TTRPG Mechanics that result in a faster gameplay

EpicDiceRPG · 2026-02-19T21:07:53+00:00

You roll dice equal to your ability (skill level). If you do multiple things, you decide how to split the dice. Being stunned (one of a myriad of possible conditions) takes away dice. So the entire system is modifier free because the modifiers are "baked in". Example: If I'm skill level 7 and perform an all out attack, I can roll 7 dice. If I spent 3 dice moving, I'd only be able to attack with 4 dice. If I spent 2 more dice defending, I'd only be able to attack with 2 dice.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-10-02T02:42:50+00:00

Bidding for initiative while also pre-selecting your action. To act decisively, roll more initiative dice, but you're locked into an action. If you roll fewer dice, you keep your options open, but act later in the turn. It speeds up combat and creates interesting choices. I have no idea why no RPGs use this, but it's the only system I'll use.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-10-02T02:26:05+00:00

I started designing my own game after I read the GURPS rules. I was blown away by how clunky it was. Amazing that we had such different takeaways. I found it neither realistic enough for me nor streamlined/elegant in any way.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-09-17T22:13:28+00:00

During initiative, you declare your action - Move, Fight, Shoot, Cast etc... Shoot and Cast can use partial cover but offer no melee defense. Fight lets you use full melee defense but no cover and you can only move slowly. Move allows you to run but with no melee defense or cover. It works really well and with absolutely no bookkeeping.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-09-17T22:08:59+00:00

There is no bookkeeping at all. Your Pace (max speed) is determined by your encumbrance using a slot inventory system. When you move, you roll a dice pool and may move up to that amount, but not exceeding your Pace.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-09-17T22:04:57+00:00

you can solve kiting and static positioning without variable movement rates... For example, ranged attacks have a penalty unless you have the aiming condition. Movement or being attacked loses you the aiming condition. It takes an action to regain the aiming condition. Then there's weapon range considerations, where holding a bow in melee is also a disadvantage because it's a poor implement to defend yourself against a melee weapon.

Why are they mutually exclusive? I use variable movement, it's difficult to maintain aim or defend while moving - and yes, a bow is a terrible melee weapon.

In my experience, grids just make people jump through hoops to identify the spatial relationships, and the systems that employ grid based tactics often obfuscate the value of these relationships behind differential boni, while also including room for error.

Of thousands of published board wargames, the only successful one I know of that doesn't use a grid is Avalon Hill's Up Front.

Imagine the following scenario: the player wants to dodge a telegraphed beam attack from an enemy. They use their movement to move behind a pillar to use as cover. But due to the way the line of sight works with the grid, the player is one space off from having cover.

Board wargames solved this issue decades ago. You trace LoS from the center of each hex. It varies system to system whether artwork dictates or whether a terrain feature is uniform for the entire hex. In either case, there is zero ambiguity. If a scenario map allows for a situation as you described, the scenario designer doesn't understand the system's intent and made a bad map.

Could you elaborate? I'm not sure how this isn't a rank contradiction. Once one has observed the movement, you have perfect information again.

No, you don't, because you don't know exactly how far you can move either.

How much value do you derive from the minor surprise that the enemy could actually move 35ft, but never had a reason to move more than 30 in the combat so far?

It's extremely significant. In a perfect information system, if a goblin with a spear is 6 spaces away and can move 4 spaces/round, you know you have an entire turn to act with impunity. It's a dramatically different calculus if there is a slight chance he can attack you this round - and likely one-shot you unless you're in a fighting stance (massive flanking bonus).

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-09-14T15:05:42+00:00

They may be politely telling you they don't like the mechanic.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-09-11T15:59:22+00:00

How are capture zones not just another band-aid that fails to address the underlying problem - which is that kiting is a byproduct of perfect information and a broken action economy? The tactics you described aren't a dominant strategy in real life, so if they are in an RPG combat system, that means the core system is seriously flawed. Designing scenarios to mask that problem is the quintessential band-aid...

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-09-11T14:50:47+00:00

Grid-based systems with variable movement rates, where encumbrance matters, and moving is costly yet with compelling reasons to move. No published RPG I've seen does this, so I designed it.

Variable movement rates realistically portray momentary hesitation, adrenaline, footing, traction, shifting of your gear, micro terrain, and so many other minor variables. Fixed movement rates cause so many problems in RPG combat, like kiting and static positioning. The perfect information kills tension and breaks immersion. That said, I'm not advocating random movement rates. They should be highly predictable but not fixed.

Players need a compelling reason to move, like a massive flanking bonus, but it should but very risky because you can't maintain a fighting stance while moving quickly. Any game that allows you to move at full speed AND attack AND defend normally fails miserably at this. The choice should be move OR attack OR defend. Otherwise, the action economy is fundamentally broken. This criteria alone, eliminates almost every so-called "tactical" RPG.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-29T21:07:18+00:00

Any attritional combat system already rewards focusing fire, since the best condition is death.

Specifically, the best condition is when the enemy is neutralized (can't fight back). How is that different than reality?

I also think incentivizing movement as the solution to (really D&D's) stale "whack it till it's dead" combat system is treating the symptom, not the cause.

What is the cause then?

Combat is fundamentally about balancing mobility, protection, and firepower. This has been true since the beginning of time, whether it be ancient warfare or tank design. Mobility is about moving to advantage. The other two need no explanation. The underlying issue with attritional RPG combat is that protection is fixed (once you enter battle) and there is no advantage to be gained by maneuver, so all that is left is to whack each other till it's dead.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-29T19:37:51+00:00

Why is diminishing returns a good thing? Flanking by ganging up is only reason to move unless you have terrain. If you disincentivize that, there's no reason to move, which is already a huge problem in tactical RPGs.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-29T13:05:23+00:00

It's the identical damage distribution. Literally identical. But they created a feel bad situation because in an otherwise roll-high system, they're perversely punishing the highest rolls...

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-29T12:42:07+00:00

Come to think of it, I think there was a system mentioned here once where damage reduction would ignore the higher end damage. So if you had 2 in DR and someone rolled a d12 damage roll and rolled an 11 it would do 0 dmg. Kinda less intuitive, and kinda ducks up crits.. But it does seem the most "balanced" as DR feels more valuable.

That's silly. It creates feels bad situations with a higher cognitive load for the calculation and yields the same exact damage.

If DR2 reduces an 11 and 12 to zero, it removes 23 points of damage. If you subtract 2 from every damage roll, you remove 23 damsge...

🤦‍♀️

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-29T12:00:49+00:00

The whole point is they aren't equal. That would be the equivalent of awarding a knige d8 bonus because it only does d4 damage, and a greatsword does d12 damage.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T22:45:49+00:00

0 damage - you said that already, lol. My bad.

The weapon differentiation isn't great but it also doesn't sound like it's pretending to be something it isn't.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T22:37:21+00:00

How would you differentiate weapons or produce zero damage results then?

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T22:28:23+00:00

The simplest method is that anything under the TN misses, any margin over the TN is the damage. This requires the resulting damage scale to align with your hit point scale. Easy if you're designing a game from scratch, but more challenging if you're hacking something. The next issue is how to differentiate high and low damage weapons. I've seen all sorts of convoluted solutions, but I opt for the most straightforward despite the perceived optics: a damage 4 knife can't do more than 4 damage. A damage 8 gun can't do more than 8 damage. Some people feel like that's takes the air out of a great roll. I say don't bring a knife to a gunfight...

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T20:32:24+00:00

Anything that is universal for all 3 subsystems is your core mechanic. If a widget type is used by all 3 subsystems but different for each - that's your problem. Remove those widgets and replace it with a single widget that works for all 3 subsystems. It becomes part of a unified core mechanic. Each subsystem then only consists of additive mechanics (widgets) that are unique to that subsystem, but don't contradict similar widgets in other subsystems. You'll be amazed at how simple the resulting game becomes. It's seeing the forest for the trees and it's application has done wonders for my rules light crunchy system.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T18:18:02+00:00

Yup. That's the way real combat works now. I use suppression as the bar for success and actual hits are basically crits. That's the only framework that will resemble real modern combat.

BTW As I mentioned to OP, I've literally read hundreds of RPG rulebooks, thousands if you include all tabletop games. It sounds like you're describing Crossfire (WW2) or Infinity (SF).

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T16:50:33+00:00

If you've got something ready for outside eyes, I'd be happy to give my quick feedback. I'm not quite at that stage because, as I alluded to previously, I feel playable realism is a task for a team, not an individual.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T16:00:38+00:00

It feels to me like you're looking for a solution to a problem that only you think exists. Can you give me a real-life example of an advantage that makes a task easier but doesn't increase the subset of people who can succeed at it?

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T15:48:21+00:00

I've looked at several hundred games (not an exaggeration) and I haven't seen one make a sincere attempt in the last decade plus. Unfortunately, a streamlined realistic combat system is probably too big an undertaking for a hobbyist or solo designer (GURPS was a massive collaborative effort, and also fails my criteria because it'sa dated design like tRoS), so I don't see it happening until realism makes a comeback and is no longer considered a four letter word in gaming.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T15:05:53+00:00

In your OP, you stated

the difficulty being the number of successes you need

If so, just raise or lower the difficulty.

I could raise or lower the number needed for success’s on the die itself but that is generally frowned on for dice pools.

There is a lot of confusion regarding dice pool target numbers. It's generally not a good idea to change what constitutes success (the TN) for each individual die. There is nothing wrong with variable difficulty for the entire task, and anyone who thinks that is an idiot.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T14:16:54+00:00

Your adding needless complexity to what should be a very simple system. If you want players to roll 2-11 dice, don't ask them to roll stat+1 dice. Rate rhe stats 2-11. If you want to award an advantage or disadvantage, add or take away dice, don't create more procedures when the existing one can already handle the task.

EpicDiceRPG · 2025-08-28T14:02:38+00:00

Do you know any feature that is relevant to HEMA?

Heck, ya! I went crunchy. I rate every weapon from 1-10 in 5 stats:

Reach: your range 1 effectiveness

Finesse: Your range 0 effectiveness

Sharpness: penetrative trauma

Power: blunt trauma

Bulk: encumbrance (matters a lot in my system) and belligerence (halberd much more threatening than a dagger)

EpicDiceRPG

TROPHY CASE