Born to Play, Doomed to Die

When a rule is born into one of my games it cries out as it draws first breath, and I look down with contempt. 

I do love the pathetic little thing, and I can't help but think of all the deeds it might accomplish, all the fun we could have together. 

Then I stop myself, lean to its ear, and whisper.

Tell me why I should let you live.

Going back to Into the Odd after Electric Bastionland has pushed me face-first into examining my rules. After so long explaining the changes in EB, I'm catapulted backwards to the ITO rules page, examining it with old eyes. Like Merlin living life in reverse, I can't unsee the future of this game. 

At least I thought Electric Bastionland was the future.

Into the Odd wouldn't sit back and retire. I kept hearing people talk about it, making hacks, choosing to play it over the new gigantic hardback. Just a scrappy underdog? No, people were actually explaining why they preferred this old game. They even preferred WIL to CHA!

That's not to say I haven't enjoyed the process of exhuming it and sending it to the tailor to be swaddled in finery. The plan was always for ITO to stick around as a smaller, quieter relative to EB, but I hadn't fully expected it to survive.

So approaching this project from a necromantic angle, the plan soon became to do a Remaster rather than a revision. Paying tribute to the original and presenting it in as authentic a revivification as possible, rather than trying to fix anything about it. A shimmering ghost representing their ideal form, rather than a monstrous marvel of forbidden engineering.

Of course there were genuine problems. Wordings could be improved, and I was never fully happy with the included Arcana, so they all got some attention. I knew I wanted to put some extra content in there, so brand new Arcana were added to the heap, the Oddpendium got beefed up slightly, and the Iron Coral exploded into rampant growth, now a fully blown dungeon worthy of your expedition. 

Then I looked to Electric Bastionland, its neon lights always tempting me. I could add in the Scars table but... then I'd have to change the advancement rules and... NO, show some respect! I throw my EB book out of the window and I hear paving slabs shattering. 

But I do indulge a little. Rules that have fought hard for their place are granted access. Deprived is my golden child, ushered fawningly to the table. They're so well behaved, always there when you need them but never in the way. Bulky comes with them. Sure, they're not quite as well-groomed, and sometimes I even forget their birthday, but we've got room for one more.

Wait. Do we have enough room at the table? 

We do, but isn't it always nice to be able to stretch your legs? I sharpen my axe.

I see some misshapen figures tucked on the far corner. They look comfortable, but I've been watching them for a while.

Swap any two Ability Scores after rolling gets it first. I suspect they knew this was coming, as I never really spoke to them for long after they arrived.

Make a WIL Save to bend an Arcanum to your will gets the second chop. Where their sibling was forgettable, they were rowdy and disruptive, and not in the good way. I had to re-engineer my bone magnet because of them.

Two in, two out.

I put my axe away. Now we can play. 

Rules Heavy - Worlds and Classes

Lots of fantasy worlds rely on a sort of fairy-tale logic, often taking the form of absolute rules. Lots of these made the transition over to D&D.

• Vampires cannot enter a home unless invited.
• Minotaurs can never get lost.
• Hags always gather as a coven of three. 

Except these two, apparently. Maybe the snake is a witch? See how rules provoke interesting solutions?

You might have heard some of these before you even played an RPG, just through old stories. Then you get weird D&D inventions that bring their own rules. Stuff you could only really know from playing or at least reading about this game.

• Black Puddings split in two if hit with slashing weapons or lightning. 
• Sleep spells don't work on Elves.
• A Rust Monster's touch corrodes any ferrous, non-magical metal. 

I love these Absolutes in monster design, especially in comparison to more watered-down versions of these effects. In writing this post I was looking through the 5e Monster Manual and was shocked to see that sunlight merely causes a Vampire 20 damage (out of 144hp as standard) and disadvantage on some rolls. That's the same amount of damage it can regenerate each turn once it gets back into the shadows. I can feel the disappointment of luring the vampire into just the right spot before blowing a hole in their castle wall, letting the burning sunlight fill the room before... they are dropped to 124hp and run to the shade to recover. 

I'm not necessarily advocating for instant-dusting here, but this is a rule of the world that I'm trying to exploit here, and I want to feel like that was clever play! Maybe they get just one chance to escape or the sunlight pins them in place while they slowly sear. 

But I sort of want there to be a rule there. Not a mechanic like "take 20 damage and disadvantage", but a proper rule of this fantasy world. Vampires turn to dust in sunlight. 

See, I spend so much time talking about tearing rules off systems and throwing them into the bin, but I get the appeal of rules. There's a part of me that enjoys learning them, and I feel the satisfaction that comes with exploiting them to your advantage. But for me, the joy of using fictional rules to lure a Vampire into a track far outweighs that of finding two feats that synergise with each other to grant me higher damage output. 

It all fits into this Qualitative Design thing I've been going on about. I'm keen to try this out with an actual game now that I'm finally able to get some friends around a table, most likely something like this:

If your action is Unchallenged, then there is no need to roll unless you are pushing for an extra benefit. 

When there is opposition or risk to your action, weigh up whether you have an Edge. Generally this means you have the upper hand through careful preparations, innate capabilities, or specialist tools. If the obstacles or opposition facing you outweighs these, then you do not have an Edge. 

Roll 2d12. Keep the High die if you have an Edge, and Low if you don’t. Consult the chart for an answer to the question “Do I get my desired outcome?”.

Whatever the outcome, things move forward.

When you suffer harm you can Ask the Stars for the fallout or go with the narratively appropriate result. This is noted where appropriate and affects your future actions. 

Very FKR, I think. 

Talking about this is all well and good, but I wanted to put it into practice through character design, dipping into the idea of playbooks. Nothing new, of course, but I like the idea of giving each player a small, folded-A4 playbook that gives you rules of the world, rather than a new set of mechanics to learn. A wizard's should feels more like a spellbook than a rulebook. A fighter's might list the ins-and-outs of all those specialist weapons and manoeuvres that can be attempted. A rogue's might contain some actual exploits that your character knows about getting around the city, perhaps coming pre-loaded with contacts, secrets, and even tip-offs. 

And these are truths that might not be confined to your character. That same fighter can explain to the thief how a Warhammer is the perfect tool for the job in this situation, which might just give them the edge they need in the fight to come. Forget niche protection. Don't you want to share your cool stuff with your friends? 

There's some similarity with PBTA here, of course, but I think there's an important distinction here. PBTA moves exist in a weird limbo where some advice tells the players to never speak the name of the Move, but the name Moves lures you in like a big button you want to press. 

I want this book to almost exist diegetically (take a shot). This is stuff your character knows, or at least has written somewhere. 

So let's try this out with the Ranger.

Intro

A Ranger is a traveller charged with upholding the laws of the wild, but you know some tricks to exploiting them too.

The Laws of the Wild

• You have sworn to uphold the Laws of Beasts, Day, and Night. 
• These laws apply in any wilderness, even where it exists in small pockets. 
• Any that swear to the life of a Ranger can use the exploits below for as long as they uphold their responsibilities.

Laws of Beasts

• The territory of beasts must be respected - Studying a beast’s behaviour in secret reveals something about their surroundings. 

• The wisdom of beasts must be respected - By consuming a small piece of their diet and making them comfortable you can hold simple conversations with an animal.

• The strength of beasts must be respected - If you and an animal swear to protect each other, you begin to share each other’s senses and emotions.  This bond grows over time, with ranger and companion taking on traits of the other. 

Laws of Day

• Safe passage must be granted to those that mean no harm - While travelling through the Wilderness you can never be surprised.

• The land must provide for respectful travellers - While travelling through the wilderness you can always find a vantage point, hiding place, or food source.

• The sun must be granted its followers - You can strip some wood from a tree without damaging it. If you do so, the wood whispers something to you about the history of this place.

Laws of Night

• The night must remain dark - You can see in the dark in places rich with wildlife.

• The night must remain calm - You can move silently under starlight. 

• The night must be allowed to sing - You can mimic animal noises while under moonlight.

Necessary Slaying

Creatures that breach the laws of nature should rightfully be destroyed. There are numerous techniques to aid in this.

The Hunt

• If you have a piece of a creature, or sample of their leavings, they are easier to track. 

• If you witness a creature attacking another target, you are more adept at avoiding their attacks. 

• When you witness a new behaviour in an unnatural creature you may ask the GM a yes/no question.

The Kill

• If you have time to line up an attack from above your accuracy is near-absolute.

• If you witness a creature suffering harm you get a clue to its weak point. 

• If a creature begs you for mercy, you get a clue to the source of its unnatural evil. 

The Tribute

• Spilling a slain creature’s blood returns a spoiled environment to its natural state. 

• Preserving a slain creature’s heart grants a single instance of protection against its unnatural ability.

• Working a slain creature’s bones into weaponry grants an edge against similar monstrosities, but makes the weapon fragile. 

Survival Gear

You know of the following, but there are more to be discovered. You start with two:

• Wildrope: A strong rope that blends perfectly into its surroundings.

• Signal Daggers: Small blades that can be easily concealed, thrown with great accuracy, and always catch the sunlight.

• Wire Snare: A simple trap, strong enough to harmlessly entangle most mundane creatures.

Lots left open to interpretation, of course, but that's just sort of where I am right now. Perhaps my mood will change when I have to actually use these rules with other people at a table. 

I'd like to expand this with some extra sections with blanks left to be filled in. Perhaps the Ranger notes things they have learned from their travels in here. Maybe they even start the game with a scribbled map, encouraging them to fill the blanks as we go. 

There's nothing to stop other players from doing this, of course, but by putting those sections square in front of the Ranger player you're setting some expectations.

The Great Game-Book Dig

I love scouring old game books, or even books only loosely related to RPGs, and finding nuggets of thought that are useful in running and designing games.

Sometimes a passage just makes me laugh, which I'm holding in equal value for this post.

Let's pick out some assorted thoughts from recent reads.

Pan Book of Party Games (1958) and The Second Pan Book of Party Games (1963) - Joseph Edmundson

The name and dates of publication give you a pretty good idea what to expect here. There's not much I've found that can be mined for current tastes, except for some truly brutal rules for a series of beach-based wrestling games that would be a great fit for Electric Bastionland.

This was my favourite, especially when I thought the "clasping hands around the neck" was a choking motion, rather than something more like slow-dancing. 

Also I'll present this without further comment.

Maelstrom (1984) - Alexander Scott 

I find this whole book fascinating. It predates Advanced Fighting Fantasy but shares some of its presentation, even including a FF-style solo adventure in the book. It's almost a straight-up historical game, but has a punishing magic system. It's relatively light on rules but has that classic minutiae of the era with distinctions between musician, minstrel, and actor training times, and descriptions of five different types of fraudulent beggars. And, of course, critical wound tables. 

But there's one bit of weird-detail that got me thinking. There aren't stats for a sword, there are stats for seven different swords.

BUT it's not the usual D&D thing of having falchions and sabres and rapiers all function slightly differently. Instead, you can just buy better quality swords that are significantly better (and more expensive) than the inferior options.

D&D has its Masterwork swords, but I like the solid, grounding feel of being able to kit yourself out with just a really good sword, and knowing that an opponent with an even more finely crafted weapon is a real threat.  

Playing Politics (1997) - Michael Laver

This book contains a number of games, I guess varying from "party games" to "strategy games", that aim to reveal something about the political process. 

I stumbled onto this while I was reading about Nomic games, which is a rabbit-hole I'd be interested to spend proper time diving into. 

The part I find interesting here is that each game is presented in three sections.

Section 1: The Rules. Just the hard essentials.
Section 2: Playing the Game. Tips for how to play the game, some of the tough decisions that come up, peeking into some of the depths.
Section 3: Real Games. Insight from the designer based on the actual games that they've played and parallels to real political scenarios (from national government to selling a car).

I feel like there's merit in the idea of an RPG with an extensive "play report" section that breaks down some of the designers own experiences playing the game. We're so used to stilted examples of play, but why not draw on the reality of your game as it hits the table?

One Hour Wargames (2014) - Neil Thomas 

This book is a solid example of a phrase I keep parroting: Put the Core to Work. Basically, I like the approach of giving a game a solid core that needs little explanation, then exploring that core both in breadth of possibilities and ensuring that the player gets the best use out of that compact nucleus. N++ is a great example that I've spoken about at length.

The rules are simple and fast, as the name suggests, fitting on three A5 pages with spacious layout. I reckon you could easily get them down to a single reference sheet.

Then the game repeats these same rules across 9 different eras from Classical to WW2, each like a small, self-contained hack of the original. Each era has just four types of unit. Most eras tweak a rule here or there, so pivoting a unit is more difficult in the tight formations of the Medieval Era than the looser squads of the Machine Age. Some luxuriate in adding in a special rule, like Indirect Fire for Mortars in WW2, but every decision is outlined in a small article prefacing the rules, explaining why the changes were made in order to reflect the warfare of that period. It feels like additions were only made when the designer felt it justified even the smallest increase in rules complexity. 

Then it gives you 30 Scenarios that can be used for each eras, describing some historical battles that influenced it. 

I haven't even tried the game out, and I'm not entirely sold on the specific mechanics and scenarios, but there's something about the approach here that inspires me.

Top Ten Games You Can Play In Your Head By Yourself (2019) - Sam Gorski and D.F. Lovett

So this game is pitched in a sort of "found footage" way that might be the most exciting thing about it. 

The story goes that this book contains 6 volumes from an out-of-print series of games from the 80s/90s. Like Choose your own Adventure but replace all rules with IMAGINE IT and most content with IMAGININE HARDER.

There's a bit of structure to get you started but... I'm not actually going to try and explain how these games are meant to work. There are better write-ups elsewhere and I'm actually more interested in the presentation than the content.

Reading it for the first time is one of those "is this real?" moments that creates quite a unique experience. It's like those lucky few that saw the Blair Witch Project believing it to be genuine footage.

If this was presented as a new book written by the actual authors it would feel awkward and incomplete. If it was presented as an open pastiche it would feel toothless and trivial. But instead, if you allow yourself to embrace the fiction of this being a lost treasure from the past... it has a life of its own.

Some RPGs touch on this idea, but I've never seen it taken to this depth. I'm not even sure it could be done to this extent in an area that has been so rigorously documented over the years, but there's some power here. I just don't know how you'd tap into it yet.

The Complete Book of Card Games (2001) - Peter Arnold

I wanted to read about some card games to see a set of mechanics that are all based on the same limited set of components. It's that old Put the Core to Work thing again, right?

Well, I enjoy a card game, but I think I've learned more about what I dislike in games from reading their rules. 

I'm calling this section "Arbitrary Bullshit" and card games love this sort of thing.

There are dozens of examples, but just one:

"A short pack of 32 cards is used. Removed form the standard pack are the 8s, 5s, 4s, 3s, and 2s. The cards rank in the order 7, 6, A, K, Q, J, 10, 9"

Now I'm sure these little fiddly rules exist for a reason, and removing them makes the game worse, or maybe just not work at all. There must be a reason why 6 outranks 9, but not 7. Well maybe that's a sign something else could be changed in this game? 

Stay tuned for my Kickstarter campaign for a book of ultra-streamlined card games coming 2029.

The Matrix Games Handbook (2018) - John Curry

Matrix Games are big, multiplayer, somewhat free-form wargames that rely a lot on adjudication over hard rules. I find this whole area of games fascinating. I'd like to write in more detail at a later date, but for now there's one thing I like from here.

Their approach to objectives got me thinking. One of the example games is based on Iraq in 2014 and has players taking on roles of the US, ISIS, The Iraqi Government, The Iraqi Opposition, Kurdish Regional Government, Iran. Obviously they've all got vastly different resources they can deploy.

(sidenote: I have no idea how accurately or appropriately any of these are represented, but just using it for an example here)

Each faction also has one or two situational advantages/disadvantages intended to abstract another aspect of the larger political situation. Some factions are just outright better or worse than others if you judge them on these alone.

But at the end of the game, the only thing that matters is your set of three or four unique Objectives.  These are often down to self-assessment at the end of the game. You have to just look at them and discuss with the other player "Have I discouraged Kurdish separatism?" or "Have I avoided US Ground Troops being deployed?".

Asymmetry is nothing new, but I like the looseness of their objectives. I've seen similar systems in place for XP systems in RPGs, but again I feel like there's more that can be taken from this idea.

Zach-Like: A Game Design History (2019) - Zach Barth

The Zachtronics games are a series of problem-solving games that often draw on principles of programming and optimisation.

Note that I say problem-solving, not puzzle games. They present you with a task and the games are usually about solving it in various ways that might optimise speed, simplicity, or efficiency. 

This four-hundred page book is snippets from the design documents of various Zachtronics games going all the way back to the designer's school days. There are hex-based wargames scrawled in pencil and half-baked RPG systems, all the way up to prototype level sketches for their most recent games.

I've hidden from some of my old game designs in shame, telling myself that they're just relics from before I knew better. But Zach appears to revel in his old ideas, often revisiting them as inspiration for the next big, polished release. It's inspired me to rethink how I treat my poor, abandoned old creations. 

External Engagement in RPGs

Last week I wrote about how I found External Engagement was hindering my enjoyment of videogames.

Again this is just my own experience. Some enjoy it as a part of their game experience, and for others it's their main way of engaging with the hobby.

Now with Tabletop RPGs the divide between External/Internal Engagement isn't quite as simple.

At its most obvious it's the classic player/GM divide. The GM spends all week preparing for the game and the players roll up, play for a few hours, then go home and don't think about the game until next week.

But there's a lot of space between those two extremes, and some nuance in the way that people engage externally with the game.

Prepping Content: This lies closest to the actual playing of the game, whether it's a GM crafting a setting or a player planning out their character. 

Training: I guess this is a sort of prep, but instead of making content you're brushing up on your skills. That could be learning tips to running the game or reading up on how to be a better player in terms of tactical decisions or portraying an interesting character.

Spectating: Essays have been written about the growing appeal of actual play streams and podcasts. I don't really have much experience of them but fair to say it's a form of external engagement.

Discoursing: Talking about RPGs. Not necessarily to get ideas for content for your game, or even necessarily to understand the game itself, but almost for the enjoyment of the discussion. I describe this slightly pejoratively because I'm clearly a sucker for this myself, and I'm in an ongoing process of reviewing how much I actually enjoy it. 

Designing for External Engagement

Some games do this pretty clearly. Forgive the dated reference, but in the 3rd Edition days the official D&D "Character Optimisation" forum was pretty popular. This was a whole lot of people crunching away at the numbers to make powerful characters, completely away from the realities of at-table play. A fun process in its own right for some, I'm sure, but if you're not somebody that enjoys that side of things its very presence can affect how you view the game. Should I be like the people on that forum when I sit down to play 3e? Is this what the other players are expecting of me? Will they be mad if I just make a weird character that isn't super effective mechanically?

Games that are designed to support this sort of External Engagement might see the positives being reaped ("everybody is talking about our game!") without necessarily seeing theses hidden negatives. From the inside I've always felt like the barrier to entry for RPGs is super-low, but dig a bit deeper and it's easy to see how they might appear more daunting to a newcomer.

"Oh I always liked the look of the 40k RPGs but I don't want to have to learn a bunch of setting stuff"

"D&D looks cool but I don't want to have to buy a load of miniatures"

"I want to run Mothership but I heard on Twitter that it doesn't support campaign play, so probably not worth starting it"

So External Engagement is Bad, Right?

No! Again, this is about working out what your own preferences are. 

The activities listed above can all be enjoyable, and I enjoy them myself, but I feel like going too deep into them hinders my enjoyment of the actual game when I sit down to play. 

Will it be the same for you? Depends entirely on the person, but I think it's interesting to consider whether these engagements are laying too much pressure on your weekly game, or setting unrealistic expectations. 

We all remember that session where we were excited all week, spent a tonne of time doing prep, and then it was a big flop. On the other side sometimes those unplanned games turn out to be the most enjoyable for me, where you have nothing planned and have to run on pure improvisation.

Everybody has seen that person posting a hot take on twitter presenting a purely theoretical argument or describing a bizarre situation completely alien to your experience at the table. Sometimes you sit back and think "has this person actually played this game or do they just talk about it online?"

Do you ever feel like you're that person? Might be worth considering whether External Engagement is improving or hindering your enjoyment of the hobby.

Designing for Internal Engagement

So you'd expect Electric Bastionland to be designed purely for Internal Engagement, right? Well, no, because this is only really a recent concept for me. Even if I were to re-write the game today I don't think it's useful to see this as such a clear dichotomy.

There are loads of ways you can engage externally with EB. There's regular discourse on how best to run the game, and the Oddendum is basically a huge chapter where I engage in that discussion. There are procedures for creating maps and stocking your locations, both of which you'd usually sit down to do between your games. I even made an Actual Play video so that people can watch before they play.

But it's missing some of the key points of External Engagement.

Character optimisation? Don't make me laugh. Roll up a character and see what you get.

Sure, there are a bunch of procedures in the book for prep, but you're encouraged to leave lots open to discovery at the table. I try to lead by example here, where the entire setting of Bastionland is only really presented through the lens of an RPG. There's no delusion that this world deserves a nine-book fiction saga, this is a world built for the table.

There's certainly no giant wiki of setting to digest. You only get to discover Bastionland by playing it.

But like I said before, this isn't about purity of design. It's about... wait... what is it about again?

What's the Point of All This?

As I said at the start of this post, this whole process has been a bit of self-reflection, and I'm sure there are people that feel similar to me. My hope is that somebody might read this and consider whether they're enjoying tabletop RPGs as much as they possibly can, and whether there's another way for them.

It's extra rough if you don't have a group to play with in-person, a situation a lot of us are in at the moment. I spent years in this wilderness before online-play became so straightforward and local groups more commonplace, so I sympathise with those who feel like they only have External Engagement to enjoy, but I'd encourage them to look at all options to get themselves involved in the actual playing of the game.

And maybe think about stepping away from RPG twitter for a week. Limit yourself to an hour of prep for your game and accept that you're going to be filling in blanks on the night. Rather than listening to actual plays, dive into a history podcast or audiobook that might give you some cool ideas to draw on.

Don't deny yourself the type of fun that comes with that low-pressure, no-expectation game.

Killing your Fun with External Engagement

Way back, videogame designer Soren Johnson wrote: 

"Given the opportunity, players will optimise the fun out of the game"

I've noticed a similar effect in myself where, given the opportunity, I will externally engage the fun out of the game.

That's a clunky way of phrasing it, but here I'm talking about engaging with the game outside of the game. Everything you do outside of actually playing the game that you're captivated by. Most commonly these are reading and talking about the game.

We'll get to tabletop RPGs, but for now the context is videogames.

Now this isn't to say I'll deliberately go and find plot spoilers for games. If I'm interested in a game I'll do my best to avoid those, but there are certain elements of a game that can actively be ruined by externally engaging with the game too much before you've fully played it.

Finding a hidden location or detail in the game world that you weren't led to.
The Outer Wilds is basically entirely this. You're thrown into into a solar system and each planet you could choose to visit has little secrets to find and piece together to form the big picture. Actual play videos are probably the most common way to ruin these for yourself.

Learning which tool is best for each obstacle.
In Dark Souls certain weapon types are better/worse against certain types of enemy. In Forza Motorsport certain cars respond better to certain upgrades and tuning changes. You can discover these for yourself or just go on a wiki and find the best tool for the job.

Making an unexpected connection.
This is especially satisfying when it makes perfect sense in hindsight. In Breath of the Wild there are puzzles that require you to connect two electrical points to complete a circuit. There's a solution involving moving metal blocks around but if you have a few metal weapons you can just lay them down instead to carry the current. With Breath of the Wild I heard about a number of these connections in reviews before I even bought the game. It's a conundrum, because hearing about these connections existing contributed to getting me excited for the game and deciding to buy it, but I would have loved to discover them on my own.

False expectations

Whether you're watching a pro-player and feeling like your own gameplay is sloppy, or watching a carefully edited and scripted playthrough of a game, you can sometimes set yourself false expectations by watching a gameplay video rather than actually playing the game.

My specific context here is that I recently dipped into Elite: Dangerous on PC. 

In 1993 I was 8 years old, and I got Frontier: Elite 2 for my Amiga The sheer scale and freedom of the game was unlike anything I'd experienced before. I didn't progress very far in terms of improving my ship or getting a galactic reputation, I mostly just loved the immersion of jumping between systems, docking at stations, and keeping one eye on the giant map poster that came with the game.

It was pretty much a pure sandbox. The intro was the most impressive thing I'd ever seen on a home computer and the music still gives me tingles today.

The map, manual, and gazetteer were all I had, and the latter really just had a small paragraph of background information for the most important systems rather than anything useful in the game itself.

But I was out there exploring it. Frankly there wasn't even that much actual content to see, but I felt like I was out doing it on my own in a huge galaxy.

Fast-forward to 2020. I get the Elite bug and dive into the long awaited sequel, now years after its launch. Can't wait to feel that freedom of space.

Okay, I don't know how to fly. That's fine, I remember the same feeling back with Frontier. 

There's an in-game training thing, but I'd be better off just watching a YouTube video tutorial, they might have some extra tips.

Okay, there are a million tutorials. Oh, this one is specifically for Exploration, which sounds like what I want to do.

Right, I can fly between systems now. Sounds like Exploration can be pretty lucrative if I do it right. 

This is where I really should have stopped. I jumped into the game and had some fun hopping between systems, selling exploration data and trading goods, even getting myself stranded without fuel as I try to roam too far without proper preparation.

Okay, it sucks that I died. I really want to get to Ross 154 so that I can see how it looks now compared to the old game. 

I'll just look at Ross 154 on this wiki to make sure it's still there. Oh cool, there it is. Huh, Aster doesn't have rings like in Frontier. That's disappointing.

Hey, if I want to explore the galaxy I wonder which ship I should be aiming for. Let me watch some videos talking about the best ships for exploration.

Woah, you can customise your ship a lot here. This wiki has recommended builds for the best exploration ship. I should make a note.

I should join the subreddit and see if there's a Discord server I can join. 

Wonder what the review are like for the most recent updates, I should have a look to see what's new and how the community are responding. What's coming in the next update?

Oh, this page has some interesting systems to visit and cool points of interest. Ah, which I hadn't looked, I'd have loved to discover those for myself.

Wait, what I am doing here?

I was externally engaging the fun out of the game. Part of it comes from the fact I don't often have long stretches of time to sit and get immersed in a game, so if I start wondering about an element of the game on my lunch break or in a queue at the post office I can stare at my phone and absorb the game second hand. 

It's compelling, and not necessarily in a good way. I wanted to immerse myself in the experience of being a lone pilot carving a path through space but I've done nothing but surround myself with the achievements and knowledge of others while they tell me which bits of the game they love or hate.

As confessed previously I can be guilty of getting fixated on things.

Luckily I really didn't spoil all that much for myself. I've turned off the tap and committed to playing the game solo from now on. Disconnected. Like I'm 8 years old playing a game that nobody else at my school had ever heard of. No wikis, no discords. 

And that actually feels pretty exciting to me.

I don't think this is a phenomena limited to just me. The fact that so many game wikis and let's plays and discussion platforms exist suggests it's a pretty common urge. The urge to learn from the experience of others makes total sense, but I think it can be a detriment when it comes to our recreation activities. 

As another example, I'm really bad at Chess. Every now and then I feel like I should give it another try. Here's what happens.

• Research the best Chess app to use, one that all the best players use with the best features and most active community.
• Jump into some games and get beaten. I'm still at the stage where my games will go fine until I blunder a piece away. After that I get frustrated and tend to snowball into defeat.
• Watch some good players commentating over their games. I know some of the terms but don't fully understand what they're doing.
• Try to learn some chess theory. Openings, tactics, key lines to look out for.
• Feel like I'm basically trying to learn a solved game. I'll never get to the point where I'm actually good at this. Forget it, I quit.

Repeat every year or so.

And yet sometimes I get to play chess on a board with somebody that isn't a pro player. My partner, Sarah, played chess a lot at school so she'll usually beat me, but I occasionally win and get to hold my own at least most of the time. Maybe she's going easy on me.

This is where I actually enjoy the game. Disconnected from the sprawling community. Outside of wikis and theories. If I wanted to become a tournament chess player I'd probably be better off learning some theory alongside playing the game, but for sheer recreation it can be nice to just let it go.  

What's this got to do with tabletop RPGs?

Now tabletop RPGs are weird and don't follow the same rules as videogames or chess. For example, it's actually much harder to ruin moments of discovery because there isn't a wiki I can read for whatever adventure location you've homebrewed in the week leading up to our game.

So as a player I think you're pretty safe, but I think the pitfalls of External Engagement still exist for a GM.

And that's a topic for the next post.

Intrinsic-Diegetic Design

We're at risk of just layering one bit of jargon on top of another here, but it's helping me focus down on the type of design that I enjoy in games.

I spoke about Diegesis here, but in short:

• Diegetic elements exist within the game world (ie equipment, losing an arm)
• Non-Diegetic elements exist outside of the game world (ie Levels, HP)

There are various subtly different takes on Intrinsic vs Extrinsic rewards in game design, but for the purposes of this post I'm using:

• Intrinsic Engagement: Being engaged with the activity itself. Painting something on a canvas because I enjoy the experience.
• Extrinsic Engagement: Being engaged by rewards or motivation external to the activity. Painting your house because you're paying me.

Of course there are activities that exist between those two poles, but I think you can generally use a "best fit" model here. Likewise you can zoom in on a single part of a game or take a wider angle and consider the game as a whole.

There are elements of the game that are Intrinsically Engaging and Extrinsically Engaging, and there are also both Diegetic and Non-Diegetic elements. How could these look? 

(Vast simplification in parentheses)

Diegetic-Intrinsic: Do it for fun in the game-reality. (World Fun)

Non-Diegetic-Intrinsic: Do it for fun outside of the game-reality. (Game Fun)

Diegetic-Extrinsic: Do it for a reward in the game-reality. (Character Reward)

Non-Diegetic-Extrinsic: Do it for a reward outside of the game-reality. (Player Reward)

Can you sense a two-axis diagram on the horizon?

Using a video game example let's look at a game I constantly look to for inspiration, Zelda: Breath of the Wild. 

A lot of these are best-fit, and have elements in all four quadrants, but I want to drill down to their essence. Climbing to the top of Hyrule Castle nets you a Korok Seed, a very low-value collectable item, but from my perspective I climbed it for the challenge and the view, not for the prospect of a seed. Others might have been motivated by the collectable, but I can only see from my own eyes. 

Think of it this way. If Korok Seeds weren't in the game, would I still have tried climbing to the top of the castle? Definitely. Would I have mined rocks if they weren't useful for selling or crating? No way.

Shield-Surfing is the ultimate example of Diegetic-Intrinsic. It actually leads to a negative extrinsic effect, because it wears down your shield's durability really quickly. You still surf in spite of this because it's so fun. 

Shrine Puzzles fit nicely in the middle because they're usually fun in their own right, but also provide the most significant Extrinsic reward in the game (Spirit Orbs that let you get more health or stamina, including the side-effect of unlocking the Master Sword). Likewise, the reward has both a Diegetic (get a treasure chest, put a monk to rest) and non-Diegetic (abstract numbers go up) side. 

There's a bit of a gap in the Non-Diegetic-Intrinsic quarter. Part of this is that BotW tends towards Diegetic rewards in its design. This is where you might more commonly find your "system mastery" elements where people can find joy in manipulating the game system itself rather than the world. glitchy tricks that "break" the game would fit in here too. Finding a way to clip through a wall to beat a shrine in record-time. 

I've stressed before that Diegetic isn't better than Non-Diegetic and vice versa. Similarly, Intrinsic and Extrinsic Engagement can both be effective in different ways. You only need to look to free-to-play mobile games to see the sheer power that Extrinsic Rewards can have on hooking players. So every quadrant of this diagram is valid for different games, different audiences, different types of engagement. Some of the most popular games combine the two for activities that are both intrinsically engaging and provide an external reward. 

But I've said before that I want to make the sort of games that I enjoy, and I'm not interested in hovering around the middle of the graph. Of course a game will spread its elements across the two axis, but I want to put as much attention as I can into that Intrinsic-Diegetic area. I don't think you can design 100% in this space, especially in tabletop games, so think of it more like a focus. 

It's just a long way of saying I want my games to keep the players involved in what they're currently doing in the game-world, rather than the paperwork on the table and the external rewards that come with their actions. 

I want them to feel like they can stop playing any time, but they don't want to quit. Not because they're worried that they'll lose the time they've invested, but because they just want to play more. Most tellingly, I want them to look back on the game and think of it as time well spent, rather than feeling like they've wasted time in a Skinner-box of mathematical delayed-gratification. 

So what RPG elements fit into that Intrinsic-Diegetic quadrant? This is something I want to dig into later, but as an overview:

• Problem Solving: That moment when you've gathered just enough information to put the pieces together and get a Eureka moment. 
• Learning the World: The player-skill side of OSR dungeon crawling. Learning tricks to safely navigate spaces. There's an argument for this being non-diegetic, as it's linked to the player rather than the character, but it's still rooted in the reality of the game world. You aren't getting better at the system, you're getting better at the world purely through the actions of your character. 
• Talking: Your mileage may vary, but I love talking to NPCs and finding out about them. This often comes with Extrinsic Rewards in the form of a useful connection, but it can be fun on its own too. 
• Exploring: What's around that corner? What is this place? Of course, Treasure is an Extrinsic reward, and I'd definitely put it in my locations, but don't underestimate the innate appeal of exploration when the environment is interesting enough.  

GRIMLITE Playtest Report and Thoughts

Last night saw my first playtest of GRIMLITE. Ram kindly tested out a preliminary version while I was awaiting my minis, but now I'm fully equipped and ready to go.

First some changes I've made to the game.

Free Movement now lets you move any distance (!), with a single vault, climb, or sidestep permitted along the way. The caveat is that any Moves after your first each turn require a roll. If you fail the roll then your opponent can leave you stranded mid-move and you can't attempt to move again this turn. The aim here is to remove the focus on measuring inch by inch, while still creating situations where you leave yourself in a vulnerable position.

Hard Range Limits mean that short range weapons have a range of 6" as always, but long range weapons can now fire any distance over 6" but cannot fire at 6" or less at all. It takes a little getting used to, but I like that it makes a longrifle feel very different to a carbine, not outright better.

Modifiers have been tweaked slightly to help make Touch/Short/Long ranges all feel interesting. Touch weapons now get +1 when attacking an Exhausted or Downed opponent, meaning they can be outright more effective than ranged weapons as long as you pick your target. It also makes choosing who to activate first a tougher decision now. You can charge in with your leader to get a first strike, but they're leaving themselves open to counter charges for the rest of the Round. Recovery has also had its modifier tweaked to +1 for having an ally nearby, rather than allowing you to use the Ally's QL score. It's more consistent with the other actions, which all have a single +1 or -1 modifier, and it makes keeping your grunts together more appealing, which feels right.

Tactics are special powers you can use once per Round. I wanted to give each warband a sort of unifying thing that made them feel different to each other, evens if the individuals were very similar, and I love those Cosmic Encounter style game-breaking abilities. I'm not sure how I feel about these, and they're very much there in draft form, so don't be surprised if they vanish.

Weapon Mods are something I've gone back and forth on in the past. I've tried out the following methods for weapons in this game:

• List of pre-made weapons. 
• Broad weapon types with modifiers you can apply to raise their Attacks or Damage.
• Bespoke weapon creation where you just stat them up and then calculate their cost. 

Now I'm back on a variant of option 2. The issue with the previous modular system is that it was feeding into the idea of build mentality. There were outright better and more cost effective ways to use the combination of base weapon and modifier, so it felt like it was putting too much focus on building your warband well rather than playing well. I realise that builds are always going to be a part of a wargame, but it's not what I wanted the focus to be. Now I have very broad basic weapons you apply modifiers to, but the mods are a lot more specific in their use. There isn't one that just gives you more Damage or more Attacks, they're all situational to some extent. Best of all, they're completely optional, so if you want to keep your warband simple you can use them as little as you like and you're not really missing out on much effectiveness.

With the rules out of the way, let's talk miniatures.

I've really enjoyed assembling and painting these little guys. I used to find painting stressful, trying to make sure my squads looked uniform with each other, being over-faced by a wall of grey plastic, but working with warbands of 5-6 misfits takes a lot of the pressure off. There are some pieces I'm happy with, others I'm merely okay with, but that's fine.

Really I'm leaning into claiming that my style is characterful rather than amateurish. I'm never going to be good at painting details or being especially patient, so my current method is:

• Prime spray black.
• Rough Zenithal Highlighting where I drybrush the model in grey where the light would hit, then drybrush white at the tips where the light would be most focused. This gives a rough greyscale-shaded look as a starting point.
• Base coat the colours I want on there. As I'm going for a sort of Blanchitsu look I'm trying to limit the base coats to one colour. 
• Drybrush to highlight the base colour and pick out the metallic bits.
• Black wash pretty much everything. Been playing with other washes but I've found black works well for the look I'm chasing. Sometimes I'll use different washes on different parts of the model but generally the whole thing gets some form of wash. 
• Pick out a very restrained amount of details, usually things like lenses or eyes. This is usually the only place I allow a more vibrant colour.
• Restrained drybrush of everything with a very bright highlight. Focusing on the edges here. I've played with pure white, white/silver mix, white/blue mix. Whatever it is keep it bright and not too saturated with colour.
• If I hate it then MORE WASHES then another final drybrush highlight.

This technique is all very broad-strokes, so it works for me. I'm not saying I've nailed the John Blanche aesthetic but I think they have a certain charm. As a general goal I'm aiming for "this looks more like something out of an illustration than something out of a videogame"

Let's look at the cast for tonight's battles.

THE RUSTED ORDER

Disciples of decay and entropy, idolising the past and mourning the dead future.

Tactic: Arise - All of your units attempt a Free Recover.

Argastes - Rust Priest (3+)
Corroder(S1x5)
Pick (T1x3)
Assistant: Reroll one Fire or Fight die on your turn. Sacrifice them to ignore one Wound.

The order's miserable leader, always accompanied by his inhuman assistant.

The Bronze Knight (4+)
Ancient Sword (T3x1)
Shield: Reroll a single Resist die once per Turn.

Techno Hunter (Precise 4+)
Longrifle (L1x5)

The loyal lieutenants of the order, both dedicated to hastening the end of existence. 

2 Cyber-Guard (5+)
Voltguns (S3x1)

Not strictly members of the order, but these hired guns will join any cause where they're able to scavenge for rare bits of tech to add to their increasingly mechanical bodies.

THE SPLICE COVEN
AKA the Splice Boys

A cult of personality based around bolstering humanity with alien stock.

Tactic- Farsight: Undo anything that happened so far on this Turn and begin the Turn again.

Dyrak - Splice Prophet (3+)
AKA Sporty Splice
Blaster (S2x1)
Rending Staff (T3x1. If a 6 is rolled x2 Damage)

His alien brain has seen the future, and it mostly involves slicing people in half with his chainsaw-staff.

Warped Engineer (4+)
AKA Posh Splice
Grav Warper (L1x5. Instead of Shock, Move the target d6”)

Reaper Grunt (4+)
AKA Scary Splice
Storm Cannon (L3x1. x2 Attacks if you have not Moved this Turn)

Dyrak's most prized creations. Able to haul heavy weapons, grunt at each other, and mow down enemies of the cause.

3 Spliced Brethren (5+)
AKA Baby Splices
Shotguns (S2x1)

New recruits to the cult. Their helmets hide the fact that their bodies are going through some growing-pains after receiving their first splice. If they survive the battle they might not survive the next step of the splicing process.

BATTLE 1 - RUST HEIST

The Rusted Order seek to capture a cache of genetic information that the Splice Coven have hidden somewhere in their shanty town. The Coven player will secretly note which of the three crates contains the cache, and the Order must try and take it off the board before they take more than 50% casualties.

I was the Splice Coven and Sarah, my partner, was the Rusted Order. This is why my warband has humiliating nicknames and hers are treated with due respect.

Sarah has played RPGs and Boardgames but never a miniature game. This will be a good test of my supposedly simple rules. I left the Tactics out of these first couple of battles to just try out the core of the system.

The heavy gunners set up at the highest point on the board, guarding the (empty) grey box. 

A lone Spliceboy guards the (empty) green box in a more remote corner of the battlefield. 

Dyrak himself guards the blue box, which I've secretly chosen to contain the Cache. He keeps a lackey nearby for support.

Most of the Order set up in cover in a relatively central position.

The Bronze Knight and a lone Cyberguard deploy on the left flank, worryingly close to the blue box that contains the Cache. 

Things got off to a dramatic start. Dyrak leapt to the top of the steps and blasted down at the cyber-guard below, Downing them before they even had a chance to act. On the Shock Table he rolls "Vengeance: The next ally to activate acts as QL2+ against your attacker."

This is a perfect opportunity. The Order's Techno-Hunter scurries to a vantage point and lines up his Long-Rifle with an avenging shot against Dyrak.



A hit! Five damage is nasty, but is rolling at 3+ to resist. This will be fine. He resists four of the damage, taking him Down. Sucks, but at least he's not dead.

Now for the Shock Roll. The roll is a 1... a Killshot.

#RIP

Dyrak's alien brains are blasted across the roof as the sniper scurries back into cover, having successfully avenged his ally.

With their leader dead, the Splicers focus their big guns on the Hunter and his nearby allies. This was a revenge-motivated outburst, and both the Reaper and Engineer were both ineffective against the well-concealed hunter. The Order capitalised on the distraction.

A cyberguard sprinted up the stairs to check the blue box, discovering the Cache in the very first location they checked! He tries to flee back down the stairs but fails his Move roll, stranded at plain sight.

A splicer fires an ineffective shotgun blast at him. At this point I really wish I'd saved my big guns and remembered the objective.

Argastes himself manages to run up to the stranded cyber-guard. The question was asked:

"Can I just pass the objective to this guy?"

I mean it makes narrative sense. We allow it.

Argaste's coat prevented him making good use of the stairs, so we sent his Assistant up there to grab the Cache.

The table edge is in sight. Argastes attempts a final move...

Victory!

 Well, a Round 1 win for the Order. I can confirm that this scenario is bullshit but I only have myself to blame. Of course it's lucky to get the correct box on the first try, but when you have free-movement like this then it's really not ideal to have the entire board edge as the extraction zone. A specific exit point might have made for a more interesting post-grab chase.

But as that was so quick we can at least try a rematch, flipping the roles! I don't mess with the scenario for now.


BATTLE 2 - SPLICE UP YOUR LIFE
AKA SPLICE AGE 2 - MELTDOWN

This time the Splicer strategy is simple. Keep your eyes on the prize.

There are fewer photos from this battle because I am focused.

Reaper Grunt surveys the field from the shipping container as you can see above and releases a hail of bullets on the Cyber Guards that are on the other side of the battlefield, taking one down and killing the other. Things are looking good!

The order mostly spend their turns shuffling their defences around. Dyrak makes a run into the building holding the green box. Argastes is there... Dyrak should totally charge him and use his Ripper-Staff. No! I'm objective-focused this time, he moves to check the Green Box.

It contains the Cache! Do we have a psychic link or are we just very lucky at guessing where this thing is hidden?

He rolls to scramble back down the ladder but fails, leading him stranded at the top.

Argastes springs to life, levelling his Corroder at the Splice Prophet, hitting for 5 damage and...

#RIPAGAIN

You suck Dyrak. But then maybe I shouldn't leave you directly in the sights of the two most powerful guns in the enemy's arsenal. Still, the objective was out!

Argastes strides forward, placing his rusted boot on the objective. To get the Cache the Coven will have to go through him.

The Coven descend en-masse towards the objective. Now fully exposed, the Warped Engineer levels his Grav-Warper towards Argastes and tears his mechanical body to shreds. A Splicer grabs the Cache from amongst the rubble and gore and flees off the board in a somewhat Pyrrhic victory.

This felt much more like a real battle, even though it was still much too short.

Lessons Learned?

• Free Movement works well, but relies a lot on the common sense and sportsmanship of the players. This is something I want to encourage, but I'll work on some guidance for how to make it work. Terrain is also key to this, and it would be interesting to see how it feels on a less dense board. I really like the "roll for your second movement" as a sort of push-your-luck element and there were a few times it created tough choices. 
• Activation Order is much more interesting than I had considered. Choosing well between striking decisively with a powerful unit or holding them back for more reactive action felt incredibly important. I like this!
• Deadliness is strong here. Again, I can't judge too much based on one game, but I feel like most games have measures in place to prevent your leader getting one-shotted. I like that I got punished for putting my leader in dumb positions, but some of it was definitely down to unfortunate rolls.
• Shock only came up twice across the battles, but both cases were pivotal in creating a narrative moment (the Hunter headshotting Dyrak to avenge his fallen ally). I was worried it would feel like a tacked-on bit of clutter to the system, but I really enjoyed the way it felt.
• Scenario design really needs to be catered to the small board and free movement, so I've got a bit of work to do there. 

What's Next?

Now that I'm happy the core is at least playable I'm going to work on some scenarios and see if I can get the Tactics to a point I'm more happy with. 

And next time I'll write about RPGs, I promise.