Presentation

Is it all about presentation? In my previous post (rant) I mentioned wanting a game with a greater emphasis on role-play (I actually said, "theater of the mind") than combat, or a game that at least provides as many mechanical tools for this activity as it does for combat. I also mentioned that the Powered By the Apocalypse games might do this.

Powered By the Apocalypse is a game engine, in the same way that Dungeons and Dragons is a game engine. It establishes a way to play, and many games are built around that baseline. There are a lot of Powered By the Apocalypse games out there. It's a game approach that seems to care more about story beats than wargame tactics. I said, "seems to" because I've never managed to play a PbtA game.

In fact, I have yet to fully read a game that is Powered By the Apocalypse cover to cover. The way that these games are presented gets in my way. The lists of moves seem to clutter the texts and I find them cumbersome. It's not fair, but it's a thing that is. I still want to fully digest and review a PbtA game. I have my eyes on Chasing Adventure. It has an appealing presentation, and it's free, but for now, so far, PbtA games have eluded me. (Maybe because I started with Dungeon World? My understanding from some reviews that I have read is that it can be difficult to parse.)

  

  

Trouble getting through the text means that I don't get the game to my table. With my current project: Little Colony, I received a very negative response to my game rules. However, I have known my group to be pretty supportive and willing to try new things. So, I made some changes to the way some ideas were presented, to how things were worded, and we are back on track to another play test. (They also raised some valid concerns that led to some rules improvements.)

A bad presentation can kill a design. If players think that things are going to play differently than you intend, or they just can't trudge their way through your text, you've got a problem. In my case, I tend to be concise. I don't like tons of descriptive text that prevents me from grabbing onto the mechanical parts of a game. I feel like all that lore that you want to write is best when it can be inferred from the mechanics. (And if you need to write it, put it in the back of the book.)

My problem was using terminology and phrasing that created misconceptions. My readers saw a game where their characters couldn't do anything without "paying" for the privilege with their resources. This was perceived as being very restrictive. (While resource management is at the core of the task resolution system that I am working on, it should in practice be no more restrictive than rolling a die.)

I decided to rewrite things so that spending player resources was presented more like "rolling a die." This seemed to help. I addressed a few other concerns with some new rules (which I believe were needed and do improve the game) and as I said, we are on track for another play test. That's not to say that everything is perfect. My players are still dubious of an RPG without randomizers, but they are on board to try.

That's a win.