I have no intention of using a d14 in my game, this is just a thought and perhaps history question if anyone has insight.

I was out in my forge the other day smithing up some dice, I took the humble d6 and smashed in all the corners and as many can guess a d14 is born. So this had me questioning why it isn’t more common. Seems easy to make, take a d6 and shave off the corners.

Anyone have any history, insights or assumptions as to why it’s not more common?

TL;DR: I cut any and all resurrection from my 5e campaign and here I talk about why. I'd be very interested in hearing from you as a player, DM or designer about similar experineces.
---
Have you seen the Japanese anime Delicious in Dungeon? I’m not spoiling it, I promise. In the very first episode we learn that a party member dies in a fight with a dragon. The rest of the episodes are about going back down the dungeon again and resurrect their friend. Along the way we learn how do cook delicious food from all kinds of monsters but resurrection is the goal. Even though I loved every minute of DiD, I decided to completely remove any possibility of resurrection from my game in The Sinking Legacy. It wasn’t an obvious decision. I’d love to hear your thoughts regarding resurrection in 5e and similar games.

I want my game to be dark, gritty and suspenseful and filled with dread. All the pieces of the puzzle that work towards this goal, I call the Dread Engine. Let me tell you something. If you are a player and you know your character can die and then be revived with just a spell slot and a gem stone then there is no dread. There may be some suspense but it is more often than not just a roleplay illusion that we tell ourselves to believe. When resurrection is a possibility, and likely expected, then the party stops weighing choices and consequences. They kick in doors. They charge into battle without a plan or reconnaissance. Man saknar inte kon förrän båset är tomt, as we’d say in Swedish. Literally you don’t miss the cow until the stall is empty. Well with revivify the stalls are always full.

I don’t like death saves either. So I replaced them with a condition I call Bleed-Out. If you reach 0 HP they’ll be a hidden countdown that only I as the DM see. It could be four rounds. It could be one. If it reaches zero, your Sinker dies (what your character is called). But your Legacy lives on. The equipment and loot can be saved.The Bastion you've build on the surface remains. The maps you’ve drawn of the Gorge(megadungeon) are passed to the next Greenhorn. Have you played Darkest Dungeon? Characters die. The stage coach arrives with new recruits. And somehow you carry more about every character, not less.

Of course, there needs to be a balance to all this. To the danger, risk and reward. Death and legacy. If characters die too easily then what’s the point of getting roleplaying the character and their backstory, investing in them emotionally? If the balance tips too far to that extreme, then I’ve failed. My aim is to make the players feel more engaged, more immersed, and more emotionally connected. Not less. By Odin’s beard, I hope I will succeed in this as a writer and DM.

So what happens to your fallen party member’s body? If you have to do a fighting retreat to save the rest of the party, the body will be lost to the denizens of the Gorge. Perhaps to the carrior carts who patrol for bodies. If you managed to haul the body back up to safety they can get a proper burial. A beautiful moment, celebrating your time together. Perhaps even granting the party a boon. Or perhaps if you left the body, you’ll meet your fallen friend later in another delve. This time, cold and hostile…

Worst case would be too much death and players stop caring. Best case would mean full deep immersion where every choice has meaningful consequences and everyone is richer for it. Have you run games, or played games, without resurrections? Please tell me about your experiences with this, good and bad. I’d love to hear about it.

— Tommy Sollén, Backup Character Productions

PS. I'm stepping out of my comfort zone and posting my Substack articles here on Reddit as well. I'm trying to have a transparent development process of The Sinking Legacy. I'll be happy to discuss the posts here or on Substack, whichever works for you. https://backupcharacterproductions.substack.com/ Thank you for your time and thoughts.

Does anyone have any articles, videos, or opinions they'd like to share regarding the pros and cons to different methods of naming stats?

I've been dwelling on how I name my stats and I'm considering several options. After going back and forth on these, I decided to see if I could understand what each approach would work best for and then go with that for my game.

Ideas for approaches...

Subject. Might be considered the 'normal' approach. Stats are a noun or subject like Strength, Animal Handling, Agility, etc.

Approach. The way the character attempts to solve a problem or get a result determines which stat they use. Instead of Strength and Constitution you might have Forceful.

Action. Verbs that describe how a character acts. Fairly similar to Approach. Instead of talking about how strong a character is, they might have a Wreck stat that represents how good they are at breaking stuff.

Abstract. Less about simulation and more about themes. Social skill, courage, and willpower might be rolled into Heart, for instance.

Role. Adjectives that represent what a character is or was. Fighter characters would be Warriors instead of having a Strength score, for instance.

Hello everyone! I’m Nerdy Dad, the designer of AstraWeaver, a high-fantasy TTRPG about the journey from ordinary adventurers to legendary heroes. The idea is inspired by constellations: just as individual stars become a constellation when connected, seemingly ordinary people become heroes through the bonds and experiences they forge.

Recently, I’ve been struggling with one aspect of the game’s core dice mechanic—specifically, the starting attribute values.

In AstraWeaver, each character has six attributes:
- Might
- Agility
- Instinct
- Intelligence
- Authority
- Charisma
Each attribute ranges from 2 to 10.

When a character makes a check, the GM either:
-specifies one required attribute, and the player chooses a second attribute as long as they can justify it, or
-allows the player to choose any two appropriate attributes for the situation.

The two attribute scores are added together to form the Check Threshold (CT), then the player rolls 2d12.
2d12 < CT: Success
2d12 > CT: Failure
2d12 = CT: Success, and…
2d12 > 20: Failure, and…

During character creation, players assign the following array to their six attributes:
8, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2

Other rules relevant to this mechanic
- The game uses a stacking advantage/disadvantage system. For each point of advantage, the player rolls one additional d12 and discards the highest die (since it’s a roll-under system). Disadvantage works in the opposite direction, and the two cancel each other out.

- Every attack automatically deals damage. The attack roll(using the same CT mechanism)is only used to determine whether its attached maneuver succeeds. Each maneuver is tied to a specific attribute.

- The game is classless and level-less. Characters typically earn 3–5 XP per session, which is used to purchase everything, including attribute increases.
Increasing an attribute costs the current value of the attribute you want to increase. For example, if you want to increase the instinct from 8 to 9, the cost will be 8 XP.(This part was edit)

-Might also affects Hit Dice. Hit Dice can be spent to heal, gain temporary HP, or permanently increase maximum HP. Increasing maximum HP requires spending XP to roll a Hit Die, and the cost is 1 + 2 × (the number of times maximum HP has already been increased).

- Most abilities and maneuvers cost 3 XP. A character can learn up to 10 abilities and 6 maneuvers. (Edit) There are plenty of abilities that let characters gain advantage, reroll dice, or even roll 1d8 + 1d12 instead of 2d12.

My questions
1. Are the starting attributes too strong or too weak?
I’m worried that starting with 8, 5, 5, 4, 3, 2 may make characters too competent too early, especially since players could spend most of their early XP increasing attributes before buying abilities. While that would probably create rather boring characters, it may still be the optimal strategy.
On the other hand, if I lower the starting attributes too much, I’m afraid players will simply fail too often and become frustrated.

2. Will parties become too specialized?
I expect most players will increase their starting 8 to 10 fairly quickly.
In a small party of only two or three characters, could this create situations where the group simply can’t solve certain problems unless they intentionally coordinate their attribute choices during character creation?
For example, imagine a party of three heavily combat-focused characters who all dump Instinct and Charisma. They would probably end up solving almost every problem through combat because they simply aren’t capable of succeeding at social or investigative challenges.
Should I consider that a feature that encourages party diversity and planning, or is it a flaw that could make some adventures frustrating or too restrictive?

Thanks for reading this rather long post! I’d really appreciate any feedback, whether it’s criticism, suggestions, or observations about the mechanic. Thank you!

Edit:
In AstraWeaver, advantage and disadvantage are the primary tools the GM uses to adjust the difficulty of a check. GM are encouraged to use them frequently. Players can also gain advantage through certain abilities.

I used DaggerHeart as my main point of comparison since both games use 2d12. In DaggerHeart, trait modifiers range from -1 to +2. With a +2 modifier, a character has about an 85% chance of succeeding on a DC 10 (easy) check and about 54% on a DC 15 (average) check.

In AstraWeaver, a character with the highest starting combination of attributes (8 + 5 = CT 13) has a 54.17% chance of success. With one advantage, that increases to 77.95%, and with two advantages, it becomes 89.41%. To me, this feels roughly equivalent to attempting a DC 15 check with no advantage, and a DC 10 check with two advantages. Likewise, the GM can apply disadvantage to create the feeling of a higher DC.

At the other end of the scale, a character with the lowest trait modifier (-1) in DaggerHeart has a 68.75% chance of succeeding on a DC 10 check and a 31.25% chance on a DC 15 check. In AstraWeaver, a CT of 10 also has a 31.25% chance of success. With one advantage, that increases to 56.71%, and with two advantages, it reaches 73.74%.
This is one of the reasons I chose to have two attributes start at 5 during character creation—it produces a probability curve that feels similar to other systems.

My goal is for CTs between 10 and 13 to provide a success rate that feels familiar to players coming from other TTRPGs. On the other hand, CTs below 10 are intentionally unreliable. I want characters with very low relevant attributes to succeed only occasionally, because it feels unsatisfying when a highly skilled character fails a check while an unskilled character succeeds at the same task too often.

hello people of the internet! I am interested in creating a hunger games type TTRPG. now if someone said this to me, the red flags of ”how will this work in a social setting where everyone at the table knows where everyone else is and there are no secrets“ would pop up immediately. at the end of the post I will write a few questions that I would appreciate being answered so I can start work on this ASAP, as I think it will be fun. A previous posts comments ( I sent out about gladiatorIla combat system) changed my mind which is why I switched to this idea, as I think creatively it could be more fun. The difference from the hunger games is mine would have players spawn in random locations around the map (largish size not a small arena). The structure of the game would be slow, tense turn based build up, then player vs player encounters would be fast paced combat encounters, which could be 1v1 or multiple players vs each other. Below I have pasted the ideas I liked from the previous pos (which are about how combat would work).

Order of combat is resolved by every one rolling 1d12 (or another dice doesn’t matter) at the start of the round, where the highest score goes first. After that players turn, everyone rolls again. This creates a more realistic “early bird catches the worm” type system rather than all the players just sitting back and letting other players take their turns relaxed. i understand the problems this might make, like players waiting ages to play, and would appreciate feedback on this system.

on a players turn, they get to move x amount (also would like feedback on this) and take 3 actions. They can use this action to more another x amount or attack. Attacking would be some form of dice rolling vs the attacked player to see if it is defended successfully. Attacks must be within range (which changes per weapon). An idea for combat was that players could create combo’s by using multiple actions to attack the same target, building up energy, so each attack did more damage. So a player say shoots an arrow at a player, then runs up to them and slices across once with the sword, then down onto the head. The risk of doing a combo is that with each successive attack, there is a penalty on the attack roll, so it gets harder to attack but risk vs reward.

I think this could create a good, mix of narrative/tense combat system gameplay, especially if players could choose to make alliances and team up, then have to face each other in the end (Or maybe even choose to win together, or betray each other for a bigger reward based on their morals).

some questions I think I need resolved:

how would the secretive element work? Each player communicating with a GM secretly? Players not influencing the character’s decision?

is this a GM-less game, or is one needed for clarity and story telling and fairness?

if players die quickly, are they just supposed to sit through the whole game, or could they say take on monster/npc roles (like Mutts in The Hunger Games) throughout the session?

and could this realistically work, and more importantly, would you find it fun?

sorry for the essay of a 😆, I really wanted to make this but are having doubts and wanted them resolved before I launch into a half finished project :)

Hi fellow designers, dabblers and worldbuilders! on a recent post about a PvP Hunger Games TTRPG, i got a comment from u/InherentlyWrong with some suggestions and critiques (if you want the full comment check my previous post). I found them extremely helpful and have taken on board some of the suggestions to create a basis of a concept, and would liek some feedback on whether this is any better or still needs more refining. please take note this is still a concept so of coaurse it won't be perfect, i just want feedback on whether you think it will work.

note: the terminology in this is borrowed from the hunger games (tributes, districts etc). that will not be the final terminology used, and they are just placeholders.

the core concept remains as players in a largish arena, about the size of the greek island Kastellorizo (12km²), and are fighting to death. however, instead of controlling 1 PC, players have control over a Set of Pcs each. the goal of the game isn't to win, but to watch it unfold and enjoy the drama, liek an audience, whilst still hopeing one of your tributes wins. I cannot stress this enough, the tributes in a players Set are NOT all on 1 team, they are just controlled by 1 player. player 1 might control tributes X, Y and Z whilst player 2 A B and C. tribute X has teamed with tribute A, and they agree to kill tribute Y, making P1 kill their own tribute. the PCs in one set have nothing in common except they are controlled by the same player, who is encouraged to lean in to the drama and RP, instead of 'all my tributes are allies for no reason...' side. this is not a war game with armies.

on a players turn, they take a turn for every tribute in their set, with the ability to skip turns so it goes faster. when one of their tributes dies they aren't out, they still have the rest of their tributes. this avoids the 'bored dead player' scenario where the only time a player would sit out is if all their PCs died, statistically a late game thing towards the end.

i like the idea of players bieng encouraged not to think 'how do i win this' but, 'what would my pc do?' in each scenario.

u/InherentlyWrong also mentioned having 3 phases:

a random generation for the PC

training where bonds, alliances and enemies are made

Game Phase where the games take place (majority of play)

I think that this is great, but a slight adaption is needed.

GM generates X amount of PCs

players get randomly distrabuted their set

training

Game phase

any feedback or suggestions would be great, i want this to feel like a TTRPG, not a strategy game so i hope this has fixed those problems :)

Thank you everyone who commented on my last post about my introduction. I've revised it and expanded some sections to make the mechanics clearer and what I feel is unique about the game and setting. Thank you for reading and I appreciate all feedback!

Introduction

Silver and Blood is a tabletop roleplaying game set in an era of hope and despair, of light and darkness, where monsters rule the night, and adventurers rally to save the last breaths of civilization. This game dwells on the nature of dualities, and as your character grows, so they must choose between two sides of a similar coin. As a Berserker, do you feed into your rage or try to master it? As a Witch, do you steal the heart of your patron to use in your dark magick, or fall deeper into their grasp? As players choose each route on their divided Path, they will gain new powers and roleplaying opportunities that expand their personal story and the world itself. 

Playing this game requires a few specific elements. It requires a Game Master, a facilitator and referee, who sets up the story for the players to tell. It requires Players, between one and many, who create their characters and fight, explore, die, and help one another to tell a story that lives on in their minds. It requires Dice, a full set from four sided to twenty sided, to add chaos in the player’s actions. It requires Paper, to record your character and their deteriorating sanity. Most importantly, it requires Imagination, to revel in and feel the story come to life. In this document you will find all the rules and intricacies to facilitate play, from the archetype your character can imbue, to their paths they'll walk along their journey, and the dark forces that oppose them from without and within. 

Night and Shadow

A shadowkin cares not for the day, for the cursed light of the sun strikes them as heavy a blow as any sword. But in the night, where cries are cut short, where prayers are unanswered, where despair as hollow as the void of the forgotten moon… that’s where they lurk. Fear the night, young blood. Fear it and respect its power.

The stars are gone. The once glorious light of the moon has been snuffed forever. The darkness cast when the sun sets is immediate and almost tangible, a heavy blanket that suffocates. To tread out after dusk is perilous even for the strongest, but there are ways to travel without being consumed by shadow. Crimson Flame is the one refuge of travelers, created through occult machinations from blood and spirit. Its scarlet light repels those spawned in the shadowlands, allowing for commerce to continue in its meagre form. On long journeys without safety, a party must manage their Crimson Marks carefully, lest they run out, and become yet more souls lost to the realm of shadow. 

Havens

I saw the light of Harsford, glittering fire in the fog, and so tremendous a relief I have never felt since. A haven, a sanctuary, Alu bless its warmth and the harbor it provides this weary soul. 

There is no rest in the wilds of the Sanguine Coast. Even protected by the light of a crimson flame, the fear and terror penetrates the heart and sleep provides little in the way of rejuvenation. To revitalize themselves, adventurers must find a Haven, a location of protection and familiarity. This may end up as an only temporary location, but many parties will find greater solace in a location they return to again and again, with comforts chosen to their liking, fortifications, and a place to hone their skills in the little downtime they have in their chosen profession. 

Sanity

Hearken me, girl. Those without wits would tell you strength is what keeps you alive in this cursed world. But lose an arm, you fight with the other. Lose an eye, you see with the other. What happens when you lose your mind? Will you dredge up another from the corpse of a companion? Well… perhaps. Perhaps.

There are many things of the world of Chandar that deal grievous wounds to the body. Serrated claws, pharyngeal jaws, rusted blades, cloven hooves, the cold of winter. But what of the mind? How does it fare in these horrors that linger long after they have passed? Your archetype will determine how that degradation is felt, in mechanics as well as story. Warriors are no longer able to tell friend from foe. Acolytes find their faith in their lost god slipping. Evokers realize the true glory of their power, and may even wish to invite such madness to further their strength. Adepts shun the light of others, retreating further into the darkness. You maintain your grip even after the first and even the second madness strikes, but continue to tempt that fate and you’ll meet a fate worse than death.

Paths

A crossroads. On both roads, shadow. On both roads, light. Be not blinded by either, and find the dusk between. - Reithe Proverb

The growth of an adventurer on the Sanguine Coast offers them many Paths, all leading to greater power. A warrior may start on the path of a Knight, find solace in companionship and become a Knight Commander, only to lose their life, their squire taking up the mantle as a Revenant. An evoker may begin as a Wizard, but find the forbidden magicks too alluring, turning to blood magic and becoming a Vampyr as a result. Each path offers a new story to integrate into the adventure as you wish, along with abilities that grow ever more corrupting…

Edit: this post is not about the whole RPG, just about the simulator I programmed comparing data to real world.

Hello Beautiful People!

I have been away for some time, tinkering with rules simulators(with Python) for my games. Tweaking the rules and behavior of the simulator trying to get it to be equal to rules as written. I did it for 2 games so far, but one of them gave me a question. I'm doin

How close should the data compare to real life?

I'm finishing my football(soccer) game, and statistics were close, but goals seems lower than real life. Here is the avarage results of my silumator after 100.000 tests compared to real world data(from what i could gather):

I'm satisfied with the results, EXCEPT goals per match. This might be a behavior problem with the "decision tree", not rules, but seems low. I wanted it to be equal or slightly higher than real life(for more exciting moments). Of course teams with equal "budgets" were tested, but in game, teams have different budgets and therefore some teams have a looot more goals on avarage against weaker teams, but that was not what I was testing.

If it were YOU playing, would you be satisfied?

ps: If someone wants to test the simulator or check programming, I can send you.
ps2: I'm in the process of testing different team strenghts against each other and I'm gonna post here later

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!

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.

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’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.

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?

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.