Diary of a Failed Game Designer

A new method, for me any way. My method for  working on Shards of Timbral has been altogether different from how I have approached past projects. Usually I have a strong goal concerning how the game should play. I think to myself "What kind of experience at the table will best support the concept I'm currently working with". For example when I'm working on Loot Box, I know the game has to move quickly, but have enough tactical weight that it would be critical to know what each player did and when. Once I had that in mind I designed towards that set of criteria. And by design I mean a very deliberate process. This time what I am trying is to be less deliberate. I have a big spiral notebook and every day if I have an idea that relates to the game, no matter how far fetched, I write it down. So the notebook has scrawlings all over it now that say things like  "Hit points in three section... level up gets 1d6 each section..." Interspersed with  descriptive notes

Continued from here: When I start working on Shards of Timbral again  this will be the  mechanic: Roll 1d20 + an attribute Vs  a difficulty number set by the  GM or by  the rules of the game depending on situation.  If the roll is equal to or higher then the  difficulty number the action succedes. If a skill can be applied to the action roll a skill die along with the  d20. If the skill die result is a 1 the roll automatically succeeds. That's it. Nothing  else mechanically to determine success or failure of an action. there is nothing  inherently new as far as the mechanic goes. What is new for me is the idea that I will not hang anything else off of that mechanic. It is simply pass fail. There are no critical failures for rolling badly, no critical success rules. My Hope: I hope (and again it's not new in game design for sure.) is that players will be liberated by this kind of fire and forget die system. Liberated in that the system will not direct how they interact with the

From the pages of Rolderic The Bard. "Once in every five years the  bards hold a moot, a gathering if you will. It is here that we swap information, stories, and do the business inherent of our trade. Last summers moot was no different than any other, a few fine fall days on a hillside encamped with a number of like minded and talented souls. Let me assure you there is  much merriment mixed with the business as bardic schools compete in the  ways of instrument, verse and voice. I say all was normal last moot, and I do not lie up until the  moment Roderic arrived. A bard in title yes. Infact he was once a talented voice crafter, but he has disappeared on a journey far to the north. Few recognized fair Rolderic as he entered the moot.  A sight that was such, one of our less hardy members (Jalarad Birdboned) fainted straight away. Shirtless, Painted and tattooed, a shaved head, a vast dark beard woven with strange bits of cloth, he rode. And ride he did! Roleric rode atop a great sna

When the dice hit the table how much interpretation is too much? In many RPG games a player will roll D(  fill in a number her e ) add some bonuses and if the result is over a target number the action is a success. It is common because it works.         Where even similar systems start to differentiate is in how much information is interpreted from the  die roll. Infact different players of the same game might interpret dice differently as it implies to what going on in the  game fiction. One player might say, "I hit! Here's my damage roll." and be done with it. Another player might say, "I rolled very high and hit by a mile, got him right in the face! Here's my damage roll." It's' a subtle difference, and while mechanicaly it still ends with a damage roll, the dialogue at the table is different. I believe that RPG's are at their best when the  GM and the players use the  following structure. The Player says I want my character to achieve X. The