Intro

I'll rework my Guiding Principles somewhat to be the introduction to the game(s). But before I dive into them, I probably need an actual paragraph or two, at least, of introduction. First draft:

Welcome to the Dark Fantasy X role-playing game; one of three very similar "X-family" games. This is a modification, alteration, and redesign of the extremely clever Microlite 20 (or m20) system. I highly recommend that you check out the full Microlite 20 experience, as my own modification of the game engine is a bit esoteric and highly dependent on my own personal, eccentric tastes.

The foremost priority of the X-family m20 system games is that they be short, quick to read, and play very quickly without bogging down in mechanical complexity in play. This has a few sub-points, or consequences that are worth being discussed briefly:

• It was never the intention of this kind of system to provide rules for every situation. However, because the rules are simple and consistent, it provides a very convenient tool for GMs to use to adjudicate any situation in a way that makes perfect sense, is predictable, and feels natural. One of the (two) mottos for Third Edition was "tools, not rules." That promise didn't end up being true, but it certainly is for the X-family of m20 games.
• Because of this tools first approach and rules lightness, it is expected that players simply describe what they are doing in naturalistic language and the GM interprets them using the tools of the game. This facilitates a narrativist approach where players don't have to "get out of character" to interact with mechanics.
• Combat, barring unusually complicated and rare exceptions, requires no graphical representation and can all be done via "theatre of the mind." Again, this enables players to stay in character and not have to "stop" the game to play a completely separate tactical miniatures game.

This brings up the question of stance. When I started playing RPGs, it was the very early 80s. I liked to read. I liked movies and TV. I had no wargaming background at all. I still don't really care much for wargaming, except in an academic sense. To me, the promise of RPGs was collaborating with a group in an authorial stance to come up with an impromptu story as a result of the players interactions through their characters with the environment and setting presented by the GM. The "stance" of the players is like that of a team of authors writing an ensemble cast TV show, although of course the focus of the players is on "authoring" their character only. Aspects of the game that are specifically "gamist" are minimized in an attempt to instead focus on the characters and the impromptu narrative and the tension around what's happening to them. Not only does the system facilitate this, but I will overtly take this tack during play as well.

It also brings up the question of collaboration and trust. The GM does not compete in any way with the players, and the players are not trying to win against or outdo the GM. The players and the GM are expected to cooperate together to create a fun experience for each other. The only thing to "win" is the satisfaction of the experience itself. This requires a bit of trust between the players and the GM, as well as a little bit of emotional distance from your character. Bad things happening to your character does not equate to bad things happening to you, and if a character is experiencing hardships or even really bad hardships or death, that should still be entertaining to the players and the group overall. Conflict, adversity and risk is at the heart of any drama that's at all interesting, so embrace those things rather than shy away from them, and you'll have a better, more entertaining and satisfying time playing the game.

In concert with that particular stance and approach, it's worth pointing out that any story is about the characters. I dislike the idea—common though it may be—that the setting, or even the scenario, exists independent of the characters. It is impossible, therefore, to know too much about any given game, or how it will play out, or what beats it will hit in the future, without even knowing who the characters are. In general, I'm not a fan of pre-prepared or pre-written campaign material anyway, but it's specifically rejected here; I won't be doing anything like adapting modules, adventure paths or anything like that except in a very loose sense, because the game will be optimized and tailored to the characters that I get, what kinds of attributes they have, which impact how they approach the problems that come up, or even what they're interested in doing in the first place. My approach is to have a short, 1-page campaign brief proposal, or better yet, two or three for the players to choose from in terms of what the campaign is going to be about, let them build their characters without any expectation that they create a "well-rounded" or balanced party based on the proposal that they choose, and then allow the game to play out as it plays out, but with an approach where the GM specifically is working with those characters the same way an author works with the characters he has instead of "punishing" them for not being different characters.

That said, there's no plot immunity, and while I think campaigns based on characters are the most compelling, real risk to the characters is also a major part of what makes it compelling. I'd actually prefer to have all players make a character and then also make a back-up character. If the main character dies, the backup character will be slotted in place shortly, and a new spare will be made later to be in storage if needed. If the backup characters aren't used for a long time, and the main characters level up, then the backup characters will level up too to match.

All games set in the X-family of games will focus to varying degrees on a few common themes: 1) swashbuckling action, 2) intrigue, mystery, investigation, and skullduggery, 3) wilderness exploration and survival, and 4) supernatural horror. The last one will probably be lowest in Space Opera X (but not nonexistent. Check out the Leigh Brackett story "People of the Talisman" for an example) and highest in Dark Fantasy X, with Hack Fantasy X being, in general, a middle ground. But any given game (or for that matter, even any given session) may toggle back and forth on each of those items in terms of how prominent they are. For people with more gaming experience, note that dungeon-crawling is not on that list. I don't really like dungeon-crawls and never run them.

While both fantasy and space opera tend to use a lot of non-human races as part of their oeuvre, and these games are no exception, I've also come to see the wisdom of the early 20th century humano-centrist approach of fantasy and space opera. Aliens and fantasy races will exist, and will be PC selectable (as well as "monstrous" foes) but their prominence in the settings overall will be minimized, and their "alien-ness" will often be played down; most of them will act like people with a funny make-up job or good rubber mask. I've had less interest in exploring fictional anthropological studies of culture and behavioral biology and more interest in exploring the range of the human experience. Even the non-humans are meant to explore a narrower aspect of being human, when they're not there simply to be gratuitous color. And frankly, if gratuitous color is all that they are, I'm perfectly fine with that too. If I'm adapting (or remixing) an existing setting from some other game to be used in these games, this will be a major shift; most modern fantasy and space opera games are less humano-centric than the earlier ones, and I'll go back probably even further to the source material from the first half of the 20th century and the assumptions that they used, quite frequently.

I especially do not see these games as avenues for the deconstruction of American culture, Western civilization, religion, "the patriarchy", etc. Take your issues elsewhere. Fantasy in particular is heavily rooted on a Medievalist approach that romanticizes earlier periods of Western Civilization, and space opera romanticizes an earlier, gung-ho approach to American civilization. All of my games, to some degree, will do the same. I'm really not interested in cosplaying any other civilizations or cultural traditions either; I'm a product of Western Civilization and I consider myself an ethnic American. I have absolutely no interest in "critique" of either, because it's insulting to me, my heritage and my culture. Besides, and this is beyond the scope of this topic right now, most of those critiques are based on dishonest narratives anyway. But even if they weren't, I'm still not interested in them.

I know that this is fantasy (or science fiction, if talking about Space Opera X) and you give a fig leaf explanation for things that are not realistic, and you can accept it within the context of the game. That said, some things are harder to accept. For me personally, stuff that is contrary to human nature is hard to accept. People of different races and population groups acting like they are all interchangeable widgets with each other instead of having actual culture, behavior and biology that's as diverse as their physical appearance is contrary to human nature, and when I see it, it is a major cause of dissonance and distraction from what I'm doing. (It's also insulting and disrespectful of those differences, for that matter. Not everyone in the world runs around acting like virtue-signaling white liberals.) Another example is the assumption that women are the same as men, so settings are created in which women stand in men's roles as Fake Men. I find this equally distracting and off-putting. This will have little to do with player characters, and I'd never suggest anything like "If you're going to play a big, jock, warrior type, then you can't be a woman, because women aren't really like that, and even Rhonda Roussy is no match for her male counterparts." The statement is true, but I have no problem with people wanting to play action-grrls if they want to. I've even liked some such characters over the years, although I'm a little less keen on them now than I was years ago when I was younger. However, this will certainly impact the way I populate NPCs in the setting. If that bothers you, I highly suggest that you avoid playing with me. Like I said, I'm not interested in hashing out your politic-social ideas at the table, and I am specifically interested in replicating real human nature as well as the nature of early sword & sorcery and space opera fiction (mingled with some horror and thriller vibes.)

Finally, and along those same lines, I'm also not interested in running charity outreach to gamers who may be emotionally dysfunctional, mentally unstable or ill, or who otherwise are incapable of normal human interaction. I want to game because I want to have fun doing the game. This is partly addressing the faddish Consent in Gaming document. I've written about it in the past in more detail, but let me just tl;dr summarize it here by suggesting that the only use that pamphlet has to me is that I use it as a filter. Anyone who proposes that it be taken seriously is automatically disqualified from being invited to game with me. 

In short, the game, the setting, and the way I run games is heavily skewed towards my tastes as they have evolved over decades of playing role-playing games. I've tried a little of just about everything available in the market, and I've distilled it to a very classic approach that, I find, is perfect for me. I hope you have as much fun gaming as I have had, and if nothing else, seeing how easy and satisfying it is to really create your own, perfect, Holy Grail of a game that works perfectly for you, you feel inspired to do the same.