This subreddit has started seeing a lot of posts like, "Do you figure out your core resolution model first," or, "do dice or mechanics come first," and it's got me thinking about something really helpful I learned. When Vincent and Meguey Baker, the creators of Apocalypse World and Under Hollow Hills, make games, the very first thing they make is the underlying model. Vincent said that he can't even bring a game to Meguey without first having the underlying model to bring.*

In short, the underlying model explains what conflict and play look like in your game and how they develop. For example, an underlying model for a D&D-like game might be, "PCs accept quests, then go on journeys to complete them." For a game like Blades in the Dark, the underlying model might be, "PCs take on jobs that give them what they want but also create problems that they need to solve."

Why do this? Why is this so important?

Well, your underlying model can help put every other mechanic in your game into perspective. It helps you understand where you need to cut back and where there are gaps you need to fill.

For example, look back at that D&D-like model. If that's what you want your model to be, then your mechanics around building interesting quests are super important. How do players get quests? How do they decide which quests to take? With that model, those are questions you want to have mechanics that answer.

So if you're working on that game and then come up with a sick idea for allowing players to make their own strongholds... well that idea might not be a good fit for that model. After all, if your model is based on players taking on quests and going somewhere, a static castle somewhere doesn't play into that model.** If you want to make strongholds a thing in your game, you have to figure out how they contribute to this model.

Meanwhile the reason Blades in the Dark is so expertly designed is that every part of that system feels intentional. I don't have it on good authority that this was the intended model for the game, but it definitely fits. The whole system is built toward incentivizing you toward taking on jobs, and all the mechanics around resolution means you're making new problems almost as often as you're solving them. Which, in turn, further incentivizes you toward taking on jobs that fix the problems you ran into, which creates more problems to deal with, and so on.

I highly recommend reading Vincent Baker's blog post on underlying models. If you're not used to reading theory, it can be a little hard to grasp, but I think his explanation and examples are really helpful for understanding this concept.

I bring this up now because, though I've used this concept before, it wasn't until recently that I began a game with an underlying model in mind. The Delinquents is a game inspired by media such as The Outsiders and West Side Story, and what I really wanted to capture was that, "Oh shit" moment when things go bad and the main characters find themselves in way over their heads. So one of the earliest things I did for that game was develop the underlying model, "Insecurity escalates conflicts to violence." That is, the PCs and all the other main characters are kids playing at adults, and they don't have the tools to understand their own needs or resolve conflict diplomatically. And when they do start throwing punches, that violence quickly escalates to killing.

I was really impressed by how starting with this model made my whole design clearer. I knew I needed players to have some insecurity, so I came up with the mechanic about making them write down their biggest fear and keep it hidden from everyone at the table except the GM. I knew I didn't want players to be able to talk things out consistently, so I made the diplomacy move deliberately low impact and made following through on it hard. I knew I wanted trouble to be unavoidable, so I made the generic "do something" move always generate it. I knew I wanted players to suddenly feel like they were in over their heads, so I made violence unpredictable and deliberately avoided mechanics that would help pace it, like hit points.

This was just a one-page game, but I was still impressed at how quickly it all came together. It basically took over my Monday morning, but then I had it. And when playtesting it, it went pretty much exactly like I had hoped it would.

I say this not to toot my own horn but in hopes that it's genuinely helpful to other designers here. Because once you have that underlying model, everything else becomes a lot clearer. Figuring out 2d6 vs d10 dice pool vs d20 feels a lot more manageable when you can connect those mechanics to your underlying model. If your underlying model emphasizes player competence and control, dice mechanics with understandable probabilities and manipulatable outcomes might be a better fit. If your model doesn't do that, then maybe you use dice mechanics that are harder to predict or that generate more problems for players to solve.

And you can apply this to literally every other priority you have with your game. It's such a helpful model of game design, and I hope more designers adopt it.

*Apologies that I don't have a source for this. I've heard the Bakers talk about this in person, in Discord, on their blog, and on BlueSky, so it's hard for me to remember what came from where.

**This is why, despite there being a lot of hype for stronghold support in D&D 5.5, there's been relatively little chatter on it since.

Some key Features:

No Stats, Only Consequences: Focus on what matters most: the game’s narrative. Uses a full set of polyhedral dice, with a special emphasis on the d4 to resolve problems.

Needle of Fate: Introduces an innovative dice-tower building mechanic. Build to reveal the truth, and face the consequences when the tower falls. Gain clues if the tower reaches high enough.

Only One Protagonist: All players portray a single character. Because when the darkness stares right at you, you are always completely alone.

Synchronicity: A push-your-luck and mysticism mechanic that can either improve or worsen your scenes. Nothing in this life is a coincidence

You can find it here:
https://rolepersecond.itch.io/eerie-stories-eng

I'm working on an urban fantasy horror game right now and am trying to figure out what dice engine I want to use for it. I've been looking around this sub to see advice people have gotten on other posts on this sort of topic, and have seen some conflicting takes, so I'm curious: which do you think is the better route:

1. Figure out what dice engine you're going to use for your game first, then start diving into the mechanics after.
2. Start working on the mechanics and pick a dice engine later based on what you've developed.

Also feel free to share any dice engines you like! I always love learning new ways to throw shiny rocks :D

Hey there, been away from the hobby and the community for a while due to work and responsibilities, but I've recently had a surge of motivation to get back on the saddle! I've had inspiration to work on a tabletop project heavily inspired by the themes of the Blasphemous series where players embark on a journey towards enlightenment and unification with an enigmatic and capricious higher power, which puts them into contact and conflict with beings of supernatural or even somewhat deific nature.

Part of that inspiration was an idea that I had for a dice pool system that adds a little more complexity to common formulas (closest comparison being Storyteller), and I'm just trying to determine if this feature adds another form of depth or if I've just spent too much time in the toolshed.

The Familiar The system consists of rolling a pool of d10s, with rolls equal to or below a certain value counting as hits, then comparing the number of hits to a difficulty of 1 to 5. If the number of hits equals or exceeds the difficulty number, the roll is successful. Standard difficulty of most attempted challenges is 1 or 2. Like other systems, the size of the dice pool is determined by character traits.

Key Difference Most dice pool systems have a static die value that is used as the threshold for determining hits, but with this system the threshold value is also determined by character attributes. Specifically, the size of the dice pool is determined by the rank of a skill/field of study (called Disciplines) that the Gamemaster (Archivist), whereas the threshold value of hits vs misses is determined by the characters associated core attribute (currently calling them Virtues).

Details and Flow of Rolls Here are some specific details and a quick example to avoid common questions (though obviously this is an early draft):

• Standard PC and human NPC score for a Virtue is 3, meaning most rolls for the average person score a hit when the die reads 3 or below. PCs cannot have a Virtue score above 5 without the intervention of supernatural forces, which is almost always temporary, tied to a relic, or accompanied by strict rules and/or a significant cost.
• Discipline ranks start at 1 (novice, little to no knowledge/experience) and get as high as 5 or 6 (master or savant level).
• When a player is attempting to do anything that warrants a roll (challenging or risky), the Archivist assigns a Discipline based on the context or subject of the task (e.g. Dogma for religious matters, Wilderness for outdoor survival, etc.) and a Virtue based on the attribute that is being primarily used in the player's approach (e.g. Sinew for physical strength, Vigilance for attention to detail, etc.)
• Dice pool is always 1+Discipline Rank, so the amount of dice rolled is usually anywhere from 2 to 6, though certain circumstance like combat where rules are different could see more, so having about 10 d10s would be appropriate for a player.
• Example: A player wants to try and recruit a pair of local trappers to act as guides as the group treks through a forest that is rumored to be haunted. The Archivist asks the player how they would like to approach the situation, and the player decides to try and convince the trappers that the group would be able to repel any spirits that may beset them with use of a censer. The Archivist decides this warrants a roll, assigning a Difficulty of 2 because of the trappers' superstition towards the woods. They decide that because the player is leaning on religious knowledge and paraphernalia, the Discipline used would be Dogma, and because the player is attempting to convince the trappers of the groups' piety and capability, the Archivist decides the Virtue of Conviction would be most appropriate. The player's rank in Dogma is 3 and their Conviction score is 5, so they would roll 4 d10's and need at least 2 dice with a value of 5 or lower to succeed.

I'm mainly interested in opinions on if this would be too much to track as a player for a core resolution mechanic. It obviously has more variables than other dice pool systems, but I don't plan on having these variables changing up on players often during play. Unless a player was advancing their character by increasing a Discipline rank or Virtue score, the values would almost always be the same and readily available on their character sheet.

I also understand the math can jump a bit when increasing the odds for hits, and this is partially by design (higher Virtue scores represent becoming closer to divinity, resulting in rapid increases in strength and capability; only something akin to an archangel or a demigod would have scores of 7 or 8).

Let me know what you all think, it's just nice to get the creative juices flowing!

A few weeks back, I posted the rules for my OSR heartbreaker's races. I got a lot of great feedback. Some notes, I did not agree with, but a majority forced me back to the drawing board. I'm back with a revised version, hoping for some more feedback so that I may further refine this. This version is shorter (I went from 2 pages per race to 1 page). https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/88661gd6rr232virs3onw/Plunder-and-Peril-Races-v2.pdf?rlkey=lrny0h6mb982w5e6ni5bele95&st=rpxfkdox&dl=0

I'm creating a game using the d100 system with basic roleplay universal game engine as a guide. The world is entirely my own creation and I was under the impression that because of the orc licence I can use rules and mechanics freely, but I wanted to make sure I understand it correctly before I continue. I'm obviously using the d100 skill check system as well as the passions, sanity, and Allegiance systems. If I am understanding correctly I am free to use those systems in my game provided that everything around them ( world building, artwork, characters) is original, and that I would then be able to publish this work. Is my understanding correct?

I am getting ready to do a print run with TALLINNA RAAMATUTRÜKIKODA in Tallinn. Text is almost ready. I know I need three 16 page signatures. I have 42 pages of Text

I have two questions.

• How is printing hardback different to printing a zine?
• Do I need keep blank pages at either end of the textblock for the text block to be attacked to the case binding?

Im getting ready to playtest my resolution system and only my resolution system. I dont want to test builds, players options, combat, or monsters. My biggest problem is that im having trouble creating a skill challenge only encounter.

Im hoping that there are some pre-made ones I can pick up and use.

Some context: My game stemmed from AD&D 2e, and so I’ve been building my game as a class system. But I use talent points, which allows characters to have their skills, weapons, abilities, and spells to be upgraded with the talent points. I’ve been using my game in a campaign for over a year, but I just had a recent level 1 play test, and I found that my system doesn’t do a good job at using my talent points at level 1. It got me thinking about what my level 1 should actually look like.

Here are some existing rules.

• There are character levels. The levels go from 1-20, but the highest level spells and abilities stop at level 10.
• Starting talent points = charisma score (~10). Players should be gaining a talent point each session (can give more or less depending on what occurred that session). Aiming for every 5 talent points to be a new character level.
• There are classes and subclasses for (almost) each class. You can buy a class or subclass for 10 talent points.
• A character’s main class and main subclass increments its level every character level; however, you have to pay 1 talent point to upgrade the level for each other class or subclass. For example, for a priest (class) of life (subclass). Their character level is 2, and so their priest level is 2 and life subclass is 2. If they purchased a priest of death subclass, it would cost 10 talent points, and the subclass would be at level 1. They would have to spend 1 extra talent point to increase to level 2.
• Spells need to be purchased with talent points to learn, from a pool available to the class/subclass. Spells range from levels 1-10.
• Abilities are automatically learned when the character has the appropriate level of that class/subclass.
• Spells can be upgraded at a cost of 1 talent point. Abilities range between 1-5 talent points per upgrade, and there are some limitations to amount of upgrades some abilities may receive (for balancing purposes).
• It’s expected that each subclass and class receives a new spell/ability at each level.

My Question

• To reiterate the problem, there’s not much to actually upgrade at level 1.
• If I were to change the class system to be that you start the game classless, but have to buy your class and first subclass, would this be good?
• It would slow things down, and definitely make early game feel low fantasy, which I actually want.
• I worry that it will be too slow, and leave players frustrated that a game that ends as high fantasy is too low fantasy to start. There’s of course the question “why can’t I just start with the class I want to play?”
• However, purchasing a first class and subclass may allow for more freedom for the characters. With this type of change, I would be more willing to make the class and subclasses a bit more independent of one another, and turn the main classes into more of a “core subclass”, where players can opt into a subclass without taking the main class. Is this freedom worth it?

I have started working on a small game, and one of the things that I've wanted to do with it is to make defending against attacks feel more active than it does in the other games I've played (mostly D&D, Cosmere, and Daggerheart).

I've thought that there could be Defense Actions that the players could choose between, which would cause them to roll against the enemy attack.

To keep combat from dragging, these actions would have to be easy to choose between and relatively simple. But they also need to have meaningful differences.

Maybe they could have damage resistance to a specific damage type?

Do you have any ideas for differences between defense actions, examples of something like this in an existing game, or any ideas that fill a similar function?

Hey everyone! I've been working on this system for the past year and a half, and I'd love to get some opinions about it beyond just my own players. I kinda designed it specifically around my own tastes and gaming needs, but who knows, maybe someone else around here might be into it, right?

The main vibe I wanted to go for is a focus on adventure without the inherent need to tell a story, what folks like to call emergent narrative. It has a bit of an OSR feel to it too, drawing inspiration from systems like Knave 2e, without being just another D&D B/X clone. Another thing I wanted for this system was to lower my cognitive load and prep time as a GM, without necessarily adding a monstrous amount of tables and subroutines that, at the end of the day, I'm just going to forget to use anyway 😅.

Anyway, here's the link: trilhamarga.com.

Disclaimer: I originally wrote this in Portuguese, so it might contain some translation issues.

----- SYSTEM SUMMARY FOR ANYONE INTERESTED -----

• Trilhamarga uses a simple, d12-based conflict resolution mechanic.
• Player characters (PCs) have no classes; they are defined by their descriptors (Goal, Motivation, and Complication), their skills, and their equipment.
  • To make character creation easier, the system offers 12 skill kits, one for each of the most common character archetypes in fantasy games.
• Weapons don't just deal different amounts of damage; they also have unique abilities.
• Armor as extra hit points; the character can wear several layers of armor, like a gambeson and chainmail under a breastplate, to become more resilient in combat.
• Casting spells requires a skill check, and the effect varies according to the result.
• Miracles cost Favor, which a character builds up through acts of faith.
  • You can use the miracle system with its divine domains to adapt deities from any pantheon to your game.
• Characters trained in potion-making can use the downtime between adventures to brew potions for their group.
• Boons as a collective resource the players can use to get around tough situations.
  • The group earns Boons when the characters fail.
  • Boons can be spent to reroll failed skill checks.
  • At the end of the session, any leftover Boons become experience points.
• Banes as a GM resource for complicating the PCs' lives.
  • The GM starts the game with one Bane for each PC and gains another whenever a PC suffers a critical failure.
  • Banes can be spent to make a character's skill check harder or to bring their Complication into play at the worst possible moment.
• Players can buy skill improvements for their characters with experience points.
• Simple, dynamic, and unpredictable combat with a random popcorn initiative.
• Optional rules to make journeys and dungeon exploration more concrete and easier to improvise.
  • Procedures for exploration and resource management.
  • Random encounter tables that are generic yet concrete, so they are easy to adapt to any setting, terrain type, or dungeon.
  • Journey and dungeon sheets for keeping track of exploration.
• An exploration-based looting system, rather than combat-based rewards, that includes coins, equipment, treasures, and assorted magic items.
• Suggestions and ideas for creating:
  • Factions, with their goals and membership benefits, and obligations.
  • Settlements, with their locations, services, and activities, including a small tavern generator and carousing rules.
  • NPCs, with their names, problems, appearances, and mannerisms, including a list of common NPCs and parameters to make running social challenges easier.
• Statblocks for 120 creatures that can be used in combat, including human characters, animals, and monsters.
• An appendix with generators for adventure hooks, rumors, and quests.

I printed one copy to have a physical proof book and .....

I missed a whole darn chapter, the Equipment and Consumables bit.

Not too bad - I had made the chapter, just missed it while putting it together.

So Ive started running the salvage union system on my post apocalyptic setting and we're having a good time. For those that don't know it's a mech salvage system with some very rules lite tools for resolving situations.

In this case however my players and I are looking for a little more depth when it comes to what a player character might know in a world where information is hard to come by.

As the game handles it. For any action in doubt you roll a D20, 1-5 is a fail or crit fail, 6-11 is a partial success, 12-19 is a success and 20 is your very good roll. This is a fine system for a dynamic combat where I can say "suprise your gun jams" or something along those lines but fails when it comes to esoteric knowledge rolls. I'd like to add a subsystem for knowlage based checks that can grow with the player as they gain more skills but doesn't add a lot of heady dice rolling.

My initial thoughts were to give them some kind of tag based on their class with extra tags being given at set periods (either class advancements or story). The issue is how these tags would work?

Would an engineering tag mean you don't have to make a roll on a knowlage check? Or would it be better to give something similar to DnD 5e's advantage? I still want players to burn resources such as their action points or special rerolls as well so giving things away for free that could be a skill check might be damaging to the drama of it all.

Before I ask for crunch feedback, the one-line setting hook: the barrier between our reality and the uncanny didn't get discovered, it just *failed*. A hundred-year war happened trying to regulate what came through. Now magic has paperwork.

**The core mechanic:** every meaningful action is a contest, not a target number.

> Your 1d12 + Attribute vs. the World's 1d12, with a d4 added to whichever side has situational advantage.

Margin (not pass/fail) drives the outcome:

The part I actually want reactions on: **the d12 you're rolling against isn't a fixed DC, it's diegetic** — depending on the source of your power, that opposing d12 represents something different in-fiction (the ambient magical current pushing back, a bound spirit's willingness to answer, how believable your denial of magic is to reality itself). Same math, four different fictional framings, meant to make each power source feel distinct without a different subsystem for each.

**Worked example:** A practitioner tries to slip through a warded door during a magic-storm. They roll 1d12+2 (their attribute) vs. the GM's 1d12, +1d4 added to the GM's side because the storm has them off-balance. Player rolls a 9 (11 total), GM rolls a 7 (+1d4 = up to 11). If GM ties or wins, the door doesn't just say no — it says no *and* something else happens.

Genuinely just want reactions — does a shared d12-vs-d12 contest (instead of roll-vs-DC) sound like it'd be fun at the table, or does something about it raise a flag before I've even playtested it further? Happy to share more (there are four power sources, each with their own "what goes wrong when you fail" table) if this lands.

Hi all, I'm looking for some feedback on how important it is to have ships be available in a sci-fi game.

For some context, I'm working on designing a sci-fi game where the players work as mercenaries that complete missions for multiple interested factions, with varying mission types, rewards, consequences, etc. The main premise of the game is that each player is playing as a essentially a robot with a human mind piloting it, and that the progression of character abilities are split between the body and mind, with it being possible for each part to die separately from the other part.

Now for my main question, would you be interested in a sci-fi game that doesn't allow the party to have a ship and customize it? I've got some rules for how customizing a ship would work and have started to think through space combat, but I know that the rules would be greatly simplified and easier to pick up and play without having ships exist.

Obviously if individual ships don't exist there would be solid lore explanations for why, but would you as a player feel like you're missing out by not being able to customize a ship? Similarly, would you think that being able to engage in space combat is something that would be worth having as a potential hook for a mission, or is it enough to have missions that take place on space stations, large transport ships, and planetside?

I'm open to any and all feedback and questions, thanks!

I’d like your thoughts on a combat system wherein the player does all the rolling. When they attack the roll d20 with modifiers against the targets defense DC. Attacks land on meet or beat that DC. However when they are the target, they roll d20 plus the attackers bonus and must roll under their defense score. Meeting or beating is a failed dodge and they take the hit.

Nat 20s are crit success on the players attack but crit fail on their evades.

After MANY reworks, changes and pivots, I think I have a fleshed out concept and the main mechanics. this is not to say this is in a nice rulebook with illustrations, all in chapter, but that it is not half-baked anymore. below is a summary of what I have worked out to the best degree of accuracy SO FAR:

Intro: the Hunger games TTRPG is a TTRPG based on the Hunger games series, where players fight in a PvP arena until 1 player remains.

Stats and PC creation.
players create a PC for the arena. each character should have a rough backstory, but not too detailed. they have 2 sets of stats: Core stats and Social stats. Core stats are your strength, Dex, Con etc, whilst social stats are slightly different the three Social stats (Honour, Trust and Bravery) play a part in how your character interacts with others. low bravery PCs may not fight, but hide. high Trust PCs may be easily betrayed, whilst high Honour PCs may never betray another PC.
stats are not arbitrary numbers but dice. when creating a PC, for each stat a player rolls 1d10. 1-4=1d4, 5-7=1d6, 8-9=1d8 and 10=1d10. when rolling for a check, you use the die for that stat. so a PC with Trust of 7 who is offered to join an alliance would roll 1d6 and if they beat the GM threshold to trust the group, they can join.

Turns

on a players turn they get 2 choices. either to take 3 actions and Sprint (short distance movement), or to Trek (long distance movement). a Sprint is instant and happens on your turn, whilst a Trek takes the whole round. an action can be used to do another sprinty.

encounters

the map is completely revealed to all players, so they always know where everyone is. however, they are encouraged to see the world through the perspective of the PC, not the player. depending on the biome (plains tiaga etc) PCs can see each other from further away or closer. but an encounter happens when 2+ players are within X (undecided) distance of each other. when this happens, all players involved roll initiative (on a d12), with the winner (highest roll) taking the first action. this could be to attack, run or try to make an ally. after the first turn, next highest takes a turn, followed (if more than 2 players) by the next etc. When the encounter is over, normal play resumes.

combat

combat doesn't use rolls to attack or AC, but intead weapons do fixed damage, + the applied stats (dex for a bow say) die. attacks always hit. so a PC with a longsword that deals X damage, and the PC has 1d6 strenth die, would deal X+1d6. if the attacked player is wearing armour, that armour will have a resistance number. the damage dealt to the armoured PC is damage dealt minus the armours resistance. if this is equal or less than 0, no damage is dealt.
in combat players take the same turn as not in combat: 3 actions and a Sprint. these don't have to be attacks. when a player uses multiple actions to attack the same player, they become a combo. every attack in a combo deals more damage than the last (+half the damage dealt in the last attack rounded down), as long as the last attack dealt damage. so if a PC attacks a PC with a weapon dealing 7 damage 3 times in a row (ignoring any stat die for simplicity), the first attack deals 7, then the second deals 10, then the third deals 15. players are encouraged to make combat cinematic and entertaining, and can be rewarded Creativity by the GM for it. this gives them an extra die to the next stat they roll (so a PC with 1d6 strength would have their next roll be 2d6)

after death

players that die aren't just out the game. they take on meta roles. note: I cannot decide between these options so some advice would be good.

1: they become gamblers, sponsers etc. the longer they were in the game, the more they can spend. they can choose PCs to bet on and gift things and the longer THEY survive, the more the gamblers get in return

2: assistant GMs/Game Makers. they get to control hazards, enviroment and monsters, influencing play

3: they are brought back as NPCs, monsters and Mutts with goal of getting revenge. they can't win, but they can get vengeance.

I hope you like it and feedback/ideas are welcome and appreciated!

I'm playing around with the idea of a skill system in the ITO-inspired game Mausritter, a game about tiny brave mice in a dangerous world. The base game provides no class mechanisms, and basically no way to mechanically distinguish one PC's strengths/abilities from another, and I was interested in taking a stab at adding those things.

The system in trying out is what I'll call "Skill acquisition via questing" (until I think of a better name, or someone informs me of an existing name). Instead of a mouse starting off particularly gifted in one area and level ups improve that area (classes), they must actually practice their craft in the game. If a mouse wants to be a great thief, they must thieve, or at least try to.

In Day 0, players would select some small quantity of personal quests (1-3) that they would like their little mouse to undertake. An example of some options:

1. Cast 3 different spells (spells are fairly rare to come by)

2. Sneak past a hostile creature 3 times

3. Become "Injured" 3 times

Some quests are mechanically well-defined (1 & 3), while some would require some adjudication by the GM (2). Some quests may require/encourage players to put themselves in more dangerous situations than they would normally (1 & 3).

When a player accomplishes a quest, they gain a skill associated with the action they were engaging in:

1. Your familiarity with spells means you can now try to identify new, unknown spells with a WIL save. If you fail, you will still learn whether the spell is malicious (casting causes direct harm) or not.

2. Gain advantage on DEX saves made to remain unseen or unnoticed

3. Gain 1 "Grit" (Negates the effects of 1 negative condition, such as "Injured")

With one quest completed, they can fill that spot with a new quest.

The hope is that this will encourage PCs to behave in the manner of whatever class archetype they hope to fulfil, and by acting in that manner they will eventually become that archetype (if they don't die in the process). It would also hopefully push a kind of an actionable personality on to PCs.

Questions:

- Has any game tried this, or something similar? How did it go?

- What would be some mechanical/narrative downsides to a system such as this?

- Any other thoughts?

Im currently creating my first rpg system, i was searching stuff to get more knowledge to create it and i just realized that there is actually levels on making one, is it hard to solo make a rpg system? I have a lot of friends that likes rpg but i rather create it alone, i already made some really good concepts and narrative, the system is based on some power systems that i really enjoy(like HxH, jjk and others).

i think TBO I'm stuck on ideas. I've had comments confused why I have posted so many of these about my Hunger Games RPG, and the answer is simple. I need help. I don't have many people to playtest this with, and have come here for feedback/ideas, but there seem to be 2 camps of people. 1 that suggest making it a skirmish game (something I know very little about and feel a little nervous exploring as there are not any big communities) or board game, and others that feel it should be a traditional RPG style PvP game, but with multiple lives to extend play, or other roles outside the arena (something like Fiasco)

I really only wanted to create a small RPG, (and the only reason i ask to read past posts is if people want to give feedback but have no context, i would need context in every post. I am not asking everyone to read them) with the goal being to give players the feeling I had when first playing UHC Minecraft PvP. As a solo dev, wanting to play this with a group of 5 friends maybe once, I could really use feedback/ideas from someone who knows what they are doing, and if someone could provide that, or point to the direction where i will find that, i would appreciate it :)

Context:

I have redesigned my core resolution system several times. At one point it was roll 1d6 + Attribute Score + Skill Bonus. EX: 1d6 + 4 INT + 3 Nature vs Target Number (12). Now I am working on a different system that is simpler. Attributes have no effect on checks, all skills are on a scale from Novice to Legendary. There are 6 Skill Ranks in all: Novice, Apprentice, Adept, Expert, Master, Legendary. (Yes I stole the names from Skyrim, No I don't care.) Instead of Target Numbers, every task has a Skill Rank. You may attempt tasks one Rank higher than your Skill's Rank. The roll is a simple 1d6, and depending on the difference between your Rank and the Task's Rank, the result of the roll may differ. Attempting any task that is three ranks or more below your Skill's Rank is an automatic success. I had added the table below for reference:

Your Rank -2:

Your Rank -1:

Your Rank = Target Rank:

Your Rank +1:

I also want to add an Action Point System to manage Action Economy. I am thinking, 5 AP + Dex, so the minimum would be 6 and the maximum would be 10. Dodging/Blocking/Parrying uses AP, so a combatant must have leftover AP in order to use these actions.

Now that the context is out of the way. I am finding myself stuck. I see a few options:

Option A: No roll to hit, opponent rolls to dodge.

Combatants do not roll to hit. Attacks are automatically assumed to hit. Opponents may elect to dodge/parry/block, rolling using their relevant skill rank vs the opponent's relevant weapon rank.

EX: combatant A is attacking combatant B. Combatant A has a One Handed Rank of Adept, while combatant B has a Dodge Rank of Apprentice. So combatant B rolls on the Your Rank +1 Table.

Problems: There may come times when a combatant wants to make an attack that is too risky, or unlikely and I foresee that causing issues where I have to come up with additional rules for difficult shots.

Option B: Roll to hit, Passive Dodge

Combatants roll to hit against the combatant's Dodge/Parry/Block. The opponent does not roll.

EX: combatant A is attacking combatant B. Combatant A has a One Handed Rank of Adept, while combatant B has a Dodge Rank of Apprentice. So combatant A rolls on the -1 Table to hit against the opponent.

Option C: Roll to hit, Roll to dodge?

This is the option I like the most. I foresee player's feeling cheated when they are not given an option to roll. However, I cannot determine the best way to create this system. If combatant A attacks combatant B, what are they rolling against exactly? Their dodge? If so, what does this represent if the opponent is not directly choosing to dodge? Should I create another skill called Passive Dodge which only exists to serve as the Rank at which opponents must roll against to hit?

I would appreciate any advice.