Luck triggering banes is great! It was always a bit of an issue in EotE that both sides could in theory spend force to eventually not move either the difficulty or the balance of the force. Ensure the monsters always have at least one interesting bane usage - like the wolves where the howl is a bit meh as an option but for free it's grand. (except maybe pawns if those are supposed to be deployed in swarms). The Dee Sanction has a similar effect to "player banes causing trouble"; when the players fumble an attack it triggers a counter attack and as here the players actively defend against monsters. (IIRC fumbles are undefended but low level).
Absolutely loved the luck mechanic, I think it allows for some very nice interaction between players and the DM at the table! Really excited to learn more about the system
Awesome video! Just stumbled on this series in my recommended today. Been working on a smaller ttrpg myself, and hearing and seeing all of the different routes designers go down, and how they address different playstyles and the way they tackle some of the pro's and con's is always fascinating. Was going to ask if you had a discord or any other way for people to ask advice or just connect!
Sounds cool, I was also planing on making it so the GM dose not roll to often in my game eather. I really like that about Numenera and it feels like it will bring down some of the crunch of my game. I am looking forward to trying out your game and seeing more of the NPC/mknster stat blocms.
Cool, good to know! I have made about 20 or so NPC stat blocks now, and I'm pretty excited about them. It's fun to bake fun gameplay concepts into the design!
I just finished watching the whole series and I like it a lot. I've wanted to go back to my homemade system for a while and this is exactly the kind of content that motivates me to, and makes me think about the choices I've made. I'm all in the design goal of putting the PCs at the center of the game, in fact I've decided on a similar system for my NPCs (each one of them as an overall "challenge" value that's used as difficulty for the players' rolls, with specializations or weaknesses if needed for NPCs with more depth that changes those values slightly). I'm less of a fan of the idea of a special rule for NPC rolls. I would either decide to actually never roll for the NPCs, or have the players roll for them when needed: if the NPC is an enemy a PC rolls against them; if the NPC is an ally, then one of the PC rolls for them, but I would either keep the simple rule you talked about (flip a coin, choose even or odd and roll a die, roll over 6 on a d10, etc.), or keep the same rule as normal rolls. The NPC could then be identified by its three dice: that wounded soldier is 1d4 (they're wounded) and 2d8 (they were in good shape before the wound (attributes), and well trained (skills)). They would always roll those dice whatever they do, and the GM could apply advantage or disadvantage if they feel the NPC should have better chances to overcome some action (that soldier, with a nasty gash on their leg, would roll at disadvantage if they had to run or jump). I really like that the dice in your system have meaning and feel that it would be too bad to discard that meaning for NPCs. The dice can tell a story at a glance, and I that is really cool. As for making the PCs roll for their NPCs allies, I feel like it adds agency and drama, and make the players more invested in what their allies do (I've seen quite a few games were an NPC becomes an MVP by succeeding a roll they should never have.) Anyway, that's my suggestion, it might not fit well with your
Keep it going! Still fantastic idea, you’re killing it! Definitely still excited to playtest, ever since the first video. Really like player characters (PCs) being the main source of dice rolling. It seems like you have this in mind, but one way to still keep PCs spending luck is to have most NPC skills take at least 2 banes. So the exchange rate is in the favor of PCs (of course a sovereign creature is rare and could have this exchange rate be 1:1 like the example you have). And even if PCs hardly use luck they could save it for pivotal moments in the story, so at worst it still is a cool narrative moment just like you described: a winning blow with some possible mishaps like a lasting injury from the creature lashing out in death. Is the amount of luck the GM has determined by the sum of the theoretical maximum luck of each PC minus how much luck the PCs currently have? Or is it just based on a per session (or current scenario in the story) basis where the luck spent is the luck stored by the GM? Since the GM awards luck to PCs, and uses stored luck, at their own discretion, it might make it feel a bit better if PCs had a concrete way to gain luck independent of the GM. Like you said if they have a bad GM, then that’s the issue, but keeping in line with the theme of “I want PCs doing the main actions” it might be cool if, for example “rolling all the same number on each die” awards one luck, or something of that nature. Just so they feel like they have a bit more say in the matter.
Hey, thanks for such a great comment! Yeah, the player perceptions and interactions around the benefits and drawbacks of using Luck will definitely be a source of study for me. NPC abilities will have to be calibrated accordingly. :) To answer your question, I'm actually thinking the GM has a maximum Luck pool equal to the number of players in the session x2. That way it's fairly balanced around the size of the party, and the GM can't stockpile it in perpetuity. As for acquiring Luck for the players, yes. The primary method is by engaging in pastime during Downtime Mode. It's an activity you can do to unwind, relax, engage in your hobbies and backstory, knock back a few drinks, what have you. And the mechanical benefit is that you get some Luck. The idea is you would only be able to do this in civilization of some kind. I'm hoping this mechanic reinforces storytelling, and vice versa!
@@elementalyarn I would definitely get started playtesting right away and would be open to Discord feedback or brainstorming sessions! Your system is so intriguing. The narrative focus plus crunch has been a problem I’ve been trying to crack since I ran campaigns in Cypher and Dungeon World
@@Gavinwad Yarniverse! 😂 It would be a great place to organize games and feedback. That’s what they did for Shadow of the Weird Wizard and Rob Schwalb got a ton of spontaneous and high quality feedback.
I think it could be helpful to add the relevant die size to the npc Sheet. Maybe even instead of the actual stat. This would make it clearer and easier to See and would Serve a similar purpose. I know they are not the focus but the less you have to think while handling npcs the better. Just a thought
Very interested to see what this looks like once it has come to fruition and is 'live' in the world. Would be willing to proofread if needed as I don't currently have a gaming group. Have you mentioned it and I missed it, but have you mentioned page count you are shooting for? I only ask because when I do get to play, it is online and I tend to really favor 'rules light' systems.
Thanks! I could definitely use a proofreader! As for page count, the doc is currently around 70-80 pages. Some is character and equipment options, some is NPC stat blocks, etc. Is it "rules-light?" Depends on your definition. It's not PBtA levels, but it's not PF2e either. I suppose you can be the judge of that when I start sending this thing out to alpha testers!
I think if I understand it correctly, there's no real mathematical difference between having the GM or the player roll. No matter who rolls, it brings in the random factor in a value vs value contest. It seems to me that letting the players make the rolls instead of the GM is something they will viscerally appreciate more, despite it providing no real benefit. It also sound like attacking or defending work pretty much the same whether you are a player or an NPC, with the only caveat being who rolls the dice. However, if you want to take the whole "player-centric" thing a step forward mechanically, perhaps have a player attacking and a player defending work very differently. For example, perhaps players never have to roll to hit, only damage, because stories are more interesting when players don't miss and waste a turn, but we don't care as much about NPCs so with a PC with high enough dodge the NPC can actually whiff. Just a few thoughts from someone who has studies and created these systems for a few decades. ;)
Luck triggering banes is great! It was always a bit of an issue in EotE that both sides could in theory spend force to eventually not move either the difficulty or the balance of the force. Ensure the monsters always have at least one interesting bane usage - like the wolves where the howl is a bit meh as an option but for free it's grand. (except maybe pawns if those are supposed to be deployed in swarms).
The Dee Sanction has a similar effect to "player banes causing trouble"; when the players fumble an attack it triggers a counter attack and as here the players actively defend against monsters. (IIRC fumbles are undefended but low level).
Absolutely loved the luck mechanic, I think it allows for some very nice interaction between players and the DM at the table!
Really excited to learn more about the system
Awesome video! Just stumbled on this series in my recommended today. Been working on a smaller ttrpg myself, and hearing and seeing all of the different routes designers go down, and how they address different playstyles and the way they tackle some of the pro's and con's is always fascinating. Was going to ask if you had a discord or any other way for people to ask advice or just connect!
Thanks, good to have you! And yes, I really need to start a Discord server, had a lot of requests. Maybe I'll try and get that done this week, haha
Sounds cool, I was also planing on making it so the GM dose not roll to often in my game eather. I really like that about Numenera and it feels like it will bring down some of the crunch of my game. I am looking forward to trying out your game and seeing more of the NPC/mknster stat blocms.
Cool, good to know! I have made about 20 or so NPC stat blocks now, and I'm pretty excited about them. It's fun to bake fun gameplay concepts into the design!
I just finished watching the whole series and I like it a lot. I've wanted to go back to my homemade system for a while and this is exactly the kind of content that motivates me to, and makes me think about the choices I've made.
I'm all in the design goal of putting the PCs at the center of the game, in fact I've decided on a similar system for my NPCs (each one of them as an overall "challenge" value that's used as difficulty for the players' rolls, with specializations or weaknesses if needed for NPCs with more depth that changes those values slightly). I'm less of a fan of the idea of a special rule for NPC rolls. I would either decide to actually never roll for the NPCs, or have the players roll for them when needed: if the NPC is an enemy a PC rolls against them; if the NPC is an ally, then one of the PC rolls for them, but I would either keep the simple rule you talked about (flip a coin, choose even or odd and roll a die, roll over 6 on a d10, etc.), or keep the same rule as normal rolls. The NPC could then be identified by its three dice: that wounded soldier is 1d4 (they're wounded) and 2d8 (they were in good shape before the wound (attributes), and well trained (skills)). They would always roll those dice whatever they do, and the GM could apply advantage or disadvantage if they feel the NPC should have better chances to overcome some action (that soldier, with a nasty gash on their leg, would roll at disadvantage if they had to run or jump).
I really like that the dice in your system have meaning and feel that it would be too bad to discard that meaning for NPCs. The dice can tell a story at a glance, and I that is really cool. As for making the PCs roll for their NPCs allies, I feel like it adds agency and drama, and make the players more invested in what their allies do (I've seen quite a few games were an NPC becomes an MVP by succeeding a roll they should never have.)
Anyway, that's my suggestion, it might not fit well with your
Looking forward to the play test
Keep it going! Still fantastic idea, you’re killing it! Definitely still excited to playtest, ever since the first video. Really like player characters (PCs) being the main source of dice rolling.
It seems like you have this in mind, but one way to still keep PCs spending luck is to have most NPC skills take at least 2 banes. So the exchange rate is in the favor of PCs (of course a sovereign creature is rare and could have this exchange rate be 1:1 like the example you have). And even if PCs hardly use luck they could save it for pivotal moments in the story, so at worst it still is a cool narrative moment just like you described: a winning blow with some possible mishaps like a lasting injury from the creature lashing out in death.
Is the amount of luck the GM has determined by the sum of the theoretical maximum luck of each PC minus how much luck the PCs currently have? Or is it just based on a per session (or current scenario in the story) basis where the luck spent is the luck stored by the GM?
Since the GM awards luck to PCs, and uses stored luck, at their own discretion, it might make it feel a bit better if PCs had a concrete way to gain luck independent of the GM. Like you said if they have a bad GM, then that’s the issue, but keeping in line with the theme of “I want PCs doing the main actions” it might be cool if, for example “rolling all the same number on each die” awards one luck, or something of that nature. Just so they feel like they have a bit more say in the matter.
Hey, thanks for such a great comment! Yeah, the player perceptions and interactions around the benefits and drawbacks of using Luck will definitely be a source of study for me. NPC abilities will have to be calibrated accordingly. :)
To answer your question, I'm actually thinking the GM has a maximum Luck pool equal to the number of players in the session x2. That way it's fairly balanced around the size of the party, and the GM can't stockpile it in perpetuity.
As for acquiring Luck for the players, yes. The primary method is by engaging in pastime during Downtime Mode. It's an activity you can do to unwind, relax, engage in your hobbies and backstory, knock back a few drinks, what have you. And the mechanical benefit is that you get some Luck. The idea is you would only be able to do this in civilization of some kind. I'm hoping this mechanic reinforces storytelling, and vice versa!
I would LOVE to play test this. Very exciting to me!
I'm glad! I'll try and banish my perfectionism to get this playtest out soon!
@@elementalyarn I would definitely get started playtesting right away and would be open to Discord feedback or brainstorming sessions! Your system is so intriguing. The narrative focus plus crunch has been a problem I’ve been trying to crack since I ran campaigns in Cypher and Dungeon World
@@Ormaneawesome! I should definitely get a Discord server started. I'll call it the Yarnverse or something, haha
@@Gavinwad Yarniverse! 😂 It would be a great place to organize games and feedback. That’s what they did for Shadow of the Weird Wizard and Rob Schwalb got a ton of spontaneous and high quality feedback.
@@Gavinwad How's this going? I would love to help in any way! 🙂
I think it could be helpful to add the relevant die size to the npc Sheet. Maybe even instead of the actual stat. This would make it clearer and easier to See and would Serve a similar purpose. I know they are not the focus but the less you have to think while handling npcs the better. Just a thought
Good point! I will probably do that in my next iteration. Tbh the NPC sheets have already changed somewhat haha
Very interested to see what this looks like once it has come to fruition and is 'live' in the world. Would be willing to proofread if needed as I don't currently have a gaming group. Have you mentioned it and I missed it, but have you mentioned page count you are shooting for? I only ask because when I do get to play, it is online and I tend to really favor 'rules light' systems.
Thanks! I could definitely use a proofreader! As for page count, the doc is currently around 70-80 pages. Some is character and equipment options, some is NPC stat blocks, etc.
Is it "rules-light?" Depends on your definition. It's not PBtA levels, but it's not PF2e either. I suppose you can be the judge of that when I start sending this thing out to alpha testers!
@@elementalyarn I have sent you an email so you have mine available when the time comes.
I'm going to test this with my players this week and let you know how it goes!
Well tune in for the official playtest release video, then! I just finished editing it!
@@elementalyarn yes sir, you got it!
I think if I understand it correctly, there's no real mathematical difference between having the GM or the player roll. No matter who rolls, it brings in the random factor in a value vs value contest. It seems to me that letting the players make the rolls instead of the GM is something they will viscerally appreciate more, despite it providing no real benefit.
It also sound like attacking or defending work pretty much the same whether you are a player or an NPC, with the only caveat being who rolls the dice. However, if you want to take the whole "player-centric" thing a step forward mechanically, perhaps have a player attacking and a player defending work very differently. For example, perhaps players never have to roll to hit, only damage, because stories are more interesting when players don't miss and waste a turn, but we don't care as much about NPCs so with a PC with high enough dodge the NPC can actually whiff. Just a few thoughts from someone who has studies and created these systems for a few decades. ;)