Okay, so let me preface this by saying I’m critiquing this from the angle of a world-building game. A lot of what I’m dubious about stops being an issue if this is being treated as a competitive game about rival gods.
Also, I’ve written quite a bit here, so I’ve broken it down into the three main topics that stood out to me. There’s a handful of smaller details I could give feedback on too, but it’s getting late here now, and I ought to sleep. Apologies for the longwindedness, hopefully it’s at least constructive though!
So the first thing that stands out to me is that when I think of modern RPGs, I don’t think of more dice and tables, but that’s something you’ve gone with here. The chaos table makes sense to me, but I’m not sure I see the reasoning in making a lot of the creation actions require dicerolls. I can see that you’re borrowing the succeed/succeed with consequences/fail mechanic from PbtA, but I’m not sure how appropriate that is here.
In PbtA, dice rolls are used to make actions risky, and to introduce jeopardy, and the consequences to failure are almost always severe enough that you can’t reattempt the action immediately, or ever.
Here, I’m not sure if risk and jeopardy actually make for a more interesting world, or even a more interesting story of its creation. Also, most of the consequences are just things that require additional actions and Aether to correct, which means a failed dice roll just means the player has to spend more time trying to get their ideas into the game, meaning they have less time for introducing new ideas.
Now, the idea of the gods making flawed creations is still interesting, don’t get me wrong, but I feel if you wanted to focus on that you could bake the flaws into the actions inherently, instead of having it rely on dice rolls. This would hopefully discourage players from feeling like their action was a failure, and encourage them to embrace the flaws (also means less dice to worry about).
Related to that, one idea I did really appreciate was involving other players in creations. Having other players introduce other traits and flaws gives them an involvement in your creations really lacking from Dawn of Worlds. Bringing this in to be a core mechanic instead of a failure state could be a real interesting change.
(As an aside, every other action requires Aether and is limited mechanically, but when the other players get involved, there is no indication on who gets authority. If one player was particularly aggressive about getting their ideas in, had a bone to pick with the player who failed, or just was a louder person, they could easily end up sidelining the other players here. Just something to consider.)
Alternatively, if you want to keep the random element, removing the ‘alter x’ actions could add some weight to the rolls. There’s a certain type of gravitas to the idea of “once you create something, it’s in the world forever” approach that would bring, but it still might seems stifling to players who just want to be creative.
Finally, since you went with the 10+/7-9/6- ranges from PbtA, all actions that require a dice roll take 1 more Aether before you get an even balance between good and bad results, and 3 more before you have a reliable chance at getting the best result. Comparing the action list to Dawn of Worlds, I can’t quite tell if you’ve accounted for this or not?
The second thing that stands out to me is Demand Tribute action, and the bonus from Orthodoxies. There’s nothing like this in Dawn of Worlds, and it feels out of place here. Both have a mechanical bonus in a way nothing else in the game does.
Whether you’re playing Thorm, God of Order and Justice, or a nameless nature deity, you’re incentivised to create your three Orthodoxies as quickly as you can, and anyone who does not will have less of an effect on the world than those who do. This type of mechanical incentive limits the creativity of players in a way that stands against the aim of the game.
(Also the Demand Tribute action seems to be thoroughly broken in the version on your page? Unless I’m missing something, each Orthodoxy provides you with at the very minimum 5 Aether a turn, but you can reliably expect at least 15, with theoretically no upper limit?)
One major problem I ran into in my experience with Dawn of Worlds, and which made it over to your version, is the use of inches for Shape Land, Shape Climate/Alter Biome, and Catastrophe. The problem is there’s no indication on how big the map should be. If we’re using a plain old sheet of A4, that’d be 93" to work with (probably something like 60"-80" once you’ve drawn a continent with some space around it).
If you tear a piece of A3 out of a sketchbook though, to make it easier for everyone around the table to reach a piece, for instance, suddenly you’ve shot up to 186 inches. Even with an A4, with your minimum of two players, they’re gonna have trouble filling all that space even if you’re spending all your Aether throwing down landscape. With six players, that could be as little as 10 Aether each before you’re butting up on each other.
And the problem gets more even complicated playing digitally, where you don’t even have paper sizes to guide you. You’re entirely at the mercy of whoever draws the outline to guess how much space you’ll all need.
Interestingly, I notice that you abandoned inches for your chaos table, describing terrain in terms of regions. While I’m personally in favour or regions over X" of terrain, the mismatch could cause trouble with by how much regions grow or shrink, and the like.