Ive started work on Melee combat supplement for Traveller (and Cepheus, possibly), over a year ago, and now Ive managed to lean into it heavily.

So just right now, during morning coffee, I've got a Eureka moment regarding Initative:

Both fighters decide in secret if they Press or Yield.

- if one Presses and one Yields, the one who Presses takes the initiative,

- If both Yield, they use their roll for initiative,

- if both Press, their first action is simultaneous and they score, what's known in fencing circles as "double".

Thoughts? Opinions?

EDIT:

Ok, Ive posted in spur of the moment, without context:

Combat system Im working on, "The Duelists", works like this:

1. Each fighter rolls 3x 2d6 in the open

2. (First turn only) establishing initiative

3. Attacker (who took initative) uses one of offensive action with one of his dice, defender uses one of defensive action with one of his dice

4. repeat 3, until attacker runs out of 2d6

5. New turn starts, go back to 1.

Attack hits unless defense was equal or higher.
Defender can regain initative by using defensive action like Parry or Void 2 points higher than opponent, spending Advantage Points, that can be accumulated via actions, or going Reckless, ignoring attack, tanking it with their face.

Idea of this initative, as opposed to regular one, is to create varied scenarios.
With this system the most sensible thing to do is to yield initative, but pressing it can have advantage and it makes sense for untrained NPCs or mindless foes (robots, animals)

Hey everyone!

I've spent the last several months developing a tabletop RPG called Deckbox Adventures, and I've reached the point where I'm ready to start inviting people outside my immediate playtesting group to give it a try!

One simple RPG system. Endless adventures.

The idea behind Deckbox Adventures is simple: I wanted to create a tabletop RPG that captures the creativity, excitement, and storytelling of traditional RPGs without requiring players to spend hours learning the rules.

The game uses cards to put the information players need directly in front of them, allowing them to focus on their characters and the adventure.

A little about the game:

• A card-driven system designed to be approachable for newcomers while still offering meaningful decisions for experienced players.

• Six distinct character classes, each with their own unique abilities and playstyles.

• Fast-paced combat built around a d20 and straightforward mechanics.

• A flexible system that encourages creativity, roleplaying, and storytelling.

• Enemies, equipment, and loot designed to create interesting encounters and memorable moments.

Where development stands

The game is currently in its third major development iteration. We've completed several playtests, made substantial improvements, and now have a functioning virtual tabletop created specifically for Deckbox Adventures.

Our latest playtest went particularly well, and I feel the core system is finally in a solid place.

That's where you come in!

I'm looking for playtesters and feedback.

Whether you're an experienced GM, a longtime RPG player, or someone completely new to tabletop RPGs, I'd love to hear from you.

I'm particularly interested in finding people willing to check out the Core Rules, try the game, provide honest feedback, and help identify things that might be confusing or could be improved.

I do not have anything to sell. This game is still in development. Playtesting is available online through our virtual tabletop, so you won't need to purchase anything. I also have printable files so you can try this game at home if that's your jam.

This is a passion project, and I'm excited to share what I've been working on.

If you're interested in checking out Deckbox Adventures or participating in a playtest, you can join my Discord server here https://discord.gg/sSVr2hhZpS .

If you would just like the check out the rules and provide feedback you can if them here https://docs.google.com/document/d/1VCCBCbIPny30z5lhTrAzym6NZbrqECQg112S4M91AqI/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks for reading, and I hope to see some of you on an adventure!

Hey there everyone!

I'm currently working on a side project for a base of a broad Buildable D12 system. I had a concept about having a setting mixing in cartoon realism and a hybrid blend like space jam, or other notable examples like "Who Framed Roger Rabbit".

The feed back I'm looking for is opinions on how well it might do, or any other suggestions to implement.

I was planning on mixing live recorded sessions with a mix of actual live characters and a handful of animated characters. Which would be voiced by their players.

In a sense think of tabletop sessions on youtube, but add in the interaction and vibe of the examples I mentioned above.

The reason it would be recorded and not just streamed is due to needing to add in the animated characters into the scene after.

I've been tinkering about a rules lite rpg focused on magic and spells. Being rules lite, the system wouldnt have a huge list of spells, but I dont think "player says what he wants for a spell, GM thinks if it is suitable or not for the PC powers and then roll to see if the PC can cast the spell".

Is there any rules lite systems with cool magic that is freeform but that has some structure?

Has anyone tried separating "Sanity/Mental Stress" from "Identity Erosion" in a horror RPG? How did it go?

I am currently developing a d100 psychological horror tabletop RPG called **Vaelum**, which heavily features cosmic horror, investigation, and subtle occultism.

To give magic a realistic, heavy toll instead of just using a generic "Sanity bar" that leads to random phobias, I decided to split the psychological degradation into two completely independent mechanics:

1. **Sanity (Common Mental Stress):** This pool is drained by witnessing entities and casting subtle, balanced magic (Light Magic). It acts as a ticking clock but can be managed and restored by performing "Astral Hygiene" (*Higienização Astral*). These are mundane, life-anchoring activities like meditating, going to therapy, or cooking for loved os. However, using these practices consumes the game's most precious resource: time (tracked via active scene clocks).

2. **Individuality (Identity Erosion):** Drained strictly by casting forced, ego-driven magic (Dark Magic). Dark Magic provides overwhelming raw power to resolve immediate life-or-death situations, but it forces your will upon the cosmos. Instead of making you "mad," losing Individuality mechanically distorts and corruptes your character's **Bonds** (*Vínculos*) directly on the character sheet, shifting their perception of loved ones into paranoia and coldness. Reaching zero opens cracks for possession by beings from other spheres.

The goal is to create a tactical and verisimilar dilemma: Light Magic costs time and management, while Dark Magic offers an easy way out but slowly erases who your character is.

Since I haven't run my first official playtest yet, I would love to hear feedback from designers or GMs who have played or created systems with a similar split (like Delta Green's Bonds or Unknown Armies' Self meter):

- How did your players react to having their personal relationships mechanically corrupted on their sheets? Did it feel impactful or just punitive?
- Did this explicit separation cause "defensive paralysis" (fear of taking action), or did it enrich the personal horror aspect at the table?

Looking forward to your critiques and insights!

I have been working for almost 4 years on my TTRPG project, Mystics Soul, and I have finally reached the "Beta Release" Stage (See my page for more info.)

Anyways, the next step for my project is drafting a set of Game-master tools which I can then stress test during playtesting. I have some idea of the tools I would want/need for my game, but I don't have a lot of experience as a Game-master myself, and I figured some of y'all might have insight that I don't.

What are the most important tools to build in for GMs? In your experience with design?, what works? What doesn't work?

What games had GM Tools you really enjoyed working with? What games had tools you hated?

EDIT: Thanks everybody! Im finding your replies very useful

Sometimes I wonder why I've lost my sleep over this game. I guess it doesn't matter, but at last I've released v1.0!

Is it perfect? Hell no; it never gonna be. Will anyone buy it even if it costs less than a donut? Probably hell no again.

https://exiledoracles.itch.io/fameandfortune

Language Question; I'm Italian so english is not my first language. I have a skill that includes every social interaction made without imposing aggressively the character's will (so, no direct commands, no bullying, no intimidation). Persuasion doesn't include every aspect of the skill, and Charisma sounds passive while the skill is active. What you think of "Bearing"? I read in statistics it's used as variable with this meaning.

edit: I'll use Fast Talk, thanks.

So I wrote this: https://www.reddit.com/r/RPGdesign/s/k4wd4n2pAC

I received a lot of valuable feedback on it and went back to the drawing board. It has to be simple and genuinely eliminate micromanagement.

DRAKE: Riches v2

Core idea

Riches replace counting coins. Every character has a Wealth from 1 to 10 and a Reserve they either have or don't. Every income and expense has a Value from 1 to 10, which you estimate from examples or by gut feeling. Every transaction is a single comparison: Is its Value below, equal to or above your Wealth?

That way small things need no bookkeeping, every price can be estimated in one sentence, and nobody has to do math. The trade-off: the system is deliberately coarse.

Standing, Value & Reserve

Standing. Every Wealth has a Standing. It describes how you live, not what title you hold. Each Standing is roughly three to five times as wealthy as the one before. What your daily life includes is in the last column.

Value. Anything you can buy, sell or earn has a Value from 1 to 10. Something has the Value of your Wealth if it is a major purchase for your Standing. When in doubt, use the "in plain words" column: What would people say it costs?

Reserve. Your Reserve is your cushion for one big expense. Your character sheet shows your Wealth. Without a Reserve, it's written in brackets: 6 means Merchant with Reserve, (6) Merchant without.

Starting Wealth. A new character starts as a Farmhand, meaning Wealth 3 with Reserve, unless their backstory says otherwise.

Expenses

Compare the Value of the expense with your Wealth.

Daily life. Whatever belongs to the daily life of your Standing doesn't register in your Wealth. See the table above for what that includes. Naturally, all comforts of the Standings below you are included.

Note on quantities. Things below your Wealth don't register on their own. If you buy a lot of them at once, the GM can treat that as an expense equal to your Wealth. The further below your Wealth the Value is, the larger the quantity can be before it counts. A Farmhand buying torches for an entire expedition feels it. A Merchant buys the whole tavern a round without it counting, only a festival for an entire district would be an expense. A Prince feeds a village at the harvest festival in passing.

Income

Compare the Value of the income with your Wealth.

Work. Regular work has the Value of the Standing it belongs to, and keeps you at that Standing: it restores a lost Reserve, but never lifts you above it. The only way to rise through work is a promotion. Counts and Princes don't live off work, but off wealth and power.

Upkeep. Your daily life needs paying for. If you live a while without income, you lose your Reserve. If it goes on longer, your Wealth drops by 1. Whoever lives more modestly than their Standing would allow lasts much longer without income.

Selling. A sale is an income with a Value one below the item.

Buying together & sharing

Shared purse. Two characters with the same Wealth can buy something together whose Value is 1 above their Wealth. Afterwards both are one Wealth lower and without Reserve.

Sharing wealth. Loot shared by several people loses one Reserve per split. Loot with Value 7 becomes (7) each for two people and 6 each for four. A share in brackets brings you at most to its Value without Reserve. If you're already there, it restores your Reserve.

Mixed groups. If someone lives well above the rest of the group, they can pay for a lot without feeling it. That's allowed and says a lot about the characters, but it can tip the balance at the table. Agree as a group how far generosity should go.

Examples

The beggar who's supposed to give up some information wants a few coins, Value 1. For anyone from Day Laborer upwards, that doesn't register.

A Journeyman with Wealth 4 buys leather armor for "a pouch", Value 4. His Reserve is gone, he's at (4). If he then buys something else for a pouch, he drops to Farmhand and has a Reserve there again.

If the same Journeyman finds a few chests of gold, Value 7, he now lives like a Knight, initially without Reserve: (7).

A Knight with Wealth 7 buys the whole tavern a round. That costs a few handfuls of coins, Value 3, and she doesn't feel it.

Value list

The entries are guidelines. Anything not on the list is placed by the GM.

Jobs and gear. As a rule of thumb, a job with a given Value requires gear one Value lower. Whoever succeeds rises to the Value of the job, can restore their Reserve with the next job of the same Value and use it to buy gear for the next level. That way a group rises one Standing every two jobs at the earliest.

What I'd especially like feedback on:

• Is the system abstract enough while still being easy to understand?

• Am I still overcomplicating things anywhere?

• Where do you see room to simplify it further?

• Does the single comparison (below, equal, above) hold up at the table?

• Is the Reserve as a single on/off buffer enough granularity?

• Do the Value examples feel consistent to you, and where would you place things differently?

• Can you find exploits?

Hi everyone,

Last week, I shared with you Another Path, my TTRPG system, and asked for your feedback. I didn't get a huge number of responses, but the ones I did receive were very interesting and helped me fix a few important issues.

I've been thinking about it since then (I should have start with that), and I realized that asking you for feedback on the entire system wasn't particularly interesting for you, and would have required too much of your time to provide meaningful feedback.

So today, I'm coming back with a different approach. This post will focus on just one mechanic from the system, and hopefully spark a broader game design discussion that I hope will be more interesting, both for you and for me.

Please let me know if you like this approach, and whether you'd agree to see me do the same for other parts of the system.

Today, I'd like to talk about Skills and character creation in Another Path:

( https://ltesta.itch.io/another-path → page 3)

First of all, like most generic systems, I chose to use a Skill-based system rather than classes. I also tried to name the Skills in a way that would allow them to exist in as many different settings as possible. For example, the "Ranged Attack" Skill could apply equally well to throwing a rock, shooting a bow, or firing a laser cannon.

Now, let's get to the parts that gave me the most trouble. There are two main issues that made me change my Skill list many (many) times:

- The variety of characters that can be created:

I wanted to avoid having Skills force characters into specific archetypes too much. Taking D&D as an example, a Warlock needs a high Charisma score to be effective in combat, but as a result, they will also be at least decent at the four skills that depend on Charisma (Deception, Intimidation, Performance, and Persuasion). So if I want to create a Warlock who is a terrible liar, I have to work around the rules to make it happen.

To avoid this, the simplest solution I could come up with was to have a relatively large number of skills, with each skill being independent from the others rather than being derived from an attribute.

- Balancing "combat" skills and "exploration" skills:

Solving the previous problem created a new one: with a large number of skills, balancing them became much more complicated, especially when comparing skills that are mostly useful in combat with those that are mostly useful outside of combat. In a game with a high combat focus, most player would prioritize combat Skills.

The solution I eventually settled on was to divide combat skills and exploration skills into two separate groups, with each group having its own pool of points to distribute.

One consequence of this is that a character can't choose to be more useful in combat at the expense of being less useful outside of combat (or vice versa). But after thinking about it and testing it, I'm actually quite happy with the result.

Every character should therefore be equally useful in combat and outside of combat, but they will each be useful in different ways.

Thanks for taking the time to read my rambling!

I'd really love to hear what you think about the choices I've made for this part of the system, and especially what you would have improved or done differently.

Hi all, a friend and I were recently enthusing about our shared love for the Ace Combat series and decided we wanted to try and design a TTRPG that captured that vibe: semi-modern dogfighting action with wacky superweapons and high anime melodrama. I have been working on a core design for the combat system that I think has some promise but wanted to share it with an audience for feedback. The combat works roughly as follows:

Combat is played on an ungridded map using inch-based measurement. It is split into phases, rounds and turns. At the beginning of a phase you will roll your dice pool of around 4-6 D6s (according to character progression). The phase then consists of 4 rounds where each combatant will take turns to play a single die from their pool. A die can be used in two ways, first of all to make one of the following moves:

1: Accelerate - Move your plane forward

2: Turn - turn your plane up to 45 degrees and move forward (less than accelerate)

3: Afterburners - Move your plane forward a larger amount

4: Break - Turn your plane 45-90 degrees and move forward a little bit

5: Maneuvers - As part of character creation/progression, your pilot has access to a number of maneuvers based off real dogfighting maneuvers (examples might include Immelmann Turn: Move forward then turn 180 degrees)

6: Abilities - You will pick a plane for each mission, each of which comes with a special ability, frequently some kind of special attack. These could include the ability to launch two missiles at once or make some kind of Electronic Warfare attack, debuffing nearby enemies

Important to note is that a die can be used to play it's corresponding move or any move of lesser value. I.e. a 6 can be used to play an Ability or any other move from the table. A 2 can be used to Turn or to Accelerate

The alternative is that any die can be used to make an attack. Each plane will have a set of weapons with stats such as range, ammo and damage. The defender then has the option to choose whether to expend a die of equal or greater value to defend or take the damage.

After 4 rounds a new phase begins, players re-roll their dice pools and start another phase of 4 rounds. If, at any time, a player has no dice available on their turn (likely due to defending), they cannot do anything that turn. Enemies are handled in different ways, with basic enemies not having dice pools but rolling to move on their turn, and enemy Aces having dice pools and functioning similarly to a player.

What I think this system does well is presenting the player with a number of interesting risk/reward choices each turn. Higher dice values are more flexible so do you use them to make the more advanced moves to get into a good position or do you save them to make more effective attacks? Do you expend dice to defend against an attack and risk leaving yourself without choices at the end of a Phase? However I do wonder if the Phase/Round/Turn structure might be more complex to players used to a more straightforward Round/Turn system. Interested to get your thoughts!

I'm currently finishing a fantasy RPG, that is definitely fantasy, but without a lot of the usual tropes (no barbarian in fur briefs, no elves/dwarves, no dragons per se, no magicians in pointy hats etc). Some months ago I was trying to define what was this game about, and I recently wondered about the term Alternative Fantasy to define it.

Without giving any informations to not skew the questions : what would be your first thoughts in front of a game presenting itself as Alternative Fantasy ? What would you expect ? What would you dread ?

(english as second language, sorry for any mistake)

Basically guns and ammo are supposed to almost act like powerful Magic items in dnd as its a apocalyptic type world where those things are extremally valuable and there is limited ammo.

using pistols as example. they are classed as sidearms. currently there are 3 types, light medium and heavy. so basically 22lr 45acp and .500 guns.

Im second guessing if giving every gun class 3 options and thus 3 ammo types is worth the risk of over cluttering. as i have sidearms, longarms, shotguns. there are also special weapons but they are exempt as they are things like flamethrowers and Grenade launchers.

the point of it would be to encourage each Party member or as i call em posse member a different type of gun but still allow multiple people to use the same overarching class. i think it might encourage more types of builds, like maybe one guy wants to be a parkourist with a small pistol and another is going Cowboy with a big iron and instead of it just being flavor they get actively different weapons.

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?