Skip to main content

Browse GamesGame JamsUpload GameDeveloper LogsCommunity
Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
Rookery Games160 days ago

Thank you so much for these thoughts! I love that you're adding ideas to each submission. You're right in identifying that the "game" aspect is a bit lost in this manifesto; my primary goal was to put forth some ideas specifically for players, although I hope designers can find value here, too. I think you're also right about risk being the connective tissue between Neo-Futurism and the "game" part of TTRPGs. Hopefully it's not controversial to say that a game doesn't require a win/lose condition to function as a game. But roleplaying games, to me, always require risk, because simply playing as yourself or in a role necessitates vulnerability. "Lead with vulnerability / Make a fool of yourself."

If you're anywhere near Chicago, New York, or London, there are Neo-Futurist ensembles in each of those cities that you could go see. The London ensemble performs as "Degenerate Fox," if I recall correctly. I've been kicking around the idea of trying to form one (officially or unofficially) in Philly, too.

Reply
Stone Cold Fox Games160 days ago

Alas, I'm in outback Australia (and I've got one of those Social Media profile histories that would get me instantly deported on a plane to a non-disclosed hell-hole if it was checked by ICE agents, so there's no chance I'd be coming anywhere near the USA for a while). I did just look up London's "Degenerate Fox" group... so that would definitely be worth considering if I were in the area.

With regard to not having a win/lose condition…hmm…I’ve thought deeply about this. If we’re going with the notion that a game doesn’t require one (or more) player to win and the other(s) to lose, then I’m in agreement. I’d actually like to think that most TTRPGs are special in that regard because they actually work best through the collaborative victory of a shared story. As someone who has studied education and childhood psychology, I’ve found many references to game playing as a valid method for educational enrichment in a liminal space, and just as many indications that we learn through pushing ourselves toward risk and often gain more insight from our mistakes than our successes. Improv Theatre sets up a similar liminal space, and even if we’re portraying a character that is ourselves, we’ve established a safe-zone to do so, a zone where our risks can be mitigated by retreating from the liminal space once we’re done. If there’s risk, there’s always a chance of failure (even if that failure is simply a neutral lack of success and a period of wasted time trying to get there, rather than an active penalty result).

Maybe I’ve thought too deeply about this.

Reply
Rookery Games159 days ago(+1)

That's a good point about a shared victory and the possibility for a "neutral lack of success." I was referring to a win/lose in terms of someone wins and someone else loses, but you bring up something super valuable with this idea of risk within a liminal space. Plus, I absolutely agree that mistakes often offer more insight than success, especially (in my opinion) when it comes to collaborative improv. I will mention that a lot of Neo-Futurist plays have scripts, but many involve both a script and room for improv, and some are wholly improvised. Regardless of whether the text of the play is set beforehand, performance is itself a daring act enabled by that liminal space you're discussing. I think some researchers refer to it as "the magic circle?" Anyway, I think you've thought just deeply enough about this, because selfishly, I appreciate your thoughts :)

Reply
AboutFAQBlogContact us
Copyright © 2025 itch corp · Directory · Terms · Privacy · Cookies