Feedback from MAGFest 2025
I had a great time running games at MAGFest 2025 as part of the MAGFest Indie Tabletop Showcase! This year, I ran Skrap Packs, Alter Arms, and a new game I'm testing, Knockabout.
Players were very excited by both Skrap Packs and Alter Arms, encouraging me to get both games published. I particularly want a physical release for Skrap Packs but, as a card game it might have a higher production cost than a more traditional RPGs book. I also want to finish work on two additional decks to go along with the arcane horror deck I currently have: one based around urban sci-fi, and another based around medieval fantasy.
The Knockabout feedback was the most interesting to me because it caused me to drastically re-evaluate my choices with the first version.
Going forward, I want to simplify the system by getting rid of traditional stats, and instead focus on the different character traits that players focused on, since they allowed them to better interact with one another in creative ways.
What is Knockabout (V1)?
Knockabout is a game that is intended to capture the chaos and radical tonal shifts of cartoons. To reflect this, the game has no game master (GM), and instead everything was randomly generated as the player took their turn, with the only guidance being that the session started with the players' describing how their cartoon characters start their day, randomly generating a problem they had to address, and then spending the rest of a session addressing those problems.
The arbitration tool was 4 fudge dice (six-sided dice with two '+1' sides, two '-1' sides, and two '0' sides), meaning the swing of dice rolls would be anywhere between +4 and -4. Players would take actions by first describing how they were going to accomplish a task – using one of their stats as the basis for the action – and modifying the roll with bonuses/penalties from other characters or things in the environment.
The three stats:
Goofs (physicality)
Wisecracks (intelligence)
Brass (charisma)
These stats contain a -2, 0, and +1. The numbers trended low to encourage players to roll low to start, rolling lower than the target value (by default it's zero, but if it's against a particular target like an enemy or a skill check, it will be larger). This was meant to represent the characters failing at the task they were trying to accomplish, with the greater difference between the roll and the target value representing a more spectacular failure. This was to emulate the awkward nature of cartoon characters, who would often attempt simple tasks only to fail at them spectacularly, then take a circuitous route to wrap everything up by the end of the episode.
This is coupled with a system called shticks; different aspects players could give their characters to flesh them out further, with each shtick providing a positive or negative bonus to actions depending on how the player chose to use them narratively. Players could also incorporate other player's characters into their own actions by incorporating other characters' shticks into their own turn's narrative.
To incentivize players to roll low – actually make them want to – I implemented a scale that would allow players to unlock various bonuses based on their failures, putting the narrative reason for these bonuses arising on the players. The types of bonuses were utilizing a previously unseen shtick, changing the environment, or gaining an outburst (a currency that could be spent for a bonus and reroll). Once the players had sufficient bonuses, they could use them to resolve the problems.
There were other mechanics as well, such as bonuses/penalties having tags associated with them that had mechanical advantage against targets with a compliment tag of their own. For ex: "vibes/memories" having advantage against "props/burdens."
There were "Wacky" and "Dire" mechanics that I won't really touch upon here since they didn't come up, but a short explanation is that: bonuses/penalties came in "Wacky" and "Dire" varieties to reflect the state of the game world, and using shticks from one in the opposite state would be more effective. The cost of doing this was that changing the world state required more effort or better luck.
What was the Feedback?
The game went a lot better than I thought it would, with players getting excited to declare what they were doing on a turn, and incorporate both their own and other character's shticks into their actions.
At the same time, they also weren't paying attention to their stats, focusing primarily on the shticks, even above other bonuses they had access to. They liked the randomness of rolling on tables and having to incorporate things into the story, but the process of doing so led to some friction the players didn't enjoy. Most notably having to choose which bonus they wanted, rather than just getting them by default.
What's Next?
Going forward, I want to get rid of stats and focus more on the shticks. Instead of stats, they have a limited number of shticks they start the game with. Each shtick is associated with a tag:
Animated Tone (replacing Wacky):
Vibes: Emotional aspects of the character.
Props: The useful things the character is carrying.
Effects: The things the characters can do.
Dire Tone:
Memories: The moments that influenced the character's growth.
Burdens: The things weighing the character down.
Consequences: The things the character does to the world around them.
I want to try the player's actions being resolved by:
Players declare what they're going to do; specifically if they're trying to hit the target value and resolve the problem, or roll lower than the target value and get bonuses for future rolls.
Declare which tag your action is going to focus around. Each shtick is worth a +/-1. Declare if these shticks are going to be used as a + 1 or -1 to your action
Describe how the character incorporates 1 shtick from any ally in the same scene. These must be of a different tag than the one the current player is using. Declare if these are being used as a +1 or -1.
If there are any bonuses in the field, describe how they're incorporated. If they're used as a negative, then they remain in the field, but if used as a positive, they're removed.
Roll the 4 fudge dice and calculate the total.
If the player doesn't like this result, they can use any remaining shticks from others/bonuses they didn't incorporate from steps 2 through 4. Players can only take 1 shtick from allies, and they must be of a different tag than the core of the current player's move. These can only be positive modifiers. Describe how the different shticks/bonuses contributed to this result
I have an idea for different outcomes based on the value of the roll in relation to the target value (ex: hitting the target value as a negative variation of that value changes the environment and creates a bonus for characters, while hitting double it's value as a positive can resolve the problem faster).
My next opportunity to test this will be at Katsucon 2025. I'm excited to see how players respond!
Comments