RPG design: A Practical Course with Nova Price

Start with the purpose

Place RPG design inside a game or decision scenario with limited information, competing options, and consequences. Name the result a learner is trying to produce and the constraints that make the skill useful.

How RPG design actually works

These are the load-bearing ideas. Everything later in the course is an application of one of them, so it is worth reading slowly and returning to when something stops making sense.

• Judge the decision, not only the result. Good decisions sometimes lose and poor ones sometimes win, because outcomes contain chance. Reviewing the reasoning available at the time is how skill actually improves.
• Compare candidates before committing. The first plausible move is rarely the best one. Generating two or three options and comparing them is the habit that separates strong players and planners from quick ones.
• Position beats immediate gain in most systems. Choices that improve your future options usually outperform ones that take the visible reward now. Naming which type a move is clarifies the trade being made.

Misconceptions worth clearing early

Each of these is common, understandable, and expensive to leave in place. Recognising them now saves rework later.

• Playing or deciding by pattern recognition alone. Familiar shapes feel safe and fast. Fix: Pause on important decisions and check what has changed from the pattern you are recalling.
• Judging past decisions by how they turned out. Outcomes are the most visible information. Fix: Ask what you knew at the time; a losing decision made on good reasoning should be repeated.
• Ignoring what the opponent or environment intends. Focus naturally sits on your own plan. Fix: Before committing, name the strongest reply available to the other side.

Build the mental model

Connect the key terms as a process rather than a word list. Use this sequence: read the position, generate candidates, compare risks, choose, and review the decision rather than only the result.

Catch the common miss

Compare a surface-level attempt with one that shows relevant observations, viable alternatives, explicit tradeoffs, and an honest post-decision review. Explain the single difference that matters most.

Watch the whole process

Trace a model from the initial prompt to an annotated scenario and decision log. Mark each point where the learner must observe, choose, or verify rather than act automatically.

The method, one step at a time

This is the working sequence experienced practitioners follow. Do it in order the first few times, even where a step feels unnecessary.

1. Read the position
2. Generate candidates
3. Compare risks
4. Choose
5. Review the decision rather than only the result

The order matters: each step produces the information the next one needs.

Where this usually goes wrong

Watch for these while you work through the demonstration rather than afterwards.

• Playing or deciding by pattern recognition alone. Familiar shapes feel safe and fast. Fix: Pause on important decisions and check what has changed from the pattern you are recalling.
• Judging past decisions by how they turned out. Outcomes are the most visible information. Fix: Ask what you knew at the time; a losing decision made on good reasoning should be repeated.
• Ignoring what the opponent or environment intends. Focus naturally sits on your own plan. Fix: Before committing, name the strongest reply available to the other side.

Practice with scaffolding

Repeat the model with one detail changed. Keep the prompts visible and say or write the reason for each choice before continuing.

Check before feedback

Use relevant observations, viable alternatives, explicit tradeoffs, and an honest post-decision review as the quality test. Make one self-correction before asking the tutor to review the result.

Read the situation

Translate the scenario into a clear task. Separate facts, assumptions, constraints, and information that is interesting but not relevant to Dice probability.

Choosing well under real constraints

Applied work is mostly judgement under limits: less time, less information, and more competing goals than a textbook example allows. These are the decision rules that hold up in practice.

• Two options seem equal: Prefer the one that keeps more future options open.
• You are behind: Accept more variance deliberately; the safe line only helps when you are ahead.
• You are reviewing a loss: Find the last point where a better option existed, not just the final mistake.

Reading the situation before acting

Before choosing an approach, state three things explicitly: what result the situation actually requires, which constraints are fixed rather than preferences, and what evidence would tell you the approach is working. Skipping this step is the most common reason competent work solves the wrong problem.

• The addition rule subtracts the overlap. The probability of A or B equals P(A) + P(B) minus the probability of both, because outcomes belonging to both events would otherwise be counted twice. That subtraction term disappears only when the two events are mutually exclusive.

Practitioner notes

Small pieces of working knowledge that rarely appear in introductory material.

• Convert probabilities into counts out of a natural frequency such as 10,000 people. Conditional-probability puzzles that resist algebra usually become obvious once written as counts.
• When a question says at least one, compute the complement instead: one minus the probability of none is almost always the shorter route.

Compare real options

Generate two workable approaches and test both against the purpose. Do not hide the tradeoff; name what each option improves and what it gives up.

Make the reasoning visible

Produce an annotated scenario and decision log and attach a short decision note. The note should make the result auditable, not merely confident.

Use the rubric, not a feeling

Review the work for relevant observations, viable alternatives, explicit tradeoffs, and an honest post-decision review. Record evidence for each judgment so feedback points to something observable.

Diagnostic checklist

Run this before you revise anything. Diagnosing first prevents the common failure of polishing the parts that were already fine.

• Check: Playing or deciding by pattern recognition alone — is this present in your work?
• Check: Judging past decisions by how they turned out — is this present in your work?
• Check: Ignoring what the opponent or environment intends — is this present in your work?

The quality bar

This is what finished work looks like in this field. Use it as the standard for your revision rather than a general sense of improvement.

• Decisions are recorded with the reasoning available at the time
• At least two candidates were compared before committing
• Review separates process quality from outcome luck

Diagnose before editing

Name the symptom, then ask what decision or missing step produced it. Choose the cause you can address rather than changing everything at once.

Revise and compare

Make one purposeful revision and compare the two versions. Keep the change only if it improves the intended result without creating a larger problem.

Define a finishable brief

Choose a specific audience, result, and boundary for the Safety tools capstone. Reduce scope until the project can be finished and reviewed in one focused cycle.

Bringing the parts together

A capstone is judged on coherence, not on the number of techniques it includes. Return to the core ideas and make sure the work demonstrates them rather than decorating them.

• Judge the decision, not only the result. Good decisions sometimes lose and poor ones sometimes win, because outcomes contain chance. Reviewing the reasoning available at the time is how skill actually improves.
• Compare candidates before committing. The first plausible move is rarely the best one. Generating two or three options and comparing them is the habit that separates strong players and planners from quick ones.
• Position beats immediate gain in most systems. Choices that improve your future options usually outperform ones that take the visible reward now. Naming which type a move is clarifies the trade being made.

Standards that make the work credible

These are the marks of work that would be taken seriously by someone who does this professionally.

• Decisions are recorded with the reasoning available at the time
• At least two candidates were compared before committing
• Review separates process quality from outcome luck

Build with checkpoints

Plan foundation, first draft, verification, and revision milestones. At each checkpoint, save evidence instead of relying on memory.

Present and continue

Present an annotated scenario and decision log with a concise rationale. Use the final rubric to choose one strength to retain and one next practice target.