https://deadletters.nyc/forum/ Sat, 10 Oct 2026 20:22:36 +0000 MyBB https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=22 Wed, 07 Oct 2026 04:03:07 +0000 500poundsofnothing]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=22 Is there anyone else on this forum who has done troupe style play before? Are there any pitfalls that I should watch out for that are not immediately obvious?]]> Is there anyone else on this forum who has done troupe style play before? Are there any pitfalls that I should watch out for that are not immediately obvious?]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=21 Sun, 04 Oct 2026 17:22:00 +0000 hjkathman]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=21 I wanted to put forwards a thought exercise:

With the litany of the fan-made Pokémon TTRPGs out there, what do you believe would be the best approach to translating these games into the world of tabletop?

If you check the Pokémon tabletop Subreddit, you'll see that the most popular systems use a D20 system, with Pokémon Tabletop Adventures and the now defunct Pokémon Tabletop United being the most popular systems based on D&D. Though I am curious if you all think there's a better way to translate the mechanics of Pokémon battles in a way that maintains the mechanics of the video games without the crunch that would be necessary to account for every single system found in such games.]]> I wanted to put forwards a thought exercise:

With the litany of the fan-made Pokémon TTRPGs out there, what do you believe would be the best approach to translating these games into the world of tabletop?

If you check the Pokémon tabletop Subreddit, you'll see that the most popular systems use a D20 system, with Pokémon Tabletop Adventures and the now defunct Pokémon Tabletop United being the most popular systems based on D&D. Though I am curious if you all think there's a better way to translate the mechanics of Pokémon battles in a way that maintains the mechanics of the video games without the crunch that would be necessary to account for every single system found in such games.]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=20 Sun, 27 Sep 2026 22:56:58 +0000 JimMonsoon]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=20 https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=19 Tue, 22 Sep 2026 12:13:45 +0000 JimMonsoon]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=19 I think I can guess how y’all will respond to Electric Bastionland in this regard, but curious if any of you have read Andrew Kolb’s Oz which is his take on a city crawl. Very detailed, but maybe a lot of prep to reskin if you’re not into the specific flavor.]]> I think I can guess how y’all will respond to Electric Bastionland in this regard, but curious if any of you have read Andrew Kolb’s Oz which is his take on a city crawl. Very detailed, but maybe a lot of prep to reskin if you’re not into the specific flavor.]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=18 Fri, 18 Sep 2026 21:09:12 +0000 sam_the_bold]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=18 CAIN! It's a Forged in the Dark-ish Jujutsu Kaisen-ish ultra-edgy rulebook about playing teenagers in a narsty oppressive school who have magic powers and hunt demons. Come read and discuss with us, we'd love to see you there! 

]]> CAIN! It's a Forged in the Dark-ish Jujutsu Kaisen-ish ultra-edgy rulebook about playing teenagers in a narsty oppressive school who have magic powers and hunt demons. Come read and discuss with us, we'd love to see you there! 

]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=17 Mon, 14 Sep 2026 17:34:59 +0000 sam_the_bold]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=17
Come get yer theoryslop while it's still hot!]]>
Come get yer theoryslop while it's still hot!]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=16 Sat, 12 Sep 2026 10:19:39 +0000 Randalf the Gray]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=16
What are the odds of us non-New Yorkers getting in on the action?]]>
What are the odds of us non-New Yorkers getting in on the action?]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=15 Sat, 12 Sep 2026 09:41:02 +0000 Randalf the Gray]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=15 The Man Who Knew Too Little, because I believe it is one of the greatest satires ever filmed. What elevates it above the level of a mere spoof is precisely its meta narrative framing, which hints at a sort of phantom fourth wall that exists only on the level of the diegesis created by the film. This phantom fourth wall is seen by the audience, but can only possibly be experienced by the protagonist within the narrative, and it is this tension which fuels the comedy, and which allows the premise to facilitate the audience's identification with the protagonist. A lesser film would have eventually lifted the veil and devolved into antics, but Bill Murray's charming Everyman Spy plays it out to the very end. I believe it is a masterful addition to the surprisingly diverse subgenre of spy comedies, rivaled only by Rowan Atkinson's own bumbling Everyman Johnny English.

This actually relates to my comments on the episode as a whole, which I found quite interesting, as always.

With special regard to Walid's statements concerning a "Perfect Roleplaying Game".

Imagine a person, playing a game, who has taken on the role of themselves within this game. The game is called Life, and the rules are quite harsh, but this person has faith in the good intentions of the Designer, and so when the difficulty ramps up this person doesn't blame the game, they seek only to improve their playing.

Now this is absurd to a degree, I know, but it illustrates the point that what constitutes a "Game" or "Roleplaying" is only a matter of perspective, intent, and behavior.

Now imagine there's a different person, playing a different game, who has taken on the role of the Designer of a game called Life, which has one player, though they do not know it.

Do you see where this is going?

If the Designer has gamified the game of the Player, who is playing their own game in which the Designer unknowingly takes part, who is the player and what is the game?

They each exist as people playing games (Exogenous), who have taken roles within their games as Player and Designer (Endogenous), and the actions taken by each within their respective games affect their own game and the game of the other (Diegesis).

As for the Invisible Rules:

1. Role-playing is an interactive process of 
defining and re-defining the state, properties 
and contents of an imaginary game world.

While "interactive" has social implications, its use here refers to the interaction between players and the imaginary world, while a more precise wording would emphasize that the interactive process of defining and re-defining the imaginary world is also shared between the player-participants. I also disagree with the necessity for an "imaginary" world. "Imagined" would be more accurate, however I don't believe that an imaginary overlay is ultimately required in all cases for a Game to qualify as Roleplaying.

2. The power to define the game world is 
allocated to participants of the game. The 
participants recognize the existence of this 
power hierarchy.

Again, this doesn't necessarily apply in all cases. A GM-less game played from a prewritten module using oracles to address unknown variables, as many solo games are played, would provide no power to define the world itself. Though the characters and their actions could be freely defined, the hierarchy then would exist purely between the players and the game itself, which is also doing the allocating through its very structure. Over-reliance on closure to fill this gap feels incomplete, because as stated in the paper, closure is often unconscious, and such an automatic process would be better suited to a term with less connotations of intent as "power". I'm being pedantic on terminology because I find it lacks precision, but it may just be a translation issue with the paper as a whole.

3. Player-participants define the game world 
through personified character constructs, 
conforming to the state, properties and 
contents of the game world.

I feel like this is just an extension of Rule 2, though it does seem contradictory in a sense. Rule 2 states that the "participants" have the power to define the world, but Rule 3 states that they do so through "personified character constructs". Is Rule 2 then merely stating that "power to define" exists and it is allocated between the participants, and Rule 3 then describes how that power is actuated? I don't believe that can be true, because the allocation of power in Rule 2 is what grants authority to the GM to freely define the world, which they do (mostly) without use of a "personified character construct". The GM role is further explored in the "optional or additional" rules later in the paper, but since these three Rules are supposed to be applicable to "all role-playing in general" I feel they must bear the burden of that claim in all cases, which they clearly do not.

By these Rules, my absurd Designer and Player are playing the same game. More importantly, while the Designer exists and continues to play, the Player is playing a game whether they know it or not, much like our Everyman Spy from above.

Is the phantom fourth wall "real" in the sense that it exists irrelevant to whether it is perceived or interacted with, or does it only exist insofar as it is perceived and interacted with by some agentic entity, on either side of the wall?

Whatever the answer, if any, I'm definitely using Personified Construct as my definition for PC going forward.

Thanks for the awesome and inspiring discussion on the podcast! And thanks for bringing these thought provoking works to our attention!]]> The Man Who Knew Too Little, because I believe it is one of the greatest satires ever filmed. What elevates it above the level of a mere spoof is precisely its meta narrative framing, which hints at a sort of phantom fourth wall that exists only on the level of the diegesis created by the film. This phantom fourth wall is seen by the audience, but can only possibly be experienced by the protagonist within the narrative, and it is this tension which fuels the comedy, and which allows the premise to facilitate the audience's identification with the protagonist. A lesser film would have eventually lifted the veil and devolved into antics, but Bill Murray's charming Everyman Spy plays it out to the very end. I believe it is a masterful addition to the surprisingly diverse subgenre of spy comedies, rivaled only by Rowan Atkinson's own bumbling Everyman Johnny English.

This actually relates to my comments on the episode as a whole, which I found quite interesting, as always.

With special regard to Walid's statements concerning a "Perfect Roleplaying Game".

Imagine a person, playing a game, who has taken on the role of themselves within this game. The game is called Life, and the rules are quite harsh, but this person has faith in the good intentions of the Designer, and so when the difficulty ramps up this person doesn't blame the game, they seek only to improve their playing.

Now this is absurd to a degree, I know, but it illustrates the point that what constitutes a "Game" or "Roleplaying" is only a matter of perspective, intent, and behavior.

Now imagine there's a different person, playing a different game, who has taken on the role of the Designer of a game called Life, which has one player, though they do not know it.

Do you see where this is going?

If the Designer has gamified the game of the Player, who is playing their own game in which the Designer unknowingly takes part, who is the player and what is the game?

They each exist as people playing games (Exogenous), who have taken roles within their games as Player and Designer (Endogenous), and the actions taken by each within their respective games affect their own game and the game of the other (Diegesis).

As for the Invisible Rules:

1. Role-playing is an interactive process of 
defining and re-defining the state, properties 
and contents of an imaginary game world.

While "interactive" has social implications, its use here refers to the interaction between players and the imaginary world, while a more precise wording would emphasize that the interactive process of defining and re-defining the imaginary world is also shared between the player-participants. I also disagree with the necessity for an "imaginary" world. "Imagined" would be more accurate, however I don't believe that an imaginary overlay is ultimately required in all cases for a Game to qualify as Roleplaying.

2. The power to define the game world is 
allocated to participants of the game. The 
participants recognize the existence of this 
power hierarchy.

Again, this doesn't necessarily apply in all cases. A GM-less game played from a prewritten module using oracles to address unknown variables, as many solo games are played, would provide no power to define the world itself. Though the characters and their actions could be freely defined, the hierarchy then would exist purely between the players and the game itself, which is also doing the allocating through its very structure. Over-reliance on closure to fill this gap feels incomplete, because as stated in the paper, closure is often unconscious, and such an automatic process would be better suited to a term with less connotations of intent as "power". I'm being pedantic on terminology because I find it lacks precision, but it may just be a translation issue with the paper as a whole.

3. Player-participants define the game world 
through personified character constructs, 
conforming to the state, properties and 
contents of the game world.

I feel like this is just an extension of Rule 2, though it does seem contradictory in a sense. Rule 2 states that the "participants" have the power to define the world, but Rule 3 states that they do so through "personified character constructs". Is Rule 2 then merely stating that "power to define" exists and it is allocated between the participants, and Rule 3 then describes how that power is actuated? I don't believe that can be true, because the allocation of power in Rule 2 is what grants authority to the GM to freely define the world, which they do (mostly) without use of a "personified character construct". The GM role is further explored in the "optional or additional" rules later in the paper, but since these three Rules are supposed to be applicable to "all role-playing in general" I feel they must bear the burden of that claim in all cases, which they clearly do not.

By these Rules, my absurd Designer and Player are playing the same game. More importantly, while the Designer exists and continues to play, the Player is playing a game whether they know it or not, much like our Everyman Spy from above.

Is the phantom fourth wall "real" in the sense that it exists irrelevant to whether it is perceived or interacted with, or does it only exist insofar as it is perceived and interacted with by some agentic entity, on either side of the wall?

Whatever the answer, if any, I'm definitely using Personified Construct as my definition for PC going forward.

Thanks for the awesome and inspiring discussion on the podcast! And thanks for bringing these thought provoking works to our attention!]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=14 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 18:53:53 +0000 Idraluna]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=14 somewhat inarticulate blog post about it in 2024 -- but since touches on some topics from recent episodes, I thought it would be interesting to discuss here.

In the Mythic Bastionland episode, Sam and Misha disagreed about whether some of the random tables were useful, and it seems like the core of the disagreement was whether the MB table results were specific enough. (As I recall, the specific entry was just the word "betrayal", which Sam thought too abstract to easily integrate with an existing narrative and which Misha regarded as workable).

I think their disagreement hinges on their respective preferences for types of inference. As I understand it there are three types of inference:

• Deduction predicts specific details from a general hypothesis.
  
• Abduction develops a general hypothesis from specific details.
  
• Induction extrapolates specific details into more specific details.
  

The famous and annoying example is the observation that Sherlock Holmes is less a master of deduction than of abduction -- his skill is in developing a successful hypothesis from specific clues. Deduction is only applied at the final step of pinpointing the culprit after acquiring a broader understanding of motive and method.

For how the relates to rpgs, my thesis is roughly:

Ttrpgs require inference to integrate exogenous inputs with the shared fictional game state. Depending on both the nature of the exogenous input and the way the fiction is understood and narrated, this process of inference can be deduction, abduction, induction, or a combination thereof. Preferences for one type of inference over another can illuminate some disagreements about play culture and scenario design.


Some examples of how inference is used in ttrpgs:

Referee improvisation in _Classic Traveller_: the referee rolls up a patron on a newly-visited planet. They have the following information: a small world with a tainted atmosphere and population of 10,000 people living under a corporate government, whereon a doctor patron has a job involving a playboy patron that includes an encounter with 11 thugs.

• The referee uses abduction to integrate these details into a story that involves the players (the playboy is a corporate nepo-baby put in charge of pollution control, his negligence is making people sick so the doctor has hired the players to intimidate him into doing his job, but the players will have to deal with the playboy's 11 lowlife boyfriends)
  

• The referee uses deduction to derive personal details from the general prompts "doctor" and "playboy", likewise for the planet ("tainted atmosphere" becomes "sky thick with clouds of iridescent industrial discharge")
  

Prepping a dungeon game scenario:

• JG's Wilderness Hexplore generates "Whickham, a castle, crumbling, manned by a garrison of 180 shaky mercenaries. Lead by kobold illusionist, level 3. (Neutral unless the leader's species suggests otherwise.) Walls are additionally defended by aerial creatures. Outside the walls, a stone bench." -- a slew of details with which to perform abduction and deduction.
  

• Luke Gearing's Wolves Hexfill table generates "Weird - Boon/ally" -- deduction is required to come up with specific details that fit the prompt.
  

Resolving a player action:

• A PBTA hack with a "partial success" result requires the MC or player to use deduction to narrate a specific type of partial success that fits with the existing fiction.
  

• Skills in Classic Traveller often have very specific results -- a roll of 8+ at gambling yields so many credits -- these introduce specific details into the ongoing narrative that feed into abduction and induction.
  

Investigation scenarios:

• In Brindlewood Bay (disclaimer: haven't played it, relying on second-hand understanding) players use deduction to fill in the details of a mystery from narrative beats.
  

• In a more OSR-inflected investigation scenario, players have to use abduction to piece together an understanding of a scenario based on specific details that are written into the scenario's key.
  

I have lots of other thoughts but two main implications are as follows:

First, I'm not well-versed in storygames but it seems like they often intervene in the fiction by supplying generalities, and that players derive enjoyment by "decorating" an exogenous narrative structure with specific invented details. (This might explain some of the backlash to Rules Elide, insofar as storygamers consider it "play" to backfill details which have been elided by game mechanics). Players who favor the OSR tend to prefer the process of developing a holistic world-picture from discrete, concrete details. I think this should at least be considered along side other play culture bifurcations like narrative agency/control.

Second, there are scenario design implications. Touching on another episode, one of the strengths of _Wolves_ is that deductive inference was used to create it, but it invites its players and referees to reconstruct that using abduction. Luke clearly had a preconceived idea of the Atlantean-Lemurian hyperwar from which he derived his hex descriptions, but by not providing a "here's what's going on" blurb he forces referees and players to think critically and make inferences. I suspect that in abducing their own interpretations of the setting, players and refs end up much more emotionally invested in the campaign than if the juicy secrets were just handed to them.

The two (probably inferior) alternatives are the "generality-only" approach (if Luke were to describe the Atlantean-Lemurian hyperwar and then ask refs to write their own hexes) and the "meaningless detail" or "pareidolia" approach where you generate lots of arbitrary description without there being a(n intentional) broader structure for players to reconstruct.

Some questions for discussion:

1. For those with a background in game studies, has this been written about or discussed before? Are there other theoretical distinctions this can be mapped onto?
   
2. Why do people seem to prefer one type of inference over another?
   
3. Per the examples above, it seems like inference happens at a lot of different levels -- is it reasonable to conflate the inference done by a referee when prepping a scenario with the inference done by players when running it?
   
4. Are there counterexamples where OSR games rely on deduction, or where storygames rely on abduction?
   

]]> somewhat inarticulate blog post about it in 2024 -- but since touches on some topics from recent episodes, I thought it would be interesting to discuss here.

In the Mythic Bastionland episode, Sam and Misha disagreed about whether some of the random tables were useful, and it seems like the core of the disagreement was whether the MB table results were specific enough. (As I recall, the specific entry was just the word "betrayal", which Sam thought too abstract to easily integrate with an existing narrative and which Misha regarded as workable).

I think their disagreement hinges on their respective preferences for types of inference. As I understand it there are three types of inference:

• Deduction predicts specific details from a general hypothesis.
  
• Abduction develops a general hypothesis from specific details.
  
• Induction extrapolates specific details into more specific details.
  

The famous and annoying example is the observation that Sherlock Holmes is less a master of deduction than of abduction -- his skill is in developing a successful hypothesis from specific clues. Deduction is only applied at the final step of pinpointing the culprit after acquiring a broader understanding of motive and method.

For how the relates to rpgs, my thesis is roughly:

Ttrpgs require inference to integrate exogenous inputs with the shared fictional game state. Depending on both the nature of the exogenous input and the way the fiction is understood and narrated, this process of inference can be deduction, abduction, induction, or a combination thereof. Preferences for one type of inference over another can illuminate some disagreements about play culture and scenario design.


Some examples of how inference is used in ttrpgs:

Referee improvisation in _Classic Traveller_: the referee rolls up a patron on a newly-visited planet. They have the following information: a small world with a tainted atmosphere and population of 10,000 people living under a corporate government, whereon a doctor patron has a job involving a playboy patron that includes an encounter with 11 thugs.

• The referee uses abduction to integrate these details into a story that involves the players (the playboy is a corporate nepo-baby put in charge of pollution control, his negligence is making people sick so the doctor has hired the players to intimidate him into doing his job, but the players will have to deal with the playboy's 11 lowlife boyfriends)
  

• The referee uses deduction to derive personal details from the general prompts "doctor" and "playboy", likewise for the planet ("tainted atmosphere" becomes "sky thick with clouds of iridescent industrial discharge")
  

Prepping a dungeon game scenario:

• JG's Wilderness Hexplore generates "Whickham, a castle, crumbling, manned by a garrison of 180 shaky mercenaries. Lead by kobold illusionist, level 3. (Neutral unless the leader's species suggests otherwise.) Walls are additionally defended by aerial creatures. Outside the walls, a stone bench." -- a slew of details with which to perform abduction and deduction.
  

• Luke Gearing's Wolves Hexfill table generates "Weird - Boon/ally" -- deduction is required to come up with specific details that fit the prompt.
  

Resolving a player action:

• A PBTA hack with a "partial success" result requires the MC or player to use deduction to narrate a specific type of partial success that fits with the existing fiction.
  

• Skills in Classic Traveller often have very specific results -- a roll of 8+ at gambling yields so many credits -- these introduce specific details into the ongoing narrative that feed into abduction and induction.
  

Investigation scenarios:

• In Brindlewood Bay (disclaimer: haven't played it, relying on second-hand understanding) players use deduction to fill in the details of a mystery from narrative beats.
  

• In a more OSR-inflected investigation scenario, players have to use abduction to piece together an understanding of a scenario based on specific details that are written into the scenario's key.
  

I have lots of other thoughts but two main implications are as follows:

First, I'm not well-versed in storygames but it seems like they often intervene in the fiction by supplying generalities, and that players derive enjoyment by "decorating" an exogenous narrative structure with specific invented details. (This might explain some of the backlash to Rules Elide, insofar as storygamers consider it "play" to backfill details which have been elided by game mechanics). Players who favor the OSR tend to prefer the process of developing a holistic world-picture from discrete, concrete details. I think this should at least be considered along side other play culture bifurcations like narrative agency/control.

Second, there are scenario design implications. Touching on another episode, one of the strengths of _Wolves_ is that deductive inference was used to create it, but it invites its players and referees to reconstruct that using abduction. Luke clearly had a preconceived idea of the Atlantean-Lemurian hyperwar from which he derived his hex descriptions, but by not providing a "here's what's going on" blurb he forces referees and players to think critically and make inferences. I suspect that in abducing their own interpretations of the setting, players and refs end up much more emotionally invested in the campaign than if the juicy secrets were just handed to them.

The two (probably inferior) alternatives are the "generality-only" approach (if Luke were to describe the Atlantean-Lemurian hyperwar and then ask refs to write their own hexes) and the "meaningless detail" or "pareidolia" approach where you generate lots of arbitrary description without there being a(n intentional) broader structure for players to reconstruct.

Some questions for discussion:

1. For those with a background in game studies, has this been written about or discussed before? Are there other theoretical distinctions this can be mapped onto?
   
2. Why do people seem to prefer one type of inference over another?
   
3. Per the examples above, it seems like inference happens at a lot of different levels -- is it reasonable to conflate the inference done by a referee when prepping a scenario with the inference done by players when running it?
   
4. Are there counterexamples where OSR games rely on deduction, or where storygames rely on abduction?
   

]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=13 Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:52:20 +0000 jack]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=13 ! 

I always feel like I don't want folks to feel discomforted coming to my pad for a game, especially a game for the first time, so was curious what folks go-tos are for third (non-paid or like a coffee) spaces for rolling dice.

I used to like Cafe Underground in Boshwjck but that closed down last year sadly  ]]> ! 

I always feel like I don't want folks to feel discomforted coming to my pad for a game, especially a game for the first time, so was curious what folks go-tos are for third (non-paid or like a coffee) spaces for rolling dice.

I used to like Cafe Underground in Boshwjck but that closed down last year sadly  ]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=12 Tue, 08 Sep 2026 01:11:42 +0000 sam_the_bold]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=12

I've run West Marches and open tables, for both overland crawls and dungeons, usually with a roster of ten to twenty players or so. 

In my Seas of Sand, Mothership, and Wolves Upon the Coast campaigns, there have been crews aboard the ship(s), which provide an easy list of extra NPCs who can go on adventures or serve as replacement PCs. 

In my long-running Heresy campaign, we ended up with four "main PCs," the primary heroes of the campaign and the leaders of their rebel heresy, and then ten-ish "minions," who got substituted in and out on various adventures. I think by the end of the game, the average adventuring party had like one-and-a-half main PCs. 

What I've noticed is that in each of these cases, troupe play facilitates the sandbox: it means that characters can die without ending the main quest, making it easier to have huge terrifying monsters and threats, and it means there is a lot more flexibility in team composition for problem-solving, which expands the range of flavors of problems you can set up for players to face. 

Likewise, while this isn't explicitly tied to troupe play, I find two common knock-on effects of troupe play are 1) you need a home base or other place to leave your dudes that aren't out on an adventure, and 2) that you need downtime activities for those homebound dudes to do "off-screen." And both of those together encourage a much larger, richer field of play. (As a tangent, watching the Quinns Quest video about Stonetop, I was struck by how much of his praise focused on the longevity of the game and the effect of giving players a home base situated in the world—both things that Stonetop does by default, true, but also don't seem terribly unique.)

These elements combined—a wide range of dangers and threats, a home base, and prominent downtime—all feel like they really enable a proper sandbox game. One that's focused not just on "where your party is traveling at this exact moment," but one that exists and persists within a wider, broader world. And so now I'm wondering, for whatever future big sandbox campaign games I run and big sandbox campaign projects I make, how I can best support and enable and encourage troupe play. 

Any good ideas?]]>

I've run West Marches and open tables, for both overland crawls and dungeons, usually with a roster of ten to twenty players or so. 

In my Seas of Sand, Mothership, and Wolves Upon the Coast campaigns, there have been crews aboard the ship(s), which provide an easy list of extra NPCs who can go on adventures or serve as replacement PCs. 

In my long-running Heresy campaign, we ended up with four "main PCs," the primary heroes of the campaign and the leaders of their rebel heresy, and then ten-ish "minions," who got substituted in and out on various adventures. I think by the end of the game, the average adventuring party had like one-and-a-half main PCs. 

What I've noticed is that in each of these cases, troupe play facilitates the sandbox: it means that characters can die without ending the main quest, making it easier to have huge terrifying monsters and threats, and it means there is a lot more flexibility in team composition for problem-solving, which expands the range of flavors of problems you can set up for players to face. 

Likewise, while this isn't explicitly tied to troupe play, I find two common knock-on effects of troupe play are 1) you need a home base or other place to leave your dudes that aren't out on an adventure, and 2) that you need downtime activities for those homebound dudes to do "off-screen." And both of those together encourage a much larger, richer field of play. (As a tangent, watching the Quinns Quest video about Stonetop, I was struck by how much of his praise focused on the longevity of the game and the effect of giving players a home base situated in the world—both things that Stonetop does by default, true, but also don't seem terribly unique.)

These elements combined—a wide range of dangers and threats, a home base, and prominent downtime—all feel like they really enable a proper sandbox game. One that's focused not just on "where your party is traveling at this exact moment," but one that exists and persists within a wider, broader world. And so now I'm wondering, for whatever future big sandbox campaign games I run and big sandbox campaign projects I make, how I can best support and enable and encourage troupe play. 

Any good ideas?]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=11 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 20:13:50 +0000 AmICoolYet?]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=11 actually looking to play game, I am looking for all the cool monsters that Mr. McDowell came up with so I can steal them for games I run other systems.]]> actually looking to play game, I am looking for all the cool monsters that Mr. McDowell came up with so I can steal them for games I run other systems.]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=10 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 19:58:51 +0000 sam_the_bold]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=10 Tomb of a Thousand Doors, the Mausritter anthology megadungeon. We'd love to see you there! 

We as the book club decide on our next book at the end of each club meeting, so I'll be sure to update this thread once we decide. 

]]> Tomb of a Thousand Doors, the Mausritter anthology megadungeon. We'd love to see you there! 

We as the book club decide on our next book at the end of each club meeting, so I'll be sure to update this thread once we decide. 

]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=9 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 17:30:55 +0000 riles]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=9
LOVE DA METS

SIMPLE AS

  FY24_New-York_NY_0346_2000px-750x600.jpg (Size: 159.61 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]>
LOVE DA METS

SIMPLE AS

  FY24_New-York_NY_0346_2000px-750x600.jpg (Size: 159.61 KB / Downloads: 2) ]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=8 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 17:18:50 +0000 sam_the_bold]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=8
It's true we certainly aren't the first. Nor are we even really the first new-age revival forum—those honors go to the Gauntlet, and more recently Paper Cult Club—but it is exciting! I can't think of any other RPG podcasts off the dome that have opted for a forum, rather than a Discord server or other chatroom. 

We'll see how it goes! I'm excited!]]>
It's true we certainly aren't the first. Nor are we even really the first new-age revival forum—those honors go to the Gauntlet, and more recently Paper Cult Club—but it is exciting! I can't think of any other RPG podcasts off the dome that have opted for a forum, rather than a Discord server or other chatroom. 

We'll see how it goes! I'm excited!]]>