https://deadletters.nyc/forum/ Sat, 24 Oct 2026 12:00:09 +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=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=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=5 Mon, 07 Sep 2026 01:53:44 +0000 sam_the_bold]]> https://deadletters.nyc/forum/showthread.php?tid=5