The Three Pillars

What it is. Three short statements of what this game is about — the feelings and truths every later decision must serve. Not features, not a to-do list. The pillars are the scoring function you run every candidate mechanic, twist, and level through.

Why it’s fun. Focus is fun’s precondition. A game that’s about three things is about something; a game about ten is about nothing. When two ideas conflict, the pillars decide — that’s the whole point of writing them down.

The step

Brief → exactly three pillars. Then everything downstream is scored, not debated: process-the-twist‘s candidate bends, process-composition‘s system list, and the cut list all resolve against these three.

Why exactly three

Two under-constrains — you can’t triangulate a decision. Four+ dilutes: a fourth pillar is almost always a feature masquerading as a value, or a restatement of one you already have. Three forces prioritisation and still fits in your head at every choice. If you have five candidates, two are subordinate — demote them.

Inputs → outputs

In	Out
The brief’s fantasy + hook (`process-intent-to-brief`)	Exactly 3 pillars
The named anchor(s)	Each pillar phrased evocative + testable
Nothing else — resist adding features	A one-line test per pillar

How to phrase a pillar

Each pillar is two halves: an evocative name you can say out loud, and a testable clause that a design decision can pass or fail.

Bad (vague / feature)	Good (evocative + testable)
“Fun combat”	Readable violence — a player can name the threat that killed them.
”Deep progression”	Every run rewrites the deck — no two victories share a build.
”Nice graphics”	The screen reads at a glance — the avatar is the brightest thing on it.
”Hard but fair”	Your fault, never the game’s — every death traces to an input, not a frame.

The testable clause is what makes a pillar a filter. “Readable violence” alone is a mood; the clause “can name the threat that killed them” you can hold a telegraph design up against and get a yes/no.

How to run it

Mine the brief. The fantasy usually contains one pillar almost verbatim. The hook’s X (anchor) contributes one — its load-bearing structure. The twist-to-be contributes the third (its differentiator).
Draft five, cut to three. Write candidates freely, then merge and demote until exactly three remain. If two overlap, they’re one pillar.
Add the test clause. For each, write the one-line predicate a decision must pass. If you can’t write a test, it’s a mood — sharpen or cut it.
Rank them. Order matters: when pillars conflict (they will), the higher one wins. Pillar 1 is the hill you die on.
Sanity-check coverage. Between them, the three should touch feel, depth/structure, and the twist. A gap there means a missing pillar or a wrong cut.

Using pillars as the decision filter

This is the payoff. Every downstream question becomes a score, not an argument:

The twist. In process-the-twist step 3 you score six candidate bends against the pillars and keep the one that most sharpens a pillar. A twist that fights pillar 1 is a different game — drop it.
System inclusion. In process-composition, a system earns its place only if it serves a pillar. “Does crafting serve any pillar? No → cut it.”
The cut list. When scope must shrink, cut the content that serves the lowest-ranked pillar first.
Content & difficulty. A level or encounter that expresses no pillar is filler. Every encounter should be a pillar, dramatised.

The filter test. If a proposed feature passes zero pillars, it’s out — no discussion. If it passes one, it’s optional. If it passes two, it’s core. This is the entire value of writing them down.

Worked example

Brief (from process-intent-to-brief example B): an RTS with faction asymmetry and impressive battles; X = anchor-starcraft.

Five candidates → three pillars:

Three armies, one balance — every faction shares zero units and still wins its share of mirrorless matchups. (from the hook; the twist lives here)
A hundred hands, one will — mass answers a single order and paths around walls without micro. (from the fantasy + FUN.md §9’s mechanical truth)
The order you gave is the battle you get — unit behaviour is legible and deterministic; no surprise from the sim. (an inherited-constraint pillar)

Cut: “deep tech tree” (demoted — it serves pillar 1, not its own thing) and “cinematic camera” (a JUICE.md feel goal, not a pillar).

Filter in action: a proposed hero-unit mechanic — does it serve a pillar? It sharpens pillar 1 (faction identity) only if each faction’s hero is distinct; generic heroes serve nothing and are cut. Pillar-scoring made the call in one line.

Traps

Pillars that are features. “Has a skill tree” is a feature; “builds diverge by hour two” is a pillar. Features are downstream of pillars.
Untestable moods. “Epic”, “immersive”, “juicy” with no clause can’t filter anything. Every pillar needs a predicate.
Four pillars. The fourth is usually a demoted feature or a dupe. Force three.
Unranked pillars. If they never conflict, they’re too vague; if they conflict and you haven’t ranked them, the next hard call stalls.
Pillars nobody enforces. Written and forgotten is worse than none. Re-score against them at every stage — they are only worth the decisions they make.

Composes with

process-intent-to-brief — the brief is the ore; pillars are the refined metal.
process-the-twist — pillars are literally the scoring function for the bend.
process-core-loop — the loop must express the pillars beat by beat.
process-composition — every included system must pass the pillar filter.