3 questions from https://samsorensen.blot.im/sams-three-question-taxonomy

1. Is my goal to solve problems, or to tell a good story? Problem-solving is about winning, or trying to win. Striving. Struggling. Pushing as hard as I can to achieve my goal, whatever that goal might be and whatever the method to achieve it. This could be through the mechanics and systems of the game, but it could also be through problem-solving in the diagetic world of the game "getting through the room full of noxious gas with only a wet rag, a bellows, and a large toad."

   On the other hand, telling a good story is about creating drama, tension, and a compelling narrative. In this framing the player's goal is not to outright solve some problem, but rather to craft a compelling set of events for myself and the other players. High drama, heartfelt emotion, unexpected twists, inverted tropes, satisfying arcs. The works. This will at times come into conflict with the "goal to solve problems". Most games fall somewhere on this spectrum and can even vary session to session or adventure to adventure.

   In Mothership this dialectic is often quite clear: You need to try to stay alive... buuut also play the character in the horror movie that opens that door or unloads their clip on the ageless horror before you.

2. Can players (not characters) directly author the imaginary world? And if so, how often, and how much?

   Nearly all RPG groups do this at least somewhat: sometimes, you as the player get to decide. You directly choose what the Secret of the Duke’s Tomb is, or you decide how this NPC is feeling, or you decide whether or not you’ve visited North Haven before, or whatever.

   I like to think of this one as a scale, ranging from "always" (like Microscope or For the Queen) to "often" (like The Quiet Year or Fiasco) to "sometimes" (like Dogs in the Vineyard or Bluebeard’s Bride) to "rarely" (like Genesys Star Wars or any other trad project) to "never" (like most OSRish stuff and wargames).

   Most games have world-authoring hooked into some kind of rule. In Blades in the Dark you can burn your stress resource to do a "flashback" where you might narrate having scoped out the timing of gondola boats so you can dive out the window and land on one now.

   This ties in closely with the first question about what the goal is at the table.

   Imagine a game where you get the option to create a custom item as a part of your character’s backstory: taking the instant +3 Greatsword of Dragonslaying is, in some circles, considered being a bad sport. In general, the trend is such that as players gain more authorial power, they’re expected to take a more storytelling-forward position rather than simply trying to crush their enemies.

3. When the written rules disagree with the imaginary world, which takes precedence?

   The classic example here is what I call the “Tied-Up Orc Scenario.” The combat’s just ended, and you’ve got the last orc tied up. You’re trying to pump him for information but you botch the intimidate check, so you opt to just knife him. With the orc powerless to resist, you slash his throat. What happens?

   At some tables, the orc takes 1d4 damage, since a dagger deals 1d4 damage. Assuming a reasonably meaty orc, it might take five or six turns of throat-slashing, even with advantage, to finish him off. But at other tables, you just slit his throat and it’s over, typically without even a roll.

Mechanics, rules, etc

Adventure pressure: (Call of Cthulhu) What happens if nobody does anything?

Player Goals: (Secret Hitler / Alien RPG / many board games) Predetermined goals / roles for each player in a one-shot or player chosen "goals" for this "arc".

Advantage: (5e and others) Easy way to handle making a role a bit better or worse

Side based initiative https://knightattheopera.blogspot.com/2024/06/every-initiative-method.html

Spellcasting Make a wisdom or intelligence check whenever you cast a spell? Or perhaps you have spell cards which have a single use and then you need to roll to see if you get them back the next day.

Time, Gear, Skill: If you have all 3 you simply succeed.

Always give them the clue: (gumshoe) When a player would "search a room" they simply find all the clues. There's almost never a fun outcome in "not finding anything". Usually that just results in the DM being like uhhhh I guess you can try again. This relates the "Time, Gear, Skill" rule, but is a bit of an extension.

Generally, when searching for a clue you are assumed to have all 3, but if
there is an interesting consequence of not having one of them there might
be a use for a role. Say you need to quickly find incriminating documents
before the thugs arrive. The consequence is the thugs arrive which is
interesting. If the thugs aren't coming there's no point in a role because
you have no time constraint. The same logic can also be applied to many
social situations "is this npc telling a lie?". Some games make the latter
a special character feature / ability.

Mixed success: (Powered by the apocalypse) Checks that pass, but with a consequence

Grit / Energy (instead of hp): (Knave) Once hp runs out you gain "wounds".

Abilities as HP: (Wildsea) When you take damage you lose an ability. The very things that make you you.

Slot or card based inventory: (Knave, Mausritter) Wounds fill it up when you run out of grit

Roll under blackjack: (Errant) A role under system with difficulty You roll under your ability score, but much like in blackjack you want to be just under without a bust. Your referee can set a difficulty such as 4 which you must surpass.