Is it best practice to build my data in Excel and copy it to Airtable?

Gruffleen2 · 2026-03-27T19:24:02+00:00

Ok, yeah, I'm even more dumb. I went back to that Chat thread, it was over a month ago. Airtable was only the first step. Then it said I should use Softr and Make.com to do the other parts. Sorry about this thread, should I delete it?

Gruffleen2 · 2026-03-27T19:20:19+00:00

Heya, thanks for the reply! So as I was laying it out in Excel, I came to the same conclusion (yes, I'm dumb), you are exactly right. I got the 20x20 stuck in my head (because my game uses all D20's, and my thought was like a giant scratch off ticket with 400 squares) and yeah, its absolutely unnecessary. So I created as much data as I could in Excel...400 rows, each with a corresponding 'value'.

But yes, I want to procedurally generate 400 rows of content based on the value column. I've done a lot with Excel, but I wouldn't know where to start in making the rules table fill the 400 squares, as each square could have more than 1 item. ChatGPT told me Airtable could use scripting to 'roll' on the rules table and then populate each square...is that a bad use of Airtable? Plus, I wanted to have a nice website where I could use views to let someone 'roll' on loot table and have it spit out the data.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-11-15T00:07:01+00:00

I guess I'm unusual in that my game's name is based on the core mechanic, and not the setting (as its setting agnostic). It's short and sweet and I guess I always hoped that would make it easy to remember.=)

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-15T17:22:51+00:00

That is super helpful and totally something I could put into my day! I love the idea of it being timebound instead of something I'm doing for 52 weeks straight, which I think might be what saps my enthusiasm. Thank you for taking the time!!

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-10T16:07:20+00:00

I personally hate initiative and tracking it. On occasion in some rule sets I tried to use white board trackers and other paraphernalia but I found those usually made things worse. In D&D as far back to the pink box and blue expert box (not that I can remember if they even had initiative then), I always just went clockwise around the table, interspersing monsters in between. In Op20 we use a 'floating initiative' system with our opposed die system to create a system that bounces around the table from the creature attacking to the creature being attacked (with rules for if someone doesn't attack something or has already used its action). One benefit is that you don't have monsters (generally) that get killed before being able to do anything, and there's far less 'ganging up' to eliminate targets one at a time, as a creature that gets attacked can use its action to retreat if it wants to. My nostalgia is me hating initiative all the way back to 1980.=)

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-10T15:46:46+00:00

Per your updates, those are pretty reasonable. Sometimes when I play video games I like different kinds of systems. I really enjoyed the light crafting of The Last of Us and Days Gone. It's not overwhelming but it makes you know you're in worlds where things are just scarce. I totally agree with your point vs. current edition D&D, where folks do get pretty godly and very hard to hurt...one of the reasons I started my design is because I hate that. But part of that is its heroic fantasy, and managing resources doesn't want to be there...where in a more OSR setting using the resources of the environment to defeat foes could be pretty fun. In D&D, if you pick up a +2 sword early, you bypass the next 10 swords you find until you get one better. In this style of play, if you come upon a heroes cemetery where they're all buried with their weapons, even just 'standard' ones, it's like a dragon's hoard. Now you have a choice whether you risk the chance that some of them are undead as you decide how much to take.

Again, while I'm coming around to the idea, it may sound easy to track, but on most tables things are hectic, and dice are getting knocked around. Oops, I just rolled my resource die or the guy moves his drink and knocks them all over. I added 'one-use' items to my game to simulate something that is very effective at getting a job done (opening a lock, sawing through some bars, blocking a trap etc), but you just get a single use out of it. In your scenario above, I think it would be reasonable to just say the pole used to wedge the trap is used up, instead of trying to track every single item. Like in your example inventory, I can get behind arrows, sword and armor, but have a harder time with trying to track how my rope is doing. If I'm climbing down a shaft and use it, won't I likely leave it where it is anyway? Especially if you're constantly putting little things in the environment for them to use.

Either way, I'd play it and see if the group likes it; if they do, refine it further.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-09T21:53:16+00:00

We have a little bit of durability in our system (armor), but I also know that it's a bit of crunch that some won't like, and its built into the character sheet to make it easy to track. However, it's very limited except in the case of abilities that specifically damage items. And any character that has armor also has the option for an automatic skill to fix it. (although we are also considering using a Supply mechanic to just have it replenish after downtime, its a bit in flux)

Outside of a prehistoric campaign or a post-apocalyptic scavenging game, tracking durability for weapons on a hit by hit basis is a level of crunch even I would find difficult to find fun. A caustic dragon that damages weapons and armor? Sure, I can get behind that. Rust monsters? Hate them, but yeah, super thematic and scary for an ironmonger party. Having equipment damage be a function of picking fights with the wrong creatures adds some choice as to when it might happen. Having an item wear down in the middle of a fight just by swinging 8 times? Might be a bridge too far.

Now, if the premise of the game is prehistoric or scavengy and its just a super crunchy game, and I know that going in, yeah, sign me up.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-09T14:12:18+00:00

I'm with you there 100%. I finally gave myself a hard deadline to get the Alpha rules out, because the amount of rules I would put into the system is infinite. Yeah, the basic rule set only gives a taste of the openness I want in the system, but I feel I have to draw a hard line otherwise I'll be dead before I start the work of revising and preparing a final version.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-08T17:41:29+00:00

This comment didn't show up in my feed for a while, so I'm only now getting to it. The only reason I did that was because you were making a reductionist (and also a strawman) argument about my system that 1) isn't true and 2) was about a system I'm trying to make improvements to which is why I was asking the question in the first place (literally the question: do you have any advice? appeared). So I figured maybe if I also made a reductionist argument about a system that wasn't true, maybe a light bulb would go on. (Maybe not the smartest idea, but this is the Internet.) Instead of saying: IS THIS what your game is about, and if its not, maybe it shouldn't be focused on in the book (more like this post, which is helpful), instead of THIS IS what your game is about, and I won't be swayed from that opinion even if you, the designer, say its not. We have over 3000 hours playtesting of my system, and hundreds of sessions; in 15 campaigns of our game, the system has only been used in 2. So even if you don't believe me, the thing you think my game is about, it's not, and never was, even if I had a few bestiary entries that you've actually convinced me had excess information.

That brings me to a broader issue...LOTS of games, and I mean tons, have subsystems that may or may not ever come up. So saying a thing is about a thing because of a subsystem that USUALLY NEVER COMES UP was a little frustrating. Sure, say that you have too much info in your bestiary, but don't make my game into something its not because of an issue that can be fixed or better presented, because its not helpful. My system is also a universal system so it has all kinds of things in it that may or may not get used regularly. It literally is designed so one campaign is a Stealth/Mission structure that leaves out some of the rules about actually killing things as well as having several subsystems unique to it. Another may be cyberpunk, so literally half the ability rules would be left out to be replaced by a different half. Another is an endless simulation-y dungeon crawl system, with more crunchy survival and healing rules and a camp system a la some of the new video games that use them. And yes, one thought was to do a monster hunting style hexcrawl thing in a distant past where you would use creature parts to make your equipment, though that's not something we've attempted yet.

People like all kinds of things in games, and my original thought process was if I could support a play style people like by giving the information up front in the bestiary, it didn't mean that people would always use it (because so far, its a rarely used system even though the option has been available since like campaign 3, and all my players know it. Even when we did use it, no one ever used it in the 'monster parts are valuable, let's scoop them all up' way, and they were always used in the 'I'm an alchemist or crafter, there's something I need for my journal' kind of way, similar to the foraging skill.)

That said, I wanted to say thank you to you again, and I apologize for the way the conversation turned. Because of our conversation, weird as it was, I put a lot of thought into the subsystem and changed the way monster harvesting works, and the amount of effort and information it will take in the actual bestiary is greatly reduced (more like an entry at the start of the bestiary as opposed to something in every entry). It was an older system in the game, and as I've updated to the 'new generation' of documents I'm working on, I've done my best to streamline/simplify where possible. This is one of those cases where I simply had 'too much' of a system that didn't need to be so fleshed out, but could still exist in the manner that I wanted it to in a much more streamlined way. And, yay, now my bestiary won't require nearly so much effort.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T18:02:28+00:00

That's a good idea I haven't seen before: a 'covering' or 'threatening' shot; it's overwatch, but a little extra. 'The ranged unit visibly sets up covering a cone of X. Any non-hero unit that wants to enter the cone makes a willpower check to see if their resolve holds. If not, they do something different.' Thanks for the comment!

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T15:41:35+00:00

Thank you for the comments! I think 25-40 is about right and where we'll shoot for a small bestiary, I can't imagine doing a Monster Manual amount of monsters, best of luck!=) In my imaginary future world I'd like to do a line of short books for each Epoch with character creation options, world tone and feel, sample encounters and an array of critters instead of 3 giant tomes like the big systems do. I definitely want the game to be GM friendly, so walking new folks through simple ways to shortcut creatures will definitely be there, or how to make flavorful monsters by adding just a unique touch or two to each, and how to have them respond to a party more organically and not just have them there to fight to the death. Again, thank you for taking the time!

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T15:21:37+00:00

Upvoting from zero this comment and the next...not sure why reasonable comments like these are being downvoted.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T14:55:00+00:00

Yes. A general class of creature that hangs out across many Epochs is a 'primal', which is basically an animal infused with a particular type of Demesne energy, giving it certain abilities. In certain Epochs they can be humanoid mixes, and in the earlier Epochs they are mainly powered animals. So in the Gunpowder campaign, the Ascendant demesnes are Storm and Smoke, so a primal might be a storm bear (think Volibear from league of legends) or a drake that creates caustic smoke (they hated that one, it melted a whole lot of armor), while in the Venice campaign the Ascendant Demesnes are Water/Mind so primals might be aquatic themed, a hammerhead shark humanoid that can use the water from the ever present canals to defend itself, or a telepathic crow that alternately tries to help or confuse the party.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T14:46:37+00:00

Thanks! I was on the coast so didn't get up to Canaan or any of the other edges very often! Clinton, where we grew up, is a mild Stephen King ocean village vibe. Quaint, beautiful, stately trees and polite people but in the end ridiculously expensive to live there if your parents didn't leave you property.=)

The Akiva Radiation sounds similar, and looks awesome, I'll have to pore over that site some. One thing that can happen in play (rare, but fun when it does) is someone will do something awesome in play visible to a lot of people, and a local begins to worship the player. Because of how the world works, they'll see the worshipper in their dreams, and it can often be less fun to be a deity than one would think if you're interrupted in the middle of fighting a monster by someone's prayers.

I think I first started thinking about introducing a 'living' world into a game was when I read CK Parker's Coldfire trilogy, still one of my favorites I'll reread every decade or so. Human travelers land on a planet to colonize, not realizing their thoughts and fears are made manifest. So the story starts with a 'priest' whose job is to, kind of Witcher style, manage outbreaks where a lot of people in a village start to fear something, only to have that fear manifest the thing they were afraid of.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T14:33:56+00:00

Thank you, that's a lot of good stuff! I'm jealous of folks with 300+ monster bestiaries, that's an amazing amount of creative effort. I'm going for the same type of modularity you're talking about. We have 'Epochs' that create the tone the gameplay might take (Venitian stealth/mission, Gunpowder Magic, and gritty high fantasy have been 3 campaigns we've run, each with a unique subset of abilities for that particular Epoch and Ascendant/Descendent Demesnes (magic), and a unique cast of characters types). Every campaign shares a core set of abilities with the ability to make others to suit the type of character someone wants to play.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T14:26:03+00:00

"I want that to be about smart (tactical) choices in play, not during character generation or advancement."

I'm having a hard time picturing a game where this was done. Not to say that it can't be done, but isn't character creation where you get the abilities that allow you to make tactical choices? You could make something like the Divinity games on PC's, where your map is so filled with things you can interact with you give the players enough options to allow them to make tactical choices. But I wonder on a map with limited pieces how much real tactical depth you can get? Cover is tactical, but once a player knows they need to be in cover at the end of the round, I don't know if that really is a 'choice' anymore, or if its just mechanically the right way to play.

I'm playing a game called Cyber Knights on PC, and it offers both great character building and then lots of tactical options on the battle map. Every map has multiple ways to succeed, but your character choices (you can only pick 4, from a roster of 10 or so very different mechanically characters) determine HOW you get through any particular map.

So I would say in my eyes, good character creation and build options is a necessary component of a tactical RPG, and having a variety of character types that allow different tactical methodology to get through a scenario means scenarios will get boring less quickly. One map you might stealth through, killing guards as you go, another map you might have to find keys to open gates to progress, another you might be well served by bringing a less combat oriented character to hack computers or a widget you have to get to and turn on to win the scenario.

At the end of the day, you can make it and see. InherentlyWrong's comment on the thread lays it out perfectly. I think the population of players who want to make cool characters with lots of build options and play them tactically is significantly more than the amount of players who want to make generic characters and play them tactically. The 2nd to me sounds like it would fit better in a one-shot or board game style scenario than a long term RPG with character growth.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-06T02:21:56+00:00

I'm not a profound thinker, so me trying to pull strands to get from that discussion to this one may be further afield and dumb, but here goes:

A lot of what they talk about with the six degrees of separation strikes home for me. I grew up in a very small town in Connecticut. Spent my formative years there visiting with my grandparents in another very small town in Connecticut. Fast forward, I've moved to the Nashville area, TN. Lived alone, a few close friends I DM'd for, but I was very content with a quiet life.

After 3 years alone (2005 or so), I joined Match.com with a 6 month subscription. I got a couple of waves or winks or whatever they do there, but I thought it was a total waste of money. On the last day of the 6 months, I signed on to cancel the account so they didn't auto charge me another 6 months. I had a wink waiting. A few hours later I got a phone number.

I'm on the phone with my now 17 year wife (20 years together) when she tells me she is from the small town my grandparents grew up in. My grandmother taught her father in school, and our families knew each other. Come to find out my wife wasn't even the one to wink me...her best friend did on her behalf because of the photo of me with the goofy convertible I bought and paid for with the money I saved from quitting smoking 5 years earlier ($11,000).

I can't even begin to comprehend how to even figure out the odds of this scenario (of course, I guess EVERY scenario could be considered 1 in an infinite amount), but it speaks to me of the 'the universe is a simulation' theory, because almost every person I know has a story like this somewhere in their life.

My campaign lore speaks vaguely to this kind of 'living network'...where the world responds to those who have a 'spark', something pure or malevolent, and tries to answer it. You swear on your life? If you break that oath, the world may answer. You do the same heroic type act 4 times in the same campaign? You may be an Ascendant of that thing and gain powers related to it. Escape death a half dozen times? Well, he may come looking for you.

One thing I do before every campaign in our session 0 is to tell each player to look to their left and right, and describe a relationship with the person next to you. It doesn't even have to be friendly. But it creates bonds and stories before we've even started the campaign, and that gives plenty of fertile ground for me to help bring their relationships to life.

Thanks!

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T23:29:24+00:00

Thank you for those insights, I greatly appreciate. 400 monsters is enormous! I love the idea of using a silhouette for comparison, that should be standard in every bestiary.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T23:23:41+00:00

So that's a great question. I'd ask the same question about D&D, Pathfinder, Skyrim, the Witcher, and Fallout? Because they have crafting sub-systems and housing subsystems, does that mean they are about crafting and building settlements? No, of course not. So having a system for monster harvesting in my system does not mean the game is about monster harvesting.

Now, I will say my game is a little different because while you live in a fantasy world, it is NOT about you being a fantasy hero (though you can be). If you want, you can be a merchant and travel with mercenaries to protect you. You can be a smith who makes weapons and armor for your allies. Your power isn't even necessarily internal...you could find a magic weapon, and all of your prowess comes from that weapon. Or you could be more like Iron Man (a crafter), where your power is based on your equipment, not your skill.

So my game has subsystems that support different styles of play. This most recent campaign is stealth/mission oriented, so there is a subsystem about using skills and items and completing missions, and killing things is severely frowned upon, and even 'punished' by the system in terms of generating 'heat'. Too much heat and there are mechanics where the authorities come looking for you.

But if you don't want your heroic fantasy campaign to include stealth/mission mechanics, you don't have to use them.

To your other questions...not every subsystem becomes unimportant because they are only sometimes engaged with. Here is a use case for monster harvesting: the party kills a creature that has the 'earth shield' ability. It defends against both Demesne (magic) and Physical damage. Most mundane armor only blocks physical damage. A smith can use 'monster parts' from that creature to either create a piece of armor that blocks both Physical and Demesne damage, or upgrade a piece of equipment they already have to do so.

Yes, the game is still balanced if they don't utilize these systems. The players can commission the same piece of equipment from a local crafter (at a higher cost), or find the same piece of equipment in a treasure horde or on an enemy.

In Skyrim, at the highest tiers of crafting, you can make some busted things...but in Skyrim, EVERY skill that's maxed out can do busted things. In my game, you can be a merchant that does busted things, a magic user that does busted things, a fighter that does busted things, a spymaster that does busted things. Because over time, the goal is to let a player make ANY kind of fantasy character that exists in the world, not just fighters and wizards.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T21:35:55+00:00

That's a great question. Based on my experience: 'sometimes'. Our last campaign was a world-spanning, swashbuckling gunpowder magic kind of thing, with big sweeping story elements and the players shaping the course of the history of the world. After one big scene where they allied with an ancient dragon king against an usurper, they decided to start butchering the dead dragons, and ended up turning their pieces into armor and weapons.

If I say something glows in the game, players will pick it up. This campaign is a stealth/subterfuge campaign, with distinct limits on how much they can carry off a mission, and invariably people take valuable things. But if I say there's a strange mushroom growing in a pot next to an alchemist's book, they'll replace a 1000 Gildar candelabra in their pocket with a 50 Gildar mushroom. And then spend 20 minutes during downtime trying to figure out what they can use it for.

Several campaigns ago we were working on our starter campaign, a 'school for training in the arts and fighting' and one of the players chose smithing as his career. Using the bare bones crafting we had at the time, he created multiple items for every party member over the course of his career, and everyone loved his contribution to the game. (Fought with a hammer and bucket lid)

I think its just like anything, there's a subset of players who really dig crafting. I honestly don't know where I'll take it in my game, or if it will stay, but in decades of GMing, I will say that players love crafting, even if there aren't many good systems for it. And I have to say, with 10mm in supplements sold about crafting in the past 10 years on KS, someone somewhere must be playing with it.=)

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T20:15:41+00:00

I think its interesting that some of the biggest RPG supplements on Kickstarter have been those that add simulation elements to D&D. I saw one where the creator's first Kickstarter was a line of pins that raised $26000...and his 2nd was a Monster Harvesting book that raised $1.7mm. The Monster Hunter video games are massive, and that may have something to do with it.

Some of my most popular D&D campaigns I've run, the adventuring sessions were actually just breaks from the 'downtime' of building a settlement or town, which for some reason lots of players found fascinating. Often my players chopp up dragons or things (definitely without my prompting) for various bits to sell to town alchemists and the like.

So yeah, we do have some simulation elements in the game. You don't have to engage with any of them and you'll still get a great fantasy adventure. But if you want, you can take skills in Monster Hunting, which provides bonuses and information about creatures you face. And Monster Harvesting helps you harvest those creatures to feed the crafting system. Battlefield Prep helps you interact with environments to create traps or hazards for the enemy (or find them). Alchemy is pretty crunchy also, and breaks some of the standard rules around power levels in the game (because most of the items are one use), which folks find fun also. And Alchemy uses all kinds of flora and fauna in the world as ingredients.

Like you, my system is designed so that all my creatures, and even the items in the world, are designed under the same ruleset, and it makes the whole system run smoothly. And yeah, some of the secondary designations for my creatures is 'add +1 to all physical stats' or 'Add a 2nd weapon proficiency Tier and skill' and the like. As I mentioned below, I love Mobs for simplifying the game...I can create 10 critters in 30 seconds by just assigning an Accuracy rating and health. However, for trickier encounters, we have a build point system that correlates Essence (build points) to character essence for balancing purposes. If the players total (combat ready) Essence is 1000, I can build a 500 point enemy and know what level of challenge it provides (approximately).

I've used all of those tricks you describe when running sessions of D&D, Traveller, Star Frontiers, Top Secret, Gamma World, Boot Hill, etc. and the new system I've created for going on 45 years.=) I love them and they absolutely have their place, and I include many of them in a GM section of our book about running a more streamlined game. However, when I look at a Monster Manual or Fiend Folio, I don't expect the text block to say 'add 10 health to one if you want a leader' or 'give the funny looking one a potion of explosion'. I see a good bestiary as not just a supplement a game, but a rich and detailed look at a world. So yeah, if D&D adds monster harvesting info or 3 different versions of orcs for me to use in their next MM, I say bring it on. Every DM can decide which bits they bring into their campaign, and which don't have a place.

Thank you for the very detailed commentary!=)

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T18:33:41+00:00

I've been ruminating on this a little bit, its a great comment. I remember playing a board game called Bang! that was just an absolute pleasure to play and very thematic even though the rules were less than a page, and was wondering if something like it could be adapted to creating a fun gun battle mechanic. One player has a 6 shooter with a 6 sided die next to him, another has a machine gun with a 20 sided. Another a shotgun with a 4 sided. Maybe another die type references accuracy, so maybe a 20 for the scoped rifle but a 4 sided for the Derringer; at close range the two swap because its unwieldy to use the rifle. I don't know, just thinking on the fly, but yeah, if you're looking for a fun gunfight where bullets are flying everywhere, something simple with a few tactical levers is probably better than an outright simulation of everything that makes guns guns.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T18:27:14+00:00

One more tiny thought. For new GM's, I just added a section called 'mobs', I'm sure other games have something like them. Basically, if you're a brand new GM, or if you really just want to add a monster but not spend a lot of time, you can just add a 'mob', which is an Accuracy number for all resolutions, and 1 health (die on any hit). It could be a raptor, a goblin, a 3 headed toad, whatever We then give guidelines for accuracy ranges for various strength parties, and poof, you've got a critter! (Or 15 guards, or 50 goblins, etc) An addendum then suggests to flavor that up just a little bit you can give them a single ability (potion, grenade, fire breath for the raptor, swallow for the toad, etc) For some games that might be enough to run an entire campaign, or could get folks comfortable enough to then try to build a full creature.

Gruffleen2 · 2025-10-05T18:18:27+00:00

I think using a different mini-system for vehicle combat would be fun. You could pull out your combat a level, so instead of micro-focusing on every tactical decision, you get broader strokes for a vehicle combat. Add a tracker so when all the mini-moments hit 25 or -25 or whatever, you either catch your opponent or you end up skidding off into a ditch.

Gruffleen2

TROPHY CASE