Foolish Earth Creatures: September 2025
I've spent most of this month rewriting the Space Interceptors chapter based on design changes I decided to make after the playtest feedback. At the same time I've been writing up design guidelines for myself so I can consistently apply these design principles: things like the kinds of decisions the game lets you make and the kinds out outcomes they will have.
There's lots of things you can do when writing a text-based game, even within the limitations of a passage of text followed by a list of choices. Deciding on the kind of things this particular game will and won't do is an important part of making a game's design coherent. I already had a vision for the game in my head, but articulating that vision by writing design guidelines for myself will hopefully help me write the rest of the game more quickly and consistently.
A core part of the design vision for this game is that it should feel like you're playing a tabletop roleplaying game with Vorak's “player” as the GM. So it's unsurprising that some of my design guidelines have ended up reading like advice to the GM of a tabletop game:
Types of Outcome
You succeed, and
You overcome the challenge and move on to the next challenge.
Branches converge.
You overcame the missiles! But now I’m launching fighters!You succeed, but
You partially overcome the challenge but your solution introduces a complication.
Branches spread out.
You disrupt the missiles, but one is on course for an Earth city!You fail, but
You fail, but all is not lost. You’re captured, or otherwise have a chance to recover.
Branches converge and you advance to another part of the game.
The missiles disable your fighter, but Vorak captures you for interrogation.You fail
Game over.
Branches end.
Captain Kraid destroys your fighter and you’re dead.
One of the mistakes I think I'd been making in my first attempt at the game was thinking too much about the world state and what actions are physically possible (where exactly your space fighter is compared to the enemies, etc.), and not about what events and options are dramatically appropriate. Thinking about the types of options and types of outcomes available, and then trying to strike the right balance of the different types, is what's going to lead to a more satisfying game.
My new design guidelines also distinguish between “What kind of hero are you?” decisions (where you're expressing yourself and there's no wrong answer, e.g. whether you're a more reckless or strategic kind of space hero), and “What's the solution?” decisions (where there is a wrong, potentially game-ending answer, and you have to avoid it by paying attention to the text). In the initial playtest version I was trying too hard to let the player roleplay their character however they wanted, and ended up with a game where it was impossible to lose and so it felt like it didn't matter which option you picked.
So: imagine the game as an RPG games master throwing in new challenges as required to keep the story interesting, while also gleefully rubbing their hands together as they hope that you'll miss the solution and fall into their clever trap.
Will our hero's new design guidelines help him to succeed, and finish the game, or will he fail, but learn an important design lesson? Learn more in next month's developer diary!