New Tabletop Rules-Light Game

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Hi, I'm new here.  I just read a few posts, and decided to throw some of my ideas out there.

I've been in development of my own multi-genre paper-and-dice game for some time now.  I've made efforts to make it unintrusive to gameplay.  The rules so far fill about 10 pages typed, but cover most often-encountered situations, at least in the more stereotypical role-playing games.  No real playtesting has been done yet, though a few friends have expressed interest in helping me playtest it soon.

The core mechanics and theory are based upon logarithms and exponents, but only addition (and a little subtraction) of small numbers is required to determine results.  They seem easy to me, however untraditional.  One player I've encountered to show the system called it "complicated."  I have been stubborn thus far.  While I've asked for suggestions from friends, I've taken few suggestions to heart.  This is partially because few suggestions have been offered.  Perhaps people have a hard time understanding the game.  Some of the suggestions that have been given interfere with the basic statistical theories behind the game, and so I haven't adopted them.

The rules are written so that a player (even a GM) doesn't have to understand why the rules work.  Relatively simple math is performed to determine the characters' success or failure.  I don't intend for the game to model reality perfectly, but well enough that the logic required to produce good in-game strategy does not seem backward to anyone familiar with our reality, or fantasy realities.  The numbers are abstracted.  The mechanics make an attempt at being goal-based, to cut down on differences between different methods of achieving a goal.

One basic mechanic rules all situations, and seems to have worked relatively well.  Perhaps part of my problem is that I haven't articulated this mechanic in step-by-step manner.  I desire a game with as little book look-up as possible, but one that is fairly unambiguous with the rules.  At the very least, I think this balance has been struck.  Even statting out NPCs can be done quickly, once the rules are understood.

So perhaps my main issue is writing the rules in a manner which is easily understood.  I'm not sure if I really have a specific question to ask the veterans of the forum, but I'd appreciate opinions on (or at least commiseration with) my predicament.

-VD

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there! Welcome to this place.

I think you're right on target by saying that your issue is clarity of presentation. But I also think the issue is, well ... does it work? If the goal is ease of use, then play some sessions and see whether it is indeed easy. In fact, it might be best not to explain Mr. Logarithm and Ms. Exponent at all, and only have people interact with the small-value arithmetic - and then see what they say. The logs and exes can remain your secret.

I'm interested in what you're talking about, especially since I like elegant math about complicated stuff that reduces to simple values in practice. Try me as a guinea pig, as follows.

I got a character! Built using your system! (I don't know what the setting or whatever is, so let's say she's a hot fantasy assassin babe with a spider tattoo. Luke Crane's sexy nightmare.) (And let's say all of this is in some kind of fantasy universe with magic and dragons and cool stuff.)

My assassin babe is crouched on a stone ledge outside the window of her enemy. She will not use her stealthy skills because she wants to confront him, and I, the player, say she acrobatically swings into the room to face him.

How would we resolve this from my, the player's perspective? What sort of simple numbers do I use, and how do I use them? How do we find out what happens?

Best, Ron

P.S. I much prefer to use real names within the body of the posts. Let me know what yours is if it's OK with you.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Aloha, Ron.

My name is Jason Timmerman.  Sorry, I'm just used to using an alias.  I'm going to go ahead and post just a few basics of the system for now, in order to describe the situation you presented.  The system document I was talking about earlier is fairly undescriptive, and lacks examples.

In this game, two 6-sided dice are used in random situations.  Whenever a one is rolled on a die, it is treated as a zero.  The "Throw" or result of the roll is equal to the difference between the two dice.  Snake eyes is a special case, where Throw = -1.  A high Throw is good, so players want to roll dice with the biggest difference possible.  Upon rolling a Throw of 6 (a 6 and a 1), a heroic character can reroll, this time adding +5, and keep the result if it is better than 6.  This generates a curve that approximates a logarithmic curve, in which the chance of success in both of two rolls, both at target number X, is roughly equal to the chance of success in a single roll of target number X+1.

Rounds have a variable Span.  Span is an integer value, representative of a scale in exponents of two, where Span = 12 means that the Round only lasts a second, and Span = 0 means that the round lasts an entire hour.

Initiative represents how long an action /would/ take to complete, were it to continue under the same circumstances unabated.  It works on the same scale as Span.  Initiative = (Simplicity) + (Throw) + (Attribute modifiers).  Simplicity is a number derived by the GM using simple subtraction; basically a supposed duration of the action, minus the difficulty of performing it at that duration.

"Actions" do not only represent the actions of the characters, but passing time and time limits, as well as pretty much everything in-game that takes time.  Every Action has an Initiative.  Only actions that have Initiative of Span - 6 or better need to be taken account of in any usual round.  The completion of any other action is affected less than 1 percent.  Initiatives that fall below Span can be seen as temporary or partial failures.  Actions that fall below Span - 6 can be seen as complete failures; at least for the current round.

Events occur upon Action completion, which, in the case of say, searching for an object, can represent the character finding the object, or the character's self-imposed time limit.  These events determine the end of the Round.  So, the Span is equal to the highest Initiative of any action in the Round.  At the point that event occurs, partial completion is recorded, and the next Round begins.

Partially completed actions are tracked on a Track.  Each round in which an action is not completed, a number of (Span - Initiative) is marked on the action's Track.  If that number is already there, instead cross it out and mark a number one less.  Once a "zero" is added to the Track, the action completes.

The Track itself has a modifier equal to the highest digit in a series of digits starting with 1.  If there is no 1 on the track, the modifier is zero.  For instance, if the track reads "1 2 3 5 6", the Track Modifier is 3, but if it reads "2 3 4 5 6", the Modifier is 0.  The track modifier is added to the Initiative of the action only for purposes of determining Span.

Since attributes are goal/effect-based, they directly represent their mechanical application in-game.  Stats (attributes that represent a numerical modifier to actions in game).  A theoretical mediocre human, perhaps slightly below average in all areas, called a "Zero" is considered to have a zero in all Stats.  Characters are built upon this base.

Sorry for the information dump.  The core mechanic does take a bit of explaining, and I've left in some extra bits to explain the math that I should probably take out later.  While I myself find the above math "elegant", I've spoken with others who find it complicated.

Now let's talk about your assassin babe.

The character is trying to attempt a swashbuckler-esque swinging into the room, which would only take a few seconds.  The maximum Initiative of a movement action is determined primarily by the distance.  Let's say that she's attempting to complete the movement at Initiative 10 (within 4 seconds).  The GM decides upon the Initiative that it would take a person to safely enter the room.  Let's say, if a person were taking their time and being careful about entering this window, it would be an Initiative 8 action (15 seconds).  This is the Simplicity of the action.

Another way of determining the same Simplicity would be to decide that this action at Initiative 10 is Moderate Difficulty (Diff -2).  Again, the Simplicity would be 8.

So, from the Player's perspective, the elegant swing at Initiative 10 represents your character's Goal, your self-imposed Target Number. 

Your character rolls Simplicity + Attribute modifiers + Throw to try and hit that number 10.

If you have an active attribute modifier of +2, let's say Athletics in this case, it's a no brainer.  You could only fail on Snake Eyes; no roll necessary.

If you have Athletics +1, You've got to get a 1 or better on your Throw.  You could look at a chart to see that "Difficulty -1" means "easy" or "a 5 in 6 chance of success", but you don't have to bother with that, just roll.  A Throw of 0 or Snake Eyes (any doubles, really) would mean you look silly as you stumble into the room; snake eyes might mean you bump your head on the way in.

If you're just a mediocre girl trying to look cool, then you've got troubles.  With no attribute modifier, you've got to get a Throw of 2 or better, meaning you have about 7 chances in 12 to succeed.

Getting a total Initiative of 9 at a Span of 10 would mean half success; move the character about halfway to the desired position on this Round.  Initiative 8 means you're moving about as fast as a careful person would. 

Now, other actions, especially faster actions with higher Initiatives, would make the situation more complex, but I hope you get the gist.

-Jason T.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Fixing up a couple mistakes since it looks like post editing is turned off:

The die mechanic curve doesn't model that of the logarithmic equation per se, but when it's written out, the equation the curve tries to model does involve logarithms.

The chances of Throwing a 2 or better are 11 in 18, not 7 in 12, as I mistakenly wrote earlier.  In any case, it's something like 56%.

As far as providing just enough info to describe the player's experience, I seemed to have failed at that.  If you happen to read this post before the last, though:

You say, "She will acrobatically swing into the room."

After some thought, GM Says, "Simplicity 8.  To swoop in to make a dramatic entrance in fighting pose, you'll want to make Target 10.  And go ahead and take a hero point for that."

You roll.  If the difference between the dice is 2 or better (ignoring the possibility of other actions this round), she makes it.  With any predictability, the next round would begin with you and the GM each describing the characters facing off with each other.

-Jason T.

[Ron Edwards]

Good enough!

I like the fact that the target number is self-imposed and has an easy reference: how long do I want it to take. I also like that the parameters of failure take into account the character's starting competence, such that my assassin babe (acrobatics +2, thank you very much) may not be entirely graceful on a snake-eyes, but won't (for example) slip off the sill and plunge to her death, or some shit like that.

OK! Given all that, my jobs as a player are:

1. To state the timing I'd like to achieve, and in this case, four seconds seems fine. We have to look this up and find its corresponding Initiative, in this case, 10.

2. To roll my 2d6, treat 1's as zeros, and take the difference ("Throw") between them.

3. Add the Throw to my Acrobatics (2) and the Simplicity set by the GM, which is 8, seeing whether I can equal or beat a 10.

OK! That works pretty well, especially since I do think my assassin babe can confidently complete that task, and yet I do also accept that she might not quite pull it off as impressively as she'd like when facing off openly against her enemy.

I'd like to re-emphasize my earlier point - I suggest not trying to explain or show anything about the underlying math, at all. Present the above as a procedure, and freaking play it, and you and others will find out how much fun it is, period. You may be proud of the underlying logarithms, and I may buy you a beer sometime and say, "hey, nice logarithms," but that's as far as it needs to go. You do not need to explain or justify it through anything besides (a) it works and (b) it's fun.

So let's discuss the potential fun.

As described, there are some neat things about it. But there are also some features that I refer to as Handling Time and Search Time, which are actually terms from ecology, if you can stand the excitement. Handling Time is what you have to do, or rather how long it takes, to acquire the (in this case) value of interest, and Search Time is what you do, or rather how long it takes, to utilize the value.

In role-playing, there is no absolute "good" or "too much" cut-offs for suitable Handling and Search Times, in terms of actual time. But! There is a grim, awful, and definite cut-off in terms of imaginative relevance. If the effort and time involved in either or both end up being uninteresting and unimaginative relative to what's going on in the shared-imagined-space, then your resolution system is No Damn Fun (tm).

The Search Time in our example is composed of: (a) setting Initiative, (b) setting Simplicity, and (c) establishing and looking up the modifier. Note that both (a) and (b) require two numbers each, the first being the fictional time (4 seconds / 15 seconds) and the dice-relevant values (10 / . So that's five distinct acts for Search Time, which also includes communicating (back-forth = 2) for each, for a total of 10 units of interpersonal, real-world communication.

The Handling Time is composed of (a) rolling 2d6, (b) mentally changing 1's to 0's, (c) calculating the difference, (d) adding the modifier, (e) adding the Simplicity, (f) comparing the total to the Initiative, (g) saying succeed/fail, and (h) actually narrating and agreeing upon the fictional events in the shared-imagined-space.

The prevailing design question is how many of all these little letters are enhancing our enjoyment of the shared-imagined-space as we do them?

Compared with most RPGs, your Search Time ends up being pretty good, actually. I particularly like the matching of Simplicity and Initiative to in-game time, which is vastly superior to the typical, ass "difficulty" found in most games. The stumbling blocks lie in arriving at those values by referencing a chart, so when you play, you must pay attention to whether that exact step is annoying to other people. And you must not do it yourself as GM and tell them not to worry about it! The whole point is to see whether the resolution method itself is fun without you.

Now, the Handling Time is pretty clunky, man. It's less clunky than GURPS or the Hero System or Rolemaster, yes, that's true. But compared to (say) Dust Devils, which is complex enough to rely on poker hands, it's got some hitchy features. This isn't about how hard the arithmetic is or how much mental processing is involved, below a certain limit. What matters is that the 1s-to-0s, subtraction-first, then-add parts do not correspond to imagined elements in play.

Sure, one might say, the resulting math is so nice that across many rolls and scenes, the results will be so consistently appropriate and satisfying, that their results will be accumulatively appreciated by everyone! Unfortunately, that does not happen in reality. Unless the resolution method itself is plain fun to do within the given roll/conflict, it will fail. Game design history is littered with the corpses of games whose math was just right ("realistic," "appropriate," whatever jargon you like) but which was boring and irritating to do because I didn't get to imagine my assassin babe enough when carrying out the steps.

OK, so are you doomed? Is this the Ron Says It Sucks post? Nope, I'm not saying that, and without blowing sunshine anywhere, it does not appear to suck. What I'm saying is to look at those dice again and let's see what they do.

No matter what you do with 2d6 outcomes, you'll always get the same curve. I've modeled this myself, in the mid-90s, when a whole rash of 2d6 games appeared, each with a variety of Handling-Time manipulations ranging across multiplying them together, taking the difference in one of several different ways, adding them and subtracting a difficulty from that value, and so on. Across the games, the curve is always the fucking same, because dice are dice.

That means that all you're accomplishing with the subtraction is reducing the range of numbers to consider to (0 to 6) for that particular curve. Is that really a feature that you want to preserve? The answer might be yes, the answer might be no, but you must decide about it with a clear mind.

To finish this up, I will reference the game My Life With Master, a beautiful and fun game, which has a really fucked-up resolution method. You have to check out a little algebraic equation for every roll, on both sides, to find how many dice to roll. Each contestant rolls a handful of d4s (I ask you), and all results of 4 are removed. Then you add up the remaining ones and see whose is higher.

The fuck? Who came up with this mess? Well, the sad and sobering conclusion is that it works fine. It works great, in fact. Why? Because the most time-consuming step, the initial equations, are rock-solid centered upon the shared-imagined-space, specifically the Fear that currently pervades the setting and specifically features of the Minions that fluctuate during play, like Self-Loathing and Weariness and Love. So carrying out the equations actually strengthens and celebrates what we're all imagining together.

So! My real conclusion is that you do have features and steps in your resolution method which do strengthen and celebrate the in-game imagined elements of the fiction. If the clunky-ass weirdness that is My Life With Master resolution can be salvaged by that very thing, and they can, then there's your signpost that your system may well also be enjoyable.

Playtest, playtest, and playtest - pay attention to the fun of imagining and see whether the true virtue of your method (the in-game-time-dependent step) comes forward for everyone involved.

I hope that helps and makes sense!

Best, Ron

[Eero Tuovinen]

Just a short bit here: when I have to shave off a specific number from a die roll range, like you want to shave off ones, I like to put in some special effect. Like, for every one you roll, you get some hero points. Or if there's a one in the results, your character limit breaks all over the place. Or whatever the game is about, really.

That way you're not just saying that the player has to remember to treat ones as zeros, you're saying that there's this cool special effect (adversial or beneficent) that happens when you roll a one. It's much easier to remember, and more intuitive, because you get the effect instead of the rolled value. After all, if it were just about 1->0 replacement, I might as well get myself special dice for the occasion and save the trouble of remembering to replace the numbers all over the place.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

Ron,

I quite agree with you so far that my math reasoning should be kept out of the game, leaving only the results.  My constant need to qualify myself is due to hearing the 5 words: "Why do it that way?" from at least a couple of the people I've presented this to.

The Search Time in our example is composed of: (a) setting Initiative, (b) setting Simplicity, and (c) establishing and looking up the modifier. Note that both (a) and (b) require two numbers each, the first being the fictional time (4 seconds / 15 seconds) and the dice-relevant values (10 / . So that's five distinct acts for Search Time, which also includes communicating (back-forth = 2) for each, for a total of 10 units of interpersonal, real-world communication.

The (4 seconds/15 seconds) numbers are not even used in the mechanics, so perhaps I should remove them.  On the other hand, they are a descriptive reference to relate Initiative to gametime, so maybe not?  I know so many games that get along just fine without a definite descriptive reference for Initiative.  In my game, however, I want to be able to tell players that they, for instance, see 59 seconds remaining on a time bomb, and have it mean something.  I understand the concern with having distinct numbers like that.  I hope players can get used to it.

The Handling Time is composed of (a) rolling 2d6, (b) mentally changing 1's to 0's, (c) calculating the difference, (d) adding the modifier, (e) adding the Simplicity, (f) comparing the total to the Initiative, (g) saying succeed/fail, and (h) actually narrating and agreeing upon the fictional events in the shared-imagined-space.

First, I hope to make use of dice which don't have ones on them (available at least to our group), so step (b) might be moot.  Modifiers don't exist for all characters.  Attributes are optional, with zero being the base.  So I expect that (d) might be unnecessary for at least half of the characters I intend to use the system for (though, certainly, other people might want characters with modifiers to everything).  (f/g) Not exactly what I was getting at, but close enough, I suppose, to illustrate your point.

And you must not do it yourself as GM and tell them not to worry about it! The whole point is to see whether the resolution method itself is fun without you.

As GM myself, I wouldn't have to reference the charts, except perhaps to see some pre-determined numbers I've set, such as how toxic a certain drug is, or what is the Simplicity of a certain spell.  However, perhaps that's because this system is meant to model how I personally think a system should work, and doesn't model something that would be intuitive for others.

No matter what you do with 2d6 outcomes, you'll always get the same curve. I've modeled this myself, in the mid-90s, when a whole rash of 2d6 games appeared, each with a variety of Handling-Time manipulations ranging across multiplying them together, taking the difference in one of several different ways, adding them and subtracting a difficulty from that value, and so on. Across the games, the curve is always the fucking same, because dice are dice.

That means that all you're accomplishing with the subtraction is reducing the range of numbers to consider to (0 to 6) for that particular curve. Is that really a feature that you want to preserve? The answer might be yes, the answer might be no, but you must decide about it with a clear mind.

Not so; the rolling does not produce the same curve.  Here are the statistical chances of outcome for each result:  0: 6/36, 1: 2/9, 2: 2/9, 3: 1/6, 4: 1/9, 5: 1/18, 6: 1/18.  Adding in the extra stipulation that snake eyes are a botch, we have instead:  1: 1/36, 0: 5/36.

If you compare this to say, 2d6 - 6, or 2d4 - 2 on a chart, you'll come up with a different curve.  Instead of a pyramid/triangle curve like these mechanics produce, the mechanic I've outlined to you produces a curve that resembles the equation I related to you earlier.


Yeah, the steps in determining the Throw themselves don't model anything in the shared imagined space.  It's only the result that models shared imagined space by taking into account statistics and narrative time.  My thought was that, after several rolls, the mechanic would become a no-brainer, much like White Wolf's storytelling die pools.  Storytelling-system dice are notoriously clunky: having to check each die for success and adding successes together; but when you get used to it, the rolling and determining results actually go faster than many other systems, because everything works that way.

Perhaps a way to get the results on the dice to model the shared game-space would be this: Narratively, the Low Die might represent random, external forces, and the High Die might represent the character coping with them.  But I think that requires a bit too much analysis of the dice themselves, and makes them even more intrusive into the game.

I've spent a lot of time searching for a less clunky mechanic to produce the same math.  If you don't treat the ones as zeroes, for instance, you come up with a curve that looks a bit different.  The main issue with that curve is that it's unheroic, and places too high a statistical outcome on low results.

Thanks so much for your advice.  It's really good to have an experienced pair of eyes on this.

Just a short bit here: when I have to shave off a specific number from a die roll range, like you want to shave off ones, I like to put in some special effect. Like, for every one you roll, you get some hero points. Or if there's a one in the results, your character limit breaks all over the place. Or whatever the game is about, really.

Well, double 1s represent a botch.  It's adverse but not special, really.  Open to interpretation, in some sense.

My issues are statistical.  Compared to other ways of producing the same curve, "Treating 1s as 0s" is just sleeker.  So you're probably right with the custom dice thing.

-Jason Timmerman

[Ron Edwards]

The 1's thing actually strikes me as OK. "Remove all ones from the table!" is a pretty easy step.

Best, Ron

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Jason and Eero,

I think both of you might be over-doing the "connect to shared imagined space" thing. I brought it up not to suggest more of it, but to point out that your system has the virtue of already having such a connection involved. Which is to say, the in-game time factor.

I do not suggest adding more fiddly stuff to check upon when rolling. Bluntly, Eero, your suggestions are horrible. That's the kind of stuff I blowtorch out of recent game designs all the time. Adding more handling time is the last thing such a resolution method needs.

What I do suggest is thinking now about the situations within which these rolls are made. In my example, the time-factor was only present as a matter of personal style. But for more crucial moments, I think the really important in-game crises (within which we roll) should involve ... you guessed it ... time-sensitive content. It should matter whether I go for an Initiative of 12 seconds or 4 seconds, or whatever the choices are. Because that other guy is going for it big-time, and I have to trade off my target number for getting there first. And I'd like to think that it'd be the most fun if I let the SIS drive my choice ("gotta get there quick!") knowing all the while that the system will kick me in the guts for being too reckless.

So maybe the best way to make this resolution method sing, in play, is to predicate conflicts, often if not always, upon timing, in all of its forms. "Hurry up!" "Listen, we have to get this right." "But the allosaurus is almost upon us!" Or otherwise, "We gotta get there, now!" "Careful kid, we won't help her by getting splattered by an asteroid."

I also want to acknowledge that you are right about the curve. I was thinking more about what it was like before taking out the ones, but it doesn't matter - you were right and that's that. Mechanically and physically, I suggest again not saying "treat ones as zeros," which is a mental step, but rather "take all dice showing ones and remove them instantly." That's a mental step that feels like a totally physical one. I'm basing it on my experience with (a) My Life with Master, in which ignoring the 4's never seems to have a fiddly feel; and (b) Fudge, in which removing matched plusses and minuses is similarly easy-feeling, low-handling-time stuff.  I really do not suggest putting in any sort of SIS-based addition for that step.

Best, Ron

[Callan S.]

Hi Jason,

On a different approach from Ron, have you considered how your logarithm ties in all actions? So during an adventure, as much as all actions in the adventure are enabled through the logarithm, after the adventure you can look at the logarithm and see all those actions. It sort of ties all those events into one principle truth, like causality is the truth of B coming after A and not before.

Just seeing if it struck a bell with you - don't let me distract you if it's way off.

[J. Scott Timmerman]

I do not suggest adding more fiddly stuff to check upon when rolling.

You're right, that's probably for the best.

What I do suggest is thinking now about the situations within which these rolls are made. In my example, the time-factor was only present as a matter of personal style. But for more crucial moments, I think the really important in-game crises (within which we roll) should involve ... you guessed it ... time-sensitive content. It should matter whether I go for an Initiative of 12 seconds or 4 seconds, or whatever the choices are. Because that other guy is going for it big-time, and I have to trade off my target number for getting there first. And I'd like to think that it'd be the most fun if I let the SIS drive my choice ("gotta get there quick!") knowing all the while that the system will kick me in the guts for being too reckless.

So maybe the best way to make this resolution method sing, in play, is to predicate conflicts, often if not always, upon timing, in all of its forms. "Hurry up!" "Listen, we have to get this right." "But the allosaurus is almost upon us!" Or otherwise, "We gotta get there, now!" "Careful kid, we won't help her by getting splattered by an asteroid."

What you're basically saying is that, with this system, I should always make time matter, or else perhaps I'm putting too much effort into weaving time in.  I agree; in fact I sort of based the game around situations like that.  I created it so that time constraints like that would be settable.  Time is, basically, another opponent with which to challenge the players; and challenge makes the game more interesting.

Mechanically and physically, I suggest again not saying "treat ones as zeros," which is a mental step, but rather "take all dice showing ones and remove them instantly." That's a mental step that feels like a totally physical one.

Perfectly reasonable.  But with custom dice, even the physical step wouldn't be necessary...

On a different approach from Ron, have you considered how your logarithm ties in all actions? So during an adventure, as much as all actions in the adventure are enabled through the logarithm, after the adventure you can look at the logarithm and see all those actions. It sort of ties all those events into one principle truth, like causality is the truth of B coming after A and not before.

Just seeing if it struck a bell with you - don't let me distract you if it's way off.

Well, during any given "round", all actions are treated as if they're happening simultaneously, and an event, which is defined by the completion of any action, completes the round.  In that sense, one of the flaws that might lag the game down a bit is that all the actions have to be looked at to determine how long the round is.

The only useful way of handling this in any group larger than 3 players would be to write the actions themselves down.  When you think about it, the more actions that exist, the shorter rounds are.  The more things that are happening at once, the more events occur, and since every event ends a round, more rounds happen in a shorter amount of time.

So, in writing all this down, it would naturally keep a record.  Of course, all the numbers would tie into the logarithm, and you could retell the story by looking at them (though the descriptive element might not be congruent with the game as it was played).  The truth, as you say, would be more in the mechanics.  Writing down every descriptive adjective might bog things down, so the story itself might not be apparent.

On a side note, it looks as if the playtest group is coalescing.  People are creating characters.  Once we test and find the problems with the system (as I'm sure there still are many), I'll start posting those issues in the Playtest forum.  Thanks for everyone's help.

-Jason Timmerman

[Ron Edwards]

You're welcome! It was a pleasure.

To be absolutely clear about one thing - I'm not suggesting that absolutely every conflict in the game should concern a time crunch, but rather that it be incorporated if and when possible.

Best, Ron