In This World

Copyright © 2023 by Ben Robbins
All rights reserved. No part of this document may be copied in any form without
the express written permission of the author.
Written by Ben Robbins
Edited by Carole Robbins
Cover Art by Al Lukehart
Published by Lame Mage Productions
lamemage.com
First Edition 2023
ISBN 978-0-9832779-5-8
Dedicated to the Hobbits and the Witches
IN THIS WORLD OTHER WAYS TO PLAY
What You Need to Play�� 5 Two Topics Collide�� 48
Getting Started�� 7 In This Life�� 51
Pick a Topic�� 8 Alternate History�� 54
In The Real World…�� 10 The Future Starts Now�� 57
Brainstorm Elements�� 10 Two-Player Games�� 59
Make Statements�� 11 Session Zero�� 61
But In This World…�� 12
What Is Different�� 12
What Is The Same�� 13 PLAY ADVICE
What It Looks Like�� 13 Teaching the Game�� 66
Other Players Build�� 14 Making Good Statements�� 69
Round Two: We All Add Detail�� 15 Tell Us More�� 70
Name the World�� 15
Topics: Culture vs Physics�� 71
Ending the Game�� 16 Difficult Topics�� 71
Table During Play�� 17
Safety Mechanics�� 72
Writing Things Down�� 18
Golden Rules of Play�� 19
Reimagine Dragons�� 20 DISCUSSION
How the Game Works�� 76
TOPICS Changing the Definition�� 82
Topics 2: World, Society, and Nature�� 25 What We Take Away�� 83
Topics 3: Professions and Work�� 26
Topics 4: Personal Lives�� 27 AFTERWORD
Topics 5: Stranger and Stranger�� 28 Thoughts & Thanks�� 86
Topics 6: Fantasy and Science Fiction�� 29 Playtesters�� 87
Reference Sheet�� 88
EXAMPLES OF PLAY
Example Game: Pets�� 32
Example Game: Education�� 43
4
What You Need to Play
In This World is a game of group creativity. Anyone should be able to
play, even if they’ve never tried a game like this before. No experience
necessary. You’ll need:
Three to five people, including yourself. Optional rules
for playing with only two players are included in the
back.
If you’re playing in person, you’ll need about a dozen
index cards, several sheets of paper, and pencils or
pens.
If you’re playing online, you’ll need a shared text
document that everyone can access.
And of course, the rules you’re reading right now.
A game takes about two hours for four people, slightly more or less as
you add or subtract players.
5
[1]
Getting Started
Nations have borders…
Police carry badges…
Dragons breathe fire…
You work for money…
That’s the world we expect. But what if some of those things were
different?
We’re going to make and explore a world together, and in this world, we
can question things and imagine alternatives.
And instead of making just one world, we’re going to make several. So
don’t worry if what we create is not what you want: you’ll have more
opportunities to explore other possibilities later.
(read this page aloud to introduce the game)
7
[2]
Pick a Topic
First, we need to pick a topic we want to explore. Your topic is going to
be the center of the whole game, so it should be about something we’re
all familiar with and interested in talking about.
Your topic can be any aspect of the world, big or small. Brainstorm
a few topics together, then pick one as a group. If you don’t have
an idea that everyone is interested in, keep trying. We’re not inventing
anything new yet, just choosing something that already exists.
We come up with cities, law enforcement, dating, toys,
nations, space exploration, and education. Which one
interests us the most today..?
Don’t worry if you don’t like how your topic plays out in the real world
because, in this game, we’re going to explore alternatives and make
things different.
8
1 2 3
1 Art Holidays Doctors
2 Pets Dating Education
3 Cities Transportation Journalism
4 Family Money Elections
5 Marriage Tattoos Religion
6 Computers Nations Advertising
4 5 6
1 Houses Music Clothing
2 Government Food Jobs
3 Libraries Law Enforcement Museums
4 Taxes Zoos Sports
5 Language Shopping Recycling
6 Corporations Toys War
You can look at these topics for inspiration or pick one randomly by rolling
two six-sided dice, once for the column and once for the row. Even if you
roll randomly, it’s good to have options, so roll a few times and make a list
to choose from. If you want even more ideas, there are other lists later on,
but this is a good starting point.
9
[3]
In The Real World…
Before we make anything up, we need to talk about how our topic works
in the real world. We’re not inventing anything new yet, just discussing
what is normally true.
[A]
Brainstorm Elements
If you were talking about this topic or describing how it worked, what
objects or things would come up? What are the pieces of the puzzle or
the important ingredients? Brainstorm a list of elements.
The point of this step is to start thinking about the topic in more detail.
You aren’t stuck with the elements you come up with, so don’t worry if
you overlook something or if your elements don’t seem perfect.
Five to seven elements is about right, but it will depend on your subject.
You may think of many more. Write your elements down on a spare piece
of paper. You’ll use them during the next step but won’t need them later
in the game.
If your topic is Cities, elements could include roads,
buildings, neighborhoods, utilities, houses, mass
transit, and people.
For Law Enforcement, elements could include police,
suspects, victims, laws, judges, juries, prisons, and
convicts.
It is often useful to add “people” as an element if your topic is something
people interact with.
10
[B]
Make Statements
Now that we’ve warmed up by thinking of its elements, we’re going to
describe how the topic actually works. The statements we make now will
be the framework for the rest of our game.
Take turns saying something that is obvious and generally accepted
as true about our topic in the real world. Start your statement with an
element or the topic itself and then say something about it. Keep each
statement simple and say as little as possible.
Cities have roads
Weddings are planned
Teachers are paid professionals
Food comes from plants or animals
None of your statements should be surprising or controversial. The natural
reaction should be “Yes, of course that’s true”. If it isn’t, it’s probably not
a good statement. Feel free to discuss to make sure everyone thinks they
make sense.
If there is an element you did not think of before and that you need to
make a statement, you are free to add it now.
Keep going until you have 10-12 statements. Write each statement
on a separate index card, large enough to be easily read. Arrange the
statements in alphabetical order to make it easier to refer to them as
you play.
Set your elements aside. Now that you have made statements, you won’t
need the elements anymore.
More Tips for Statements
A statement doesn’t have to be something that is true every single time,
just generally true or expected.
Police generally carry badges, even if every cop
doesn’t, so it’s still a valid statement.
Avoid value judgments that don’t tell us anything specific.
We might all agree that “capitalism sucks”, but that
doesn’t tell us how or why. “Capitalism measures
people by how much money they have” is more useful.
11
[4]
But In This World…
Now we’re going to imagine new worlds where things are different.
Each player is going to start one new world and create the initial vision
that we’ll explore together. Once each world is done, we’ll set it aside
and start over again, repeating this process until we have a whole string
of worlds. Each will be a different take on the same topic and statements
but otherwise completely independent from the others.
So far we’ve discussed what we made, but from now on, we won’t
collaborate directly. Instead, we’ll take turns contributing independently
and building on what other players have said. When it’s someone else’s
turn, don’t coach or give them suggestions. Give them time to come
up with their own ideas. It’s also critical that we listen to each other and
don’t contradict what has already been established about each world.
Not every world will turn out the way you want, but since you’ll be making
several, you’ll have other chances to craft something you like.
[A]
What Is Different
To make a new world, one player volunteers to start. It must be someone
who hasn’t already made a world during this game.
First, that player picks one statement and describes how, in this
world, it is NOT the same. Keep it simple, and avoid touching on any
of the other statements. Flip over that statement’s index card face down.
One of our statements is “priests worship gods”. But
the player says that, in this world, priests command
the gods to do their bidding and punish them if they
fail.
In another game, we have a statement that “robots are
programmed”. But in this world they must be taught
after they are built, the way a person would be. Robots
have to go to school.
12
[B]
What Is The Same
Second, that player may pick up to two statements that are still true
and stay the same in this world. If necessary, describe how they mesh
with the statement that was already declared to be different. Flip over
those index cards.
You do not have to pick any, if there are no statements you want to
ensure remain true.
The first player decides that the statement “people
worship gods” is still true. They describe how the
common folk weep for the suffering of their deities,
enslaved by the acolytes.
In the other game, the first player decides that, yes,
the statement “robots are manufactured” is still true.
They are just blank slates until they are trained.
[C]
What It Looks Like
Third, that player may also tell us broadly what this world looks like—is
it modern, shiny futuristic domed cities, in outer space, ancient tribes?
Otherwise, we assume the world looks like ours now.
They can also say whether the statements that were different had always
been that way in this world or whether it used to be like ours and then
changed.
They describe the world as a primitive land of ziggurats
and broad canals irrigating clay-walled farmlands.
In the other game, the first player says it is basically
our world, but just a few years into a more advanced
technological future.
13
[D]
Other Players Build
The first player has set the premise of this new world, and now it is the
other players’ job to build on that idea.
Everyone takes a turn except the player who started the world. Players
can go in any order. Choose one of these three options:
Something Is Different: Pick an unused statement
and say how it is not the same in this world. Describe
what it’s like instead.
Something Is the Same: Pick an unused statement
and say how it is basically the same in this world.
Describe how that fits with what we’ve already said.
Add Detail: Pick something that was already said
about this world and tell us more or reveal some other
facet of it.
Anything you describe must respect what’s already been established in
this world. Never contradict what’s already been said.
The first two choices are the same options the first player used to start the
world. To Add Detail, just say more about something that was already
said. Explore the implications of what we know, describe how it works,
or how it impacts lives. Don’t change the idea, just add more and build
on what they said. You can even add detail to a previously added detail:
A player adds detail to “priests command gods” and
says that gods hide from mortals, but hunters ferret
out their hidden shrines and drag them back to the
cities, where they are imprisoned in towering ziggurats
to serve mortals.
Flip each statement card face down as it is used. When you’re contributing,
avoid talking about other statements that haven’t been used yet–leave
them for someone who wants to address them later.
14
[E]
Round Two: We All Add Detail
Set aside all the statement cards.
Now that each player has contributed, every player gets to go again, in
any order, including the player who started the world. But this time, each
player can only Add Detail to something that has already been said.
Focus on exploring what we have already established about this world.
Don’t change existing ideas. Dig into what we already know or fill in gaps
we haven’t touched upon.
[F]
Name the World
Discuss together and give the world a title that describes the themes or
ideas that emerged.
World of Peace Without Kings, World of Cairns in the
Meadow, World of Old Justice, World of Star-Fire,
World of Reformers
This world is done! Turn its page face down and set it aside.
Go back to the beginning of this step (Step 4, “But In This World…”) so
another player who has not started a world yet can create one. Turn all
the statement cards face up and put them back in alphabetical order.
Once each player has started a world, go to the next step to end your
game.
15
[5]
Ending the Game
After each player has made a world about your topic, your game is done.
Congratulations! In just a few hours, you’ve created things together that
never existed before. You have brought something new into the world.
Maybe you still have questions about these worlds or things you are
burning to add. Or maybe you are already scheming how to delve into
these ideas more in another game, a story, or just in your daydreams.
Ultimately, each of us will walk away with different facets of these worlds
stuck in our brain. We won’t all be interested in the same things, and
that’s okay. The thoughts you take away with you are what’s important.
And maybe exploring these ideas together will inspire each of us to look
at the world around us a little differently…
(read this page aloud to end the game)
16
Table During Play
TOPIC
STATEMENTS
WORLD #3
PREVIOUS
WORLDS
17
Writing Things Down
It’s useful to write down what each player adds to the world so you can
refer to it as you play and not lose track of what’s already been said.
It’s also nice to have a record of your worlds that you can look back on
after the game. The “Examples of Play” chapter includes a complete
demonstration of the format described here.
Put each world on a separate sheet of paper. Leave
space at the top to write the world’s name when you’re
done. Put the first player’s name in the corner so you
can keep track of who already started a world.
Every time a player takes their turn and adds something
to the world, write a short note on a new line. It doesn’t
have to include every detail, just enough to capture
the concept.
Preface each contribution with the matching symbol
for that option (x, =, or +), and put the original
statement at the end in parentheses. That makes it
easier to read and digest. It is also useful to indent
the “something is the same” statements from the first
player in each world to make it clear those are part of
the first player’s turn.
When you start a new world, flip over the sheet so it
doesn’t distract you from the current world.
If you’re playing online, you can put everything in one shared document.
To keep track of which statements have been used, copy the whole
original statement list to each new world, then delete each statement
as it gets used (and then delete the remainder once that world is done).
What you say is always more important than what you write down. If your
group finds it’s more relaxing to make worlds without taking notes, that’s
fine too.
18
Golden Rules of Play
If you’re wondering what kind of mindset to bring to the table, here are
principles that are essential to the game:
Don’t contradict what someone else said (or even
things you created earlier). Embrace and build on what
other people contributed.
Don’t take other people’s turns. If someone else is
contributing, let them do it. Don’t coach. You may
have a great idea, but if it’s someone else’s turn, hold
it and wait, or talk about it after the game.
Always talk before you write. What you say to the
other players is what matters. What gets written down
afterward is just for reference.
The people playing are more important than the
fiction you make. Use the safety mechanics that suit
your group.
Because there’s no turn order, players can get excited to jump in and
contribute. That’s part of the fun. It’s up to the table to decide who goes
next. Sometimes the very last player in a round needs a minute to think
of what they want to add. That’s fine. Just relax and wait.
If you forget everything else, remember that the people at the table are
more important than the game or the fiction you’re making.
19
Reimagine Dragons
Instead of exploring real-world ideas, you can use the game to explore
concepts from fantasy or science fiction. You can even reimagine whole
fictional settings as one topic: change the Star Wars universe or build
a D&D setting for your next game that doesn’t hinge on the standard
stereotypes of elves and dwarves.
Dragons pillage kingdoms…but in this world, dragons
are sworn to defend their realm.
Jedi fight… but in this world, Jedi cherish the Force
that flows through all living things and refuse to kill.
When your topic is something that doesn’t exist, your statements are
what people in our world expect it to be like. Dragons don’t exist, but if
you asked people about them, most would agree that dragons breathe
fire, have wings, and hoard treasure, so those are good statements. If
you’re starting from some other source material, like a book or movie,
your statements are things that are true in that original fiction.
It is critical that the topic you start with already exists and is not something
new you are creating. It also has to be something everyone is familiar
with. Just like with real-world topics, we need that shared understanding
as a foundation to build new things together.
20
Those are all the rules you need
to play. The rest of book has
more options, tools, and tips.
21
TOPICS
Need an idea for a topic? Want something to shake up your normal
thinking or take you in unexpected directions? These tables provide a
whole range of possibilities to launch your game.
23
You can browse these lists for inspiration or roll randomly and see what
you get. There are six tables total, including the first on page nine. To
get a random entry, just roll three six-sided dice: first to pick the table,
then to pick the column and the row. Or pick a specific table and roll just
two dice. Even if you roll randomly, it’s good for the group to have a few
options to choose from and discuss what they like, so roll a few times and
make a short list to pick from.
Each table has a broad theme that includes a range of ideas. The last
table covers topics of fantasy and science fiction, in case you want to
explore fiction instead of the real world.
Some of the topics may seem redundant. Why include Marriage when
you already have Weddings? Wouldn’t you talk about the same things?
But even slight variations can lead to very different games because they
change the focus of what you’re talking about. Weddings and Marriage
are obviously related, but one highlights the ceremony, and the other is
about the ongoing relationship. They potentially address totally different
issues.
These tables also include some entries that are sub-topics of other ideas
because picking just one aspect of a bigger concept lets you zoom in
and focus. If your topic is Education, you might talk about teachers or
classrooms, but if you actually picked Teachers or Classrooms as your
topic, you would automatically dig much deeper into that one idea and
explore a tighter range of possibilities.
Likewise, exploring a profession or a role people play can be very
different than tinkering with their actual field. Choosing Scientists as your
topic would probably be nothing like picking Science itself.
Which is better, a broader topic or a much narrower one? The answer is
whichever interests you the most at the moment. Both work great.
24
[2]
WORLD, SOCIETY, AND NATURE
1 2 3
1 Seasons Calendars Pollution
2 Cemeteries Flags Weather
3 Internet Games Genetics
4 Movies History Roads
5 Parks Copyright Disease
6 Insects Units of Measure Trees
4 5 6
1 Maps Guns Inheritance
2 Sculpture Voting Camping
3 Energy Weapons Commuting
4 Schools Private Property Writing
5 Construction Songs Mass Production
6 Trade Animals Treaties
25
[3]
PROFESSIONS AND WORK
1 2 3
1 Banks Crime Job Interviews
2 Restaurants Farms Resumes
3 Prisons Stores Hackers
4 Military Soldiers Actors
5 Publishing Classrooms Teachers
6 Police Healthcare Artists
4 5 6
1 Street Racing Politicians Spies
2 Vacations Pirates Lawyers
3 Royalty Theatre Mining
4 Private Investigators Hospitality Hotels
5 Judges Unemployment Churches
6 Scientists Diplomats Meetings
26
[4]
PERSONAL LIVES
1 2 3
1 Fashion Credit Cards Kitchens
2 Hair Social Media Bathrooms
3 Dolls Reunions Eyeglasses
4 Housecleaning Cocktails Drugs
5 Cats Insurance Cosmetics
6 Puberty Exercise Sleep
4 5 6
1 Romance Diaries Gifts
2 Phones Cars Cameras
3 Privacy Jewelry Birthdays
4 Adoption Contraceptives Parties
5 Weddings Gardens Books
6 Furniture Video Games Neighborhoods
27
[5]
STRANGER AND STRANGER
1 2 3
1 Alphabets Roleplaying Games Puppets
2 Circuses Gangs Water
3 Poetry Surgery Predators
4 High School Birdwatching Prosthetics
5 Afterlife Doors Mascots
6 Martial Arts Death Xmas
4 5 6
1 Gambling Hunting Heraldry
2 Night Planets Costumes
3 Archaeology Evolution Tarot
4 Parades Contracts Astrology
5 Storms Dreams Birth
6 Souls Summer Camp Musical Instruments
28
[6]
FANTASY AND SCIENCE FICTION
1 2 3
1 Dragons Magic Monsters
2 Curses Priests Armor
3 Prophecy Fantasy Races Elves
4 Castles Gods Treasure
5 Wizards the Chosen One Werewolves
6 Tombs Swords & Sorcery Ghosts
4 5 6
1 Robots Aliens Mecha
2 UFOs Telepathy the Spice Melange
3 Colonies Cybernetic Implants Space Ships
4 Terraforming Interstellar Travel Androids
5 Clones Superheroes Jedi
6 Alien Abduction Space Suits Time Travel
29
EXAMPLES OF PLAY
When you put it all together, what does playing In This World actually
look like?
31
[ EXAMPLE GAME ]
In This World: Pets

This script shows what a complete game would look like, start to finish. A
few repeated sections are abridged, like creating the middle worlds, but
otherwise all the stages of play are shown.
PICKING A TOPIC
Ada, Bram, Cat, and Dana sit down to play. Dana has
played before, but the others haven’t, so she’s teaching
the game.
Subject matter They start by reading the intro page aloud, then discuss
we don’t like
what topic they want to explore. They talk about police and
elections but decide those feel too heavy. Dana reminds
them that the worlds they make might be quite different
than the real world, but still, no one is up for it.
Collective hmmmms around the table, so they try
brainstorming lighter topics. Schools? Trains? Pets? Pets!
That feels like exactly the kind of mood everyone is in, and
it’s something everyone at the table knows about and can
relate to. Perfect.
Narrowing the Bram: “Could we narrow it even further and do just dogs
topic
or cats?”
Cat: “Don’t make it weird.”
Dana: “We could, and that would work. It would probably
mean talking more about the nature of those particular
animals than talking about the whole idea of having
pets. Do we want to do that?” They discuss and decide
that, nope, pets in general is a better topic for today.
Making things Ada: “Oooh, what if pets could talk??!”
up too soon
Dana: “Hold your horses! We’re not making stuff up yet.
First, we’re going to talk about what pets are like in
the real world, so we all have a common foundation
to build on.”
Cat: “Did you just say ‘a common foundation to build on’?”
32
Dana: “It’s from the book! Maybe you don’t think hairballs
work the same way I do! Now’s the time to find out.
But, really, what we’re doing is getting warmed up,
thinking about the topic of pets so that when we start
making new worlds, we’ve got a lot of material to work
with. We’re not inventing anything new… yet!”
Bram: “Now I’m just thinking about hairballs…”
BRAINSTORMING ELEMENTS
Dana: “So if we’re talking about pets, what are our
elements? We want a list of objects or things that
relate to pets or come up if you talk about them.”
Ada: “Toys!”
Dana: “Pet toys? Absolutely.”
Cat: “What about wild animals? Would that be a good
element? It’s an animal that isn’t a pet, but you could
adopt it, like taking in a stray or a feral animal.”
Dana: “There’s no real downside to adding it because if
it isn’t useful we just won’t use it. Does wild animals
sound good to everyone?” Everyone else agrees it
makes sense.
They also add food, veterinarians, cages, and houses. The
concept of ‘people’ seems useful so they add it too.
MAKING STATEMENTS
Since making statements is a vital step, Dana has them
read those rules aloud.
Dana: “So who’s got an idea for a statement? We need
about ten to twelve.”
Statements Bram: “How about ‘if you get a pet, it belongs to you’?”
that don’t
start with an Dana: “Good, but we should rephrase it so the statement
element or the
topic
always starts with either an element or the topic. That
will make it easier to refer to as we play.”
Bram: “Like ‘people legally own their pets’?” They write it
down.
Ada: “People live longer than their pets”. They write it
down.
Statements Cat: “Pets are only certain kinds of animals?”
that aren’t
always true Ada: “But that’s not true, right? Some people have really
weird pets.”
Dana: “That’s okay. It doesn’t have to be something that is
always true, just something that is generally true. We
33
expect that pets are usually cats or dogs or birds or
whatever.”
Bram: “I mean, yeah, ‘people live longer than their pets’
isn’t always true either, right?”
Exactly. And that’s okay because it is generally true.
Adding an Ada asks about animal shelters. We didn’t think of this
element we
didn’t think of
element before, but it certainly is part of the whole idea of
pets, so they add it after the fact, along with the statement
“shelters take in unwanted pets”.
Negative Ada: “We’re still not making anything up yet, right? So how
statements
about ‘pets don’t talk’?”
Dana explains that, while that’s true, it’s not really saying
what pets are like, it’s saying what they are not. A negative
statement isn’t illegal, but this idea doesn’t really relate to
the concept of pets. It’s a weird observation instead of an
obvious truth.
Statements Ada: “How about ‘pets are animals’?”
that overlap
Bram: “Don’t we already have ‘pets are only certain types
of animals’? Is that redundant?”
Dana: “Good point. Yeah, it kind of overlaps, and we
generally want all our statements to be independent.”
They agree to leave it out.
Too many They have even more ideas, but they already have twelve,
statements
so Dana points out they should stop. Too many statements
will make it harder to play. These aren’t the only statements
that could be true about pets, but these are the ones
they’re going to use today. If they played again, they might
come up with a totally different set.
Their final list of statements is:
Collars identify pets
Pets are common
Pets are only certain types of animals
Pets are tame
Pets live with their owners
Pets provide companionship
People legally own their pets
People can have multiple pets
People feed their pets
People live longer than their pets
People name their pets
Shelters take in unwanted pets
34
Unused Cat: “It seems like we didn’t use a lot of the elements to
elements
start our statements? Is that okay?”
Dana: “Yep, totally fine. By thinking of elements, we
started thinking about all the ideas related to pets,
which helped us come up with good statements. Plus,
a lot of those elements got used in the statements,
even if they weren’t at the front.” They arrange the
statements in alphabetical order and put the elements
away.
Bram: “Aren’t we going to need the elements later?”
Dana: “No, they were just there to help us make statements.
Now that we have the statements, we don’t need them
anymore. It’s all about the statements!”
Two squirrels look in the window and wonder what is going
on, then go about their business.
MAKING WORLDS
Leap of faith Dana: “Time to make some worlds! We’re each going to
get a turn, but who wants to go first?”
Bram: “What do we need to do?”
Dana: “I could explain it, but honestly, someone should just
volunteer to go first and we’ll jump in. Leap of faith!
That keeps everyone from sitting around pondering
whether they have a great idea or should just wait.”
Ada: “Okay, fine, I’ll go.”
No coaching Cat: “Pets that talk!”
Dana: “Hey, no prompting! I know you’re joking, but this
is actually an important thing I should have said: Up
until now, we’ve been brainstorming and discussing,
but from now on, we’re each contributing individually.
We shouldn’t make suggestions or coach each other.
Just wait and see what ideas we each come up with.”
Cat: “Sorry! I actually like talking pets!”
Dana: “That’s my bad. I should have explained we were
changing gears. Ada, you still good to go?” Ada
confirms that she is undaunted and good to go.
1ST WORLD OF PETS

Dana explains that Ada is making a new world, and to start,
all she has to do is pick a statement and then say how in
this world it isn’t true and then tell us how it’s different. Ada
looks over the list for a second.
Ada: “Okay, this statement says ‘pets are only certain types
of animals’, like cats or dogs or whatever. Yeah, that’s
35
not true. People have all sorts of animals as pets.
Ocelots, badgers, vultures, whatever. Pretty much
anything goes.”
X Pets are only certain types of animals
Cat: “I want a badger!”
Everyone agrees that this may indeed be a far superior
world to our own, but we’re just getting started.
Dana: “The rest of us are going to add more detail to this
world, but before we do, we need you to tell us some
more. First of all, are there any of the statements that
you think should still be true? You can choose up to
two, but you don’t have to choose any if you don’t
want to.”
Ada: “Pets live with their owners’, yeah, definitely true.
That ibex is in your living room, curled up on the
couch. And, umm, ‘pets are common’, yeah, everyone
has pets, but all crazy pets! Both of those are true.”
= Pets live with their owners
= Pets are common
Cat: “Oooh, I’m so glad you picked those… and uh, not
anything else…”
Dana: “Hold on! Ada, first, you can also tell us what this
world looks like. Is it like our modern world? Are we
on some alien planet? Do we all live in caves? What?”
Ada: “How much detail?”
Dana: “Just a general vision for the world if you have an
idea. Otherwise, the default is ‘it’s like the normal
world except for this weird stuff I’m describing’, which
is totally fine.”
Ada: “Yeah, I think it’s totally like the normal world because
that’s funnier. People taking their seals for walks in the
park on a Sunday afternoon, all that stuff.”
They read the next section aloud, explaining the choices all
the other players have to build on Ada’s premise.
Bram: “I think Cat is about to burst.”
Cat: “I’ve got an idea! Can I go now? Is that fine with
everyone?” Dana and Bram are both fine with it.
“Okay, ‘pets are tame’? Oh, hell no. These are wild
animals! Sure, some species might be more chill than
others, but when your ocelot gets cross you just have
to lock it in the bedroom while it climbs the walls.
36
People try to take their emus for walks and get chased
down the street. Hilarious chaos everywhere!”
X Pets are tame
Checking for Bram: “But Ada, you mentioned someone talking a seal for
contradictions
a walk and it sounded fine. Does that contradict what
you said?”
Ada: “Oh no it’s great! I love it!.”
Cat: “Wild animal chaos high five!” And they high five.
Dana: “In that case I want to add that ‘pets provide
companionship’ is not really true. Well kind of true,
but really more that they provide constant danger.
Everyone is showing up to work covered in bandages,
with eagle scratches and octopus sucker marks. Totally
normal.”
X Pets provide companionship
Bram: “Hmmm, I can’t decide whether to add a detail or
use a statement.”
Dana: “Well spoiler, we’re all going to get to add more
details in round two, but this will be your last chance
to use one of the statements.”
Bram: “Well okay then! I’m gonna say the statement
‘people legally own their pets’ is not true. It’s more
like you’re legally responsible for the animal. So if your
alligator goes on a rampage down Main Street, that’s
on you. Or it’s expected that you are going to keep
this gator from biting anyone, but you don’t actually
own it.”
X People legally own pets
Round Two Dana: “Okay, everyone’s gone, so now we’re going to do
another round. Everyone gets to go again, including
Ada, but this time we can only add details to what
we’ve already said.”
Too many the Cat: “Hmmm, it looks like, except for the two things
same or too
many different
Ada said were true at the beginning, we always said
statements were different in this world, not the same.
Is that okay?”
Dana: “Yeah, don’t worry about that. It can go either way.
It totally depends on us and what we want to make. It
doesn’t have to balance out or anything. The ideas we
come up with are what’s important.”
Going twice in Bram: “I just went at the end of the last round, but I can
a row
go again now?” Yep. “Okay, I don’t want to get heavy,
37
but I want to address the moral basis of keeping all
these wild animals in our studio apartments. I want to
say that maybe the natural environment is a little more
messed up, so people do this to help protect these
animals. It’s obviously whacky, but it comes from good
intentions.”
Dana: “I can’t do anything to save the habitat of the white
rhino, so I’ll let one live in my rec room?”
Bram: “Exactly.”
Cat: “Totally good solution!”
Adding a Ada: “Can I add a detail to an added detail? I want to say,
detail about an
added detail
yeah, because of what Bram said, it’s actually unusual
and embarrassing to not have a pet because then you
aren’t doing your part to save the animals. Everybody
has wild pets!”
Cat: “And in that case, I’m adding that you know social
media posts are just… all the pet pics. Nothing but
pet pics. All the species, all the cute pics, all the pics of
someone not realizing they’re about to be mauled. No
one cares about your latte art, they want to see your
osprey. Or maybe no one wants to see your osprey
because they’re too busy trying to not get mauled by
their own wild animals, but you want to show everyone
your osprey, so you do.”
Bram: “Basically the best internet.”
Dana: “Yes! But I want to add that it’s not a competition.
People aren’t bragging about having a more exotic
or more special species than someone else. What
matters is that you’re helping any animal. There’s not
some hierarchy.”
Cat: “In other words… no pecking order?” The group
awards Cat one demerit for puns. And that’s one detail
added by each player, so round two is done.
Naming the Dana: “Now we need to brainstorm a name for this world.
world
Nothing fancy, just some title we can use to refer to it
and know what we’re talking about.”
They throw out a few ideas before settling on “World of
Wild Wild Pets”.
Cat: “I can’t believe you guys didn’t like ‘Gators In The Dog
Park’.”
Moving on to Dana: “And now we set that world aside and make another
the next world
one. World of Wild Wild Pets is done!”
Cat: “Wait, what?”
38
Dana: “Yep! Moving on! Buckle up because that’s just the
first world we’re going to make. There are three more
to come!”
Cat: “But I liked that world…”
Dana: “You might like the next one more. We’ll see!”
They relax and chat about the world.
Ada: “It’s funny, but I think it’s even better because it’s
understated. Like, yeah, I have an anteater with me
in the checkout line, no big deal. I would watch that
show.”
2ND & 3RD WORLDS OF PETS

The next two worlds go smoothly now that everyone has
the hang of the procedure.
Bram starts the second, where instead of living with their
owners, pets all live in a central habitat / zoo in each
city, and their owners can watch them on live streams.
There’s some concern about disease or infection and plain
old mess, which drives keeping humans and their pets
physically separated. It’s strange because the relationship
is effectively one-sided: the people adore their pets from
afar, but the animals never see the humans or even know
they exist.
No adding Cat thinks of a new statement she wants to add to explore
statements
this world, but Dana explains that once we start play, we
don’t add any new statements, no matter how good they
are. There could be a lot of different statements that are
true about pets, but for this session we’re just sticking with
the ones we started with.
The third world is started by Dana. Instead of people being
able to have multiple pets, in this world a single pet is
shared by the entire village. Yes, it lives with its owner(s)
because they take turns keeping it in their huts. They feed
it, and once it has eaten every scrap of food in their house,
it moves on to live in the next house.
Every village has one, and it’s something between a sacred
icon and a mascot, with the whole tribe turning out for
ceremonies to honor it. And feed it more snacks.
4TH WORLD OF PETS

They’re ready to make their fourth and final world. Cat is
the only one who hasn’t started a world yet, so it’s her turn.
Ada: “Is it talking pets?”
39
Cat: “Omg, callback. No, I have a totally different idea. The
statement “people live longer than their pets”? Well,
in this world, no, that’s not true. Pets live FOREVER.
They never die.”
X People live longer than pets
Tell us more Dana: “Tell us more!”
Cat: “Yeah, it’s like… it’s not weird. This is normal here. I
also want to say that two more statements are true.
Yes, shelters take in unwanted pets, except that it’s
really after the owners die. And yes, pets provide
companionship, absolutely. It’s a lifetime bond.”
= Shelters take in unwanted pets
= Pets provide companionship
Ada: “But are the pets really unwanted if the person died?
Or is that a quibble?”
Cat: “I think that’s a quibble. The basic idea is the same
that shelters take in stray pets.” Good enough. “And
it otherwise looks pretty much like our world.”
Dana: “Except pets live forever???”
Cat: “Yep! Totally normal.”
Asking Bram: “I have so many questions.”
clarifying
questions Dana: “Questions clarifying things that Cat said, that you
want to ask now, or questions about more parts of the
world that we’re going to add later?”
Bram: “Uhhhh, I guess the latter?”
Ada: “I want to know, do you mean like pets can’t die by
any means?”
Cat: “Uh, sure. Yes. In this world, that’s just how pets are.”
People sit for a second to process and ponder this.
Dana: “Okay, I’m going to make kind of an easy one. No,
people don’t own multiple pets. If you’ve got this
bond with this one pet that’s going to live forever, no
second pet.”
X People can own multiple pets
Checking for Bram: “Okay, I have an idea, but it’s pretty bonkers. I feel
contradictions,
asking
like I need to check to make sure this doesn’t mess up
permission the premise.”
Dana: “Always good to ask!”
Bram: “Okay, so the idea is that pets live forever but people
die, right? I want to add a detail that, yes, people die,
40
but they also reincarnate. They are reborn and start a
new life, and when you come back, somewhere out
there, your same pet is waiting for you.”
Ada: “Whaaaat?”
Bram: “Does that work? Because you wouldn’t really
remember your past life, but your pet totally knows it’s
you the moment they see you.”
Cat: “So each person in their new life is looking for their
soulmate pet???”
Bram: “Yes!”
Dana: “Cat, does that mess your original premise of people
dying and pets not?”
Cat: “Are you kidding? No, I am all in.”
Ada: “Then I want to add another detail, which is that since,
like Cat said at the start, each person only has one
pet, if the person and the pet don’t find each other
in a particular life, the pet just keeps waiting, and that
person doesn’t have a pet until maybe the next life.”
Time for round two and more details.
Cat: “So I’m adding the detail that animal shelters are full
of animals just looking at every person who comes in,
waiting and hoping to see their owner from a past life?
Patient dogs, waiting years and years.”
Ada: “I’m not crying, you’re crying!”
Dana: “I think it’s sweet! Dog faithfulness is eternal! Umm,
and cats too!”
Bram: “Yeah, that’s harder to believe.”
Cat: “Hey.”
Dana: “I want to add a detail to clarify that even though
everyone is reincarnating, it’s not commonly known.
Some people might believe it, but most people have
no idea. We know pets don’t die, but that’s just normal
science in this world. When people find their soul-pet,
they just think they found an awesome pet.”
Bram: “But the pet knows.” Yes! “Okay, I want to add a
detail. Do people ever have the wrong pet? Yeah sure
it can happen, like someone dies and their friend or
sibling takes the pet instead of bringing it to a shelter,
just like would happen all the time. But the bond isn’t
there. That cat never really likes you.”
Cat: “…”
No idea what Ada: “Aww, it’s all so good. I don’t know what to make to
to make
cap it off.”
41
Dana: “No pressure, just whatever detail you want to add
is good.”
They wait a little bit before Ada comes up with her detail.
Ada: “Okay, so people and pets have these bonds that
survive through all the people’s new lives. But how
does it start? I want to say that way back in the dawn
of whatever, the pet saw the person and chose them.
That’s how each pet bond began, back hundreds of
years ago or whatever.”
Bram: “Awww! That’s adorable.”
Dana: “This is such a sweet world! What do we want to
call it?”
Cat: “No Dogs Go To Heaven!”
Booo! They consider calling it the world of Soul-Pets, but
decide on Eternally Faithful Pets instead.
ENDING THE GAME

Each player has made a world, so they read the closing
page aloud. Then they sit and chat about what they
made, all the beautiful worlds of pets and what they found
interesting about them.
And that’s the end of their game!
Inspired by an actual game of In This World played with Sean, Dave,

Stacey, and Will, but the players described in this script are completely
fictional and the worlds they create differ substantially from that original
session.
42
[ EXAMPLE GAME ]
In This World: Education

This is an example of what a three-player game would look like if you were
writing your worlds down or recording them in a shared text document.
ELEMENTS
Teachers, Students, Classes, Books, Schools, Classrooms, Tests, Grades
STATEMENTS
Classes are organized by subject
Classes are taught in schools
Education affects your future success
Education is mandatory
Grades measure student’s success
Students graduate and stop going to school
Students are grouped into grade levels
Students are in classes together
Teachers are paid professionals
Students are tested
Teachers teach students
1ST WORLD OF DRAFTED TEACHERS

X [ Teachers are paid professionals ] IN THIS WORLD, teachers are
random people drafted from the community, changing every
semester.
= Teachers teach students
= Students are in classes together
Normal world, but earlier technology, more like the 70s than the
present.
X [ Classes are organized by subject ] The teacher decides what to
teach their students, and curriculum depends on what they know.
A carpenter might decide to teach woodworking but might also
choose to teach math.
+ Selection of teachers is random, not based on skills or qualifications.
More like jury duty.
43
(Round 2)
+ A person can refuse to teach if they think they are not qualified,
but it’s a big deal and hard to get out of it. There is a public hearing
where they state their reservations and why they don’t think they
are worthy of this duty.
+ Different teachers may have completely conflicting points of view,
but that just helps prepare students for the real world.
+ As a student, you’re stuck dealing with whatever teachers you
draw, good or bad, but that’s part of the experience.
2ND WORLD OF RAISED BY WOLVES

X [ Teachers teach students ] IN THIS WORLD, kids are thrown
together in a room, totally isolated from the outside world, and
they have to figure things out for themselves. They are building
their knowledge from scratch, rediscovering whole fields of
knowledge.
= Education is mandatory, all kids are sent into these black
boxes
= Students graduate and stop going to school because when
they finally pass all the tests they are free and re-enter society
Some kind of future society, strange geometric buildings and
monorails, domed cities, etc.
= Students are tested, yes, and they keep getting retested on the
same subject until they pass, which can be quite challenging since
they have to figure everything out for themselves.
= Students are in classes together. They’re stuck with the people in
their group, and they pass or fail together. Their fellow students
are the only people who can help them learn.
(Round 2)
+ Sometimes this isolation leads to breakthroughs or new
discoveries. For example, these students didn’t learn fractions but
they unwittingly invented a whole new math system.
+ And that’s exactly why society does this. Dozens of different
systems of thinking have been invented this way, and watchers
pick the best ones to adopt society-wide. It’s how we shake up our
thinking.
+ In extreme cases, bad students are shunned as deadweight within
their own classroom so they don’t slow the group down.
44
3RD WORLD OF FIELD TRIPS
X [ Classes are taught in schools ] IN THIS WORLD, there are no school
buildings. Classes of kids wander around the fields and cities with
their teachers, learning wherever they are. Studying flowers while
walking in a meadow and architecture while examining a bridge.
= Teachers teaches students
This world is a little more utopian, near future, less industrial with a
better balance of urban and rural living.
X [ Grades measure student’s success ] You are there to learn, not to
be tested or dissected with measurements.
= Education affects your future success because what you learn
totally affects your future, not because of grades but because of
the experiences you gain.
(Round 2)
+ It’s a powerful life experience, not just book learning.
+ Sometimes students wind up somewhere they really like and feel
they belong. They just drop out of the class and wind up living there,
becoming part of the community and taking up glassblowing, etc.
+ In fact, if all your students come back, you’re not really a successful
teacher. The whole idea is that they should outgrow you and find
their own lives.
Inspired by an actual game of In This World played with Jem, Haskell,

and Mike, revised and edited to present a clearer example.
45
OTHER WAYS TO PLAY
You could play a hundred games of In This World and never run out
of topics to explore. But there is also more than one way to play the
game…
47
[ E X P E R I M E N TA L R U L E S ]
Two Topics Collide

Explore intersecting ideas
The topic you pick provides the creative focus for your game. But instead
of a single idea, you can start with two related topics and explore how
those two concepts overlap or intersect. Instead of examining either as a
whole, you’ll look specifically at how the two topics interact.
Money and Sports are both very broad topics. With
Sports, you could talk about a wide range of games
and play. With Money, you could talk about jobs and
banking and how we use wealth as a measure of self-
worth.
But if you choose to play one game exploring the
intersection of Sports+Money, you’re digging into a
much tighter concept, such as how money influences
play, professional teams as a business, etc.
Sometimes, you will have one topic that you know you want to explore,
and then add a second theme to narrow it, such as starting with the
topic of War but then tightening your focus by adding Technology. Other
times, you might choose a more unexpected combination to stretch and
think about interactions you normally might not consider. Combinations
like Religion+Weather, Sports+Law, or War+Fashion.
But it is important that your two topics do have some connection or
overlap. If they are totally unrelated ideas, you might find there is nothing
to talk about. If you have a very hard time making statements that relate
to how these ideas interact, it is probably a good idea to go back and
start over with different topics.
If you want to brainstorm random ideas, you could roll twice on the topic
tables and see what you get. Do those two ideas connect somehow? You
might be surprised how often they do. If they don’t seem like a good fit,
try again or use that inspiration to come up with some new idea of your
own.
48
To explore the intersection of two topics, use these rule changes:
Instead of picking one topic, pick two that overlap or
would be interesting to have interact. You might start
with one main topic and then pick a second topic that
narrows it down.
Your topics should be ideas that connect or interact in
the real world. If you can’t imagine how they relate, or
they seem to be an extremely weird combination, they
probably aren’t a good starting pair.
Elements and statements can be about either topic
but ideally about areas where the two topics interact.
Each topic should be represented in at least half of
the statements, but it could be more since a statement
could relate to both topics at the same time.
If you want to explore a fictional setting or genre, a two-topic game can
also be a very useful way to explore a specific aspect of your subject
matter. This lets you focus on a particular facet of very detailed or
expansive source material instead of tackling the whole thing.
EXAMPLE: KNIGHTS+ARMOR
We are interested in talking about the idea of knights,
but we decide to narrow it down and add armor as a
second topic.
We can think of a ton of elements relating to knights:
chivalry, swords, oaths, feudalism, steeds, war,
jousting, honor, squires, nobility, peasants, heraldry.
So many elements! We stop and decide to make sure
we have some elements for armor, too. We come up
with shields, helms, and blacksmiths. It’s not as many
as knights but that’s okay so long as we come up with
a good balance of statements.
For statements, we come up with:
Knights are trained fighters
Knights serve lords
Knights are superior to commoners
Heraldry identifies knights
Honor is important to knights
Squires serve knights
49
We come up with some statements that are specifically
about armor, too:
Armor protects you
Armor is put on and taken off
Armor is cumbersome
Armor is expensive
Armor is a status symbol
And of course:
Knights wear armor
One player starts a world and says the statement
“knights are trained fighters” is not true. The armor
does the fighting. Spirits of ancient warriors possess
the suits they died in, and in battle, they take over for
the knight wearing them.
“Armor is a status symbol” and “knights are above
peasants” are still true. There are only a certain
number of these legendary suits of armor, so being
named as a knight is a great distinction. When that
knight eventually dies or retires, someone else is given
that same suit and title.
A second player says the statement “heraldry identifies
knights” isn’t true. Each suit of armor is unique and
famous enough that it identifies the knight wearing it
now.
Another player says the statement “honor is important
to knights” is not true. Since the armor does the
fighting, these knights are really just dilettantes vying
for prestige. They’re jaded and spoiled. That leads
a third player to add a detail that the ancient spirits
actually loathe the ‘knights’ they fight for.
Later, a player makes a different world and says the
statement “armor protects you” isn’t true. This is some
kind of science fiction setting where knights are armed
with energy weapons that can melt steel like butter.
Their armor has not kept up, but they wear it just the
same because “armor is a status symbol” is still true. Is
“armor is cumbersome” still true, or is it some kind of
lightweight future material? Oh yes, armor is massive
and cumbersome, a burden on the battlefield, but
tradition and status demand it. No true knight would
go into battle without armor.
50
In This Life
Create characters who defy expectations
What makes a character interesting? People are interesting when we can

relate to them, but are also not as simple as we might have expected
them to be. They defy expectations but still fit in a context we can
understand. That makes a good character. Characters that simply reflect
stereotypes are boring, but when you’re making characters in games or
stories, it is all too easy to fall into that trap.
So how do you make those kinds of interesting characters? In This Life
is an alternate version of the rules where you pick a type of person or
stereotype to explore and then create individual characters who defy our
expectations.
Unlike a normal game of In This World, we’re not imagining worlds
where that type of person or profession is universally different. We’re just
seeing how individual people do not fit that mold. What kind of person
would that make them? What would the consequences be in their life?
How would they fit into the other aspects of their role?
Jocks trust their coach. But this particular jock does
not, and the rest of the team doesn’t get it.
Spies tell lies. But this one is open about what they’re
doing and cuts deals to get people to give them the
information they want.
If you’re interested in exploring what it would be like if all the jocks or
doctors were different, use the normal In This World rules. You can also
use these rules to explore fictional professions or character concepts.
Most rangers prowl the wilderness, but this one hunts
in the cities…
Most Jedi knights fight with a lightsaber, but this one
refuses to carry one…
51
To play a game of In This Life, use these rule changes:
For your topic, pick a profession, stereotype, or kind
of person. It should be something that everyone is
familiar with and interested in.
Statements are things that are true or expected about
that kind of person.
Doctors are trained professionals
Doctors are accredited
Doctors are paid for their work
Doctors treat any patient regardless of who they are
Doctors follow science
Instead of making a world, describe a single person who
does not fit the mold. Pick a statement and describe
how this person does not do what is expected. Every
player’s contribution will be about this person’s life.
Instead of saying what the world looks like, describe
the person and the situation they live in. But a good
rule of thumb is not to put the character in an unusual
situation. If you make the setting strange, the game
becomes about the situation rather than the person,
as discussed more below.
Naming people can be hard, but it is useful to have a
way to refer to the character as you talk about them.
If you are the first player, come up with something
simple when you describe their life. Feel free to ask
other players for help brainstorming a name.
After you finish each life, give that character a title
to summarize the concept, just like you would with a
world.
If you put your characters in unusual situations, you may unintentionally
veer more into changing the concept of that type of person rather than
examining one individual. If this happens, don’t despair: just finish that
life and then move on to the next one and try not to repeat the mistake.
We create a doctor who is in a medieval society
instead of a modern one, where people think medicine
is closer to witchcraft or sorcery. But that’s really a
commentary on what doctors are like in this society,
not this one person.
Ultimately, when you make characters with these rules, you reflect on
whether you can still fit a role if you don’t do all the things that people
expect of you. How do people see you? How do you see yourself?
52
EXAMPLE: IN THIS LIFE, JOCKS
We debate whether to explore teachers, spies, or
soccer moms before settling on something we’re all
interested in: jocks. High school sports, pro athletes…
they count because they all fall under our jock
stereotype.
What kind of things are part of jocks? For elements,
we come up with coaches, sports, teams (and also
teammates), parties, school, playing fields, and
exercise.
Our statements include:
Coach knows best
Coach is a surrogate parental figure
Field is a second home
Party hard, play hard
School is for nerds
Sports are life, winning matters
Team is your family
The first player decides that, for this jock, the
statement “Sports are life, winning matters” isn’t true.
This person is an extremely gifted natural athlete and
a star of the team, but they just play for fun. They don’t
really care about whether the team wins or loses. They
just enjoy the experience. That player decides he’s a
guy named Liam, a relaxed and likable daydreamer.
Another player adds that, even so, “Coach knows
best” is still true. Liam respects the coach, even
though they are constantly trying to get him to fight
for a win. Liam doesn’t want to disappoint the coach,
but he just doesn’t feel the urge.
How do the other members of the team feel about
Liam? We’ll see as we keep playing.
Later, another player makes a jock who doesn’t think
that “Team is your family.” She’s in it for herself. And
“Party hard, play hard” isn’t true either. She is laser-
focused on success, not wasting time drinking or
goofing off.
53
Alternate History
Imagining a different past
If you change something in the past, how does it change what happens
next? In This World is normally about creating new worlds by challenging
our assumptions, but you can also use it to see how history would turn
out differently if some key event was changed or some aspect of the
situation was different.
Unlike a normal In This World game, instead of making completely
independent worlds, you are making variations on the same history in
the same world. Your new versions of history will turn out differently, but
they will still be based on the same world you started with.
Ultimately, alternate histories are all about cause and effect: if this one
thing was different, how would it change everything else?
One of our statements is that Christopher Columbus
landed on the new world. But in this history,
Christopher Columbus was shipwrecked and washed
up on the new world. He was saved by native tribes
and lived among them for years, seeing their culture
first-hand before returning to Europe.
You can start with real-world history or some pre-existing fiction, like a
book or movie series. For the game to work, everyone has to be familiar
with the history you are going to explore. We have to all know what we’re
talking about.
Even more than a regular game of In This World, you have to be careful
that player expertise does not get in the way of fun. If one person knows
a lot more about this history than everyone else (or thinks they do), they
can make the other players unsure of their own contributions. Remind
everyone that we’re creating fiction rather than perfectly reflecting the
real world, so it’s not critical that we get every historical detail exactly
right. Either that or avoid subjects altogether where some players have
more knowledge than the other players or have too much desire for
historical accuracy.
54
To make alternate histories, use these changes to the original rules:
Instead of a topic, pick a historical period that you
want to explore. It must be something everyone at the
table is familiar with.
Elements are specific events or important aspects of
the history—nations, movements, major innovations,
groups of people, or even individuals who were critical
to what happened.
Statements are things that happened in the history or
facts that are true about the situation.
Instead of new worlds, each round is a new version of
the history. The first player picks a statement that is not
true. Either that event turned out differently, or some
starting factor is different. That’s the starting point for
this alternate history.
Other players’ contributions add more things that
are different or are consequences of things we have
already said are different.
You can potentially make an infinite number of statements documenting
the real history, but limit yourself to the normal 10 or 12. The statements
you pick narrow the focus of your game and decide what particular
aspects of the history you’re going to explore. If you explored the
same history again, you might choose other statements and do it quite
differently.
The first player’s contribution should be considered the main starting
point of the new history. Other players can add more ways the history
diverges, in addition to showing the repercussions of what’s already
been established, but as always, you should respect and try to build on
that key difference the first player established.
Some of your histories might be more radical than others (“the Japanese
awaken Godzilla to attack Pearl Harbor!”), but even if one goes off the
rails, you can go right back to making other alternate histories that stick
closer to the original premise.
The alternate histories you create might span very different ranges
of time. Some might focus on the here and now, while others might
leap forward and show how those events shaped the far future. What
you choose to create will depend a lot on the kind of history you are
exploring and the kind of repercussions it can have.
55
EXAMPLE: LORD OF THE RINGS ALT HISTORY
All of us are big fans of Tolkien’s books, so we decide
to explore how the War of the Ring could have turned
out differently.
For our elements, we write down Sauron, Gondor,
Rings of Power, the One Ring, Elves, Dwarves, Anduril,
Aragorn, Wizards, Siege of Gondor, Battle of Helm’s
Deep, Retaking Lonely Mountain. Honestly, we could
just keep making elements all day, but this is enough
to get us started since we can add more later if we
need them.
Our statements include both facts and events, such as:
Anduril belongs to the heir of Elendil
Aragorn is the king of Gondor
Dwarves fight against Sauron in the north
Dwarves failed to retake Moria
Elves stay out of the war
Elves are leaving Middle Earth
Rohan wins the Battle of Helm’s Deep
Wizards come from over the western sea
In our first history, the statement “Aragorn is the heir
of Gondor” isn’t exactly true because there is a second
living descendent, a distant cousin with just as much
claim to the throne, creating debate over who is the
true king. Both have separately taken the field to strive
with the Dark Lord and potentially wear the crown.
Another player adds that the statement “Anduril
belongs to the heir of Gondor” is also not true because
the elves hold it and they refuse to give it to either heir
until it can be decided which is the legitimate king.
In a later history, the first player says the statement
“Dwarves failed to retake Moria” is not true. Balin’s
expedition was a success, and Moria is a new
stronghold of Dwarven power when the War of the
Ring starts. No Balrog was ever seen, leaving the
downfall of old Moria a mystery. That player also adds
that, yes, the statement “Elves stay out of the war” is
still true.
On their turn, another player says that the statement
“Dwarves fight against Sauron in the north” is not
true. Instead, they accept the offer of Rings of Power
and make peace with the Dark Lord. Moria becomes
a kingdom apart, separated from the Dwarves of the
East.
56
The Future Starts Now

Making the future we want… or dread
What if we woke up tomorrow and something happened that changed

our world? What would happen next? How would our future unfold?
Instead of creating brand new worlds, you can use these rules to explore
the future of the world we live in now.
Each world you make starts with the world exactly as it is now and
then envisions a possible (if perhaps fantastic) future. Make some small
change and see how it quietly ripples out to change our society or swing
a hammer at the world we know and then explore how people pick up
the pieces.
One of our statements is that “oil is finite”, but in this
world, a new process is discovered that makes artificial
oil absurdly easy to produce. It is still terribly polluting,
but it’s cheap. Then what happens?
All sessions of In This World are, no matter how indirectly, reflections
of the real world or things we are familiar with because we start with
pre-existing ideas and then imagine how they could be different. But
deciding to build from the present narrows our focus quite a bit. It forces
us (perhaps) to think realistically about cause and effect, change and
consequence.
Unlike other rule variants, you don’t have to play an entire session using
this technique. On any player’s turn to start a world in a normal In This
World game, they could opt to say that the world they’re making starts
from our modern world and then takes a hard left. For their world, that’s
the premise, even if other players choose to make “normal” worlds when
it is their turn to start. Anyone could do it. But if you did want to devote
a whole session to exploring our real-world future, it is best to all agree
to do so before you pick your topic.
Saying, “This is the real world, but later” also calls for a slightly more
serious mood from the players. That can be good, but it can also be
limiting. One of the appeals of In This World is that you can be as wild
57
or as realistic as you want. Each world has a stand-alone flavor. But when
each world is an extension of the real world, you limit those options a bit.
Could you use this same technique to explore the future of a known
fictional setting, to see what happens next? Of course. What happens
next in the Dune universe when the Spice starts shortening your life span
instead of lengthening it? Are the benefits of foresight still worth taking
it? Which institutions crumble?
To explore a possible future:
Pick a topic that you want to see change in our world.
Start each new world with our real world here and now,
but then describe something changing by saying which
statement is no longer true. It might be something
society chooses to do or an outside force that changes
things, like a plague or scientific discovery. It could be
great or small.
Additional contributions should be consequences of
that change or secondary effects.
In some cases, you might describe what the world is like just after the
change happened. But other times, you might slide much farther into
the future to see the repercussions. Did something just shift, and we’re
still grappling with it, or was the change long enough ago that the new
world has already taken full shape? It’s less a question of time and more
how finished or raw you want the change to be. Society could adjust to
some changes very quickly, or we could spend centuries grappling with
an issue without reaching a stable new dynamic.
OR THE FUTURE STARTED YESTERDAY

As a variant of a variant, instead of starting from the present day, you
could go back and pick some point in history where this world deviates
from the one we know. Changing the past presents a much wider range
of possibilities since you can go as far back pick any starting point you
like. This may look like the Alternate History rules, but here your changes
are centered around a topic you want to explore rather than altering
known historical events.
But ultimately, reimagining the past to arrive at a different present is very
different than envisioning the future. When we start from the present
and think about the future, we are imagining something that could come
true. It is a future we could actually create.
58
Two-Player Games
Making worlds for two, but with a caveat
Can you play In This World with only two players? Yes, you definitely can,
using the rules below.
But be warned: it can be a lot more challenging. Any game that requires
players to build on each other’s big creative contributions, the way In
This World does, is going to be a very different experience with only two
players. The obvious reason is that you simply have fewer brains to draw
from and fewer opportunities to be surprised by someone else’s ideas
because each of you are making fully half of the fiction.
But the more critical difference, which is unique to a two-player game,
is that you are the only person who can react to what the other player
makes. If they introduce an idea and it doesn’t really click with you, there
is no one else to take it up and run with it. In effect, you are required to
be on all the time. Every exchange is a tennis match: if you don’t return
each volley, it flies off the field.
In a two-player game, even the face you make matters more than ever
before. At any table at any given moment, if one player is presenting an
idea, different players may look thoughtful or excited or disinterested,
maybe for reasons that don’t even reflect what they think about the
game. Those reactions can encourage a player to keep going or it can
make them doubt what they are saying. If someone at the table isn’t
excited about the idea or needs time to process that’s okay because
maybe someone else is. But with a two-player game, there is only one
person who reacts to whatever is being added. There is only one face
to look at.
That can be a lot of pressure for both players, which can result in a very
different vibe than the normal fast and free feeling of playing In This
World. Two-player sessions can be harder but they can definitely work,
especially if you keep these issues in mind, adjust your expectations, and
cut each other slack.
59
With those caveats in mind, if you want to play with only two people,
follow the normal rules with these changes:
Play as though there were four players, with each
person alternating taking a second turn.
Each player starts a total of two worlds instead of one.
After a player starts a world, the other player takes a
turn (saying something is different, something is the
same, or adding detail). Then both players take a
second turn in either order.
During round two, each player gets two turns to add
detail.
It’s probably better to take turns instead of having one player go twice in
a row, particularly for starting new worlds, but it’s not mandatory.
60
Session Zero
How to strap a rocket to your next D&D campaign
Sooner or later, you’ll finish a session of In This World and just sit there
and look at what you’ve created and think: “This world is just too good.
We’ve got to play in it more.” And the good news is that just because the
rules of the game say ‘stop there!’ doesn’t mean you have to. You have
free will! You control your own destiny!
You can use a world you made as the starting point to play another
GMless game, like Kingdom, Downfall, or Microscope. Dig in and keep
exploring, make characters, play scenes, etc. But you can also switch
gears entirely and use what you created together as the setting for a
game with a GM.
Normally, in systems that have a game master, it’s the GM who creates
the whole world. The other players only have as much input as the GM
allows. But lots of groups now embrace the idea of a “session zero”, a
setup session before the first session of normal play, where the players
and the GM decide together what kind of game they want to play and
what kind of setting they want to play in.
You might already have a great game of In This World that you want to
build on, or you might want to play a campaign and sit down to play In
This World with the intention of brainstorming your game world. Either
one works.
Sharing control of the campaign setup, even if the GM has complete
control of the world once the game is in motion, makes players much
more involved in the setting. It ensures that everyone is actually playing
in a game that interests them. Scientists find this can increase player
satisfaction by up to 87%! [not a real number]
If you want to build your setting together, a big advantage of using a
game like In This World is that equal contribution is baked into the rules.
You don’t have to worry about whether everyone is getting their voice
heard because the game does that for you. It can especially be an issue
when players are used to having a GM in control of these decisions. They
might be hesitant to speak up for fear of stepping on toes.
61
And because you make multiple worlds, players are free to contribute
ideas without worrying that what they say will absolutely be in the finished
setting. It takes the pressure off and lets everyone experiment because
you know you will have several options to choose from in the end.
During your In This World session, you might be tempted to give the GM
some kind of veto power or more say over what the group creates. Don’t
do it. The GM can have more authority later if you want, but during the
session, just play the game straight, with everyone having equal input.
Let the rules do their work.
DISTILLING YOUR WORLD

After you’ve finished playing In This World, you’ll have several worlds.
Maybe one is the perfect foundation for your campaign. Maybe it isn’t.
That’s your next step: taking the worlds you made and deciding how to
distill them down to one world you want to play.
In Microscope Explorer, I outlined a method of editing a setting you
made together by identifying things you want to keep and things you
want to change or ignore. A setting you’ve created with In This World is
far simpler than an entire Microscope history. But even so, there may be
things that you want to remove or adjust before you shift to further play.
The important thing to remember is that nothing you established during
your In This World game is binding unless you want it to be. You can
change what you made as much as you want, so long as the group
agrees. The worlds you made might be a solid starting point or only a
vague inspiration that needs a lot of cleaning up.
The broad questions you’ll want to discuss as a group are:
1 | Which world do we want to use as our starting point?
2 | Do we want to include parts of any other worlds or
even combine multiple worlds?
3 | Which parts do we particularly like?
4 | Which parts do we dislike or want to remove?
5 | What do we want to add?
You might jump back and forth a bit between these questions, but this
is the general shape of the discussion. You want to hit all these points,
usually in this order.
First, is there a particular world we like the most? You might wind up
taking only one world and running with it, but more likely, you’ll see
things in your other worlds that you want to incorporate.
Even though each of your worlds was created independently, you
might find that when you stop and take a step back, some of them click
together in ways you did not expect. Because each world may focus on a
62
very particular thing, you might find that you can combine some of them
together without any contradictions—or at least nothing you can’t work
around. Each may hold a different part of the puzzle.
The next step is deciding which aspects of what you made you particularly
like and want to focus on for your game. This should be an easy step
because if people are interested in continuing with this setting, there
must be something they like. But you might find that different people
like different aspects of the setting. Take your time and talk about it.
Next, what don’t we like? Is there anything you want to leave out, erase,
or de-emphasize? Again, you might not agree, but if anyone strongly
dislikes something, you are better off removing it.
Finally, is there anything we want to add? Is there new material we want
to create right now to fill in any obvious gaps? It is inevitable that a lot of
things will be added going forward as you expand the simple skeleton
of your In This World game into a full campaign. But the question is
whether there are any concepts you want to add as a group right now
before you pass the setting off to the GM.
DRILLING DOWN, AGAIN

You may also find that after sculpting your setting, there are areas of the
world you didn’t explore but want to know more about.
If it’s something that seems important or interesting, then instead of just
improvising an answer, you can swing back around and play another
session of In This World to brainstorm possibilities for just that topic. You
could drill down and explore many different facets of a world, each in its
own game, then take those reimagined ideas and fit the puzzle pieces
together as you like.
63
PLAY ADVICE
Guidance, insight, and tips for making your game better. If you have
questions, you just might find the answers here.
65
Teaching the Game
In This World is designed to be an extremely easy game to sit down
and play. Even if no one at the table has heard of the game or played
anything like it, you can just hand them the book and let them follow the
instructions, and they will have a good time.
So it might be gilding the lily to explain how to teach the game, but there
are a few things I do that other facilitators might find useful, particularly
when you have played In This World before and everyone else has not.
LET OTHER PEOPLE GO FIRST

The most basic point is that I always let other people contribute first. I ask
for topic ideas but don’t offer any of my own until everyone has thrown in
at least one. I let other people suggest elements and statements before
I make any. Likewise, I never make the first world or even the second.
Usually, I’ll go absolutely last because I want to make sure everyone else
gets their chance to start a world in case we run short on time or have to
stop for some reason.
In most games, the easiest way to teach is to go first and demonstrate
the correct behavior: you frame a scene so people see the right way to
do it, you start role-playing a character and speaking in the moment so
other people can see how it’s supposed to flow, etc. And normally, that
is absolutely a good approach. But In This World is designed to require
no special skills. Anyone should be able to play it just by following the
instructions, so that’s how I teach it.
The benefit of letting people go first is that they aren’t biased by my
ideas. If I always went first, I would be steering every group to model their
contributions after mine. Having totally inexperienced players contribute
first can lead to much more interesting and unpredictable results, which
I think makes the game a lot more fun.
I want to be surprised by people’s ideas rather than always influence
what they make.
USE EXAMPLES THAT DON’T FIT THIS GAME

Another trick I use to avoid unintentionally suggesting ideas to other
players is to only give examples that could not possibly work for the
setting we’re playing right now. If our game is a fantasy setting, my
examples might be modern cops & robbers. If it’s a science fiction game,
I might use examples with wizards & dragons, and so on.
This is something I do when I’m teaching just about any creative game,
not just In This World. Just hearing an idea can bias someone’s thinking,
even if they don’t want it to.
66
DON’T EXPLAIN AHEAD
In This World has very simple procedures, and each step is in a nice neat
chunk. You don’t have to know what is going to happen later in order to
do what you need to do now, and that’s an entirely intentional part of
the design.
So when I’m teaching the game, I never explain rules in advance. I don’t
explain what we’re going to do later until we get to that point. I just
follow the instructions in the book, step-by-step, explaining each new bit
exactly when it comes up. I keep everyone in the moment and focus on
what we’re doing right now.
I’ve seen people teach other games by starting off explaining the whole
procedure, start to finish, before actually playing. There may be systems
where that’s necessary because players have to know what comes later
to make good decisions now, but it is far more likely that the players
won’t absorb everything that is being said. It will go in one ear and out
the other.
I suspect people teach that way to give players a good overview of the
game because the game itself does not provide a useful summary. So
they fall back on just reviewing everything. That’s also why In This World
has a short read-aloud introduction at the beginning, so players can
easily hear what they need to know.
As a facilitator, it is important to remember that people probably came
to play a game, not learn a game. Instructions are just a necessary step
to support play. They should be as lean as possible to avoid getting in
the way.
ASK FOR VOLUNTEERS WITHOUT EXPLANATION

Taking that even further, when it’s time to start making worlds, instead of
explaining the next step, I say, “And now we’re going to make a world.
Who wants to go first?” I ask for a volunteer without describing the next
step. I’ll even say, “Yeah, I’m not telling you what you’re going to do.
Don’t worry about it. Just decide if you want to take the plunge and
then I’ll explain what to do.” I’ll tell them it is a leap of faith. This is not
something I would do in most games but here it works.
When people know the procedure, the natural urge is to wait to volunteer
until they are sure they have an idea. But that leads them to second guess
whether the concept they came up with is any good. If they have doubts,
they may hang back. But if someone agrees to go without knowing the
procedure, they are off the hook. They can’t be expected to have an
idea ready because they had no way of knowing what they were going
to be asked to do. That takes the pressure off. And the procedure itself
is easy enough that you can do it spur of the moment. Just look at the
statements, say one isn’t true, and then see what comes out. It’s very
straightforward.
67
Of course, this only applies to the first world because after that everyone
knows the procedure. But that’s okay. This gets the ball rolling and kicks
off the game with energy instead of hesitation.
And here’s a little secret: what a player says to start a world doesn’t have
to be amazing. It’s just a starting point, a foundation. Often players begin
with a half-formed idea and find their concept solidifying and changing as
they explain it. That’s totally normal. So the sooner you get them talking,
the better, because it’s less intimidating to be talking and working out an
idea than to be sitting dead silent while everyone else stares at you and
waits, trapped in your head trying to think of something perfect.
This is also why I say, “Speak before you write.” Your idea can morph
quite a bit as you explain it, so it’s better to write nothing until the
concept has had some time to breathe and settle.
ENFORCE THE RULES, PREVENT CONTRADICTIONS

Rules don’t matter if no one follows them, and every rule I put in the
game is there for a reason. And more often than not, that reason is either
to a) make it easier to come up with ideas or b) make sure everyone at
the table gets to contribute and that those contributions are respected.
Because doing the opposite, letting someone’s contribution get stepped
on or lost undermines the whole point of contributing. And who thinks
that’s fun?
So when I’m facilitating a game, I enforce the rules religiously. If people
are overstepping or contradicting something that’s already been
established, I politely point it out. A lot of the time, it’s just someone
getting too excited in the heat of the moment and losing track of what
has been said rather than an intentional contradiction. But if you let it
go, you’re doing someone else a disservice because you’re saying their
contribution didn’t count. Saying “no” isn’t any fun, but if someone
is breaking the rules or contradicting what someone else already
contributed, you’re doing everyone a favor by calling them on it.
Every time you do it, you’re reinforcing that what each person says
absolutely matters. You’re building up everyone’s belief in the fiction
we’re building together.
If you are clear and consistent, then after a while you’ll find you won’t
need to enforce the rules anymore because everyone at the table will
have seen how the game is meant to be played. This is a case where you
really do lead by example.
Those are my advanced tips for introducing people to the game. But
even if you ignore them all and just follow the rules, you should find In
This World an extremely easy game to teach.
68
Making Good Statements
Your statements are an essential foundation for your game. You’re going
to return to them again and again, so it’s important to make good ones.
It’s not difficult, but there are few potential pitfalls to watch out for.
The rules already mentioned that statements should avoid value
judgments that don’t provide any real details and that statements don’t
have to be things that are true every single time, just generally true or
the norm.
Another good tip is that each statement should be easy to understand.
It should express a single idea or concept. You don’t want one statement
that mixes several ideas together.
You also don’t want statements that overlap or say the same thing. If you
make overlapping statements, you wind up with cases where addressing
one automatically addresses the other, which can be complicated for the
players to untangle every time they make a world.
“Rockets travel between the stars” and “Astronauts
travel in rockets” seem like they’re two separate ideas,
but they actually overlap. If astronauts don’t travel in
rockets, are rockets still what we use to travel between
the stars?
Statements should also be about what something is, or more precisely,
what people think about the topic, not all the things it isn’t or that we
don’t think about the topic.
Saying “wolves don’t fly” is technically accurate, but
flying has nothing to do with wolves. It’s not a concept
associated with them. They don’t drive cars or wear
glasses either, and we don’t think of any of those
things when we think of wolves. None of those are
good statements.
By comparison, “vampires don’t go out during the
day” is a negative, but it’s a concept that is directly
associated with vampires, so it’s a good statement.
Sometimes, a player will make a weird statement because they are
mentally skipping ahead and thinking of ideas for other worlds. They
want to make a statement that says “trees don’t walk” because they are
already planning to make a world where trees do walk. This is foul play.
Don’t try to sneak in weird or tricksy ideas when you are establishing
how the real world works. Create innocently without imagining how your
statements will be used later. If someone gets ahead of themselves,
remind them to save that for later.
69
Tell Us More
Here’s a simple tool that can improve lots of games you play: when other
people contribute, and their ideas don’t seem complete, ask them to tell
you more. Don’t make suggestions. Just ask them to take more time and
keep going.
I do this all the time. If you’re playing a game with me and I don’t ask
someone to say more multiple times in the session, check the back of my
neck because I have been replaced by a pod person.
In a game of group creativity like this, the whole point is that not only do
each of us have ideas and contribute content, but that the other people
at the table understand our ideas so they can build on them. If what you
say doesn’t get your idea across, the whole thing falls apart.
When someone gives a short or minimal contribution, there are a few
things that might be going on. The most simple case is that what the
person said is really all they’ve come up with. They’ve got the start of
an idea but not a lot of depth. The opposite is when someone has a
detailed idea in their head, and they think they have explained it, but
they have unintentionally skipped over key details. They don’t realize
they have not shown us the whole picture they are imagining.
Other times, a player might just be overly concerned about taking up
everyone else’s time. They are self-conscious or under-confident that
their idea is good, so they just say a little bit and then are ready to move
on. They are afraid they are hogging the spotlight or making something
bad.
Luckily, even if you aren’t sure which of these is the problem, saying,
“Hey, can you tell us more?” is always the right solution. By showing
interest and patience and inviting the person to take their time, you’re
reinforcing that their contribution is valuable. It helps them relax and dig
into their idea. Usually, they will sit for a second, chew on their thoughts,
and then a lot more comes out. They will reveal details that put their
idea in a whole new light, and suddenly everyone else at the table is,
like, “Aha!” I’ve seen this play out time and again with In This World and
a bunch of other games.
When you do this, you are helping everyone, not just that one player,
because you are making the world we are all building on more clear. The
more solid each player’s contribution, the easier it is for all of us to stay
on the same page and build on the same idea.
70
Topics: Culture vs Physics
The topics that you might explore generally fall into two very broad
categories, each of which can play very differently.
One type of topic is cultural. It addresses decisions about how humans
have set up society and established its rules: what kind of houses we
build, what laws we create and enforce, and the clothes we wear (or that
we even wear clothes at all). Maybe we don’t even consciously recognize
that they were choices instead of unavoidable outcomes, but they are a
reflection of human decisions nonetheless.
The other type of topic addresses physics or facts about the natural world:
how planets circle stars, trees grow from the ground, or how people get
old and die. Humans deal with nature, but we did not create its laws and,
normally, cannot change them, only find ways to cope and adapt.
But it is a little more tangled than that. Our culture is ultimately a reaction
to the pressures of the natural world. If people lived forever, or animals
could talk, or we could read each other’s minds, it would no doubt
drastically change how our society developed. So, even if your topic is
a fact of nature, you might explore the huge cultural changes that result
when those rules are changed.
And likewise, even if you pick a topic that is entirely cultural, individual
worlds might hinge on changes to statements that completely alter
the physics of our world. If your topic is education (an entirely cultural
subject) but in this world, instead of “teachers teach students”, people
mind-meld and pass on entire life experiences to the next generation,
you have fundamentally altered the rules of nature.
All things considered, a cultural topic is often an easier starting point than
a topic about nature or physics. It is generally less of a leap to imagine
how society might change than to wrap your head around altering the
rules of the physical world.
Difficult Topics
While there might be a million topics that are harmless and fun, there
are just as many topics that some people would find difficult, tricky, or
downright unpalatable.
Which topics are good and which ones are difficult? There is only one
right answer, which is that it totally depends on the people at the table.
One group might want to talk about slavery and terrorism because those
are evils that cast long shadows over our world and those players want
to understand them better. But other groups might have zero interest in
tackling that kind of subject matter.
71
There is no universally safe or universally unacceptable topic. There is
only what the people at the table are comfortable with. That’s another
reason the game starts with brainstorming several topics instead of only
one. That gives people the opportunity to sidle away from ideas they
don’t want to address without a big discussion. It’s a chance to veto
something quietly, even if someone doesn’t want to invoke a safety
mechanic.
But In This World is also unusual because after you have picked a topic
and described its real-world nature, you aren’t bound by that situation
anymore. You are allowed and even expected to make worlds where the
topic plays out entirely differently than it does in our reality. There might
be subjects you would be hesitant to deal with in other games that you
would explore with In This World precisely because the whole point is
that you are going to change them.
DISAGREEING ABOUT THE REAL WORLD

There is one case where exploring a particular topic will be impossible,
even if everyone at the table wants to dig into that subject matter, and
that is when we don’t agree how the topic works in the real world.
If you are making statements and start having disagreements that cannot
be resolved, don’t sweep it under the rug. That is a clear indicator that
this is not a topic that is going to work for this group of people. Normally,
“agreeing to disagree” can be a reasonable choice, but not for this.
You absolutely can disagree about what you think is good or bad about
our world or what should or shouldn’t be done. That’s totally okay. But if
you cannot agree on what is happening and what isn’t, you will not have
a fruitful game. Stop, go back, and pick a different topic.
Safety Mechanics
Safety mechanics are an essential protection against the unexpected.
Because our games can explore all sorts of ideas, we may sit down
looking forward to a fun and engaging afternoon and then accidentally
drift into subject matter that makes people regret ever showing up.
I discussed this issue in the second edition of Kingdom, but it’s an
important subject, so I’ll repeat the key points here. The core premise of
safety mechanics is two-fold:
The people at the table are more important than
anything that happens in a game. Humans matter
more than fiction.
And second, even with the best intentions, we’re not
mind-readers. No matter how careful or thoughtful we
are, we can’t always predict what will make another
72
person uncomfortable. There has to be a method to
communicate discomfort.
For years, the most common safety mechanics have been “safewords,”
like the X-card, that people can use to signal when content is
uncomfortable. When someone uses the safeword, we agree to remove
that content from the game without requiring any explanation. It does
not matter how important that content may seem to the story because
the well-being of the players is more important than the fiction. We’re
smart adults, we can figure out how to revise the story and keep playing
so that everyone is comfortable. After all, we just made all this up, so it
is not that hard to go back and edit it.
But if I am arguing that a safety mechanic is so important, why doesn’t
this game include one? Because just like the health and well-being of
the people at the table, your safety mechanic supersedes the rules of
any game you are playing. Different safety tools also better suit different
groups. A safeword system is the most common choice, but you know
the people you’re playing with better than me, so you will have a better
idea of what will work.
The technology of safety mechanics is still rather young, and I firmly
believe that new and better methods will arise. When they do, you can
adopt them immediately, because you won’t have to change anything
in the rules. In This World will work equally well with any existing safety
mechanics your table prefers and with any techniques that emerge in
the future.
73
DISCUSSION
Pulling back the curtain on theory and design to examine how the game
works and why it matters.
75
How the Game Works
They say a good magician never reveals their tricks. But I’m not a
magician. I’m a game designer, and I think it’s important that we share
not just our games but the thinking behind them so we can learn from
each other and help advance the whole field–so we can build on each
other’s ideas when we design, just like we do when we play.
So I’m going to pop the hood, take the engine out, show you all the parts,
and explain what they do and why I put them there. In This World is a
simple game, but that may make taking it apart even more educational:
the fewer pieces you have, the more important each one is to the game
as a whole. Each part is there for a very specific reason and may be doing
more than meets the eye.
You don’t have to read any of this to play the game, but if you’re
interested in game design or how human nature and social interaction
collide with creativity, this is for you.
WHAT ARE MY GOALS?

The first step to understanding a game is knowing what the designer’s
goals are. If I’m doing my job correctly, each choice I make should
support those goals.
There are some basic principles I want in pretty much all my games:
Equal participation for everyone at the table. Group creativity, with
players building on each other’s contributions and surprising each other.
Something that you can play over and over again addressing different
subject matter. And of course, I want the game to be fun and engaging
because it doesn’t matter how innovative your game is if no one wants
to play it.
For In This World, I also wanted:
A game for everyone. No experience or special skills
necessary. Something anyone could pick up and play.
Easy and fast. No big creative hurdles.
Deep thinking about the world around us.
Yep, I wanted it to be both easy and deep. Big ideas but effortless play.
Basically, diametrically opposite priorities.
I KNOW YOU’RE STARTING FROM NOTHING

At the very start, when you sit down together to play, all I can count on
as a designer is that you have agreed to play this game. As far as I know,
you have no idea what kind of topics you’re going to address, no shared
fiction, nothing. I can’t even assume everyone knows what the game is
about because one person probably read it and got everyone else to
76
give it a try. The other players may have no idea what they’re getting
into.
So, the very first thing I provide is a “read this aloud” page, with the
goal of introducing the game, explaining what it’s about, and aligning
expectations. I want people to get on the same page and give them
some idea what they’re in for. If people misunderstand what they’re
doing, the whole session can start off on the wrong foot. Less confusion
means better play.
But I am also careful not to say too much. If I do, people space out and
hear less. I want to tell the players just enough to make them understand
what they need to know right now without getting into details they won’t
need until later.
What would happen if I didn’t provide this script? As I mentioned in
the teaching section, the person explaining the game would have to
summarize it in their own words, which is how people have been
teaching games since the dawn of time. I’ve done that enough to know
that paraphrasing a bunch of rules and trying to capture the essence of
a game on the fly is hard work. It can be exhausting and deter people
from sharing games. But I designed the game, so I’m the best equipped
to explain it. So why not just do it once, write it down, and let everyone
benefit from my work? Why make every group reinvent the wheel?
This same logic applies to the rest of the rules: I try to keep the text
simple enough that you could just read a sentence or two aloud instead
of having to explain in your own words.
Making the game easier to teach also serves the entirely selfish purpose
of making more people willing to try it. If it is less work to bring it to the
table, more people will break out the book and play.
THE BLANK PAGE

One of the biggest problems in creative games is that players can hit the
“blank page syndrome.” They are asked to create something out of thin
air, but they just don’t have any ideas or can’t figure out what would be
the best answer. The game grinds to a halt while everyone waits for them
to come up with something.
The whole structure of In This World is designed to defuse this land
mine. Instead of asking players to invent new things, we start by asking
players about the real world, something they already know about. Those
answers become a framework for the rest of the game, so by the time
you are asked to be creative you’ve got a clear foundation to build on.
The very first choice your group makes (after deciding to play the game)
is choosing a real-world topic. It is an intentionally clumsy process
because I want players to speak up and discuss, even debate. I want
players to voice their preferences and interests—just pushing a single
answer does none of that. I want it to be an organic process. That’s why
77
the rules tell you to brainstorm several ideas and then pick one. Even if
someone’s suggestion isn’t taken, they get a chance to put it forward and
be heard. They’re participating.
If the group isn’t sure what they are getting into, I expect them to pick a
light, unchallenging topic—something like pets or food rather than law
enforcement or religion. And that’s totally fine because the game will
lead you into good territory even if you pick a “safe” topic. The only bad
topic is one the players have no interest in or are totally unfamiliar with.
Once you have your topic, you are asked to come up with real-world
facts about it. You’re still not making up anything creative, only talking
about the world we already know. These statements are one of the
most important parts of the whole game. They are the scaffolding that
supports everything you are going to build and all the worlds you create.
But before you make statements, you come up with elements. Why add
that extra step? Why not just jump straight to statements?
Elements are another trick to warm up your brain and get everyone
on the same page. By listing things that relate to the topic, you start
thinking about the pieces of the puzzle. So, when you are asked to come
up with statements, you can just look at the list of elements and think
what’s true about them. It’s a prompt within a prompt. It’s another way to
avoid working from a blank slate.
Requiring statements to all be phrased so they start with an element or
the topic forces players to distill their ideas into a very straightforward
pattern. You want statements to be simple and direct, not convoluted
concepts. Having a subject at the beginning of each statement also
makes it easier to organize and review them during play. If your topic
is vacations and you’re trying to remember what you said about hotels,
you just look for the statement that starts with hotel rather than having
to read through them all.
Can it feel a little unnatural to phrase your statements so they start with
an element or the topic? Does it take a little longer to make them? Yes,
but it’s a valuable trade-off. It’s better to have a slightly more difficult
process of making statements, which is a low-pressure group activity you
only do once, if that makes it easier for players to scan and review them
when they are trying to think of what to add to the world, which is a
higher-pressure activity you do multiple times when you’re also trying
to be creative. You make each statement only once, but you reference
it many times.
When it is finally time for you to make a world—which would normally
be a huge ask—the process could not be easier. Your brain has been
thinking about the topic and all its facets since you sat down at the
table. You’ve had a lot of time to let ideas percolate, even if nothing
has consciously bubbled up to the surface. Simply pick a statement, say
that in this world it isn’t true, and see what idea that sparks. Time and
78
again, I’ve seen players who have no clear idea what they want to make
just pick a statement, start talking, and suddenly something comes out.
Letting people take their turn whenever they want to jump in, rather than
having a normal turn order, is also an intentional design choice to harness
people’s enthusiasm. Maybe you’ve got an idea and are chomping at the
bit. Awesome! People who do not have an idea can sit back and keep
percolating. In the end, everyone gets a turn, but we go when we feel
like it.
MULTIPLE WORLDS SET YOU FREE

Normally in a game, if the fiction takes a direction you don’t like,
you’re stuck with it. In Microscope, I refer to this as “Nuking Atlantis”:
If someone blows up that cool city you liked, that part of the story is
taken out of your hands. You can’t keep using it because it doesn’t exist
anymore. Likewise, if someone brings in a theme or content you don’t
like, you can either object, try to quietly work around it, or silently suffer.
What each of us adds or removes from the fiction affects all of us. We are
all cooks, each putting ingredients in the same pot, but we are all going
to eat the soup we made, not just the parts we added ourselves. But we
don’t always like the same things or know what someone else likes, so it
can turn into a very surprising soup.
I had the idea for In This World for quite a while before I could figure out
how to make it work as a game. I hadn’t yet come up with the key idea
of making several worlds instead of just one. That one “small” change
alters the entire dynamic and makes the game work because you are
not stuck with each world you make. A player can have no interest in a
particular world and that’s fine, because you know that shortly you are
going to reset and make another. You are not stuck with what anyone
makes for the rest of the session. You are not even stuck with your own
creations!
This escape valve lowers the pressure for everyone at the table. You do
not have to worry about accidentally ruining the game for everyone else,
and no one has to scrutinize your contributions to make sure every single
thing is something they want. You don’t need to fight for control because
there is not one single fiction—there are several. All that risk goes out
the window. Everyone can relax and enjoy making things up. You can go
along with ideas you might not normally be willing to try because you
know it is just one of many worlds.
The entire game is a series of automatic do-overs. We can get things
wrong. We can experiment with tone. And no one has to feel like they
have to make something perfect.
Microscope has a similar effect because you can jump around to different
parts of history and focus on the things you like rather than the parts you
don’t. Everything players make is still part of the fiction, but you are not
79
forced to deal with the last thing that happened the way you would in
a game that plays out of chronological order. In This World takes that
principle and launches it to the moon.
COLLABORATE WITHOUT COLLABORATING

The basic pattern of In This World is that one person starts a setting,
and then other players respond to that idea, and then players respond
to those responses, etc. And every move is working from the statements
we built together. It’s all reintegration and building on each other. That
is also why the second round of each world only lets you Add Detail, so
you are required to build on the ideas that have already been introduced
rather than just adding more and more new concepts.
It’s creative collaboration, but only through the mechanism of the game.
You do not discuss as a group what you think each world should be like.
Instead, each person makes their own contribution without coaching or
guidance, and we see how those blocks stack up.
Open discussion is a good way to build agreement, but it is not a good
way to create something surprising and interesting. So you start with
discussion to establish consensus—choosing a topic together, detailing
elements and statements—and then stop discussing, and instead use
that foundation to contribute independently and surprise each other.
And then, when each round is done, we relax the discussion embargo
and come up with a title for the world together. But the title itself matters
less than the discussion. It is an opportunity for the players to chat and
reflect on what we just made before putting it to bed and moving on to
the next one. A little decompression and intermission between creations.
You would think each world would be shaped the most by the first
player, but often it is the second contribution that really gives the world
its spark. That second player hears what the first person made, and that
ignites some sudden insight into what that change would imply. They
take the starting idea even farther (“But wait, if that was true, then…”),
so much so that even the person who started the world goes “Ahhhh!”
And this goes back to why not having a turn order is a good fit for this
game: someone who has that sudden insight can jump in right then. It
doesn’t happen that way every time, but it’s a gold mine when it does.
I suspect there is another reason the second player is often so pivotal.
When you are reacting to someone else’s idea, you can often create
more boldly and with less hesitation because, ultimately, you are not
responsible for the starting point—they are. You are just riffing on what
was put before you. That can free your mind from a lot of second-
guessing and doubt.
80
WHY NO PALETTE?
The palette from Microscope is great. It is a fantastic tool for deciding
what we do and don’t want in our fiction and getting people on the
same page for making a whole setting from scratch. So why isn’t there a
palette in In This World? Because it is not the right rule for the job.
The palette works in Microscope because we are trying to create a single
cohesive story that everyone will embrace. We already know about the
outer limits of the history—the concept and how it starts and finishes
—and the palette helps us agree on how to fill in the blanks in the vast
void in between. It establishes creative boundaries.
But In This World does not follow that model at all. Each world we create
stands alone and can take our ideas in totally different directions. We
do not want or need a unified fiction. What ties our game together
is the topic and the statements we made about it. That’s what we’re
talking about. How we explore those ideas in each world is intentionally
unlimited.
WHY STOP THERE?

When people who have played other role-playing games try In This
World for the first time, a common reaction is surprise that it doesn’t go
farther. Why did we stop there? Why aren’t we making characters? Why
aren’t we playing scenes in these worlds? We just got started thinking
about this world, and now we’re putting it away and starting a new one?
I certainly could have added rules to do all those things, but that would
not fit my goal of making a game that is for absolutely anyone. As soon
as you get into role-playing characters and framing scenes, you are
engaging in an entire portfolio of additional skills and unspoken rules
of conduct most people have no experience with. A lot of us veteran
gamers forget just how weird it is to say, “Okay, now just pretend to be
another person—oh, and first invent that person.” Besides, we already
have lots of games to make characters and play scenes, but we do not
have so many games that let us make whole worlds and explore real-
world issues in the blink of an eye.
Ultimately, the most limited resource in any game is time. You only have
so long to play, and every single activity in the game uses up some of
those irreplaceable minutes. Anything you add takes away time you
could use for something else. You could explore a world you like more,
but at the cost of making fewer worlds or exploring the other worlds
less. In This World is designed to give you the biggest return on your
time—a dense creative process with very few wasted minutes. Yes, you
could create a lot more, but could you do it in the same amount of time?
I don’t think so.
And that, in a nutshell, is how In This World works and how all the
different parts serve my design goals.
81
Changing the Definition
If you back up and squint, you may notice that statements fall into two
fundamental categories: statements that reflect how the topic has played
out in our world and statements that actually define the topic.
For example, saying “police enforce the law” is the dictionary definition
of police, while “police wear badges” or “police arrest people” are
just ways policing has been implemented in our society, even if totally
different methods could be used to enforce the law.
Food feeds us. Guns are weapons. Armor protects people. Food that
doesn’t feed us stops being food. Even a non-lethal gun is still a weapon.
And armor that doesn’t protect isn’t armor.
When you make a world that changes a statement that is the very
definition of the topic… well, you’re in danger of not really talking about
the topic anymore. You might be keeping the label but replacing the
idea underneath it. The process will still work, but your world might feel a
little dissatisfying or irrelevant. You might feel like you’ve taken a misstep
without understanding why.
During playtesting, I considered adding rules to avoid statements that
were “essential” to the definition of the topic. But that naturally led to
asking, what is essential? Before you know it, you are trying to define the
topic before you even get started, and the whole creative process grinds
to a halt.
In the end, I found it was more productive to leave that restriction out
and let players experiment and discover what was essential to the topic
during play rather than ask them to define it in advance. If one world
tinkers with the definition too much and veers off-course, it’s not the
(ahem) end of the world, just the end of that world. You finish and start
another, maybe learning from those mistakes and building something
that goes back to examining the topic more productively. And the very
act of finding those boundaries is interesting and educational.
Can there be cases where defying the core definition of your topic can
make great worlds that shine a light on our assumptions or expectations?
Absolutely—like the firemen of Fahrenheit 451, who start fires instead of
putting them out, burning books as a civic duty instead of saving houses.
82
What We Take Away
Before I played the very first session of In This World, I wasn’t sure it
would be “okay” to have a game where you didn’t wind up with a single
fiction. Would making multiple unrelated worlds even work? Would
players walk away satisfied?
It is very unusual to have a game where you do not create a single fiction.
In fact, the Lumpley principle says that the definition of a role-playing
game is a game that only works if there is a shared fiction we agree on.
If we don’t agree on that fiction, the game stops working. And that’s a
definition I completely agree with.
But eventually I realized that, with In This World, this question was kind of
a red herring. Yes, we create multiple settings, but we all agree to each
one. We do have a shared fiction. In fact we have several! The nearest
parallel would be playing multiple games on different days, except here
it happens all in one afternoon.
In any game, there is what objectively happens at the table—what a
recording of what is spoken and written would show—and then there
is the inner experience, what each of the players thinks and feels.
Sometimes, even what we hear is different: just because the same words
are spoken doesn’t mean everyone at the table takes in the same thing.
And after decades of playing these games, I can tell you each person’s
inner experience is different. Any moment we agree, any moment where
we all see our fiction the same way, is a minor miracle. It’s a triumph of
communication.
I made In This World to provoke thought. What thoughts? That isn’t
for me to say. I have the optimistic view that honestly questioning your
assumptions and the world around you leads to more good. If you are
thinking and genuinely questioning, you are doing it right. What you
think is entirely up to you.
The thoughts you take away will be different for every person at the
table. Even though we all explore the same topic and make the same
worlds together, our internal experience—our thoughts and reflections
and how it clicks into our view of the world—will be all our own.
And that’s completely intentional. We provoke each other to think, but
we each take away our own ideas. We each learn different things from
our time together.
83
AFTERWORD
A game is nothing without players. This section is for all the wonderful
people who have played In This World and, by doing so, helped me
make it better.
85
Thoughts & Thanks
In This World was sitting on the back burner of my brain for a very long time,
completely unplayable, before the final piece of the puzzle suddenly dropped
into place: why make one world when you could make a whole string? It does
not have any direct design ancestors but, of course, owes volumes to all the
games that have come before it, particularly games that wrestle with big ideas
like Shock (2006) by Joshua A. C. Newman or Downfall (2015) by Caroline Hobbs.
Games are nothing without people to play them, and I have been absurdly
fortunate to have great players in my life, people who are not only willing to
try out weird new experiments like this but who have helped shape my entire
philosophy of our unusual little hobby.
This book is dedicated to two of my gaming groups, the hobbits and the witches,
who were fundamental to my shaping of the game. Ace and Joe of the witches
crew were constant sounding boards and fonts of hours and hours of deep game
discussion. They were also the source of the idea that became In This Life, a
concept I was totally skeptical of and would not have jumped on without their
infectious excitement. Jem, Haskell, Mike, and Seth of the hobbits crew played a
raft of games that were critical to my understanding of the design, including the
very first session where I thought, “Okay, this is it, this game is awesome.”
Thanks to my editor Carole Robbins for her tireless and critical eye and to my
artist Al Lukehart for harnessing an unsung legion of caterpillars to create this
gorgeous cover.
And it is no coincidence that Caroline, Marc, and Pat, the people who played the
very first game of Follow, were the same people who played the very first game of
In This World, before I was sure it was even a game. When in doubt, my first call
is to the Story Games Seattle brain trust.
… AND THANKS FOR PLAYING

Everyone takes away something different from the worlds they make, and I am no
exception. When I look back on all the great sessions we’ve played, these are just
a few that really stick in my mind:
Jen, Caroline, and Marc for our delightful Furniture game, where couches don’t
wear out they just keep shrinking. Some day we will restore our ancestral ottoman
to its rightful place!
Al, Caroline, and Marc for new takes on Xmas, space cowboys, and our bittersweet
Vacations game. Because when you’re here, you’re family.
McCandless, Scholz, Seth, and Mike for making it through a rough game of
interstellar physics but then bouncing back and crafting a water-based economy
and creative unemployment.
Joe and Ace for gently exploring the lives of Jocks and also daring to create
alternate histories of our entire witches campaign.
Haskell, Jem, and Mike for our “it’s raining mechs” game, reimagining the Aliens
movies, questionable education methods, and, along with Seth, our fantastic
game of atheist priests and animal bodhisattvas.
I look forward to many, many more…
86
Playtesters
These are the brave souls who tried this very strange game. This was probably
one of my most viral playtests, in the sense that people would get their hands on
the game, play it with their regular group, and then, before I knew it, they would
be off introducing it to total strangers.
To which I say: well done.
Ace Hamilton, Al Lukehart, Albey Amakiir, Alejandro Vayas Diez, Alicia Fortier,
Alicia Padigimus, Alma Sahlin, Anders Hällzon, Andrew Jones, Andrew T,
ApplAuD, Art Quiñones, Ashley Cook, Athena Stripes, August Belhumeur,
Aunica Steele, Ben Young, Carlo Rebagliati, Caro Asercion, Caroline Hobbs,
Cecil Scheib, Chaz, Chris McGinnis, Cipriano Pagano, Cristian Sisto,
Cynthia Shih, Daniel Crespo Piazuelo, Daniel L, Daniele Maviglia, Dante,
David Fontes, Doug Bolden, Edda Mendes, Elad Hen, Emily Wong,
Ethan Harvey, Feiya Wang, Fernando Diez Vidal, Gwen Betts, Havilah McGinnis,
Heather De Munn, Helios Pu, Hypnos, Idan Zak-Doron, Igor Guerra,
Iris Levesque, Jacob Stevens Corvidae, Jacopo “Faust” Buttiglieri,
Jadon Cruz Montero, Jason Morningstar, Jeffery Harris, Jem Lewis,
Jen Andre, Joe Collins, Joe Wandyez, Johannes Oppermann, Jørgen Tjernø,
Joseph Gamblin, Josie Bagdon, Julia Keren Detar, Julia Sokolovicova,
Justin Ford, Justin Smith, Katie Gamblin, Kaz Bolden, Kelly Gawne,
Kevin Wang, Kim Nolemo, Kimberly Kerbow, Kyle Connolly, Laura Gracia Lopez,
Laura Olga Agnelli, Laury Hobbs, Lee Presland, Liana, Lovis Oppermann,
Luis Sanchez-Caballero Caravantes, Lukas Sernlind, Maldito Máster,
Marc Hobbs, Mark Vertlib, Max Carr, Mike Frost, Mike Graves, Miu Suzuki,
Nick Grayson, Nick Punt, Nicole Evans, Nova Corvidae, Opertura, Pat Kemp,
Quinn Spence, Randy Lubin, Raph D’Amico, Raven Joy Bower, Renato Ligas,
Robert Haskell, Robin Zahavy‑Merkel, Rose Turck, Ryan Aldrich, Sara Gettys,
Sean Parker, Seth Hansell, Seth Richardson, Sigal Weiss, Simon Gamblin, Sneak,
Stabby, Stacey Fontes, Stephen McCandless, Stephen Scholz, Steve Segedy,
Susan Schmidt, Thomas, Tony Sirna, Torren Sampson, Troi de Slacai, Vertigo,
Victor Lee, Viditya Voleti, Warren McDonald, Will Rubinstein, Zachary Bolden
87
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
Getting Started Pick Topic In The Real World… But In This World… Ending the Game
Read intro aloud Brainstorm topics and A Brainstorm Elements A What’s Different After each player has
then pick one together started one world, read
Important ingredients of B What’s the Same the ending page aloud
the Topic
C What It Looks Like
B Make Statements
D Other Players Build
Things that are obviously
true about the Topic E Add Detail
F Name the World
On your turn: Something Is Different Something Is the Same Add Detail
This is a outline of the rules for quick reference. Step-by-step instructions are in the book.
Copyright © 2023 Ben Robbins, lamemage.com
a small game of big ideas, by Ben Robbins

In This World

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

In This World

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Copyright © 2023 by Ben Robbins

Written by Ben Robbins

Edited by Carole Robbins

Cover Art by Al Lukehart

Published by Lame Mage Productions

First Edition 2023

(read this page aloud to introduce the game)

1 Art Holidays Doctors

2 Pets Dating Education

3 Cities Transportation Journalism

4 Family Money Elections

5 Marriage Tattoos Religion

6 Computers Nations Advertising

1 Houses Music Clothing

2 Government Food Jobs

3 Libraries Law Enforcement Museums

4 Taxes Zoos Sports

5 Language Shopping Recycling

6 Corporations Toys War

(read this page aloud to end the game)

1 Seasons Calendars Pollution

2 Cemeteries Flags Weather

3 Internet Games Genetics

4 Movies History Roads

5 Parks Copyright Disease

6 Insects Units of Measure Trees

1 Maps Guns Inheritance

2 Sculpture Voting Camping

3 Energy Weapons Commuting

4 Schools Private Property Writing

5 Construction Songs Mass Production

6 Trade Animals Treaties

1 Banks Crime Job Interviews

2 Restaurants Farms Resumes

3 Prisons Stores Hackers

4 Military Soldiers Actors

5 Publishing Classrooms Teachers

6 Police Healthcare Artists

1 Street Racing Politicians Spies

2 Vacations Pirates Lawyers

3 Royalty Theatre Mining

4 Private Investigators Hospitality Hotels

5 Judges Unemployment Churches

6 Scientists Diplomats Meetings

1 Fashion Credit Cards Kitchens

2 Hair Social Media Bathrooms

3 Dolls Reunions Eyeglasses

4 Housecleaning Cocktails Drugs

5 Cats Insurance Cosmetics

6 Puberty Exercise Sleep

1 Romance Diaries Gifts

2 Phones Cars Cameras

3 Privacy Jewelry Birthdays

4 Adoption Contraceptives Parties

5 Weddings Gardens Books

6 Furniture Video Games Neighborhoods

1 Alphabets Roleplaying Games Puppets

2 Circuses Gangs Water

3 Poetry Surgery Predators

4 High School Birdwatching Prosthetics

5 Afterlife Doors Mascots

6 Martial Arts Death Xmas

1 Gambling Hunting Heraldry