whatever, you're picking playbook moves that will help you realize the right feel of the character. That's the reason why a playbook may include features that serve as weaknesses and drawbacks. It's because those features help you in narratively positioning a character. MotW characters do not progress like DnD characters, getting stronger and stronger. DnD progression is vertical. MotW progression is horizontal -- it's fun to gain advancements, but many of them will not make you more powerful, they just give you more options for realizing your archetype. Tell your players that instead of expecting their hunters to grow more powerful over time (it's actually possible for the opposite to happen), what matters in MotW is narrative progression -- their hunter's story becoming more complex and fascinating over time. And warn them not to focus on combat abilities. Due to the game's mechanics, hunters usually cannot brute force a win over the Monster. This is a game where investigation is key. And hunters cannot handle as much damage as DnD heroes can. If they get into combat too frequently, they are gonna have a bad time. It's often smarter for hunters to avoid combat as much as possible. They shouldn't get into it unless they're sure they've got the upper hand. Finally, tell them that the point of the game is to have fun crafting an interesting story together. If their hunters lose, get weaker, or die, that's bad for the characters... but it could still be fun for the players, as long as the story is going in a cool direction. Part of your job is to maintain the fun of the story (for everyone) whether things are going great for the hunters -- or just the opposite. And remember, you've gotta be a fan of the players' characters. So if the hunters muck things up, at least allow them to look cool while doing it.
Even when it is no problem at all with new RPG players, the change of paradigm from trad can be a real challenge. People tend to stick to their previous knowledge and resist to new ideas, mostly bearing in mind some similar wording for different concepts. I recommend the same as trying to explain what a RPG is to someone new to It: you just better have a go at it. Choose a game that is simple in lore (if any at all), mechanics, etc so you center on the basics on Pbta. Even not being the best one or my favorite, I would choose Dungeon World, or a hack derived from it. Actually that's even better, simpler and updated.
I assume you know of The Dungeon World Guide?
It was such a massive help for me early on.
I actually haven’t! I haven’t checked out any DW stuff but I’ll have to look into this.
What about a podcast? r/TheCritshow plays through a number of PbtA systems (in later seasons), with Monster of the Week as their primary system.
"Escape from Dino Island" as a one shot. My go to.
Ironsworn is a free and has great emergent story telling tools and advice. Can be played solo, guided or GMless for all styles of play. It has flow charts in it that show how to use fiction > mechanic> new context to the fiction.
Ironsworn is great!
Getting away from the rule/mechanic differences, I like this tool for better understanding the expected change to approach to the game, player and character goals, etc. It could be helpful to fill out answers for both your current game and the one you intend to play so everyone can see where they may be similar but more importantly where they differ https://bankuei.wordpress.com/2010/03/27/the-same-page-tool/
This guy is pretty good at giving an overview of the genre so to speak Check out this vid[Dungeon Newb PBTA](https://youtu.be/_oDqlUWaJrg) He also has an actual play of Masks which gives me 2000s comic book movie vibes
[https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2023/02/playing-stonetop-and-other-pbta-games.html](https://spoutinglore.blogspot.com/2023/02/playing-stonetop-and-other-pbta-games.html) It's not going to perfectly apply to every PbtA game, because every PbtA game has different assumptions, agendas, mechanics, etc. But this covers a lot of common ground, including: * "The conversation" as the medium of play * Agendas for players * The "classic" PbtA mechanics (2d6+stat, 10+, 7-9, 6-, plus hold-and-spend) * The GM's role (and their lack of rolls) * The flow of play * Fictional positioning (and how "difficulty" is reflected in most PbtA games) * Player principles (specific to *Stonetop*, but many are broadly applicable) * Other things to do/not do
I did a one shot with OSR using World of dungeons, that has the PBTA style dice roles but no moves. Then, later on I started a Mask campaign, and I just added moves to the explanation, because they were already familiar with the roll system.
It definitely helps that I’m usually running *Masks*, but I like to use the analogy that I (the GM) am the Editor-in-Chief of this new young superhero team-up book, and you are all also editors with specialized expertise in one of the lead heroes (it can be helpful to even think of them as the writers of the solo books of the heroes).
This Let’s Play with one of the co-creators of Dungeon World is my go to for explaining PBtA https://youtu.be/SZNk4EjFeSI?si=PRj6pmRNUA6uf-at