Quite right. Yes, The quality of immersion can be applied to each individual pillar and quadrant of the whole experience to enhance each part, and immersion in each quadrant is achieved differently. Quite astute of you to recognize this 👍

Thanks. I'm downloading there playlist, but from the titles it looks like we might be in agreement.

Completely agree. It robs the player of the ability to truly interact with the world around them and be immersed, and it sticks them squarely in the mindset of dice rolls and game mechanics.

Yes, essentially correct. If you'd like me to go into more depth and present proofs, I can in a future video. Just ask.

I don't see it. 🤔

1/2 Ooooh, nice to have another one! First off, I often think in terms of cosmic forces and energies, like law and chaos, freedom and power, etc. I find it cool when these energies are naturally imbued into the world and have strong effects. Remember, I'm offering ideas for world building, not specific adventures, but maybe I'll be able to tie something in. 🙂 I really like your idea about the ancients surviving by offering ancient services that people don't have access to anymore, especially healing. Contrast brings meaning, and there's plenty of contrast there. Contrast of the new versus the ancient, the violence of the desert and the healing of the city, etc. What makes a good setting is it if it has a lot of conflict waiting to explode. This is commonly called a powder keg setting. So let's add some powder to this barrel. We have a few interesting things we can spruce up here, making them more fantastic and making them points of conflict: • The mega sandstorms • The nature of the elves • The conflict between upper and lower levels of the cliffside City • The nature of healing magic • The trials of travel • The dangers of the desert - The Mega Sandstorms What if forces of stasis, which come from the concept of order/law, affected part of the pre-apocalypse world? What if there are these big mile-wide pockets of stasis that catch most anything that moves through it? So you have your sandstorms moving around and when they hit one of these, the sand that hits the pocket just gets caught in it and floats there permanently. That means over time, the sandstorm to get smaller and these pockets of stasis get denser. It gives an interesting point for conflict too. There can be people trying to use these pockets of stasis and shove their enemies into them, or siphon whatever magics or energies made them so long ago and make magic items that can be used to freeze things in motion, people or even whole cities. Maybe there are some who are trying to eliminate these stasis fields because they view them as dangerous, but perhaps the status fields were actually purposely created before the apocalypse to protect something important underground, perhaps the equivalent of nuclear missile silos. The ancients had these strongholds and dungeons built in cliff faces or underground and they put these stasis fields on top of them so that no one would be able to get down and access them. Maybe some ancients are still there, in the equivalent of fallout vaults. • The Nature of the Elves You said sorta elves, so I'm going to go with that. Maybe these are some of the ancients who were experimenting with stasis magic, and they imbued a bit of it into their own bodies, making them age much more slowly, so they appear to be elves but they're really the same old race as everyone else, just altered. Maybe this longevity effect must be maintained by visits to stasis Fields, recharging their own internal stasis energy. Maybe the ancients send out one of their own each year to bottle up a bunch of stasis and bring it back to them. Maybe they are too afraid to leave their cities so they hire / force one of the lower class citizens to do it, but they don't tell them exactly what they're doing or why. Maybe this is what the young apprentice's master was out doing. Maybe there are the descendants of a different group of ancients that wanted access to the stasis magic so they could survive the apocalypse, but the first group didn't share (kind of like one group having access to fallout shelter vaults and not letting one else in), so now the descendants of the group that weren't let in, that had to survive the wasteland on their own, seek to destroy all stasis magic so that the "elves" are forced to bear the burden of age the way everyone else is. Maybe they would age rapidly and start to decompose painfully, at least that's what they hope. - Player engagement This can give a choice to the players when they find out that the master was promised a share of the stasis magic If he succeeded, and anyone who brings the status back will also receive the same benefit. It's easy to hate the upper class until you get an opportunity to become one of them, then a lot of people reconsider. Might be an interesting moral choice for the players. • Conflict Between Upper and Lower City There's conflict but also cooperation and mutual benefit here, which is why there hasn't been a civil war already. The lower city has to deal with raiders, sand monsters, and getting hit with sandstorms or stasis whirlwinds (stasis magic creeping along and catching whatever is in its path in a permanent stasis). The elves above are spared all that, but there is the agreed upon social contract that requires they heal everyone of their wounds inflicted by the raiders and (curiously) lift the stasis effects. - Player Interaction This is a hint to the players that the elves have something to do with stasis magic, and they have some knowledge and control over it. Maybe some people in town are suspicious of them, but they don't want to ask too many questions or bite the hand that feeds them. Maybe in times of great danger, when the elves themselves are threatened, they can actually expend some of their own personal stasis energy to create a stasis wall on the outside of the city, keeping raiders and monsters out. Maybe this is only happened once and it's kind of an urban legend, but cool bit of history for the players to uncover which hints at future revelations.

2/2 • The Nature of Healing Magic Don't you just love it when you subvert expectations? You can't use it too much but it can be fun if used once in a campaign. When I think of healing I think of sunlight, goodness, law and order. What if regular healing magic just doesn't work after the apocalypse? Maybe the elves are using some facsimile to mimic healing magic, but it has some hidden cost or, even better, dire consequences later down the line. You have two approaches here. We can tie it into their stasis magic or we can give them access to a different type of power, just so the whole setting doesn't have a one-note theme. - Stasis Healing Stasis Magic could be used to stop wounds from progressing, halr entropy, staunch bleeding, etc. But you know how at the top we mentioned stasis was descended from order? So maybe they found a way to cycle one level up and use some order magic to heal, resetting bones and arteries and blood to where they ought to be, in the rightful place, so they return to an orderly form. - Mindflayer Brain in a Jar My next thought is some being or artifact they have access to that lets them heal. Perhaps the being is the equivalent of a brain in a jar, or perhaps some d-winged dragon or elder brain mind flayer in a jar or something. It doesn't have a lot of power on its own but they serve it and perhaps give some sort of sacrifice to it for its services. Maybe It's just an artifact or a jar of endless healing potions that they keep secreted away in a back room somewhere, but the healing also steals years of your life away. The elves don't tell anyone this and they just keep getting hailed as the healers of mankind whenever healing is required. Maybe those years of life that people lose are somehow siphoned to the elder brain in the jar, maybe it's the thing that actually creates the potions. The elves bring regular water or maybe blood or something to it and then the elder brain uses its psionic energy to turn into healing potions. Maybe the elder brain / mind flayer is growing a new body with all those lost years, converting them to real flesh for itself. Maybe those people who have received healing start to have visions or nightmares of the elder brain. Maybe there are two different city states and one uses healing like this and the other has found a way to harness stasis magic and use it for healing. • The Trials of Travel The dust storms are cool of course, inhibiting vision and mobility. Maybe you have to have a special kind of rebreather/gas mask equivalent so you can survive the sandstorms (and the gas masks have to be replenished with silver dust to restore the filters), or else you have to find some underground dungeon and wait it out. Maybe this is the primary reason people going to dungeons and clear them out of monsters and put their loot there, it's the only place safe from the storms of the surface. A cool point of conflict and a reason for players to go in there, and also justifies the existence of dungeons in the world. When the dust storm is blowing against you, you travel more slowly and it's hard to breathe and it's best to find a dungeon, but when the dust storm is traveling in your direction, it increases your speed. Maybe people make gliders or wear special desert clothes made of desert glass formed by lightning strikes, and it lets them float on the winds of the sandstorm and lets them reach the floating mountains that follow the sandstorms and always remain high up, and no one ever knows the floating mountains are there because they're obscured by the sandstorm. - Player Interaction It would be really cool when the players have a glider or wear the special kind of clothing and then a sandstorm hits them and they start lifting upward and they find a big desert cliff plateau just floating at the top of the sandstorm, and maybe these floating mountains are the things that are actually causing these wild sandstorms, and the players can go up there and direct the sandstorms where they want, attacking their enemies if they wish or moving some sandstorms out of certain places that they normally sit, thereby revealing new areas. Maybe they can turn them off entirely, and they make it their objective to fly up to each of these floating plateaus and turn off each storm. Maybe when that happens, all of the plateaus fall to the ground and the storms are permanently gone, and maybe that awakens the dwarves or sand dragons or sand worms or another powerful creature that was normally tapped underground because of the sandstorms, but is now free to roam and pillage. Maybe this was actually what caused the apocalypse, this group of sand worms. Maybe the ancients built these floating mountains and gave them sandstorm-producing engines to keep these creature underground because they had nearly wiped The ancients. There might be a group of ancients sitting in their vault, monitoring the surface through scrying orbs, and when they see the PCs start to turn off these sandstorms, they deactivate their own stasis field above their underground vault and they come to the surface and try to stop the players, or inform them of what's really happening and what the storms are for. Maybe once that status field is deactivated, it can't be restored, so now raiders and other city-states find out that a stasis field has been turned off and so, driven by curiosity, each city state or faction sends a contingent of soldiers / people to investigate the area, gather its unharvested resources (which is actually an interesting idea, because all the stasis fields would probably have lots of green trees and resources and stuff that everywhere doesn't have, because they were kept in stasis and weren't devastated by the sandworms or the sandstorms), and find out why the stasis field turned off. And then they find the entrance to the vault and of course the people that just exited the vault blame the party for their discovery and they demand they help defend the vault from these other groups. But the party might already have relationships and alliances with certain groups, or enmity and rivalry with others. Lots of opportunity for interesting choices and major conflict there. You can also have interesting ways to move around the desert. The whole desert can be super windy and there are these wind currents that run along the ground and through the air, almost like rivers, and people walk along these and use sand skis and sand surfboards and chariots with sales or something, essentially like a parachute, to drive them along. Maybe there's one group that has actually tamed a sand worm and rides them into battle, or there's a whole nomadic settlement on the back of a sand worm. Maybe people ride sandy versions of owl bears or lizards or other creatures and they move super fast through the desert, almost as fast as cars in Mad Max. And as they're fighting each other, being pursued by raiders and fleeing and all the cool stuff you can get up to and a post-apocalyptic desert, you have to avoid pockets of stasis by looking out for bits of sand and other material suspended in mid-air, and you're looking for gusts of wind to boost your speed and you want to lead your enemies into whirlwinds or sandstorms or stasis fields. Lots of fun and danger to be had traveling the desert. • The Dangers of the Desert You can of course use all the desert creatures in any monster book you find. You can have desert elves and gnolls and maybe a sand dragon and all sorts of things, but you can also reskin a lot of things and make them desert themed. Desert orcs, desert dwarves, desert merfolk that swim through the sand and are particularly fond of stealing silver from any passers by. Easily avoided if you don't carry silver, but that's a lot of treasure you're passing up. Gold is pretty rare and if you have it, you make yourself an even bigger target for the raiders. Plus you need silver to replenish your sand mask filters. Hard choices to be made in the desert. - Player Interaction And then of course you have to have the occasional sighting of a sand worm. Maybe just a rumble in the earth at first, and then they hear about a caravan not arriving on time. Then the party sees some movement of the ground and maybe a sandy brown shape just poking up over the surface and coming back down. And then of course an actual encounter with a sand worm. This way they know that at least one exists, and it's great foreshadowing for when they either learn about the sand worms from the vault dwellers that emerge or when they turn off all the sandstorms and a dozen sand worms come out of the ground and start swarming everywhere. You can also foreshadow this by having specific man-made dungeons in the world with hewn stone and all that, but then also have natural caverns and much larger parts of the sprawling underground, and the players are told never to go there because there are enormous creatures that haunt those caverns and will eat you up. And if they ever get curious and go down there, they may see or encounter a sand worm. So this way, you have several things that foreshadow the fact that there are sand worms underground. The players might even put two and two together and realize what's happening before you even reveal it. Thanks for giving me a prompt to do some world building with. As with the last time I did some world building from someone's prompt, this actually fits perfectly with my own current sandbox campaign setting, so I'm going to port this straight over to that. But I hope you can make some use of it yourself too! Thanks for your time reading this. The Lord is generous. Have fun! 🙂

@@Architrave-Gaming You're welcome! And thank YOU. You really over-delivered there. I like the storm travel and the way you foreshadow things. It gives me a sense that I could throw things out there, and perhaps that will make them curious. And that the world can have "big secrets" that only the very talented, powerful or stupid could ever uncover. Also like the ideas of healing magic having a devils-bargain side effect of sorts. Also fun to hear the powderkeg-analogy in use and how you expand on it. Yes I did build some conflict into it, but do indeed need ways to develop that as the game went on.

Glad to help. I thoroughly enjoy the process.

Thank you!

Discussions before the game are perfectly fine. That's what people have been doing for 50 years. That's just called having an adult conversation. There are also expectations of busy human decency, such as avoiding sexual assault and child violence. That usually goes without saying. I would expect any well-adjusted adult GM to mention that they were going to include something like that and ask if everyone was okay with it. But that's different from the pushing of safety tools as a whole. It leads to the coddling of the mind, the neutering of adventure, and in the worst cases like with the X card, Total immersion break. The way you use the X card is by touching or holding up a card, or making an X with your arms, and the game stops and the GM bypasses the current scene and moves on. That's how it's described as operating. That I think is a self-centered and rude thing to do. I don't like how "safety tools" encourage self-centeredness and a lack of the spirit of adventure. They accommodate people's weakness instead of challenging them to move past them. And they're often used as weapons to control the rest of the group because one person doesn't feel comfortable. Adult human conversations about basic decency before the game is one thing, but interrupting the game for the sake of one person and letting them control everyone else's fun is not okay.

So what would you do if you found out one of your players had arachnophobia mid spider fight? ​@@Architrave-Gaming

That's interesting! I've never heard of that. That does sound like an RP game mechanic. Who decides what your "nature" consists of and how do your decide when you've strayed or adhered to it?

BLG actually just made a post recommending my channel to their viewers! Yes, I do watch and enjoy much of their content. What's the video? I'm eager to watch it.

@@Architrave-Gaming my comments seem to get deleted when I try to send links. The video is titled "RPG Safety Tools Are Actually WEAPONS"

I'd seen it before and watched it again. I try to be careful not to voice my personal/political views on this channel because that's not what it's about, but it's undeniable that some people do use "safety tools"that way. That's exactly why I'm against their abuse.

Happy to have hearty discussion with intelligent minds! First, here is a summarized and better explained version of this video. I realized I needed to re-record it afterward because I was too disorganized the first time. It says what I'm about to say here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/oqaWn6GBrL-Bhtksi=g-O0zbkyOqmtGRS2 Let's get to it! We are in fact playing a game when we gather with our friends to play. We are playing the Arch Game, at least that's what I call it. It's the best game anyone's ever come up with because it leads to the Arch Dream, the most fun you can have with your brain. This Arch Game is made up of four parts: the simulation, the adventure, the collaboration, and the role-playing. Each of these are a different pillar of this game, or what I call Quadrants, so as to avoid confusion with the Pillars of Adventure. The objective of the Arch Game is to partake of each of these separate activities, either simultaneously or alternately, so as to achieve the daydream that I call the Arch Dream, which is the most fun you can have with your brain. So I do agree, we are playing a game, but its gameplay is achieved by: 1. The GM and players using common sense rulings and a bit of guidance from various books to simulate a believable world (achieving a simulation) 2. The GM and players playing an adventure game, such as D&D, to produce a thrilling adventure (achieving the experience of adventure) 3. The GM and players creating characters with goals and personalities and having meaningful interactions between them (achieving collaboration) 4. The players, and possibly GM, role-playing their characters in a believable fashion, faithfully making decisions that characters might make. This is the makeup of the Arch Game. The initial point of this series is to help people understand that the activity we all know and love is actually a composite made up of four distinct activities. We layer them, join them, mix them, and try to enjoy them simultaneously where we can, but they are still four distinct activities. Just as with intercourse, two become one flesh, but yet remain two, in the same way we combine these four quadrants to form one cohesive experience, yet the four activities remain distinct. The end goal of this series is to help people actually find the experiences they want by educating them and giving them the vocabulary needed to effectively communicate with other players of the Arch Game. By calling them role-playing games, we have some people who insist that you must roleplay, and immersively roleplay at that, or you're not playing the game. There are other people who just prefer the adventure parts of it, those are your min-maxers and people who just like gridded combat and defeating challenges. And there's nothing wrong with that. Still others just like to connect with their friends around the table and tell cool stories about their characters. These are examples of certain groups focusing on different quadrants of the game and leaving out others, which is perfectly fine, I'm not going to tell you how to have fun, but a lot of people struggle to find the experience they actually want because they don't even know these quadrants exist, so they're left with this one term "role-playing games" and it's too imprecise to be of use. They tell people they want to play role-playing games and nobody really agrees on what style of game that actually leads to. I'm here to educate so people can actually find the games they want to play and not have so many dud campaigns where they just didn't gel with a group because no one was actually playing the same game.

As to your example about the GM making decisions that are not necessarily true to the character but rather enhance the story and experience for the group, I agree. That is what GM's primarily do. It is a rare privilege when the GM actually gets to roleplay a character, because it is their responsibility to be preoccupied with the flow of the game and the betterment of the group. But that agrees nicely with my quadrants. The GM is at sometimes role-playing and at other times telling stories and moving things forward. It is an alternation between activities, and sometimes the activities even being done simultaneously, but they are still separate activities. And if you as a player are making decisions for the better enjoyment of the group, I'm afraid that's not strict role-playing. You are at sometimes roleplaying and at other times supporting the story. But at the times you are strictly role-playing, that is done for your own benefit and not as a performance. That is in the very nature of roleplay.

In this case, for a "roleplaying game" Material cause: rulebooks, dice, miniatures Formal cause: rules, systems, frameworks Efficient cause: game designers, developers, GMs, players Final cause: entertainment, immersive roleplay, strategy, creative expression

Very well maybe. Thanks for sharing the idea.

I'm afraid I don't get your wargaming general analogy at all. The two sentences mean exactly the same thing.

@@Architrave-Gaming when roleplaying while wargaming, you imagine you are a general on a hill overseeing the battles and giving commands. When wargaming while roleplaying, you imagine you are a general at a table strategically moving miniatures

I've been thinking about it and I feel to see why anyone would roleplay a general playing a miniature war game. I don't think that activity lies within the realm of this hobby.

I have not until now, thanks for the recommendation.

Thanks for the comment, though. 👍

Excellently put. I consider the entire experience at the table to be perfectly safe because none of it's real, it's all imaginary. If the mere thought of imaginary spiders landing on someone that's not even you is enough to cause you mental distress, I would recommend professional psychological care. As to your point about the X card being useful, I'd like to point out that the X card didn't even work. It's really just the enforcing of the social contract, and the implicit threat of being removed from the game, that curtails such rude behavior. I think we can dispense with most safety tools designed not to offend people and just have adult conversations in session 0.

@@Architrave-Gaming exactly ~ the X-card on its own didn't even work. It required verbal reinforcement by multiple people.

Exactly! Most of the time you aren't t even playing D&D, you're just telling stories and roleplaying. Only when you engage with the rules of a game are you playing the game, and storytelling and role-playing aren't part of the rules of D&D. People have been storytelling and role-playing long before D&D ever came around, it's a separate activity. That's the point of this video and the whole series; playing D&D is just one quarter of the experience. The other quarters our building a simulation, telling stories with and about each other, and role-playing. These are four separate activities that we alternate between, and sometimes do simultaneously, in order to achieve the full experience that I call the Arch Dream. It's a big wonderful collaborative imagination daydream experience, and it's the most fun you can have with your brain.

Not exactly the same, but I'm sure you could draw some comparisons. Like parachutes when skydiving. It just ruins the thrill, doesn't it?

It is a bit of a power tool though >.<

Hmmmm.

Glad to be making sense to someone. Thanks for the comment.

@@Architrave-Gaming So then... if "collective experience" is a quad, does it receive amplification from being supported the other quads? If so, does it in the same way the others do in, say, GNS theory, or differently? I know you got views on the details of that :)

GNS theory actually perfectly lines up with this viewpoint, as does self-determination theory (autonomy, competence, connectedness). The narrative, the collective shared story, the social interaction between players and their characters, that's all that same quadrant (I don't have a good name for it yet). But narrative is technically a larger concept that is applicable to several things, at least in terms of tabletop. You can narrate the simulation and the exploration, you can narrate the adventure and the combat, and you can narrate the social interactions and the story of events that unfold. Technically, narration is how you experience all of these in tabletop but what GNS theory means by 'narrative' is more specific, it only applies to the unfolding of story events.

Well said.

"If a GM can't respect that, they shouldn't be running for that player." Likewise, that player should respect the rest of the table, and if their trauma is THAT bad, they shouldn't be playing. They should seek actual therapy, which, as you stated, TTRPGs are not. That being said, I personally see it as a chance to deal with problems in a safe environment: the player is not going to actually drown. However, they have the opportunity to share their RL experience with their friends at the table, and potentially have a shared "not-real-drowning" experience to bond with them over.

Exactly. And as long as the traumatized player is ready and willing to have that exposure therapy, And everyone else has given informed consent, so be it.

@@mikeb.1705 as I said, that player shouldn't probably join up and play in an Age of Sail adventure, because the risk of drowning is too high to make sense to try to avoid. Unless, like you said, they want to take that possibility of facing their trauma in a hopefully safe envirionment However, if a particular traumatic event is something which isn't part of the theme of the adventure, such as it being unlikely to drown in a desert, that player mentioning it in Session Zero or before it comes up has completely justifiable ground to ask if that can be avoided. Context matters. If it isn't necessary to the themes of the adventure, and a person wants to not encouner it, it should be feasible to steer around that subject matter, because it wasn't necessary. A group that trusts each other can discuss stuff they know ahead of time they don't want to deal with-whether from traumas, specific dislikes, etc-in Session Zero, especially if they have encountered certain things in past adventures with that group. If the group is running an adventure with a GM that previously used half their NPCs to backstab the party across the past few adventures, it could be understandable that the group might want an adventure without backstabbing NPC 'allies'. Now, that isn't to say they always want to avoid that, but for that specific adventure, they might want that break so as to not have to be paranoid about every NPC ally. Again, even without trauma points, a GM should be willing to listen to their players in Session Zero or between sessions, to sort out what does or does not work for the group as a whole, or with specific players. Obviously, yes, if someone is joining the wrong adventure, or the group doesn't want to play in that specific adventure that the GM is wanting to run... the GM or players should find someone else to be playing with, or they should all find something they can agree upon. If a GM absolutely wants to run something no one in the group wants, then the GM can try finding a different group to run it with. No matter what, the important thing is not to agree to something, and then not follow through with that agreement. Whether that is the GM or a player breaking that agreement.

Yeah, I didn't explain it super well. I just released another video today called "You play the arts game to reach the Arch Dream" And it's a better explanation in half the time.

I never said roleplay wasn't involved in the activity that we all partake in around the table. It is In fact the fourth quadrant. What I am saying is that the fourth quadrant and the second quadrant, being adventure, are not the same. You can role play on top of other activities, the way you put butter on bread. No, you don't have to roleplay to the exclusion of all else The reason you don't grapple someone if you have a 7 strength is because the game mechanics discourage it, not because you're role-playing. It's the same reason you don't play call of duty and use anyway all the time instead of your assault rifle. It's because it's not as powerful. Are you therefore role-playing in call of duty? Is call of duty a role-playing game? Using the features that are the most likely to get the job done has nothing to do with roleplaying. That's just playing any and every game out there.

Thanks for the comment! Adventure and role-playing are not mutually exclusive at all. There is the adventure quadrant and the roleplaying quadrant of the activity we enjoy, and we tried to do both simultaneously. It's like butter on bread. They're not exclusive by any means, in fact they go quite well together, but they are not the same thing. The Man problem I have with the name role-playing game isn't that it claims to be adventurous, it's that it claims to be a game. Role playing has not been gamified in D&D or any other game that I've ever seen. Feel free to educate me. A game has to have a goal/rules and a risk of failure/negative consequences. All of that must exist within the game. So where is that in any so-called TTRPG? The goal and the rules and the risk and consequence all lie within adventure, not within role-playing. It is your skill at adventuring that determines whether you get the gold or die trying, not your skill at role-playing. No one grades you on your role-playing, there are no consequences if you don't role play well, therefore role-playing is not part of the game itself, but is a separate activity you do alongside the adventure gaming. I respect your years of gaming, but I'm afraid your definition of an RPG is wholly inaccurate. "An RPG is a game in which you take the role of a 'character' in which the objective can be anything". This means that Resident evil 4 is a role-playing game. I take on the role of Leon Kennedy and my objective is saving the president's daughter. Call of duty is a role-playing game. I take on the roll of Ghost and my objective is to kill the bad guys. Monster Hunter World, Half-life, Halo, every game in the world is a role-playing game. I'm afraid if the definition includes absolutely everything, it's not a very good definition. Here's my definition of roleplaying: purposely making the decisions your character might believably make in a situation. There's no requirement that the character is someone other than yourself, as proven by the bedroom role-playing argument. And just because you are attempting to accomplish a goal well doesn't make it a game either. Driving a car isn't a game, playing guitar isn't a game, building cupboards isn't a game, they are simply activities that one is trying to execute accurately. Forging for food isn't a game, it's a necessary activity. You turn into a game if you try to hop over every tree root you see before you get there, But even then that's a game that is technically unrelated to the active foraging berries. So if you wanted to actually turn foraging berries into a game, you would have to give yourself some unnecessary challenge on top of it. This leads me to my core definition of what a game is that I think stands up to the most scrutiny and applies to all games, but not to other activities, such as playing guitar: A game is a voluntary undertaking of unnecessary challenges. There are several things implied by the word challenges. One is that there is a goal, and if there's a goal then there are necessarily rules. The parameters of the challenge must be defined, which means there is a rule. And lastly there must be some chance of failure, and the word failure implies a negative consequence. So a more wordy definition would be: A game is a voluntary undertaking of an unnecessary challenge to reach a goal within outlined rules with a risk of failure leading to negative consequence. I don't believe anyone has ever inserted the act of role-playing into the rules/goal/risk of failure/negative consequence, therefore I don't think role-playing has ever been turned into a game.

​@@Architrave-Gaming I made a lengthy reply, but my wifi dropped and it was lost while restoring my connection... I'll sum it up like this: You are too deeply rooted in semantics and don't understand the spirit of the game. It shows in how you critique my response. Its obvious that a video game is scripted, and an RPG is not; allowing you to role play in a TTRPG, and not RE4, for instance. Furthermore, 'gamifying' role-play was inherent in older editions, with a meta-narrative throughout of 'rulings over rules'. In recent years (and predominantly since the internet era) there was a large and vocal movement suggesting that rulings over rules was not true TTRPG, and instead was akin to playing 'mother may I', which is extremely disingenuous and disrespectful. The best games I've ever run were always groups who respected their GM, and vice versa. Thats not to say disagreements didn't occur, but when everyone is more or less on the same page, it allows the GM to have confidence in their ability and to simulate so much mechanical non-sense with practical (and stylized!) abstraction. This is whats been lost in modern renditions. The importance of mutual respect, confidence, and understanding of the spirit of the 'game'. People may sum it up with "Rule Zero" without even understanding what that really entails. The deeper you root yourself in semantics, the less intuitive you become. Until the game doesn't breathe or flow, but rather clanks around like a mechanical monstrosity--or a bad video game. Modern editions are obviously most guilty of this as well. Regardless of what 'advice' they may give, their rules and design promote a bad video game mentality, ironically. I asked youtube to not recommend your channel before you even responded. This is not to insult you, but because you are like the 'white noise' I described in the scene. Its not bad to discuss game theory--in fact its why I stopped by--but you support current era WotC, which is indefensible to me. Its either out of ignorance, or active participation in their disgusting ethics and degenerative game 'design'. That said, I don't hate you, I just don't have time to dedicate to supporters of things antithetical to what they profess. I will reply/clarify any further replies you may have for this thread. God bless. P.S. Because I sounded harsh with my judgement above, I will say I have hope you will mature famously, since you are so vocal in searching out these mysteries of our hobby! And I am by no means God of TTRPG, just more experienced than you for obvious reasons. Hopefully you can glean something useful out of my spiel, as it is meant to help and not hurt you. In any event, God bless.

I appreciate your entire comment! If you want to go your separate way then that's perfectly fine, I'm not going to try to rope you back in. I will say though that I don't support WotC In any way shape or form, and I think their game design and lack of understanding of the hobby is appallingly negligent, and I have absolutely no idea how I came across as supporting them. Please explain?

@@Architrave-Gaming Ah... well, its your #tags. It read to me like a manifesto, lol... I glanced over your past videos and nothing really perturbed me, but I saw a vid about the DMG or something... but if you say you don't support them, I'll admit my fault, even if it was due to your #tags. I appreciate your measured response. Subscribed.

I'm not sure where my tags are showing up on the video, nor their order. I thought they were just a back end thing. Sorry for the confusion. Thanks for your own decorous demeanor. 👍

Thanks for the comment! 1You're right about a game, it has to have an achievable goal / rules with a risk of failure and negative consequences for not achieving that goal. Adventuring has been gamified because there are achievable goals, namely, explore Dungeons and get treasure and do all sorts of other adventurous things, and the risk of failure and negative consequence is loss of treasure and abilities and even loss of life. But role playing itself is not gamified in this way. There's no achievable goal with a risk of failure and negative consequences within the framework of the game itself. You may roleplay while you play, but if you fail to roleplay well, what are the in-game negative consequences? There are none. The role-playing quadrant has not been gamified because there's no risk and reward to it within the game. It is an activity you undertake, like playing the guitar is an activity you undertake, but playing the guitar is not a game. It's simply a thing you're trying to do well. And so in the same way role-playing is not a game, it's simply a thing you're trying to do well. And to your other point, you don't actually have to play the game from the mindset of your character. You can play it as a top-down adventure game like Diablo. You don't have to have the mindset of your character, all you have to do is use their abilities. You can absolutely play D&D as if it was Diablo without any role-playing at all and you would still be playing D&D. And there's even another problem with that point you made, that role-playing is playing a game with the mindset/perspective of another character. I'm afraid that can't be true because that would make everything out there a role-playing. When I'm playing Resident evil 4 and using a character with a mind other than my own, does that make Resident evil 4 a role-playing game? What about call of duty? If the definition applies to everything that it's not a good definition. No, simply playing a game with a mindset or perspective or a set of abilities other than your own does not make it role-playing. In fact there's even a third thing wrong with that definition, the fact that it leaves out role-playing yourself. Did you know you don't have to pretend to be another character to roleplay? People roleplay in real life all the time, without getting into too much detail, people roleplay in the bedroom. They aren't pretending to be someone else, they are pretending to be themselves in a different circumstance. That still role-playing. You don't have to pretend to be another person to roleplay. That means your definition doesn't actually apply to all types of roleplay, so you need a new definition. Here's the one I use. Roleplaying is purposely making the decisions your character might believably make in a situation. That's it. No requirement that it's someone other than yourself, and no guarantee that if you do take on the mindset of someone else that it's somehow role-playing. You can roleplay in any game. You can do what's optimally best in call of duty, or you can try to roleplay the decisions to character would believably make in that situation, including their own fear and adrenaline and hopes and dreams and emotions and all that stuff. You could play Resident evil 4 and roleplay Leon Kennedy, or you could just do what's optimal for the game. You could roleplay in D&D or any other tabletop game and make the decisions your character would make based on their personality and backstory and all that, or you could simply play it like Diablo and just use your abilities on a grid and blow things up. Adopting the perspective of a character is required for most games out there. That's just having an in-game avatar. Is every game with an in-game avatar a role-playing game? Nearly adopting the perspective of someone else doesn't make it RP, you have to actually make decisions in the game based on what the character would do. And even if you did that, you're just role playing on top of the game; It doesn't become a part of it. Like butter on bread. Yeah you can roleplay with your game, but don't confuse the butter for the bread. These are two separate things. 👍

@@Architrave-Gaming Right, I see what you mean but I still disagree. Let's take something like an Economy based LARP for example. Let's say we have different pieces of paper with an information written over them -> that information determines what that piece of paper represents. And we'll all play as Merchants trying to become the richest man in the realm. Now, if I am acting as myself, the paper is just that - paper. There is no intrinsic value in it, it's just a token. However to my Merchant character that paper isn't the token but it's value -> the material it represents. In order for us to play the game, we must both acknowledge the value of the tokens (what's written on the paper), it's context in the imaginary world of the LARP and pretend/play as our characters in order to want it. The system of the LARP might work regardless of the roleplay but it will fail to be entertaining, because it's role wasn't to serve as goal in it of itself but instead act as tool to create the context necessary to facilitate the game. It is the same thing with your example of Leon, the context/theme of the game is necessary to create the atmosphere and experience of the game. You could very much replace Leon with a square and all items/surroundings/enemies with different colored squares and the game would play the same, but it wouldn't feel the same. In order for the game to become itself you need to have all those aspects, so you immerse the player in the role of Leon. And that is by definition roleplaying. I am not acting as myself anymore, because I am not trained with firearms and instead of being in a zombie infested medieval village, I am sitting at home behind a desk. So while yes, you could look at the game as simply the operations of the rule system, you would be leaving out the Mechanics and Theming part of what makes all games, games. I'd dig to debate this over something else then yt tbh, it's kinda pain.

So you do think Resident Evil 4 is a role-playing game? architravegaming is my discord username, eager to continue this discussion.

People play these games for a bunch of different reasons, but it mainly falls into one or more of these four quadrants: simulation, adventure, character story, and roleplaying. The GM's common sense experience brings most of the simulation, their descriptions making the world feel real. The adventure game of D&D brings the adventure quadrant. The character story is supplied exclusively by the players at the table. You don't need D&D for that, you could craft stories and build characters and do all sorts of things without ever opening the players handbook. And lastly there's role-playing, which you may or may not do at your table. If you mostly enjoy creating a story about your PCs doing cool things, go right ahead. You're not wrong. The point is that that is technically a separate activity from playing the adventure game, whichever one you choose. People have been telling stories for thousands of years, long before D&D came around. Storytelling is not reliant on D&D. It's a separate activity you add on top of playing D&D, just like roleplaying is a separate activity you add on top as well. Let's not give D&D too much credit. It's an adventure game, an engine for thrill and finding adventure, but the part that a lot of us like the most, the connection to the characters and the stories we tell about them, are what we come up with ourselves. The adventure game is a tool in that process, and we made stories about what our characters did in the adventure game, but the adventure game didn't tell any stories. We told the stories. It is a quadrant that lies outside of the cover of the players handbook and is not found within its pages.

exactly!!

Exactly! THERE ARE NO ROLE-PLAYING GAMES IN ANY MEDIUM! 🎉🥳🎊 They simply don't exist. No one has gamified role-playing, at least not as far as I've seen. As you said, not even fate or blades in the dark and meet that definition. To properly be a role-playing game, a game must Have an achievable goal / rules and a risk of failure/negative consequences when you don't achieve the goal, Which is the game part, and then it must directly require role-playing to play the game. Your skill at role playing with determine your success or failure and your reward or negative consequences. Skyrim is not a role-playing game, it's an adventure game. Having character customization and progression does not make it a role-playing game. That's not even role-playing, that's just character customization and progression. People have gotten true role-playing confused with playing a single character that you have a significant level of customization or control over. But that's not roleplaying. Roleplaying takes place entirely in your head. It is the method by which you make your characters decisions. That can't possibly be mechanized in any game system. Then I'm afraid your definition of role-playing is inadequate. What if I'm role-playing in the bedroom? Is that an emergent property of the game? Must I talk and explore to solve problems? I'm afraid that definition is inaccurate.

@@Architrave-Gaming but that's such a useless statement. there are no adventure games just games where you go from place to place... so every game is just a walking simulator with some action scenes. the adventure is just an emergent property. get the fuck out

@Architrave-Gaming first: definitions are decided by the majority. If most people agree roleplaying games exist and include X, Y, and Z, they're correct! Second: bedroom roleplay actually is a wonderful example: because your goal is also disconnected from roleplaying there too. Your goal is to please your partner and roleplay is an emergent property- it is simply a way in which you can approach the problem. If you get into bed to have "straight sx, none of the fluff" you cut out roleplaying there too. Roleplay is something people do in pursuit of another goal. Even actors have a goal of performing and properly relaying the lines that trumps the goal of internally embodying their character. Third: anyone can simply not engage with a medium. I can boot up skyrim RIGHT NOW and do zero adventuring. I can just hang out with the jarl in whiterun and the game won't even tell me i'm doing anything wrong in any mechanical way. It'd be boring but dnd's pretty boring without any roleplay. Dnd specifically tells you TO ROLEPLAY in the rules, to act as your character. That is the most explicit a game can possibly be, and calling dnd an rpg is significantly more descriptive than. "Adventure game"

@Architrave-Gaming also, idk how ur doing it, but i happen to do a lot of talking AND exploring in the bedroom. I'd be happy to show you.

Glad to be of service! There's more where that came from.

Where do you know me from? Long Con?

@@Architrave-Gaming I played that one necromancer named Bonhoeffer. I think the last time I showed up at your house I was trekking with the tall one carrying bags of cans to the recycling company and making that KZbin video.

Xander! So good of you to drop by. Yeah, I finally started my KZbin channel. It's cool how KZbin recommends things to just the right people.

@ It is amazing. I’ll probably watch a few more of your videos. Keep up the good work friend.

Thank you Xander! Lord willing, we will.

That's the thing, there are no RPGs! At least none that I've ever seen. What we have is a set of 4 activities that we try to do simultaneously, which amount to the experience we all enjoy so much. The four activities are: 1. Simulation 2. Adventure 3. Social Interaction 4. Roleplay We are taking turns doing each of these activities while at the table, and we sometimes do multiple at the same time, but the adventure game part is separate from the roleplay, simulation, and social parts. They're all separate from each other. The roleplaying is not a game, the simulation isn't roleplaying, the game isn't storytelling, etc. These are different things that we do at about the same time but they're all separate activities. What real roleplay consists of is you making decisions your character would make in their situation. That is done in your head, not in a game. It's done outside of and independent of any game rules. You are gaming and you are roleplaying at the same time, but the two don't become the same thing. They're still separate.

That's so nice! ☺️

Indeed. Many people prefer combat above all else, and that quadrant often has the majority of advice surrounding it. I've been collecting this advice for years and hope to publish it on this channel as a one-stop shop for all the good combat advice out there.

Some would say the rules are the game. My system actually has an optional rule for static damage instead of dice rolling, but I've found the rule "you always hit" to violate Hamlet's Hit Points by offering too many upbeats and and not enough downbeats; it also contradicts the requisite equal duality of order and chaos, the latter of which randomness is a child. Thanks for the comment!

@@Architrave-Gaming I do not know who "some" is but suggesting that a role playing games is a composite of the rules is a bit obtuse. Components like role playing, story telling, suspension of disbelief and acting are inarguably core fundamentals of all rpg games, not mechanical excersises (usually) and system/rules agnostic, regardless of what make believe "dragon" game you play. A fundamental principle of game design is not to fix with rules more rules. Despite 5Es many glaring flaws (to hit outcomes in this case) adding even more rules to an unwieldy bag of stuff is never a good solution. Your system (sorry for the dig here...) is like a really boring version of DCC and only seems to waste time better spent on the RP elements described above. Static damage is excellent and gives your table SO much time back, especially online. The upbeat problem is easily fixed by a GM with good improv skills and gets even better with improv to keep combat "in the moment". Don't let die rolls on die rolls create chug.

I'm afraid you've been misinformed. D&D is not a role-playing game, storytelling game, or acting game. That's all wrong. 👍

Whatever path you take to show your friends or clients a good time is doing it right. "That's all wrong" is the opposite attitude of someone that should be givng gm advice. This is a craft hobby not a rote process. Good luck with your rule on rules to fix rules. Keep learning.

Maybe you could stick around to learn what the quadrants of the Arch Game actually are. 😁 You're always welcome.

I can't express how thrilled I am to hear comments like this. This is why I started this channel, it's so good to find positive reception. Thank you so much. 🥲

@ the note that really speaks to me the most is roleplay being internal. I have felt that for so long but for whatever reason couldn’t vocalize it so perfectly. Please keep up the stuff. Very interesting waters.

The rest of this 12 part series will shed more light on the four quadrants of the experience, though admittedly in a less coherent way than I'd like.

After writing this I'm not sure that I'm actually disagreeing with you now lol, I need to think about this more.

I'd highly recommend checking out Mythras if you haven't already. It is not rules lite in any way, but its crunch is all about enhancing immersion in a much different way than something like Pathfinder 2e, which you mention here.

"And a good session requires the GM and the players describe a host of actions not covered by the game mechanics" Exactly! The necessary description of the game world, which I call simulation, is separate from the mechanics of the adventure game itself. [There may be a few "mechanics" to support the simulation, but I would argue those are not game mechanics. If you pick out a rule book like D&D, 90% of it is game mechanics and maybe the other 10% is a simulation toolbox. They're between the same two covers if the book, but they're not in the same category. You could also fit a few pages of cookbook recipes in D&D, but that doesn't mean those recipes suddenly become a game. Only the parts that actually give mechanics for the game itself (a game having rules and an objective and a chance of failure, etc) are considered part of the adventure game and everything else in the book falls under different categories.] You can play the adventure game almost like a board game. The GM can set up monsters and the players can roll attacks and they can go through the adventure using an overly simplistic narrative, the same way you would while playing Magic the Gathering. But that's bloody boring. We have to also add an immersive narrative that brings the world to life, creating an effective simulation on top of the game mechanics themselves. These are the first two quadrants. The third quadrant is the connection you have with the other players at the table. This is a quadrant shared by any multiplayer game out there. This quadrant is supported by storytelling both during and after the game, as well as through character interactions of all types. The fourth quadrant is role-playing. Like butter on bread, role-playing is added on top of the core game mechanics of any system. You can technically play any "TTRPG" without roleplaying by just engaging with the game mechanics themselves. This would be boring as beans, but it's possible. This means those individual rule books, which constitute each individual game, are by themselves nothing more than adventure games. It's only by adding a good simulation, friends around the table, and role-playing on top of the game mechanics that you get the experience that we all enjoy so much. When you choose to roleplay a character while playing that adventure game, then you enhance the experience, like butter enhances bread. And when you go beyond simply making the decisions your character would make and you actually roleplay yourself within the character, roleplay from inside their head as if you were them, that's when you get immersive roleplay, and I think that is the most fun you can have with your brain. A good simulation, good adventure, good friends at the table, and good roleplay, all the while completely immersed both in the world, the adventure, the characters, and your own roleplay. It's a big four-ingredient sandwich and the point of these videos is to help people understand those individual ingredients instead of looking at it as a singular thing. I think that's what brings people a lot of confusion, they confuse the role-playing quadrant with the game quadrant, In fact they confuse all the quadrants with each other. Some people just want storytelling and other people want simulation, while others just want the gaming part with a power fantasy And yet others just care about the role-playing. And even more want various combinations of these quadrants, maybe adventure and role-playing but not so much simulation, or maybe role-playing and storytelling but not so much real danger / adventure. I'm trying to educate everyone as to the individual quadrants that make up this experience so we can all realize what we each enjoy, so that we can effectively communicate with our game groups and tell them exactly what we want, like building a sandwich with precise ingredients, so that we aren't chronically dissatisfied at never finding the type of game we like. I think we don't find the type of game we like because most people don't know what game they like, cuz they're unaware of the individual quadrants that make up the whole experience. I'm also trying to tell people that I think the best sandwich in the world is one with all the ingredients. A good simulation that leads to immersion in the world and all the other quadrants, a good adventure that gives you challenge and danger and true rewards when you overcome, good friends around the table who are mature, supportive, cooperative, sharing, and ambitious, and lastly, good role-playing where you actually feel like the character in the world, on the adventure, making friends, and experiencing transcendence. I think that's the most fun you can have with your brain. That's the Dragon we're allchasing, whether we know it or not, and I'm here to show everyone how to get it; or at least show them how to get what they do want, even if the experience they want is inferior in my opinion. Thanks for coming to my TED talk. Maybe I should use this as a script for my next video instead of the ramblings I've already recorded and scheduled. 🤷‍♂️

I've heard you talking about it plenty on your channel so I'll have to give it a look. I think any "mechanics" that solely support the simulation and don't directly interfaced with the adventure game rules aren't actually game mechanics, they're simulation mechanics. There is undoubtedly some crossover of course. This opinion rests on the fact that a game has to have an objective and there must be a way to fail, which is what gives rise to rules and determines the level of challenge; so if there is any sort of mechanic that doesn't directly prosecute the goal or serve as a challenge to completing that goal, it's not a mechanic of the game but rather a mechanic of the simulation, storytelling, role-playing, etc.

long* con

Hey! If I'm getting recommended to Black Lodge Games, I'm in the right corner of KZbin. 😁👍 It feels like Christmas just that you found me. I apologize in advance for the incoherence of my next two weeks of videos, it turns out I'm refining as I go. We agree on a lot of stuff, but I thoroughly enjoy rubbing up against sharp minds so I'm looking forward to seeing where we disagree.

@@Architrave-Gaming nice, no need to apologize. KZbin algorithm is the best thing ever, it directly summons what you didn't even know you wanted to watch.

This comment is very well articulated. I think it's very impressive how you responded so directly and formulaically. I'm here wondering if you are a professor or someone who works in education. I wanted to elaborate on the vagueness defined as core concepts like the "rules" and "adventure". What this seems like to me, OP, is that you are having an issue with managing expectations. This isn't a particular fault of yours, I'm sure you're aware of how common that is in this gaming space. But you are finding confusion in wanting to have an "experience" of "adventure" that you do not get when the gameplay is heavily pushed by a narrative or combat. You want- freedom. Freedom to explore not necessarily preset lore-points for the DM's overarching novel, or to simply fight endlessly with the goal of becoming powerful. You want the liberty of will to be able to head off in any particular direction that you see fit, and marvel at the rich world that is bespoke made around you by your DM & party. Adventure where, you are not REQUIRED to kill the dragon because it is evil "so says bartolomeo the gracious king", but because you came across a grave threat that must be fought to either pass through or uncover its rewards. The fantasy adventure that truly allows you to build your own story instead of participating in someone's. However, there's nothing in D&D Proper that even suggests this is the correct way to play. In fact, some canon modules discourage it. Your expectations, as you said yourself, are completely fine! Difficult, perhaps, for the newer DM to tailor-make characters, plotlines, encounters and more on the fly to keep up with this sprawling adventure. No, the apparent issue is where you felt that there was a default setting in a game SYSTEM such as DND. Most TTRPG don't give directions, only suggestions, because there was no point where they wanted to create a monolithic title where people adventure and never pursue articulate goals. These games spawn so many varied playstyles for a reason, (and commenter above said it best really,) the rules of DND are open-ended to allow for such versatility of play! It is all DND, it's all the same tabletop adventuring game, because the game ultimately boils down to what the rules suggest. The rules of DND suggest you do whatever the hell you and the DM like, even if (and this happens often) you choose to ignore the rules of the game itself. This isn't a confusion; it's the virtue of the creators to be able to create a successful format that millions play and has lasted decades, without requiring anything but dice and the ability to write. Dungeons and Dragons will still be Dungeons & Dragons, even if you opt to not crawl in dungeons or fight dragons. Don't catch yourself up so much in semantics, if the WotC cracked down the hammer on what counts as an adventure then this game would never reach the success it has today.

I appreciate the feedback. I admit that the points in this video were not well laid out nor justified. That's the case with the next nearly two weeks of videos and. After I was done recording them, I realized that I was all over the place. Maybe in the future I'll redo the series in a more coherent fashion. Due to my incoherent ramblings, I'm afraid you misunderstood most of the points I made in the video, but again that's the fault of my unbounded rant. Thanks for the comment and the engagement. Hope you stick around long enough to hear me actually make sense. I have some deep understanding of this activity we all engage in, and Lord willing, I'll soon be able to share it in a way that makes sense. I think it'll be helpful to almost everyone who hears it.

It's one of my goals to put in the work that produces the best experience for the players, and though I don't expect this of every GM, I put in the work to make a fully realized sandbox, complete with a ridiculous amount of detail, so that my players can experience true exploration. There is actually stuff out there to be found, I'm not just winging it as I go, and I'm not changing anything to accommodate the players one way or another. The world is real, static, and pre-made. Yes this takes years of work, but it's what I think the truly elite GMs do and I'm trying to spoil my players. I do have a simple mechanic for overland travel, and another for exploration (searching for and finding things in the wilderness), but these aren't incredibly innovative. Simply spending resources every time you attempt to travel/discover, and having a DC based on the difficulty. As to your first point, I think you actually agree with me. When you have to think too hard about the game rules, it breaks immersion. That's my main point. When you're entrenched in the gamified language of the system then you're not in the naturally immersed perspective of the world. I've never heard of GM say that the goblin is 10 squares away, they said that he is 60 ft away. Humans naturally default to the real world measurements they use every day, so that's better to use in a game. For as long as you can get away with common language, you should. You only switch it to squares or other gamified language when you're playing on a grid, and most people use theater of the mind. The only reason it didn't work for you and your group is because it used a different unit of measure, but the fact that that was an obstacle to you proves my point. As always, I appreciate the hearty discourse. The more my positions are challenged, the more I refine them.

​ @Architrave-Gaming Fair game. I do the complete opposite. I find that sandbox is only fully realized once you realize a sandbox has clear bounds, but players are the ones using random grains of sand to build their desired fantasy, with immediate control. What you describe to me is called Disneyland. It's extremely fun and detailed, wilder and more sophisticated than a box of sand. But it leaves little story agency, and it can always break. No matter how much you define and write, if I touch the wrong part fast enough, it will be just a plot of land, with no crazy machine. And if you don't quantum ogre it, it'll be boring. The only way to not let that happen is by going low magic, to limit the potential mobility and crazy shenanigans that are possible. Campaign prep for me happens on session 1. I discuss the aesthetics of the starting region and themes players are interested. After, we create characters and I generate a town, world map, add a few names to it, think of the starting location and incident and some loosy goosy ideas. Once both finished, we roleplay a bit how they met with a series of flashbacks and loose rolls, and it's on. The game becomes about me thinking of things creating conflict and then making sure those things become permanent and move and act according to expectations, and the players resolving or running away from said conflicts and suffering good/bad consequences. This allows emergent ideas, backstories, and any mentions really (mine or the players') to materialize immediately at the table, or in X sessions or scenes, in any session, not just the first few or session 0, because the mystery is not just the world, the plot, but most importantly who are these characters the players created. I agree with you that language obstacles exist, and if you're trying to immerse, these obstacles can get in the way. But me personally, the game part of a ttrpg can be gamified and simple. I don't play in english so I have to translate everything in real time, regardless. so numbers are preferable. Also, most the dnd games i played as a player were not theatre of the mind, and the insane amount of digital map content, software like roll20/foundryVTT, and dedicated communities centered around them, should be enough to understand that your games, as well as my own, are in the minority in being theatre of the mind. I think assuming otherwise is wild. Even the most popular displays of 5e like CR and Dimension 20, which would benefit greatly from theatre of the mind to immerse viewers, have most bigger combats in battle maps.

See, I'm not putting them in any sort of rollercoaster ride. I make the world happen around them, most violently and full of tension, and they decide what to do with it. It feels cheap to fabricate backstory tie-ins where there were none or to do anything that directly accommodates the players actions instead of appropriately reacting to them.

Thank you! Just wait until the whole system is released!

Thanks for that! So far I haven't had any trouble onboarding new players. They all take to it really easily. As far as simplicity goes, there's an optional rule to just take the average damage of the dice instead of rolling, and you have those numbers written down on your page so it makes it just a bit easier to handle for those who need it. My game is absolutely chock full of optional rules to suit every player, adventure type, player type, and GM style.

😂🤣 It really was though.

I run sandboxes. Player freedom is paramount. It's been said that restrictions are more interesting than powers. It creates a more thrilling and memorable experience when you're out of spells or your weapons have broken (I also have weapon degradation) and you're far from civilization, perhaps deep in a dungeon, and you have to be creative and resourceful to figure out what to do. Maybe the bard has to ask the Druid or the wood elf if they can summon some of the woodland friends so that he can perform for them, or they look for an altar or shrine to some entity that might be able to replenish his spells in exchange for something dear, or a future service. Maybe the bard sings the song about their own coming misfortune, and they stir up a sense of dread within themselves, which is sufficient emotion to recover some spell slots but now they have this cursed narrative hanging over them. If you make things too easy, you don't require creativity or sacrifices on the part of the players, and I find that always leads to a boring game. It's so heavily restrictive because that restriction actually leads to the most thrilling decisions and the most memorable moments. Of course there are optional rules in my system to hand wave a lot of this stuff If you just want to play a casual game, but the core rules are designed for a more hardcore audience that want to be immersed in the world and feel the weight of their decisions, like they would if they were actually there.

@Architrave-Gaming that definitely clears things up. My players don't enjoy sandbox games so I have to run much more curated adventures. I'm excited to see how your system will evolve, and I'm eager to (eventually) get my hands on it to try it out with my players!!

It's surreal that multiple people have expressed interest in playing my system. Hopefully sooner rather than later!

Wow. That's a compliment. I hope my derailed ravings in the next few videos don't scare you away. After filming them, I realized I gave a confused explanation interviews much simpler terms. Perhaps in the future I'll redo the series so that it actually makes sense.

That sounds cool. What is magic in your world?

@@Architrave-Gaming I haven't really codified "what is magic" for my game world, but I've alway envisioned it as a sort of "Force" ~ an ethereal power that permeates everything. It gathers / pools in various places for "unknown" reasons (like ley-lines flowing between noteworthy place, or gathering in areas frequented by people / creatures), and can be tapped into by those with the skill or natural affinity.

@ If you ever feel like fleshing out the specifics, this channel should have some material to work with in the future. 👍

That's one of the best compliments I've ever gotten. Thank you for the positivity!