Really smart observation about how procedures and moves need to work together rather than moves alone doing all the lifting. That procedural pressure (food, coin, curses needing temples) creates necessity without feeling arbitrary, which is the tricky part. I've seen too many solo engines that either railroad with forced next steps or leave you dangling with "introduce complication" nonsense that just shifts all the work backonto the player. The distinction between generating momentum and creating busywork is way narrower than most designs acknowledge.
Hi again! I just published another post where I go into detail on the design of the dungeon exploration mechanics. I thought you might appreciate it as a follow up to this post, it serves a first concrete look at a piece of the system.
I've definitely come up against the issues you raised in other games. I've played Pathfinder 2e solo using Mythic GME 2e with limited success in the past and the main challenges for me were 1) the amount of bookkeeping required, 2) maintaining momentum particularly with failed rolls where often the outcome is "nothing happens", and 3) balancing positive and negative outcomes in a way that felt 'fair'.
I actually started hacking PF2e into a dice pool system based on Neon City Overdrive system early this year but shelved the project. I haven't heard of Adventurous before but looking at it now, it seems to be very close to what I had in mind so I will definitely be interested to check it out once the solo rules are available!
Are you alluding to Ironsworn when you refer to moves in other games not having clear, explicit outcomes? I think Ironsworn move outcomes are a perfect balance of specificity and creative freedom for a narrative-first game. Ironsworn is about narrative exploration rather than mechanical challenge, so outcomes are less about what's 'fair' and more about what's 'fun'. What outcome drives the story forward in a way that is exciting? I also don't have an issue with the moves pointing forward to other moves in a way that feels gamey because of the Ironsworn design principle to always sandwich the mechanics with fiction (Fiction > Mechanics > Fiction).
Saying that, with OSR games the lethality, resource management, the constant risk, is what makes them fun. So how much damage is done on a weak hit or miss, whether that be climbing a perilous cliff or navigating a rowboat through fast-flowing waters, is important because that's the difference between life and death for a character. In OSR games I'm usually playing to see how long the character survives, rather than to explore a specific narrative with a specific character. So having specific consequences is important otherwise it undermines the principle of OSR. The challenge then is, how do you have consequences that are specific whilst also ensuring that any failure the characters experience has a corresponding consequence that makes sense and doesn't feel repetitive (e.g., you can only 'lose an item' so many times before your character starts to seem like they have butterfingers)?
Yes, Ironsworn was one of the games I hinted at, but also Solitary Defilement (Mörk Borg solo supplement) to some extent.
Adventurous is much more in the OSR-vein than Ironsworn, so my goal is mechanical specificity and clarity in move outcomes, since as you say, taking 4 or 5 damage when failing to control a canoe past violent rapids could be the difference between life and death, and that is the kind of game I want to be able to run solo.
And agree, repetitiveness is a danger I foresee, and I’m cautious about it.
Thanks for reading, and I appreciate the detailed comment.
I really appreciated your in-depth comment, and I just published a new post I thought you might like to read.
It’s a deep dive into the dungeon exploration system of the solo rules. It serves as a first concrete look at a piece of the solo rules for Adventurous, and the design philosophy behind it:
Thanks for writing your thoughts down. Very interesting. In which ways -- would you say -- differs your solo game engine from Ironsworn? When I read your article, I thought: This sounds a lot like Ironsworn with its moves and procedures.
I love many things about Ironsworn, but I’m not a big fan of the ambiguous and vague outcomes of many of the moves, especially the ones that carry negative consequences.
Ironsworn is a much more narrative focused game compared to Adventurous, which is more a game about perilous adventure and playing to find out what happens. The dice will tell the story, rather than you having a story you want to play out, if that makes sense.
A great example of how the Adventurous Solo Rules will differ from Ironsworn.
The move: “Pay the price” have outcomes phrased like this:
- Make the most obvious negative outcome happen.
- A person or community you trusted loses faith in you,
or acts against you.
To me, that is much too vague, it’s unspecific. It works great in a narrative focused game, but in a game where you might get killed by giant rats when helping the innkeeper clear out his basement, it’s too vague.
In Adventurous, the move corresponding to “Pay the Price” is: “Suffer the Consequences”. Here the possible outcomes are phrased as:
- Take 2D6 damage to HP.
- Lose an item (specific oracle to determine which one is lost.
- Become Exhausted (mechanically specified effect.
Etc.
So the main difference is specificity, with the purpose of making it play more like a game, and less like storytelling with dice.
Hope that makes sense 😊.
EDIT: Forgot to add that the “Suffer the Consequences” move have different outcome tables depending on your situation. So different outcomes when chatting with the innkeeper vs when picking a lock in a dungeon. This is of course to be able to serve an outcome that makes sense, but is always clear and straightforward.
I just published a post about he dungeon exploration system in the solo rules. It serves as a first concrete look at a piece of the solo rules for Adventurous, and the design philosophy behind it. I thought you might find it interesting 😊
It’s an interesting and thought provoking article. Personally I do tend towards the more creative writing exercise type of solo games as I like to use them as a way to “play” a new fiction story, but what my process and a lot of campaigns (and PC based RPGs) have at their core is an overall goal that the players have to work towards.
It can be as specific or as vague as you like and either be 100% the authors choice or driven by some kind of oracle or story engine card deck.
That way you have something to work towards and when you finish a section you can cue up a nice reveal that can be interpreted as required.
Giant In The Playground’s Order of The Stick is a great example of this. I suppose the other thing to consider is what constitutes your adventures endgame. Obviously if you die that’s a fail but what other mechanics exist for failure? Also consider how do you win ?
Adventurous got recommended to me. Your solo engine sounds like you want to mix the procedural generations of OSR games with triggered moves from pbta games? Sort of like procedures and environmental creating GM Moves and the stakes to force you to take dangerous actions?
Happy to hear it was recommended to you, that makes me very happy! 🤩
Yes exactly. The constant need for coins and supplies will create pressure to explore and adventure, meeting new people, getting quests, fighting monsters etc. And the procedures, like those for Wilderness exploration, Dungeon Exploration and Settlement exploration will ensure that doing those things pushes the game forward and never comes to a halt. Offloading the player, and shifting all the “heavy lifting” onto the engine itself.
Another critical element I’m trying to incorporate is that no outcomes shall be ambiguous or unclear. I really don’t like when solo engines say things like: “introduce a complication, or “encounter a setback”. Those complications or setbacks should be mechanized and clear in my opinion. When they are vague and undefined I think it becomes too ambiguous. I need the engine to drive the game.
Lastly, procedural generation is at the core of the engine, to ensure that you can get started almost immediately, without much prep.
Interesting to see how it works when it's done. Though I will add that I personally think that a lot of uncertainty in the complications comes from triggering moves when they shouldn't be triggered. Rolling to face danger without thinking what is at stake will make interpretation difficult. If you define what's at stake you know what will happen.
Nonetheless, having a closed loop that helps with this would be really cool.
Really smart observation about how procedures and moves need to work together rather than moves alone doing all the lifting. That procedural pressure (food, coin, curses needing temples) creates necessity without feeling arbitrary, which is the tricky part. I've seen too many solo engines that either railroad with forced next steps or leave you dangling with "introduce complication" nonsense that just shifts all the work backonto the player. The distinction between generating momentum and creating busywork is way narrower than most designs acknowledge.
Hi again! I just published another post where I go into detail on the design of the dungeon exploration mechanics. I thought you might appreciate it as a follow up to this post, it serves a first concrete look at a piece of the system.
https://open.substack.com/pub/dawnfist/p/exploring-dungeons-solo-design-notes
Thank you! And agree, that narrow distinction is tricky, but very exciting to explore
Great article, thanks for sharing!
I've definitely come up against the issues you raised in other games. I've played Pathfinder 2e solo using Mythic GME 2e with limited success in the past and the main challenges for me were 1) the amount of bookkeeping required, 2) maintaining momentum particularly with failed rolls where often the outcome is "nothing happens", and 3) balancing positive and negative outcomes in a way that felt 'fair'.
I actually started hacking PF2e into a dice pool system based on Neon City Overdrive system early this year but shelved the project. I haven't heard of Adventurous before but looking at it now, it seems to be very close to what I had in mind so I will definitely be interested to check it out once the solo rules are available!
Are you alluding to Ironsworn when you refer to moves in other games not having clear, explicit outcomes? I think Ironsworn move outcomes are a perfect balance of specificity and creative freedom for a narrative-first game. Ironsworn is about narrative exploration rather than mechanical challenge, so outcomes are less about what's 'fair' and more about what's 'fun'. What outcome drives the story forward in a way that is exciting? I also don't have an issue with the moves pointing forward to other moves in a way that feels gamey because of the Ironsworn design principle to always sandwich the mechanics with fiction (Fiction > Mechanics > Fiction).
Saying that, with OSR games the lethality, resource management, the constant risk, is what makes them fun. So how much damage is done on a weak hit or miss, whether that be climbing a perilous cliff or navigating a rowboat through fast-flowing waters, is important because that's the difference between life and death for a character. In OSR games I'm usually playing to see how long the character survives, rather than to explore a specific narrative with a specific character. So having specific consequences is important otherwise it undermines the principle of OSR. The challenge then is, how do you have consequences that are specific whilst also ensuring that any failure the characters experience has a corresponding consequence that makes sense and doesn't feel repetitive (e.g., you can only 'lose an item' so many times before your character starts to seem like they have butterfingers)?
Yes, Ironsworn was one of the games I hinted at, but also Solitary Defilement (Mörk Borg solo supplement) to some extent.
Adventurous is much more in the OSR-vein than Ironsworn, so my goal is mechanical specificity and clarity in move outcomes, since as you say, taking 4 or 5 damage when failing to control a canoe past violent rapids could be the difference between life and death, and that is the kind of game I want to be able to run solo.
And agree, repetitiveness is a danger I foresee, and I’m cautious about it.
Thanks for reading, and I appreciate the detailed comment.
Hi!
I really appreciated your in-depth comment, and I just published a new post I thought you might like to read.
It’s a deep dive into the dungeon exploration system of the solo rules. It serves as a first concrete look at a piece of the solo rules for Adventurous, and the design philosophy behind it:
https://open.substack.com/pub/dawnfist/p/exploring-dungeons-solo-design-notes
I do enjoy systems and engines that apply pressure. Resource pressure, countdown pressure, etc. It makes things much more interesting. Great article!
Thank you!
Thanks for writing your thoughts down. Very interesting. In which ways -- would you say -- differs your solo game engine from Ironsworn? When I read your article, I thought: This sounds a lot like Ironsworn with its moves and procedures.
Thanks for reading them 😊.
I love many things about Ironsworn, but I’m not a big fan of the ambiguous and vague outcomes of many of the moves, especially the ones that carry negative consequences.
Ironsworn is a much more narrative focused game compared to Adventurous, which is more a game about perilous adventure and playing to find out what happens. The dice will tell the story, rather than you having a story you want to play out, if that makes sense.
A great example of how the Adventurous Solo Rules will differ from Ironsworn.
The move: “Pay the price” have outcomes phrased like this:
- Make the most obvious negative outcome happen.
- A person or community you trusted loses faith in you,
or acts against you.
To me, that is much too vague, it’s unspecific. It works great in a narrative focused game, but in a game where you might get killed by giant rats when helping the innkeeper clear out his basement, it’s too vague.
In Adventurous, the move corresponding to “Pay the Price” is: “Suffer the Consequences”. Here the possible outcomes are phrased as:
- Take 2D6 damage to HP.
- Lose an item (specific oracle to determine which one is lost.
- Become Exhausted (mechanically specified effect.
Etc.
So the main difference is specificity, with the purpose of making it play more like a game, and less like storytelling with dice.
Hope that makes sense 😊.
EDIT: Forgot to add that the “Suffer the Consequences” move have different outcome tables depending on your situation. So different outcomes when chatting with the innkeeper vs when picking a lock in a dungeon. This is of course to be able to serve an outcome that makes sense, but is always clear and straightforward.
Yes. It does all make sense. 😀 Thanks for taking your time, I'm already looking forward to the Solo Set!
Hi again!
I just published a post about he dungeon exploration system in the solo rules. It serves as a first concrete look at a piece of the solo rules for Adventurous, and the design philosophy behind it. I thought you might find it interesting 😊
https://open.substack.com/pub/dawnfist/p/exploring-dungeons-solo-design-notes
It’s an interesting and thought provoking article. Personally I do tend towards the more creative writing exercise type of solo games as I like to use them as a way to “play” a new fiction story, but what my process and a lot of campaigns (and PC based RPGs) have at their core is an overall goal that the players have to work towards.
It can be as specific or as vague as you like and either be 100% the authors choice or driven by some kind of oracle or story engine card deck.
That way you have something to work towards and when you finish a section you can cue up a nice reveal that can be interpreted as required.
Giant In The Playground’s Order of The Stick is a great example of this. I suppose the other thing to consider is what constitutes your adventures endgame. Obviously if you die that’s a fail but what other mechanics exist for failure? Also consider how do you win ?
This is good. Really good!
That's an excellent distilling of the concept. Really useful for my own game and definitely makes me want to get into yours.
Wow! I think you really nailed solo design! I love this article and have to share it. 😊
It's a nice system, with old-school feel and modern mechanics. Kudos!
Adventurous got recommended to me. Your solo engine sounds like you want to mix the procedural generations of OSR games with triggered moves from pbta games? Sort of like procedures and environmental creating GM Moves and the stakes to force you to take dangerous actions?
Happy to hear it was recommended to you, that makes me very happy! 🤩
Yes exactly. The constant need for coins and supplies will create pressure to explore and adventure, meeting new people, getting quests, fighting monsters etc. And the procedures, like those for Wilderness exploration, Dungeon Exploration and Settlement exploration will ensure that doing those things pushes the game forward and never comes to a halt. Offloading the player, and shifting all the “heavy lifting” onto the engine itself.
Another critical element I’m trying to incorporate is that no outcomes shall be ambiguous or unclear. I really don’t like when solo engines say things like: “introduce a complication, or “encounter a setback”. Those complications or setbacks should be mechanized and clear in my opinion. When they are vague and undefined I think it becomes too ambiguous. I need the engine to drive the game.
Lastly, procedural generation is at the core of the engine, to ensure that you can get started almost immediately, without much prep.
Interesting to see how it works when it's done. Though I will add that I personally think that a lot of uncertainty in the complications comes from triggering moves when they shouldn't be triggered. Rolling to face danger without thinking what is at stake will make interpretation difficult. If you define what's at stake you know what will happen.
Nonetheless, having a closed loop that helps with this would be really cool.
This article has put Adventurous on my “next purchase” list - and eagerly awaiting your solo rules for it.
You are pushing solo rules thought forward and we will all be better off for it!
Thank you so much! Really appreciate the positive feedback
Great thoughts. I think your kind of solo engine will feel a niche that many will enjoy. I am certainly looking forward to it!
Thanks Lars! I do hope so :)