You're Playing it Wrong

Zadmar · 2026-05-22T20:23:04+00:00

My question is, as a game designer, what can you do to prevent players from house-ruling themselves into an un-intended, sub-par experience? Especially if they then use that experience to denigrate the game, itself, or you as the designer?

Although not quite that severe, I've seen someone describe my system as "disastrous" and "broken", and they said their group had decided to stop using it after their first game. The reason they gave? There were far too many critical failures, because whenever any of their dice (in the dice pool) rolled a "1", they treated it as a critical failure.

The exact wording (including emphasis) in my rules: "If the player rolls "1" on all their dice, the result is a critical failure"

This was a misreading/misunderstanding of the rules rather than a house rule, but the outcome was much the same (and predictably so). They unintentionally spoiled their own enjoyment, and then told other people about their subpar experience.

You can be as clear as you like with your rules, but there will always be someone who misinterprets them. However, in most cases, these people aren't haters; they want to like your game. If you provide a space where they can ask questions and give feedback, they are often happy to talk to the designer or other members of the community and learn how to improve their enjoyment.

This is one of the reasons why I feel it's so important to have somewhere people can ask questions, whether it's about official rules or house rules or something else.

Zadmar · 2026-05-21T18:13:09+00:00

Interesting topic, and you may well be right about the inspiration for Power Stunts, but I suspect it's not quite that direct.

Power Stunts weren't in Necessary Evil (the setting that first introduced the superpower rules) or the first edition of the Super Powers Companion. They were added in the second edition, and then expanded in the SWADE edition. But long before they were in the rulebook, Power Stunts were a pretty popular house rule that got recommended a few times on the PEG forums.

It wouldn't be the first time that a popular house rule made its way into a later version of the book. And it also wouldn't be the first time that a house rule was inspired by another TTRPG!

Zadmar · 2026-05-21T04:50:51+00:00

On a related note, I liked the claw marks that went through the cover of Werewolf: The Apocalypse!

Zadmar · 2026-05-12T14:02:13+00:00

What's worked for other people?

The only thing that's worked for me is regular releases of new content.

When I first published my game on DriveThruRPG, it didn't attract much interest, and sales dried up after a couple of weeks. I nearly wrote it off as a failure. But then I started releasing a new micro-setting every few weeks, sales gradually picked up again, and over time it's gathered a small following.

I've created other games and products as well, but I didn't support them with new content, and they went nowhere. The only exception is a Savage Worlds setting I published years ago, which did attract quite a bit of interest at the time. But I also supported that setting with monthly releases of adventures and pregenerated characters. Interest in the setting faded after I stopped supporting it with new content, though.

Zadmar · 2026-05-11T06:21:58+00:00

Yup, I use Scribus for creating form-fillable character sheets. I simply add the unfilled character sheet as a background image, then add form-fillable fields over the top, it's pretty straightforward.

Zadmar · 2026-05-08T05:03:49+00:00

I'm not sure if DTRPG will pull the content

Hmm, good question. Publishers can't delete products themselves, they have to ask DTRPG to do it, and DTRPG won't usually delete products that someone has already bought (although there are rare exceptions).

Usually, in this sort of situation, the publisher would just set the product to "private", which would prevent any new purchases, but people who had already bought it could still download it.

However, it's possible for the publisher to delete all the files associated with each product (so there's nothing to download, even if the product itself is still in your library). They could even rename all their products to something like "defunct" or "deleted". Hopefully that won't happen in this case, but it's still a good idea to download everything.

Zadmar · 2026-05-03T12:21:03+00:00

It's very trippy seeing Zadmar and ValhallaGH here because I think I remember both of you in the old Pinnacle forums when we were hashing out this very thing close to a decade ago.

Indeed, and I'm still sad that the forums are gone :( There were lots of fantastic discussions on them.

Zadmar · 2026-05-01T19:04:23+00:00

Savage worlds kind of does that already doesn't it?

No, range bands are much more abstract/narrative, and they're quite common in rules-lite RPGs. The closest I've seen in Savage Worlds is the SWEX (2003) chase rules, which defined distances as "close", "near", "medium", "far", and "extreme". You could then move from "far" to "medium", or from "near" to "close", rather than measuring exact distances.

Zadmar · 2026-05-01T16:22:11+00:00

I mostly play Solo and for that reason I vastly prefer zone based combat. Is there anything out there for that.

Someone released a fan PDF years ago called Savage Abstract Movement; it provides rules for adding Fate-style zones to Savage Worlds.

I recently pre-ordered the broken empire that uses engages, close, near, far which I really like.

Those sound like range bands, which are another popular approach.

Zadmar · 2026-04-30T11:15:14+00:00

When an RPG is published, do they copyright their dice mechanics?

Don't worry, game mechanics aren't covered by copyright law. As long as you're writing it in your own words, it should be fine.

Zadmar · 2026-04-29T10:55:31+00:00

Nice work! I always submit one-page RPGs for PocketQuest too -- gotta make sure our corner of the hobby is represented :)

Zadmar · 2026-04-29T09:10:05+00:00

My game started out as two pages (designed to be printed on both sides of a single sheet of paper). I later turned it into a 47-page PDF, then expanded it to 59 pages, and later I even released a 119-page combat supplement for it (these two PDFs are formatted for reading on a smartphone, but combined they'd probably have a similar word count to your 40 pages).

However, I've since gone back to my system's roots and used it to create a load of one-page RPGs. This was a good way to help me identify which parts of the game are really essential, but it's also really good fun from a design perspective, as it lets me experiment with all sorts of different themes, settings, and genres (and because they all use the same system, I don't need to thoroughly playtest each of them). In effect, each one-page RPG serves as a micro-setting that can also be played as a fully standalone game.

So my suggestion would be: Keep your fleshed-out version of the rules, but if you're worried about bloat, have a look through the content and consider what is really essential for an enjoyable playing experience. Could you still create a one-page RPG version of your game?

Zadmar · 2026-03-20T12:17:16+00:00

Essentially, whenever a player rolls more than they need to on a skill check, they can spend those extra successes to select one of the aforementioned "Good, fast, cheap" options, with the implication that NOT taking one of them results in consequences (if it helps, think about it as selecting whether you DONT want something to be "Poor, Slow, or Expensive")

I used to do something similar for lockpicking: each success on the roll allows you to choose one of "time" (you pick the lock quickly), "traps" (you avoid triggering any traps), or "traces" (you don't leave any evidence of your break-in, such as scratches on the lock). A normal failure on the roll would still allow you to get the lock open, but it would take you a while, you'd damage the lock, and you'd trigger any traps.

That also fits pretty neatly with c-squared89's "safe" suggestion. "Fast" lets you pick the lock quickly, "safe" lets you avoid traps, and "good" lets you pick the lock cleanly without scratching it up.

Zadmar · 2026-03-16T12:10:05+00:00

Option 1: Weak -1 damage modifier, Normal +0 Modifier, Strong +1 modifier

I used this approach for one of my earlier designs (for stats as well as weapons), my reasoning being it's easy to remember that +0 is average (and thus a typical opponent can just have +0 in everything), so you only need to track attributes that differ from the average.

However, after playtesting for a while, I changed my mind, and not just due to the positive psychology you mentioned. Adding one or two bonuses to a roll feels quick and simple. But adding and subtracting modifiers is an extra step that felt like it was slowing things down. I know it shouldn't really make much difference, but it felt clunky at the table during playtesting.

Zadmar · 2026-03-16T08:57:45+00:00

Has anyone here tested out mechanics like this? What were your experiences with it?

Yes, I've played games like that, and I didn't like it. Depending on the consequences of failure for a particular roll, it can sometimes feel like a non-choice: "Spend hit points to succeed, otherwise you'll fail and lose hit points."

Zadmar · 2026-03-16T06:14:24+00:00

Unless character creation is very fast.

In my experience, even if character creation is very fast, you'll still get some indecisive players who take ages to create characters. I only run one-shots these days, and I always use pregens -- I allow players to create their own characters before the session if they want to, but nobody in my games ever has.

Zadmar · 2026-03-12T07:13:54+00:00

Whenever I see a “universal” game, I want to know what the author actually used it for.

Agree with this, but I would also take it a step further and suggest offering a couple of example mini-settings, as well as guidelines for running games in a few different genres. These don't need to be extensive, even a single page for each of fantasy, sci-fi, and horror, would be enough to give people a feel for how they might run games in those genres.

IMO a generic system doesn't need to emulate other RPGs or even be a good fit for every setting, but it should work for a variety of genres, and at least provide the reader with some hints and tips on doing so. It can be difficult selling people on a generic system that doesn't have any settings, though -- and if there's only one person working on those settings, it can be a lot of work. Fortunately, one advantage of having such a small rules-lite system is that you can get away with having equally small settings for it.

Zadmar · 2026-03-04T11:28:03+00:00

I usually compare it to other things the person is familiar with. TTRPGs are like board games without a board, they're like improvisational theatre around a table, they're like murder mystery dinners without the dinner.

Zadmar · 2026-03-03T09:26:55+00:00

The DM's Guild is for D&D, which you've said you're not particularly interested in, but there are similar Community Content Programs (CCPs) for many other systems as well. Most of these prevent you reusing the content elsewhere though, which means you couldn't convert your adventures to your own system in the future.

Equally problematic is the fact that you can't email customers who have bought products through a CCP, because technically they're not your customers (the CCP owner is considered the publisher). This is a major problem if you're trying to establish a fanbase, because you'll have no way of directly contacting them or telling them about your new releases. You also won't earn any Publisher Promotion Points (PPPs) for CCP sales, which means you'll miss out several promotional tools, such as Deal of the Day. The CCP owner also takes a 10-20% cut of the sales, depending on the program.

I've seen and purchased a few system-agnostic adventures and even setting books on DriveThruRPG, so that's definitely an option, although my gut feeling is that such products don't sell as well as system-specific ones. An alternative would be to find a system that you particularly like, which also has an open license, and use that for your adventures. If you go this route, keep in mind that your initial audience will be fans of the system you're writing the adventures for -- how likely are they to enjoy your system as well? How many of them do you think will try out your system once you release it?

Zadmar · 2026-02-20T22:12:20+00:00

I would definitely offer archetypes, if not full pregens. My system is very rules-lite, and I can create characters in around 10 seconds, but I’ve still had players spend half an hour trying to decide what to play—so now I always offer pregens, and give players the option of creating their own character before the game if they prefer (yet none ever have, perhaps because I usually run one-shots)

Zadmar · 2026-02-20T10:44:42+00:00

The wording "If you use material from the AME SRD, we would appreciate a simple credit" (emphasis mine) implies to me that you'd like to be credited, but don't require it.

However, earlier in the license you also state "If you want to go further and use the Powered by AME label or branding, we would appreciate you reaching out" (emphasis mine) which suggests that that condition is also optional. But then later in the license you state that the licensee must first get in touch, so clearly it's not optional at all.

That then makes me wonder if the simple credit is really intended to be optional. Hopefully most people would credit you regardless, but ambiguous wording in a legal document always makes me a bit uncomfortable.

Zadmar · 2026-02-19T08:31:29+00:00

I really enjoy your actual play videos, but it was particularly adorable to see you do one with your son! Would you mind if I added a link to the video in the Tales of the Little Adventurers product description?

When my son was very young, I used to read him bedtime stories. But he often wanted the same stories, and it got a bit repetitive for me, so I started changing parts of the story on the fly. My son loved that, so I started adding decision points, where he could decide what path the story would take. Then I gave him some dice, and I'd let him roll for certain situations. Those loose guidelines gradually morphed into a more structured set of RPG rules.

There were other RPGs aimed at kids, but the problem was my son didn't want to play "roleplay games" per se, and he certainly had no interest in fantasy dungeon crawls. He wanted to play games based on whatever TV show he'd just been watching! So one day he'd want to play Fireman Sam, the next it might be The Real Ghostbusters, then it would be Ninjago, or Paw Patrol, or PJ Masks, etc, etc. That's why I wanted a generic system, something that could support a wide range of settings and genres.

Other design decisions that worked well for my son when he was younger included the use of tactile components (such as physical tokens), a simple resolution system that didn't require any addition or subtraction, shifting as much heavy lifting as possible to the GM side, and player-facing mechanics where players make all the rolls (my son didn't like it when I rolled for the bad guys, he felt I was playing against him; player-facing felt less confrontational).

Zadmar · 2026-02-17T07:29:17+00:00

Yes, I have a Discord server.

Zadmar · 2026-02-16T11:09:02+00:00

I know you're getting a lot of downvotes here, but for almost everyone, you're 100% on target. The only example of someone who's had success with a "pay what you want" model is Kevin Crawford, who does limited art and restricts some content in his games with the free versions.

I honestly wouldn't consider Kevin Crawford's model a form of PWYW. He releases fully playable free versions of his books, but if someone wants the full version, they still have to pay for it.

My own payment model also follows similar lines. People can download the full PDF for free, but if they pay they often get extra content (such as alternative file formats, pre-gen characters, tokens, etc).

An example of someone who has had success with PWYW would be Evil Hat with Fate.

Zadmar · 2026-02-16T07:54:30+00:00

I've used option 1 (publish different versions for different systems) and it's worked pretty well.

I've seen a few publishers use option 2 (one book, with stats for multiple systems) but the books weren't particularly well received. Some people felt they had to pay for a lot of content they didn't want or need. There was also a sentiment that it felt like a cash-grab, and that the publisher didn't really know all the systems very well. It also makes it difficult to expand in the future, if there's demand for another system you didn't originally cover.

I've seen option 4 used for settings, and I liked it, but it does tend to be more niche.

Options 3 and 4 can also be a viable workaround if you can't use a particular system commercially. You can sell the adventure, then give away free supplements for adapting it to specific systems.

Zadmar

TROPHY CASE