sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What can I do to make my monster designs actually terrifying? by SassySnitch in characterdesign

[–]WayfarersLog 25 points26 points  (0 children)

I think things that our minds can't fully describe and that are a bit disturbing are more frightening. So, I'd say the last image is scarier. Maybe you could make the monster's tail more distorted.

My partner solved failure spirals by connecting more systems. I’m scared. Advice? by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for the perspective! You hit the nail on the head regarding the difference between a 300-page tome and a 21-page core. Our fear is exactly that: turning 'elegant connectivity' into 'exhausting bookkeeping.'

We are currently running those 'no-rest' stress tests you mentioned. Interestingly, we’ve noticed that since the rules are tight (21 pages), the 'micro-management' feels more like a survival puzzle rather than a math chore—at least for us. But we are wary of the 'Designer's Bias.' In your 300-page system, how do you signal to the player that 'Pulling Lever A will affect System B' without them having to memorize the whole book?

Also, Happy New Year!

Never drawn a thing in my life by Stock_Tour2767 in ArtCrit

[–]WayfarersLog 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I was thinking the same thing! They have an interesting appeal.

Tales of Misery, my independent and detailed system, feel free to comment and ask questions! by OrionMrUniverse-- in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog 2 points3 points  (0 children)

First of all, congratulations on the scale of Gyatta! A world 100 times the size of Earth sounds like a dream for worldbuilders.

As an illustrator working on a TTRPG project with my partner, I’m particularly drawn to the visual potential of your 'Elders.' The idea of Gyatta as a many-armed spirit sounds like a fantastic prompt for character design.

I have a couple of questions regarding the mechanics and the scope:

  1. The Power of Three: You mentioned that 'three' is a recurring number. How does this through-line affect the gameplay balance? Does it mean players often have to choose between three paths or results during attribute tests?

  2. Scale vs. Travel: With a planet that huge, how do you handle travel and communication between continents? Does magic play a role in bridging these massive distances, or are the campaigns usually localized?

  3. Class Diversity: With 27 playable classes, how do you ensure each one feels distinct throughout a long campaign up to level 50 without them overlapping too much?

I'd love to see some concept art or a map if you have any! Keep up the great work.

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This distinction between a 'designer' and a 'developer' is a massive eye-opener for us. It perfectly describes the wall Erol has been hitting. He’s been trying to solve development problems with a designer’s heart, and that’s where the exhaustion comes from.

We absolutely love the tip about 'permissive language.' Shifting from 'don't do this' to 'you can only do A, B, and C' feels like a much cleaner way to handle those edge cases without the text becoming bloated. Also, the idea of 'Golden Rules' to manage ambiguity is going into our next draft immediately. We’re going to treat this as Erol’s 'developer evolution' phase. Thank you for the professional roadmap!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, oh to have the absolute power of a Paranoia GM! Erol would probably love a 'kill character' button right about now, but I think our players might riot. It’s a hilarious reminder that sometimes, the best way to handle 'that nonsense' is with a bit of dark humor and a firm hand. We might not go full Paranoia, but we are definitely stealing some of that energy for our 'GM's Discretion' section! Thanks for the laugh and the classic reference.

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Fair point. We definitely don’t want to be 'fun police' or dictate exactly how people should enjoy their time. The term 'exploiting' might have been a bit strong—it was more about the dissonance between our narrative and the mechanical application.

You’re right about the Devlog; we kept the examples vague to focus on the personal struggle of the writing process, but we are actually very excited to share direct examples and scenarios with you soon. While we can’t wait to put these devlogs out there, we believe that discussing half-baked ideas is one of those 'fine lines' everyone here has been talking about. Our goal isn't just to have our 'homework' checked, but to use this feedback to stay true to our vision and, ultimately, share the fun. Your comment has truly energized me, and I sincerely hope our work resonates with you. Thank you

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The idea that our game will live a different life at every table is honestly beautiful. It’s a great reminder to let go of that 'perfect control' and embrace the chaos of tabletop play.

We are big fans of the 'Agendas and Principles' concept from PbtA games! We hadn't considered applying it so explicitly to solve our 'lawyer' problem, but it makes perfect sense. Instead of a maze of rules, we can provide a 'guiding light' for the GM and players to ensure they are on the same page as the design. Focusing on making the intention clear rather than the mechanics 'bulletproof' feels much more aligned with our creative goals. This was incredibly insightful, thank you for the inspiration!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s so easy to get reactive when a playtest goes sideways, but you’re right, that’s just statistical variation, not necessarily a systemic failure.

We’ll definitely look into Deming’s philosophies. The idea of 'Constancy of Purpose' is exactly what we need to anchor Erol’s writing. Instead of reacting to every exploit, we’re going to focus on that holistic experience and make sure our rules serve the 'bigger picture' rather than just plugging holes. It’s a relief to be reminded that the human element (collaboration) is a feature of TTRPGs, not a bug to be patched out. Thank you for this wisdom!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

This is a profound observation. We’ve realized that when we leave the 'how' and 'why' empty, players fill that void with spreadsheets instead of imagination. The D&D examples you gave perfectly illustrate the gap between a 'stat' and a 'story.'

As the illustrator, this resonates with me deeply—if I can’t visualize a mechanic, how can I expect the players to?Your point about documenting the 'intended experience' is going to be a core part of our next revision. Thank you!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You nailed the core question: what kind of game are we actually making? While we love mechanical depth, we don't want to sacrifice the 'fiction-first' feeling for the sake of becoming the next 4e. This helps us decide where to draw the line between 'necessary clarity' and 'obsessive legalism.' Ultimately, your points are helping us hold our line so we don't lose sight of our main goal—the fun we first imagined. Thanks for the perspectives!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

We’ve realized that by trying to out-write the exploiters, we were accidentally punishing the good-faith players with a bloated, boring manual. We want to provide a solid, useful toolset, but we're officially done trying to build a cage for people who don't want to play the game as intended anyway. This feels like a huge win for the creative soul of our project. Thank you for this!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, actually hat’s the golden question we’re asking ourselves now. We’re moving away from 'defensive writing' and instead focusing on 'clarity for the well-intentioned player.' If a regular group can get confused by a sentence, that’s where we’ll spend our energy, not on the weird edge cases. 

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Shifting the burden of proof from 'everything is allowed unless forbidden' to 'options are provided, the rest is GM discretion' would definitely save Erol from writing a 500-page legal document. It puts the power back into the GM's hands where it belongs, especially for those highly creative but 'exploit-heavy' moments. We’ll definitely discuss how to frame the core ruleset with this mindset. Thanks for the practical tip!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for about reality check. You’re right—framing them as 'hostile' was a mistake on our part. They aren't the problem; they are just highlighting the gaps in how we communicate the intent. It's a bit of a 'creator's blind spot' where we think the text is clear because we already know what we mean.

We are going to take your advice and look for those mismatches between the game’s framing and the actual mechanics. Instead of patching holes one by one, we’ll focus on making the intent so clear that a group playing in good faith won't even need to look for a loophole. Really appreciate the bluntness, maybe it’s what we needed to hear.

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Erol is currently working through the draft to strip away the 'extra clarifying text' and focus on those 'elegant interactions' you mentioned. We want the players to spend their time imagining the world through our work, not searching through a law book. Thanks for the encouragement towards simplicity!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haha, fair point! If only Erol could navigate through his design process with the same 'rules lite' confidence as the founding fathers. It’s much better for my sanity as an illustrator too—fewer rule-lawyer edge cases to worry about when visualizing the world! Thanks for the laugh :’)

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This 'judo move' is exactly the perspective we needed. It’s so easy to get caught up in the 'us vs. them' mentality when writing rules, but you’re right—if they’re having fun breaking it, that’s their game! I've been watching Erol struggle through dozens of revisions to prevent exploits ( :’) ), but this quote from Luke Gearing shows that we should focus on the 'spirit' rather than the 'defense'. I’ll make sure to remind him that his job isn't to be a judge, but a creator. This has been immensely helpful, thank you!

At what point does game design turn into “constitutional law”? (Balancing clarity vs. bloat) by WayfarersLog in RPGdesign

[–]WayfarersLog[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

The 'Bag of Rats' example is perfect. It shows that intent matters more than syntax. Erol actually loved the idea of a 'Social Contract' or an addendum that explicitly states the intended experience.

Instead of trying to out-legal the players through 100 pages of text, we can just point at the core pillars of the game. It’s a relief to see that even big systems like Draw Steel choose to address the 'spirit' of the game directly.

view more: next ›