As both Thirsty Sword Lesbians and Monster of the Week (clickable links) are hosted by Evil Hat, it seems only fair to compare the two. Without digging through the books word for word, there are some big differences in tone and writing between the two systems. This will not be a comprehensive analysis and, if you have the time and money, I highly suggest both systems for different reasons. I did not re-read anything about the systems to post this; this analysis was done off what I remember of each system. Some edits were made to this post after discussing it further with some of my players.
For starters, Monster of the Week is primarily designed to conjoin the storytelling of TV shows like Supernatural, Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Scooby-Doo. These stories are told in anthology-esque bites, with the translation to TTRPG being that most stories are wrapped up within the same session. This trend largely continues in Thirsty Sword Lesbians, with the idea being that larger story beats can be completed in single sessions, with leveling capabilities in both games available for longer campaigns. My big complaint with MOTW however is that the system does not offer many examples of how the system is meant to run, or how moves are meant to be interpreted.
Now, there is a world for open-interpretation roleplaying, but I have found with MOTW specifically, it can lead to very one-sided tables where some players really benefit from the lack of hand-holding by the game rules and other players flounder without the structure. Thirsty Sword Lesbians seeks to rectify that issue, offering more examples and lists of "what you can do" as options for different move sets and abilities in the game.
There's a time and place for open-ended gameplay.
Monster of the Week does not personally tout itself as a game for everyone, to my knowledge, but it has been presented to me by other GMs as a game anyone can run and play. That is mostly true. If you've spent any time in TTRPG discourse, you'll know there's a large argument for and against open-ended gameplay. This argument largely seeks to underline the common issues in both rigid and looser systems; I would personally place MOTW on the side of looser systems. The character pages are only one page long, the movesets are quick and easy to understand with a lot of interpretation, and even when their are examples of what you can do, it is underscored by the idea that you're allowed to think up your own questions or understandings of what is happening. All of this is integral to the PBtA system, as far as I'm aware, because these same rules are present in Thirsy Sword Lesbians. However, if Monster of the Week is a one and Math Wargames TM is a five, then TSL is about a three.
Thirsy Sword Lesbians offers more examples, a slightly more structured design, and an easier gameplay loop than Monster of the Week. The rolls you make and moves you're capable of are fundamentally interconnected to the characters and NPCs you encounter, allowing for an easier "buy in" to getting involved in the characters and the story.
How to make a character.
Both systems offer relative ease in making characters. Monster of the Week offers cultural touchstones by way of character archetypes across the different kinds of shows it references. Thirsty Sword Lesbians instead offers conflicts attached to each character archetype to allow for you to have a better grasp of your potential character's central motivation. TSL also has a quick reference of how to play each character type, making it easy to pick a playbook and run with it.
Takeaways
As evidenced by these two games (and not reading Apocalypse as an SRD), PBtA is definitely designed for one-shots and quick onboarding. The GM side can be as intensive or as lax as you want it to be, as many decisions can be made on the spot. TSL has a little more going on behind the scenes with the String mechanic which - if I'm being totally honest - I still don't fully understand how to use as a GM. I could probably do more research into string mechanics but to my understanding, most people don't know how it works.
Honestly?
Having gotten my hands on Thirsty Sword Lesbians and Here, There, Be Monsters, I'm less inclined to want to play Monster of the Week overall. The fact is that MOTW plays largely with players as either individuals solving these big problems or as members of a larger organization. I don't mind the Lone Hero archetype, but it's really not my bag anymore, and Here, There, Be Monsters, while a different system entirely, scratches a particular itch that Monster of the Week doesn't even touch on anymore. I like Powered by The Apocalypse games in theory, but I've found the systems fairly easily replaced depending on what you're trying to get out of a game.
If you want a more "liveblog" experience, you can follow me over on Bluesky where I will be posting more often about my TTRPG experiences while on hiatus from actually streaming.
Thank you for reading!
Comments
Post a Comment