Mind the Experience Gap

Hi, I'm Dr Maicol and welcome to my Ted-Talk

This year, I managed to sign up for the MinimalistJam at the last minute, despite having some difficulty finding the right idea. Eventually, I decided to expand on an old game of mine, turning a 500-character game into a 600-word one. (linked above)

Small games are quite common these days, and I no longer find it particularly special to write one. Recently, I read a discussion about this (any-idea-why-from-a-culture-history-perspective) and I agree with the quote: “rules-light stuff is easier to make, and to be fair, the market is kind of saturated with lots of low-effort and uninspired rules-light indie games, but that saturation also means that the ones that do get talked about are also often the cream of the crop.” (check out that post! everyone makes very valid points)

I agree not because I think I create excellent small games, but because I struggle with projects that require a lot of effort. Even writing this post. I've gotten used to trying to do a lot with a little. On threads, I even tried to write a game a week within the constraints of a post (and failed)

With all this XP there's one thing I've learned, and no, it's not the Fruitful Void...

I've found that my key points to structure a compact game are: Setting, POV, Conflict (internal/external), Character with at least one parametric element as a bridge between narrative and mechanics, and Resolution Mechanic. Not all of these are always necessary, and perhaps I haven't realized that I implicitly include others. However, these are roughly the essential ones.

Than, if I want to omit one or if another takes up a lot of space because it's the central idea of the game, then I have to rely on the experience of your readers for what's missing.

At the beginning of the year, I saw a review of Candela Obscura by Bob World Builder where he reads the paragraph “Play to Find Out” (https://youtu.be/dQBQ_graCSQ?si=Gg6rm1m5oSSBJCvA&t=486), but what he understands is not what I expected.

Quoting the user Stephen-Fox in the video comments: “That's a core tenant of Apocalypse World, and games (both PbtA and otherwise) that share that game's core philosophy. It's short for 'play to find out what happens,' and is a reminder that the GM shouldn't go in with a predecided end point in mind, but instead to be responsive to what the players are doing”—but Bob couldn't know this because maybe he's not very familiar with PbtA games or because he didn't catch the connection if he is. (I don't know what games he's played, but his channel is very D&D-centric...)

In various cases, I've included “Play to Find Out” as a principle that the GM/analog must follow. However, only once or twice have I done so in projects where I could also explain what I meant. Therefore, in all the games where I simply wrote the principle without explanation, I had to assume that my readers are also readers of PbtA games or one of the many games that have had the opportunity to explain what it means. And this is just one of many possible examples!

My point is: Writing GOOD small or rules-light games relies on understanding the GAP between what you are trying to express and what your readers can comprehend.

In my game, Our Teen Rebellion, I assume a lot about the role of the rotating narrator, what it means to create a scene, or even how to structure the conversation for the shared creation of the setting. (So mayby I'll try to turn it into a 64-pages game? I don't know)

If you enjoyed this post and have written a game for the MinimalistJam or the 200 Word RPGs 2024, go back and analyze it. Try to identify the GAP between your experience and that of a hypothetical reader. What manuals should they have read to fully understand how to operate your game?

By the way, this post is about 100 words longer than my game! Amazing!