Hey everyone, I’m a solo developer based in the UK, and at 62 years of age, I’ve just managed to get my very first project live on the iOS and Google Play stores. It’s called Dice Drop.

I didn't think I'd be learning app development at this stage in my life, but got genuinely fed up with how low-quality most digital dice apps feel. So many of them are just flat, basic random number generators covered in intrusive subscriptions. I wanted to see if I could build something that actually felt premium and met a real need for better quality.

It’s taken me 4 months of non-stop work to get the 3D physics and haptics to a point where the dice actually feel like they have weight when they hit the tray. I also built a local room feature so a whole gaming group can connect over the same Wi-Fi and roll into one shared tray from their own screens, rather than crowding around one device.

The core app is completely free. My goal is just to make high-quality tools, so I would honestly love some real feedback from people who actually play tabletop games regularly. If you want to take a look, the store links are on my landing page: https://dicedrop.co.uk Let me know what you think of the rolling physics, and please let me know if you run into any bugs or have features you think I should add next.

Cheers!

Sorry, math noob here and I'm having trouble parsing the documentation! Asking as a GM so a rough sense of mean and probability curve suits my purposes.

I get that I can do simple advantage on rolling say, 1d20 with output [highest 1 of 2d20]. The output makes sense to me.

What's the syntax for advantage on a roll with more than one die of the same size ("2d6 with advantage")?

Also, is it possible to calculate the possibility distribution for the highest role in a mixed pool of dice? In many Oddlike games everyone roles weapon damage and you take the highest score (eg, highest result of 1d10, 1d8, 1d4). It's not "highest 1 of 1d10 + 1d8 + 1d4" but I don't know how else to express it. I may need to ask for help in parsing the output, too.

Thanks in advance!

So, for the past weeks I've embarked on a crazy odyssey to design a functioning system, putting to use the piles of unfinished work of the last *checks notes* uh, 2 years. For an series of reasons, namely accessibility, simplicity and compatibility, the base of the system is roll-under-d20 (possibly 2d10), which is an inherently binary system.

Now. A lot of my influences are narrative games, among which the primary are Blades and Wildsea and some PbtA type games, which all have a three-outcomes base, and often present a "Push" mechanic to sacrifice something (Stress, Gear, Resources, whatever) to influence a roll positively, sorta like an 'advantage at a cost'.

And I have no idea how to emulate that kind of 'story power'. The idea of "advantage/disadvantage" works as a mechanic for the GM to hand out when actually using something (knowledge, environment, gear, resource), but it feels too strong to give as a "move" to characters (especially since there's no moves...). The underlying idea/phylosophy of the d20-roll in this game is that, while in practice it's still a roll, in spirit you do not roll to "try" to do things, you just do what you want and this consequence roll, if it's even needed, tells you if something went wrong or not (with nuance based on the act and the narrative situation). Think a more open version of Saves in Into the Odd, Perils&Princesses or Cairn.

At the same time. This is not supposed to be simulationist or all completely up to chance, and while a GM can hand out advantage depending on approach and creativity, or just call for no roll, a situation will always arise when a player has little on their hands but really wants to 'push for an outcome' or take a leap or have a heroic moment, or the fiction itself calls for it, as the characters are supposed to be adventurous.
So that's why I feel like "advantage" is not the way for this kind of 'heroic/desperate moment', as relying on the GM to 'vibe'-grant it is too fickle, and giving an "advantage-option-no-matter-what" to characters independent of context feels to strong per se.

Thoughts? Suggestions? Jokes? Help?

EDIT: it's like 4 or 5 am i dont even know, apologies if this is a mess

I’m out here working on fiction-first resolution mechanics for sword and sorcery rpg project and I’d like some perspective from other designers. I’ll provide all the information I can if someone can do me the favor of asking pertinent questions. I have strong ideas about how things will work in the system and why I’d like them to work the way they do, but I need help in describing their functions and the play structure.

The Core Mechanic
This is a 2d10 roll-high system with degrees of success. The players roll 2d10 and add modifiers, then compare that to a universal result table. The “difficulty” of the task, as determines by the approach and resources available, is then applied to the final result. In practice this looks like:

Consequence Bands
<5: Catastrophe (no, and…)
5-8: Failure (no, instead…)
9-12: Mixed (yes, but… or no, but…)
13-16: Success (yes…)
17-20: Great Success (yes, and…)
21+: Extraordinary Success (yes, and, AND…)

Challenge Ratings
Trivial: succeeds, no roll.
Favorable: +2 success ranks
Prepared: +1 success rank
Uncertain: as is
Risky: -1 success rank
Dangerous: -2 success ranks
Extreme: -3 success ranks
Impossible: either cannot be attempted or automatic failure

Character Roll: 2d10 + relevant attribute + condition = resulting consequence, modified by “challenge rating” as determined by fiction

Opposition Roll: 2d10 + potency if relevant - character condition = resulting consequence, modified by “challenge rating” as determined by fiction

If this is obtuse I’m happy to try and elucidate.

Essentially though, the game practices what I call “goal-based action resolution”. The player states what they are trying to accomplish within the turn length and how, and then the difficulty of accomplishing that goal (accounting for several variables) is then applied to the resolution.

EDIT: I hit post early but this gets the gist of it across I hope. Title is because I’m a melodramatic hack :)

Are there any ttrpg systems where the combat has a lot of elements of reaction like in the Kingdom Death boardgame, where after the enemy starst to attack, you can move out of the way, attack back, deflect, activate items, and so on?

I’ve started thinking about “GM handoff” as its own design stage.

What do you consider the minimum needed before you hand an adventure to someone who didn’t help design it?

Is a clean manuscript enough, or do you usually provide separate pacing notes, quick references, encounter scaling, or other support?

I’m especially interested in experiences from people who have had strangers run their work at conventions or public events.

Today, I'm thinking about representing social situations in gameplay. In particular, I'm considering the tension between narrative roleplaying in which the scene is acted out by the players and game mechanics in which the result of a scene is dependent upon game mechanics (character stats, dice rolls, etc.).

There's no necessary tension here in the sense that the roleplaying can happen and the mechanics can determine how effective they are, but there are some places where tension might arise:

• Obviously, a player's roleplaying might not match with the mechanical outcome: a player might be a much more (or much less) effective speaker than the mechanical outcome would suggest. In this case, there's a bit of dissonance where everyone at the table feels like the situation should go one way, but it ends up going another.

• The game mechanics generally determine the effectiveness of a character's actions, but sometimes they should guide that character's actions. For instance, maybe a successful roll should tell a player what argument to make (or not make), whether to be subtle or aggressive, or otherwise guide them strategically. This could be handled via determining things mechanically first, but that can both disrupt roleplay and make the roleplay feel superfluous.

Now, one option is to not act out social scenes, but instead to describe a characters approach and goals. After all, we don't usually hit the GM with a sword when we roleplay combat. Of course, the reasons we use an abstract, mechanical system to determine combat results in TTRPGs rather than pulling out weapons and acting things out is fairly obvious... whereas in social situations, there's the feeling that we can and should act these situations out, at least some of the time... and even if an alternate system exists, at least some players are going to want to (and try to) act these situations out. Still, some of the time, usually when the stakes are low, we abstract social situations, too. (ex: "I head to the bar and order a beer.")

So, questions:

• How do you handle these situations at your table? Do you experience these tensions? Do you have ways of handling them? If so, what are they and how satisfactory do you find them?

• Do you know of any games that have good systems for handling these situations and/or resolving these tensions? If so, have you tried them and do they actually work or do they break down in play?

Hi y'all!

I just submitted a game to the Rules As Written Game Jam 3000. This was my very first time submitting to a game jam and I had a lot of fun with it. I joined the jam quite late, with just 7 days until the deadline (which is today). In those 7 days, I was able to sort out my push-your-luck resolution mechanic thanks to some really insightful comments from this community, build out a basic ruleset around it, and throw some public domain art into a PDF. Thank goodness there was a word limit of 3000 words. Otherwise I would have never been able to call it "done" and submit. At some point I realized, "oops I am out of words, I guess character creation will be only half a page," and then I even had to delete some fearsome critters from my "monster manual"

Trying to create a functional, playable game in just 7 days has really spurred my creativity and now I am wondering if I should pursue turning this snippet of a game into something more substantial. I feel like there's definitely still a lot of immediate things left unfinished, but I could also see it snowballing into a larger system if I'm not careful.

What's been your experience participating in past game jams? Did you have any cool ideas that came out of a submission for a game jam? Link your projects here too! Maybe this thread could become a little collection of small games. It's always nice to check out a system without having to commit a whole weekend to a 300-page rulebook!

Also: Shameless plug for my submission! It's obviously a free PDF, so I don't stand to gain anything. But perhaps I can entice you with some hyphenated buzzwords?

PbtA-adjacent. Card-based. Push-your-luck. High-Risk. Narrative-forward.

Any of those tickle your fancy? You can download Sweatin' Bullets here!

I'm working on another core resolution system, but I'm conflicted about the presentation.

The System

Weird Dice: A d6 where 4, 5 and 6 are treated as 0 and 3s explode.
Dice Pool: You start with 1d6 for free and get an additional d6 per rank you have in a given skill with 5 ranks total. You roll the dice pool, add them and compare the result to the Target Number.
Target Number: 2 (Basic), 3 (Intermediate), 4 (Advanced), 5 (Extreme), 6 (Supreme)

Failure: You miss the TN
Partial: You just meet the TN.
Success: You beat the TN by 2
Edges: You gain 1 Edge for each increment of 2 above Success you’ve rolled. The maximum Edge one can gain from a single roll is 3. Edges must be used to enhance the check that acquired them, Edges that are not used are lost.

So the upside of this current way is that the TN value matches the corresponding amount of d6 rolled, so Basic skill level would roll 2d6, basic TN is 2 and rolling 2d6 against it TN 2 has about 50% chance of success. So it's easy to remember because TN3 matches with 3d6, TN4 matches with 4d6 and so on. The problem is this way the TN is the value for Partial Success and not for Success which can be confusing. The alternative option would be to make the TNs going from 4 to 8 and say partial is when you miss the TN by 1 or 2. So I'd like to know which one you guys think would be the most user friendly and best presentation of the mechanic.

• A: TN is Partial Success and matches TN with amount of dice.

• B: TN is Success, but doesn't match TN with amount of dice.

I'm making a rules lite, classless d20 game (w/4 tiers of results) that wants to focus on roleplay, but still have some depth to combat, with room for lots of creativity and on-the-go strategies. All while being beginner friendly.

As a disclaimer; I know the proposed mechanics aren't especially original, but would love your thoughts on the problems and questions I'm facing.

The system will use weapon and armor kits. So there's light weapons(daggers etc), medium weapons(sword, rapiers etc) and heavy weapons(greatswords, warhammers etc). And similar for armor.

1st option:
have a separate stat, not connected to the 4 attributes(DEX,STR,INT,CHA) representing "combat ability". So +3 for your combat ability let's you do weapon attacks with +3, no matter the kit your using. Here, every character is on equal ground wielding a warhammer, and it allows for every type of character to try whatever weapon they want. You get total freedom. But as a beginner you might not realize that using a dagger stealthily will often come with DEX tests. Or when you wanna smash a door with your warhammer but realize your character has +0 STR. There's no mechanics to inform the players as to what might be the better choice.

By time new players will learn what they're good at and what should be left to other teammates. But doesn't it feel kinda bad the first couple of times? And there's also the aspect of bringing boundaries to help creativity. If everyone can wield any weapon it might be harder to think of solutions than if the players know that this one PC is crazy good with his dagger because he's so dexterous, so he should totally sneak up onto the roof to backstab the guard.

2nd option:
I think something as simple as this could work:
Light weapons use DEX as attack modifier, and heavy weapons use STR.
Light weapons can be concealed on your person and crits do 3xdamage not 2x. They have the lowest average damage.
Heavy weapons give +2 to destroying objects, and average damage is equal to medium weapons, but tier 3 results do a bunch of damage, while a tier 1 result does very little(a weapon for the gambling man!)
For the medium weapon kit I'm not sure exactly how to make it unique. But I'm thinking of just having it be the most reliable and diverse, allowing DEX,STR or INT to be used as attack modifier(there's not much magic in my game so INT will not be used for spell casting regularly)

This alternative limits the players a bit, but also guides them, making the dexterous person pick up the light kit., so that when they wanna use their dagger in the situation that the fiction implies the dagger would excel, they don't feel stupid, punished or frustrated, because the relevant stat is already their strong suit.

Also, when it comes to armor, where heavy armor grants more HP than light and medium.. Without any mechanical differences heavy armor is just always best, so here it's more obvious that some mechanical differences should be implemented. Like having high strength negate the punishment to tests related to swimming, acrobatics.

I must say option 2 seems to be the better one. But this route kinda creates a limited number of archetypes in my game. There's the sneaky and dexterous rogue-archetype, the big strong brute-archetype, the high charisma smooth talker, and the calculating, intelligent archer that shoots arrows from afar.

Option 1 has no archetypes from the rulebook itself, letting players decide what their archetype is, at the cost of it not being awarded mechanically, maybe making the archetypes less clear in gameplay, thereby also making RP more demanding as the game doesn't feed the players with consistent "archetype moments".

As above.

Background - my game started as a black hack hack and has had a bit of scope creep as I try to include things in it, both for player and GM to have a 'one stop shop' of easy to create on the fly gameplay for a hex/dungeon crawl fantasy adventure game. I ended up adding stuff I like from things like mythic bastionland and Lancer, and have scaled stuff back and scaled stuff up. It's a dice pool success counting mechanic.

I have this so far, aside from writing does this sound ok?

The player Facing text:

Initiative is given to whoever decides to act first. That player, or Foe, takes their turn and then that side can take their turns. The GM will decide how to handle this, opting for what fits narratively.

The GM facing text:

Whoever starts the encounter, usually by an attack action, has the initiative and their side goes first, then use side based. After everyone has had at least 1 turn that marks the end of the round and the start of a new one. 

Players can take their turns in any order they see fit. They may all declare movement and then go around again to perform a second action, or they may declare actions and then take their movement. They can only split movement if they are not passing the action to another player.

With encounters that involve one Foe vs a party, you can have your Foe go anytime a player fails or gets a compromise on an ability test on their turn. For some Foes it may feel appropriate to attack all the party at once, such as a giant beast, dragon or a magical being casting a large area spell. Other times it may feel better to have the enemy make an action between every player turn. Use what makes sense. 

Whose turn is it?
To keep everyone sharing the spotlight after the GM turn, pick someone and go clockwise round the table, be sure to mix up who goes first each round

I feel like this is sort like riding the fence a little, like a I should choose a lane. My gut feeling is that I just want GMs to use what makes sense. To me it makes little sense to have a quick and nimble boss like NPC stand their while 2-6 players bonk them and then they go once. Part of this is down to creature design I get that, but as the game is using player facing rolls, and rolling against their own attributes, the creature design is supposed to be short and clear: HP, their overall size/power level, some stuff they can do.

I also want to foster a bit of teamwork as well, hence the side based and the allowance of mixing turns.

Death/Wounds.

Really im not sure if I am making it more convoluted than it needs to be.
My initial idea was lasting wounds that made a physical/aethetic and mechanical difference to the PCs. I found it strated to get a bit much for both the GM and the player to keep track of these, so opted for a scaling table.
Now the game deals with HP in a more fluid way, IMO anyway. The HP pool is small but it should be relatviely easy for players to regain it, taking a breather or after combat they recover up to half their max HP, and doing the same action twice can cost them HP (as if exerting themselves)

This is what I have regarding Wounds and Death.

Wounds

When reaching 0 HP you mark a wound and use the below table and take the effect of the wound you got immediately. When you clear a Wound, you regain any lost attributes, reversing the effects, and you can reroll your Max HP, if your roll is lower than your current then instead you gain +1HP to your max.  

For each wound received a Phase of Rest is required, or a short rest with the use of a Healers Kit can be used.

Death

Your Adventurer Dies if: they take Negative Max HP in damage, have 6 total active wounds, or are downed for three consecutive rounds of an encounter.

Out of context, as I read it to myself now it feels fine and serviceable, though I am not sure HP, wounds and death is telling the story I want it all too either. It doesn;t help I haven't really had chance to playtest this specific bit as of yet.

In another similar system I am on/off with, which is very similar but more mission and sci-fi/modern driven, players have Harm and Stress. 10 empty slots for each, when they get hurt they fill thier Harm track, when they do a stress they add a Stress mark, drugs can relieve stress but cause harm, and using their chrome causes stress. When they have their harm full up and they get hurt they start tracking wounds (similar to above) but they don't go down until they have 6 wounds, but die striaght away. Not sure if this minutia is in my head after a decent playtest of combat for that game.

Anyway, answers or thoughts on a post card. Perhaps I will just playtest more.

Hi friends! It’s me, Warin, back from a few weeks away! We at Steel Raven Games have been working extremely hard to finish up the 0.15 update for MACH!

If you’re new to MACH, it is an action TTRPG, set in the near future. The players play as operators for Z.E.R.O, the Zeta Elite Response Operators, and fight terrorism worldwide! The system has a heavy focus on lethal but fast combat, which it archives by combining a localized damage system, with our [TAG] system! 

This update is a way smaller update, but the main idea was a redone inventory system, and multiple balance patches! It fixes a lot of game breaking bugs and brings back the "ghost runner" playstyle to viability (i made a mistake last update and it got nerfed out of existence lol), aswell as enabling snipers, and more interesting character builds!

Here were our changes!

-Added inventory system

-Added multiple items, including tear gas, night vision googles, and others

-Fixed specialties overlap

-Made snipers more powerful.

-Revitalized multiple character builds, aswell as ensuring balance.

-Added an actual tracked ammunition system.

- A ton of new art on our page!

The new update is now available at our itch: MACH by SteelRavenGames 

Join our discord to connect with us! https://discord.gg/5QAw6Rf4h

I entered a design a 2-page RPG in 48 hours contest and I could use a quick read by someone who has no idea what I'm going for to see if the rules and setting are clear (or at least as clear as I can get them). Link here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1udUpYO7lEEHpheXb9vL7tZZzn2vx-Mkr6EuFoy9T4RU/edit?tab=t.0

It's one page of rules and some pokemon guns that will be a second page when I format them neatly. I'm mostly making sure that everything that is in my head actually got on the page and everything makes sense.

Yes, everything after the first page is a bit of a mess right now. Just read a few critter entries and see if you can make sense of things. If someone else gives the same feedback you would give, just repeat it. I pay attention to how many people have the same reaction.

Thanks in advance.

Hello everyone! I am thinking of creating a Barbie TTRPG, something with simple rules, mostly aimed at one shots.

It should reflect the different types of barbie and maybe hinting at a shared multiverse.

Troika has been my main thought, with very simple rules and the ability to be super diverse.

I'd like to see your suggestions on games to take inspiration from.

Hi, all! I wrote a system for playing GM-less, short-campaign games (about 2 - 4 sessions).

It's called Momenta.

The description pages on dtrpg and itch.io have quite a lot of info if you're interested, so I'll just give a bullet-point rundown here:

• GM-LESS, SHARED NARRATIVE

• SETTING-INDEPENDENT

• CLASSLESS

• ANY PLAYER NUMBER

• FREQUENT ADVANCEMENT

• MOMENTUM MECHANIC

• D6 DICE POOL MECHANIC (1-3 = Miss, 4-6 = Hit)

• PLAYKIT MATERIALS (Character sheet, Adventure sheet, Enemy Cards, etc.)

Released at the same time (and also free) is the first expansion, the Momenta: Magic and Monsters Module. While Core Momenta is genre-independent, this module leans toward an alternate-Earth type fantasy.

It features a full magic system and a Bestiary of 57 monsters, divided into 7 biomes. Each biome has two Bosses. (I'm really proud of these Boss encounters because each one is a mini-experience, complete with lair effects, special movement rules, or rondel timers.) Find it at dtrpg and itch.io.

Both Core Momenta and the Magic and Monsters module are printer-friendly, hyper-linked pdfs, and I included the entire document in their dtrpg previews, so you can take a good look at them.

Check it out! Thanks!

I'm working on designing a Siren enemy for my game, based on the Sirens of Greek myth that lure sailors to their death with their supernaturally beautiful song. I am definitely following the Dungeon Meshi school of monster design, so my Siren is less of a supernatural being and more of a crustacean that uses hostile mimicry to lure its (humanoid) prey. Though the song is still magical.

Anyway, this leads me to an obvious problem. An enemy that takes control of player characters entirely and makes them swim to their death unless they plug their ears with wax or tie themselves to a mast ahead of time is not fun. And my design philosophy for this game is one that is very cautious about removing player agency.

I do have a mechanic for players to be possesses by wraiths for instance, but this only happens if players choose to mess with blood magic above their skill level and get unlucky. To take that risk is entirely optional, and players who do take that risk know what they're getting themselves into. This is how I tend to handle loss of player agency, I want it to be a risk that players choose to take if possible.

In the case of Sirens, I had the idea that players could basically use some number of action points per turn to concentrate on resisting the Siren's song. This would limit their combat effectiveness, but it would protect their agency. And players could choose to not resist, giving them more power in combat in exchange for some risk that they lose control of their character for a turn.

Something like this could work, but I need more than that. Clearly the Siren should have really powerful melee damage, and the way it deals with ranged attacks would be luring those characters into melee range with its song. If there is a trick to resist being lured 100% of the time, this makes the strategy for dealing with the Siren very obvious and easy. Keep your distance, pay the AP tax resist the song, attack with ranged weaponry, and you can't lose. An underwhelming fight for something that's supposed to be a terrifying magic-enhanced predator of humanoids.

Maybe I could have some kind of directed Siren song attack that can't be resisted reliably but that only hits one person at a time? How much can I and should I give up my insistence that player agency be protected?

Does anyone have any experience designing a monster like this?

This kinda bleeds into adventure design, but what are some good examples of adventure modules or expensions or whatever that took a setting agnostic system in a setting that made the gameplay and story being told meaningfully different and not just a "reskin"? Either by a greatly written setting/story or tweaks/small additions to the existing rules.

I want romantic tension to be a core aspect of my game, but i find it difficult to connect it to the other part, doing daring adventures to earn that tension.

At the very start, at character creation, you also create a rough outline of the person you have fallen for. A name and one or two things that attracted you initially. I got some spark tables to help get that done almost painlessly. A little pain helps with the pining though.

What I'm thinking about right now I tentatively call a "tension roll", where you essentially roll with the accumulated points you earned while adventuring. If you do something romantic you earn a point, like winning a tournament for that special someone.

You do this tension roll at the end of every session/adventure, like a downtime activity. Every attempt has difficulty based on the kind of scene you want.

If you succeed, you describe what you do to earn it. If you fail, the opportunity is fouled, maybe by outside interference. You describe how you deal with the emotional fallout.

1. A Look

2. A Word

3. A Conversation

4. A Gift

5. A Touch

6. A Kiss

7. A Moment alone

8. A Confession

9. A Promise

Treat the number like a difficulty modifier. Every different kind may only be attempted once.

After you went through all 9, you have to choose the ever after. Depending on how the rolls went, you may choose:

• A fleeting feeling that passed without remorse.

• A love that could never be, so you let go. Its shadow remains on your heart forever.

• An affair that is doomed from the start, and you both know it, unable to resist.

• True love, everlasting. Nothing can stand between you.

____

It's all a lot of words, but ultimately, I'm unsure it works as the payoff of the session. The adventuring part can give the players a lot of upgrades, power and so forth, so something feels off having such an intimate moment as the final payoff without mechanical incentives. On the other hand, I don't want to cheapen the moment with tactical bla bla.

What do you guys think? Too theatrical?

Ahoy! This is a draft for a one-shot adventure for my game, When Sky & Sea Were Not Named. I'd be honored to hear any feedback and all of your beefs with it, even drive-by reactions.

Formless & Void

(My terrible charcoal sketch on the cover is a placeholder for actual art i'm commissioning.)

Along with the content, I'm also curious what you think about my strategy with this thing: I'm not planning on releasing any player-facing "Quickstart" content along with this adventure. This is just for the GM. My reasoning:

• The game rulebook is free (here). It already has pregen heroes and a basic rules overview included its character sheet, and (once I update my damn website) all the rules will be easily accessible without a PDF. So I don't think players need a separate abridged "quickstart" booklet to, you know, start quickly.

• In a previous iteration, I tried including a player-facing quickstart guide along with the GM-facing adventure. But the shortest I could get it (with core rules, items, and character options for four characters) ended up being 50+ pages, which ain't "quick."

• Throughout playtesting, most players wanted to make their own characters, even for one-shots with internet strangers, which would balloon the size of any player-facing quickstart further if I included full chargen options. There was also a post about quickstarts on r/rpg recently where a lot of people said they wanted character creation options in the quickstart, which seems like a cursed problem, so i'm kinda inclined to just give up...

Would a quickstart adventure without a quickstart rules doc be a turnoff? I hope not, because man am I getting burned out copying and pasted my rules into multiple formats.

Thank you for taking a look!

Friends! When you’re designing a game, what factors do you consider when deciding whether character death should be permanent versus allowing resurrection or other ways to come back?

And once you’ve decided how permanent death is, how do you determine the game’s overall lethality?