Another Name for Portrayal

I previously mentioned something in Omnia called Portrayal. It isn't an essential component of the rules. It just serves as a potential guide/reminder for characterization and/or visualization for both player characters and non-player characters. It's purely optional and has no impact on the actual game mechanics of Omnia. I am not fully satisfied with the term itself, though. The word connotes a recommendation, which I do not intend. I do not wish "Portrayal" to convey a recommendation for portraying or imagining a character a certain way. Rather, I wish it to be an optional inspiration.

In Decidedly Six-Sided (one of my other blogs), I decided to use another term for the same idea: "Hypothetical Casting." I think it conveys exactly what I want without the necessity of explanation. It doesn't tell you how to portray a character. It doesn't tell you how to imagine a character. It simply says this is someone else who might conceivably play the role—do what you wish with the information. So, I might change the term in the rules. I'm contemplating it.

P.S. The series of articles in which I am trying out the term is part of RPGaDay 2026. My contribution on my own blog involves the creation of non-player characters (or possibly player characters) for Ghostbusters: A Frightfully Cheerful Roleplaying Game. You may find them here.

Omnia Update 2026-07-06

I have liberated myself from Microsoft Word and replaced it with LibreOffice Writer. I am so much happier with it in every way. The relevance of this revelation to Omnia is that I had been writing it on Word, which is very frustrating, and now I can finish it on Writer, which is actually fun. I enjoy writing and I enjoy writing implements that make the writing process even more enjoyable. If Word is getting in the way of your literary adventures, I strongly recommend LibreOffice, which is free to download.

Related to this, I have also discovered that Atkinson Hyperlegible, the typeface I have been using for Omnia, has two new variants: Atkinson Hyperlegible Next and Atkinson Hyperlegible Mono. I have now upgraded to Atkinson Hyperlegible Next and I am very pleased with the result. These fonts are available for free from the Braille Institute here. If you care about accessibility and common, decent readability, consider downloading them!

Score vs. Rating

In the past, I have tended to use the term "rating" for characteristics. Abilities in Omnia may be rated from 1 to 6, and the result is a rating, right? The problem, though, is that "rating" makes one think of popularity or personal opinion, but Abilities are supposed to be an objective evaluation. I am already using the term "score" for Health, Psyche, and Luck, so why not extend that to Abilities? A score in Omnia game terms is simply an expression of capability. It's a natural fit.

Thoughts on Penalties

As it stands, penalties in Omnia affect a character's Ability by reducing the number of randomizers used in a test. (Example: A City Guard 3 with a Condition of Sleep Deprivation −1 would roll two binary dice instead of three to notice the thief.) In a previous draft of the rules, penalties were negative randomizers that could potentially cancel an Ability's positive randomizers. (Example: The City Guard 3 with a Condition of Sleep Deprivation −1 would roll three positive binary dice and one negative binary die to notice the thief. If the negative die result is 1, it cancels out a single positive die result of 1.) This requires much more dice-rolling to determine whether a penalty has any effect whatsoever. Another method has just occurred to me, though. Suppose instead of reducing Ability randomizers or incurring negative randomizers, a penalty simply raises the Difficulty. (Example: The City Guard 3 with a Condition of Sleep Deprivation I needs to notice the thief, which is ordinarily a Difficulty of II. The City Guard would roll three binary dice versus the modified Difficulty of III.) This would make penalties much more punishing and feel less tangible. Gaining or losing randomizers as bonuses or penalties respectively makes the process more concrete. Conversely, raising and lowering the Difficulty depending on the bonuses and penalties affecting the character makes it seem more abstract. I think I shall continue using penalties for randomizer reduction.

Roman Numeral Difficulties

This is just a test to see how Difficulty ratings look with Roman numerals by modifying an excerpt from this article.

• Jane Doe tests her Ability as a Pole Vaulter 4 versus a Difficulty of II and scores a 3.
• Jeremiah Doe, Brawler 4, throws a punch and scores a 1.
• Jedediah Doe, Veteran Infantryman 3, defends with a 2.
• "I'll use my Ability as a Cat Burglar 5 to deactivate the alarm. The Difficulty is III? I scored a 4."
• "Test your Botanist 4 Ability. The Difficulty is III. You scored a 3? The plant is clearly extra-terrestrial in origin."
• "The Difficulty is IV? I'll use my Ability as an Armorsmith 4. I scored a 2 and I'll spend 2 points of Luck to see if I can bring it to a 4."

Obviously, this wouldn't be distinguishable verbally, but it would add clarity in print, especially in adventures. Theoretically.

Limited Game Notation

Instead of being concerned with how to notate Abilities and other aspects that are defined by quantities of randomizers, perhaps I should only be concerned with how to notate Difficulty (and possibly other fixed value aspects). Roman numerals would be a reasonable choice for Difficulty. Difficulty 3 becomes Difficulty III. Difficulty 4 becomes Difficulty IV. In a way, it makes it seem more imposing, more of a challenge. Abilities remain as unadorned numerals. Results remain as italicized numerals. And Difficulty ratings thereby stand out more, as they should. I think it might work.

Similar, but Not the Same

What do you do when all of the player characters in a group essentially have the same Ability, such as a group of Pirates, or Knights, or Ghost Hunters? In many role-playing games, such designations would be occupations and the individuals would be differentiated by long lists of skills. In Omnia, Abilities are already collections of skills and areas of knowledge, so player characters are differentiated by a) adjectives added to the Ability they have common and b) their other Abilities. In the first case, the adjective could modify the Ability by describing a significant trait, specialization, style, outlook, or cultural perspective. In the second case, a character's other Abilities could influence a character's approach to the primary Ability or contribute to success in fulfilling the objectives of the primary Ability.

I may need to provide examples in the future.

Omnia (Illusory) Progress Report 2026-04-18

I won't apologize for how long it's taking me to release Omnia. This is a personal project. I am making it to please myself and, hopefully, a few others. Very few people know anything about it. I don't even know if this blog has any actual readers. I literally have no one to whom I could apologize for the delay (as far as I know). Nonetheless, I am sharing this hope to the void that I might, perhaps, start playtesting the game this year.

Be seeing you...

Luck Again

In Luck Happens," I wrote that "Luck should literally be the result of luck, as in chance." I still believe it's the optimal method of awarding Luck, but I also believe Luck can be awarded for achieving certain goals as long as it cannot be spent on permanent character improvement. In Omnia, Luck plays no part in improving a character's statistics. It can only be used as a temporary boost. Therefore, Luck may be awarded when a character does something specific or it may be awarded randomly. The real key, as I reflect on it now, is not how Luck is acquired, but how it can be used. (It should also be noted that Luck scores and Ability scores are randomizers, not flat values, because Omnia uses a dice pool system.) Luck is no substitute for experience (except when it is), but it can be gained by having experiences.

What Voice Did I Use for That NPC Again?

Apart from schedule conflicts and published adventures with suboptimal presentation leading to user unfriendliness, my biggest challenge in running role-playing games is trying to remember exactly how I portrayed a given non-player character in a previous session, especially when the last session was months (or years) ago. This frustrates me to no end. How can I create a believable world and its inhabitants if I can't remember how I portrayed recurring characters? It isn't easy.

For Omnia, I borrowed an idea from QAGS. In QAGS, player characters have something called Who Would Play Him/Her In The Movie, or WWPHITM. The player is advised to think of a thespian who is best suited to play the character in a hypothetical movie to help the other players imagine that character. In Omnia, there is a similar characteristic for player characters called Portrayal, but it occurred to me that this would also be a useful characteristic for non-player characters—not only for helping visualization, but as a means for helping the moderator remember how to play the character. The moderator need not ever reveal a non-player character's Portrayal. It can just be a mnemonic device for the person responsible for playing an entire cast of supporting characters and antagonists every session. It's a simple solution that works for any role-playing game. I might need to highlight this aspect in the rules.