This week, I made a game system that can be plugged into different games in order to expand on their combat system. I mainly designed it for D&D and PF2e. Both of these games have robust combat systems and dynamic abilities, and use a DC/HP system similar to the one in my plug-and-play. However, I also tried to ensure that the game could play on its own without the other systems. This did not turn out fantastically, since I did not actually provide a method to determine players hit points. I overlooked this, thinking of this system too much as a plug and play as opposed to a game in and of itself. This was one of the biggest flaws in my logic while building this system, is that I was caught between a playable system and a plug and play. I didn’t focus on one or the other, instead trying to do both, and the system suffered for it. That being said, it was an effective proof of concept. Players were able to make dynamic boss strikes and play more with the bosses, like a video game might allow them to. It was also pretty simple, which is what I was proudest of. I didn’t want the system to be too much crunchier than anything that you would normally find in D&D. This provides easy rules for slicing of limbs, decapitation, etc. that doesn’t require much more knowledge than basic DCs/HP. I would be really interested in inserting this into my own games, since it allows for far more interesting and challenging monsters. It also rewards player research, and makes big hits feel good. The biggest downside to the system is that once you figure out where it is most optimal to hit it, you will almost never slice it anywhere else. The best way to avoid this is balancing monsters to have a strong payoff for either area that is struck - easier to hit but less damage vs the vice-versa. There are definitely some kinks to be worked out in this regard. Also, it can unfairly punish players for not determining the ‘right’ way to kill something. They can waste valuable turns striking aimlessly, meaning that monsters that should be too easy for the party could kill them. Similarly, once you know how to kill something, it could lead to monsters not being strong enough for the party. This might be more interesting in a CoC system, where monsters are intended to be far more deadly, and that incentivises research much more. It also makes new and strange monsters that much scarier. It’s definitely difficult to design for a system as swingy as D&D, but overall, I don’t think that it is a bad optional rule. 

     The other thing I want to mention about this week is that Nathan's game was really cool! I love how he handled distances from different people, and made pvp more interesting. I honestly didn’t really understand it, but it was neat nonetheless! Being able to use my abilities was really rewarding, and the flavoring potential is extensive. I can see how understanding the rules would make the game an absolute blast. I hope I get to see more of it!