Category Archives: Level One Wonk

noun
: a person preoccupied with arcane details or procedures in a specialized field
broadly : NERD
: a TTRPG wonk
: a game design wonk

Level One Wonk Holiday Special: 2025

Come one, come all, to the strangest time of the year! Join me here in the dead zone before Christmas and New Year’s, and let’s talk about how 2025 went. 2025 was a rough year, to be honest, mostly having to do with a lot of not-RPG things. Some of that did bleed over into the RPG world as well. Tariffs have made physical games more expensive to produce and buy, and generative AI continues to drag down the quality of games being produced. While the RPG hobby can be an escape, more and more it seems that engaging with it (and any hobby for that matter) is necessarily intertwined with the news of the day.

Perhaps that’s one of the reasons I looked inward this year. Eight of my fifty articles this year were ostensibly reviews, including three fantasy games (Legend in the Mist, Miseries and Misfortunes, Grimwild), two horror games (Lovecraftesque, Triangle Agency), two sci-fi games (Coriolis: The Great Dark, Cyberpunk Red Single Player Mode) and one generic game (QuestWorlds). I definitely wrote my share on the hobby at large, but spent a bit more time zeroing in on game concepts, be that a new System Hack, examining hit points in Cyberpunk games, or reflecting on the “Onion Model” for the OSR. Even among the reviews you can see that things were a bit less forward-looking; the review written closest to release for the game with the most novel execution was Triangle Agency, and that happened in the beginning of the year. Everything else was either a bit vintage, a supplement, or a new edition of an old game.

Was there a big slowdown this year? If anything, there was a big shift in attention this year. Last year was the year of revised Dungeons and Dragons, but this year was the year for the response to Dungeons and Dragons, and that response came through in spades. Daggerheart was released in May and Draw Steel in July, and both games have created a gravity well pulling attention back to mainline fantasy trad. At the same time, a few older titles like Shadowdark engineered some very successful coattail-riding, building on existing success to take advantage of the changing headlines and the renewed focus on “not D&D”.

When you take the economic uncertainty outside the hobby and the retrenchment within it, what you get is conservatism from all sides. Most of the top-selling titles on DriveThruRPG have been new editions, remakes, and sequels; while there’s something to be said about the continued popularity of the Warhammer settings and of Onyx Path’s stewardship of Storyteller/Storypath, the incrementalism of these games don’t exactly make them rich veins of material for critics and reviewers. The games that really surprised and delighted me this year were ones I was late to the party on, like Legend in the Mist.

Was my gaming year similar to my writing year? In a way, yes. I ran Apocalypse World: Burned Over all year, eventually triggering a “gamechanger” which sent the characters to DIE. Yes, I played it safe even as I enthusiastically tried out new mechanics and new rules hacks. Even though I played it safe, it had been about a decade since this group last played Apocalypse World, and I keep seeing new ways that GMing PbtA pushes me and the way I run my games. Now that phase two of the campaign is continuing in DIE, I’m trying to prep for it in a very different way. I’m curious to see how long I can keep things going; on one hand I think this campaign has a longer runway than I’m used to writing for, but on the other hand I’m writing in a definitive ending that the players can trigger at their pleasure. My players will find out about that ending in our next session; for right now it’s the only part of session prep that hasn’t been scrambled and rewritten multiple times as I keep getting new ideas.

New ideas are my continuing blessing/curse as I try to shift my new campaign ideas over to the side. I have several campaigns I want to run in the future, including a horrendously ambitious post-apocalyptic science-fantasy game using at least three different OSR games stuck in a blender. Beyond that are some slightly less intense ideas mostly focused around systems; my group played Wildsea for the first time and there’s interest in going back, so that may be an upcoming campaign (run either by me or possibly someone else). I also clued myself into the upcoming release of Blades ‘68; I played Deathloop and Atomfall this year, and got a nice reminder of how much I enjoy the ‘60s retrotech aesthetic. Given that setting realignment, it’s very likely that Blades ‘68 will be what inspires me to finally get Blades in the Dark to the table.

This was also a year I got back into the RPG discussion space a bit, becoming a more active user on a couple Discords where some great discussion has gone on. I also finally started an account on BlueSky, but that was mostly due to a tangential development this year: I started another site where I’m posting fiction and some personal reflections on storytelling. It’s going to be a smaller, more intimate project than Cannibal Halfling Gaming, but overall I think that doing more writing and being encouraged to engage more (albeit in a relatively contained fashion) has been a good thing this year, both for my sense of belonging in this hobby as well as a way to create dialogue. I’m very pleased with the three posts I wrote in conversation with other commentators this year, and I think my efforts to consider my writing as dialogue, as conversation made the result not only better written but also healthier than trying to write ‘a response’.

So where did all that writing get us? Well, we’re inevitably cramming in more posts at the end of the year, but as of this writing we’re beating the 2024 viewcount by about 6000, with about 15 fewer posts. This is a solid turnaround from the decline from 2023 to 2024, but it also has shown that, once you take outliers out of the picture, we’re trending similarly to the RPG hobby as a whole. 2023 likely shouldn’t have been as big as it was, but we got at least two huge articles posting five-figure reader counts within a week of their release. As we’ve moved away from promoting on Twitter and Reddit, those immediate viewcounts are seldom if ever going to happen, unless we stumble upon a game right before the hype cycle begins (and we don’t have enough free time to ever do that reliably). We’re putting out content that’s generating very healthy viewcounts over time, and continuing to do that is what’s going to enable us to continue growing steadily into the future.

We published 52 posts this year as part of our recurring content cadence: Weekend Updates, plus one Cannibal Halfling Radio episode. I wrote, as I mentioned, 50 posts this year. Seamus wrote 17, and then Aki and Sloane contributed another 3. This got us to our total of 122, which as I mentioned is about 15 less than last year, but with better viewcounts. As we look at this, there’s always the consideration of sustainability. In 2019 we published nearly 150 pieces, but that’s even wilder than you think, because Weekend Update didn’t become part of our posting schedule until 2021. That means that we published more than twice as much content in 2019 as we did this year. Can we return to that? No, not really; at the very least we’d need four regular writers again, and currently we only have two. Our current pace is definitely workable, though I’d prefer to see roughly ten posts a month (four weekend updates, six actual posts) spread out evenly through the year. We do seem to have this habit of cramming a bunch of things in between Thanksgiving and New Year’s…anyway.

And how has this year been for me? Well, a lot. I mentioned it briefly in my Endies 2025 post, but I moved this year. Even that is burying the lede; I moved in with my longtime partner, which was more logistically involved than most. We are lucky to not be renters, but that means that moving required the sale of two condos and purchase of one, as well as two different moves, first consolidating into one (too-small) condo and then moving everything into the new one. The entire process went from May to the middle of August, and dominated my year. As I look to 2026, one significant difference from 2025 will be that no one in my life is moving. The biking is of course continuing as always; our new home has more cycling infrastructure and options around us, though the move itself cut into my ability to ride and train. I felt that hard when we did D2R2 this past year; I simply wasn’t as fit as I wanted to be and suffered through a lot of the hill climbing as a result. Next year should be better, as long as I make time to ride.

I’m not sure where the hobby is going next year, but I still have a drive to play games, run games, and make games. Thanks to my new project I even have a space to talk stories, characters, and worldbuilding while focusing my writing here on new games, the state of the hobby, and nerding out about playing RPGs just like I always have. While I think that predicting things will ‘calm down’ next year is perhaps a bit optimistic, my personal life should be slightly less hectic, which may even mean more time to play games. As with everything else, we shall see. No matter what is coming, I hope to keep writing, keep playing, and keep engaging with all of you who also love this hobby and who I’ve enjoyed speaking to in the past year. Thank you to everyone who reads, comments, and drops by our Discord, I hope to keep seeing you in the year ahead. Of course thanks to Aki, Sloane, and Seamus, who have all made up part of the Cannibal Halfling family this year. As always, keep playing, keep dreaming, and I’ll see you in 2026.

Like what Cannibal Halfling Gaming is doing and want to help us bring games and gamers together? First, you can follow me @levelonewonk.bsky.social for RPG commentary, relevant retweets, and maybe some rambling. You can also find our Discord channel and drop in to chat with our authors and get every new post as it comes out. You can travel to DriveThruRPG through one of our fine and elegantly-crafted links, which generates credit that lets us get more games to work with! Finally, you can support us directly on Patreon, which lets us cover costs, pay our contributors, and save up for projects. Thanks for reading!

Legend in the Mist: Mist Engine may be Fate’s Forged in the Dark

It is in some ways perfect timing that only a month ago I was comparing Fate and Apocalypse World, and looking at their respective destinies. In 2013 the fourth edition of Fate, Fate Core, went from its Kickstarter to legitimately outstanding commercial success. Around the same time, Apocalypse World had just started on its inexorable upward trajectory not due to its own sales numbers but rather the adoption of its underpinnings, Powered by the Apocalypse. Fate would peak in the lead-up to D&D Fifth Edition while PbtA would continue to soar, eventually powering what was at the time the largest TTRPG Kickstarter ever.

Both games were successful enough to spawn not only hacks but also derivatives, mechanical cousins of the original game which kept the underlying ideas but altered the core mechanics. Blades in the Dark is the notable one for Powered by the Apocalypse, but there were of course others. For Fate, the same thing happened, even if much of the hacking was further under the radar than what John Harper pulled off on the PbtA side. There is one Fate hack of note which is coming back into the limelight, the Mist Engine from Son of Oak Game Studio.

Continue reading Legend in the Mist: Mist Engine may be Fate’s Forged in the Dark

Coring the Onion: OSR structuralism and non-OSR games

The RPG theory ship sails on unbidden, even as RPG networks of practice seem to be drifting apart. In November, there was a great post over on The Dododecahedron which bucked the trend and pulled theory work from outside of the author’s primary discipline, the OSR. Starting from a description written by Vincent Baker about the PbtA ‘conversation’, Dododecahedron author Rowan describes OSR play as an onion with four concentric layers: Character on the outside, then working inward to Mechanics, Procedures, and finally Adventure. Adventure is in the middle as the diegetic ‘fiction’ that the players are engaging with is the source of truth for OSR play. From there are Procedures, which describe the rules for how to go about play; that is to say, what travel looks like, or when random encounters occur, or how to track consumables. The next layer out is Mechanics, which describe the “rules” as most RPGs understand them; this is where initiative, ability checks, and all those specific bits live. Finally on the outside is Character, where elements like attributes, experience points, and skill ratings, all the things that make characters unique, sit.

Continue reading Coring the Onion: OSR structuralism and non-OSR games

The design decision which won narrative gaming

Last week, Apocalypse World came back to crowdfunding, with the Bakers seeking funding for a Third Edition of the game. Apocalypse World was first released back in 2010 and it took the indie RPG world by storm; by the time Dungeon World was released in 2012 it was already all but certain that ‘Powered by the Apocalypse’ would be a phenomenon. It’s easy to forget that there was another indie darling riding high in the hobby in the early aughts. Fate was arguably the other big indie game, and it even made its way into the ICv2 bestseller list after the success of its 2013 Kickstarter, an honor typically reserved for D&D, Pathfinder, and a few other corporate games. The ICv2 data point is particularly interesting. Fate outsold Apocalypse World; not only did the game peek into commercial sales charts as late as 2020, Fate even holds the statistically dubious honor of being one of only three games to ever outsell D&D in the ICv2 rankings (the other two being Pathfinder and FFG Star Wars). Commercially, Fate was an indie juggernaut.

Fate has clearly not maintained the degree of impact and influence it once had. Hell, the last three Kickstarter campaigns run by Evil Hat Productions, publishers of Fate, were all Powered by the Apocalypse games. The literal keepers of Fate have, thanks in no small part to John Harper and Blades in the Dark, seemingly seen the writing on the wall in terms of salability and influence of PbtA over Fate. Why is that? To start, there’s an obvious disparity to the degree in which unaffiliated designers took the respective systems and ran with them. That said, it’s fairly clear to me that this is a symptom, not a cause. While it’s hard to beat the Bakers’ approach of ‘sure, just don’t literally plagiarize us’ for licensing, Fate was licensed under the OGL and later Creative Commons, which were both used by tons of creators in other contexts. No, the difference in third party support and expansion has to do with the design of the respective games, not their shepherding by their respective creators. And I think I know specifically which design elements made the difference.

Continue reading The design decision which won narrative gaming

Cultures of Play, Quanta of Play

The assumptions, intentions, and design of tabletop roleplaying games are infamously broad; seeing eye to eye on how to play is as primary a challenge as finding a time on the calendar for four to six people. Back in April of 2021, the blog The Retired Adventurer published a post called Six Cultures of Play which still sees reference as a succinct overview of distinct play traditions which have evolved over the last fifty-ish years of structured tabletop roleplaying. Between solid analysis and the author’s own admonitions not to see bright lines between the cultures where there aren’t any, I see the article as a useful model to start thinking about how people game and what they want.

Of course, the gaming world hasn’t stayed still, and from the publication of the original post to the renaming of Twitter to “X” in 2023, fragmentation was the word of the day. Since then, we’ve seen continuing fragmentation joined with an upswell in interest in fairly specific playstyle differentiation, driven by migration away from Wizards of the Coast products and strong take-up of “D&D alternative” products including not only Pathfinder but Daggerheart, Tales of the Valiant, and Draw Steel. The core ideas in the Cultures of Play post still hold true, but the consistent signpost in my mind is in the introduction, where the author describes a culture of play as equivalent to a ‘network of practice’. A community of practice is a group which forms around something they collectively do (or practice) which they have a passion for and want to do better; a network of practice is also that but doesn’t assume the same consistent strength of relationships, therefore being a more appropriate term for a larger, more nebulous group. As broad as a network of practice can be, I don’t really think it aligns with a ‘culture of play’ anymore.

Continue reading Cultures of Play, Quanta of Play

Big groups, small games

For the most part, the ideal size for a gaming group is five, four players and a GM. This is driven by group dynamics; researchers wrote in the Harvard Business Review back in 2018 that the ideal group size for meetings is between five and eight, at least if the point of that meeting is to have a productive discussion and get things done. Roleplaying games skew to the lower end of this mostly just due to the fact that in addition to the actual ‘meeting’ of a game, there is also the need to manage that many characters, their contributions, and their stories.

Ideal doesn’t mean only, and an experienced GM can run games anywhere in that 5-8 range without too many problems, at least as long as they’re realistic about how long things will take. More and more, though, games are being written towards a specific group size, usually a smaller one. In some cases it’s obvious, like Fiasco: the number of turns in the game, and therefore the amount of time the game will take, is directly proportional to the number of people playing, and even playing with five people, the maximum number recommended by the rules, the game begins to sprawl and the story begins to sag. In other cases, the restriction comes from a clear place, but the question hangs in the air about how to subvert it. A good example of this is DIE: There are six roles, six dice. That’s how many there were in the comic, therefore that’s how many there are in the game.

Continue reading Big groups, small games

TTRPGs and fandom

The genesis of fandom as we know it starts and ends with communication. Sports fandom began evolving from the 19th century to today as radio, TV, and then the internet all brought access to more and more people. Literary fandom wasn’t too far behind: Jane Austen and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle both inspired fan movements with intensity rivaling the most fervent fandoms of today, famously doing things like publicly mourning the death of Sherlock Holmes.

There’s always a spectre behind fandom, though. Sports has seen a sea change from live attendance to broadcast as team owners can charge more and more for tickets and extract more and more money out of their audience. A massive subsection of the fandom factions collectively referred to as ‘nerd culture’ are owned by Disney, engineered to extract money from the existing audiences of Star Wars and Marvel. The strong feelings of identity and association associated with fandom can easily be weaponized, and the history of nerd culture brings along with it a whole other level of making spending choices feel very personal.

So what of role-playing games? The RPG hobby and RPG fandom are often seen as one and the same; traditional RPGs are high-commitment and there isn’t much of a casual following. Beyond that, RPGs, specifically licensed RPGs, are vehicles for other fandoms, taking advantage of the fandom overlaps implied by that phrase ‘nerd culture’. When we look at RPG fandom, though, we do see things falling out in a few different ways: Those who focus on the act of playing RPGs as a whole, those who are fans of their one chosen game, and those who are fans of the chosen game, Dungeons and Dragons. Just like fandoms of all sorts of other hobbies and media, the RPG fandom is driven not only from the enthusiasm and engagement of its members, but also by the companies who capitalize on those feelings of association and belonging in order to make money.

Continue reading TTRPGs and fandom

Hit points: A cyberpunk case study

Are hit points meat? Does the answer to that question even matter? Hit points are an old mechanic, ported into RPGs at the beginning from wargames, where they made the assessment of unit health more granular than ‘alive’ or ‘dead’. D&D took the concept and applied it to player-characters and monsters alike, and from there it became profoundly common. Measuring damage taken and time until expiration is one of those things where the simplest approach is often the most fun, even if it’s hardly the most realistic.

Hit points as a mechanic are not a monolith. Not even D&D still uses the original mechanic where you have a number and when it’s reduced to zero, you’re dead. Death saves, critical wounds, damage thresholds and any other number of modifiers to the hit point schema make the act of bleeding out after being stabbed a lot more complex than it necessarily has to be, but sometimes more fun, too. Of course, a lot of the relationship that a game has to how its characters get shot and die has to do with genre.

Continue reading Hit points: A cyberpunk case study

On Specificity

Why is Mothership, well, Mothership? Put another way, why isn’t it Basic Roleplaying, or Call of Cthulhu? The core mechanics are all very similar; basically everything in Mothership that isn’t specifically about starships is adapted from Call of Cthulhu in one way or another. And that little starship aside does point to the answer: The reason Mothership is Mothership, Call of Cthulhu is Call of Cthulhu, and neither of them are BRP has to do with the specificity of their missions. Both Call of Cthulhu and Mothership frame their ideal game experience as horror, which lends itself to specific mechanics in the designers’ eyes. Mothership more specifically is science fiction horror, so the designer adds rules about spaceships and space travel. Specificity isn’t limited to genre, though. Mothership is also intended to be light on mechanics; famously the game has no mechanics for things like stealth which means that the adjudication of things like hiding and following are circumstantial and entirely in the lap of the GM. Whether you agree with this mechanical decision or not, it is deliberate and it is specific.

While specificity of game outcomes is produced by having more and more concrete rules (Mothership’s take on stealth is completely non-specific, while a game with one or more stealth skills and a laundry list of modifiers would be much more specific), specificity of game design is much more interesting, especially as there’s an entire class of games that deliberately avoids it. When I looked at QuestWorlds, I saw a game designed to try and do everything, at the expense of doing anything in a particularly interesting or engaging way. It’s hardly the only generic game, and one could make the same complaint and direct it at Fate, or GURPS, or Savage Worlds.

But hold on. If we go back and look at Mothership again we have, broadly, a fairly non-specific game. Yes, it’s about space horror, and the character options are tuned to space horror. The GMing advice is very good. The layout is very good. The game, though? It’s, outside of the space horror part, stripped down Call of Cthulhu. So where does that Mothership ‘vibe’ come through besides the design ethos? A good part of it is the modules (hardly a controversial opinion), but I think a specific and interesting point is that the modules bring with them hyper-specific mechanics. While GURPS has mechanics meant to be at the level of physics and D&D has mechanics which reinforce genre, Mothership has a good chunk of its mechanics corpus supporting specific stories, designed for and included in the pages of modules like Gradient Descent and Another Bug Hunt. And this is kind of important: While Mothership clearly takes inspiration from the DIY and hack-and-borrow ethos of the OSR, it’s presented a bit differently. The modules, in addition to providing the setting and conflict and everything else for a solid few sessions of adventure, also provide the hacked/modified rules to make that adventure feel different or play different than the base game. It does make me think, though: If you’re hacking the rules (or using the designer’s hacks) for every module, how truly different is that from using a generic game? Put another way, what really makes Mothership different from BRP, really? It’s not rules, after all.

Continue reading On Specificity

Are fewer rules actually less complicated?

The debate about rules density in roleplaying games is a bit of a mess, frankly. What should be a relatively simple continuum (more, more detailed mechanics to fewer, higher-level mechanics) is conflated with story-first versus gameplay-first, indie versus traditional, and even in some cases old versus new. Actually pulling together a comparison where you’re actually looking at rules density and nothing else is difficult; controlling for these factors is hard because while they aren’t causal, they are correlated.

When it comes to actually running games, though, I’m going to make full use of Betteridge’s Law of Headlines here. Running light games can be very complicated indeed, for the simple reason that anything the rules aren’t laying out for you, you have to do yourself. Now…is that a simple reason? One of the reasons we have seen rulesets trend lighter over time is that the number of ‘things’ that players consider necessary to track or perform in a game session has gone down as games have become more specific. Furthermore, one of the reasons that more narrative driven games often have lighter rulesets is that the number of elements that a ruleset needs to codify in order to maintain fairness and consistency can often be much lower. But, if we’re looking across games of roughly similar style and intent, then we often see that more rules-dense, ‘crunchy’ games can be more approachable. That is for one broad reason.

Continue reading Are fewer rules actually less complicated?