Trying to unpack what I’m thinking

I.

Ruins & Rogues v2024_2 has a bug. Not something I'm just unhappy with, but something that straight up doesn't work as I intended it.

I had in my head that monsters would be knocked out when they are reduced to exactly 0 Guard and 1 Health, but rules-as-written that is not what happens.

I probably would have realized this was broken had I not been in such a rush to upload something that would fix v2024's broken combat. And I probably would have realized the combat was broken in v2024 had I done more playtesting before release.

The problem is that I constantly feel pressure to keep updating the game because I have some twisted idea that, if I don't update it, people will think I'm a worse designer than I actually am. I know better now! The game has to reflect the very best of my design ability at all times!

I'm not going to do that anymore. The game is not me. I need to let the damn thing go, at least long enough that when I come back to it I can see it with fresh eyes.

II.

I think I'm finally getting sick of the whole "you're treasure hunters who all want treasure for different reasons" thing.

I was attracted to the treasure-hunter framework because I like level design and I wanted to design a lot of levels focused on players trying to collect treasure.

But treasure-focused dungeons are all starting to blend together, for me. You need to justify why there's treasure there in the first place and why the PCs think there will be treasure there, which leads to a situation where nearly every dungeon is a tomb or some sort of sorcerer's or dragon's or vampire's hoard.

I want to design levels that feel dramatically different from each other, and it feels creatively stifling to squeeze all my ideas into tombs and lairs.

At the same time, R&R playtesting seems to show that the different goals PCs can start with, in practice, boil down to "the PCs with noble goals vs. the PCs who are selfish and just want treasure." And does anyone really want to play as the selfish PCs? Is it dramatically interesting to religitate "selfishness is bad" over and over?

III.

I've been thinking about how Cairn handles treasure. In Cairn, unlike most variants of O/NSR D&D, treasure is not an end unto itself. Instead, the game's Build an Adventure Site guidance advises: "Look on the map and think of who would want treasure, and what kind."

In other words, treasure in Cairn is not a source of XP: it is a resource for manipulating factions. You get the factions to do what you want by trading them the treasures they want.

But what do the PCs want factions to do in Cairn? The game leaves this entirely up to the players. Adventures probably assume that the players will want to help local townsfolk with their problems, as is D&D tradition, but what they do with the rewards is up to them.

This is a very open and freeing approach to sandbox play. I like how it shifts the emphasis of the game onto faction play and solving complex social problems. But there are a few things I still don't like about it:

1. Without a prompt as to what my character wants, I have little knowledge of who my character is and how to role-play them.
2. The campaign has no clear end-point. When will the game end? Will it just fizzle out when we've all gotten bored of it? That doesn't sound very satisfying.
3. How am I supposed to design a satisfying level if I don't have a clear idea of what the PCs will want out of the level? Most players know how to act like adventurers and follow adventure hooks, but then I'm stuck with designing levels with familiar hooks.

IV.

I've also been thinking about matrix games, which start with a problem and end when the problem is resolved.

What if I designed an RPG with adventures that work the same way? The campaign starts with a problem. The campaign ends when the PCs resolve the problem.

Suddenly I have a lot of flexibility. I can say: "A tyrant is attacking a forest. The campaign will end when you save the forest." Or I can say, "You have a colossal debt. The campaign will end when you pay it off." To refer back to the points above...

1. Now my character is not just some vague adventurer type, but someone in a party with a specific goal. I can begin to imagine what sort of person would be in this situation and want to solve this problem.
2. Now the campaign has an endpoint. A "victory condition," if you will. It has something for me to work toward and I'll know for sure when it's over.
3. I can design levels purely around collecting treasure or I can design levels around resolving complex social problems. I can throw my players into any scenario because I have control over what problem they're trying to solve.

V.

Do these games really need combat rules?

Everybody knows that not fighting the monsters and making alliances and negotiating with them is more fun, right? At least it is for me. So why is combat still there at all when we've had "if you try to fight something, you lose" as an alternative since Cthulhu Dark?

I think I want to make a complete break from all the HP budgeting and inventory tracking of D&D: the classic risk/reward decision loop of "press forward for more treasure or turn back and heal up." It's fun and all but I don't think it's what conversation games do best.

No, what conversation games do best is conversation. And that means moving away from combat encounter design and moving toward social encounter design.

BASIC RULES

1. The campaign starts with a problem. The campaign ends when you and your party resolve the problem.
2. When you want to do something risky or uncertain, the GM sets a target number at 6 (easy), 8 (normal), or 10 (hard). To commit to your action, roll 2d6. If the total result is greater than or equal to the target number, you get what you want from the action; otherwise, something goes wrong.
3. You're not trained to fight. In a direct fight, you lose. If you try to fend off or escape from an opponent, roll the dice to see what happens.