Making a game. You roll for STR, WIS and CHA (no more stats).

Seems incredibly generic and basic. What are your design intentions and goals for the system? What are you trying to achieve that other systems which already exist do not?

>>52106922
just some light hearted adventure system. I want something simple for my group; I don't have an specific, prepared setting; but I like to mix fantasy with modern elements (OP's pic). I'll run a mercenary campaign but improvise it depending on the characters my players make. I'm also making a table for backgrounds, and other for monsters; but as far as mechanical rules go, this is all

>>52106922
Also, related to

>What are you trying to achieve that other systems which already exist do not?

I love rules light systems, but I cannot find one that isn't either:
a) pretentious and made solely for the designer's ego, disregarding the fact that other people has to play it
b) optimized for dungeons (or taking unnecesary things from DnD)
c) imperfect for some reason (to my needs, and my humble opinion)

>>52106887
Bump just in case I can get some nightly opinons

also more feats:

HP is always d6+your level, you get it back after a rest.

I'm thinking on making combat a Roll vs STR to hit, on a miss you're hit

OR

both combatants roll damage at once, difference is dealt to the lowest roller.

In that case, the fighter ability would be "take the highest of your rolls" rather than add them together

File: Tapestry strike the posterior of thine wench.jpg (120KB, 685x600px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 685x600px

Rolling for stats is fine but you don't make players roll for stats unless the impact of their stats is very low. As in maximum bonuses or negatives are within the 5-15% ranged like DnD.

Rolling for stats AND using roll under is a recipe for disaster. Someone who rolls a 15 on a stat and somebody who rolls a 9 on a stat has a 30% difference in chance to succeed, as opposed to a usual 5-10% difference.

You need to consider the weight of the mechanics you want to implement in your game before just throwing them together willy nilly. I'm sure you saw the mechanics over from OSR or Into the Odd but that doesn't automatically make them good OP.

Start again.

>>52109738
thank you anon. You're right. I'm not aiming at making a "simulationist" game, Im more a story games guy. My idea is that rolling under was good success, and rolling over was "success with consequences" or failure, as the situation demanded, mostly.

Yeah, i think i wanted to mix World of Dungeons and Into the odd in one. Just that I think that the 7-9 result comes up too much in the first one, so I wrote this in a hurry.

File: a556c1661f49fe7bd6b61601b1b5a7fa.png (67KB, 920x231px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 920x231px

>>52109828
While the design is a lot different than what you're working with now, you might be interested in taking a look at OpenLegend. It's also built around "success with a twist", even in combat.

>>52109828

Hey, I didn't realize that's what you meant, but now I'm even more confused. It seems as though, under that system, that there is no fail-state? It's always succeed or succeed with consequence?

>>52109893
Yeah, you fail, but sometimes you can fail generally while succeeding at the specific action.

Example:

You're jumping from roof to roof. You describe it as a risky stunt. On a fail, you fall, roll damage.

But let's say that you were loaded with a bag of treasure or something, that was burdening you to cross a river. When you're in the middle of the current, you must roll STR to avoid being carried by the water. On a fail GM might declare that you must let the gold go; but you can make it safely across. Or give you the chance of rolling again. IDK

Whatever the situation demands. Of course it sounds well in my head, but is still untested.

>>52109828
>Yeah, i think i wanted to mix World of Dungeons and Into the odd in one.

Or just Black Hack with the Six Stats fused into three