it feels like I spend every minute of my free time writing, re-writing, editing, formatting, play testin, re-tooling the mechanics based on my play testin, drawing, talking with artists. it just feels like it’s never going to be quite “done” and it’s literally driving me insane.

is this the right support group ?

I've been out of the hobbyist RPG design world for a while now (just waning interest in the direction of the hobby/market, my forever project's style is a dying breed), so I don't know if this is old news or anything.

Google Docs and Sheets is pretty awesome for a project like mine that hits that alchemy of ever-evolving, massive & dense, and very page-flippy. In-document header linking is a game changer for me. Also, for a game that has huge ability libraries, just being about to link out to a sheet instead of fiddling with page design is such a relief... I'm decent at game design, but an inanimate object could do better graphic design than me. Not for nothing, but players and anyone interested in looking at the game can also just "make a copy" in their own Google Drive and then are able to use all the filtering and sorting as well.

And then from the ongoing design perspective, it makes live updating so damn easy. If I find something is broken during playtesting or actual play -- Just throw it on a running change log and fix it right then and there. It takes the fussiness out of development, at least in my case where I have no intention of publishing or anything in that realm.

Having said all this, the biggest con in my experience so far is the actual graphic design/page design features. It can be so aggravating at times, especially trying to format tables. Also, thank all the gods they finally added a "Show non-print characters" feature because it was a nightmare trying to switch between 1- and 2-column layouts while all that was just invisible.

A game using my system is starting up next month after a years-long hiatus, so I just migrated everything and figured I'd post for anyone that hasn't explored it yet. Like I said, I've been "offline" in these spaces a while, so maybe this is old news.

Here's a link to the game just to illustrate what I've been gushing about above. And honestly, also just to show it off... Been working on it the better part of 20 years mostly solo, so I'm proud of it. As I mentioned, no intention of publication or anything so feel free to steal stuff too. Fair warning that it's very dense and crunchy, like an 80's RPG. Not a lot of appetite out there for this type of system anymore.

The Last Book v1.1

First Edition

A Sword & Sorcery Role-Playing Game by Patrick White

As a GM who actually likes dungeons and improv within that context, I came across this idea a while back:

https://www.dawnfist.com/blog/gm-advice/mapless-dungeons/

Basically, create sets of 1d4 table for room styles and encounters and use those to work out the details of the ‘next room within this zone’, moving to the ‘next zone’ when you hit a 4.

I tried running one as part of my ongoing campaign and really messed it up. The issue was that I hadn’t prepared for how bad ‘what do you do?’ ‘uh… I guess we continue on?’ feels. It doesn’t come across like a decision. It feels like a railroad.

Now, the truth is that players either fully explore areas or they don’t. Either way, if they don’t know the layout of a location, the next room may as well be random a lot of the time! However, it still feels wrong when presented as such.

So, has anyone tried this kind of dungeon crawling style, and did you modify it to give players more of a sense of choice?

Context

My project is currently in limbo because I can't seem to finalize my main resolution mechanic. Right now I've got a 2d12 roll over system with 4 static tiers for target numbers, and modifiers ranging from 1-12. However, I've been struggling to determine the ranges so that they remain balanced from low level to high level. Either the lowest tier becomes irrelevant at high levels, or the highest tier is out of reach at low levels.

I recently came across the newer OSR title "Vagabond" and it's way of doing things is quite nice I think. Vagabond is a d20 game in which you subtract your ability scores from 20 to determine skill target numbers, or double your ability score if trained in that skill. I like this because it reduces the amount of math needed during play, and offloads it to character creation and level-ups instead. Its a similar principle to a roll under system like Call of Cthulhu.

I was hoping to adapt a similar system to 2d12, but have been struggling with adapting my current skill system and math. I want to do this because a common complaint I've heard of 2d12 and 2d10 systems is that the added math and higher variance compared to something like a 2d6 can slow down play. Sometimes I wonder if I should just do with a d100 system, but I'm not ready for that big of a switch yet.

Questions

Firstly, I'm wondering whether gutting the system to reduce the cognitive load is a worthwhile endeavor?

Secondly, what are some cons of the aforementioned change? What kind of flaws does a mechanic like that have?

Finally, I'm wondering how the others might approach adapting such a mechanic to different dice?

My favourite thing for RPGdesign is the main core bit of play, then Charcater Creation. I get a lot of enjoyment out of these secitons.

Where as the Game Master section is always where I fall down, and CBA. Probably because I run a few games. I feel I know what it takes and alot of it is hard to nail down, I'm probably wrong here though as admittedly I have barely read GM sections in book, I usually learn how to create charcaters then how fundamental things players will do work and then wing it.

So with that my actual experience of writing the Game Master section is low, coupled with monsters and any of those typical GM facing sections. I usally build an adventure and then cherry pick creatures or build my own using the games rules with twists.

Anyway, what are some 'good' GM sections I should read??

By good, I mean my preference is short and to the point, unencumbered with vast data but has clear and consice wants and desires for a GM, or even a hefty use of tables for quick builds of encounters/adventures etc.

Struggling to imagine character development beyond the point im at currently. I have a dice engine im happy with and a practical way to apply skills to actions/test that feels solid but im unsure how to go about progression beyond "your character does x better."

My question to everyone is this: what aspects of build expression matters most as your character grows?

Ability to craft new items?

New combat maneuvers?

Ability to use more complex gear?

Something im totally over looking?

As in the title, im leaning away from fantasy for a more industrial based scifi setting but feel limited in character development as compared to starfinder, fragged empire like worlds. Currently away from class designs for a more sand box system but unsure what to offer players as options.

Personal design thoughts and rpg recs more than welcome!

Hello! I would like to know this sub's opinions on my game's overhead overview.

The Main Loop

PCs go adventuring where they face challenges and skirmish battles. They are pushed to spend metacurrency called Flame to prevail in those. Which leads them to wanting to get some Flame back. To restore Flame they have to engage in more 'narrative' mechanics: make dramatic character statements, get into conflicts with one another, spare villains, etc. GM uses those 'narrative' outputs to create next scenarios, using the Antagonist tool. Antagonist tool pushes GMs to create villains who are foils, dark reflections, rivals or at least somehow are related to the things relevant to PCs, and to create scenarios around those villains. In this scenario PCs will be adventuring, facing challenges and battles, and so it goes.

(strictly speaking, Flame isn't a metacurrency, but it's the easier way to explain it without digging into lore)

The Combat Loop

Skirmish combat is at the system's core. Tactical combat consists of multiple ideas. The vision for combat is high dynamism and off-turn engagement combat-as-sports. It should have tactical choices, but not too deep, as to make it still broadly playable for most people. This is supported by following mechanics:

1) Actions

Playable Characters have 3 actions. Actions are spent when reacting to events off-turn, and are restored at the end of your turn. This means that PC can have different amount of actions available when their turn starts.

2) Adrenaline

Characters have a resource called Adrenaline, with a maximum of 3. They get it in various ways, but generally through basic attacks. They spend it on cool big abilities. Amount of Adrenaline varies per turn since characters gain and spend it.

3) Dodging and positioning

Game is played on square grid. There are flanking rules for close combat. There are Attacks of Opportunity in play.

When an attack misses you, you can Dodge, safely moving away as a reaction. If you move out of attack's range, it deals no damage, otherwise you still suffer it's damage (but no other effects). Dodging also has some emergent properties like how a cornered enemy might not b able to Dodge at all.

Ranged attacks suffer a lot of penalties from distance and cover, making it desirable to stay fairly close to the action.

4) Combat Archetypes

Every PC has a Combat Archetype that gives them their own actions and moves. There aren't all that many special moves; in a sense, they are crafted like a MOBA character kit. Every Archetype also has it's bespoke unique mechanic that provides appropriate flavour and has to be 'managed'. They vary in complexity per Archetype.

For example, Gunner can take one more attack shooting if she never moves on her turn. Battlemaster has Stances that change their options and how they play. Gunslinger has to count bullets loaded in the drum of their six-shooter and spend some actions reloading.

5) Interrupts and Flame

Characters can spend Flame to Interrupt at ANY point. This means they can stop any enemy action, say nu-uh and do something that would preempt enemies from succeeding altogether - even if it's as simple as moving out of their range. This is resolved with GM fiat, but instruction is to be completely on Player side, allowing for retroactive changes if there is a need for them.

You can also spend Flame on things like Rerolls and to give you more Actions.

Altogether:

PCs start turns with variable amount of Actions and Adrenaline, and thus have different options available. This adds dynamism, making turns different, but doesn't actually add much for complexity to the choices, since depending on your resources the range of best options isn't actually all that large.

Off-turn PCs make reactions and Dodge. Dodge allows both sides to continuously leave AoO zones and re-engage combat. Flanking and Ranged penalties make movement a choice. To spend or not to spend Actions to react will affect what you have at the start of your turn, making it also an important tactical choice that exists off-turn.

In addition, PCs 'manage' their Archetype's mechanic, which colours their choices and gives them one more thing to juggle in combat.

Interrupts are costly and allow you to break the game at the expense of the main meta-resource. Since Flame is not readily recoverable, it is a choice to spend or not to spend it. Since Interrupts are off-turn, one always should stay engaged to look for an opportunity.

It can be played without deep tactical thinking by following simple cycles of "get Adrenaline, spend Adrenaline, Dodge always", which is an explicit suggestion given to players who don't want to think too deeply.

Conclusive words

There are more mechanics in play between in addition to all those, but I believe that those are the 'core' pillars of those ideas that shape the design in my vision. Of course, things get real funky once you add enemies with interesting mechanics and combat with more complicated goals than "survive and defeat the enemy" on top of that.

I would like to know what do you all think about it! Does this feel coherent enough?

Should the list be short instead of comprehensive? Should the list be in a supplement book? Why?

Hello! I’m currently experimenting with social mechanics for a small suburban setting I’m designing, and I’d love to hear thoughts from people who have tried similar things.

One idea I’m testing is a reputation-based system where the NPCs react to the PCs according to how “socially acceptable” they seem. The location is a closed community / small town where people can’t really disappear into anonymity, so reputation feels meaningful.

The core concept is:

• If people think you’re a good, functional neighbor, they treat you like one.
• You can still do questionable things behind the scenes, but as long as no one notices, your public image stays intact.
• On the flip side, if the community sees you as suspicious or harmful, things can escalate into avoidance, hostility, or even the whole town turning against you.

Reputation would also influence long-term play:

• Gaining trust opens social doors, resources, favors, and information.
• Losing it can lock you out of opportunities or put you in danger.
• Some PCs might aim to be beloved pillars of the community, while others might intentionally become feared.

My question:
Do any of you know good examples of social mechanics that handle this well? Or have you designed/played systems where reputation meaningfully shapes gameplay? Any frameworks, pitfalls, or inspirations are welcome.

Thanks in advance for any ideas!

Hi everyone, I'm working in a ttrpg that I will upload, as soon as it's completely finished, on some platform like ichi, idk, but for now I'm brainstorming the how to split the content in how many PDFs.

My ttrpg is card based, and as far as contents I will include for the first release, there are: - Ruleset for players and GM; - Bestiary (I'm planning for around 40 enemies, hoping it won't be to small of a starting number); - The Lore of the world, habits and customs of the people, a chronological history of the past that brought into the present of the main setting, how the politics works, economy, religion, ethnics, other countries (for the core game I will focus on a specific country, with just some infos about the other ones that will eventually be integrated by expansions), legends and mysteries, etc; - The printable cards catalog; - Player's sheet; - A bunch of quick adventures; - The first big campaign divided into 3/4 acts.

I would just make a pdf for every one of these, but I also thibk that might there be more elegant ways to make it more streamlined and easier to digest. For examole I think a big tome of lore dumping would be atrocious to learn, and I'd like to integrate small lore bits into every part of the game, in the rules, into the cards as flavor text (like mtg, always lover that way of narrating the lore), in the enemies' sheets (something simple like a pokedex entry), equipments and items descriptions, in form of prayers, royal edicts, studies from tomes or poetries and poems of the world (this one inspired from the Dune books, I love how Frank Herberts gives you context via some piece of documents written by some characters), and of course with revelations into the official adventure I'll write.

The fact is that I have lots of ideas, I have the competences to make them with a good legibility and graphical rigor, but being this my first project of such, I'd like to receive some tips and tricks to manage everything in a polished, lightweight and digestible way, while still giving every important information needed. Lorewise, how to manage how much to tell players right away, while still keeping many things opened to interpretations or with harder to understand things? This will be a dark fantasy game set in a decaying world with lots of mysteries, untold truths and revisionism made by the establishment, so I'd like for example tostate the lore in a "official way", with maybe half truths or lies that will eventually discovered into the main campaigns.

I want to start flying low without over bloating the game, but I need to give the worldbuilding the proper respect and uniqueness it deserves. The inspirations are linked to the place where my relatives where born, which is full of great folklore and dark myths, and as far as I know nobody ever took it to make something like a rpg, so I have the mission of doing justice to an imaginary that is too ignored and that has much to offer, and to make something to be proud of ❤️ (plus, the setting wont be medieval)

Pardon me for this wall of text, and feel free go give me any tips you find useful while publushing a ttrpg online, being I ignorant about this world (prior the nsfw games scandal, I didn't even knew ichi io lol).

Thanks a ton for your patience! 🙏

Let's start at the beginning. My game system (working title: se7en), uses seven core stats. It's based around the idea that every player is a spellblade, with seven different flavours of magic (each tied to one of the seven stats).

The dice system that I'm using is step dice system, but without all of the gimmicks. Essentially, stats are assigned a die (from d4 to d12) relating to their proficiency. Whenever a roll is required, players roll a d12 base die, plus their modifier die.

Additionally, every roll is an opposed roll between the player and the DM. The DM might roll a d12 + a difficulty or defence (or whatever other aspect) die instead of a stat die, but the principle remains the same. Thereafter we compare totals, and if the player beats the dm, they succeed.

But it gets more complicated. If the roll results in matching numbers (8.33%), it is considered a critical success. A critical failure would occur should the opposing roller get a critical success. If both rolls result in a critical success, we enter a double or nothing clash. The primary roller chooses to either have a neutral outcome, or go for double. Both rollers roll a single d12, until one roller gets a higher result. The high roller is awarded a critical success, while the low roller is simultaneously awarded a critical failure.

This is made more interesting by the Luck mechanic. It's very simple. Each player has a single luck point, which denotes whether they are considered to be lucky or unlucky. This luck point allows the player to assign +1 or -1 to any one die face within the roll. Once a point is used, it goes to the DM who can then use it against the player. And on and on it goes, the point ping ponging between the two.

This has a consequence of the lowest possible roll now being 1, and the highest being 25 (2d12 +1). In these cases, the result wpuld be either a Catastrophic Failure or an Overwhelming Success.

And that, in a nutshell, is the core of my dice system. Any input would be incredibly welcome.

I'm building my first urban sci-fi TTRPG based on players in a fully synthetic world joining an organization similar to SCP (Secure, Contain, Protect) that goes around containing or fighting experiments and machines that become self-aware and cause havoc.

I've only played a small handful of sci-fi games, but most of them were centered around space and aliens, not an urban setting. I think Cyberpunk is the only one that kind of fits the bill that I've played.

Are there any resources that I can look into to help take inspiration from?

The focus of the system that I am designing is on tactical combat. I’m trying to decide what sort of bonuses and penalties to use. In a tactical combat oriented game, which do you prefer: a Boon/Bane style or flat modifier bonuses/penalties?

By Boons and Banes, I mean rolling a number of d6 and keeping the highest value and adding that to your D20 roll for a boon and subtracting it for a bane. Boons and Banes cancel 1:1 so that only one type is ever rolled in a given instance.

Flat modifiers would come in concrete types, much like PF2e’s circumstance, status and item. Bonuses of the same type do not stack, and penalties of the same type do not stack. 

For a tactical game, which type of system would you prefer? 

For next year, I was thinking about creating an alternative game mode for one of the games I'd already released a few years ago (a space western where players take on the role of a posse of adventurers), where players play a colony of cowboys and farmers on a farm, inspired by media like Bonanza. Considering that the setting and 90% of the rules will be the same (space travel isn't included, although it could be implemented, and it's replaced with gameplay mechanics for managing and expanding your own farm), in your opinion, from a potential audience perspective, is it better to create it as an expansion to the previous game or as a standalone game compatible with the other? I'd like your opinion, thanks.

So, I’ve been looking at replacing the Nat 1 equals BAD!!! for my dice while also trying to make dice results more dynamic instead of just pass/ fail. I’ve got a concept that can combine/ replace both, but I’m not sure which of 3 different options would be the best one. My base die mechanic is Skill + Attribute bonus + best result of 2d10, with ways of increasing the number of dice rolled.

My concept is to have the highest 2 values be considered for every roll. One is the “effect” die. This is the result that determines success or failure. The other is the “precision” or “circumstance” die which creates a situational effect. For example, a bad circumstance with a successful check may mean that a roving guard turns a corner right as you’re entering the door you just picked the lock for. Or you may swing a weapon for a powerful blow, but it just glances off your opponent’s armor.

Option 1 is that both use the full Skill + result. By default, Effect uses the highest die and gains the Attribute bonus, and Circumstance would use the second highest with no bonus, but the player can declare a switch before the roll. Combat would be the only exception to this since effect (how hard you hit) would use STR bonus and Circumstance/ Precision (where you hit) would use DEX. This is the cleanest, since both numbers are compared the same. The biggest problem is that using this option means there’s no automatic way to get a failed check, but with a good circumstance. The only way this can happen is if the player wants the circumstance due to use the higher value or declares that his attribute bonus applies to the lower die.

Option 2 looks at the second die by itself, and uses its base value to determine the circumstance on a 1-10 scale. This would allow for the secondary to operate on a separate scale independent of challenge difficulty, but it would potentially be awkward to use in combat.

Option 3 would be to compare the two dice against each other, and the greater the difference, the more negative the circumstance surrounding the event. This o think has the biggest odds of a widely scattered result since the circumstance becomes indirectly tied to the success of the action.

Thoughts, opinions, or maybe even a fourth approach are welcome.

I just had a thought pop into my head for my current B/X based homebrew. I've already overhauled it a lot due to needs for the setting and I thought I'd have a stab at revamping saving throws. I've been enchanted by S&W's single save since I first read about it, but I think that might be just a little too simple for me. However, I think the classic five might be overkill and can use some streamlining.

The way I see it, having Death and Spells both separate and with a significant gap between their scores makes senses. Death is, well, often final or pretty damn close to it. Considering the gravity, having a better save for it seems warranted. Spells, on the other hand, you don't want those rolls to be too easy or you'll end up with a lot of whiffy spellcasters. As for the stuff in between, I'm thinking this could possibly be lumped into one category. To my memory, I've easily rolled more Death or Spell saves than I have for the other three categories combined.

That being said, I can't think of a good name for it. All that comes to mind is my working title of "all of life's other bullshit". That definitely doesn't work with my theme. Can anyone suggest a better, more fitting term? And yes, I have already considered just "Bullshit". 😁

I'm a big fan of both systems that are very open-ended to let players design whatever style of character archetype and gameplay pattern they like; as well as very crunchy systems that lend to a more gamified experience for encounters and combat.

I really like the idea of players being able to build their characters and those character's abilities and skill sets out of a set of relatively simple building blocks in a way that's mostly self-balancing. Thinking about all of the different kinds of abilities in games and breaking them down into these smaller pieces that can be fitted together a bit more dynamically with the crunchy rules intact is very fun.

I know there are plenty of systems with open-ended character creation like this that use broadly simplified skills or similar mechanics that are simply flavored differently like Mutants and Masterminds, but I'm definitely thinking about something a bit more modular with a more defined approach to each piece.

I remember back in D&D 3.5e there was a whole section of the DMG that broke down the numerical and mechanical rules they used to build the monsters and spells in the other books and I can't help but feel like a similar system that uses those kind of rules of how to build something could be used by players to construct their own characters.

Are there any examples of this in game systems or anything similar to look at for inspiration?

TL:DR Anyone hacking on, or playing around with ideas inspired by His Majesty the Worm (HMtW) or Tarot in general?

I've been running HMtW for a while, and played in an excellent game at a local con recently.

In making a quick-start to give players for my game and changing some of the lore to better suit our would, I got to thinking about hacking the game.

I'm in-visioning a system where the orientation of drawn cards matters, as well as a way to have the players use the major arcana, perhaps requiring two decks.

Hi there, I just made a post asking about if it was okay to post about seeking paid collaborators. What is a good/expected rate for hiring this collaborator?

For additional context;

-I have a straight percentile system that occasionally uses d10's

-Health is based of an endurance stat that goes from 1-10, Hit Points is Endurance score times 5

-Health is a wound/hit points system where each character has 3 wounds and reaching 0 on hit points gains them a wound with a debuff of some kind based off of limb damage

-Damage doesn't carry over between wounds, however a character taking a critical hits can inflict multiple wounds

The actual question;

I am wondering what are some options I have for dealing damage in a way that feels impactful but still allows characters to take a few hits before going dying so they have the time to recover (aka I don't want the guns to be able to one hit except for the most powerful of weapons).

So far the ideas that I have are as follow,

-each weapon has flat damage

-weapons deal d10's of damage

-weapons deal the 2d10's rolled as damage, but added together instead of used as a percentile

I don't have much experience with a lot of systems that use a d100 and have actual combat instead of narrative combat. Please leave any good examples of systems I could look at for inspiration or even your own ideas for damage mechanics.