Targeted Structural Audit of Draw Steel

What follows is a representative example of a Targeted Structural Audit deliverable. Detailed audit modules and supporting evidence are included in full client deliverables.

Targeted Structural Audit

1. Engagement Snapshot

Product Audited: Draw Steel Heroes
Publisher: MCDM Productions
Publication Year: 2025
Format Audited: Core Rulebook
Subsystem / Section Audited: Negotiation subsystem (pp. 283–287), NPC Archetypes (pp. 389–391), and the design intent statement (pp. 385–387)
Stated Design Goal: A structured, dramatic framework for high-stakes conversations, what the rules call an “exciting back-and-forth” for “adventure-changing” moments, explicitly designed to replace “roleplay until bored, then someone makes a single test.” (pp. 385–387)
Audit Type: Targeted Structural Audit

Audit Question:

Does the Draw Steel Negotiation subsystem, as written, structurally deliver an “exciting back-and-forth” framework for high-stakes, adventure-changing conversations without (1) allowing a single successful roll to short-circuit the Interest/Patience economy, or (2) allowing players to force NPC compliance regardless of who that NPC is?

Scope Notes:

Included: Entry conditions; the Interest and Patience resource tracks; the Exchange loop (Argument → Director call → Roll → Outcome); how negotiations end; Motivation and Pitfall mechanics; how the Director sets starting values; and NPC Archetypes as reference profiles.

Excluded: How the system plays at actual tables; NPC writing quality; adventure design; social mechanics outside these pages; comparisons to other games.

Reading This Report:

This audit delivers functional verdicts. It answers whether the subsystem is built to do what it claims, not whether it’s fun. For how subsystem verdicts connect to full product assessments, see Reading Targeted Audit Verdicts in the Structural Audit Methodology.

2. Executive Verdict (Subsystem-Scoped)

Verdict: Structurally delivers

The Negotiation subsystem structurally delivers on its stated design goal. The Procedural Completeness Audit confirms a complete, self-contained loop with clear entry conditions, bounded resources, and defined ending states; negotiations can’t drift indefinitely or resolve in ways the rules don’t account for. The Incentive Alignment Audit confirms that the Interest/Patience economy makes single-roll resolution mathematically impossible, and ties the fastest path to success to understanding the NPC rather than just rolling well. The External Dependency Audit further confirms that Director judgment is constrained by NPC Archetypes and setup guidance rather than open-ended improvisation.

The one conditional: the system’s pacing depends on the Director initializing Interest and Patience within the ranges the rules recommend. Once those starting values are set correctly, the Exchange loop runs on its own without needing further outside support.

This verdict applies only to the audited subsystem and does not constitute a product-level assessment.

3. Signature Findings

  • Interest caps enforce multi-stage resolution. A Tier 3 roll on the Appeal to Motivation table yields a maximum gain of +1 Interest. Motivation doesn’t stack additively on top of the roll, it just unlocks a more favorable table. Because most negotiations open at Interest 1–4, reaching the deal threshold of Interest 5 requires multiple successful Exchanges. A single lucky roll cannot close a negotiation. The back-and-forth structure is built into the math.
  • Patience is a pacing mechanism, not a hard failure state. Patience doesn’t automatically drop every Exchange; it decreases on Tier 1 and Tier 2 outcomes, but a Tier 3 roll on the Motivation table holds it steady. When Patience hits 0, the NPC doesn’t simply refuse; they make a final offer based on whatever Interest has been built. True failure only happens when Interest drops to 0. This separates the countdown clock (Patience) from the actual success metric (Interest).
  • The pacing guarantees are conditional on correct setup. The rules provide typical starting ranges and NPC Archetypes, but don’t require Directors to use them. If Patience starts too low or Interest starts too high, the intended multi-stage structure can break down before it has a chance to work. The system’s dramatic tension depends on the Director initializing within those ranges.
  • Mechanical success is tied to narrative understanding by design. Interest gains and losses hinge on whether arguments engage the NPC’s Motivations or trigger their Pitfalls. Rolling well isn’t enough, players are rewarded for correctly reading who the NPC is and what they actually care about.

4. Defined Terms & Analytical Frame

Soft initialization envelope: The starting ranges for Interest and Patience — including the NPC Archetype profiles — that the system’s pacing depends on. The rules recommend these ranges but don’t require them. A Director who ignores them can unintentionally break the structure before the first Exchange happens.

Bounded discretion: Director judgment that’s constrained by predefined lists — NPC Motivations, Pitfalls, Archetype profiles — rather than open-ended narrative authority. The Director still makes calls, but those calls are made from a defined menu, not invented from scratch.

5. Methodology & Coverage Boundaries

Subsystem Boundary Definition

This audit covers the Negotiation subsystem as written, including everything it directly depends on to function: entry conditions (including the exclusion of completely unwilling NPCs), the Interest and Patience tracks and their thresholds, the Exchange loop, resolution rules (including how ties are handled), Motivation and Pitfall mechanics, Director setup of starting values, and the NPC Archetypes’ Impression, Motivation, and Pitfall data.

Coverage Model Used: Exhaustive within the boundary. Every procedure and decision point inside the defined scope was analyzed.

Claim Scope

These findings apply only to whether the Negotiation subsystem is built to deliver on its stated purpose and avoid its two defined failure modes: single-roll bypass and coerced NPC compliance. This audit makes no claims about broader social play across a campaign, setting plausibility, writing quality, or how this system compares to other games.

6. Structural Analysis

Structural Clarity & Flow

Entry Clarity: ✓ Pass.
The entry condition is clearly defined. The system applies when heroes want something from a reluctant NPC, and explicitly excludes NPCs who are completely unwilling (pp. 283–284). This prevents negotiation from becoming a tool that works on anyone regardless of where they stand.

Procedural Sequence: ✓ Pass.
The Exchange loop is clearly defined and repeatable: Argument → Director call (Motivation or Pitfall) → Power Roll → Outcome (pp. 285–286). Every step is accounted for and the sequence doesn’t require outside interpretation to run..

Resolution Conditions: ✓ Pass.
Negotiations end in one of two rule-driven states: Interest 5 produces a deal; Patience reaching 0 triggers a final offer based on accumulated Interest rather than an automatic refusal. True failure requires Interest to drop to 0. Ties are explicitly resolved in favor of the worse outcome, preventing ambiguity about when a roll counts. (p. 286)

Structural Outcome:
The subsystem is a closed loop with clear entry conditions, bounded resources, and defined ending states. Negotiations cannot drag on indefinitely, and the Director never has to make a judgment call about when the scene is “over.”

External Dependencies & Completeness

System Dependencies: ✓ Pass.
The subsystem only requires mechanics that are either defined within the Negotiation rules themselves (Motivations and Pitfalls) or standard to the core rulebook (Skills and Power Rolls). Nothing is left undefined or imported from outside the rules.

Director Setup Dependency: ⚠ Conditional.
The Director sets starting Interest and Patience before the negotiation begins (p. 284). The rules provide typical starting ranges and NPC Archetypes (pp. 389–391) as reference tools, but using them is not required. The system’s pacing and multi-stage structure assume those ranges are followed.

Adjudication Dependency: ⚠ Bounded.
The Director decides whether a player’s argument appeals to a Motivation or triggers a Pitfall. This is the subsystem’s primary judgment call, but it is constrained by the predefined lists attached to each NPC archetype rather than left to open-ended interpretation.

Structural Outcome:
The subsystem is mechanically complete on its own, but its performance depends on the Director setting starting values within functional ranges and making consistent calls during play. The rules provide reference tools to support both of those tasks, but they do not enforce them.

Friction & Compensatory Labor

Adjudication Load: Moderate.
Every Exchange requires the Director to judge whether a player’s argument engages a Motivation or triggers a Pitfall. This isn’t freeform improvisation — the NPC’s archetype provides predefined lists to work from — but it does require consistent, scene-by-scene interpretation throughout the negotiation.

Calibration Load: Moderate.
Starting Interest and Patience need to be set within functional ranges for the pacing to work as intended. NPC Archetypes make this easier by providing ready-made profiles, but the system doesn’t require Directors to use them.

Post-Failure State Handling: ⚠ Gap.
When Patience reaches 0, the subsystem triggers a final offer based on accumulated Interest and then closes. When Interest reaches 0, the NPC refuses outright. In either case, the rules don’t define what comes next: whether the negotiation can be reopened, whether the NPC’s attitude shifts, or how much time needs to pass before another attempt is possible. That follow-up state management falls outside the subsystem entirely.

Structural Outcome:
The subsystem keeps mechanical overhead low, but it does require ongoing Director judgment and correct setup to run as intended. The rules provide reference tools to support both, but neither is handled automatically by procedure.

Incentive & Economy Analysis

Core Economy: Interest (0–5) vs Patience (0–5).
Interest rises through successful Exchanges. Patience decreases on Tier 1 and Tier 2 outcomes, but holds steady on a Tier 3 roll against a Motivation.

Single-Roll Bypass Check: ✓ Pass.
The maximum Interest gain per Exchange is +1 (a Tier 3 roll on the Appeal to Motivation table). Motivation doesn’t add a bonus on top of the roll; it unlocks a more favorable resolution table. Because most negotiations open at Interest 1–4, reaching the deal threshold of Interest 5 requires multiple successful Exchanges. A single roll cannot close a negotiation.

Pacing Pressure: ✓ Pass.
Patience doesn’t automatically decrease every Exchange, but Tier 1 and Tier 2 outcomes both reduce it. Since most rolls won’t land at Tier 3, Patience erodes steadily under realistic play conditions, creating genuine urgency without a guaranteed countdown.

Behavioral Alignment: ✓ Pass.
The fastest path to success is identifying Motivations and avoiding Pitfalls. Rolling well isn’t enough on its own. Players are rewarded for paying attention to who the NPC is and what they actually care about.

Structural Outcome:
The Interest/Patience economy ties pacing, stakes, and fiction into a single progression loop. Negotiations move forward through a combination of good rolls and good reads on the NPC, which is exactly what the design is trying to produce.

7. Structural Assessment

Independent Operation Domain:

Once initialized, the Negotiation subsystem runs entirely on its own procedures. Entry is clearly gated (the NPC must be reluctant but not completely unwilling), and the Exchange loop operates as a closed sequence with no undefined steps: Argument, Director call, Power Roll, Outcome. Negotiations end in one of two rule-driven states: Interest 5 produces a deal, and Patience reaching 0 triggers a final offer based on accumulated Interest. True refusal only occurs when Interest drops to 0. Because Patience erodes under realistic play conditions, every negotiation ends within a finite number of Exchanges. The system cannot stall indefinitely.

External Scaffolding Dependencies:

The subsystem relies on bounded Director judgment rather than open-ended improvisation. Before play begins, the Director sets starting Interest and Patience using the typical ranges and NPC Archetype profiles provided in the rules (pp. 284, 389-391). During play, the Director maps player arguments to predefined Motivations and Pitfalls. Both tasks are supported by reference lists and example profiles, but the rules do not require Directors to use them. The system’s pacing and multi-stage structure assume those starting values are set within functional ranges.

Accumulated Friction:

Each negotiation requires ongoing judgment calls and correct setup. The Director must consistently interpret how arguments connect to Motivations or Pitfalls, and must ensure starting values give the pacing room to work. The subsystem also closes without defining what comes next: whether the negotiation can be reopened, whether the NPC’s attitude changes, or how much time needs to pass. These gaps don’t break the system in the moment, but they push follow-up state management outside the subsystem entirely

Predictable Failure Points:

Improper setup can undermine the system’s structural guarantees before the first Exchange happens. Starting Patience too low limits the action budget so severely that success becomes unlikely regardless of how well players engage with Motivations. Starting Interest too high can allow near-immediate resolution, bypassing the intended multi-stage structure. Keeping the Patience track hidden from players removes the urgency the resource economy is designed to create. None of these are flaws in the core Exchange loop. They are setup and presentation problems.

8. Recommendations Scope

This report identifies structural issues but does not propose fixes or redesigns. Mitigation strategies and implementation guidance are available as a separate engagement.

9. Out-of-Scope Declaration

This audit evaluates subsystem structure only. It does not assess:

  • Playtest outcomes or table experience
  • Item or option balance
  • Writing quality or thematic cohesion
  • Fun, pacing, or preference judgments
  • Comparative system ranking
  • Content rewrites or mechanical redesign