Utopia on the Tabletop is our open access academic collection exploring tabletop roleplaying games and utopianism (and a few other things).

You can access it here: https://sadpress.itch.io/utopia-on-the-tabletop

The idea for the collection originated in the Applied Hope: Utopias & Solarpunk jam in 2021: https://itch.io/jam/applied-hope

Thank you to all the contributors!

I’m trying to decide between these two methods of resolving actions. Either the players roll for everything (ex. players roll d20+modifier to hit an opponent and roll d20+modifier to avoid getting hit by an opponent), or most rolls are resolved with opposed rolls (ex. player rolls d20+modifier to hit and opponent rolls d20+modifier to avoid getting hit, and vice versa). What are all of your thoughts on these options?

Howdy! A few folks expressed an interest in how I was working initiative for my Arq system. I just finished my first draft on my "Book of Battle", and I tried really hard to make it understandable in there.

https://heyzine.com/flip-book/8e3c3112d6.html

I would love to get feedback on the document as a whole as well if anyone cares to try. It's a lot to digest.

Thanks!

#Description of the game

The intended uses for the dice system proposed below are for skill resolution, saving throws, dodge rolls, and special-effect-inducing-'attack rolls' made by player characters (the DM never rolls, and attacks will not normally need attack rolls) in a tactical fantasy adventure game. All differentiate between failure, partial failure, success and critical success. I am considering having the partial failure target be a near-constant across the valid target numbers, such as min{TN-4, 18} (that is, locked to 18 once the TN hits 22), while the critical success threshold is more likely to move at min{TN+4, 34} (only locking once the TN hits 30, which won't happen for a while).

#The thing I'm asking for feedback on: the dice and bonus system

The basic roll is a 2d10+1d20, roll-over, with actually implemented difficulties ranging from 16 to 33. A roll of 34 or higher (4.2%) will always be a guaranteed critical success.

In this distribution, there is an 11% chance of rolling at most a 12 or at least a 30, but the probabilities are nearly uniform from 13 to 29.

Enhancements of the roll come in two forms.

1. Flat modifiers come from only two sources to avoid having to track them, mainly character building, and range from +0 to +13. This system has no equipment. Because it is hard to roll a 27 in the first place, it is actually quite improbably to break the ceiling of 40. For this reason, I would say bounded accuracy and bounded difficulty are nearly in effect.

2. Reroll bonus, denoted *. At *16, the lowest such bonus, if you roll a 16 or lower on the dice, not counting bonuses, you can reroll one of the 3 dice and use the higher value. There is a 26% of rolling a 16 or lower, so *16 is a bonus that is nearly guaranteed to be used every session. A single reroll is not that useful to reroll a 22 or higher, so at *22, the reroll bonus provides two rerolls instead (they can be used on the same die or different dice). Some effects and DM discretionary bonuses can raise the reroll bonus by, say, 1. *27 is the highest level where this is very impactful, so a single player will never have the tools to give themselves *31 or higher, because it'll just be a waste.

#Other comments and why I'm conflicted

This system provides 18 meaningfully different levels of challenge usable by the DM, where the challenge level is defined by the context or NPC and not the player. The DM can just tell the player the challenge level if desired. In turn, it defines about 26 meaningfully different ways the player can boost their roll, all the while always allowing a (player) rat to hit a god, albeit with lowish probability.

Tbh I am mainly worried about the cognition and time burden of adding two 1-digit numbers and a 2-digit number. Let alone the learning curve! Is it, say, the worst thing you've ever heard of? At this point I am still considering improving it's on the chopping block. Do give me suggestions. At some point ... I did want this to be simple. But I also wanted 15+ difficulty levels, bonuses, and effective bounds.

#The target player

Players in this game will be people interested in a high level of granularity in character building, swingy noncombat skills, and highly tactical combat.

I have been thinking about the general application of Combat style mechanics, to any mode of play. Applying this deeper structure to other modes of play and scene types, could see greater stakes for the players, and tactical engagement. What do you all think? As this is not play tested yet, the examples might need refining. There could be some difference in terminology. Is this too much? Are the ideas too prescriptive? Is there too many sub-words? Is it confusing or immersive?

Combat Micro-System for Other Modes of Play & Resolution Granularity — Matthew Davis Projects

I've posted about this before, but I have a mild death spiral which I really like the vibe of (IMO - death spiral for a Vitality/Life system helps them feel distinct) but it's kind of annoying to track since it's a constant -2 penalty on all rolls.

I've been brainstorming on a replacement and want one with a good vibe that's easy to remember.

Context: The main way that Life points are affected while a character still has Vitality is via a critical hit (10+ target's defense score). This can be negates to instead take 1 life point and 2x Vitality damage by the PCs (or elite NPCs) by spending one point of Grit (physical mana).

My idea is that instead of automatically converting the entire hit into 2x Vitality, each point of Grit would only convert damage equal to their current life point total.

So basically an especially damaging critical hit would require the target to spend 2-3 Grit and still take 2-3 Life damage. And it would be exacerbated if you're already wounded.

This would make critical hits scarier (not a bad thing since it's 10+ defense and a lot of the game is maneuvering to jack up defense/attack with cover/flanking etc.) and make being low on Life points more dangerous, but not do anything to gimp your actions.

I'll have to test it out from a math/balance perspective, but I thought I'd tap the brain trust here to see how it feels from a vibe standpoint. I don't want to burn a bunch of time balancing it if it feels bad.

Ill start off by explaining that my game originally started off as a PF2e clone about monster hunting so if any elements are missing that might be a good place to start or I can answer any question you might have.

Right now im feeling overwhelmed with my monster creation section. What I want to do is give GMs the ability to create powerful and interesting monsters. Ive gotten the baseline for the defenses done but its the offense that are throwing me for a loop and now im starting to wonder if I have too much granularity at the moment.

The penultimate goal is to have a balanced set of monster creation rules that the GM can use to create interesting encouters without having to worry too much about balance. (Something, something, X factor, something something, Gm and player intelligence, something something, think about the terrain, something something, you should just playtest, something something, no such thing as mathematical balance).

How monster creation works right now is you get a certain number of points in different categories (defense/offense/utility) you then spend those point to build the monster/encounter. You get these points based off of character level, their strategy, and their type. For example (and using arbitrary numbers because its not done) if a GM is looking to create a horde of zombies they might choose to have a 1/4 be defensive, a 1/4 be aggressive, 1/4 special, and a 1/4 be balanced. They then choose to use the swarm statistics so the defensive variant have 10/4/2, the aggressive have 4/10/2, the special have 4/4/8, and the balanced might have 6/5/5. And then the GM can spend those points on developing an interesting abilities.

Right now what this allows is for 2 aggressive creatures to have the same offense score but one can use a high attack roll but low damage and the other can use a low attack roll, but high damage. This also allows for each one to have unique abilties that are different levels of strength so one can have a grenade that they toss but otherwise has a weak knife attack or a dragon can either have a cone breath weapon or the ability to launch balls of magma into the fray. You can also have a sniper with a 2 action harpoon shot that deals bonus damage in this very same fight.

But for right now the balance is starting to get overwhelming and im starting to wonder if I may be better served by giving a list of abilities and then saying to deal with it. See the table below for what im thinking (again, number are arbitrary):

Now of course, this table only shows single target and doesnt get into making multiple attacks as a special ability, abilities that can be used more than once per day, or abilities which have an aoe or even things like persistent damage or attacks that use two or more actions, or even just the ability to force saving throws. However, this will allow some degree of unique special attacks and id just need to figure out what the score is for each rank and then I can tweak the numbers from there.

The biggest reason Im not happy with it is that GMs are limited by my creativity. So if I dont think about a dragon that can launch magma balls or an archer that shoots arrows that pierce through multiple targets before exploding, then they will just be left out in the cold.

The only way I can see doing both is to have multiple tables so instead of the +0 to hit and 2d6 damage it would be Attack score: 3, damage score: 5 and then GMs would have to look up what those numbers need in another table and pick from equivalent values. The reason I dont like this is that it feels like its too many table to go through for every monster. GMs will start at the main table to get their offense score, then go to the attack table to get their attack and damage scores, and then go to two other tables to get the numbers that they are actually looking for. And then on the flip side defenses are being purchased directly using the defense score.

Major Edit: This is Part 10, not Part 9.

Four months ago, I posted my first monster statblock which included every NPC/Character relevant information that a Sage/GM needs to use against their player. However, comments from people who read the post and friends say that it's too bulky for a simple enemy.

In response, I created 4 creature classifications that define how important a specific enemy is:

• Fodder: Weak faceless enemies. These enemies are meant to be fought in groups, rarely alone. Excluding a few bad rolls, fodder enemies will almost always never be able to defeat a single player. Fodder enemies are usually in a group of 3 or 4 following a single Threat or an Elite.
• Threat: A stronger fodder enemy, usually leading multiple fodders against the players. Usually, they are not strong enough to defeat a single player but that doesn't account for bad rolls on the player's side. A threat can be followed by multiple fodders or be the right hand of a single elite.
• Elite: These are strong enemies capable of holding themselves against a single player. They make full use of a statblock and have no mechanical or narrative advantage or disadvantage against a player. To ensure that they are not devoured by action economy, it is good to pair elites with a threat or two, or multiple fodder enemies.
• Masters: The strongest type of creature or NPC you can use against a player. Not only do they make full use of a statblock like an Elite but have a few mechanical or narrative advantages that generally make them stronger than a single player.

Continuing off my last post, this post to be specific, is a fully working Monster Statblock. If the enemy was an elite or master monster, they would be using the full stat block.

However, if this monster were to be a fodder or threat-level enemy, it would instead have these stat blocks:

• Fodder Enemy
• Threat Enemy

As you can see, these revised fodder and threat stat blocks will only take a small box that your Sage/GM can easily memorize or use as a reference. You'll also notice that the original stat blocks have fewer hit points and a weaker defense. This is the result of having a narratively weaker statblock. It makes heavy use of this TV trope - Conservation of Ninjutsu.

Fodder Statblocks have the following changes:

• Halve their Hit Points, rounded down
• A single Defense statistic equal to the lower of the two Defense statistics
• No Resistances
• No Energy
• 3 Relevant Skills
• One or two basic attacks
• A major art with a single-use (If available)

Threat Statblocks have the following changes:

• Halve their Hit Points, rounded down
• Both Defense Statistics
• No Resistances
• No Energy
• 5 Relevant Skills
• One or two basic attacks
• A major art with a single-use that can be reused with Karma (If available)

That ends this update's main focus but before I go, I wanted to show updates regarding two Path Manuals that I finished from the last update.

• Grey of Beards: A path manual created by the masses to defeat their tyrant leaders and enemies
• Rushing River: A powerful and graceful path manual focused on movement and dodging.

Grey of Beards was suggested by u/InherentlyWrong

Rushing River was suggested by u/corrinmana

Thanks for the suggestions!

Hello!

In V5, your vampire gets hungrier over time. Each point of hunger you gain forces you to replace one of the dice in your pool with a hunger die. The results of the hunger dice might turn your action into a "messy" or "bestial" result, which means that your basic instincts took over you. Even if you succeed, you lose self-control for a moment and end up doing something monstrous.

Do you know any other dice mechanics that work similarly? In other words, "the more X you are, the greater the chances of Y happening when you roll the dice"?

Other RPGs use similar systems. Dark Necessities, for example, has a hunger die, but it doesn't reflect your hunger proportionally. No matter how hungry you are, the chance of doing something out of hunger is always the same.

Hey all! Has anyone here seen an RPG that uses coin flips as their sole mechanic rather than dice?

For example, if you had an attacker vs a defender flip a coin a number of times equal to their respective attack/defense score or something along those lines. The damage dealt being the difference between successful flips.

I’ve been having a difficult time trying to finding a theme for my TTRPG’s world.

My TTRPG takes the aspect of cosmic horror as the characters fight an evil entity throughout the multiverse and across different timelines.

There are Angels, Fallen Angels and demons amidst the chaos who are trying to fight for control over the multiverse. You are sent by a deity to finish the job by fighting the corrupted forces known as ‘The Red’.

Players will play as Spellbinders (Spell-casters), Conjurers (Half-casters) or Acumen (Non-Spellcasters).

The universal settings are focused Science Fantasy or Urban Fantasy.

How do I define the theme for my TTRPG?

Does it needs further explanation for its concepts?

Will my universal setting create issues for making a theme?

So, my idea is to make a game in which players can make competitive decisions without other players knowing.

This might sound weird, but In truly think I have an interest idea. (It’s not 100% original, but on the devlog 00, I talked about this)

Anyway, I know Devlogs about board games aren’t really successful on YouTube, that’s why I put a lot of effort on presentation!

So, if you guys would like to take a look, give some feedback, etc… it would help me a lot!

Here’s the link to the episode 1, where I talk about Minimaps:

https://youtu.be/p0bp8eDcIC4?si=ttGehrxEnbkXuCWe

I just want to know you guys opinion about Flat damage on weapons/habilities instead of damage dice rolls

I feel like its easier to make a system with scaling with a flat damage and it cuts a lot of time from the combat cycle.

I have a lot of ideas to make this, even tho flat, super flexible.

Later i might make a post with all the details but for now, id love to hear your opinions since i know that a lot of people love the thrill of rolling dice to check how much damage they've dealt.

Edit: with "flat damage" i mean that every type of weapon has the same amount of damage, but the damage will vary depending on: The scaling that said weapon has and how good was your performance on the skill check. i want to expand and explain this more on my next post.

I have been creating a game for the last year, and am at the point where I feel like I need some community feedback to make some decisions.

I don't know if the game will ever see print, but at least would love to get to the point where I could get friends to try it with me.

One of the (many) questions I have, is how do people feel about Reactions in their TTRPG's?

Some systems use a totally fluid combat initiative, where people can act at any point in a round if their action economy allows.

Some (like PF2e and DND5e which are my main inspirations) give you a set amount of reactions you can use in a round, separate from your main action economy on your turn.

And some allow for no reactions.

The obvious Merit of Reactions to me is increased tactical choices and immersion in combat. The downside is obviously much longer combat rounds.

I'd love to hear examples of how your favorite system does it, or what you think the merits of each way of doing it are.

For reference, I plan to use a "Three Action Economy" (with some classes getting more Actions), and am undecided if I should have any reactions, a set amount, or if character should be able to use actions as "reactions" during other players turns.

In my TTRPG, The Earth of the Fourth Sun (see link below to the “Starter Version”), Experience Points gained by the Characters are no different from the starting points used in character creation. Experience is spent by the Player to increase Attributes, Skill ranks, gain Gifts, gain spells, etc. directly on a 1:1 basis. It can be accumulated, and if needed, spent during the adventure to guarantee success in a roll.

I am currently rewriting the Murim World rules, and I’ve decided to put a twist in for the Cultivators: they do not gain experience intrinsically- their Experience Points are instead recovered as objects and items, and they will have to use their Cultivation in order to gather and use the experience inside. In the Murim world, pills, arrays, formations, talismans, and spirit stones all are valued items that contain precious Experience for the Cultivator. Although an item such as the Demon Thunder Cloud Spear may have precious metals and stones used in it’s creation and be worth many Royals in it’s own right, it’s precious internal Chi is worthless to the average person, and only a Cultivator can extract the Experience inside. The Southern Paladin would appreciate a dish of fried Emperor Phoenix, but may not gain any Experience for eating it.

So far I have only written two forms of Cultivation, the Heaven Path (aka Universal Breath or Yang Chi Cultivators) and the Demon Path (aka Yin Vampiric Cultivators). Each one will extract the Chi (i.e., Experience Points) out of the objects slightly differently. Cultivators are those that have gone from being an Outer Disciple with only marital arts and weapon training, to being an Inner Disciple that has full access to the abilities of their chosen Path; part of the Chi Gathering Stage of an Inner Disciple is the ability to identify Chi (or Experience Points) in items and the ability to remove it.

Since the experience is in a tangible form, it can be sold, traded or stolen. Items should be very expensive, and the top items would have some notoriety. This system gives rise to the great Auction House scenes found in Manwa and Wuxia, or their dark mirror, The Black Market. Powerful Sects with plenty of money will buy countless Heavenly Emperor Jade Pills containing Experience for their favorite scions. The forest of the mountains will have robbers and bandits, awaiting the Cultivator that comes back from subjugating the Six Tail Fox, hoping to steal the precious items that the Murim warrior earned from their battle. A particular clan may have a Hidden Array that more efficiently extracts the Chi from an item placed within it’s pattern- such a Formation is a target for others outside the sect.

What other socioeconomic ramifications do you think would exist in the Murim World with an Experience Commodity system? The nature of the Cultivation Path does affect the type, amount and nature of the Experience extraction, but do you think it is prohibitive and punishing to the Players for having such a system? Should it be modified and be retrofitted for both Euro-traditional and Murim style characters?

Thanks as always!

Link to the Eo4S primer:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1s8dknNu7cBY34MX06U_JtLtPYYIawUij/view?usp=sharing  

I'm still in the early days of system dev, but I'm starting to think about broader concepts to a system than just combat. Specifically, travel and social interaction (bc they are common and will need to be included in my system).

My combat system is fairly straightforward, similarly enough to combat in D&D or PF that I don't need to detail it here. Unlike those systems, I'm looking to make travel and social encounters have the same (or as close to as possible) set-up and engagement structure as combat.

Basically, an initiative and action economy.

For travel, I'm thinking that having a number of obstacles to surmount is an equivalent to enemies. Whereas instead of multiple enemies you fight in whichever order, obstacles would need to be surmounted one at a time.

Again, I'm still workshopping this idea. Would love some thoughts on how this could be implemented (and not just offering a different system entirely, please that's not helpful).

Hi, I've been rocking my brain about this. Mostly the math. I heard that using 2d6 for a game who Is more player focus tends to be more limiting than using only a d20 for the skill/attacks. Does anyone elsr had a problem with 2d6?

I've been toying with a system where players only assign part of their character building resources during character creation, and the rest is left to be assigned during play.

The idea is to allow fleshing out characters mecahnically as play progresses, and to give some leeway in having to think of everything that might be relevant before before play begins.

Do anyone know any good examples of games that do something similar? Bonus points if you can briefly explain the mechanic.

I'm in the core design phase and I'm looking at armor as a game mechanic. My system doesn't have a 'roll to hit' system, but uses roll for damage and has armor reduce said damage (aka Soak).

Conceptually, I was thinking of the armor having two values-- soak per round and a soak per hit.

Soak per Hit would be the minimum amount negated per each attack. Smaller numbers (1-4).

Soak per Round would be an amount that could be negated per round, but once its gone that round the negation defaults to the Soak per Hit. This anount is restored to full at the start of each round. Larger numbers (3-6).

This is only physical damage, not elemental or whatever.

Damage output per attack varies. Damage is calculated by adding an attribute (1-5) to the roll of the damage die or dice, plus a tier bonus (1-3). Most weapons deal either 3d4, 2d6, or 1d12 damage, the exception being 1-hand weapons that deal 1d4 for two separate attacks. So, we're looking at damage being anywhere from 3 to 20 damage per hit, but statistically closer to it being about 8-12.

Anyways, I'm wondering if these two Soak values for armor are going to slow down combat, considering there's no 'To Hit' roll.

EDIT 1: Some clarifications--

• I realize that this is just temporary hit points.

• Names for things and numbers aren't 100% finalized.

• This is player facing. Monsters only have Soak per Round. Easier bookkeeping for the GM.

• Armor isn't the only ways to reduce incoming damage. I was just trying to get a sanity check on the 2 types of Soaks idea. Turns out you all think I'm insane-- MAD MAN ON THE LOOSE!!!

EDIT 2: I think I might just default to one of these (reduction per round vs per hit) for simplicity's sake. Leaning towards per hit so I don't have to worry about number inflation.

Recently released a game that I have been working on for 2 years. Fully designed, with art and rules. I just want to get people's feedback, but I never seem to get any. Is it bad for me to ask for it?

Disclaimer: This is not an attempt at covert advertising, we are genuinely concerned and would like to understand what is wrong.

We are aGoN - A Game of Nerds, a small Italian publishing company that publishes role-playing games https://linktr.ee/agameofnerds . We started writing VtM and WtO city books for the Storyteller Vault in 2016, then in 2020 we started writing our own indie games. We have successfully published Arcana Familia and Deep Sky Ballad, plus some minor systems like Wanderers and Grim Harvest. We attend several conventions here in Italy, we often organize demo games and we have a decent presence on social media, where we try to respond as soon as possible to those who contact us. Our games generally have positive feedback.

The problem is that despite everything we have problems making ourselves known to the public, and we don't understand why we are generally ignored compared to other publishing realities comparable to us. I would understand if the games were not appreciated, but as I said the feedback is mostly positive, and even the critical ones are only about certain aspects of the game system or personal preferences. The impression we have is literally that of being ignored rather than not appreciated, and we can't understand what we are doing wrong in this regard.

Could someone please take a look and tell us what we are doing wrong and what we can do to correct the trend? Many thanks!

EDIT: don't consider the homepage of the website, it is under renovation due to the feedback received here, thanks.

Is it a bad idea to split rounds into movement phases and action phases in combat? Meaning that the players state where they want to move, then the GM states where the NPCs want to move, and if a player wants to react to the movement of the NPCs they can delay their choice. If there is some kind of conflicting movement, such as a character chasing after another or 2 characters trying to get to a place first or one character trying to get past another, a dice roll will resolve what happenes. When the movement is done everyone does their actions in order. You can choose to move again as an action.

I am not currently working on my own RPG (I kinda gave up) but I have been thinking about adding a homebrew rule to the games I play where all characters move at the start of the round and then actions are resolved.

In the game systems I currently run, EZD6 and Quest, most characters can move and do an action on their turn. The players go first and then the NPCs have their turns. The reason I want to change this is that I want combat to feel more dynamic and I want it to feel like everything is happening at the same time. I want the fiction to feel more like a movie and less like a video game where everyone moves one at a time. I want movement and positioning to be a bigger part of the tactical choices for players and I hope players can be creative with the way they choose their movement.

In these games movement distances are not strict which could make it easier to imagine this change working. If you use a grid it

Do you see any obviously flaws in this suggestion? Is there any games that use this kind of movement phase?

Edit: I am not sure if it's more fun for the players to go before or after the NPCs, maybe each player should choose for each round. I might experiment with this but the thought is that everyone moves at the same time. I think the reason I want to change the normally way of running combat is that I don't like how everyone acts in a kind if frozen time. I want players and NPCs to be able to react and stop each other.

For example (using ezd6 rules): A Warrior is fighting a skeleton, 2 other skeletons move into position to shoot at her. She can choose to stay and destroy the skeleton in melee range, or duck behind cover to avoid getting shot but then missing the opportunity to deal damage.

Another example: A Brute sees a group of enemies crossing a rope bridge to join the battle. Instead of the player just saying "I walk up to the bridge and cut the ropes" they will have to roll to get there before the enemies get across. If they fail they could still use their action to keep the enemies back while another player comes in to help

I don't know if I'm able to get these examples across properly in text.

I'm trying to tune my system, and most of (if not all of) the pushback I've received is in the fact that my system uses small numbers. Roll 2 dice, aim for snakeyes. If you roll too high, you fail, roll low and you succeed - maybe with caveats. So, ultimately, does it matter to any of you if you're rolling big numbers or small? Does success & failure have more weight, or are we all so used to big being better?

Greetings!

I am currently working on a equipment Module for my medieval-fantasy system.

I am contemplating how many slots a Character should have on the sheet.

The System has a optional Hit-Location Module.

(And a Wound-Module with Debuffs wich can be applied)

D20

20 Head

19 Throat

18 Upper Chest R

17 Upper Chest L

16 Lower Chest R

15 Lower Chest L

14 Upper Arm/Shoulder R

13 Upper Arm/Shoulder L

12 Forearm R

11 Forearm L

10 Hand R

09 Hand L

08 Upper Abdomen

07 Lower Abdomen

06 Thigh R

05 Thigh L

04 Lower Leg R

03 Lower Leg L

02 Foot R

01 Foot L

Since i use Light (Cloth/Leather), Medium (Leather/Compound/Chain), Heavy (Scale/Plate) differentiation

in terms of types of armor, i considered making it to be layered.

Like, you can combine all 3. Having Padding underneath Chain underneath Plates.

(Also adding Armor Values in Form of physical Damage reduction together)

But that got confusing pretty fast.

All in all, in respects to plausibility/semi-realism it's hard to account for all the equipment combinations

that could have occured in a medieval setting.

Additionally complicating the matter is, that all wearable equipment can be enchanted/crafted to give stat increases.

The Equipment Slots are roughly differentiated in Small (Boots/Bracers)/Big (Breastplate/Legplates)

Big Equipment has double the Bulk and Stat-Slots. (and double the Zones it protects)

Armour is 4 (Light), 8 (Medium), 12 (Heavy) on the respective Hit-Location.

(Currently roughly 10/20/30% DR vs Mooks)

One possible configuration was:

(in Plate)

Helmet/Bevor

Cuirass

Pauldrons+Rerebracers

Vambraces+Couters

Gauntlets

Belt/Fauld

Tassets+Cuisses

Greaves+Poleyns

Sabatons

In that composition only the Cuirass would count double

Making it 8x2 and 1x4 (Cuirass) Slots for Stats

30 Bulk* (roughly Kilograms)

Each Slot having 12 Armour Rating, 3 Bulk

One Handed Weapons have 2 Bulk and 2 Handed Weapons 4.

For the stats, i have a comprehensive list, but it's 20x +1/Stat

(you can't have 1 stat in both slots off a piece)

That being said, it's a baseline for early levels, the foundation so to speak.

* This is the base weight, Charakters can/should buy perks to reduce the bulk.

Another question was, what if someone wants to run around naked?

That would usually mean he loses out on stats.

One Possible Solution could be Tattoos. Or Perks that only work with no Equipment on the slot.

Additionally, to the Armour/Weapons, there will be Accessoires(6), that don't offer their own

armour and can't be targeted.

Rings(2), Trinkets(2), Necklace and Cloak

For Stats we would have:

Helmet (2)

Cuirass (4)

Pauldrons (2)

Vambraces (2)

Gauntlets (2)

Belt (2)

Tassets (2)

Greaves (2)

Sabatons (2)

Ring1 (2)

Ring2 (2)

Trinket1 (2)

Trinket2 (2)

Necklace (2)

Cloak (2)

Weapon(s) (4)

= 36 Stat Boni, max +16 on a single Stat.

Furthermore, there can be Rules implemented to restrict certain stats.

For example: There can be only Precision (Hitchance) on Gloves, Helmet, Rings, Necklace, Trinkets and Weapons.

That would restrict the maximum Bonus of Precision to +8.

(The Accessoires could be more like "wildcards", having access to all stats)

I am not yet sure if i want to include rules to restrict armor access. So far it is possible to mix and match as you like. The only limiting factor being the Bulk.

The Perks on the other hand would be specific. One that halfs the bulk for large/tower Shields for example.

Also, there is a case to be made to give Metal Armour a slight detrimental effect on magic.

In an earlier draft i had Mana Regeneration, that would be reduced through wearing Metal Armour.

About the stats: The stats avaiable are not the actual attributes like strenght/charisma etc.

The stats on equipment are a list of secondary stats like "Power", "Precision", "Hitpoints", "Tempo" etc.

Oh and as information regarding Bulk: The System works with Action Points, wich are a measurement of time.

Bulk is directly subtracted from those Action Points, if they exceed what you can carry with your strength.

I guess that is enough for one assessment. I guess i will have to add a lot anyways, since i am sure i forgot about some details that might be needed.

Thank you for your time!

I focused on making the system as simple as possible. All players have Attributes and skills. Attributes have values ​​ranging from 3 to 9 and skills from 0 to 9. When a test is necessary, add the attribute and skill and roll a d20, if you roll less than or equal to the sum, you have passed the test. Does this system work?
The maximum value for attributes and skills is 7. In other words, if you dedicate yourself to being the best possible at something, initially your maximum value is 14 (literally, in mathematics, there is a 70% chance of success)

one die - many swords - all sorcery

As many others here - I've been working on my own TTRPG - Path of Pandora. From this moment onwards, I'm opening it up for feedback.

The game is a Sword-and Sorcery style game without classes or levels, and has a 1D12 resolution system.

If this interests you in any capacity, The Following links redirect directly to the latest versions of various official documents:

• The Core rulebook: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ykSkTKxoyNPMBfbb_pVb7SY4-jtG9unSR-YcQRq1ogU/edit?usp=sharing
• The Character sheet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AWFDyoINpkaMqaLJZ5_SV3bO-6yeWSHZ/view?usp=sharing
• Pregenerated Characters: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JT6FbYlpvs0Dyb45sWorcymu115TpQwJ?usp=sharing

intended for the Game Master:

• The Bestiary: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p86Xdg19IV7uMMEUqT-q1hGx4jfO9hkXI_2-JhQ6x_I/edit?usp=sharing
• A Basic GM screen: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lJF1anTb-QO_zYzhXUtSZ-T2egiTsfDm/view?usp=sharing

And lastly, but not least, a Discord server where feedback can be given, and all these links are collected in neatly.

• https://discord.gg/ykuaMpD9

History and Reasoning:

I've been at this system as a solo dev since 2018. Like most, I started with DND (4e briefly, 5e ever since) - and I've looked towards many other TTRPGS ever since, but none quite did what they needed to for me or my table. I as a GM and designer wanted to have a collaborative story/gaming experience without wasting time on tracking various resources, calculating dice or damage all the time. The times people forgot to roll something, or used the wrong dice are frankly far too high. Any character idea was usually only possible at some high level, or had to be wrangled into a class of some kind.

Hence, the system working as it is now. There is character progression, but where most TTRPG's build 'tall' mine builds 'wide', with giving you more diversity in options, but limited gain in direct power. Anyone can join in on any Path of Pandora game with brand new characters as a result. Sadly, I'm only one person, and I can only run so many games myself. It seems to work for my group, but I hope it can do the same for others as well.

If you've any questions, let me know! If I missed anything, I'll gladly give further explanations, and any good tip will be gladly used in the game.

I was talking to u/pixelneer on another post of mine, and they had an idea of starting an RPG Design support group for those who not only want an accountability partner, but also for those who want reliable help, advice, and support from other solo RPG devs.

Basically, in this server, we’d still each be working on our own solo projects. However, every week (and we’ll work together to schedule the day and time for this), we’ll hop in a voice call and show off what we’ve done so far that week. This will be a back-and-forth discussion, and while we’ll take turns on whose game gets the current focus, honest feedback will be encouraged.

In-between meetings, we can also just generally share what we’ve been working on, things we’re excited about, things we’re struggling with, etc. That way we can ask for advice and benefit from the expertise of others.

How does that sound?

Hey y'all!

I am looking for ideas for mechanics for building a momentum in TTRPGs, especially in conflicts. My goals are:

1. to support winning a conflict by simply being better, without actually causing serious harm or injury to your opponent (you have so much advantage it becomes obvious you can obleterate the opposition on your next move, so they should rather surrender);
2. to foster a feeling of choice between short term results ("I make a jab at my opponent infront of the entire court, and they all laugh") and building an advantage that can be monatised later ("I plant the seeds of suspicion in the minds of the courteirs, so later I can get them to turn on my opponent");

These can be done, of course, with aspect from FATE, however, are there other mechanics that manage that? Negative examples of mechanics that try and fail may also be helpful.

Thank you!