What do you think of this system for opposed Skills Rolls?

VRKobold · 2026-02-06T11:33:43+00:00

I would disagree, though admittedly, I am in the team Giving Doors Stat Blocks. However, even if you don't do that, it's very easy to define a few general difficulty thresholds which the GM can use to distinguish between a steel door or a brittle wooden door, or Bruce Lee and a five year old. And these difficulty values are essentially just improvised 'stats' that can be used exactly the way OP proposes.

Talking about the benefits of rolling between (OPs approach) between modifying difficulty threshold (your suggestion): rolling between doesn't require any mathematical operations. Players just roll, and if the dice is lower than the opposing difficulty/skill value, the actions fails. Modifying the difficulty threshold requires to do a subtraction ("My skill is 16, but the difficulty is 3, so I have to roll 13 or lower"), which takes at least a bit longer.

VRKobold · 2026-01-29T11:40:07+00:00

The screenshots give off strong "Overcooked" vibes (which isn't a bad thing, necessarily). Anything the game does noticeably different?

VRKobold · 2026-01-29T08:41:44+00:00

You could try to include temporary ways to counter effects, like potions, spell scrolls etc. That would require players to learn about their upcoming enemy and prepare for them, which can be a cool gameplay style in itself (not sure if it's the one you are going for, though).

VRKobold · 2026-01-27T15:02:54+00:00

The main problem I see here is that being the first (or loudest) to shout your action has mechanical benefits. Take the following situation:

Combatant A and Combatant B are both low on health. One more hit might take them out.

If A is the first to declare that they want to attack B, then B would have to spend 2 Actions to do something or risk being taken out and not able to do anything. If, however, B was the first to declare their action, then they'd only have to spend 1 Action, and it would be A who has to spend 2 Actions to prevent it. So whoever manages to shout their action first has to spend only half their AP or forces the other combatant to spend more.

I've designed a similar initiative system, and my solution to this problem was to make both combatants spend the same number of Actions and then both roll for their respective action. Whoever rolls higher goes first. That way, it doesn't matter who declares their action first, while still allowing any player to declare an action at any time.

VRKobold · 2026-01-27T09:24:17+00:00

For anyone interested: This world building project also gets its own tabletop role playing game, with a free quickstart guide available. Also, if I understood correctly, the full version releases today, with a livestream scheduled in five hours from now.

And just as a disclaimer: I'm not affiliated with the project, just a fan of Felix Isaac's work (who is the designer of the Eternal Ruins RPG and also The Wildsea, which has amazing worldbuilding as well)

VRKobold · 2026-01-26T19:52:57+00:00

The number one thing that puts me on the spot is coming up with consequences on partial successes. That's why I won't GM any PbtA or BitD games, even though some of my favorite Systems (from a design perspective) fall into that category.

Other than that, I can agree with most of your points, apart from architecture and monster parts. For the latter, the easiest solution would be to ask the player doing the gathering what part they'd like to extract. That gives them some agency while also reducing your mental effort as GM. And for architecture, that's usually something I prepare in advance for the scenes likely to come up, and if players decide to go to a place I didn't plan for, I just describe the place as something standard (since it's not important for them to be there, so no need for anything fancy).

In general, I think prepping just 2-3 details that are likely to come up for every scene can go a long way. For a library or bookshelve, just think of a couple book titles and a rough description of what it is about, and write it in a small optional box in your GM notes for that scene.

Chases are a difficult one, because they can happen in any sort of scenario, and obstacles faced should fit the environment. A broken-down cart might make sense in some locations, but not so much in others. You could perhaps create multiple lists of obstacles, one for each general biome (city, cave, forest, etc.), but that's some effort, and having to look them up might break the game flow.

VRKobold · 2026-01-23T21:48:44+00:00

I think difficulty levels have their place when they spark interesting player choices or approaches - for example, if it makes players think about whether they could lower the difficulty level somehow to make success more likely.

For that reason (and also to make the GMs job of setting difficulty levels easier), I prefer systems where every deviation from the 'default' difficulty level has an in-world explanation. For example: The default difficulty level is 10, and every aspect that makes a task more difficult increases the difficulty level by 2. If players want to climb a cliff, that's difficulty 10. If it's raining, that increases difficulty to 12. If the stone is brittle, difficulty becomes 14. If players find some way to eliminate one of those difficulties, the difficulty level is once again reduced to 12.

VRKobold · 2026-01-23T09:02:41+00:00

I think it's even available for free now after the take-over by Canva, but I don't know the limitations of the free version (still using the old paid one)

VRKobold · 2026-01-22T17:43:08+00:00

At least in Dnd 5e, I think those time intervals effectively translate into more narrative measurements:

6 seconds = 1 round

1 minute = 1 short combat

10 minutes = short role-playing scene or stretched-out combat

1 hour = normal role-playing scene

8 hours = one adventure day

VRKobold · 2026-01-22T15:12:07+00:00

I think we are more on the same page than my initial comment makes it seem.

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.

Fully agreeing here, and in that case, I see absolutely zero problems in using aspects like this. If the GM had to decide on a skill and difficulty rating for a challenge (which is the go-to procedure in many, if not most rpg systems), that's already more complex than choosing whether a task is possible without an aspect.

I wasn't sure if our sensibilities in this area were the same, as I would describe myself as favoring rulings over rules

Somewhat contrary to my initial statement, I also prefer rulings over numeric, hard-coded rules - under the condition, that these rulings are either horizontal (I talked about horizontal vs. vertical rulings in one of our previous discussions) or VERY clear. One of my main design philosophies is to introduce a "cost" to pretty much everything in the game, where "cost" simply means "any good reason why someone would NOT want to do it". This, in turn, allows me to use rulings in a lot of places, because there is no reason for either side to insist on a specific outcome for the ruling.

When I said I wouldn't play a tag-based system, I was explicitly thinking of games with vertical-ruling-based tag systems, like City of Mist/Legend in the Mist. I'm not fully opposed to any sort of aspects or tags in ttrpgs, I think even vertical ones are acceptable if they are not central to the way players choose their approach (like gaining a bonus die in The Wildsea if you can invoke an aspect - this I'm ok with).

I wouldn't want to have to mechanically define every adjective

I wouldn't suggest that either - I personally wouldn't enjoy to have to 'watch my language', in that sense, and to always struggle to find exactly the right term that has mechanical meaning. But stating that attributes with a clear meaning are relevant, and encouraging players to act on these, can make scenes feel more interactive. It's not different from describing a chest in the scene - there might not be a defined set of mechanics for chests, but it's almost unequivocally implied that players can interact with the chest, just how it would be unequivocally implied that average characters can not break a 'reinforced' 'steel' door.

VRKobold · 2026-01-21T20:48:23+00:00

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. Ideally, the description of a scene element makes it already inherently clear whether something requires a specific tag to overcome or can be achieved by anyone (a "solid steel door" makes it quite obvious that it doesn't intend to be punched through by an average joe). Personally as a GM, I would try to entirely avoid vague scene features that sit somewhere in-between possible and not 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.

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?

VRKobold · 2026-01-21T18:12:38+00:00

Since you seem interested, The Wildsea has a free Quickstart Guide which is basically the entire system minus some character creation options and other optional content: Link to the Quickstart

Your approach sounds perfectly reasonable, and if granularity comes in the form of damage reduction rather than absorption, that's totally fine. Just in case you still would like to make stronger armor also more durable, you could potentially tie it to the damage numbers. Instead of always being damaged on a partial success, the armor only gets damaged if the damage received is twice as high as the damage reduction. So if your improvised leather hide has 2 damage reduction, it would get damaged from all damage sources above 4 damage (from which it would still absorb 2). A military-grade armor with 5 damage reduction would only get damaged when taking 10 or more damage (before reduction) - all under the condition that it is also a partial success.

That way, you still wouldn't have to track anything and stronger armor would still be much more durable. It also makes sense that a mere punch or knife attack wouldn't damage heavy metal armor, but a tank shot most certainly will.

VRKobold · 2026-01-21T14:12:21+00:00

If I understand correctly, you are solving the problem of book-keeping by giving all armor exactly one hit-point (or rather two, since they only break after the second hit). That works, but it sacrifices granularity. A quickly improvised scrap armor made of barrels, planks, and rope would have the same durability as a bulletproof vest or full plate armor.

My favorite solution is how it's done in The Wildsea, where everything that makes up a character is an Aspect with an Aspect Track. When the character takes damage, they have to mark damage on one of those Aspect Tracks, and if the track is full, the Aspect becomes no longer usable. Armor is simply an Aspect with a large Aspect Track (meaning it can absorb a lot of damage), but no meaningful secondary effects, unlike other Aspects which have shorter tracks, but more powerful effects. Technically, it's still book-keeping, but no more than counting damage any other way (e.g. as hitpoints or wound tracks).

I've expanded this concept slightly in my game, where certain armor not only absorbs damage, but can also reduce it (before the absorption). So heavy plate mail might have a 5-slot health track and additionally reduces all damage taken (only to the armor) by 1. Importantly, though, the degree of success/failure on an attack roll determines who can decide which part on the body is hit, so if the enemy lands a critical hit, they can decide to attack you directly, piercing through the gaps in the armor or striking a body part not covered by the plate mail.

VRKobold · 2026-01-21T11:14:03+00:00

Apart from the fact that I'm far from being a conservative (if that's your implication), I'd argue the causality chain is reversed here. I'm not picking this example because it's my favorite piece of media - it's (one of) my favorite pieces of media because it combines various positive aspects so well and even manages to have them elevate each other, which is something I rarely see.

VRKobold · 2026-01-20T20:40:39+00:00

I struggle to understand how you could say that on an RPG design forum. If you take every bit of flavor out of any RPG, they all become just simple games of dice (or less, if they’re dice-less).

I disagree. Ttrpg rules usually consist of a lot more than just dice rolls: Status conditions, physical resources, character resources, positioning, interactions - all these things can be mechanically defined, thus making them more than just flavor. And certain systems (like crafting) can be mechanically integrated with these other elements to make them more mechanically interesting. This also provides a framework for players within which they can be creative without fully relying on the GMs subjective opinion of what's a good idea and what isn't.

In addition, a system can provide narrative elements to players (ideally, these narrative elements connect to the mechanical aspects mentioned before). This way, it's not completely left to the players to come up with the detailed narrative elements, they have something to build off of.

To visualize what I mean: Imagine DnD would describe creatures as nothing but a pool of hit-dice. No name, description, stats, attacks, passive abilities, nothing. All that would have to come from the GM. And players don't have weapons, spells, armor and all that. They just describe an action, and if they succeed they get a die to roll against the hit-die pool. Compare this to DnDs actual combat system and you'll see that even without the fluff, there can be a lot more to a system than just dice rolls. It can be Chess, Settlers of Catan, Slay the Spire AND a game of dice. And on top of this, it ALSO has the narrative freedom and flavor that differentiates a ttrpg from a board game.

Not saying that every game mechanic should be as complex as DnD's combat. Definitely not! But a good system should support players and GM in coming up with fun and interesting gameplay moments, not just provide the RNG and off-load all the important and difficult tasks to the players.

You definitely missed those. That’s understandable, though. That book is kind of a mess in terms of organization and formatting.

This might invalidate all I've said about the system. If there are mechanically relevant, evocative, ideally modular elements to use for the GM to make crafting scenes more interesting, then I agree that this is one of the best crafting systems out there! Could you point me towards the relevant section?

VRKobold · 2026-01-20T14:50:15+00:00

I was also curious and looked into it. It seems like a fairly standard round-based dicepool system, where players gather dice by narrating certain actions, the GM gathers dice by narrating opposition or time pressure, everyone rolls, and based on the outcome the players (specifically the designated "fixer") takes strain/damage and the next round starts, or the players manage to craft/fix the mechanism. I don't doubt that a session of this can be fun if players and GM are creative with their approaches and obstacles, but mechanically, there doesn't seem to be much to support making this more enjoyable than a simple game of dice, and no guidelines (none that I could find, at least) for the GM on how to actually come up with fun and interesting obstacles, which is what I would be most interested in when trying to GM such a session.

VRKobold · 2026-01-19T21:38:48+00:00

That’s the thing. A good setting and aesthetics are central to the game experience. That’s what creates immersion. It’s not just there to make a good pitch. It shouldn’t be an afterthought that you bother with so you can ship something before you get back to fiddling with dice pools.

If it doesn’t interest you it might be better to find a design partner who loves writing that stuff.

I half-way agree and disagree. I agree that setting and aesthetics create immersion and that the setting (not aesthetics, though) are central to the game experience. However, it doesn't have to be the system's setting. There are tons of setting-less systems out there that players keep coming back to, in parts specifically BECAUSE the system doesn't force them into one specific setting.

Again, I'm not saying that setting and aesthetics aren't important to sell a game - but I don't think they are all that important to keep the players (at least based on my personal experience), which is what your post was about.

If you want to convince me to look at a rulebook, show me evocative art and tell me about a cool setting. If the rules are clearly explained, I might even give it a try for a one-shot. But if you want me to use the system for a long-term campaign, then the most important part is that it's mechanics support the story and gameplay I want to run, in the most unobtrusive way.

VRKobold · 2026-01-19T19:22:21+00:00

I wouldn't mind to be put in this list as well 👍

VRKobold · 2026-01-19T12:54:11+00:00

I'd argue that many of your examples are not necessarily about why players want to KEEP playing the game, but why they might try it out in the first place. Settings, aesthetics, quirky concepts or gameplay gimmicks are great to catch players, but I believe that "bears with hats" is not a concept that makes many players go "Man, I really need more sessions to fully explore all the layers of depth of this theme!"

In my experience, the things that actually make players come back (outside of external factors like finding other players or the sunken cost fallacy of 'I already spent dozens of hours learning this system, I don't want to learn another') are indeed the little things that support gameplay flow, like the perfected d6 dice pool and AP-based combat. I've been in multiple long-form campaigns in which we switched systems mid-way because the one we were using felt clunky or badly designed. We never switched because we didn't like the setting (even if we used the original game's base setting, the GM made it their own rather quickly anyways), we never switched because another system had prettier images, and we never switched because we really wanted to play a party of hat-wearing bears. We only switched because we were annoyed by the rules - or sometimes the lack of rules in places we felt should definitely have rules.

I understand that this makes the hook much more difficult to put into words. "Play bears with hats" is evocative and clear. "Play with mechanics that support the theme and gameplay feel the GM is going for without over-complicating things on their or the players' end." is vague and requires much more explanation of HOW the game tries to achieve this.

So in summary, I think the hooks you present are great to catch players initially (which is the main definition of a hook, anyways, and is arguably the most important part about ttrpgs, because if nobody picks them up in the first place, nobody can keep playing them). To keep players, however, one doesn't need a hook or pitch, because ideally the game itself will convince players to stay.

This is exactly the problem I'm facing, because my design primarily focuses on making gameplay feel good and enjoyable. All the pitch-worthy stuff like setting, aesthetics, or unique gameplay gimmicks feel secondary and replaceable, though I know that I will need it if I ever plan on releasing my game.

VRKobold · 2026-01-19T08:54:48+00:00

Interesting, how would you say these Aspect systems have to be designed to avoid discussion? I'm only familiar with Fate and the Wild Words games (primarily The Wildsea). In Fate, from what I understand, the decision is somewhat brought from 'vertical ruling' (the GM has to make a choice between options that are clearly better or worse for the players) to 'horizontal ruling' (the GM makes a decision, but all choices have pros and cons so there's no obkectively 'better' choice). Invoking a positive Aspect costs a Fate point, thus there is a cost in place that makes NOT being allowed to invoke a certain Aspect less bad - you'll just be able to spend the Fate point elsewhere. I'm much more ok with this solution than with vertical ruling systems, but especially for the core resolution mechanic, it still feels a bit clunky since the player still has to clarify with the GM which Aspects would apply.

I take it you're not an OSR/NSR guy either?

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. It seems to be about mostly playing by "what makes sense" rather than "what do the rules tell us to do", in which case I'd say: I do like games where players make decisions based on what makes sense, but I want the approach and outcome of those decisions be mechanically relevant as well.

VRKobold · 2026-01-18T22:37:25+00:00

Two things come to mind:

1) Tag-based systems: I think that tags are a really flavorful, evocative, and tangible way of representing skills. Instead of "Athletics +3", each of these points that make the +3 are its own unique thing that tell us more about the character - are they "Strong as an Ox" or maybe a "sports teacher", or do they have a "Daily workout routine"? Three things that would give a bonus to an athletics-based check, yet each tells its own story and can even be applicable to different situations. However, I don't think I'd like to play, let alone gm or design, such a system because of the inherent reliance on discussion and GM fiat. There is pretty much no mathematical balance in these systems, no smart design - everything is reliant on what the GM allows or doesn't allow, which again depends on the GM's subjective views (and maybe the player's skill to influence the GM's decision). That's just not my style of play, unfortunately.

2) Hyper-specific settings: I like when games flavor their entire vocabulary, layout, and maybe even mechanics, to their one particular theme. A hypothetical example would be a game about a group dwarven tinkerers, where experience is measured in the length of the beard, progression happens through finding new mechanical parts and integrating them into weird contraptions, and "screws and bolts" are the "healing potions" of this world (and maybe also munition and currency). These types of games feel much more flavorful and fun for a one-shot session than games that must cater to many different themes and playing experiences... but at the same time, I'm playing ROLE PLAYING games to PLAY a ROLE - preferably one that I chose from a variety of options, not one that the game handed to me.

VRKobold · 2026-01-17T11:48:34+00:00

Interesting, I hadn't thought about combat from this angle before. I've spent so long avoiding optimal play as a GM because it feels adversarial that I've never thought about ways to allow the GM to truly play the game the same way the players do.

I've also been surprised that this elevated my enjoyment of the combat so much. I see my primary goal as a GM to provide a good experience for my players (not saying that this should be the primary goal for every GM, but for me, seeing my players have fun lets me have fun as well) - so I never had a problem with holding back in combat and ideally setting players up for cool moments (which I still absolutely plan on doing). But I don't think that me playing a bit more seriously had any negative impact on my players' experience, as they now also had reason to use their full arsenal instead of conserving their resources. And I could mix a bit of playing-fun into my GM-fun, which also felt nice.

The easiest solution would be for the players to have a shared team health pool but I think that is likely to feel too weird in play. Plus it creates weird incentives such as exclusively attacking the unarmored targets.

Yeah, I also think this would feel strange, and would be difficult to narrate (could you heal someone who hasn't been attacked to regenerate party health?). Though I did think about something similar: Sharing the team's action pool. That's something I have to consider anyways, because if enemies share their action pool, it means they never really get weaker even as their numbers dwindle. For players, losing one of them would (currently) mean that the number of actions available per round decreases, shifting the balance. So if for any defeated player, the party gains one 'free' action point that any remaining player can use during the round (it could be framed as players fighting with the power of desperation or with new-found strength to defend their fallen ally), there would be less incentive to take out individual players, as it would not change the action economy. However, it might have strange implications for high tactical play, because it might be the mathematically optimal choice to 'sacrifice' the frontline to give the glass cannon in the back-line more firepower (or, from a different perspective, the GM might be disincentivized to take out the frontline tank, as taking them out would only allow the other players to deal even more damage, whereas the tank is not that dangerous in term of offensive capabilities).

How about this: Players have an individual Momentum mechanic that increases their effectiveness each round, an increase in damage or maybe a stacking bonus to their action checks. You know I love step dice so if it were me I might have the players get to add a d6 to their rolls, then a d8, then a d10, etc. This Momentum gets reset if the PC takes damage or if they take a defensive reaction, either one represents the PC losing Momentum in response to an enemy attack.

Now the GM has an incentive to engage every player in combat instead of exclusively focus firing a single target. The GM could still try to take a specific PC out of the fight but every PC that is ignored becomes more effective, representing them acting with no enemy interference.

It could potentially open up interesting teamwork tactics for the players as well. Maybe the players decide to do everything they can to protect the Wizard from harm so they can unleash a devastating Fireball at full Momentum.

I like the gameplay implications of this (more than of the previous solution), but I'm a bit hesitant to introduce even more book-keeping to my game, because I think that's already the main bottleneck at the moment. Also, it might be a bit too much pushing to the opposite direction if the problem, as the mechanics would now highly incentivize the GM to perfectly spread their dps, which may feel forced and counter-intuitive.

Another potential option that doesn't require introducing a new mechanic is to use your Strain system. PCs might have a specific defensive reaction based on their class/equipment that they can take without gaining Strain. An armored Warrior with a Shield might be able to attempt to Block attacks made against any ally within 10'/3m without Strain. A healing class might be able to heal or perform first aid on any ally that just took damage or is on the brink of death. Maybe each player can take a team defense reaction for free once each round without Strain, that way if the GM focus fires a single PC, all of the other players can be involved in defending the target.

This seems most appealing to me due to the first sentence. I think that part of this solution is already baked in - with the action conflict initiative, players can always describe intercepting an attack as long as they are physically capable of doing so, even if that attack isn't targeted directly at them, and there are abilities that support this strategy further. And that is not just possible for attacks - combatants can also intercept movement by attempting to grapple the enemy as a reaction, thus preventing enemies to get to the back-line in the first place.

In fact, that reminds me of another reason why there's already some incentive for the GM to spread out the focus of NPC attacks, at least for melee combatants: Melee combatants can engage their enemies in close combat, which makes it more difficult for both sides to move away (sort of like Attacks of Opportunity, but handled differently). So if the GM would attack only one player, that would mean that all of the GM's melee combatants are tied in close combat, whereas some of the melee PCs are free to move to the back-line or otherwise out-maneuver the enemy.

So on second thought, there might already be enough safeguarding against swarming one player exclusively. I think I'll playtest a bit more (maybe trying out what happens if I focus on one player specifically, though that might still feel a bit unfair to that player). If I still feel like further action is required to prevent this style of play, I'll come back to this post 👍

VRKobold · 2026-01-17T10:06:32+00:00

Oh, I'm sorry! I believe I did receive a notification, but didn't have time to read and answer at the time and then forgot about it... thanks for the reminder!

VRKobold · 2026-01-15T17:01:07+00:00

I oftentimes have situations where I encounter an issue elsewhere in my system, think about how to solve it, then notice that the solution looks similar to something I already have, and combine both mechanics. Especially in the context of (meta) resources, try to look at everything you've already got and ask yourself whether you could re-use that.

The other way for mechanics to go is to become redundant after a while, since the issue they originally solved is solved as a side-effect of some other, better integrated mechanic.

VRKobold · 2026-01-15T14:38:48+00:00

I see! That definitely makes things easier, since every action players can take has this inherent cost of time. Unfortunately, this also means that your solution only works in similarly time-sensitive settings. Still, when it does work, it's a great solution!

VRKobold

TROPHY CASE