Writing For Hacks vs Designing Your own System

In tabletop roleplaying game parlance, a “hack” is when a writer creates content for a rule system they didn’t design themselves. Apocalypse World, and all the games inspired by it, are probably the most well-known example of a “hackable” rule system. For those unfamiliar, Apocalypse World is a post-apocalyptic roleplaying game by Meguey and Vincent Baker, with an extremely popular rule system called the Powered by the Apocalypse rules engine (often shortened to PbtA). PbtA can be adapted by anyone who wants to design a game around it, which is why we are so spoiled for choice when it comes to the variety of PbtA games available.

I've even designed a couple of my own PbtA games: Follow Me Down, a two-player game, inspired by the myth of Orpheus and Eurydice (and coming to Kickstarter this fall), and King of Cats, a game about magical kitties protecting their neighborhood (currently in development for 2022 release). I've also designed a few other games around preexisting rule systems, primarily boffer and parlor larps, and I've written a number of original rule systems--and their attached games--completely from scratch: Praedormitium, Wayfaring Strange, Silent Hedges' Threshold System, Majesty Sphere for a magical girl larp at MomoCon 2014, Chaotic Fluidity for the Lurking Fear Productions games, the rule system for Covenant, and so on.

So Which is Easier?

That begs the question, then, which is easier; writing for hacks or designing your own system? Honestly, I really think this depends on the kind of designer you are.

I have a lot of experience writing original rule systems. I started with the Covenant larp system in 1999, and have written about a dozen other systems since. Most of these were developed while I was concurrently writing world and setting elements for those games. It is extremely natural for me to come up with an idea for a game setting, then develop a rule system to fit it. Thus, adapting a game idea to an already extant rule system isn't usually my first inclination.

Because of this, I find writing for hacks to be fairly challenging. Writing for PbtA is especially interesting, in that it's almost like a puzzle. The system is very surgical in design, and requires every piece to fit perfectly for the game to sing. I also find the derision from some people inside the tabletop industry toward hacks to be... amusing, given the complexity it takes to create a good hack. They're not something someone can just sit down and churn out with minimal effort.

Writing for Hacks

When trying to decide whether you want create a hack or design your own system, you have a few things to consider. 

If you create a hack, you have the benefit of appealing to an extant fanbase, and attracting players who are already familiar with that system. You should take extra care that your adaptation is well done, however. Fans of particular systems are especially discerning, and they'll be able to see when a system needs more polishing. If I was going to give any specific advice about writing for a hack, it would be to make sure you really understand how the system works before the attempt. If you're going to do it, really commit to it; don't do it halfway.

My other suggestion is to make sure the hack you're using is the right system for your game. If you want to do something that's high-simulation, turn-by-turn combat, PbtA might not be the best fit, no matter how much you like it. There are plenty of other free to use rule systems out there that could be a better fit, however, so shop around until you find something that is more true to your vision. And, if you can't find exactly what you want, that may be an indication that it's time to create your own system.

Creating Original Systems

If you create your own system, you don't have the built-in, broad appeal of a hack, and it's harder to gain interest when you don't have a ready-made audience. This is counterbalanced by having the freedom and flexibility to do whatever you like with your system. The difficulty of this style of system design is knowing when to reign it in, and understanding when there's too much, or too little, of a good thing.

 
You've probably heard the phrase "kill your darlings." This also pertains to mechanics created for the sake of cleverness. Tabletop mechanics are there to provide a framework to build a story upon, and anything extraneous should be trimmed. When creating an original rule system, it helps to know what sort of framework you're building before you even begin. A game about a magical girl training school might need mechanics for relationships and magical girl powers, but might not need detailed gun and armor specifications. And definitely don't try to shoehorn your idea into what you think a roleplaying game system is "supposed" to be. Instead, figure out the story you're trying to tell, then shape the mechanics to suit it.

It also helps to write your setting materials first, then build your rule system around it. This doesn't mean you must have an entire book worth of material already written, but you should at least have your worldbuilding done before you start. Knowing the basics of how your world functions gives you a starting place when creating your framework. Does everyone in your world have an innate talent for magic? You should definitely know that before you write your magic system. Does living in a post-apocalyptic landscape mean that some characters have mutation-based powers, while others don't? You should probably know that too.

Going back and adding skills and powers after the fact--because you've come up with this cool, new idea for your game world, and now you have to try to figure out how to work it in--can upset the design structure of your entire rule system. Even more so if you have to do it three, four or five times. (Trust me, it sucks. A lot. Learn from my mistakes.) You should try to make sure you have all of those concepts laid out from the get-go.

Read More to Write More

The only other thing I suggest, for learning to design for either style, is to play a larger variety of games. If you only ever play one rule system, you'll miss out on tons of games with good designs that might inspire your own work. Or, if you can't play (because right now, thanks to Covid-19, there are no conventions), at least read as many games as you can get your hands on. If you're designing for a hack, definitely read many different games that use that rule system. Repetition not only breeds familiarity, but you'll get to see how other designers have adapted the system for their own games. This can not only show you unique ways of using the system that you might not have considered, but it can show you what not to do when it comes to designing your own game.

In Conclusion

Overall, both approaches are a lot of work, and while creating original systems is slightly easier for me, writing for hacks is something I enjoy. This is especially true if I feel like a hackable system is a better fit for something I'm designing, than anything I could come up with on my own. These days, that's how I make a decision about which system to choose. Is it necessary for me to reinvent the wheel, or is there already a system that will do what I want with some adaptation? 

If a system already exists, and is free to use, then I use it. If there isn't one, I make one. I enjoy the challenge of system creation and adaptation either way.