18 thoughts on “Hey!”

  1. A bit difficult to read, but I think I understand most of it.

    First, hooray stunts as encouragement for narration of actions.

    The system itself is a bit mathy. Player provides 2 numbers, GM provides 1 just to get your base TN, that’s three calculations. Now, add in any bonuses from abilities or actions. Then remember to subtract from your roll if you had a one-liner. It’s simple math, but that’s a lot of calculations for every roll. Don’t forget you actually have 3 TNs to compare with the roll, base TN and +/- 5.

    Am I reading that correctly? It looks like a failure is rolling 5 over the target number. “Same goes for losing” and “20 even if not high enough to fail”. So a missed roll within 5 is a loss with compromise? Or is it still a success with compromise like the 20 rule makes it sound?

    Why is rolling the TN a push? You neither win or lose. Nothing happens? Do over? Wouldn’t it make more sense to have the TN be a critical success or a critical failure?

  2. Thank you, Justin Blaskie, for your input! Yes, you assumed right for losing by less than 5, I added a note on that. I’ll add “Hitting the Nail on the Head” in the (new) Q&A section

  3. Game Design And Theory 01 – What Is A Game?


    What is the intended agenda the system process is designed to influence/support/create as an interactive engagement?

    Why should I play this system, and not an existing system in a spectrum — like; Fiasco, Fate, Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Rollmaster, Heavy Gear?

    What engages players to desire engagement with the rules — is it the combat, the dramatic conflict, the character development, the influence on the campaign world, the pastime over beer and pretzels?

    How do the mechanisms influence/support/create a desire and opportunity to engage with the system to produce meaningful output?

    What does the system consider to be meaningful input?

    Given that; This software is to be run on the brain of all the participants (Game Moderator and Character Controllers all Play the Game as participants) and produces output… And; A game is a system that influences how we play, but does not itself know the difference between work and play… Then; What is the end-goal influence this game produces in how people play while engaged with it, and why should I load that space in my brain with this system?

    What will it do for me to make an effortless playtime engagement worthwhile?

    How will it support my agendas, and to what degree and how difficult, will mods be for agendas beyond the initial scope of the design?


    What workload will I need to lift on my own while running RAW?

    Point of note — many games ignore these kinds of questions, and still provide some marketable success, but all games do have answers to what the system’s agenda ultimately is, whether it is intentionally designed or not. 

    That is –; all games force players to act certain ways as a particular supported activity… and discourage non-supported engagement.

  4. The purpose of this game is to encourage players and DMs alike to try any random setting they’ve wanted to try. With tinkering the system can be light or crunchy, as per your group’s tastes.

  5. bit dodgy with the questions there, that much was granted.

    I am not asking about setting or genre at all… not even implied that consideration previously — but, i will ask about it with specific context now.

    A light vs. crunch approach was only slightly considered in the questions… but, that was merely a small (almost insignificant) fraction of the depth and breath of the spectrum of comparative examples given, and the larger aspects of the related questions still remain.

    Relying on homebaked variants of the system, pretty much says the system wants participants to do all the heavy lifting while it just sits there with an ominous title page.

    I can only infer that you do not have answers to the bulk of the questions — please be aware, I ask what are valid industry questions about any new game project… so that you have them to frame some answers around. You don’t have to answer them… but. hopefully you do more than dismiss them.

    Like any art or craft of expression and creation, there are some unshakable fundamentals that come with game design…

    Try any setting, sure, but, in using [insert whatever setting desired here] with this system;

    What is the process being tried? What is the engagement type supported?

    What is the input the system requires, in order to output data meaningful to that process and engagement within a setting decided on a whim?

    What genre of narrative, within a generic setting allowance, is supported/encouraged/discouraged/expected within the game system’s core design conceits?

    If no such desire to pin these down exists, then how does the system make the heavy lifting expected of the end-user less tiresome… more intuitive… and generally worth the work the system shrugs off?

    Is it going to be a system; or just a compilation of unrelated rule mechanisms… to use or disregard on personal preference?

  6. To be honest, William Mims, I do not know. You ask many questions that I never even considered while throwing this system together. There was no agenda or objective besides finding my favorite parts of each system and gluing them together.

  7. A fine place to start Jon Stewart​​​​​​​​, I most certainly mean to encourage with my prompts. 😀

    How do these pieces fit together to form a system of their own?

    What is the emergent agenda produced from this collage mécanique?

    Where can this be strengthened, complemented, or altered?

    Or, First start with a simple backtrack;

    Why pick these mechanics?

    Did they offer something within their native contexts?

    Is that contribution self contained when plucked out of the native process?

    Does that change when interacting with these other parts?

    Are there any gaps or conflicts between them?

    And still, what should players (and by players, I will always include any game moderator — if applicable — as a player with a specific role) be doing with the system and it’s mechanisms most often and least often?

    Does it provide toy parts sufficiently?

    Does it present puzzle challenges timely?

    Does it moderate contest activities fairly?

    Does it adjudicate decision consequences meaningfully?

    Are there any places where choosing between red hat or blue hat, becomes a meaningless false decision — both hats are meaninglessly the same hat as far as the system is concerned?

    Is that intended or unintended?

    Does it support and reduce the cognitive load from emerging complexity, when in use with complex settings and plot types (narrative story aesthetic-genre / narrative story plot-genre)?

    Does it come pre-packaged with enough inherent complexity, that the cognitive load of the players does not want to be taxed with more complexity from custom settings?

    If making a presumption, that; all RPGs are, in some measure, a game of collaborative narrative creation processes for simulating particular genres and tropes, with developing stock characters and emerging environments… that hold a position on the discourse side, as venue and structure… Then; How does it support the various inherent differences in story existents (such as between setting aesthetics of ‘Historic Supernatural Noir’ or ‘Speculative Near-Future Utopias’ and relevant character archetypes of ‘Backalley Urchin Prostitutes’ and ‘Genetically Optimized Dolphin Diplomats’) and story events (such as various drastically different plot genre types like; Romance, Horror, or Action Adventure)

  8. Also; I have just now posted a couple videos on my stream about Game Design Theory… I do that from time to time, when one is particularly well presented, or I notice a particular topic is in the discussion mill.

  9. One final thing to say, as a statement to think about, rather than a question.

    It is all-too-easy as a game designer, to say; “Here are some rules and mechanisms, they do stuff when you use them… What you do with them is all on you.” …and then dump them on a GM’s lap to deal with all the interpretation and process management. However, that does not make a game very helpful, and if not helpful… not fun.

    A good game design (and by good, I mean helpful to all the participants and their various expected agendas) will not require a good moderator, it will make participants feel like they moderated well.

    While, as an excellent GM committed to sufficient preparations, I might be able to make any system do amazing party tricks for my friends… if a system does amazing party tricks right out of the box, I can hand the box to Ed, Edd, and Eddie and know that they can moderate an equally good game for ME to PLAY as well.

    This is why it is important to consider; how much your system expects the players to bring to the table, and be dependant on their own fiat, to whatever their own agenda will be — and how much the game system does the thing it promises to do… correctly… every time… without extra effort from the players… even if they are looking for loop-holes.

    This is why Rules-As-Written is important — even if, as game hackers and designers, we tend to think of them all as hackable and mutable from our own perspective.

Comments are closed.