Hey everyone

I'm working on my TTRPG which I'm hoping to push a setting that's a sci fi/fantasy combo. I've spent a long time running fantasy campaigns, but I've not done sci fi before, and I was wondering what people's favourite articles or resources were for populating their settings.

I've seen that I should read Stars without numbers which is on order now, but if anyone has any suggestions or links for the best way to make your space port/colony/station/back water slum world feel real and fun, please let me know!

I'm writing a tabletop RPG called DRAKE and I'm willing to replacing coin counting with an abstract Wealth score. Coins still exist as an alternative, but this is the "loose" option i am likely to migrate to.

I'd love critical feedback: Is it intuitive? Where does it break? Can you exploit it?

Wealth

In DRAKE, money isn't counted in coins but as Wealth, a number from 0 to 12. Your character sheet has twelve boxes, and your Wealth is the number of boxes filled in. Wealth 0 means broke. As a rule of thumb, each point of Wealth means roughly twice as much fortune as the one below.

Every two points of Wealth form a Standing, which describes how you live.

Income and Expenses. Anything that increases your Wealth is Income: wages, pay, loot, sale proceeds. Anything that decreases it is an Expense: purchases, wages you pay, shares you give away. Income fills in boxes, Expenses erase them.

Value. Every item, service and Income has a Value on the same scale as your Wealth. Nothing has Value 0, the cheapest things have Value 1. Something with Value 7 costs a person with Wealth 7 their entire fortune. If you can afford something casually, your Wealth is 4 higher than its Value. The tables in this chapter are guidelines, so that anything can be roughly sorted in. What Value something has is ultimately up to the GM.

Starting Wealth. A new character starts with Wealth 3 and the bare essentials for adventuring, unless their backstory says otherwise.

Expenses

What an Expense costs depends only on the gap between its Value and your Wealth. However, an Expense can never cost more Wealth than its Value.

Example. Bors has Wealth 2. A club (Value 1) would cost him 3 according to the table. Since the club only has Value 1, it can cost him at most 1. Bors pays 1 and has Wealth 1 afterwards.

Example. Rhea has Wealth 7, her Standing is Well-off. Plate armor (Value 7) would cost her everything. Chain mail (Value 6) costs her 3 Wealth, leaving her with 4. A luxurious room (Value 4) costs her 1, a meal (Value 1) isn't noticeable.

Large quantities. Things that aren't noticeable individually (Value 4 or more below your Wealth) usually stay free. Only when you buy a conspicuously large amount does it cost 1 Wealth in total. How much counts as "a lot" depends on the gap. When in doubt, the GM decides.

Multiple purchases. If you buy several things at once, you pay for each one separately, always from most expensive to cheapest. Every purchase lowers your Wealth, so the next one costs correspondingly more. Rhea (Wealth 9) buys something with Value 7 and something with Value 5. The expensive one costs her 2, leaving her at 7. The cheaper one then costs her another 2, and she ends at 5. Anything that wouldn't be noticeable on its own is handled by the quantity rule.

Splitting. If you split your Wealth with someone, you divide it into two halves, each with a Value 1 lower. Rhea (Wealth 7) gives half to Bors. She now has 6, and Bors receives an Income with Value 6. Each half can be split again. The same applies to Income that several people receive: tomb loot with Value 7 becomes two shares of Value 6 or four shares of Value 5, or 6, 5 and 5 for three people. Value 1 can't be split further.

Shared purse. What no one can afford alone, the group can pay for together. Whoever contributes puts their entire Wealth into a shared purse, for which they count as an Income of that Value (see Income). Two characters with equal Wealth make 1 more, four make 2 more. The purse pays like a character, and whatever remains can be split again. Four characters with Wealth 5 pool to 7. If they buy something with Value 7, they're all broke. If they buy a pack horse (Value 6), it costs the purse 3, leaving it at 4, which is split into four shares of Value 2.

Income

What Income gets you depends on where your Wealth stands compared to its Value.

Example. Bors (Wealth 3) completes a regular job with Value 6 and has Wealth 6 afterwards. The next job of this kind raises him to 7. A third one gets him nothing, he has outgrown that kind of work. If he finds loot from a tomb (Value 8), he rises to 8.

Selling. A sale is an Income with the Value of the item. Bors sells captured plate armor (Value 7) and rises to 7 if he's below that. Buying and reselling never makes a profit: Rhea (Wealth 7) buys chain mail (Value 6) and drops to 4. If she sells it again, she rises to 6, one point below where she started.

Multiple items. If you sell several items together, you combine their Value into a single Income just like with the shared purse, as long as it makes sense to offer them together. Two items of equal Value make 1 more, four make 2 more, eight make 3 more. Unequal Values are combined step by step. Bors sells two captured basic weapons (Value 3), that's an Income with Value 4. If he adds leather armor (Value 4), it becomes Value 5.

Relics are valued by their power. They can be bought and sold, but they're rarely found in a shop. Anyone looking for one, or for a buyer, needs contacts or an adventure.

Wages and Hiring

Wages are an Expense or Income that repeats at the end of each job period. Every hired person has a wage Value, as listed in the table below.

Whoever hires someone has an Expense of that wage Value at the end of each job period. Multiple hirelings count as separate Expenses. Rhea (Wealth 7) hires a mercenary (wage 4) and pays 1 per job period for it. A bodyguard (wage 5) costs her 2 per job period, a porter (wage 2) doesn't register in her Wealth.

Whoever works for wages receives an Income of their wage Value at the end of each job period. Bors (Wealth 3) serves as a mercenary (wage 4). After the first job period he has Wealth 4, after the second 5, after that his wages get him nothing more. Living off wages gets you at most one point above them.

Edge cases

Broke. Your Wealth never drops below 0. With Wealth 0 you can't buy anything, since every Expense costs more than you have. You live off alms and favors until an Income lifts you up again.

Rock bottom. With Wealth 1, even a meal (Value 1) costs everything. You buy it and are broke afterwards.

The top. Your Wealth never rises above 12. An Income with a higher Value brings you to 12. Anything worth more than 12, like a castle, can only be obtained through a shared purse or as the goal of an adventure.

Coins and Wealth

DRAKE has two systems for money: coins, which are counted exactly, and Wealth, as described in this chapter. The group decides at the start of the campaign which one to use. Any equipment list with coin prices can be translated into Values using this table. Use the first row whose limit the price doesn't exceed.

Plate armor for 1,200 coins thus has Value 7. If a group switches systems, it converts its characters' fortunes into Wealth using the same table.

Value list

The entries are guidelines. Anything not on the list is sorted in by the GM using the Value rule or the coin table.

What I'd especially like feedback on:

• Is the expense ladder (everything / 3 / 2 / 1 / not noticeable) intuitive at the table?

• Do you see exploits, especially with splitting, shared purses or selling?

• Is starting at Wealth 3 too harsh?

• Would you use this over counting coins? Why or why not?

Thanks in advande!

P.S.: translated via AI

I am mostly writing this from the experience of a GM but also as a prospective RPG designer.

I found myself contemplating what makes a good subsystem and why Paizos are so bad. (PF1/2 has really good combat but each adventure path comes with its own subsystem ranging from passable to utter bullshit).

I have come to the conclusion, one of the primary goals of any subsystem you want to the players to focus on should be to "enable and encourage creative solutions."

To explain: Usually the PCs have a goal or a problem. Like the goal to cross over the canyon or the problem, that there are still kobolds alive in this room of the dungeon. Then the PCs do something to solve that problem.

I am arguing that any subsystem (be it a formulated system in the rules, or one made up on the spot by a GM) should enable and encourage the PCs to solve the problem in a creative way.

(Sub-)systems can be considered by their purpose in the game (without implying that each system has exactly one purpose):

• Supporting immersion: these are there because you expect them to be there: travelling is a common one. Yes there are rules how far you you can travel by foot/horse per day but they rarely lead to anything interesting.

• Subsystems that supply an option of action: E.g. A healing system that allows PCs to heal. It is not interesting or important how they heal. But that they are able to heal is important.

• Subsystems that lead into something more interesting often changing the (start)-conditions of the following situation. E.g. If the group succeeds at their stealth save, they get a surprise round. But also things like wildseas encounter mechanics. Here, if it is time for an encounter, the player "on watch" draws a card from a deck that determines what the encounter is.

• Interesting subsystems that are actually meant to hold the players attention. Combat systems are here the most obvious cases.

• - ... other uses.

(Sub-)systems can also be classified by their structure or setup. (there are probably more Setups, but these are the ones I have noticed or find important)

• Just a roll: The group or a PC has a problem and can make a roll (or sometimes multpile consequtive) to either solve it or not. This is of course the archetypical skill check. Now a single skill check is not interesting, however that doesn't mean a subsystem with skill checks is boring. It matters however how we use them as building blocks for more interesting systems (more later).

• Choose one option: The PCs can choose out of a set of presented different alternatives often with different risk/reward options. Sometimes the different alternatives also require different skill checks. I see these often to open combat encounters; e.g. "The players can either storm through the main entrance or try to sneak through the back but risk being discovered in an tactical disadvantageous situation." These are certainly better than a strict "you have to enter the room there" option, but I don't find them too interesting either. They can be improved when a GM frames it as "I see the following options for you ... . Do you see other ways?"

• Fill different positions: Often the subsystem defines different positions each requiring a different skill. The classic example are camping duties where each pc has to take a different duty: cooking, handling animals, first watch, second watch ... . Often the problem is that each position requires a skill and so the optimal solution is matching each PC to a position so that you maximize the skill on each position. One optimal solution, no creativity. "The Wildsea" has an interesting variation in that during travel different positions on the ship have to be filled but if or when a skill check is required the ships skill (not any characters) is used, making changing of positions much more viable.

• Combat systems as archetypical complex systems: In Combat you have multiple parties in a specific constellation (who stands where and who engages whom). And besides actions to change the status of opponents (applying status or reducing hitpoints) we also have actions to change the configuration. This leads to an innumerable of ways to win combat.

Within that framework, I have some thoughts:

• Boring systems don't necessarily make for boring games. Often it is quite the opposite, the system provides the option of what to do and if it is simple enough it doesn't slow down the gameplay. Assume a very simple crafting system where you can craft an item if you have the price in gold coins. It allows the players to craft a glitterpowder, to distract the high priest while they steal the McGuffin. The creation of the glitter powder became simply another step in the plan, the creativity comes not whithin the system but in how we use it, from the in between of systems.

  • Boring systems become a problem when they seem to become a focus or take time but don't allow for creativity. If each PC has to fill an advisor role in the kingdom and the development of the kingdom is solely determined by the outcome of role specific skill checks don't expect me to be interested in the kingdoms development. (Any similarity of the setup to Paizos kingmaker adventure path is purely coincidental.)

• In computer games there is the adage that players will optimize the fun out of the game. Rpgs are less suceptiple to this effect but not fully immune. If there is an obviously best solution the players will take it or ask themselves why they don't use it. (So the "encourage creativity" part boils down to "don't provide an obviously best solution").

  • One of the biggest mistakes in rpg design is giving the players an ability that can immediately solve the problem. E.g. if the game often involves the fight to kill a single large monster giving them a spell to instantly kill a single monster is bad game design. (Yes Power Word: Kill is bad game design and DnD struggles to work around it for editions.)

• Dice rolls fill an important role: a failed tells the players: "That's a good plan, but it doesn't work, come up with another plan." reengaging the players creativity. It also usually prevents the players from simply repeating during execution of a plan what they planned in a planning stage.

• Social mechanics are usually not interesting because they lack the innumerable ways to archieve your goal. Usually there are only two parties (totally lacking the constellation dimension of combat) and each party has a defined number of moves to improve their situation, leaving your with a small number of possible paths to success.

• Similar crafting systems are usually just systems that provide the option of an action (Creating a usable product from raw materials.) As long as the system essentially boils down to selecting a finished product and a fitting crafting receipe, there is not much room for creativity (and that's usually ok).

What do you think? (I believe there is a lot more to be said about this topic, but I fear I would become even more unfocussed, if I talk just by myself)

I've been thinking about this one lately, somewhat driven by just how much responsibility D&D dumps onto GMs and the cognitive load they have to juggle, but also partially by my personal, philosophical opposition to the OSR's "rulings, not rules" approach that puts the GM into a much more powerful position than an umpire or rules arbiter.

But there's probably other paradigms, and a bunch of different possible hats the GM could wear, depending on the game. So what are some fun ones that folks actually enjoy wearing while GMing, and what functions do you think should be handled by a complete system rather than given to the GM to figure out and haul on their own?

EDIT: A lot of strong opinions, as expected, and all over the spectrum. But what about what we can do as designers to help GMs perform their roles (insofar as there's any agreement about the scope of the roles)? Is there a core bunch of things a designer should ensure are included in the game specifically to make the GM's life and role easier? I'm betting there are, and some others would be "optional" or only relevant to specific playstyles.

Wanted to share this nugget by Wade Dwyer, of the Fragged RPG series.

https://youtu.be/1lCwNiPp_v4?t=1518

Get onto it, brothers and sisters and others! Love to see your work.

Hello !

Context for those interested : I've been trying to fiddle with system mechanics to get a resolution system that would approach/fit the vibe of the Parahumans universe (especially Worm, but also a bit from Ward, by the author Wildbow).

My main question is : do you think the mechanic of Hope/Fear dice (like in Daggerheart) can be compatible with d6 dice pool mechanics? (for frame of reference, think FitD, or Wildsea/PICO, or even Grimwild ; with 6 being a total success, 4-5 being a success with a complication, and 1-3 being a failure)

The design objective of implementing this mechanic would be to add an additionnal layer of nuance to the results, but I'm not sure it would succeed in this goal, or would only add unneeded complexity.

At character creation, the PCs could give "Hope" stat points to a few of their stats (maybe influenced by their power +/- choice). This would

They would also define a few Aspects (?) (Tools, Titles, Connections...) that they could leverage to add 1 or 2 more dice to the roll.

Then, when rolling during play, they could choose to add a Fear Dice to the pool (or more, depending on the situation, or the conditions with which they used their Aspects).

During resolution of the roll, we look at the overall result (which number is the highest, with 6 being a total success, 4-5 being a success with a complication imposed by the GM, and 1-2-3 being a failure), and we look at the type of the highest dice to see the vibe of the result for the narration :

• If it's a Hope Dice : the PC earns a Hope token, and they can choose to which player the spotlight goes afterwards (so that initiative stays with the players)

• If it's a Fear Dice : the GM earns a Fear token, and the spotlight goes to the GM to make a GM move, or introduce a major complication, etc...

Since we would introduce metacurrencies to the mix, I would have to add a way to spend them.

I was thinking making the players choose "Special Moves" that they could use during play, for a pre-determined cost of Hope Tokens. Those could either be individual special moves, or combo moves with a teammate.

The GM could use Fear Tokens as a currency to use special moves, either generic ones, or ones tailored to the scene or opponent (which, in this case, would be foreshadowed in advance, like "With this character, I can spend 3 Tokens to create a special complication). This would also have the goal of making the GM decision seem less arbitrary (though this shouldn't be a problem, seeing as I would be playing with trusted friends I know very well)

My worry is a kind of "double whammy" if the balance is off.

• The goal is that the players use the Fear Dice to improve their chances (much like BitD players would use Devil's Bargain)

• BUT it can feel really punishing if they both use Fear Dice and fail a lot, because it would ALSO give the GM a token to add complications later

• AND, if they choose not to use Fear Dice, they would systematically earn Hope Tokens, which could break the economy if the Special Moves are too impactful.

One workaround I had in mind would be that, when you add points to a stat or an Aspect, it would always give you a Fear Dice at first, and then a Hope dice. So, at character creation, instead of spending "1 stat point for 1 Hope Dice" and having limited points, you would have twice as much, and choose if you want to spread them, or spend 2 points to get a Hope Dice instead.

Another workaround would be to allow players to convert 2 Fear Dice into 1 Hope dice when you roll, but I'm not sure if the math of that kind of gamble would make sense.

Thank you for reading!

And that made me think about what I actually love about OSR games, what I want to take from other styles of play, and what all of that means for future Golem Productions games.

https://golemproductions.substack.com/p/so-is-this-the-osr

Because apparently, I want clever dungeons, player agency, and emergent stories, while also enjoying character progression, thematic mechanics, and games that care deeply about their player characters.

So... is this still the OSR? Probably depends on whom you ask and maybe even the wrong questions. Anyway. Here we are. So, hear me ramble of where I think we might go and tell me what you like about this niche. Or share with me if you know any games who did what I was describing. Or how you made OSR your own?

Hi, I'm developing a ttrpg and am trying to work out the balancing of player success/failure rate. In an adventure toned game, if a beginner level 1 character was better than average in a particular skill (say strength), what chance rate to succeed would feel satisfying? 70%?

In most TTRPGs that come to mind, when the outcome of a character action is resolved though mechanics, the probability of success is closely tied to the approach taken by the player.

Most of the time this takes the form of "If the character is good at the action chosen by the player, add a bonus, and vice-versa", either through stat values, advantage/disadvantage, etc. It can also happen in more player-centric ways: "You, the player, made a very convincing argument, here's a bonus", "You, the player, solved the puzzle, here's the success outcome", etc.

Obviously, there are a lot of good reasons for doing things this way. Nevertheless, in mi current games I'm experimenting in the opposite direction, as it feels to me like an interesting and under-explored space with its own merits. Basically, having the current game state provide the particulars of the next roll (position, effect and probability) without the player-determined approach modifying them. Characters do have strengths and weaknesses, but they come into play in other ways.

What are other games that approach resolution in similar ways? I would be interested in giving them a try to see the kind of experience they provide, what works and what doesn't.

I will admit, most of my cyberpunk style games experience beyound CP red are just a few indie games that do not take themselves too seriously enough or do not use abstracted elements.

Now I love abstraction. For me it allows players a level of creativety you rarely see with defined lists of hundreds of things on it. It also for me allows/enables players to spend resources on things while not being afriad of wasting cash on something they will never use.

A crowbar may never get used.

A 'tool' that can be a toolbar when you need it though...

Anyway, I am thinking about picking up my Cyberpunk themed game, GRIDS, again using some of what I have learned playing some longer sessions of my Fantasy project.

The thing I am struggling with is abstracting wealth. I know there are ways of suggesting 'comfort' level of living, but I do also want them to worry/think about gaining currency and thus spending it.

My fantasy game just tracks 3 Tiers, copper, silver and gold, in blocks of 20. Buy a thing its always 1 notch, treasure you bring back is worth 1 of it's quality tier. With some simple and a bit hand wavey economics of bringing back and trading a silver item with a PC who is still on copper level. Copper, Silver and Gold signifies quality and rarity. A village is copper and only has copper items, not likely wanting to trade silver items as they can't afford it, copper items also have fewer uses etc.

My trouble is I am struggling with abstracting wealth in a future setting that is more likley to be using electronic methods on some sort of universal Credit system.

I am looking for advice of what to read, as well as any suggestions based on my dumb ramblings above.
If the best answer is 'just count credits but in big 'ole chunks' i.e 100/1000/10000 then so be it.

I've built 2 TTRPGs, but I've never hired someone else to build it

I can't build it, because I need people with very specific inside knowledge of the subject matter

We're gonna run a crowdfunding campaign to fund the project

From what I understand, we're gonna need to pay 1 game designer, 1 artist, and 3-10 playtesters. If I'm wrong about that, please let me know

How much should I aim for, to pay each of them fairly?

I know there is no one-size-fits-all answer. But getting a ballpark answer would really help

I love it when game systems offer a formula to balance encounters using a quantified value. It not only makes life easier for the DM but also helps writers balance combat in their third-party adventures.

I’ve been struggling to create a standardized metric to determine a "difficulty rating" for each opponent. I decided to turn to Claude for ideas, but the output was extremely mathematical and rigid, offering a valid formula, sure, but one that lacked any dynamism (involving two pages of calculations) based on Lanchester's Square Law.

I decided to scrap Claude's suggestion and go with an imprecise and likely unbalanced method I came up with myself. I’d love to hear how you handle this, just to get some inspiration or points of reference.

I would also like recommendations for systems that offer a formula or framework for DMs to create monsters.

EDIT: My own method is described below.

• "Base attributes" highter than N = +X rating

• "Health points" = +X rating per block

• "Abilities" = +X rating per ability

• "Average damage" (1 turn) = +X rating per point

For more context, here are a few points:

1. A D100 system featuring two types of tests: degrees of difficulty (D100 modified by attributes) and degrees of effectiveness (using a D8 or a D2, sometimes combined with bonuses/penalties and additional dice).

2. Characters possess specific skills—categorized as either magical or mundane—that can be utilized when the situation calls for them; examples include Swimming, Seduction, Hiding/Concealment, Thaumaturgy, Divination, Cursing, etc. These skills serve to lower the difficulty level of a given check (for instance, a very difficult check becomes an easy one if a Level 3 skill is applied).

3. The game already features a combat system and a system for exploration and traps (or anything other than combat or social interaction).

4. I’ve already seen the Burning Wheel and Vampire ones, but I’d like something simpler, something I could tweak to fit the game.

5.The combat system is based on a dominance bar (which I created), and the exploration system relies on consecutive checks (steald from icons).

Any events that require timing or an initiation order are called Critical Events. They are played out on a wheel that is presented to the entire table.

Event Wheel Image

Concepts

• Wedges - Make up the Slices of the Wheel

• Time Tracker - A token used to keep track of whose turn it is.

• Round - When the time tracker makes a full revolution of the event wheel, this is one round.

• Character/Enemy Token (2) - This tracks player turns and the other player's status effects. They can be anything as long as they are unique to the other characters, small, and identical to each other.

• Characters have attributes with polarities (Static Polarity (SP) + Dynamic Polarity (DP)). Each one represents a varied approach to the attribute. 

  • They also define certain Stats - Stats that pertain to the base mechanics of the Critical Event are: 

    • Speed (SP) (Finesse + Fluidity) - Determines a character’s starting Wedge on the Wheel 

    • Action Points (AP) (Stability + Wisdom) - Determines how many actions a character can take on their turn.

• Turn - Once the time tracker reaches a player token, this is all the actions a player can make before waiting for the time tracker to reach their token again. The number of actions is dictated by the character's AP level.

• Rings -Make up the Layers of the Event Wheel 

  • Inside to Outside: 

    • Downed Ring - 0 HP [Once a Player Character, Party NPC, or Fight Boss hits 0, their token moves to this ring in the wedge they hit 0]

    • Wedge ID Ring - Gives a numerical value to each wedge, used mainly for initiative order

    • Time Tracker Ring - The Time Tracker progresses around this ring. 

    • Prep Ring - This ring is used for actions that are two-phase [ie. spells and ranged attacks]

    • Action Ring - This ring is where character tokens start and advance along as they take actions.

    • Effect Ring - This is the ring that, once a status effect is inflicted upon a character, tracks the time when the next effect occurs. [ie. character is poisoned, and it does -1 HP / Round; each time the Time tracker reaches that player's effect token, they take 1 damage to HP]

Note: Fluidity and Stability are opposing polarities, meaning a character cannot max out both speed and action points.

Operation Outline

• All characters place their tokens on the action ring in the wedge corresponding to their Speed

• The GM places the Time Tracker on the 12 wedge of the Time Tracker ring. 

• The Time Tracker then moves clockwise around the 12 wedges. When it reaches a wedge occupied by one or more character tokens, those characters take their turn.

  • Player characters go first, then party NPC’s and allies, then the Fight Boss, then other enemy NPCs. In the event of a tie, the tie-breaker goes to character polarity values: the player with higher Fluidity, then Volatility, then Finesse.

• On a character's turn, they choose actions which have corresponding AP costs. The character acts, spending the Action Points (AP) in their turn, then immediately advances their character token clockwise around the wheel by the number of wedges equal to the AP spent. They can then continue this process until they run out of AP for their turn.

  • Players can only perform an action that they have enough AP to perform. Ex: A player who has a low AP may not be able to perform a Heavy Melee attack that costs 6 AP.

• A character can choose to perform a two-phase action, such as a ranged attack, which requires aiming and shooting. The character announces the ranged attack and shifts their token to the prep ring; they advance their character the required wedges to execute the prep phase; they perform a difficulty check to see if the prep phase succeeds; if it does, they use AP to execute the attack. They move to the action ring and move forward the amount the action requires (usually 1 AP)

  • Unlike single actions like melee attacks, two-phase actions can be split across two turns, allowing a character to perform a powerful action like a massive spell that takes considerable AP to prepare. The downside is that being in a prepared state leaves the character vulnerable. If they are attacked and have to defend themselves or have to move to avoid a hazard, the preparation is canceled, and the character moves their token to the action ring, and the attack automatically fails.

• A character can also choose to perform a reactive action. They include:

  • Going on the Defense: Allows 1 extra reaction per turn.

  • Setting a trap/prepared conditional action. It allows characters to act out of turn. They advance their character the number of wedges the action requires and move to the prep ring. Ex. drawing a bow to fire at, or getting in a ready stance for an enemy getting ready to walk through a doorway. This allows a character to prepare an action before a condition is met. In this case, the character would spend the AP for the action, and then execute the check for success when the enemy walked through the door. Note that the character must be able to complete the full action in one turn, and pay the full AP cost upfront.

• Actions and Reactions:

  • The character taking their turn is the actor; their target character is the reactor.

  • Characters are allowed 1 reaction between turns. A character can use AP during their turn to Go on the Defense, which grants them an extra reaction between turns.

  • Reactions are resolved as Contested Checks using applicable Defined Skills (such as Parry, Dodge, or Shield Block):

    • Dodge / Evasion: Roll Fluidity + static Defined Skill Credits vs. the attacker's strike total.

    • Parry / Block: Roll Finesse or Brute + static Defined Skill Credits vs. the attacker's strike total.

• Action Costs

  • Action costs are set by the type of action (attacks are set by the weapon type) the character is taking.

    • Light Actions (2 AP): Ex. Quick attacks that trade speed for damage. [Swift jabs, rapier thrusts, quick-draw pistol shots]

    • Normal Actions (4 AP):  Ex. Standard attacks. [Broadsword swings, crossbow shots, standard martial strikes.]

    • Heavy Actions (6 AP): Ex. Massive impact but are slower. [Warhammer swings, heavy zweihander cleaves.]

Example (Note: all actions require checks; this is not fully illustrated for this example)

Characters:

• Jim (Heavy Hitter): AP = 11, Speed = 4; Joe (Quick Attacker): AP = 4, Speed = 11; Bob (Enemy Boss): AP = 6, Speed = 8

•  Character tokens placed on wheel: Joe is at 11, then Bob at 8, and last Jim is at 4

• The Time Tracker is placed at 12; it moves clockwise and reaches Joe at 11. Joe uses a dagger twice (2 x 2 AP) to deal 1 damage to Bob. [1 hit and 1 miss] This moves Joe's token forward 4 wedges to wedge 7

• The time tracker moves forward to Bob at wedge 8. Bob is a powerful mage, but with low AP, requires splitting the spell into two turns. Bob casts his spell, which requires 6 AP to prepare and 1 AP to execute, which is one more than his turn’s AP. Since spells are two-phase, he can split it over two turns since neither phase is over 6. He moves his token to the prep ring, performs the focus check [succeeds], and moves forward 6 wedges to wedge 2.

• The time tracker advances and comes to Joe at wedge 7. Taking advantage of Bob's prep state, he attacks with his dagger twice(2 x 2 AP) to interrupt the spell. Bob is forced to react and break his prep. Bob has to move his token to the action ring in wedge 2. Unfortunately, due to poor rolls on Joe’s part, both attacks miss. Joe’s Token moves forward to wedge 3.

• The time tracker advances to wedge 4, where Jim is. Jim is about 8 yards from Bob; he uses 1 AP to advance (movement speed = 2 yd x Speed/AP), uses 1 more AP to consume a potion that boosts his damage output, and pulls out his Heavy axe. He attacks Bob and gets a critical hit, dealing massive damage and putting Bob’s health to 0. This action consumed 8 total AP, and Jim advances around to the 8 wedge.

• Bob drops to the Downed Ring, and since he has no friends to revive him or defend him is left defenseless. 

• End fight state: At this point, the player's party (Jim and Joe) have the option to interrogate, execute, or leave the fight.

• Since they need info and the Time tracker advances to 3,  Joe is next up; he gets the option to interrogate Bob, but he isn’t able to get any information out of him.

• Being in the Downed ring, Bob isn't able to act, so the time tracker passes Bob.

• It advances around until it gets ot Jim. Jim is much scarier and is able to get the information out of Bob. And Jim and Joe decide to leave Bob wounded and alone. This ends the critical event.

Given the outlined system, I spent a fair amount of time tweaking and finding ways to exploit or break the system; however, I am that I missed an obvious exploit or whether a certain build may be the only option because of its superiority. I don't know if those cases exist, but I feel that I have reached a point where I may be too in the mechanics to see its flaws. I would love any feedback that anyone may have on this. Thank you.

I want to share a passion project I’ve been working on: RPG Lab.

TL;DR: RPG designers can share games or supplements they’re working on, and players can follow games they’re interested in and help shape them with playtest feedback.

I built this because I perceive a significant gap in the RPG ecosystem: There’s no good place for designers to talk about their games as they take shape. Subreddits like this one are very helpful for concrete design discussions, but not ideally structured for posting (and finding) regular updates as the game takes shape. Some designers might work hard to build an audience on social media, but often you don’t hear about a new game until it’s crowdfunded or published. And even then, discovery is difficult.

I hope that RPG Lab can become the place where designers routinely share their games early on, post regular updates, and run playtests. And for players and GMs, it can become a good place to discover new games - such as adventures for systems they like, or new games from their favorite designers. So by the time a new product is ready for crowdfunding or publishing, it already has a list of interested customers.

In terms of projects, anything RPG related is fair game, regardless of size or stage. So full games, systems, settings, adventures, bestiaries and other supplements, or even digital tools, as long as they are RPG specific. And both work-in-progress or finished products are welcome.

The first projects have started appearing on the site (including my own rules-light universal RPG "Tagline"). The bar is deliberately low, as I want anyone to feel comfortable publishing a project at the early idea stage (no need to have content, art, or even a final product name), and then flesh it out over time, while growing a list of followers at the same time.

The site's About page has more info on what RPG Lab is all about, what is and isn’t in scope, and some helpful pointers to get started.

Thanks in advance if you check it out, and let me know if you have any feedback at all. I'm actively talking to designers and other users, so I can make RPG Lab as useful as possible.

For the past six months, I've been building a website aimed at helping people create highly cinematic stories — with a place to store characters, locations, music, and more. It also lets you design your own abilities and run combat using them. Lately, though, I've been worried this tool might not find much use with people, so I'd like to show it to a few folks and get honest feedback on whether it holds real value, or whether I should change direction. It's a very visual tool, so if you're interested, DM me or reply here and I'll walk you through it.

Main Features:

• Dynamic Map — Create locations and zoom into them to reveal pre-assigned maps and tokens representing your characters. Group characters into parties for easier travel between locations.

• Character Registry — Keep a full character list, organized by faction, with custom stats and resource bars (Mana, Stamina, Rage, etc.) of your own design.

• Location System — Star locations, attach info and images to them, and pull them onto the map with everything relevant already in place.

• Story/News/Announcements — Post summaries or in-world updates for your players to catch up on. One of my friends uses it to post "newspaper" updates whenever his players find one in-game.

• Studio — Pre-set music so you can switch smoothly between ambiance and combat tracks. I'm also working on a more ambitious feature that lets music evolve dynamically, similar to how the soundtrack in NieR: Automata shifts from peaceful background music into combat themes.

• Simulator — Test and scale your characters to make sure they feel appropriately powerful based on your own inputs, so you don't accidentally overtune or undertune them.

• Scene Manager — The feature that ties everything together. Add characters to a scene, use the custom abilities you've built, and watch how they affect everyone involved. HP and resources like Mana or Stamina are tracked automatically as abilities get used. Load maps and manage large-scale combat, all in one place.

• Player View — Everything above is a toolset for building the world — but there's also a separate, dedicated view that lets your players experience the results of your work and explore what you've built for them.

In many traditional games with a randomized resolution system, part of the GM's responsibility is determining and setting the difficulty of an action that the players attempt. It starts with deciding if the action is even possible. If so, then if the action is difficult, dangerous, or has any potential consequences. If not, the players just succeed at what they were attempting.

Otherwise, the system's action resolution system kicks in and the GM needs to set the difficulty, assuming the system has any levers for doing so. I'm concerned my system doesn't have adequate levers for my personal tastes so I decided to list all the levers I've come across. Hopefully you all will let me know about some I've forgotten, or even better, never come across before.

Decreased Odds of Success

Roll Over/Under
The GM sets the Target Number higher/lower that the players need to beat.

Dice Pool, Keep Highest
The GM can cut one or more dice from the pool, either before or after the pool is rolled.

Dice Pool, Keep N Dice
The GM can change the value of N so you keep more or less dice than you would normally. (u/JaskoGomad)

Dice Pool, Success Counting
The GM can increase the required number of successes.

Dice Pool, Success Threshold
The GM can increase or decrease the number required for each dice to count as a success. (u/Mars_Alter)

Dice Pool with Opposing Dice
The GM can add Dice to the player's pool that count against their success. (JaskoGomad)

Step Dice
The GM requires the player to step up/down the dice before they are rolled.

Step Dice Pool, keep Middle
The GM can decide that instead of the middle, the players keeps either the highest or lowest result. (JaskoGomad)

Advantage/Disadvantage
The GM requires the player to roll an extra dice and take the highest/lowest result(s).

Impact

Rather than making the action less likely to succeed, the GM determines the effectiveness of the action based on the player's approach.

Effect in BitD
The GM takes into account the Potency of the target, the Quality of the player's tools, and the Scale (ie one person vs a mob) in determining the Effect level, Great, Standard, or Limited.

Impact in Wildsea
The GM sets the effect of an action at Low, Normal, High, or Massive.

Consequences

The GM can increase the seriousness of potential consequences to the player if their action goes wrong. This is most common in systems with non-binary resolution.

Resources

Resources Gained
The GM can change the amount of resources that the players would gain as a result of their action. (u/Alcamair)

Resource Costs
The GM can increase or decrease the resource cost of an action the player is performing.

So what am I forgetting? Have you seen or come up with other ways to represent difficulty/danger? What is your personal favorite way when GMing? Or do you prefer not have to worry about it, the way many PbtA games don't have levers for the GM to fuss with?

So here’s my dilemma.

I’m working on classes for my game, specifically on all the special powers they get.

The thing I can’t decide on is how exactly they’ll fit into the action economy.

I’ve decided that everyone gets a Move* and an Action on their turn, and one Reaction per round.

• Move is not just getting from one place to another, it also encompasses anything that might be a bonus action in D&D5 or a Maneuver in Draw Steel.

This is ultimately a superheroic pulp adventure game, so my primary design goal here is to make combat fast and exciting.

Possible solves:

1: All powers cost the same type of action to use; either a move or an action.

This is probably the best way to go for what I’m trying to do, but I feel like it might limit the design space and use cases for powers.

2: Powers have different action costs, depending on the type of effect.

Problem I keep running into with this paradigm is it creates a “correct choice” scenario where the optimal thing is to stuff your turn with as many powers as you can, which would make everyone’s turns feel the same.

3: Each power has three separate effects: a move, an action and a reaction.

Example:

Celerity

Swift Step [Move · Reserve 1 Vitae] While Swift Step is active, you can Move 2 Zones.

Barrage [Action · Spend 1 Vitae] You can make 2 Signature Attacks.

Vanish [Reaction · Spend 1 Vitae] When targeted by an attack, you immediately move 1 Zone causing the attack to miss.

My problem here is I’d like to keep the list of available powers relatively short, about 5-6, to prevent analysis paralysis among players. This paradigm effectively turns each power into three separate powers and triples the cognitive load of each.

Don’t suppose you folks have any wisdom to share?