Wednesday, May 24, 2017

Just Say No

Content note: brief mentions of rape and sexual assault, violations of consent.
Cards from Archipelago, a game written by Mattijs Holter
“Yes, and...”

This is the statement I see encouraged endlessly in game introduction texts, at game events, at game tables. This is what is supposed to be the key of play – the center of improv, the best way to have good dialogue and storytelling in games.

But like… no?

Don’t get me wrong, I did improv for years (surprise!), and Yes, and is a huge part of it, but even when I did improv, it wasn’t always the best tool. Sometimes, it leads to consent issues, others, it waters down the story. I want to talk a little about important things that go against the passionate promotion of “yes, and.”

There are alternatives to Yes, and: Yes, but...; No, but...; and No, and... Here’s the thing: most story gamers are familiar with these already. They’re Powered by the Apocalypse/Apocalypse World move result structures.
10+ - Yes, and 
7-9 - Yes, but 
6- - No, but (or) No, and
Some of this comes up in many stratified result systems in games ("success at cost"), but we don’t really talk about that, I think, and it might not be brought into player-to-player interactions.  They’re pretty simple and can be easily understood and taught. Most are familiar with “yes, and” (I accept your fiction and build on it), so here’s the rest:
  • Yes, but – I accept your fiction, except this piece is more difficult. Basically Archipelago’s “That Might Not Be Quite So Easy!”
  • No, but – That doesn’t work, but you still get something out of it.
  • No, and – That doesn’t work, and this is why/here’s how it’s different.

No, but and No, and function similarly to “Try a Different Way!” in Archipelago. To be honest, Archipelago is one of my favorite RPGs because it is so beautifully developed for building rich stories and really flavorful and intense social interactions because the ritual phrases are gorgeous and work really well.

The option to say no (and add to it, or give good reasons why) can make some cool things happen. It can keep things in tone, or allow players who are being left out of controlling the plot to take charge. I also have some problems in general with Yes, and that impact play in a very important way.

Yes, and can impact consent. Oh, no one is being forced to accept something in a story, but if you start playing with the assumption that an idea can be pitched and has to be accepted or else it will negatively impact the story, it can make people feel like they have to give in or they’ll ruin the game. It feels to me like a bad writer’s room gig. Like, why did Tasha Yar come from a rape gang planet?
Writer: Here’s this cool lady character I made for the show, she’s a security officer. 
Random Creepy Executive: Yeah and she totally has sexual trauma that made her so cool. 
W: Um… I… I guess so? 
RCE: And what if there were rape gangs! That she had to run from! 
W: If that’s what you think would be cool? 
RCE: We’ll have an episode where she’ll have to relive it! It’ll be awesome!
And so on.

How many women in games can say that someone didn’t try to introduce shit into their backstory like this? How many just felt pressured to let it happen even without a Yes, and culture? Now imagine with all of your cool friends saying that you should accept people’s ideas because otherwise stories get boring.

That, and it can lead to the most enthusiastic, outgoing people to controlling the story. Who suggests the most ideas in your group? How much of the time do they dominate it? Now bring in a shy player and say “hey, in this game we play like improv, and when someone suggests something in game, you’re supposed to be like ‘yes, and’ and play on it.” What if they have an idea? If the dominant player pitches them an idea, do you think they’ll feel comfortable being like “hey, that actually doesn’t fit my character, let’s try it a different way.” What if that person has good ideas, but they feel pressured to accept whatever someone throws at them?

Improv is great, by the way. But, improv itself can be harmed by exclusive yes, and culture. Especially in regards to consent! When I was taught improv originally, Yes, and was highly emphasized. I was 15 (I did improv at events until I was 18), and over our practice I struggled with it, but hey, my trainers knew best. So when a 35 year old guy grabbed my arm and started licking my hand and talking about how he was my lover, I was afraid to say no – almost as afraid of the situation. I eventually pulled my hand away and denied it, but that guy – also an improv actor – knew that we were in a culture where I was supposed to say yes. I have felt this way in RPGs, too. Abusers gonna abuse, but they sure as hell can do it better when peer pressure helps it along.

But it’s also important to remember that not all games require improv. We aren’t on a set stage without freedom to ask questions, or step back. One of the reason my safety measures in Script Change suggest talking before you continue is because prioritizing immersion and story over the comfort, safety, and enjoyment of everyone at the table is not only uncool, but also pretty boring. In games where there’s combat and strategy, being able to step back and be like, “hey, is this okay?” is useful. In games without… it’s also useful.

I’ve heard people condemn out-of-character discussion as metagaming and saying that rejecting other people’s ideas stifles play. I don’t agree with that. There are degrees of metagaming that aren’t unreasonable, like pausing to check in with people before moving the story forward, or someone saying “hey, that is a way gorier way for my character to die than I’m okay with, can we rewind and try again?”

 I think controlling the narrative is part of the beauty of RPGs, and part of that is being able to say “no.”

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email

Sunday, May 21, 2017

Designer & Devourer Episode 5

Check out Episode 5 of Designer & Devourer! We’ll be talking recent posts, upcoming stuff, and then some recent development work on Turn. The recipe this week will be road trip kebabs. J

Recently did an interview with Jeff Tidball on The White Box, a box of blank parts to help design and game education get started!

Interviewed Colin Kyle on Axon Punk: Overdrive, a cyberpunk game with hip hop influences.

Chatted with Kevin Allen, Jr. on Trouble for Hire, a road adventure game with one player and distributed GM roles for the other players.

Talked to Cam Banks about CortexPrime – my stretch goal hit! It’s still going!

Released Of the Woods: Lonely Gamesof Imagination on DriveThruRPG, includes a game of my design and curated games from other designers. Proceeds go to Trevor Project.

Interviews coming are kinda being juggled right now, but they're on the way. :)

Road Trip Kebabs

Beef, roughly cubed to 1”x 1”x 2” pieces
Chicken, roughly cubed to 1”x 1”x 2” pieces
Sweet onions, sliced
Sweet peppers, sliced
Brown mustard

Cut meat, chicken, vegetables, and thread onto skewers. You can do all one meat on each skewer, or mix it up. Grill until cooked to your preference of done-ness, but make sure the chicken is at least 165° F or there’s no pink left. Season while it’s still hot, right off the grill. Use mustard as a dipping sauce! Great hot or cold. 

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email

Saturday, May 20, 2017

Playtesters Needed: Turn and Armored Reckoning

Hi all!

I'm seeking online playtesters for my current project, Turn! I'm also soliciting playtesters for John Sheldon's game, Armored Reckoning! Details below!


Turn Summer Online Playtest: Seeking 3-4 players (Respond by 5/31)

Turn tells the story of shapeshifters in small towns struggling to balance their human and beast needs and desires. It is a narrative story game with mechanics focused on social interaction and story development. This online playtest is intended to be a 4-8 session campaign with regular feedback provided.

Player preferences:
Experience with narrative story games (in the style of PbtA, Fate, Archipelago)
Interest in supernatural stories and legends
Comfort with emotional, tight-knit social storylines
Willingness to commit to a code of behavior for the game
Willingness to provide clear, considerate feedback on game mechanics and interpretation
Reliable availability for dates noted below

Online Tuesday or Wednesday nights Eastern
Starting 5pm or later, ending no later than 10:00pm
Sessions no shorter than 2.5 hrs

Sessions will be rescheduled only if there are fewer than 2 players available (GM + 2 players = game on.)
APPLY HERE by May 31, 2017

Armored Reckoning Online Playtest (Respond by 5/31)

World War II hasn't worked out the way the Allies planned. In a deadly and inexplicable Second Blitz, German tanks have overrun Allied lines. Nazis now threaten Paris, Rome, and Warsaw with renewed occupation. Your company of soldiers and freedom fighters, trapped behind enemy lines with barely-operational light tanks, may be the last hope for the war effort.

Work with your teammates in this GM-less roleplaying game to wreak havoc behind German lines. Uncover the source of their renewed military might, and put a stop to it. Alternate between tense engagements using a card-based tactical system and narrative downtime scenes, where characters and conflicts take center stage.

2 to 5 players, 4 to 6 online sessions (each 2 to 4 hours)

Preferred nights are Wednesday or Thursday, starting after 7pm Eastern, online

Email by May 31, 2017 if interested.

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email

Saturday, May 13, 2017

Five or So Questions with Jeff Tidball on The White Box

In a last minute burst, I have an interview with Jeff Tidball about the project he's currently publishing via Kickstarter, The White Box! It's an unusual concept and when I saw it, I had to ask about it! See what Jeff has to say below.


Tell me a little about The White Box. What excites you about it?

The White Box is very simple: It’s a book of essays and a box of components. The essays are about how to design and produce tabletop games. The components are a very generic set of pieces — dice, cubes, meeples, etc. — designed to get people started experimenting and prototyping right away.

I really, really like making games. For me, this has also become an enthusiasm for talking about the process of making games, which has lead to more and more teaching folks how to make games. The White Box is a very efficient way to spread that to a large number of people, over (what will hopefully be) a long period of time, if we can establish an evergreen place for it in retail stores.

Something I think we’ve seen more and more, in the last 10–20 years, are increasing non-formal educational opportunities for people who just want to learn to do some particular creative thing. They don’t want a degree, they just really like the idea of learning how to do a thing, and I think they also like thinking of themselves as people who could do that thing. We’ve seen an explosion of classes (in person, online, at retreats, during conventions…) about writing novels, composing screenplays, making documentaries, and — yes — designing games.

One of the non-obvious upsides of this interest in learning is that there’s a chance to do this teaching as something other than philanthropy. Am I going to get rich publishing The White Box? No. Neither is Jeremy (its author), or Gameplaywright, or Atlas Games. But it can become a self-sustaining thing. So, in addition to liking to talk and teach about gaming, I’m excited at having (with this Kickstarter’s apparent success) worked my way into a format for talking and teaching that’s financially sustainable,

What kind of components are inside The White Box, and why?

The stuff inside The White Box is a set of relatively common board game components: cubes, meeples, dice, and punchboard counters. The cubes, meeples, and dice come in a variety of colors. The base was four colors; our 1,000-backer stretch goal added a fifth color. We’ll add a sixth if we hit 100 retail backers.

The one unusual thing we’ve got in that vein of componentry is a giant wooden cube in each color. They look great in the pictures, and I’m interested in seeing what they inspire in designers.

What we *don’t* have is also interesting. Earlier versions of the parts list included blank cards, and a blank game board. We had to cut down the list to make the box more affordable, because we were really invested in the idea that The White Box should be a no-brainer purchase for someone interested in design. We really didn’t want to lose them over price. In my design experience, cards are much better created on a printer (cut a sheet of office paper into nine pieces) and then sleeved. We can’t compete with the cheapness of that (and the reusability of the sleeves), and we’d be providing something worse than that anyway. So they went.

The board was both especially expensive, and not large enough to accommodate what I thought would be relatively standard design uses. And large sheets of paper aren’t hard to come by, so again, it didn’t seem like a huge loss to lose it from the roster.

What was the biggest inspiration for The White Box and its specific components as a product, beyond seeing a need?

Jeremy Holcomb, the creator of The White Box, seems like he was most inspired by both his teaching (he’s a professor at DigiPen) and the same questions recurring in convention panels. The essays in the book are calibrated to answers those perennial questions. But I suppose those are both in the category of “seeing a need.”

I can’t speak for Jeremy as to deeper inspirations, but I have done a fair amount of teaching — formal and informal — and mentoring in the area of game design, and I’m inspired by a love of creative pursuits generally, and game design in particular. I also love the entrepreneurial endeavor of bringing a game to market, and so teaching people how to make games that can succeed in a greater marketplace games is something that I dig, and that I think is valuable.

This is such an unusual product, and sounds like a challenge to prepare for a larger audience. How have you tested The White Box?

Jeremy has literally tested the component mix by collecting samples and dumping them out on a table with friends to see what they can make. He’s also passed the book's essays around to students and colleagues in order to garner feedback and improve their content.

For my part as a publisher, I spent a lot of time worrying about whether the marketplace had any interest in a product like this, and trying to figure out how I could test the general idea to get a deeper sense before launching a Kickstarter that might fail.

Those concerns seem ridiculous now that we’ve raised five times our funding goal halfway through the campaign, but it’s impossible to know what will succeed and what will fail beforehand, which is *nervewracking*.

My publisher’s “testing” consisted of creating a graphic that looked as much as possible like the contents we were proposing — it’s more or less the same graphic we’re using as the Kickstarter feature image — and showing it to both designers and retailers. I asked things like, “Do you need one of these?” “Would you buy one?” “How much would you pay for one?” “Could you sell this?” “How much would be too much?” That’s the process that provided as much validation as we could get (without doing it for real), and led us to a $29.95 price point, as opposed to something higher.

What benefits do you think educational game products bring, particularly The White Box? Are there skills (ability to complete tasks), or traits (behaviors and trends in ideals)?

I definitely think you can learn things from other people, whether that learning takes the form of reading their written works, listening to their lectures, or talking with them in a conversation.

But I don’t think you can get all the way to an *understanding* that way, and (obviously) learning in that way doesn’t allow you to directly product anything. (Other, maybe, than notes.) To arrive at a deeper understanding, and to produce something, you have to sit down and make. And usually, you have to make iterations. Drafts of a novel, prototypes of a game, or even individual performances (or rehearsals) of a piece of music. And of course, in a creative pursuit like game design, to produce a thing is also the goal. So you deepen your understanding in the act of making.

But then you wind up going back to learning, as you hit walls, or as you seek feedback on the last thing you made. So, I think it’s cyclic. Learn, make, learn more, make again.

Circling back to The White Box, I’ll say this: I think the best thing a teacher — be it a person, a book, or whatever — can do is to encourage the making phase. If the teacher sees the learning as an end in and of itself, I think the whole enterprise is a little sad and incomplete. So part of the crucial thing about The White Box is that *the things inside of it encourage the making*. It’s not just a book of advice; it’s also a call to action. And I think those two things are both critical to the endeavor.

The White Box teaches skills, probably, except insofar as it takes excitement and investment to begin the process of learning (to trigger the process of making), and the way the essays approach game design — with enthusiasm and love — will hopefully engender those traits necessary to invest the time to learn the skills.


Thanks so much to Jeff for answering my questions! The White Box only has a couple more days on Kickstarter, so if you want in, check it out now

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email

Friday, May 12, 2017

Five or So Questions with Kevin Allen Jr. on Trouble for Hire

Today I have an interview with Kevin Allen, Jr., creator of Trouble for Hire, which is a game about road warriors and is currently on Kickstarter! Road warriors are pretty cool, and Kevin was real cool about answering my questions. Check 'em out below!


Tell me a little about Trouble for Hire. What excites you about it?

Trouble for Hire is a game that lets 3-6 friends create stylized, fast-paced, road adventure stories set in a trash-culture pastiche of the 1970’s(ish) American West. It’s kind of a reverse roleplaying game; There’s one character –a tough/cool Mexican wheelman– who the game focuses on, while distributing the responsibilities of a traditional GM between the other players. These roles shift throughout play, so everyone gets a chance to do everything in the course of a session. It’s rules light, plays a whole story in single session, and is chock full of really unique color.

What about all that has me excited? Well, beyond the general excitement of publishing a project that I’ve been working on for a little over half a decade, and getting to work with some of my absolute favorite artists, the thing that I’m most jazzed about is seeing what people create with the world I’m giving them. There’s so many games on the shelves, great ones even, but they’ve been telling the same kind of stories in the same kind of worlds for a long time now. Fantasy sword bros. Steampunk gutter thieves. Spaceship superhero armor dudes. I love those games; I play the hell out of those games, but I always wondered where were all the games about Jane Fonda and Warren Oates trying to smuggle 8 kilos of California Kush through Petrified Forest National Park? Trouble for Hire is THAT game. Getting to see the unique content that people make, to hear about their adventure stories: That’s what I’m excited about. I’ve assembled what I think is a really rich toy box, and I can’t wait for people to play with it."

I love this idea of one player, many GMs. Tell me a little more about these roles that the GM style players have - what keeps them involved? How much control do they have?
Glad you're as keen on the Roles as I am. They break up traditional GM duties and assign them out in themed abstract chunks. There's a role for setting stuff, antagonist npcs, neutral npcs, the main character's sidekick or allies, and a few more. There are roles that are optional, depending on if you want them in a particular story or not; one for supernatural stuff, one that introduces a second major character. There's even an Editor role who doesn't so much create content like the other roles do but remixes it (with things like flashbacks and insights) like a live dj scratching your story instead of records.

There were a couple design problems I was looking at when making trouble for hire that speak directly to this issue of control and how it engages your interest in the story and as a device of play. The big one was ‘how do you make a group roleplaying game about the strong silent loner?’ Wolverine is cool in comics, but when he comes to the gaming table he tends to fall flat. The answer I came to was character non-monogamy, allowing everyone at the table the chance to be Wolverine (or in this case, Mexican smuggler Ruben Carlos Ruiz). Once I resolved to have the main character change hands in play it made sense for the rest of the responsibilities to do so as well. Every role has tricks they can pull, situations they can create in the story, general abstract territories they each lord over. When you first start playing certain roles appear more useful or engaging than others (who would want to be unnamed background characters when you could be the big bad villain?) but you’ll quickly realize they all do cool tricks –tricks that the story is just begging you to pull off. They give you ideas for ways to tweak the narrative. Eventually you realize that the scene you’re playing would be greatly enriched by the addition of some unnamed background characters, perhaps the kind who will eventually turn into the big bad villain, but as yet their allegiances are unknown.

The roles offer players a great deal of control. They are more about enabling fun storytelling than putting boundaries on what you can and can’t do. There’s plenty of overlap between the roles and any big important game thing (like initiating challenges where dice get rolled, or advancing the turn rotation) are backed up across many players. It’s less you only get to play with this corner of the sandbox and more you can play with the whole sandbox, but you have to look at it through these particular tinted glasses.

Sweet line art by Amy Houser.
What's gone into the design process, technique and testing wise, for Trouble for Hire over the time you've been working on it? 

I started working on this game way back in 2010. For the first year the game shapeshifted around in different forms before settling into essentially what it is today. I’ve been testing and playing the game since then. Hundreds of hours. It’s the most extensive review I’ve ever given a project before publishing –not because there were unresolved issues, but because I was really enjoying playing the game and crafting the world. A creator’s intention is interesting to examine, but ultimately I believe that art (in this case a game) belongs to it’s audience. My opinion doesn’t matter at your gaming table, I’m not there to lord over you and dictate what’s kosher, so I’ve spent a lot of time with the text making sure it’s jam packed full of my voice and ideas.

What non-game media did you watch or read (or rewatch and reread!) to get ideas, flavor, and style from for Trouble for Hire?

This game was very much born in a cauldron of simmering influences, the biggest being post-western films of the 70’s. By post-western (and I go into this topic a bit more in-depth in the game text) I’m talking about a movement/realization in the latter half of the 20th century that the noble story of the western hero (read: white cowboy) was perhaps not as noble as it once seamed. Or perhaps the vicissitudes of modern life had rendered the romance of a “wild west” irrelevant. Either way, filmmakers started examining the role of the loner hero and a conflicted national identity. Sometimes that influence was serious (i.e.: Vanishing Point) and sometimes less so (anything with Burt Reynolds hassling Jackie Gleason). I present a pretty robust “appendix N” in the game, including a number of inspirations that might not normally be found in a gaming context. I took a lot from the paintings of Rosson Crow and Wes Lang, the photography of Neil Krug, and a musical combination of old school outlaw country, stoner metal, and Mexican narco ballads.

What are some key moments of play you've seen that just really exemplify Trouble for Hire as a game and experience?

There are three flagship adventures included in the game that represent kind of the purest expression of the setting and it’s themes (there’s a bunch of other adventures included too, that deviate from and play with those themes). The one included in the preview document –“Hollywood Brad Freeman’s Special Delivery”– is an adventure that centers on delivering a mystery box to a biker gang and the tribulations that occur along the way. I never declare what’s in the box, that’s for players to discover at the table. It’s always the first question I ask when I hear from people who played the game. What was in the box? Best answers: A solid gold phallus from an ancient Aztec temple; a sex tape featuring president Jimmy Carter; and thousands of poisonous scorpions. I’m really proud to have made a game where those are all totally reasonable and fantastic solutions. I can't wait to see what else people put in my mystery box and what they get out of Trouble for Hire.

More gorgeous line art by Amy Houser.


Thanks so much to Kevin for answering my questions and sharing about Trouble for Hire, and thanks to Nathan Paoletta for hooking up the interview! Please take a minute to check out Trouble for Hire on Kickstarter today, and share this post around! 

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email

Thursday, May 11, 2017

Of the Woods: Lonely Games of Imagination Now on DriveThruRPG!

Of the Woods: Lonely Games of Imagination now live on DriveThruRPG!

Of the Woods is a collection of six single-player lonely games. A lonely game is a game of questions to tell haunting, introspective, and quiet stories. The original game by Brie Sheldon, Locked Away, inspired the subsequent games by Kimberley Lam, Moyra Turkington, Meera Barry, Chris Bennett, and Adam McConnaughey, the last of which involves a tarot card mechanic. When you play a lonely game, you tell a story no one else has told - to keep locked away, or to share with others who are lonely, too.

Proceeds from the sales will go entirely to The Trevor Project ( to support LGBTQIA+ youth.

This project has been slow in progress for a number of reasons, but the first ever Daedalum Analog Productions release, and my first published project as designer & curator, is now on DriveThruRPG.

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email

Wednesday, May 10, 2017

Directing Anarchy: Guest Post by Paul Stefko

Hi all! Paul Stefko (Patreon) from Nothing Ventured Games is a good friend of mine, a fantastic designer, and a fellow blogger! He also is a bangin' GM and ran Shadowrun: Anarchy for +John W. Sheldon and me a little while ago. I had a great time! Since I don't typically run games, and Paul knows a lot about being a GM and how GM mechanics worked, I asked him to do a brief guest blog. I hope you enjoy it!


This pic is so wonderfully Paul, I can't even.

I picked up the Prototype edition of Shadowrun Anarchy on the last day of Gen Con 2016. I was intrigued by the idea of a slimmed down, narrative-focused take on the Shadowrun setting. And the price was certainly right at $5. (In fact, it was the last $5 of my discretionary "ooh, shiny" money.)

I had chosen to pass on Shadowrun 5th Edition because it wasn't really different enough from the 4th Edition I had already invested a lot in. Anarchy certainly was different, but not so much that it felt like a complete disconnect from Shadowrun's past. It had familiar features like dice pools, Edge, and karma, and of course all the orcs and trolls and magic of the Sixth World.

But at its core, Shadowrun Anarchy is still an implementation of Catalyst's Cue system, which is far more narrative than the stalwartly traditional mainline Shadowrun. What would it be like at the table? The Cue system features round-robin narration, a currency of plot points to let players shift outcomes in their favor, and a pared down adventure set-up called Contract Briefs.

I got a chance to put Anarchy through its paces late last year. I met with a couple friends, and over Chinese food, we made their characters and played through a complete adventure — the Street Sweeper brief from the Anarchy rulebook — in about three and a half hours. I certainly couldn't complain about speed!

The session was fun, and the rules acquitted themselves well enough, but there were a few places where I felt the system rub up against its own rough edges. By default, Anarchy plays out as a series of "narrations" — each player has a chance to describe how the scene progresses until their character performs some action that requires a roll. All the GM does is set the scene's initial conditions and play NPCs (including rolling for them in opposition to the player's action, when appropriate).

This style of narration requires the players to be both comfortable with and adept at framing their own scenes and setting themselves up for interesting opposition. My players were fairly comfortable with this paradigm, but I still noted they were not really pushing the scenes very far or very hard. At the time, I chalked this up to being unfamiliar with the mechanics beyond just the narration system, but I think now that I was relying too much on the back-and-forth of a traditional GM role. They were asking questions and looking to me for the answers rather than just declaring what happened next, and I was too quick to jump in with additional scene details.

This is probably going to be the biggest source of friction for most gamers, as the rest of Anarchy is actually a pretty standard set of action resolution rules. Once you get to a point in the scene where the outcome of an interesting action is in doubt, the way you roll the dice and count successes is going to feel familiar to most gamers. But getting to that point is the more interesting and less obvious part, and unfortunately, even the full Anarchy rules don't give a lot of advice on how to manage your narrations.

Still, I had a lot of fun running, the players had fun playing, and we decided to give it another try. The second session went just as well, but again, I felt like I was running it too "trad" precisely because the rules didn't provide enough direction to run it any other way. When I get Anarchy back to the table again, I definitely plan to push harder in the direction of player narration, encouraging the players to drive the scenes ahead even farther before with get down to resolving an action.

I think the key to Anarchy is in its name: it wants a little less authority and a little more freedom to push boundaries. I'm looking forward to finding out what that feels like.

Thanks so much Paul for sharing your thoughts and experiences with Shadowrun: Anarchy as a GM! Check out Paul's blog and Patreon for games, design talk, and more!

Patreon proceeds for this post will be distributed to Paul for his contribution to the blog. Thanks for your support!

This post was supported by the community on Tell your friends!

To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to

If you'd like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email