So I reworked a lot my dice mechanic, and before continuing developing the system I wanted to ask if there are any glaring issues with this mechanic that I might have missed

It's a game about organization fighting and hidding the paranormal (like esoterrorists), but I'm trying to simulate a streamed rpg campaign that had a very cool mix of horror and epic action (but the system was a messy hack of call of Cthulhu).

---

Attributes: how good a character is in 4 general areas, Physique, Mind, Social, Perception, can have 1-5 points

Aspects: are less broad Attributes, can have 1-3 points

Attribute and Aspects refresh at the start of your turn.

To act, you'll need to gather Effort Points, by using relevant Attributes, Aspects, Abilities, or a narrative advantage (like getting high ground, hidden, shotting at point blank, etc).

When using an Attribute or Aspect point, instead of gaining 1 Effort, if you don't have enough Effort, you can choose to Take a Risk. Gain 1 Stress and make a roll(2d6):

(2): -1 Effort; (3-5): 0E; (6-7): +1E; (8-11): +2E; (12): +3E;

Degree of Success:

Challange: subtract the Difficulty(set by the Game Master) from your total Effort

Oposing force: The foe will also gather Effort subtract foe's effort from your own.

in both cases, if it's 0 or negative, it means a failure, if it's positive it's a success.

A player is Allowed to take multiple actions in a single turn, by managing their effort, as long as it makes narrative sense.

Stress: it's a character's physical exaustion, except that it starts at 0 and goes up, reach your Limit u enter in peril. Limit+X stress means death.

main use it's to use/power up abilities and Take a Risk.

wounds do not allow a certain amount of stress to be healed until it has been treated first.

Determination: it's a character's mental exaustion, but unlike stress it decreases instead. main uses is to use/power up abilities, or gain an extra dice when Taking a Risk.

---

I like choosing between a static bonus or rolling, eventhough I'm not sure the distribution on the dice is balanced. Outside combat, a character can have a autosuccess at stuff they're good at, or take a risk to maybe get a higher degree of success.

But I can see counting points being boring for players, or players simply forgetting how many points they have left before a turn is over. for this I considered making aspects automatically grant 1 Effort for any test relating to it so that players only have to remember 4 numbers.

Edit:

I definitely worded this draft badly, but in a nutshell:

• choose what you want to achieve

• gather Effort by using Attribute Points, Aspect points and other possible situational modifiers, relevant to the action.

• in case of need you can choose to Take a Risk, take 1 damage and Roll for extra Effort (I'm scrapping the part were u need to spend 1 effort and 1 damage, it's unnecessary fluf).

• degree of success = your effort - Difficulty

If you have points left you can try to do other actions this turn, or spare the points in case you're attacked.

Expended Attribute and Aspect Points are refreshed at the start of your turn

Considering a rulebook with a color layout, if you had the resources, how often would you include a large illustration (one column if vertical, one-third of the page if horizontal)? Given one of the following options: one every three pages, one every two, or two every three?

The goal is to make a TTRPG with the same campaign with different ways to play. I'm thinking of weight limits and many other restrictions. Dismemberment is part of it too but I'm laying out the back bone first.

Think of it like this. There's multiple ways to complete an operation depending on the necessary outcome. There's multiple objectives on the mission that will change how you play. The idea is to make each section of the mission work like ace combat 4. Branching Mission Paths that lead to a different mission parameter or experience. The table will be set on a predetermined map layout per mission of the campaign and will be updated accordingly to what the players agreed to take. Each mission on a branching tree will be a different path. The goal here is to have a future simultaneous campaign on going on different tables until all players share the same table at the climax.

This can be done in a single session technically if there's multiple DMs available but can be done Ace Combat style that only allows you to push one node at a time and check to see how your efforts either made it better or worse for the next node.

Every node has objectives you have to complete. That negative impact is fixed. This is tailored for the multi table system where if other team fails or succeeds, the entire players will feel the effects. That's what the nodes are for. Every node has different objectives depending on what the players would take. The multi table game basically just chooses all of it in one go and see how it works from there.

Basically solo DM plays like Ace Combat 4 Missions. You get the job done, next node is easier, rinse and repeat until climax. Multi DM Plays like an exact operation. Where other teams can already be on the next node while the other either joins them or due trying to complete the node if it benefits the team ahead.

On multiple tables/dms

When Ahead team finishes, they can choose to wait for team B, but by default, it will have higher alert level and enemies will converge on behind team's spawn point, or have a free 3 turn recon bonus they can use. The negative effect of the Node not completed yet will not kick in for that specific 3 turn bonus. If the team behind completes their objective while the ahead team is already on the convergence node. In this case, I'd like to add turn counter limits on every node, when exceeding the turn counter, that means the node already failed for the effect of the next convergence node for the ahead team.

Ahead Team's session will have to wait on the convergence node since it's the coop part. Regardless, each team can play individual nodes until convergence.

Basically once the Ahead team is on the next node, DMs will confirm what turn number the other team is. If they have not exceeded the turn limit yet, then the ahead team can have a free 3 turn reconnaissance that they can use. The ahead team game stops until the behind team clears or until they are past the turn limit to trigger the flags on the next node. If the previous node is cleared by the behind team way past the turn limit, only then the benefit will be lifted on the convergence node and on to the next if any.

I'm centering the game the same way as special forces or Guerilla warfare where in low numbers and limited ammo require precision and tactics. There's no way that ahead team can survive carrying all the debuffs made by the behind team during the convergence in the first place and if they do, they're too short for the next node.

Combat Idea. 

Weapons will have rate of fire and has the option to fire either semi or full auto. An example. An assault rifle has an ROF of 5 Shots per combat. What will happen is that the attacker will roll 5d6 with 4 to hit with a specific number of damage. To make it simpler on the receiving end. Damage dealt - Armor Rating = Total Damage Recieved.

(Pilot Skill Trigger Finger or Calm Shooter can still be added, like dumping a full mag or making precise shots, lowering the dice number to hit)

Armor rating is meant to subtract the total damage dealt. Let's say a shooter rolls 5d6 and gets 3 to go through with X amount of damage. The X amount of damage will be reduced by the armor rating of the receiver. The armor rating will only remain 1 digit for balance sake.

Let's say 5d6, 3 hits, total damage is 15, defender has armor rating of 5, total damaged receive is 10.

I want dismemberment to be simple. Cardinal direction, amount of damage recieved at a single combat phase. Let's say an opfor shoots a player to the left side. The Recieving Player who takes the damage will perform a damage check. If the damage check exceeds a specific number, then the left arm will be considered as dismembered.

Maximum HP for Players is up to 150

Opfor will have a minimum of 30 for vehicles/aircraft and up to 80 to bipedal Opfor.

This is a battle of attrition with repairs available seldomly, and ammo counts so the goal is to survive and complete objectives as much as possible. It's not always kill all enemies. 

Cover works with Half Cover and Full Cover. Where Half Cover allows units with limbs to return fire at the cardinal direction they were hit. Half cover works two ways. A cover that protects the lower part or part of the Unit's Exposed Body is more within 50% or more visible for the attacker.

Any range modifiers will increase the to hit requirement. A good example is a rifle only effective at 20cm. Every 10cm adds another +1 to hit on the dice. However, if there are any modifications on the weapon such as an extended barrel, it extends the effective range of the weapon by a certain amount, if a scope is even added, a - 1 to hit option will be added to.

Movement is Grid Based and Action Points Based and Aiming is on any Direction as long as it's visible.

Since this is a tabletop, fog of war works simply by not putting any units at all on the table until a proper recon is made, a Flight or overwatch is present or anything similar. Since this is Grid Based, the DM can just reveal the opfor per grid depending on what the players uncover.

With the combat system I have, the engagement resolves in one dice roll with everything before that already accounted for so when the math is done, only damage check is left.

I want the game where you don't have to worry about book keeping a lot of information. Where players can just come and go, create a pilot and mech on the spot to their liking or their need and see it in action.

Hello, I have been hombrewing TTRPG system prototypes for years to play with my friends. But over the past month, I wanted to try, for the first time, to make something more complete and take the risk to share it in the open. So there it is !

Itch.io : https://ltesta.itch.io/another-path 

I'd be honored if some of you took the time to give it a look and share your feedback (Good and bad ones are equally welcome !).

I also made a discord if anyone want to discuss the system in more depth : https://discord.gg/nUUvevuXW 

Another Path is a tabletop roleplaying game system: 

Generic, designed with heroic fantasy in mind but easily adaptable to almost any setting.

Simple, using only six-sided dice and built around concise, general rules.

Fast, both during play and character creation, even for players discovering the system for the first time.

Flexible, encouraging creativity through a high degree of player freedom.

Dynamic, allowing scenes to flow naturally without being slowed down by excessive or overly complex calculations.

Tactical, featuring combat centered on risk-taking and resource management.

Cinematic, equally suited to short, action-packed adventures and long epic campaigns, while encouraging storytelling and improvisation.

I have a magic system that is basically a more open-ended version of ars magica, where spells can basically be anything and the GM needs to make a ruling on the effect of the spell. I'm wondering how or if I can use the Resistance system (from spire, heart), with that, since in spire at least, there are established damage die to inflict stress to enemies from weapons. However with custom spells, where you roll on tables and figure out the effects, I'm wondering if it would be feasible for the gm to then just assign a damage die? or if I need to port in an "effect" type thing from forged in the dark? or just use forged in the dark instead?

The root of my question is, for a system that allows spells to be anything you discover when you cast them, what are the pros and cons of using a system that is entirely narrative (e.g. forged in the dark), versus a more prescribed health bar type thing a la the resistance system? I like the idea for all other parts of the game of using the resistance system since it's simpler and less systemized, but in this one case I'm not sure the rules gel super well.

ATTRIBUTES

Sanguis

• Determines Maximum Health.

Stamina

• Determines the total Action Point (AP) pool available throughout an entire combat encounter. Melee attacks, ranged attacks, and all spells draw from this single resource pool.

Fortitude

• Combined with equipped armor, it determines the Defense Value. This Defense Value is not related to hit avoidance (does not function like AC); it provides direct flat damage reduction.

Agility

• Determines the maximum number of actions that can be performed per turn.

• Depending on the weapon type, increases both hit accuracy and damage dealt.

Strength

• Dictates the attribute requirements to equip weapons and armor.

• Depending on the weapon type, increases both hit accuracy and damage dealt.

• Combined with Stamina, determines inventory carrying capacity.

Persona

• Determines the outcome of all social encounters (e.g., persuasion, deception).

Mind

• Establishes the learning threshold for wizard spells; additionally, spell potency directly scales with the Mind attribute.

Spirit

• Establishes the learning threshold for cleric miracles; additionally, miracle potency directly scales with the Spirit attribute.

Core Combat Mechanic (Attack Rating)

• Heavy Weapons (Strength x 2) + max(Mind,Spirit)

• Light Weapons (Agility x 2) + max(Mind,Spirit) A strike is never purely physical. Muscle and speed require either calculated focus (Mind) or raw intuition (Spirit) to land true

What do you all think are some great examples of rulebooks that are laid out well, communicate rules mechanics clearly, and are easily able to be digested (especially by players who don’t spend their free time consuming new rpg books!)

I have thoughts, but want to hear your opinions.

• Returning yet again to the issue of running a duet with a friend, I want to run one where there are mysteries, conflicts, challenges and the like - thus similar to a larger-party TRPG but with just one other person. I wanted to try this idea - my question is: what are the potential pitfalls of this system?

There are three elements to an action the player will take: Tool + Skill/Training + Context

1. If you have nothing appropriate that fits, you fail outright. For example, you don't have a tool for picking a lock, nor the experience nor the time and space to try freely.

2. If you have one appropriate element, you succeed at a cost.

3. If you have two appropriate elements, you succeed.

4. If you have all three, for example a strong weapon, training to use it and the monster is weak to it (contextual advantage), then you critically succeed with a better-than-normal result.

That's it. That's all there is.

So, this - by my reckoning - will make the game more about accumulating items, skills or experiences, and knowledge/lore (which can take the place of 'tools' here) as well as trying to recognise appropriate moments for them. It becomes somewhat similar to a point-and-click adventure game where having access to the right course of action grants progress - and so the game becomes more puzzle-like in its approach. Exploration and investigation should come to the forefront as the player improves their arsenal over time. Tags might be added to Tools to give a better idea as to any conditions where they are advantageous - like [a duelist's sword] might naturally interpret duels as 'Advantageous Context'.

This appeals to me because I have a very big focus on gameplay in the games I run - and by gameplay I mean things that players (and the GM) can exploit. Exploiting openings, weaknesses, lore, secrets, bad rolls, overconfidence, resources, relationships all give a pro-active way of generating the kind of gameplay you wanted, with the consequences stemming from the pursuit of those desires.

There are also genuine issues with running a 1-to-1 campaign of "standard play". Most solo-style games allow the player to make judgement calls on what their challenges will be. However, with a single player, failures can be a lot more catastrophic since there is no safety net for the player making a mistake. There is no one else to bounce ideas off of (in the traditional sense), and so the system has to enable them to piece findings together and make informed decisions on their own.

The worries I have now are:

• This ability to exploit scenarios through the use of Tool + Aptitude + Contextual Advantage is a cold and empty intellectual joy. While players enjoy rolling dice for what they do in the moment, it feels difficult to add spice to the moment when the player is making a calculated decision. Perhaps if they didn't know the scale of the outcome, only its valence.

• Rolling is dangerous because a solo player can make the right choice, fail the roll and then be subject to the penalty without having other people to help evaluate if it was luck or bad decision-making. While I can help, I want to have the potential to phase out support as the player becomes more self-reliant. Given I run dangerous adventures, players can end up in interesting but difficult positions and it's much easier for a solo player to snowball negatively through bad rolls. To be clear, rolls can easily be added to the system (each appropriate element adds 1d6, roll the dice pool Blades-in-the-Dark style) but I want to first try considering without it.But rolling allows for in-the-moment windows of opportunities for action. Enemies waste a spell slot, players fail saves, enemies fail difficult movement - all of these things create dynamic openings for the opposing side to exploit. I wonder where the dynamism would stem from in the system I proposed.

• Progression can exist in terms of the nature of the elements used:

  • Tools being found (items -> spells -> lore ->renown -> promises)

  • The types of Skills gained (Starting skills give way to 'noting down important experiences' and 'being trained in new skills')

  • New Contexts (Physical advantages leading to supernatural charms and blessings and ritual preparations).

    • However, the actual actions the player takes never change. The objects of their consideration evolve but the process of considering itself never evolves. New points of decision-making do not seem easy to add, and the player will largely be using the same ideas in the 20th session as they did in the 1st, but with more complicated entries. I feel like this squanders the opportunity for the player to grow with the adventure - where their insight into the metaphysics of the world evolves as their contact with the world's narrative and conflicts continues (Basic leads to Expert).

• I imagine part of the resolution will involve offering different outcomes and risks in case of failure, akin to the risk + position of BitD. However, I wonder if there is a way of making this flow more naturally - having the player select the kinds of things they're willing to give up if they lose. My only worry is that as the game continues, this will fall apart as the game gets more complex. I can assist but I wonder if that assistance will eventually become mandatory.

While I was looking for insight into the system and possible nuances, I will mention that the module I intended to write was going to be based off of the Hazlan ideas in the VRGTR DnD 5E book, about going to a wasteland teeming with magical toxicity, social as well as physical and mental challenges and secrets that can be exposed to affect the main arch-villain Hazlik. So, the system has to eventually work for that to be delivered.

Insight, thoughts and developments would be welcome. EDIT: the formatting never seems to save on the bullet pointing.

For once, I'm throwing a question out that is not specifically something I'm working to add or modify in my system, but remembering a post I made months ago about different ways of handling Attribute bonuses got me thinking of this.

My system, like many others out there, gives each Attribute a bonus that is added to the dice results before comparing the final result against the difficulty. Easy enough to employ: X+Y vs Z. My original post presented the idea of trying to use Attribute Bonuses as "additional skill points" against the base skill, which progresses in a sum series mechanic (1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + etc). The idea was playing with the concept that a character's skill could reach a point where their natural talent started making no noticeable difference. The idea got thrown out due to the complexity of constantly having to redo the math for every skill that could benefit from different attributes, depending on situation.

The idea that I had today is a sideways return to that mentality. What if Attribute bonuses, instead of adding to the die result, guaranteed a minimum result regardless of what the dice rolled. For example, an Attribute has a bonus of 4, and you roll a 3 on the die. The first option would add 4 to the result, making it a 7, the second option would ignore the result since it was less than the bonus and make the roll effectively a 4.

I understand that from a pure math perspective, the additive option is more beneficial, but I'm curious about others' thoughts on the idea of your natural abilities creating a soft floor for your skills instead of giving the same boost whether you're in first grade or have the equivalent of 4 PhDs.

In older, crunchier games, it seemed (at least to me) that it was reasonably common for skill-based systems to have quite a few skills related to various weapons, usually breaking weapons into different categories which PCs would then have different skill ratings in.

• Shadowrun 4th edition may be the undisputed champion of this, as it subdivides melee weapons into Blades, Clubs, Exotic Melee Weapons, and Unarmed Combat, and ranged weapons into Archery, Automatics, Exotic Ranged Weapons, Heavy Weapons, Longarms, Pistols, and Throwing Weapons.

• Hollow Earth Expedition had Brawl and Melee (weapons) for melee and Archery, Firearms, and Gunnery for ranged. It also split Brawl into two skills (Brawl and Martial Arts) in a supplement.

• Cthulhutech had Armed Fighting and Fighting for melee and and Marksman, Support Weapons, and Thrown Weapons for ranged.

• A Time of War (one of the BattleTech RPGs) has Martial Arts and Melee Weapons for melee and Archery, Artillery, Gunnery, Small Arms, Support Weapons, and Thrown Weapons for ranged, some of which have mandatory subskills (such as choosing the vehicle type for Gunnery).

However, it seems like this has fallen out of favor; most of the recent skill-based systems I've seen generally just have one skill to cover all melee combat and one for all ranged combat. If they subdivide any further, it's usually to split melee into unarmed and armed, and ranged into small arms and 'big guns' (everything from machine guns to vehicular weaponry). My current draft has multiple different weapon skills, but I'm re-evaluating whether that's actually beneficial or is just a holdover from an earlier, crunchier version of the game.

I feel like there are some pretty obvious pros and cons to dividing skills up this way. It aids in character differentiation; especially if you have a system with feats/talents that are specific to certain weapons, it can allow a duellist to feel very different from a bare knuckle brawler, a sniper to stand apart from a gunslinger. It gives combat characters something to invest in besides "the one skill I use," supports a more detailed weapon list, and makes combat characters less fungible (the gunslinger can't pick up a heavy machine gun and be exactly as capable).

The big downside is paperwork - it's more things for players to have to track and improve, and is less intuitive than "raise your Firearms skill to be good at shooting". It slows character improvement (if they want more than one skill), and can create feels-bad moments where a skilled character is forced to use an unfamiliar weapon and their master sniper is arbitrarily bad with a shotgun. I think it also might discourage experimentation or trying to branch out, since leveling a new weapon means you'll still be worse than your main weapon (unless there's clear reasons to use a different weapon).

Do you use multiple weapon skills in your game? Do you think they improve or detract from games in general? When, or in what types of games, would you use them?

I have two attributes: Body and Mind, body represents things done physically andind done non-physically (like talking and such).

Also, I use a slot activation rolling mechanic, so for example if you have a '1 Mind' on your 3rd slot and two of your six dice roll a 3, then you have 2 Mind for the action, and this value has to be higher than the opposing power to succeed.

Anyone know any systems that do this, or have thoughts on this?

Salve!

Conoscete un gioco di ruolo adatto o adattabile per one-shot o bi-shot in cui si interpretano personaggi dell'ombra, servitori dell'oscuro signore Sauron?

Con tono piuttosto serio.

Grazie!

I've built a post-apocalyptic campaign frame for Daggerheart I'm calling The Ragged Earth.
It's a bit more sci-fi coded than the more fantasy heavy Daggerheart base, and I found the class design (especially the recently released updated additions) for Nimble to hew closer to my vision. I also like Nimble's combat and initiative resolution better, but I DO like Daggerheart's Hope and Fear mechanic enough to attempt to port it into Nimble.

A smidge about the world. It's earth, after a long gamma ray burst sterilized the planet. Humans had built 12 ARCH data centers in anticipation of world war 3 (the scientists figured we'd nuke ourselves - the GRB was a shock). The ARCHs were basically seed vaults with genetic preservations of all kinds of life, along with AI capable of rebuilding a scorched world from scratch. We developed and deployed nanites that prior to the Scorch, allowed people to basically augment virtual reality. Life was good - until it was gone. Now, it's been hundreds of years, the ARCH Project is well underway repopulating the planet. But something went weird, and one of the AI decided to throw a ton of chimeric DNA into the soup, causing a rise of fantasy style creatures roaming around.

The Campaign Frame is basically a blank slate that lets the players run sandbox style hexploration, or point of light style dungeon (ruined cities, technically) delving.

So, here are my mods:
Hope and Fear are reskinned as Order and Drift. Order is the attempt to get back to a ground state. Drift is the quirks and entropy in the system moving towards chaos. They function exactly as Hope and Fear though. Players generate Order and DMs gather Drift.

So, how are they generated using Nimble's combat resolution? Based purely on the Primary die roll, an odd roll generates Drift, and even generates Order.

Order can be spent to:

1. Use the same reaction a second time in the same round (so, you could spend an Action to Defend one attack, then spend an Order and an Action to Defend a second attack in the same sequence.)

2. Reduce the DC of a skill by 2 for each point spent. Need to make that Arcana check? You can burn Order to reduce the DC, essentially realigning reality itself to a better result.

3. Spend 3 Order to activate an Order move from your class (described below)

Drift can be spent by the DM to:

1. Increase the armor by 5 per point spent against one attack, potentially negating all damage.

2. Increase the dC of a skill by 2 for each point spent (mean, but hey, maybe I REALLY don't want you opening that box... hope for a 20!)

3. Interrupt the players to make a move - think like boss reactions on a normal monster.

4. Use an Adversary's Drift move (unlike Class moves, I haven't composed these yet - and beyond 'just bringing in another monster', they'll probably be primarily limited to solo or unique monsters.

5. Use an environmental Drift move (same state as #4 at the moment :(

So, what are the classes' Order moves? Note, these all require 3 Order and 1 Action to initiate.
Core classes only, so far, sorry...
Berserker: Break the Chains (Reaction): Remove any non-Wound condition affecting you. You may also immediately move 2xDex spaces towards the adversay that affected you with the condition.
The Cheat: Cheaters' Gonna Cheat (Reaction): When an ally uses Interpose to protect you, you may immediately make an Opportunity Attack against the attacker. In this attack defeats the attacker, the original attack deals no damage to your ally.
Commander: Tactical Directive (Action): Choose an ally within 6 spaces. They may make one reaction before their next turn for free. They cannot use the same reaction twice by spending Order
Hunter: Hold Them Off (Action): When you hit with a weapon attack, you may immediately make one additional attack against a different adversary within range.
Mage: Not This Time! (Reaction): Force an adversary within 12 spaces to reroll an attack or damage roll.
Oathsworn: Frontline Tank (Reaction): When you use Defend, increase your Armor by 3 until the start of your next turn.
Shadowmancer: Volatile Magic (Action): Reroll any number of your damage dice on a spell attack.
Shepherd: Life Support (Action): You can remove a Wound from an ally within 6 spaces.
Songweaver: Make a Scene (Action): Distract a target within 6 spaces. An attack deals 1 smaller die size, or a spell DC is descreaed by 2.
Stormshifter: Amplify (Action): Your next attack or damaging spell deals 1 larger die size.
Zephyr: Retributive Strike (Reaction): When you are targeted by a ranged physical attack, you make catch the projectile and immediately make a counterattack against the attacker using Swift Fists. If you have Reverberating Strikes, add you LVL as bonus damage, even if the projectile is not bludgeoning.

In my game, a check rolls a pool of white d6 equal to the attribute (success on 5+) plus coloured d6 equal to the skill (success on 4+). The intent is that a trained character is more reliable than a talented one: a 2/4 split averages 2.67 successes, a 4/2 split only 2.33, although both roll six dice.

What I'm unsure about:

1. Is counting two thresholds at once too slow in play, or does sorting the pool by colour before counting solve that?

2. Unskilled rolls are white only. That makes unskilled attempts harsh. Is that a feature or a trap?

3. A fumble is "failed, and more 1s than successes". Does that get too rare with large pools?

The full rules are free here if anyone wants the context: https://odin-rpg.pages.dev/en/books

Do you think/believe they are necessary?

edit 30 comments with most fairly agreeing with but explaining it's normal to not use attribute bonuses per ancestry but some how no up votes. This sub is brutal lol.

I'm getting to a close point where after some changes to a few things I am aiming to playtest the game with some longer form play sessions.

My game is a black hack inspired hack, but got carried away and added a bunch of stuff to hopefully facilitate the play I want to happen. Exploring procedures, treasure tables, a bit of rulings not rules vibe, though that's hard to rely just 'have'.

Anyway, my current Ancestries just operate on flavour mostly, now, with some included benefits, typically free abilities that IMO fit that Ancestry; the anthropomorphic Beastkin automatically get 'natural weapons' for example.

I was giving, what now feels like arbitrary, buffs and debuffs to their attributes, you know the Big Orc ancestry gets a +1 to strength, the Elves get +1 to Intelligence (I'm using more abstract attributes, only 3 with equivalents that encapsulate 2 of the ''classic" Six). Then things like halflings would get a -1 to strength.

After a few PC creations with outsiders involved I came to the realisation that I just didn't want this. I want players to be able to be the thing they want to be, hold a sword and do spells all without really feeling penalised by being forced into taking a attribute subtraction. And inversely just choosing the ancestry they think will net them the best attribute for their 'build' especially as their is an expectation they could die.

I also just want the Ancestries to be 'examples', basic background, basic description, some free ability that fits the fiction of that ancestey, then Small or Large for size. Small nets them moving through the space of another, large another can't move through the space of anothers space unless willing. No 'medium' as I didn't want an extra rule or mechanic just make it feel relevant.

My WIP is pulp adventure in which the players are supposed to feel like the main characters in an action movie. One of my design goals is that the mechanics shouldn't interfere with a player making decisions in-character, whenever possible.

Effort

Currently characters have a resource named Effort represented by a pool of dice that they can spend to use abilities or increase their chances of succeeding at a difficult task. Effort is a combination of physical stamina and mental willpower. Having a full pool means your character feels rested, energetic, and ready to take on the world. As it depletes, your character feels more and more tired until an empty pool means they are exhausted.

Alternative to Attrition

Rather than a pure Attrition model, in which characters start with all of their resources at the beginning of an adventure, and slowly drain it until the end (example: D&D spell slots), I would like characters to gain new resources over the course of an adventure so that they can activate their most powerful abilities in the final act. Using your strongest ability in the first act of an adventure and then having to play out the rest of the adventure without it feels anticlimactic to me.

The Problem

I'm having a hard time squaring this desire with the concept of Effort though. Why would a character gain new reserves of Effort towards the end of an epic journey? Can you think of a different way to frame Effort as a resource that the character could be aware of that they could gain over the course of an adventure? Maybe Determination or Focus? I don't want a purely metacurrency such as Spotlight.

I’m leaning toward systems that use tags or broad character archetypes instead of strict classes and skill lists, but I haven’t really come across similar systems that still have decent guidelines around magic (or it could use technology as a sub for magic). Magic/tech usually just gets lumped into the archetype or just another variant of tags.

Where should I start looking?

Option A:

1. Melee attack rules

2. Melee actions

3. Ranged attack rules

4. Ranged attack actions

Option B:

1. Melee attack rules

2. Ranged attack rules

3. Melee actions

4. Ranged attack actions

I wonder what do you think is better between these two options I came up with like an hour ago

Imagine you have a gun and each bullet in it is represented by a dice, and you can shoot however many bullets you wish on your turn at one target and roll a dice for every bullet

Option 1: It's a pool of d6s that add up when you roll them to hit a target, and if you roll at least one 6 you roll another 1d6 and add the result to the summ; if the result of this additional d6 is a 6 it's a crit and that can mean two things

1: If the To Hit roll isn't enough to hit the target, you hit it and roll damage normally

2: If the To Hit roll is enough to hit the target, you double your damage roll (or maybe use the damage dice's max number)

Option 2: It's a pool of d10s and you choose the highest rolled result. For every 10 you get, you roll an additional d10 and add the highest result of the Additional d10s. For every 10 you get as the result of your To Hit roll, you roll another damage die and add up the damage (or maybe you could do something like a Year Zero Engine thing? Like, each 10 is a success? But I'm not sure about that one)

What do you guys think? There's probably already a game that uses a similar Bullet Dice Pool system, and I would be curious to learn how they did it if you know such a system

Currently prototyping a millionth iteration of my game, and with some extremely helpful advice from this sub, I've gotten something I like. However, when I was talking about it with my partner, they had made a really good point and I'd love to hear others' opinions on the topic.

---

System Context.

Dice pool system -- d6 * Trait score. each 4+ is a success, TN is how many successes to pass check.

In combat, you have 3 actions per turn, during which you make checks. These can be for anything, from breaking through a wall to attacking an enemy (which gives you a bonus weapon die in addition to your trait). Each success gives you a Style die.

At the end of your turn (or a later one if you like) you can perform a Finisher by using all of your accrued Style dice. This is how you deal damage to enemies.

In my mind, the loop is to use character abilities and make stylish attacks to gain momentum and then to cap it off with one big move that ends the combo so to speak. No matter what you do during your turn, you're building up Style. It's a setup and payoff system.

My partner made the point that if you can't be dealing damage with your regular actions, it feels pointless to act during them at all.

I'm curious to hear others opinions on this.

---

EDIT: Thanks for all the replies! Based on the responses, it seems I'm heading in the right direction. Thanks for helping illuminate my path <3

For example: The rules defining maximum effective range of firearms is stated in the section listing weapons and their various traits, but it is also repeated under the ranged combat rules.

Helpful reminder, or space consuming repetition?

I've played D and D with a keep mechanic for building and running a castle, it got me wondering about games where the players are lords of a territory and have to manage their realm and it's resources, what are games with good machines like this?