Most reviews will tell you whether a game is good.
That question interests me less than it used to. After forty-plus years of running and playing games, I've found that "good" usually means "good at what it's trying to do." The harder, more useful question is what a game is trying to do, and whether that matches what you need at your table.
The radar chart is a tool for making that visible.
The Axes
Each game gets scored across eight axes on a 1–5 scale. Neither end of a spectrum is better than the other. A 5 in Rules Weight isn't a compliment or a complaint. It's a description.
Scores aren't assigned directly. Instead, I work through a set of interview questions for each game and derive the score from those answers. This keeps reputation and nostalgia from doing the rating for me.
Rules Weight (Featherlight → Crunchy) How much system you engage with moment to moment. Light games stay out of the way. Crunchy games create texture through mechanics.
GM Scaffolding (Freeform → Fully Tooled) How much the game supports the person running it. At one end: "make it up." At the other: procedures, tables, and structure that carry play.
Player On-Ramp (Walk Right In → Requires Investment) How quickly a new player can start making meaningful decisions. This includes rules complexity, but also unspoken expectations and table culture.
Session Shape (One-Shot → Campaign) Where the game peaks. Some games are built for a single sharp experience. Others are designed to sustain years of play.
Fictional Range (Narrow and Deep → Wide and Flexible) How broadly the system can be applied. Some games do one thing extremely well. Others flex across genres and tones.
Narrative Authority (GM Drives → Shared Table) Who controls what becomes true in the fiction. Not spotlight: authorship.
Tone (Deadly Serious → Pure Play) The emotional register the game supports most naturally. Not what's allowed, but what the system reinforces.
World Presence (Blank Slate → Richly Realized) How much of the setting is established before play begins. Some games hand you a world. Others expect you to build one.
How to Read a Chart
Start with shape, not numbers.
A game's silhouette tells you more than any individual score. Wide, even shapes tend to be toolkits. Spiky shapes tend to be focused experiences. Lopsided shapes usually mean the game has strong opinions about how play should happen.
Then look for tensions. High GM scaffolding often pairs with lower shared authority. Narrow fictional range often pairs with strong tone. Campaign shape often pulls toward broader scope. When a game breaks those patterns, that's where it gets interesting.
How to Read a Comparison
When two games are overlaid in the same chart, you're not looking for a winner. You're looking for tradeoffs.
Both games in a semifinal matchup might score high on GM scaffolding, but for different reasons. One might support long-term play through procedures. The other might support immediate play through structure and clarity. One leans toward campaign longevity; the other toward short, complete arcs. That's the real comparison: not "which is better," but "what kind of play does each one make easy?"
The written review does the second half of the work. It explains how those differences feel at the table and notes where the chart is accurate, and where it flattens something important.
What This Is (and Isn't)
This is not a scoring system. It's not trying to be objective. It won't tell you what to play.
It's a tool for seeing where a game puts its pressure, what kind of experience it's built to deliver, and what you're trading when you choose one over another. If it's working, you should be able to read a chart and think: "That's probably not for me." Or: "That's exactly my table." And occasionally: "I didn't know I wanted that."
A Note on Scope
The current project focuses on traditional tabletop RPGs designed for a group with a GM. But the axes are being tested and adapted for solo games and TTRPG-adjacent formats too.
For solo play, most axes travel intact. A couple need reframing: GM Scaffolding becomes something closer to Structural Support (how much does the game keep the solo player oriented?), and Narrative Authority shifts toward a spectrum of Player Agency versus Procedural Drive. For TTRPG-adjacent formats, the adaptation is more extensive, and some axes get replaced entirely. That work is ongoing.
A Final Note
The chart simplifies things. It has to.
Some axes are entangled. Some scores could reasonably shift a point in either direction. Some of the most important qualities of play (surprise, chemistry, tension) don't graph cleanly at all.
That's why every post includes both the chart and the writeup. Use the chart to orient yourself. Use the text to decide if it matters.
No comments:
Post a Comment