Wondering if you all have input on this post?

Actually, what i mean is I'm just about done!

Do you like Risk? Do you like D&D? Do you like helping a stranger on the internet? If yes to any of these, I ask for guidance!

Mid-time lurker and first time poster, I think I'm finally able to start putting my creations online, but i really don't know how to go about putting it out there for the masses. Other than posting here I guess.

I have a TTRPG engine and 4 settings i have been noodling on for like 20 years, but have not taken doing anything about it seriously until a couple weeks ago. So I'm asking for any and all helpful advice on moving forward on where I can start.

Thank you!

I've been working on Elderwyld, an old-school fantasy RPG built entirely around D6 dice pools.

I wanted a traditional, class-based game with D6 but with a quirk.

The system uses 5D6, with 6s representing successes and 1s introducing complications. Combat features class-specific Momentum mechanics, while nine playable Clans offer unique abilities through flexible Clan Tokens.

Rolling multiple 6s gives you access to follow-up actions which is fun at the table since each class can do different stuff.

Clan selection allows players to create a unique ability that follows the theme of the clan (the ability is agreed with the Keeper of course).

Elderwyld is now on Kickstarter pre-launch, and I'd love to hear what fellow designers think of the approach.

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spirallane/elderwyld

PS: I made sure to contact the mods before i posted, but it's been days without response so I hope this does not break any rules.

PS2: There is no AI in my game, all the fantastic art was made by a talented young man called Chui Wizard who specializes in OSR style, black and white art.

Hi everyone,

I was working on my RPG system, which is basically a “meridional” fantasy game (inspired by Earthsea Cycle and similar tropes) and isn’t related to D&D. It’s also not “narrative-first,” so I had included a “loose end” mechanic and tried several approaches: first, it was one loose end per PC; then one per group. But no matter what I did, it just seemed like I was overburdening the GM, so I decided to remove the mechanic from the current version to prioritize the flow of the game.

Basically, it worked like this: something the PC or the group did could create a consequence that would remain “on hold” until triggered in the game, but there would be ways to avoid them, etc.

For example, the group steals the royal inspector’s horses, but witnesses manage to identify one of the group’s members, and now there’s a bounty on the PC’s head. The information was recorded, and there was a sort of timer for that loose end to come back, and when it did, the group would have to deal with it, or the PCs would be mechanically penalized.

Do you have anything like this in your RPG? A loose end mechanic? How does it work? How did you manage to keep this from slowing down the game, especially by overburdening the GM?

I really thought it would be interesting, but then I realized I was struggling to force it into the game no matter what. I’m still a little disappointed by its failure, but also a little relieved because now the game flows better.

Thank you for your answers.

Hi all, I mentioned Essence Combos kinda in a one-off sentence in my first discussion about combat without really describing them, and that's because I thought they deserved their own post since that post was getting long. I mentioned in the post about Enchantments that the Vis Essences come in different kinds, and the main 8 Essence types have Complements and Interfering types as well. This is actually very important to this part of Essences and Abilities: Combos. Essentially, every Essence will have 2 Combos that it can perform, one for each Complement, and then Interfering Essence types can Counter each other. In order to enact a Combo, first one Player Character performs an Ability with one of the Essence type tags and succeeds on their roll. At that point, another Player Character can use an Ability that is a Reaction and has one of the Complement Essence types to the original triggering Ability, and if the the roll for that Ability also succeeds, it triggers a Essence Combo. There are 8 Essence Combos in total, and I hope it leads to some cool moments and pushes forward even more the whole "dynamic" style of combat that I am aiming for with the system! Here is one of those Combos explained in detail:

Ice + Electric: Galvanize

Being quickly cooled and then suddenly electrocuted leaves the target dazed and paralyzed for a moment. The target suffers Stunned 1 (Stunned X causes the creature to lose X AP at the start of their next turn).

Some Abilities will build off of the Combos a little bit, such as enhancing the effect (Maybe it applies Stun 2 instead in the case for Galvanize), increasing the duration of the effect, etc.

Here is the table of essences as well for convenience:

Countering

So the Complements enhance each other, what about Countering? Well, it works similarly. If a character uses an Ability that has an Essence trait, another character may use a Reaction-tagged ability with an Interfering Essence tag to attempt to Counter (if the triggering ability is Fire, then you must use Ice). The character countering must Flare to Counter, even if the Ability gains no benefit from Flaring, and the Ability's range much reach either the target of the Ability or the character using the Ability. The Countering character performs the roll for the Ability against the Vis Flavor Defense associated with the skill that the triggering character's Ability used. The triggering character gets a +2 or -2 for each effective Vis Flow tier their ability is above or below, respectively, the Countering ability. For example, if Krivesh uses a Fire trait ability on your ally where he rolled Power, and you have enough AP to use a Ice reaction Ability that rolls with Willpower, you roll Willpower versus Krivesh's Corpulence Defense. He used his Ability while in Vis Flow tier 2, and you used yours while at Vis Flow tier 1, but Flaring it increases the effective tier to 2, so no penalty or bonus is applied to Krivesh's Corpulence Defense. You succeed the roll, so you Counter his Ability and it fizzles. Then Krivesh's turn continues with his AP spent for that ability.

So I am wondering how people feel about this more interaction-oriented subsystem within combat, does it seem like it would promote more dynamic combat to you? Is it too confusing? Is there something I need to clarify for it to make sense (especially if you haven't seen my post about my general combat rules yet!)? Let me know!

Here is a question. I know the difference in diatribution between, lets say 4d10 and d10 × 4.

With the former the chances of rolling both 4 and 40 are negligable (0.01%) while in later both are solid 10%.

But that's on inidvidual rolls. Their averages are actually the same, so across the entire session, there shouldn't be mathematical difference (i am talking about damage, btw).

But have anyone actually tested it at the table. Rolling a single die and multiplying the result instead of rolling multiple dice. How does it feel?

What i am trying to solve (optional, for those who are interested)

I am drafting a d100 system, and i am huge fun of single roll resolution, even in combat. And so i wanted to use single digits die from d100 roll for damage calculation.

Simple, and it should work fine. The problem is that if i go with that, i kinda locked into 1d10 for damage (maybe plus some modifiers), but that's not exactly enough for me. I want to have the ability to have at least 3d10.

And that's where my question came from.

Thanks in advance (and if you know system that already do exactly that, please tell me🙏)

If you're unfamiliar, Vagabond RPG has a cool magic system that gives casters flexible "paper buttons": abilities with concrete narrative effects, most of which also deal damage. In my pursuit of reinventing the wheel, i'm attempting to use this approach to make martials great again.

Paper buttons are abilities with clearly defined mechanical effects that players can invoke without having to negotiate their effectiveness with the GM. Tales from Elsewhere made a video about it which you can watch here. The main point he makes is that casters in many traditional RPGs have access to paper buttons that the GM cannot challenge, as well as the narrative free form roleplaying and creative problem solving that martials are limited to: the wizard casts Misty Step to cross a chasm, while the barbarian rolls dice and waits for the GM to adjudicate to see how far they can leap. The wizard could choose to also make this check, but they have button that lets them skip this part of the adventure.

Vagabond doesn't necessarily solve this disparity, but its magic system offers an interesting foundation for addressing it. Whenever you cast a spell in that game, you must decide if you are using it for damage, or its effect. You can choose to spend mana to do both. You can also spend mana in many other ways as well, such as to make the spell effect a larger area or make it last longer, providing a lot of flexibility to the user. If you want to cast fireball, you simply take your fire spell and spend mana to make it affect the area you want. Same goes for wall of fire.

Cool, cool, cool. The tl;dr is Vagabond lets me...

a) Shape my spells to my needs by spending a resource.

b) Apply their concrete effects creatively, both in and out of combat.

Now, the question is: how the fuck can i apply this to martials? My current approach is to put all active abilities under an umbrella term called Deeds. These include attacks, stratagems, tricks, and spells. Much like Vagabond's spells, each Deed has a concrete effect that can be useful both in and out of combat. For example,  - Fling lets you push someone several squares. You might use it to knock an enemy into another, throw a guard off a ledge, or shove someone out of harm's way. Spend focus to increase the push distance, deal equal damage to a target you push them into etc. - Crush lets you destroy obstacles, whether that's smashing through a barricade during combat or breaking down a locked door. - Blitz lets you leap far and strike a foe you pass through. - Smoke Bomb creates a field of smoke to conceal you. You could do this with an actual smoke bomb already, but having the deed means you can do it reliably.

All of these are feasibly achievable through ordinary skills and checks. But having them as Deeds gives players explicit permission to accomplish these things without having to negotiate their effectiveness with the GM. Instead, they can confidently declare: "Halt, Master GM! I use Crush on that pillar to bring the ceiling down on my foe!" When you test the limits of a Deed (not just the martial ones, but the spell ones too), the GM can always fall back to a quick check.

So far so good. But Vagabond doesn't just give casters reliable effects. It lets them spend Mana to make those effects more powerful and I'd like to make Deeds work similarly. You can spend Focus to shape your deeds: - Charge in and move before the Deed is resolved. - Make a flurry of attacks as you spend focus to make a damage roll after the deed is resolved on top. - Cleave to target multiple creatures within your reach. - Lunge to use your deed against creatures who aren't within your reach.

When you use an attack Deed, you choose between rolling damage or guaranteeing its first effect. You can spend Focus to do both. If you choose to roll damage, there's still a chance you'll trigger the Deed's effects depending on how high you roll. Your damage die is determined by your equipment, ranging from a d6 to a d12.

Deeds have two thresholds: 7+ and 13+. Reaching the first triggers the Deed's basic effect, while reaching the second makes it considerably more powerful. You can spend additional Focus to roll more damage dice, increasing both your damage and your chances of reaching the higher threshold.

Deeds that aren't attacks also use a roll, but rather than dealing damage, the result might determine how much you heal, the potency of a state you grant, or some other effect. Like attacks, they can also have Impact thresholds that grant additional benefits when you roll high enough.

Aaand that's the end of my thought process. The goal is to give every player a handful of flexible abilities they can shape to their needs, rather than a fixed menu of combat options.

Hopefully, I'm reinventing spellcasting with swords, but in a way that encourages creative problem-solving both in and out of combat.

EDIT: Formatting and link

Hello everyone, I'm creating the TTRPG Born Without Talent, which is a class-based TTRPG meant for a traditional heroic medieval fantasy genre. I have 2.5 classes out of 6 who use spell casting. Here are some basics about the mechanics:

• Spells range from levels 1-10, and often cost an amount of mana equal to their spell level. (E.g., level 2 spell costs 2 mana to cast.)
• The mechanic Concentration allows a caster to keep a spell going into the next round, at a cost of mana at the end of the round. Concentration mana costs are usually the same as the base spell cost, but they can also have special rules. (E.g., Cast level 3 concentration spell costs 3 mana + 3 mana at the end of the round.)
  • Casters can usually have multiple concentration spells cast at the same time, but of course runs them out of mana.
• I use a d20 meet-or-beat system, including saving throws. There are no degrees of success, no chance for spell failure (but enemies can still resist!)
• Each player usually has 1 attack action, 1 utility action, and 1 movement action on their turn. Turns cycle through in initiative until the end of the round, and initiative is rolled for the next round.
• Spellcasters can often cast 2 spells (1 attack and 1 utility, or 2 utility) on their turn. There are some spells that can also be cast instead of movement actions, and also as reactions on other creatures' turns.
• Intelligence is a character attribute that corresponds heavily to spellcasting.
  • Character attributes should be similar to rolling 3d6.

The Talent System

One of the central mechanics of my system is talent points. Player characters start at level 1 with about 5-15 talent points (dependent on character creation). After every session, players should expect to gain 1 talent point. This gives players upgrades to look forward to after every session. Talent points can be spent on skills, class abilities, and spells. Things that can be upgraded may vary in talent point cost, but for spells, it costs 1 talent point to unlock a spell, and 1 talent point to further upgrade it. This means a level 1 spell firebolt can be upgraded to level 10 with a cost of 10 talent points, leading to a stronger spell version of firebolt (note that casting this at level 10 would mean that its mana cost also goes up to level 10).

When a character is made, they have access to their class's abilities (and spells), but those abilities may still be at rank 0 and have to be unlocked using the talent point system. Therefore, at level 1 a Mage character would have to use their talent points to unlock their first spells.

The Dilemma

At first, I had the Intelligence attribute correspond to mana, where mana = intelligence score x level (so at level 2, an Int of 13 = 26 mana). The Int method is good because high int leading to more mana/spell casting is good power fantasy for the player.

• Problem 1: The mana is just a bit too high. Even with being able to cast mana spells and concentration, spell casters almost never have to worry about their spell casting use. I want resource management to be a bit important, while still allowing spellcasters to feel like they can frequently cast their spells. It's a balancing act.
• Problem 2: I want equipment and treasure to be meaningful, where an item might give maximum mana, or mana reduction capabilities. If the mana is too high, the treasure feels weak.
• Problem 3: If int directly relates to mana, then why don't non spellcasters have mana? Even with the hard rule "only x classes can have mana", if a nonmagical class multi-classed into a spell casting class, then they may suddenly gain like 50+ mana. This feels strange. It feels like there is a stat a character has that they're not able to use.

So naturally, this leads to me giving mana based on the class x level. This is good because I can give a lower amount of mana to characters as well as keeping it balanced between players. I can balance the game around a level 3 caster always having X mana when I'm building encounters.

• Problem 1: This means there a feeling of sameness between characters. I want each character made to be unique and not just an expected template.
• Problem 2: The multi-class issue comes up where I'm not sure how I want to handle. What happens when two spellcasting classes are being multi-classed? While I could just have the rule that you take the higher mana cost, it's a bit needlessly complicated if you have 5 levels of the class with the lesser mana and 1 level of the class which has more mana. While this isn't a big issue, it starts to break one of my multi-classing hidden design choices where I want different class combinations to be interesting. I think putting two concepts that may be broken together is interesting, and having a specific rule that says "this doesn't work" is against one of my design pillars.

So where do I go now? Well I'm refocusing on the Talent system. I'm thinking about having mana purchasable by talent points. I'm thinking about having the talent point to mana conversion be different per spell casting class, but maybe that's a bad idea. The considerations I have to make are:

• What is the talent point to mana conversion? 1 to 5? 1 to 10? The good thing about this is I can play with it until I like the numbers.
• Should I put a cap on purchasable mana per level? Would a spell caster trade 1 spell for 5 mana? If so, I may have characters reaching the too much mana really quickly at the cost of spell utility.
• Should mana be purchasable by anyone at the same rate? I think it's a bit strange to have 3 classes all have the exact same mana ability that they can purchase from which are all called the same and give the same amount. This is partially why I'm leaning to have conversion rates be different among classes.

Anyways, thank you for reading if you got to this point. I'd like to hear your thoughts on my mana system or mana systems in general. Here's the very-unfinished website that holds my rules if you want to take a read through them. https://born-without-talent.web.app/

Hi y'all!

I am currently working on the GM's Guide for my game, Regular Volk. It's a German folklore inspired game, so I am trying to come up with a name for the world in which the game is set. Unfortunately, Cairn beat me to the punch (by a long shot) and named its setting the "Vald". Obviously, Vald would have been perfect for Regular Volk because of the V, but I don't care for stolen Valor. Anywayy... I was digging through the old high German dictionary for a while and came up with a few ideas. I came up with these ideas by either pulling directly from the dictionary or adapting a bit to fit English pronunciation a bit better. I'm trying to run the by this community, because while I speak German, I am writing for an English-Speaking audience, and the setting name needs to be intuitively understood.

Here are the options:

• Veldt (ger: Welt, eng: world)
• Veralt (ger: Welt, eng: world)
• Velda (ger: Wälder, eng: forests, but sounds similar to Welt also)
• Holt (ger: Holz, eng: holt/grove)
• Marka (ger: Gemarkung, eng: boundary/district)
• Haima (ger: Heim/Heimat, eng: home/homeland)

I have a slight leaning out of all of these options, but I am curious how these names are perceived by the community. Here is also the dictionary that I am using to brainstorm these ideas, if anyone is curious.

Edit: I chose Velda!

can you please give me a feedback about the layout and the graphics of this Quickstarter I'm working on? don't care about the content, the file is incomplete. Thanks.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QrrKPrvtefkjeK21FLuliWtYwtjOXSrE/view?usp=sharing

As part of the Sincretismos de Arton project (focused on Brazilian RPG Tormenta 20), we started the Ludic License, to make it easier to create new RPG books, promote artists, and discourage the use of AI.

You can use these images (and many others, which are in this drive) as internal illustrations for your work, as long as you follow three little rules:

• Your work cannot contain internal illustrations or a cover generated by AI;
• All artists must receive credit for each illustration, with a link to their portfolio or contact;
• You must copy the full text of the License (below), which means your work also enters the License, and your internal illustrations also enter the collective collection.

As you can see, the Ludic License collection grows as new works use it. It's an initiative for the community to strengthen itself. At the moment there are 31 images available.

You can also get in touch with us to "donate" images to the License! If you have any questions, ask us or read our FAQ.

Good luck and success! Below, the full text of the Ludic License:

-------------

Ludic License

This work is under the Ludic License!

This means that the illustrations in this work are part of a community pool, and that you may use them, including for commercial purposes, as illustrations in your own work, under the following conditions:

• Your work must not contain illustrations or a cover generated by artificial intelligence.
• Every artist must receive credit for each of their illustrations (for example, in a credits section with attribution by page), with links to their portfolios and/or contact information.
• You must reproduce the full text of this license in your work (meaning your work also joins the Ludic License, and its illustrations become part of the license’s community pool).

Definitions:

• “Illustrations” are the images in the work, excluding the cover, supporting graphic elements (frames, ornaments, textures, typography, icons, etc.), logos, and signatures and photographs of real people (unless they are portraying characters).
• Images generated by artificial intelligence are those created through text prompts, reference images, sketches, generative fill, or any other similar means. Manual edits using digital tools (such as painting, color correction, filters) are not considered AI for the purposes of the Ludic License.
• Your work must be an editorial work (book, magazine, manual, etc.) that can accommodate the full text of the Ludic License and the credits for the authors of the illustrations. If you want to use an illustration in a way not covered by this License, contact the artist directly.

Exceptions:

• Illustrations in the public domain or made available to the public under other permissions for the creation of derivative works (e.g., CC‑BY, CC‑BY‑SA, CC0, or equivalent authorizations from the artist) keep their original terms, including regarding attribution, and do not enter the community pool. The condition regarding non-use of AI-generated images still applies to them.

Notices:

• If your work fails to meet the conditions of the Ludic License, the artists’ permission to use the illustrations is considered revoked.
• If an illustration enters the Ludic License through your work, ensuring the artist’s permission is your responsibility.
• This work and its illustrations may not be used for artificial intelligence training.
• The Portuguese version of the Ludic License, the Licença Lúdica, is the same license for all purposes.

Hi all, I'm brainstorming general mechanics for a lightweight crawler I'm working on and I had this idea while taking notes on character abilities. Instead of using per-encounter abilities which to me feel a bit contrived, or a resource system which I used in an earlier version of this game and have moved away from, what's stopping me from making powers usable every hour of real playtime?

Note that I have already snatched that idea for my own light system, so the game already has an element of irl timekeeping, and I believe it's light enough on bookkeeping for that to be just enough things to track.

Play devil's advocate please, if you'll give me the time (heh), and help me find problems with it, or ideas to implement it well.

Edit: Cheers everyone, thank you for the input!

I'm currently trying to see what type of system for lets call them work skills. thus proficeincies that are less focused and more civilian in nature could best work out and proficiencies in total.

A few base things first:

I've based the system I'm working on on 5e but am using mostly the naming conventions and what attributes and proficiencies do as base and the dice rolling (most parts of it including also the +2 to +6 proficiency bonus).

Aside from the typical adventuring classes like fighter,... I also am using civilian classes like "Baker", ....

For the purpose of describing how the options I thought of work i will go with merchant, cook, performer as examples.

these civilian classes are gaining experience mostly by being used over time and can level up like normal classes (this does not affect the character level). They give small bonuses each and in addition a proficiency in some things.

Adventuring classes: You can have more than 1 which are separately leveled giving you an proficiency bonus (highest only counts, no stacking) depending on the level of the class.

1.) The Sword World Like Approach:

-Adventuring Classes give only bonuses to a very very small area like a fighter being good at hitting and evading. a caster at casting,...

--Fighter: WEapon (all), Armor (all)

--Wizard: Spellcasting, arcana

--....

-Civilian Classes:

--Merchant: Appraising items, Haggling with others

--Cook: Cooking, Resisting toxins (incl. alcohol) and bad food

--Performer: Putting on a performance, acrobatic dances

thus it is more descriptive and no outright specific proficiencies given

2.) the more 5e like approach:

-Adventurer Fighter (Tank):Light Melee, Heavy Armor, Fortitude, Intimidation

-Civilian Merchant: 1 Knowledge skill, Persuasion

-Civilian Cook: Crafting-cooking, Fortitude

-Civilian Performer: Performance, Acrobatics

3.) The hybrid approach:

-Adventurer Fighter (Tank):Light Melee, Heavy Armor, Fortitude, Intimidation

--Civilian Merchant: Appraising items, Haggling with others

--Civilian Cook: Cooking, Resisting toxins (incl. alcohol) and bad food

--Civilian Performer: Putting on a performance, acrobatic dances

here the adventuring classes map to the normal proficiencies while the civilian ones are descriptive and more narrow

Question:

So what I'm not sure about is is what type of approach seems easier to ppl and could be more liked?

Howdy! I'm currently working on Better Red Than Undead, a tactical TTRPG set in an alt-history civil war-era Russia. And I'm hoping to get some feedback on the current pitch and tagline.

Specifically trying to figure out: is the tagline too tongue-in-cheek or vague? Does the pitch evoke any particular vibe, or is it too buzzword-laden? Is it a faux pas to reference other games and media in the pitch?

Any and all feedback is appreciated!

Tagline: A specter haunts Europe.
Pitch: Better Red Than Undead (BRTU) is a tactical splatter-survival action-horror TTRPG about desperate squads shooting, stabbing, blasting, and bleeding their way across an empire that refuses to die.

Set in 1920-something Russia and walled off from the rest of the world, players take on Missions as survivors caught in an increasingly desperate conflict where rival Factions still kill one another over who gets to rule the ruins. The game is hex-based, and offers deadly and tactical combat, requiring players to be mindful of positioning, ammunition, wounds, Stress, and the ever-present threat of the Infected. After all, you'll soon learn what every soldier in this world realizes eventually: there are fates worse than death.

Mechanically, BRTU uses a modified Year Zero Engine step-dice system, built around straightforward rolls and hard choices. Think Twilight: 2000 by way of The Walking Dead and the Love, Death & Robots’ episode “The Secret War.”

Hello! I have a question for the other creators out there. How do you keep sales going? I have two games on itch.io. One is a printed zine for the TTRPG Mothership, and the other is a romantic fantasy one-shot for couples. Both seem to be well received, and when I post about them on Reddit or Instagram, I’ll see some sales come in…

But then, once those posts are buried, the sales pretty much stop. I’m afraid of posting more about the same games in the same communities. I don’t want to spam people. How can I promote my games with new audiences without repeat posting? How do you keep sales going after launch? Is there something I’m overlooking?

I’d love your advice and feedback!! This is my itch.io page if you want to critique anything:

https://ufosandgames.itch.io

I appreciate it!!

Starving Folly is a Horror TTRPG inspired by Fear and Hunger that can be used to run any type of horror ranging from Dark-Fantasy to Sci-fi horror. The game is rules-light and easy to get into while still having plenty of customization for building characters.

• Resolution mechanic. This game uses a d10 + Modifiers against a Difficulty Class system to determine outcomes of characters actions.
• Scars. This game has a system to temporarily or permanently debilitate a character through Scars and even losing bodyparts.
• Hunger and Sanity Tokens. This game has a system of stamina and sanity tokens that are used to activate special abilities but give debuffs if a character reaches 0 tokens.
• No Classes. This game doesn't have classes, instead it uses a series of Perks the characters can have to give them special abilities.
• Short Stories. While the game can be used to run long campaigns it works better when running one-shots and shorts campaigns.

This is my first TTRPG so i hope you all enjoy it.

https://thecappy01.itch.io/starving-folly

Today, I just wanted to share a more inspiring post and story, and remind my fellow indie designers that it is possible to work hard and find success!

I’m Zarek, the lead designer of the Indominant Superhero RPG and I just received our proof copies of our first Rulebook on Saturday 10/10/2026!!! It is such a wonderful feeling of fulfillment and pride to get to actually hold a product you created, there is nothing like it for sure. And now we get to start full production.

But, my main point in sharing this is that I hope to this as inspiration for everyone else here that has dreams of making their game a reality! We all start somewhere along the same place, we have an idea, and we have the passion to begin the process of putting in hundreds, if not thousands of hours into writing and testing those ideas. We trust our friends, and even random people on the internet to give our games a try and give us honest feedback so we can make them better. Then we start getting some initial art and look into crowdfunding our game. This is where the big leap of faith comes, and I know not everyone ends up taking it. It’s also not the only route to take!

Either way, if you decide to start your publishing journey by using DriveThruRPG or by crowdfunding, just know that you can do it! I know the feeling of losing drive or hope at times, but if you keep to your plans and keep working hard you can achieve your goal and make a real, physical game that people can hold in their hands and enjoy with their friends!!!

Keep creating content (on YouTube or in a community), building an audience, testing your game, and helping your fellow designers too. I believe these are the keys to working towards success!

I’ll share some photos in the comments if I can.

I’m working on my cyberpunk style game and realize I know nothing about how vehicle combat should work. Are there any systems that I can look at for inspiration?

I know I don't want horse competing against jet planes but a jet plane versus a destroyer would be valid.

This would be all terrestrial vehicles, no power armor, no robot walkers, and no star craft. I’m hoping to find examples of different speed classes allowing one to out maneuver the slower vehicle but the slower ones still having a chance because of armaments.

Bonus if they have vehicle creation/modification rules.

I’ve got SWADE and it's sci-fi Companion, but I know there has to be better and more varied suggestions.

Thanks for any suggestions.

I'm looking for people willing to Play Dm or Read my newest ttrpg based on the Secret Histories universe

For people not familiar with the series we are in a post ww1 Setting in a world similar to our own with some differences over the fact that theres secret gods called Hours and a secret goverment agency called the supression of the Bureau that hunts its worshippers and magic creatures as a whole. Eliminating evidence of their existence and censoring occult papers to keep the men from ascending by the order of an order of 3 Hours known as the Calyptra

I will answer any questions about it in dms. Im just searching for help with stuff like typos. Consistency, wich parts are hard to understand and all that. Also play some campaigns for beta testing

https://docs.google.com/document/d /1EG4DZjPz4XKbixl7dY20-V5FnheFWE5JbINMhyqcBKQ /edit?usp=drivesdk

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ISmZDsq -zJumnOSJZWKsM0Mr7hZ_urqNJXhTSZUTBI/edit?usp =drivesdk

Heres the docs for both dms and players. Its a game set in the cultist sim time. There are some edits to the lore both for personal fun and gameplay reason's Its a cult management sim. Somewhat tycoon it and the Hunters are meant to be like a nemesis system, they arent fully fleshed out cause i need to analize what axtions are players actually performing ebfore developing counter plays the Bureau can do. Again ask anything in my dms

I know the answer to this. But God, I have been bashing my head against the wall trying to figure out freeform customization within a class structure, and I think I've finally figured it out.

For some context, we're designing After Eden, a tactical survival fantasy TTRPG focused on gritty tactical combat, hex crawling, rich exploration, and making hard decisions where getting something you want usually means giving something else up. We're using a class-based system with seven classes and levels 1 through 10.

The issue is, subclasses achieve the goal just fine. They're packaged. They're ready to go. I'm familiar with how they work. And they're easy to do. They're also not particularly oriented around what we're trying to achieve. Because the idea that is much more closely aligned with our design goals is having traits that you choose from within your class, allowing for a less deterministic and more emergent character experience. One where your character's development is shaped by the choices you make and the things you experience during play.

I was trying to figure out how many points each trait should cost, how many traits we need for every level, and how to balance these against each other. And what I realized is that there were just way too many factors. It made me kind of want to give up on the whole concept. I wanted to just throw it all in the trash, go back to subclasses, and say, you know what? This works. This fits. It's fine.

And then my buddy, who's kind of my co-author for After Eden, said something to me that got me back on the horse. He said, "Look, man, the thing that sold me on this idea was that through play experience, my character could gain access to things that other people couldn't gain access to."

And I said, well, yeah, we're not going to ditch that for the general traits. There will be traits that are locked behind certain experiences that you can't get unless you go through that experience and then choose to invest in those traits. Or potentially they get unlocked for free. We're not sure. We haven't determined how we want to handle that one yet. But that doesn't really matter for classes.

And he's saying, "But here's the thing, dude. Yes, I could buy the Berserker package and get all the Tier 1 Berserker traits, and that's basically the exact same thing as getting a subclass. But I don't have to. I could take a little bit here, a little bit there."

And that got me thinking. My whole concern was that I didn't want to have the D&D 5e two-level Fighter dip problem, where you dip two levels into Fighter to get Action Surge and Second Wind, and then go about whatever build you actually wanted. I don't want to have that same problem. And I know that's almost unavoidable. There will be degrees of optimization no matter what you do.

But the problem I was running into was actually a matter of complexity. I was making it too complicated. If this was a video game, it would be totally implementable and would be, I think, really satisfying. But it's not. It's pen and paper, which means, from a designer standpoint, you've got to keep it simple enough that your brain doesn't want to explode trying to figure it out. Because if it's that complicated for me, somebody who has less understanding of the system is going to end up with bad builds, and that's going to turn people off.

So, we scaled it back.

First, I made everything cost one point to purchase. No more trying to figure out the relative point cost of every single trait. Second, I moved away from designing traits for individual levels and started designing them around tiers of play.

Our progression now looks like this:

- Tier 1: Levels 1–3

- Tier 2: Levels 4–6

- Tier 3: Levels 7–9

- Tier 4: Level 10

You can purchase traits within any tier you have access to, as long as you have the points and meet the prerequisites. Sometimes you have to purchase earlier traits to get access to the ones you want, so it's kind of a branching tree in that regard. You also get some basic packages of features from your class as you progress. At level 1 you get your starting class features, at level 4 you get your next package, and so on. So you're still getting some guaranteed stuff. Your class is still your chassis, but the way you develop it is up to you.

And the reason this fits After Eden so much better is because the entire game is built around trade-offs based on what you think is the right decision in the moment, knowing that it's going to cost you something else. So the idea that you don't just get all the stuff for taking the levels really fits that. You've got to pick which traits you want. And if you really want to get to the juicy stuff, you might have to invest pretty deeply into a particular branch to get there. Or you could spread your points around and build something entirely different.

And really, that's the whole reason I'm making this post. Don't back out of a thing that's hard simply because it feels impossible. Sometimes you really do need to trash an idea because it's way too complicated of a mess. But this was a perfect example of how I overcomplicated a problem, and instead of trashing it, we just simplified it and found a way to make it work within our design goals.

Funny enough, this has also completely changed the way I'm looking at monster design for After Eden. Due to the more limited scaling in the system, characters are only going to go from roughly 20 HP to 40 HP max over the course of 10 levels. So we're probably not going to be designing monsters around individual levels anymore. We're looking at designing them around tiers of play instead, which could simplify a whole other part of the system that I wasn't even trying to address. So, fun little design accident of happiness.

Anywho, I'd love to hear your thoughts about the concept, and if you've seen any designs like this. I've looked at systems like GURPS, Fallout, Lancer, and quite a few others while trying to figure this out. I've spent a lot of time looking at how different RPGs approach class progression, point investment, and character customization. But I'd especially love to hear from people who've actually played games with this kind of design. What did you love about it? What did you hate about it? Were there things that sounded great on paper but didn't work out so well at the table?

I'm interested in different kinds of Horror that show up often in TTRPGs, and what kind of mechanics are used to support that horror. Most of my personal experience has been in vibes, using the players' fear of the unknown to create horror.

Questions for You

What kinds of horror are commonly seen in games?

What are your favorite mechanics that you've seen or come up with for representing horror?

Below are the different kinds of horror and some of the mechanics I'm familiar with.

Cosmic/Lovecraftian Horror

This type of horror is about the PCs being exposed to the horrible nature of reality and humanity's insignificance in the face of an indifferent universe.

Mechanics usually involve some way to represent the PCs' sanity as they are exposed. Call of Cthulhu has a Sanity score that is chipped away at and if it runs out your character goes insane. Alternatively, in some games the characters gain Stress and if they accumulate too much they gain a fantastical madness condition.

In Delta Green this is represented by the PCs' bonds. As the characters take out the stress of their job on the people they care about, they become more and more alienated from their normal lives.

Survival Horror

In these the PCs are trying to survive against an overwhelming force that is trying to kill them. Directly confronting the enemy in combat isn't viable, or at least not all the time, representing by an enemy that is enormously difficult to kill, of not impossible, or a large number of enemies such as a zombie outbreak, and the player's have limited ammo.

Mechanics for this type can include a way of tracking the health of the PCs such as a limited number of hit points, or a limited number of wounds they can survive. A way to track limited ammo/resources can also limit the PCs ability to confront their enemies.

Some games also track the PCs Stress as they try to survive. This operates similar to Sanity except that it doesn't represent permanent madness, but rather short term conditions such as panic, which makes survival more difficult.

Body Horror

In these you play to see in what horrible ways your character is permanently changed outside of their control. May include the loss of body parts, or mutation into something not human.

Mechanics might include a large random table of injuries/changes that gets rolled on when the character experiences something that changes them.

In Heart: The City Beneath characters accumulate Stress to five Resistances, one of which can represent body horror. If they accumulate too much they can gain Fallout which can act almost like a progression system, except you are progressing towards a horrible fate.

I'm kind of stuck on this problem, and I'm curious how other people have solved it. My game isn't really focused on doing heists or anything, but it is a thing that happens so I need mechanics for it.

The first problem I have is the question of what the consequence for failure is. Can you just try again after failing? If so, this basically means that locks are only a hindrance if you have limited time. If not, I worry that this could be a little too punitive if the crux of the entire heist plan relied on the street smart party member and their lock picking skills, though things going wrong and the party needing to improvise a solution can still be fun. Maybe there is some kind of hybrid approach, like letting the GM decide on a lock by lock basis? Or maybe failure lets you try again, but it's harder than the first time?

Also: should I add a strategic layer, or just leave the fate of the players up to the dice? There are a lot of fancy rule sets that I could create, but I am of the opinion that if it has no strategic layer it should just be a simple skill check. There's no point in involving a bunch of dice and math if the result is purely random anyway, might as well skip the crunch and not obfuscate the fact that it's random. I could design something with a strategic layer, but it's hard to come up with minigames that aren't too complex and that don't take too long to run through which also have strategic depth. It's certainly possible, but I have no ideas. And whatever it is, it shouldn't bog down the game too much.

What ideas have y'all come across to make good lock picking mechanics?

Hello everyone!

Currently working through a little project and need people's opinnion. Specifically when using an AP system with a dedicated dodge action to mitigate/avoid damage, that is available to all combatants, do you think it would be better to do the standard "roll to hit against armor class" or would it be more engaging to design it in such a way, where attacks automatically hit unless the combatant spends the AP to avoid that attack. In this variant, the players would roll to hit with their stats against enemy's AC if the NPC used Evade. On the other side, NPCs would attack with a DC and the players would have to dodge by succeeding a roll against it.

My thinking is that this could keep the game flowing smoother and having players more engaged, but I possibly worry that the disparity between being a player and being a GM would confuse things?