These are cool... I could see a game, or even an entire campaign focusing around any one of these relics.
Stone Cold Fox Games
Creator of
Recent community posts
I always try to include ideas for how stories are told in a game, and the types of stories that might occur. In RWBY I'd look at the episodic nature of the show, and how storylines can be concluded in a single show (or session), and how other stories might carry across a season (or campaign). This would include introducing enemies (or other supporting characters) that reveal things about the character's backstories, and the way the understanding of "dust" varies depending on the character's background.
Do you mind if I make a game derived from this using my tri-fold format? I'd be making a few changes, maybe adding a pair of permanent boons and a bane for a bunch of character type. I think it works really well as a foundation, and I'd like to explore it further. (All attributions and creative commons license will be applied as appropriate)
Thanks for the feedback.
I agree with a lot of it, because I kind of rushed the last couple of days just to make sure it would be out in time for the end of the Game Jam. Between the time constraints at the end and the 16-page zine format, I pulled all the monsters out, and I'm putting them together as scenarios/missions for the agents to complete. So, a folded sheet that has monster stats, ideas for how to evolve that monster, and a few more tables that could be rolled on for narrative twists and turns commonly associated with that monster's stories.
After I printed it out, I noticed a couple of spelling and grammatical errors in the text, and that annoyed me. However, I've already organised an updated version of the core rules.
The intent of the hunt was always less of a "combat game", and more of an investigative narrative. The aim was that if players just went directly for the fighting option, the monsters would wipe the floor with them. If they investigated, discovered the weaknesses of the monsters, reconnoitered the hideouts/strongholds, revealed the monsters allies/minions, and found out how the monsters were influencing the world, they'd have a much easier time and might confront the monster on an even footing, or even gain the upper hand.
If there's enough interest, I might throw together another zine as a guide for the GM, with a few more ideas and clarifications in it.
I always love it when games add evocative little touches like this...things that don't specifically impact the dice rolling, but could go all the way between an interesting flavour touch, through to being the focus of an entire game with the right group of players. So I try to make sure my games include similar ideas.
Thankyou for this... I thought I caught most of the issues in the text before my final conversion to the pdf.
I can see what you're saying on the last point, however this sequence of games is very much "tri-fold" based. trying to get that feel with a screen is something I haven't managed yet, especially where some of the other games in the series rely on the tactile elements and folds of the piece. For non-"trifold manifesto" games, I'll definitely be generating more screen friendly versions.
Hi everyone,
I'm Erin. I'm a new designer from Australia who has been trying to make a tri-fold game every month this year, while I'm helping my friend Michael with his own design work. This is my second design jam, the first time in the One Page RPG Jam. Still trying to get my feeling with designing stuff. I'm inspired by all sorts of stuff, I figure the more inspirations and the more input the better. My whole aim here is just to refine my craft and get it noticed by a few other people.
Thanks for reading.
I alternated between specifically making this GM-less or GM-driven a few stages during the course of this game. I've kind of left that a bit vague at this time, because I could really see it working either way. I might need to re-read through the text to make sure I've stripped out overt references to a GM. However, you're right in assuming that each player makes a pair of mortals and shuffles them all together. Players don't know if they'll get one of the mortals they've written, or one from someone else...and they won't know if a given mortal will be a ward to be protected, or a troublemaker needing to be dealt with.
Thanks for reading and offering a comment.
Hi everyone,
Just found out about this, and I'm excited.
This year I've been releasing monthly mini-games on tri-folds, all of them released on CC licenses. I'm wondering if it would be fine to release a few of my games as a part of this jam, or if it's being limited to one entry per participant.
Thanks.
Erin
Hi everyone, I'm trying to give a bit of feedback on every entry, because I love the idea of this jam and it's been really eye-opening to see a glimpse into other people's perspectives and visions for game design. I've had a few great discussions from this over the past couple of weeks, and hope to have more.
Feedback on Cigarette Manifesto
Hmm. I’m not sure how I feel about the bait and switch, or maybe I’m just reading too much into it. In my recent research into games released over the past 30 years, I’ve seen pages like this that offer instructions to perform, often claiming to be an “intense emotional interactive experiences”, “freeform performative gaming event” or some such buzzword-filled showpiece. The kind of thing that’s akin to The Emperor’s New Clothes, where anyone claiming fraudulence in the piece is simply claimed to have “not got it”.
However, that last sentence gets me. Follow the instructions of the experience, get lost in the questions and ideas that ferment in the mind... then wait a year and write a game. Nice. It’s not the game, it the catalyst for a game. It’s a way of breaking someone out of their routine with a ritual. For that alone I appreciate the artistry, but there’s depth here too… if just took me reading to the end to find it.
I don’t even know if you wanted a critique or discussion on the manifesto, but I’m going to try to add some ideas to every entry that gets posted.
Feedback on Quantum Seed Gaming
So much to unpack in this one.
As a massive fan of the quantum nature of reality, and the hypothesis that a cognitive though and collapse of probability waves informs the underlying nature of reality as we perceive it, I can vibe with this.
However, there are a few steps toward you conclusion that feel like circular logic… like a religious zealot claiming that their holy text is truth, because their holy text says so. I’m torn between this being heartfelt ritualism or Discordian trolling and parody.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s a fascinating ritualised cargo-cult paradigm, but I think Critical Role tapped into someone else’s “quantum seed” (in this case WotC’s), and happened to get lucky riding the zeitgeist wave. Life’s a lottery. Sometimes you go years or decades screaming into the void, playing your game at conventions and trying to get a bit of attention in the static white-noise of reality (I know a few designers like this)… sometimes you catch the eye of the right person at the right time, and everything falls into place (I know of far less designers where this has happened).
Similarly, watching where the money is going is just following the herd, reinforcing someone else’s “quantum seed”. Emulating D&D is lazy game design. Risks need to be taken, art needs to be made, passions need to be followed. Sometimes a disruption to the quantum state makes more significant ripples in reality than riding the waves of another seed’s echo.
It feels like you’re tapping into something with this manifesto, but I’m not sure I can agree with the specifics.
I don’t even know if you wanted a critique or discussion on the manifesto, but I’m going to try to add some ideas to every entry that gets posted.
If you were thinking of making a game following this ideology, it'd be nice to have the red pyramid symbol included, and maybe a reference to the manifesto. That's how I'm planning to do it from this point forward (I might even edit some of the earlier works to include that). I didn't think anyone else would be interested enough to use it.
Wow...thanks for pointing that out. It's one of those bits where I had it clear in my head what would happen, and thought that I'd included it in the rules. Obviously I hadn't. Maybe it got cut in editing, but it's an important part of the game. Basically, once the candle goes out, whether by burning down or blowing it , the stories come to a conclusion. I'll re-read how the rules currently stand, and look through the working document, but generally had the idea that once the light leaves the candle, this was another trigger for the end game when the light enters play and everyone gets a final chance to resolve their stories.
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.
Feedback on Play Manifesto
Wow.
Just Wow.
This has been my first exposure to Neo-Futurism, and I really want to know more. I can really see how the “role” works in this, whether that role is portraying someone or something else, or whether your truth in the moment is to portray yourself. There feels like something deep and visceral happening here, but something that is lost when you think about it too deeply. It’s in the moment, in the zone, it’s an achievement of flow. “Play” also fits, because there’s a type of experiential learning happening in the circumstances unfolding. It’s keeping you thinking, it feels a bit dadaist in the way it invokes emotional whiplash. I love it.
I think the “game” bit is where I’m struggling. That’s probably a “me issue” more than anything else, because it’s my first exposure to these things and I’d love to see how they’d play out in the flesh, in front of an audience. I guess it’s all the improv nature of anything having the chance to succeed or fail, and not knowing whether a performance will land well (or crash and burn) is where the risk occurs and the “game” can be considered won or lost.
I’m intrigued.
I don’t even know if you wanted a critique or discussion on the manifesto, but I’m going to try to add some ideas to every entry that gets posted.













