I've written a one page, donation-ware RPG:

http://www.adastragames.com/downloads/RPGs/Minimus.pdf

You are free to download and redistribute it.

If you feel it's worth a half-penny a word as entertainment, please send $5.00 to the address in the PDF.

In the diagram, is it "Bandar" or "Bardar"? It's rendered both ways, which is very confusing.

Osgrim's box says he's married to Greta. Greta's box says, "former lover married to Osgrim Egilsson." I'm confused.

I thought Greta was Bandar's daughter, based on her name. Is she his ex-lover? I can't make heads or tails of this ...

Bandar likes Osgrim, but is determined to prove that he's an adulterer?

Is Bandar/Bardar supposed to be the PC?

There are supposedly three thicknesses of black lines in the diagram, but I only see two types. Are only two used in this diagram? If both are used, make one dashed instead.

Should the relationship diagrams include other PCs or only NPCs?

"face up cards can't be traded" How do they become face up? Is this order of play system intended for when all of the PCs are in one place or is it more general (like whose chapter come up first in a book)? If the latter, what's the point of wanting to change your order of play?

The initiative system seems as though it adds another prop (the deck of cards) for minimal benefit. Why not just have each player roll a d20?

Because you can't offer to trade someone your roll of a five for their roll of a 17 in a ten second window. That trading is surprisingly fun, and the tight window means that there's always some "Oh, god, what's going to happen NEXT..." going on.

Much better

"former lover or Bandar" should be "former lover of Bandar."

Why are you doing this instead of WoH RPG??

Hmmm?

*Crack*

*Snap*

Oh frack- all right, I'll look at it.

Because I got into a snarky discussion where advocates of "Indie" or "Story" games were trying to claim they were "more evolved" and the "Trad" gamers were going "It's just a play style difference, and you don't *need* rules for roleplaying...."

And my answer was "Feh. You don't really need detailed rules for combat. You just need rules that support the intention of the game. Here. I'll show you."

And when I was done, I had about 700 words of an RPG.

Suggest: "Player show their cards; they can trade with another player but without speaking or hand gestures. A player who does not want to trade may put his card on the table."



Presumably this means the GM draws random cards but can then assign them to his NPCs as he wishes.

Three problems with the card approach.
The first is that it kinda assumes that everyone goes through the OODA loop at the same rate. This is manifestly not the case. In a physical emergency, I would always get a better card than my wife, even if we both wanted her to go first. (In a social setting, she'd get the good card, and I might not get a card at all...).
The second is that it implies that there's time to coordinate your actions, which there won't always be. Of course, you could get around that by GM fiat saying "No trading".
The third problem is that is presumes that the players are at a small enough table to easily trade cards. I've played at a 6ft x 20ft table with a dozen players; I've run with the GM sitting on the floor and the players on couches scattered around the living room; in the RPG I'm in now, we run it by Skype with the players in Louisiana, Quebec, Ontario and Virginia.

Without speaking or gestures, you can't make that offer with cards either. "Here, I'm willing to trade a card, but I'm not going to tell you anything about what it is" seems fairly useless.

Except the card trading is blind - no reveal before trade.



Presumably this means the GM draws random cards but can then assign them to his NPCs as he wishes.

Three problems with the card approach.


Yes - but who writes the novel of you and your wife? This isn't really about simulation. It's about replicating the *feel* of an emergency for the players, who all too often have that insulated "I can take as much time as I want to decide what to do" attitude, which is anathema to the feel of an emergency at the gaming table.



Again - how often does that happen in fiction? Not terribly - there's always a frantic scurry as our heroes, by luck, pluck and Author Intervention manage to make it work out.



This is true - it doesn't work for play-by-post or play-by-IM. In that case, I'd just have everyone roll a die randomly a'la D&D, and live with the results.

Ah. That wasn't clear. So presumably you're thinking "I drew a five, I'm the doorkicker so I need to go first, Jack is the last man in the stick so I'll trade with him. Drat, a trey, why didn't he put his card down? Trade it back. Bob is next to last in the stick, trade with him, an eight...ding! Time's up"

I dunno, to me that sounds more like a stockbroker on the trading floor rather than a band of heroes scrambling for a plan.



Piffle. Let's say you have a backcountry knight and a Byzantine princess. Or a paratrooper and a spymaster during the cold war. Or a posleen and a darhel. Same thing applies.



I'm trying to think of a situation where they sat around discussing a plan, then had a frantic scramble to make sure everything came off in the right order. Nothing's coming to mind--admittedly this might be due to a caffeine deficiency.
The situations that come to mind, either someone is already in command (eg in a military unit), or somebody takes initiative ("I'll carry the satchel charge--cover me!").
I concur that I don't want micromanaging or exact times. Haven't got a good solution yet, I'll ponder that.

More along these lines at the new Minimus place under RPG Dev