Here’s my list of the most common mechanics design problems I see when reviewing manuscripts as an editor or developer:

1. Not working with the system. If your system is one that doesn’t grant large static bonuses to rolls, don’t do that in your mechanics. If it’s one in which rules subsystems are few and far between, don’t introduce lots of new ones. If it has a prescribed list of conditions, don’t introduce lots of new ones. Innovation doesn’t mean adding lots of new stuff; it means finding new ways to use what’s already in the system.

2. Ignoring the prime user. Who is the target for the mechanic? If it’s meant to benefit the fighter, did you design in a way such that just about anyone would benefit from it more than the fighter? That’s a problem. Make it so the fighter actually wants it.

3. Feat taxes. Is the mechanic so good that the character almost is required to take it? If so, it should probably be part of the core design, not an optional add-on.

4. Nothing burgers. Is the mechanic so dinky, underpowered, or unflavored that it’s unlikely anyone would take it. Or worse, is it clearly a mistake to take it? Or even worse, is it a mechanic that “grants” a benefit the character already has by default? That’s a problem.

5. Imbalance. Is the mechanic vastly more (or less) powerful than similar mechanics? It’s OK if not every mechanic is equally good, but it’s a problem if a mechanic is so obviously over or underpowered that readers wonder if it was even workshopped.

6. Overlapping or uncooperative mechanics. Does the mechanic overlap with another in an unsatisfying way? For example, is the player playing the archer going to be annoyed because half of two feats they want do the same thing? Or is the player going to be frustrated because the game actively punishes certain combinations that are otherwise thematically interesting by giving them uncooperative mechanics.

7. Ambiguous wordings. If 100 people read the mechanic, will the significant majority of them interpret it the same way? If there are nearly as many interpretations as there are readers, your mechanic has a problem.

8. Unintuitive mechanics. It doesn’t matter if the mechanic is working as intended if it’s inherently confusing. If you see players misinterpreting a particular rule over and over again, the problem is not the players; it’s the rule.

9. House rule culture. People will always house rule games, but if your game (or your mechanic) is one in which people have no choice but to house rule it because it’s incomprehensible, nonfunctional, or otherwise frustrating, you have a core design problem.

10. Mathapalooza. Do players (and GMs) have to do a ton of arithmetic mid-game (or mid-combat) to resolve your mechanic. A bit is fine, but if people are remarking on how much math there is, that’s a sign that there might be too much. Of course, that might be what your game is shooting for, but if it’s not, rethink your mechanic(s). The same is true for complex geometry in your spell or power design.

11. Disorganized mechanics. If your mechanic references another mechanic that references another book that is dependent on a mechanic in another part of that book or that is never defined in that book …. you get the picture. Generally, everything someone needs to understand the basics of a mechanic should appear on the page(s) where the mechanic appears.

12. Isolating rules. Does your mechanic isolate a single character (and by extension, their player)? Does your hacker end up spending hours in-game doing stuff that no one else can be involved with? Does your mage perform lots of long, complicated rituals that no one else understands or can help with? Does your system give no (or insufficient) benefit to characters working together, causing them to go off on their own? Does it lead to most of the players at the game table having nothing to do for hours? You don’t want this.

13. Flavor/rules disagreements. Does the flavor text disagree with the rules, or vice versa? Don’t leave the reader wondering if the mechanic does more (or less) than the text seems to indicate.

14. Vibe violations. Is your mechanic unfun? Punitive? Unnecessarily arbitrary? Does it disrespect the time and emotions of the players? Whether this is OK or not depends on the game. If you have a pulls-no-punches, expect-to-die sort of vibe, it’s fine. But if your game is happy-go-lucky, slow-burn, and character-focused, then suddenly a single failed roll in an adventure leads to character death, you have a problem.

15. Designer/audience mismatch. Did your customers tell you they liked or disliked something? Did they tell you something was confusing? Did they say they wanted more or less of a particular kind of mechanic or story direction? If you have feedback from your customers, listen to it. It’s fine to go with your creative gut from time to time to make a decision that disagrees with your customers, but generally, you should listen to what your fans and players are telling you, and design accordingly.

In the TTRPG industry, it’s quite common for designers to receive little to no feedback on their work. So here’s my list of the top pitfalls in adventure design:

1. Mystery writing. Foreshadowing, tension, and mystery are great in adventures, but only for players. The GM should have a high-level understanding of everything that will happen in the adventure from the opening summary. There should be no grand reveal later that wasn’t mentioned in the summary.

2. Bottlenecks and gatekeeping. Adventures should never come to a screeching halt because characters failed a roll, didn’t understand a clue, or forgot a key detail. Always have an alternative way to move forward.

3. Impossible puzzles. If you’re going to include puzzles, make sure there is sufficient info to solve them, visual support, and alternative ways past the challenge if the players get stuck.

4. Too many characters. It’s hard for players to remember a lot of characters, especially if they have similar names, appearances, or roles in the adventure. If an NPC is going to be important later, make their name, appearance, speech patterns, mannerisms, and role distinct. The same is true of places, items, and other important details.

5. Unnecessary rolls. If there are no stakes to a roll, eliminate it. Don’t simply place skill checks to give characters something to roll. If there are no consequences to failing it, eliminate it. If there is no time limit, and they can keep trying, eliminate it. If it’s something their characters already know or should know, eliminate it. Rolling is a means to an end, not an end in and of itself. Meaningless rolling dilutes stakes and wastes precious time.

6. Psychic expectations. Don’t expect players to be able to read your mind as a writer. This means that there always need to be clear ways to solve problems and find clues that the characters (not the players) can achieve. The adventure isn’t testing Bob, Danielle, Keisha, and Alan. It’s testing Zanzibario, Grok Axesmasher, Grim the Mage, and Tyronessa the Wily.

7. “Meta” mismatch. Make sure your adventure is clear on expectations for how players explore. If the adventure is going to insist that players say exactly where they are searching, every time they are looking for something, players need to know that. Otherwise, they will get tired of telling the GM every single square, piece of furniture, and tapestry they search. And the one time they don’t mention it, the player will get very frustrated when the trap goes off. Better yet, just don’t expect players to do this at all.

8. Theater of the mind fatigue. Don’t assume players can picture what you’re describing verbally in the manuscript. Most people need visuals of what’s happening. Maps, pictures, diagrams, etc. Without those, play becomes amorphous, and players have a much harder time determining what their characters will do.

9. Relying on memory. Weeks or even months might pass between sessions. And players are busy. They also might be playing in multiple games. They might be tired. Or they might just not have great memories. Don’t make characters fail because their players didn’t remember some random detail. Include reminders, be they helpful NPCs, built-in narrated recaps, or clues. This goes for the GM too! They need hints, recaps, and reminders of who, what, where, when, why, and how.

10. Static locations. Creatures should move around. If they can hear the characters, they should investigate. If they hate other creatures in a nearby area, they might fight those creatures. If the characters don’t investigate, the cultists might finish their evil ritual. It should never be a situation where every location is static until the characters enter that space.

11. Ignoring creativity. There may be a predetermined way (or ways) to solve a problem, but the adventure should allow for players to come up with alternatives. That doesn’t mean allowing them to do things their characters are incapable of, but the challenge should be flexible enough to allow for ingenuity.

12. Railroading. Nothing derails player agency faster than forcing them down the rails of a rigid adventure. Even when you really need them to do a certain thing in a certain order, players need to always feel like their decisions make a difference.

13. Ignoring roleplaying. Include built-in bonuses in the adventure for when players make passionate speeches or describe their actions in an epic way. You might suggest to the GM to give them advantage or lower the difficulty.

14. Lack of variety. While not every character will be highlighted equally in an adventure, it’s important to make sure there are a variety of different kinds of challenges. Even in dungeons, there should be opportunities to make alliances. And even in roleplay-heavy adventures, there should be times to climb a wall or pick a lock.

15. Ignoring consent. If you know your adventure has themes that might be upsetting to certain players, discuss this in the opening of the adventure and at the points where those themes become a concern. Give the GM an easy way to check with players to make sure they are OK with the concern, be it spiders, gore, racism, or something else. Once the book is in the GM’s hands, you have no control over what they do, but you can give them the tools and set the precedent for achieving consent.

16. Overcomplicated layouts. Is it crucial that the cave be shaped like a rhombus with a spiral stairway, multiple mezzanines and catwalks, alcoves for sarcophagi, floating stained-glass windows, tubes connecting sub-rooms, a moat full of acid, and blinking force fields? While interesting layouts are great, if you make it difficult for the GM and players to picture what’s being described, you increase the likelihood their characters will misunderstand the situation or that the players will get stuck in analysis paralysis.

17. Prescriptive descriptions. When describing a scene, never narrate what characters do or how they feel. You don’t know these things and have no right to determine them. It’s fine to describe eerie sounds, but don’t say that the characters are terrified of them. Give the layout of the area, but don’t indicate where the characters move or what they do.

18. Bizarre ecosystems. Dungeons should make sense. Why is there an ogre in one room and then a medusa in the next. Are they roommates? It’s OK if the dungeon is whacky, but there should be some sort of internal logic to it. There should be factions, alliances, chances of enemies fighting each other, things for them to eat, etc.

19. Lack of stakes. Why should the characters go in this dungeon? What’s in it for them? What do they get out of it? Why should they care? What happens if they fail? If you haven’t answered these as the designer, you need to make that your first priority before proceeding.

20. Grind. If your adventure is just a never-ending series of combats, especially really straightforward ones, it’s a problem. The same goes for boring traps, lack of hazards and environmental conditions, lack of breaks or downtime, and lack of roleplaying opportunities. This may be fun for some groups, but most will find adventures like these unfulfilling.

Did I miss any?