I recently self-published a game and just this past week it's started to sell well. And by that I mean it's selling more than I expected. Anyway this morning I got my first use of AI accusation on Drivethrurpg. Anyone have experience with this or have any idea how common this accusation is? I am a bit taken aback because the meat of the text and all the art is from something I self-published in 2016 before AI existed. It's gone through a ton of iteration since then, but the root is there. Admittedly I've done what is essentially spellchecks through AI to catch mistakes and inconsistencies (like when i change a rule and don't fix it in all the places it's mentioned) and some ideas for some of the table layouts (of tables that already existed), which I then adjusted, cut and pasted, and they're all tables made in Word, so nothing fancy (which is a nightmare btw, i regret not learning Indesign and doing it in there). Other than that, nothing was generated but as much as there is no proof of AI use it's also just my word against theirs, right?

Hello again everyone,

So, meanwhile, I had this game in mind for a while. I really have a thing with dreams and folk traditions.

Tell me what is missing, or what you would improve.

https://exiledoracles.itch.io/good-night

Thanks. Good night.

This is something that’s inspired by a different post about solving problems. What are some challenges, issues, or problems that you solved for your system via game design? Particularly ones that you feel proud of.

ALTS is on its fifth iteration and it feels like everytime I fix one problem I create another, or dig up an issue I thought I’d buried.

Here’s an example:

One of the issues I had early on is with a mechanic called Angst, where originally it was a straight penalty, every angst you collected reduced you result by 1. You could only reduce it rolling on a challenge with your weakest stat.

The problem was initially two fold, it was to punishing, and it was to fiddly. It broke a personal rule of “players only do math once” and it caused players to just bounce between their best stats and their worst stats for die rolls.

So I adjusted the math, you only take penalty on the roll every couple of angst. Which was better but only in the sense that it delayed the issue. -1 on a at the time d12 system is still significant. It still felt fiddly at the table but you interacted with it slightly less.

Back to the drawing board. On iteration 3 and 4 we moved to being a 2d6 system for better control of the results. Which lead me to a way of fixing don’t do math twice. Now when angst accumulated past a certain amount, you only rolled 1 dice instead of two. It felt nice, elegant even… play-tests still showed it as being to punishing. We tweaked it here and there, but keeping track of Angst still felt fiddly, and the results were punishing to the point that people never really engaged risked angst beyond its first penalty.

Iteration 5 had the biggest leap. I shifted to using cards and tokens as required materials for the game. Angst shifted to a mechanic closer the stress from blades in the dark, and changed the 1 dice down penalty to be triggered under a different mechanic that having a bunch of angst would then make worse.

The use of tokens made tracking angst far easier, it also let me implement a stealing mechanic where instead of being a individual thing to manage, it all came from the same pool, which means every time you took angst to buff your roll, you made the other players position a little bit better. The gameplay finally felt smooth and the shifting of the angst penalty to its own new mechanic finally incentivized players to shift away from using only one or two of their core stats to solve problems.

TL/DR:

What are some issues you’ve run into while playing your game that you’ve solved through game design and mechanics?

Extra points is the answer isn’t “it wasn’t working or adding anything so I removed it.” Which is fair, but boring to read.

I was recently introduced to RISUS from a few commenters here and I absolutely love the simplicity of it, especially the cliches and how it handles rounds and group rolls. It’s given me a lot of ideas for how to keep things rules lite.

But I’m wondering if there’s a system that has a bit more crunch without needing 100 pages of rules, especially around creating characters or even for weapons/damage/armor or conditions that affect the player. Just something with slightly more guidance or restrictions on a mechanical level.

I’m familiar with PbtA, Fate, Genesys, City of Mist, BitD, and similar. But ideally looking for something between RISUS and Fate/BitD if it exists?

Hello, just looking for some advice. I've been working on this system and playtesting with a group in tandem. We're 15 sessions in, and I have done many switch-ups, not so much on the main mechanics but auxiliary mechanics and playbooks. I feel like I'm running out of gas, I want to put something out there, the manual is mostly written, I just need to colate it, maybe redo some of the art. But between running the campaign and integrating all the constructive criticisms the goal looks farther and farther away. Should I push through or take a break ? I'm worried the break might turn into a hiatus...

Anybody else been through this ? Did finally publishing refresh you ?

So im writing my own ttrpg, and for combat, im playing around with the idea of Action Points. Every player has a certain number of AP, and every action costs a certain number of AP.

Just a few examples (AP isnt set in stone yet):

Attack: 3 AP

Move: 1 AP per space

Disengage: 3 AP

Help: 4 AP

Climb /Swim: 2AP per space

Another point im hoping to stick to is really having every stat being a rolled number. This gives the stats a lot of swing between good and bad, and I think thats going to be a feature of the game. Some players may be very good or very bad at certain stats. So, I was playing around with a characters AP being equal to 3d4, re-roll any score lower than maybe 5 or 6.

I suppose my question is this; am I getting too far out there having something like AP be a variable between players? Is it too unfair, and more importantly NOT FUN to have some players be as low as 6 or 7, and other players be as high as 11 or 12 AP?

I guess, ultimately, is equal action economy the most important factor for fairness and fun?

Please discuss. Thank you!

UPDATE

You all made very convincing arguments, thank you for your input! At the core of this game, its supposed to be simple, fun, and just a bunch of goof ball antics! And the AP idea doesnt fit with that at all. Ive decided to bag it for a more simple version. You get two actions per turn. You can use any one of those to attack, move, help and so on. Ultimately being fun is the name of the game, and my idea was not that. Lmao!

Thank you!

I'm running a D&D campaign that is based off '80s action movies, the campaign is designed to begin with a die-hard homage, before becoming a series of adventures that are plays on the terminator, predator, assault on precinct 13, and escape from New york.

I want to give the players access to a collection of '80s movie inspired feats, it's worth noting that this setting has firearms and vehicles alongside magical abilities.

I want to give the abilities names that are references to old movies or famous quotes from them.

Someone's already come up with are

Body snatcher - you can create disguises off of unconscious or killed foes that provide advantage on checks related to pretending to be that person

Die hard - the lower your health bar the better you roll (play testing the exact numbers still)

You feel lucky punk? - once per combat encounter if an enemy hits you with an attack you can reflect the damage back on them.

I am the night - double the stealth bonus of being in darkness

Terminator - when you down an enemy in combat you could immediately perform another attack

Predator - on a critical success on an attack, you can immediately perform a stealth check and vanish from sight if you pass.

Road warrior - whenever you perform a vehicle operation action, you may immediately perform an additional action.

Anybody have a good ideas for additional ones?

I'm designing a mechanic where attributes range from 1 to 10 (or at least 1–5). The result is determined by opposed rolls: each side counts successes (rolling 6s on d6), and the defender's successes cancel the attacker's successes.

Here's what I've come up with in AnyDice so far:

function: hits ROLL:s {
  result: [count 6 in ROLL]
}
output [hits 6d6] > [hits 1d6]
output [hits 6d6] > [hits 5d6]
output [hits 10d6] > [hits 1d6]
output [hits 10d6] > [hits 5d6]

In practice, the active party (e.g., the attacker) rolls 5 + its attribute value (so attribute 3 → 8d6), while the passive party (defender) rolls just its attribute value. In the examples above, the attribute ranges from 1 to 5.

P.S. Sorry for my English.

P.P.S.: Just to clarify — any dice pool system that gives the active party a success probability ranging from about 25–30% up to 70–75% will work for me.

Hi. I am new to RPG designs and only doing it as a hobby.

I have been looking into different existing systems to see what suits best the games I would like to work on.

I am pretty interested in the way Wanderhome handle the generation of new locations, giving basic ideas for the player to make their own locations and develop them through the gameplay.

Does anyone know if this is based on an existing system I could learn more about and maybe get tips? Or is it just their own thing that they came up with? Are their other similar open ways to guid the players to come up with their own ideas?

​

This is for our TTRPG SORC. The game is about halfway done but I feel this part of it is well enough to share. Today I was asked to help fix a ranged attack problems and this is where I am at. You may get links to other subjects, but this is about ranged attacking and I feel it is close to completion.

I will be adding low and high ground advantages and disadvantages. Now I have velocity at point blank, and I have added a stabilization point where the vhit is strong again. I think have a velocity drop power losses. So I've added all of this to our ranged system but on for Earthborn weapons and not the TAW or Energy weapons which are technically advanced and weapons that use the universes elemental energy. More on those elements later because SORC right now has a lot of elements and they just added Aura which changes the characters presence. Again more on these things later. There is a lot to iron out, but it all makes sense to us, so if you happen to stray away from this topic I would need to ask other people. I can answer any concerns related to 'ranged attack' but they is it. I am also seeking for advice because this might be too much or too little for some.

To the reader. We use very complex systems in SORC and sometimes they take a while to calculate. On the other hand, the system below only required the GM to know one thing and that is “the distance the attack is from the target.”

We do have three styles of play choices for players and I am listing them below. That said, if you were to choose the casual system, it locks on and only Hit would be calculated on the table. If you choose Improvised, you can take out or keep the elements you choose to. We have an appendix and glossary online and this would be part of the campaign creating process.

If you don't mind a very crunchy style, and you don't mind long though during your turns (like in chess), then feel free to play under enthusiastic style, where all the rules are locked in.

Casual - a lot of the system's rules are dropped. It is bare bones. locked in. This version changes the table below, so that only hit is modified by range. That approach is simple.

Improvised - rule manipulation but must be set before the campaign begins.

Enthusiastic - all in. locked in.

Ranged Attacks

1. What could I add?

2. What should be removed?

3. What isn't explained right?

I would like to know.

Hi, still working on Eat the Elite, quick summary:

Welcome to the highest tier of gastronomy.

The Superrich have spent centuries consuming everything: our labor, our homes, our time. They treat us like cattle.
Now it is time to turn the tables.

You are a group of culinary specialists pulling off impossible heists against the untouchable 1%. You will breach their estates, manipulate their security, and use their smart home gadgets against them.

Bon appétit.

It is a lightweight, heist game. At the end of each heist you are getting to eat the rich person, which can give bonusses (basically a level up) but I think I made this part of the game overly complicated and clunky.

Basically every character gets a roll that influences the outcome and the bonuses (or maluses) of the meat, here some examples

1 . Sous-Chef

Roll on Order to coordinate your team

Success - One  of your crew gets +1 on their roll
Fail - Nothing
1 - All of your crew gets +1 on their roll
10 - All of your crew gets -1 on their roll

2. Boucher

Roll on Heat to cut the best pieces

Success - You gain 3 cuts of prime meat
Fail - You get 1 cut of prime meat
1 - You get 5 cuts of prime meat
10 - You get nothing

5. Pâtissier

Roll on Finesse

Success - You can choose for 2 cuts which stats are boosted
Fail - Nothing
1 - You can choose for all cuts which stats are boosted
10 - You ruin one of the cuts and have to throw it away

I am trying to find a better, fast, less complicated way to handle this and thankfull for any suggestion or inspiration :)

I was reading through this other post on AI accusations and some people have expectations that are beyond reasonable. In a world where half of the internet is written by AI they expect you to not even look in the direction of anything that was AI generated. Some claim that checking the google's AI section in search results should be disclosed. Others that just bouncing ideas off of AI is too much... I understand the issue of drawing a strict line between what should and shouldn't be disclosed as using the AI. How much AI is too much AI? And I'm not here to argue about it. I have my own stance on it which is very much anti AI and I'm not trying to excuse myself or anyone else.

I wrote this post to say that this kind of mentality is extremely counter productive. This toxicity can either push people away from being creative at all, since they get flack for smallest shit, or push them towards using AI even more since the requirements are impossible to avoid. If I'm gonna get blamed for AI either way, I can just as well use it. This war on AI that people are fighting on the backs of small creators that earn pennies from their hobbies doesn't lead anywhere.

The pressure is such that I opted for a new account as I fear this post could explode into a torrent of toxicity that I don't want to be associated with. I'm not saying not to call out blatant AI use. I'm not saying you should accept AI generated slop. But aim your rage appropriately. Support each other when people obviously created something with their own hands, even if they used AI as a tool a bit. Suggest them alternatives to AI instead of attacking them without compromise. And demand from big(ger) publishers to ditch AI. The ones that would actually take work from artists and writers. There are better ways to fight this war than to fight it among ourselves.