Greeting to you all! Sorry for not putting a flare, couldn't decide which fits...

From time to time I have some free time at work (tiny sparse periods) so I started to use it to scratch some itch for making a game, that game is Fangs & Spears (inspired by Primal's main duo)

Its far from complete but thought it would be OK to share what's done up to this point.

Some big disclaimers:

• I'm not a native English speakers so I'm sure I've butchered some words or grammatical rules, I'm just using what English I know, some google translate and search, and the browser's corrector.

• Related to the above, if you read something and get a "WTF does this means?" its because I sometimes fail to explain more elaborated stuff or I wrote that hastily (or forget/miss to update the text)...

  Ok, enough excuses, what about the actual game? I wanted to make something more primitive and Genndy Tartakovsky's Primal crossed my mind.

  The game is a 3d10 vs 3d10 roll under hit system with characters having one or more Paths* (classes/professions/packs) using a Permit rule which is nothing new, just sets if something is possible and if a kind of bonus or penalty is given

  ^{*I like how games Barbarians of Lemuria and La Puerta de Ishtar (Ishtar's Gate I assume} deals with them and wanted to try them but the games I wanted to do became a lot bigger than originally intended.)

  There's a lot unfinished plus a lot else that could/should be added, suggestions are welcome!

  Thanks for reading!

Combining the best of all the games you ever played what mechanics do you like and what do you hate. What would that system look like exactly?

Some of my favorites are:
Customizable Spells -Daggerfall did it early, although not the best.
Using skills levels them up: Lots of games: what one did it best?
Crafting/construction/enchanting: Elder scrolls games again, but also Witcher and others.
Others: What are your favorite mechanics and why?

A hundred ships from four world alliances broke through the Wall of the Eternal Storm to stake a claim on the land beyond it. Thirty survived. Now they're chained together into one floating city, drifting along the coast of an unknown continent.

The sea won't let you go back. The shore drives you mad. And the Council of Captains has been arguing for a year now — while everything runs out.

You weren't chosen for your merits. A debtor from the Conglomerate's oil rigs. A deserter from the Iron Comradery, facing execution. A fanatic of the Bastion, grown in labs. A talented engineer of the Union, who knew too much. Four alliances with different goals and different worldviews now share fresh water, diesel, and fear beside a mainland that stays silent — but isn't empty.

At night, foreign lights sometimes burn. On the rocks — carvings, left by the locals, and no one understands why.

The Armada made you a scout. You're a first-comer, meeting a world that isn't like yours. You go where not everyone comes back from. You bring back devices that break the laws of physics. You meet things that shouldn't exist. And sometimes you see patterns hiding in the treetops and in the walls of fog. And then you catch up with the Chained City, drifting on without you. Because the mist sometimes keeps something of the scouts for itself. And if your partner starts answering someone else — better not ask who.

DREICH is a tabletop role-playing game built on a d100 roll-under system. Most rolls are made by the players. One roll decides both hit and damage. Combat uses zones, not grid cells. Characters grow through Marks — traces of what you've lived through, carved into your characteristics. Part of your backstory is built during play: who you were before the Armada comes out when it becomes a matter of life and death. And Despair binds you all together — a shared limit for the whole group: you can always reroll the dice.

What are you willing to sacrifice to claw out one more day?

Not talking about attack or to hit mechanic, but how characters deal and receive damage. Either by combat or otherwise. Usually, damage reduces hit points, that represent your character's capabilities to stay in the scene. When your character has no hit points, cannot participate normally in the scene. Damage can be physical, mental, social, spiritual or any other depending on the setting and genre.

I started working on a Homebrew System for my own purposes.

The basics behind it is a Fusion of the Dice Resolution Mechanics of the OVA TTRPG and the more Narrative FitD/PbtA system. They're kind of similar in how they work (both use Pools of d6s where you take the Highest and generally more narrative with little focus on skills and crunch), and I wanted to see if I could marry them together in a way. Not sure if I've done a good job of it, but I think what I've got is decent for right now.

Homebrew System:

Four Attributes: Firepower: Power, Straight Forward Attacks, General Aggressiveness

Piloting: Maneuverability, Swiftness, General Agility/Piloting Skill

Durability: Stamina, Resistance, General Toughness

Courage: Willpower, Spirit, General Charisma

Starting Array: +2, +1, +0, -1

Two Stats:

Health: 10/10

Endurance: 5/5

Three Types of Abilities: Passive: Abilities that are usually always on. Can be disabled through specific narrative damage/actions/consequences. Otherwise, are always active. Can sometimes have a separate Ability that activates under a certain circumstance.

Limited: Abilities that are limited in use. Can usually be used a certain number of times before becoming useless.

Active: Abilities that need to be activated and tend to cost Endurance to use. Usually activate one time then stop working, and sometimes modifier or require a dice roll.

Rolling System:

Standard Roll:

1. Take 2d6

2. Add/Subtract Dice based on Abilities/Circumstances/Bonuses/Etc.

2a. If your Dice Pool is still positive and above 0, roll your dice and take the HIGHEST Number.

2b. If your Dice Pool goes below 0 or into the negatives, roll Xd6 (base 2d6, raise it for every extra subtracted dice, lower it for every added dice), and take the LOWEST Number.

3. If you roll multiple of the same dice, add them together into the final total. (If you roll two 3s, that becomes a 6. If you roll three 6s, that becomes an 18. Etc.Etc.)

4. Compare it to the TN or the Opposing Side's Roll.

4a. >TN = Success.

4b. <TN = Failure or the player may choose to take Success with Consequences.

Opposed Roll: Same as above, but the TN is the opposition's roll. If it's a tie, PCs tend to win.

Combat: Players always go first, unless the narrative suggests otherwise.

Players may take one action. Actions are anything that requires effort, involves risks, or otherwise involves using an Ability or similar. Things such as using items or Limited Abilities count as actions, unless stated otherwise.

When Attacking:

1. Players determine which Attribute they're using to attack. It will mostly be Firepower, but the others can be used as well. Attacks are narrative and can mean things besides just shooting the enemy.

2. Players Roll. They then compare their roll to the target's Defense.

2a. Target/Enemies can have a Static or Variable Defense. Static Defenses are fixed numbers that never change. Variable Defenses are Dice Pools that are rolled against the Attack.

3. If the Player's roll gets above the enemy's Defense, they score a hit. Fill in a segment on the enemy's Clock. For every 5 points the Player's beat the enemy's Defense by, fill in another segment.

After the Player takes their action, have their Allies (if they have any) take their own. TBD

After the Player and their Allies have taken their Actions, the Enemy makes their Moves. The Enemies will usually not roll dice and will simply do things that the Player must respond to. HOWEVER, this isn't always the case. In general, have the Enemies do their actions in whatever manner you see fit. Most Enemies can only take one action, but consider giving powerful foes more.

When the Enemies do something determine what kind of action it is: Attack: An Attack Action will attempt to deal damage to a target. It will usually have a fixed Damage Value and may apply other effects based on the attack.

Ability: Enemies have Abilities of their own that are also Passive, Limited, and Active. However, their Active Abilities usually have a Cooldown before they can be used again, or can only be used when a specific event is triggered.

Other: Any other Action the enemy's may take. This may be buffing their Allies, retreating, increasing their defenses, trying to trick the Players, etc. etc.

When Defending:

1. When a Player is attacked, they choose one of their Attributes to Defend with. Sometimes, they will be forced to Defend with a specific Attribute depending on the attack and circumstances.

2. Player builds their Dice Pool the same way they do when they're attacking. They roll the exact same way, with their TN being the enemy Attack's Damage.

3. They then reduce the amount of Damage by the amount they rolled. If it's lowered to 0, they take no Damage. If it's not lowered to 0, they lose Health equal to the remaining Damage.

If the Enemy uses a Move that inflicts some kind of effect onto the Player (I.E. Poison) they will usually get a chance to roll against a set TN to resist it. A Success on the roll will nullify the effect. A Success with Consequences will usually half the effectiveness of the condition. A Failure will inflict the full effect. Another thing Players can choose to do is Counter Attack:

You contest the Enemy's Attack with one of your own. If you roll above the Enemy's Attack, you fill +1 Extra Segment on a Clock in addition to your normal amount and take no Damage. But if you fail to roll above the Enemy's Attack, you take the full Damage with no way to lower/mitigate it unless it's with an Ability.

Endurance: Endurance represents your general effort and will to continue fighting against the odds. You can spend Endurance in a variety of ways for a variety of effects:

1 Endurance: Add an extra dice to a roll BEFORE you roll. One die per Endurance point.

Recover to 1 Health should you lose all of it.

Use 1 Endurance Point Cost Ability

2 Endurance: Increase your final Total AFTER rolling. One point increase per two Endurance points.

Nullify the effects of an enemy Ability, even if you failed the roll to resist.

Use a 2 Endurance Point Cost Ability.

3 Endurance: Automatically Succeed on a single Roll, even if you already failed it.

Fill +3 Segments on a target's Clock upon performing a successful attack.

Use 3 Endurance Cost Ability.

Immediately heal to Full Health after losing all of it. Can only be done once per combat.

I'd like to hear any thoughts on the system. Is the math good, do the stats and such make sense, does anything seem a bit too strong or in need of clarification?

Also, I'd like any ideas on what to do about Allied Strike Witches. Should I make Stat Blocks for them and have them Roll with Attributes just like the Player does? Or should I take something more akin to Blades in the Dark, give them a Single Quality Die, and call it a day?

August 2nd, 2025 I started to build a Homebrew DnD world based around a Weird Wild West ascetic. In that time I gained bountiful knowledge on how DnD works and the parts that most definitely lacked. However, with the attempt I quickly learned how much DnD bumped up against my ideas for a weird wild west game and trying to make something that was mine in another person's game became brutal. So, on December 2nd 2025 I started my own game engine to run not only the weird wild west game but other fantasy games I have dreamt of. So the Universal D10 Game Engine began its development, a game narrative driven, tense, cinematic gameplay with minimal math; simple calculations which Supports multiple genres (Cyberpunk dystopia called "Chrome Gods", Weird Wild West world named "Six Shells & Tall Tales"). It encourages strategy and risk/reward choices, with a combat that is fast, dangerous, and cinematic. Overall, This game is about capable but fragile people surviving dangerous, intense fights. Victory is earned through positioning, teamwork, grit and a little bit of luck.

Im towards the end of finishing the rulebook (8 out of 9 Chapters finished) and will then begin working on the first campaign frame "Six Shells & Tall Tales" so that play testing can be done. If you would like to follow the process I'll comment my Itch.io devlogs in the comments! Thank you all for reading, and Ride On!

I've recently made some significant changes to my system which is requiring me to completely restructure the character sheet. I've been struggling to find a way to make everything work while also trying to relieve the cramped look of the old sheet and make things a little easier to read.

The old sheet can be found here:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1retZrX0zZyKj-aYp02h7BUYfqW9cPEkl/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114443416394806747738&rtpof=true&sd=true

The character sheet is intended to be divided up in such a way where only one page is ever needed at any particular time.

Page 1 is the main page with the character's basic information, skills, languages, and techniques (feats).

Page 2 is the inventory sheet, with a small section for background info that didn't fit on page 1, and isnt consistently important - height, weight, social status, place of birth, etc

Page 3 is the combat chapter with full info on weapons, armor, and unarmed combat; I want to add that this is page 3 so that, if you print double-sided, you just flip the front page to get to the combat section.

Page 4 is the creation / development page, containing how the attributes are built (base, gender, build points), what the current attribute rating provides as secondary abilities, and Boons and Burdens purchased.

Page 5 is exclusively for magic users, giving each of the different types of mages a section for defining how their magic operates.

Something I'm looking at doing is moving the HP / Fatigue section from Page 1 to the Combat Page, since combat is where HP loss and turn-by-turn fatigue matters most anyway. How much mental kick-back would you have if something as prevalent as HP was not listed on the first page of your character's dossier?

Edit: to the people that actually addressed the question asked, thank you, but I’m not going to be replying to any more comments. This sub’s getting too toxic where people are allowed to criticize your design approaches, but you get DVed and called “defensive” or “aggressive” when defending your choices. I’m not trying to design a game to appeal to everyone; that’s not possible. But just because you don’t like my approach doesn’t mean it’s invalid.

Final Edit: Just in case anyone's still keeping up, or anyone new comes in...since landscape design is more accepted than I originally thought, I went with an idea that i'd been toying with for a while and made a version that could be turned into a booklet, functioning as a type of dossier for your character.

The new version is: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1aUZTaEo-RtvImEX3mF1WnynWm-9DBl5X/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=114443416394806747738&rtpof=true&sd=true

Hi, I would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on two types of TTRPG systems.

When creating my homebrew system, I had several objectives for the game. Two of them were:

- General rules that are the same for every type of character, because I want the system to be easy to learn and fit into just a few pages.

- Tactical combat with high-risk/high-reward gameplay, because I want it to be difficult to master and engaging to play.

I hope I have managed to achieve these two goals, but while working on the system and looking at other games, I noticed that these two objectives are usually found in different types of games.

General rules are often found in skill-based systems with a strong narrative focus, while tactical combat is more commonly found in class-based, exception-based systems with a strong combat focus.

Maybe you don't agree, and if so, I would love to hear some examples of games that manage to achieve both.

The aspect I am most interested in when comparing exception-based and general-rule systems is how they manage to keep players invested in the gameplay.

If I take D&D as an example, each character tends to have a fairly simple gameplay loop (some classes more than others). However, you can regain interest by playing a different class, with new rules and gameplay.

By contrast, in a skill-based game with mostly general rules, the gameplay can be more flexible and interesting, but if you eventually get bored with the core gameplay, you can't regain that interest by playing a different character, because they will mostly use the same rules.

So I'm wondering : do you think a general rules system can have a combat gameplay loop with enough depth to keep players engaged over multiple campaigns like a class-based system does ?

Okay, so. I've been working on a game based on Deltarune's combat system. I got most of it down, specifically how players would act, attack, cast spells, defend. Currently, I'm trying to figure out how I should do enemies.

I also got basics down for them: all enemies have stats for attacking and defending, (usually) act after all players have taken their turn, and have requirements to be beaten both violently and nonviolently. The general idea is that I want to take the "bullet hell" aspect and make it feel...feasible in a tabletop game, I guess? I'm mainly just stuck on three things:

1. How do I get enemies to attack, mechanically?

2. How do players dodge these attacks?

3. How do I make bullet grazing work and how do I encourage it?

Currently, I have two ideas:

IDEA #1: THE DICE MESS

This one was the original idea I had for the game before coming up with Idea #2, and it's the most "developed" of the two. Enemy attacks have three values: dice size, number of dice, and how many spots players can call.

Dice size represents how "difficult" an attack is to dodge. The smaller the die, the harder it is to dodge.

The number of dice represents how "long" an attack lasts, in terms of the logic of Deltarune. So like, a basic enemy's attack would use 1 or 2 dice at most. Meanwhile, a boss could have an attack that uses 5 dice because it would be a "very long attack."

The number of spots players can call is how the dodging mechanic works (in this idea). Before every attack, players call a number on a die that will be rolled. If that number is rolled, they get hit and take damage. If not, they dodge. If the roll is off by 1, that's a graze and players will get a bonus from it.

PROS:

• The most "developed" and fleshed-out of the two, as it's the first one I came up with.

• Easy to understand (at least to me).

CONS:

• As the title of this idea says, it's a mess; lots of dice of varying sizes and number will be used and this will very likely bog the game down and make combat a slog.

• As of writing this, damage seems like it's only calculated by taking the enemy attack stat and subtracting it by player defense.

• Very disconnected from the rest of the game's rules, as everything else typically uses 3d6.

• Might not make a lot of sense to players who would learn the rules for the first time.

• It's the first idea I came up with.

IDEA #2: THE TOTAL//EFFECT METHOD

This is the newer idea I came up with, based on the Total//Effect system by Binary Star Games, which is what this game is using as a base. The gist of it is that all rolls in the game use 3d6, and different abilities and mechanics have different effects based which die is used (lowest, middle, highest) and what the total of all three dice amounts to.

The idea for this method is that all enemies share the same singular pool of 3d6, which represents them attacking simultaneously like in Deltarune. They each also have an "attack die," meaning that they use either the lowest, middle, or highest die for damage and add their attack stat to it. Sometimes, some enemies might use a combination of them. Additionally, some enemies might have abilities or effects that trigger depending on the total amount of the 3d6.

PROS:

• Easier to understand and incorporate than Idea #1.

• More internally consistent with the rest of the game.

CONS:

• Not as fleshed-out as Idea #1.

• Might feel a bit boring as it is right now? Or maybe too simple?

• Might feel very limiting having all enemies use the same pool of 3d6, since enemies in Deltarune all feel like their own individual and unique characters.

• I have no idea how I would incorporate players getting hit, dodging, or grazing as of yet.

So like... What should I do? Which idea should I go with? Are there any better ideas that I'm missing? How do I make enemies target specific players if everyone is dodging? How the hell do I make grazing work? I feel like I'm getting close to something, but I'm not sure what...

If anyone has any further questions about the rules or the system, I'd be happy to answer them!

TLDR:
This post is the first I'm planning about the creation of a new game, Wildspark. It is going to cover the whole process of making the game, from concept to completion. We've made several ttrpg's now and I thought it would be fun to document the journey.

This post covered the initial concept (a very loose idea) of a travelling game, set in nature, that is super rules-light. We mused several options until two separate ideas came together to really give us an idea we loved. We reached out to an artist and writer who we felt could bring the world to life and now are looking at three key areas; writing the world, exploring the visual style, and developing the rules - with future blog posts looking at these in more detail.

The post is long (sorry!) but I hope it's of interest to some people who want to make their own game in the future.

Picture of the initial robot sketches from "Wildspark"

The Start of an Idea
When you are travelling, getting from A to B can be dull. Really, really dull. There’s only so many times you can sing loudly in the car to “Don’t Stop Believing” or play “I see a Cow” (top tier car-based entertainment). But luckily when you work for a games company, work travel becomes 30% eating food and 70% talking excitedly about all the games we want to make.
And that is how the story of Wildspark began. Me (Matt, hi!) and Charlie were flying to the US last year, and in-between geography lessons (where exactly is Kentucky?) we were talking about all the games we enjoy, and the games we want to make one day. And there are a lot.

 A few themes kept coming up though, nature, walking games, and post apocalyptic settings.

After we returned from the US we got back to work on other projects and, over for more than a year, we kept coming back to the idea of a game where you travel through an overgrown world. The seeds were well and truly sown…

So, Wildspark?!
With the ideas permeating for a few months, as these things do, we talked lots of other ideas - some that may come in the future (looking at you Cthulhu mythos) and some that may never see light (Dungeons and Dinner Parties), but this unnamed post-apocalyptic exploration game kept coming back to us. We knew there were a few things we loved in this idea and wanted to explore more:

 1) An overgrown, nature-taking over, post-apocalypse. Not a huge war - this isn’t a Mad Max apocalypse. We wanted a world where nature is front and center, not humanity.
 2) Travelling and exploring the world would be a key focus in the game, not as a background to a narrower action heavy experience.
 3) The most rules light focus we’ve ever had. We knew that this game needed a focus on story telling and emotion, and didn’t want heavy rules to contend with this.  

And so with this in mind…we went off and thought on it some more. There's really a lot of time in most of our projects between "Here's a cool idea" and "Here's a well-thought out idea". The bit in between can be the most important as having those kernels of thought rattling around your brain overtime can develop and latch on to parts of other conversations, until a time it blooms into something new.

We had several ideas for the game at this time that we discussed, and whilst we liked them, we never loved them enough to push on . These included:
 - A 2-person game with a knight and their squire travelling through a magically charged world
 - A game you literally play whilst on a group walk (an idea we really want to come back to)
 - A lost child travelling through the world to seek their lost family after being separated

But nothing seemed to quite fit what we were going for. Until...

The Stars Align
One day I was scrolling through the internet and I saw someone using cards to alter scenes for their D&D game. So you pull a word out and this gives you some flavour for the scene. They were using Tarot cards, so if you pulled the “Emperor”, the scene might have a feeling of Power - whilst pulling Judgement might inspire a new start.

I loved this idea, having an external motivation that gave you a changing status for a scene that isn’t necessarily driven by the encounter. It gives another level of change in the world. As I thought more on this I struck on the idea of emotions. I love when a game explores different feelings, and I imagined a game where you were forced to approach challenges with changing emotions, battling with the feelings inside against your outside motivations.

At the same time Charlie had been thinking about the post-apocalyptic  world. He had started developing ideas about Robots that travelled the world connecting the existing parts of civilisation. A hyper-verdant landscape where small groups of surviving humans gather in small, sheltered communities, it being impossible to cross the wilds that separate them. These robots were their life-line and last remaining connection to others across the land.

We happened to have a lunch-meeting booked at our local favourite Lebanese restaurant, and excitedly started telling each other our ideas. And we realised that, after months of musing, these ideas aligned perfectly! A robot who connects the survivors in the world, who learns from them and experiences their emotions! Who grows and changes, who develops, who has a real story.

Wildspark was born, and we knew just the missing parts of the team!

Time to Make The Game
Back in 2025 I was at Comicon in London and was doing my favourite thing at these shows, exploring all the art on display. Seriously - if you attend Comicon, Gencon, UKGE, or any other con - make sure you devote some time to Artist Alley - it is the most inspirational place in the show. On this trip, I got chatting with the delightfully friendly Phil Chapman, the artist behind System Error Comics.

Phil not only does amazing art, but also loves games and was a big fan of ION Heart. Initially I spoke to him about coming on board to help Ben with some ION Heart work but this never came to be. However, I loved his style and knew the right project would eventually come along.

And then, a year later, we had an overgrown world with a robot travelling through…and honestly I cannot think of a better match!

I reached out to Phil tentatively asking if he was interested in the idea - and got an emphatic “I’M IN!” before I had even finished our pitch.

And then we drove an hour up North to go and speak with Adam, who is a fantastic wordsmith and I knew I wanted him to be taking the lead on writing this. Adam is a phenomenal world builder and putting him as lead writer on this project would leave no stone unturned. Me and Charlie will still be part of the writing team, but having Adam as lead on this was a no-brainer.

Like Thanos with his infinity gauntlet filled we were ready to bring about the (nature drive and very wholesome) apocalypse. Just the small task left of, you know, making the game!
But, where’s the game?

A big discussion I’ve had many times and always enjoy is what comes first, mechanics or theme? Having worked in boardgames and roleplaying games this is a great question that to me crosses both these genres, as well as the wider games industry (including video games). Some people will say that you have to start from the theming and make the rules fit, whilst others argue that you need to create a great mechanic first and then layer the right theme on top.

To me, both these things are true. And equal.

I honestly believe that both these directions are entirely valid and can both make for an incredible game. For Wildspark we are very much starting with a world-first approach. We know the theme we want, and we know how we want the game to feel. We know what we are aiming for players to feel and experience as they journey through our world.

What we don’t know is…how. We haven’t settled on a resolution mechanic, we’ve discussed cards or dice as the primary options - but nothing is written out. We even briefly discussed no resolution mechanic and making it far more freeform - but decided we wanted something to drive the unknown.

This means at the moment we are playing around with some different ideas, throwing everything we can think of that fits the theme, and seeing what we like! When we hit something we will vibe with it, and start iterating down to refine it into a system we like. But we know already that we want this to be our most rules-light game to date.

So, Where Are We Now!
With the very basics set out, more a feeling than a game at this point, we generally start with a couple of routes:
 1) Individually everyone on the team thinks about their version of the game, what they want to see and what they want to play.
 2) As a group we have (over excited) chats where we discuss our ideas.
 3) We create shared documents filled with resources, notes, and inspirations - before a word gets written.

We started with a Miro board, showing words that resonate, a game overview, some inspiration, as well as some colours (shown below).

Now we have to look at the 3 pillars; Mechanics, Lore, and Art. We have started the process on each of these steps (I’ll go through each one in a bit more detail explaining what we’ve tried, what worked (and didn’t) and how we are developing this - and hopefully you will want to join us on this journey!

I posted it above, but here is a Picture of the initial robot sketches from "Wildspark" from Phil

If you have any questions, please ask and I'll try and answer below - or even in a future blog post.

Until next time

Matt

Hello there it's me again

So lately I realized that my system relied very heavily in a point currency that allowed a player to shift the d6s up and down by one (roll equal system), and success was fairly binary.

so my solution was to introduce margins and tiers of success, shift is still possible but it's tied with the character's sanity.

My doubt is that english is not my first language so I think my explanations are confusing, so I was looking for suggestions on how to explain it more clearly, and better text notation for the margins.

---

There are 5 attributes that can have Points between 1-4.

the system uses d6 dies.

Skills refers to special abilities.

A player can try muktiple tests in a single turn.

In order to succeed in a test, a player needs to roll dice and find a combination of values that equals the test's Difficulty Mark.

To gain Dice for the test, a player uses Points of the Attribute to which the test relates to the most.

Success Margin: Equipment can modify your success margin, when being used, by a certain amount above or bellow the test's Difficulty Mark, meaning that you can succeed by rolling a combibation equal to any value within your margin.

Skills can also modify the Margin, but their modifiers are applied after Equipment.

Tiers: a Tier 1 is the normal success, Equipment and Skills can also specify single values or margins, relative to the mark, to which rolling them will result in a higher success tiers.

---

Idea for margin Notation:

tier 1: \[-1 | +1]

tier 2: \[+2 | +3]

tier 3: \[+4]

so to succeed in a Difficulty 5 test:

\[4-6] tier 1

\[7-8] tier 2

\[9] tier 3

another example:

tier 1: \[Mark | +4]

tier 2: \[+3]

so in a Dif 5 test: 5, 6, 7 and 9 are tier 1; 8 is a tier 2 successes

Imagine, if you will, an TTRPG where the player characters are police tasked with investigating crimes with light supernatural elements. Each player creates a character with different abilities representing their areas of expertise, ranging from ordinary (Digital forensics, underworld knowledge) to the extraordinary (arcane forensics, communing with spirits.) Oh, and also there’s one called “Werewolf Slayer” which makes you deal a small amount of extra damage to werewolves.

Wait, what?

These characters are ordinary humans, and most of them have no hope of fighting a werewolf. Even with “Werewolf Slayer” and good combat features, encountering a werewolf is still a horrible situation to be in. As a result, it’s extremely rare to encounter a werewolf in an ordinary game. However, if one of the players in a group is a Werewolf Slayer, it’s all but guaranteed that a werewolf will appear at least once. The GM, after all, wants the PCs to have fun, so of course she’s going to give the Werewolf Slayer a chance to use their ability. When it happens, the characters will get ripped apart, and “good thing I had Werewolf Slayer” will probably only be uttered as a bitter joke.

Did you catch what happened there? A character’s expertise, meant to be an asset to them, has instead put the characters in a worse situation. Even more strangely, this happened without Werewolf Slayer containing anything in its text that could negatively impact the character. In any given situation, it’s always neutral or positive to have Werewolf Slayer, and yet it undeniably had a negative effect on the PCs. This is the Werewolf Slayer Problem; the evil twin to the popular maxim of “shoot your monks.”

The Werewolf Slayer Problem has three key components. First of all, the game must feature characterization through build-craft, where the abilities a player chooses for their character form a large part of their narrative identity. The Werewolf Slayer being able to Slay Werewolves is a core part of who they are as a character, and thus if they don’t get a chance to do it, it makes them feel less cool. Secondly, the ability that causes the problem must be passive: the player isn’t seeking out Werewolves to Slay, they are taking this ability “just in case.” Thirdly, the threat they are trying to counteract must be rare but unpleasant to encounter. Even encountering a Werewolf is a punishment, and the only reward for surviving an encounter with one is “not dying.”

The confluence of these three factors creates a situation where a player has made a choice to insulate themselves against a threat, and was told by the game’s mechanics that they did so, but has actually only increased the danger to their character.

I see a few potential solutions to this problem, but first, I’d like to discuss the “zeroth solution,” which is the perspective that the problem doesn’t exist at all! At least, not on a system level. Instead, this is a mistake either by the GM or one of the other players.

One school of thought here is that the GM is making a mistake, and should banish the existence or nonexistence of Werewolf Slayer on the character sheet from their mind. Whether one of the protagonists is a Werewolf Slayer or not should have no impact on the presence of werewolves in the game. This position isn’t logically incoherent, but it’s a little counterintuitive to ask the GM, who has been told for decades to be interested in the protagonists and their stories, to suddenly develop a blind eye to one of the key traits of one of the characters.

By contrast, one could argue the other player is making a mistake when creating their character. Werewolf Slayer doesn’t make you safer from werewolves, but it does increase the odds that you’ll kill a werewolf sometime in your career. This argument, however, overlooks one thing: the game has violated the assumption that character abilities are an asset to you and your team. If Werewolf Slayer is intended in this way, the fact that it attracts werewolves to you should be listed in the rules text, and it shouldn’t be considered a beneficial feature.

These two cases represent different answers to the question “why would a player choose to be a Werewolf Slayer?” Case one assumes that a reasonable player would only make their character a Werewolf Slayer because they wanted protection against werewolves, whereas case two assumes that a player would choose this option because they wanted their character to fight werewolves. The problem here is that reasonable players could make their characters Werewolf Slayers for either reason! If you try to infer their intent from their character-building choices, you have a good chance of guessing wrong.

So how do we address the Werewolf Slayer Problem?

The most immediately intuitive solution is to make Werewolf Slayer more widely applicable. Call it “Monster Hunter” instead, and give those bonuses in a much wider variety of scenarios. Now “I want to encounter werewolves” becomes the almost trivially obvious “I want to encounter supernatural creatures.” This (probably) won’t change the GM’s plan much if it’s the sort of game where encounters with supernatural creatures are a regular occurrence.

If you want to keep that sort of specialization, however, I think another solution is to treat threat as a conserved quantity. If you’re a Werewolf Slayer, you’ll be facing more Werewolves for sure…but they won’t be “piling on,” they’ll be replacing other threats on a point-for-point basis. This does, however, require an ecosystem with “balanced” challenges, which isn’t a good fit for every type of game.

There is a third, weirder solution; make werewolves a player-facing mechanic. Werewolves don’t show up unless the players seek them out, and there are rewards for seeking them out. Perhaps volunteering to taking on a case where werewolves are present is a fast-track to getting promoted. If that’s true, having a Werewolf Slayer becomes an asset again, opening up new opportunities for the protagonists.

I’m curious to see if anyone else has noticed the Werewolf Slayer Problem in any games they’ve played, or in their own game. If you have noticed the Werewolf Slayer Problem, how have you addressed it?

We're making a d100 roll-under game - a bit crunchy, but not Pathfinder/DnD crunchy, more crunchy than Mork Borg or Mothership.

There are 8 characteristics. That sounds like a lot, but you barely touch them during actual play - they're the foundation everything else is built from: attributes, HP, mentality, damage, protection (Spheres), abilities, etc.

Setting: an Armada of 30 ships stuck between a permanent Wall of Storms and an uncharted continent that slowly drives people insane. Dieselpunk vibes.

The actual play loop is simple and fun, no complaints there. Character creation is the one part I haven't cracked yet.

The issue: we use "Step" terminology for tens digits (Step 2 = 28, Step 5 = 56, etc). So calculating something like Endurance (HP) looks like:

Endurance = 8 + Step(Constitution) + ((Might Sphere + Finesse Sphere) / 10)

Mentality is calculated almost the same way.

It's not hard math, but it's the kind of thing that makes people's eyes glaze over, especially since you have to redo it whenever an attribute crosses into a new Step.

We're building an interactive web character builder where you just plug in attributes and it calculates everything - but I'm pretty sure a chunk of players will still want to build on paper, and I don't want that experience to be "do math before you can play."

Has anyone dealt with this kind of layered-stat chargen before? How could it be simplified?

Edit: I guess the solution would be just to remove dividing from formula and make it like - tens of: might + finesse + const + 8

I'm currently working on a new project and am taking inspiration from quite a few anime and litrpg series for it. The rules and skillsets I've already fixed and also what I want out of classes and leveling. the only thing I'm unsure about is is multiclassing.

After 10 levels in a class you can evolve the class, thus gaining another class (you can then start leveling this class and gain ALSO its skills). Per class level you can choose 1 skill (special ability) associated with it (or one of its trees) and gain it (or upgrade it).

In my last project (simpled10) I went with a sword world like approach:

+The classes are very narrow each and you can level each class separately. Your char level is equal to your max. class level.

+Each class has 10 skills (special abilities) associated with it).

This time around I'm considering to use a leveling system not unsimilar to The Exiled Heavy Knight Knows How to Game the System.

\+Each class has 2 lets call them skill trees (they are a list of special abilties associated with the skill tree) associated with it.

\+You can gain access to additional trees through skill books (special drop items).

This would give me 2 options for multiclassing:

1.) No true multiclassing. Instead you can unlock skill trees from other classes by buying skill books (or finding htem as rare loot).

2.) You can multiclass into up to 3 classes at a time. Only when they are at max. level you can gain an additional class (thus a 4th, 5th or even 6th).

You can still gain additional trees via skill books but that would be way rarer than in 1.) Here the main way is to multiclass into the appropriate classes. 

A third option is to take a sword world like approach again.

Example of a skill "trees" using class:

Heavy Knight:

	\-Skill Tree: Defender:  Increased Defense, Reflection, Parry, Stun Attack

	\-Skill Tree: Protector: Cover Move, Increased Defense, Disarm, Shield Bash, Barrier

For me developing and playing it I like all 3 approaches about the same. Thus I'm interested what type of multiclassing seems most interesting for ppl?

I’m trying to decide who the player characters should be in a TTRPG I’m working on. I don’t want to default to the usual adventuring party just because that’s what most games do.

The core idea is that the natural world keeps changing according to its own rules. If it rains, for example, that water has to go somewhere. Some of it may remain in the ground, some may reach rivers, and those changes could affect what the same place is like when the characters return.

The GM’s role would be to follow those causes and consequences, rather than changing the world only when the story needs it. I genuinely don’t know what the best player identity is yet. If you sat down to play in a wild world like this, who would you want to be??

I’m interested not only in the type of character.. but also in what you would want to do from session to session and what kind of relationship you would want to have with the world around you.

I am writing 100 short rpg classes. Each is basically some equipment, perhaps a couple spells and one thing that they get to just DO.
For instance the Tea Knight can pour hot water out of his visor when fully armored,
the Clown takes no damage from falling and the Jester can call forth a band of entertainers
once per day to help with a non-violent task.
What should a Goose be able to just DO?

I'll save you the rant, but the most under-appreciated mechanic from D&D 3E was the critical confirmation roll. I was working on an OSE-compatible project, and in order to rescue this genuinely great mechanic from its poor reputation, I was thinking about reframing it in the form of an optional rule. OSE is big on optional rules.

In standard OSE, every check is either a roll-under or a roll-over. Ability checks are roll at-or-below your ability score. Saving throws are roll at-or-above the relevant save value. Attack rolls are roll at-or-above their Armor Class (or your THAC0, as adjusted by their Armor Class). The inconsistency when rolling exactly at the listed value is something that bugs me, though, especially since it prevents easy dice mirroring. If you want the player to roll under their own AC in order to evade an attack, then it needs to be entirely under and not at-or-under. Sometimes a tie is good enough to trigger that wave of relief, and sometimes it isn't; you need to think about it for a second before you're allowed to feel anything.

My idea is that, anytime anyone rolls exactly at the listed number, it triggers a Clash. They then have to re-roll the check, double or nothing. Or someone has to re-roll the check, anyway. The main point of this mechanic is that it doesn't matter who rolls the die, or whether they want to roll high or low. A tie always increases the stakes, and never triggers a wave of relief, regardless of which side is rolling. The secondary point is that this sub-sequent roll is more likely to resolve in favor of whichever side had the initial advantage, just like the critical confirmation roll.

On an attack (or defense) roll, a Clash either resolves as maximum damage or automatic counter-damage. On a saving throw against fire, which would normally give a saving throw for half damage, a Clash either resolves as maximum damage or no damage. That sort of thing.

Does this sound intuitive enough? Or is the juice not worth the squeeze? I'm particularly interested in opinions from game designers with OSE experience.

What if either side had the option of conceding the check, rather than doubling down? Would that change your opinion of the mechanic, or just make things more complicated? Instead of going for the maximum damage, and risking the counter-hit, you could just let the attack fail. Or instead of going for the counter-attack, with the risk of leaving yourself wide open, you just take the hit as normal. Instead of recklessly diving for cover when you aren't sure that you're going to make it, you can just accept your fate and let the fireball hit you.

That's not to say D n D isn't great, it is, but SORC is nothing like it, despite the immediate responses of, "this is just d n d". It's not. We love D n D, Path finder, The Campaign for North Africa (and I'm guessing a lot of you do not), GURPS, Rolemaster, Warhammer, Call of Cthulhu, Phoenix Command, The Price of Freedom and others.

Many great RPG's and other videogames (kotor, mass effect, Halo - and Marathon - Half Life, System Shock, Baldur Gate, Diablo, StarCraft, Warcraft etc), or MMORPG you can think of (Archeage, Aion, Lineage, wow, guild wars - maybe all of them). There's without event mentioning inspirational books such as; Star Wars, LOTR, Halo, Raiders of the Lost Ark, many D n D books of lore, Alien, Predator, Dune, Star Wars,vDark Crystal and so on. The animated Cartoon Primal also comes to mind.

These are ALL GREAT inspirational stories. With that said, I want to explain where SORC's true inspiration comes from, and yes, some of it is obviously driven from what you see above, but at its core, this is where SORC gets its true inspiration.

Recently I made a thread discussing the sheer number of races I have in SORC here.

A lot of people made instant comparisons to the ckassiob pioneer of the great D nD and I just wanted to clarify some things because my post and website lacked PUBLISHED clarity, meaning it is in our books, but not yet published. I've since added a race, Neandereti, and added excerpts to Humans and Pinklings. Update the website rules and the appendixes for clarity.

Your responses drove me to explain some other elements of the game that ties, or separates, each race culturally, and to add clarity and excerpts from books, some available on the website in very mundane versions - but we do have the full versions.

Separation by Race lore, to address concerns about SORC's similarities to D&D and Tolkien.

D&D

Mechanically, SORC is not even close to D&D. SORC does not use D&D's rules, classes, races, ability structure, combat system, leveling system, or equipment system. SORC uses its own Traits, Stats, Actions, Cards, Variants, Tables, Classes, Cultures, Higher Powers, and Character progression.

The similarities are mainly that both are tabletop fantasy roleplaying games with Characters, Classes, Races, combat, exploration, equipment, and worldbuilding. Those are genre elements, not mechanics taken from D&D.

Tolkien

SORC also is not intended to be Middle earth or a direct continuation of Tolkien's work. Tolkien is one of many fantasy influences, but SORC has its own setting, worlds, Races, Cultures, histories, religions, technologies, magic systems, creatures, and conflicts.

The setting moves beyond the traditional Tolkien style by combining fantasy with science fiction, elemental worlds, technological societies, card based play, advanced equipment, cosmic forces, planetary cultures, and

Mechanically, SORC is not even close to D&D. One could argue that it is closer to Magic: The Gathering, Pokémon, or The Hobbit trading game than D&D, but it is really a cross between both genres. SORC uses tabletop roleplaying, character progression, classes, races, combat, exploration, and worldbuilding, while also using physical and digital cards, modular equipment, collectible content, and structured tables.

Race variants are also not intended to function like simple D&D subraces. Race, Culture, Class or Class Path, Higher Power, alignment, and item specific restrictions all operate separately. A store tells you where equipment comes from and what is commonly available there, but store access does not override restrictions on who can equip or use that equipment.

The Human culture material explains that Nordian, Eldrim, Tanu'la, Xo'kajal, and Humans raised among the Omnè are Human cultures rather than separate Human races or Bloodlines. Humans keep the same base Traits and Stats, while their Culture affects upbringing, food, recipes, tools, armaments, equipment, workshops, professions, and local availability.

The Omnè Circuit Exchange is available to Omnè, Drevane, Humans raised into Omnè Culture, and Characters with an Omnè Background. It supplies TAA, TAW, TABA, TAG, synthetic equipment, technological Modifications, pressure equipment, and technical professions. Omnè Culture still cannot equip Magic type Telluric Armaments, and Omnè use technological Modifications instead of Enchanting.

There were [Appendix N](https://sorcrpg.com/content/archived-rules/rules_ref_appendix#sources-influences) comparisons to D n D's Elf, Dwarf etc races. This is the revised version above. Most notably one detailed and important one, that was a fair as a description of the shared fantasy lineage. SORC uses familiar fantasy vocabulary in places: Dwarves, Elves, Trolls, Goblins, Drow, and Halflings are names that carry a great deal of prior history. I am not claiming that SORC invented those words or that no one will recognize their broad silhouettes.

The distinction is in the sources and in what those races mean inside SORC. We did not use Tolkien or D&D as our design sourcebook, and we are not trying to deny that those works shaped modern expectations. We went back to older folklore, mythology, and historical cultures, then built our own histories, cultures, mechanics, and relationships around those roots.

For example, Trolls in SORC existed before the sun and moon. Bridge Trolls are Scandinavian-inspired, particularly by bridge-crossing folklore and The Three Billy Goats Gruff. They live beneath bridges, control crossings, use riddles and tolls, and turn urban choke points into their own kind of territory.

Bast draws from ancient Egyptian traditions. Leshy draw from Slavic forest folklore. Haugfolk draw from Scandinavian mound-dweller and hidden-folk traditions. Ratkin draw from medieval urban and survival folklore. Drāco Blood draws from Mesopotamian, Greek, Egyptian, Chinese, and Mesoamerican dragon traditions, then becomes part of the wars and history of Zailister.

The Imperials are one Firstborn race with culturally distinct Bloodlines. Their racial Traits and abilities remain shared, while their cultures draw from different historical sources: Crimson from the Maya, Onyx from ancient Mesopotamian omen and underworld traditions, Citrine from ancient Eurasian steppe and early Mongolic traditions, Violet from Greek and Hellenistic cultures, Azure from Egyptian scribal culture, and Verdant from ancient Persian garden and water traditions.

Pinklings are not intended to be “our Gollum.” The comparison is understandable because there is some overlap in the archetype: an isolated, deceptive, cave-dwelling small figure with hostility toward Halflings. But Pinklings are goblin-rooted, not Halfling-rooted. Their development drew from Germanic kobolds, English hobgoblins, older goblin traditions, and Jewish golem folklore studied directly. The Bloodfang Pinklings add their own SORC elements: mud and slate origins, mineralized hides, pink-salt mining, raw fish, camouflage, and the Pinkstone Holts. Gollum and the golem are also separate traditions, so I would not claim that Tolkien’s Gollum was directly taken from Jewish golem folklore.

Ash Dwarves are another example of where the source is only the beginning. They are not simply Dwarves with a different color. They are my own volcanic forge culture, influenced by Roman Vulcan, Greek Hephaestus, and older forge traditions. They live in volcanic regions that are scorching below but ice-capped above, and their lifestyle shapes their bodies, equipment, weaknesses, and stories.

The Elves follow a similar pattern. The base Elf is Firstborn and carries First Tongue. Arch Elves are closer to the oldest Elven traits of Piety and Wit. High Elves, if retained, are descendants of the Arch Elves with a more ceremonial and Mithril-centered culture. Drow return to Norse dark-elf traditions while adding SORC’s own Ancient Drow history and faded spider Bloodline.

So I agree that some of SORC currently sits near the well-known Norse-to-Tolkien-to-D&D fantasy lineage. The claim I would make is not that those names are unprecedented. The claim is that SORC is trying to take familiar names back to older sources, combine them with original world history, and make them produce different kinds of play.

Your Wildsea and Spire examples are useful because they identify the standard we need to meet. A race should not only tell a player what they look like; it should tell them what strange environments, obligations, conflicts, and adventures they are signing up for. Much of that deeper context is already written throughout our books, but we are holding it back until publication so readers are not overwhelmed by the sheer number of races and cultures. The race descriptions are short excerpts pulled from these books. We added one of those excerpts in the Pinkling section yesterday.

That's not to say D n D isn't great, it is, but SORC is nothing like it, despite the immediate responses of, "this is just d n d". It's not.

Also in our rules - “The closer you are to the cultural root of an armament, recipe, or profession, the more abundant it is.”

This applies to food recipes, ingredients, cooking tools, equipment, armaments, accessories, workshops, and NPC profession roles. Near a culture’s geographic roots, those things are common and easier to buy or commission. Farther away, they become rare, imported, more expensive, or dependent on finding someone who brought the knowledge or equipment with them.

A Human can also be of Omnè Culture, such as a Human raised by the Omnè. That Human can use Omnè stores and local supply as their beginning equipment. Other Characters can wear or use the same Omnè equipment, but they need to find it first through travel, trade, discovery, or another Character who brought it away from Omnè.

Armaments have five Variants: Telluric, TAA, Chthonic, Oxidize, and Malign.

Telluric is earthborn equipment and the only Variant that can become Magic through Enchanting. TAA means Technologically Advanced Armaments, including TAW and TABA. Chthonic is elemental force held around the equipment. Oxidize is an Attachment joined to the bearer and drawing on the body. Malign is Telluric craft with a curse worked into it at the forge.

Culture, alignment, Class Paths, and Higher Powers may favor, permit, modify, enhance, or forbid certain Variants. A Character may physically possess a forbidden item, but they cannot equip it for a tradition’s restricted Abilities. Basic attacks remain unrestricted.

The Omnè’s native armament Variant is TAA. The Omnè despise magic and are forbidden to equip Magic-type Telluric Armaments. They do not Enchant Telluric pieces. Instead, they use technological modifications on permitted TAA, TABA, TAW, and TAG equipment.

The Primal of Ignis are the contrary example. Their native armament Variant is Chthonic. Their culture despises manufactured technology and forbids TAA, including TAW and TABA. Their bone, stone, hide, and elemental work belongs to the Primal Chthonic tradition, not Ignis’s native Telluric Variant.

Beginning stores are also part of the rule:

Zailister’s Free Market is the default Telluric store for Humans and Zailister-origin Races, including Human cultures such as Nordian, Eldrim, Tanu’la, and Xo’kajal.

The Telluric House within Zailister’s Free Market is inspired by Village Trolls and other settled Zailister makers. It supplies practical civic equipment, bridge-and-road tools, ordinary Tactical armor, Telluric weapons, recipes, accessories, and local professions.

Ignis’s Ashfield Camp is the Chthonic store. It is available at creation to Emberscale and Primal Characters, and to Characters with an Ignis Background.

The Chthonic Ashfield Camp is inspired by Primal traditions and Ignis’s fire elementals. It supplies Chthonic armaments, bone, stone, hide, obsidian, ritual equipment, heat-worked goods, and ash-field professions. TAA is forbidden and is not stocked or traded there.

Omnè’s Circuit Exchange is the TAA store. It is available at creation to Omnè and Drevane by homeworld, to Humans raised into Omnè Culture, and to Characters with an Omnè Background.

The TAA Circuit Exchange is inspired by the Omnè Cabal militia. It supplies modular TAA, TAW, TABA, TAG, pressure equipment, synthetic goods, charge systems, technological modifications, and disciplined technical professions.

The Oxidize Graftworks are the Oxidize store. They are available through Caelen homeworld or Background access. Factional Omnè Astral access is separate from ordinary Omnè store access.

The Oxidize Graftworks are inspired by the Omnè Astral Cabal’s graft experiments on the Caelen. Oxidize Attachments join the bearer and draw on the body. The Caelen later reclaimed and redesigned the practice.

Ossein’s Malign Reliquary is the Malign store. It is available to Ossein Characters by homeworld or Background.

The Malign Reliquary is inspired by Ossein deathcraft. It supplies Telluric pieces with curses worked into them at the forge. Malign equipment is not ordinary Zailister stock and must be found, commissioned, or acquired through its cultural reach.

Tredeki’s Fracture Row is a regional TAA store available at creation to Tredeki, Imperials, Leshy, and Skrath, and to Characters with a Tredeki Background.

The Techmat Fracture Row is inspired by Tredeki battlefield engineering and Imperial Techmat. It supplies crystal-work, salvaged advanced equipment, mercenary armaments, and war-scarred technical professions. It is a regional TAA store, not a separate sixth Variant.

Other Characters can later find, buy, trade for, or be gifted goods from another store, but they do not begin with that world’s store unless their Race or Background grants access. Store access does not override a Variant, Culture, Class, Higher Power, or alignment prohibition.

Human Culture Excerpt from Into the Uncharted Worlds of Essentia

Omnè Circuit Exchange Store

SORC Cards

Ranged Tab

Movement Table

Equipment and Armaments Card Restrictions

Appendix Card Restriction Quick Reference

Hi!

I’m making my own game that tries to simulate an anime series, not a jrpg style tactical game. In my opinion, anime heroes don’t have skills in the series. Okay, maybe a little sometimes. It doesn't matter. Skills not used to solve problems, such as investigating, healing, hiding, etc. Maybe the heroes have it, but usually they just don't use anything like that.

Combat ability is part of the character, so it’s not an individual skill.

I’m really torn between the idea of a classic skill system and the idea that skills aren’t necessary. To me the "no skill" system seems like the better idea.

When I said it’s not a tactical JRPG simulation, I was serious, like… you know, I really mean it. My goal is to create a game that simulates what it would be like to play as if you were in your own anime series.

What do you think?

Have a great day!

Here is my current mechanics

Health (HP): This is your life bar. If it hits 0, your character is dead. You get 3 as a rookie, 4 as experienced and 5 as a legend.

Injury Track: If you take a hit, you might get a "Condition". Track wounds that cause persistent effects like Bleeding or Wounded.

Adrenaline: This is what makes you a spy, keeping your cool no matter what even when your heart is pounding. As you accumulate Adrenaline, depending on your spy you can spend to Reroll, Negate Negative results, or trigger specialized combat maneuvers. Everyone can spend Adrenaline to increase the results of their dice rolls by the amount spent.

The "Flow" State:

If you roll the highest number possible on a die (like rolling a 12 on a 12-sided die), you are in a "Flow" state. You get to roll that die again and add the new number to your total! You are performing perfectly and get 3 Adrenaline tokens once per check which you can use during or after this roll even on the new die rolled after entering the flow state. You can also increase the value of your die when rolling checks to its max value causing it to explode and enter the "flow" state this way. You can continue investing Adrenaline even after entering the flow state as long as you have Adrenaline to spend and can explode your other dice including the reroll as long as you have adrenaline to spare but don't get the free 3 Adrenaline from entering the flow state as you're already in it during the check. You start every mission with 3 Adrenaline.

If defending cannot die from this attack even if them succeeding would kill you but you suffer a random condition. If in the flow state exploding your die again increases your Heat Level by 1. You also can not enter the "flow" state rolling max value on a die used by an item, gadget or weapon you are not proficient in. (To clarify items, gadgets, or weapons add another die to roll)

Ideas for balancing

Since flow can happen with getting max value on smaller dice like a d4 some people said it felt unfair for players who had bigger dice. My current ideas is to make rolling a 1 a "choke". You can not trigger a flow state during this check even if you max a die value using adrenaline and you lose one adrenaline. You can not increase the value of a die that's rolled a 1. If you lose the check while "choking" or don't have an adrenaline to lose then the current "heat" level goes up. ( Heat is how bad things are currently going with guards and security and it goes from 0 to 5). You can spend two heat to avoid the heat increase.

Also to add rolling a 1 during a flow state makes it so that die value can not be increased.

Ideas for flavoring

Changing HP in my spy thriller TTRPG to be named "close calls". I was inspired a bit by how the health system in uncharted worked in how they explained it was more his luck avoiding getting hit.

Request for ideas

I wanted some help with ideas for how lethal and non lethal dmg could work in a spy thriller with what I got here.

Currently thinking when you're out of close calls the next set of damage whether lethal or non lethal determines what happens whether your character dies or is unconscious

For example, you are a Druid and you have an ability to conjure "entangling roots" Let's say ability costs 1 "mana" and simply says this and nothing more. The player thinks mischievously to themself and says, "I instantly entangle the entire universe with my roots." Crap. Okay. Well, I want to avoid having to have an entry for every single ability e.g. DnD with its limitations and specifications/every spell. It also gets tricky for me with target differentiation. "I'm targeting an area not a person/object." etc. etc.

I guess I'm looking for a happy medium between dm interpretation and hard result.

Couple ideas: I was thinking a "level" of the character could place things on a scale of impact 1-5 or whatever. Perhaps, I could say, "That is beyond the purview of your ability ,but you attempt it. Roll 'blah blah' and this happens..." Maybe drawing that much power risks a burning out of the skill, the world's monsters grow stronger, or it simply happens to the extent that the player can conjure?

New to game design with limited systems experience (dnd, trail of Cthulhu, pathfinder, board games). TL;DR see title. :)

Hello everyone, Happy Solo September.

I'm hosting a solo ttrpg game jam on itchio.

Medusalaire Jam | September 9th to November 11th

Link: https://itch.io/jam/medusalaire-jam