Design Review

Design Review: Understanding what makes 5e, 5e

Earlier this year I did an in-depth review of SMRPF (Simple Modifiable Role-Playing Framework), an in-development game by Grey Rocket, which focuses on bringing the feeling of Dungeons & Dragons 5e to a more adaptable generic version for Grey Rocket to build and adapt to his own needs. What was delivered was one of the cleanest in-development game documents I have read to date. If you would like to see the in-development game, you can grab it at: https://greyrocket.itch.io/.

We have all had this dream at some point or another: what if I could make 5e better fit my needs? So, let’s first look into how Grey decided to tackle this by starting where all design reviews start, the game’s pillars.

  1. As simple as possible but as defined as possible.

  2. “A generic system similar to 5e, but simpler, from which I can easily homebrew into any setting.”

  3. Designed to attract players who are new to the ttrpg hobby.

  4.  To keep players experienced with SMRPF interested in playing

Keep it Simple

For the first goal, “as simple as possible…”, remember how I said this was a clean document? The game does this really well overall. There are a few cases I encountered that felt more like suggestions, but that can be cleaned up with language. The rules are laid out systematically and tied well into each other for the core loop of the game. You will need to read the book to actually see what I mean here. As much as I enjoyed reading SMRPF, I think it highlights some of the challenges of trying to base your game off D&D 5e and still preserve the character of 5e. throughout this review I will go over some of the things I think were done poorly in an otherwise great pre-release document, why that might have happened, and what we, as designers, can learn from those mistakes.

Explain When to Roll
While the Skill Checks section in SMRPF was relatively clear cut, the first sentence left the act of “when to use Skill Check” undefined. Here is what is written: “When a character tries to do something, the GM may use a Skill Check to determine if the character succeeds or fails." The use of the words tries and may here leaves a very undefined situation. Rules books should attempt to better define exactly when a mechanic should be used, because the frequency the mechanics are used, shape the feel of the game. 

Determining the pace of calling for a roll is how a designer can control the narrative of how your game is played. Clear indications of when mechanics are used helps ensure the game is played the way it’s meant to be played, as to highlight the themes the designer had in mind. A horror ttrpg might call for dice rolls rarely (because it carries a severe penalty of failure) while ttrpgs where activating character abilities are tied to dice results might call for frequent dice rolls to provoke interesting events. You are the game designer, so you create the framework of fun for the players to explore around or within that mechanical framework. If the text says nothing about when to roll, then the GM and players might over-roll or under-roll based on their assumptions, which might contradict the game’s themes or design goals. Without clear and complete rules on when to make a Skill Check, the game cannot stand on its own. It requires experience playing another game to cover the rules it cannot. In this way SMRPF fails in its goal of being suitable as someone’s first ttrpg. 


Define the Player Characters

The section that really needed more definition in SMRPF was the Character Creation section. The first mechanical sentence: “To create your character, give them a name, a description, any languages they know, their species, their backstory, their allies, and anything unique about them” left me confused with no clear way to resolve it. When I read the above sentence, I would expect the next few sections to explain each of the listed requirements to be explained, instead I found no such explanation for the underlined sections anywhere in the book. While this leads me to believe this is all narrative—without mechanical reinforcement or clearer definition, but, there should still be a description of each explaining such. It’s fine for these aspects to be loosely defined, many ttrpgs do that successfully, but without any understanding of usage, SMRPF needs to rely on other ttrpg rulebooks to support play. For players coming from D&D 5e where these very aspects are more rigidly defined just creates confusion for a SMRPF player.

Examples Reflect Play Expectations

The third thing I want to bring up is a play example in SMRPF. It reads: “Example: A PC wants to jump over a large puddle…” Examples should be representative of what the players will do in the game that would require the mechanic. So, unless jumping over puddles is an exciting and challenging task to the players, skip past them instead. Having representative examples in a rulebook does not just help guide players on what they will be doing, or how to use the rules, it also informs them of appropriate situations to use the rules. So, in the case of the puddle example, and especially since when to call for Skill Checks was so vaguely defined, players are taught to do a Skill Check for all tasks as ordinary as jumping over puddles, and should expect to roll for things of puddle jumping difficulty or greater. 

How Close Should An Adaptation Be?

Dungeons & Dragons 5e is not popular for its raw mechanics. In my experience, players generally do not find it engaging for these aspects in comparison with other systems. D&D 5e’s biggest draw is its holistic approach to exploration. Exploring the unique monsters, reading and imagining the class and race combinations to make your character, and discovering new items that appear in your games. Naturally, any game can have these things, but by copying 5e without capturing what I feel is the character of the game, SMRPF becomes less of an adaptation of D&D 5e and more of a game of its own based on D&D 5e.

Players new to tabletop roleplaying games do not play a game for mechanics. This comes from my experience developing a generic system. They play because of friends playing, because of interesting stories or worlds, or because they can be something really interesting. That is why 5e is really good at attracting new players, because it has a lot of friends already playing. It has a brand of fantasy that is mainstream to understand. A system that is based on 5e hopes to carry over the built-in audience, but if it deviates too far from 5e’s play principals it risks alienating players by defying their expectations of what 5e’s character is. There is nothing wrong with taking your system in its own direction, but you’d need to be aware that you lose the built-in popularity, and instead need to highlight the strength of your mechanics and the potential unique stories that can be told with your system beyond the reach of D&D 5e. It would then be the GMs’ role to attract new players, rather than relying on the built-in audience of D&D 5e.

When making your own games, try to remember these points, so you can ensure your understanding of what makes your favorite game magical is not missed in your development. Especially remember this advice if you, like me, are making a generic system.

This is my second time with the new format so let me know if you like it. If you want more/less depth, examples, or whatever in the comments below. If you like my work, join my mailing list for my own system. Or you can give me a follow on Twitter @c22system or @PagodaGamesLLC on Facebook/Instagram. Also, please go check out the rest of Grey Rocket’s work on his itch.io page: https://greyrocket.itch.io/.

Design Review: Consistency across pages

I had a busy few months but I am back with a vengeance   a need for more cowbell   the inability to write a proper opening.  I have a few blog posts lined up to keep consistent posting again once a month.  I wanted to change the format of my design reviews to allow me to dive deeper into the RPG and provide more examples we can all learn from when making our own.

Late 2022 and early 2023 I took an in depth look at Ruins of Past Glory, a tabletop RPG about the thrill of survival and the power of relationships developed by Elo Lewis. Right off the bat I liked the first page.  It had a clear format and appropriately set my expectations for the rest of the book.

Looking at the image on the right. We can see the game pillars right in the first paragraph.  Then we have framing for the world below on the left.  That is followed by what dice and tools we need clearly listed with the structural framing on the right.




While this framing stayed at this level consistently for each page, the connection across pages and the flow from page to page needed some clarifications. I can see that the skeleton for what Elo wants is there, but I am missing understanding of how some of the mechanics interact together.  Examples would go a long way. From the first sentences we can easily see the goals of Ruins of Past Glory. 

“Ruins of Past Glory is a speculative fiction storytelling game about people taking risks, forging bonds, and turning trauma into strength. Play as relatable people in tense and uncertain situations.”

From that sentence we see the goals are threefold: Encouraging people to take risks, Bonding with other characters, turning trauma into strength.

The first and the third tie well together. There is a system of failure that rewards trying something and grants strength, but I want it to be clearer. Scattered in three sections of the book, we have the explanation of Stress, which creates Experience when you roll under your current Stress, Experience, which can be spent to gain power (from improved Approaches) or learn new Lessons, Potentials which limit your growth and force your character to retire.  The connection between these three mechanics is not explicitly stated nor is an example provided.  It took me a few reads to completely understand the implications of the mechanics and how they work together.  Since this “trauma into strength” is such an important aspect of the game, it should be clearer. Also maybe Stress should just be called Trauma to help the reader make that connection better. 


Now touching on the “Encourage people to take risks'' goal.  The previously discussed reward of failure is encouraging and makes failures not a bad thing. Without playing the game, I do think that the chance of failure is a bit too high in some cases. MATH ALERT. 

This is a roll under system where you roll equal to or under your approach. Everyone starts at 1 in every approach, gets 2 in 8, and 3 and 3 of them. The core mechanic has you rolling 1d6 so in 16/27 approaches you have an 18% chance to succeed, In 8/27 approaches you have a 33% chance and in 3, you have a 50% chance. With the goals of characters cycling in and out of a campaign, a lot of time will be spent in this mathematical state.  How often would you want to attempt actions that you only have a 18% chance to succeed? 33%? 50%?  Rarely, Not too often, and sometimes, in that order. 

My general suggestion would be to change everything to a 2d6 system, keep the same setup but start everyone at a 5 with the same approach leveling up mechanic.  This would change your success rates to 27.5% for most approaches, 41.5% for your skilled approaches, and 58.5% for your expert approaches. Still similar, but the untrained approaches are significantly higher which should make them more encouraging to use. This also has the benefit of granting slightly more growth opportunities and a more interesting growth curve (+1 -> 72.5%, +2 -> 83.5%). This change has not been adopted and ultimately Elo knows more about his system and what he wants out of it than I do.

[Math alert ends]


For the second goal, bonding with other characters, I had a similar issue of not having enough information to completely understand this mechanic. So here is a reminder for everyone.  If the mechanic is one of your pillars, make sure its use and importance is clear throughout the rules. Regarding this particular mechanic, there is exactly one paragraph for the player describing Bonds.  I copied it below for your viewing understanding.

 
 

There is an entire section about the use of bonds through interactions, buried within another section, but I am left with the question of what is a bond?  How does it advance?  How many can I have? I think the entire bond section could be given another paragraph explaining this, and then referencing the interactions section later by stating that is how you use bonds.  I believe some formatting changes and layout changes were made that made Bonds much more prevalent in the book.


Ultimately what we can learn from this game, for our own, is the importance of including the right amount of depth and prevalence of our core mechanics throughout the book.  For Bonds in Ruins of Past Glory, we only have it listed in a few places and the rules for it in its main section are not sufficient. For anything that is your core pillar, give it its own page, discuss it in detail, and provide some examples.  Next we can understand the importance of flow between sections.  There is a simple thing you can do to check for this, read across sections and pages when editing.  Make sure you have the right concluding paragraphs with appropriate transitions and you are good to go.

Some of the suggestions above will take some time for Elo to implement, large structural changes are not easy, but the goal should be to get the game ready for players as soon as possible so, the fastest method to that end would be to add a few examples.  Examples were severely lacking in Ruins of Past Glory but would greatly help readers connect the various mechanics across different pages. Once you and other players are playing the game, major system changes sometimes cause section to be removed so it is just more efficient to make major structural changes after major playtesting.


That wraps up this review. Let me know if you like the new format more, if you want more/less depth, examples, or whatever in the comments below. If you like my work, join my discord(https://discord.gg/VQ3UM36Bjp), or join my mailing list for my own system. Or you can give me a follow on Twitter @c22system or @PagodaGamesLLC on Facebook/Instagram.


Design Review: Write Confidently

This week I took a look a COGS, a Collaborative One-shot, Generala System, made by Sage Beroff.  You can follow them and this game on Twitter @Scribblegs. COGS is a rules light universal role-playing game with a fun and unique dice mechanic that will keep each action exciting for a few seconds longer.

Now, before we start, I need to admit some biases.  Rules light games are generally not my jam, as I usually finish reading the systems wondering “where is the rest of the game?” Keep that in mind when you read this post. While reading COGS, I was not left wondering where the rest of the game was, but I was still left wanting more defined.  Therefore, based on what I said earlier, COGS is definitively a rules light system.

At only 4 pages of core rules and 2 pages of optional rules, this game is small, but has a good core to work around. The core resolution mechanic involves rolling 5 6-sided dice and forming poker hand like combinations, with less probable configurations granting a better success on the check. The players define their traits and items that make up their character, then they can invoke these traits and items when relevant to reroll any number of dice.  That is it. I think it is simple and unique and makes this a worthwhile game to try out for your next one shot. 

My only concern system-wise, is that rules light systems traditionally pride themselves on “getting out of the way of the story”, while this resolution system is pretty involved; it will not be getting out of anyone’s way. Not to say that is a bad thing, breaking tradition is sometimes necessary for innovation.

Now, for game designers, let’s talk about the main feedback I had for the system and what we can all learn as we continue to make our games: confidence. While reading COGS I was confronted with unclear rules, especially in the first two pages.  They were unclear because they lacked confidence.  When you write your game, remember, you are the game designer.  This means you tell me how your game is played, not what you suggest might be kinda good and ok to use with your game, if the players feel like it.  You might say that it is actually the GM’s game or the players’ game, or it belongs to everyone. Did they write all the rules? No, you did.  Confidence in your writing will translate to their table in clarity for how the game is meant to be run, then when they have confidence in your system, they can make the change necessary to make it fit their style.  Without that initial confidence, they will never know if they are playing the game right in the first place.

So, let’s talk about some ways we can write more confidently.  While we all understand that the game at the ruling on the table is ultimately up to the GM and the players, it is important to clearly state what the rule is. Try to avoid language that suggests alternate ways of playing the game without mentioning those ways of playing are optional or alternate.  Keep suggestions for alternate or additional ways of playing to a minimum in the core rules. Finally, be clear in what you state as necessary aspects of your game.

What are some things you have seen in games you have read or games you are making that was confidently and clearly written?  Did that help you understand the game better? As always, if you like what I am doing, follow me on Twitter @c22system or join my Discord (https://discord.gg/gAJpjZXuYq).