Posts Tagged ‘design’


Momatoes’ Guide to Google Sheets

September 9, 2021

Momatoes on Twitter has a great thread that links to a PDF doc from a presentation she had on how to best use Google Sheets for character keepers. She includes some great advice about setting up grids and dividing up information for play.

Momatoes page has her RPGs as well.

I’m pretty excited to go over this in detail sometime in the near future, because I’ve been kludging together functional, but honestly ugly, character keepers on Sheets, and smoothing that out would be a nice step forward.


Spectactulars and “Anything Else”

June 27, 2021

One of my favorite, small rules in a game is in Spectaculars – characters get a set of skills based on their background (“Identity”) with a percentage chance of success next to each of them. At the bottom of the list, is “Anything Else – 50%”.

It’s a small, simple rule, but it actually smoothes out play in a very nice way.

First, between the many different systems I play, and my brain not being able to just flip a switch anymore on game rules, it solves the classic “Ugh, uh, which stat/skill does this go under again?” question that comes up in games. It’s annoying to me when I’m GMing, but it’s also bad for the player because usually if you’ve hit that moment, it’s because they’re doing something creative or interesting, and slowing down play serves as a minor disincentive.

Second, for players, it also makes a useful reminder – if players look to their character sheets when asked “What do you do?” it also allows works as a reminder they’re not limited to just their immediate powers and skills, BUT ALSO that the odds of success are not terrible (in some games, unskilled activity is a long shot).

A week or two ago, I saw a discussion where someone was worried that some games present the rules in a way that players stop thinking about the fictional possibilities, because “only what is explicitly PERMITTED by the rules” is acceptable. “Anything Else” solves that right there, and keeps it available.

Now, to be sure, you typically want to use any of your other abilities because you end up with better odds of success, but the fact that the lowest chance of success is still 50% is pretty good.

Although I don’t think every game will be served by having an Anything Else rule, I think a lot more, probably would be.

If you find my blog entertaining and valuable, consider supporting me on Patreon.


Arkham Horror vs. Call of Cthulhu

October 27, 2007

For the last year and a half or so, I’ve watched about 5 or 6 pretty heavy CoC players I know migrate from roleplaying CoC, to playing Arkham Horror.

It’s been a pretty fascinating change.  They’re all folks who are reaching/in their thirties, going deep into the career/children route, and their CoC play has fallen to quarterly or bi-annual events.  (mind you, they typically still found time for D&D, though they all griped about that being the only game they could consistently get play from… more on that later).   All of them hardcore immersionists and illusionists, who ultimately play in a social circle that effectively is about 3-4 different gaming groups.

So, Arkham Horror, the CoC boardgame comes out, and within 2 months regular play is happening.  In fact, weekly or bi-weekly games.  Mind you, Arkham Horror is about 3-6 hours of play by itself, so it’s not like its much shorter of a game.   Having played with them a few times, they’ve managed to pull consistently 4-8 players every time (most, as far as I can tell, also CoC rpg heads who’ve made the switch).

So is the issue time?  Not really.  Maybe commitment?  Well, given that enough people are consistently showing, I don’t think that’s the issue either.

If anything, I think it’s because, whether they’d admit it or not, Arkham Horror does CoC better than the rpg.  You work as a team of investigators, you research clues, you jump into strange places Man was Not Meant to Go, you go insane, fight/run from monsters, and either save the world from Ancient Evil or it gets destroyed.

You get the whole Lovecraftian experience, every time, every game.  Period.

Funny enough, they’ve never complained about the pre-generated characters, the set scenarios, lack of immersion, or the crunchiness of the mechanics (though, if it were an rpg, they’d cry blood over such things).  And while the argument can easily be made we’re comparing apples and oranges, the fact is they’ll consistantly choose Arkham Horror over playing CoC every time.  Clearly apples lose.

All of this points to the other beast which eats away at the general rpg gamer base- consistency.  People naturally gravitate towards entertainment which consistently hits their buttons.   If another game or type of game delivers more, more often, you’re going to see people go for it.

This isn’t a death knell for roleplaying, as much as yet another clarion call for simply better design and a wider view of the larger context of the culture and the hobby.


Closed vs. Evolving rulesets

October 10, 2007

RPGs have a pretty fascinating history of design – until CCGs, this is the only hobby where many/most of the games have the expectation that further rules will be added to change the game in the future.

Most games you might play, of any type, are closed rulesets- the rules are designed and that’s the game.  Even if you add houserules, that’s your personal choice and not a design choice.  Chess is chess- you don’t get a yearly or quarterly “update” to supplement chess.

Most people expect the rules to a game to be the same and the idea of evolving or open rules that will see regular updates or have so many optional rules that they outnumber the basic rules is pretty foreign.

Not only that, but it’s a thousand times easier to build a workable set of rules that are closed than it is to build a set of rules that are modular and open enough to accept future designs.

From a gamist standpoint, it generally holds true that a successful game should be able to work as a fun core design, a closed one, if it’s also going to work as a fun evolving rule set.  That is, Magic the Gathering works well as a basic game, before you even add the millions of extra sets.  If the closed game is not fun, and you -have- to turn to the supplemental material for the fun part, you’ve got a fundamentally flawed design.

Another major point is that the difficulty is not just in the core game, but in making sure that the supplemental rules do not displace the core rules.  Many games suffer from “power creep”, in which new rules displace previous rules, often times rendering them completely ineffective or useless.   For CCGs, this isn’t -as bad-, since part of the game is building decks to meet these strategies.

For RPGs, though, it can be completely disasterous as a) players have to completely relearn new mechanics, b) long term strategic commitments (such as a character build) become useless and need to be replaced.  It’s not as easy as swapping some cards for a 30 minute game.

Historically though, few rpgs have been designed with explicit gamism in mind.  Most have a mixture of other goals in mind, which tends to lead to a mish-mash of rules that do not necesesarily balance from a gamist standpoint.   This is the area where you find communities of gamers sharply divided over what rules they will or will not use, seeing how some completely kick out other rules as viable options.

The onus falls upon each group to play the role of the designer by picking and choosing what rules actually function for their game goals.  This often involves weeks, months, or even years of playtime to hone this to a set they find fun.  Much of this becomes unspoken lessons picked up by the players, about which character builds to avoid, which play strategies work or don’t work, etc.

And then they get to do this over again when they choose to add a new set of rules…

At this point, though, this kind of design is legacy as opposed to well thought out.  Great strides have been made in design in the last few years, and I’m looking forward to seeing how evolving rule sets improve in the future, especially between the amount of play experiences we can pull from CCGs, MMO’s alone.


No optimal choices

August 27, 2007

So I’ve been playing lots of Memoir 44, and really enjoying the simple elegance of the design.

One of the biggest pitfalls for gamist design is when folks develop optimal solutions for a game’s strategy.  Instead of being forced to rethink how to deal with each situation, the game becomes simply a puzzle- how long will it take for you to find the 1-3 optimal ways to play and then you can just go on autopilot.

This is a big problem for games that focus heavily on character building skills above in play tactical choices.  Find the optimal builds, then let odds work for you and sleep your way through.

Likewise, for position based strategic  games, you can often work out ideal positions or manuevers to employ (see opening moves in Chess, for example).

The interesting thing that Memoir does is that it randomizes the set of choices you have- you might know what would be an optimal move, but lack the cards to power it.  So you often end up choosing between a lot of not so great choices.

So far, I haven’t seen a lot of rpgs really utilize this, though some of the card based ones do, and the whole tree of design that grew out of Otherkind as well.  On the other hand, no one’s really used them for gamism, so it’s a field waiting to be explored.