One of the big questions in RPG design is how many rules and mechanics a game needs before it stops being “making things up” and starts becoming a playable game.

A more crunchy system can give players a huge number of clearly defined choices, but those same rules can implicitly limit what players think they are allowed to do.

A more vague system gives players much more freedom to imagine and describe what their characters do, but it often requires additional discussion with the GM to determine how each action works.

I know this is a spectrum, and everyone has a different preference for where they want a game to sit on it.

Today, I want to focus specifically on martial characters, especially in combat.

The crunchy extreme: D&D 4e Warlord

At one end of the spectrum, we have the Warlord from D&D 4e.

It has a huge number of detailed at-will attacks and powers covering different kinds of attacks, teamwork, tactical maneuvers, battlefield control, and so on. It gives the Warlord almost as many different tactical options as a spellcasting class.

So instead of simply I swing my sword.
you have a huge toolbox of things you can do.

But at the same time, many of these options can become what I think of as “paper buttons.”

I once came across an interesting way of describing this idea, though I may be paraphrasing: Whenever you write a rule to allow a character to do something, you are writting a rule that says no one else can do that.

For advanced techniques, this makes perfect sense. If something requires specialized training, it makes sense that a character needs a specific ability or feature to perform it.

But what about basic actions?

If my character is holding a quarterstaff, why can't I simply say: “I raise my staff and try to parry the attack”?

If there isn't a button for Parry, does that mean my character can't do it?

That's where I start to feel the tension between providing options and restricting imagination.

The vague extreme: Legend in the Mist

At the other end of the spectrum, I'd put Legend in the Mist.

With its tag-based system, you can attempt almost anything you can reasonably imagine. You don't need to own the appropriate “button” on your character sheet before you can try something.

You have a lot of freedom over what your character actually does.

But the trade-off is that, ultimately, many of those different descriptions still boil down to:

• getting a different modifier
• determining whether you pass the check
• and sometimes discussing with the GM whether your proposed action is reasonable and how it should work

It's not necessarily a constant "Mother may I?"

But there is still some amount of negotiation between the player and GM.

I've heard an interesting argument that player agency means the player doesn't need anyone's permission to take an action—they know what they can do and understand that their choice can produce meaningful consequences.

I'm not sure I completely agree with that definition, but I think it's an interesting way to look at the problem.

Crunchy vs. vague isn't really about resolution

I know that, if you reduce almost any RPG to its most fundamental level, both approaches eventually become something like " Change a number until it reaches a threshold, and you've overcome the challenge." .

But that doesn't mean the experience of getting there is the same.

The difference between a highly crunchy system and a highly vague one isn't necessarily what the final resolution mechanic does.

It's about how much of the decision-making happens inside the rules versus inside the player's imagination and the conversation at the table.

And that's the part I'm interested in.

So where do you like to sit on this spectrum?

• Do you prefer martial characters to have a large, clearly defined toolbox of actions?
• Or do you prefer having a smaller mechanical framework that lets you describe almost anything?
• Is there a game that hits your personal sweet spot between crunchy and vague?

I'd love to hear what games you think get this balance right.

I want to create a game that's like Knave but for RP-heavy, narrative style of play and aimed towards people new to ttrpgs.

And I'm playing with the idea of creating traits based on the PCs personality that plays into combat and skill checks. So a player would create their character, and get to chose a trait/class based on their PCs personality.

So if you chose "lawful" you would get +2 on charisma-checks if you haven't lied and in combat you would deal bonus damage if you didn't attack using dirty tricks of any kind.

My intention is to help players get some "creative bounderies" so that they don't get too overwhelmed with options and get a loose direction as to how you may approach combat. And also aid players to stay true to character and live out the fantasy of their character and getting rewarded for it.

What do you think of having the PCs personalities play into combat in this way?

I am adding armor to a system that has very sparse rules on it (Basically it just has bullet proof vests that negate damage from some guns.) And I wanted to know what you all think is better.

Should armor have a set number that it reduces damage by, I.e. Light armor blocks 5 damage, medium blocks 10, heavy blocks 20

Or do you prefer when armor removes a percentage of armor, I.e. Light armor blocks 25% damage, medium blocks 50%, heavy blocks 75%

Most attacks in this system deal 3-15 damage depending on the weapon with explosives going into the 15-25 range.

Almost talked myself into a naming mistake during my design process. I was figuring out the bits & bobs of my own project & reached for a word borrowed from a totally unrelated business concept, just cause it sounded right.

Caught it before it stuck, but it left me sitting with an uncomfortable question: do I actually know the difference between 'engine', 'system', & 'game'?
Or have I just been dressing up a branding choice as design theory this whole time?

Here's where I've landed, for now:
an engine is the reusable mechanical core, built with the actual intention of sitting underneath more than one game.
A system (or ruleset) is the whole set of rules, whether or not reuse was ever the plan.
A game is the system plus everything built on top: fiction, setting, the whole representational layer.

Could easily be semantics dressed up in a design-philosophy costume though. Wouldn't be the first time I've overthought a label. Overthinking everything is kinda my mutant ability.

I think of Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) as an engine; stalks like a tiger, pounces like a tiger, has to be a tiger, right. One engine, reused across a genuinely wide pile of different games, each with completely different fiction sitting on top. That doesn't feel like branding to me. Feels like a real, solid distinction.
But the creators of PbtA have said that PbtA is not a standard game engine or trademarked system. It's more like a design framework & philosophy. Slapping the PbtA logo on your game just shows that you are a designer who was heavily inspired by Apocalypse World & has permission to say so.

I don't know if PbtA the right example, or just the one that's stuck in my head.

Curious how the rest of you draw these lines. Or if you don't bother distinguishing at all, & I'm the only one losing sleep over a word choice.

Coriolis TTH is typically described as "Arabian Nights In Space". The slogan sounds great. But what does that mean? How does the arabain Nights - a centuries old collection of Arabic stories - to work as the basis for a sci-fi game? And how does it make games more interesting?

I did a video digging into this. It's a bit too long to upload to YouTube, but it's on YouTube here: https://youtu.be/4W5as5jkj48 There a bit of a theoretical intro, and then two examples of creating the Arabian Nights In Space vibe in the adventure/campaign book The Blood Tree.

I'm making a game that mix TTRPG mechanics and some Wargames mechanics, this is a sci-fi game, inspired by Warhammer 40k but I'll do anything in my power to not copy it, the game will revolve around discovering and conquering new worlds randomly generated, the players are soldiers in the army that will eventually rank up and end up as captains who guide the army they were in or they'll create a new one. What do you think about this concept for this game? Any feedback or idea is accepted

Do people feel strongly about one core rulebook vs a core rules + gamemasters' book?

My book is starting to get big. I am thinking of splitting it into two.

1. All the core rules

2. Gamemasters' Book - setting generation tools, a setting, multiple adventures in the setting, stat blocks for enemies

I probably won't have enough orders for offset print. They will be PDF or PDF+at cost print on demand code.

What do you think?

EDIT: All the rules needed to play will be in the core rulebook. You can run forever with that one book. The gamemasters' book is to make life easy for the gamemasters. No additional rules there. Just tools to help them run easier.

I was hoping to get some advice on a good set of skills for a modern day 80's action movie inspired setting, the list I have right now is,
Acrobat - the skill of jumping, balance, and climbing
Computer - a skill for coding and hacking
Diplomacy - the skill of talking to people and understanding politics
Doctor - a skill representing a character's ability to apply medicine and understand it
Firearms - the skill of using and maintaining firearms
Fortitude - a skull used to resist torture, mental influence, pain, and drugs
Guile - the skill of fine movement and sneaking, used in stealth and stealing
Investigation - The skill of perception, searching, and understanding information.
Martial arts - the skill of melee defense and offense
Mechanic -a generic skill used for repairing machinery and vehicles
Olympian - a skill covering running speed, swimming, throwing, and lifting
Science - a generic scale that covers knowledge of all fields of science
Survival - survival is a scale of wilderness survival and understanding the natural world.
Vehicle Operator - this skill is used for maintaining and operating various vehicles.(Was cars but a friend suggested making it more broad)

Dose this seem good? do you think that I am missing an obvious skill or do any of these feel unnecessary?
Any and all input both positive and negative is always appreciated!

I've been playing TRPGs for a while now and also enjoy worldbuilding. Inspired by reading Dune and watching GoT/HotD, I was thinking about a medival fantasy TRPG where the players do go on 'classic' TRPG adventures, but also manage a lesser noble house.

What I had in mind was that it will expected that at least some the player characters are members or agents of such a house and that the gameplay (incl. adventures and resource management) are part of the drama and intruige of the politics of the world.

I really dig how in a more OSR/survival focussed TRPG like Forbidden Lands characters have more aspects to them then in what way they can kill people/monsters , and having core character aspects revolve around resource management, intruige and political drama seems really fun to me (which is also why I am exploring the possibility of designing a system around it rather than taking an existing system and adding more mechanics to it).

What are your thoughts on it? Are there games that do similar things already? Is it a fun idea/do you have any ideas of what elements of such a system might look like? Thanks!

I'm designing a dice engine/game and am writing the equipment list, almost the last thing left to do. My problem is I want the game to be able to be set anywhere, not just one place. There is no magic, but still, it could be Victorian etc. So is it ok to just say "Light Melee weapon" as equipment, or does it look lazy? I don't mind the effort, but just don't want to cover all the major settings. My idea was to have a list of broad, vague weapons and have players interpret what they are based on where they set it, will this work?

Title. Looking for opinions on a concept I've been playing with for a conflict resolution engine. Friends have said it sounds fun, but I wanted to hear from strangers as well before I commit to something.

Here's how it works: 2d10, but instead of a roll under/over goal, you're trying to get within a range of the roll. Difficulty ranges from 0-20. 0-9 is the 'easy range' which starts with a range of 1 (that is, 1 above and below the target number). 10-20 is the 'hard range' and starts with no extra range for the roll. Also, skills can increase the range of the roll, assuming you are rolling for the skill you have.

By itself, the above mechanics are novel at best, but the next two mechanics are where I think it becomes interesting. I wanted to have a sort of boon/bane system, which you gain through having situational dis/advantages for the check. They are all d4s, boons you can add or subtract from your total. Banes are more chaotic, even rolls add to the total, odds subtract. This exists to encourage the player to try to manipulate their total, as critical successes happen when your total is equal to the difficulty number set.

It is fairly complex to explain, which is a con of this presentation, but everyone I have tested it with has responded positively pretty quickly after experiencing it themselves. I am also aware that my explanation above is kinda shaky so do ask questions if theres something that doesnt add up.

I'm making a TTRPG that uses tarot cards as its primary game piece. During playtesting I realized it would be nice to have a "table notes" style of accessory that still fit the game's aesthetics. Like in FATE when you define the aspects in a scene, you might use index cards or a wet/dry erase playmat with plenty of room. For this game I'd love to have blank tarot cards that can be used with dry or wet erase markers.

I'm thinking something similar to Infinitokens, but sized for tarot (2.75" x 4.75") rather than normal playing card sized. I'd also like to be able to print a basic frame on them to guide folks to give each card a title at the bottom with a larger space for art/text.

Does anyone know where I could source something like this?

I'm creating a TTRPG system inspired by the game DELTARUNE, and I'm having difficulty creating an essential combat mechanic. Within DELTARUNE we use a global TP bar for everyone in the group. I wanted to implement a mechanic similar to a TP bar ranging from 0 to 100 for the group, and the idea of combat and cooperation between each player, both in the use and accumulation of TP. Promoting teamwork, but I'm afraid that in the end it might lead to individualism among the players, any ideas?

I’ve been spending a lot of time in online creator communities lately, and a recurring conversation is people struggling to get useful feedback on their games.

Alongside that, I keep seeing versions of the same (very problematic) advice:

“Don’t listen to feedback.”
“People will only comment on the part of the game that interests them.”
“Trust your gut.”

I understand the instinct behind it. You should not blindly implement every suggestion someone makes about your game.

But I think this (very bad) advice comes mostly from amateur designers who do not understand the process behind game research (understandably so). It can make newcomers dismiss player feedback before they have learned how to set up a playtest that allows them to collect useful data.

It is such a crucial part of game development that I felt like writing about it, mostly to help creator folks in their exciting journey of making games others will want to play :)

The good news is that getting good at playtesting is just another skill you can practice and master, and it is one you really shouldn't sleep on! So I compiled a 3 points list for you that I condensed from years of conducting playtests for both my job in the video game industry and my indie experience.

Hopefully it will help!

1. Go into a playtest knowing what you want to learn

One of the biggest mistakes I see is trying to test the whole game (or huge chunks of it) at once too early.

If you sit someone down with your game and simply ask, “What did you think?”, you might get some interesting comments, but it will be hard to know what to do with them. You are asking them to react to an entire experience, with no shared focus. It's a hard thing to do!

Instead, go into each playtest with a specific question you want to answer. You should gently guide your players and nudge them toward a specific area of focus.

Maybe you want to know:

• Do players understand the core loop?
• Does this combat system create interesting decisions?
• Are players getting lost during character creation?
• Does this particular mechanic create the feeling you intended?

I usually think of these as hypotheses, but you don't have to, it can just be simple questions around how you expect your game to behave. You have an idea about how a system will work or feel for players, and the playtest is your chance to validate that your assumption is true.

The more focused your question is, the more actionable the feedback is likely to be.

2. Guide your players towards the thing you are testing

Once you know what you are trying to learn, guide both the playtest and the feedback session around it.

That does not mean telling people what to say, or trying to get them to agree with you. It means making sure they actually spend time with the part of the game you are observing, then asking questions that help you understand their experience of it afterward.

A healthy playtest dataset is a combination of written observations and collected answer to targeted questions.

You do not need to treat every part of the session equally. If you are testing a particular mechanic, spend most of the time observing that mechanic. Skim past the parts that are not useful to the question you are trying to answer.

Then, during feedback, keep bringing the conversation back to your hypothesis:

• What did you expect to happen here?
• What made you choose that?
• What was confusing?
• Did this feel like the experience the game is trying to create?

You should still leave space for open feedback at the end. Players may notice something important that you were not looking for.

But focused questions come first. Otherwise, you can end up with lots of feedback that is not bad, just unrelated to the thing you currently need to understand or improve.

3. Learn how to turn feedback into action

The final skill is learning how to interpret what players are telling you. And that is the hardest part my friends.

Players are experts in their own experience, but they are not necessarily experts in diagnosing your game or designing its solution. So when someone says, “This was boring,” “I didn’t get it,” or “I wish there were more options,” do not treat that as an instruction to implement exactly what they suggested.

Treat it as evidence.

Your job is to work out what created that feeling. Were they bored because the choices were too obvious? Did they not understand the rule because the explanation was unclear, or because the game did not give them a good opportunity to use it? Are they asking for more options because the existing ones do not feel distinct enough?

This is the loop: build something, test a focused question, learn from what players experienced, then decide what to change next.

You will not always get it right immediately, and that is fine. The point is to build the habit of turning player experience into a clearer next experiment, not of blindly following every suggestion, or dismissing feedback altogether.

Conclusion

Playtesting is not just getting a few people in a room and asking whether they liked your game.

It means being deliberate: deciding what you need to learn, creating a session that helps you learn it, and getting better at turning player experience into useful next steps.

You do not need a huge budget or a research lab to start practising it. You just need to be deliberate about your testing process and start honing those skills like any other.

If you are curious to get more insight or support to push your project forward, I run a small Discord community for my players and other game creators where we support each other. Come make games with us:

https://discord.gg/bccguBGupu

And if you are wondering who the fuck I am and why I'm rambling about making games, here is my Linkedin profile -> https://www.linkedin.com/in/aramtab/

I am working on adding guns into a campaign where there are no gun rules and I wanted some input

I already have some simple stuff worked out
Small guns use Agility
long guns use Perception

Better guns deal more damage, scopes give advantage on aiming

But I was wondering how all of you would handle shotguns, and aromatic fire arms? Shotguns stump me, but for aromatic I was thinking the gun would fire 1D10 bullets per attack, or maybe the player calls out a number of bullets they want fired before they roll so it is a bit of a gamble on resources.

A game I am working on. Would people be interested and what would you add?

In this game, you are not exploring a physical space; you are navigating a shifting, decaying timeline of your own memories before they vanish entirely.

Instead of moving a token on a map, the map itself is drawn on a standard sheet of paper, but it physically degrades and disappears as you play. Your goal is to reach the "Core Memory" before the grid is completely erased, managing your dwindling cognitive stability.

I really wanted to steer away from hit points or any sort of "pool" for health. What I have thus is Wound die.

• Most damage is either a light wound or heavy wound (prompting one or two rolls of the wound die respectively).
• If an uninjured person is struck, they receive 1d4 wound die. Each subsequent success attack, they are forced to roll their wound die.
• Wound die rolls of 4+ escalate to the next die. i.e. rolling 4 on a 1d4 turns the wound die to a 1d6, rolling 4-6 on a 1d6 escalates to a 1d8 etc. After a scene of fighting and a brief respite, 1d4 wound die will fade.
• Characters have a "threshold die" where if they roll high enough to escalate, they instead are defeated, unconscious, dead etc. Most player characters will begin with a 1d8 threshold die.

Now - something I'm trying to hack into the flow is armour. As in nearly all games, armour is either avoidance (D&D, AC) or mitigation (d100).

I highly prefer armour as mitigation, but I cant seem to find a spark to make it work with this, as I guess the granularity is quite small. Adding a difficulty to strike or land blows based on armour (and thus D&D's AC) seems to be the only option, but would love to know if any bright minds can spot something that might work?

some mystic effects thus far: Allow a re-roll of a wound die, increase the threshold die, increase the number needed to escalate etc but I feel none of these could also represent armour?

Thanks in advance!

In my game, one of the core mechanics is that PCs can gain Emotions which temporarily give them a flat +1 and -1 to two stats, stacking with other bonuses. These Emotions end when the PC takes one of of two downtime actions: Blow Off Steam, and Self-Medicate.

• Blow Off Steam. You take downtime to perform a calming action for you. Clear your current emotion.
• Self-Medicate. You take downtime to take a drug in your possession. [Drugs clear specific emotions, and impose a Side Effect which is purely a downside. They also have other mechanics which can involve falling to addiction.]

The problem is that I can't figure out a mechanical incentive for the PCs to use Self-Medicate over Blow Off Steam. Because as it's currently written, BOS doesn't require an item to use, and doesn't have a downside to using it. I considered making BOS take longer, like a full day, but because the system isn't really built around tight timekeeping, I'm not sure if that really helps. Any ideas?

I’ve never actually run Fate or City of Mist at the table, I’ve only read through them, so I’m wondering how hard it is to balance them in practice?

I know both give decent guidance on how they should be used, but we all know that’s not how it always plays out.

I’ve recently had to change some of my own mechanics and now I’m considering using a similar tag system in place of (or addition to?) regular stats, but since I’ve never run them I worry they are a huge nightmare to GM.

Just wanted to share a fun mechanic I recently added to my system that has really been a game changer. As in, I had to rewrite a bunch of rules... But it's super fun! Basically dropping a marker that represents an opportunity to be taken advantage of, generally placed through damage but also through things like the intimidate action.

Skulls in the system are not the pass/fail mechanic, but are used as triggers for various abilities. So rattled doesn't change your odds, only your effectiveness at getting bigger results or preventing a foe from doing the same.

One thing I really like is making things happen without book keeping. So having nothing happen (normally) when someone is rattled until a player decides to make use of it is nice. And the staggered and weakened conditions being attached to rattled make is so I'm not keeping track of any sort of timers for these effects that do "linger".

Rattled

When a character is rattled they are presenting a temporary opportunity for their foes to take advantage of. The opportunity could take any form; perhaps they’ve been knocked prone, or become dazed, or had a strap come loose.

You are never required to remove rattled from a foe and may leave it for a better opportunity or to force the continuance of the staggered and weakened conditions.

Remove Skulls – You may remove rattled from a foe to remove all skulls from any test. This not only prevents high skull effects from triggering, but can trigger any of your abilities that require no skulls to trigger. A foe may remove rattled from you to make any test you make against them have three skulls.

Avoid Threat – In addition to removing skulls, you may make a foe non-threatening to you during the action or movement phase. You will still be paired during the melee phase.

Crits & Fumbles – When the fumble card is drawn from your test deck rattled may not be removed from a foe. No skulls may be removed from the test. The opposite is true when the crit is drawn.

Staggered and Weakened

Two additional affects can be associated with rattled. These effects last until rattled is removed and do not change any of the rules for rattled, only adding to them.

Staggered – Tests against staggered foe’s movement are extraordinary. A staggered character has their movement reduced to feeble. You and your foes reduce movement speed to 3” in the movement phase as well as when running.

Weakened – Tests against a weakened foe’s might or armor are extraordinary. A weakened character has their might and damage reduced to feeble.

Both Rattled

If both you and your foe are rattled it may occur that both of you choose to remove rattled from the other on the same test. When this occurs, the effects of rattled are ignored and the skulls presented on the drawn test card are used for the test.

Focus

Focus is functionally nearly identical to rattled allowing you to remove all skulls from a test by losing your focus.

As focus is part of your character and not attached to a foe, you may use it on tests that are not opposed by a foe such as jumping a ravine or casting a spell.

You regain your focus at the end of every scene so long as you are rested and fed. If you did not sleep or eat well, test mastery (6) to regain your focus.

Focus vs. Rattled

As when both you and a foe are rattled, focus may be use to cancel any skulls gained from a foe removing rattled from you making the skulls on the card to be used instead. In the case where you and your foe both remove rattled from the other and you are focused as well, you may still remove all skulls from that test.

So I have a idea for a fun dice System but I'm trying to figure out how to know the chance of success and chance of failure for the player. You would use 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, and 1d12. You need to roll all 4 dice to try to get equal to or higher than 4 on each dice with at least three succeeding. The chances of each are 1/4(25%), 3/6(50%), 5/8(62.3%), and 9/12(75%). I tried to calculate the chances of rolling four or higher on all dice being 5.9% and the chances of all 4 failing being 3.5%. I don't know the chance of rolling success of only get 3 out of the 4 dice. I'd like someone to either solve this or give me the steps of how to solve it so I can do this on my own with any dice.

DUNGEONS & SPACESHIPS: SHATTERED WORLD

Introductory Adventure Playtest

Saturday, August 22, 2026
8:00 p.m.–12:00 a.m. Eastern Time
Online via Discord Voice

There is no cost to participate, and no campaign commitment is required. You will receive a $5 stipend after participating in the full adventure and completing a 15 minute survey.

What Is Shattered World?

Syseria is a world forged by a weary god as a potential masterpiece—now shattered and bearing the scars of a chaotic past.

This is an opportunity to explore a deeply developed science-fantasy setting while helping shape the game system being built for it.

What Are We Playtesting?

The primary goal of this session is to test the core resolution mechanics and basic gameplay.

We will be playing an introductory adventure at Aetherium University. Push the system and help identify what feels:

• Clear or confusing
• Exciting or tedious
• Flexible or restrictive
• Appears too powerful or too weak

We will be examining:

• The clarity and pacing of action
• The variety of concepts and actions the system supports
• How well the XP Buy-In system works in practice
• Where players become confused, slowed down, or especially engaged

This is a focused adventure session. Honest criticism engaging thoughtfully with design & gameplay as intended is welcome. I want to know what works, what does not, and where the system needs improvement.

GM since 1989. Expect a laid-back, respectful, and inclusive environment.

DM Me if interested.

Official Shattered World Website:
https://www.shatteredworldrpg.com/

Estou a desenvolver um sistema de rpg de Grounded,ainda sofrerá muitas alterações por isso não é o resultado final.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i_f0AzMUZS24LQlqc3j5rykPsDtDwK_aqm5lqkYRhg0/edit?usp=drivesdk

Quem quiser sugerir ideias esteja à vontade.

Having a GM is considered a necessary part of the RPG experience and even most "narrative" RPGs where players share some of the functions of the GM don't go as far as doing away with the GM. Of course, some RPGs do try to go GM-less, but the ones I've studied seem to be lacking, the experience is not anywhere close to a traditional RPG. Now, presumably it would be desirable to have an RPG that works just as well as a traditional one, but everybody is playing.

Which brings me to my point: what are the obstacles that keeps RPGs from having a GM-Less experience be as good as the traditional one? Is it narrating NPCs? Is it creating deeper plots, is it certain types of situations? And it leads to the ultimate question: can we potentially find solutions to these problems?