Thread by @ThoughtPunks

Common design element for me: no combat, just conflicts & action sequences. Not a lot of difference between a stare down & a gunfight. In many of my games, even the same down to taking stress/harm. It makes even outright fights flow so differently.
#TTRPG #GameDesign #IndieDev

Openness of action [including combat] as just a zoomed in version of universal mechanics is key. Battles often end with intimidation rather than a killing blow. Even regularly outright interrupted by talking to enemies, distractions, & other "non-combat" actions. It's open play.

I believe a lot of it is more player framing than mechanical. The mechanics guide the framing but its' the framing that does the heavy lifting imo. Intimidating an enemy being as effective as punching them is a rule but it changes player framing. There's also another layer too.

Borrow from 80s & 10s designs to separate actions in the flow. Almost all my games divide action sequences into 2 or 3 phases per round. First Talking, Doing, or both. Talking is just that. Doing is any non-conflict action. Then Conflict, which is any conflict or opposed action.

Important to note everyone gets an action in each phase. That creates a situation where even combat-focused players are looking for opportunities to take their "full" actions, which includes their talking and/or doing actions.

So overall we have:
open play/open conflict + universal harms/effective options + non-conflict options & resolution preference.

Mechanics matter, but the key factor is how they influence player framing. How players see the game & make choices, above what rules strictly require.

@threadreaderapp unroll