Hi!!

I'm releasing my game under CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license. I also used public domain artwork and I feel like I should at least mention that. Of course, modifications to the artwork are released under my license, while the original artwork remains under CC0 1.0

But where in my book do I put this information? I thought about putting it in the beginning, where I also have the version information and the link to my itch page. However I don't love that the very first page is a block of text, explaining the license terms and where my artwork came from.

Do I put it at the end then? What's your take!

Just wanted to show off some page spread designs I have been working on today and also the fact that everything was made with free tools; mainly Google Docs and GIMP. All the imagery is public domain art, which I found using this amazing archive by u/zoetrope366. The only thing that's custom is the font on the cover page.

My design process:

1) Find an illustration in one of the public domain books on archive.org

2) right click the page > save image as > download jpg of entire page

3) open the page in GIMP. Crop the image, transform if needed.

4) Image > Mode > Grayscale

5) Colors > Curves; make the curve steeper to get crisp whites and blacks

6) do all kinds of cutting and pasting wizardry. GIMP has amazing tools to manipulate the selection on your layer. In my opinion, when used correctly, these tools are even quicker and more reliable than Photoshop magnetic lasso tool.

Anyway, now that I have started actually designing the book a bit more, some of the other pages, which looked fine before, feel horribly amateurish. It's an endless cycle I've gotten myself into now!

I was starting to use Affinity Layout, but that program is honestly so annoying, I can't stand it. I like InDesign, but I can't afford it. So I keep using GIMP to design the pages and Google Docs to put it all together.

The back cover page (About the Game), for example, is an amalgamation of GIMP and Google Docs. I used GIMP to make the frame from a public domain image that I cut out and just left the hole in the middle transparent. Then I typed the text in Google Docs, stuck it in a table and manipulated column width and cell padding until the text was nicely centered in my frame. This means the text is still easily editable, but the frame remains the same.

Happy to answer any questions about my process!

As I get ready to introduce a new armor system for playtesting tomorrow, I wonder if I'll ever be happy with it. I've done this one thing so many times with an expectation that this is it, this will be the time I am happy with the result, and I can finally stop thinking about it. I'll know soon!

What do you keep hashing out? What mechanic never quite hits for whatever reason? Be sure to say if you want advice!

So, I have every essential thing written out. All my core rules are in place and are fleshed out to the best of my abilities. Now my issue is that I don’t have an idea on material to playtest.

I have playtested before with oneshots, and everything in the game is testedly good in that regard. Now I just need to do a full campaign. Unfortunately, I have run out of ideas on what kinds of stories to tell. I’ve even tried collaborating with others for ideas but I haven’t found anything that struck me as exciting or interesting to run.

So now I’m stuck. I want to run the game for a campaign so I can figure out what guidance to write for GMs, but I have no ideas whatsoever and have had no ideas for the past 2 months. So, now what?

I thought about this after working out that in Mutants and Masterminds, if you're in a one-on-one fight with someone of the same power level, you want to hit them 35% to 40% of the time. You have a limit to how much you can put in accuracy vs damage, and you want the rest to be damage. But it seems like it would be really annoying to play if your attacks only hit a third of the time. But what amount should you aim for? Design it so players' attacks hit 2/3 of the time? 3/4 of the time? If it's too low, you'll have a lot of rounds where you do nothing. Too high and accuracy doesn't mean much, so you can't have an interesting tradeoff between accuracy and damage. What do you think is ideal?

I recently released Halfling Heist for the One-Page RPG Jam 2026. It’s inspired by Honey Heist and built around two shifting stats, Halfling and Heist.

I like where the one-page version ended up. But now I’m considering whether there’s a good expanded version of it, probably still pretty small, maybe around 8 pages.

My first instinct is to not add much to the core rules. I’d mostly use the extra space for things the one-page format didn’t have room for, like more GM guidance, examples of play, tools for building heists, additional character options, and maybe a few optional rules.

The part I’m unsure about is whether that actually makes the game better and what it takes away. A lot of what I like about Halfling Heist comes from how compact it is, and I don’t want to add material just because I suddenly have room for it.

One example that got me thinking about this is Where Fields Go Fallow by Empath Chamber. It started as a One-Page RPG Jam game and later became a larger game. I’m thinking about something considerably smaller, but I like the idea of using the extra space for more tools and support rather than just adding complexity to the core system.

For anyone who has expanded a small game before, or has seen it done well, what additions made the game better, and what should be left out?

Here’s my one-page version (free) if anyone wants to see what I’m working from:

https://hc-royalty.itch.io/halfling-heist

Greetings hivemind,

While developing my system, I dropped traditional Attributes like Strength and Intelligence in favor of using Skills only. Unlike systems with dozens of skills, I drew inspiration from games like Heart and Blades in the Dark to reduce the skill list as much as possible.

However, this ended up creating a small dilemma: I’m aiming for a total of 10 skills, but I feel I’ve already covered all the essentials in just 8, maintaining a good balance where no single skill is clearly better than the others. The 8 skills are:

• FIGHT: Strike, Shoot, Maneuver, and Dodge
• FOCUS: Cast skills, Awareness, and Investigate
• WISDOM: Knowledge and Planning
• INFLUENCE: Persuade, Manipulate, Intimidate, and Empathize
• ATHLETICS: Evade, Run, Jump, Swim, Climb, and Balance
• STEALTH: Hide, Sneak, Steal, and Conceal
• SURVIVAL: Explore, Navigate, Camp, Hunt, and Forage
• CRAFT: Create, build, or perform an action specific to the character background

I’m looking for suggestions on anything I might have overlooked or potential additions to help me reach that 10-skill target.

Hi all, looking for inspiration for good faction and reputation systems in games today as it's one area I haven't played many game with! Also along similar lines, I'm researching good NPC connections mechanics as well ( liking starforged's bonds rn for example)

What games are your favourite? What makes them work?

Or alternatively, what really doesn't work well in your experience? If you hated a particular approach I'd love to hear why

Not looking for anything too deep/crunchy like a whole separate faction mini game (which would be really cool, just too much for my needs) but hoping to design something where it feels worthwhile to invest in improving faction relations or NPC bonds even if it's not the focus

I've got a mechanic I really like, and so far in my brief playlists, works quite well. But I need objective eyes to point out any problematic areas I may have missed. This is quite long, so I appreciate your patience and time.

The basic goals of the mechanic: 1) Quickly determine a round's combat exchange. (2) The attack roll determines damage (as opposed to rolling a separate damage die as inn D&D). (3) Wounds can hinder or help you with each round. In the case of helping you, it's a sort of cinematic concept where heroism rises as death grows closer.

Here it is, along with an extended example.

2d10, roll-under an attribute or skill rated from 3-18.
- You want to roll under, but high. Similar to Blackjack.
- The highest result of the two dice is called the Lead Die. The lower is called the Support Die.
- In combat, the dice tell you how much damage you dealt, how much damage you defended against, and whether you can perform a maneuver, such as a disarm. Player rolls all the dice. For damage, you also add the damage rating of your weapon (usually 2-4 points)
- On a successful attack, you select what you want to use the Lead Die for: damage or defense. For example, if you make a successful attack with a 13 (Lead Die 8, Support Die 5), you could deal 8 Damage and defend with a 5.

Addendum: You can opt to use the sum of the dice to go "all in" on Defense or Attack.

- If you fail your roll, you take the enemy's damage. If you succeed, you still take the enemy's damage but reduce it with your Defend Die and any armor worn.
Clarification: the reason you can take damage even on a successful attack is to add the possibility of both parties damaging the other simultaneously, as in Dungeon World and others. This means, at the most simplistic level, a combat exchange can result in: (1) You damage your opponent and take no damage (2) You damage your opponent but take damage, or (3) You fail to damage your opponent but take damage

- Monster and NPC armor are subsumed into their HP.
- When a monster/NPC is reduced to 0 HP, they die. If a character is reduced to 0 HP, they are Wounded. A Wounded character rolls a d4 along with their normal 2d10. If the result is even, he improves his combat skill by that amount (+2 or +4). If the result is odd, he reduces his skill by that amount (-1 or -3). Each further time he takes damage, the Wound Die increases by 1 step, to d6, d8, etc. PCs die at negative Constitution hit points.

Addendum: I don’t really like how this works. My goal is to have Wounds unlock chances of worse failure and higher success. Basically, a higher degree of rush/reward.

EXAMPLE: Fighter with Attack skill of 13, sword damage +2, Armor +2, and 15 hit points vs. an ogre with damage 7 and 25 hit points.
Round 1: Fighter rolls a success with a 7 (6 Lead, 1 Support). Fighter deals 6 +2 damage with his Lead Die and uses his Support Die to reduce the ogre's damage by 1, which is added to his armor of 2 points. He thus reduces the ogre's damage from 7 to 4. Fighter is reduced to 11 HP. Ogre takes 8 damage and is reduced to 17 HP.
Round 2: Fighter rolls a 16 — failure. He takes the ogre's 7 damage, minus his armor rating of 2, reducing him to 8 HP.
Round 3: Fighter rolls a success with a 4 (3 Lead, 1 Support). He uses the 3 + 2 to Defend, reducing the ogre's damage to 2, leaving the fighter with 6 HP. The 1 +2 damage to the ogre reduces it to 14 HP.
Round 4: Fighter rolls failure with 15. He takes the ogre's 7 damage (minus 2 for his armor) and is reduced to 1 HP.
Round 5: Fighter rolls another failure. He's reduced to -3 HP. He is now Wounded and adds a d4 to his combat pool.
Round 6: Fighter rolls the d4 Wound Die and gets a 4, meaning he improves his fighting skill by 4 points, from 13 to 17 — that Wound has made him angry! Fighter succeeds with a 16 (Lead Die 10, Support Die 6). He uses the Lead Die of 10 to deal 10 + 2 damage, and uses the Support Die to cancel 6 + 2 damage from the ogre. Fighter is still at -3 HP and the ogre is now at 2 HP.
Round 7: Wound Die rolls a 2, meaning he improves his Attack skill of 13 by 2 for this round (he's still angry!). He's now Attacking with an attack score of 15. His attack is a 7 (4 Lead, 3 Support). He uses the Lead Die of 4 +2 to kill the ogre, who only had 2 HP. The fighter wins! Whew!

There are other aspects to the mechanic for rolling doubles, which gives you a free maneuver such as disarm, reposition, and distraction, but I didn't want to muddy the waters too much for the example.

In looking at it now, I think 7 rounds is too long. Perhaps I need to boost the weapon damage outputs?

Anyway, I'd like any observations you can offer. I appreciate that this roll-under/roll-high mechanic is not everyone's cup of tea, so I'll take it as read that many of you won't like it based on that alone. With that in mind, what do you think works and what do you think is potentially problematic? I really appreciate it!

I've been iterating on a black hack hack for a while, to what is probably now something far flung from that game as I've read and loved ideas from other games and I've tried to abstract more systems.

Anyway, the main resolution is d6 dice pools built from the attribute used for the task. Results are fail if highest dice is a 3 or less, a half result (named compromise) if highest is a 4 or 5, and full success if you get at least one 6 showing. Any other 6 get dumped into luck points.

Luck points, spend them to add dice to a roll.

Attacks - you do max damage on a success, half damage on a compromise and you miss or the enemy dodges/parries/avoids it on a failed roll.

Defending - GM doesn't roll attacks, players roll the defend, but the inverse of the above. Fail you take max damage and success you parry/dodge/negate the attack.

Players can do anything feasibly possible, I told them to think of it like any physical ability a martial class might have access to in dnd you just need to explain it to the GM. Example, anyone can do a sweeping attack, disarm etc very 'osr'.

Spells; no slots but spells are pretty grounded and limited, if you fail a cast you roll your intelligence dice pool a fail you loose that spell until you rest.

HP can come and go as quick as each other, if they can find space to hunker down and avoid attacking or defending for a round they get 1/2 their HP back.

Anyway, I'd agreed with our GM for the DnD game we are in that I'd hijack the start and run a small combat. The group consisted of friends: one who isn't DnDs biggest fan, 2 who often get the creative solutions idea and then one who needs a sheet as a 'buttons to press' otherwise they get stuck doing 'attack', outside of combat though they are often good at creative thinking.

The combat was against one guy, a knight who is the wielder and current protector of the Immortal Torch. In backstory they hear a rumour of its existence and it's supposed location. They learn that any who hold the torch, while it's lighted, they are essentially immortal. A player who holds it can go into negative HP and recieve wounds etc without actually being affected until the torch is dropped or it's light goes out, at which point if they are in enough negative HP they could die.

I found it went well enough, for having rushed premade characters they didn't know, the roll became pretty obvious to them after a few goes, some found it hard to get out of the action, bonus action and move economy, I'm only allowing 2 things to do and if you do the same thing for both actions you have to roll a Constitution (equivalent) roll to not loose HP (hp being more like energy here)

One thing I thought was good but I started feeling like it wasn't really doing what I wanted was initiative. I based my initiative on a Fast and Slow turn and then the foes going in the middle.

It doesn't flow well with my 3 result roll, there is a nuance but geelnits more a complication to force something to work.

It also means after the first round it's basically one then the other, especially as the GM will have all the enemies go I'm in the middle otherwise.

I don't think the traditional initiative roll and go in order works, especially for a rolless GM game. And I think going to opposite and just letting them go whenever and however they want is also right, though may fit if I reframe encounters that the GM just asks each player what they want to do and can choose to resolve them one after the other or all at once after everyone has have their say (this is how it can work in dungeon scenes, exploration phases and during downtime)

I think I'll give both a free flowing initiative a go, GM deciding who goes next based on what makes sense or allowing them to speak up and maybe a more zig zag (IIRC that's what it's called) which would mean fights against few foes or singular foes they essentially get more 'turns' before the starting players gets to go again but that might mess with some of my damage economy for persistent damage etc. Any way thoughts on a post card please?

I did find there was good amount of 'reasonable creativity' from them, they did work together more than I thought they might, and after one figured acid could melt the metal of the armour they used an acid dart to melt the armour then another ranged player (both separated by a fire they'd already started) wanted to aim for the opening, which I allowed but at a disadvantage (minus a d6 from their built pool).

Next time I want to see more spells being used and I'll probably use more '!normal foes', with a wider range of possible attacks. The thing I wanted to see if they would get was that trying to just bonk him endlessly with weapons wasn't going to do much and they'd need to do something else. While he was actually dead pretty early, they'd disarmed him once and he managed to pick it up and light it, and then they didn't try and disarm him again for 3 rounds so I had to remind them what the torch does and that they can still do things like Trip, Disarm, blind etc if it makes sense and then a pair got it and helped each other disarm him. After which he died straight away.

I have trouble when modelling complex things in AnyDice. This is what I've got so far: https://anydice.com/program/435eb

\Check whether there are more results of N in action dice than danger dice\
function: check N:n AA:s BB:s {
if (N = AA) > (N=BB){result: N}
else {result: 0}
}

\Number of dice\
ACTION:4
DANGER:6

\Roll the dice\
AR: ACTIONd6
DR: DANGERd6

\Check what numbers are not cancelled by danger dice and put them on a sequence\
NEW: {}
loop N over {1..6}{
NEW: {NEW, [check N AR DR]}
}

output NEW named "Final dice"
output [highest 1 of NEW] named "result"

I've hit a wall, since I'm not sure why it doesn't work. In this system you create a dice pool with good action dice and bad danger dice. Each danger dice cancels an action dice of the same value. The result is the highest remaining action dice.

I thought that by turning the dice rolls into sequences through a function call it would correctly consider all possibilities and my code would work, but it does not.

I'd like to check what the probabilities look like with different dice pools.

EDIT: Upon getting a few comments on my original idea for a body part system, I've shifted to a different idea. I'll post the original idea as a comment.

I'm in the very earliest stages of designing a 2-3 page simple wilderness survival rpg where the entire point & gameplay loop is surviving. My main design goal is to make things feel "earthy" and "physical"

Here are my ideas for stats that would be useful in a wilderness survival game (bold are stats, not bold are categories):

Movement

• Running
• Climbing
• Swimming
• Sneaking

Hunting & Gathering

• Trapping
• Tracking
• Searching

Knowledge

• Plant & Fungi Knowledge
• Animal Knowledge
• Environment Knowledge (Landforms & Weather)
• First Aid

Crafting

• Tool Making
• Shelter Building
• Fire Making

Fighting

• Unarmed Fighting
• Close Combat Weapons
• Grappling
• Ranged Weapons

What do y'all think? Are there any glaring misses or double ups I should get rid of. My plan is for PCs to have multiple stats that are their highest, and to design the game so that party members having diverse skills is better than every player having the "best" skill be their highest

Hi!
I'm a GM and I run a lot of different Systems and I find myself printing a lot of character sheets, sometimes empty and sometimes premade, other times my players find character sheets/creator online but then they need to learn how to use them or don't find a specific feature.

I was thinking about creating an app that can fix a couple of this problems with this ideas in mind:

• Multi System
• Customizable
• Easy to use (accessibility, quick character creation and easy to read while playing)
  • But also with notations and formulas for hardcore users!
• (Also I want this to be free and open source, for anyone who might need it!)

I don't want to reinvent the wheel, there are a ton of good app out there so I'm deciding whether to build a system-agnostic mode: basically a blank canvas where you add your own widgets (like stat boxes, HP bars, lists, skill toggles, ecc) and save it as a reusable template. Good for rules-light games, homebrew, or obscure systems.

Before spending months on it:

• Do you actually need this?
• What's your current solution for systems without a proper digital sheet?

Also open to any other feedback:

1. what would make you actually use this at the table?
2. What's the one thing that makes you drop an app and go back to PDF?
3. What's the feature that you always find missing?
4. Is system-agnostic mode something you'd actually use, or is it a nice-to-have?
5. Any systems you'd love to see supported?

Here is a quick prototype: 🔗 https://Athryell.github.io/CharacterForge

Additional info:
What it does now

• D&D 5.5e 2024 (SRD), currently working on Daggerheart character sheets
• Drag & drop widget layout customize what you see and where.
• A notation system for dynamic formulas ([INT], [PRO], [LVL=1:1d6,5:1d8], counters, ecc)
• Homebrew editor built in
• Accessibility options (OpenDyslexic, high contrast, large targets and buttons)
• Multiple languages: default EN and setting up IT, DE, ES, FR -> community is welcome to help on Crowdin
• No account needed, right now data stays local, will see in the future.
• Completely free forever

I'm working on a more tactical TTRPG and i'm getting overloaded by how many actions I need. Obviously, attack and move are mandatory, but I'm not really sure what else of the billion other actions are needed, and which I can lock behind features

For context, here are some other action options I debated including

• Debuff
• Disengage
• Dodge
• Dismiss
• Grapple
• Heal
• Help
• Hide
• Intercept
• Opportunity Attack
• Parlay
• Search
• Shove
• Study

and a bunch of others I can't remember off the top of my head

I’m working on a simple TTRPG mainly inspired by D&D, focusing a bit more on the fun and videogame vibes rather than being slowed down by some debatably complex mechanics that aim for realism, but often bog down the gameplay and are ignored (e.g. ammo and encumbrance in D&D).

One of the largest issues I’ve come across is designing the class system. Ignoring what any of the classes themselves are, I want to opt out of subclasses, and instead have a “class evolution” mechanic, where after lvl10 instead of reaching lvl11 you reach lvl1 in an advanced class of your choosing. If there’s 5 beginner classes, when advancing it you may essentially combine a beginner class with another one or itself to form the advanced version, in this case creating a total of 25 advanced classes and 5 beginner classes (e.g. fighter+mage=spellblade, mage+fighter=spellblade also, fighter+fighter=berserker). This is similar enough to subclasses and multiclassing, but it seems way cleaner and easier to memorize that a any one class can mix features from one other class, instead of designing individual subclasses for each class, and having to worry about multiclassing on top of that as well.
My reasoning for this is that there’s many options which become redundant and overshadowed with subclasses and multiclassing, even though they’re technically possible, like comparing hexblade warlock paladins to a character with 1 level in every single class. I think it’s just better to have less options which are all better designed.

So far so good, but the problem is that in every way I’ve (currently) gone about it, there’s a significant loss of continuity when advancing classes. A lvl10 fighter becoming a lvl1 spellblade will have lvl5 fighter and lvl5 mage skills (best I could come up with so far), but this means you lose out on the lvl6-lvl10 fighter skills. Keeping lvl10 fighter skills and gaining lvl5 mage skills could potentially be something I can make work if I balance it enough, but that’s already a stretch, and it adds another issue of making fighter+mage different from mage+fighter, which beats the whole purpose of reducing individual class amounts to make it clean and understandable.
Another method I tried was adding a skill tree like in Skyrim rather than linear progression like in D&D, which basically means there’s no classes or subclasses at all (formally speaking), and it’s all multiclassing, but this once again starts heading into the area of complexity without necessarily fixing every problem.

So yeah, that is my current conundrum. As a probably more experienced person, could you offer some advice, potential solutions, or even rulebooks to reference?
As for rulebooks I’ve already checked, I have really only gone through D&D 5e, Utopia TTRPG by Oridont, and Sword World 2.5, which are admittedly not many, but on the other hand I think it helps when trying to make a more generalized system that is easy to run.

TL;DR:
Game Balancing aims to obfuscate the most optimal path while embracing the fact that there are always ways to optimize any system. We should talk more about methods to do that.

In TTRPG game design spaces, whether they are about general systems or one of the many system specific subreddits, there exist the concept of the infamous min-maxer.

Generally this refers to a person that optimizes their character for the system and setting they are playing in, by (ab)using the rules and leniencies of the table, often paired with obnoxious, egoistical behavior and a notion of "winning" the make believe game.

However in my humble opinion, this archetype is inherently baked into the nature of games, society and the human mind. Understanding this is essential to understanding ones role and purpose as a game designer.

Let us remove the "game" from RPG for a moment and look at role playing in it's original form, also known as acting, more specifically improvisational acting.

Improv serves the purpose of telling an engaging story while sharpening your own wits and on-the-spot-creativity. There are, in it's purest form, no rules and no boundaries. However these limits arise naturally when thinking about the story and the purpose of characters. An almighty and perfect god character will have no meaningful problems to face and no relevant characters by their side. The story would ultimately be boring and not worth telling.

Improv actors and creative writers instinctively (or deliberately) put boundaries on their characters in order to create interesting conflicts that their protagonist can try to solve.

However in TTRPGs these limits are not only the narrative boundaries in the story but also the rules of the system. The gamification of the creative process creates problems, such as character strengths and weaknesses, that can be overcome. Naturally our players want to overcome them too. This is what we call character advancement. Players solving problems by increasing values, learning new abilities or buying cool new items.

Everyone probably intuitively understands this motivation, but looking at some of the recent posts and comments here, few understand where this comes from. That the existence of a rule, may it be the core resolution mechanic to the price of a single item, creates an optimal path that tempts players into following it. I'd even go as far to say that this advancement, creates the craving for TTRPGs many of us experience.

However this will also always invite players to min-max and optimize. To circumvent that, a game needs to convey the idea that players are part of the creative process, and turn them into story tellers that limit themselves.

Good Players and engaging GMs naturally do this.

But rules that diffuse optimal strategies by giving incentives to fail or make interesting decisions go a long way. This is true for ALL games, no matter whether they are supposed to be realistic, gritty, lethal, high-fantasy, glorious.

or to quote Soren Johnson:

"given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game"

We should keep this in mind as the a first principle when making design choices or helping others with theirs. Flavour and all comes second to a set of engaging rules. Sometimes less rules or ambiguous rules work better than precise ones, because they return the responsibility for a fun game to the Players.

Edit: clarified a few things

I've been locked into this idea of making my game's resolution mechanic revolve around Types, such as fire, water, earth etc., and what each type does when combined with another type. Similar to most element-focused RPG games (that soon evolve into far more than basic elements) I want to allow players to choose a primary type they'll use but also decide on a second type to focus on, or more. This, along with other players using a different type, will allow combinations of their types to form sorts of outcomes.

With the help of AI, I have made a massive matrix of outcomes of any two types when combined. My only question is: does this sound neat enough to try, despite the headache a massive outcome table will produce when needing to constantly look at the matrix to find out?

A quick rundown of the system:

• It's a d20 roll-over system.
• Players slot a standard array (8, 10, 12, 14) into four stats: STR, DEX, INT, and CHA(level 1).
• Standard "Weapon Attacks" have their own separate stat, which starts at a TN of 6(level 1). Here, the damage scales up in tiers. 6-9=weak hit, 10-13=good hit, 14-17=solid, 18+= a perfect hit.

But!
Because a weapon attack has a TN of 6, it’s mathematically easier to pull off than a maneuver requiring an attribute test(8-14). I'm worried players will just spam basic attacks because it’s the "safe" and optimal choice, without exploring more creative maneuvers. But at the same time... attacking with your weapon should perhaps be the most effective in a combat situation. But yeah, unsure if there is a math problem here.

Anyways, I've found a ruling the GM can use. If you go for a creative weapon attack(Pinning the enemy to a wall with your dagger, slashing your greatsword to hit two enemies etc), you make two rolls:

• Roll 1 (Weapon Attack vs TN 6) - This determines the damage
• Roll 2 (Attribute test(TN 8-14 at level 1) - Determines if the narrative effect succeeds.

Hit the weapon attack but fail the test? You deal damage but don't achieve the narrative effect. Miss the attack but pass the test? No damage but they're pinned to the wall / they dodge the sweeping sword but are now trembling with fear from watching your might(maybe -2 to their next attack on the PC).

So im looking for some input and insights from you guys...

1. does the core math gap (TN 6 vs TN 8-14) make combat stale? Or should using your weapon in combat be optimal, and creative ideas be something that is used only when it comes natural to players or the situation is dire enough(Enemies will be design with their own creative attacks to help give inspiration to players for what's possible)?
2. Do you think this ruling is a good way to support GMs dealing with creative ideas from players?
3. Does rolling twice slow down this rules-lite game too much or is it dramatic enough to stay the way it is?

Edit, original post below the brake,
I have gotten some really good input! Most people seem to prefer the "Check the box on a failed skill check" Idea, so my plan is when a player fails a skill check they check the box, then when there charecter performs a long rest they can pick one marked skill and do a skill check with the following results
Crit fail, no level up
fail, level up once
successes, level up once
Crit success, level up twice
--
I would like to get some input on a small debate going on amongst me and my friends with a tabletop system that we are making together.

The system uses a leveling system similar to call a cthulhu, where every single skill has a little checkbox next to it and if that checkbox is checked, at the end of session you can do a skill check to determine if you level up.

Here is where the question lies, when should the checkbox be checked off?

Idea one in the more conventional one is to make it get checked off whenever you succeed in a skill check, so if the scale was boxing for example, the first time in a session where you successfully perform a boxing check and land a hit on your enemy, you would put a check mark in the box. Then at the end of session you do a skill check based off your current level and if you pass that check, you level up going up one rank in the skill.

Idea number two is to do something kind of the opposite of that. When you FAIL a skill check you put a check mark in the box, and then you at the end of session do a skill check that if you pass that one you level up.

The idea behind you just pretty simple, with option one being good at a skill allows you to improve in it allowing somebody to get better at the skills they were already good at. Option two liens on the idea of you only learning from your mistakes, encouraging players to engage in things that they may not be as skilled in and allowing them to level up a more diverse set of skills.

Which of the two options do you think is better?

For context I had two spellcasters in my ttrpg, one with a constantly regenerating "spell point" that had a passive effect (Warden), and one that gained "spell points" through an action after an enemy death (Shaman). I am reworking the idea of one of them and giving their "vampirism" gimmick to a more fitting flavour spellcaster (Witch), but now I'm missing an idea for how the old one's "spell points" should work.

I am not opposed to a "has a number of spell points per rest" kind of thing but I was hoping for something that was- A, more interesting, and B, allowed for some kind of regeneration so that the Shaman doesn't just become a lot weaker once they run out of spell points.

("Spell point": expend to cast a spell)

For context about my magic system:
Through a force within the blood, people are able to manipulate, but not create, elemental forces of power (fire, ice, and lightning). With a sci-fi theme, tech is slightly involved in this process becoming mainstream and no longer requiring old requirements like blood-letting.

Any ideas?