What is "Sim-Lite"?

[@DUNGEONCRAFT1]

GREAT game! looking forward to the launch!

[@blacklodgegames]

The correct amount of simulation is when you die in the game world you die in the real world.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Now *that’s* immersion!

[@JackMcCarthyWriter]

Seems a bit extreme, but I'll allow it

[@donovk]

If you lose the game you lose your soul!

[@RedwoodRhiadra]

@@donovk "The Devil went down to Gencon"

[@caleb-hines]

1:1 hit points strikes again!

[@YannMiollan]

Timestamps 0:00 Intro 1:25 "Dramatic" 7:07 "Fantasy" 11:35 "Sim-Lite" 16:23 "Roleplaying Game" 24:15 Conclusion

[@JonMillerPhilosophy]

Yeoman's work. Cheers.

[@tenebraebr]

Well, what can I say. I feel almost the same as you do about RPGs, and the thing you said about how "roleplaying" and "game" being as important, though different, rings true to me. I cannot wait to see the end product.

[@thomasranney8913]

I love your comment about maintaining tension in the game. Great TTRPG, solo or otherwise, is at its best when you start forgetting it’s a game and start feeling like you’re immersed in a great book or movie. Life literally hangs on the roll! I love that feeling lol. That roll in the last episode of Season Two still gives me chills how the entire story turned!

[@SingularityOrbit]

I've attended quite a few convention talks, both about creative writing and about game design. This ranks highly among those explorations of design philosophy. I'm very taken with your method of handling social interactions with a "tolerance level." One of the biggest challenges for Game Masters, yet one of the least spoken about, is finding a way to bring social scenes to an end. In most games the party can just keep talking forever -- "Keep talking, maybe something you say will undo the thing you just said." -- until they get what they want or until weapons are drawn. I can definitely see how a lot of groups could use a rule that says, "Whatever you say from now on in character, the NPCs in the chat have already made up their minds." It bears a slight resemblance to D&D 4th Edition's extended challenges, but your way feels a bit easier to manage and more versatile.

[@foolcat23]

@@SingularityOrbit I just love this idea. I think it’s a great incentive for players to “think before they act”, and I can imagine that getting stonewalled by NPCs from time to time can be a refreshing experience for players.

[@SingularityOrbit]

@@foolcat23 Agreed. As Trevor was pointing out, the freedom to make choices comes with the facing of consequences. It's good to have a handy rule to define where action stops and consequences crystallize. Forcing GMs to decide when it feels right to resolve a contest isn't always the best way. I'm pretty comfortable with it -- most TTRPGs are built that way, so I have to be -- but it can be a problem if a player decides the GM is deciding against them arbitrarily. If one choice, one plan ends in failure, it usually doesn't end the mission. It merely forces the characters to take a different route to victory. If the adventure's designed well, of course.

[@claytongriffin3558]

It seems to be a better implementation of what Pathfinder was trying to do with their optional Influence mini-game rules.

[@nettaros9432]

Hey Trevor, great video talking about TBE. I told you in a Livestream you did that Sim-Lite sounded like "Mythras but lighter" and I like what you are showing, each episode the mechanics get easier to follow. Seems like you found a good balance.

[@macoppy6571]

LARP without the costume is the perfect balance 👌 😌

[@StanNotSoSaint]

Useful clarification! Prior to it I would assume that sim-light would imply low level of simulationism - close to 5e or even lower but turns out you mean the opposite and now I understand why you stated it like that.

[@ruolbu]

The spectrum is even in reality. If you throw a dart at an object you might hit or you might miss, but if you miss you might still want to judge wether you got closer than the other guy. That's the reality you want to capture. But it's nearly impossible to really capture, so we decided to simulate it. If instead you throw a dart at a circular sheet of paper it will mark the paper in one location. Now you can measure the exact distance between the object and your throw, that's the hard simulation. But there is practically an infinite amount of locations on that small piece of paper and there is an infinite resolution of detail here. These tiny variations between nearby hits are too small for us to perceive let alone hold meaning. Thus we came up with softer simulations. A common target has a discernable number of zones (usually concentric rings) and hitting different zones communicates an intuitive meaning. There are all sorts of different targets. Some are very rough and basically only count two zones, the bulls eye or anywhere else. Others hold 5 or 10 or 100 different zones. For a carnival game it's really enough to know if you hit the 2 feet-wide bulls eye or not. But for a hunter it's important to know how far away they were from the fist sized heart, so different targets simulate reality differently. Different demographics.

[@Scruffy-LookinTerfHerder]

You had me at 'Dramatic Fantastic Sim-Lite Roleplaying'.

[@DogBoneZone]

I'm a huge fan of Mythras, but I do feel the same way you do, where it's just a teeeeensy bit too simulationist and can get a bit slow here and there. So, once you said it was a big inspiration for this game, I was sold. Looking forward to the launch.

[@TalesFromElsewhereGames]

Love to hear about more games that ditch hit points for more evocative systems! Excited to learn more!

[@willofphil]

The game sounds super fun with the right group. And I love your thoughts!!

[@foolcat23]

Hey Trevor! To me, it’s positively encouraging and satisfying to watch you talk about your background and experience with TTRPGs. I’ve been playing them for 40 years now, and was ever curious not only about different genres or settings, but about rule systems as well. And after four decades, certain preferences and dislikes have crystallized. TBE sounds like it checks a lot of my boxes, and has been for a while now. Wish I could hold a copy of it in my hand right now and peruse it. 😊 When you talk about player characters having goals in whatever shape or form (e.g. long-term, short-term, immediate), I assume there’s an extra space for them on the character sheet? In my experience, it’s always better for players to be beholden to such “soft targets”, and to put things down explicitly, so that the player and the GM are on the same page. Of course, the players need to remember that first and foremost they are responsible for them, that they are not written in stone, and that they can and will change throughout the collaborative, emerging story. Another question is whether you plan to have character personality traits or passions in the game that are put down in some explicit form? I’m thinking of course about the passions of Pendragon and the latest RuneQuest, and the Virtues/Vices system of the former. Other systems like GURPS or Savage Worlds use more dedicated psychological traits, both positive and negative, in the form of Advantages and Disadvantages/Hindrances, respectively. Personally, I’m somewhat on the fence about them, especially in the latter form. They can make sense in some scenarios, but also turn out to be somewhat hindering; but they sure can have an impact on how players play their characters.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Yes, yes and yes! :)

[@jcraigwilliams70]

I'm going to be honest here. When I first heard about this and that it was from you, I figured it was an automatic purchase. Learning a bit more, I became hesitant because I am not into crunchy games these days. I'd say Savage Worlds is about the upper limit for crunch that I want now. That said, several of the things you mention DO appeal to me. I've been searching for the "perfect" RPG because while I like the narrative approach, I do also want to still have a game. I find many games either focus too much on the narrative and forget the game, or vice-versa. I need to go back to your S4 videos and pay more attention, even though I know the rules are (were?) a work in progress. I only watched the first one and I guess because you were excited to share info about the game, you seemed to be talking at 100 MPH making it hard for me to follow.

[@MagnificentDevil]

The first few episodes of season 4 are a bit rough. The system has been being refined along the way and Trevor has calmed down a bit about it. It does seem to be flowing much more smoothly than it did in Ep 1.

[@jcraigwilliams70]

@@MagnificentDevil good to know, thanks. I watched that first episode and was feeling a bit dense for not catching everything. It also felt like there was too much going on. I was tempted to slow the playback speed but wound up tuning out.

[@MagnificentDevil]

​@jcraigwilliams70 Yeah, I had trouble following the game mechanics the first couple episodes as well, but I think both some changes to the system along the way and Trevor's own familiarity of using it without needing to explain the core rules have leveled things out.

[@DeletarTepes]

It's good to see how much thought you're putting into this, can't wait.

[@Ryotbh]

I swear I could listen to you talk for hours on roleplaying. Definitely agree that the stakes are integral to TTRPGs, it was one of the things I was missing in my early Solo Play games - there was no meaningful fail state. Playing a sandbox TTRPG solo without a key aim or objective for your character just feels empty and meaningless. Add a mission that can potentially be failed and suddenly you feel invested in your character. I think this is great advice regardless of whether you are playing solo or not. Can't wait until you release the Kickstarter! I don't think I exaggerate when I say that you are one of the more influential voices in the Solo TTRPG sphere!

[@ThyRoyalFleekes]

Ah! Discovered the videos on TBE just in time to get excited enough to back the kickstarter on day 1. The more I heard about the system, the more confident I became it was Mythras inspired! Mythras is my system of choice (their historical settings are unbeatable) but I essentially eliminated the opportunity for combat in early sessions for new-to-RPG players to not overwhelm them. TBE looks to fill a big need I have: it adds fun mechanics to my social encounters and lowers the barriers to engaging in combat. As a new GM I'll also really appreciate the guidance Trevor looks to build in on crafting good drama in my campaigns.

[@midshipman8654]

Im really happy you are making an rpg. Ive always really enjoyed your tastes and insights into game design. Alot of the things that tick your boxes really tick mine too. both subjectively and systematically.

[@Fionanananananananana]

I think just listening to you explain these words has helped me to be a better player and roleplayer 😁

[@Matt-uc4iv]

really love your stuff and your vibe. just diving into an oracle system to help finish up loose campaign threads that were left unfinished. and its been awesome and breathed new life into the campaign. keep going!

[@SeekersHollow]

Well done sir! I appreciate you making us roll dice! 🤗

[@kythian]

I like potatoes with my stakes. 😉 Maybe some broccoli with cheese, too.

[@redknight808]

I only recently found your channel. (I've been watching the Five Parsecs campaign.) I love your enthusiasm, creativity, and appreciation for dramatic mechanics. I just found out that you're making a TTRPG. ...Wow. I'm loving what I'm hearing from you. I'm coming from the background of someone at age 12 rejecting AD&D after a few years of dissatisfaction and eventually finding Champions/Hero System. I've been exclusively GMing Hero for the last 40 years. And now I'm listening to everything you're saying and seriously considering backing your crowdfunding. Dude, well done. ...And, of course, as a Hero System 6th Ed guy, I want Starfaring Broken Empires, Post-Apacalyptic Broken Empires, Netrunner Broken Empires, Super Br... maybe that's going too far. But still! If your campaign is wildly successful, I wanna see other genres. 😀

[@doomhippie6673]

Yes, yes and yes. I want your game....

[@MrGrokNRoll]

Like the exploration and transparency of the design principles.

[@sooisZA]

Really enjoyed the explanation!

[@Multiklaaas]

Love it! Sounds like a real love letter to the type of games I too adore

[@RPG_Bliss]

So excited for your game!

[@IanTanLK]

From that first day I chanced upon... (is it really 'chanced upon'? I mean, we have YT algorithm here) this channel, I love this guy! Why? Because Tevors' Charisma level is 999! I wished he could GM a session for me - he'll make me a believer of what whatever fantasy he throws on the table. Err... except the kinky kind. Heh. So. 'Wants' makes the Empires go round. Have wants and meeting that Wants births drama. And drama breathes life into the Sim-Life. No Wants. No Life. A funny idea pops in my head while watching. The Unboken Empires is where players are in the state of contentment. They have no Wants. But you see, contentment is not the absence of problems. They keep knocking on their doors to rob them of content. Pun intended. Drama starts. Hahaha.

[@m.grumpelstilzkin3143]

Sounds great, was poking at Mythras to use as my campaign engine but it had just too much crunch, not enough fluidity, so've shifted to working up a modified Trinity. Rather looking forward to reading what you've created, everything you mentioned resonated.

[@theDexMcHenry]

Interesting indeed Trevor. Internal consistency for a fantasy world is critical, I think, and if players understand the logic of the world environment it helps big time. A couple of thoughts though. First, while historical analogs provide good reference points for the imagination, there can be a divide between the perceived history and the actual history. A good example might be the world of King Arthur and the gulf between a romance like the movie Excalibur, versus the actuality of post-Roman Britain. Stating the obvious I am sure but will all the players buy into the same perception? Second is the issue of resolution, and specifically combat resolution. If I understand you right, the outcomes of combat will be quite specific and I am presuming these are table driven (i.e. the scores on dice equating to specific table entries). As such, these outcomes are definitely finite and players consequently will become familiar with them. And familiarity can breed perverse behaviour where individuals know how to manipulate the narrative in order to achieve a specifc outcome. I am wondering whether there is a mechanism to keep your tables fresh and almost random.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

There are no combat tables (other than an easily memorized hit location table, right on the character sheet). There are maneuvers, and there are context based zone descriptors. Will the maneuvers become familiar? I hope so - that means the players have learned the game :) I would much rather have familiar rules providing more dynamic options than “roll yet another d20 vs AC, now roll randomized abstracted hit points”.

[@oldercloudify]

Intrigued by this RPG. Looking forward to October 1st!

[@rhysaledowen4772]

I'm excited to see the book and get more familiar with the rules. I've been playing WHRP 4E, which is clunky at best, but has a lot of concepts I really like. I can see a lot of awesome concepts in TBE, particularly in the social rules, which is the part I struggle the most with when playing solo. I've never seen someone roll differently from how they Role Play it, is that a thing? Like saying something intimidating, and then rolling persuade be pointless right?

[@michaelthomsen6810]

I agree very much with a lot of what you say in this video. Your explanation of dramatic is very much how I use the term with roleplaying games. The way you run social encounters, also is very much like I try to run them. I also like metacurrencies, I think they add a little extra spice as long as the options for using them fits the genre. For example Bennies in Savage Worlds Adventure Edition has some options that I think only fits very pulpy or superheroic games. Your making me quite interested in Broken Empires, even though I certainly like a lot gamers, don´t really need another game on my shelves.

[@foolcat23]

@@michaelthomsen6810 When I ran Savage Worlds for a group of friends, I announced that in addition to the rules suggested in the rule book, players would also gain a Benny for making the GM or the group laugh. Hilarity ensued…

[@michaelthomsen6810]

@@foolcat23 Savage Worlds can indeed result in a lot of hilarity, simply due to the exploding die mechanic. It´s amazing how many times my players have defeated a very tough opponent with exploding damage dice.

[@dungeoncrawlinghobo7248]

Great breakdown for a lot of RPG’s, your new one sounds cool also

[@ItWasSaucerShaped]

mentioning pheonix command gave me PTSD x.x

[@sanjeevshah168]

Sounds like Beliefs in Burning Wheel!

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

That was one of the inspirations, yes :)

[@waltdog123]

My thoughts exactly

[@CantRIP9389]

Will there be too much buy-in for players to start this game?

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

@@CantRIP9389 What do you mean?

[@CantRIP9389]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG Sometimes when you have a deep and complicated set of lore. Expected understanding of the nuances of relationships between the clans in Vampire: the Masquerade, the amazing lore of Middle Earth, complicated rules in some other games.... it's stuff players feel pressured to represent correctly, and so before they can play a game the job that they are expected to perform first becomes like an entrance fee.

[@Stephen-Fox]

I was thinking The Campaign For North Africa when you suggested that games that attempted zero abstraction are unplayable, but sure. Let's stick to the TTRPG space. I'd be curious to hear what extra details you needed to work out for the setting to make it a book compared to the more free flowing 'figure it out as you play' approach you've taken to MMD campaigns in the past, and how that's going to impact future seasons of the show. Particularly with how much you seem to enjoy discovering the world through play.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

That’s a great question, and one that I wrestled with. There’s no doubt that providing a more detailed setting for the book will curb some level of spontaneous creation in the show. However, it also means I’ll have a far more internally consistent world to riff on when I’m exploring it. I think that’s more benefit than drawback. And, as I am providing a game book, I feel a duty to flesh out the sandbox enough for others to have that same consistency for their own games.

[@darecarrasquillo]

This is really a great essay. really!

[@CantRIP9389]

It sounds like an interesting effort, from a person who's demonstrated what he's talking about a lot and directly. Like you're aiming to directly represent these principles in a way which puts players in a very interesting place to sandbox play from. I've seen games facilitate that before, but it sounds like your efforts are to make it happen more directly 🤔 You've got my attention.

[@gritgrimdark]

It seems our tastes in TTRPG are very much aligned. I always love discussing that spectrum of simulation in games. This sounds really up my alley and I am looking forward to seeing it when it comes out. I do have a question though. How married are the rules and the setting in this game? Not that I don't like your setting, but I do prefer setting neutral games so I can use them in my own settings.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

There’s nothing stopping you from using the game in your own world. Of all the systems, the Magic system is the only one that is somewhat tied to the setting. But it would be easy to make adjustments for a different world.

[@gritgrimdark]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG Thank you for the response.

[@The-VVhite-Crow]

Sounds a lot like Burning Wheel to me, which is nice! @Trevor What would you say, what the major differences are? Besides the d100 system (personally I'm not that much of a fan of the d100 systems I've played) and the implemented setting? You definitely have my attention and I'll start watching season 4!

[@RilliEki]

Dramatic Fantasy Sim-Lite Roleplaying is my favorite type of roleplaying

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Then you’ve come to right place.

[@bonnie115]

Those potatoes better be proper British chips 😋

[@PantherCat64]

I'm getting the sense that I might not actually care for this system, however, I can say for sure what I'm learning conceptually I might integrate into GURPS, and would actually solve certain issues I had, especially how to give out points, It'd make sense to give points based on improvement/progress towards that character's goal. I don't know, if we get a 5th edition for GURPS, I'd like to see some of your ideas written in there. Then again, I have a LOT I would love to contribute if there was a 5th, 4th kinda sucks.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

GURPS is a great game.

[@PantherCat64]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG And my favorite system ever, encapsulated by the first ever character I made for it, a ninja cat... Just a regular domestic cat that had a underground ninja life. Name me a system where with only a core rule book you could figure how to make that. I loved it more when I truly realized how sandboxy it could get, make it more accurate or cinematic, to me it's the ArmA 3 of TTPG. Unfortunately not many people play it, let alone know about it, especially in my generation. I'm pretty sure the only genZ folk who played it is me and two other people I played with in high school. Also I'm excited to see your RPG come to life, just wanna let you know that while I'm at it.

[@LeFlamel]

My design philosophy is similar enough that i almost want to steal those design principles verbatim. A lot of what you said reminds me of the Burning Wheel as well, with the exception of the metacurrency stuff. Same goals, different schools of design regarding how to get there. The only point of difference for me is that I go further in the sim-lite direction. Personally i don't really understand the way TTRPG discourse uses the phrase "equal parts RP and G," or any other phrase along those lines. It sort of betrays this idea that mechanical complexity is game, therefore more mechanical complexity = more game, with the tacit assumption that more game is better. I like strategy and tactics games a lot but TTRPGs are a very poor medium for it IMO. I accept that I can scratch that particular itch with other games but I don't need to look down on games that don't have that. It's like defining movies by action setpieces and thus something can be "more" or "less" of a movie based on how many action setpieces it has. This seems childish, a mature sensibility will accept that different movies can scratch different itches and that the desire to have everything from every genre in a single film is a denial of the fact that some cinematic elements work against each other (power fantasy and horror, for example). I've never yet seen a case where mechanical complexity doesn't work at cross-purposes with narrative/dramatic elements, at least for all but the most experienced players. If one lives and breathes a particular game it's possible to get to that level of mastery where the mechanics don't occupy brain space needed for narrative concerns. So I admit I am not immune to "skill issue" as a retort. But my table isn't Procrustean, the RPG as a tool should be shaped to fit them. I've also yet to find a mechanically heavy game that doesn't create weird edge cases where players are punished for unorthodox ideas, but that one I believe is actually solvable via design. Will keep an eye on TBE.

[@motokuchoma]

I find it interesting that your idea of what even means narrative vs. simulation games is different from mine. I consider D&D extremely simulationist because any roll directly corresponds to a specific physical action. An attack is exactly one swing with a weapon. A skill check is made for exactly the situation its written into (Swim, Climb etc.) - this is different from PbtA or FATE where you have more vague interpretations of the actions being rolled. So rolling an attack in those kinds of games can mean a flurry, a combo or the result of an entire fight.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Yeah, the semantics of those terms have been debated since the earliest days of the hobby.

[@DGB_Smyth]

This looks really interesting and i'm very interested in the rules and would like to back it, but the world seems very similar to most fantasy worlds. Could you tell me how closely the rules are tied to the world?? Would I be able to easily (or lets see with minimal amount of work) insert it into my own world? Thanks!

[@LeFlamel]

As a stray thought, I'm curious whether or not rewarding goals with XP incentivizes meta game behavior, like picking goals easily resolvable within the current sandbox context.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

There are ample guidelines in the book. That said, no rule can stop bad intentions.

[@foolcat23]

@@LeFlamel Players have this tendency to go after rewards on the path of least resistance, and who can blame them? So, from a system builder’s and GM perspective, why not put that behavior to good use and employ it to further roleplaying and immersion? There are many ways to categorize and qualify goals, e.g. time-wise as in long-term, short-term, or immediate. OpenQuest for instance calls them “Motives”, and there is a distinction between “Quest Motives”, i.e. a goal or goals pertaining to the current adventure-which, of course, may be played over several sessions (and if the table so wills, there could be session goals as well)-and the other ones being “Saga Motives”, i.e. a goal or goals that may only be reached over the course of several adventures. The latter could even be broken up into several parts…

[@LeFlamel]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG rules can avoid bad incentives however

[@LeFlamel]

@@foolcat23 i would assume the point of having character traits on the character sheet and mechanizing them would be to avoid players taking the path of least resistance, since that's what they would do anyway - conveniently decide to slightly bend character traits as it suits the current session and party motives. I'd rather have personality mechanics contest the path of least resistance. Generates more tension around the decision to go against the grain of your character. But that's just me, evidently.

[@foolcat23]

@@LeFlamel If you look at a game like Chaosium’s Pendragon, it has pairs of diametrically opposed Virtues and Vices (e.g. Chaste/Lustful, Energetic/Lazy, or Honest/Deceitful etc.) on the same scale, i.e. the greater one of them is, the lesser the other. Players can decide to invoke their Virtues/Vices to get a bonus on a skill roll; now, while of course it’s more likely to get a bonus when picking the stronger trait of the pair, players can also decide at any time to go against their character’s grain and pick the weaker one, taking the lesser chance to succeed. Virtues/Vices may also be invoked by the GM at (inconvenient) times, and the player has to fail their roll to not have their character act on or react to a certain situation, e.g. a player doesn’t want their Valorous knight to jump into the raging river after their drowning friend, knowing it’s dangerous; or a player with a Lustful knight wants to avoid making advances on the fair maiden and thus likely provoke scandal. Both examples may lead to dramatic scenes and surprising new avenues of the emerging story if the players don’t get it their way this time. Having defining character personality traits in a game is a double-edged sword, obviously. First of all, they gotta make sense for the setting. For Pendragon, it makes perfect sense to have both Virtues/Vices and Passions, because it’s a game about feudal knights, social interactions are a big part of the setting, and meta-stats like Glory and Honor are baked into its very fabric. Second, as you’ve said it, players need to be beholden to them, ideally by rules mechanisms. For the advantages they get from them in play, they shouldn’t be allowed to ignore them when they’re situationally inconvenient. In games like GURPS or Savage Worlds, where taking up Disadvantages/Hindrances gives you more points to buy Advantages, taking up traits like Clueless, Gullible, Greedy etc., is easy, but the enforcement depends on the player’s discipline or, failing that, on the GM.

[@DJH47]

@2:56 Curious about your thoughts on Waiting for Godot. 🤣 On a more serious level, how do you handle the traditional division between "wants" and "needs" for characters in tabletop roleplaying games? Is it that they are usually just aligned, or is there more typically a meta-level interaction known with the player and gamemaster? I'm also probably going to end up making a player aid/house rule with cards to push forward express specific intention when talking; this does break a little immersion, but it's probably a great accessibility measure considering more than one player at my table is autistic (including me). I think we know what our characters want, but not necessarily how to express it clearly more frequently than neurotypical people.

[@darecarrasquillo]

narratively, wants and needs are a venn diagram. you can separate the two any number of ways, and none of those ways are "the one true right way". in theater/acting, there's a way to talk about it over a large duration (like "iron vows" or long-term goals) and then there is the moment-to-moment actions people/characters do, usually via words, but also using body language -- there are underlying wants in there. for example, if i have a character that is talking to a merchant, and i want a lower price, a relational want may be to sweet talk them, and the action underneath that sweet talk may be to "impress them", or "confuse them", or "distract them", etc. All of these micro-wants are context dependent, but they are infinite and fun to get specific with.

[@tumtb9071]

Sounds like a solid project overlapping well with my preferences. Simulationism is an unfortunate term because evryone now sees it as synonymous with realism. The originator of the term never intended that and did say a bit later hewished he used the turm emulationist. I agree with that. Toon, Marvel Superheroes and my own Scared Stiff B-Movie Horror RPG are all very unrealistic but etremely simulationist in they emulate what the game is based on. They are also all simple, so simulationism also does not have to indicate compleity as many assume. Anyway, I backed you for PDF, the shiping and currency conversion for Canada precluded my getting the physical copy I had considered. Keep up the good work, I have been watching for feels like 1 but could be 3 years by now (it always ends up being longer than I think).

[@sebastienparadis9115]

Although my characters are usually pretty fleshed out and have a drive to achieve something, the concept that wanting is the very basis of drama is kind-of alien to me. I usually am the GM in my games and every time I write a story, randomly or not, I try to push options. My games are ticking bombs and doing nothing will bring the bad outcome faster. I understand where you want to go, but I feel that this approach brings the challenge to the GM to come out with something you will like as a character, in opposition to you reacting to the situation according to the foundation of who your character is and where he wants to position himself in relation to the situation. The want is there, but it is there after the cards are dealt.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

It's just a matter of approach. It sounds like you're forcing your characters to be reactive instead of proactive, whereas I come at it it from the other side: because of the characters' goals, they are proactive rather than reactive. This doesn't mean that there aren't things in the world they'll have to react to; factions and NPCs will pursue their own objectives, and the characters can easily get caught up in those machinations. A core concept is "Push on the world, and the world pushes back"; very often the character's actions will cause the world to respond in such a way as to make them react! It creates the push and pull of dramatic tension. But in my philosophy, the *characters* are responsible for driving the action, not the GM. In essence, the GM starts by reacting to the players' goal-based actions, and then has the world take its own actions in response. Repeat! And as for "characters wanting things" being the basis of drama... don't take my word for it: take 5,000 years of human storytelling :)

[@sebastienparadis9115]

It is a very interesting approach. When i think of it, i do create the "wants" of all my npc's first or if i come up with a cool story concept, i find who would want a part of that in my world and build from there. This creates multiple avenues from which the pc's can choose where to go. As for using the desires of the characters to build their experience, I find it very interesting. I cannot see the results in "me myself and die" since playing alone, th gm is kind of forced to come up with the story no matter what the pcs do since you play on both sides. I would love to sit at your table someday. I might even send you my material, when i'm done polishing it, maybe it could find its way to the sages librairy.

[@tonyawwwno3364]

Dang, i thought this was based on the Broken Empire book series by martin Lawrence

[@YannMiollan]

For me it's usually the opposite: every time I search for something about this game, I see the Martin Lawrence book xD

[@tumtb9071]

Maybe you should put out the basics of your system (not the entire game) in some sort of license, creative commons, ORC or similar.

[@nutherefurlong]

XP for pursuing a goal, succeed or fail? Like do characters learn from failure?

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

The pursuit is all. Succeeding at the goal gives additional xp. But pursuing goals has a very specific definition in the game: it requires you to roll skills to overcome obstacles. Sometimes those will succeed, sometimes they'll fail.

[@claytongriffin3558]

Will you be making this available for Fantasy Grounds VTT? Although, I would prefer a d20 instead of d100, but this sounds like the closest system to what I'm looking for.

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

One of our possible stretch goals is a Foundry module.

[@claytongriffin3558]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG Hopefully, you can find someone to do it for FG. If you do, I will definitely buy. I've had to transfer to VTT only and bought into FG for a decade and spent too much to try another VTT at this time, lol. But, you never know.

[@claytongriffin3558]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG Ok, on episode 2 of season 4. Gonna get this game, even if only on Foundry. Unless I make my own game using Fantasy Grounds ;)

[@claytongriffin3558]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG Well, first time I've ever given to a kickstarter. The more I watch of season 4 the more I like!!!

[@mr8ducks403]

My character wants the star jewel, unfortunately it resides in the Emperors treasury. Being a rogue, it will be challenging, but trust me, I will pull it off. Why do I want it?, if attached to a dagger, that dagger does 4x its normal max damage. Ouch!😅

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Sounds like a lot of effort just for 4 damage, but it’s a good example of having to overcome obstacles to get something you want! (Weapon damage in the game is fixed; a dagger does 1. Skill with a dagger can be far more deadly than a magical jewel 🙂)

[@bluetrace3778]

Potato 🥔

[@nathanielschmidt1712]

Will the game have a co-op mode? (Like in ironsworn)

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

No plans for that, no. It’s not something I’m experienced with or have much desire to pursue.

[@nathanielschmidt1712]

@@MeMyselfandDieRPG just curious! Appreciate the response!

[@Cristian_Suciu]

Is there a solo mode in this game? I would love to see solo mode implemented natively

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Yes it’s being developed by some very knowledgeable people…

[@Cristian_Suciu]

​@@MeMyselfandDieRPG Sounds amazing, thank you! Looking forward to the campaign. Also love your solo play videos! And I also enjoy solo play systems like Ironsworn or Free League's TTRPGs that are built with solo play in mind. Hopefully the same level of love for solo play will be implemented in this product

[@YannMiollan]

For some reasons I thought your RPG would be system agnostic.

[@TCViper8618]

Does this game allow for solo rpg play?

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Yes we’re developing a solo component.

[@Adamthegeek70]

idk... I like GURPS ... I like "did you play well? " vs "did you work toward your player goals. " I think too specific may not fit every play sessions. Maybe I don't understand... Say my player wants to be a powerful wizard and to explore all the mysteries of the universe but you spend the entire session rescuing said thief that got nabbed by the guards for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. You rescue your friend but do nothing to achieve your goals. Would you get no xp for the session?

[@MeMyselfandDieRPG]

Not everyone is in the spotlight at the same time. But there are ways to help your friend and get xp - especially if your friend’s goal is something the whole party shares: a “shared goal” from which everyone benefits if pursued. It’s a central concept to ensure that the party always has reason to work together, despite their individual pursuits.

[@Knightfall8]

This was a 2 core book sort of investment for me. Q4 2025 is too far away lol

[@gagrin1565]

Getting all my Burning Wheel vibes. Which also sadly means it'll be near impossible to pitch to my group because they seem to think having goals is exclusively a fiction thing despite wanting to do cool stuff and get rewarded for it. It's... a tiresome argument I'll never win.

[@Avoloch]

i hink you need more time, just a few months to markeing is too litle

[@oldmanaarbeh5112]

The kickstarter looks flashy and high fantasy. I am not getting the "sim" vibe as much. I will watch for more info and detailed reviews to make a final call. A solo play would provide better purchase confidence. Maybe a preview PDF? Thanks

[@MagnificentDevil]

All of Season 4 is a solo play and playtest of the game

[@oldmanaarbeh5112]

@@MagnificentDevil found season 4. Thanks

[@ruolbu]

Imho it's sim in the way that stuff that many a GM would either leave out or improvise on is decided by the rules and dice. In combat it's hit location and how the resulting wounds affect the future agency of the combatant. In traveling it's how far you can come in a day and how well you can avoid dangers. One GM might skip combat narration and just say "Ok your attack does not hit their AC, next. Ok, your attack hits and does 5 damage, next..." or ignore traveling at all, instead fast forward to their target location with a time skip. Another GM might explain the same miss and 5 damage with elaborate descriptions, then for go on to paint a beautiful landscape picture with their words, and adding a road encounter they had written a month ago that finally fits in. The Broken Empire from what I gather has systems in place that structure these situations, that give those minimalist GMs something specific to add to their description and for very elaborate GMs it offers something that is not just fluff, but also affects gameplay. And my impression is, that it avoids absurd amount of extra rolls for every detail by generating a lot of these results from a single roll.

[@oldmanaarbeh5112]

I see, assists GM with description without heavy rolling that slows game play.

[@foolcat23]

@@ruolbu Keep in mind that TBE is not based on D20 games, but draws heavily on the D100/Basic Roleplaying DNA. In combat, there are both attack and parry rolls, hit locations, and the possibility to dodge an attack. Success levels of a landed hit determine the options of combat maneuvers available, damage is mitigated by armor that’s specific to the location hit. Effective damage per hit location decides how that body part is affected, to the point of being useless. Wound rolls determine whether the combatant in question can keep on fighting. Naturally, this amounts to more rolls per single combat turn, but not too much. As Trevor has said, this leads to a better level of resolution, and forgoes the basic assumptions and abstractions of D20.

[@ericnull3470]

The "game" is always more important than the roleplaying. Especially since "roleplaying" is modifying the word "game" and not the other way around. At the end of the day any ttrpg is a GAME first. If its anything else first... then it's not a game at all. It's also why every book for every "game" is 99.99% rules for the game and nearly no rules, explanations, or directives in relation to the "roleplaying". Any and all information that isn't directly related to mechanics is almost always setting, tone, and other dressing FOR the game. Information that serves the game. If anyones goal is to "roleplay" first and foremost... then rolling dice would be 100% antithetical to that goal. The dice serve the game and can "inform" and restrict the secondary "roleplaying" aspect to the game. People can 100% play any ttrpg without any "roleplaying" at all. You can just go into a dungeon, use whatever exploration game mechanics there are to explore, use combat rules to have combat, and use reward systems to give out rewards. Nobody ever has to speak in first person, nobody ever has to describe their actions in more detail than necessary for the DM to know what game mechanics they are using. Nobody has to "be" their character, "speak" as their character, or otherwise "become" their character. You can play the game from the perspective of the player at all times. On the other hand, you literally can't play any ttrpg without using the mechanics of the game. Any attempt would only be a collective storytelling exercise that has nothing to do with the "game" other than setting or dressing. I have been told people find this fun as well, but they are just doing theater or theater exercises. They aren't playing the game. Which I encourage if that's what you're into. Just don't go around telling people you're playing a ttrpg when your just telling ghost stories around a table with your friends. It's plainly not true.

[@Griggs1981]

Carlos needs to show up in season 4 still chasing his lover val

[@iratevagabond204]

Sounds cool. I don't exactly agree with his explaination of "drama", and I don't think I'm a fan of the progression system. I love his Hârnmaster and Mythras shoutouts. Two of the best systems ever made, imo.