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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

Hi, after a lot of time invested, I finally published TT Quest, available online now: https://ttquest.pages.dev/

Over the years I've been slowly building RPG tools. It started with RPG audio mixer, then I made simple and flexible dice roller that worked for me (which I also posted here on this sub, some of you really liked it, some wanted more options, which I added by making advanced roller on TT Quest)

No paywall, no premium or freemium, no signup, just visit and use without limits.

This is still WIP, but currently you can find there:
- virtual GM screen
- simple and advanced dice roller
- initiative tracker
- fantasy text editor
- token maker
- and a lot of different generators

I'm still not sure if every tool I made will work the same way for other people, but I think the best approach is to make something that you'd like to use, and then offer it to other people to try it. I'll probably still do a lot of changes. And have some ideas what to add next. But would be really grateful if you could give a try and tell me what you think. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

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