What follows is a representative example of a Structural Audit deliverable. The sections below include the Engagement Snapshot, Executive Verdict, and Unified Synthesis—the Decision Track components of a full audit report. Detailed audit modules (AUDIT 0-10) and supporting evidence are included in full client deliverables.

Engagement Snapshot

Product Audited

Title: Ironsworn (Core Rulebook)
Designer: Shawn Tomkin
Publisher: Self-published
Publication Year: 2018
Format Audited: PDF
Page Count: Approximately 270 pages

Primary Claim Tested by This Audit:
That Ironsworn, as written, structurally delivers a complete campaign-capable experience across Solo, Co-Op, and Guided modes without reliance on external authorship or discretionary GM authority.

Audit Types Performed:

AUDIT 0: Product Type Identification

AUDIT 1: Scope Delivery and Dependency Mapping

AUDIT 2: Rules Coverage and Procedural Completeness

AUDIT 3: Internal Consistency and Mechanical Integrity

AUDIT 4: Onboarding Efficiency and Learning Architecture

AUDIT 5: Usability Architecture and Component Dependency

AUDIT 6: Incentive Alignment

AUDIT 7: Campaign Arc Viability and Sustainability

AUDIT 8: GM Function Distribution

AUDIT 9: Standalone Viability

AUDIT 10: Modularity and Toolkit Utility

Scope Notes:
This audit evaluates the system strictly as a designed rules text. No community practices, actual play reports, expansions, or derivative works are treated as evidence except where explicitly required to contextualize declared scope.

Executive Verdict

Product Identity (Functional)

Ironsworn is a self-contained campaign engine that replaces GM authorship with explicit mechanical procedures. Instead of relying on scenario design or GM judgment calls, the system provides concrete rules for generating content, escalating stakes, and forcing resolution—enabling sustained Solo, Co-Op, and Guided play without external material.

This identity emerges from three interlocking mechanics: Iron Vows (intent formalization), Oracle tables (procedural content generation), and Pay the Price (enforced escalation). Together, these systems form a closed loop that originates situations, advances them through mechanically enforced consequences, and terminates campaigns through explicit procedures rather than table consensus.

Scope Delivery Verdict: Fully Delivered.

The rulebook contains all structurally required subsystems to function across Solo, Co-Op, and Guided play without external texts or GM judgment.

Signature Structural Findings

Ironsworn is a complete campaign engine, not a ruleset awaiting content. The system generates goals, creates adversity, and forces resolution without scenario design—reframing it from a “GM-less option” to a fully autonomous campaign machine.
Player intent, not character optimization, drives strategic play. Advancement is gated by completed vows rather than combat success or resource accumulation. Strategy centers on which commitments to make and how much risk to accept, not numerical leverage.
Difficulty is a pacing tool, not a challenge curve. Static resolution math means difficulty controls how long objectives take, not how hard they get. Peril rises based on how long you pursue goals, not as you grow stronger.
GM authority is removed, not redistributed. The system doesn’t imitate GM judgment—it replaces GM roles with explicit procedures. Consequences trigger through mechanics, not someone’s decision.
Campaign endings are mechanical outcomes, not social agreements. The Write Your Epilogue move—a structured procedure for concluding your character’s story and quest—treats campaign termination as a rules event. Campaigns end through procedure, not drift or table consensus.

Tier Placement

Consensus Tier: Tier A
Confidence Level: High

Top Structural Strengths

Strong incentive alignment. Experience is awarded exclusively through fulfilled vows, mechanically aligning all progression with quest completion. One recognized optimization pattern exists — vow stacking, where overlapping commitments accelerate advancement — but this reflects rational engagement with the incentive model rather than exploitable drift, and does not destabilize campaign play.
Indefinite procedural sustainability. Oracle-driven content generation combined with horizontal advancement prevents content exhaustion without power inflation across the full campaign lifecycle.
Contradiction-free resolution math. The d6+Stat vs. 2d10 engine maintains bounded accuracy across the full campaign lifecycle.

Top Structural Risks

High onboarding barrier. ~50 pages of prerequisite reading are required before functional play, creating a steep initial mastery threshold.
Combat resolution ambiguity. Parallel availability of Battle (abstract) and Enter the Fray (detailed) creates early decision friction without clear escalation criteria.
Move triggering depends on interpretive framing. Players must “envision” to access moves, a skill unrelated to mechanical mastery that increases onboarding friction. After triggering, escalation is enforced mechanically, but initial access depends on player interpretation.

Best-Use Case

Optimized for solo or co-operative campaigns built around 5–15 session arcs for groups comfortable with narrative abstraction and willing to navigate the initial learning barrier. Structurally unsuited to tactical grid combat or prewritten module play.

How to Read This Report

Decision Track: The Executive Verdict presents classification and synthesis. Supporting evidence, quantified metrics, and procedural analysis appear in the audit modules. No new conclusions are introduced outside those modules.

Evidence Track: Individual audit modules document the specific findings, metrics, and citations that support the synthesis.

Tier Definitions

Tier S — Standard-Setting
The product structurally delivers on its stated role with minimal friction, high internal consistency, and sufficient procedural support to function as written across a wide range of tables.

Tier A — Functionally Sound
The product delivers on its stated role and is structurally complete, but exhibits notable friction in onboarding, usability, incentive alignment, or GM support that limits accessibility or requires experienced facilitation.

Honorable Mention
The product contains strong or innovative subsystems, but structural gaps or scope mismatches prevent full delivery of its stated role without significant external scaffolding.

Not Recommended
The product fails to structurally deliver on its stated role due to missing core subsystems, unresolved contradictions, or reliance on unstated assumptions.

Confidence Levels

High — Findings are consistent across audits with no unresolved structural ambiguity.
Medium — Findings are supported by evidence but include unresolved edge cases or interpretive uncertainty.
Low — Findings rely on limited evidence or ambiguous text and should be treated as provisional.

Unified Synthesis

Ironsworn functions as a self-contained campaign system built on a contradiction-free static difficulty engine (d6 + Stat vs. 2d10). Its mechanics provide explicit procedures for narrative intent, uncertainty, escalation, and closure—enabling sustained campaign play without GM judgment calls or external scenario design. The system reconciles open-ended narrative agency with indefinite procedural sustainability while preserving bounded risk across the full campaign lifecycle.

Core Structural Model

The system’s functional identity is defined by the interaction of three interlocking subsystems:

Intent Formalization: Iron Vows translate narrative goals into explicit mechanical commitments that govern advancement, pacing, and campaign continuity.

Uncertainty Resolution: A unified Action Roll framework underpins all subsystems, maintaining bounded accuracy (predictable probability ranges that prevent late-game numerical dominance).

Escalation Enforcement: Failure states invoke Pay the Price, a mechanic that produces non-optional state changes and forward motion without GM discretion.

Together, these subsystems replace continuous GM authorship with explicit procedures. Rather than emulating a GM through approximation, the system breaks GM authority into discrete mechanical functions that collectively support Solo, Co-Op, and Guided play [Audit 1, Audit 8].

Incentives and Emergent Behavior

The incentive architecture directly reinforces the system’s fiction. Experience is awarded exclusively through Fulfill Your Vow, mechanically subordinating all progression to quest completion [Audit 6]. Player behavior aligns with the peril-driven premise without requiring narrative enforcement.

This structure creates mild pressure toward vow stacking: making multiple overlapping commitments to optimize advancement. This reflects rational engagement with the incentive model rather than exploitation and does not destabilize campaign play.

Campaign Sustainability and Closure

Ironsworn supports ongoing campaign play without power inflation. Static difficulty math keeps tension consistent across the full lifecycle, while asset-based advancement broadens options horizontally rather than boosting numerical power [Audit 3, Audit 7].

Sustainability pairs with enforced closure. The Write Your Epilogue move makes campaign ending a mechanical event, preventing narrative drift and distinguishing the system from open-ended progression models that depend on outside judgment to end play [Audit 7, Audit 9].

Usability Architecture and Structural Frictions

The system’s usability architecture prioritizes long-term reference quality over rapid onboarding. Its hub-and-spoke layout creates a learning barrier of about 50 pages before users can play, reflected in a lower Linear Learning score relative to Reference Quality [Audit 4].

Additional friction arises from combat resolution ambiguity. Parallel availability of Battle (abstract) and Enter the Fray (detailed) creates early decision friction without creating internal contradictions [Audit 2].

Move triggering relies on interpretive framing (called “Envisioning”), introducing a skill floor unrelated to mechanical mastery that increases onboarding friction for some users. Once triggered, outcome escalation remains mechanically enforced rather than discretionary [Audit 2].

Move Sheets and Asset Cards function as structural usability components rather than optional aids. Avoiding them materially increases cognitive load during play [Audit 5].

Integrated Viability Assessment

Ironsworn is fully viable as written. It contains all procedures needed to begin, sustain, and conclude campaigns without outside input [Audit 9]. No external books are required for standard play; optional supplements expand scope rather than compensate for structural gaps.

The dominant tensions identified—abstraction versus simulation, instruction versus reference—reflect prioritization choices rather than unresolved contradictions. These tensions shape audience fit and onboarding experience but do not undermine declared scope or functional completeness.

Ironsworn turns narrative intent into explicit procedures. Its mechanics ensure that play advances, escalates, and concludes without hidden labor, producing a system whose limitations are explicit, bounded, and deliberately traded for long-term procedural sustainability.

——————————————————————–

Want structural analysis like this for your game?

The same framework, applied to projects in development or already published—identifying structural gaps, validating scope delivery, and informing edition planning.

Request an audit: jjchastain@protonmail.com