Hexingtide: Minimalist Monstrous Roleplaying - Looking for Playtesters!

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com

WillPhillips

Legendary Pubber
Joined
Jan 23, 2022
Messages
138
Reaction score
355
hxtd_sm_005_logo_900.png

You are a creature from folklore.
A supernatural being. A visitor from the stars.
A mortal with an esoteric burden…
A monster.

You live among humanity,
a strange sight in a stranger world.

In the shadowy margins of the world,
you face the vile, the odd, and the unnatural…
and the dangers of your own monstrous impulses.

-----


Hexingtide is a minimalist TTRPG love letter to the monster heroes of folklore & the pulps, inspired by:
  • Hellboy & the wider Mignolaverse​
  • Dan Brereton’s Nocturnals
  • Eric Powell’s The Goon & Hillbilly
  • Alan Moore & Kevin O’Neill’s The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
  • the Underworld films​
  • classic Universal Studio's Monsters​
  • and the various incarnations of The World of Darkness​
I'm excited to share that the playtest docs are now downloadable on Itch!
  • 12 page zine format hyper-focused on the most monster-y parts of the PCs
  • Point buy character creation using open-ended descriptors (think Fate Aspects)
  • Super-streamlined rules for pulp & comics-inspired action adventure
  • Uses a single die: you'll need just one d10, really!
  • A hint of built-in worldbuilding in the Chymoi, a pseudo-elemental system of Blood, Phlegm, Ichor, Black Bile, and Rot.

Download here:
https://willphillips.itch.io/hexingtide

-----

Looking for playtesters now!

If you're interested in joining me for a playtest game, please share your info here:
https://airtable.com/shry2SLqZ4ijAW9og
 
Last edited:
So Chymoi are "what you are empowered by," a concept and you can detail the PC as a vampire, werewolf, alien monstrosity as you wish?
Are human heroes Chymoi as well? What is the purpose of the game? You can play monsters, yes, but are the goals of each monster entirely their own?
These are questions I have for trying to frame it to others for playtest.
 
I'm thinking of using this for one of my characters for the Character Creation Challenge thread.
 
Great questions, Silverlion Silverlion ! Let me know if the following helps answer them.

So Chymoi are "what you are empowered by," a concept

Empowered, sure. I've been framing it more as an elemental alignment, The Force with more sides, or Magic: The Gathering's system of colors, personally.

Your mileage may vary!

The concept of Chymos is left pretty vague for two reasons:
  1. Pragmatically, it's a minimalist ruleset with a short word count to work with.
  2. Minimal worldbuilding should allow for a GM to set the game in a number of different times and places.
That said.

In my mind, the Chymoi are a a pervasive manifestation of the energy of all sentient, sapient beings (i.e. humans, but allowing for aliens and other non-human monsters) carry some attachment to one of the Chymoi (as aligns generally with the classical, Galenic Four Humours - with Rot being a new inclusion to account for madness and the influence of the angelic, demonic, and general Cthulu-like creatures of your preference).

Every individual has a tie to a Chymos, but entire crowds can manifest them, even cultures.

Likewise, objects, places, and even creatures that have some strong tie or history to some event or figure can be "imprinted" with a Chymos of their own - which carries overtones of hauntings and possessions.

(Otherwise, that bear tracking the party through the misty valleys of the woods may just be a bear.... but if it was the totem animal of a ghostly Native shaman, for example, it may carry the mark of a Chymos itself.)

In my worldbuilding so far, I've not incorporated all the Chymoi into a single school of magic, for example, but rather am approaching it like the M:TG color guilds of Ravinica, which have different names and traditions, etc.

and you can detail the PC as a vampire, werewolf, alien monstrosity as you wish?

Yes. That said, I trust that GMs will work with players to set expectations on the world and appropriate concepts, but it's explicitly designed to allow for a big mish-mash of types together.

Are human heroes Chymoi as well?

While your baseline human will be aligned to one of the Chymos, Player Characters shouldn't be - and aren't - baseline humans.

Even if all their Bonuses are mundane, perfectly explainable things like guns and fast cars, they carry something about them that is Other (and likely represented with a Bane).

What is the purpose of the game? You can play monsters, yes, but are the goals of each monster entirely their own?

I personally wouldn't overthink it. Yes, the individual PCs will have their own goals like in most traditional D&D-esque games.

The big difference and focus is how their monstrous qualities - as mechanically tracked through their Banes - become more raw and exposed over the course of play until they erupt and sew chaos and complications in their wake.

In that sense, I was very much inspired by Monsterheart's "Darkest Self" concept and mechanic.

But as a group, it shouldn't be an excuse for a bunch of edgelord loners working actively against one another.
 
I'm thinking of using this for one of my characters for the Character Creation Challenge thread.

That'd be great!

If you're interesting, I'm going to host a Q&A session plus a character creation run through Thursday at 8:30 EST / 5:30 PST.

I'll PM you the Google Meet link the day of if so.

Or you can fill out my playtester signup if you're interested enough to want to join in on some sessions in the future:

 
Great questions, Silverlion Silverlion ! Let me know if the following helps answer them.



But as a group, it shouldn't be an excuse for a bunch of edgelord loners working actively against one another.

Awesome to know!
I was just wanting some idea of the aims, I do realize it's minimalist but sometimes a tiny bit more information helps. Thank you, and the latter is cool.
 
So on first reading I like it a lot. The mechanics look tight and I cam immediately see at least somewhat what the game is supposed to look like in play. I'll dive into some char gen later on today and see how it goes.
 
So on first reading I like it a lot. The mechanics look tight and I cam immediately see at least somewhat what the game is supposed to look like in play. I'll dive into some char gen later on today and see how it goes.
Thanks for taking a look! Would welcome your further thoughts and having you on the call Thursday.
 
The Kerberos Club would be great with this rules set. I think I may start with Victorian steampunk monsters when it comes to char gen.
 
Really not my jam, but I’ll have to say, it looks like you grok the hell out of it.
I'm not equally taken by all minimalist games at all, but this one grabs me because the whole CG bit is about evocative description which is something I love as part of char gen. It helps that the rules are tight and directly index the language.
 
Sweet goodness, this is a happy surprise to log back in to!

Characters look great. Definitely the tone I'd imagined. Rules and XP costs all seem to line up. :thumbsup:

Banes are proving the trickiest to get right for playtesters (no surprise) insomuch as finding a way to frame a Bane that makes it a persistent, broadly-applicable danger, worry, or threat, and also one that doesn't permanently or semi-permanently take a character out of play.

So I think you'd have to think how "they will drag me back to the hidden lands" would play out once that Bane hits zero. Maybe the character goes on the run, or the party must face down those dark powers who have come to claim what's theirs, etc.

But other than that, I like them!

The Kerberos Club would be great with this rules set. I think I may start with Victorian steampunk monsters when it comes to char gen.

It's been...a minute.. since I heard the Kerberos Club mentioned. Had to go look it up again, but having done so - I agree. I think it absolutely fits.

Hey WillPhillips WillPhillips - I made the following character sheet in word, if it's OK with you I'll post the file and people can use it to hack about.
Yeah, happy to have that shared for folks who like to use Word!

Alright if I link to it from outside the Pub?

Really not my jam, but I’ll have to say, it looks like you grok the hell out of it.

Totally fair and one of the nice things about the hobby - so many different approaches to games and genres and settings.

But yeah, Fenris is definitely grokking the vibe.
 
I'm not equally taken by all minimalist games at all, but this one grabs me because the whole CG bit is about evocative description which is something I love as part of char gen. It helps that the rules are tight and directly index the language.

I've historically preferred a least a smidge more crunch, and my "real" main project - historical RPG rules for Renaissance Europe - is more rules heavy.

But I've hit a bit of a design wall with that and in general just haven't had the mental space to run or play in more crunchy games for a while.

I've been impressed by some of the one page and other minimalist rules I've seen and wanted to put my hand to it with a genre/setting my wanna-be goth heart geeks out about.

So I'm very appreciate that it's clicking so far for you.
 
Sweet goodness, this is a happy surprise to log back in to!

Characters look great. Definitely the tone I'd imagined. Rules and XP costs all seem to line up. :thumbsup:

Banes are proving the trickiest to get right for playtesters (no surprise) insomuch as finding a way to frame a Bane that makes it a persistent, broadly-applicable danger, worry, or threat, and also one that doesn't permanently or semi-permanently take a character out of play.

So I think you'd have to think how "they will drag me back to the hidden lands" would play out once that Bane hits zero. Maybe the character goes on the run, or the party must face down those dark powers who have come to claim what's theirs, etc.

But other than that, I like them!

Yeah, happy to have that shared for folks who like to use Word!

Alright if I link to it from outside the Pub?


But yeah, Fenris is definitely grokking the vibe.
I don't mind if you link to it at all. Obviously something in a form fillable PDF would be the bees knees, but Word in this case fit the available time I had at work to make a sheet. It does have the benefit of being the right size to snip and post as I did above without having to faff about with the zoom. I can't post Word docs as resources here on the forum, so here's a google doc link: Hexingtide Character Sheet - Word

As for the Banes, yeah, I can see why that's where some of the playtesters are having troubles. It's a minimalist game so there aren't exactly a wealth of subsystems of mechanics to hang a Bane on. My thought was that the exemplars seemed to index RP stuff that the GM could play off of. The Marshall above is built more like Cain with pretty easy Banes to imagine and that are mostly internal RP type stuff, but Erasmus is built more like Jezebel. I hadn't actually thought to specifically about the details there, especially as this is a place where the notes in the rules about the need for trust and GM coop really are obviously true. Off the top of my head I'd probably say paranoia and fear on the character side, and and increasing level of creepy things the GM could do, starting with whispers in the shadows and small things going missing, right up to assaults from emissaries of the Fae, I'd linked it in my head to the bonus Secrets stolen from the Fae with the general thought that they'd probably want those secrets back if they ever found him.

I do like the idea of a Bane setting things in motion that give the GM a lot of room for cool story telling elements. I'm looking forward to chatting about it with other folks tomorrow.
 
I've historically preferred a least a smidge more crunch, and my "real" main project - historical RPG rules for Renaissance Europe - is more rules heavy.

But I've hit a bit of a design wall with that and in general just haven't had the mental space to run or play in more crunchy games for a while.
There are a lot of posters on this site that might be useful for bouncing ideas off of for this project.
 
Hmm, so I'm going to break down the XP math a little, just to make sure I understand the weights and importance of the stats. Before I do that though, I did notice that in the Bane section there are three available buys at 2, 3 and 4 XP for Banes 4, 6 and 8 respectively, but right above that is an example Unpredictable Mutagenic Properties at 5. Now I'm guessing that's not supposed to be a purchased character build example, but it might cause some confusion. IDK.

Anyway, back to cost and function. Keep in mind this is my first pass and I haven't actually played the game yet.

Bonuses - all @ 1XP per +1 (range of +1 to +4) - Diegetic action bonus.

I have a question here. The formula reads D10 + Bonus + Risk. Risk as a bonus isn't mentioned anywhere. Does this perhaps mean D10 + Bonus versus Risk, which then indexes the column below that (Average, Hard, Very Hard and Epic). I don't see what else it could reference but who knows. It's been a long day.

Base chance to succeed for Avg through Epic is 70%/50%/30%/10% - this means that Bonuses really matter for Very Hard and Epic attempts, which makes sense. This also mitigates for at least one broad occupational bonus too, for anyone who's paying attention, as that gives you a bonus to pretty much the whole concept. Characters with narrow bonuses might start to feel like they can blow shit up real good but can't tie their shoelaces or walk and chew gum.

This really comes down to the need for specific and evocative prose in char gen. My Victorian Sorcerer above, for example, would really benefit from replacing the Sword Cane bonus with something broader and more occupational. I feel like a lot of the high bonuses are going to be pretty specific and badass, which is cool, but players are going to want to do a whole range of normal stuff, and having to do that all at straight rolls could be frustrating. A YMMV situation.

There is of course the option to spend bane to add to a roll, but I think that's a losing proposition outside of really important rolls.

Banes - 1 XP per 2 points of Bane - get yer HP here, now with extra evocative downside

I really this mechanic. There's some interesting things going on with the XP costs here. I can get two Banes at 4 for the same XP cost as 1 at 8. The latter functionally provides 1 more Bane point without activating a downside and also has a much milder downside. What that means is that players really have to want to choose the really bad outcomes from the 4 point Banes in terms of realizing their concept, or are forced into that tier because they wanted a lot of Bonuses and Bonds. Its a really interesting decision point.

Given the nature of the mechanics I think you'll see 'safe' players take higher Bane coupled with multiple Bonds. This is especially true given the pretty huge impact of being able to refill a Bane when you invoke a Bond. A well constructed concept (and I'm not talking about gaming the numbers here) will have close narrative connections between all the B's, so I don't see the when narratively appropriate caveat as a huge barrier.

Bonds - 1 XP per Bond. The Bondage Game.

My favorite part of this really isn't the mechanics at all (although those are good) but the chance to really flesh out your character with some short evocative flavor bits.

This is where those low HP high cost Banes come back and shine. If you sacrifice a Bond then relevant action checks are now rolled at that Bane's level. So if I have the Bane Rage Monster at 4 and sacrifice my Cute Puppy Bond I get to be John Wick until the end of session and all my rolls related to rage, which I guess would cover most combat, are now target 4, which is goofy low if I also have bonuses.

Where this takes us is back up to choosing Banes, where it now seems like the lower Banes have some significant upside to go with the added downside. I think a low Bane tied to core concept and more than just one Bond is a good way to build a character that excels within that concept.

Given the mechanics, I can't see myself choosing to spend Bane to add to a roll except in emergencies. Was that by design?

Anyway, that's my first take. I'm going to go build some base concepts now, like if you want Vampire X you can get there with built template Y. Just to get a feel for how to realize various sorts of concepts.
 
Obviously something in a form fillable PDF would be the bees knees, but Word in this case fit the available time I had at work to make a sheet. It does have the benefit of being the right size to snip and post as I did above without having to faff about with the zoom. I can't post Word docs as resources here on the forum, so here's a google doc link: Hexingtide Character Sheet - Word

Thanks!

Once I'm out of the playtesting woods, I'll offer a number of options:

Blank PDF as I've got now, form-fillable, Google Sheets, etc.

But I appreciate you letting me share this.

As for the Banes, yeah, I can see why that's where some of the playtesters are having troubles. It's a minimalist game so there aren't exactly a wealth of subsystems of mechanics to hang a Bane on. My thought was that the exemplars seemed to index RP stuff that the GM could play off of....

I do like the idea of a Bane setting things in motion that give the GM a lot of room for cool story telling elements. I'm looking forward to chatting about it with other folks tomorrow.

Absolutely. Didn't intend to imply there were any edits needed, just something that I, cheating as the designer who knows what I want to look out for as GM, would want to make sure I got right if I had a player with that Bane.
 
I did notice that in the Bane section there are three available buys at 2, 3 and 4 XP for Banes 4, 6 and 8 respectively, but right above that is an example Unpredictable Mutagenic Properties at 5. Now I'm guessing that's not supposed to be a purchased character build example, but it might cause some confusion. IDK.

Fair point. I wanted to indicate in-text an example of how Bane points are going to decrease. Might need to reword that or just keep the examples in the intro the same as the purchasable amounts at character creation.

Bonuses - all @ 1XP per +1 (range of +1 to +4) - Diegetic action bonus.

I have a question here. The formula reads D10 + Bonus + Risk. Risk as a bonus isn't mentioned anywhere. Does this perhaps mean D10 + Bonus versus Risk, which then indexes the column below that (Average, Hard, Very Hard and Epic). I don't see what else it could reference but who knows. It's been a long day.

Risk isn't called out on the character sheet, but is highlighted right under the Action Check boxes on pg. 9:

  • Risk Your Bane: Reduce a relevant Bane (without going negative) to add the same amount to an Action Roll.
So a basic roll will have a GM set a target number. Player will roll a d10 plus one - and only one - Bonus as relevant. If facing long odds or a poor roll, players can Risk Their Bane to add points to their roll. Meet or beat the target number to succeed.

GMs can interpret results for partial successes, criticals, etc. as they see fit - as befits the minimal rules.


Base chance to succeed for Avg through Epic is 70%/50%/30%/10% - this means that Bonuses really matter for Very Hard and Epic attempts, which makes sense.

Absolutely the idea.

That said this is a point I likely need to include in the rules: it's also a pacing and balancing issue. I won't throw tons of Very Hard, much less Epic, challenges as new players.

I'll wait until they get enough XP to bulk up their three B's, but the specific math of when and how much XP that is, well... I'm not good at theorycrafting, so we'll see.

This also mitigates for at least one broad occupational bonus too, for anyone who's paying attention, as that gives you a bonus to pretty much the whole concept... I feel like a lot of the high bonuses are going to be pretty specific and badass, which is cool, but players are going to want to do a whole range of normal stuff, and having to do that all at straight rolls could be frustrating. A YMMV situation.

Three points:
  1. GMs should only be asking for rolls when the stakes matter. That whole range of normal stuff like chewing bubble gum shouldn't come down to rolls.
  2. Bonuses should be equally Goldilocks-sized: not too broad, not too narrow. For example, with my real world friends who are playtesting this, one wanted to just have "werewolf" as a bonus, but we split it out into the senses and the super strength/reflexes as just the stock werewolf is too broad. Yes, this goes a bit against the potential bonus categories, but those are for ideation and reference. The player and GM need to work out the limits. Similarly, the Player and GM avoiding having too narrow or restrictive of a Bonus.
  3. To continue the point above, lower scores should not necessarily be more broad or general than a higher score (as they should all be generally be as "broad" as one another. The only differentiator at this point is the bonus score. Players should be able to use their +4 Bonus as often as their +1. It simply means that the Player with four +1's will be rolling with a Bonus of some sort four times as often as the Player with a single +4.
Does that track? It's late, and I'm not sure if I'm being clear.

There is of course the option to spend bane to add to a roll, but I think that's a losing proposition outside of really important rolls...

Given the mechanics, I can't see myself choosing to spend Bane to add to a roll except in emergencies. Was that by design?


This is one of the things I want to expose and get insight into through playtesting: it should be a hard choice, but it should also be a choice players make as needed.

If no one risks their Banes, then I'll likely make Banes higher scoring and/or cheaper, as to encourage Risking them.

Banes - 1 XP per 2 points of Bane - get yer HP here, now with extra evocative downside

I really this mechanic. There's some interesting things going on with the XP costs here. I can get two Banes at 4 for the same XP cost as 1 at 8. The latter functionally provides 1 more Bane point without activating a downside and also has a much milder downside. What that means is that players really have to want to choose the really bad outcomes from the 4 point Banes in terms of realizing their concept, or are forced into that tier because they wanted a lot of Bonuses and Bonds. Its a really interesting decision point.

Given the nature of the mechanics I think you'll see 'safe' players take higher Bane coupled with multiple Bonds. This is especially true given the pretty huge impact of being able to refill a Bane when you invoke a Bond. A well constructed concept (and I'm not talking about gaming the numbers here) will have close narrative connections between all the B's, so I don't see the when narratively appropriate caveat as a huge barrier.

Yep, definitely hitting on what I was driving for, with one point.

When a Character hits zero Bane, even an 8pt one, it's going to be bad, sewing chaos and complications in its wake.

It's just that the 8pt Bane, narratively, is one that is a long time coming, but when it's ignored, it's still bad news.

This is where those low HP high cost Banes come back and shine. If you sacrifice a Bond then relevant action checks are now rolled at that Bane's level. So if I have the Bane Rage Monster at 4 and sacrifice my Cute Puppy Bond I get to be John Wick until the end of session and all my rolls related to rage, which I guess would cover most combat, are now target 4, which is goofy low if I also have bonuses.

Exactly the idea, either for low max score Banes or waiting until your higher-pointed Bane drops low.

Which is great until your Rage Monster Bane drops to zero, then you lose control and do some damage you can't take back.

I'm going to go build some base concepts now, like if you want Vampire X you can get there with built template Y. Just to get a feel for how to realize various sorts of concepts.

One of my to-do items is to knock out a bunch of character concepts as pregens doing just that.

My hope is that I'll have playtesters contributing to them, and I'll be able to offer them as a resource, either on Itch or through my (neglected!) gaming blog.
 
Fair point. I wanted to indicate in-text an example of how Bane points are going to decrease. Might need to reword that or just keep the examples in the intro the same as the purchasable amounts at character creation.

Risk isn't called out on the character sheet, but is highlighted right under the Action Check boxes on pg. 9:

  • Risk Your Bane: Reduce a relevant Bane (without going negative) to add the same amount to an Action Roll.
So a basic roll will have a GM set a target number. Player will roll a d10 plus one - and only one - Bonus as relevant. If facing long odds or a poor roll, players can Risk Their Bane to add points to their roll. Meet or beat the target number to succeed.

GMs can interpret results for partial successes, criticals, etc. as they see fit - as befits the minimal rules.
Durp, of course that's what risk means. Excellent. Leaving the adjudication details up to the GM befits minimalist design.

Absolutely the idea.

That said this is a point I likely need to include in the rules: it's also a pacing and balancing issue. I won't throw tons of Very Hard, much less Epic, challenges as new players.

I'll wait until they get enough XP to bulk up their three B's, but the specific math of when and how much XP that is, well... I'm not good at theorycrafting, so we'll see.
You might not as the GM, but the players might decide to aim that high when the stakes match. Between risking Bane and sacrificing a Bond players do have the option to bring those Epic task within much easier reach. of course as the characters improve and the baddies get and stakes get bigger, more very hard and epic tasks might be thick on the ground.

A basic bit of information here is that players get 1 XP per session plus 1 for Bond shenanigans. Essentially a PC can sacrifice a Bond to go all John Wick every session and still realize some advancement at the same time. I think you'll see combat characters sacrificing Bonds quite often, since they'll often have a Bane that directly matches their concept.

With some attention paid to really cool and well-written bonds i suspect that they may (and perhaps should) get invoked even more regularly. Maybe not every single session, but I'd say every other session at a minimum (thinking about myself anyway). The Bond are the connections to a fading humanity and anyone who's really into their character is going to want to lean into that, doubly so when there's both a mechanical and experience benefit for doing so. To white room a little, lets say one of sacrificing a bond and a invoking bond might easily happen every session for every character. So we're looking at two XP per session. I'd probably bas my theorycrafting on that and level up a bunch of different kinds of character to see what they look like after 5 sessions, then 10, or whatever.

There's really two playloops here. One where the PC is designed to sacrifice and replace Bonds to target a well-chosen Bane, and second loop where risking Bane to improve rolls is balanced against judicious invoking of Bonds to refill the pool. (I like both ideas)

Three points:
  1. GMs should only be asking for rolls when the stakes matter. That whole range of normal stuff like chewing bubble gum shouldn't come down to rolls.
  2. Bonuses should be equally Goldilocks-sized: not too broad, not too narrow. For example, with my real world friends who are playtesting this, one wanted to just have "werewolf" as a bonus, but we split it out into the senses and the super strength/reflexes as just the stock werewolf is too broad. Yes, this goes a bit against the potential bonus categories, but those are for ideation and reference. The player and GM need to work out the limits. Similarly, the Player and GM avoiding having too narrow or restrictive of a Bonus.
  3. To continue the point above, lower scores should not necessarily be more broad or general than a higher score (as they should all be generally be as "broad" as one another. The only differentiator at this point is the bonus score. Players should be able to use their +4 Bonus as often as their +1. It simply means that the Player with four +1's will be rolling with a Bonus of some sort four times as often as the Player with a single +4.
Does that track? It's late, and I'm not sure if I'm being clear.
It tracks, no worries. I was actually indexing rolling that matters rather than over-calling for rolls on the GMs part. Occupation is the first example in your Bonus list and that's really what I was talking about. Taking an occupation at even +1 gets you a bonus a decent set different 'skills' when it matters, and by matching an occupation to the concept you get a solid suite of bonuses to the rolls you probably already wanted your character to be good at. So a Private Eye might be able to claim a +1 for sneaking about, picking locks, pretending to be a police officer, and snooping for clues (just to pick some things out of a hat). Is that equally broad compared to Werewolf senses? Well, yeah, maybe it is now that I think about it. :grin:


This is one of the things I want to expose and get insight into through playtesting: it should be a hard choice, but it should also be a choice players make as needed.

If no one risks their Banes, then I'll likely make Banes higher scoring and/or cheaper, as to encourage Risking them.

Yep, definitely hitting on what I was driving for, with one point.

When a Character hits zero Bane, even an 8pt one, it's going to be bad, sewing chaos and complications in its wake.

It's just that the 8pt Bane, narratively, is one that is a long time coming, but when it's ignored, it's still bad news.
If it's supposed to be bad news, then perhaps 'nuisance' isn't the right word, IDK. When I read that I read 'annoying'. I think they should be bad though, but perhaps my reading there is peculiar to me. Mechanically, any Bane can be raised to 10, correct, so the descriptive differences between the Bane Levels are just there to help shape the initial character concept? A 4pt max Bane could easily be upped to 8 after a single session if a Bond were invoked, so the difference seems pretty minimal outside of Char Gen.

Exactly the idea, either for low max score Banes or waiting until your higher-pointed Bane drops low.

Which is great until your Rage Monster Bane drops to zero, then you lose control and do some damage you can't take back.

One of my to-do items is to knock out a bunch of character concepts as pregens doing just that.

My hope is that I'll have playtesters contributing to them, and I'll be able to offer them as a resource, either on Itch or through my (neglected!) gaming blog.
This all sounds very cool. I wasn't talking about pregens so much a templates (I guess?), but they do essentially the same thing. What I was interested in examining is the different ways one can realize the same initial concept using different builds. Something like here's three ways to build a stock Vampire, that sort of thing. Something that would highlight the flexibility of your chargen process in terms of getting from concept to finished character.
 
Quick clarification about XP.

On pg. 10, it's one-quarter of an XP point for each session, for tagging a Bond either way (which should happen each session if the GM puts the pressure on), and being voted MVP.

So players will gain a full point of XP every other session.

With such a minimal rule set, I didn't want to have Character ramp up super fast.

But as with the rest, that math is liable to playtesting feedback and change.
 
Also, I sent out an email to folks who have filled out the playtest signup form, but on reflection, I'm not sure if the URL needs to be so private*.

Join me tonight for a Q&A and character creation walkthrough!
It's at 8:30pm Eastern Standard Time / 5:30 Pacific Standard Time.
I'm hosting it through Google Meet. Click on the following URL when it's time:

https://meet.google.com/fpt-soxs-spr

* Of course, if this opens the floodgates to trolls, that could well change.
 
Good lord it does say 1/4 XP. Yeesh.
 
Hopefully it's just me and the case of the missing reading glasses last evening. It could always be highlighted or fonted-up and bolded.
 
So I went for a durable build and made a Mummy. I'm still not sure about the exact numbers, but he's pretty tough...
1643324640125.png
 
Hey, WillPhillips WillPhillips - the Pub is going to be adding a front page with articles and reviews sometime in the near future, and I've signed myself up to produce some content. I'd love to do a playtest review of Hexingtide if you'd like some additional publicity. I'd even go as far as an interview if you wanted to. What I told the group I was interested in writing about was interesting small press stuff, and that's this game to a tee. Anyway, if that's something you'd be interested in let me know and we can work something out.
 
No new news other than I've just posted a "formal" update and announcement about Hexingtide to my gaming blog.

(All my "marketing" for the rules has thus far been confined to Twitter, Reddit, and here... as my poor ole' blog went a'languishing.)

 
I'm working on scheduling the next game with my real world friends.

Once that gets sorted out in the next day or two, I'll go about scheduling time for online folks.
 
Having gotten my real world game scheduled, I'm happy to say I'm going to run a playtest one-shot next Friday, 2/11. Starting 6-8ish CST, depending on people's availability.

If interested, please reply or PM me!
 
I couldn't not make a Mad Scientist...

Edit: I think I'd change the name of the tools to Eubanks' Patented Scientifical Carryall

1644522922548.png
 
Last edited:
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top