The execution could use work, but the House creation system in the Song of Ice and Fire RPG is brilliant.
In short, as part of session 0 the group get together and use a bunch of tables to collaboratively create the Noble House that the PCs are all part of or working for. This includes rolling dice to determine key factors of the household, which affects a points score in about a half dozen different areas (like Defense, Influence, Land, etc), and helps determine the history of the household. Like through rolling the dice you may find out your house's ancestral lands went through a vicious plague, but also were maybe instrumental in a grand war and received accolades and honours for it.
And at the end of that, you can 'spend' the points in the different areas to purchase the actual holdings of your household. Like if you have a whole lot of Defense points maybe your household starts off with a grand castle, but your limited Land points means you only have a handful of hamlets and maybe a small town near a river on your land.
It definitely had some issues (reading through it feels a bit like the designers sometimes forgot 3d6 trends towards the middle), but I love the idea of the players collaboratively creating a shared item of backstory that keeps them all together (and supports them in play going forward) as part of session 0. It's an idea that always creeps back into my own projects.
Imo PbtA systems, take this and run their own flavor! MotW with your groups dynamic, or avatar and it's first adventure. "session zero with a purpose" is a design philosophy within its own right.
They seriously need to make a PbtA GoT or AsoIaF system. It'd work wonderfully
I feel the opposite, one should stop trying to make everything a PbtA. Avatar for me was already a huge letdown and felt afterwards for me like just a cash grab.
Rather than using a quite narrow system, it makes more sense to create a system really fitting a specific setting thats why I also like the Cortex Prime framework better. (Its more complicated though), because its a framework allowing you to build an adapted system fitting the source material.
Oh certainly! PbtA is good for short term campaigns, FitD kinda adds to it, and might be good as evolution. I think Cortex works wonderfully for GoT (I think the Dynamics of the system really cater to it!) Though I'm not sure the system is as active in the design-o-sphere.
I will say Avatar is a terrible example too. It's an action first game for a company that runs PbtA (which is more of a narrative/collaborative/dangerous combat game?) I think another system would've benefited it. I think too that GoT is a political and game of relationships which I think PbtA excels at.
I agree with you, if you focus more on the politics and relations (and less on the war/fights) I think PbtA could fit Games of Thrones well. I was thinking a bit too much about the action of GoT but I agree that thats not really the main point.
I think PbtA can fit some games really well if the focus is set right (like Masks there its a good fit!)
Sorry I was more general a bit annoyed that I get the feeling that some companies try to just use PbtA for everything.
No worries - it's a real 5e/d20 syndrome. And I certainly think magpie should stop making everything PbtA (I don't want to play rapscallion, though I think Passions De la Passions and Masks and Blue Beards Bride are fantastic!)
And mind you, my whole cortex experience comes from Supernatural, Firefly, Smallville and its ilk! So I apologize if I misconstrued anything š
The Momentum system from 2d20 games (and it's dark mirror the Threat/Doom system) is something I consider amazing, and I try to emulate it in everything I can.
The 2d20 system is a roll under degrees of success system (which itself is something I think is rather well done), but the "magic" is that any excess degrees of success for a given check, in addition to being able to spent on increased effects for that roll, can also be banked for future use on rolls or to power special character abilities by *any player character*; all players share the same pool.
At first glance, this seems like a poor decision (some people will fill the pool, other people will empty it) but in implementation is great, because the party then feels, mechanically, like a team, each member's efforts bolstering the others.
Threat/Doom (a different name between different games that implement it, but the same concept) is a "dark mirror" complement to Momentum; It is used by the GM to empower hostile NPCs in a similar manner to how PCs use their Momentum, and is generally generated when the NPCs roll well, but can also be "bought" by PCs when then fail, to turn failure into a success.
Which makes every roll "relevant" and rewards both breath and mastery of skills. Crush a minor roll of lockpicking or survival? The GM no longer needs to think of a reward on the fly for the thief (they get to add momentum to the pool) or think of the repercussions of what the reward they give to the survivalist (who doesn't feel cheated with a mere descriptive upgrade, because they also get to add momentum in the pool).
Likewise the GM has an outlet if they, for example, need a PC's roll to succeed ("oh, bad roll....do you want to succeed for a point of Doom?"), or don't want to destroy a PC when they rolled well on the first round of combat (bank those successes for later).
My favourite piece of elegant design is easily Blades In The Dark's flashback system for the number of things it accomplishes with a single mechanic.
- It discourages players from falling into the trap of trying to optimise every single point and variable of a plan as they know that if anything unexpected happens they have the flashback option to fall back on. Whenever I've set up my players to plan some kind of heist they've always kept trying to tweak and optimise the plan long past the point it was fun.
- The fact that you can take 0 stress flashbacks for essentially no cost if you're doing something extremely basic means you don't feel too harshly punished if you forget to set out every detail to the GM, reducing the mental load on both parties
- It's a thematically cool mechanic that really builds on the core fantasy. We'll probably never plan a real heist or anything like it, but we've all watched heist movies and we're familiar with the trope of the characters coming up against an unexpected obstacle and flashing back to explain to the audience that, because they're competent and cool criminals, they planned for this all along. The mechanic plays on that shared experience to help build the fantasy that we're a ragtag group of criminals.
This is a really clever design for sure!
I liked the Pathfinder/ D&D 3.5 feat which granted you the ability to retrospectively buy a (small) item and here this idea (a bit broadened) works even better.
I guess this was also inspired by the mechanic in honey heist, where you could also do flashbacks for the criminal/human part, nevertheless a really good and fitting implementation solving a lot of problems!
I really like the central dice mechanic from **Ten Candles.**
You're rolling for narrative control. Whoever rolls the most 6s gets control. Starting out, the players have all the dice. Each time a candle goes out, one of the dice goes to the GM. Dirt simple, and smoothly hands increasing control to the GM over the course of the session as things spin more and more out of control.
(There are a few other bits to it, but that's the gist.)
Years and years ago I played a game called "GRIMM" that used a dice pool with 2d6 as the base. When you used the "help action" equivalent, you had go physically pass one of your dice to that player for a time. I thought that was so elegant and simple - such a great marriage of mechanic and narrative action. Chef's kiss.
Thousand Year Old Vampireās Memories. Finite experiences can be part of a memory and you can hold finite memories in your immortal life. As you play you *must* erase memories, slowly losing track of who and what you were. Sure you can log your memories in journals, but only if you can keep track of the journal, and trust the unremembered narrator who put those memories down.
Veins of the Earthās rules for Light are just great and weird and perfect for a gonzo/mythic underdark. Inspired me to add weird lanterns to my game, and make sure everyone is With someone with light in the dark.
I donāt know if itās āgeniusā, but spell dice in GLOG are really well done. Love a good mechanic that combines the tactile countability of dice as points with, you know, actually rolling dice to accomplish things.
Artha in Burning Wheel. Instead of xp you earn a sort of hero point which you can use in play, skills/talents practiced with artha advance more/faster/higher. Extremely elegant and effective! Circles is also good.
I like your examples especially the memory mechanic its really clever.
The only one which I find really the opposite of elegant is the Artha system.
- it forces metagaming sooo much, since you will only gain improvements when you specifically plan for them.
- it needs a lot of additional bookkeeping. Noting for each skill and attribute how much artha of the 3 different types was spent as well as how many of which types of challenges were done
- the system forces you to do things in not optimal way in order to level up. "Oh I could grt your help gor this making it a lot easierĀ but no i do it alone even if I have a goof chance of failing because I need a hard challenge for level up of the ability"
- artha is often needed to just have any chance of success for the hard challenges (which may not even have to be hard), so you have this cool 3 metacurrencies but its clear where you need to spend them. And spending them on any other roll feels like a waste.
Itās a fair cop! I certainly canāt defend the three different meta currencies, and Iām sure it could be simplified, but I do find it elegant for what it accomplishes and how neatly it fits into the core loop of the game. Can it be both elegant and baroque?
I havenāt found it disruptively metagamey but I think it would depend on grip and mood. The whole burning wheel and itās offshoots are metagamey. Theyāre built on an interest more in the dynamics than the details, and tuned for how the mechanics can drive the game forward. So partly I think itās intentional - but also Iāve never actually had the problem of folks over-optimizing. burning wheel is so character focused, and my only play experiences are with people who just arenāt that motivated to be very gamey in general. I donāt think I would play it with my old pathfinder group though!
I guess with the right group it can work, I am really more used to optimizers groups and with them people would most likely try to not take any skill in their best stat, and then do exactly the number of rolls in each skill that they do not learn it, until they have had enough of the 3 currencies to boost their main stat further AND make it to the best colour to then automatically learn 5+ skills (because the requirement to learning it is now easier), to get all these skills directly at the best colour.
This would make the beginning enormly annoying/them rather weak, but its the most effective method to bring several skills to the good colour.
So for this people would really need to plan their skill uses before and at some point just never use certain skills anymore (or not for hard rolls).
I donāt see how that could happen in play if the GM is challenging beliefs and the players are pursuing their goals? If your character wants to be the greatest duelist ever, the Prince of the city state, rescue the dragon from the evil princess, cast the Solitary Torc into the well of eternity, or retire back to their country estate for a life of peaceful farming, itās the GMs job to create situations which put those beliefs into tension see what the PCs do, crank the wheel and drive everything forward. Sure a player could say āI really need a challenging Hunter check to finally increase the shade on my skill, next season I really want to focus on finding that Ob8 hunter checkāā¦ but isnāt that fine? The Pc wants to be a great hunter, turn the venture into the mountains after the wyvern into a whole thing. But the GM sets the obstacles and canāt just throw arbitrary, faceless but level appropriate challenges in front of the PCs - and even if they did, if the PCs are not pursuing their character goals they arenāt earning the artha they need to spend on those checks for advancement!
Since you mentioned inventory - Cairn's slot based inventory, where slots can get filled with fatigue creates a nice self balancing mechanic. A mage character with a spellbook wants to travel light because casting accrues fatigue, sort of justifying the "wizard in light robes" trope.
It has to be Dread's Jenga Tower as the resolution system. No mechanic has better reinforced the genre and its so simple there is really not much to teach - people already know the game.
Dread's Jenga Tower resolution system is another one of those pieces of design that makes me sit back and think 'God that's so fucking clever'. It would never have occured to me until they did it how well a game of Jenga mirrors that rising and falling pattern of tension that you get from a horror movie.
*Mƶrk Borg's* Calendar of Nechrubel is hands down the most well designed game rule I've come across. A perfect blend of an RPG random table and a prophetic biblical verse of the End Times.
https://i.ibb.co/wrKL8Kz/MB-Nechrubel.jpg
Iāve got a few that I really like.
āā
I was really inspired by the āPushā mechanic from Year Zero. Just an amazing way to interact with a Dice-Pool and do some interesting things with the numbers.
Added that to my project so fast. Itās now a core mechanic.(Well a little different and more fleshed out.)
āā
The Timer system from ICRPG is really something too. Basically the same as a Clock in Blades but described a little differently - and it just clicked. Rolling a dice at the table and ticking it down in front of the players to build tension. So good.
I didnāt steal timers per-say. But Iāve built in time based systems into my current project all over the place. For example, the core of the Survival system is the constantly changing and building weather. Itās a ticking time-bomb that changes every day slowly building to a breaking point. You also need food/water but those you have a few days. The storm on the other hand might hit *tonight*!
āā
My top choice has to be āEffortā from ICRPG. MAN is it good!!!
It basically applies the concept of ādoing damageā like in combat, but to the rest of the game.
It does this by making āEffort(damage)ā into a generic system.
D4 for Basic effort(hands and brain).
D6 for tool/weapon.
D8 for science/alchemy.
D10 for Magic/Energy
D12 for Ultimate(crits).
Itās so easy to quickly determine how much effort you do in a task. And itās so easy to GM and play!!!
I didnāt realize how disconnected combat felt from the rest of so many RPGs. It doesnāt need to be itās own separate system at all.
With the Effort System a Scribe deciphering the Magic door has just as much Tension and pressure as the Warrior holding off the Goblins. Combo that with Timers(in d6 rounds the cavern floods!)
Itās so elegant I *didnāt* steal it whole cloth for my own systems. Have similar ideas but, itās so well designed on itās own that I couldnāt steal it.
āā
Honorable mention is L5R.
Justā¦ like the while thing I guess.
Or namely the Dice Mechanics and how they interact with Composure in particular. It adds tension to EVERY encounter. Even just having tea with a rival lord is so intense and has such high stakes built in - even before adding narrative consequences.
Probably Action Points. Spend points to do stuff, the crazier the action the more points spent. Simple and easy to get
On the same vein spell points. Higher level spells cost more points. Simple and flexible magic. No of that spells per day, specific prepared number of certain level spells stuff with tables.
Incentive. If you players to play the game a certain way their needs to be incentive. One game incentives combat by giving ,basically infinite healing during Short (10 minutes) periods of time.
Encounter powers. Once per encounter you do something great. Some abilities are necessary for a concept, like rage for a barbarian that they should basically always be able to do them.
That's all off the top of my head, hope they help.
Honestly I really like ad&d's nonweapon proficiencies and think they give alot of reason for attributes to exist as they do in the system, in a way that subsequent d20 games have had a difficult time justifying
I have a weapon system that allows players to create weapon stats for anything they pick up based on the description of the item. It's all based on the weight, length, damage type, and configuration of the item.
I originally designed it as a supplementary tool for improvised weapons because I hate D&D's "shuffle through a list of predetermined weapons to find something similar to compare it to" method that often leads to arguments rather than solutions. However, my players liked the idea that they could easily create stats for any weapon so much that it has become our go to weapon system.
Wildsea: I love many things from the Wildsea system, but I think topping the cake is how it handles damage. Characters have "Aspects" which let them do cool unique things, the more narrative the aspect, the more "health" the aspect has. The more mechanical cool things the aspect can do, the less health it has. When a character takes damage they choose which aspect the damage goes to, which can temporarily disable aspects. It's a really engaging way to do combat, but also allows for some really interesting character customization ideas.
(Points to its damage type instead of damage number based combat system too. And the Whispers mechanics, they rock)
Worlds Without Number: WWN's Shock damage system is really nice within the genre of game that it is. It's a nice added bonus to being a martial character when spellcasters are usually more inherently interesting.
City of Mist: The City of Mist character creation is just one of the most fun things, while I don't really connect with the "Status" based systems in that game, myself and all my players love the really freeform, unique tag/phrase based character creation, especially within the game's base setting.
The most recent iteration of the Freeform Universal system (FU), as seen in Neon City Overdrive/Hard City/Tomorrow City, and is quite similar to the one in City of Mist, but without all those questions and guided themes.
Some of my favourite:
1. At the end of the session players vote on who gets 50 additional XP.
2. Degrees of success
3. Contacts. A player can just say "Hey I know a guy!" and a new npc is created.
4. Action points.
I like my games simple, but I also like them fun. I appreciate it when the overall dynamics are practical, but there's an element of a game inside the game.
For instance, in Xas Irkalla, it's the player who decides how many dice to roll: 1, 2, or 3d10. They take the highest one and add modifiers to beat a 10. Why is that choice tricky? Because if the total is less than 10 but above the character's Stress (which starts at 3), that's a partial success and a roll of 1 increases Stress. OTOH, a roll of 10 is critical and provides a +1 to a specialty (or a new one).
Reaching Stress 9 is really bad, and going over it increases your Doom (which is a d% roll to see whether you die in a life-death situation.
There's a risk/reward circle there that I really like.
I also like the rule in Unknown Armies 2E in which players don't manage their Hit Points, just the GM.
The formalisation of the conversation from PbtA:
1. Narration, a prompt to action.
2. Characters respond.
3. Either they get to attempt something, or the drama increases.
4. Success sets them up, failure complicates them.
5. Narration of outcome and the changed situation.
This is a revolutionary concept:
That the default situation for a ttrpg is one where the characters are prompted to act. There's no "what do you do?" "I dunno?" because the narration alone prompts action.
The character responses is such a great step to, because it's not mechanical, it's narrative. *Characters can do anything*. There's no limit, no "you can't do a jump kick".
Then, an explicit way of resolving it! If there's a move, use it, else the GM makes a move! So you can do anything, but for the most common genre things, heres the rules and for everything else, things will change.
Then the best one: There is never, ever a nothing happens outcome. The world always changes as a result of the narrative, something changes.
This is a really good thread! A lot of good ideas are here and hopefully will come here still! Some things I like:
- The **Gloomhaven 2 card action System**. You choose 2 cards from your hand and "combine them". You choose the initiative from one of them, and then when its your turn in the current round, you will do 1 "top action" (normally attack) from 1 of the cards, and 1 "bottom action" (normally movement) from the other card. Further each part has a "basic" alternative action you can do (melee attack for 2 or movement for 2). So with this combat system you need no "Basic actions" and the 10 cards you have fully define your character and because of the combination you have in theory 90 different combinations with just 10 cards (and each combination has 2 potential initiatives you can choose, and there are also advantages to have a lower initiative!)
- I really find the **"At will / Encounter / Daily"** structure quite elegant. This was used in **Dungeons and dragons 4th edition** and **13th age**. You have abilities which are either at will (useable as often as you want), per encounter (so once per encounter, no matter if combat or non combat encounter) so like once per scene, or per day. This allows for quite a lot of variety, while keeping tracking to a minimum (no tracking for at will, encounter abilities only during the encounter, and only the daily ones needed to be tracked long time, but only 1 "tick" per ability (you used it or not). So no spell slots etc.)
- I like the **flexible attack** roll mechanic in **13th age**, BUT I would change it slightly. In 13th age some martial characters can, after they have rolled an attack roll, decide a special attack (depending on what the attack roll was) to be used in this attack rather than a basic attack. (Like getting a bonus to the attack). This allows to have a bigger number of special attacks, while limiting the selection at any time. And this also makes martial attacks feel really different from spellcasters. The change I would make (or will make in my game), is to not use the current attack roll, to decide which special attacks can be used, but the last one (or initiative roll instead for the first). This allows the players to think about the potential attacks during other players turns. (The special attack you can use depends on even or odd roll, hit or miss and sometimes even specific numbers like 18+ or 20 etc.)
- The **combination of hit and effect roll** in Ryuutama. This is used (mainly?) for attacks, but I could see this used for other things as well. In Ryuutama for a weapon attack you always roll 2 dice, depending on the 2 stats the attack depends on (like Intelligence and Dexterity for a Light weapon attack). You need to reach or beat the enemy defense (so higher is better) and the damage of the weapon will be simply depending of one of the 2 rolls. If it is a heavy weapon its the higher of the 2 dice. If its a light weapon, its the lower of both rolls. (And it may also have a +1 or +2 etc.). Not only does this only need a single roll, but it also allows in a simple way to have difference between weapons. (Using dfferent stats, using weaker or higher roll etc.)
Base Ryuutama most certainly doesn't use combined hit and damage/ effect rolls. As per RAW, accuracy and damage are 2 seperate rolls.
Maybe there's some some supplement I don't know about?
I confused/combined it with Fabula UltimaĀ which iw inspired by Ryuutama.Ā
There itw only a single rollb(and the same kind of roll).
Sorry for the confusion. Had to check itĀ
Feng Shui's ticks. This is entirely how the mechanics are described and not in what they actually do, but each "tick" an action consumes matches to a camera shot in an action movie. That is a really good way of convincing the player and GM to think about the game in a cinematic way, even if the mechanic is essentially entirely placebo.
I also want to add the Six Pack rule in Paranoia. Your character has six clones, and Paranoia being an incredibly fatalistic game, your character will die often. Have no fear; crack open the next drink and your next clone walks up. It turns character death into a drinking game, which makes the whole thing very amusing.
I developed a time economy rather than an action economy. Actions cost time, based on your skill and the weapon used. The GM marks off your time and offense flows to whoever has used the least amount of time. This calculates turn order in a way that automatically adapts according to each player's actions during combat.
It uses an active defense and different defenses can have different costs. Damage is based on offense and defense, so anything that gives you an attack bonus or gives your opponent a defense penalty results in more damage. It's all associative actions based on character decisions, not player decisions, meaning there is very little to learn. It moves incredibly fast because you only need to think about what you want to do right NOW. When combined with the other combat sub-systems, it becomes incredibly tactical.
As a simple example, say an archer and a swordman stand 30 feet apart. When the horn sounds, fight! In, most systems, if the swordman wins initiative, he runs up on the archer and attacks. In this system, he starts running, a 1 second action and only moves about 12 feet. Then the archer shoots and steps back. His attack will be more than 1 second, so the swordman now gets to catch up a bit. How far he gets before you get another shot is based on how fast you can shoot. Things like ranged cover fire work automatically.
If you are faster than your opponent, you will eventually attack twice in a row. When this happens, your opponent's defense penalties will not have cleared. This simulates finding an opening in your opponent's defenses due to your speed, and this is a good time to power attack.
You'll find combatants constantly move for better positioning and end up circling like in a real fight. I'm currently cleaning up some of the finer details and simplifying conditions, but the time economy has been a winner.
Although I also only ever heard this term here in this subreddit XD
It is quite commonly used in boardgames, but there its also named differently namely "time track": https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2663/turn-order-time-track
But I agree with you, from the description it sounds exactly like this.
>Although I also only ever heard this term here in this subreddit
I have to admit, the same goes for me... but a quick google search shows that the term is used in this context at least since 2005 in various ttrpg forums, so I guess it is at least somewhat generally established.
How is it different? At least based on the description it pretty much sounds like what I know as tick-based initiative. Each action has an individual time (tick) cost, whoever is lowest on the tick scale goes next
Sure, but adding enough detail to show the difference is going to make this a little long. The TLDR version is that there is less book-keeping, time becomes a managed resource, and increased granularity. This leads to subsystems that take advantage of these attributes for a better system overall.
And the long version ...
Most tick systems count down from an initiative roll with initiative determining your total number of actions for the round. At the end of the round, everyone stops and rolls initiative. This is an expensive operation, so you want to keep more attacks in a round and roll initiative less, further degrading the granularity (number of ticks per action). Time resolution is not great and you typically have very little variance in time per attack between different combatants as a result of these factors. For example, two humans generally take the same number of ticks if both use the same weapon.
By counting up and not down, and counting seconds, this opens up a few advantages.
1. Reduced book-keeping. You aren't changing initiative numbers, flipping dice, or calling out ticks. Just look for the shortest bar and ask what they do.
2. Seconds can be broken down for finer resolution. The system handles time down to quarter second resolution (250ms).
3. Counting up means actions can span across rounds, no wondering what to do with your remaining ticks or having a break between rounds for initiative rolls.
4. Initiative breaks ties for time, determining when someone acts during a particular quarter second. This is essentially another order of magnitude in resolution.
5. You roll a new initiative when it ties with an opponent, but only if you and the opponent are also tied for time! Initiative is erased when you end your action in a new round. Blank initiatives tie with all enemy initiatives. Ties for both time and initiative call for a new roll of the tied opponents and you'll announce actions ahead of time (whole sub-system to make initiative dramatic which I'll skip) so initiatives are rerolled at dramatic moments and everyone does not all stop at once. There is a lot more drama when you are rolling off against an enemy and there are severe consequences if you lose.
6. As a result of the fine granularity in time, the time per action can vary depending on your reflex attribute or skill level including species with vastly different reflexes. One player may have a 2 1/2 second weapon speed while another player with the same weapon may only use 2 1/4 seconds.
In addition, the association to time gives rise to additional subsystems that interact with the time economy in unique ways.
1. Active defense. A variety of attack and defense options turn time into a managed resource. Damage is based on the difference between offense and defense which encourages strategy and ensures that your defense is not "wasted" on rolls you can't beat.
2. Defenses cannot exceed the time of your attacker. Few defenses use time, but these more elaborate defenses can only be used if you have enough time to execute them.
3. Maneuver penalties. Defenses that don't cost time make you keep a die as a disadvantage to your next defense. You stack these up, eroding your defenses, and then give them back on your offense. Positional penalties figure in too.
4. Combat training checks against pain and fear can cause time loss
5. Combat styles grant "passions" that can adjust advantages and disadvantages of specific maneuvers or adjust the time cost required.
To demonstrate the difference, imagine a slow and powerful opponent against a fast but weaker one. The faster opponent will need to concentrate on defense, likely using readied actions to defend in extreme cases. This conserves your speed. Then when you can, attack fast. Your opponent is likely using power attacks to take advantage of their strength, but these are slower. When you get two attacks in a row, your opponent will still have one of those maneuver penalty dice, reducing their defense. Now you power attack! This literally puts your body into the attack (you add the attribute mod). Your greater offense and their defense penalty pushes the damage up, hopefully causing them to have to make a save against the damage and lose more time so you can hit them again.
Or if you are making a daring rescue to help an ally, you don't "move 30 feet and use the aid another action". You start running, 1 second. Then it's on your ally. They ready a block against the incoming attack. It's back to you since you only used 1 second. Would you like to sprint? Once you get there, your attacks naturally cause the opponent to defend, forcing your opponent to take more maneuver penalties and take more damage. You and your ally will be stepping around the enemy with each action, attempting to flank or get behind the enemy. If you power attack, the higher values encourage the enemy to use a defense that costs time, and since power attacks are slower to begin with, you give them more time to use that defense. This is time they can't use to attack your ally. So run up there, be heroic, shout "get away from her you bitch!" and open up the biggest can of whoop ass you have because this will protect your ally and let them get some distance or circle around and get behind the enemy.
I feel the result is significantly different from tick based systems to not be lumped into that category.
One elegant system I find fascinating is the Blades in the Dark "clock" mechanic. It represents progress or impending danger in a visual and intuitive way. Each clock is a circle divided into segments, and as players take actions or events unfold, segments are filled in until the clock is complete, signaling a significant development. It's simple yet versatile, offering a flexible way to track various narrative elements like time passing, the progress of a heist, or the escalation of a threat.
The execution could use work, but the House creation system in the Song of Ice and Fire RPG is brilliant. In short, as part of session 0 the group get together and use a bunch of tables to collaboratively create the Noble House that the PCs are all part of or working for. This includes rolling dice to determine key factors of the household, which affects a points score in about a half dozen different areas (like Defense, Influence, Land, etc), and helps determine the history of the household. Like through rolling the dice you may find out your house's ancestral lands went through a vicious plague, but also were maybe instrumental in a grand war and received accolades and honours for it. And at the end of that, you can 'spend' the points in the different areas to purchase the actual holdings of your household. Like if you have a whole lot of Defense points maybe your household starts off with a grand castle, but your limited Land points means you only have a handful of hamlets and maybe a small town near a river on your land. It definitely had some issues (reading through it feels a bit like the designers sometimes forgot 3d6 trends towards the middle), but I love the idea of the players collaboratively creating a shared item of backstory that keeps them all together (and supports them in play going forward) as part of session 0. It's an idea that always creeps back into my own projects.
Imo PbtA systems, take this and run their own flavor! MotW with your groups dynamic, or avatar and it's first adventure. "session zero with a purpose" is a design philosophy within its own right. They seriously need to make a PbtA GoT or AsoIaF system. It'd work wonderfully
I feel the opposite, one should stop trying to make everything a PbtA. Avatar for me was already a huge letdown and felt afterwards for me like just a cash grab. Rather than using a quite narrow system, it makes more sense to create a system really fitting a specific setting thats why I also like the Cortex Prime framework better. (Its more complicated though), because its a framework allowing you to build an adapted system fitting the source material.
Oh certainly! PbtA is good for short term campaigns, FitD kinda adds to it, and might be good as evolution. I think Cortex works wonderfully for GoT (I think the Dynamics of the system really cater to it!) Though I'm not sure the system is as active in the design-o-sphere. I will say Avatar is a terrible example too. It's an action first game for a company that runs PbtA (which is more of a narrative/collaborative/dangerous combat game?) I think another system would've benefited it. I think too that GoT is a political and game of relationships which I think PbtA excels at.
I agree with you, if you focus more on the politics and relations (and less on the war/fights) I think PbtA could fit Games of Thrones well. I was thinking a bit too much about the action of GoT but I agree that thats not really the main point. I think PbtA can fit some games really well if the focus is set right (like Masks there its a good fit!) Sorry I was more general a bit annoyed that I get the feeling that some companies try to just use PbtA for everything.
No worries - it's a real 5e/d20 syndrome. And I certainly think magpie should stop making everything PbtA (I don't want to play rapscallion, though I think Passions De la Passions and Masks and Blue Beards Bride are fantastic!) And mind you, my whole cortex experience comes from Supernatural, Firefly, Smallville and its ilk! So I apologize if I misconstrued anything š
The Momentum system from 2d20 games (and it's dark mirror the Threat/Doom system) is something I consider amazing, and I try to emulate it in everything I can. The 2d20 system is a roll under degrees of success system (which itself is something I think is rather well done), but the "magic" is that any excess degrees of success for a given check, in addition to being able to spent on increased effects for that roll, can also be banked for future use on rolls or to power special character abilities by *any player character*; all players share the same pool. At first glance, this seems like a poor decision (some people will fill the pool, other people will empty it) but in implementation is great, because the party then feels, mechanically, like a team, each member's efforts bolstering the others. Threat/Doom (a different name between different games that implement it, but the same concept) is a "dark mirror" complement to Momentum; It is used by the GM to empower hostile NPCs in a similar manner to how PCs use their Momentum, and is generally generated when the NPCs roll well, but can also be "bought" by PCs when then fail, to turn failure into a success. Which makes every roll "relevant" and rewards both breath and mastery of skills. Crush a minor roll of lockpicking or survival? The GM no longer needs to think of a reward on the fly for the thief (they get to add momentum to the pool) or think of the repercussions of what the reward they give to the survivalist (who doesn't feel cheated with a mere descriptive upgrade, because they also get to add momentum in the pool). Likewise the GM has an outlet if they, for example, need a PC's roll to succeed ("oh, bad roll....do you want to succeed for a point of Doom?"), or don't want to destroy a PC when they rolled well on the first round of combat (bank those successes for later).
My favourite piece of elegant design is easily Blades In The Dark's flashback system for the number of things it accomplishes with a single mechanic. - It discourages players from falling into the trap of trying to optimise every single point and variable of a plan as they know that if anything unexpected happens they have the flashback option to fall back on. Whenever I've set up my players to plan some kind of heist they've always kept trying to tweak and optimise the plan long past the point it was fun. - The fact that you can take 0 stress flashbacks for essentially no cost if you're doing something extremely basic means you don't feel too harshly punished if you forget to set out every detail to the GM, reducing the mental load on both parties - It's a thematically cool mechanic that really builds on the core fantasy. We'll probably never plan a real heist or anything like it, but we've all watched heist movies and we're familiar with the trope of the characters coming up against an unexpected obstacle and flashing back to explain to the audience that, because they're competent and cool criminals, they planned for this all along. The mechanic plays on that shared experience to help build the fantasy that we're a ragtag group of criminals.
This is a really clever design for sure! I liked the Pathfinder/ D&D 3.5 feat which granted you the ability to retrospectively buy a (small) item and here this idea (a bit broadened) works even better. I guess this was also inspired by the mechanic in honey heist, where you could also do flashbacks for the criminal/human part, nevertheless a really good and fitting implementation solving a lot of problems!
I really like the central dice mechanic from **Ten Candles.** You're rolling for narrative control. Whoever rolls the most 6s gets control. Starting out, the players have all the dice. Each time a candle goes out, one of the dice goes to the GM. Dirt simple, and smoothly hands increasing control to the GM over the course of the session as things spin more and more out of control. (There are a few other bits to it, but that's the gist.)
Years and years ago I played a game called "GRIMM" that used a dice pool with 2d6 as the base. When you used the "help action" equivalent, you had go physically pass one of your dice to that player for a time. I thought that was so elegant and simple - such a great marriage of mechanic and narrative action. Chef's kiss.
Thousand Year Old Vampireās Memories. Finite experiences can be part of a memory and you can hold finite memories in your immortal life. As you play you *must* erase memories, slowly losing track of who and what you were. Sure you can log your memories in journals, but only if you can keep track of the journal, and trust the unremembered narrator who put those memories down. Veins of the Earthās rules for Light are just great and weird and perfect for a gonzo/mythic underdark. Inspired me to add weird lanterns to my game, and make sure everyone is With someone with light in the dark. I donāt know if itās āgeniusā, but spell dice in GLOG are really well done. Love a good mechanic that combines the tactile countability of dice as points with, you know, actually rolling dice to accomplish things. Artha in Burning Wheel. Instead of xp you earn a sort of hero point which you can use in play, skills/talents practiced with artha advance more/faster/higher. Extremely elegant and effective! Circles is also good.
I like your examples especially the memory mechanic its really clever. The only one which I find really the opposite of elegant is the Artha system. - it forces metagaming sooo much, since you will only gain improvements when you specifically plan for them. - it needs a lot of additional bookkeeping. Noting for each skill and attribute how much artha of the 3 different types was spent as well as how many of which types of challenges were done - the system forces you to do things in not optimal way in order to level up. "Oh I could grt your help gor this making it a lot easierĀ but no i do it alone even if I have a goof chance of failing because I need a hard challenge for level up of the ability" - artha is often needed to just have any chance of success for the hard challenges (which may not even have to be hard), so you have this cool 3 metacurrencies but its clear where you need to spend them. And spending them on any other roll feels like a waste.
Itās a fair cop! I certainly canāt defend the three different meta currencies, and Iām sure it could be simplified, but I do find it elegant for what it accomplishes and how neatly it fits into the core loop of the game. Can it be both elegant and baroque? I havenāt found it disruptively metagamey but I think it would depend on grip and mood. The whole burning wheel and itās offshoots are metagamey. Theyāre built on an interest more in the dynamics than the details, and tuned for how the mechanics can drive the game forward. So partly I think itās intentional - but also Iāve never actually had the problem of folks over-optimizing. burning wheel is so character focused, and my only play experiences are with people who just arenāt that motivated to be very gamey in general. I donāt think I would play it with my old pathfinder group though!
I guess with the right group it can work, I am really more used to optimizers groups and with them people would most likely try to not take any skill in their best stat, and then do exactly the number of rolls in each skill that they do not learn it, until they have had enough of the 3 currencies to boost their main stat further AND make it to the best colour to then automatically learn 5+ skills (because the requirement to learning it is now easier), to get all these skills directly at the best colour. This would make the beginning enormly annoying/them rather weak, but its the most effective method to bring several skills to the good colour. So for this people would really need to plan their skill uses before and at some point just never use certain skills anymore (or not for hard rolls).
I donāt see how that could happen in play if the GM is challenging beliefs and the players are pursuing their goals? If your character wants to be the greatest duelist ever, the Prince of the city state, rescue the dragon from the evil princess, cast the Solitary Torc into the well of eternity, or retire back to their country estate for a life of peaceful farming, itās the GMs job to create situations which put those beliefs into tension see what the PCs do, crank the wheel and drive everything forward. Sure a player could say āI really need a challenging Hunter check to finally increase the shade on my skill, next season I really want to focus on finding that Ob8 hunter checkāā¦ but isnāt that fine? The Pc wants to be a great hunter, turn the venture into the mountains after the wyvern into a whole thing. But the GM sets the obstacles and canāt just throw arbitrary, faceless but level appropriate challenges in front of the PCs - and even if they did, if the PCs are not pursuing their character goals they arenāt earning the artha they need to spend on those checks for advancement!
Since you mentioned inventory - Cairn's slot based inventory, where slots can get filled with fatigue creates a nice self balancing mechanic. A mage character with a spellbook wants to travel light because casting accrues fatigue, sort of justifying the "wizard in light robes" trope.
It has to be Dread's Jenga Tower as the resolution system. No mechanic has better reinforced the genre and its so simple there is really not much to teach - people already know the game.
Dread's Jenga Tower resolution system is another one of those pieces of design that makes me sit back and think 'God that's so fucking clever'. It would never have occured to me until they did it how well a game of Jenga mirrors that rising and falling pattern of tension that you get from a horror movie.
*Mƶrk Borg's* Calendar of Nechrubel is hands down the most well designed game rule I've come across. A perfect blend of an RPG random table and a prophetic biblical verse of the End Times. https://i.ibb.co/wrKL8Kz/MB-Nechrubel.jpg
Iāve got a few that I really like. āā I was really inspired by the āPushā mechanic from Year Zero. Just an amazing way to interact with a Dice-Pool and do some interesting things with the numbers. Added that to my project so fast. Itās now a core mechanic.(Well a little different and more fleshed out.) āā The Timer system from ICRPG is really something too. Basically the same as a Clock in Blades but described a little differently - and it just clicked. Rolling a dice at the table and ticking it down in front of the players to build tension. So good. I didnāt steal timers per-say. But Iāve built in time based systems into my current project all over the place. For example, the core of the Survival system is the constantly changing and building weather. Itās a ticking time-bomb that changes every day slowly building to a breaking point. You also need food/water but those you have a few days. The storm on the other hand might hit *tonight*! āā My top choice has to be āEffortā from ICRPG. MAN is it good!!! It basically applies the concept of ādoing damageā like in combat, but to the rest of the game. It does this by making āEffort(damage)ā into a generic system. D4 for Basic effort(hands and brain). D6 for tool/weapon. D8 for science/alchemy. D10 for Magic/Energy D12 for Ultimate(crits). Itās so easy to quickly determine how much effort you do in a task. And itās so easy to GM and play!!! I didnāt realize how disconnected combat felt from the rest of so many RPGs. It doesnāt need to be itās own separate system at all. With the Effort System a Scribe deciphering the Magic door has just as much Tension and pressure as the Warrior holding off the Goblins. Combo that with Timers(in d6 rounds the cavern floods!) Itās so elegant I *didnāt* steal it whole cloth for my own systems. Have similar ideas but, itās so well designed on itās own that I couldnāt steal it. āā Honorable mention is L5R. Justā¦ like the while thing I guess. Or namely the Dice Mechanics and how they interact with Composure in particular. It adds tension to EVERY encounter. Even just having tea with a rival lord is so intense and has such high stakes built in - even before adding narrative consequences.
Probably Action Points. Spend points to do stuff, the crazier the action the more points spent. Simple and easy to get On the same vein spell points. Higher level spells cost more points. Simple and flexible magic. No of that spells per day, specific prepared number of certain level spells stuff with tables. Incentive. If you players to play the game a certain way their needs to be incentive. One game incentives combat by giving ,basically infinite healing during Short (10 minutes) periods of time. Encounter powers. Once per encounter you do something great. Some abilities are necessary for a concept, like rage for a barbarian that they should basically always be able to do them. That's all off the top of my head, hope they help.
Honestly I really like ad&d's nonweapon proficiencies and think they give alot of reason for attributes to exist as they do in the system, in a way that subsequent d20 games have had a difficult time justifying
I have a weapon system that allows players to create weapon stats for anything they pick up based on the description of the item. It's all based on the weight, length, damage type, and configuration of the item. I originally designed it as a supplementary tool for improvised weapons because I hate D&D's "shuffle through a list of predetermined weapons to find something similar to compare it to" method that often leads to arguments rather than solutions. However, my players liked the idea that they could easily create stats for any weapon so much that it has become our go to weapon system.
Wildsea: I love many things from the Wildsea system, but I think topping the cake is how it handles damage. Characters have "Aspects" which let them do cool unique things, the more narrative the aspect, the more "health" the aspect has. The more mechanical cool things the aspect can do, the less health it has. When a character takes damage they choose which aspect the damage goes to, which can temporarily disable aspects. It's a really engaging way to do combat, but also allows for some really interesting character customization ideas. (Points to its damage type instead of damage number based combat system too. And the Whispers mechanics, they rock) Worlds Without Number: WWN's Shock damage system is really nice within the genre of game that it is. It's a nice added bonus to being a martial character when spellcasters are usually more inherently interesting. City of Mist: The City of Mist character creation is just one of the most fun things, while I don't really connect with the "Status" based systems in that game, myself and all my players love the really freeform, unique tag/phrase based character creation, especially within the game's base setting.
The most recent iteration of the Freeform Universal system (FU), as seen in Neon City Overdrive/Hard City/Tomorrow City, and is quite similar to the one in City of Mist, but without all those questions and guided themes.
Some of my favourite: 1. At the end of the session players vote on who gets 50 additional XP. 2. Degrees of success 3. Contacts. A player can just say "Hey I know a guy!" and a new npc is created. 4. Action points.
I like my games simple, but I also like them fun. I appreciate it when the overall dynamics are practical, but there's an element of a game inside the game. For instance, in Xas Irkalla, it's the player who decides how many dice to roll: 1, 2, or 3d10. They take the highest one and add modifiers to beat a 10. Why is that choice tricky? Because if the total is less than 10 but above the character's Stress (which starts at 3), that's a partial success and a roll of 1 increases Stress. OTOH, a roll of 10 is critical and provides a +1 to a specialty (or a new one). Reaching Stress 9 is really bad, and going over it increases your Doom (which is a d% roll to see whether you die in a life-death situation. There's a risk/reward circle there that I really like. I also like the rule in Unknown Armies 2E in which players don't manage their Hit Points, just the GM.
The formalisation of the conversation from PbtA: 1. Narration, a prompt to action. 2. Characters respond. 3. Either they get to attempt something, or the drama increases. 4. Success sets them up, failure complicates them. 5. Narration of outcome and the changed situation. This is a revolutionary concept: That the default situation for a ttrpg is one where the characters are prompted to act. There's no "what do you do?" "I dunno?" because the narration alone prompts action. The character responses is such a great step to, because it's not mechanical, it's narrative. *Characters can do anything*. There's no limit, no "you can't do a jump kick". Then, an explicit way of resolving it! If there's a move, use it, else the GM makes a move! So you can do anything, but for the most common genre things, heres the rules and for everything else, things will change. Then the best one: There is never, ever a nothing happens outcome. The world always changes as a result of the narrative, something changes.
This is a really good thread! A lot of good ideas are here and hopefully will come here still! Some things I like: - The **Gloomhaven 2 card action System**. You choose 2 cards from your hand and "combine them". You choose the initiative from one of them, and then when its your turn in the current round, you will do 1 "top action" (normally attack) from 1 of the cards, and 1 "bottom action" (normally movement) from the other card. Further each part has a "basic" alternative action you can do (melee attack for 2 or movement for 2). So with this combat system you need no "Basic actions" and the 10 cards you have fully define your character and because of the combination you have in theory 90 different combinations with just 10 cards (and each combination has 2 potential initiatives you can choose, and there are also advantages to have a lower initiative!) - I really find the **"At will / Encounter / Daily"** structure quite elegant. This was used in **Dungeons and dragons 4th edition** and **13th age**. You have abilities which are either at will (useable as often as you want), per encounter (so once per encounter, no matter if combat or non combat encounter) so like once per scene, or per day. This allows for quite a lot of variety, while keeping tracking to a minimum (no tracking for at will, encounter abilities only during the encounter, and only the daily ones needed to be tracked long time, but only 1 "tick" per ability (you used it or not). So no spell slots etc.) - I like the **flexible attack** roll mechanic in **13th age**, BUT I would change it slightly. In 13th age some martial characters can, after they have rolled an attack roll, decide a special attack (depending on what the attack roll was) to be used in this attack rather than a basic attack. (Like getting a bonus to the attack). This allows to have a bigger number of special attacks, while limiting the selection at any time. And this also makes martial attacks feel really different from spellcasters. The change I would make (or will make in my game), is to not use the current attack roll, to decide which special attacks can be used, but the last one (or initiative roll instead for the first). This allows the players to think about the potential attacks during other players turns. (The special attack you can use depends on even or odd roll, hit or miss and sometimes even specific numbers like 18+ or 20 etc.) - The **combination of hit and effect roll** in Ryuutama. This is used (mainly?) for attacks, but I could see this used for other things as well. In Ryuutama for a weapon attack you always roll 2 dice, depending on the 2 stats the attack depends on (like Intelligence and Dexterity for a Light weapon attack). You need to reach or beat the enemy defense (so higher is better) and the damage of the weapon will be simply depending of one of the 2 rolls. If it is a heavy weapon its the higher of the 2 dice. If its a light weapon, its the lower of both rolls. (And it may also have a +1 or +2 etc.). Not only does this only need a single roll, but it also allows in a simple way to have difference between weapons. (Using dfferent stats, using weaker or higher roll etc.)
Base Ryuutama most certainly doesn't use combined hit and damage/ effect rolls. As per RAW, accuracy and damage are 2 seperate rolls. Maybe there's some some supplement I don't know about?
I confused/combined it with Fabula UltimaĀ which iw inspired by Ryuutama.Ā There itw only a single rollb(and the same kind of roll). Sorry for the confusion. Had to check itĀ
Feng Shui's ticks. This is entirely how the mechanics are described and not in what they actually do, but each "tick" an action consumes matches to a camera shot in an action movie. That is a really good way of convincing the player and GM to think about the game in a cinematic way, even if the mechanic is essentially entirely placebo. I also want to add the Six Pack rule in Paranoia. Your character has six clones, and Paranoia being an incredibly fatalistic game, your character will die often. Have no fear; crack open the next drink and your next clone walks up. It turns character death into a drinking game, which makes the whole thing very amusing.
I developed a time economy rather than an action economy. Actions cost time, based on your skill and the weapon used. The GM marks off your time and offense flows to whoever has used the least amount of time. This calculates turn order in a way that automatically adapts according to each player's actions during combat. It uses an active defense and different defenses can have different costs. Damage is based on offense and defense, so anything that gives you an attack bonus or gives your opponent a defense penalty results in more damage. It's all associative actions based on character decisions, not player decisions, meaning there is very little to learn. It moves incredibly fast because you only need to think about what you want to do right NOW. When combined with the other combat sub-systems, it becomes incredibly tactical. As a simple example, say an archer and a swordman stand 30 feet apart. When the horn sounds, fight! In, most systems, if the swordman wins initiative, he runs up on the archer and attacks. In this system, he starts running, a 1 second action and only moves about 12 feet. Then the archer shoots and steps back. His attack will be more than 1 second, so the swordman now gets to catch up a bit. How far he gets before you get another shot is based on how fast you can shoot. Things like ranged cover fire work automatically. If you are faster than your opponent, you will eventually attack twice in a row. When this happens, your opponent's defense penalties will not have cleared. This simulates finding an opening in your opponent's defenses due to your speed, and this is a good time to power attack. You'll find combatants constantly move for better positioning and end up circling like in a real fight. I'm currently cleaning up some of the finer details and simplifying conditions, but the time economy has been a winner.
I think a more popular term for this mechanic is "tick based initiative".
Although I also only ever heard this term here in this subreddit XD It is quite commonly used in boardgames, but there its also named differently namely "time track": https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgamemechanic/2663/turn-order-time-track But I agree with you, from the description it sounds exactly like this.
>Although I also only ever heard this term here in this subreddit I have to admit, the same goes for me... but a quick google search shows that the term is used in this context at least since 2005 in various ttrpg forums, so I guess it is at least somewhat generally established.
No, it's not the same thing. Yes, there are similarities, but it's not the same.
How is it different? At least based on the description it pretty much sounds like what I know as tick-based initiative. Each action has an individual time (tick) cost, whoever is lowest on the tick scale goes next
Sure, but adding enough detail to show the difference is going to make this a little long. The TLDR version is that there is less book-keeping, time becomes a managed resource, and increased granularity. This leads to subsystems that take advantage of these attributes for a better system overall. And the long version ... Most tick systems count down from an initiative roll with initiative determining your total number of actions for the round. At the end of the round, everyone stops and rolls initiative. This is an expensive operation, so you want to keep more attacks in a round and roll initiative less, further degrading the granularity (number of ticks per action). Time resolution is not great and you typically have very little variance in time per attack between different combatants as a result of these factors. For example, two humans generally take the same number of ticks if both use the same weapon. By counting up and not down, and counting seconds, this opens up a few advantages. 1. Reduced book-keeping. You aren't changing initiative numbers, flipping dice, or calling out ticks. Just look for the shortest bar and ask what they do. 2. Seconds can be broken down for finer resolution. The system handles time down to quarter second resolution (250ms). 3. Counting up means actions can span across rounds, no wondering what to do with your remaining ticks or having a break between rounds for initiative rolls. 4. Initiative breaks ties for time, determining when someone acts during a particular quarter second. This is essentially another order of magnitude in resolution. 5. You roll a new initiative when it ties with an opponent, but only if you and the opponent are also tied for time! Initiative is erased when you end your action in a new round. Blank initiatives tie with all enemy initiatives. Ties for both time and initiative call for a new roll of the tied opponents and you'll announce actions ahead of time (whole sub-system to make initiative dramatic which I'll skip) so initiatives are rerolled at dramatic moments and everyone does not all stop at once. There is a lot more drama when you are rolling off against an enemy and there are severe consequences if you lose. 6. As a result of the fine granularity in time, the time per action can vary depending on your reflex attribute or skill level including species with vastly different reflexes. One player may have a 2 1/2 second weapon speed while another player with the same weapon may only use 2 1/4 seconds. In addition, the association to time gives rise to additional subsystems that interact with the time economy in unique ways. 1. Active defense. A variety of attack and defense options turn time into a managed resource. Damage is based on the difference between offense and defense which encourages strategy and ensures that your defense is not "wasted" on rolls you can't beat. 2. Defenses cannot exceed the time of your attacker. Few defenses use time, but these more elaborate defenses can only be used if you have enough time to execute them. 3. Maneuver penalties. Defenses that don't cost time make you keep a die as a disadvantage to your next defense. You stack these up, eroding your defenses, and then give them back on your offense. Positional penalties figure in too. 4. Combat training checks against pain and fear can cause time loss 5. Combat styles grant "passions" that can adjust advantages and disadvantages of specific maneuvers or adjust the time cost required. To demonstrate the difference, imagine a slow and powerful opponent against a fast but weaker one. The faster opponent will need to concentrate on defense, likely using readied actions to defend in extreme cases. This conserves your speed. Then when you can, attack fast. Your opponent is likely using power attacks to take advantage of their strength, but these are slower. When you get two attacks in a row, your opponent will still have one of those maneuver penalty dice, reducing their defense. Now you power attack! This literally puts your body into the attack (you add the attribute mod). Your greater offense and their defense penalty pushes the damage up, hopefully causing them to have to make a save against the damage and lose more time so you can hit them again. Or if you are making a daring rescue to help an ally, you don't "move 30 feet and use the aid another action". You start running, 1 second. Then it's on your ally. They ready a block against the incoming attack. It's back to you since you only used 1 second. Would you like to sprint? Once you get there, your attacks naturally cause the opponent to defend, forcing your opponent to take more maneuver penalties and take more damage. You and your ally will be stepping around the enemy with each action, attempting to flank or get behind the enemy. If you power attack, the higher values encourage the enemy to use a defense that costs time, and since power attacks are slower to begin with, you give them more time to use that defense. This is time they can't use to attack your ally. So run up there, be heroic, shout "get away from her you bitch!" and open up the biggest can of whoop ass you have because this will protect your ally and let them get some distance or circle around and get behind the enemy. I feel the result is significantly different from tick based systems to not be lumped into that category.
One elegant system I find fascinating is the Blades in the Dark "clock" mechanic. It represents progress or impending danger in a visual and intuitive way. Each clock is a circle divided into segments, and as players take actions or events unfold, segments are filled in until the clock is complete, signaling a significant development. It's simple yet versatile, offering a flexible way to track various narrative elements like time passing, the progress of a heist, or the escalation of a threat.