Substitute Adventurer

Part 1: On RPG Reviews There are a few ways of looking at an RPG.  One way is to look at a game from a consumer standpoint. If one takes this stance certain questions become important. Is it laid out well? Is it easy to understand? Is the art any good? What by what method is the physical book bound and will it lay flat on the table? We could also try to look at a game with a critical eye. If so we might ask different questions. What is this game about? How do the rules enforce that? What is the author trying to achieve? Are they successful? Does this align with my own personal ideas about systems and the extent to which they matter? Or you could look at games in their historical context. How did this game influence later games? What innovations did it bring to the table? What can this tell us about historical modes of play? How is it similar or different from other games? Umm... and that's fine I guess if that is what you are into. I am not interested in any of that.  Part 2: Some

Advancement, or XP, is really cool because it is such a powerful tool and because it's usually just about the easiest thing that you can hack to make a game play differently. Of course XP is pretty blunt as far as tools go. It's a big, red, flashing neon sign saying THIS IS WHAT I WANT YOU TO DO!  But that isn't a bad thing necessarily. Most players love chasing incentives and getting rewarded. Choosing what to reward (if anything) is important. This is why every OSR guy on r/dndnext recommends "gold xp" where players are rewarded for getting treasure instead of killing monsters. Players instantly get more cautious. And they become willing to delve deeper and more greedily. Suddenly players have a reason to explore your sandbox and don't need a series of railroad quests. Of course the OSR has gone in a different direction as of late. The whole idea of player incentives is getting questioned . I am loving the new more diagetic advancement procedures are being d