I realize this has been asked before, but all the posts I've found are several years old. I'm hoping there's a better option than what they suggested.
I started building a character sheet for a TTRPG I'm designing in Word, but I'm running into problems. When I move text boxes around, it likes to shift their size up and down a pixel or two. It has also been known to adjust items I've been trying to align when I zoom in or out.

At this point, I'd like to find something better. I've looked at Affinity (as other threads of this nature have suggested), but it appears they've moved to a full subscription only platform. At least, that's all I could find. But hey, there was a free trial. I've looked at a few free apps, but none have the functionality I need.

All I need is a simple editor that allows me to change the shape of text boxes, group boxes, copy boxes, and move them, without any shape degradation. I'm fine with a one time purchase, but I refuse to get a subscription. I'd rather bash my head against the wall of word.

Subsequently, if anyone is aware of a fix that stops word from mutating my text boxes, that would be great.

Or at least that you think makes it different.

Me first:

1. Tactical narrative

2. One object for everything

3. The dice generate story, not just adjudicate.

You?

We’ve made it to July. In my part of the world, this is a time when you’re doing things outdoors. With the family. Going (shudder) camping. Not exactly conducive to writing RPG materials.

But for my (and hopefully your) projects, we’re in luck. It has been incredibly hot out, which has caused a lot of activity to move back indoors where the AC is blasting. For those of you in Europe, this may not apply.

For those of us back indoors, or under the shade of a cool tree where we can use our laptop and WIFI, let’s take advantage of this time of year called summer and get some work done on our projects.

So grab a cool beverage, and …

LET’S GO!

An extra note: you may have seen a couple of posts advertising Kickstarters or Backerkit projects. If you have a project like that, let the Mods know, and we'll approve posts about your work. We want to make everyone successful with their games.

Have a project and need help? Post here. Have fantastic skills for hire? Post here! Want to playtest a project? Have a project and need victims, err, playtesters? Post here! In that case, please include a link to your project information in the post.

We can create a "landing page" for you as a part of our Wiki if you like, so message the mods if that is something you would like as well.

Please note that this is still just the equivalent of a bulletin board: none of the posts here are officially endorsed by the mod staff here.

You can feel free to post an ad for yourself each month, but we also have an archive of past months here.

So I came up with this system about narrative layers.

There are three layers that basically act like zoom factors for narrative.

- Personal layer: here your typical d&d style combat happens. Each player is simulated and can act on its own.

- local layer: this Is for moving or acting as groups of a couple to a couple dozen people. Things like castle sieges or field battles.

- regional layer: I imagine this one as like a paradox game like crusaider kings or Europa universalis.

Army battles, large scale travel over weeks or months.

I know there are lot of rules for these things in other settings but is there anything that clearly does in a similar way? Like all these layers use the same fundamental action and movement layout just with different actions available to them.

The basic idea:
Here’s a diagram (If it doesn’t look at all like it does on mobile, sorry):

Light — + — Heavy
| x |
* x x *
Defend = Counter
—Evade—

Defend beats Light Attack,
Counter beats Heavy Attack,
Light Attack beats Counter,
Heavy Attack beats Defend.
Evade is an attempt to escape, create distance, or recover.
Clashing attacks fail to inflict damage while increasing the potential damage of the next successful attack.
This is the basic idea. There are a few specifics and a few more I haven’t fleshed out yet.

Turn Order:
The mechanic that rock-paper-scissors fully depends upon is that the players do not know what option the other players will choose. Similarly, in real life combat, the fighters can only try to watch and predict for what their opponent might do next. Nobody takes turns. So to translate that to RPG combat, the combatants take each round simultaneously.
It goes like this:

1. The players and enemies choose their targets and (preferably privately, such as by noting it) choose their actions.
2. Once everyone is prepared, each combatant makes a roll to see if they have the reflexes to predict their opponent’s move. On a success, the combatant is allowed to change their chosen action before the altercation occurs.
3. The GM reveals the result of each altercation in the order of initiative. Damage is rolled or calculated. Pressure is added or reduced accordingly.

Ties and Pressure:
When two Attacks meet, it increases the Pressure on both combatants. When a Defend action succeeds (Defend vs Light Attack), the losing side does not take damage, but receives Pressure.
Pressure represents the intensity of an engagement on a combatant and the combatant’s vulnerability to a devastating attack. Thus the number of Pressure points a character has accumulated is added to the damage they receive when they are hit. Since my system is a dice pool, each point adds an extra d6 to roll for damage.
All Pressure points are expended in one hit and Pressure is reduced to 0 after that hit. Pressure can only otherwise be reduced by ending combat or performing a successful Evade action—the specifics of which I don’t have figured out yet, other than that it obviously should be decided by some kind of roll.

It occurred to me earlier today that there should be some max amount of Pressure that staggers a character, leaving them completely open to attack (think of the stagger mechanic in Dark Souls, Elden Ring, Sekiro). The reason for adding this is to avoid a player from spamming the Light Attack indefinitely as it’s the only action which, when beaten, doesn’t result in its user taking damage. So the maximum pressure on a character I think should be around 5 and likely based on a stat.

As for ties in which both fighters attempt to Defend or Counter—nothing happens. Some systems just have a chance of nothing happening. In DND, both fighters may happen to just roll under their target’s armor class. I think my system here presents something at least more narratively compelling: “You watch each other closely, waiting for the other to move first.”
—That said, I just reread some earlier notes I wrote which say that any tie should increase Pressure. Something to consider.

Combat Actions:
Light Attack - Could also be called a Normal Attack. The idea is that it is an attack that is less committed and able to be performed while maintaining a tight defense.

Heavy Attack - Could also be called a Special Attack. Any kind of attack that takes more commitment or leaves the user vulnerable to being countered. Since it comes with more risk than the Light Attack, it should have more reward—inflicting more damage, or having special effects based on the user’s skill or weapon for example.

Defend - Pretty self-explanatory. Character defends themself while holding their ground, tiring their opponent out (inflicting them with Pressure).

Counter - Also straightforward. The user takes advantage of the opening created by an opponent’s Heavy Attack. The only detail is whether a Counter’s damage is more comparable to a Light or a Heavy Attack—I think this should be heavily dependent on weapon and character.

Evade - An attempt to reduce one’s pressure. I can’t say exactly how this works yet except it involves a roll. I think also if a character fails to Evade while their opponent Attacks, the damage from Pressure should be ignored or reduced.

There is no hit dice as the rock-paper-scissors aspect determines what hits. There may be damage rolls depending on the dice system. My intent for my own system is low-numbers with a dice pool, so I’m opting for attacks doing a base amount of damage (Light Attack does 1, Heavy does 2, for example. This can be dependent on weapons) with added damage from Pressure dice and potentially from special effect dice.

There’s something fun that the system lends itself to: different effects for the different actions, all unique to your character’s weapons and skillset. I can foresee this easily getting bloated and overcomplicated, however, so I’ll have to define limits on it before moving forward.

Gaps and Potential Drawbacks
- Deciding actions privately. While I think it may overall speed up combat by just having everyone prepare at once, it may kind of remove a lot of the potential for planning and teamwork. They could likely coordinate in a lot of ways, but what action they choose (Light, Heavy, Defend, Counter) has to be kept from the GM unless the GM decides for the enemies before the players, are really good at not metagaming, or somehow roll for the enemies instead (which could increase time drastically).
- Group fighting. As it is now, I feel that if anyone faces more than one opponent at a time they’re just getting jumped (not dissimilar to real life, but not always fun). If a combatant is engaged with two enemies and tries to, let’s say, Counter—one enemy might Heavy Attack and get beat while the other does a Light Attack. And what if they both did a Heavy? What if there was a third one who also threw a Heavy? Can the one combatant really Counter all three of them simultaneously? That doesn’t seem right.
— In something like DND, armor class would take care of this. A 1 vs. 4 could look bad, but if the 1 has good enough armor they have a chance of getting out unscathed. My own system is an investigation-themed sci-fi. Player characters are expected to usually be in civilian clothing or adjacent to that, so that doesn’t really work the same way. My intent is for combat to be a payoff for finding the bad guys and an “oh shit” moment for when there’s no other choice. Hence I’m not terribly worried about characters just getting jumped when they’re outnumbered as it’s realistic and can serve the players too if they plan for it, but still.
— I’ve thought a solution might lay in the Evade action and could be about making the distance to single out enemies one-by-one rather than taking them all at once. I really should define that Evade action.
- Lots of opportunities for cool moves and special effects and such, but as I states earlier these increase complexity and make the player’s remember more things which may not even come up once a session.
- Needs more playtesting.
- Probably other things that I’m missing or forgetting. So far I’ve only worked on this while having nothing else to do at my night shift job, so it’s possible I’ll take a look back on my off days and realize none of it makes sense or something lol.

Conclusion:
At any rate. My hope for the system is that it feels engaging and feels like fighting. No more “I roll to attack. It misses.” By knowing each move you do, why you miss or why you hit or why you get hit, combat becomes a story without much flavoring necessary. Please feel free to share your thoughts, comments, questions, etc.

A couple of days ago I asked here about converting a heroic engine (Daggerheart) to cosmic horror, and I floated removing player spellcasting entirely, routing all supernatural power through devil's bargains. The thread pushed back, hard and usefully, in a direction I hadn't committed to, and I want to report what I did with it, because it changed the design.

The consensus here was: don't gut the caster classes, make the cost live in the engine's own currency instead. Daggerheart runs on a Hope/Fear economy, so the fix several of you pointed at was to have every player casting generate Fear for the GM, automatically, regardless of the roll. I adopted exactly that. Casting still works, the three arcane classes keep their mechanics, and the pile of Fear on the table grows visibly every time someone reaches for magic. The old hidden "sanity ledger" of horror games became a heap of tokens the whole table watches rise, and rises because of them.

Two things fell out of it that I didn't expect. First, the classes could keep their identity and just get reframed in fiction: the wizard as forbidden erudition already paid for, the seraph as faith that something answers, the druid as negotiation with spirits that can refuse. No mechanics gutted. Second, the "poisoned" channel (the devil's bargains) now sits above the classes as a separate, worse tier of power, which turns the outclassing moment someone here described (the entity brushing aside the wizard's best spell) into the engine that manufactures temptation. The rug pull got sharper, not softer.

The one open question I'm still turning over, and would take more eyes on: a couple of you suggested that on a critical success the casting could give momentum to the party instead of Fear to the GM. I like it as a "you got away clean this once" release valve, but I worry it rewards the exact behavior the Fear cost is meant to discourage. For those who have run push-your-luck resource costs: does a clean-crit exemption keep players engaged with a risky system, or does it quietly defang the risk?

Full disclosure: this is my first time posting on Reddit, so please let me know if this doesn't adhere to usual structures/rules/etc.

The tl;dr of this is I have a series of ideas for a TTRPG system that I think would be interesting but limited experience in game design to actually put the thing together meaningfully and would love some guidance.

I suppose, to start at the beginning, the core of this system (affectionately nicknamed Mythmaker in my notes) is based on my longstanding love of mythology, making use of my thesis studying aspects of deities and their overlapping traits. I wanted to make a system that, rather than focusing on the apotheosis of a mortal being (as we can see in things like DnD where characters can become gods, but do not start as them), actually had the players create gods in the ways that gods are created mythologically and historically - through stories.

My goal for this game is very story-driven, and in the same vein, stories are the main mechanic through which players become stronger.

I wanted to start, rather than with the creation of a character, players identify a starting aspect such as an element, emotion, or state (e.g. lightning, happiness, illness, etc.) - in short, when we think of a 'god of', it needs to have an 'of'.

The players, from there, choose a couple of key symbols associated with their deity, as well as how they'd like to manifest on the material plane with some key limits - your number of aspects, and how strong they are, determine the capabilities of your manifestation. It takes at least three progressions to manifest as a 'person' or 'person-adjacent'.

In each adventure (called a 'myth'), the players must undertake a small story where their divinity actively influences the outcome on the mortal world. This can include giving boons to helpful mortals, making environmental changes, the occasional smiting, and importantly, they aren't necessarily limited to work only in their aspect (i.e. a lightning aspect god can use their divinity to make crops grow) but they only gain a relevant bonus in their aspect. The reason this is the case is that at the end of each 'myth', the players must assign each other one new or improved aspect by vote. In the same way that gods don't choose their own associations, having the other players vote on the new aspect captures the idea of stories taking life of their own.

I also like the idea of using either a tarot deck or something similar - where there is symbolism and interpretation of meaning - as a mechanism to add aspects, goals, boons or banes as the game goes on.

Other mechanics I think would be interesting to include, but are much more high-level considerations:

- subsuming other gods and their aspects under your name (or you being subsumed) and the story implications of that

- more longform 'epics' where multiple myths play out or run concurrently

I guess I want to know if it makes sense as internal game logic and whether these ideas can be feasibly executed in game design. Please let me know if you'd like me to clarify anything or explain what I'm going for a little more.

I'm working on an epic high fantasy JRPG focused PBTA informed TTRPG (as a hobby, mostly) and I've been thinking about my core dice mechanic for tests.

Current iteration. Players roll 2d6 and they get one of five outcomes; 2 means that you suffer the risks and they are worse (+1 Risk), 3~6 means you suffer the risks as they stand, 7~9 means you avoid some of the risks (-1 Risk), 10~11 means you avoid the risks completely, 12 means you avoid the risks and gain a benefit (+1 Effect).

Risk's value determines how many moves the GM makes (able to double down on a specific move to make it harder) and Effect's value determines how much the PC is able to do in a situation (add ticks to a clock, cause Harm, etc.). There are metacurrencies and abilities that can change these values before and/or after the roll. Risk and Effect typically start at 2 unless the fiction indicates otherwise; hitting 4 Risk/Effect typically means that a combatant is defeated in that moment or a task is finished.

As you can see, the roll only impacts Effect on a critical. Of course, a GM move can be as simple as -1 Effect (wrapped in the fiction, of course). But I had an alternate idea...

2d6 as normal but the player assigns one die to Risk and the other to Effect. Risk; 6 = -2 Risk, 4~5 -1 Risk, 1~3 full Risk. Effect; 6 = full Effect, 4~5 -1 Effect, 1~3 -2 Effect.

I think this would work and might implement it for playtesting in our session next week but I thought it would be valuable to ask the brilliant minds here for some feedback. My main concern is the extra operation time of assigning dice might add up over time.

Thanks for reading!

Looking for feedback on the following "dying" rules for use in an OSR like game.

Death's Door

• PCs do not fall unconscious or stop fighting at zero HP. Instead, they are at Death's Door and any blow could be their last.
• DC 16 CON Check whenever you have zero HP and take damage. Fail and die immediately. Roll 20+ (a dirty 20 or more) and recover 1 HP.
• DC 16 INT Check to stabilize an ally at Death's Door and restore 1 HP.

Players stay engaged and contribute every turn instead of ticking down death timers and rolling death saves.

There's a bit of agency over character death. Players suddenly dropped to zero HP can flee or play defensively.

STAT and HP rules listed below for reference:

Stats

• Stats are tracked as bonuses. Having 3 CON means you roll d20+3 on a CON Check.
• Roll 3d6 at level 1. Stats are numbered 1 through 6. Add 1 to each rolled STAT. EXAMPLE: Rolling 2, 2, 3 generates a character with +2 DEX and +1 CON.
  1. STRength
  2. DEXterity
  3. CONstitution
  4. INTelligence
  5. WISdom
  6. CHArisma
• PCs add 1 to a Stat of their choice and describe how their background contributes to this bonus
• PCs get +1 to two separate Stats at first level of their class
• PCs gain +1 to a Stat at each level but cannot increase the same Stat twice in a row. Max level 10.

HP

• PCs start with 1d6+2 HP and get an additional d6 HP per +1 CON. A PC with 2 CON starts with 3d6+2 HP.
• Reroll HP at every level. Take the new value if greater - otherwise increase HP by 1.

Damage

• All attacks deal a single die of damage (d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12)
• Effective attacks roll damage with advantage (roll twice take greater)
• Ineffective attacks roll damage with disadvantage (roll twice take lesser)
• Sharp weapons can explode once (roll max value, roll again, and add the two rolls together)
• Blunt weapons reroll 1s and 2s
• d8, d10, and d12 remain relatively lethal across all levels

Edit: Presenting the initial public alpha of D20 Tactics, thanks for the advice!:

https://d20tactics.com/D20_Tactics_Alpha_26.07.pdf

Iam currently in the planingphase for my next book. In it matic had been sealed away as last act of defiance of an ancient empire when it fell and it pnly came back short while ago.

Humanity has made many advances like in bio Engineering but also with cybernetics

Big corps are the powers behind the throne with them needing deniable assets.

So far so good. But it sounds a bit tooo much like shadowrun in its basic idea and that could be problematic (cyberpunk there are a lot of rpgs out there but cyberpunk plus returning magic only one large one. Without the cyberpart there was also a large one: fireborn)

Thus i looked for something that could increase the distance to lore safe proportions. Idea was thus why not set it in the far future where humanity already went to the stars and thus many of the other races are from other alien empires.

Thus the deniable assets (players) sometimes even need to travel from planet to planet,…. But main setting would be in a human controlled sector on a few worlds that are corp controlled with wars for supremacy between them,…

Or as a second alternative i thought of a more typical time. Thus near future with a moon colony but no other space travel. When magic returned. Portals opened to pocket dimensions into which the races that were mroe magic reliant than humans had fled to. Some comign back in peace. Others to retake what is theirs. And others again just hungry.

Both settings wpuld enable players to be from humans and non human heritages. And also have as much cyber as they need/want while surviving as dekiable assets in a corp controlled setting.

The question for me is mostly twofold:
1.) a full scifi background does it move too much from a cyberpunk theme? (Soemthing disturbs me about the idea snd incant lay a finger onto what).

2.) which one of rhe two could garner more interest or be more interesting for players and gms alike

My name is Zach, and I make tabletop games. This post is an observeration I've made about Pokémon's business side, and what I think both I and other small creators can learn from it. I'm not saying that I'm right or wrong about anything, this is just what I've noticed

TLDRs - Each section of this post has a TLDR at the end. If you want the genrral gist of everything, but dont want to read my introspectives and study, skip to these.

Table of Contents

The Simplicity Trap — Why Pokémon's simplicity is a feature, not a flaw, and what that actually means for anyone building something more complex.

The Ecosystem — Multiple entry points, multiple audiences, one world. Why the architecture matters more than the marketing.

The Release Cadence — How Pokémon coordinates releases and why the pattern matters more than the products themselves.

What I Actually Did With Any Of This — Where my own work intersects with these observations, for better or worse.

The Lesson I Learned From My Own Work — What building in private for a long time actually buys you.

The Simplicity Trap

Pokémon is not a simple franchise. The competitive meta is genuinely complex, the lore runs thousands of entries deep, and the card game's inter-card interactions and techniques take years to master at a competitive level.

However, the base rules of the Pokémon TCG, the plot of any one anime episode, and the core loop of any one video game are simple enough that a five year old can play them, watch them, and genuinely enjoy them.

The complexity is layered on top of a simple foundation rather than baked into the base. The depth is opt-in once you're inside.

Compare the onboarding experience of Magic: The Gathering Despite MtG being the first TCG (or maybe becauze its the first), its base product carries significant complexity and generally speaking, its player base is older (teens - adults). I am not commenting on how good or bad either game is, I'm simply saying that MtG is more complex to start than Pokémon, and that it affects accessibility.

The lesson I learned from comparing Pokémon TCG to MtG is that, adding things on top of a complex system doesn't open new doors, it tends to make existing ones harder to walk through. The issue isn't the crossover concept. or that the game isn't fun, it's that complexity compounds.

TLDR - If you can explain your thing to a fifth grader, you probably understand it. If you can't, you might want to re-examine how accessible your product's front door actually is.

The Ecosystem

Pokémon operates across so many product categories, it's unrealistic to examine them by myself. So i focused on the three categories most relavent to me: video games, card game sets, and anime arcs.

Each functions as a complete standalone experience and a potential gateway to the others. Someone who starts with the anime might become a card game player. Someone who starts with the card game might pick up the video game; or they stay in one lane their entire life. Either way, they are in Pokémon's ecosystem.

What makes this worth studying isn't the number of products. It's that each entry point is simple enough to stand alone. The simplicity of each individual product is part of why each door functions as a door rather than a wall.

When a base product is already complex, adding another entry point doesn't automatically expand the audience. It can just as easily fragment it. The strength of Pokémon's ecosystem comes partly from each component being genuinely accessible on its own.

TLDR - The advantage of multiple entry points is resilience. If one product doesn't resonate with someone, another might

The Release Cadence

Pokémon doesn't just release products consistently, it releases them in coordination.

Sun and Moon the video game came out alongside the Sun and Moon card set alongside the Sun and Moon anime arc.

Those aren't three separate launches happening around the same time. They're one launch across three entry points simultaneously. Someone who buys the game is primed for the cards. Someone watching the anime is primed for the game. The timing creates cross-pollination between audiences that a staggered release wouldn't.

The specific lesson is not just "release things on a schedule" but to coordinate releases so they point at the same world at the same moment.

A community that gets multiple things pointing at the same world simultaneously tends to go deeper into it than a community getting those same things one at a time. The simultaneous release creates a shared cultural moment rather than a series of smaller individual ones.

I'm not saying to manufacture coordinated releases that don't exist yet, (shipping bad work on a schedule is worse than shipping good work slowly). What I am saying is if multiple things set in the same world are already in development, the timing of when they land relative to each other is worth thinking about deliberately.

TLDR - If you have the means, and the product(s), a coordinated release creates multiple doors into your ecosystem.

What I Actually Did With Any Of This

I didn't start by studying Pokémon's business model and working backwards, it was kind of the opposite.

I built things that felt right and were fun to build, looked up at some point and noticed the structure. When I noticed it, I went looking for precedent, and found it in Pokémon.

The free entry point into my system existed before I thought about Pokémon's accessibility philosophy. A card game emerged from one of my character classes before I thought about Pokémon's TCG. That card game is now in standalone development. The actual play series I'm producing is another door into the same space.

A novel set in one of the worlds of my multiverse is also being written. It started as a dream, became a story I needed to tell, and the setting chose itself because the world I'd already built was exactly right for it. The fact that it functions as another door into the ecosystem is incidental to why it's being written, but the point of its eventual existence is its another door.

None of this was planned as an ecosystem strategy. It emerged from building something with enough depth that it naturally generated multiple ways in.

TLDR - What studying Pokémon gave me was confidence that this kind of structure has precedent and that the simplicity of each entry point matters as much as having multiple entry points at all.

The Lesson I Learned From My Own Work

Pokémon is a useful model, but possibly an even more valuable lesson came from studying my own work.

If you build deep and broad enough, you eventually have the freedom to present a door from any level. When someone looks through the peephole, their imagination can infer the world behind it without you having to show them everything at once. The door doesn't have to open onto the whole world. It just has to open onto enough that curiosity does the rest.

For me, that required building in private before releasing anything. It required being fairly honest with myself about how deep I've set the entrance, and whether what's visible through the peephole actually suggests the depth behind it or just looks like a door to nowhere.

It also required patience. The reward for studying your own work well enough to present it from multiple angles at multiple levels of depth, is real; but in my case, I built over 15 years, and am still building. It's a long time, and I think a lot of creators can agree, it never really ends. The point is to take a step back, and look at what you made, and ask "Where is the clearest and easiest entrance for the door?"

TLDR - Building a deep world gives you many possible entry points. The challenge isn't creating more doors, t's choosing which one people should walk through first.

Thank you for reading and listening to my autistic ramblings.

Game/system name, links, etc. in the comments. Questions or anything you want addressed, feel free to ask there too.

I'm making a reaction table for my small rpg project, the idea is that you choose an approach you take to solve the problem then roll a die, then you consult the special table where each column is a type of approach (careful, verbal, aggressive) and each row corresponds to a die result. Then whatever is in the matching cell, happens (or the opposite if you took an opposite approach to what is written at the top of the column).

Is there a game or a supplement that does something like this? What are some approach types that I should include?

So I started a small solorpg, and the system started slowly expanding kinda by accident, but and I also liked this idea of skills being fuel for Abilities, but also giving more dice for more actions or stronger ones, so I wanted to expand it a bit.

But I never gamed designed something so I'm having trouble determining Difficulty for rolls/actions since it's dependent on the number of dices and what sides are needed and was looking for some advice on this regard

---

THE SYSTEM

uses d6s

Every action costs a certain amount of Dies with certain faces facing up. order doesn't matter since with multiple dice being an option, it would be kinda weird.

Every Character has 2d6, when they want to do something, those are called "Core Dice" and can be used to execute any action. But you can also spend Skill Points in order to roll "Skill Dice". Skill Dies have the limitation of only being able to be used to do actions relating to that specific skill.

Doing actions follows roughly this order:

\> Think of what you want to do

\> Roll the dice

\> Spend any points for extra dice or abilities

\> Shift the dices to try and get the necessary sides

SHIFT:

shift allows you to change a dice's result up or down by one. for example a 3 can be shifted into a 4 or a 5. a 1 can only be uped and a 6 can only be shifted down. you can't shift a 1 to a 6 or a 6 to a 1.

For now a character has 2 shift each turn

SKILLS:

Every skill has points ranging from 0 to 3. you can spend points to gain Skill Dies (to help you get the numbers you need or do more stuff in your turn), or you can spend them to use certain abilities that requires them.

you recover skill points at the start of your turn