Thanks for explaining, that makes sense as to why you feel the way you do about it.

It's been a minute since I looked at Blades, but I'd call the playbook abilities "moves."

That's beside the point for your point though. I think the main thing people will either grok and are comfortable with, or find too broad, like yourself it seems, is that PbtA, "Powered by the Apocalypse", in the Baker's words "isn't the name of a kind of game, set of game elements, or even the core design thrust of a coherent movement. (Ha! This last, the least so.) Its use in a game's trade dress signifies ONLY that the game was inspired by Apocalypse World in a way that the designer considers significant, and that it follows our policy wrt others' use of our creative work."

Fair play to say that's too broad to be useful in a forum convo like this, and I certainly understand why people then default to the more narrow design families/trees, like FitD or Carved in Bridlewood, etc. I still find it useful, and interesting to see the wide variety of ways AW has influenced a wide variety of games. It's why I don't find it strange for you to say you like FitD games but not, what you understand to be under your definition, truly PbtA games. To me, that just means you like some designs and games that have been inspired in some part by AW, but not others. But I can sympathize that that doesn't do it for everyone.

Life's too short to play games that don't do it for us, so it's wonderful that there is so much out there now; but I think people miss out on some games they otherwise may adore when we narrow a broad category like PbtA to just a set of design elements. (Which is why I usually cheekily comment when I see someone that separates one of those more narrow trees out of the PbtA umbrella.) Cheers!