12XX - Fate and Fantasy
A downloadable game
My first attempt at making an RPG. Relies heavily on creativity and cooperation between players and GM. Intended to be light, quick fun and can be applied to any fantasy setting. Rules are flexible and meant to be bent to fit your preferences.
Let me know if you spot a mistake or think an area needs improvement.
Initially created in roughly 4 days.
Version 1.1 Update:
- Added third page titled 'Game Mastery' to give an idea of the type of setting intended for 12XX, along with a example of how 12XX is intended to be played. These are meant to be loose guidelines and inspiration that GMs can adapt to their own preferences.
- Added a printer friendly version that will use less ink if you intend on physically printing the rules.
- My friend Richard and I are working on a website for this game, so that you can play it online with friends! More info to come!
Based on and uses the 24XX toolkit by Jason Tocci.
Inspiration from 74 / 00, 1400, 1420 Beasts & Barrows, Dungeon Soul, D&D 5e, Pathfinder 2e.
Download
Development log
- Version 1.1May 10, 2024
Comments
Log in with itch.io to leave a comment.
Ok, this is pretty rad. Nice work.
Thanks for checking it out!
I love the addition of HP.
Do enemies/monsters also have HP?
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.”
I think that works perfectly.
Do you also adjust how much damage a monster can deal based on power level or is it all the same?
What happens when some players choose to up their HP after advancing a level and others don't? Does that create an imbalance? I'd imagine that the characters with the increased HP would be so much more durable.
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).
Nice 💜. If you accept feedback and suggestions, this is for you:
Not sure if I like the different result table for magic (dunno, I find it not very elegant). Maybe there's a way to get that result in a different way? For example, keeping the original table but explaining that, with magic, you suffer 1 additional Risk, no matter what the result is. So the GM could give more collateral effects every time that magic is used.
Also, you could suggest some systems that negate the additional Risk, for example using lot of time (emulating Rituals), or sacrificing HPs before the roll, or expending useful stuff (ingredients, treasures, breaking the staff etc.), or accepting the energy shortage that force you to NOT use the magic again in the scene.
Finally, I strongly suggest you to add, sooner or later, one or two pages with the iconic suggestions for quests/NPCs/places etc., 'cause they are both useful to spark immagination and to indirectly do some kind of world building, a subtle way to suggest what you think is cool, what you hope the players will explore and confront in your game.
PS: About the additional Risk, maybe you could describe how, with 8+ result, the mage can avoid it thanks to his shear luck or fate playing a part in that specific narrative moment.
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!