#156: This Ship Is No Mother

you come to me on the day of the release of my game

I. Dear Reader

So a very long time ago, in the distant mists of 2021, I played a game of Crash//Cart and have been thinking about a deck of playing cards as the engine of game ever since. That game started me down a whole path of new designs, leading to a series of games that I’m referring to as my Cardsharp Sonata.

An astronaut violently ejected from a spaceship, a wire like an umbilical cord dangling behind him. The image reads "This Ship Is No Mother".

The first game of that series is now out. It’s called This Ship Is No Mother and it’s basically Dread meets Mothership via a deck of cards. It’s scifi horror with a ticking clock. Race against the deck to save your friends and earn a salary in the infinite sprawl of spaace.

It uses a simplified Forged in the Dark ruleset that my playtesters – ranging from teenagers to senior citizens – have all been able to pick up and enjoy. Honestly, my most satisfying GMing experiences this year have come playtesting this game. It’s made me feel like a real designer! And I’m genuinely so excited to share it with you.

It’s about 50 half-pages, full of art from Justin Nichol. You can use it to run adventure modules from other games (like Mothership!) or follow my format to prep your own one-shots. I’m experimenting with an adventure format that is basically a list of consequences. (It won’t work for everybody but it’s literally how I prep and run games!)

a GIF of the pages from This Ship Is No Mother

If you’re looking for a new game, I’d love for you to check it out!

Yours on release day,

Thomas



II. Media of the Week

  • On the Yes Indie’d Podcast, I chat with Chris Chinn, who’s been writing about RPGs for 15+ years on his Deeper in the Game blog. While he’s most famous for the Same Page Tool, the blog has so much to offer someone who wants to do more with games, like this great, recent post. It’s a great conversation about playing RPGs as a geek of color, learning how to ditch the railroad and embrace improvisation, and advice for new bloggers.

  • This is Sidney Icarus breaking down their theory about how players approach games called Action Paths. It breaks four different approaches based on the options players believe they have and so on. I think my favourite part is the last section where Sidney talks about how when you’re doing a jigsaw puzzle, you might go through all four paths as you figure the puzzle out.


  • Please consider joining 50+ other patrons and support the newsletter on patreon to help keep me going.

  • If you’ve released a new game on itch.io this month, let me know through this form so I can potentially include it in the end of the month round-up.


III. Links of the Week

Reviews

Then, one night, while I tossed in a cold sweat. I muttered in my sleep. “Kerning. Leading. Margins. Paper. Pulp.” And that’s when I remembered. All those old books were shit, weren’t they? Are “mistakes” an irreducible part of the genre? Would fixing the bad font choices, kerning, and design gaffs make it feel false?”

Articles


IV. Small Ads

All links in the newsletter are completely based on my own interest. But to help support my work, this section contains sponsored links and advertisements. If you’d like your products to appear here, read the submission form.

  • Bump in the Dark is a thrilling FitD game about community, chosen family, and beating the shit out of monsters. Now available in paperback and hardcover from DriveThruRPG!

  • Get a FREE full-length 5e adventure when you follow our Kickstarter prelaunch page. You will be notified when it goes live, and “A Deadly Duet” becomes available to download.

This newsletter is currently sponsored by the Bundle of Holding.


Hello, dear readers. This newsletter is written by me, Thomas Manuel. If you’d like to support this newsletter, share it with a friend or buy one of my games from my itch store. If you’d like to say something to me, you can reply to this email or click below!

6 responses to “#156: This Ship Is No Mother”

  1. Almost Bedtime Theater Avatar
    Almost Bedtime Theater

    Congrats on the game release!

    Like

    1. Thomas M Avatar
      Thomas M

      Thank you!

      Like

  2. Bojack Norseman Avatar
    Bojack Norseman

    Immediately got the game, and shared it. Looks great!

    Like

    1. Thomas M Avatar
      Thomas M

      Thank you so much!

      Like

  3. Hendrik ten Napel Avatar
    Hendrik ten Napel

    Lovely game, Thomas! I’ve been fascinated by the card mechanics from Crash//Cart as well, but I haven’t yet understood the point of basing the amount of cards drawn on the Risk of a draw. I saw it in C//C and I see you’ve made the same decision. If it’s no bother, I would love to know your thoughts. What does that bit of mechanic produce or mitigate? Is there a bit of card math I’m missing?

    Like

    1. Thomas M Avatar
      Thomas M

      Thanks, Hendrik! I was also curious about it when I saw it in C//C. “Why mechanize risk when in BitD, it remains purely fictional?” But I found that in play, it provides for interesting experiences so I retained it.

      Here’s an exhaustive list of why I keep it in the game:
      1. It makes High Risk situations feel specially dangerous and exciting.
      2. Risk, while it is described as basically Position, is actually a combination of Position and Effect. By mechanically making High Risk harder to succeed, it makes players feel like they should put all your resources into it (Push, Assist, etc) – which is what happens when you’ve got lesser Effect in Blades.
      3. It allows for the Low Risk draw also to feel special and an opportunity to push luck and make an interesting decision. Should I draw one more card? Should I stop?
      4. By eliminating variable action dots, I speed up play. (Which is important to me) But I also need variation in the draw because otherwise things felt very stale.

      I actually think C//C did something very insightful when it made this. (But by keeping action dots, it made it in elegant because action dots became very unimportant.) In Blades, odds of success are based on your skill, not on the fiction. But what a success means is based on the fiction. This distinction seems important but actually, apart from in structuring the conversation in an interesting way, the actual mechanical result is that you get new ways of achieving “success with a complication”. In my game, you are going to get “success with a complication” very often. Some granularity and clarity is lost but it ends up feeling the same at my tables.

      Like

Leave a reply to Hendrik ten Napel Cancel reply