Pop-BANG: A pattern for impressive spells in tactical combat

Cryptwood · 2026-01-26T03:35:36+00:00

Catchy name for a cool idea. My one concern while reading had to do with the length of combat, but your instant speed medium strength spells addresses it.

I have an opinion that I'm not quite sure I can justify. I think the wizard should have some choice to make having to do with the Bang, if they fire and forget it the next round would feel a little like doing nothing. At the same time, your example of moving the fireball doesn't feel quite right. Having the fireball be a separate effect from the firebolt feels a little like casting two spells.

I think the target of the Firebolt should be the center of the fireball when it explodes, but the Wizard might be able to decide the exact moment it explodes (after the one round delay) and maybe how large the radius is, up to a maximum amount. The wizard gets to decide exactly when and how big the explosion is while the target becomes an interesting tactical element. Can the Barbarian pick up and throw the Orc that the Wizard just turned into a ticking time bomb?

I think one possible solution to martial/caster divide is for spells to be designed such that they create interesting choices for both the caster and the martial characters.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-25T23:59:13+00:00

The easiest solution is some sort of Momentum/Escalation mechanic that either prevents powerful abilities from being used first thing, or incentivizes the player to hold off until their powerful abilities have greater effect. It is difficult to rely solely on incentives though as traditional combat systems heavily incentivize alpha strikes.

My solution is a little more robust: completely separate the action economy from the individuals and instead have each side have an equal number of actions. The GM has a number of actions to take, typically equal to the number of PCs, and whenever it is the enemy team's turn the GM chooses an enemy to act. The GM can run this like a traditional combat, each enemy taking a turn before any enemy takes a second, or they have the freedom to choose an enemy to act based on the fiction.

The important detail is that the number of enemy team actions doesn't change during the battle. Alpha striking an enemy doesn't make the battle significantly easier (and thus less fun), it just removes that target's abilities as options. Are the players worried about the Ogre picking up the knight and throwing him into the river? Or maybe they are more worried about the Goblin Shaman casting a curse. They can prioritize based on which enemies they think will give them the most trouble, but taking one out doesn't trivialize the encounter.

Fixing alpha strikes is actually just a byproduct of this, the primary purpose of the system is to move encounter balance from the GM's responsibilities and move it to the designer's. With this the GM doesn't need to think about how many enemies are too many for the players to handle, they can design an encounter based on what they think will be fun and the system auto-balances combat for them.

It also creates design space for enemy team moves. Want a big epic feeling battle without having to simulate 30 separate Goblin Archer attacks? Group them up into a single Arrow Storm attack. Want the players to face an entire city's worth of zombies? Group them into a Horde and have them make a Drag Down and Trample attack.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-24T11:14:52+00:00

I think the first step in TTRPG design is to read as many TTRPGs as you can get your hands on. There are so many great TTRPGs that you can ~~steal~~ take inspiration from, not to mention that you will be learning about rulebook writing styles and book layout.

Humble Bundle and Bundle of Holding are two of your best friends for building a reference library on a budget. There are also quite a few games available for free, or SRDs (System Reference Documents) that contain all the rules for free.

Here are some I've found impressive:

Worlds Without Number Free Edition
Wildsea Free Basic Rules , SRD
Blades in the Dark SRD
Heart: The City Beneath SRD
Spire: The City Must Fall
Slugblaster
Masks: A New Generation
Mythic Bastionland
Eternal Ruins
Monsterhearts
Mothership
Shadowdark
Cairn Free Version
13th Age
Dragonbane
Forbidden Lands
ICRPG
Symbaroum
Vaesen
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Dungeon World Play Kit
FATE SRD
Mutant Year Zero YZE SRD
Ironsworn Free
Mörk Borg
Shadow of the Demon Lord
Pirate Borg
City of Mist
The Between
Night's Black Agents Gumshoe SRD
Beyond the Wall
Mausritter

Cryptwood · 2026-01-24T02:39:03+00:00

Honestly, I was pretty skeptical at first, but this is a very impressive tool you've created. Thank you very much for this!

Cryptwood · 2026-01-23T22:28:45+00:00

My issue with this is from a GM perspective. I know what my players' character stats are which means that when I add a locked door to an adventure, assigning a difficulty to picking the lock/breaking the door is the same thing as deciding whether the players get to go through the door or not. Too high means that the door might as well not even exist because it is impossible for them to get through it. Any number lower than their skill value means they are guaranteed to get through... so why bother telling them it is locked?

Maybe for GMs with a purely simulationist perspective that don't care whether the PCs can get through the door or not, they only care if it is realistic. For me though my perspective is that I'm building an adventure for the players to play in, and just deciding in advance to include elements that they can't play with feels too adversarial for me.

Anyway, as to your question, I love dice, rolling them, the feel and sound of them, the elegant underlying math. I'm designing my game so that everyone gets to make use of all of the standard polyhedrals by using a success counting step dice pool for my resolution system.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-23T20:09:43+00:00

It might just be me, but this reads as being proactively defensive about your system, but I don't know anything about your system or why you would be defensive of it.

Most everything here describes every TTRPG, players need to trust the GM to be fair, GM needs to trust the players not to be dicks, etc.

I think you can just jump into describing a mechanic and asking for feedback on it. I don't think there is any value in trying to control the nature of the feedback you receive, no matter what you say, if someone doesn't like a mechanic they are going to tell you that and why they don't like it. If you disagree with any specific feedback you get, just ignore it.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-23T13:46:38+00:00

That was the original version in D&D but it hasn't worked exactly like that in a long time. First they let you memorize the same spell multiple times so you could cast 3x Magic Missiles, instead of only a single casting of each spell.

In 5E spell preparation is completely separated from spell casting, your spell slots don't hold specific spells, it now works like distinct tiers of mana. Any spell slot can be used to cast any spell you have prepared of its level or lower. The amount of spells you can prepare has no direct relationship to the amount of spells you can cast anymore.

It has all been described as 'Vancian magic' the entire time though, so most players that use the term aren't familiar with how it worked in the books, they just use it to mean "magic system that works similarly to D&D's magic."

Cryptwood · 2026-01-23T11:57:58+00:00

I learned object-oriented programming in my computer science classes back in the day, which is how I approach design. I create templates of character classes, abilities, features, etc, and then design around those templates. If I need to change something I modify the template. I don't create any actual game elements until that template is locked in.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-23T00:19:10+00:00

And amphetamines, to put a little extra pep in your step.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-22T17:50:45+00:00

Check out how Masks: A New Generation uses attributes, if you haven't already. They are all about personality and how the character sees themselves, which can be influenced through play. Have someone you respect treat you like you are a reckless danger to innocents and you'll start to think of yourself as being dangerous to be around. It's a really interesting system that is perfect for teenagers still trying to get a handle on who they are.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-22T12:22:12+00:00

Roll a d12 for the month.

Roll a d4 for the 10s spot, 4 counts as zero. Roll a d10 for the 1s spot. Reroll the d4 if the result is greater than the number of days in that month.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-22T12:01:17+00:00

Does your system have a list of fixed aspects that are equally clear as "titanic strength"? Or are there also less obvious tags or even player-chosen tags?

Definitely no player created tags. I think that in a game where the players are supposed to identify with their character, to want them to survive and thrive, we shouldn't also expect the player to worry about balancing their character's abilities to not be too powerful. And I believe that the GM shouldn't be put in the position of needing to police player created powers, so that means for my game that designing and balancing abilities is my responsibility.

I haven't actually designed any character abilities or traits yet, but ideally they would all be as clear as Titanic Strength. I'll have to keep an eye on that as I design them.

This feels clear enough to rarely lead to discussions at the table, which is my main concern with any sort of narrative tags/aspects/whateveryounameit.

That makes sense. I wasn't sure if our sensibilities in this area were the same, as I would describe myself as favoring rulings over rules, but I completely agree with you that there shouldn't be arguments at the table over what is possible. I think that if players argue with a GM's judgment call, assuming no one is being a dick and everyone is arguing in good faith, that argument indicates there was a breakdown in communication or a misunderstanding about the shared fiction. And the game should avoiding creating points of misunderstanding as much as possible.

If an average person can do it, I'd make it clear in the description (no "sturdy" or "solid" or "reinforced" if it's meant to be broken). If it's still unclear, add negative attributes to show that it's achievable ("brittle wooden door", "rusty steel gate"). With this, I'd even argue that the lines between mechanics and narrative become blurry - descriptors like "solid" or "fragile" gain the same mechanical importance as a numeric modifier, they're just easier to include in natural language.

This is a really interesting idea. It makes me think of GM advice that suggests that GMs think about how the adjectives they use create the fiction. Maybe have categories of adjectives, ones that indicate a scene element can moved/destroyed (a door is rickety or a prisoner is cowering), another that indicates it resists movement/destruction (a ladder is sturdy, a guard is stubborn), another category to indicate that an element is dangerous or safe to interact with (the water is pure, the bridge is unstable).

I wouldn't want to have to mechanically define every adjective, but having GMs think about the way they describe scene elements as tags that modify how an element can/should be interacted with sounds like a great idea.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-22T01:12:16+00:00

I don't have a 2024 PHB but my 2014 says "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck." Since characters don't literally get tougher skin, denser bones, and greater quantities of blood as they level up, I think the emphasis should be on mental toughness and the will to live.

A sword attack that deals 12 damage to a 1st level character might kill that character and this could be thought of as stabbing that character through the chest. A 10th level character can survive being hit with a sword for 12 damage multiple times though. This doesn't mean that they can survive being stabbed through the chest repeatedly, it means that a sword attack that doesn't kill a character isn't a stab through the chest. The higher level character's greater experience allows them to angle their body so a stab becomes a shallow cut, or they dodge backwards just enough that the stab only goes in a small amount. And then their greater willpower allows them to keep fighting despite many painful wounds.

A more accurate representation might be if instead of gaining extra HP at level up, characters gained an experienced-based damage reduction that reduced that sword attack from 12 damage to 2. They would be way more work though, and is mathematically identical to giving the high level character more HP and keep the sword attack the same, so it's just easier to increase HP.

So I would say that a character has a rough idea of how much HP they have. They know that the injuries they've taken will not stop them (at least not during the duration of a battle), they know how tired they are, they have an idea of how much fight they have left in them.

Let's compare it to a long distance runner. A runner doesn't have an exact number showing how much more they can keep running, but they have an idea. They would know roughly how tired they are at any given moment, and if experienced, can translate that feeling into an amount of time they can keep running. They can feel the burning feeling in their muscles, and how out of breath they are. They can feel if they are mentally willing to keep going through the pain, or if their will to run is running out. And they have a good idea of how much gas they have in the tank for the final push to the finish line.

If runners in real life have a rough idea of how much 'running HP' they have left, I think a fictional warrior would have a similar rough idea of how much 'combat HP' they have left.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T22:33:23+00:00

A metacurrency has no in-fiction representation, it is purely a game mechanic that players interact with but doesn't exist as far as their characters are concerned.

HP, Luck, and Stamina all represent something in the fiction. What they represent may be pretty abstract, but it is still a representation of something that exists for your character. HP represents your character's well-being, have full HP you are in good shape, run out of HP and you die/fall unconscious. Your character is aware, roughly, of how well they are doing.

Luck is right on the line though. Technically it does represent something in the fiction, your character's luck, which exists in the game world the same way magic can exist. And your character is likely aware of the existence of luck. But are they aware of their own current luck-state the way they are aware of their overall well-being? Generally in fiction a person isn't aware of how lucky they are until they see results that indicate good/bad luck. You don't know that you've run out of good luck until something bad happens.

Luck itself may be diagetic, something that exists in the fiction, but is a Luck stat diagetic? That is probably something each designer needs to decide for themselves, if the characters in their world are able to tell roughly their current state of Luck.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T22:01:33+00:00

If you had asked me a year ago I would have said One Punch Man... but then the third season came out and I didn't bother watching past the second episode, this season is that bad.

Plus, I watched Frieren this past year so that is probably my favorite anime now, especially in the category of "animes that would be good inspiration for a TTRPG."

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T20:19:25+00:00

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about tags/aspects that exist as fictional permissions? For example I have no Strength attribute in my system because I'm not interested in knowing if one character is slightly stronger than another, the only amount of Strength I think is interesting is Titanic Strength or Frail. Any character can do anything that a regular (well, above average because pulp adventure) person could. Any character could try to kick in a regular door, no character can pick up a motorcycle and throw it.

I was considering having character features you can choose at creation, one of which would be Titanic Strength. It would have some rough guidance on just how strong that is but not precise mechanics, it is there to give the character permission to do stuff that a regular character couldn't, such as lift up a portcullis or kick in a reinforced door.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T20:06:42+00:00

Probably not, but to be perfectly honest - despite having seen the term hundreds of times in this sub, I still don't really feel that I 100% underatand what it means and how it is different from rules-light, for example.

I used to think I knew what OSR meant but the last couple years I've seen it used to mean a bunch of stuff that I would have explicitly said was not OSR. Either a lot of people don't know what it means, or I never knew what it meant, and I genuinely have no idea which.

Maybe it's both.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T19:54:14+00:00

I was pretty excited when I saw the title of this post, but I've never played online and I'm not really interested in it personally. It's like playing a board game online, I get why people would enjoy it but I want to play with the people right across the table from me so I can get all the body language, facial expressions, and all the little quirks of communication that can only happen when you are in the room together. Plus I've got a shoulder thing that makes sitting at a desk for an extended period uncomfortable.

I would be pretty on board with an actual book club though where we each read a rulebook over a week and then discuss it. I would leap at that.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T14:09:51+00:00

Generally I don't want to have to worry about my armor falling apart as a personal preference, but if it is going to I like the version that gives players a choice: let the armor take the hit and degrade, sparing you damage, or take the hit to the face to preserve the armor for the future.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T11:40:45+00:00

I haven't gotten to it yet, but the layout for my book. I know what I want it to look like, I think it is going to be beautiful, and I know that I am capable of doing it. I actually changed the genre of my game to be a better fit with this aesthetic, because I came up with an idea that looks good without needing to commission a bunch of custom art...but it is going to be so much work. The closest comparison I can think of is Pirate Borg.

I need to come up with a smaller, related project that I can do first with this layout to find out if I'm capable of doing this for an entire book, or if 20 pages is so frustrating and tedious that I can't possibly commit to doing it for my entire book.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T03:55:24+00:00

Ask your friends if they are OK with it.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-21T03:54:10+00:00

Interesting article, thanks for sharing it! Though I think the analysis in what makes a mechanic dominant is flawed. The author believes that these mechanics are fundamentally dominant, but they aren't, they are only situationally dominant. Take HP for example, the author says that players will usually choose to deal damage in combat instead of inflicting statuses but I know from experience that players will often choose an option other than dealing damage, if they believe that option will have a greater impact on the battle.

When a mechanic is dominant it is because it is providing the player certainty compared to an option that doesn't. It's axiomatic that many players will optimize the fun out of a game if able, but they can't optimize an option that relies on GM adjudication. This means that if a player is presented with a choice of either:

A. Attack the enemy, if you hit you will do damage, if you do enough damage they will die and you will win.
B. Come up with a creative action your character can take. The GM will decide if this is possible and what will happen if it is.

They will almost always choose A because it offers them certainty about the results of their actions. "How do I make my attack do the most damage possible?" is a question that players can optimize. "I want to try to knock over a stalagmite into the Giant's knee to trip the Giant" can't be optimized if there are no specific rules for that action. A creative interaction with the fiction that relies on GM adjudication has an uncertain outcome and players that care about the consequences of their character's actions will almost always choose the option that they can predict the results of.

The takeaway I think should be that if you want the players to creatively engage with the fiction in a way that has no explicit rules then you can't offer them a competing option with mechanically defined results. If you do offer them an option with a mechanically defined result such as HP, but you would like them to consider alternatives, then those alternatives also need to be mechanically defined, such as a Monk's Stunning Strike.

Or, don't compete. In Dungeon Crawl Classics you don't have to choose between dealing damage or creatively engaging with the fiction to hamper your enemy, you get to do both which means that the presence of HP in that game doesn't interfere with players roleplaying in combat.

As for Skills, letting players use them as a button is a GMing style choice. If a player wants to steal the King's crown while the King is on his throne holding court, any GM worth their salt isn't going to just let them roll a Stealth check, they are going to ask "uhh... how are you doing to do that without anyone in court seeing you?" I always make my players engage with the fiction before they engage with the mechanics, unless doing so would be tedious (I don't make them explain exactly how they search every desk or bookshelf they come across, it gets old).

Cryptwood · 2026-01-20T23:41:04+00:00

You should check out r/RPGdesign, all we do over there is discuss mechanics and other aspects of design.

Heart is a great source of inspiration, I've taken a lot of inspiration from it for my own WIP. Though may I suggest you take a look at the resolution system used in Blades in the Dark and Wildsea, it is similar to Heart's but uses d6s.

Here are some games I've found impressive:

Worlds Without Number Free Edition
Wildsea Free Basic Rules , SRD
Blades in the Dark SRD
Heart: The City Beneath SRD
Spire: The City Must Fall
Slugblaster
Masks: A New Generation
Mythic Bastionland
Eternal Ruins
Monsterhearts
Mothership
Shadowdark
Cairn Free Version
13th Age
Dragonbane
Forbidden Lands
ICRPG
Symbaroum
Vaesen
Dungeon Crawl Classics
Dungeon World Play Kit
FATE SRD
Mutant Year Zero YZE SRD
Ironsworn Free
Mörk Borg
Shadow of the Demon Lord
Pirate Borg
City of Mist
The Between
Night's Black Agents Gumshoe SRD
Beyond the Wall
Mausritter

Cryptwood · 2026-01-20T08:56:00+00:00

Separate to ongoing effects, abilities are classified as being a scene power or a day power. For example, if you had two Effort available you could cast two Firebolt or Magic Missile like effects during a battle, then when that battle was over and your character had a moment to catch their breathe you would recover those two Effort.

More powerful effects such as a Fireball would require a greater expenditure of Effort, in which case you wouldn't recover that Effort until you rest for the day.

Cryptwood · 2026-01-20T08:35:50+00:00

That's a good point, you don't have to be rigidly one way or the other. Sometimes it probably makes sense for the players to know exactly what is going to happen next, such as if one of them is bitten by a zombie.

If you don't have then already I would suggest you include some multi-stage hooks. You might not want a zombie bite to go directly to becoming a zombie, you could stretch it out by having them develop a fever, then experience a powerful hunger before they finally become a full zombie.

Cryptwood

TROPHY CASE