Observations of the Fox

 You know what I said in the second post ... ... ignore it.  I'll clarify that a bit. When I said that a switch needs a good balance to it, weighing up the pros of the potential advantage and cons of the potential disadvantage, that's still kind of true. But a good narrative isn't always about balance.  I've written that players are often participating in roleplaying sessions for a combination of escapism and telling a good story. That escapism often requires letting them do things easily and show off their characters strengths, but a good story often has obstacles where the characters are underdogs and have little chance of success. Imbalance often swings between extremes. Sometimes the heroes are on top of the world, sometimes they are facing drama, sometimes they have no idea what they're doing because they don't have all the facts. I like to make sure things swing in all sorts of directions, as long as it can be justified by the narrative. 3rd Edition D&

 Apparently, according to some sources, the first game to do this really well was Sorceror (written by Ron Edwards and published by Adept Press)...but I distinctly remember seeing implementations of relationship maps back in World of Darkness games in the 90s. The idea is that different characters in the story are connected to each other, Points (or nodes) on the chart indicate who they are, and lines between them can be used to indicate who connects to whom...but there can be more than this. Relationship maps can be simple... ...or quite complicated... They can link only the characters in a campaign, or they can link characters to places, and to objects that may be important to the story. The links can also depict more than just a connect between elements of the setting. I like to add symbols to the lines between nodes, or colour code them. In this case, the nodes are groups, because these are the important units of the story. Within each group there could be a separate relationship m

 If the clock is a visible meter of tension rising, a switch is a less visible indicator. A switch works off a binary of yes or no... is something happening, is it not happening. There's no gradually turning up of the heat and then watching things flip from one state to the other, instead it's a single roll, a single randomising factor. The switch might activate after a single roll, or it might not activate after a dozen rolls.  (Ten years ago it was easier to do a search for roleplaying games that incorporated switches, now a quick search tends to give me console RPGs on the Nintendo Switch)   I basically first ran the idea of a switch without realizing it back in high school. The premise was a mysterious carnival, with a mysterious vendor who may or may not have been the devil. It was a game of Rifts, so over-the-top shenanigans was a typical part of play. Rune swords had just been introduced in one of the most recent sourcebooks at the time, and I thought they'd be cool

At the simplest level, the clock is a visual tracking mechanism. It's basically a circle divided into segments (often 4, 6, or 8), and it typically represents big effects underway in the story.  The idea of the RPG clock has been around for at least 20 years, and it can be traced back to systems where a major feat may be accomplished through multiple successes,  and arguably back to the idea of hit points. However, the clock has evolved in a few different ways.  Hit points and multiple success systems typically allow you to remove multiple levels with a single action, while clocks move incrementally...tick by tick. Hit points and multiple success systems are reactive to specific actions being taken. Clocks can be tied to anything, including timed effects ("You've got six turns to accumulate as many successes as you can") Clocks tend to be chunky, with big incremental ticks that add sudden drama with each one's passing. Clocks often impact the narrative in some way

Among game designers there was a debate for many years about whether a game system mattered. This was pushed at The Forge, with essays such as " System Does Matter " by Ron Edwards. ...but to show that the debate has been going on for years, here's a random assortment of links to articles and posts over the years that have addressed the idea. " Why System Matters " " Game Structures Addendum - System Matters " " System Doesn't Matter* " " RPG History - What events/games led to 'System Matters' needing to be 'rediscovered'? " " Does System Matter? " " Why the Rules you use matter " " System Matters 24 years later " All of them are interesting reads and watches... (and yes, I know that two of the forum posts linked refer to the same video, but the varied discussions are interesting) The thing about most of these discussions is that they refer to the written words on the pages of a game

Everything in this series so far has consisted of things I've learned by running games, things I've learned by participating in games run by other people, or things I've learned from hearing about games that friends have been involved in. If you only ever play in series of games run by one person, using one system, and the same group of players. All the tensions on the narrative are going to be similar no matter how many sessions you play. If you judge all roleplaying by that set of narrow experiences, it's a bit like judging all  TV shows even thought the only thing you've ever watched is the 90s sit-com Friends. If you say that it's rubbish, or you say that you've become bored of all TV because you've become bored of the one TV show you know, you may not realise that there's a lot more potential that you haven't explored yet....and you can even make your own. To further the analogy, if the only TV show you've watched is Friends, then the on