I want to ask for feedback on my game, but every time I did in the past, I felt as though I had to type a massive wall of text to make it clear what sort of gamer I am and what I was doing with this game. It's tedious for me and creates a barrier to people who want to help because then they have to read through all of this extra information for context. I have long thought there must be a shorter way to do this, but I lack the words to do so. Every time I have tried using industry words, people thought they meant something other than my understanding, so, the threads would just devolve into discussions of the word "simulation" and other such nonsense.

So, help me out. This will be a wall of text, but the intention is to prevent me from writing future wall of texts, so, you kind folks only have to endure it once!

If pressed, I would say that my favorite games (that I didn't design) were Changeling: the Lost, Hunter: the Vigil, Orpheus, Mage: the Ascension, and Savage Worlds. But, I houseruled...all of those, and to the degree that I don't know that I could easily identify anymore what the real rule is vs what I did instead. Also note that I played and enjoyed the WoD before the Chronicles of Darkness/2nd edition changes. I don't like most of those--I feel like they actually payed off on all the promises of being storytelling games, which, in my eyes, ruined them.

Which in fact, is my next point. I don't like RPGs that are designed or played as if they were a collaborative storytelling game. I have zero interest in using RPGs for that purpose. I, instead, want RPGs to create a virtual experience. This article might help explain the difference. The closest article to my playstyle that I could find is a very old article calling it Immersive Simulation, but any attempt I made to use the word simulation came up against a lot of resistance.

The problem is that people tend to jump to the conclusion that I am after the processes of simulation, that I want charts and tables or dice rolls for everything or exacting statistics, and I absolutely don't because that kind of complicated, detailed resolution is slow, and slow resolution ablates my immersion. I instead care about the results of simulation, specifically that things are consistent, logical, and...not quite predictable, but where everything that happens is readily believable as something that could happen and that makes sense. Note that I don't mean that I want a realistic game, exactly--that's one possibility, if I want to play in a world that is like the real one--but I want a game that feels real, and if the game world it took place in was real, I want the things that happen to make sense in the context. Does any of this make sense or am I too longed winded to get meaning from it?

There's a quote by a game designer, Raph Koster, that I love and absolutely describes what I am after: "Fun from games arises out of mastery. It arises out of comprehension. It is the act of solving puzzles that makes games fun. In other words, with games, learning is the drug." I want a game where I am chasing mastery, where learning is possible and applicable. But, I don't want it solvable before I actually sit down at the table. That's really the problem with a lot of "crunchy" games. D&D 3rd/Pathfinder for example--I actually love making characters in those games, but I kind of don't at all enjoy playing with those characters. And it's because I've already mastered the game before the first die was rolled. The challenge and fun and mastery was all completed in character creation. The rest is academic. There's no need to learn how the world works--it's all presented in the book already. I know it. And, well, it's also bad, for the most part--it's not logical or intuitive or consistent at all, I just memorized it from the text. Lame.

Extra Credits refers to my preferred style as "Planning." I want to plan and then have that plan challenged in play so that I have to adjust to keep it on track. In modern D&D type games, nothing challenges the plan. In older D&D and PbtA type games, there's not much I can plan that will make any difference whatsoever. So, neither works for me in the end.

Ok, so, I don't want a game that is a complete experience in the book. I don't want to master it before I sit at the table. I want the game to be a toolkit, instead, one that is used by the table to resolve doubts and other problems in a world that I can master during play, but it needs to have enough depth where a plan is possible and actually matters.

I believe that I've done that. The game's working title is Arcflow, and Arcflow is, in fact, more a toolkit to use with your table's game than something "complete" on its own. It does not come with a setting, it is expected that your group provides that. It does not contain rules about how the world works--it is assumed that the setting will be the authority there. As such, it is a universal game, designed to accomodate any setting/genre you want. The expected flow of play is common, but important:

The GM presents the situation. The PCs describe their responses. If there is no doubt about how their actions would turn out or if there's no meaningful consequence for failure ("I walk across the room" or even something more complex like a professional locksmith picking a lock), then that just happens. No rolling. It stays basically freeform. The only time any system begins to "engage" is when an action is in doubt. When people don't know how it would turn out given the current situation. That's when you roll dice.

The game uses a dice system surprisingly similar to Blades in the Dark, though I didn't actually know that at the time it was developed. You roll a pool of d6s. If you roll at least one six, you've succeeded at the task (that does not necessarily mean you've achieved your intent--sometimes, your chosen task doesn't line up well with your task and you need additional sixes...but the task itself succeeds (I am told this is similar to the vector system in Technoir).
If your highest die is instead a 5, you get a choice: you can safely fail with no further consequence beyond what is normal for the task you took or you can push through and succeed anyway, but at a cost. The cost is negotiated with the GM--at my table, it has to be something your character has direct control over, so you can't have a guard patrol walk in on you or make your gun jam or something, but you can, for example, if you are trying to push someone down the stairs also fall down the stairs with them. If 4 or less is your best die, then you fail completely and, if appropriate, additional related bad things might happen.

My inner circle design team tells me that if you twisted your head just right, all of this does actually resemble PbtA, that but I think it has an absolutely critical perspective change that alters my enjoyment of it immensely. In particular, my friend has told me that a lot of the "at cost" parts of PbtA are things that I take for granted as obviously being a natural consequence of actions you take, while in PbtA, its guiding people that don't know better to make sure that stuff happens (while I assume it's actually making an additional bad thing happen, not just the obvious consequences).

Anyway, there is an initiative tool you can engage when timing is important, but it doesn't tell you what order people act in like traditional initiative, the key thing it does is ensure that everyone involved gets the same number of significant actions in the same time period. You can actually act whenever you like, just by speaking up, and anyone with actions remaining (you get 2 per "round" which is not a specific time) can react and take an action simultaneously to yours, which allows for things like defenses. I use playing cards to keep actions sorted (turn it sideways after the first, turn the card into the discard after the second), and if nobody speaks up, if everyone is waiting to react instead, either a standoff occurs and nothing happens, if appropriate, or the card order forces someone to take the first action (lowest card must go first, but only if nobody else jumps in). In effect, it's much like having no initiative system (again, I suppose, like PbtA), except it ensures that it's fair, gives equal attention to all players, and keeps things logical since you can't basically do nothing "off screen" while another character takes 5 minutes worth of actions and hogs the spotlight.

I am often told that I have an OSR mindset, and that's true to a degree. I definitely align with a good deal of the principles set out in the Principia Apocrypha, but I don't like OSR systems in general. They specifically do three things I dislike:

1) They treat characters like cardboard cutouts/video game avatars such that who you are makes no difference beyond maybe one mechanic or two, which reduces my ability to make a plan that matters

2) I don't like the core d20 system they tend to cling to with AC, HP, Saves, and all that...combat, which I recognize is not the focus of a session, is especially boring and utterly lacking in tactics, so when it does happen, every basically checks out while repeatedly rolling a d20.

3) The games give a great deal of setting support, but very little system support for judgment calls. You are constantly needing to make up mechanics on the fly, whereas I prefer the opposite: I can make up setting stuff on the fly--or more specifically draw that information from an existing setting--but I don't want to have to decide that this action is a 1 in 6 chance or 2 in 6 chance or whatever--I want a system there to support me when I have doubts.

To address 3, first, since it's the easiest, that's basically what my game does. It provides mechanical tools to handle doubts and trusts you to know the setting yourself. Yes, that means that if you don't know anything about spaceships, you probably can't use my univeral game to play a space faring game where the details of space ships matters. But, on the other hand, if you do know about spaceships (and I think most people interested in a space game where the details of space ships matter probably do), then my game will never get in your way and tell you that something whacky and insane happens. You'll never need to overrule the game--you can use it as a neutral arbitrator as its intended and it won't return stupid results that destroy immersion or piss you off or make you feel like the setting suddenly changed and everything you thought you knew about it was wrong.

Sidenote: I particularly enjoy the Bruce Lee quote: "Empty your mind, be formless, shapeless — like water. Now you put water in a cup, it becomes the cup; You put water into a bottle it becomes the bottle; You put it in a teapot it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." Arcflow is the water in that metaphor (and is why it's called Arcflow). You need a teapot to put it in, but it becomes that teapot very easily. But yeah, if you have nothing to put it in, it just spills all over and does nothing.

As for #2, well, I already mentioned the core dice system (dice pools are so much more consistent, predictable, and intuitive than a d20) and initiative, but let me add that the game features, possibly as it's most important element, a deep fictional positioning system. It is inspired mostly by FATE Aspects (I respect the hell out of Fate's design even though it's playstyle is incompatible with mine), but the Conditions/Facts/Context (haven't settled on a name) aren't specifically listed, it does not cost a resource for them to matter (they always matter if it makes sense for them to matter), and the literal words used to describe them are irrelevant, it is the conceptual truth behind the words that does. So, you can't cleverly word a piece of Context and abuse it to do something that makes no sense--the game world is "real" and so, our words are just trying to reflect the reality of the situation.

Anyway, this context affects everything. It can change the scale of actions, what success looks like, whether there's doubt at all about a task, or at the simplest, alter the size of dice pools. Context always does these things consistently in easy to remember/intuitive packets so the game never slows down. For example, if a dice pool is to be altered, it is always altered by 2 dice up or down. There are no conditions that add or subtract 3 or 4 dice, for example.

In fact, in all places, I have endeavored to use human intuition/affordance and the fact that people think of things in chunks and archetypes to maximize system elegance (that is, to draw as much depth out of as little complexity as possible).

And combat, if desired, can have extreme tactical depth because one beautiful thing about the Context/whatever system is that it naturally zooms in and out detail levels based on your input. If you describe something vaguely, it naturally cosiders vague details as relevant. The more specific you get, the more details matter, but also the more details you can take advantage of. So, you sort of choose your engagement level in the detail of the situation. If you don't care much about fighting and just want to get through it, you zoom way out and just roll once probably to win the fight as your action. If you really care, you can zoom way in and talk about hand position set ups in order to get leverage and better submission holds during your grapple. But it's based on your knowledge, your interest, and your detail, not an objective list of actions.

You know how a lot of games, like D&D and PbtA have a specific list of moves you can do and what effect those things have? I like to think of those as "buttons." When you play a video game, the interface is all buttons. X jumps or blocks. Square is a punch. Circle is your kick. O X is a grapple, Etc. And those are the specific things you can do with specific listed effects. Well, this isn't a button RPG. You can do anything, and you're expected to actually think about what you're doing and describe it. It works great for everyone I've tested it with except specifically abnegation buttkickers who essentially want to get more out of the game than they put into it (conversely, it's wonderful for other abengation players who don't care about fighting because they tend to prefer talking and exploring and stuff that generally requires fewer rolls because people generally have fewer doubts about the outcomes of such things). Well, and GMs that want to Critical Roll all over the game and just tell a super detailed story for players that are shackled to rails, since the game assumes a huge amount of player agency and explicitly tells players to challenge GMs when they make calls that don't make sense according to the setting.

To address point 1, Arcflow has rich characters. Who you are really matters, if you want it to. The only numbers on the sheet are a set of 5 Attributes (Agility, Brawn, Dexterity, Wits, and...not sure of the name, either Will or Volition) and 5 approaches (Force, Heart, Guile, Moxie, and Precision). Those stats determine your dice pools. When something is in doubt, you roll dice equal to the two most appropriate stats based on what you're doing. Otherwise, it's all open ended prompts. You start by defining your Path, which is a series of up to 5 statements about your character that defines who they are and sets up the proper context so that doubt can be evaluated. If you are a sailor, you can sail, surprise! You can also tie knots and climb riggings and a bunch of other stuff that makese sense for you to do. There's no set skill list here, and the ability to do stuff is binary--if you can sail, you can sail, and if there's doubt about sailing, you roll your stats like anyone else--but there may be more doubts about just a sailor vs. a veteran naval captain. These are somewhat similar to Barbarians of Lemuria professions, but it's not just professions here. Anything that is important to you that you want to matter to the game can be a statement here. Maybe you're an elf, and you want that statement to matter--Elf becomes one of your paths. And if something comes up that a typical elf could do, you can do it. Conversely, maybe you're an elf, but it's not a significant part of your character in your mind and you just are an elf without using one of your Path lines on it. That's fine. Someone with a path in which they grew up on the bad side of town is going to have some skills in dealing with criminals and being poor and those kinds of things.

The point, though, is that you can make whatever statement you want and these things essentially form your character's archetype. An archetype is a broad character "chunk" in people's minds such that you can say who they are (in a short 5 lines or less) but actually gather significantly more data than that. For example, an Elf that grew up in the bad part of town and became a soldier suddenly has a massive list of things they can do, stuff they're good at, etc. without having to write it all down piece by piece. We know this character can make contacts with criminals. We know they can fight. They can probably camp. They are fit. They know how to sneak around. If elves have innate magic in this setting, we know they can do that, etc.

So, Paths create Archetypes. But, people are more complex than that, right? So, there's another layer, something we call Edges. An Edge is a thing that stands out about your character apart from their archetype. For example, perhaps your Varisian Princess (Paths) tries to pick a lock. I mean, that doesn't make sense. We have no doubt about how that situation plays out--you fail to pick that lock because Varisian Princesses don't do that kind of thing. But, aha, you have an edge. See, this princess was rebellious and snuck out of the castle all the time, and so she had to learn how to pick the locks on her doors and windows to get out. This edge has changed the context for your character, but not for Varisian Princesses in general--it's something special about you.

Starting characters get 3 edges to further define them, but you can freely leave them blank and fill them during play if you provide the detail for them at the time, and you get more Edges as the main source of character development, so that the table starts knowing your character as an archetype with a few extra points, but eventually learns more and more about you until they see less a blurry generic figure in their head but rather your specific character.

The development cycle works like this: when you do stuff the game is about (which can be anything and is defined in a session 0, but defaults to making allies, discovering/learning stuff, surviving hardship, and achieving goals), you acquire XP. You get more if the thing you did was more difficult or more important, and less if you do it badly or if it's insignificant. The game never by default rewards failure--you are expected to try and win and succeed, even if doing so is boring. You can change that in session 0, but I'd never want to play with your group, then ;) Failure, in my mind, should always be bad and something to avoid, even if it would make for a better story to watch or tell.

When you gain 5 XP, you gain a resource...at the moment, it's called Arc (hence Arcflow), but the name can change. That resource can be used to temporarily assert a fact/piece of context in order to cause a resolution to be re-evaluated. Normally, all known context is considered when a task is resolved. This is a way to add new context that was previously unknown and does not violate anything that has already been established. Sometimes, this can be a flashback to something that could have happened but just didn't get "screen time" if you think of things in those terms, such as drugging the tea before a meeting with a potential enemy, reverse pick pocketing a grenade, or just the fact that you spent a year as an art major. That context is then evaluated and likely changes the resolution. Alternatively, you can assert that a piece of known context is even more relevant than previously understood, and gain a reroll, so it's the dice that are reevaluated, not the situation.

Anyway, whenever you've spent 5 Arc (holding on to them does nothing for character development), you've proven yourself worthy of extra Edges. We, at the table have learned a lot more about you and now we are establishing a new fact to place permanently in our mental picture of you.

Finally, let me just add that as a long time GM (I GMed probably 99% of the time before my 30s, and even now, probably 60%), and a "lazy" one at that, a key goal of mine was for this game to be super easy on the GM. Unlike other universal games, you aren't doing a ton of work to create mechanics and systems and whatnot. You only need to think about the setting fictionally, and it slots in just fine. The tools at your disposal handle doubts, so, knowing the setting is all you need. It's also a piece of cake to handle NPCs. I have GMed probably 40% of the playtests we've had, and another friend/codesigner has GMed another 40% (other groups we are not part of make up the other 20%). While I am a very improv focused GM, he's much more of a planner. And we're both happy. For him, "stat blocks" are very small. He uses little moleskein notebooks and he can fit multiple NPCs on each page because it's just 10 stat numbers and then some open ended statements/archetypes. I'm happy because the open ended statements literally are the imagined character I have in my mind, so, I only have to think of this person and I'm basically set. The stat numbers are heavily benchmarked and easy to recognize on the fly. They go 1-5, with 2 being average for the thing you are (much like WoD), so, average NPCs are just 2s, and I can easily go up or down as needed without having to write anything down. Because the stats mean something I can be confident that the next time I need to come up with, say, this random guy's Brawn, I will come up with the same number using the same logical process I used before.

Alright, I think I posted enough at this point. Too much, probably. If you made it through all of this, thank you, so much.

Now, can you help me give a quicker summary of what the game is like for feedback posts? It's very difficult for me. I think the industry might lack the words to do it. I mentioned already the trouble with the word simulation above. I accept that, technically, the game is narrative, but I have actually disliked every other narrative game I have ever played, so, I don't think using it is helpful because it might scare off people that have shared my taste and experience. Plus, it is technically narrative by the established definition, but I had a different meaning for narrative in my mind for decades, so, who knows what other people think it means.

I would be happy to use the phrase Fiction First because, well, it is that: you must describe things in the fiction to make them happen. There's actually no way to engage with the game nonfictionally because the tools only work when there's fictional doubt. But using the phrase "fiction first" is now loaded with PbtA connotations, and, well, this is not that, either.

It has an OSR/Sworddream attitude, but there are key clashes I have with those game systems.

Anything you can tell me will help. If you need any more information, please, feel free to ask me. 90% of the game is designed and tested (the last few things are what I want to post for feedback about), I just...well, I haven't written it down. It exists in oral tradition at the moment. So, I have no document to share. Sorry, I have to answer with posts like this.