Login

u/cyrosgold

r/ttrpgdesign r/RPGcreation r/IndieGaming r/TabletopRPG r/TTRPG r/tabletop r/RPGdesign r/tabletopgamedesign
I'm attempting to make a Slice of life game.
▲ 11 r/RPGcreation+5 crossposts

I'm attempting to make a Slice of life game.

I’ve been recently working on a TTRPG called, “Project AiO: Open for Business”, and I think it’s finally ready for an initial round of outside feedback.

Open for Business is a slice-of-life workplace game about ordinary employees getting through a Shift together. The default settings are cafés, bars or nightclubs, and restaurants. This can be expanded to retail shops, hotels, offices, and similar workplaces.

The workplace gives the game structure, but the Characters are the real story. A Shift might involve a rush, a difficult customer, missing supplies, or broken Equipment. It might also just be about two coworkers talking during cleanup, a regular acting differently than usual, someone bringing Personal Pressure into work, or a quiet moment after a stressful service.

The game uses a lighter version of my larger Project AiO rules set, but it is not meant to be rules-lite per-se. The goal is for the mechanics to stay out of the way when they are not needed and become more involved when the situation calls for them. 

Longer campaigns track both the Employees and the workplace. Characters advance through Employment Level, which improves access to personal Tools. The business advances through Workplace Rating, which determines the quality of its Equipment. Over time a workplace can improve, struggle, decline, or eventually close.

This is an initial review draft, not a finished layout. At this stage I’m mostly interested in whether the game itself holds together.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Z72Y_eWHq7oNxGM0bEV0RmWVk4grt8kaeDFBPjajNjM/edit?usp=sharing

u/cyrosgold — 9 days ago
▲ 2 r/TTRPG

Diceless RPGs: How They Work and Where They Struggle

While studying game design for my own system, I looked at several diceless games to understand how they handled resolution. I wanted to see what worked well and what problems each system tended to create, so I could avoid repeating the same mistakes in my own design.

Below is a list of notable diceless games, including how their resolution systems work, the problems that commonly arise from them, and the benefits each system offers.

This isn't an exhaustive theory, just a lens for thinking about diceless design tradeoffs. 

Amber Diceless Role-Playing

Resolution System: Characters have ranked attributes. In most conflicts, the character with the higher relevant attribute wins. When two characters have the same rank, the GM arbitrates based on the fiction and circumstances.

Main Problems: The game relies extremely heavily on GM arbitration. Because there is no randomizer, outcomes can feel predetermined once attribute ranks are known. New players often struggle with how much narrative weight the GM is expected to carry.

Pros: The system is very simple mechanically. It strongly emphasizes character relationships, politics, and drama. Because success is based on character investment rather than dice, victories and defeats often feel earned through roleplaying and clever use of the fiction.

Verdict: TAmber tends to create a sense of entitlement in players. Because higher attributes usually win, players can become frustrated or argumentative when the GM rules against them or when lower-ranked characters succeed through creative fiction. 

The game does little to mitigate this, as heavy GM authority and attribute-based resolution are core to its design.

Nobilis

Resolution System: Players spend Miracle Points to perform actions. Higher levels of investment allow for more powerful and reality-altering effects. Some actions succeed automatically based on a character’s attributes.

Main Problems: The game is very abstract and high-concept, which can make it difficult to understand. Bidding Miracle Points often turns into a resource auction between players. It also carries a high mental load due to the need to track metaphysical details and power levels. This can lead to power escalation as players try to outdo each other.

Pros: Nobilis gives players an extremely high level of narrative power and creative freedom. It is excellent for philosophical, mythic, or high-concept storytelling. The system strongly supports thematic play and allows characters to feel truly larger than life.

Verdict: Nobilis tends to produce players who dominate the narrative. Because of the high level of power and abstraction, some players focus heavily on showcasing their own clever or dramatic ideas, often sidelining other players in the process. It can also lead to players overcomplicating scenes as they try to use the most powerful applications of their abilities.

The game does not make strong attempts to correct this behavior. It embraces high player power and abstract complexity as intentional parts of its design, assuming players will share narrative authority fairly and engage with its thematic elements.

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (2003)

Resolution System: Each character has an individual Energy Reserve of red stones. Players allocate stones from their personal reserve to actions each panel. The GM sets Difficulty and Resistance. Success depends on how many stones are committed compared to what is required.

Main Problems: Stone management can feel like accounting. The game is very dependent on GM judgment for Difficulty and Resistance. It can lead to analysis paralysis when players try to decide how many stones to spend. Because there is no randomness, outcomes can feel very predictable.

Pros: The stone system creates meaningful resource decisions that feel appropriate for superhero action. Players have significant control over how much effort their character puts into any given action.

Verdict: This system commonly causes players to overthink their decisions. Because they must constantly decide how many stones to spend, players often become overly analytical and hesitant. This can lead to a very mechanical, resource-management mindset where players focus more on optimizing expenditures than on playing their character naturally.

The game tries to frame stone spending as dramatic effort, but it offers few tools to reduce overthinking during play.

Lords of Olympus

Resolution System: Similar to Amber. Characters have ranked attributes in different ability classes. Higher rank generally wins conflicts, with the GM arbitrating close or unclear situations.

Main Problems: Like Amber, it relies heavily on GM judgment. The bidding/auction system is used primarily during character creation and for establishing social positioning rather than as an in-play resolution tool.

Pros: It supports mythic and larger-than-life storytelling well. The system keeps the focus on character power and narrative weight..

Verdict: Lords of Olympus shares many of Amber’s issues. Players can develop a strong sense of entitlement based on their attribute ranks. 

The game does not provide strong tools to reduce arguments with the GM or to encourage risk-taking.

Universalis

Resolution System: Players use a pool of tokens or coins to bid for narrative control and to establish facts in the story. Conflict and world-building are resolved entirely through bidding and negotiation between players.

Main Problems: The game can feel more like a bidding game than traditional roleplaying. It requires strong group trust and comfort with shared narrative authority. Players can end up “buying” the story rather than collaboratively building it.

Pros: Universalis excels at collaborative storytelling and world-building. It gives every player a high degree of narrative control and works very well for one-shots or experimental games. The bidding system encourages players to think creatively about what happens next in the story.

Verdict: This game often leads players to treat narrative control as a resource to be hoarded and spent strategically. Some players become very transactional, only engaging with the story when they can spend tokens to influence it. This can result in competitive rather than collaborative storytelling, where players bid against each other to push their own preferred ideas.

The game does not strongly try to prevent this behavior. The bidding system is the core of the game, so having more resources naturally grants greater narrative influence. It largely assumes players will use their tokens responsibly and share control fairly.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North

Resolution System: A structured phrase-based system. Players take turns making statements using specific ritual phrases such as “But only if…” and “And so it was…”. Conflict and narrative progression are resolved through formal negotiation rather than rolls or resource bidding.

Main Problems: The structure is extremely rigid and theatrical. It can feel more like collaborative storytelling or a ritual than traditional roleplaying. The game requires high player buy-in and comfort with a very formal style of play.

Pros: Polaris creates very focused, tragic, and thematically consistent stories. The ritualized structure helps guide play and keeps everyone on the same page. It is excellent for games that want to explore specific themes like chivalry, duty, and tragedy.

Verdict: The rigid structure of Polaris often causes players to become overly focused on the mechanics of negotiation rather than the story itself. Players may spend excessive time debating the exact wording of phrases or trying to find loopholes in the ritual system instead of advancing the narrative. Some players also disengage entirely if they find the formal, ritualized style too restrictive.

The game attempts to guide behavior through its strict phrase structure and ritual format. The system is designed to keep play focused on its intended tragic tone and to reduce open-ended arguments by giving players clear tools and phrases to use.

Project AiO(My Game)

Resolution System: Narrative First approach through the “Narrative How” where the Narrative shapes the Mechanics used. Visible Target Numbers. Players build their Mod Value using substats, skills, talents, and gear. After seeing the result, they decide whether to commit to the action, spend Control Points, seek Advantage, or change their approach.

Potential Problems: The system might slow down play due to decision-making and table discussion. It relies heavily on players engaging with the narrative rather than defaulting to mechanical optimization. Some players may still try to optimize the mechanics before describing their action in the fiction.

Pros: The system gives players a high level of agency because they can see the numbers and make informed decisions. Control Points allow players to influence the story in meaningful ways without relying on random chance. The narrative-first approach combined with clear mechanics rewards both creative descriptions and smart tactical play.

Verdict:  My game gives players full visibility of the Target Number before they commit to an action, there is a risk that players will become overly cautious and risk-averse. They may hesitate to attempt difficult or uncertain actions unless they can guarantee success through the use of Control Points or by setting up Advantage. This could also lead to frequent second-guessing at the table, where players spend time debating whether to spend resources, change their approach, or avoid the check entirely rather than accepting the possibility of meaningful failure.

To address these potential issues, the game includes several design elements intended to encourage bolder play and reduce hesitation. The Narrative How rule is placed at the start of the resolution process to keep players focused on describing their character’s actions in the fiction before they begin calculating their mechanical options. Players are explicitly allowed to choose failure, and doing so in a dramatic or meaningful way can reward them with Narrative Control Points. Table talk is actively encouraged as a collaborative tool to help players work through difficult situations together rather than overthinking in isolation. Additionally, Control Points are designed with multiple uses beyond simply succeeding on checks, giving players narrative tools and options that reward engagement with the story rather than purely mechanical optimization.

Reflections on Project AiO’s Design

After examining several diceless systems, it became clear that each carries distinct weaknesses. Many of these issues stem from fundamental tensions inherent to removing randomness, particularly around GM authority, player entitlement, risk aversion, and pacing.

Project AiO was designed with these recurring problems in mind. Several of its core design choices directly attempt to address flaws observed in earlier diceless games. 

Visible Target Numbers were implemented to reduce heavy GM fiat and give players clearer expectations, a problem that heavily affects games like Amber Diceless. 

The Narrative How rule was added to encourage players to engage with the fiction before engaging with the mechanics, in an attempt to prevent the mechanical-first thinking common in systems like Marvel Universe RPG. 

Allowing players to voluntarily choose failure and rewarding them with Narrative Control Points is a direct response to the risk aversion and I Should Win syndrome seen across multiple diceless systems. 

Giving Control Points multiple uses beyond simple success was intended to reduce the feeling that every resource must be hoarded for mechanical optimization.

That said, these solutions are still untested. While the intent is to mitigate the common pitfalls of diceless design, it remains to be seen whether these tools will be strong enough in actual play. The most significant concern is that giving players perfect information about Target Numbers may create stronger risk aversion than anticipated, and it is unclear if the reward for choosing failure will be compelling enough to overcome that instinct.

While no system is perfect, one of my primary goals was to consciously avoid repeating the most common failure points of earlier diceless games.

reddit.com
u/cyrosgold — 1 month ago
▲ 9 r/RPGcreation

Diceless RPGs: How They Work and Where They Struggle

While studying game design for my own system, I looked at several diceless games to understand how they handled resolution. I wanted to see what worked well and what problems each system tended to create, so I could avoid repeating the same mistakes in my own design.

Below is a list of notable diceless games, including how their resolution systems work, the problems that commonly arise from them, and the benefits each system offers.

This isn't an exhaustive theory, just a lens for thinking about diceless design tradeoffs. 

Amber Diceless Role-Playing

Resolution System: Characters have ranked attributes. In most conflicts, the character with the higher relevant attribute wins. When two characters have the same rank, the GM arbitrates based on the fiction and circumstances.

Main Problems: The game relies extremely heavily on GM arbitration. Because there is no randomizer, outcomes can feel predetermined once attribute ranks are known. New players often struggle with how much narrative weight the GM is expected to carry.

Pros: The system is very simple mechanically. It strongly emphasizes character relationships, politics, and drama. Because success is based on character investment rather than dice, victories and defeats often feel earned through roleplaying and clever use of the fiction.

Verdict: TAmber tends to create a sense of entitlement in players. Because higher attributes usually win, players can become frustrated or argumentative when the GM rules against them or when lower-ranked characters succeed through creative fiction. 

The game does little to mitigate this, as heavy GM authority and attribute-based resolution are core to its design.

Nobilis

Resolution System: Players spend Miracle Points to perform actions. Higher levels of investment allow for more powerful and reality-altering effects. Some actions succeed automatically based on a character’s attributes.

Main Problems: The game is very abstract and high-concept, which can make it difficult to understand. Bidding Miracle Points often turns into a resource auction between players. It also carries a high mental load due to the need to track metaphysical details and power levels. This can lead to power escalation as players try to outdo each other.

Pros: Nobilis gives players an extremely high level of narrative power and creative freedom. It is excellent for philosophical, mythic, or high-concept storytelling. The system strongly supports thematic play and allows characters to feel truly larger than life.

Verdict: Nobilis tends to produce players who dominate the narrative. Because of the high level of power and abstraction, some players focus heavily on showcasing their own clever or dramatic ideas, often sidelining other players in the process. It can also lead to players overcomplicating scenes as they try to use the most powerful applications of their abilities.

The game does not make strong attempts to correct this behavior. It embraces high player power and abstract complexity as intentional parts of its design, assuming players will share narrative authority fairly and engage with its thematic elements.

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (2003)

Resolution System: Each character has an individual Energy Reserve of red stones. Players allocate stones from their personal reserve to actions each panel. The GM sets Difficulty and Resistance. Success depends on how many stones are committed compared to what is required.

Main Problems: Stone management can feel like accounting. The game is very dependent on GM judgment for Difficulty and Resistance. It can lead to analysis paralysis when players try to decide how many stones to spend. Because there is no randomness, outcomes can feel very predictable.

Pros: The stone system creates meaningful resource decisions that feel appropriate for superhero action. Players have significant control over how much effort their character puts into any given action.

Verdict: This system commonly causes players to overthink their decisions. Because they must constantly decide how many stones to spend, players often become overly analytical and hesitant. This can lead to a very mechanical, resource-management mindset where players focus more on optimizing expenditures than on playing their character naturally.

The game tries to frame stone spending as dramatic effort, but it offers few tools to reduce overthinking during play.

Lords of Olympus

Resolution System: Similar to Amber. Characters have ranked attributes in different ability classes. Higher rank generally wins conflicts, with the GM arbitrating close or unclear situations.

Main Problems: Like Amber, it relies heavily on GM judgment. The bidding/auction system is used primarily during character creation and for establishing social positioning rather than as an in-play resolution tool.

Pros: It supports mythic and larger-than-life storytelling well. The system keeps the focus on character power and narrative weight..

Verdict: Lords of Olympus shares many of Amber’s issues. Players can develop a strong sense of entitlement based on their attribute ranks. 

The game does not provide strong tools to reduce arguments with the GM or to encourage risk-taking.

Universalis

Resolution System: Players use a pool of tokens or coins to bid for narrative control and to establish facts in the story. Conflict and world-building are resolved entirely through bidding and negotiation between players.

Main Problems: The game can feel more like a bidding game than traditional roleplaying. It requires strong group trust and comfort with shared narrative authority. Players can end up “buying” the story rather than collaboratively building it.

Pros: Universalis excels at collaborative storytelling and world-building. It gives every player a high degree of narrative control and works very well for one-shots or experimental games. The bidding system encourages players to think creatively about what happens next in the story.

Verdict: This game often leads players to treat narrative control as a resource to be hoarded and spent strategically. Some players become very transactional, only engaging with the story when they can spend tokens to influence it. This can result in competitive rather than collaborative storytelling, where players bid against each other to push their own preferred ideas.

The game does not strongly try to prevent this behavior. The bidding system is the core of the game, so having more resources naturally grants greater narrative influence. It largely assumes players will use their tokens responsibly and share control fairly.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North

Resolution System: A structured phrase-based system. Players take turns making statements using specific ritual phrases such as “But only if…” and “And so it was…”. Conflict and narrative progression are resolved through formal negotiation rather than rolls or resource bidding.

Main Problems: The structure is extremely rigid and theatrical. It can feel more like collaborative storytelling or a ritual than traditional roleplaying. The game requires high player buy-in and comfort with a very formal style of play.

Pros: Polaris creates very focused, tragic, and thematically consistent stories. The ritualized structure helps guide play and keeps everyone on the same page. It is excellent for games that want to explore specific themes like chivalry, duty, and tragedy.

Verdict: The rigid structure of Polaris often causes players to become overly focused on the mechanics of negotiation rather than the story itself. Players may spend excessive time debating the exact wording of phrases or trying to find loopholes in the ritual system instead of advancing the narrative. Some players also disengage entirely if they find the formal, ritualized style too restrictive.

The game attempts to guide behavior through its strict phrase structure and ritual format. The system is designed to keep play focused on its intended tragic tone and to reduce open-ended arguments by giving players clear tools and phrases to use.

Project AiO(My Game)

Resolution System: Narrative First approach through the “Narrative How” where the Narrative shapes the Mechanics used. Visible Target Numbers. Players build their Mod Value using substats, skills, talents, and gear. After seeing the result, they decide whether to commit to the action, spend Control Points, seek Advantage, or change their approach.

Potential Problems: The system might slow down play due to decision-making and table discussion. It relies heavily on players engaging with the narrative rather than defaulting to mechanical optimization. Some players may still try to optimize the mechanics before describing their action in the fiction.

Pros: The system gives players a high level of agency because they can see the numbers and make informed decisions. Control Points allow players to influence the story in meaningful ways without relying on random chance. The narrative-first approach combined with clear mechanics rewards both creative descriptions and smart tactical play.

Verdict:  My game gives players full visibility of the Target Number before they commit to an action, there is a risk that players will become overly cautious and risk-averse. They may hesitate to attempt difficult or uncertain actions unless they can guarantee success through the use of Control Points or by setting up Advantage. This could also lead to frequent second-guessing at the table, where players spend time debating whether to spend resources, change their approach, or avoid the check entirely rather than accepting the possibility of meaningful failure.

To address these potential issues, the game includes several design elements intended to encourage bolder play and reduce hesitation. The Narrative How rule is placed at the start of the resolution process to keep players focused on describing their character’s actions in the fiction before they begin calculating their mechanical options. Players are explicitly allowed to choose failure, and doing so in a dramatic or meaningful way can reward them with Narrative Control Points. Table talk is actively encouraged as a collaborative tool to help players work through difficult situations together rather than overthinking in isolation. Additionally, Control Points are designed with multiple uses beyond simply succeeding on checks, giving players narrative tools and options that reward engagement with the story rather than purely mechanical optimization.

Reflections on Project AiO’s Design

After examining several diceless systems, it became clear that each carries distinct weaknesses. Many of these issues stem from fundamental tensions inherent to removing randomness, particularly around GM authority, player entitlement, risk aversion, and pacing.

Project AiO was designed with these recurring problems in mind. Several of its core design choices directly attempt to address flaws observed in earlier diceless games. 

Visible Target Numbers were implemented to reduce heavy GM fiat and give players clearer expectations, a problem that heavily affects games like Amber Diceless. 

The Narrative How rule was added to encourage players to engage with the fiction before engaging with the mechanics, in an attempt to prevent the mechanical-first thinking common in systems like Marvel Universe RPG. 

Allowing players to voluntarily choose failure and rewarding them with Narrative Control Points is a direct response to the risk aversion and I Should Win syndrome seen across multiple diceless systems. 

Giving Control Points multiple uses beyond simple success was intended to reduce the feeling that every resource must be hoarded for mechanical optimization.

That said, these solutions are still untested. While the intent is to mitigate the common pitfalls of diceless design, it remains to be seen whether these tools will be strong enough in actual play. The most significant concern is that giving players perfect information about Target Numbers may create stronger risk aversion than anticipated, and it is unclear if the reward for choosing failure will be compelling enough to overcome that instinct.

While no system is perfect, one of my primary goals was to consciously avoid repeating the most common failure points of earlier diceless games.

reddit.com
u/cyrosgold — 1 month ago
▲ 0 r/tabletopgamedesign

Diceless RPGs: How They Work and Where They Struggle

While studying game design for my own system, I looked at several diceless games to understand how they handled resolution. I wanted to see what worked well and what problems each system tended to create, so I could avoid repeating the same mistakes in my own design.

Below is a list of notable diceless games, including how their resolution systems work, the problems that commonly arise from them, and the benefits each system offers.

This isn't an exhaustive theory, just a lens for thinking about diceless design tradeoffs. 

Amber Diceless Role-Playing

Resolution System: Characters have ranked attributes. In most conflicts, the character with the higher relevant attribute wins. When two characters have the same rank, the GM arbitrates based on the fiction and circumstances.

Main Problems: The game relies extremely heavily on GM arbitration. Because there is no randomizer, outcomes can feel predetermined once attribute ranks are known. New players often struggle with how much narrative weight the GM is expected to carry.

Pros: The system is very simple mechanically. It strongly emphasizes character relationships, politics, and drama. Because success is based on character investment rather than dice, victories and defeats often feel earned through roleplaying and clever use of the fiction.

Verdict: TAmber tends to create a sense of entitlement in players. Because higher attributes usually win, players can become frustrated or argumentative when the GM rules against them or when lower-ranked characters succeed through creative fiction. 

The game does little to mitigate this, as heavy GM authority and attribute-based resolution are core to its design.

Nobilis

Resolution System: Players spend Miracle Points to perform actions. Higher levels of investment allow for more powerful and reality-altering effects. Some actions succeed automatically based on a character’s attributes.

Main Problems: The game is very abstract and high-concept, which can make it difficult to understand. Bidding Miracle Points often turns into a resource auction between players. It also carries a high mental load due to the need to track metaphysical details and power levels. This can lead to power escalation as players try to outdo each other.

Pros: Nobilis gives players an extremely high level of narrative power and creative freedom. It is excellent for philosophical, mythic, or high-concept storytelling. The system strongly supports thematic play and allows characters to feel truly larger than life.

Verdict: Nobilis tends to produce players who dominate the narrative. Because of the high level of power and abstraction, some players focus heavily on showcasing their own clever or dramatic ideas, often sidelining other players in the process. It can also lead to players overcomplicating scenes as they try to use the most powerful applications of their abilities.

The game does not make strong attempts to correct this behavior. It embraces high player power and abstract complexity as intentional parts of its design, assuming players will share narrative authority fairly and engage with its thematic elements.

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (2003)

Resolution System: Each character has an individual Energy Reserve of red stones. Players allocate stones from their personal reserve to actions each panel. The GM sets Difficulty and Resistance. Success depends on how many stones are committed compared to what is required.

Main Problems: Stone management can feel like accounting. The game is very dependent on GM judgment for Difficulty and Resistance. It can lead to analysis paralysis when players try to decide how many stones to spend. Because there is no randomness, outcomes can feel very predictable.

Pros: The stone system creates meaningful resource decisions that feel appropriate for superhero action. Players have significant control over how much effort their character puts into any given action.

Verdict: This system commonly causes players to overthink their decisions. Because they must constantly decide how many stones to spend, players often become overly analytical and hesitant. This can lead to a very mechanical, resource-management mindset where players focus more on optimizing expenditures than on playing their character naturally.

The game tries to frame stone spending as dramatic effort, but it offers few tools to reduce overthinking during play.

Lords of Olympus

Resolution System: Similar to Amber. Characters have ranked attributes in different ability classes. Higher rank generally wins conflicts, with the GM arbitrating close or unclear situations.

Main Problems: Like Amber, it relies heavily on GM judgment. The bidding/auction system is used primarily during character creation and for establishing social positioning rather than as an in-play resolution tool.

Pros: It supports mythic and larger-than-life storytelling well. The system keeps the focus on character power and narrative weight..

Verdict: Lords of Olympus shares many of Amber’s issues. Players can develop a strong sense of entitlement based on their attribute ranks. 

The game does not provide strong tools to reduce arguments with the GM or to encourage risk-taking.

Universalis

Resolution System: Players use a pool of tokens or coins to bid for narrative control and to establish facts in the story. Conflict and world-building are resolved entirely through bidding and negotiation between players.

Main Problems: The game can feel more like a bidding game than traditional roleplaying. It requires strong group trust and comfort with shared narrative authority. Players can end up “buying” the story rather than collaboratively building it.

Pros: Universalis excels at collaborative storytelling and world-building. It gives every player a high degree of narrative control and works very well for one-shots or experimental games. The bidding system encourages players to think creatively about what happens next in the story.

Verdict: This game often leads players to treat narrative control as a resource to be hoarded and spent strategically. Some players become very transactional, only engaging with the story when they can spend tokens to influence it. This can result in competitive rather than collaborative storytelling, where players bid against each other to push their own preferred ideas.

The game does not strongly try to prevent this behavior. The bidding system is the core of the game, so having more resources naturally grants greater narrative influence. It largely assumes players will use their tokens responsibly and share control fairly.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North

Resolution System: A structured phrase-based system. Players take turns making statements using specific ritual phrases such as “But only if…” and “And so it was…”. Conflict and narrative progression are resolved through formal negotiation rather than rolls or resource bidding.

Main Problems: The structure is extremely rigid and theatrical. It can feel more like collaborative storytelling or a ritual than traditional roleplaying. The game requires high player buy-in and comfort with a very formal style of play.

Pros: Polaris creates very focused, tragic, and thematically consistent stories. The ritualized structure helps guide play and keeps everyone on the same page. It is excellent for games that want to explore specific themes like chivalry, duty, and tragedy.

Verdict: The rigid structure of Polaris often causes players to become overly focused on the mechanics of negotiation rather than the story itself. Players may spend excessive time debating the exact wording of phrases or trying to find loopholes in the ritual system instead of advancing the narrative. Some players also disengage entirely if they find the formal, ritualized style too restrictive.

The game attempts to guide behavior through its strict phrase structure and ritual format. The system is designed to keep play focused on its intended tragic tone and to reduce open-ended arguments by giving players clear tools and phrases to use.

Project AiO(My Game)

Resolution System: Narrative First approach through the “Narrative How” where the Narrative shapes the Mechanics used. Visible Target Numbers. Players build their Mod Value using substats, skills, talents, and gear. After seeing the result, they decide whether to commit to the action, spend Control Points, seek Advantage, or change their approach.

Potential Problems: The system might slow down play due to decision-making and table discussion. It relies heavily on players engaging with the narrative rather than defaulting to mechanical optimization. Some players may still try to optimize the mechanics before describing their action in the fiction.

Pros: The system gives players a high level of agency because they can see the numbers and make informed decisions. Control Points allow players to influence the story in meaningful ways without relying on random chance. The narrative-first approach combined with clear mechanics rewards both creative descriptions and smart tactical play.

Verdict:  My game gives players full visibility of the Target Number before they commit to an action, there is a risk that players will become overly cautious and risk-averse. They may hesitate to attempt difficult or uncertain actions unless they can guarantee success through the use of Control Points or by setting up Advantage. This could also lead to frequent second-guessing at the table, where players spend time debating whether to spend resources, change their approach, or avoid the check entirely rather than accepting the possibility of meaningful failure.

To address these potential issues, the game includes several design elements intended to encourage bolder play and reduce hesitation. The Narrative How rule is placed at the start of the resolution process to keep players focused on describing their character’s actions in the fiction before they begin calculating their mechanical options. Players are explicitly allowed to choose failure, and doing so in a dramatic or meaningful way can reward them with Narrative Control Points. Table talk is actively encouraged as a collaborative tool to help players work through difficult situations together rather than overthinking in isolation. Additionally, Control Points are designed with multiple uses beyond simply succeeding on checks, giving players narrative tools and options that reward engagement with the story rather than purely mechanical optimization.

Reflections on Project AiO’s Design

After examining several diceless systems, it became clear that each carries distinct weaknesses. Many of these issues stem from fundamental tensions inherent to removing randomness, particularly around GM authority, player entitlement, risk aversion, and pacing.

Project AiO was designed with these recurring problems in mind. Several of its core design choices directly attempt to address flaws observed in earlier diceless games. 

Visible Target Numbers were implemented to reduce heavy GM fiat and give players clearer expectations, a problem that heavily affects games like Amber Diceless. 

The Narrative How rule was added to encourage players to engage with the fiction before engaging with the mechanics, in an attempt to prevent the mechanical-first thinking common in systems like Marvel Universe RPG. 

Allowing players to voluntarily choose failure and rewarding them with Narrative Control Points is a direct response to the risk aversion and I Should Win syndrome seen across multiple diceless systems. 

Giving Control Points multiple uses beyond simple success was intended to reduce the feeling that every resource must be hoarded for mechanical optimization.

That said, these solutions are still untested. While the intent is to mitigate the common pitfalls of diceless design, it remains to be seen whether these tools will be strong enough in actual play. The most significant concern is that giving players perfect information about Target Numbers may create stronger risk aversion than anticipated, and it is unclear if the reward for choosing failure will be compelling enough to overcome that instinct.

While no system is perfect, one of my primary goals was to consciously avoid repeating the most common failure points of earlier diceless games.

reddit.com
u/cyrosgold — 1 month ago
▲ 5 r/ttrpgdesign

Diceless RPGs: How They Work and Where They Struggle

While studying game design for my own system, I looked at several diceless games to understand how they handled resolution. I wanted to see what worked well and what problems each system tended to create, so I could avoid repeating the same mistakes in my own design.

Below is a list of notable diceless games, including how their resolution systems work, the problems that commonly arise from them, and the benefits each system offers.

This isn't an exhaustive theory, just a lens for thinking about diceless design tradeoffs. 

Amber Diceless Role-Playing

Resolution System: Characters have ranked attributes. In most conflicts, the character with the higher relevant attribute wins. When two characters have the same rank, the GM arbitrates based on the fiction and circumstances.

Main Problems: The game relies extremely heavily on GM arbitration. Because there is no randomizer, outcomes can feel predetermined once attribute ranks are known. New players often struggle with how much narrative weight the GM is expected to carry.

Pros: The system is very simple mechanically. It strongly emphasizes character relationships, politics, and drama. Because success is based on character investment rather than dice, victories and defeats often feel earned through roleplaying and clever use of the fiction.

Verdict: TAmber tends to create a sense of entitlement in players. Because higher attributes usually win, players can become frustrated or argumentative when the GM rules against them or when lower-ranked characters succeed through creative fiction. 

The game does little to mitigate this, as heavy GM authority and attribute-based resolution are core to its design.

Nobilis

Resolution System: Players spend Miracle Points to perform actions. Higher levels of investment allow for more powerful and reality-altering effects. Some actions succeed automatically based on a character’s attributes.

Main Problems: The game is very abstract and high-concept, which can make it difficult to understand. Bidding Miracle Points often turns into a resource auction between players. It also carries a high mental load due to the need to track metaphysical details and power levels. This can lead to power escalation as players try to outdo each other.

Pros: Nobilis gives players an extremely high level of narrative power and creative freedom. It is excellent for philosophical, mythic, or high-concept storytelling. The system strongly supports thematic play and allows characters to feel truly larger than life.

Verdict: Nobilis tends to produce players who dominate the narrative. Because of the high level of power and abstraction, some players focus heavily on showcasing their own clever or dramatic ideas, often sidelining other players in the process. It can also lead to players overcomplicating scenes as they try to use the most powerful applications of their abilities.

The game does not make strong attempts to correct this behavior. It embraces high player power and abstract complexity as intentional parts of its design, assuming players will share narrative authority fairly and engage with its thematic elements.

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (2003)

Resolution System: Each character has an individual Energy Reserve of red stones. Players allocate stones from their personal reserve to actions each panel. The GM sets Difficulty and Resistance. Success depends on how many stones are committed compared to what is required.

Main Problems: Stone management can feel like accounting. The game is very dependent on GM judgment for Difficulty and Resistance. It can lead to analysis paralysis when players try to decide how many stones to spend. Because there is no randomness, outcomes can feel very predictable.

Pros: The stone system creates meaningful resource decisions that feel appropriate for superhero action. Players have significant control over how much effort their character puts into any given action.

Verdict: This system commonly causes players to overthink their decisions. Because they must constantly decide how many stones to spend, players often become overly analytical and hesitant. This can lead to a very mechanical, resource-management mindset where players focus more on optimizing expenditures than on playing their character naturally.

The game tries to frame stone spending as dramatic effort, but it offers few tools to reduce overthinking during play.

Lords of Olympus

Resolution System: Similar to Amber. Characters have ranked attributes in different ability classes. Higher rank generally wins conflicts, with the GM arbitrating close or unclear situations.

Main Problems: Like Amber, it relies heavily on GM judgment. The bidding/auction system is used primarily during character creation and for establishing social positioning rather than as an in-play resolution tool.

Pros: It supports mythic and larger-than-life storytelling well. The system keeps the focus on character power and narrative weight..

Verdict: Lords of Olympus shares many of Amber’s issues. Players can develop a strong sense of entitlement based on their attribute ranks. 

The game does not provide strong tools to reduce arguments with the GM or to encourage risk-taking.

Universalis

Resolution System: Players use a pool of tokens or coins to bid for narrative control and to establish facts in the story. Conflict and world-building are resolved entirely through bidding and negotiation between players.

Main Problems: The game can feel more like a bidding game than traditional roleplaying. It requires strong group trust and comfort with shared narrative authority. Players can end up “buying” the story rather than collaboratively building it.

Pros: Universalis excels at collaborative storytelling and world-building. It gives every player a high degree of narrative control and works very well for one-shots or experimental games. The bidding system encourages players to think creatively about what happens next in the story.

Verdict: This game often leads players to treat narrative control as a resource to be hoarded and spent strategically. Some players become very transactional, only engaging with the story when they can spend tokens to influence it. This can result in competitive rather than collaborative storytelling, where players bid against each other to push their own preferred ideas.

The game does not strongly try to prevent this behavior. The bidding system is the core of the game, so having more resources naturally grants greater narrative influence. It largely assumes players will use their tokens responsibly and share control fairly.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North

Resolution System: A structured phrase-based system. Players take turns making statements using specific ritual phrases such as “But only if…” and “And so it was…”. Conflict and narrative progression are resolved through formal negotiation rather than rolls or resource bidding.

Main Problems: The structure is extremely rigid and theatrical. It can feel more like collaborative storytelling or a ritual than traditional roleplaying. The game requires high player buy-in and comfort with a very formal style of play.

Pros: Polaris creates very focused, tragic, and thematically consistent stories. The ritualized structure helps guide play and keeps everyone on the same page. It is excellent for games that want to explore specific themes like chivalry, duty, and tragedy.

Verdict: The rigid structure of Polaris often causes players to become overly focused on the mechanics of negotiation rather than the story itself. Players may spend excessive time debating the exact wording of phrases or trying to find loopholes in the ritual system instead of advancing the narrative. Some players also disengage entirely if they find the formal, ritualized style too restrictive.

The game attempts to guide behavior through its strict phrase structure and ritual format. The system is designed to keep play focused on its intended tragic tone and to reduce open-ended arguments by giving players clear tools and phrases to use.

Project AiO(My Game)

Resolution System: Narrative First approach through the “Narrative How” where the Narrative shapes the Mechanics used. Visible Target Numbers. Players build their Mod Value using substats, skills, talents, and gear. After seeing the result, they decide whether to commit to the action, spend Control Points, seek Advantage, or change their approach.

Potential Problems: The system might slow down play due to decision-making and table discussion. It relies heavily on players engaging with the narrative rather than defaulting to mechanical optimization. Some players may still try to optimize the mechanics before describing their action in the fiction.

Pros: The system gives players a high level of agency because they can see the numbers and make informed decisions. Control Points allow players to influence the story in meaningful ways without relying on random chance. The narrative-first approach combined with clear mechanics rewards both creative descriptions and smart tactical play.

Verdict:  My game gives players full visibility of the Target Number before they commit to an action, there is a risk that players will become overly cautious and risk-averse. They may hesitate to attempt difficult or uncertain actions unless they can guarantee success through the use of Control Points or by setting up Advantage. This could also lead to frequent second-guessing at the table, where players spend time debating whether to spend resources, change their approach, or avoid the check entirely rather than accepting the possibility of meaningful failure.

To address these potential issues, the game includes several design elements intended to encourage bolder play and reduce hesitation. The Narrative How rule is placed at the start of the resolution process to keep players focused on describing their character’s actions in the fiction before they begin calculating their mechanical options. Players are explicitly allowed to choose failure, and doing so in a dramatic or meaningful way can reward them with Narrative Control Points. Table talk is actively encouraged as a collaborative tool to help players work through difficult situations together rather than overthinking in isolation. Additionally, Control Points are designed with multiple uses beyond simply succeeding on checks, giving players narrative tools and options that reward engagement with the story rather than purely mechanical optimization.

Reflections on Project AiO’s Design

After examining several diceless systems, it became clear that each carries distinct weaknesses. Many of these issues stem from fundamental tensions inherent to removing randomness, particularly around GM authority, player entitlement, risk aversion, and pacing.

Project AiO was designed with these recurring problems in mind. Several of its core design choices directly attempt to address flaws observed in earlier diceless games. 

Visible Target Numbers were implemented to reduce heavy GM fiat and give players clearer expectations, a problem that heavily affects games like Amber Diceless. 

The Narrative How rule was added to encourage players to engage with the fiction before engaging with the mechanics, in an attempt to prevent the mechanical-first thinking common in systems like Marvel Universe RPG. 

Allowing players to voluntarily choose failure and rewarding them with Narrative Control Points is a direct response to the risk aversion and I Should Win syndrome seen across multiple diceless systems. 

Giving Control Points multiple uses beyond simple success was intended to reduce the feeling that every resource must be hoarded for mechanical optimization.

That said, these solutions are still untested. While the intent is to mitigate the common pitfalls of diceless design, it remains to be seen whether these tools will be strong enough in actual play. The most significant concern is that giving players perfect information about Target Numbers may create stronger risk aversion than anticipated, and it is unclear if the reward for choosing failure will be compelling enough to overcome that instinct.

While no system is perfect, one of my primary goals was to consciously avoid repeating the most common failure points of earlier diceless games.

reddit.com
u/cyrosgold — 1 month ago
▲ 3 r/IndieGaming

Diceless RPGs: How They Work and Where They Struggle

While studying game design for my own system, I looked at several diceless games to understand how they handled resolution. I wanted to see what worked well and what problems each system tended to create, so I could avoid repeating the same mistakes in my own design.

Below is a list of notable diceless games, including how their resolution systems work, the problems that commonly arise from them, and the benefits each system offers.

This isn't an exhaustive theory, just a lens for thinking about diceless design tradeoffs. 

Amber Diceless Role-Playing

Resolution System: Characters have ranked attributes. In most conflicts, the character with the higher relevant attribute wins. When two characters have the same rank, the GM arbitrates based on the fiction and circumstances.

Main Problems: The game relies extremely heavily on GM arbitration. Because there is no randomizer, outcomes can feel predetermined once attribute ranks are known. New players often struggle with how much narrative weight the GM is expected to carry.

Pros: The system is very simple mechanically. It strongly emphasizes character relationships, politics, and drama. Because success is based on character investment rather than dice, victories and defeats often feel earned through roleplaying and clever use of the fiction.

Verdict: TAmber tends to create a sense of entitlement in players. Because higher attributes usually win, players can become frustrated or argumentative when the GM rules against them or when lower-ranked characters succeed through creative fiction. 

The game does little to mitigate this, as heavy GM authority and attribute-based resolution are core to its design.

Nobilis

Resolution System: Players spend Miracle Points to perform actions. Higher levels of investment allow for more powerful and reality-altering effects. Some actions succeed automatically based on a character’s attributes.

Main Problems: The game is very abstract and high-concept, which can make it difficult to understand. Bidding Miracle Points often turns into a resource auction between players. It also carries a high mental load due to the need to track metaphysical details and power levels. This can lead to power escalation as players try to outdo each other.

Pros: Nobilis gives players an extremely high level of narrative power and creative freedom. It is excellent for philosophical, mythic, or high-concept storytelling. The system strongly supports thematic play and allows characters to feel truly larger than life.

Verdict: Nobilis tends to produce players who dominate the narrative. Because of the high level of power and abstraction, some players focus heavily on showcasing their own clever or dramatic ideas, often sidelining other players in the process. It can also lead to players overcomplicating scenes as they try to use the most powerful applications of their abilities.

The game does not make strong attempts to correct this behavior. It embraces high player power and abstract complexity as intentional parts of its design, assuming players will share narrative authority fairly and engage with its thematic elements.

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (2003)

Resolution System: Each character has an individual Energy Reserve of red stones. Players allocate stones from their personal reserve to actions each panel. The GM sets Difficulty and Resistance. Success depends on how many stones are committed compared to what is required.

Main Problems: Stone management can feel like accounting. The game is very dependent on GM judgment for Difficulty and Resistance. It can lead to analysis paralysis when players try to decide how many stones to spend. Because there is no randomness, outcomes can feel very predictable.

Pros: The stone system creates meaningful resource decisions that feel appropriate for superhero action. Players have significant control over how much effort their character puts into any given action.

Verdict: This system commonly causes players to overthink their decisions. Because they must constantly decide how many stones to spend, players often become overly analytical and hesitant. This can lead to a very mechanical, resource-management mindset where players focus more on optimizing expenditures than on playing their character naturally.

The game tries to frame stone spending as dramatic effort, but it offers few tools to reduce overthinking during play.

Lords of Olympus

Resolution System: Similar to Amber. Characters have ranked attributes in different ability classes. Higher rank generally wins conflicts, with the GM arbitrating close or unclear situations.

Main Problems: Like Amber, it relies heavily on GM judgment. The bidding/auction system is used primarily during character creation and for establishing social positioning rather than as an in-play resolution tool.

Pros: It supports mythic and larger-than-life storytelling well. The system keeps the focus on character power and narrative weight..

Verdict: Lords of Olympus shares many of Amber’s issues. Players can develop a strong sense of entitlement based on their attribute ranks. 

The game does not provide strong tools to reduce arguments with the GM or to encourage risk-taking.

Universalis

Resolution System: Players use a pool of tokens or coins to bid for narrative control and to establish facts in the story. Conflict and world-building are resolved entirely through bidding and negotiation between players.

Main Problems: The game can feel more like a bidding game than traditional roleplaying. It requires strong group trust and comfort with shared narrative authority. Players can end up “buying” the story rather than collaboratively building it.

Pros: Universalis excels at collaborative storytelling and world-building. It gives every player a high degree of narrative control and works very well for one-shots or experimental games. The bidding system encourages players to think creatively about what happens next in the story.

Verdict: This game often leads players to treat narrative control as a resource to be hoarded and spent strategically. Some players become very transactional, only engaging with the story when they can spend tokens to influence it. This can result in competitive rather than collaborative storytelling, where players bid against each other to push their own preferred ideas.

The game does not strongly try to prevent this behavior. The bidding system is the core of the game, so having more resources naturally grants greater narrative influence. It largely assumes players will use their tokens responsibly and share control fairly.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North

Resolution System: A structured phrase-based system. Players take turns making statements using specific ritual phrases such as “But only if…” and “And so it was…”. Conflict and narrative progression are resolved through formal negotiation rather than rolls or resource bidding.

Main Problems: The structure is extremely rigid and theatrical. It can feel more like collaborative storytelling or a ritual than traditional roleplaying. The game requires high player buy-in and comfort with a very formal style of play.

Pros: Polaris creates very focused, tragic, and thematically consistent stories. The ritualized structure helps guide play and keeps everyone on the same page. It is excellent for games that want to explore specific themes like chivalry, duty, and tragedy.

Verdict: The rigid structure of Polaris often causes players to become overly focused on the mechanics of negotiation rather than the story itself. Players may spend excessive time debating the exact wording of phrases or trying to find loopholes in the ritual system instead of advancing the narrative. Some players also disengage entirely if they find the formal, ritualized style too restrictive.

The game attempts to guide behavior through its strict phrase structure and ritual format. The system is designed to keep play focused on its intended tragic tone and to reduce open-ended arguments by giving players clear tools and phrases to use.

Project AiO(My Game)

Resolution System: Narrative First approach through the “Narrative How” where the Narrative shapes the Mechanics used. Visible Target Numbers. Players build their Mod Value using substats, skills, talents, and gear. After seeing the result, they decide whether to commit to the action, spend Control Points, seek Advantage, or change their approach.

Potential Problems: The system might slow down play due to decision-making and table discussion. It relies heavily on players engaging with the narrative rather than defaulting to mechanical optimization. Some players may still try to optimize the mechanics before describing their action in the fiction.

Pros: The system gives players a high level of agency because they can see the numbers and make informed decisions. Control Points allow players to influence the story in meaningful ways without relying on random chance. The narrative-first approach combined with clear mechanics rewards both creative descriptions and smart tactical play.

Verdict:  My game gives players full visibility of the Target Number before they commit to an action, there is a risk that players will become overly cautious and risk-averse. They may hesitate to attempt difficult or uncertain actions unless they can guarantee success through the use of Control Points or by setting up Advantage. This could also lead to frequent second-guessing at the table, where players spend time debating whether to spend resources, change their approach, or avoid the check entirely rather than accepting the possibility of meaningful failure.

To address these potential issues, the game includes several design elements intended to encourage bolder play and reduce hesitation. The Narrative How rule is placed at the start of the resolution process to keep players focused on describing their character’s actions in the fiction before they begin calculating their mechanical options. Players are explicitly allowed to choose failure, and doing so in a dramatic or meaningful way can reward them with Narrative Control Points. Table talk is actively encouraged as a collaborative tool to help players work through difficult situations together rather than overthinking in isolation. Additionally, Control Points are designed with multiple uses beyond simply succeeding on checks, giving players narrative tools and options that reward engagement with the story rather than purely mechanical optimization.

Reflections on Project AiO’s Design

After examining several diceless systems, it became clear that each carries distinct weaknesses. Many of these issues stem from fundamental tensions inherent to removing randomness, particularly around GM authority, player entitlement, risk aversion, and pacing.

Project AiO was designed with these recurring problems in mind. Several of its core design choices directly attempt to address flaws observed in earlier diceless games. 

Visible Target Numbers were implemented to reduce heavy GM fiat and give players clearer expectations, a problem that heavily affects games like Amber Diceless. 

The Narrative How rule was added to encourage players to engage with the fiction before engaging with the mechanics, in an attempt to prevent the mechanical-first thinking common in systems like Marvel Universe RPG. 

Allowing players to voluntarily choose failure and rewarding them with Narrative Control Points is a direct response to the risk aversion and I Should Win syndrome seen across multiple diceless systems. 

Giving Control Points multiple uses beyond simple success was intended to reduce the feeling that every resource must be hoarded for mechanical optimization.

That said, these solutions are still untested. While the intent is to mitigate the common pitfalls of diceless design, it remains to be seen whether these tools will be strong enough in actual play. The most significant concern is that giving players perfect information about Target Numbers may create stronger risk aversion than anticipated, and it is unclear if the reward for choosing failure will be compelling enough to overcome that instinct.

While no system is perfect, one of my primary goals was to consciously avoid repeating the most common failure points of earlier diceless games.

reddit.com
u/cyrosgold — 1 month ago
▲ 1 r/RPGdesign

Diceless RPGs: How They Work and Where They Struggle

While studying game design for my own system, I looked at several diceless games to understand how they handled resolution. I wanted to see what worked well and what problems each system tended to create, so I could avoid repeating the same mistakes in my own design.

Below is a list of notable diceless games, including how their resolution systems work, the problems that commonly arise from them, and the benefits each system offers.

This isn't an exhaustive theory, just a lens for thinking about diceless design tradeoffs. 

Amber Diceless Role-Playing

Resolution System: Characters have ranked attributes. In most conflicts, the character with the higher relevant attribute wins. When two characters have the same rank, the GM arbitrates based on the fiction and circumstances.

Main Problems: The game relies extremely heavily on GM arbitration. Because there is no randomizer, outcomes can feel predetermined once attribute ranks are known. New players often struggle with how much narrative weight the GM is expected to carry.

Pros: The system is very simple mechanically. It strongly emphasizes character relationships, politics, and drama. Because success is based on character investment rather than dice, victories and defeats often feel earned through roleplaying and clever use of the fiction.

Verdict: TAmber tends to create a sense of entitlement in players. Because higher attributes usually win, players can become frustrated or argumentative when the GM rules against them or when lower-ranked characters succeed through creative fiction. 

The game does little to mitigate this, as heavy GM authority and attribute-based resolution are core to its design.

Nobilis

Resolution System: Players spend Miracle Points to perform actions. Higher levels of investment allow for more powerful and reality-altering effects. Some actions succeed automatically based on a character’s attributes.

Main Problems: The game is very abstract and high-concept, which can make it difficult to understand. Bidding Miracle Points often turns into a resource auction between players. It also carries a high mental load due to the need to track metaphysical details and power levels. This can lead to power escalation as players try to outdo each other.

Pros: Nobilis gives players an extremely high level of narrative power and creative freedom. It is excellent for philosophical, mythic, or high-concept storytelling. The system strongly supports thematic play and allows characters to feel truly larger than life.

Verdict: Nobilis tends to produce players who dominate the narrative. Because of the high level of power and abstraction, some players focus heavily on showcasing their own clever or dramatic ideas, often sidelining other players in the process. It can also lead to players overcomplicating scenes as they try to use the most powerful applications of their abilities.

The game does not make strong attempts to correct this behavior. It embraces high player power and abstract complexity as intentional parts of its design, assuming players will share narrative authority fairly and engage with its thematic elements.

Marvel Universe Roleplaying Game (2003)

Resolution System: Each character has an individual Energy Reserve of red stones. Players allocate stones from their personal reserve to actions each panel. The GM sets Difficulty and Resistance. Success depends on how many stones are committed compared to what is required.

Main Problems: Stone management can feel like accounting. The game is very dependent on GM judgment for Difficulty and Resistance. It can lead to analysis paralysis when players try to decide how many stones to spend. Because there is no randomness, outcomes can feel very predictable.

Pros: The stone system creates meaningful resource decisions that feel appropriate for superhero action. Players have significant control over how much effort their character puts into any given action.

Verdict: This system commonly causes players to overthink their decisions. Because they must constantly decide how many stones to spend, players often become overly analytical and hesitant. This can lead to a very mechanical, resource-management mindset where players focus more on optimizing expenditures than on playing their character naturally.

The game tries to frame stone spending as dramatic effort, but it offers few tools to reduce overthinking during play.

Lords of Olympus

Resolution System: Similar to Amber. Characters have ranked attributes in different ability classes. Higher rank generally wins conflicts, with the GM arbitrating close or unclear situations.

Main Problems: Like Amber, it relies heavily on GM judgment. The bidding/auction system is used primarily during character creation and for establishing social positioning rather than as an in-play resolution tool.

Pros: It supports mythic and larger-than-life storytelling well. The system keeps the focus on character power and narrative weight..

Verdict: Lords of Olympus shares many of Amber’s issues. Players can develop a strong sense of entitlement based on their attribute ranks. 

The game does not provide strong tools to reduce arguments with the GM or to encourage risk-taking.

Universalis

Resolution System: Players use a pool of tokens or coins to bid for narrative control and to establish facts in the story. Conflict and world-building are resolved entirely through bidding and negotiation between players.

Main Problems: The game can feel more like a bidding game than traditional roleplaying. It requires strong group trust and comfort with shared narrative authority. Players can end up “buying” the story rather than collaboratively building it.

Pros: Universalis excels at collaborative storytelling and world-building. It gives every player a high degree of narrative control and works very well for one-shots or experimental games. The bidding system encourages players to think creatively about what happens next in the story.

Verdict: This game often leads players to treat narrative control as a resource to be hoarded and spent strategically. Some players become very transactional, only engaging with the story when they can spend tokens to influence it. This can result in competitive rather than collaborative storytelling, where players bid against each other to push their own preferred ideas.

The game does not strongly try to prevent this behavior. The bidding system is the core of the game, so having more resources naturally grants greater narrative influence. It largely assumes players will use their tokens responsibly and share control fairly.

Polaris: Chivalric Tragedy at the Utmost North

Resolution System: A structured phrase-based system. Players take turns making statements using specific ritual phrases such as “But only if…” and “And so it was…”. Conflict and narrative progression are resolved through formal negotiation rather than rolls or resource bidding.

Main Problems: The structure is extremely rigid and theatrical. It can feel more like collaborative storytelling or a ritual than traditional roleplaying. The game requires high player buy-in and comfort with a very formal style of play.

Pros: Polaris creates very focused, tragic, and thematically consistent stories. The ritualized structure helps guide play and keeps everyone on the same page. It is excellent for games that want to explore specific themes like chivalry, duty, and tragedy.

Verdict: The rigid structure of Polaris often causes players to become overly focused on the mechanics of negotiation rather than the story itself. Players may spend excessive time debating the exact wording of phrases or trying to find loopholes in the ritual system instead of advancing the narrative. Some players also disengage entirely if they find the formal, ritualized style too restrictive.

The game attempts to guide behavior through its strict phrase structure and ritual format. The system is designed to keep play focused on its intended tragic tone and to reduce open-ended arguments by giving players clear tools and phrases to use.

Project AiO(My Game)

Resolution System: Narrative First approach through the “Narrative How” where the Narrative shapes the Mechanics used. Visible Target Numbers. Players build their Mod Value using substats, skills, talents, and gear. After seeing the result, they decide whether to commit to the action, spend Control Points, seek Advantage, or change their approach.

Potential Problems: The system might slow down play due to decision-making and table discussion. It relies heavily on players engaging with the narrative rather than defaulting to mechanical optimization. Some players may still try to optimize the mechanics before describing their action in the fiction.

Pros: The system gives players a high level of agency because they can see the numbers and make informed decisions. Control Points allow players to influence the story in meaningful ways without relying on random chance. The narrative-first approach combined with clear mechanics rewards both creative descriptions and smart tactical play.

Verdict:  My game gives players full visibility of the Target Number before they commit to an action, there is a risk that players will become overly cautious and risk-averse. They may hesitate to attempt difficult or uncertain actions unless they can guarantee success through the use of Control Points or by setting up Advantage. This could also lead to frequent second-guessing at the table, where players spend time debating whether to spend resources, change their approach, or avoid the check entirely rather than accepting the possibility of meaningful failure.

To address these potential issues, the game includes several design elements intended to encourage bolder play and reduce hesitation. The Narrative How rule is placed at the start of the resolution process to keep players focused on describing their character’s actions in the fiction before they begin calculating their mechanical options. Players are explicitly allowed to choose failure, and doing so in a dramatic or meaningful way can reward them with Narrative Control Points. Table talk is actively encouraged as a collaborative tool to help players work through difficult situations together rather than overthinking in isolation. Additionally, Control Points are designed with multiple uses beyond simply succeeding on checks, giving players narrative tools and options that reward engagement with the story rather than purely mechanical optimization.

Reflections on Project AiO’s Design

After examining several diceless systems, it became clear that each carries distinct weaknesses. Many of these issues stem from fundamental tensions inherent to removing randomness, particularly around GM authority, player entitlement, risk aversion, and pacing.

Project AiO was designed with these recurring problems in mind. Several of its core design choices directly attempt to address flaws observed in earlier diceless games. 

Visible Target Numbers were implemented to reduce heavy GM fiat and give players clearer expectations, a problem that heavily affects games like Amber Diceless. 

The Narrative How rule was added to encourage players to engage with the fiction before engaging with the mechanics, in an attempt to prevent the mechanical-first thinking common in systems like Marvel Universe RPG. 

Allowing players to voluntarily choose failure and rewarding them with Narrative Control Points is a direct response to the risk aversion and I Should Win syndrome seen across multiple diceless systems. 

Giving Control Points multiple uses beyond simple success was intended to reduce the feeling that every resource must be hoarded for mechanical optimization.

That said, these solutions are still untested. While the intent is to mitigate the common pitfalls of diceless design, it remains to be seen whether these tools will be strong enough in actual play. The most significant concern is that giving players perfect information about Target Numbers may create stronger risk aversion than anticipated, and it is unclear if the reward for choosing failure will be compelling enough to overcome that instinct.

While no system is perfect, one of my primary goals was to consciously avoid repeating the most common failure points of earlier diceless games.

reddit.com
u/cyrosgold — 1 month ago
▲ 11 r/RPGcreation+4 crossposts

Project AiO: Revised Playtest Version (Feedback Request)

I've put together a revised, playtest-ready version of Project AiO, a tactical RPG where success is based on smart planning and resource management.

Key Features:

Player-facing deterministic resolution system
Strong player driven Narrative gameplay
The game is grounded in real mechanics
Clearly defined different modes of play
Deep tactical combat using the Turn Order Challenge system
Strong emphasis on resource management and smart decision-making
Character advancement through both attributes and talents
A two-hour introductory adventure designed to teach the system

This revised playtest release includes:

Core Rules
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbYaeo_31-c_SLwHh-wexl0CaEDTimKL7xmpeBHGrX8/edit?usp=sharing

Stone Age Setting
https://docs.google.com/document/d/198RsIqXHlisDPxw8Gwet5kLSK4YdEXkzRJ0cNWlFqk4/edit?usp=sharing

Two-Hour Introductory Adventure (designed specifically to teach the system)
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Rxk1tO1AwFVfVLq5ylsiZ_srzJLS3LoK5_JT3Mfl2hY/edit?usp=sharing

The game focuses on meaningful tactical decisions and resource attrition instead of randomness.

I’d especially appreciate thoughts on how approachable the core mechanics are and how well the two-hour adventure works as a teaching tool.

Any and all feedback is welcome!

u/cyrosgold — 2 months ago
▲ 8 r/RPGcreation+4 crossposts

Magic System for my Project AiO(Revised)

This is a Revised feedback draft of the Project AiO magic rules module.

I’m mainly looking for feedback on whether the spell-building logic is understandable, whether the system feels usable at the table, and where the rules become unclear or overloaded.

TLDR on Spell Weaving:

Magic in AiO is built from nodes. A caster chooses how the spell is delivered, what element it uses, and what effect it creates, then connects those pieces into a Spell Path with Links. For example, a simple fire attack might be Project - Heat - Damage. More advanced casters can add Special Effect Nodes, Interlinks, Rotes, Layering, Esoterica, and Enchanting, but the basic idea is Delivery + Element + Effect.

feedback questions:

After reading it, can you explain how to build a simple spell without me clarifying it?

Does the node system feel intuitive and flexible, or does it feel too complex to use during play?

Which part most needs examples, diagrams, or clearer wording?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/17G_gI0DOVwzWTUmwi6Tt5Qr8G5xVQYDcSPSZWBbO1Qg/edit?usp=sharing

My Dead world game for reference

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CEJuN75-s-4t7FzOXShIio8hbgVnrP8cnAD-vglivI/edit?usp=sharing

u/cyrosgold — 3 months ago
▲ 16 r/RPGcreation+6 crossposts

The World Died, So Now We Survive on Dungeons(Revised)

The surface world is dead. Nothing grows anymore. Humanity only survives because of the Dungeons, living anomalous zones that appeared after the collapse. Every settlement is built around a Dungeon mouth, and the Adventurers Guild controls who goes in and what comes out.

You play as Guild adventurers taking contracts to delve.

Key Features:

Diceless resolution: Build a modifier from your stats, skills, talents, and gear, then compare it directly to a Target Number. Fast and transparent.

Control Points (NCP/CCP): Earn points from meaningful failures and setbacks, or cool stuff. Spend them to boost checks, gain insight, or bend the story in your favor. Failure becomes a resource.

Strong survival pressure: Stamina, Fatigue, Injuries (Physical/Mental/Social), and encumbrance. Every delve is a careful balance of risk and reward.

Living Dungeons: Dungeons have specialties, shift their layouts roughly once a month. Biome layers have their own weather and settlements that sometimes have to survive three-day monster sieges during shifts.

Guild life & contracts: Take harvesting runs, monster culls, route mapping after shifts, emergency defense, and more.

The document includes:

Core rules reference tailored to the setting

Character creation and talents

Full setting information and GM tools like Monster and Hazard creation

A short starter adventure

Sample town and threats

It’s still a work in progress, but the core loop and setting are playable. I’m looking for feedback.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CEJuN75-s-4t7FzOXShIio8hbgVnrP8cnAD-vglivI/edit?usp=sharing

u/cyrosgold — 2 months ago
▲ 11 r/RPGcreation+4 crossposts

I'm creating a Magic System for my game

This is an early feedback draft of the Project AiO magic rules module.

I’m mainly looking for feedback on whether the spell-building logic is understandable, whether the system feels usable at the table, and where the rules become unclear or overloaded.

TLDR on Spell Weaving:

Magic in AiO is built from nodes. A caster chooses how the spell is delivered, what element it uses, and what effect it creates, then connects those pieces into a Spell Path with Links. For example, a simple fire attack might be Project + Heat + Damage. More advanced casters can add Special Effect Nodes, Interlinks, Rotes, Layering, Esoterica, and Enchanting, but the basic idea is Delivery + Element + Effect.

feedback questions:

After reading it, can you explain how to build a simple spell without me clarifying it?

Does the node system feel intuitive and flexible, or does it feel too complex to use during play?

Which part most needs examples, diagrams, or clearer wording?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1hwRLeCYZrsdPQD042rQnsNJZwqPX2ldDGEnTTsfmkJk/edit?usp=sharing

For reference here is my core rules.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbYaeo_31-c_SLwHh-wexl0CaEDTimKL7xmpeBHGrX8/edit?usp=sharing

u/cyrosgold — 3 months ago
▲ 46 r/RPGcreation+4 crossposts

This is an anime inspired, diceless tabletop RPG built as a self contained standalone game using the Project AiO system.

The basic idea is simple: the surface world is dead, and civilization survives because of living Dungeons. These Dungeons produce food, medicine, materials, monsters, and danger. Towns grow around them. Guilds control access to them. Adventurers go below because someone has to bring back what keeps everyone alive.

What makes it different?

The game is diceless. Players do not roll to see what happens. Instead, checks are built from a character’s stats, skills, talents, gear, teamwork, and limited control points.

The tension is less “did I roll high enough?” and more “am I prepared enough, is this worth the cost, and what am I willing to spend to make this work?”

What do players do?

Players are Adventurers working through the Guild system. They take contracts, enter Dungeons, clear hazards, fight monsters, recover useful goods, escort people, and try to make it back alive.

The game starts with familiar dungeon delving structure, but the deeper theme is survival. Treasure is not just treasure here. It is food, medicine, shelter, trade, and another day of civilization holding together.

Tone

The tone is anime inspired dungeon survival with a post collapse edge. There are party roles, Guild ranks, dangerous delves, strange monsters, and moments of action, but underneath that is a world built on dependency.

The Dungeons may be saving humanity, or they may be feeding on everyone. The people living around them cannot afford to stop and find out.

What is included?

This draft includes the Setting, core rules, character creation, lineages, talents, gear, Dungeon rules, survival rules, GM tools, sample threats, a sample Guild town, a starter adventure, quick reference material, and a simple character sheet.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/14CEJuN75-s-4t7FzOXShIio8hbgVnrP8cnAD-vglivI/edit?usp=sharing

u/cyrosgold — 4 months ago
▲ 11 r/RPGcreation+4 crossposts

I’m looking for players to help playtest Project AiO, a diceless TTRPG, using its first setting module: The Stone Age Village.

This is a survival-focused Stone Age game about a small village trying to endure in a dangerous world of hide, bone, wood, flint, hunger, weather, predators, kinship, and hard choices. You are not wandering mercenaries or dungeon looters. You are people of the village: hunters, trackers, healers, crafters, defenders, scouts, and keepers of memory.

This setting is about:

survival and scarcity

dangerous hunts

village life and social tension

neighboring groups, trade, and feuds

practical gear and meaningful consequences

grounded danger

What to expect

A diceless system focused on choices, planning, teamwork, and consequences rather than luck

A harsh but character-driven setting where Physical, Mental, and Social struggles all matter

Stone Age survival with real pressure from weather, injury, food, and conflict

A playtest environment where feedback is welcome and useful

Good fit for players who like

survival stories

low-tech settings

serious consequences

roleplay tied closely to community and duty

helping test and refine new systems

Here is the Core rules doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LbYaeo_31-c_SLwHh-wexl0CaEDTimKL7xmpeBHGrX8/edit?usp=sharing

And the Setting Doc.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/198RsIqXHlisDPxw8Gwet5kLSK4YdEXkzRJ0cNWlFqk4/edit?usp=sharing

If the core rules doc seems a bit large to dive into I made a Players handbook of sorts.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1LV7jeClzgPYYKyuz1X1MLPcRe8HjqFCIFlf7eImWOfg/edit?usp=sharing

This is a first run recruitment, once I have enough interested people I'll schedule a time and platform. Please let me know the days and times you would be available.

u/cyrosgold — 4 months ago