Proper shit assumptions here, the writer is doing the exact opposite of the D&D nerds who pick up pbta and say "well how am I supposed to do anything?"
Probably most egregious though is how they're arguing against them self: they claim that the mechanic driven exchange isn't influenced by the roleplay, but had the DM give an explicit bonus for their roleplay. Likewise, they think the means to roll mean you have to roll, and presumably hasn't understood commoner's get Use Rope as a class skill, which is what the "who should be able to complete a task" is based on.
PbtA is artschool D&D. Its a very different approach to the same concept that brings different aspects of the idea to the forefront. Its really good for groups that are good at acting and improvisation, but want a random element to help drive the more personal and less combat oriented stories they're telling.
Personally it's not my cup of tea, as I am absolutely into the fantasy and tactical combat side of D&D (well, Pathfinder), but it definitely has its place for groups that are just an excuse to hang out.
I understand the intent. (I've been playing "story games" since the 1980s…) For me the problem is that I just don't understand the mechanisms. When I try to read PbtA-based games I get Nigel Tufnel in my head saying "these go to eleven" only instead he's saying "these dice rolls go backward".
And all the explanations people point me at presume I'm a D&D player (I'm not) who's never seen a story game before (when, as I've said, I've been playing them since the '80s). I'm just at the point now where I presume I will never grok a PbtA game and pass them over automatically now.
I mean... That's it. You might be overthinking things, because the mechanics are just roll 2d6, these dice go backwards - apart from rolling under the target it's otherwise your standard roll dice, add mods.
Proper shit assumptions here, the writer is doing the exact opposite of the D&D nerds who pick up pbta and say "well how am I supposed to do anything?"
Probably most egregious though is how they're arguing against them self: they claim that the mechanic driven exchange isn't influenced by the roleplay, but had the DM give an explicit bonus for their roleplay. Likewise, they think the means to roll mean you have to roll, and presumably hasn't understood commoner's get Use Rope as a class skill, which is what the "who should be able to complete a task" is based on.
I don't even play D&D (and haven't since before AD&D had a second edition) and I'm still baffled by what PbtA brings to the table.
PbtA is artschool D&D. Its a very different approach to the same concept that brings different aspects of the idea to the forefront. Its really good for groups that are good at acting and improvisation, but want a random element to help drive the more personal and less combat oriented stories they're telling.
Personally it's not my cup of tea, as I am absolutely into the fantasy and tactical combat side of D&D (well, Pathfinder), but it definitely has its place for groups that are just an excuse to hang out.
I understand the intent. (I've been playing "story games" since the 1980s…) For me the problem is that I just don't understand the mechanisms. When I try to read PbtA-based games I get Nigel Tufnel in my head saying "these go to eleven" only instead he's saying "these dice rolls go backward".
And all the explanations people point me at presume I'm a D&D player (I'm not) who's never seen a story game before (when, as I've said, I've been playing them since the '80s). I'm just at the point now where I presume I will never grok a PbtA game and pass them over automatically now.
I mean... That's it. You might be overthinking things, because the mechanics are just roll 2d6, these dice go backwards - apart from rolling under the target it's otherwise your standard roll dice, add mods.