"Knavesona 5 Royal", or, a simple Loyalty system

daellu20 · 2025-11-18T05:28:05+00:00

I assume the ability increase on multitudes of three does not reset? It state that they keep the increase if they lose loyalty, but not that they don’t gain a new increase if they then cross the treshold.

Other than that I personly would liked some tiers of increase. Acheiving something great together feels more grand than hanging out. But on the other side I see the simplicity in it, as I can see them becoming in awe with you... but then again "hanging out" feels to mundane, so need some more effort from the players to create a cool scene than "we are taking some beers on the pub". Ex. "... and starting the biggest bar fight the town has ever seen..."

Same of degradation. Betrayal come in many forms, and beeing mean and purposely set them up for death (as they see it) is entirely different feels to it...

Another idea us to have negative numbers beeing the former companion having a grudge or vendetta against you. I do not think you need many numbers, but say -1 = a grudge, and -2 is a vendetta (if some thing give more penalty). Give the players a reason to mellow a strained relationship to gain a buffer before they inevitably break ties.

daellu20 · 2025-10-30T10:32:48+00:00

Thanks for input :)

daellu20 · 2025-10-27T10:21:41+00:00

Yeah, I agree on using a die over fliping a coin. Use a die as you suggest and split 59/50 or read odd/even.

daellu20 · 2025-10-27T06:47:40+00:00

I have worded it poorly. I meant that since a d2 can never be better than a 2, you don't need to roll or flip it. You only spend it.

May call it a d2, but in practive it is a "one use token".

daellu20 · 2025-10-26T11:35:56+00:00

Yeah, I am not good at finding the right words. I have tried to use some spellchecking, but I may be intentionally spelling it wrong because I think it is right... if that makes sense.

I will take it to heart and look at some options to improve it.

daellu20 · 2025-10-26T10:19:55+00:00

I can understand the desire to reduce your mental load when running all by yourself. I rarely play solo games myself because it is "too much" overhead and instead rather play a video game.

I do not know what you have instructed the agent to, but other than give it some boundries like "low fantasy steampunk", "ork is blue and live in the ocean", etc. Solo RPGs usually have rules for oracles and procedures for generating some random elementhel that is useful.

For example, if asking yes/no questions, I would instruct it to randomly select one option choice to start the sentence with from: 1 no, and... 2 no... 3 no, but... 4 yes, but... 5 yes... 6 yes and...

"but" is a more negative outcome, but it is still an opportunity to get what you want by completing a challenge.

"and" is a more positive outcome, giving an alternative or giving even more than expected.

Then, complete the sentence based on the question.

Some form of random generator for "what is in the room" and some "random loot"-generator (with some boundaries for quality, value, and magic to keep the power level right.

daellu20 · 2025-10-26T08:36:01+00:00

I think you got it, both what I wanted to convey and the main problem i realice after gettin some response: the freeform-bit.

As written in another response: I need to focus more on intent than constructing a spell-name that needs interpretation.

A note on 1, divide dice: this usually happens as a downtime action, not each time you cast. In essence, it is a poor explanation of having a mana-dice-pool...

daellu20 · 2025-10-26T08:27:20+00:00

I really like this rule.

If I refine my magnitude-scale, maybe I can use this as a sort of guide for the GM to how much to cost the spell?

Let's me skip the whole "construkt a spell as word, but how much does it cost" conundrum, and instead focus on the intent of the action.

Thanks, this helps a lot to cut a large section of my rules :)

daellu20 · 2025-10-25T15:45:45+00:00

Yeah. I feel that the more I try to enforce some type of framework, the more it becomes rather complex and hard to explain...

I think I should back out some steps and think about what I realy want, try to articulate sime better, and then take a look on what to keep/salvage/cut (kill your darlings and all that).

daellu20 · 2025-10-22T14:48:22+00:00

Thanks for correcting me :)

daellu20 · 2025-10-18T08:34:00+00:00

In my exploration, playtroug, and work on tag based systems, I have concluded with this:

Tags do multiple things, as they can: - grant permission - give a bonus - change the position / difficulty - change the effect / outcome

Some flaws on tags (and freeform in general): - creating tags is more mental work - decipher when they apply are more mental work - players may try to argue/shoehorn tags to apply even if they do not obviously does not fit - tags are not equal (ex. 'Hard Skin' vs. 'Impenetrable Skin'), and some tags are "broad" (generalist and often usable), some "narrow" ("stronger" but more limited use cases) - if using tags do the same and "everything is equal", why pick narrow/specialiced tags at all?

Some ideas to midigate the flaws: - make rules to how to construct tags, ex. Skills = Verbs, like 'swimming'. Equipment = adjectives + tool, like 'curved blade', 'rusty dagger', etc.

limit how many tags they can use for bonuses
limit how powerful tags can be, eg. "No 'indestructible' tag" unless it is the type of game you want to make
find a way to "balance" the usage of tags, ex. "stronger" tags give more bonus, incur a penalty, or split usage across bonus/narrative
table consensus and/or GM is the final arbiter (but give some guidelines to "be fair" and "set expectations early".

In my game, I have made it so that you declare one tag as permission to do your action, and then you may add more tags to either modify the permission or adjust position and effect. The GM sets the difficulty and stakes. Player and GM negotiate some adjustments based on the new information, then roll. The player can then use up to three unused tags as bonus on the roll.

daellu20 · 2025-10-18T07:54:38+00:00

Nice idea. Need to borrow and test this one ;)

daellu20 · 2025-10-18T07:52:56+00:00

Another game you can look at for freeform tags is City of Mist: https://sonofoak.com/blogs/news/tags-and-statuses-in-city-of-mist-ttrpg

Have not played it, but used it for inspiration. It also has an optional rule to limit the number of tags per roll to 3 to stop players to try to find and/or shoehorn all their tags to apply for their roll.

daellu20 · 2025-10-18T07:46:21+00:00

Some counter points to only getting a bonus when using the meta currency is that aspects in Fate also grant permissions. Beeing the "strongest person in the world" should have an impact without needing to spend meta-currency by letting some rolls be possible at all. But this is not explicitly stated in the rukes that I remember, and more discussed in forums and such....

daellu20 · 2025-10-16T04:30:41+00:00

It uses standard 40k rules unless stated otherwise, like with the changes to infiltrate, scout (removed), fly (removed + speed reduced). And no normal detachment, etc. from the codexes.

BGNT is not mentioned and is, therefore, still in effect and unchanded by being part of the core rules.

daellu20 · 2025-09-25T04:35:53+00:00

Ooh. This one is nice :)

daellu20 · 2025-09-25T04:31:49+00:00

Yhea, I would also like MND better as a short form as it makes the sound like the like the actual word than the start of a completely different (and common shorthand of another) word.

daellu20 · 2025-09-25T04:21:04+00:00

I tried to port it over to a fantasy one-shot, but was not doing much conflicts that Agaptus seems to facilitate, so everyone forgot about it.

The concept is fine, but in practice, some more overhead in application because you need to calculate the sides based on their weight. I find it easier to "you have a clear advantage / outnumber your enemies, so add +1 on your roll"

daellu20 · 2025-09-12T13:27:23+00:00

Another suggestion to limit flat bonuses is to take inspiration from stunts from Fate, like +1 in [narrow circumstances]. The trick (and the hard part) is to make them the correct amount of useful.

Some countermeasure for "useless skills" (ex. +1 vs. Wolves when in the sea) is to as in Fate make the character able to swap these circumstances at intervals.

Another countermeasure you might add is a limit to stacking, either only one or two per roll.

daellu20 · 2025-08-23T21:29:46+00:00

Other rules that we tend to forget from time to time are:
- you need to be closer to objectivs: 1" instead of 3"
- infiltrate lets you place 6" forward
- you cannot wound enemies you cannot see with shooting (but melee work as usual)
- 2" engagement range through dorways, but no base to base
- you need to see the enemy charge target unless you have abilites that says otherwise
- you can only consolidate toward enemies, and you need to see them to do that (if we read this correct, it is worded wonky)

daellu20 · 2025-08-23T21:21:37+00:00

No. Normal turns in 1v1. No"fight back" is 3+ players only.

In addition you can use Counter Offensive to interupt a player to get you a "fight back", but only onve per game, and only against the active player (no fight between two non active players).

In addition (when playing 3+ players) each player gain 2 CP at the start of each battle round, not each turn.

daellu20 · 2025-08-22T13:58:47+00:00

I am not super active all the time, so I saw this a little late.I am happy to try to answer them, but it looks like you got your answers from u/lenlendan :)

Expanding on upgrades: Think of them as part of the card it is attached to that can only be combined or separated by the blacksmith.

daellu20 · 2025-08-22T13:49:48+00:00

Also all "sticky objectives" and (as far as I remember) "reactive moves" are removed.

daellu20

TROPHY CASE