The concept of resonance, if I understood correctly, could be considered the application to solo-RPGs of the wider concept of 'vibes', am I correct? In that case this has by far much more sense and consistency that the more generic and evanescent vibe... If I got it in the right sense, thanks a lot: I will review a post I am writing including your thoughtful digression about resonance!
Resonance, as I'm exploring it, is intended to be more focused and consistent than the general 'vibe'.
For me, 'vibe' is crucial for establishing the overall atmosphere and setting and should make the player feel a general diffused feeling about the setting they're in.
However, resonance is about the specific core emotional state I want the player to experience.
The design process then becomes about intentionally using all the tools – mechanics, theme, wording, and the overall 'vibe' or setting – to actively reinforce that targeted emotional state. So the vibe helps build resonance, rather than being the same thing. It's about aiming for that specific feeling (like 'impending doom' vs just 'dark fantasy') to hopefully create that deeper connection and those memorable moments.
Thank you for such a thoughtful comment! I'm truly delighted to hear the article resonated so strongly with you.
It's incredibly encouraging that you found the connections between the core feeling and other design elements clear, and that the examples landed well. Honestly, developing that framework wasn't just for the article; it was also a way for me to gain clarity and push past my own moments of 'design paralysis'. Trying to anchor every decision, from mechanics to theme, back to a specific intended feeling has felt like a crucial step in moving forward with purpose.
My hope, as you touched upon, is that by consciously designing with that intended feeling as the guide, the final experience will resonate more effectively with players. Knowing the constraints, particularly for a one-page format, has definitely helped focus my attention on the essential components first. The ongoing challenge, as I'm discovering, is precisely that balancing act – weaving the theme and intended feeling tightly with functional mechanics so the end result avoids feeling purely mechanical, even within tight limitations.
Thank you again for your incredibly kind words – calling it a "masterclass and morale boost" is high praise indeed, especially as I'm still very much learning myself! I truly appreciate you lifting the curtain with me, and I'm excited to share more of the project's evolution (and inevitable stumbles!) as the journey continues.
Eager to follow along with your own design thoughts too!
Thank you again! You're hitting on the core design challenge. My main approach is ensuring key character choices directly engage with both the internal struggle (rage) and the external threat (the siege), forcing trade-offs. A primary way this happens is through the PbtA-style moves system: on a partial success roll, the player often has to choose a consequence. For example, after attacking, they might choose between taking damage themselves (which then fuels rage and reduces HP), letting the enemy gain an advantage, or having their rage increase directly two-fold.
Other choices reinforce this too, like attempting the risky "centre yourself" action to try and reduce rage (where failure can make it even worse), or deciding how hard to push physically knowing that losing HP fuels rage and hitting zero HP impacts the loss of control track (if this track fills it will initiate a game over condition). The goal is that the mechanics constantly force the player to weigh that internal/external conflict, making the core feeling tangible through their decisions, which feels essential for the focused format of a one-page game. Thanks again for asking!
Thank you for the suggestion! Thinking about how to best represent that core struggle mechanically while respecting the one-page format is definitely key. Your idea of a single "instability" track is an elegant way to capture that escalating pressure and the associated trade-offs, and it's something I've definitely considered in earlier design thoughts, as it really distils the essence of the conflict.
Currently, I'm experimenting with the separate, but tightly linked, tracks for HP, rage, and loss of control. My thinking was that this might offer a bit more strategic granularity for the player – forcing distinct choices about risking physical harm (HP) versus giving in to fury (rage) versus suffering more permanent mental scarring (LoC). The hope is that juggling these specific elements might really drive home that feeling of balancing the immediate needs of saving the town against the long-term battle to control the beast within. However, you've hit on the crucial point – whether this adds valuable depth or just becomes 'bloaty' for a one-page game. Playtesting will absolutely be the deciding factor, and if the current system feels like information overload or slows things down too much, then simplifying back to a unified track like you suggested is definitely a strong option I'll be revisiting. Thanks again for the really helpful input and for following the design process so closely!
The concept of resonance, if I understood correctly, could be considered the application to solo-RPGs of the wider concept of 'vibes', am I correct? In that case this has by far much more sense and consistency that the more generic and evanescent vibe... If I got it in the right sense, thanks a lot: I will review a post I am writing including your thoughtful digression about resonance!
Resonance, as I'm exploring it, is intended to be more focused and consistent than the general 'vibe'.
For me, 'vibe' is crucial for establishing the overall atmosphere and setting and should make the player feel a general diffused feeling about the setting they're in.
However, resonance is about the specific core emotional state I want the player to experience.
The design process then becomes about intentionally using all the tools – mechanics, theme, wording, and the overall 'vibe' or setting – to actively reinforce that targeted emotional state. So the vibe helps build resonance, rather than being the same thing. It's about aiming for that specific feeling (like 'impending doom' vs just 'dark fantasy') to hopefully create that deeper connection and those memorable moments.
Thank you for such a thoughtful comment! I'm truly delighted to hear the article resonated so strongly with you.
It's incredibly encouraging that you found the connections between the core feeling and other design elements clear, and that the examples landed well. Honestly, developing that framework wasn't just for the article; it was also a way for me to gain clarity and push past my own moments of 'design paralysis'. Trying to anchor every decision, from mechanics to theme, back to a specific intended feeling has felt like a crucial step in moving forward with purpose.
My hope, as you touched upon, is that by consciously designing with that intended feeling as the guide, the final experience will resonate more effectively with players. Knowing the constraints, particularly for a one-page format, has definitely helped focus my attention on the essential components first. The ongoing challenge, as I'm discovering, is precisely that balancing act – weaving the theme and intended feeling tightly with functional mechanics so the end result avoids feeling purely mechanical, even within tight limitations.
Thank you again for your incredibly kind words – calling it a "masterclass and morale boost" is high praise indeed, especially as I'm still very much learning myself! I truly appreciate you lifting the curtain with me, and I'm excited to share more of the project's evolution (and inevitable stumbles!) as the journey continues.
Eager to follow along with your own design thoughts too!
Thank you again! You're hitting on the core design challenge. My main approach is ensuring key character choices directly engage with both the internal struggle (rage) and the external threat (the siege), forcing trade-offs. A primary way this happens is through the PbtA-style moves system: on a partial success roll, the player often has to choose a consequence. For example, after attacking, they might choose between taking damage themselves (which then fuels rage and reduces HP), letting the enemy gain an advantage, or having their rage increase directly two-fold.
Other choices reinforce this too, like attempting the risky "centre yourself" action to try and reduce rage (where failure can make it even worse), or deciding how hard to push physically knowing that losing HP fuels rage and hitting zero HP impacts the loss of control track (if this track fills it will initiate a game over condition). The goal is that the mechanics constantly force the player to weigh that internal/external conflict, making the core feeling tangible through their decisions, which feels essential for the focused format of a one-page game. Thanks again for asking!
Thank you for the suggestion! Thinking about how to best represent that core struggle mechanically while respecting the one-page format is definitely key. Your idea of a single "instability" track is an elegant way to capture that escalating pressure and the associated trade-offs, and it's something I've definitely considered in earlier design thoughts, as it really distils the essence of the conflict.
Currently, I'm experimenting with the separate, but tightly linked, tracks for HP, rage, and loss of control. My thinking was that this might offer a bit more strategic granularity for the player – forcing distinct choices about risking physical harm (HP) versus giving in to fury (rage) versus suffering more permanent mental scarring (LoC). The hope is that juggling these specific elements might really drive home that feeling of balancing the immediate needs of saving the town against the long-term battle to control the beast within. However, you've hit on the crucial point – whether this adds valuable depth or just becomes 'bloaty' for a one-page game. Playtesting will absolutely be the deciding factor, and if the current system feels like information overload or slows things down too much, then simplifying back to a unified track like you suggested is definitely a strong option I'll be revisiting. Thanks again for the really helpful input and for following the design process so closely!