Quarterling’s Corner

I. Introduction GNS theory is dead, but this post on the history of the Forge contains an interesting tidbit: As originally conceived, the rec.games.frp.advocacy threefold was based on the traditional RPG division of responsibilities between players and referees, and was proposed as a means of examining specific decisions on the part of a referee. It recognised three distinct criteria which a referee could use to make a call one way or another: Gamism , whereby the referee makes the call which they consider makes for the best gaming challenge for the players, Dramatism , whereby the referee makes the call which they consider makes for the best dramatic story, and Simulationism , whereby the referee tries to avoid metaplot considerations and come up with the ruling which makes logical sense based on the IC assumptions of the game world. An important point of the original model is that it assumed that people are not, by and large, consistent on this point; sometimes they’d favour syste

This might be the dumbest idea I’ve ever had. Are you tired of three-to-five-letter acronyms such as “TTRPG,” “FKR,” and “PbtA” that are cumbersome to say out loud and convey little to no information about what they actually mean? Say hello to congas!  Congas is a new and fun way to talk about con versation ga mes, or congas for short! A conga is any game where the core mechanic is developing a fictional scenario through conversation. (And yes, before you ask, solo games count too — you’re having a conversation with the prompts the game is giving you!) Congas, as a system of talking about congas, only has three rules: You may only use a single, evocative, plain-language word to describe a genre of congas. Examples : Adventure congas, freeform congas, tactical congas. (Compound words or phrases like “soap opera conga” are permissible if they are sufficiently evocative.) You cannot  elaborate as to what a genre of congas is or means. Your one evocative word is the only means by which you

So after years of trying to design my perfect game, I finally have it in my hands... And what do you know, it turns out it's very similar to Maze Rats . Hell, its name is even made up of synonyms for "Maze" and "Rats." I didn't consciously set out to write a Maze Rats hack. This is just where I ended up. But why did I end up here, and if what I wanted was so similar to Maze Rats, why did I make a new game instead of just playing Maze Rats? I don't see many people talking about the actual rules of Maze Rats, I mostly see them talking about the tables, so this should be an interesting exercise. Similarities Before we analyze differences, let's take a look at what these games have in common. Both games use "control-panel" layout and fit their core rules on a two-page spread. Both games only use six-sided dice. Both games have quick character creation based on rolling PCs randomly. Both games use side initiative: on your side's turn, you ca