Forging "Blade Bind"

I'm currently working on the draft rules for a game called Blade Bind; I mentioned it in my previous post, but to recap it's a GMless one-shot game of brutal hyper-drama and massive supernatural swords, inspired by this picture I drew for PowerFrame:

The game-world is going to be fairly vague, although I'll probably outline a modern-day and fantasy setting. The game focusses pretty strongly on the Chosen wielders of the Blades and their personal struggles, so the shape of the world around them is only as important as the players want it to be.

Blade Bind kind of has two parts at the moment – the duelling system, and the drama system.

Duelling

The sword-fighting system uses regular playing cards. It's going to be the only real resolution system in the game – if you can't fight over it, it's not worth "drawing" for.

I've used my several years of historical swordsmanship to come up with a quick, abstracted system that captures the feeling of actual sword-fights without getting bogged down in modifiers and fiddly split-second manoeuvres. I came up with the basic system pretty quickly, although there are a few variant rules I want to playtest before I settle on a final build. I'm also pretty confident that it'll be able to handle a free-for-all melee rather than simple one-on-one duels.

Unlike Thunder Hunters and Neon Burn, I'm actually finding it relatively easy to expand the duelling rules and tie other parts of the game into the system. Perhaps it helps that the game is even smaller in scope so it has fewer moving parts, or that I'm embracing abstract mechanics and not worrying too much if the mechanics are leading the fiction – or maybe it's because I've just had more practice!

Best of all, the duelling system leads to very quick fights, and combines luck with strategy. There are a number of approaches you can take when facing an opponent, and there are some nice emergent qualities that mean fights are never predictable. Differences in character power-levels do make a difference, but there's always a chance the less-skilled fighter will come out on top.

Drama

I had a few things in mind that I wanted to include: a web of interconnections that set the characters at cross-purposes right from the start; the struggle for control versus the temptation of greater power; and a rapidly-evolving situation that challenges the status quo from the very first scene. I've tied all of those things together, hopefully creating an engine that will spew forth melodrama and tragedy.

Besides coming up with a concept and choosing a Blade, character creation is mostly going to involve tying your character to others. A Thread is basically a goal and a target. Each character creates a Thread to another PC, an NPC or Item of importance to them, and an NPC/Item that belongs to someone else. Goals at the moment include Protect, Control, Kill/Destroy, and a few others relating to PCs specifically. I'm still figuring out how best to represent them, and I'd like to make a card-draw table of options that give some story prompts. In addition, each Blade randomly hates one of the other Blades, and longs to defeat it in combat. That could get awkward when it's the Blade wielded by your ally...

Each character has a Will and a Power score. Will is based on the number, type, and current status of your Threads – so it can fluctuate as you lose them, complete them, or gain new ones. Power starts at 2 or 3; you can put it up by 1 at the start of any duel, and it also goes up by 1 whenever you lose a fight. If Power ever exceeds Will, the Chosen succumbs to the will of the Blade and they become "Bladebound". While in that state, the character is a demon on the battlefield who will lay waste to anything that stands in their way.

The basic procedure will be to go around the table and have each player set a scene for their character. Apart from the other characters, there's nothing in the way of them just going and achieving their goals – the Blades give the Chosen powers beyond the ken of mortals, and no ordinary foe can stand before them. So things should get violent and messy in short order.

Spiritual Ancestors

Thematically and mechanically, the game is inspired by three other games – one I've played, one I've read, and one I've only backed on Kickstarter.

Eternal Contenders is a really cool GMless game of duelling fantasy warriors that I've played a few times. It also uses cards for resolution, although mostly just by colour (red=success, black=nothing). The duels tend to take a lot longer than Blade Bind's, probably because it's based on a boxing RPG where fights can really drag out. Each fighter also has Hope and Pain scores that track how dangerous a fighter they are, and how likely they are to achieve a happy or tragic ending. Ironically, putting everything into winning fights provides the greatest chance of a tragic ending, and to have any hope of happiness you really need to give up on victory... while at the same time, victory is your surest means of securing Hope. It's a fine balance, and one I've yet to master, but it's also the sort of painful choice I want to build into Blade Bind – succumbing to the lure of power will turn you into a tragedy engine.

Wield is also GMless, and is about playing as magical artefacts that vie for control over their wielders. While Blade Bind is about playing the Chosen rather than the Blades, it's also about that fine line of control. When someone does cross that line, they're effectively playing the Blade instead.

Shinobigami is a recently-Kickstarted translated version of a Japanese RPG. It's very PVP-oriented, and has a really abstract way of approaching things mechanically, which has given me a lot of confidence to go ahead with a game that doesn't pay much attention to the way things are traditionally done, and that merges elements of board/card games with RPGs.

What's Next?

I need to playtest the duelling rules a bit more to figure out which variants to go with. I'm also in the process of drafting the Threads, Will/Power, and Special Manoeuvres, so when I'm not playtesting I'll be trying to beat those into some sort of prototype shape.

I'm also working on a few RPG-related freelancing jobs lately, which I should talk about in a future blog post! Work has been going nicely, although I'm always on the lookout for new editing and layout jobs. Let me know if you need some help on your own project, or if you've seen something I could apply for!

In Pursuit of Fiction-First

It's been a few months since I last posted here, but I'm hoping to revive the blog. Since releasing the PowerFrame Core Rulebook I've been working on-and-off on a couple of new RPGs, and I'd like to keep a record of my progress and thoughts.

The first new game is Thunder Hunters, which I've mentioned here a couple of times – a naturalistic game of primitive tribes living alongside dinosaurs. I've made some good progress, but I need to put some time into playtesting the basic mechanics before I develop the rest of the game.

The second new game is one I've just thought up recently, so my brain's currently buzzing with ideas – Blade Bind, a hyper-drama game of Chosen wielding giant supernatural swords, inspired by Shinobigami, Eternal Contenders, and Wield. I've got some idea of the overall shape and content of the game, and I'm just starting to develop a card-based duelling mechanic, which prompted today's post.

Pursuing Fiction-First

I find it really easy to come up with RPG rules that are Mechanics => Fiction (like a D&D tactical map battle, or a board game), but I find it harder to come up with systems that are Fiction => Mechanics => Fiction (like Apocalypse World or Cortex Plus).

This isn't necessarily a problem, but it's harder to get evocative descriptions out of players when you can play part of the game like a card or board game: the mechanics generate plenty of fictional output, but they don't respond at all to fictional input. You can describe your actions however you like, but the bottom line is they don't affect your mechanical options.

I hate to pick on Eternal Contenders, because it's a great (although sometimes frustrating) game, but it's one place where I really notice this phenomenon. The card-based duels tend to take a while to resolve, but although the game exhorts you to be descriptive there really is no link between your description and the outcome of the mechanics. After a few rounds, duels tend to turn into almost pure card-games, with the players reading the fictional outcomes but not offering a lot of description unless strongly prompted.

I also experienced this phenomenon when working on Neon Burn. I came up with a wonderful dice game for antigrav racing, where the way you played your dice expressed the way you were racing (conservatively, reckless, blocking others), and the mechanics provided fictional outcomes (progress, current positions, damage). But as above, the mechanics didn't really respond to fictional input – instead, your mechanical choices dictated fictional outcomes. You could play the whole race just by referring to the dice, and check at the end to see who won.

Designing for Fiction-First

I really like the effect you get when a character's approach or intent shapes the way the mechanics work. That way, there's no bypassing the description. I've experienced at least a couple of games that manage to achieve this.

The first is Apocalypse World (and its kin). The mechanical Moves only trigger when you do certain things, so you have to actually describe how you're going about it. If you don't, and just try to jump straight to a Move you assume is going to be the right one, you risk rolling for the wrong thing. I've seen this with players who assume that Seize by Force or Hack and Slash are the "Attack" Moves, and roll for them before I can point out that their opponent isn't in a position to fight back.

The second is Cortex Plus, of which I've played the Smallville and Firefly variants. In these games, the dice you roll are tied to your approach. It's more than just picking the appropriate skill to roll, though – depending on the variant, you may need to pick and justify appropriate Values, Attributes or Roles; Relationships or Skills; Distinctions, Assets, and possibly other stuff. In effect, building your dice pool tells a little story about how you're trying to overcome a particular challenge.

I've worked pretty hard to come up with a fiction-first system for Thunder Hunters, and I think I've done an OK job. You choose how to respond to the current situation each turn, which interacts somewhat with your opponent's actions to create a set of outcomes. Your intent determines which Stat applies, but you also get to choose where to assign your tool bonuses: Are you setting your spear to stab a charging foe, or using it to fend them off, or throwing it? Fictional positioning is also important to help minimise the natural "tools" that dinosaurs can bring to bear against you.

In a (Blade) Bind?

So the card-based sword-fighting system I've come up with for Blade Bind is currently pretty mechanics-first. Your choice of cards to play is representative of your approach to the fight (aggressive, cautious, desperate, cunning), but you can totally play out a duel without describing any fictional choices or positioning.

I'm not sure if it's a major issue though. I want the fights to be pretty fast, so the amount of time spent auguring cards to get fictional output should be fairly low. I also want the game to be pretty grim, where the only real way you have to alter the situation is through duelling, so cutting down on fictional options seems reasonable. Hopefully brief and thematic fights will encourage some enthusiastic description in any case.

I also have some ideas to tie extra mechanics to the cards; perhaps special powers can only trigger on a face or an ace, or I can tie particular manoeuvres to certain suits. I'll certainly be looking for ways to help tell a story and bring fictional positioning to the table as I continue development.

PowerFrame in Print

The PowerFrame Core Rulebook has been out in PDF for a few months now, and while I always intended it to be primarily a digital book, I got enough enquiries that I thought it was worth creating a print-on-demand copy as well.

I got the proof copy a couple of weeks ago, and activated the print option on DriveThruRPG as soon as I was able.

• The physical book includes the PDF at no extra cost, so I encourage you to choose that option over the book-only one. 
• If you have already bought the PDF and now want the book as well, you are eligible for a $10 discount off the book – please contact me at powerframe(DOT)rpg(AT)gmail(DOT)com so I can send you a coupon. 
• Likewise, if you bought the book by itself, you can contact me for a free copy of the PDF.

It's softcover and uses Standard colour rather than Premium, because those are the only options available for A4 books on DriveThruRPG at the moment. Although I made a few layout changes for the print copy, it would have taken too much work to reformat it to US Letter. I'll put up hardcover and/or Premium colour options if they ever become available.

Of course, print has certain limitations. The Mysticism supplement I'm working on has led to a few revisions in that chapter, and while I'll update the PDF and POD files, any books purchased before the update will require errata. I'll be releasing free errata files through the new PowerFrame website as new versions come out.

Arcane Errata

I started working on a book of pre-built Spells for PowerFrame and ran into a small problem. It's certainly not game-breaking, and I think I've come up with an easy fix.

Problem

I noticed when writing variants of the same Spell that it was actually cheaper to have an area-effect centred on the Caster, than it was to affect a single target at range!

• Range:self (-2), Area:area1 (2) = 0
• Range:range1 (1), Area:single (0) = 1

There's an extra discount built into Range:self, which allows me to charge more for Major Arcana intended primarily for self-use. However, it means that while the area or wall Parameters may take up more Vocabulary space, they actually make Spells easier to cast if you can start the effect from your own Hex (which works well for "buffs" but isn't quite as practical for harmful Spells). In effect, if you start with your own Hex you can get better Range for the same net cost by stretching out an area or wall instead of using the range Parameter.

Solutions

The easiest fix seems to be to change the Resistance of Range:self to -1 instead of -2.

This means the Range increments would be priced self (-1), touch (0), rangeX (X, 1 or more). In the above example, the two Parameter sets would at least have the same total Resistance.

The other option I considered was to make the area, cone, and wall Parameters cost 3 instead of 2. I'm not sure if this would be easier in the long run (as there aren't many established Spells that use these Area Parameters compared to the number using Range:self), or if it might either cause other unforeseen consequences or not fix other problems caused by the self discount.

Does anyone have any other thoughts or suggestions?

Conclusions

This change would modify some of the sample Spells in the Core Rulebook, as well as the Parameters section. I'm also thinking of adjusting a few of the Major Arcana Resistances, but I'll save that until I've gone through the Book of Spells and made sample builds for all the Major Arcana in case I run into any other issues.

Once I complete the Mysticism review, I'll update the PDF to v1.2 and release an Errata PDF for people who bought the v1.1 physical book.

Troubles with tremulus

I've run two mini-campaigns of tremulus so far, and while both have been enjoyable and created good results, there are a few issues I've repeatedly run into with the rules as written. Much of the time, I just fall back on my experience (such as it is) with Apocalypse World, papering over the cracks with the parent system.

Now I should stress, this is me looking literally at the rules as written, from the perspective of a game designer. I know that it's possible to work around the problems in the rules and use common sense, but I'm analysing how the game presents itself.

Sanity Checks and the Damage Move

First off, as a point of order, the book says:

When a character sees something terrifying or potentially startling (and thus, could reasonably cause shock), he must immediately Act Under Pressure. You can refer to this as a sanity check. It is a roll +reason (unless they have moves that indicate otherwise).

• On a 10+, they take 1 less shock and may act normally.
• On a 7-9, they take 1 less shock but are -1forward.
• On a miss, they take full shock and are either -1ongoing (for the scene) or the Keeper holds one (Keeper’s choice).

But this isn't Act Under Pressure, which is worded thus:

When you hurriedly flee, are doing something quickly and precisely, or are trying to resist something frightening, roll +reason.

• On a 10+, you do it.
• On a 7–9, you flinch, hesitate, cave, or stall. The Keeper will offer you a worse outcome, a hard bargain, or an ugly choice.

Perhaps you're meant to combine the results, but even so it seems somewhat superfluous. The Sanity Check is really its own Move, with its own set of consequences. The only reason to conflate it with Act Under Pressure, as far as I can see, is that it's a roll +reason.

In tremulus, Shock and Harm are two different forms of Damage, which is fine. However, there's a separate Damage Move:

When you suffer damage, roll +damage suffered (after subtracting any protections you may have). No other modifiers come into play. 

On a 10+, the Keeper can choose 1:

• You’re out of action: unconscious, trapped, incoherent, or panicked.
• It’s worse than it seemed. Take an additional 1 damage.
• Choose 2 from the 7–9 list below.

On a 7–9, the Keeper can choose 1:

• You lose your footing.
• You lose your grip on whatever you’re holding.
• You lose track of someone or something you’re attending to.
• You miss noticing something important.

On a 6 or less:

• The Keeper can still choose something from the 7–9 list above. If they do, damage suffered is reduced by 1 (to a minimum of 0).

So if you see something frightening, you first make a Sanity Check, and then immediately roll the Damage Move. While that functionally works, I have some issues with it.

It's two Moves in a row with no player input. If something terrifying jumps out in front of you, you roll +reason and note what penalties you end up with, and then you roll +damage and the Keeper gets to choose additional consequences.

In the worst instances, you might reduce Shock with the first roll and increase it with the second Roll. It's two rolls where one customised Move might serve the situation better.

Now, I can see where this two-roll structure comes from - it's sort of the same way Apocalypse World treats physical Harm. However, there are differences.

In Apocalypse World, you can take Harm by:

• Choosing to Seize by Force;
• Having another PC use Seize by Force or Go Aggro on you;
• Giving the MC a Golden Opportunity (missing a Move or ignoring a clear threat), and the MC chooses to Inflict Harm.

So it goes (rolls underlined): Move that opens you to Harm > Inflict Harm > Harm Move > What Do You Do?

In tremulus, you can take Shock by:

• Choosing to enter a situation you know contains something horrific;
• Making a successful Poke Around roll, if the Keeper reveals something Shocking;
• Missing a Move and having the Keeper choose to inflict Shock;
• Having the Keeper make a Hazard Move that reveals something Shocking;
• Having the Keeper perform a Hard Move on you that inflicts Shock.

So it mostly goes: Keeper chooses to inflict Shock > Sanity Check > Damage Move > What Do You Do?

There are very few situations where the player has a choice over whether to expose themselves to Shock or not. In most cases, it's something the Keeper decides. Once that decision is made, the player makes two rolls in a row, over which they get no input.

Maybe it generates a sense of helplessness and powerlessness in the player? That's the only genre-appropriate upside I can see to the whole procedure.

General vs Situational Keeper Move

The Keeper's section has this to say about Keeper Moves; underlining has been added for emphasis:

There are two classifications of moves: general and situational. General moves can be used at any time. Situational moves should be contextualized and make sense given what is happening. They are used when the characters are either in a threatening situation (often involving a hazard), or when a character successfully Pokes Around or Puzzles Things Out.

And here's the list of Keeper Moves:

General

• Separate them.
• Capture someone.
• Put someone in harm’s way.
• Announce trouble elsewhere.
• Foreshadow future trouble.
• Take away their stuff.
• Make them buy.
• Activate their gear’s downside (hitting tags is especially useful for this)
• Tell them the possible consequences and ask.
• Offer an opportunity, with or without a cost.
• Turn their move back on them.
• Let the dice decide. Call for a roll+luck.
• Make a hazard (obstacle) move (from your framework).

Situational

• Trade damage for damage.
• Inflict damage.
• Present items and clues.
• Reveal knowledge.

The problem is, most of the Moves are situational, and all of them need to make sense in the context of the fiction. You can't just choose to "make them buy" if they're not trying to acquire something. You can't "turn their move back on them" if they haven't made a move. You can't "separate them" if they're already alone. General moves simply can't be used "at any time", so the division is largely meaningless.

As I did earlier with Apocalypse World, I divided the Keeper Moves into categories to make the list easier to deal with in play. For tremulus, it looks like this:

• Positioning (Separate them, Capture someone, Put someone in harm’s way)
• Portents (Announce trouble elsewhere, Foreshadow future trouble)
• Gear (Take away their stuff, Make them buy, Activate their gear’s downsides)
• Bargain (Tell them the possible consequences and ask, Offer an opportunity)
• Revelations (Present items and clues, Reveal knowledge)
• Moves (Turn their move back on them, Let the dice decide, Make a hazard move)
• Damage (Trade damage for damage, Inflict damage)

Soft vs Hard Keeper Moves

From the "Moves in Action" section:

When you make a Keeper Move, it should always:

1. Flow from the fiction.
2. Allow for character intervention
3. Set up future moves.

This means you describe what happens, but pause just before the outcome is known. At that point, you ask the players what they do.

And on Hard Moves:

A Hard Move:

1. Flows from the fiction.
2. Cannot be interrupted.
3. Is to be feared by the players.

This means you describe something from start to finish and it happens before you ask the players what they do.

Which sounds fine in theory, but in practice this Hard/Soft distinction is also largely meaningless. There isn't really a Soft and a Hard version of each Keeper Move. Let's take a look at the examples provided in the book:

• "Soft": The creature leaps out at you from the rafters = Put someone in harm's way
• "Hard": The creature leaps down from the rafters and you take 2 harm as it bites into your neck = Inflict damage

• "Soft": The Mayor rises to usher you out of his office = Foreshadow future trouble 
• "Hard": The Mayor ushers you out of his office, closes the door, and you hear it lock firmly behind you = Hazard Move (probably Claim Territory)

• "Soft": The chanting rises to a crescendo and something begins forming within the mystic circle = Foreshadow future trouble
• "Hard": The chanting rises to a crescendo, something forms within the circle, and the slavering beast tears three cultists asunder as the rest run screaming past you = Hazard Move or Inflict damage (Shock)

 Really, when you threaten to separate characters or take away their stuff and give them an opportunity to do something about it, you're actually "Foreshadowing future trouble". You then trigger the "Separate them" or "Take away their stuff" move on a miss.

If we follow the procedure described in the book, you'd have to set up a Move like "Put someone in harm's way" and give the character a chance to intervene before figuring out whether they end up in harm's way or not – not whether they take harm or not, but whether they were actually in harm's way after all; "Inflict harm" would be a separate Move. You'd have to threaten to "Take away their stuff" but give them a chance to not have their stuff taken away. If you "Turn their move back on them" they get a chance to do something about it before it happens, despite already putting themselves in a situation that allowed you to turn the tables. How do you even give characters a chance to intervene part-way through "Announce trouble elsewhere" or "Foreshadow future trouble"?

By RAW, the only way you can pick one of the Keeper Moves and just have it happen is to spend Hold, which is not something you're always going to have. There's no other allowance to just pick a Keeper Move and have it happen, despite the book saying "In any case, to make a move, you simply select one, and do it." The examples that follow in the book contradict the written procedure by simply having stuff happen.

This whole section is very fuzzy, and while I know how it's supposed to work (thanks to Apocalypse World), the way it's written makes me think that the author either does not have a full understanding of how Moves actually flow, or does not know how to explain the procedure in writing.

Making Moves and Spending Hold

As the Keeper, you make a move:

1. Whenever there’s a pause in the conversation and everyone looks to you to say something.
2. As a consequence of a character’s failure (someone makes a move and gets a 6 or less on their roll).
3. At any time, when you spend a point of hold.

What, no "Whenever a player hands you a Golden Opportunity"?

Spending Hold to make a Move at any time is cool, and I think holding "Hard Moves" over the players and being able to hit them with stuff out of nowhere is great for building up tension and uncertainty in a horror game.

Apart from Hold, though, you're procedurally only supposed to make Moves when everyone looks to see what's happening, or if they fail a roll. Consider the following situation:

An Investigator is trapped in a cluttered attic with an axe murderer who's looking to increase their body count. What do you do? The player says "I'm going to search this desk for my uncle's letters," thus triggering Poke Around. Ooo-kay... Technically they've triggered a player Move; they're not looking to the Keeper to find out what happens, the Keeper has no Hold, and if they make the roll they haven't failed either. There's no option for the Keeper to use a Move on a Golden Opportunity (turning their back on an axe murderer) until Poke Around gets resolved. So they find their uncle's letters, and then the axe murderer will get back to them? But as I discussed in the previous section, they'd get a chance to intervene even if the Keeper goes straight to "Inflict damage" next.

That's obviously a ridiculous situation, though; no Keeper in their right mind is going to let you blatantly ignore an axe murderer without serious and immediate consequences, and yet if you follow the procedures in the book that's the result you get.

Conclusion

I've had very good play experiences with tremulus. The questionnaire-based Playsets are inspired (even though half the time I end up with the less-inspiring results), and the recently-released Derelict Adrift Playset really sparked my imagination (even though it has its own set of problems).

However, I'm glad that I ran and read Apocalypse World before tremulus. The latter's florid and archaic 'voice' is fitting for the genre, but also serves to obscure information and procedure.

I know that this article is tragically nit-picky, but as a game designer it irks me when you're given procedures that say one thing and imply another. When you drill down and examine the Keeper's rules, there are parts missing, and other parts seem to connect together oddly and possibly create unintended consequences if followed literally – which is something you should be able to do with MC rules. While vague "GM advice" is de rigeur in RPGs, games Powered by the Apocalypse should be treating MC Rules as hard rules, not vague advice or riddled with "you know what I mean" or "use your default GMing style here" gaps.

If you're familiar with *World games, then by all means buy it and play it, but take the Keeper's section with a grain of salt and be ready to back it up with prior knowledge. I wouldn't recommend tremulus as your first PbtA game – try reading Apocalypse World, Dungeon World, or Monster of the Week first.

PowerFrame Core Rulebook

The PowerFrame RPG Core Rulebook is now up for sale on DriveThruRPG!

It's been a long journey, but I finally made it! Today I'm going to talk about the system's history, and look towards the future.

PowerQuest

I started writing the very first draft of PowerFrame about nineteen years ago, I think. This isn't one of those "X years in the making" stories, though; I realise that's not a selling point! PowerFrame's been an active, evolving, and most importantly played system for all that time. Even now, though, the very core of the system remains exactly the same as the day I first wrote it down. It's building outward from basic principles that makes it the flexible, modular, adaptable system that it is today.

I was at University at the time, and voraciously played many different RPGs. I'd previously written a fantasy board game called PowerQuest, based on an earlier campaign idea I'd had that involved questing around a fantasy kingdom seeking the lost pieces of a suit of power armour to fight against an ancient evil. I realised that the simple system I'd used for the board game could be easily adapted and expanded into an original roleplaying game, and initially the game was called the PowerQuest RPG. However, I soon realised that, since it already contained fantastic and technological elements, it wouldn't be hard to fill in the gaps with modern equipment and expand the game into a simple generic system. This was in the mid-90's, when Generic was the Wave of the Future!

PowerFrame

I named the generic version of the system PowerFrame, to reflect its origins and express its powerful, flexible, and "fill-in-the-blanks" approach.

For the next ten years, I kept writing rules modules, hacking the game to emulate the style of whatever I was watching or playing at the time. I introduced the game to new groups as I moved, and some of the players started using it to run their own games too! I wrote up the rules in Word, but in those days traditional publication and distribution meant getting it out to a wider audience was a distant pipe-dream.

Layout

I bought a copy of Adobe CS so I could professionally lay out a publishable copy of the rules. The InDesign version has gone through three different layouts.

Initially I was planning on perhaps releasing the rules through print-on-demand, designed to be ring-punched and filed in a binder. I took that approach because the rules are modular and at the time large sections were in flux, so it seemed sensible to allow people to reorganise things and have a system where I could easily release single updated pages. However, that system proved a little ambitious, and there were practical issues, as well as some minor problems with the layout design.

I also experienced a crisis of confidence. As I was approaching completion on this version, I poked my head up and did a little research into the state of the RPG hobby. So much had changed in the ten years or so I'd been exclusively playing PowerFrame! I discovered the Forge (which had come and gone), and RPG.net, and all sorts of new games. I went on a year-long pilgrimage to try out new systems, and used this new knowledge to look at PowerFrame in a completely new light.

In an about-face, I briefly tried to create a completely electronic layout! This would be published exclusively in PDF, but presented much like a website – no page numbers, just topics on pages, and with hyperlinks for quick navigation. While ambitious, early feedback told me that people still wanted the option to print the rules. I compromised, so while the current layout is still intended primarily for use on tablets and computers, it includes page numbers as well as chunky hyperlinks.

Version 1.0

The final version of the rules took exactly three years from creating the new InDesign file to its release on DriveThruRPG. Writing and formatting took two years during my spare time. While a lot of it was lifted from earlier drafts, I went through the whole text to clean it up, revise, and polish things.

I also completely overhauled some subsystems; magic, in particular, got gutted and refitted. The old magic system relied on lists of pre-written spells, but expansion and variations on a theme meant the magic system was 75 pages on its own. Breaking the spells down into their component pieces allowed me to cut the page count to about a third, while technically increasing the available spell variations.

After completing the main body of the text, it took another entire year to finish off enough art to comfortably fill out the book!

The Future

Now that the Core Rulebook is out, I can finally turn my attention to other projects. I have some board and card games in the works, and at least one idea for a new RPG I want to work on: Thunder Hunters! Primitive hunters living alongside dinosaurs in a world that never was!

I also have a few freelance jobs on my plate at the moment, but unless I find permanent employment I'm always on the lookout for more! If you're after editing, illustration, layout, or graphic design, send me an email at powerframe(DOT)rpg(AT)gmail(DOT)com to discuss your project.

I might also write some supplements for PowerFrame if I find the time, or if there's demand. Massed combat, cybernetics, a Mystic Companion, bestiary, setting seeds or entire setting books... I don't want to just run on the supplement treadmill unless people actually want this stuff, though – so if you think something's missing from the Core Rules, let me know!

Here are some handy PowerFrame related links:

• PowerFrame Games on DriveThruRPG
• PowerFrame Core Rulebook
• FREE PowerFrame Primer
• PowerFrame Games Community on G+

PowerFrame: Multi-Genre Mashups!

I've finally completed PowerFrame's last illustration and submitted the files to DriveThruRPG for review, so the Core Rulebook should be available for sale shortly! Stay tuned for the release announcement, or join the Community on G+!

In a recent discussion, I was surprised when someone mentioned that it was a "unique selling-point" that PowerFrame was designed to support multi-genre mashups. I guess the traditional appeal of generic systems is in allowing a single system to emulate different genres by tailoring the rules to suit each unique world, but in my mind their true strength lies in the cross-genre possibilities.

After all, when you have a single game system that has rules for swords, firearms, and beam weapons; plate-and-mail, flak jackets, and powered armour; cybernetics, spaceships, and magic; the obvious thing to me is to start mixing and matching! In PowerFrame, at least, everything's written and rated against the same set of basic rules. All of the example weapons, armour, and creatures are put together from basic principles, and so you can break them down, modify them, or build your own original stuff using the same guidelines. This fluidity is key to combining the trappings of different genres and having them all work smoothly together.

The first-ever PowerFrame game was a techno-fantasy world. Other campaigns have included post-apocalyptic wild west, gothic sci-fi, and urban fantasy. My current campaign is a post-apocalypse techno-gothic monster mash; after civilisation was destroyed by a Cthulhoid apocalypse, Earth's native monsters rose up and fought back the cosmic horrors. Now, vampires, werewolves and worse dominate the human population while keeping the Mythos aliens at bay in a shattered world.

Of course, you can always use PowerFrame to play a "straight" genre game. It's been used for straight-up fantasy, Warring States ninja, Age of Sail pirates (albeit with magical rocks), Cthulhu investigation, and it can also support straight modern or sci-fi games.

The game does come with its own approach and assumptions (for example, firearms are a bit weak to encourage engaging gunfights rather than paranoid sniping), but it's designed to be flexible and adaptable, so you can often tweak it to your needs with only a few minor changes.

Anyway, it should be out in the next few days, so you'll finally be able to see for yourself!