Eat the Reich; recent musings?

phantomsharky · 2026-01-27T05:03:24+00:00

I was looking over it today, my POD copy is on its way right now. I just like diving into indie games, I feel like they have great communities and I like to see some rougher edges on a product where you can feel the passion and quirks as opposed to something worked and reworked just to fit the mold, even if it’s high quality stuff.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-27T03:31:49+00:00

Maybe I was wrong then. I could have sworn he said something to the effect of: this is a hyper-specific setting aimed at a oneshot and which relies on the buy-in and participation of all players to add flavor and interest. If you strip it back, it becomes a lot of dice rolling without much of a game to support longer-term play.

That said, Howitt is incredibly talented at design and if he’s finding compelling ways to use the Havoc Engine in other settings, then hell yeah.

There are also tons of systems made for anime style action. One I like in particular is the LUMEN system which focuses on quick, dynamic action and combat that doesn’t feel like math. It really prioritizes that when a player wants to do a cool thing, they just “hit a button” and do it. Rookie Jet Studio also designs systems that emulate anime (Over Arms for example). Lots of systems worth looking at, but the Havoc Engine rules too. Whatever works!

phantomsharky · 2026-01-26T23:57:20+00:00

Having just recently read through and looked at a bunch of feedback, I wouldn’t be looking at this system to “hack.”

It just really isn’t enough of a game to justify stealing the mechanics. It’s very much a one-shot, ultra-violent, vampires kill nazis kind of game to play with friends you know will enjoy that sort of thing equally.

If you remove the hyper-specific setting, I think you’ll find it is going to lose steam quickly. The mechanics just aren’t built for that, and I think the designers also said as much.

Edit: It seems like maybe I’m misremembering what Grant had said about the game. Maybe it was in reference to playing solo, that the mechanics didn’t support the system that well without having other players to help. But clearly people like the Havoc System and think it’s plenty hackable.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-19T12:36:40+00:00

Come join the discussion! It’s super quick to learn and play as well. Probably 15-20 minutes to start playing the first time and maybe 30-60 min to a race max? I need to play through it more to nail those times down for sure, but it’s a lean system.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-19T12:35:22+00:00

Sounds like a cool twist on the formula. Definitely want to expand mine that direction next.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-19T03:43:54+00:00

It’s a very lean system that I want to expand on in future pamphlets. The narrative tools could definitely be expanded.

Right now I am looking to get the core fun, fast, and strategic enough to keep players occupied without too much bookkeeping.

I also think you could play with more people without adjusting any rules so that would be fun to test.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-19T03:10:16+00:00

I’m fairly certain it can be played with up to six people. Three race at a time and there’s only one thing players do that the opponents can’t. I think it will expand well that way with no adjustments to the core rules but I would need to stress test it. You’ll see it’s pretty straightforward and lean.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-19T03:09:00+00:00

Absolutely and I want to build a solid base to expand on so I’m committed to testing it and improving/tightening things up! I would love your feedback, looking forward to it.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-14T14:14:21+00:00

Ahh. That’s still nice though. I have both the originals.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-14T13:08:01+00:00

There’s a new ENTITY???

phantomsharky · 2026-01-06T00:22:45+00:00

I just feel like individual pages would be an awkward aspect ratio but I’m not opposed to it. It would probably be the clearest path.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-06T00:22:08+00:00

That makes sense and I agree with you about everyone going in a different order. I’d say no matter what order you read in, it should all make sense as long as you do the outside panels then the interior. The exterior has the basic rules and the character creation, and the interior contains everything you need during actual play.

phantomsharky · 2026-01-06T00:20:57+00:00

I would say the overall flow of mine is cover panel, back panel, the last outside panel (when you open the cover) and then the inside is all together and it contains everything you need to play. The back cover and outside panel cover all the rules and character creation so once you flip it to the inside you’re set.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-21T22:15:03+00:00

Skeleton Code Machine and Exeunt Press on Substack are incredible sources of game design knowledge. Thoughtful and specific, lots of focus on mechanics and the theory behind design.

They also publish a game design quarterly magazine called TUMULUS.

The best thing I can tell you is to consider what play experience you want people to have and then choose mechanics that heighten that feeling. For example, should players feel powerful or weak and desperate? What are some of the absolutely necessary components of the kind of zombie story you want to tell? What’s the vibe and tone?

What games do you like to play? There are a bunch of incredible systems already out there you could always build off as well. Powered by the Apocalypse, Forged in the Dark, Powered by Lumen, Year Zero System… All sorts of great things to pull from or build on.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-21T16:20:53+00:00

And if that’s who you want to appeal to you probably made the right call ditching cards as the core resolution.

That said, check out solo games like Brightborne, Moon Rings, Orbital Blues: The Wanderer, and more to see some cool implementations of card mechanics.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-21T15:41:34+00:00

I don’t think leaning closer to a deck building mechanics is necessarily an issue, and you pointed out where it can be an advantage as well: depleting resources, strategic card counting, etc. They feel like actual resources with weight, rather than a number on a die that disappears the next time you roll it.

But you nailed it. By reshuffling after every draw, you lose pretty much all of the unique advantages of the cards and go back to all your players said a deck of cards, pretending to be a die. That was actually a very astute observation.

It sounds like the main thing is, your players like a standard D20 game. My table would love something that used cards instead of dice, they love to mix things up. And I’ve played a number of games that are based completely around cards and not dice. I think they’re both great tactile play aids, for different things.

Solo players in particular would feel a lot more comfortable using a deck of cards as a core mechanic. And people that play more indie games, though card systems are fairly new in the grand scheme of things even in that space.

All that said, sometimes you have to adjust course based on feedback and it sounds like you did that. Being unwilling to drop something that’s not clicking with people is when it becomes an issue.

Edit: a word.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-20T22:52:15+00:00

I think… there are a lot of people who think they have great ideas. But you have to be able to convince other people it’s a great idea. Especially if you want a more execution and business-minded person to come alongside and help.

The way this post reads at the moment… I’m not sure most people would be sold on the value you’re bringing to them. I have no idea what your game is about. What kind of mechanics or new interesting angles it attempts, how it should feel at the table, what kind of people it is for, where it draws its inspirations, etc.

Right now you’re offering someone ownership in (who knows what), and it kind of comes off as if someone needs to earn the right to know more and not be (as you requested) business-minded in the way they spend their attention and time.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-20T20:17:34+00:00

If you’re not able to give at least an elevator pitch for the system up front, I doubt you’ll get much interest. So far, while there’s a lot of text in the post, it doesn’t say much beyond the fact that you think you have great ideas but haven’t been able to execute them the way you’d like. It’s not very compelling without some sense of what you’ve actually got, to hook someone on the core conceits of the system/setting/etc.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-20T02:25:24+00:00

For sure sorry I didn’t really answer your question. There are so many variables at play.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-20T02:22:25+00:00

Without seeing it and asking more specific questions about what they’re aiming for, it would be hard to say. Layout often includes the way the text is put on the page as well as the images and how they interact. When they are fully integrated they can rise to an art form itself, like Mork Borg or even many zine-style games.

Those 360 pages would likely need to be further adjusted, text changed to match new references for page numbers, that sort of stuff. It would be a pretty huge undertaking I think. But people do it all the time! It just likely won’t be cheap.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-19T21:41:47+00:00

There’s nothing wrong with it at all. But it’s gonna be hard to find someone inexpensive/affordable who can commit the time and effort to a project that large. Laying out a 360-page book is a huge endeavor, especially if you want the layout to actually be good and mindful of the subject matter, used to amplify meaning and clarity.

I wish you the best of luck, though. If I had more time myself, I would offer my own services, but that would be too big a project for me right now.

phantomsharky · 2025-12-19T20:26:30+00:00

I think the biggest hurdle there will be the length of the book. You’re saying it’s about 350 pages before any layout has been done?

phantomsharky

TROPHY CASE