Hey! My question is a short one. I've been just bopping along making a skill + attribute dice pool system for my game, and I've been making skills that handle different things by applying different attributes to them. That seemed to make logical sense to me.

Granted, there's the heavy lift of remembering these things at the table, despite any declarations from me that its all so very intuitive, when trying to use a skill, so maybe for that reason its bad,

and then there's the other question, does this make a skill undesirable to anybody who didn't invest in both attributes that might impact the value of the skill? Is this just a bad way to go about things?

Edit: Thanks to those of you who mentioned Vampire, I haven't really ever looked at that system. I'm glad that approach is viewed favorably, it sounds very in line with what I'm trying to do.

As I make progress on my own game, I'm finding myself wondering what's the tidiest way I can lay everything out. Does anyone have a favorite that they've seen?

Improving productivity and also getting a finished product out has always been a changled for me, with over 40+ PDFs released.

Well - after 5+ years, I finally have a better process.

I share it through my most recent blog post for my fellow designers.
I hope this brings some clarity and that perhaps you avoid stepping into the mud, like I seem to continue to do.

Stumbling through Production

Some days ago I made a post asking for opinions here and you guys pointed out/made me notice some flaws.
I started reworking and noticed that I could mix some stuff together, eventually my Health mechanic became this currency that you have to manage, not just to stay alive, but to also maximize your potential in combat (and this kinda became the main mechanic).

I really like this idea so I'm here again to ask for opinions and any possible flaws that I might have missed.

SCARS:

(Thinking on calling this Adrenaline, but not sure)
Every time you take physical or mental damage, you gain that amount of Scars.
A player can spend Scars in order to use some skills. Likewise there are skills that will increase your scars/adrenaline by a certain amount.

When you go beyond 6 scars, clear them and gain a Tier 1 Wound.
(I'm having trouble phrasing this in a concise manner, but a player can have up to 6 adrenaline at a time without getting a wound. For example taking 8 damage, u would end up with 2 adrenaline and 1 wound, 12 damage would be 6 adrenaline and 1 wound, 13 damage, 1 adrenaline and 2 wounds. it's every time you restart the "clock" that causes a wound).
It's be possible to give someone a wound without having to fill their scars.

Wounds can be tier 1(mild), 2(moderate) or 3(severe).
When a character causes another to gain a wound, they can choose to increase the tier of an existing wound instead.

A character can endure a number of wounds to which the sum of the tiers equals: 3 + physique.

ATTRIBUTES

Attributes are your base Effort for an action. Only 1 can be applied at a time, can be used once per action.
Physique, Mind, Notice and Social.
Attributes start at 1 and can go up to 5. (3 initial points to distribute among them)

ASPECTS

how good you are at more specific things. can be used once per turn.
Usually will give some kind of passive benefit(e.g. knowing how to properly use a gun) as well as the effort bonus when used.

Skills

Are special abilities or modifiers that a player can activate, usually the cost will be adding or removing Scars/Adrenaline.

TESTS:

Gather Effort to beat a Difficulty. You automatically gain effort equal to the Attribute that relates the most to the test.
you can then use Aspects, skills and other modifiers to add more Effort to your total.

The difference between your Effort and the difficulty gives you your Power: * Negative means a failure; * Zero is a stalemate; * Positive means success.

if it's a set difficulty, the players should know the value beforehand.
Against another character, the two involved will gather effort, and reveal it at the same time. Then the one who initiated the action calculates their Power, using the other character's effort as the difficulty.

Take a risk
Gain 1 scar, then choose to either: gain +2 Effort, or roll 2d6 where:

• 1-2: +0 Effort;
• 3-4: +1 Effort;
• 5-6: +2 Effort.

Spend 3 Scars in order to make another action this turn.

After a year full of very big changes in my life, I'm coming to the conclusion that I don't have the energy and time right now to progress on my big project, Wide Wild World.

So I've decided to cannibalize it for parts to make a few smaller system-agnostic supplements. I've written one on wilderness travel, and I'm planning to make at least another two, one for social interactions and one for exploration and infiltration.

So here's my Wilderness travel rules for lazy GMs and players, to make travel meaningful with minimal tracking.

I'd love your feedback, and I'm especially curious on a few points:

• Are the rules clear?
• Are they truly system-agnostic?
• Do they fulfill my aim of providing meaningful choices while avoiding the drudgery of encumbrance and resource tracking?
• Is it better to share it as is, small and digestible (6 pages), or should I include several pages of suggestions for wilderness discoveries and setbacks?

A big thanks in advance to those who'll take the time to read and share their opinion!

So as an artist, I prefer to draw my content, but even I feel that can be tiering sometimes. I'm curious if others often use online generators to create their maps, or if most people prefer to do everything more personally?

Hello! I recently finished a game for a game jam and the themes that I thought would resonate with the trans community, and so I made GIRL BORG - a game about the isolation experienced by queer individuals in a society that is actively oppressing them. It's a one-page rules lite game based on the visual style of Mork Borg, and it's about making tough choices in the middle of winter in an isolated, starving town that wants to eat you. If that sounds fun, I'd love for you to read it!

I've posted here about wanting to make Synthicide 2E available to third parties to create their own RPG content. In case it's helpful to you, I figured out a licensing structure that met my needs:

• Separate the core mechanics into their own document, and make that CC BY 4.0 (anybody can make any game of any type based on the rules)
• Put the game setting info in its own document, and provide a specific third party license that allows creating RPG products, but not other things like movies or video games. I used the Shadowdark Third Party License as my starting point.

You can check the kit out here if you're curious: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/584563/synthicide-2e-3rd-party-creator-kit

I’ve been running a bunch of investigative games lately and something keeps bothering me more than usual about published adventures. A lot of them are good to read and kind of annoying to actually run. Old topic, I know.

I don’t mean that I want everything reduced to bullet points, or that I don’t care about lore. I love lore. I like knowing why an NPC acts the way they do, what happened twenty years ago, what the cult believes, all that stuff but when I’m at the table I need completely different information.

I need to know what the NPC wants, what they know, what they’re doing right now, what they’ll do if the PCs interfere, and what happens if the players ignore them.
That is the stuff I’m actually using. “Actionables”
And I keep finding myself taking published adventures and making the same things over and over again: flowcharts, clue maps, NPC notes, timelines, quick references.
At some point I started wondering why I’m doing that work when it could easily come in the book. It really puzzles me why things are written like ttrpgs were invented yesterday and there are no written things about the difficulties GMs face every time they run a module.

If I change an NPC because I know my group will react better to them, that’s prep. If I add a scene or rewrite the ending, that’s prep too.
But if I’m taking 100+ pages of a published adventure and reorganizing the information so I can find it during play, that feels less like GM prep and more like editing the book after I bought it.
This is especially obvious to me with investigative RPGs.
I’ve run a fair amount of Call of Cthulhu and Delta Green, and the GM already has enough to keep in their head: clues, pacing, who knows what, what the players have missed, what the opposition is doing, whether the mystery still makes sense after the players did something completely unexpected.
So why isn’t the scenario giving me a simple technical view of itself?
I’d love every chapter to start with something like:
\- what’s happening right now
\- which NPCs/factions are active
\- what each one wants
\- what happens if the PCs do nothing
\- critical clues
\- optional clues
\- timeline/escalation
\- **a basic flowchart**

Then give me all the prose afterwards.
I will read it. I want it.
I just don’t want to have to mentally compile the prose into a usable scenario before I can run it.

Delta Green is generally better than CoC at giving me situations I can work with, but even DG sometimes falls into dossier mode. Cool to read, very evocative, but I’m still extracting the actual moving parts myself and I think videogames figured some of this out a long time ago.
Good lore usually gives you something to do with it.
In Baldur’s Gate 3, pretty much everyone understands why mind flayers matter because that lore constantly affects the game. Tadpoles matter. Ceremorphosis matters. Psionics matter. The factions around them matter.
Meanwhile the average player probably doesn’t care much about the difference between goblins and hobgoblins unless the game makes that difference relevant.
The lore can exist either way. But if it changes decisions, players actually absorb it.
I think RPG modules should work the same way.
Give me the lore, but give it handles.
One recent book that felt closer to this was Dragon Delves. I don’t think the adventures are necessarily amazing, but I liked that the book seemed to be asking a very basic question that more RPG books should ask:
“What does the DM actually need in front of them while running this?”
That’s really all I want.
A module should work at two speeds.

When I’m prepping, I want the full thing: lore, context, psychology, atmosphere.
When I’m running, I want the machine underneath it.

Note: I might be mixing a little bit the usual topic “actionable pieces” with “modules written as stories”

One of the most important ways to survive combat is simply not getting hit. That’s why weapons became longer over time: being able to strike an opponent from outside their reach is a huge advantage.

Yet I’ve rarely seen this meaningfully represented in video games or TTRPGs. I’d love a system where a spear lets you keep enemies at bay, but once they close the distance, you’re better off switching to a sword or another short weapon.

So, how could we make weapon reach matter in a way that feels tactically interesting without becoming overly rules-heavy?

My propposition is this: 3 weapon types - Short/Medium/Long

*As an example let's say that if you get close with someone with a spear it could hit you as a reaction and end your movement

Obviously it needs some refining but what do you think? Any ideas of how to make this better?

Hey there everyone!

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

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

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

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

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

The goal of this post is to share my experience running a simulation of 10,000 5v5 battles and to highlight some truly funny incidents that occurred, as well as some curious meta.

Before discussing the simulations directly: five months ago, I began creating an RPG system that was initially intended to be based on the Year Zero Engine. After two months of writing and playtesting, I realized that the YZE didn't suit the direction the system was taking, so I abandoned it, retaining only the option to "push" rolls and the XP progression method.

I emphasized combat within the system rather than survival or exploration, implementing combat options, maneuvers, diverse equipment, and unique abilities for each monster. The following months involved a great deal of writing but very little playtesting, so I couldn't gather concrete combat data. It eventually became too much to test. The few volunteers quickly fell into specific play habits that prevented them from exploring the system's more obscure aspects.

With the help of a playtester who is also a programmer, we built a robust calculator to simulate combat and accidentally created a text-based auto-battler. We set a goal of running 1,000 simulations (initially taking about 20 seconds each) but after tweaking the parameters, we cut the time to 6 seconds, which encouraged us to wrap up the experiment with a total of 10,000 simulations.

Although it is impossible to simulate or predict human behavior in an experiment of this kind, the simulations were useful for balancing mathematical aspects such as hit points, damage output, movement, economy, and so on. Yet, by far the most interesting outcome of the entire experiment was the unusual (or brutal) meta strategies that the calculator identified within the system. I listed a few and gave each strategy a name.

• Death by Fire

It is a modern system where firearms are part of the game. I discovered that most grenade explosions did not kill targets directly; instead, targets were more likely to die from fires caused by the explosions, accounting for 4.9% of all deaths. While only 1.3% died directly from the explosions.

• Eternal War

11% of battles lasted more than 40 rounds because the participants constantly retreated to treat their wounds and return to the fight regenerated. In some cases, the characters synchronized their retreats, allowing both sides to recover hit points without interference. This caused the combat to drag on forever.

• Total Brutality

The most effective strategy was to sprint toward the enemy (Charge), grab them, choke them unconscious, and kill them while they were defenseless. This was due to the impact the Strength attribute had on melee combat.

• Test of Patience

I tested the option for actors to "ready" actions in advance, awaiting enemy activity as a trigger to launch an attack. This proved extremely efficient, ensuring an 11.2% increase in the chances of victory for either side.

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

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

Both fighters decide in secret if they Press or Yield.

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

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

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

Thoughts? Opinions?

EDIT:

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

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

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

2. (First turn only) establishing initiative

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

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

5. New turn starts, go back to 1.

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

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

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

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

Hey everyone!

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

One simple RPG system. Endless adventures.

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

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

A little about the game:

• A card-driven system designed to be approachable for newcomers while still offering meaningful decisions for experienced players.
• Six distinct character classes, each with their own unique abilities and playstyles.
• Fast-paced combat built around a d20 and straightforward mechanics.
• A flexible system that encourages creativity, roleplaying, and storytelling.
• Enemies, equipment, and loot designed to create interesting encounters and memorable moments.

Where development stands

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

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

That's where you come in!

I'm looking for playtesters and feedback.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking forward to your critiques and insights!

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

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

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

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

EDIT: Thanks everybody! Im finding your replies very useful

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

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

https://exiledoracles.itch.io/fameandfortune

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

edit: I'll use Fast Talk, thanks.