A sinister shadow has cast its cold grip upon the land. With only two months remaining until the big day, something or someone is wreaking havoc and stealing the very spirit of Toyland. Will you bring back the cheer or forever be shrouded in a wintry darkness?

🎁🎲🎄💀👻⛓️ [Download the Game!]

I'm currently working on a PbTA-inspired TTRPG for my personal group and I've--perhaps foolishly--tried to make the core framework behind Scenes light enough that the only differentiating factor for the GM in terms of mechanics is how initiative and positioning works. Being PbTa inspired, I want to focus on fiction first, which to me felt at odds with my group's love for tactical, non-arbitrary decision-making during combat encounters.

In the shower after puzzling over initiative systems that were fiction-first, dramatic, and still preserved player satisfaction through tactical decision-making, I thought to myself:

"Why can't time and space mean the same thing?"

The idea is as follows:

1. Initiative is rolled by Players with 4 groups with different probability distributions (20%/40%/30%/10%). The GM distributes threats according to what's most dramatic or as evenly as possible
2. We count up from lower brackets (necessary because this same probability distribution shows up in lots of other places and I wanted to bias Players towards acting earlier)
3. Every bracket also represents a zone of interest with possible modifiers
4. Players, should they lack ranged options, can only interact with creatures, objects, and hazards occupying the same bracket. Ranged attacks and abilities use the distance between brackets that the target and attacker occupy
5. Movement abilities let a Player or the GM shift an actor they control up or down a bracket (I think that moving to a slower initiative could provide a bonus to some kind of Move, but I'm not sure)
6. If a scene objective is not just surviving, then it must occupy an initiative bracket (earlier brackets if the Players are defending or holding an objective, later brackets if the Players are trying to acquire or destroy an objective)

I'm tossing around a kind of rock-paper-scissors internal positioning system like "Charge-Flank-Kite" that can help provide some depth to AOE moves i.e a fireball that only affects enemies who have flanked or a sweeping attack that only affects enemies who have charged. This has gotten a lot less thought within the system above though.

TL;DR My whiteboard theorizing suggests that combining the time and space elements of initiative in a combat encounter strikes a nice balance between fiction-first drama and tactical decision-making. Changing what zone you occupy changes what you can physically reach, what threats can affect you, and when you get the spotlight in a Round. Am I missing anything important?

Basically, the title. Most systems I see that utilize natural and leaned abilities to express character stats are simple summations, where you have a skill value that adds a cooresponding attribute value to the roll.

In roll-over systems, they are static modifiers summed and added to the roll.

In dice pool systems, they usually each add additional dice to the pool based on their respective values.

In roll-under, they tend to be summed values that give the player their TN.

Are there systems out there that have both attributes and skills but give them a different mechanical relationship other than a simple yet somewhat redundant, flat summation of values?

EDIT: To be more clear, I'm asking about examples of systems that feature skills and attributes that are not mechanically identical/redundant. Sorry, I wrote this late at night when I needed sleep and could have been more concise.

I haven't really found a design that allows for splitting dice pools in a satisfying manner, for the systems that I have found that propose the idea, I have the feeling that it was either an afterthought or an early proposed concept that was eclipsed by later design considerations

what I think the design needs:

- a good reason to want to split the pool
- a big enough pool, that generates enough successes, that it feels worthwhile

what I think the design needs to not do:

- it can't offer a shortcut to the "good reason" to split the pool
- use too many successes to meet basic objectives

hypothetical benefits

the major reward for splitting a pool would most likely be more actions in the same amount of time - or in terms of combat more actions per round than your opponent - a particularly good reward if a lot of the game is going to related to combat

the second, maybe less compelling reward, is "advantage" on split pools for an actions that would only occur once - two rolls split as the player desires (and is allowed) pick the better outcome - this one works better the more information a roll produces and/or if the roll has added effects for special conditions (aka crits)

how big a pool is needed to be "big enough" is the result of a lot of factors, most of them will be personal design choices - but as a factor of being able to split a pool should also mean that it would be good for overcoming a lot penalties and still have a chance to succeed; or in other words you could do some really cool stuff

these are what I have come up with so far, if anybody has addition ideas I would be interested in seeing what you propose

hypothetical problems

the biggest issue is in order to make splitting dice pools viable I am pretty sure some elements of design are going to have to be limited in what could be very significant ways

pretty much any method that offers extra attacks is going to be off the table - especially if the cost (xp) is less than the cost that it takes to build a big enough pool to offer splits - it is possible that splitting pools and extra attack powers could coexist but you could end up with a lot of rolls for the one or two players that dedicate themselves to the concept

it is probable a design with enough successes to split a pool is going to produce a lot of successes overall - ideally something meaningful is done with them, but in the absence of good uses the design has to be careful to budget in such a way that the player feels comfortable they will have enough successes for more than set of rolls

this means in all likelihood two options for adjusting the pool are going to be harder to use effectively:

- increasing the number of successes to increase the difficulty of a check will have to be carefully accounted for
- opposed rolls, particularly those of equal pool size and those that have grown large enough to produce consistent results, will effectively cancel each other out

I feel that using either of these options end ups up producing a sort of "arms race" to build ever increasing sized pools to outpace the loss of successes and means pools will rarely if ever split - finding a use for the "excess successes" is the best solution to this that I could figure out and conveniently designs like year zero engine offers an elegant solution, let the players use extra successes to allow stunts (just don't let them turn into extra attacks or advantage)

the effective "infinite diminishing returns" of adding dice to to a pool - every added dice is slightly less effective than the dice added before it - would seem to logically create a breaking point where more than pool makes sense at some point, but the concept can be pushed by the design by declaring the size of a roll is limited to a size smaller than the total size of the pool (for example the pool can make it to 20d6 but you can never roll more than 6 at a time for a roll) - it smacks of being an artificial limit but the right design (matching) could be a good solution

Whether it’s gunfire cutting across a room or swords clashing amidst a crowded battlefield, how do you keep combat engaging? Do you rely on classic cinematic techniques or give players lots of options, both mechanical and narrative?

Goal is for an out of combat utility. Right now I can only think of mechanics around resting: relieving exhaustion, alertness during sleep, maybe starting the next combat with temp HP.

Assume the typical DND-adjacent fantasy tactical game, ofc. Just sort of a thought experiment at this point.

greetings everyone

as the title says, I've been trying to blend the setting and metacurrency in a better in my project

The Project - is currently a 2d10 roll above system that I'm trying to make light and a bit freeform that is about fighting monsters,

The Metacurrency - is initially your run of the mill "fate point" esque thing, use it to reroll, add plausible changes to a scene or as a cost to get attempt stuff you couldn't normally do in a codified manner

The setting - Idea is a future fantasy that has undergone an apocalypse, it's based a tad on gnosticism and "The Goddess of Everything Else" from Scott Alexander - the creator force is evil, seeking the world to be violent and endless bloodbath were might makes right, in a long story the creator is banished to the deep underground and powerful entities and mortals modelled a "new creator" in a "cosmic egg" that one day would create an ideal world but that can still influence the current world

The idea - I wanted to bring this dichotomy between the "old" and "new" creators into play in some form tied to the usage of the metacurrency, at first I had planned only on having the "old world" as an influence that offers power to accomplish violent actions and personal desires, grabbing this power would slowly corrupt people and turn them into demons or monsters - mostly adding challenges in a social aspect

but I think it could be interesting to have the other way around with the "new creator", but not sure how to do it - also didn't want to make accepting power from the new creator something entirely safe, straight up good nor without repercussion

Thanks a lot for any and all attention and help

Hi folks!
I'm looking for some feedback on death and dying mechanics for a dark historical fantasy TTRPG. I want to balance heroic fantasy (NOT superhero fantasy) with supernatural investigation and horror. The basic mechanics revolve around a small d20 dice pool, and concepts like AC and HP. The game also includes a relatively involved character creation process and a simple progression system that allows for hundreds of hours of gameplay with regular character improvements. While an involved character creation/advancement system and gritty horror vibes are generally conflicting design goals, both are important to my game. I want to support long-term campaigns and heavy character investment. But...death and insanity are constant threats. With that background in mind, take a look at my rules on death and dying, and let me know what you think (2 pages on Google Docs). https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1MEHxj9FX9FaHjoA0rBOhU4TirkEnOuAv?usp=sharing

Thanks again for the feedback!

Hello I am working on a simple freeform system. I want it to be flexible, intuitive and playable with no set up.

I already posted about it a few days ago and received the feedback that the document needed work in terms of readability.

I have tried to cut down everything to its core ideas and simplified the language. It is 6 pages, but about half are play examples.

I am mainly looking to get feedback on the scene challenges. What do you guys think of the idea the limit the amount of actions that the PCs can take in a combat before it needs to be resolved one way the other?

here is the doc link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1GF2hFzoiLO78_w_XjI1rkW1cD56Bb3fNjrlT2QcEs-8/edit?usp=drive_link

the scenario I am envisioning is designed with a lot of player options in mind; maybe lots of classes, subclasses, feats & talents - all sorts of mix match combinations to give the players a lot of depth and complexity to building and playing their characters

but has a really stripped down backside for the GM so they are managing the pacing and story more than digging around for mechanics?

I am thinking this would probably be an asymmetric design where players are using one set of rules (for example hit points) where the GM uses another set (monster can take two hits or one big hit)

TL;DR: in using point pool for narrative style game in FATE inspired game, would using predefined abilities or aspect like qualities (that are weaker than aspects) work best?

I am working on a TTRPG that only uses cards (3 suits, ace-queen) for resolution. Every action is represented by playing a card, drawing a card, or revealing a card. The game is Fate inspired low-fantasy, thus meta currency (Favour) is used to activate descriptors (e.g. character and scene aspects) for players to gain narrative control.

However, for representing different levels of aptitude I am using a point system that players use to do more actions than what the basic allows. These points are called effort and can be used to place extra cards, draw extra cards, vy (buy extra success if an action succeeds) and change the order of resolution, among others.

However, I have a hard time to decide how effort points are gained. These should be pools that refresh at given milestones (between scenes and stories). One set of pools are characteristics: Body, Mind and Face that represent the characters physical, mental and social aptitudes. These pools are also the TN for acting against the character, and draining them represents character incapacitation.

I am debate with myself on how to represents effort points that come from a character's baokground and skill: either skills (like a theme appropriate list of FATE's skills), or more freeform descriptors like aspects. If the latter, how to distinguish between aspects that give strong narrative power and these traits which only supply effort points?

Suggestions, clarifications and thoughts appreciated.

Hi!

Very basic question - but which tool to use for creating character sheets?

Something you like or would suggest avoiding?

From my (non commercial) development blog: https://alexanderrask.substack.com/p/development-blog-dice-pools

I think dice pools have a lot of advantages on the table top. The most obvious is tactile, but pacing is a big part of it. Pushing most discussion of the test before the roll keeps things moving, and the nature of setting up a dice pool encourages player involvement in the mechanics. This can help avoid the situation commonly seen in D&D where players will blind roll, report the result, and expect the GM to calculate whether it is a success or failure, often rolling before the GM has finished describing the circumstances. Couple these advantages with thematic advantages for the type of action-adventure fantasy game I am trying to create, and I really think dice pools have considerable advantages over more common core mechanics.

For the past two weeks, I’ve been working on a dark-fantasy style RPG. I’ve been brainstorming ways to distinguish it from other RPGs, and I’ve come up with the following attributes:

Physical:

• Strength
• Dexterity
• Endurance

Mind:

• Intelligence
• Knowledge
• Spiritualism

Social:

• Charisma
• Will
• Faith

I’m confident about most of them, except for Will, Faith, and Spiritualism. Here’s what I have in mind for these:

• Spiritualism: Represents your connection to the otherworldly. “If you can see ghosts, they can see you.”
• Faith: Your devotion to a deity or belief. It measures how strong your faith is and how much you trust in your god.
• Will: Represents your willpower—how resistant you are to physical and mental hardships.

what are your thoughts on them? Woudn't it be better if faith was a resource insted of stat? How would will determine other rolls? ((for now its, when you make a saveing throw, you can use your willpower instead))

Thinking on how to make the game experience all the more feeling, I hit one of the most basic facts, that is nevertheless one of the modt important ones: The characters your players will most interact are, in turn, the other player characters. As such most time roleplaying will be either exclusively or with an underlying interaction between player characters.

This is no revolutionary discovery, but it might as well be looking at how ignored it is to support it by most TTRPGs. The group of PCs is just that, a group of people, normally from vastly different backgrounds and with none or an abstracted previous history. The legwork to make characters relationships falls wholly upon the players throughout the play, with no nudge or structure to enable it.

This prompted me to look at exceptions where some rule, structure, approach or otherwise written help upholds it. And the reason of this post. Looking for inspiration, what are the systems that do this the best in your opinion?

I am fairly interested in one particular mini-setting in Eric Zawadzki's Black Vans for Deviant: The Renegades, specifically, the superhero genre. In this genre, the theme is that superheroes are public figures: very, very public figures. Depending on the public's sentiment towards them, they can either be exalted as messiahs (yet expected to solve all world problems and put on a tight leash), reviled as horrors, or somewhere in between.

PCs in the game are the spotlight superheroes of the world, with all media attention on them, and their actions are what shift around public sentiment. If the PCs raise or lower public sentiment, that applies worldwide. (And yes, there is a table for mechanical effects for sentiment.)

Starting sentiment can be anywhere from positive, neutral, or negative, depending on the desired tone.

I find Eric Zawadzki's setup fascinating because the more positive sentiment is, the more expectations are placed on the PCs, and by extension, other superheroes. Even tiny transgressions, like being unable to save absolutely everyone during a crisis, or being unable to attend to two simultaneous crises, is enough to trigger public backlash. When sentiment is positive, it is possible that the PCs might prioritize preserving superheroes' public image rather than effectively and efficiently saving the world.

Are you familiar with any similar RPG mechanics, or have you designed any yourself? I know that the Aberrant RPGs have made public image important, though I do not recall any dedicated mechanics for such. Similarly, the X-Men book for the Marvel Multiverse RPG has something similar as a mechanic, though it is not particularly influenceable by PCs.

I'm reworking a WoD system and I came across the tests they ask for specific disciplines (the supernatural powers).

The most random attribute + ability combinations are tied to arcane internal processes or outward elemental manipulation. Yes, you can construct a tale around why level 1 is Intelligence + Rituals and level 3 is Stamina + Crafts, but I think it's at least unintuitive, to the point it interferes with character creation.

People tend to reverse-engineer their characters in the WoD. They pick the disciplines first, then check what random stuff they have to roll for the powers (now and in the future) and then make up a story, trying to fit the attributes and abilities into a cohesive picture (or burn their freebies to have some handle on their powers).

And I get it. It's something between horrible and dumb if you get the next level of your superpower and you have to roll with an attribute-ability combination your character has never touched. You're a manipulative witch, high mental attributes, crafts, medicine, rituals and to bargain with your inner beast you suddenly have to roll Strength + Finance or some other nonsense.

I tried to find a rule, like they always involve 3 attributes and 3 abilities for each discipline, up until level 5 ... but no.

My current solution is the idea, that you always roll with one core attribute (which is tied to the discipline, so you know starting at level 1) and the level of the discipline itself. Upside: raising your discipline makes lower powers stronger since it raises the dice pool. Nobody is forced into random abilities outside of the story they want their character to have. Downside: It might be too simple?

If you've encountered this and you consider this a problem, what's your approach?

Just finished the barebones prototype of systems, without having done any playtesting. If anybody can take the time, some feedback for what I've got so far would be helpful, particularly on the mechanics.

I haven't made any mega-tables for items or enemy creation, just how the game would function. If you don't know the setting of The Division, here is a summary from the wiki:

"Set in a near future New York City in the aftermath of a viral pandemic; the player, a Special Agent of the Strategic Homeland Division, is tasked with helping the group rebuild its operations in Manhattan, investigate the nature of the outbreak, and combat criminal activity in its wake."

For some other info, I wanted expand on the location and rich world that I adore the design of after playing The Division 1 so much, and that this project is not meant to be sold or for any target audience, just for my own creation and maybe playing with friends.

Here is my link: https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/f3fic11vmxbm13j8bhn4c/Division-RPG.pdf?rlkey=pqk5bdwi4auxa8q16108uumw1&st=9d6gxgpz&dl=0

I posted the other day looking for help with a kind of attack move in my pokemon TTRPG, and u/Lazerbeams2 gave me a neat idea that I've been exploring (thank you!!). I'm trying to figure out what the probabilities of a few different outcomes are. I'm not math illiterate, but this is just a tiny bit above my current skill level. Would appreciate any help from the dice math & probability nerds here.

While someone just doing the math would be awesome, I'm also very happy for the chance to learn some more math, so answers explaining a setup or pointing me to concepts to look up are very welcome.

Here's how the move works:

Roll 1 Red d6 + 3 Blue d6's
Add the Red to each Blue separately, to generate 3 sums
Each sum is an attack roll, where 7+ is a hit, 12 is a crit

What are the probabilities of...
- rolling k hits, for k = {0, 1, 2, 3}
- rolling at least k hits, for k = {1, 2, 3}
- rolling k crits, for k = {0, 1, 2, 3}
- rolling at least k crits, for k = {1, 2, 3}

In the interest of saving prospective respondents' time, I understand the rule of complements and its role in calculating the "at least" problems. No need to spell this part out.

TIA!

I have a conundrum that I can't seem to understand the underlying cause of and was hoping someone more knowledgeable than I could assist me.

I am an avid homebrewer and have been for 7 years. However, I have begun to hit a wall and it's not what you think. I have plenty of ideas and want to put them to words, but the issue is balance.

I am currently exploring Fabula Ultima as a system and have been enjoying my time with the system as a whole, but have started to become crossed with it in one aspect: its perversion to new content.

Let me explain, I have made several homebrew classes and have been enjoying it but have also had issues with balancing them around existing content due to existing content already being an insurmountable gold standard for whatever content I am trying to make.

Let me give you an example: The Spiritualist Class in the Core Rulebook has a spell called Heal (standard healing spell), it heals 40 HP to one creature (which is about a 50% - 75% heal early game) for 5 MP (which is the least amount of MP something can cost without being free). Now I have an ability in a brew I created that heals 20 HP for up to 3 creatures and costs 5 MP per target (to a max of 15 MP), but to compensate for its lack of healing compared to the Heal spell, i gave my homebrew class abilities that boost healing by 5 (and an additional 5 if they amplify the effect) for a total of 30 HP to up to 3 creatures.

Mathematically, the Heal spell over 3 turns heals for 120 HP vs my brew that heals for 180 if not amplified or 270 if amplified. Heal over those 3 turns costs 15 MP vs my brew that costs 45 MP if not amplified or 45 MP + 3 Inventory Points of amplified. So, strictly speaking, they should even out in terms of cost and effectiveness since Heal restores less HP than my brew, but my brew happens to have more expensive ways of getting to that points and has less immediate impact compared to Heal.

Yet, what baffles me, is that my brew is still considered "weak" or "just ok" or is constantly being compared to the Heal spell in terms of immediate effectiveness.

So, my question to the TTRPG Design community is this: Is it better to be more mathematically balanced when designing things? Or is it better to go based on how the thing you are designing is meant to feel, damn the mathematical consequences? Obviously a balance of the two is the correct answer but expecting a perfect balance is impossible, so I'm looking for what side I should lean more towards in my future design prospects.

Hey guys, im new to this sub. I made this yesterday drawing inspiration from Viking Death Squad and D&D. If you have any recommendations or things you think im missing, please let me know.

No dice RPG game

Rhythm of play

There are 3 pillars of the game: social interaction, exploration, and combat. But no matter what pillar you are currently in at the moment, the basic order of play is this:

1. DM describes a scene
2. PCs describe what they want to do
3. DM narrates the result of the PCs actions

An ongoing game?

Games are typically done in one session due to a lack of note taking. But if you would like to take notes for future games, go ahead. But that’s not what the game was designed for.

The Adventure

1. Your game needs a setting and it can be literally anywhere.
2. Your adventure needs adventurers
3. Your adventure needs a basic plot
4. And finally think of a hook that pulls your players in

No Dice

By design this game does not use dice to reflect unpredictable outcomes. This game uses a “choose a number” system. When a PC wants to do something that the average person couldn’t do, has high stakes, or requires special training for, the DM tell them to choose a number between a range. And If they guess that number or close enough then they succeed. If not the PC fails. When making a check the PC must always say their number first, then the DM may choose to tell them the target or not. They may very well just say, “success”

The 3 Attributes

1. Mind
   1. Wisdom, Intelligence, memory, engineering, etc.
2. Body
   1. Strength, Dexterity, stealth, toughness, etc.
3. Spirit
   1. Charisma, acting, persuading, magical abilities, etc.

Attribute modifiers

All characters are good, neutral, and bad in one area. And they get a modifier accordingly.

Good: +2

Neutral: +1

Bad: +0

Easy enough to remember.

Attribute checks

When determining if your PC can do something it’s important to know what constitutes an Attribute check. Here’s a test to see if a PC needs to make a check.

1. Does it require special training?
2. Can your average person not do this?
3. Are the stakes high?

Some things that PCs might want to do, may two Attributes and equal amount. If that is the case, let the PC decide what Attribute they want to use when performing the task.

Here’s how to perform an Attribute check:

1. The PC wants to perform something (tight rope walking)
2. The DM chooses the range based off of how difficult the task is. (Tight rope walking is hard)
   1. Easy: 1-6
   2. Medium: 1-8
   3. Hard: 1-10
   4. Nearly Impossible: 1-20
   5. Impossible: 1-30
3. The DM then chooses the target number that the PC is trying to guess. (Hard difficulty is 1-10. The DM chooses 7)
4. The PC makes a guess. (PC guesses 5)
5. The PC now adds their modifier to their guess so that they are closer to the target. (PC has +2 in Body Attribute. So the result is 7. Success!)
6. The DM describes what happens

Advantage and Disadvantage

When the PC has advantage on a check ,they choose two numbers and use the closer one.

When the PC has disavowed on a check, they choose two numbers and must use the further number.

Backstory/Racial traits

Each character, using their backstory or race/species, gets to implement a trait their character is good at. For example a United States Space Force operator in the year 3059 may be part of a human race with two hearts. Advantage on any endurance related body checks. Or maybe an elven wizard went to school to acting school or magic school, or attended a temple. Advantage on some specific Spirit check. Etc, etc. talk with the DM if the trait is too overpowered.

Combat Economy

Movement: everyone’s movement is the same.

Distances: close, nearby, far, very far.

Close distance: melee attack range

Nearby: ranged attack range

Far: disadvantage attack range

Very far: some spells

You can move from distance to distance but you cannot skip distances. For example:

I can move from nearby to close. But I cannot move from Far to close in one turn.

Actions: one per turn. Here’s the options…

1. Attack
   1. Guess the target number against the enemies defense.
2. Defend
   1. All attacks against you have disadvantage.
3. Cast a spell
   1. More on this later
4. Help
   1. Add a +1 to an action an ally is making
5. Ready
   1. Hold your action until a triggering event
6. Search
   1. Look for things in your area
7. Use an object
   1. Things in the vicinity can be used (I.e. interacting with the environment)

Reaction

Whatever the PC readied can be used as a reaction.

Making an attack

When performing an attack you must use whichever attribute you’re using to perform this attack and attempt to guess the target number. On a success you damage the creature.

Defense

Your PCs ability to dodge or resist an incoming attack works in reverse to a skill check.

Your Body attribute is either 0, 1, or 2. So your defense is a range. Either 1-6, 1-8, or 1-10 in that order.

This time the PC chooses the target number and the DM must guess.

Remember the PC always says their number first.

Social interaction

When talking to NPCs you can make Spirit checks to attempt to get help from them.

You can make Mind checks to see if they are lying, or if they are hiding something.

NPCs have 3 different attitudes: Friendly, Indifferent, and Hostile.

Use this chart for reference:

——————————————————| Friendly —|   Indiff. —-|   Hostile —-|

—————————————————————————————————————

Get them to take serious risk        | hard         | near imp.  | impossible  |

—————————————————————————————————————

Get them to help with some risk   | medium   | hard           | near imp.   |

—————————————————————————————————————

Get them to help with no risk.      | easy.         | medium.    | hard           |

It might be worth while to win them over to your side before asking for favors.

Carrying object

For simplicity, the carry capacity system is a common sense system. Is it a reasonable thing to carry. DM gets the final say.

Health

The health system is made up of 4 positions: healthy, hurt, injured, wounded.

You can heal from hurt to healthy after resting, but once you are injured or wounded there is no coming back.

 Melee attacks

All attacks to 1 damage

Spell-casting

Spell casting requires verbal and somatic gestures to cast. If you are mute or hands are bound. Sorry, you can’t cast spells.

PCs can think of any spell they would want to cast. The difficulty of the spell to cast is as follows:

Very easy spells - These are basic spells or effects that anyone with minimal magical talent could accomplish. Think of things like lighting a candle, sending a small puff of air, or calming an animal.

Easy spells - These are common magic effects that many spellcasters might use. They include spells that are simple but still require some knowledge or concentration, like creating light sources, manipulating small objects, or basic elemental effects.

Moderate spells - These spells are more complex and might have noticeable effects on the environment or individuals. A caster may need to carefully focus their energy to pull these off. Casting an elemental attack, generate a forcefield, teleport short distances, heal someone who’s hurt.

Hard spells - These spells are difficult and require intense concentration, mastery, or powerful magical sources. They may affect multiple people or areas, or even alter reality for a short time. Animate objects, summon creatures, Cast mind control, Heal injuries.

Legendary spells - Legendary spells are world-altering magic. These spells are difficult even for the most powerful spellcasters and may require specific rituals, materials, or magical sites. Legendary spells could be tied to the story's arc or have long-lasting consequences. Raise dead or bind a soul to a body, create a portal between dimensions, alter the flow of time, dispel magic within a region.

|| || |Casting Distance|Very Easy|Easy|Moderate|Hard|Legendary|

|| || |Close|1–6|1–6|1-8|1-10|1-20|

|| || |Nearby|1-6|1-8|1-10|1-20|1-30|

|| || |Far|1-8|1-10|1-20|1-30|-|

|| || |Very Far|1-20|1-30|-|-|-|

I understand there is a lot to commit to memory, but this is just a guideline, a recommendation. You do not need to follow this. Do what feels natural at your game session.

PC Demise

Once a PC falls in combat there’s no coming back unless consulting with the DM first.

Enemies

There are 4 types of enemies

1. Easy
   1. 1-6 hit range.
2. Medium
   1. 1-8 hit range
3. Hard
   1. 1-10 hit range
4. Boss
   1. 1-10 hit range with a +1 resistance

Resistance is a value given to take PCs guess further away from the target number.

Leveling up

Having levels means more to keep track of. You should track your progress narratively, the DM should give the PCs cool abilities or features when getting to a milestone. (i.e. flight, extra movement speed, no disadvantage with long ranged attacked from far away, or long ranged shots can be performed at a very far distance)

These are narratively easy to remember and don’t require a certain quantity to commit to memory.

Items

Some items are worth remembering. Again, these should be narrative so they will be easy to remember. Here are some examples of items to give your players.

Armor - consumes 1 hit. Useless afterwards 

Health potion - takes PC from Injured to Hurt.

Ranged weapon

Melee weapon

Scroll - can cast a spell without being good in the Spirit Attribute

Hey all! Just finished the third version of my playtest doc for my game Villains and Vices, and I'm looking for some criticism! This is primarily a card-based game, with aspect checks and combat revolving around using a hand of cards. I'm very excited to get this thing being played again, but I want some thoughts to make it better before it hits the table. Be as harsh as you want!

A quick note! It's still fairly unfinished, since I just needed a completed doc to show my playtesters, but everything is on the table to be critiqued. The only thing that I'm acutely aware of as being a glaring issue is that there are only three Vices. There will eventually be six, but I didn't want to spend more time than necessary flushing out character options that I don't even know how to balance yet. Thank you!

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VBCfrvybSdSqFYfEDll2VKl2xOf0W3DUt3LKhb5u0Go/edit?tab=t.0

My game mixes warhammer fantasy roleplay with magic the gathering, so it uses a d100 skill check system but allows characters to "tap cards" to enable stronger actions and apply feat or proficiency like bonuses.

To you, which games handle called shots in a balanced way? How do you handle them in your game?

So far, I like the idea that called shots take a scaling penalty based on difficulty plus enforce a "full action" (similar to aiming) but when successful allow status effects and in the circumstance of a critical roll can do serious Body Damage. In the case of aiming at objects a critical roll means absolute success in landing the blow. Beyond this I can confuse myself.

I'm stuck because I believe if you're in combat and the objective is to kill -- it seems obvious every shot is a called shot. Every shot aims to kill, in other words.

I'm interested in both fiction first systems and tactical systems.

With the "shopping holidays" wrapping up, I was wondering what ttRPG games you would recommend adding to my collection.

What tomes of rules have innovative and intriguing ideas that I can bring into my homebrews and one shots?

I've recently picked up Knave, Lancer, and Mothership. I've got my collection of D&D manuals from all 5 editions. I've got the latest edition of Savage Worlds. GURPS, Iron Kingdoms, WoD, and Cortex are sitting on my shelves.

What else is fun to play or at least an interesting read (and hopefully on sale)?

Hey everyone,

I'm looking for opinions on this art style. It's supposed to give the impression of being hand-drawn, but I'm not fully convinced by it yet. I might be biased since I know which elements are 3D and which aren't, so I feel like I "see through the lines," if that makes sense. I'd love to hear how it comes across to others. Does it feel authentic and cohesive to you, do you like it? or is something missing or that you dont like?

Thanks for your input!

Image: https://snipboard.io/RSldHn.jpg

Hey my guys, I’ve started putting illustrations that I do as personal work (i’m an illustrator/designer by trade) that don’t really have a home into an itch.io page for anyone that wants to use them for indie TTRPGs or zines or whatever, but don’t have the budget to hire artists. It’s free to use all under an attribution non-commercial license, more details on the itch.io page. I’ll be adding to the page around the end of each month with whatever I’ve done that month that’s probably of use to others. If you see anything of any use, go for it <3

https://fabudaddy.itch.io/free-art-drop-for-use-in-indie-ttrpgs

I've designed a system where I've completely changed movement (zone based) and magic to not get exponential in power and made it much much easier to manage spells and spell resources. my biggest issue with legacy design as based on 3.5/pathfinder is AC and Base Attack Bonuses and HP.

BAB scaling with level but AC scaling with gear feels wrong. what might be an elegant way to scale AC with level that isn't basically BAB again. I also want BAB to scale slower, but that I think I can manage.

This is for the game Im working on called Heromaker. Its a scenario based game (like Band of Blades). Im trying to maximize the flexibility of the core resolution mechanic and this is what I've got. Player gets to set whatever outcome they want from their action - character abilities selected during character creation unlock previously impossible/very hard outcomes. The scenario book provides the risks/worst outcomes of attempting certain actions / interacting with certain things. Like fighting an orc might result in 3 damage, for a simple example.

1 - How to Play

The GM visualizes a situation, then describes it from the characters’ point of view.

The GM asks the players what they want their characters to do.

Each Action is freeform. Consider all factors, like your abilities, gear, and environment.

Say what your character is doing and how they’re doing it.

Describe any special techniques, resources, or methods your character is using.

Decide what you want the Ideal Outcome of your action to be.

The GM sets Costs and/or a Worst Outcome based on your situation.

Feel free to discuss your action with the GM and group before committing to it. When ready, pay any costs and roll a “Player D20.”

The GM rolls a “Fail D20” and a “Neutral D20.”

If the highest result is the Player D20, the Ideal Outcome happens.

If the highest result is the Neutral D20, some kind of Middle Outcome happens.

If the highest result was the Fail D20, the Worst Outcome happens.

The orcs’ swords glint in the dim lamplight of the mine. There’s scaffolding up the cavern walls - perched atop are barrels of blasting jelly. Your boots squelch in the sandy mud. Ryan, the orcs are closest to your character - what do you do?

I’m going to knock one of the barrels down amongst the orcs. I’ve got a wind spell that says it’s good for blasting objects back away from me.

Ok, what’s your Ideal Outcome?

I want it to fall amongst the orcs and splatter the jelly on them.

Gotcha. The Worst Outcome I could see coming out of this would be the barrel taking a bad bounce and landing amongst your group instead of the Orcs. And the magic will cost you one Endurance. You gonna take that roll?

Yes. I’ll mark off one Endurance and roll the die… I got a 11.

[GM rolls and gets a 1 on the Fail Die and a 9 on the Neutral Die.]

Ok, nice you did it. You gesture and mutter the incantation as a great gust sweeps through the room. One of the barrels topples over and splinters right in the middle of the Orcs, spreading blasting jelly everywhere.

The player might also roll with situational Bonus or Penalty points. If you have both Bonus and Penalty points they cancel each other out until you have only one type left.

For each Bonus/Penalty point, roll one D6 with the Player’s D20.

• For Bonus D6s, every “6” you roll rounds the D20 result up to the next increment of 5.

• For Penalty D6s, every “1” you roll rounds the D20 result down to the next increment of 5.

Players may also spend Hero Points after a roll.

Each Hero Point spent rounds the Player’s D20 result up to the next increment of 5.

A player rolls with 1 Bonus. They get a “4” on the D20 and a “6” on the D6. The “4” is rounded up to 5.

The GM got a 9 on the Fail Die and a 6 on the Neutral Die, triggering the Worst Outcome.

However, the Player spends a Hero Point to round their D20 again, this time up to a 10. Now the action is a success and the Ideal Outcome happens.

All ties go to the result most in the Player’s favor.

Thanks for reading, good luck with your projects too

My Question to everyone is are saving throws needed? im talking in what i consider the traditional way which is

Player encounters a dangerous situation or comes under attack by a spell or other sudden attack then they roll a corresponding die to either negate apart of the encounter or to negate the encounter with danger entirely.

My question to all of you in this Subreddit is do you have saving throws or something similar in your game or do you not? Do you know of any games that are fun without saving throws? any reason you think they should be a mandatory part of any game?

Thank you for any input!

I’m working on a mint tin game where there will be characters and commanders, with black and white illustrated cards. I’m still working out the art style, but I wanted to get your opinion on something very specific:

I am using lots of hatching, but the cards will be very small so I am needing to stay mindful of readability as well. I have outline the character to stand out against the black background, and then I have three versions.

The three versions: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1-oDBRgI8dfSmeWDm71JhfURFvZdGePQ5

The first has no hatching around the character. Straightforward and readable.

The second has dark hatching around the character. Adds a little character without being too in your face. Just gives a little dimension I think.

In the third one the hatching around the character is fully white and it pops, but I’m afraid it might be harder to read when small.

I would love to get feedback on which one people like best and any other tips or pointers y’all might have. I only recently decided to take on the art by myself so I can use all the help I can get!

Edit: added a fourth version where I started getting some separation in the character with grays. Definitely helps readability a lot.