[originally published December 27th, 2024 on the former Keskin Woods blogspot page]

The importance of balance risk with reward cannot be understated. Players don't invest when there are no stakes. Where is the boundary between success and failure? My thoughts on this have evolved. 

The first iteration of success

I started out with the idea that I would ask for a roll and give a check count when we get to a place a roll should go. The check count was the total number of successes the player needed to roll to get a partially favorable roll. More successes than this would be a more favorable roll. There were two issues with this system. 

1. I could not remember to give the check count before the player rolled
2. There was no standardized metric against which to set the check count so players didn't know if they did well when they rolled

The end result was inconsistent gameplay and player and storyteller frustration. 

Take 2

Well, my working memory is pretty awful, so what do I do instead? One option is to ask my player to prompt me for the target or to not share with the player ahead of time. I don't like the first as if we both forget, it still feels bad. The second one can work in concept. In practice, given there is no "critical hit" system, my initial play tester didn't enjoy not knowing how well they did. 

Take 3

I was stumped. In conference with one of my weekly game groups' players, Glenn, I am now trying their exceptional idea. At baseline, rolls need 3 successes to get a partial success. That number can increase by 1 for different factors, be it environmental, social, combative, or personal. 

I'll be testing whether to give those reasons before the roll or just give the target number. Current thoughts are to give the reasons before the roll so I can work with my poor working memory instead of fighting it. 

Now to decide what factors to use. And whether to specify or to leave generalized.

[originally posted December 21, 2024 on the former Keskin Woods Blogspot]

[cover art Untitled (Wheels of chance) by unknown artist from Smithsonian Open Access Collection]

In this system, currently called Duet Prime, characters are people who exist in a world. As such, characters have virtues and skills. The virtues so far:

• Agility
• Chutzpah
• Moxie
• Grit

Each virtue will have a number next to it, predetermined when creating the character. When a roll is called for, that virtue's number of dice is rolled plus, the skill level in dice. The skills so far:

• Defiance
• Empathy
• Expertise
• Leverage
• Memory
• Mischief
• Overpower
• Powers
• Solve
• Vigilance

Each skill has a value from 1-4 (to start). This is their competency in that skill and the additional dice they roll with their virtue. 

But which virtues and skills go with what actions?

The player's approach determines which one virtue and one skill are given to roll. Do they aggressively approach somebody to convince them to help? I would ask for a Chutzpah Leverage roll. Do they try to get to know their mark to persuade them to help? Agility Empathy roll please.

Yeah, but what's a success?

That's a great question. My thoughts on this have evolved over my time thinking and testing. To be continued in the next entry.

[first published December 15, 2024 on the former Keskin Woods blogspot]

[cover art Discord: The Good and Bad Household by Crispijn de Passe the Elder from Smithsonian Open Access collection]

Truthfully, having played many game systems that hold dice above role playing value I am reticent to make chance a large factor in any game I design. I know there are some people who deign dice to rule the game. I am not one of them. 

GM: King Ironhammer looks to you and asks 'why should I send aid to your kingdom?'

Player: I turn to Ironhammer with a stoic look on my face. "Because if our kingdom falls to the siege, yours is next. The siege is moving due east, and the tower we are sitting in will fall within the month if you do nothing."

GM: Roll a persuasion.

Player: That's a 6 plus 3. 9 total.

GM: King Ironhammer laughs on his throne. "We can defend ourselves. Plus, we have no way of knowing their siege will continue eastward. Be gone."

Player turning to the GM, upset: out of game, GM. Why did my logical and impassioned explanation that makes tactical sense get me laughed out of the room? Why was that a roll?

GM, shrugging: That's the game.

I am a talker and a role player. Narrative gameplay and noticeable story changes as a result of role playing are how my players feel agency over the story and the world. I strongly dislike the gameplay style shown above because a bad roll taking away player agency over the story feels bad to my players and feels bad to me.

In the past few years of my OSR and OSR inspired campaigns, I really liked the game design philosophy that encouraged creative problem solving and avoiding combat when able (because characters, like people, can't take bullets like superman). Because this system was created for duet play, I wanted a high chance to succeed but the stakes to feel real.

My player has so many dice and doesn't get to use most of them. Let's use a dice pool and a range for successes so the clickety-clack that the math rocks make when together feels good when solving problems. What die to use though? 

My thought process:

D4 gives a very narrow window for success. If I set a range of numbers on the die to mean successes and a set amount of successes to pass the roll, 2-4 is too broad. That would either foster an "I'm nearly guaranteed success" or a "crap! a one" mindset. 3-4 was effectively asking a player to flip a coin, and there are other systems that do that better. 4 only was too challenging.

D6 is overdone. It's the classic die and it suffers from the same problems as a d4. Success range greater than a coin flip is too easy but less than a coin flip is either too hard (with few dice) or overdone with a lot of dice. This may have been vanity, but rolling 6-sided dice feels passé. D6 are boring.

D8 is a strong contender. There is enough variability with 8 possible outcomes per die and setting the success range on dice feels achievable. 6-8? 7-8? Let's keep looking.

D10 is akin to d8. There is good variability without being overwhelming and it is a lesser-used die. Setting a range to label as a success is reasonable. 6-10, 7-10, 8-10. All reasonable. 

D12 has too many options. While it is traditionally a very unused die, it rolls a shade too much and is a lot of digits to count if we are rolling many dice at once. 

D20 - No.

As a toss up between d8 and d10, I decided to test d10 as the die we will roll a bunch of and see how many come up in the success range. Through testing, I learned a few important things. 

• Rolling more dice was fun
• Failing a roll with more dice was more devastating
• I needed a way to offer extra dice in case of critical plot junctions the player really wanted to influence
• d10 are easy to read
• the most powerful thing I could do to enhance player's sense of autonomy and control while designing this game was to offer players choice in how many dice they rolled. 
• don't make the player roll if they role play well
• I like d8 better as a concept but d10 works best for my needs

Giving players control over their character's destiny is paramount to players having fun and wanting to come back to my table next session. By allowing a situation to sort itself out via role playing, without dice, the player has more fun. If there is a chance for a situation to turn against the player, they can roll. Setting a number of successes required to pass a check and communicating this to the player before they roll keeps me, the GM accountable and lets the player know if they did well without the opportunity to pull the rug out from under them.\

Example done wrong:

GM: The mob enforcer bursts into your hotel room. 

Player: I back up with my hands up. "I don't want any trouble. Can we make a deal?"

GM: The enforcer looks thoughtful for a second. Please roll your influence roll

Player: 3 successes

GM: Aw darn. You needed 4. The enforcer shakes his head and looks from you to the window and back. "Do you wanna go out the window yourself or do you wanna be thrown out?"

Player turning to GM: Bruh. C'mon. 

Player in character: "I'll see myself out." I open the window behind me and step onto the fire escape.

Example done right:

GM: The mob enforcer bursts into your hotel room. 

Player: I back up with my hands up. "I don't want any trouble. Can we make a deal?"

GM: The enforcer looks thoughtful for a second. Please roll your influence roll for 4

Player: 3 successes

GM: The enforcer shakes his head and looks from you to the window and back. "Do you wanna go out the window yourself or do you wanna be thrown out?"

Player: so close. "I'll see myself out." I open the window behind me and step onto the fire escape.

The player knowing if their roll went well and whether they want to use any bonus dice to try and do better or to accept their fate is the key.

[First published December 15, 2024 on the former Keskin Woods blogspot]

[Cover image Couple Seated at a Table by James McNeill Whistler from Smithsonian Open Access Collection]

Duet play

I began designing my game system a few months ago to early alpha my duet game with my favorite player and unadopted son, Elliot. So I began with research. 

What is a duet game?

    In the simplest terms, it is a game where there is one player character and one person telling the story.

How is a duet game different than a traditional group game?

   In a group game, multiple player characters help each other to solve problems and tell the story with the game master. Players can compensate for others' weaknesses or help using their own strengths. A duet game has one player who must handle everything. 

What additional challenges arise in duet games that you wouldn't think of without research?

   Play moves quickly. There is no group to bounce ideas across or to converse between themselves. The player and GM only work with each other so scenes move fast and the story moves quickly. This also means the GM is always on because there is no distraction of player to player conversation and the player has to devote more energy to role playing because there are no other players to take the spotlight away. 

Is that all? 

    There is only one player character and the story revolves around them. Death is a big deal in duet play. Player character death should be avoided as a rule. The GM must keep player autonomy in mind and ensure that risks feel risky and that players can escape or solve them.

I was inspired by so many systems

I have played or ran upwards of 50 game systems in the last 20+ years. I wanted to capture the joy that my favorite systems brought to me while I was playing, from philosophy to world building to creating random chance. When I played shadowrun, I loved rolling numerous dice to see how well I did. A few other systems also used dice pools instead of a single die roll. Hearing the clacking of dice in my hands while shaking them vigorously before rolling felt great. I decided on using a Dice Pool system.

When I first began running Into the Odd, I was first enamored with how rule-lite that system is. I read 6 pages and was running a game. Unlike most systems I've played, ItO could be taught or learned in a single session. Player frustration is a big concern for me because learning a new game system is already a stressful time and takes up valuable brain space. I decided that I wanted this to be a Rules-Lite system. 

Problem solving in Old School Renaissance systems was broken down for me once as Talk? Get creative? Run? Fight. I thoroughly enjoy this style of gameplay. Killing for experience creates a less varied flow of gameplay. Words matter and creativity should be an accessible option for moving through scenes and scenarios. I decided this system would encourage creative and narrative gameplay. This aspect is less concrete and is better but still a work in progress in the latest alpha testing.

Most importantly to me, I enjoy running games with fleshed out characters. There are many systems where you can be a superhero or deity. I enjoy running games for characters with flaws and strengths and quirks like your average Joe. I wanted this to be reflected on a character sheet. I decided that this system will deviate from traditional attribute systems or skill systems for rolling dice to allow characters to play as whole people. More on the skill and attribute system later.

Shadowrun, Nova Praxis, Dungeons and Dragons, Pathfinder all suggest or imply worlds that are enormous and that given enough player time and GM investment players can move the world. World building for these systems is a big task and can leave players feeling uninvested or easily distracted if the world is already built and the players don't know the supplement or media it is based on. I want the player I GM for to feel empowered to add and create aspects of the world. And I want my player to be invested and feel like they can influence the story meaningfully.

So, an easy to pick up system that is different than others narrative game with a dice pool that is balanced for games where one player character must manage all problems in a world that my players are invested in. Easy.

[First published on December 15, 2024 on the former Keskin Woods Blogspot]

Since I was knee-high to a grasshopper, I have been creating, designing, and playing games. I remember seeing my sibling's Lord of the Rings decks in the early 1990's and Magic: the Gathering cards in the mid 90's and thinking that looks fun. I want to make some of those. And I created a playable card game. Homemade pencil and paper games were already a staple in my imaginative playtime before I was a teenager. Inspired by computer games of the 90's, I made many types, styles, and genres of games as a creative outlet. And then in pre-teens I found D&D. 

I began playing official tabletop games in 2002 with a group of 6 friends with dungeons and dragons 3rd edition. I was quickly enamored with the fantastic world and the possibility of being somebody else while being a part of a story I could influence. In 2005 I began a group that I played with for almost two decades across a half dozen campaigns and more than a dozen tabletop game systems. 

I started running tabletop role playing games with my current game group in August of 2020 as a means for me to cope with the stress of graduate school. We played a campaign using Into the Odd (a fantastic introduction to Old School Renaissance gameplay) and my old school renaissance game design and philosophy hyperfixation began.

And that's how I designed a game. Makes perfect sense right? (cut to the Futurama scene with The Professor explaining the evolution of homo sapiens from great apes, only to be shown he is missing a critical link).

My dear close friend and unadopted son Elliot (that I ran games for a few years back) and I wanted to play a game together. Scheduling is hard but we found a time to play a duet ttrpg game together. Next, I had to find a system to play in. Solo game systems abound, and there are myriad ttrpg game systems for groups. However duet game systems were not abundant and the systems I found (while interesting and well-crafted) were too complex for my attention span to read through and understand. 

And there we were at a precipice. I could stand atop the mountain and look down over the vast sea of game to learn to play with my favorite person, or I could jump down and see what simplistic but engaging game I could create with the narrow focus of working for one player and one game master. 

Welcome to Keskin Woods, where I am documenting the journey of creating a tabletop role playing game system from top to bottom. My name is Kessie, and I will be your Storyteller, narrator, and pensive philosopher on this journey to creating a system, setting, and introductory campaign.