By Raymond Kimball, Microgames Coordinator

Hopefully you’ve had the chance to look at the recent announcements about Reacting 3.0 and BLORG 2.0. Not to be left out, I’m excited to share some important information about how Reacting Microgames are growing and evolving!

Microgames to Date

It’s been just over 3 years since we launched Reacting Microgames as their own category with set standards and processes. The response from the community has been amazing, and we are now tracking dozens of microgames at various stages of development. As of January 2026, there are:

• 3 Legacy Microgames (games created using earlier templates that will not be developed further, but are hosted on the Reacting website by community demand).

• 4 fully published Microgames (games that have undergone peer review, have authors signed to contracts, and are available free to members and via the Reacting Shop for others in digital format).

• 7 Microgames Under Review (games that have undergone an initial editorial review and are available to members for free for playtesting).

• 18 Microgames in development (games that have existing prototypes available from the authors, but have not undergone an initial review).

Perhaps most importantly, the above works represent the contributions of 29 different authors (some with multiple games). To me, this is the most important aspect of our progress with Microgames: welcoming contributions from diverse authors in various disciplines that serve many different kinds of classrooms.

Challenges and Concerns

Of course, any kind of change initiative is going to run into bumps on the road, and Microgames are no different. Below are some of the challenges and concerns that have emerged with Microgames, and how we’re addressing them.

Playability as a Microgame

Whether or not something is playable in a single session can be very subjective, especially in the early stages of development of a game. Something that the author can run in 75 minutes in one particular class context may not be feasible for the same timeframe under a different GM and context. This can be compounded by the fact that Microgames can be perceived as easier to write, since they don’t have a game book. In fact, the opposite is true: Microgames often require a far greater willingness to “murder your darlings” precisely because there isn’t time for players to experience all of the joys you have in store for them. To address this, we are:

• Further defining “single session” as 60-75 minutes, and requiring authors in their initial submissions of a Microgame to show that their suggested timing for the primary version of the game fits this mandate. That does not preclude variants or options of the game that could run into a second session, but the game must be able to meet its pedagogical goals in 60-75 minutes. In rare circumstances where there is a significant disagreement between the author and Reacting on whether the game is runnable in a single session, we will work to set up a playtest with the community to see what is viable. We do anticipate having opportunities to play Microgames at the Summer Institute - more to follow on that!

• Asking for playtest information prior to moving a game into peer review for publication. Authors should be able to show that their game has been run by multiple other GMs in other contexts. This is why it is so critical for Reactors using Microgames Under Review to fill out the Permissions Request Form — it makes it easy for authors and/or Reacting Central to reach out and solicit playtest information. We will also plan to feature multiple Microgames at the upcoming Summer Institute to provide additional playtests.

Template Use

Using standardized templates is a crucial part of the Microgames effort because we do not have the editing and typesetting support of a publisher to help process our games. The Microgames team can do some basic formatting fixes, but going through a document and getting all of the styles set correctly diverts energy and time away from the core functions of the review process. One thing we’ve heard loud and clear from the community on this point is that the more accessible we can make the templates, the more likely they are to be used. Therefore, we are:

• Changing the Header/Title style of the Microgame Templates from Lato to Arial. Members have told us that Lato isn’t always loaded on work computers, and importing the font can sometimes be a challenge. 

• Exploring use of Google Docs templates for Microgames. Candidly, the challenge here isn’t the template itself: it’s the handling and hosting of the resulting document, which requires a diligent attention to detail on permissions and storage. One possibility is having a template in Google Docs from which the author exports PDFs for review, with review markup and comments being done in that PDF by the Microgames Coordinator. We will make sure that this workflow doesn’t require authors to have PDF editing software. Look for more on this later this year.

Transparency of the Review Process

We walk a fine line on the review process of Microgames. On the one hand, we want to maintain a high quality product that is peer reviewed in its final form. On the other hand, Microgames should be able to move through a review process more quickly than Flagship games. Now that we’ve gone through two full years of peer reviewing and publishing Microgames, we’ve got a better sense of how to strike that balance. Going forward, we are:

• Integrating Microgames into the BLORG. Microgames were previously tracked in an offline spreadsheet that made it difficult for community members to know what was in work or being considered. With the launch of BLORG 2.0, Microgames now have their own space and will be tracked in a manner that the entire community can see.

• Update of the Microgame Framework. The original framework was the product of the Short Games/Microgames Working Group and had some necessary ambiguities about its process. Now that we have a more established method of publication, the Microgame Framework has been updated to more clearly spell out expectations at each level of review and what authors should expect.

Check Out Our New(ish) Toys!

All of the above means that we now have fresh Microgame Templates and an updated Microgame Framework on the Game Author Resources page. I’m excited to share them with you and get your feedback as we continue to grow and evolve this new frontier of Reacting!