Tag Archives: design

A Zine in Design Research

Restricted Parlour Games Zine PDF

I recently created a zine containing six games for part of the London Design Festival 2016. The zine forms part of the Design Research exhibition at London College of Communication.

The games explore specific rule types visible in parlour games, board games and card games. This rule types are choice, randomness and interaction which are found in varying combinations in most rule books.

Choices give players control over the navigation of a game’s possibility space. By selecting which state to move to next, the player governs play, they are in charge.

Randomness in games removes control from the players. By moving through the game’s probability space in unknown ways, unexpected situations can occur.

Interaction in games draws the players together into a shared experience. By interacting with each other the players navigate the possibility space together, pushing and pulling on each other changing the outcomes for everyone.

Each of these six games was designed to only use rules of one these three forms. The desire was to see what pure rule type games would look like and what the functions of these rule types are.

Each game is short both in rule length and play time and are presented with images of the components required to play the game.

Here is the conclusion drawn from the zine:

By isolating each of the three core aspects of parlour, board, and card games and creating short games it was possible to gain deeper understanding of choice, randomness and interaction and their potential uses when combined.

In the first two games, Race Track and Letter Spaghetti, only choice aspects were utilised. With the absence of randomness and interaction between players, it was only possible to create solitaire style experiences that functioned like puzzles. The weakness in this type of game is that once an optimal solution is found the game stops being engaging.

Both Lucky Chef and The Longest Cow utilised only randomness. Games like this take the control from the player but do provide a sense of surprise or mystery, which has potential to create interesting unforeseen events. The issue is the lack of agency given to the player that without careful foresight could create a shallow experience.

Finally two interaction only games are included, Hear Say and Tower. When interaction is used by itself there is no deviation occurring, creating a feeling of a well rehearsed theatrical play. There is a sense of action moving throughout the players, each player committing their own performance.

If you would like to read the zine in full you can download the PDF.

I would like to expand this process of creating games to explore specific themes found in rules to create a greater understanding of how it is that game rules functions and the effects that they can have on the player.

 

Restricted Parlour Games Zine PDF

Making a puzzle game: ORDER

ORDER_for_itch

Play ORDER here.

Playing with Polygons

ORDER was born from a little experiment in manipulating polygons in Unity. I wanted to see how I could create coded animations which would allow a polygon to change its number of sides.

polyChangeEarly

Initially, I created a polygon with multiple triangle meshes that created a spoke effect. I could manipulate the length of each polygon to change the polygons shape. I then created a little piece of code which checked if each of these spokes was the same length as the boundary of the desired shape. This worked ok, the animation between shapes didn’t look very nice (especially between triangle and square), there was some edge detection problems, and when a number of shapes were manipulated at the same time, the frame rate severely dropped.

So in order to reduce the stress on the frame rate, I had to simplify the system.

polyChangeLater

The best thing I could do was reduce the number of triangles to that equal to the number of sides. Although there are possibly even more efficient ways of doing this, this would likely work for my process.

All ‘unused’ triangles, were bunched together to create a ‘line’, therefore creating the appearance of different sized polygons. The initial limitations of this system is that it could only be used to create regular polygons.

For the animation of the points I used half a sin wave, the rate of change is roughly slow-fast-slow.

Making the Game

I knew I had two things that I could do with the polygons, I could change their number of sides and I could rotate them relatively easy.

Initially the first version of the game, used three sets of controls.

  1. Select the polygon that you wanted.
  2. Change the number of sides of the selected polygon.
  3. Change the rotation of the selected polygon.

Each action would also affect the neighbouring polygons in some manner. Either also rotating them or changing their number of sides.

The issue was very clear, this was horrible to do. It did not feel good in anyway.

So…

I changed the control method so that changing the polygon that is selected, also manipulated that polygon and it’s neighbours. The newly selected polygon has it’s number of sides increased and the neighbours are rotated. This felt better, but was a lot to visually take in. This reduced the controls to one of movement only.

I added a colour change to show which polygon is selected, a small pulse animation to the newly selected polygon, and a delayed rotation animation to give a sense of cause and effect. This definitely helped.

Beating the Game

Finally I needed a winning condition. Ideally I wanted the player to win whenever all the shapes were matching both in rotation and the number of sides. However, I was not able to prove that this was possible for all the different permutations of this. This issue, meant that I could not fairly set it as a goal.

I settled on a fixed goal of having all shapes return to triangles and all pointing down after being randomised.

The next issue, is how do you show that this is what the player needs to do.

I kept adding a range of information in different forms until I think I got it right:

  1. The starting condition of the polygons is the required position.
  2. Text tells the player that “this is ORDER.” and once randomised “return to ORDER”.
  3. Polygons in the correct position pulse, those that are not are static.
  4. A counter indicates the level of order.

Conclusion

ORDER_for_itch

I am happy how the game turned out, it was a fun experiment in Unity and did not take too long to complete. It is perhaps not the most novel of ideas, but I think it at least adds an additional level of complexity to a common grid puzzle structure (changing something changes the neighbours – return to an ordered pattern), by having two methods of manipulation and fixed selection movement between neighbouring polygons.

If you want to play ORDER you can do so here. it may require a Unity plug in to run as well as permission to run.

Argh, who am I?! – Revision and Playtest 2

I made some revisions to both the cards and rules for Argh, who am I?!

Previous Posts: Argh, who am I?! v1 rulesMaking of, Playtest 1.

IMG_2875.JPG

Changing the Card List

The card list has been expanded and changed from all Hollywood monsters:

  • Frankenstein’s Monster
  • Mummy
  • Skeleton
  • Vampire
  • Werewolf
  • Fish Person
  • Zombie
  • Ghost

To a range of people/things:

  • Alien
  • Robot
  • Pirate
  • Ninja
  • Cowboy
  • Demon
  • Angel
  • Zombie
  • Vampire
  • Werewolf
  • Santa Clause
  • Tooth Fairy
  • Easter Bunny

This should now allow the players to narrow down their potential character card in a larger range of ways, similar to 20 Questions.

Changing the Rules

The first set of rules I wanted to change from version 1 of the game, was the question and statement section. The answering back and forth was messy.

The main issue I was trying to avoid with the original rules was that as soon as the players realise that one player is telling the truth (or lies) they become the most reliable source and there is no reason to ever ask anyone else a question. By giving the player who is asked a question some power, it reduces the chance of this happening. In changing this aspect I did not want to lose the freedom of the players to ask whoever they wanted a question.

There were a number of possible work arounds which I considered:

  1. Every player must be asked at least one question before, players can be asked another question. This at first seems a fair method however it has a downside in terms of elegance. The players will require an additional token or card to remember who has and has not been asked a question. Additionally, the first player will get to ask their choice of all other players whilst the last player will not get a choice, every round. This could be solved by skipping the first player of the previous round to change the first player for the current round. Balancing out in the end. All this adds a lot of additional components and rules for a relatively small game.
  2. Players who are asked a question get to ask the next question, and must ask someone else. Players in this case have to balance asking someone who they know is telling truth/lies with giving them the power to ask another question about their own card. In this manner the game should self balance. One issue might be that players may realise the point at which someone has worked out their own card and therefore not ask them a question again, so they cannot declare. To get round this a player could declare at any point.

Of these I selected the second option.

Changing the Setup

Another issue that needed resolving was the length of the game, which for its type was possibly too long. Also there was difficulty in knowing what the cards were in the deck, so you could work out who are or are not. A problem exacerbated by the newly increased character list.

This was solved with a simple setup rule change.

  • The entire deck of cards is shuffled.
  • Cards are laid face up, one at a time, in a grid.
  • Any time a card matching an existing grid card is found it is added to the play-deck. Therefore, mixing the matching truth and lies cards between grid and play-deck randomly.
  • Once the grid and play-deck both contain one of each character type, the play-deck is shuffled again.
  • Each player takes one card from the play-deck.
  • Players help each other orientate their cards correctly.
  • The game begins.

So, although the list of characters is longer, the actual play-deck is smaller than the original version. Additionally there is no need for reference cards for the player as setting up the game creates a grid reference for all the players. There is also now no repeating of the same characters.

Playtest 2

I took the new cards and rules to my monthly board game meet-up and played a couple of games.

The first game went ok, but there was a weakness found in the system. Once someone had identified who they were once, and therefore had the most cards, they could keep randomly guessing to diminish the deck and win with their single card.

The second game we removed this issue, if you’re wrong when you declare you are removed from the game. However if you’re the first person to declare correctly you win. This added a nice layer of tension, do you risk guessing early without all the information but with good odds, or do you risk waiting and someone else guessing first. It also reduced the playtime to a nice length for the style of game.

I did however get confused with the truth and lies, and double negatives at one point, giving a player some incorrect information.I handled it in that moment with a friendly apology, however, this is something that needs consideration in the future.

We played with a relatively large group of people and at times I noticed that some were being left out more than others, so further testing is required for different group sizes.

Once the game was reduced to two/three players the game play changed. For two players it is impossible to have the don’t question back rule.

Thanks to the Playtesters: Ricky, Robin, Patrick, Jonathon, Jazz, David & Peter.

What’s next?

  • I am going to have another look at balancing the character list, so it doesn’t swing too heavy in any sub-genre’s favour.
  • I need to test it a lot more times with different group sizes, and different deck sizes.
  • I’m interested to see if I can expand the deck, but add an additional stage to the set-up which removes a number of cards depending on how many players and how difficult the players want the game to be. This might need a little bit of math to get to a nice starting point but will be ultimately balanced in playtesting.
  • Consider testing the other rules variation with the additional tokens, to see how it feels.

Can I get the new cards?

I’m going to hold off uploading the new cards for a little while until the game has settled and I have time to do some more placeholder art rather than just text titles.

Argh! Who am I? – Playtest

ArghWhoAmICardPic

Finally got round to playtesting Argh! Who am I?! this week, you can read about the making of it here. Although the general feel and mechanics of the game was good there were some issues which need improving on.

1. The playtime was a little long for the type of game it is.

This could be relatively easy to solve on it’s own, the answer would be to simply reduce the number cards in the play session. So instead of removing only 1 card at the beginning of the game, you could remove three. However, I feel there is more to this issue.

2. The fish-man was the least interesting character to talk about.

This is likely because there is less popular culture about the fish-man monster when compared to vampires, werewolves, ghosts, etc. The answer is remove it, or find a replacement. Doing this would actually help neatly with issue 1.

3. It is difficult to keep coming up with interestingly differences between the characters.

One issue might be the range of characters, in the first version of the game they are all classic monster tropes. This means all of them are already grouped by one sort of characterisation, removing the opportunity to explore. This could be resolved by increasing the number of groups in the set, i.e. sci-fi characters, fantasy characters, monsters, etc and reducing the number from each set.

4. Giving a true information, is very precise. Giving a false information is vague.

Once someone was found to be giving the true statements, players who had lying cards could abuse the imbalance of power between the two. There’s 8 characters, so the player eliminating the options through negative comments are at a distinct disadvantage. In short, the difference between having a truth card and a liar card are too great. By reconsidering the objects/characters on the card this could be improved. For example if instead of characters there were objects which were a set of binary choices:

  • Black / White
  • Round / Square
  • Edible / Non-edible

e.g.

  • 8 ball – black, round, non-edible
  • slice of bread – white, square, edible

If I ask am I round, and I know if you are lying or telling the truth, then I can deduce the truth relatively easily. However, this really reduces the number of questions which are usable, and the game is significantly reduced in terms of creativity and free thinking. This idea is part way to a potential solution but not the full answer. Each character card needs similarity with some of the other cards but not with all the other cards.

Other ideas for variations

Whilst thinking about these issues I came up with a few ideas for the game that I need to consider for a little bit before making the next version. Some of them should be easy to test, just by varying the rules.

  • When you ask a question everyone else answers. Removes the need for a statement.
  • Players with liar cards, can both lie and tell the truth. Add some chance for deviance, will depend on what the items are on the cards whether or not this is suitable.
  • After a player is asked a question, they cannot be asked another question until everyone else has been asked. Removes the need to give a statement. Requires a neat way of keeping track of this.
  • Have players create their own cards, i.e. the backs follow truth and lies but the characters / items are decided by the group who play. This adds another element of creativity to the game.

The big question – what or who do I put on the cards?

The main issue I need to consider is what it is that goes on the cards in the first place. Monsters was a quick idea I had and it worked well enough for the playtest, but I feel that this is the thing that needs changing, it’s also the most time consuming thing to do, both in thinking and time spent creating cards that are nice enough to play with.

Thinking about the theme of the game might help, mechanically it’s about truth, lies and deduction, which sounds a little like a murder mystery. Perhaps you’re removing suspects, finding locations and looking for specific objects. Not sure how all this ties in with not being able to see what you’re holding, but their could be an answer somewhere.

Making: Argh, who am I?! – A game of truth, lies and deduction

arghbig

Argh Who Am?! Print and Play.pdf

I’ve had an idea floating round my head for a while, being a fan of Werewolf and other hidden role games, and having at that point recently played Hanabi by Antoine Bauza (@Toinito) I wanted to make a hidden role game but where the players are aware of everyone else’s role but not their own.

The only other game I’ve seen look at this is Pair of Ducks by Tuesday Knight Games (@TuesKnightGames), the creators behind the fantastic Two Rooms and Boom. In Pair of Ducks each role that the players can see changes how they play, whether they answer ‘yes or no’ questions silently, audibly, truthfully or with lies.

I wanted to avoid covering the same ground so I put the game on the back burner for a while. This was probably about a year or two a go.

Over the last couple of weeks, the idea bubbled up to the top of my mind again and I started mulling it over once more.

For a game like this it seemed to me that the players would need to deduce who they were. The major question in designing the game, is what mechanisms are in place for them to do this. I had a number of thoughts/concepts I was puzzling over.

  • Have pairs of roles, and they need to work out who their partner is.
  • You win if you are the only person who is alone, i.e. no one else has the same role card as you.
  • Certain roles can perform certain actions, other players can stop you from attempting actions that you cannot perform.
  • Having to ask players to perform actions that only they can do.

Taking some influence from Coup by Rikki Tahta I started to think about the passing of tokens, and certain roles being able to do certain things. Players would balance moving tokens around as they needed with giving other players information about their character. So, what could the players do with tokens:

  • Take a token from someone.
  • Give a token to someone.
  • Take a token from a shared pool.
  • Give a token to a shared pool.
  • Swap two piles of tokens.

The thought being at this point, that not only would you need to work out what role you are/if you’re alone/in a pair, you would also need to meet certain conditions, like have the more than/less than/equal number of tokens than another player.

The problem with all of this was the amount of complication and all the information the players would have to deal with, they would need to know which characters could do which actions, without actually knowing the character they currently are. It just all seemed too much. I needed to simplify things.

I still liked the idea of having two of each role, and felt this needed more exploring. Then I was hit with a thought, what if one of each of the pairs had to tell the truth and the other had to lie. Things then started coming together.

Players would ask questions about their character of another player and they would respond truthfully or not depending on the card they had, information that could be shown by text on the back of the playing cards like this:

The issue with this rule alone is that, as soon as you have determined that a player is telling the truth all players would ask that player question rather than anyone else. There needed to be some sort of price for asking a question, something that would stop this happening.

The solution was to have those players give the player they ask some information about their card. In this situation, if everyone keeps asking the same person questions they will get more and more information about their card, giving them a big advantage, which you would want to avoid.

After a little more work and thought, here it is:

arghbig

Argh Who Am?! Print and Play.pdf

How to Look at Your Card

In this game of truth, lies and deduction you do not see the Monster on your own card, but you can see the Monster on everyone else’s.

  • There is both a truth and a lies card for each of the eight Monsters. By orientating your Monster portrait correctly, the text on the back of your card will show you which of the two you have.
  • If your card is a truth card then you must tell the truth during the Exchange phase, if it is a lies card you must lie during the Exchange phase.

Setup

  • Shuffle all the Monster Cards together.
  • Deal one card to each player and one card face down into a discard pile.
  • Place the remaining cards face down where everyone can reach them, this is the stack.
  • Hold your card so everyone but you can see the Monster you are.
  • Help everyone orientate their Monster portrait correctly.

Play

Starting with the player explaining the rules, then continuing clockwise, players take turns to either Exchange or Declare.

Exchange has two stages, statement and query, both which must be done with players telling truth or lies depending on their current card.

  • Statement: Tell another player something about their Monster.
  • Query: Then ask the same player a question related to your Monster that they will answer with either a “yes” or a “no”. You cannot directly ask if you are a specific Monster.

– or –

Declare, state the Monster you believe yourself to be, then place the card face up in front of yourself:

  • If correct keep the card in a pile in front of you.
  • If wrong place the card in the discard pile.

Then take another card from the stack.

End of the Game

Continue taking turns until a player attempts to take a card from the stack but cannot because the stack is empty.

Count how many cards you have correctly identified, the player with the most cards wins.

At the moment the cards have classic monsters on them (and very basic art), but that may change with playtesting, in theory they could be any thing which gives a lot of options for making custom decks for different player preferences. Here are snapshots of the font and backs of some of the cards.

If the game goes well, I’ll look into producing some better art work for it. If you manage to play it or have any thoughts or suggestions please let me know.

I think the game will work with between 3-10 players, but this needs further testing to see if this is true.

Argh Who Am?! Print and Play.pdf

Optisocubes

optisocubes

Play Optisocubes

I’ve just finished (or at least made publicly available) my next game, optisocubes.

This idea started when I saw a sticker on a friend’s skateboard, it was an optical illusion where two isometric cubes drawn on top of each other can appear to be both solid and hollow. It looked a little like this:

wireframe-2

From there I started playing with drawing simple isometric shapes, and trying to get a cube to rotate and animate.

As you can see my first efforts where not perfect. The cube appears to distort and change shape when it rotates.

After reading up a little more on isometric game art and having another think about how I handled my shapes, I managed to improve the rotation some more and started on the between level animations.

From here it was a matter of designing the levels and making tweaks.

Early feedback I got from Zhan (@ZhanCat) helped me balance the early levels, really slowing them down to ease players into the control scheme and the methods for solving the puzzles.

I got some really useful control feedback from Aubrey (@HilariousCow) . You’ll notice if you tap the movement button the cube will rotate back to its starting position. This allows the player the change their mind if they press the wrong button.

I took the game to a London Indie Pub meet, where a few people gave the game a go. I think I’ve definitely found it’s not for everyone. Some people can’t see their way around the optical illusion as well as others. This was even with the additional gradients I added to give a greater perception of depth:

I really go bugged down designing the levels. My method was to generate random patterns and then try to move round the cubes in interesting ways. Once I got them to a specific point, I then put the targets there and attempted to level again to see how difficult it was.

Having to go over the levels again and again to test them was not the most exciting, but it’s interesting to see that there are still a couple of the later levels that I have to re-workout how to solve.

The final piece of feedback I implemented was allowing the game to keep track of the players progress. This means that players can leave the game and come back without feeling they have to do everything all over again.

If you do try it, let me know, I’d love to hear some feedback. Also if you manage to finish it send me a screen shot, I’m interested to see how many moves it takes.

Play the game here.

Tweet #optisocubes

Masked Vigilante: Year One (untested first draft of RPG)

Masked Vigilante: Year One

A narrative role play game where the players each take the role of a character who has witnessed the actions of a masked vigilante.

After a year of the masked vigilante’s actions the group have gathered together to discuss what they have witnessed. Once their discussion ends they will determine if the vigilante is a criminal to be stopped or a boon to a corrupt society. However, one of the members of the group is the vigilante in his everyday guise and one of the members has already made up their mind about this scourge.

Requirements for Play

• Four Players.
• A Standard 52 Deck of Playing Cards.
• Paper and Pencils.
• A couple of hours.

Game Set-up

Select your character

Each player should select, read and complete one character sheet.

  • Journalist
  • Scientist
  • Teacher
  • Entrepreneur
  • Officer of the Law
  • Doctor

Create three decks of cards

  • Narrative Deck: All cards from Ace – 10 in each suit.
  • Hidden Roles Deck: King of Clubs, King of Hearts, any two Jacks.
  • Season Deck: All four Queens

Shuffle the narrative deck and place it where everyone can reach it.

Shuffle the hidden roles deck and give each player a card which they keep secret.

  • King of Clubs – Vigilante: Wants to goes free.
  • King of Hearts – Opposition: Wants the vigilante captured.
  • Either Jack – Citizen: Wins if in majority after vote.

Shuffle the season deck, turn over the top card, this is the starting season. Place the other cards from the season deck in order under it so the corner of each card is visible.

  • Spring – Spades (one point)
  • Summer – Hearts (two curves)
  • Autumn – Clubs (three circles)
  • Winter – Diamonds (four points)

Card Ranking

The suit of the current season is classed as a trump suit which is always higher than other suits. In cases where cards have the same numerical value, their ranking is determined by which season will occur first.

Prologue

The prologue helps the players set the scene for their story. Each player will add details and help shape the environment in which their characters and the masked vigilante live.

The prologue consists of a single round which has the following steps:

  • Draw Cards
  • Determine the Decade
  • Determine the Location
  • Determine the Vigilante’s Origin
  • Determine the Vigilante’s Name

Draw Cards

Each player should draw five cards from the narrative deck.

Determine each detail in order using the following rules:

Each player plays a card face down in front of them.

All cards are revealed at once, the player with the highest value card gets to determine the next detail in the list. Once a player has determined a detail they no longer reveal their card.

1. Determine the Decade

In which decade, from 1900 to the present, is the game narrative set? Describe a little about that decade to the other players. Each other player may then add a small detail about the decade, going clockwise from the winning player.

2. Determine the Location

Where in the world is the game narrative set? Describe the location in more detail. Each player may then add a small additional detail, going clockwise from the winning player.

3. Determine the Vigilante’s Origin

What started the vigilante on their journey to becoming a vigilante? Describe this in detail. Each player may then add a small addition detail, going clockwise from the winning player.

4. Determine the Vigilante’s Name

What is the name the citizens of the location have given to the vigilante? Describe what the vigilante wears. Each player can add a small additional detail, going clockwise from the winning player.

Year One

The main narrative of the game takes place over a year. This is the first year in which the masked vigilante becomes active. The players should use the seasons to help give their characters’ witness accounts more flavour. Only three seasons are covered in this part of the game, each represented by a single round. Every player will have an opportunity to contribute to the narrative arc of the masked vigilante in each season.

Starting a Round

At the beginning of each round.

  • Change the Season
  • Draw Cards
  • Determine Play Order

Change the season

If this is not the first round take the top card from the season deck and place it at the bottom so that the corner of the card is still visible.

Draw Cards

Each player should draw cards until they have a hand of five cards.

Determine Play Order

Each player should play a single card face down. Reveal all the cards at the same time. The player with the highest card takes their turn last, the player to their left has their turn first. The current season is the trump suit.

Playing a Turn

For each turn the current player should take the following steps.

  • Draw three additional cards
  • Describe an event
  • Answer questions

Draw Three Additional Cards

The current player should draw three additional card from the narrative deck.

Describe an Event

The current player should describe an event involving the masked vigilante as witnessed by their character. The event should involve greater consequences that previous event. The player should also take into consideration the current season when describing the event.

Answer Questions

The other players, starting with the player to the left of the current player, each of the other players should ask the current player a question in one of two forms.

1. Yes/No Question

The questioner should pose a question about the action of the masked vigilante which could be answered simply with yes or no. They should also play one card from their hand face up on the table. If the witness wishes to answer yes they must play a higher card, if they wish to answer no they must play a lower card. The witness should embellish on the event considering the new detail found.

2. Personal Question

Alternatively the questioner can pose a personal question to the witness about how they felt or what they did. Both the questioner and the witness should discard a card.

Epilogue

The epilogue takes place during the final season of the masked vigilante’s first year. Here the players will determine what is the outcome for the vigilante, will he be unmasked and imprisoned or will he be left free to do as he pleases.

The epilogue is a single round with the following steps

  • Change to the Final Season.
  • Attempt to Identify the Vigilante
  • Determine the Fate of the Vigilante
  • Describe an Event with the Vigilante

Change to the Final Season

Take the top card from the season deck and place it at the bottom so that the corner of the card is still visible.

Attempt to Identify the Vigilante

The player with the opposition card (King of Hearts), should reveal themselves to the rest of the group. They should attempt to identify the vigilante amongst the group. The player they select should reveal their hidden role card to determine if the opposition was correct or not.

Determine the Fate of the Vigilante

If the masked vigilante has been identified they should not take part in determining their fate, but they should keep their remaining card for the final part of the game.

Each remaining player should reveal their final card. Total the red suited cards and compare them to the total value of the black suited cards.

If the red value is greater then the vigilante will be found to be boon to society free to act as they please.

If the black value is greater then the vigilante will be captured for disobeying the laws that everyone else has to conform too.

Describe an Event with the Vigilante

Starting with the player with highest value card of the losing red/black total and through the lowest back up the highest of the winning red/black total each player should describe an event.

This event should be one that occurs directly between their character and the vigilante. If the player is the vigilante they can describe an internal monologue or narrate a scene.

Players should lead towards the outcome determined by the cards.

Masked Vigilante: Year One Rules v1.0.pdf

MV:YO Character Sheets v1.0.pdf