itch.io

Yep, I'm loving Mythic and am so thankful for your work on this tool. I have it on my phone and my desktop. It really makes things easier. 

When you roll a linked table, the second entry in the roll result panel adds the name of the second table that was used after the word. I'd like to request that a space be added between the word for the second entry and the parentheses for the title of the table it came from. The lack of space makes it feel cramped.

How it shows up now with no space after "Fear":
Action Meaning
26: Deceive
33: Fear(Action Meaning 2)

Requested style with the space after "Fear"
Action Meaning
26: Deceive
33: Fear (Action Meaning 2)

A suggestion/request for the Cheatsheet. It's great, but I'd suggest removing the graphic of the different dice types and instead add a small paragraph explaining Feats. That seems to be the main mechanical element that I immediately felt was missing when reading through this. Similar to the Gambits section, I don't think you have to list out all of the options - it can just be a brief overview of Feats indicating they exist as a combat option and that they'll require a Save or you become exhausted and can't use another.

That did the trick, thank you for creating these!

It looks like the Squires page is corrupted in some fashion. The border is missing and the image in the top left corner is three-quarters white with a band of artifacting along the edge.
The Holdings page looks as expected by comparison.

When I try to change the number of cards drawn it jumps three numbers at a time when I hover over the numbers and use my scroll wheel. It jumps from 1 to 4 to 7 then back around to 1. Rather than going 1 to 2 to 3 to 4, etc.
I tried adjusting my mouse scroll wheel settings but it seems to still jump by three at a time. I'm not sure if there's a way to adjust this in PUM Companion or if I need to change some other setting in Windows for my mouse.

Ohhh I hadn't internalized that you could use Effort to achieve a "Yes..." result for a Condition. Thanks for reminding me about that.
I'll look forward to checking out the 2nd edition when that drops. Is there any opportunity to get involved helping with proofreading it if it's still in development?

Can you unpack why you went with "No, and" for 1-4? I was surprised it wasn't "No, but" for 3-4 and then "No, and" for 1-2. "No, and" for the whole range of 1-4 feels a bit harsh to me.
Please don't take this as an attack on the design. I love the whole package. It's a genuine question coming from the standpoint of wondering why not use the "No, but" layer at all and going straight to "No, and"?

Excellent - thanks so much for your thoughtful replies. I'll look forward to the collected edition!

Thanks that does help!
And now I noticed on a re-read that the Decay section says, "and additional boons per tier". I had a thought - maybe this point about unlocking the additional Actions could be re-iterated in that top right section describing the Actions in place of the redundant language.

What is the Improvise action referring to exactly? Is it the only way to do any non-Sword related activities? If so, it feels like in the beginning of the game when my Sword Score is high it would cost a high number of Shards to do anything. But I'm thinking maybe that's an intentional design choice to incentivize/force people to engage with their Sword first and foremost?

Apologies if these questions/suggestions feel nitpicky. I'm super into this game and your whole aesthetic, so I'm just motivated to play it correctly and help make any clarifications to the presentation of the rules.

I'm confused by the Shard Actions, and feel like I must be overcomplicating it in my head.
The two paragraphs for Narrative Currency and Actions seem to be saying the same thing with just slightly different wording in the first sentences. Is there a way in which the player uses Shards differently for Narrative Currency vs. Actions?
And do the list of Actions get "unlocked" at the different tiers of Decay similar to how the number of Shards gained changes at each tier of Decay? That's what the dotted horizontal dividing lines are leading me to believe e.g. I get access to Repair and Improvise when I'm in the 10-12 range, and then Reveal/Conceal/Open when the sword gets into the 7-9 range, and so on down the list for each tier of Decay?  I noticed Power is repeated twice in the list so that made me think maybe I only get to use the specified Actions within the particular ranges of Decay.

I love this so much.
In the Sword Traits table I'm wondering if it's supposed to read "9-12" rather than "9-10"?

Oh yes, it's working now. Thanks!

Hi - I just purchased the game but none of the downloads are working. I tried the "Enable alternate download mode," but that didn't work either.

Okay, thank you I think that clears it up. So, you select one most-applicable Skill which sets your base die size, and then if you have an applicable Trait that would step up your die size by one more step. And then separate from that, you might roll an additional 1d6 for an item or situational advantage. So for example, you have a Skill of "Driving" at d8 and then you have a Trait of "Quick Reflexes" which conceivably gives you a boost in a getaway car chase so you increase your d8 to a d10. And then your car has some sort of James Bond-esque smoke bomb dispenser in the back which might give you +1d6 to your getaway roll. So you roll a d10 and a d6. The d10 rolls a 3 and the d6 rolls a 5. Success.

I think your presentation of the 24XX rules is one of the best out there. Specifically, your language about when a roll is triggered is very precise which is helpful. (This also helped me understand the new framing of the "Threat Roll" that John Harper laid out in his new Deep Cuts supplement for Blades in the Dark.)

But I was left wondering if I've been misunderstanding about 24XX generally or if you're doing something slightly differently with 24BLUE. In the DICE section you mention: 

"A standard roll uses a d6. Max size is d12.

• Skills can increase the die size up to 3 times.

• Traits can increase the die size 1 time.

• If helped by circumstances, roll an extra d6.

• Only 1 skill, 1 trait and 1 help can affect a roll."

My understanding of 24XX more generally is that you use the highest die amongst any skills that are relevant and roll that one die. (Plus an extra d6 if you're using an item or circumstances help you.) 
But the way you frame it makes me feel like you'd "increase" the die size for each relevant Skill and Trait. For example, you start with a d6, but your Skill is a d10, so your baseline die for this roll is now a d10. But then say you also have a relevant Trait at a d8....the language of "increase" makes me think I would apply a +1 step up of my die to now become a d12. (As in, a d8 is a +1 step increase, a d10 is +2 steps increased, a d12 is +3 steps increased.)
So, to me the way it reads is your Skill gets you to a d10, and then a d8 Trait would increase you up one more step to a d12.
Is that the intention? Or are you supposed to roll a d10 and a d8 together? 

Really excellent work. I bought it primarily for the 24XX stats. I'm also super impressed with your 18XX Muramasa and 24BLUE works.
My small proofreading contribution:
The size for Aursus is blank. I'm assuming it should be Large, but figured I'd mention it.

I just bought the book from my FLGS to place/run it in my Wolves Upon the Coast campaign like the Reavers blog suggests. 

Is there an option to download The Isle PDF to accompany the physical copy?

I've been digging into Messerspiel and Abenteuerspiel. I've been trying to merge and hack them to fit my own preferences. I've found that it's really tricky to make even small tweaks to small games like these because all of the parts are so interconnected to the whole. I wanted to say I appreciate your approach and the changes you made for your game. 

Firstly, I like that you reframed it as Resolve rather than Stress. Stress is a fine word, and it has roots in Blades in the Dark, but I think "Resolve" is a broader and more pertinent word that reflects better how it functions in these stripped-down games.
Second to that, I love how you use the 7-8 on the d8 to give some additional options for the Resolve result. That helps solve one problem I had with the depletion of the pools. It bakes in the possibility of retaining your die which is valuable because it only takes on average 13 rolls of the Stress die to deplete your pool in Messerspiel. That felt a bit harsh to me, so I like that your Resolve mechanic makes it possible to retain the die.
The idea of adding Moments in the spirit of Heart/Spire is just fantastic and gives the players something to navigate towards.
And building up the pool Wushu-style is great.

All around just wonderful work here.

Question/challenge for you: my one misgiving about the Resolve Die is that it's a d8 and breaks the beautiful purity of all d6s LOL. Can you conceive of any way to get the Resolve mechanics to work with just d6s. Maybe for a d6 version the same options are available if they roll a 6? Or do you think that breaks the probabilities in an important way? I still think the d8 design is great, I'm just curious from your perspective if you see a way of making it work with d6s.

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting the rules incorrectly or if there's a bug.

I kept rolling until there were only two dice in my Ready Pool. I eventually rolled a 1 on my Stress Die, which reduced my Ready Pool to one die - just the Stress Die. But then when I went to roll again I was able to select all the check boxes for all of the other dice - they were no longer greyed out. That seemed odd because I had not Rested yet to replenish my dice pool.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding some element of the exhaustion/replenishment rules.

I stand by my original review - this is a fantastic piece of work both from a game design and layout standpoint.

However, something came up in my mind as a critique that I wanted to think through out loud. This is very nitpicky, but in the spirit of sharing thoughts about game design, I think it’s worth mentioning. One misgiving I have is that Rock-Paper-Scissors is historically, for most people, a purely adversarial game. It's very much a "finite game" - you win, I lose - and it always feels at least a little bad to lose or quite bad, if you end up on the wrong side of a losing streak. This is very much in contrast to how RPG story games are typically played as more "infinite games" that try to minimize the feeling of a zero-sum "I win, you lose" experience. With that style of zero-sum experience being the heart of the resolution mechanic I suspect many people may instinctively carry over the sentiment of “it's me vs. the GM" to win the R-P-S throw to get what they want to happen. It's subtle, but it seems likely that many people might have that feeling in their mind as they're throwing out their hand, based on years of playing R-P-S adversarially.

Rock-Paper-Scissors still seems like the obvious and elegant choice for this resolution system because it's always available with no extra supplies and almost everyone is familiar with how to play. What I’m pointing out seems like a distilled version of the “system matters” conversation that happens around different games.

There's little space to spare in the document because you were so skillfully economical with the layout, but I wonder if there's an opportunity to slip in a disclaimer/reminder that even though R-P-S is a win/lose game, RPG story games are a collaborative experience first and foremost rather than the typical win/lose experience of most games.

This is so elegantly thought out and put together. Really fantastic work.

Somebody needs to get this to Deborah - I bet she'd be so excited about it!

I've been eyeing this for awhile and finally picked it up from my LGS. Could I snag a community PDF to go with it? 

The 100 are excellent and I like how you handle Conditions. All around it's just really nice work.

In the Spells section you cite: Betty Bactontine. " Fragmentary Powers v2.0 - A Tarot Deck Generator for Janky Super-powers," Paper Elemental, June 17, 2021.
Alot of Blogspot blogs do not readily come up in Google and I was having a hard time finding it, so I wanted to leave this link here for others in the future:
https://paperelemental.blogspot.com/2021/06/fragmentary-powers-v20-tarot-deck.ht...

This looks incredible. This also reminds me of The Invisibles by Grant Morrison. 
One small typo: In the explanation for Audacity under the Rolling the Dice section you spelled it "Vulgar magik" without a "c" but elsewhere it looks like you spelled "magick" with a "c."

The last sentence of the Special Trait section seems to end prematurely: "It doesn't have to be particularly useful or noteworthy, just different enough from the baseline Big Unit that"

Thank you for this feedback. You're right, there are sections that become walls of text. I'll have to see which sections naturally jump out to me for logical highlights and breakpoints.

Yep, this could be one good option!
The general concept of SCP Foundation and the Federal Bureau of Control were both definitely in my mind as inspirations. I wanted to add a twist that the Anomalies were energy sources like oil deposits. There's a tension between wanting to locate the Anomalies because they're dangerous and AEGIS needs to protect the world from them, but they also want to find them because they're desirable as significant sources of rare energy.
I want to keep expanding the lore and logic of this setting in future updates. Please let me know if you and your players are inspired by the idea and come up with any cool offshoot ideas in your sessions.

Good callout about the usage of 'you' in certain phrasings. I'll have to take another pass to tighten this up.

Thank you so much for this review!
(And I like the style of the four different aspects for review.)