I stand by my original review - this is a fantastic piece of work both from a game design and layout standpoint.
However, something came up in my mind as a critique that I wanted to think through out loud. This is very nitpicky, but in the spirit of sharing thoughts about game design, I think it’s worth mentioning.
One misgiving I have is that Rock-Paper-Scissors is historically, for most people, a purely adversarial game. It's very much a "finite game" - you win, I lose - and it always feels at least a little bad to lose or quite bad, if you end up on the wrong side of a losing streak. This is very much in contrast to how RPG story games are typically played as more "infinite games" that try to minimize the feeling of a zero-sum "I win, you lose" experience. With that style of zero-sum experience being the heart of the resolution mechanic I suspect many people may instinctively carry over the sentiment of “it's me vs. the GM" to win the R-P-S throw to get what they want to happen. It's subtle, but it seems likely that many people might have that feeling in their mind as they're throwing out their hand, based on years of playing R-P-S adversarially.
Rock-Paper-Scissors still seems like the obvious and elegant choice for this resolution system because it's always available with no extra supplies and almost everyone is familiar with how to play. What I’m pointing out seems like a distilled version of the “system matters” conversation that happens around different games.
There's little space to spare in the document because you were so skillfully economical with the layout, but I wonder if there's an opportunity to slip in a disclaimer/reminder that even though R-P-S is a win/lose game, RPG story games are a collaborative experience first and foremost rather than the typical win/lose experience of most games.
I believe it is not a system issue but a people issue. Some will always instinctively react negatively to losing a roll or move, rather than seeing it as a narrative opportunity. Whatever the system, a loss state will always exist.
It's one of those things you always encounter as a GM. Having to remind people that they are supposed to be having fun, and that there is fun to be have in flaws, setbacks, mistakes and failures.
I'm not certain there is enough space in this format to lecture GMs on how to help people have fun. However, since the goal is to get people to play in the first place, there might be something to it.
Really simple and quick rules, could start right now with no preparation, and sitll have fun. But I have a question about fighting. When would players get hit? Does the monster automaticly hit the player? Or the player could get a chance to dodge or defend (by the rock-paper game)? Or if the player lost their attack, they automaticly get hit?
When it's the monster's turn (after the players), it can act and use its abilities or it can attack by doing rockpaper. The player still win/dodge if there is a tie (unless specified otherwise, like with the horse or enchanted knife).
Thank you for noticing this unclear ruling. I will write it more clearly.
Hey Clément, This is sooo cool. I got here through the article you were featured in on Polygon and want to use your booklet to introduce light DnD to my kids.
Since you're french, is there any chance you're planning on releasing a french version too ? That would be awesome.
This is absolutely brilliant!!! Will be trying it out this week. From your pictures it looks like you might have a booklet version of the rules? Any chance on dropping that pdf as well? Would love to be able to print and staple
The file itself has not changed since the 3th, only some text in the web page.
For next time: If you purchased it, there should be a "you already own this" bar at the top of the page. But if not, you can always download it for free, without buying it again. Click on "Download now" Then click the grey line "No thanks, just take me to the downloads page" without buying it again.
This is a great tool, and an excellent way to just start playing mid conversation. I don't generally have time for full games, only quick thought provoking scenes. Even without the rules, you could simply read these scenarios out loud to someone completely uninterested in roleplay and at least have a discussion.
Your rule says players have 10HP to devide amongst them, say there are 2 players and 1 DM. Does that mean each gets 5HP or do you just mean all players have 10HP and 3 skills as starter?
Love this! Really enjoying the abridged rules and openness. Fantastic design too!
Question: could you explain the Nested Hit Dice a bit further? So before, say, attacking the heart of an owlbear, players need to figure out ways to counteract the eyes, claws, beak, and skin in that order?
No. You don't have to counteract every part of a monster. Say you fight a bear in real life: you don't need to cut its arms off before piercing its heart or head.
So, same thing here. You want to destroy their core, but its protected by a thick layer of skin. (plus its hidden, not in plain view) But you cannot start tearing it down with arrows, because of the eyes ability. It will dodge.
So first, you have to gouge its eyes out, or remain on close contact. Once there, you can spend a few turn hacking at its skin, to get to a vital part later. Or you can maim its claws or beak, so you are not constantly being attack.
But you don't have to, you can focus on the protective skin, and then just kill it by poking its heart.
A black bar tells that each section next to it is protected by the one above the bar.
Hey, this is great! This would be great for gaming on the go especially. And, I'll ask instead of just launching into it, mind if I give some pointers on the english and grammar?
← Return to role-playing game
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
I stand by my original review - this is a fantastic piece of work both from a game design and layout standpoint.
However, something came up in my mind as a critique that I wanted to think through out loud. This is very nitpicky, but in the spirit of sharing thoughts about game design, I think it’s worth mentioning. One misgiving I have is that Rock-Paper-Scissors is historically, for most people, a purely adversarial game. It's very much a "finite game" - you win, I lose - and it always feels at least a little bad to lose or quite bad, if you end up on the wrong side of a losing streak. This is very much in contrast to how RPG story games are typically played as more "infinite games" that try to minimize the feeling of a zero-sum "I win, you lose" experience. With that style of zero-sum experience being the heart of the resolution mechanic I suspect many people may instinctively carry over the sentiment of “it's me vs. the GM" to win the R-P-S throw to get what they want to happen. It's subtle, but it seems likely that many people might have that feeling in their mind as they're throwing out their hand, based on years of playing R-P-S adversarially.
Rock-Paper-Scissors still seems like the obvious and elegant choice for this resolution system because it's always available with no extra supplies and almost everyone is familiar with how to play. What I’m pointing out seems like a distilled version of the “system matters” conversation that happens around different games.
There's little space to spare in the document because you were so skillfully economical with the layout, but I wonder if there's an opportunity to slip in a disclaimer/reminder that even though R-P-S is a win/lose game, RPG story games are a collaborative experience first and foremost rather than the typical win/lose experience of most games.
I believe it is not a system issue but a people issue. Some will always instinctively react negatively to losing a roll or move, rather than seeing it as a narrative opportunity. Whatever the system, a loss state will always exist.
It's one of those things you always encounter as a GM. Having to remind people that they are supposed to be having fun, and that there is fun to be have in flaws, setbacks, mistakes and failures.
I'm not certain there is enough space in this format to lecture GMs on how to help people have fun. However, since the goal is to get people to play in the first place, there might be something to it.
This is so elegantly thought out and put together. Really fantastic work.
Somebody needs to get this to Deborah - I bet she'd be so excited about it!
Really simple and quick rules, could start right now with no preparation, and sitll have fun. But I have a question about fighting. When would players get hit? Does the monster automaticly hit the player? Or the player could get a chance to dodge or defend (by the rock-paper game)? Or if the player lost their attack, they automaticly get hit?
When it's the monster's turn (after the players), it can act and use its abilities or it can attack by doing rockpaper.
The player still win/dodge if there is a tie (unless specified otherwise, like with the horse or enchanted knife).
Thank you for noticing this unclear ruling. I will write it more clearly.
Wooooow and woooow. Amazing is an understatement.
This is the coolest!
Hey Clément,
This is sooo cool. I got here through the article you were featured in on Polygon and want to use your booklet to introduce light DnD to my kids.
Since you're french, is there any chance you're planning on releasing a french version too ? That would be awesome.
I'll get to it at some point next year, when I'll have the time !
Very cool, thank you.
I'll get the english version for now and will be on the lookout for next year. Cheers
This is absolutely brilliant!!! Will be trying it out this week. From your pictures it looks like you might have a booklet version of the rules? Any chance on dropping that pdf as well? Would love to be able to print and staple
I purchased & downloaded Friday, Dec 6. I see you updated yesterday. Do I have to repurchase to get the corrections?
The file itself has not changed since the 3th, only some text in the web page.
For next time: If you purchased it, there should be a "you already own this" bar at the top of the page.
But if not, you can always download it for free, without buying it again.
Click on "Download now"
Then click the grey line "No thanks, just take me to the downloads page"
without buying it again.
Thanks for the reply. I thought I was losing my mind comparing PDFs and version numbers.
This is a great tool, and an excellent way to just start playing mid conversation. I don't generally have time for full games, only quick thought provoking scenes. Even without the rules, you could simply read these scenarios out loud to someone completely uninterested in roleplay and at least have a discussion.
Looks really interesting and I have a question
Your rule says players have 10HP to devide amongst them, say there are 2 players and 1 DM. Does that mean each gets 5HP or do you just mean all players have 10HP and 3 skills as starter?
They can have 5HP each, or give 8hp to one and 2hp to the other.
All players have 3 skills each.
Love this! Really enjoying the abridged rules and openness. Fantastic design too!
Question: could you explain the Nested Hit Dice a bit further? So before, say, attacking the heart of an owlbear, players need to figure out ways to counteract the eyes, claws, beak, and skin in that order?
No.
You don't have to counteract every part of a monster.
Say you fight a bear in real life: you don't need to cut its arms off before piercing its heart or head.
So, same thing here.
You want to destroy their core, but its protected by a thick layer of skin.
(plus its hidden, not in plain view)
But you cannot start tearing it down with arrows, because of the eyes ability. It will dodge.
So first, you have to gouge its eyes out, or remain on close contact.
Once there, you can spend a few turn hacking at its skin, to get to a vital part later.
Or you can maim its claws or beak, so you are not constantly being attack.
But you don't have to, you can focus on the protective skin, and then just kill it by poking its heart.
A black bar tells that each section next to it is protected by the one above the bar.
Is it more clear ?
Yes! Very clear, thanks for the reply!
Hey, this is great! This would be great for gaming on the go especially. And, I'll ask instead of just launching into it, mind if I give some pointers on the english and grammar?
Sure do!
You can email me at clement.domergue@gmail.com
Thanks
Will do when I get the chance, talk to you soon.
Already corrected some errors!
This is an excellent idea. Nicely done!
This is so cool!