First and foremost, I did NOT create this. This was modified by some friends of mine, and we have used this quite successfully.

Introduction to the System


One of the most exciting parts of roleplaying is the fights and other dramatic confrontations - stealth, fast-talking, diplomacy, all that fun stuff. However, managing conflicts can be challenging. In a previous life, one of the game staff was peripherally involved in designing indie role-playing games and came up with "The Puddle."

(For those of you who want to nerd out a bit, the name is a twice-removed play on words. One of the oldest indie RPGs is "The Pool," about its dice pools. It was adapted into another, even more minimalistic indie RPG, "The Puddle," whose dice pools were far smaller in size. In turn, "The Droplet" is a further minimalized version of "The Puddle," using but a single eight-sided die.)

The basis of The Droplet are traits. In the character generation post, players are asked to generate up to six traits - characteristics that are significant to the character in the eyes of the player. And to be clear, all traits are equivalent by these rules. They make no mechanical distinction between, say, how strong Superman is and how strong Bane is. They are both very strong characters, though Superman's strength is obviously on a monumentally different scale than Bane's. But mechanically? No difference.

The differences in The Droplet are narrative, which is written to resolve conflicts in the game. Superman's strength will be narrated differently than Bane's. While not altogether impossible to narrate Bane lifting a tank, Superman could do so with ease.

In The Droplet, the purpose of a die roll is two-fold. First, to determine if a given element of a conflict is a success or failure. Second, to determine who narrates the success or failure.

The reason to roll when it is altogether optional - and it is entirely optional, requiring the agreement of all the players in the thread - is a form of gambling. It adds excitement and danger to know that your character might not succeed.

There is no need for a game master or other authority. All conflict resolutions can be handled by the players in the scene. If the players want to ask a staff member to narrate a roll or another player for that matter, feel free to ask, but they will not be required to do so. But the rules do not require any outside assistance. The players are all that is needed.

Rolls are made only by players on behalf of the characters they control.  NPCs do not have anyone to roll on their behalf and they do not have traits.  In this setting, a player will roll for the character's handle used for the post.  There are no conditions for which a player will ever roll for a character they do not control, or for any NPC.

When the players agree that they want to roll and it is not a conflict between player characters, a player will post what action they are attempting (often prefaced by a post to contextualize the action) and then roll a single eight-sided die. If they have any trait that pertains to the roll - and it is fair to be generous here - the player will add a +1 to the roll. You can roll to take actions for which you have no trait, without a +1 bonus, but you are expected to be reasonable as to what you can roll for without a bonus.  So, if the Black Panther was in a space ship being attacked by other ships, he might roll without a bonus to fly the ship in the dogfight.  However, he couldn't decide to roll to destroy the other ships with the power of his mind.  There is no reasonable circumstance where he would be able to do that. After you roll, consult the following chart:

Die Roll Results
1 to 3: The action fails, the next player to post narrates.
4 to 7: The action succeeds, next player to post narrates. Usually, this is a bit pyrrhic - though not necessarily, particularly if the contest is not extended. Sometimes, you want to move on, and that's okay.
8 and 9: The action succeeds or fails, the rolling player narrates. Usually as a continuation of the original post, with the roll and results added parenthetically where appropriate. Since the player who initiated the action decided what happens, they are permitted to narrate a failure should they desire.


If an action fails the first time, the narrating player should not end the scene. The first failure in a conflict is a significant setback shy of absolute failure. So, if Black Panther is fighting Killmonger, it means that, perhaps, Killmonger stabs Black Panther seriously but in such a way that does not immediately end the fight.

At this point, the players can also choose to retreat from the conflict without taking further "damage." If they want to continue, the following posting player makes a roll to "save" the situation. Any success means that the narration continues normally, considering the previous failures. So, in the above example, BP gets stabbed by Killmonger, but, hey, he's hanging around with Spider-Man, whose player rolls and gets a four total. Black Panther's player will narrate how Spider-Man "saves" the situation, allowing the conflict to continue in the subsequent post.

If a player, upon rolling an eight or higher, wants to end the conflict as a loss for their character, this is permitted. Sometimes, the exciting thing to do is lose, after all.

(Which means that every time you roll, there is a 1 in 9 chance of failure. This means that players succeed about 89% of the time, but it feels like more often, let me tell you.)

In some cases, it feels wrong that a conflict is resolved in one post. It should be a Big Deal if you're fighting Magneto, right? In those cases, what seems to happen (and it happens organically, in my experience) is that the players will narrate several partial victories before success or failure. For conflicts that are a Big Deal, I find that three posts per player are about right, though it can vary by situation and certainly by dice rolls.

If player characters are fighting each other - say, Black Panther and Killmonger are both player characters - each party will roll an eight-sided die. If a character has a relevant trait, add +1. Do not add multiple traits, even should they apply. The player with the higher number wins the conflict, but the losing player narrates. If a tie is scored, the conflict is a tie. Roll another eight-sided die, coin, or any other mechanism to decide who narrates the tie. It's often a good idea to check with the other player when writing a tie to see that everything is cool.

PvP conflict resolution takes trust. Players should only do such conflicts if they trust each other. If PvP rolls are made, and the parties can't agree, don't rely on the roll. Figure out another method to resolve the conflict or don't have the conflict.

Under no conditions - none - is it permitted to kill someone else's character without the player's explicit permission. It is wise to avoid narrating situations where death is inevitable. The GMs don't want to be bothered with it, and I doubt it would make anyone a popular player to see people trying to kill other people's characters!