Intro
Tom Bloom is the designer of Lancer RPG, author of Kill Six Billion Demons, and self-proclaimed 4e sicko. Tom made some comments about Draw Steel on Bluesky, and I thought it would be interesting to hear his thoughts on Draw Steel, as a designer of a well-liked tactical RPG. We also talk about games not appologizing for their design, how testing makes games better, and how Draw Steel is not appealing game.
I'm Jon de Nor and this is Goblin Points.
Interview
Jon de Nor: Welcome to Goblin Points, Tom Bloom!
Tom Bloom: Hello.
Jon de Nor: So first of all, introduce yourself and maybe mention some of the stuff that you've worked on. Because I know you've...people might know you from a lot of things.
Tom Bloom: Yeah. Oh, man. (laughter) I think for the purposes of this podcast, you would know me best as the primary game designer and artist of the game Lancer, to which...it's sort of like the weird cousin of Draw Steel, I think. That's how I would describe it, right, where it's from the same lineage? And I've also done a webcomic for many, many years called Kill Six Billion Demons. You can find that on the web. It's totally free. There's like 900 pages of it. (laughter) And I also do a fair amount of, like, solo RPG work. I just released a game called CAIN, which has been sick. It's been super fun to play. I released a skirmish-scale wargame, which is called Magnagothica: Maleghast, about playing necromancers in a city where you cannot die! And I have a meme game called Goblin with a Fat Ass, which, you should go check out because it's free and it's...I made it as a bit, and apparently lots of people played it.
Jon de Nor: I actually read over the Goblin with a Fat Ass rules earlier today.
Tom Bloom: Let's go, let's go. It's actually like, I'm going to say, it's a good bit of bit of game design, sadly. So I ended up using that system, later on for CAIN, actually. Like, not the same thing, but yeah, similar dice mechanics.
Jon de Nor: So I just have to ask you about CAIN, because I read a bit about it when doing some research earlier. And it seems to have been...I'm just seeing people talking about it in very...what's the word I'm looking for here? They seem to be really into the game. They love the game.
Tom Bloom: Oh, yeah. It's actually got a lot more purchase than I thought it would. Like, I never release anything thinking that anyone is going to play it. Like, I just like it. I like it a lot. And I'm very particular about my design. So when I put something out, I'm like, a) I've played it, I've playtested it, I think it's good. Right? And then I also think the design is good. And then I put it out, and then if anyone plays it, it's completely secondary to me. But I do love pointing at it when people tell me they like it, because what happens is, instead of it being like, oh, I'm glad you like my game, you know, I'm like, oh, I really love that thing, too! You know, like, I'm also a fan of my own work. That's sort of the attitude I have with this. So, yeah, I don't know. It's been shockingly successful. It's a narrative game, right? It's not like a, there's no tactical combat in it, so to speak, but it's a narrative game with heavy procedure, to some degree, like Blades in the Dark, which is probably my favorite game. So I think that makes those kinds of games...like, when they're more structured, they're easier to run, and also to get into for new players, I think. So like, I've really, I think I did a pretty good job with it. I'm pretty happy about it. There's some things that I'd change. But I'm very pleased with how it turned out. And the visual aesthetic is cool. It's sick as hell. You should definitely — I'll give you a copy of it, man. Would you like a copy?
Jon de Nor: Oh!
Tom Bloom: Do you own it? What do you want?
Jon de Nor: I'd love a copy. I almost bought it earlier today because people were talking about it.
Tom Bloom: Oh, tight, well, okay, don't buy it. Don't buy it. I'll get you a code. That's not bribery, I swear. (laughter) It's the podcaster privilege.
Jon de Nor: So moving on to, maybe more relevant topics — I could pick your brain about other games for a while, but moving on to Draw Steel. What made you look up Draw Steel in the first place?
Tom Bloom: Oh, I've been a big fan of Matt Colville for a while. Actually like, back, I was — he did a series about making a fighter in different editions of D&D. And talking about the history of D&D and all that. And YouTube served me him on the algorithm at some point, like years and years ago. I was watching his stuff quite a lot. I really liked his takes on certain things. I think he's got a good head on him for like, just talking about the hobby and the history of it and how he thinks about running games, I think is really, really cool. And I like his attitude, man. I like people that are...I have a guy I go to cons with. I did a con over the weekend, which is why my voice is like sludge right now. He's a good friend of mine and of many years, and all he does is get people into cons. He hosts new creative breakfasts for, like, new comic creators. He tries to connect people. And he's the opposite of a gatekeeper, right? And I thought, what's the word for that? It's a doorholder, right? It's someone who holds the door for you. So I think Matt Colville is sort of like, he's a doorholder for the TTRPG hobby, and GMing specifically, and I really respect him for that. So, yeah, I was watching his stuff for a bit. So when he was like, "We're making a game!" I was like, "Oh, cool, I'll check that out!" He's also a 4e — he's a D&D 4th Edition sicko like me. So yeah. So of course I had to follow...because I think, he, like me, was playing 5th Edition and then was like, "What's going on here, man? What's happening here?" No shade on the designers, man. But they had certain goals, and I just don't think, like...anyway, I could yap about that for, like, three hours, dude. But I think he had the same kind of feelings with me about the direction of 5th, and the hobby in general, and was like, I want to do something...you know. In Draw Steel, actually reading through the game, I'm seeing a lot of convergent design with my own work, right? And also the stuff I'm working on now, and in the future for other, like, tactics games. You know, things like, not giving a shit about weapons, and the minutiae of all that stuff, and making things heroic and interesting...and, you know, the whole power roll thing, too...like, splitting out culture and your species, right? Like, that's also something that...yeah, just little things where I'm, like, you know, we can move beyond this kind of cruft, man, that everyone has been swimming around in for years because of the dragon game. You don't have to carry it everywhere, you know?
Jon de Nor: You mentioned on...I read your small thread on Bluesky when you read the rules. And you mentioned in one of the posts that you felt like the game was kind of looking over its shoulder back at D&D?
Tom Bloom: Yeah, man. Yeah, it's so interesting. I mean, it's I think it mostly...I mean, in reading through it again, I was like...I don't know, maybe it's impossible to make a fantasy game that is not what you think D&D should be nowadays, right? Because that's what people do. It's like the, you know, it's the fantasy heartbreaker thing. I don't think that Draw Steel is a heartbreaker, because I think it's actually a good game. (laughter) But like, it's definitely like, it's like Matt Colville's version of D&D, right? Like, that's like, what it is. It's definitely very different than D&D, but it's pretty much D&D, right? I guess part of it was like, you know, that I don't...and Daggerheart is like this, too, actually, for comparison, the other game. And just to be clear, I actually consulted on Daggerheart a little bit, but...I have lots of opinions about the game. And not all of them are positive. I think it came out pretty good, actually. But they kind of exist in the negative space of 5th Edition, does that make sense? They're the only here because people were like, I don't like what the other guy is doing. Right? And you kind of feel that in the design of it. And for me, it's like, a good game should just stand on its own and say, hey, this is what we're doing.
This game has a little preamble — I don't blame Matt for including it, but it has a little preamble been like, we're not this kind of game. We're not that kind of game. Check out these other games. And I'm like, that's kind of ballsy, I sort of appreciate that, but for me, it's like...just write your shit, man. It's cool and awesome, and everyone who's going to come at it is going to be here for it, you know? So don't feel the need — I hate it when games, or when any kind of work feels a need to apologize for itself, you know what I'm saying? Especially what it's good. But even when it's not good, like, that's fine. Just be confident in what you have, you know?
And there's so many things, too, where you can see, like, in Daggerheart and in this game, too, people going like, oh, man, I'm sick of this shit from Dungeons and Dragons, let's not include it, you know? Or, oh, this is how we're going to handle this thing from D&D. Like, porting over stuff like a mechanic, for example, from D&D. And you're like, I don't like how that's handled in D&D. Let's handle it this way instead. Right? Like, it's very interesting. I mean, you have all the D&D species and races and shit here, but like, obviously Matt Colville's way cooler, more 70s spacey, vibey versions of them, which I appreciate. But like, you know, you got elves and dwarves and stuff and it's, you know, it's the same thing. We've been playing it for a while. It's just Matt's version of it, which I think I, you know, I like.
But yeah, I definitely don't like games that are apologizing for themselves, man. Or saying, like, I think, I think there's a lot of space in this book, particularly on, "We're this kind of game." And to me, it's like, yeah, man, I know that. I read your book. You know? Maybe we're just assuming people can't read very well. And that's actually fine. I have a section — so I'm writing a tactics game called ICON. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that.
Jon de Nor: Only by you mentioning it on Bluesky.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, that's my big swing at the tactics space, which I've been torturing myself with for about three years now. Torturing, absolute torture. It's just like, turning it over my head, man. Trying to chip away at it. Because I have strong opinions for it. If I didn't have strong opinions, it'd be much easier. I would just put something out that's bad, but...and you know, I'm also guilty of this. So, man, I have little tonal things in the start. I think it's important to set the tone of a game, right? And say, like, oh, this is what the tone of the game is. This is what I think you're going to use this game for, right? I don't even need to feel any need to be like, here's what, here's how to convert your character in if you're coming here from d20 fantasy. Like there's a section in the preamble in this game and Draw Steel, like, here's how to convert this over from d20 fantasy, here's what we do differently. And I'm like, ah, get rid of that. You don't need to say that. Just do it. You know? Anyway, that's just...maybe it's just me being a, you know, having strong opinions about this shit. I think it's perfectly fine for Matt to do that. Or James, whoever was writing it.
Jon de Nor: I know that part of the reason that those two sections are there, both the "This is the kind of game we are, and here are some other games that do other things that we don't focus on" and the "Here's where we differ from d20 fantasy", as they call it...I know that part of the reason those sections are in there is because they know that a very big chunk of their audience is going to convert from 5e, and they kind of need to explain to them...this is your first, second RPG. So we need to explain to you how things can be done differently than just...from like 5e to maybe, I don't know, Pathfinder, or Tales of the Valiant, or something that's much more closely related to 5e.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah. No, you're actually not wrong. Actually, people are like...I mean, that's the problem, isn't it? It's like people...it's like if we play video games and 80% of the market was just Skyrim, right? (laughter) You know, like, and everyone goes and plays Super Mario and they're like, where's my horse? Where's my,...you know? (laughter) What happened to my shout powers? Like, dude, this is Mario. We don't do that. Like, you know, like...yeah, it's true. You're right. I do sympathize, I do. But like, for me, it's like, I'm not out there...I mean, this is me. It's just a me thing, honestly. I will say something about Draw Steel. This is my most controversial opinion about it. Are you ready? Ready to absorb this?
Jon de Nor: Yeah, yeah. Bring it.
Tom Bloom: You're going to kick me off the podcast. To be clear, I really like this game. I don't think this is a very appealing game.
Jon de Nor: Oh, interesting.
Tom Bloom: Yeah. And that's like, maybe not even something you can change about it. But, in terms of, like, thinking about — and again, I'm — everyone's put out this weird, like, false equivalency thing, being like, ah, Daggerheart and Draw Steel, which is, who's going to take D&D's crown? The answer is nobody. Neither of them are. But if I had to think about the two of them, right, I would be like, Daggerheart's gonna get way more people to get into it. Right? Immediately. It's a much more appealing game, right? And, you know, it's very interesting. Right. It's like, oh, I was flipping through, 4th Edition D&D, at the convention I was just at. And I was like looking at the game and everyone's talked at length, I think, a little bit about like, there's like sort of a lack of art in Draw Steel, and the art that's there is kind of very plainly put into the book, and it's...I was reading through 4th Edition and I was like, dude, it's just exactly the same as 4th Edition. 4th Edition has exactly the same amount of art, like art layout, like...maybe less art, actually. You know? Like, the powers and stuff are all laid out the same way. I was just like, what are you talking about? It's very clean, minimalist, kind of, almost, like, design to things. Visually, like, it's not quite as flashy as something like Daggerheart.
These games just, you know, it's just a ton of shit to absorb right away. Right? And there isn't, like, a simple mechanic you can put in the game and be like, "This is how everything in the game works." It's like, no, dude, we're getting into like, you know, we start with the glossary. Another thing, by the way, that AD&D and 4th Edition both do. Which I think is great, by the way, it's a fucking great choice for this kind of game. But people are gonna pick this up and be like, get to like page, what, like four, and be like, "There's a glossary here? Holy shit. I've tuned out already, goodbye..." Like, you know what I'm saying? Maybe it's because people who know this kind of game, they're, like, familiar with it. They're going to come to this game. And people who aren't into like the tactics stuff are just going to stay away and like, not, you know, not — and maybe that's just sort of inevitably like a quirk of the tactics genre.
And also, I think, you know, I also think like, Draw Steel's, like, not very setting agnostic. Right? It's very setting-forward, man. It's very like, you know, manifolds and timescapes and fucking time raiders and shit. And that, for me, I'm like, give it to me now. That's awesome. I love that, I love the shit. I love the sort of like, yeah, like very, like 70s vibe, dude, where it's like, we might be on a spaceship in the next session, we might be, you know, punching dwarves or something in one session. But, I think, like, you know, people are going to also look at that and go, oh, I don't want like, spaceships and time raiders in my game and shit, like, and they're going to bounce off that.
Jon de Nor: Yeah, yeah.
Tom Bloom: So there's like so many choices that have been made about this game, from the layout to like the actual kind of game it is to like the setting and stuff, that to me, it's like it's like fundamentally...oh, and the price, too. Right, people have brought the price up a lot. Now, I don't think that's a problem, but it is a pricey PDF, right?
Jon de Nor: Sure.
Tom Bloom: You had to acknowledge that. Now, now, MCDM pays people properly. (laughter) So I'd rather have that, man, and you know, and it's like, both books and like, you know, people go out and they'll be like, "Oh, how could I — I'm gonna pay 70 bucks for PDFs?" But then they'll go up to like $150 in the dragon game of, you know, of which two of those books are actually useful. Or one. And then they'll homebrew 2/3 of it anyway, right, so they're not even using the books. It's really fascinating because like, it's just like Matt and Co. like, making the game they want to make, without a real concern about who's going to pick it up. You know, it's like really interesting to me. I really respect that, personally. I just think it's...it's interesting because I am always thinking about accessibility and how to, like, get people into my game in a way that they can slide in as smoothly as possible. And to me, that's like, such a big part of the design. To me, like, Matt and Co. just being like, "Nah, fuck it, man, we're going to make this sick game. It's gonna be set in Orden, you know, like, in space, and you're going to be able to be a —" even the classes, man. Everyone's got psychic powers. Everyone's cool. Everyone's like manipulating time, you know, like, I'm kind of into that, to be honest.
But it is interesting as a game design thing, just to be like, nah, man, we're making this, this game is like, a little bit inaccessible and a little bit like, specific, you know, compared to something where they could have gone the Daggerheart route and just been like, yeah, there's a, you know, we put, you can play anything, all these D&D races and they're all pretty much the same. And all the classes are pretty much the same. And, you know, and you know, here's a nice comfy bed view. So...yeah, and, you know, they've chosen to go with something very tactical, and a game where the tactical combat is like the big focus, right. Therefore needs to contain a glossary, and conditions, and, you know, power rolls, and little denotations saying, if M is less than P or whatever the hell I saw there. You know? And I guess a certain kind of person, who I guess is going to bounce off that anyway...but, to me it's like, fascinating, because like, so much of where I'm tearing my hair out with my own design is trying to trying to write around that and trying to, like, make it as accessible as possible to people so they can get in. It's such a big consideration for me. So it's kind of...it's like, I don't even know if I'm doing it right. I'm like, should I just be ignoring that completely? And should I just be doing what these guys are doing, just making it and like getting it out there? And the people will, you know, "if you build it, they will come" kind of thing, right? I don't know.
Anyway. Sorry. There's me yappin for 20 minutes or something. I don't even know what the original question was, man. (laughter) Yeah, that's sort of one of my big takeaways from reading through it recently. It's like very interesting. What was the original question, man? What was I even talking about.
Jon de Nor: We started with —
Tom Bloom: Oh, oh, oh, oh, looking over your shoulder at the...
Jon de Nor: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yes. Right. So it's, yeah, it is interesting to me...to bring it back, it's interesting to me to, like...we're taking all these big cool swings, and then we're also going like, "But if you're coming from d20 fantasy..." And I'm like, dude, if I'm coming to this game, like, I kind of know what I'm getting into, you know? I don't even know if I'm going to, you know, you're not going to get the 5e players with this one, man, like, it's not going to happen. They're going to look at it and be like, "Psychic powers, what's going on? What? The "null"? Where's my monk?" You know? Yeah.
Jon de Nor: Yeah, yeah, yeah. There have been some comments of that ilk, where people comment, why did they change the monk, or why did they change the dwarves? And I know at least from Matt's point of view, it's like, why would you assume that the dwarf from 5e or the monk from 5e is a universal thing?
Tom Bloom: Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Exactly. I mean, and then it's like, okay, then you've gotta put a little thing in your game, saying, no, guys, please, God, it's not like that. So like, then you do need that preamble, right? That's the — yeah, it's unfair, isn't it.
Jon de Nor: I've seen a lot of people saying that Draw Steel is a...maybe a spiritual successor, or like a modernization of 4th Edition.
Tom Bloom: Oh, yeah.
Jon de Nor: It sounds like you agree? (laughter)
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah, definitely. I would say it's like a much more streamlined 4e, is my initial impression of it. Now, I will also preface any of my opinions — I have not been able to play this game yet. Or run it. I actually just got invited to a game, so, I'm going to go play a Fury for a while. Hopefully. We'll figure it out. So hopefully I'll have some more to say. I imagine I'm going to love it. That's my feeling about it. But that's me, right? That's me. I'm already here for it, so. Because I love these kinds of games. I'm way into them.
Jon de Nor: Is it the tactics that entrance you, or...?
Tom Bloom: So I like games that, are really focused on what they do. Right? And Draw Steel may seem like it's a big book, and it's kind of sprawling and stuff. But it's kind of not, man. It's very tight. In fact, I think it's almost too tight in certain aspects, right? Like, the lack of, like, character customization is something that sort of stood out to me. But it's really just, just saying, like, hey, you know, every level, pick one of these abilities, like, you know, maybe you get a perk once in a while. Like, it's not like Pathfinder, where it's just like big, nightmarish, sprawling thing of like...ah, first, I have to take this, and then take this, and then you do this, so you can do this, and all that shit. Like, I hate that. I hate that, man. I hate that simulationist bloat to it, man. It's just like, no man. Here's an ability, it's cool. It does cool stuff. And it's easy to get it once you kind of understand its language. Like, you just, "Oh, I rolled a 21. Cool. Here's what I do." Right? That's fundamentally appealing to me. I like games — they have a big focus on being, like — I think, as Matt has said many times, which I really respect him for, like if you're gonna have rules, make the rules good. If you're gonna have tactical combat, make the tactical combat good. (laughter) You know? If your game is about fighting monsters and getting treasure and shit, make that, what the game is actually about, and then make it good. You know? So that's what I like. Right? Like in Lancer, there are no out-of-mech rules, really. There's a very, like, narrative system with some downtime rules. And everyone's like, dude, why don't you have, like, pilot combat rules and all this stuff? Because I'm like, "Because the game's not about that, dude. It's about getting in a mech and using your cool, insane builds to, like, blow the shit out of other mechs." And then also, you know, getting your arm blown off by a shotgun or whatever. That's what it's about. It's a bit about — you know, there's a bit of drama there, but like, yeah, I'm not going to make a lot of rules for it. I'm not trying to simulate things. I'm trying to...this is a game. We're playing a game, right? And it's very focused on the game part of it. Because I think a lot of people, they come...like, there's kind of a couple of schools of thought in this, right. Sorry, I'm going to go off into a tangent. I hope this is okay.
Jon de Nor: Go, go.
Tom Bloom: There's a couple schools of thought, right. One is like, keep the rules as light as possible and let the non-instrumental play take over, right? Like the OSR philosophy. You roll a d20 and you roll under stat for most things. Two pages of rules. If you need a rule, write it. Right? That's their thoughts about stuff. And then you have a six-page game or whatever. I was reading through Mythic Bastionland. There's a...Into the Odd's author, Christopher...I can't remember his last name. [Chris McDowall] I think he — it was great. Really enjoyed it. It's 19 pages of rules that covers everything from combat to, like, you know, ruling a domain, so on and so forth. And every rule is, like, one sentence, right? And you're like, because there's a space there for you to, like, be creative. And write your own paths forward and like, negotiate at the table, and they imagine your table culture will carry the rest of the way. As most people do, I think, play games like that, when it's not in a really instrumental space like combat. Right. So there's that, that like attitude towards it. And then the other attitude is like, the people who come to games because they like playing the little board game, they like playing the tactics game, right? And they get their enjoyment from the spontaneity and creativity that comes with the very non-instrumental part of sitting down with miniatures and maps and doing all the stuff, because they like playing, basically, what is like, you know, a board game with their friends, right? Yeah. You can kind of lean one way or the other, but I think you have to either make the rules non-existent, or existent and good, right? You have to lean into that instrumental thing and make it really tight and fun and interesting. Or you have to get rid of it completely. And certain games — I won't say them, but they're made by a company that rhymes with "Izzards of the Coast" — don't do either particularly well. So, it's refreshing to me whenever games take a swing at, like, you know, doing one or the other in a really, like, thorough and interesting way.
Jon de Nor: You mentioned being, should I say underwhelmed with character options.
Tom Bloom: Oh, yeah. Yeah.
Jon de Nor: I know that some of the...so, part of the idea is that, especially titles and, like, magic items, or treasures as they're called, are supposed to kind of cover part of that character customization thing, because I know that Matt has a philosophy where he prefers that...you have to kind of earn your customizations. That the reason you have this title or this sword or a piece of armor is because you actually went out and did something. This is part of the story of this character.
Tom Bloom: Right, right, right. Well, the interesting thing about that, right, is that those rules are still instrumental. They are not spontaneous and creative. They are a thing that gives you tangible benefits, right? And therefore, people will always view them as part of character building. Even if you say, "No, man, you have to get this, you know, during your adventures," they're going to go bug their DM, be like, "Hey, get me this specific item because I want to do this." You know what I'm saying? It's a really tricky problem to solve, right? Like 4th Edition, eventually, had a thing where they just said, like, we assume all the math in this game is assuming that your DM has been nice enough to give you a +2 weapon by, you know, 8th level or whatever. They just had a thing eventually where they just said, you just get a +2 bonus at 8th level. Because we're sick of DMs telling the players they can't go out and get this cool stuff, right. To me it's like, I prefer to have that stuff be in player control because players are always going to view it as part of character building, right?
Jon de Nor: Ah, okay. Yeah.
Tom Bloom: And I also do respect the decision not to allow multiclassing here, because I think it, you know, it starts...if you don't handle it well, it makes everything become samey and it makes builds become...and it creates design problems, right. But, you know, it is a really tricky problem, man. Because it's like either you make the design pretty big and you let people play around in it, but then they start to, you know...it starts to come apart at the seams because it's either too big, or players can immediately be like, oh, this will massively break action economy. And then you have to balance for that. That's a huge pain. Or you know, you keep it tight, like I have here. And then players go, well, I'm going to make one of three guys, basically, for every class, and that's sort of it. I think, it seems like the plan is just to release more character options, in future, right, like, that seems like a good compromise. But it's interesting because to me, part of the appeal of these games is the whole, like, character building aspect to it, and there's like, so few choices you're actually making when it comes to it, that it seems a little stiff to me. Right? It's like, oh, I'm just sort of making one decision, two decisions a level. And there's only ten levels. And I like that they're all weighty, but they're not like, there's not like that much for me to put me in it as a player, right? There's none of that expression. If I'm playing a tactician, you know, at 4th level, I'm picking one of these two things. That's what I'm doing, you know? So that's nice and tight. But I think it does...it leaves less room for player expression, I think, right?
Jon de Nor: I think that's fair.
Tom Bloom: But let me be clear. I myself am designing a game that plays in this spacem, and, good God, including the ability for people to just mash things together is a pain in the ass. So I respect it. (laughter) I really respect it.
Jon de Nor: Speaking of being focused on certain kind of rules. I'm curious what you think about the inclusion of the...specifically the negotiation rules and the downtime projects in this game. Because I've seen some people online really struggle with the...
Tom Bloom: Oh, don't trust those guys. (laughter)
Jon de Nor: (laughter) They've been struggling with the fact that this game claims to be tactical, and then there is suddenly non-combat-focused rules that get their own chapter in the rules.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah. I didn't think I was gonna like the negotiation stuff because I also would rather have that be handled more, you know, loosey-goosey. But I actually quite like it because it basically gives you a list of improv prompts, right? At the end. It's a "yes, and", "no, but", you know. I'm like, oh, cool, okay, that's fine, that's nice. That's kind of nice to like, you know, systematize that. And the projects and stuff. I dunno, I think they're cool. I have no opinions about them, really. I think it's nice that, like, there's, like, stuff — I love downtime stuff, man. I like games that tell you how to play them, right?
Jon de Nor: (laughter)
Tom Bloom: Right? Think about this for a second, right? There's so many games that — and OSR games, right, for all their virtue of being like — oh, by the way, I think your listeners must be familiar with Old School Renaissance games, is what I'm talking about, OSR.
Jon de Nor: Yeah. I would assume so.
Tom Bloom: Yeah. They give you, like, nothing, right? They give you nothing at all. Generally. They're just like, yeah, go run some adventures or whatever. We're not going to tell you how to run this game, or what to do. But I actually really prefer when the game says, you're going to go on a little adventure, and then you're gonna have some downtime. And then you're gonna go back on another adventure, and you're going to go back in the down — because it gives you this structure you can play off, right? Where you're, as a GM, you kind of know what's going to happen. I love Blades in the Dark for that because Blades in the Dark is a game about, you know, playing thieves. And you're doing a heist, and then you're like, burning all your ill-gotten money off on various things, and then you go back to a heist again. So there's a structure to the game where, as a GM, you can immediately tell what you're going to be doing next session, because you're either doing a thing or you're like doing this other thing, which also has some rules about it, which I really enjoy. I think it's quite cool. So yeah, I love that there's downtime stuff and crafting and stuff in it. Gives you things to focus on, right? These little goals. I love a little checklist, man. I love little things you get to like, oh yeah, I want to work on this thing. It's cool. Very cool.
Jon de Nor: By complete coincidence, I was listening to the backlog of Quinn's.
Tom Bloom: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Jon de Nor: And I listened to the full interview he did with you when he reviewed Lancer last year.
Tom Bloom: Oh, yeah. That was his first one on his show, yeah, yeah.
Jon de Nor: Yeah. You came upon the subject of playtesting, briefly, in the interview, and you mentioned — he mentioned, jokingly, that it was a controversial topic. And I think I kind of agree with you that in some circles of the TTRPG community, playtesting is a controversial topic.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, it's a bit weird, isn't it? I don't know why is. (laughter) But, I — yeah, so what were you going to say? I don't want to interrupt you.
Jon de Nor: No, no, I just want to hear your thoughts about playtesting and why do you think it's important? Because I know MCDM and Matt is very focused on playtesting, and have this whole regime around testing everything they produce. So that's made the community kind of focused on playtesting, too, because they talk so much about it. I'm just wondering, what are your thoughts on playtesting? (laughter)
Tom Bloom: Well, I've had to think about it a bit. And I'm like, well, you know, the people that are like, anti-playtesting, not to name any names, but they're typically in spaces where the games don't really need playtesting because they don't really have any rules. Right? They're mostly like, OSR folks, right? Or whatever. And they're just saying, like, man, we're using BECMI D&D, or some variants of it, and we know how it works. You know, we don't need to test this. And in fact, in some cases, those games are not about making a game that is, you know, supposed to have a certain experience for players. It's supposed to be like, you walk into a room and there's 1d6 skeletons, which, if you're trying to balance the game, or make it interesting...like you might say, well, how many players do you have when you go in and there's all these skeletons in the room? And you know, how many, and so on and so forth. But a lot of these guys will go, "Nah, dude, there's just 1d6 skeletons. Deal with it." Right? (laughter) And I'm like, for me, that can be kind of fun, or that can be kind of miserable. And you just go, "Why are we playing this game, dude, if you're gonna roll, and there can be anywhere from one to six skeletons in this room?! Jesus Christ, that's a lot — that's six times the amount of skeletons I was expecting, Jon! Why did we get six skeletons in here?" Then you go, "Well, I just rolled for it," and then you go, "Well, why would you do that? This is completely unbalanced, we're gonna die!" And he's like, "I dunno, that's what happens. That's the world." Right? So there's, like, an attitude or whatever, okay, I get that, dude, I get that.
And also there's games where, like, they're playing a PbtA game or something, right? And, generally, people know how those games work, right? You don't really need to test them. They sort of run themselves. But like, if you're trying something different or new, like I did with CAIN, or if you're trying something that's got a lot of rules, like instrumental, man, you absolutely have to playtest, 100%. Like if you did not playtest Draw Steel, it would be a vastly worse game, I imagine, on release. Same as if I released the first version of Lancer that I put out. It would be psychotic to play. It would be unplayable. I had two and a half years of people being like, please fix this, Tom, please fix this. I was like, oh, God. And then I go look at it now, and I'm like, I have so many problems with this. We had to print a book, though, right? So...but through playtesting, it became fun, and you know, somewhat playable. And I think that's important as hell, man. You got to let your game hit air. So many people are, like, so afraid it's gonna not work. And I'm like, that's the point, dude. You know? And also, you never get that experience because in your head as a designer, you might say, "Oh, I have this cool system for this thing. And it's 15 statuses and they all counteract each other." And then you run it in practice and you're like, oh my God, this is too much. This is too much to track, and the feel is off, and you could immediately tell you gotta change it. You'd never get that experience unless you take it to the table, man. I never, ever release games I haven't run myself, or been a player in myself. Gone, "This was really fun," right? If I don't get that experience? Never releasing it, it's going to sit in the document forever. (laughter) And never see the light of day.
There are games I've put aside because I've tried running them or tried, like, trying them out and, like, that was miserable. I'm not even going to attempt to fix that, dude. We're going to move on. Yeah, yeah, got to playtest. But you don't *have& to, depending on your...I've softened my stance a bit. Your sphere of work may not require it, but for a game like this, dude, like, if you don't...and there's there's big companies, man, that don't test it. Like I don't think D&D 5th Edition was tested past 8th level very much at all. I really don't, I really don't. Some of the 5th-level spells? The math is wrong. The math is completely wrong on them. Like Monster of the Week, you ever play that game?
Jon de Nor: No, I've only heard about it.
Tom Bloom: It's quite popular, quite a popular PbtA. I'd have to say, like, I hope those designers played their own game. But it's a game about, you know, playing investigative, like, X-Files kind of thing, right? You know, a supernatural or, Buffy the Vampire Slayer...and the basic investigation move does not work. It does not work at all. It's miserable. Every time you use it, you go, none of these questions I get to ask are relevant to the current situation at all. I don't understand. Like. And it's the kind of thing where, like, I'm like, if you had played it, you would notice that really quickly, right? So not to be throwing shade on those guys. I'm sure they tested the game.
Jon de Nor: That's interesting, though.
Tom Bloom: That's the kind of thing I would notice right away and go, oh, I have to change that, because this bit of the game is very important — feels bad, right.Yeah. That's my thoughts I yes.
Jon de Nor: I've seen some talk about Draw Steel and how, for example, they notice that the project rolls are — when you roll for making progress on a project, you don't use the — you still use 2d10, but you don't use the tiered results. And they kind of fault the game for changing the mechanic all of a sudden.
Tom Bloom: (laughter) Nice. Oh, man. Yeah, that's the thing, right? I do actually think, like, you cannot make a perfectly balanced game, right? It's impossible. And in fact, a perfectly balanced game isn't interesting. Because to me, it's in all the jaggedy bits that people can run their fingers over that actually makes it interesting to me, right? To play, sorry. They run their grubby little paws over the game and they go, ooh, where are the bits that stick out? And they kind of grab onto them. And that's how you get players into your game, especially games like this. Because if everything was just like a gray sludge we could consume, and be like, "All abilities do this much damage," that would suck. Wouldn't be interesting, right? But for me, the point of balance that's most relevant is, yeah, it's, like, gamefeel, right? So that's probably what people are running into, right? They're saying, "This feels wrong." And yeah, to me, that's definitely worth paying attention to. I'm actually not sure what the designers of this one, what James or Matt or any of the people that works on this think, but that's definitely...yeah, it's coming from 4th for me, too, yeah. And you're like, "But it works well!" and they're like, people are like, "But it works differently, and I don't like that!" You're like, damn it! It's the worst thing, man. You wanna — you have to deal with human beings, right? You're doing a game that runs on an operating system that's made out of meat and has opinions. You know, if I was making a computer game, I would just be like, this ability does 20% more damage. But I can deal with physical totems like dice, man. It's nightmarish. Terrible.
Jon de Nor: You haven't played Draw Steel yet.
Tom Bloom: No. I'm likely going to. I've literally just gotten invited to the game, so we'll see. I'm looking forward to it, certainly. I never get to be a player. I'm a forever GM.
Jon de Nor: Ditto. (laughter)
Tom Bloom: Anytime anybody is like, do you want to play? I don't care what system. I'm like, yes. They could be like, "Do you want to play my one-page forum RPG where we're all, you know, elves?" I'd be like, yes, let's go. I'll play.
Jon de Nor: I'd be even more enthusiastic! (laughter)
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Jon de Nor: Bring me something weird. I'm there.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah, yeah. So I rarely get to be a player. So someone was like, "Would you like to play Draw Steel?" I was like, "Dude, I'd love to play Draw Steel. Let's go." Good shot that a friend of mine in town, too, will some day run it in person, too. So I'm pretty excited about that.
Jon de Nor: I think it'll be interesting because I've, I've seen a lot of people mentioned that they usually don't like tactic games, but when they sit down and actually try Draw Steel, they actually like it. Despite their initial kind of honest feeling about it.
Tom Bloom: That's my feeling, actually. Yeah. Because, I think a big part of it is, it's kind of like learning a different parlance. It's like learning a different language to a degree. Everyone likes the language to be the same. You like to look at a game and go, this uses a d20? Cool. Like, they're super into that. Like I moved my game that I'm doing over to a d10 because I just don't think I need that much, you know, that many numbers, I don't...but then, now I'm even thinking like, well, am I gonna do that? Because people love their little d20s, right? (laughter) But you look at how, the way things work in this game, it's very straightforward, and, actually, I imagine will be pretty like, snappy to play. But you have to learn it, right? And that's a huge barrier. It's like, it sucks, dude. You've got to get this into people's hands. You've got to get them to understand it. And then they go, "Oh, this is actually, this actually works!" Because that's the thing about — I haven't played it, so I couldn't tell you, but my strong suspicion is that you're going to do an ability in this game and you're immediately going to go, "Oh, I did something, and it was cool." Because everything just does stuff. Everything moves forward because you're always doing damage, you're always making stuff happen, and you're always kicking people into walls and shit. Like, I imagine it's — I imagine you've played a lot at this point?
Jon de Nor: Yeah. I've actually ended up playing quite a lot because a very, very kind person in the community who runs a lot of games and...I've ended up being in his usual roster of people that he asks.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah. Nice. Yeah, yeah. Don't tell me if I'm right, because I'll find out, but that's my feeling about it. But I think people like it because — and for my suspicion, it's because the game has been well-playtested, so I think, probably like, James and Co. understand what makes things fun and interesting and quick, right? They've done it, they've been there. Because they had a way, totally different design for this game at some point, right?
Jon de Nor: Yeah. I was in the early playtests two years ago, where a lot of stuff was different. But that's back when, that's before the power roll, before the d10s. We were rolling d6s for damage...(laughter)
Tom Bloom: Yeah, yeah. So I think there's a great deal of care being paid to in this game, I think, on making the rules good, right, and making them, like, work. But, and not trying to be too simulationist, right? I mean, there's a little bit of it in this game which, you know, for me, I'm like, I don't like the, any vestige of simulationism, purge it away, get it out of here. Like, they've included three-dimensional space in this game, which I'm like, that's a mistake, right away, that's...don't do that. In my game, when you fly, it's a status effect. So that's the — I'm like, that's — I'm done with — yeah. Like, dealing with that in Lancer? I was like, dude, that was, like, the worst...there was some dark days. So little bits like that. But by and large, it works, man. That's the thing, is, like, there's so many, there's so many of these games, man. People taking so many swings at this kind of game at a time, right? Like 4th Edition was this, you know, the swing that even Wizards took at some point. It was like, what if we paid attention to the tactical combat, and made it interesting, and made you, like, have a lot to do, and put roles in, and made the classes very distinct, and add all these options for you, and make the monsters interesting, and...you know. And you can tell that that was a good edition, because so much of its design has persisted for years, decades. You know, to the point that like, oh, man, I'm looking at Lancer and I'm looking at Draw Steel, and even the layout, dude, I'm just like, oh, we're just cribbing from 4th. Like, we're just making the same book. It looks really similar. You should actually crack open a 4th Edition D&D rulebook. Have a look at it. You'll actually, you'll do a little double take. You'll be like, oh my God. It really is very, very familiar.
Jon de Nor: I just want to mention one thing regarding the playtesting thing. I remember Matt saying, at some point — because I've been following this very closely, so I ended up with way too much information about the development of Draw Steel — but he mentioned at some point that he wants — through the playtesting process, basically, he wanted the released version of Draw Steel to basically be the second edition of the game from the get-go. That they kind of went through the first edition during the playtesting phase.
Tom Bloom: Yep, yep, I'm doing exactly the same thing with — both of my tactics games have gone through that exact process, man. They are unrecognizable from their first incarnation. That's a good thing, I think. For sure, yeah. I think you should go through that, right? You should shed all the stuff that doesn't work and, like, make the stuff that isn't — again, somehow a controversial thing to say. And then, you know, there are people, there are big companies out there making games like Exalted and Shadowrun where I'm like, has anyone played this? Actually played this?
Jon de Nor: Wow.
Tom Bloom: Not to throw too much shade out there, but like, have you tried to play Exalted? It's a bit...it's an adventure. It's really, like...God.
Jon de Nor: You seem to kind of have some of the same design philosophy that the MCDM has used, trying to just make the game fun to play, both for the players and for the DM. And I've got the feeling that some designers — I'm not, I don't have anyone in mind specifically, but I feel like some designers kind of fall in love with a specific mechanic or a specific like dice system or something, and they just refuse to make the game fun to kind of save their...
Tom Bloom: Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. No, I get you. No, that's very true, actually. Well, sometimes people think like, oh, I have a really cool mechanic or something, but, like...because I've seen it a lot, man, I've seen it a lot, especially with people who haven't released a game before, right? They go like, oh, this is really cool. And then I go, yeah man, but, like...okay, someone asked me a question the other day. And they said, "How do I get to translate what the design is in my head, and on paper, to, like, what is actually being played at the table?That seems really hard." And for me, I said to them, "Dude, don't even think about what's in your head. Think about what's at the table." Because that's how the game is going to be played. It's going to be played by human beings talking to each other and rolling some dice for random numbers. Right? That's how the game is going to be played. That's your game. The thing on the paper is actually not your game. That is the rules for the game, but the game itself exists between the players at the table. So you really have to think about that at all times. But you might be like, well, I have this cool elaborate status system in my game. But do you, though, man? People don't remember statuses. It's a huge pain in the ass. Everyone goes, oh yeah, I have a status, do I need to save for that? Then it's like, you know, slows the game down, it's going to add like ten minutes onto your turns...you know, you're gonna play a two-hour combat, and 30 minutes of that is people forgetting to save for statuses or whatever the hell. And you have to go look up what every status does. Oh, if I'm paralyzed, there's this thing. If I'm, you know, frostbitten, it's doing this thing or whatever. People can't really remember that stuff. But designers love adding them in their game because it's, you know, it's a little simulationist and gives a little texture to the game, for example.
Or designers will say, oh, I have this cool system for...like, the negotiation thing was something initially I was a bit wary of because, to me, that's not something you need to systematize, right? You don't need to have a structure around it. You just roleplay it, which doesn't require any rolling, right? I don't think social stuff should be generally be systematized. But after reading it, I'm like, oh, this is just like a frame you can hang on it, and then, you know, you get a little improv prompt at the end to see how the person responds. But like, yeah, it's like, you have a system, you're like, I have a system...but then when it hits air is the most important point of contact. Right? When it has to be played between people, they have to both be able to engage with it, understand it, use it in a way that's fun and intuitive to them. And if none of that can happen, then your game has failed to make purchase. It's not going to be fun, dude. The most important thing is that people are having fun, and that they're enjoying themselves, and things are happening which are enjoyable. It's a game, right? We're doing it to relax, to like, socialize and chill and have some cool, interesting, maybe exciting times at the table. We're not doing it 'cause some guy's like, I have a really good rule for overland travel or whatever, right? Like every time I've played a hexcrawl, for example, it's always been kind of miserable, because the rules get in the way of people just playing the game. They just keep interfering. "Oh, I'm in a new hex? I've gotta make a roll. Oh, next hex? I've gotta make another roll." It's like, no one, eventually, like, plays like that, because, you know, it's getting in the way of having fun. But some designer said, oh, I need to do this thing in this game, and it needs to feel dangerous, so I'm gonna add, you know, random encounters every hex, and we're gonna roll for it. But in practice, it's miserable to play, right? You're like, I don't want to keep doing this. Like, it doesn't create anything other than tedium. That's like a really common one. But yeah. You have to always think about, how are people going to play this shit, man, at the table, man?
Which is also why, like, playtesting is important, because then you find out in real time...like, I designed CAIN. Initially, I had this idea in CAIN — this is about psychic death soldiers fighting monsters made of human trauma. And you're, like, hunting them down, you know, sort of like a combination of, like, X-Files, Jujutsu Kaisen and Evangelion, as I would describe it to people. So you get kind of dropped into an investigation area and you have to hunt down this monster that has appeared. And initially I had this idea that, like, okay, some people are going to have combat powers, and some people are going to have investigation powers, and people with investigation powers are going to be able to like, set up the people with combat powers to succeed in combat. And this was a cool idea for me, right? Well, what that actually did in practice was, my players being like, well, only one guy can actually harm this thing, so like, we're just going to fucking sit around with our thumbs up our asses because we can do nothing...so, you know, it created this weird divide that was really awkward. And immediately it was like, okay, everyone needs some basic ability to deal harm in this game. Otherwise it's going to feel miserable for people when they get into a fight, which is what you're inevitably going to do in this game. But that was after playtesting a little bit, right? You've gotta learn those things. You have some cool idea in your head, it's never going to make it, man, if people aren't going to be able to play it! That's what I — you know? I don't know how that's controversial, but there you go.
Jon de Nor: We're nearing the end of the allotted time. And I always ask my guests to bring some kind of recommendation they want people to check out. And I'm wondering what you brought!
Tom Bloom: Oh, man, this is going to be really — this is going to be really — oh, God. Why would I even say this? But...(laughter) I would say...I would like, I would love people who are listening to this podcast, who probably are Draw Steel fans, to go to check out Daggerheart, man. Go give it a read. Daggerheart, and I say this charitably, because I quite like the game, is a game that is simulating what it's like to play D&D. I don't think — by itself, it's not doing anything particularly new, or like...the actual game there, the tactics stuff. is like much more simple. and much more loosey-goosey and much more, like...not as tight as a game like Draw Steel, right? But that's kind of by design. It's a game that has put its points into being kind of breezy and accessible and a smooth experience for people coming from 5e. And it's the game that plays like most people think 5th Edition plays, or should play, right? So there's been great care to it to make it much more of a smooth narrative experience. Like the way that most people play 5th Edition on an actual play show would be better served by playing Daggerheart. I genuinely think it is a better fit than D&D for most of those shows, right? They would be better off running Daggerheart, because it does that job so much better than the dragon game. And it's also coming at things from like an opposite, I guess, set of goals than Draw Steel is. So I would recommend, if you like this game, you should just go check — I also consulted on it. So you know, I don't have any royalties or anything, but they brought me in to look at it like, "Hey, how's the combat in this?" And I was like, "I have a lot of feedback points for you, Spenser [Starke]. Fix the goblins, Spenser." (laughter)
Jon de Nor: I saw the notes that you posted! (laughter)
Tom Bloom: But genuinely, I think it's quite a good game with very different goals to Draw Steel. So yeah, that's really compelling to me. Especially because these two games have been so positioned by the internet — which loves to have weird "console wars" things — as sort of the, you know, post-OGL inheritors of 5th Edition's playerbase. But yeah, go check it out, give it a read, give it a readthrough. See what you think. You might — if you're a game designer, too, you might be interested to see how it's handling things. I certainly — it's not for me, right, it's not my jam. This kind of game is much more my jam. But I think that kind of game is, like, what people want to be playing. Not me, but, like, people...
Jon de Nor: Other people! (laughter)
Tom Bloom: People in general, yeah. Like, if I was going to introduce people to the hobby, I would run it over 5th Edition, right? I would actually run it. I would lie to them. I'd say, we're gonna play D&D, and we play Daggerheart. (laughter)
Jon de Nor: (laughter) Isn't D&D just like a generic word for TTRPG at this point?
Tom Bloom: Yeah, basically. Yeah, yeah. But that's the thing, right? I would play Daggerheart. I would not play Draw Steel. I would not be like, we're gonna play D&D, we're gonna play Draw Steel. The people I've played games with for a while, I would be like, we're not going to play Daggerheart, we're gonna play Draw Steel.
Jon de Nor: Ah, okay, yeah, yeah.
Tom Bloom: Does that make sense? Like the people I actually, like, I'm going to play games with you guys, and we're gonna have a good time, like, we're gonna play Draw Steel. We're not gonna play Daggerheart. But if some random schmucks from work or whatever are like, you know, "Hey, I want to play in a D&D game!" I'm like, "I've got this great game, guys, it's D&D, it's 5th Edition D&D. I know it says Daggerheart on the cover. We're gonna play it.
Jon de Nor: (laughter) This has been fantastic, Tom. I'm so pleased and so happy that you were able to come on my small, humble podcast.
Tom Bloom: Yeah, Jon! Thanks very much, man. It was nice chatting. Sorry I yapped a lot. They call me the Yapper Man. That's that's like my nickname in the Discord.
Jon de Nor: I love that. (laughter) Thank you so much for coming.
Tom Bloom: No problem. Cheers, man. Thank you.
Outro
Thanks again Tom for coming on Goblin Points. My own personal takeaway from our conversation was that Tom and I share a lot of the same preferences in how games should be designed. "I like games that tell you how to play them", is probably my favorite quote from Tom... I should get that on a t-shirt...
If you want to be featured on Goblin Points, or know of someone else who should be, leave a comment on YouTube or Spotify, or send me an e-mail on tips@goblinpoints.com.
Links to everything, including this script can be found in the show notes, and on goblinpoints.com.
If you want to support my work, you can become a Patreon supporter. As a paying member you can submit questions to upcoming guests. You also get access to premium features on Stawl. Stawl is digital tool set for playing and running Draw Steel: digital hero sheets, looking up monsters, or read the core rules. Go to Stawl.app. S-T-A-W-L-dot-app.
Next episode is on the 5th. That's the news roundup for September.
See you next time. Snakkes.