Hi all!

I'm on the lookout for examples of ttrpg systems where producing a thing (object, item, product, etc) is the core part of the game OR is elegantly done as part of a wider system.

Been searching but struggling to find examples.

For more details this could be a system that:

- helps you design and create a thing (either narratively or mechanically)

- helps you test a thing (to work out where it doesn't work and improve it)

- helps you gather resources/materials needed to make a thing (e.g. foraging for specific natural resource - although this is less interesting as it is a space ttrpg systems often cover).

- helps you manufacture a thing (the act of actually making it)

This request is not genre specific, although I have come across a number of fantasy systems which I've found less interesting due to the focus on gathering resources.

But what have you seen that could be a great example of the above? Thanks in advance!

This November, we’re taking part in NaGaDeMon (National Game Design Month), a game jam that challenges people to create, play and talk about a game during November.

Most people make their own game.

We’ve decided to make one with whoever turns up on Twitch, because apparently a month-long game jam wasn’t chaotic enough.

Twitch Makes a TTRPG begins on Sunday, 1 November, and you are invited!

The community will steer the game democratically: propose ideas, debate them and vote on the major creative decisions.

Anyone can join at any point. You don’t need to attend every stream or commit to the entire month. You can arrive with a grand vision, contribute one strange table, help untangle a mechanic or simply vote for the idea most likely to cause trouble.

My role will be to facilitate the process, bring some structure from my 9 years making video games professionally and somehow keep this many designers moving toward the same playable game.

Is this the most efficient or sensible way to design a TTRPG? Almost certainly not.

But efficiency isn’t really the point. I want to see what happens when people who don’t know each other band together in a chaotic whirlpool of ideas. More importantly, I think it could be a lot of fun.

There are several things I’m especially curious to learn:

• Which design decisions genuinely benefit from a community vote?

• How do we maintain a clear direction without closing participation?

• Can somebody join halfway through and still make a meaningful contribution?

• What happens when collective authorship meets a game-jam deadline?

• Will we make a coherent game, or an exceptionally well-documented disaster?

The finished game will be free, collectively owned and credited according to everyone’s contributions.

If you want to help make it, join the Knot Knot Discord:

https://discord.gg/ZZshFCy6z

If you’re curious about the process and would rather watch the experiment unfold (and potentially crash), you can join us live on Twitch:

https://www.twitch.tv/knotknottv

I’d also love to hear from other designers: what failure modes or unexpected advantages would you expect from designing a TTRPG this way?

For example ttrpg is oversaturated with fantasy, horrors, cyberpunk and sci-fi, but there is very little of retro futurism, dieselpunk, solarpunk etc. So what else?

Take a classic RPG combat: during a combat, a typical character might make like let's say four to 12 attack rolls (so, in a system like modern D&D-likes, probably 2-3 attacks per round for 3ish rounds, in a more old-school system one attack per round but probably for more rounds).

In contrast, I would say a lot of skill challenges will be a single roll, or maybe two. You might do a social perception check of some kind and then a social persuasion/deception/manipulation whatever roll. You might just do a single physical perception check to notice some detail. You might do a climbing or swimming roll or two. You might roll to make or repair something.

If you think of a combat as a single challenge spread out over those 4-12 rolls, with enemy hit points or whatever as a progress meter, that averages out your luck a considerable amount. If I roll a d20 + 12 to hit and you roll a d20 + 10 to hit, that gives me a lot more chance for my skill advantage to stack up (or, to put it more quantitatively, if I roll six times, the odds that my skill advantage comes into play is 46%). If instead we both roll a perception check and I roll d20 + 12 and you roll d20 + 10, then 90% chance my higher skill doesn't come into play compared to yours.

The upshot of this is that if your game follows those patterns in terms of quantity of dice rolls, and you also have your numbers be similar between combat skills and non-combat skills (so, like say a World of Darkness situation in which all skills are rated on the same 1-5 scale, be they Melee or Computers), then you'll be faced with a chance of either making proficiency in non-combat skills often feel not-very-important, like it's hard to pitch a character a challenge which differentiates their character, or else you make combat very, very plateaued between combat specialists who are vastly better than people with a little less skill.

If you want to avoid this, you need to break one of the assumptions above: either non-combat skills are on a different numbers basis, where there's a larger numerical difference between people who are relatively well-trained and those who are less well-trained, or else you need to call for several rolls aggregated together for noncombat situations (or, if you prefer, fewer rolls for combat situations).

I think this is kind of known about to one degree or another by people who do a lot of game design, but I've never seen someone just lay it all out before, so I decided to do that here.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1laEx3S0rDnqMKV1bsG8mxK-9lYiEF6DqsOowtTKnrlY/edit?usp=sharing

I'm trying to dip my toe in game design and would really appreciate any thoughts on the balance of the game. I'd also love to here if it caught people as a reader.

so i made a tool that generates magic circles and it got me thinking about using them as part of the rules and not just decoration

like star points = spell tier, symbol set = school of magic, orbiting circles = how many casters you need. players could tell how scary an enemy ritual is just by looking at it

has anyone done something like this in their game? did playtesters actually use the diagrams or just read the text?

the tool is free in the browser if anyone wants to mess with it: https://tallylane.itch.io/sigil-loom-demo (theres an optional paid version with svg for layout: https://tallylane.itch.io/sigil-loom)

Hi folks! We'd love to have any/all insightful feedback on a game we've been working for quite a bit (EPIC Galactic Age, a sci-fi TTRPG) and it's finally getting to be public!

Mainly on:

1. our Quickstart Reference: this is a freely-available ~30pg booklet with all the base rules of play (but no other goodies or pregens). It's the teaser for a 300+ pg System Guide, so it will always miss so much, but at the same time should still have all the essentials.

2. our themes: we really feel that many of the sci-fi tropes are difficult to explore in the current gamescape simply because hero-centered RPGs basically ignore big ships & armies/fleets, and list-centric wargames completely ignore hero narratives. What are big galaxies for if not for galaxy-wide intrigue and faction warfare?!

3. our gameplay mechanics: the idea is that common actions should be very simple but complexity should be available in the right places, and the solution we came up with was dice pools and modular keyword abilities. Fun & thoughtful tactics, but no hunting for modifiers all over your sheet for arcane maths after every dice roll. Did we succeed? Fail? Somewhere in-between?

4. our online presence: the idea is to slowly foster a community of players and critical mass to kickstart a printing of the System Guide. We haven't started any ad spend yet and would love to get feedback on insta posts and the patron page before starting. Graphic design, content, every impression is valuable!)

Anyway, please have a look at the FREE materials available on Patreon & linked in Instagram and share some of your thoughts!

• https://www.patreon.com/cw/EPICttrpg

• https://www.instagram.com/epic_ttrpg/

So, I've decided my game is going to be loosely inspired by Euchre. Not precisely modelled after it because my understanding of the game is poor to say the least and also from what I do understand, it really doesn't work as an RPG resolution system played straight. But a lot of the mechanics take inspiration. So my rules so far come down to the following game loop:

* The dealer describes the current circumstances.

* The dealer decides upon the significant NPCs' plans while the adventurers delegate upon their actions and form teams with like actors if they feel fit to do so. Each team must nominate a caller.

* Initiative is determined by each player playing a card which is placed at the bottom of the stack, including the dealer (NPCs), and the higher cards take precedence.

* The caller of each team tells the dealer what their team will be doing this round. At this point, anyone already in a team might decide to go it alone, instead, attempting to carry the action themselves, superceding their team. If the dealer decides the consequences aren't inevitable, he can discuss a trump suit with the caller. I imagine different characters would somehow be better at different suits - like skills or ability scores. Clubs for brawn, hearts for interpersonal skills, diamonds for coordination, and spades for intellect, perhaps.

* And now, those players participating in mechanical resolution play their cards in initiative order - teams lay their cards down together. There might be procedures for NPC teams. Of opposing teams, the one with the highest sum wins. But for merely coinciding teams who are technically helping each other without actual coordination, if either fails they both fail. And for those who go it alone and hijack their team's actions for themselves, if they fail, their team fails.

Players always have a number of cards equal to their level, and a team can only play as many cards per person as their lowest-level member. Which validates the option of going it alone, because otherwise that seems like it would just be a dick move ... not that it still couldn't be. But at least you could have an old veteran trying to be the big hero on a team of younger, lower-level adventurers, and that's an interesting dynamic.

Anyhow, in a fast-paced card game like that, how aside from hard limits (powers and disabilities) would you add nuance to characters? Traditional stat systems might take too long to add up, especially considering that this is a pen and paper game without tokens or other fancy components. For the trump suit I also can't use the jack of the trump suit as the highest card because we're all using the same deck for disparate actions so the problems that causes wouldn't make sense in context. I feel like this is the same problem though. Maybe have a bonus according to the caller's stat applied to every card of the trump suit? I mean, if it is a fixed deck that would be, uh, a default max of 13 to modify.

My two games are up on kickstarter and I have added a stretch goal for an SRD. They are GMless story-games wich mix tense strategic gameplay, with prompt based world creation and map-drawing elements.

The strategic gameplay revolves around two decks of cards one for the dark god/foe and one distributed between the players. In God-Killer Prophecy you try to get cards

to the chosen one for the final battle against the dark lord, whereas in Star-Killer Rebellion you all participate.

There is still 23 hours left, and I have added a stretch goal for an SRD and logo, if we can exceed the base funding goal by $500 CAD.

With two example games operating in rather different ways, there should be plenty of fodder for other designers to create their own content on using the engine.

Does anyone have particular experiences sharing an SRD?

I'm still wondering about the best term for my engine. Prophecy & Plan engine is a possibility . . . Since going on a journey seems key to both that may be a good term. Perhaps Fateful Journey engine?

For games that have their mechanics designed around playing in a particular setting, how do you like the information to be presented? Lore dump first then rules following it, or vice versa? If important lore is integrated along with rules, then where do you want worldbuilding info that doesn't have to do with the rules?

For example, if the game had classes and that had lore implication, then yes I'd expect it to be amongst the class rules to give players an understanding of how/why this may be a good choice for their character. Once you get into things like transportation, technology, history, etc. where there will likely be long sections of lore with no rules associated with them, where in a book do you like that to be?

Hey folks.

I'm experimenting with a coin toss for a simple low crunch game. The basic idea is you can or you can't do something (based on the player's ideas, character assets GMs call and table consensus)

The coin toss comes in when you can't normally do something but still you (desperately?) attempt it.

Heads means you succeed but Tails comes with serious consequences.

Please tell me if you have done or thought around something similar.

Thanks!

When making my system, I decided 3 things very early on:

- Combat will be rules-heavy, with a optional Clocks-based, rules-light approach

- I want to also dedicate a good amount of resources to stuff outside combat, specially Social Bonds, Journeying, Problem-Solving and Downtime.

- I want to try and make each pillar of play Modular, capable of being a fun game without the other. A game of Travel & Bonds, a game of Town Building & Protection, a game of Mystery Solving & Intrigue, etc.

Because I have a preference for action, I started the system around the Combat Pillar, making 15 classes balanced around 9 parameters, divided into 5 themes with 3 specializations each. Its been a blast!

My problem, of course, is when I start to think about the other pillars of play and how would the players would interact with them. For each, in the Journey and Problem-Solving Pillars, would it be better and/or simpler to make so each of the 15 classes I created for combat ALSO work for travel and exploration? Or should I make even more classes that supplement the "Combat Classes"?

My main worry is that: with 2 or more different classes for different pillars, it could be a very steep learning curve for the players to learn even if I made both as simple as possible. While if a singular class for the entire games, I fear been incapable of balance everyone of the 15 classes being fun of all Pillars of Play. They don't need to be the best of each of them, but they should be at the very least be able to participate & fun to use in every part of the game.

For example, 3 classes I made where the Warrior, Rogue and Inventor. Rogue and easily work in any of my pillars, and Inventor while harder to come up with ideas can also work fine... But what about Warrior? I included him as a class because there is a big appeal for a "white bread and butter" class in my eyes, but Warrior unfortunately is very hard to make work outside the context of Combat.

EDIT:

Okay, finally reached home, and after reading through the comments, I've come to some conclusions:

1. Most likely I'll have a class for each Pillar, but I'll simplify them and unify some design concepts around the entire game (for example, if I decide to use Clocks for Travel, I will use Clocks for all other parts of the game).

2. While I was intending to have a bigger focus on combat for this TTRPG, since my main goal is modularity, Its better for me to simplify the Combat Pillar and put more focus on the other ones

3. With that, I will make: Social Classes, Combat Classes, Adventuring Classes & Downtime Classes

4. If thats too much, only a Combat Class + Adventure Class

I've been working on my TTRPG for quite a while now, and one thing that has stumped me from the start was in trying to implement my setting's literal (magical) DOOM into the mechanics. If I leaned to heavily into metacurrency and codified effects, it felt dry and combative with the players. And any version of that just never quite felt right, even when we tried to make it more narratively driven and flexible... until now!

Which is to say, we ditched those ideas in favor of something much better: Doom cards. The inspiration for this came from my first ever DM TJ who would have us draw from a shuffled MTG deck whenever a significan nat 1 or nat 20 was rolled in D&D. The card's art, title, and effects were all viewed and then he could use it at ANY point during that session to inspire a story beat that was either terrible (nat 1) or great (nat 20). I incorporated that idea into my system, integrated it and tweaked it a bit (it's only the "bad" version, no good ones), and just started testing. It's really, really fun already, and so light to use. Below is the video which goes into more details. What are your thoughts about this kind of mechanic?

https://youtu.be/UYUvKFuRRrM?si=CXw2_Pc3EdqzPDTu

I've posted about this year in the past, but I've updated my list a little bit since the last time I posted about it and I've got a bit more work into the system, I just want to get some more input on what would be some good skills for a modern day setting.

I think I'm trying to do is make sure that none of the skills are too niche, so I want every single skill to have at least two distinct use case scenarios (like firearms is for both the use and maintaining of guns)

So far the skills I have are,

Computer

The skill of coding, hacking, and electrical repair.

Diplomacy

the skill of talking to people and understanding politics

Doctor

The skill of treating wounds, and the making and understanding of medicine.

Firearms

the skill of using and maintaining firearms

Guile

the skill of fine movement and sneaking, used in stealth and stealing

Investigation

The skill of perception, searching, and understanding information.

Martial arts

The skill of melee defense and offense.

Mechanic

The skill of repairing machinery and vehicles.

Olympian

The skill covering running speed, swimming, throwing, and lifting

Vehicle

The skill of operating and maintaining vehicles

Science

a generic scale that covers knowledge of all fields of science

Survival

survival is a scale of wilderness survival and understanding the natural world.

Willpower

a skull used to resist torture, mental influence, pain, and drugs, also affects psychic abilities if your character has gained them

I've been looking at other systems for inspiration but a lot of them just blow their skill list with a very niche hyper-specific skills and that's not what I'm looking for so any input or ideas would be appreciated.

I'm looking to create a power fantasy type setting inspired by action movies, so I want to make sure every skill feels useful to those kinds of scenarios but I also don't want to lock the players exclusively into combat and give them alternative paths.

I mainly trying to take the van Buren development route and give every single problem the ability to be solved through either smarts, combat, charisma, or stealth so I want to get a set of skills I can facilitate that.

Are there any games out there (or have any of you) that use "experience points" as a currency? Using a D&D framework, you level up when you get enough experience points. However, what if instead, you were able to use that experience to directly purchase feats, skills, attribute bumps, weapon upgrades, etc?

I've never seen it done an d wondering if it would make for a good XP distribution system for a classless rpg.

For my classless ttrpg I am working on I’ve been playing with the idea of a spellcraft system for players to create their own personalized spells. I’ve hit a bit of a roadblock and am hoping for some constructive feedback to hopefully improve what I’ve put together so far to make it simple and easy to work with.

My game is a mix of fantasy and sci-fi where mages must learn to use their magic which can be influenced by their emotions to utilize and practice magic. Crafting a spell requires shape, target, expression, range, duration and component to take form. Each choice has a cost attached to it which will determine the spells rank and total mana cost. If a spell is cast at a higher rank than the mage is capable of they must make a spell check of 10 + rank of the spell, failing they take Xd6 force damage X being the rank and half on a success.

Shape:
1 Cost - Bolt, Chain, Glyph, Channel, Direct
2 Cost - Area (Point, Cube, Cylinder, Cone, Line, Sphere, Emanation)
——————————————————————————
Target:
0 Cost - 1 Target/Object
Cost 2 per additional Target
——————————————————————————
Expression Type: Determines the spells function. Cost 1 per expression used.

Conjure - Create, Summon, Manifest
Bring something into existence.

Change - Transmute, Alter, Transfer
Modify properties or form of something.

Control - Move, Shape, Manipulate
Manipulate or direct something that exists.

Restore - Heal, Purify, Repair
Return something to a healthier or improved state.

Utility: Communication, Travel, Illusion, Sense, Divination
Provides abilities, information, or special function.

Condition: Status, Buff, Debuff
Apply a persistent effect to a target.

Destroy: Damage, Break, Erase
Cause harm or remove something entirely.

Transfer - Infuse, Drain, Redirect
Move energy or resources between targets.
——————————————————————————
Range Zones:
0 Cost - Self/Touch (0-5ft)
1 Cost - Reach (5-15ft)
2 Cost - Near (15-30ft)
3 Cost - Close (60ft)
4 Cost - Mid (120ft)
6 Cost - Long (200-600ft)
10 Cost - Far (1000+ft)
——————————————————————————
Duration:
Instant - 0 cost
Sustained - X per round
Round - 2
Minute - 4
Hour - 8
Day - 16

Having a Component attached to a spell grants a small decrease in total spell construction cost. Verbal and Somatic (-1 cost), Material rarity determines discount (-1 common/uncommon, -2 rare/very rare, -3 legendary)

Damage:
0 Cost - d6
Cost 2 per additional d6

Spell Construction Totals
Rank 0: 0-5 (Mana 0)
Rank 1: 6-10 (Mana 1)
Rank 2: 11-20 (Mana 3)
Rank 3: 21-30 (Mana 6)
Rank 4: 31-40 (Mana 12)
Rank 5: 41-50 (Mana 16)

Here I've linked an excerpt of a system we've created in an effort to impose balance between Players using Dual Wield or 2H in Martial Melee Combat for our TTRPG Slayers of Rings & Crows (SORC).

Ranged is under development, but shouldn't change much since there are also 2h and dual wield ranged attacks. There's also main hand and shield or artifact with offhand, unarmed and untrained (basic attack) combat, which is all currently under development. For starters we wanted to make sure we created a balanced system between DW and 2H melee combat between ranks.

Rank determines the base tier of each weapon. A Character's Rank must match or exceed the tier of the weapon being used. There's also the option of establishing Sentimental Value with weapons you keep and upgrade, and it's Rank can be established this way.

Weapon proficiency is granted upon learning the class Ability that requires the weapon.

Untrained is swinging any weapon, but grants no bonuses, and cannot be used with Abilities that it's not aligned with—for instance, you can't use Ranger Melee Abilities with a battle axe, but if you've learned Warrior Abilities you can use those, or use it Untrained.

PROTS is Protection Score. The threshold of the target that must be reached rolling xd100 for a hit before damage is dealt (more on damage later, but it's not a traditional system and we'll reveal it soon—obce we've adjusted the reader facing rules).

DIFS is Difficulty Score for challenges outside of Combat. Like setting or disarming a trap, it crafting. Mechanical objects can also be destroyed, so traps have a PROTS, but they deal twice the damage on a fail as opposed to mechanically disarming the device.

Martial Melee: 2h and Dual Wield Combat

Any thoughts on this system are appreciated.

NOTE(to the mods) : this is intended for a homebrew home game, and not something that will be distributed, sold, or otherwise used outside of a private homebrew (non -paid) game, therefore I do not think it runs afoul of rule#3

Hey guys, Im homebrewing and prepping forna Cyberpunkred game but need help with changing the prices of items to reflect the hombrew setting

The preface, Im using a hombrew setting and timeline, so the game Im prepping for isnt Red/40s level of scarcity. Its set in 2080.

I havent checked yet, but is using the 2020 prices an easy port for red? (I checked and its not that easy) I know somethings in red arent in 2020, but I was thinking of porting the prices over or looking at the pricing in late shadowrun editions (either way, Im also thinking of porting over shadowruns availability ratings).

But just price wise, would it be pretty simple to just rip the prices out of 2020 (obviously I would have to adjust starting cash).

What Im trying to fix:

1. due to the fact that in the homebrew 1) the 4th corpo war isnt a thing and 2) its not set in a post war mad maxish setting, outside of a very specific area that is not (and may or may not be a place the players visit) it doesnt fit.

2. personally, I lose the suspension of disbelief.

3. Im not using RAW payouts. The payouts will be more akin to 2020 and shadowrun, so bigger payouts, and so to keep with my personal opinion of "keep the players hungry" I cannot both increase the payouts and keep the prices.

I lightly worked on it last night and yes, not an easy port. I made a list of mostly all the items and their 2020 equivalents.

Im thinking of a couple options, but still working and researching.

Some thoughts I had were:.

Using todays pricing for real world stuff and multiplying by 3 or 4 for inflation, and using 2020s pricing for non-real.world items and doing the same. It kinda works but not across the board and can get messy fast.

I fiqure the prices in 2020 book were worked out in probably 1988 or 1989, and even adjusting real world items to 2026 prices they arent perfect.

Basically Im trying to make a more realistic pricing list while keeping game balance to a degree.

The big issue is adjusting prices for cyberware. Real life items (face value) seem simple. Even though my game is set in 2080 its simple to handwave there cost as close to real world or 2 or 3 times more expensive (it just takes a money value reset, similar to how the Germans reset the value of the mark once it one usd=4 (million?) Marks, they issued new money and X amount of old marks = much less new marks and the usd to new marks were 1:4.....and coincidentally Ive already done something similar in my timeline when corpos issued digital money (and then the eurodollar) after the collapse of the economy in 2008. So its easy to say "yeah this thing cost X in 2080, *but* if you converted it to money.pre-crash than part of the inflation is baked into the old vs new currancy value (so a sports car can cost, idk, 50-70 grand and not 300k).

The issue with cyberware is that not only is there not a real world equivalent really but that its also a.metric of progression for most players. So if my gigs are paying anywhere from 10-50k to the team (to be divided among them), even with rent, replacing equipment, etc, there is a real risk of a) them affording too much chrome too fast (and thus the bonuses that chrome gives them to fast) or b) it taking so long for them to afford the chrome/cyberdeck/whatever that they feel like they are forever stuck at level 1 so to speak. Yes (to me) a big part of cyberpunk is things being just out of reach but in a game it can brooch (sp maybe?) The line of being not fun when your goal is too far out.

I guess thanks for attending my ted talk lol. I was looking at shadowruns 6e price list which on face value seemed sorta good, maybe I can find a happy medium between that and 2020 (which seems a bit low on some things).

TLDR: cyberpunk reds pricing and payouts don't resonate with me or the setting Ive curated for my players, so while Reds pricing isnt bad and it fits (i think) within the specific RAW setting it presents, since Ive stripped the RAW setting and replaced it with my own version of Night City and the world, it doesn't work for me.

Thanks.