itch.io

No worries, happy to answer any questions you may have!

As written an HP increase via advancement gives a player 3 additional HP. This is represented by the fact that their HP thresholds change. For the first HP increase, their maximum HP (AKA the "Intact" HP threshold) goes from 6 to 9. The threshold for "Injured" goes from 4 to 6. Finally, the threshold for "Fading" goes from 2 to 3. This is the +3/+2/+1 you refer to. On subsequent HP increases, the same pattern applies (next would be 12 for Intact, 8 for Injured, 4 for Fading).

Again, this may or may not be changed in the future for balancing purposes, further playtesting on my part needs to be done to see if this system operates in the way that I want. Also, if a group decides they want to change this system for their game they are highly encouraged to do so! Play the game how you and your friends want to!

As written, a player can at most lose 2 HP on a “Disaster” result of a skill die roll. They can lose more if using the “Fickle Rolling” table (AKA using magic) and if the GM determines that the spell is powerful enough to incur an HP loss of more than 2. 

The HP loss is irrespective of what the players are up against. This means the GM should only include injury as a risk for a skill die roll if it is reasonable for a player to lose 2 HP from that action. For example a player rolling a skill die for picking a lock doesn’t risk injury because the keyhole/door can’t feasibly cause the player to lose 2 HP, unless the door is trapped! If it is trapped, you would want to include that possibility when telling your player the risks involved in the roll.

Despite all that I’ve said, the game rules are meant to be bent and shaped how you want. If you and your players agree that big, boss monsters should cause players to lose more HP, then go for it!

As for HP increases, the idea is for those who do not take the HP increase on level up will become more likely to succeed at a skill over those who do take the HP increase. It’s a trade off between durability and success chance. In practice I am not sure if this trade off works well or not! I still need to do more playtesting (me and my friends trying out the game).

Enemy HP was something I considered, but would require the addition of player damage “points” which I wanted to avoid. So no, enemies do not have HP in the same way players do. The idea is for the GM to determine if a players actions are enough to defeat an enemy (AKA kill them, make them surrender, make them flee, etc). It is arbitrary, but so is a lot of this game! I think it allows for more creative freedom to determine when an enemy is out of the fight.

An example of how a GM could determine when a particular enemy is defeated is to first decide if the players are weaker, the same strength as, or stronger than the enemy. This can be done before the session as prep work: “I think the troll my players will most likely face is stronger than my players.” Then based on the players’ actions and skill die result, determine if the enemy is dead/morale broken/etc. “One of my players shot the troll with a crossbow. The troll didn’t see it coming, and the player rolled a 6 on their Ranged skill die. So I’d say that the troll is wounded but not dead. Maybe 1-3 more hits will kill it, depending on the dice rolls.”

Thanks for checking it out!

Hey, thanks so much for your comment and investment in this project! Feedback is very much appreciated as there has been no playtesting yet!

Here is my pros and cons of using the different combat styles in version 1.0:

Melee weapon: Higher risk being on the front lines, but can get higher defense and offhand gear options than ranged or magic. Doesn’t have the utility of magic, but also doesn't have the backlash opportunity.

Ranged weapon: Less risk since you can hang back and shoot from afar. But you have less defense and less offhand use options. Doesn’t have the utility of magic, but also doesn't have the backlash opportunity.

Magic: Less risk since you can hang back and do magical attacks from afar. But you have less defense and less offhand use options. You have insane utility and combat potential with spells, but also take on insane risk when using them.

I am definitely open to changing how that "insane risk" manifests in the game, though I do not like that adding "1 risk" for magical effects makes it feel like risk is being discretized. For my interpretation of risk, the GM has to use common sense, fantasy know-how, and good improv to properly create/present risk to a player who has said what their actions will be. It is not that actions generate "risk points" which can be increased or decreased, it is that actions might have consequences due to poor execution, bad luck, or both! 

My intention for the second result table is to...

First: make the odds of very strong, reality altering spells (like Divine Intervention or Time Warp) to have a lower chance of fully succeeding. Otherwise, every player would choose magic and have the same odds of success at warping spacetime as a guy swinging a sword. 

Second: make sure that the GM and the players know that there should be serious risks involved with casting spells, with potentially character-killing effects if you roll poorly.

Third: to make it so that characters wielding ranged weapons are more effective at standard combat (using a basic attack against enemies) than magic users. Regular magic attacks are less effective because they have inherent injury risk (they can lose HP even if the user is completely safe from injury otherwise) and have less chance to succeed due to the increased success thresholds.

I do like the idea of sacrificing resources (gear, GP, time, etc.) to reduce risk on magic, that might be something I add! Thanks for the suggestion.

As for the quests/NPCs/places, that is my next step for sure! I agree, it is very necessary for something like a set of rollable tables with ideas that fit the type of game I want this to be, so that will be my focus for version 1.1!

Thank you again for your feedback, and let me know what you think of my reasoning. Point out any flaws, please!