Why PBTA is not my kind of Jam

Disclaimer: Not all PBTAs are created equal, and some stray far from the original design principles of Apocalypse World. My observations are based on the ones I’ve read and played (Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Masks, Urban Shadows, The Veil, and Kult). I have never GMed any of them.

PBTA’s Rise

When PBTA games appeared, they didn’t just enter the RPG scene —they invaded all the discussions. For years, forums were flooded with suggestions to “modernise” classic games by forcing them onto a “modern PBTA chassis.” The message was clear: PBTA represents the future of “real” role-playing, in contrast to the so-called outdated “gamist” styles that focused on tactical combat or levelling up - no matter if there are tons of other old and new RPGs that are neither about combat nor about levelling up. Critics of PBTA, or even those who simply didn’t enjoy it, were often dismissed as relics of a bygone era, too stubborn, ignorant, or too lacking in basic reading skills to understand its supposed brilliance.

I’ve explored several PBTA games—Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, Masks, Urban Shadows, and Kult (which is a half-breed). While some were intellectually engaging, most left me with the same impression as certain art films: interesting in theory, but not something I am eager to play often. Moreover, the writing style of Vincent Baker and his followers often comes across as self-important and unnecessarily neo-jargon-laden. PBTA has its merits, but for me, it’s an adjacent form of gaming—an intriguing experiment.

This holiday season, I found myself reflecting on PBTA’s legacy and its impact on the RPG hobby. It’s not all bad—but it’s certainly not all good either.

What Makes PBTA Unique?

At its core, PBTA is about narrative creation and genre emulation. Its mechanics focus on capturing specific genre tropes, replicating the conventions of noir, teenage drama, or post-apocalyptic survival. Characters are defined by “playbooks,” which lock them into thematic roles with predetermined themes and “moves.” Moves dictate when dice are rolled, tying outcomes tightly to genre-based storytelling.

Fans often compare playing PBTA to a jazz improvisation session, where players collectively build fiction in real-time. In theory, this collaborative storytelling is its strength. In practice, I think it often sacrifices depth and immersion to “the story”.

Fiction Imitating Fiction

PBTA games are very focused on genre emulation, which comes with the risk of reducing RPGs to derivative storytelling. By anchoring gameplay in established tropes, PBTAs can turn RPGs into a pale reflection of existing media. This approach undermines one of RPGs’ greatest strengths: the ability to create truly unique, unbounded experiences.

When I play a horror game, for instance, I may want to explore what happens if I don't follow the genre’s rules—if I don’t act like a stereotypical horror protagonist. PBTA, on the other hand, nudges players back into their lanes, gently reminding them that their job is to mimic a specific character archetype within a specific genre and with a specific theme, maybe in some cases subverting its tropes, but never transcending them. The game defines what is of importance. For a system that claims to be about creativity, this feels disappointingly restrictive.

In fact, some of the most cliche-ridden games I ever played were PBTAs.

Immersion vs. Performance

Traditional RPGs excel at immersing players in fictional worlds. Choices are driven organically by a character’s perspective, and stories emerge naturally through play, not preordained narrative beats. PBTA flips this dynamic on its head, emphasizing performance over immersion. Players are encouraged to “perform” their characters towards the group, prioritizing story beats over authentic reactions.

This performative focus creates its own issues. In many discussions I participated in, PBTA evangelists often dismissed quieter players as “dead weight” who aren’t contributing enough. But in truth, it may be that these players simply prefer immersive, character-driven experiences over performative storytelling. Some PBTAs may state they encourage participation, but PBTA’s performative ethos (very evident in the likening of RPG sessions to jazz jams) can feel exclusionary, favouring extroverted personalities over nuanced play, dividing players into stars and “dead wood”.

PBTA’s Influence on RPG discourse

PBTA’s popularity has strongly influenced RPG discourse. You can see how more traditional RPGs felt they needed to justify themselves with respect to PBTA. Once, RPGs were primarily about world-building and character immersion. Now, many games describe themselves as having the goal of collaboratively "telling a story”. While this shift has introduced new ideas, it’s also diluted what makes RPGs unique: the power to immerse players in evolving worlds.

PBTA’s narrative-first approach undercuts this strength. Instead of exploring a world through a character’s eyes, players are too often focused on creating a “good story.” This isn’t inherently wrong—but let’s not pretend it’s a universal upgrade.

Neither Overhyping nor Dismissing

PBTA is neither the second coming, as its fans seem to claim, nor a failure. It did introduce valuable techniques like fronts, agendas, and fail-forward mechanics to many people —but let’s be honest, these ideas aren’t unique to PBTA. GMs have been using similar tools for decades. I, for one, was running Vampire campaigns with fronts and agendas and “being a fan of the player characters” long before Apocalypse World was a twinkle in Vincent Baker’s eye. And I was certainly not the only one.

What PBTA does offer which is really unique is a design laser-focused on genre emulation, the concept of “moves” and the way they trigger. For some, this is a revelation. For me, it’s a niche. But again, the larger problem arises when PBTAs are held up as the “correct” or “modern” way to play RPGs. 

Final Thoughts

PBTAs represent a fundamentally different approach to RPGs in terms of design intention when compared with traditional RPGs. While I have some respect for the innovations and the variety they bring to the hobby, I reject the notion that they should dominate the landscape, as it has been often suggested. 

In fact, PBTA has never been as popular at the gaming table as it is on discussion forums and in indie game design circles, where it has enjoyed an attention disproportionate to its adoption. I do have the impression that this dominance of the discussion and design space has abated somewhat in the last few years - in part due to the wave that followed it, the “Forged in the Dark” wave (itself a "spinout” of PBTA); in part because like me there are many people that prefer RPGs to be something else.

If you enjoy PBTA, great. As for me, I’ll mostly stick with games that prioritise immersion, discovery, and character-driven exploration. PBTA isn’t the future—it’s a side path.

PS: I haven’t explicitly discussed how this critique relates to GNS theory or “creative agendas.” At first glance, it might seem like I’m addressing without naming it a typical  Narrativism vs. Simulationism debate (where PBTA is not a new type of game, but just a Narrativist one, whereas I am claiming trad RPGs are purely Simulationist), but I’d argue two key points against this:

1. The Limitations of GNS Theory

The problem with GNS theory is that it has never fully captured the complexity of “real” RPG systems. Most games, including PBTA, incorporate elements of all three playstyles—Gamist, Narrativist, and Simulationist—making it difficult to neatly categorise them. No RPG exists in a vacuum, and these theoretical distinctions rarely hold up in actual play. You can emphasise one of the aspects over the others, but in trad RPGs all of them tend to be present to some degree. Due to that, i don’t think traditional RPGs can be neatly classified by “creative agenda”. This argument does not fully apply to PBTA, because not only is PBTA a design aware of GNS theory, but created by one of the early proponents of GNS, so you would expect PBTA to be designed with a “creative agenda” that is coherent wrt GNS principles.

2. Is PBTA Narrativist or Simulationist?

At first glance, PBTA seems like a natural fit for the Narrativist category. Its mechanics are designed to drive collaborative storytelling, and the system prioritises narrative creation. However, PBTA also incorporates a strong Simulationist element, focusing heavily on genre emulation. Each PBTA game builds its rules and playbooks around specific genre conventions—post-apocalyptic survival, teenage drama, noir intrigue—inviting players to engage with their tropes. Thus, from a GNS perspective, you would have to argue that PBTA does not have a coherent creative agenda. And yet, I will also argue that PBTA is not cleanly Narrativist or Simulationist as per the GNS definitions.

Ultimately, PBTA’s focus on creating a cohesive narrative often overshadows putting character motivations and decisions at the centre of the game. This is because characters are often treated as archetypes, essentially tools for advancing the story rather than as the core of the experience. The system encourages players to make choices that serve the narrative, even if those choices aren’t rooted in a character’s authentic perspective or emotional dilemmas, but fit the themes of the playbook and make the better story (see the description Baker does of  PvP combat as a dance between characters choreographed by their players - quite the opposite of focusing on the wants of the character, who most likely would rather win a fight than make it look good for an audience). This fits neither GNS' definition of Narrativism nor Simulationism, because creating an original, appealing fiction within the strictures of its genre/theme is the true “agenda” of PBTA. Which is, to me, clear and coherent, even if not in the way GNS defines coherency.