วีดีโอ

Regarding healing-- i thought you could only receive that benefit once per [whatever the rest equivalent is]

I think he just remembered Otherkind Dice and designed with that in mind

Harper should have released this as seperate superhero game - ie giving the players loads of control but piling on the danger sounds more like a supers fit. Having not played this version its hard to say, but it looks like the GM has to descibe the possible outcome and then describe the actual outcome. Personally I'd rather only do it the once and surprise the players (or have the players surprise me) with the actual outcome. Do check my channel for the best actual plays of BitD with rules commentary ('Hanging with the Wrong Crowd' is the best one).

I played wicked ones and I flipped the set up to be just like this with consequences. I told you the worst result, you rolled and narrated what happened. Having success and failure states usually they had 0 issues with what was going to happen and it went great. RIP Wicked Ones.

Hey Jface! Thanks for making this video. Having also seen that episode of Knights of Last Call, this Threat system that John Harper wrote about in Deep Cuts is very reminiscent of 7th Sea 2e's task resolution mechanic, which goes as follows (working off of memory here): 1) Whenever the GM determines that a character that is trying to accomplish a goal is putting their skills to the test (via the player's narrative description), they determine what threats and opportunities present themselves. 2) The player then determines which attribute + skill they will use and roll Xd10, where X = their attribute + skill total. The goal here is to generate as many "raises" as possible and every increment of 10 generates one raise (unless otherwise specified). 3) To simply succeed at a task, you need to spend one raise. Any additional raises generated can be used to either buy off threats or to capitalize on opportunities. If it's a logical stretch to apply that attribute + skill combo to buy off a specific threat or to capitalize on a specific opportunity, it costs an additional raise. 4) Any threats that are not bought off with raises occur (i.e. taking damage, losing resources, introducing new complications, etc.). Any opportunities that are capitalized on with raises occur (i.e. dealing additional damage, acquiring extra resources, gaining new perks, etc.). The two biggest downsides to this system are that it takes more effort and practice to implement and master this method of task resolution and it takes more time to implement as well. The upside is that this system is great for producing memorable moments of action and drama, since many relevant factors are taken into account (certainly more than "I don't do the thing...now what?") This kind of system is great for a group that doesn't mind being in the writer's room. Consequently, it's anathema for a group that wants to stay immersed in their characters and the game world.

I’ve been using the _concept_ of Threat Rolls for awhile now and these are the issues I’ve encountered: 1) Stating the potential cost of failure does not always establish the potential cost of success. Say you’re leaping across a pit to evade capture. The risk of falling down or being captured only applies on failure. However the risk of your pursuers seeing where you went applies regardless. Good thing they didn’t say they were trying to _evade_ their pursuers, as then falling would _also_ apply regardless. 2) Adding too many risks to a roll can become distracting, cumbersome and ridiculous. A single choice, risk, or ‘yes, but’ per roll or decision point seems ideal, and follow up rolls (Which BitD still uses) can be used to resolve additional risks. 3) Explicitly knowing the outcome of an action/intent can be _extremely_ immersion breaking for some and add to the ‘writer’s room’ feel BitD is notorious for. Some of this can be mitigated by framing these costs as concerns or possibilities like implied in the book. Ideally I want the GM to state the potential cost of success and the player to state the potential cost of failure but haven’t found a satisfactory way to invoke this organically. And conceptually I do like how adding more risks makes it more likely to avoid any single one but less likely to avoid all of them, mechanically trading risk for choice. The mismatch however is that BitD is still using a 3 state system to establish a multi-state result, and not avoiding every risk is the very definition of a partial or mixed success already.

No way it’s Goblinville! John Harper turned Blades in the Dark into Goblinville? Let’s go!

I really hope you can get an interview with John Harper to ask more about his thoughts on the rules refresh!

Threat roll is how my system works. Nice to see great minds think alike heh. Too bad there's still a lot of unneeded "complication" cruft. One day he'll catch up to me I'm sure.

The more I learn about Forged in the Dark, the more I prefer Year Zero Engine

Hey, very nice review. This additional threats mechanics seems like a must have! In case you still have space for additional games analysis, I would like to recommend Household. D6 dice pool with matching numbers as resulting power. I also fell in love with this game premise. Good luck with your game!

The conversation now being about the PCs saying what they want and the GM saying what the threats are sounds fun and might be an improvement over "position and effect".

Have always loved this channel, it’s helped me a lot in building my own TTRPG by learning about other game’s mechanics!

first

Inheritedly evil races are not only fine, it ipens the door to more creative narrative freedom. This is a fantasy game; stop comparing everything through the lens of the human condition.

I’ve always been put off by people who want to play a game where, “this race is evil and we must rid the world of it”. Even as a kid, I wondered why that would be fun. We live in a world cursed by this disgusting logic. It keeps playing out, again and again. If we’re going to escape, why not escape from this rot rather than into it?

I genuinely want simpler checks, and I think that outside combat, it’s pretty easy to achieve. Don’t make players roll for what their character should do by rote, avoid mini-games (unless people love them), make a quick call on bonus/penalty, and set a dc based on difficulty (for me, this is an absolute number, but I know some people like to set it based on level). (I usually combine the last two on-the-fly to speed it up, unless I’m with bean-counting power players). It’s usually quite fast and lets us keep focus on what the characters are doing. But combat. Oof. I always seem to be at a table where some people want to adjudicate a thousand rules and modifiers and the others just want to get to their roll and move on. My problem is that the mechanics either piss off the power players (dis/advantage is a crime against probability and it is to be shunned) or bore the hell out of the others. I would love to find a system that deeply understands this balance and allows GMs to tweak on one side or the other.

Great topic and some solid ideas - I'll walk away trying to remind myself to focus on intentions. If feedback is ok/wanted, the put-a-presentation-together style is a bit slow; I would've loved to hear you elaborate more, and I get the impression that took a lot of the time that is reasonably available away

I'm personally not a fan of the high level of abstraction for a tactical TTRPG. It feels very boardgamey, where I'm not really immersed because I'm more concerned with managing my class resource points than with the weapons and armor the people around me are actually using. Isn't the opponent's look and equipment the most obvious part to be concerned with when dealing with miniatures? And gaining "Piety" chiefly in combat is weird for any kind of religion that does not care for fighting. "It would be unbalanced to be able to amass this resource so it's only available in combat" is inelegant design if there's no good in-universe justification.

What note-taking tool is this? I really like the formatting

Skill checks are vibe checks. The DM determines the DC and never reveals it, so it's purely what you roll and how I feel it measure up against what I feel you should be getting. combat mechanics are combat mechanics.

To be fair to Tolkien, he didn't think that something can be purely evil - without any rights or worth. Everything in his World started out good and always serves God's design in the end; he believed that to be true in real history as well, catholic as he was. He wrote this in an essay published in History of Middle-earth 10: "But even before this wickedness of Morgoth was suspected the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. That is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded." You can have moral nuance even with creatures that are and will remain evil; through the right moral lens, granting someone mercy could be especially selfless when they haven't earned it. I can say that it's at least interesting to roleplay someone who believes in trying to be the bigger man even in the face of evil.

Great breakdown, subbed!

I prefer a DC/difficulty that the GM can determine based on the circumstances, falling back on a "standard" difficulty for a lot of the less important or average tasks. If every roll is (mostly) the same, you lose ways of putting emphasis on certain rolls over others - and a way of communicating facts about NPCs and the world to the players through the mechanics. In important moments, an important roll requiring more thinking and time than others is also a good way to create that tension of anticipation and put the focus where it belongs.

Making checks faster in non-combat scenes by reducing the nuance of the situation (i.e. difficulty modifiers) is incredibly strange to me, given that the slowest part of any session is the combat encounter. I get that there was a time (between OD&D and early 2000's) where a number of TTRPG systems had a more simulationist bent and wanted to account for every little detail, with corresponding difficulty modifiers. In an effort to rein in the number-crunching and time spent on accounting for every little detail, many TTRPGs designed afterwards made it so that it was the GM's responsibility to say "the aggregate of all of the external factors going on means that the task at hand is easier/harder than normal to the Nth degree" and slapped on modifiers based on the abstract difficulty of the situation (this is my preferred method for playing more trad TTRPGs). With the roll-under games that you've mentioned, it's vital to keep in mind that the skill level presented on the character sheet refers to a character's chances of success in adventuring conditions (i.e. stressful situations with significant consequences for failure; i.e. "It's go time!"). The games you mentioned that use roll-under also incorporate methods of applying difficulty modifiers for circumstances that deviate from "adventuring conditions:" - With Dragonbane and SotWW/SotDL, it's the use of boons and banes. - Crown & Skull uses numerical modifiers. The mistake I'd surmise that many fledgling GMs have with these types of roll-under systems is that they call for skill checks too often and they don't make enough use of eyeballing an aggregate difficulty and applying an appropriate modifier, which both makes the PCs look more incompetent and takes away nuance, which affects immersion, IMO. Draw Steel (as of this point in time) uses an altogether different approach, which shares common elements with Blades in the Dark's fictional positioning mechanics. In Draw Steel, whenever you're doing a skill check and it's not trivially easy or virtually impossible, the Director determines if the check is Easy, Average, or Hard. Because Draw Steel uses a three-tier system for determining dice roll outcomes, the tiers for each difficulty are different from each other. IIRC, for Easy tasks, you either succeed with complications, succeed, or succeed with benefits. For Average tasks, you either fail, succeed with complications, or succeed. For Hard tasks, you either fail with more complications, fail, or succeed. I also have a video in my channel titled "An Alternative to Difficulty Descriptions" where I talk about an alternative to pass/fail that I call "quality checks" and how the game, Lone Wolf Fists, incorporates them. Like I mentioned in the beginning, the desire to sacrifice nuance for speed in non-combat encounters during a session is strange, because those encounters are just as much a part of the unfolding story as the combat encounters. As for easing cognitive load, just keep two questions in mind? - Is this task trivial or virtually impossible? If yes to either, the thing that should happen happens, no roll required. - If no to the above question, is it challenging, pretty easy, or daunting? If challenging, roll vs. challenging TN (25% for unskilled). If pretty easy, roll with advantage. If daunting, roll with disadvantage. So, in other words, use the Dragonbane mechanics 😄

Game mechanics are representation of in-game world logic. Checks made against variable DC (like in DnD) represent that there are both variety of character competence (some are stronger, some are weaker) and variety of difficulties (pushing a big rock is harder than pushing a small rock). So checks are basically an opposition of how good your are against how difficult your goal is by itself. You know, like in real life. Oversimplification of checks ruins this logic. If players always roll against static DC (like in SoWW) or against its own skill level (like in Dragon Bane, Crown and Skull, and Vagabond), it means that in those games there are no difference between actions - they all have the same difficulty. Throwing a knife is as difficult as throwing a horse. Which is absurd. Some may say, that in those systems GM can actually manipulate DCs with Adv/DisAdv or Boon/Bane system. Which is true. However, this creates an additional cognitive load on GM, which contradicts to original goal of reducing cognitive load in the first place. Not all things should be simplified. Some old things may be not as fast, as some desire, but they are elegant in their representation of "how the world is working"

Does PbtA or BitD capture what you're discussing? the DCs are laid out, player competency is there, the resolution of the roll varies in how fast its resolved. Some "Moves" are clear cut results, while others are very up to further interpretation, buying you the time you discussed you might like to have. If I remember correctly, I think Worlds Without Number does something similar to this for its skill checks?

Do you have a website for your RPG?

These days, i just have four flavors; no check, simple check (d20), with advantage, and with disadvantage. No check is for those times when there is no real fail state and no consequence. That one was the hardest thing for this grognard to wrap his head around

Personally I'm an old grognard. I like complicated mechanics. Love me tactics, love me gurps, simple as. I don't have anything against the lighter style of play and when sectioned out (like in lancer, particularly when using the narrative play books) i can dig it. I find the good middleground for me is a simple roll with degrees of successes. Like 1d20<skill, every 5 points is an extra success, to hit X you need 3 successes.

I think this is one of those "be careful what you ask for" scenarios. The people who want fast paced checks that don't interrupt narrative REALLY want fast paced successes. If they were simply failing fast, they'd hate it. On the other hand, if success is easy then satisfaction is low, which leads to disengagement. As opposed to... A difficult check (high satisfaction on success) that allows the player to modify results in their favor (player agency matters). This necessitates a certain level of crunchiness. I think that in the end, when compiled data shows what people actually choose, as opposed to what they say they want, the displayed preferences will be crunchier than expected but with the burden of those calculations resting mostly on the player.

I find that, as a GM, I really hate not having any control over the difficulty of a roll. To me, it is one of the primary means of communicating and controlling the game world.

I don't like the oversimplification. That's why my OMG sandwich system has a "floor" of difficulty that the GM sets, and "ceiling" of proficiency that the PC has. A gelatinous cube should be easier to touch with my blade than that dodgy little gremlin.

I go even further than the simply rolls, just like there are some systems who came to the conclusion that attack rolls have not to be rolled, so I found out that competency rolls all can go as well. And well, for my system I abolished the roll of GM as well, so the narrative can flow even faster. Don't get me wrong, I still have dice rolling, it just doesn't measure success but instead like the attackless games it directly looks at the effects and impact.

What if armor just added HP? Going along with your ideas here, you can get rid of AC and DR, but just letting armor add to your HP.

I feel like for something as simple as Quest you could establish competency via granting advantage onto the core roll for each relevant trait/aspect of the character. Having easy ways to adjudicate mods works really well with a static DC.

For Dragonbane I introduced a D30 for more difficult tasks, and D12 for easier ones, so now D12, D20 or D30. For D30 rolls, I'm counting nat 20's *and* nat 30's as Demons.

Another interesting wrinkle to this conversation is the idea of a system that simulates a reality, simulates a world, regardless of the presence of the players versus a system that is purely "player facing". Some folks prefer a game system that gives them physics of that universe, I guess you could say. While others want the game to "flow" directly from the players' actions. Neither is the correct answer, just different ways of conceptualizing a world through its dice rolls, particularly skill checks.

TFW Jface talks about Attack Checks and you are Czech

I recommend, if you don't already know it, Design patterns of successful roleplaying games: danielrparente.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/rpg_design_patterns_9_26_05.pdf

This is one of Tolkien's theories anyway. He speaks it orcs being corrupted elves at times but he also talks about goblin-men and mentioned Sauron crossing orcs and goblin men to get urukhai. We never really got a clear picture of what a goblinman was whether this was natural or only occurred through magic.

Yes, more of this please. For future videos, you could expand on the concept of community and how the TTRPG

Great video and great points made. As a fellow aspiring game designer, I find it difficult when propelling forward with "check out my content" to switch to a "tell me more about your ideas" mindset, because they seem to go in opposite directions. Then when you have a group of folks all going forward with "check out my content," no one gets the validation that they seek. What also feels pretty bad is when I switch gears to explore someone else's ideas by asking for more details and there is no reciprocity from the other person throughout the conversation, which disincentivizes me to have future conversations with said person because they're "all take, no give." But yeah, as you've stated, curiosity must be there in order to better foster a more thriving TTRPG community. I also think it's important to put out one's own biases as well for transparency's sake, so that others can take that into account when receiving feedback from a source that may be biased towards or against their content.

Ohh that’s similar to my world concept of the monster. Aka a creature without a soul / a soul fragment. Thus a man can become a monster if their soul is lost / destroyed.

One method I use for providing feedback is rather than telling someone what may be wrong with a design, I instead ask them pointed questions about their design intent. It's a bit of the Socratic method, question-answer-question, to help them reveal their own design strengths and focus their attention. I'm not there to tell people how I'd make their game, I'm there to help them discover how they can best make their own game! 🤠

Good job sir.

I just don't see this problem at all. It may be that we're in different communities, but I do spend a lot of time on reddit, and I find all the TTRPG subreddits uniformly helpful and supportive. I do expect that any question about what game system to use will result in many people clamouring for their favourite system, but although that's biased, it's not disrespectful. Sometimes the discussion will get a little unruly when the issue of AI or WotC's business practices comes up. There used to be a lot of slander about the OSR community, but I don't hear much of that anymore. But these are all exceptions. For the most part, I think the TTRPG community is a lot more inclusive and accepting then society at large.

So, clearly one of the biggest issues we have is that what ought to be a bunch of separate communities end up converging whether because of a lack of terminology for what community is what or because a separate community has something you, as an outsider, need or want. What I mean by that last point is that even though I absolutely hate powergamers, they might have the latest news about new books and such, and I'll have to wade through all their portmanteau "build" bullcrap to get to the lore I crave.

🥳🫂👍🏿 I’m on a quest to collect every house rule on TH-cam and beyond, and because of that, I’ve been following your channel and game development, most especially for your evaluations of game mechanics - I may have commented on your videos to this effect - during my quest, I’ve seen countless examples of the negative interactions you’ve described today - I will add that I’ve been pleased by how many people are also excited and supportive of efforts to find, create and share ideas for ttrpgs - I think putting our efforts toward nurturing those positive interactions goes hand in hand with encouraging a more open minded and interrogative approach to critique - I’m going to try to carry these ideas with me on my quest - thank you 🙏🏿

I really want to try to learn the lore of that world. I wonder how different it is from Shadow Of The Demon Lord.