Winter is Coming...

I've decided that this will be the post to wrap up this year, on the blog. I had initially intended to do one post in December to finish things off, but eventually changed my mind for three reasons. First, I haven't been putting enough thought or work into the game (as of late) to generate a whole lot of meaningful development-related content for the blog. Secondly, this would have made for a total of 31 posts this year (one more than last year) and I just felt sort of weird about that -- which ties into the third reason. Essentially the blog schedule that I laid out at the start of the year was done with the intention that it would be continued in following years (allowing for equally-long breaks in summer and winter) and I've changed my mind about that, for now.


Context
Over the course of 2018, I've continued to play D&D quite a bit, adding games to my weekly schedule as the year has gone on. It has actually been really fun and satisfying; it's great to meet new groups of people, but it also has taken up a lot of my free time. I've also found myself spending a lot of thought and energy (possibly far more than is really warranted) tinkering with ideas for fixes and house-rules to use with 5th Edition. Really, it has started to feel like a detriment to the design work that needs to be done on The Next Project, so I am going to have to make some tough decisions about gaming, in the near future.


Scheduling
That being said, I also want to take a longer break than the original one-month timeframe I had planned. Again, there are a couple reasons for this, which I have touched on (content drying up, lack of free time, etc.) One of the more... aesthetic reasons, is that it has always been kind of a weird setup; with the blog intended to be updated 3 times a month, February only having two posts sort of sticks out. I've considered extending the break by a little bit, starting later in the new year, and only doing two posts in January (followed by three in February) but ultimately I decided to make a more dramatic departure from the existing structure.

For 2019, I want to resume blogging in March.

This should (hopefully) allow time for the fresh start that the designs sorely need, as well as to help generate meaningful content and updates -- rather than needing to crutch on retrospectives and the like. Assuming the design work needs to continue for the full calendar year, it's my intent that I will do 24 posts in 2019, as follows:

• 5th/15th/25th of the month, March through June
• 10th/20th/30th of the month, August through November

The Task at Hand

As for the actual design work, I touched a little bit on it in the previous post (as well as other posts, in recent months.) Some classes have been left unfinished, and never were updated to the 2018 designs. It had been my intention to get this facet of the game "feature locked" (so to speak) but it has become clear as of late that the leveling system still has a lot of kinks that need to be ironed out, as well as needing additional features and functionality.

To wit, the customization for some classes just isn't at a level where it needs to be. So I'm going to look at changing the categories of classes -- "Specialist only" classes are probably going away. This will mean that subclass/specialist might get juggled around on certain classes, but (assuming that the "Subclass only" category remains relatively intact, in its current form) we are likely going to see Roles added onto classes that are lacking customization.

As you can imagine, this means a significant amount of additional design work needing to be devoted to the character classes. Just as a sneak-peek example, I can see the Paladin's subtypes changing from specialists to subclasses, and having Defender/Striker/Support roles added to the class. I also want "Role only" classes to be given a little something more; my initial thought is that they should each have access to at least 3 roles. The example I would give here, is that I would like to try and do a sort of "Lord archetype" for the Warlord class -- harkening back to the AD&D Fighter, who eventually would gain their own personal army -- as a quasi-summoner, Controller role.

Restructuring

I also want to just generally put in some work to re-examine the various subtypes, and make sure they work best where they are. If the status quo of class categorization is going to be changing, it just makes sense to do this at the same time. For example: Adventurer's specialist classes (Scout, Skald) might make more sense as subclasses; this in turn asks the question of, does Adventurer make more sense as a "subclass only" class? It might, particularly if the ethos of having that be the "skillful class category" is upheld in the future.

This would have knock-on effects for the Ranger, as they would then be moved to a different category. It might also make sense to have Roles for the Druid class be changed to subclasses, and then have their "forms" instead become roles. Could the Guardian's subclasses (Warden, Shaman) instead function as roles, while keeping their Specialist Class options intact? It might also make sense to have classes which use Subclasses (but are adequately functional without one) to instead have these changed to Specialist Classes; so far I'm not seeing a convincing case, just based on the existing structures, but this all may yet change.

This also leads to some further examination of the distinction between Specialist Classes and the other subtypes. Within the current designs, I feel like most "specs" (not quite all) could probably be changed to either Subclasses or Roles -- but it'd have to be an "all or nothing" change. In some cases, Specialist Class leans more strongly towards being a distinct class/subclass (in the case of Adventurer, or Spellbinder, for example) whereas in other cases, it's used more for... well, specializing an existing class (in the case of Cleric, Sage, and Guardian, in particular.) It sort of begs the question of whether breaking this subtype into two (based on this distinction) would add any sort of value, in the long run. Somewhat related to this, I've found myself (in my own shorthand uses) sliding back to the old terminology of "Archetypes" when referring to Specialist Classes; this reversion might be reflected in future drafts, or the terminology might end up being used if the subtype does (in fact) get split up.

How the Other Half Lives

I should, at this point, mention that my D&D "career" has been almost exclusively as a player, rather than as a DM. Although I've spent significant amounts of time reading up on the game, its history, advice, horror stories, etc. I haven't had a lot of experience with having to actually get in the driver's seat and run campaigns.

What needs to happen now, is for me to take the wealth of experience I've gained (through playing, as well as reading) and combine that with the goals I have for this system, and the intended experience it is meant to facilitate. So, the rules for handling non-combat interactions need to be really plotted out, step by step -- things like, when and how to transition from different types of scenes, using the skill system. Really, I don't want the game to become overwrought with subsystems piling on top of one another, so there is going to have to be a high level of abstraction. That doesn't mean there shouldn't be advice for how to handle things like chase scenes, naval combat, overland travel, etc. but they should be done at the level of abstraction in which the system should comfortably sit.

Just as an example, the baseline assumption is that the universal "DC10" rule applies when making skill checks; however, sometimes it might be appropriate to use "opposed" checks, under specific circumstances. That needs to be ironed out (and mathematically balanced) and explained clearly and adequately in the rules.

The other foundational wisdom that needs to be imparted to DMs of this game, is what sort of campaigns to run with it. For example, I don't think TNP will ever model things like running a side-business in your downtime, kingdom-building, or mass combat -- at least, not in any way beyond the abstract. Clearly, the skill system is meant to cover a lot of the bases that a typical D&D edition would... or at least to touch on them, adequately. It'd be difficult to do anything like, say, a system for losing or gaining reputation with specific factions, without bolting a completely unique subsystem to the game, wholesale.

Essentially, the text of the rules needs to be at a place where it can be picked up and operated by anyone -- without guidance from the designer, or a need for a ton of prior RPG experience. The "playtest" draft of the rules (I think) was a helpful benchmark for me, and it also helped to stress-test the player-side mechanics of the game, but it completely lacked a DM component; that's what I need to work on next, I feel.

Endgame

I know I've discussed it in private with certain people in the past, but I think it's important to just come out and say it here, finally: I don't have any intention to design another RPG, after The Next Project.

I hope this goes a long way to explaining the extensive design process that it has undergone; I want it to be as complete and flawless as possible, once it is a finalized product. It's not something I can see myself wanting to do multiple "editions" of, or something I want to have to worry about issuing errata for. It'll be done "when it's done," but once it's done, it's done.

I've had a few other ideas for how I might want to execute on designs for separate RPGs, but I'm just not sure any of them have enough... going on, there. One sort of idea that I've floated is an "ability scores done right"-take on D&D -- but broadly speaking, those have been done to death (probably the better executions being the 4e or 13th Age models) and also require a fair bit more complexity than I'm really capable of creating. Another idea would be to implement playing-cards in some fashion or another, but the pieces never really all came together on that concept.

My intention has always been to put out a complete game, at a modest price; as the number of class slates expanded, the idea cropped up to sell these additional slates, as "expansions." The question has always been how much polish the game really warrants; does it need professional editing, or commissioned artwork? Personally, I've always wanted to kind of "go it alone" and keep things simple (and therefore inexpensive) but these considerations will definitely have to be addressed and answered, whenever the design work nears completion.


---


Finally, I want to thank everyone who's kept up with the blog over 2018. Hopefully you continue to do so in the new year. As always, if you have any comments or questions, please get ahold of me wherever you get your links to TNP, or comment directly on the blog.

Scattershot (2018)

I have a few ideas that I want to put out into the world -- mostly half-baked -- that kind of cover various areas of the designs. This post is going to be a bit jumbled, so bear with me.

Skill Dice
A couple of comments that I've received are that the skill system needs more gradients (typically, there needs to be something between "Expertise (untrained)" and Trained) but also that maybe there should be a bonus for being trained with both the Attribute and the Skillset of a given skill. I haven't really come up with anything to address the former, but in terms of the latter, I toyed around with a few different ideas (without straying too far from the existing framework.) Really the only thing that didn't seem broken would be to allow the training die to be rolled with Advantage, in that instance. This sort of borrows from the "boons & banes" method of die bonuses, from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

The problem I've found with this, is that the math pretty closely mirrors that of having both Training and Expertise (thus, feeling like "change for the sake of change") with the obvious difference of being able to still layer Expertise on top of it, for further benefit. Doing so puts the success rate pretty close to what using d10s did, in earlier iterations (as was mentioned in the "origins" post about skills.)

Now, this presents the question of, should "skillful" classes simply be able to upgrade their training die to d10, in these circumstances? As I'm typing this out, I'm starting to lean towards "yes," in large part because the overall designs have been trying to avoid mixing double-rolls and Expertise (because it is rather clunky) while still remembering that d10 was completely discarded before, because it pushes success rates too high.

This also does nothing to solve the initial premise of adding a gradation below "trained" -- so I'm not entirely sure I'll use any of this. I'll have to try and crunch out some math, but my first instinct is to try and do something akin to the class dice mechanics of "roll & compare" but utilizing the training die, instead of class die. I'll have to see if that's feasible, without being clunky.


Subtypes
As was mentioned in the recent post about classifying/categorizing classes, right now each slate of classes is set up to include one class for each of the five "categories." These categories essentially grew out of the earlier decision to pare the number of subtypes down from four, to three. This change got rid of "optional combat roles," and left most classes fitting into the current setup.

As I've said before, the 3rd slate was sort of bashed into this framework, and I've never been completely happy with the results. Similarly to the skill conundrum, two questions have presented themselves: does the design conceit of "categories" actually present something worth preserving, and do the classes (overall) have enough customization?

I feel like the continual worry over "subclass only" and "spec only" classes sort of goes to show that maybe this setup isn't viable. The question then becomes, can we add to these classes using the existing subtypes? Should we try and add roles to all classes (in all honestly this has never been my intent) or should we just "upgrade" these two categories?

Likewise, when I looked at the 3rd slate again recently, I found that Druid probably makes more sense as a "subclass & role" loadout -- but that isn't a category that exists in the current designs. (Also, the other classes in the slate could/would probably work better by being slotted into different categories, I feel.) Making the Druid be a unique category on its own means that it loses the design space of having transferable "category upgrades" while also calling the entire framework into question. Does the "symmetry" of each slate having the same five categories really... do anything?

Should "subclass only" classes get roles or specs stapled on? Should "spec only" classes get roles or subclasses stapled on? Should we change only one of these categories, or both? Whichever solution gets settled on, it will mean serious consideration and redesign work.


Monster Math
I haven't looked at it as much, but the framework for monsters is also something that needs a lot of hard thought. Aside from solo monsters needing a more thorough system (as it pertains to positioning) I also am sort of leery about the way things like Advantage/Disadvantage and Trained/Untrained work differently for monsters than they do for PCs.

It sort of results in there being two distinct rulesets -- one for PCs and one for DMs -- where the only place the two cross paths is in situational and positional considerations in combat, where both sides have to interact with one another. It might be a necessary evil, but just the way the terminology is recycled, without the mechanics being unified across the two paradigms... it's something I find worrisome.

The main utility that I like about the "monster roll" is that it can help DMs run their monsters, by letting the dice decide -- allowing for some level of automation, which can speed things up and negate "analysis paralysis." The problem is whether or not the burden of DMs having to familiarize themselves with both paradigms is outweighed by this little bit of utility, or if they would be better served by having monsters be more straightforwardly d20-based.


---


Next post will be up November 30th, so check back then. Just a heads-up, that will be the final post of this year.

Design Origins -- Part 6: Movement & Positioning

Today I want to talk about the design decisions behind some of the game's positional considerations. Largely these choices came out of my own game experiences and personal preferences, so I'm going to do my best to explain those, in detail.

My experience with RPGs in general is that they are largely two-dimensional in nature (whether that be a Diablo game or a D&D game.) The main thing I noticed when playing D&D, was the tendency for the action (in combat) to crowd into whatever was the most spacious open area of the battlefield. I can recall in a session of 3.5 once, our DM had built some simple structures from popsicle sticks, to provide cover and elevation -- but still this tendency held true, and the terrain was mostly ignored.

Our opponents had one archer up on a rooftop, and so I (playing a Monk) made it my objective to scramble up there and fight him toe-to-toe. Once I had, the verticality completely lost its impact, and we found ourselves once again in regular old combat, albeit slightly separated from the rest of our respective parties.

While I liked 4th Edition's use of the grid, and movement abilities on powers, I felt like it relied too much on making an interesting map, in order for these sorts of powers to feel potent and meaningful. From the DM perspective, managing or homebrewing monsters and encounter groups on its own felt like enough work, without having to build creative arenas to make every fight interesting or challenging. Particularly since I've always been more compelled by the storytelling aspects of running the game, I came away feeling like the system was asking too much of its DMs.

I should also take a moment here to mention a change that I didn't particularly like, from 3.5 over to 4e: the Acrobatics skill. Essentially what this tried to do was combine skills like Balance, Tumble, and Escape Artist into one. The problem with it was that originally Tumble had been used to avoid opportunity attacks, while moving around the battlefield -- but instead, 4e hung that function onto "shifting." In and of itself, that's not necessarily a bad thing, however, it had the knock-on effect of making the Acrobatics skill ...not actually do Tumble -- making it a bit too niche, in practical application. I had enjoyed using Tumble (particularly on the aforementioned Monk character) and so with TNP I decided I wanted to sort of turn back the clock, and make that skill matter again. (I should add that while I like 5e's decision to use "movement speed" as something you can spend over the course of your turn, rather than "move actions," it simultaneously fails to have either a "shifting" mechanic or a Tumble skill -- which I find completely baffling. There are feats and class features that allow movement without provoking opportunity attacks, but the lack of a baseline maneuver with which to do so, is outright strange, in my opinion.)

Now, one thing that I think is important to look at with 4e is how range was handled. Specifically, ranged weapons and spells typically could hit targets within 10 squares; coincidentally, your average character's move speed was 6 squares, with the "Charge" action letting them move their speed and make a basic attack -- effectively letting them move 12 squares. So we can see that melee and ranged combatants were meant to have comparable targeting capability; 4th Edition's relatively shorter distances (in addition to features like Prime Shot) worked to keep the party fairly close together, in combat. This is something that 5e forgot about, instead opting to gate Charge behind a feat (for some reason) while giving even the most basic cantrips a range of 120ft (effectively 24 squares.)

If we look at 13th Age, they've completely done away with the granular measurements, in favour of relative positioning. Generally speaking, all combatants will be no more than 2 move actions away from each other, within this system. To me, this makes sense; any further away, and you shouldn't really be considered part of the encounter, or be taking turns within initiative. TNP streamlines this a little further, effectively assuming that all combatants are "Nearby" -- barring things like cover or high ground. I borrowed fairly heavily from 13th Age's execution on positioning, because I feel like it produces similar outcomes to a traditional grid system, just without all the minutiae. Some people who were following TNP's development wanted more tactical options and verticality, so things like "prone" and "high ground" would eventually find their way into the designs, however I feel like these things are likewise executed a bit more simplistically than in traditional D&D.

Where TNP starts to set itself apart, is by making the PCs the focus of the action; this is done by using the mechanic of the maelstrom. All combatants are defined by whether they are "open" or in a maelstrom. So rather than having to say "well I'm behind this guy, but in front of that guy" or "I'm one move away from X but two moves away from Y" the system instead assumes that everyone is in open space, until they become engaged in melee. Each melee group then becomes almost a unique feature of the map; combatants can enter or leave the maelstrom, but who is where at any given time is defined in terms of these melee groups. A maelstrom including any number of enemies, but only one PC, is therefore defined as belonging to that character -- the combat scene effectively centering around them.

What this accomplishes "at the table" is that it allows most encounters to be depicted using miniatures alone; a map with terrain features (but not necessarily with a grid on it) can be helpful and immersive, but it is not mechanically required. Similarly, an intention of this mechanical framework is to help facilitate play-by-post games; positioning can be handled entirely by text (or perhaps even using something as simple as a spreadsheet) without any need to attach images of a map, and having to constantly update them. I've often enjoyed both of these methods of play, but I felt the necessity of a grid (in some games) became a major detriment to "PBP" in particular.


...


Apologies for the somewhat scatterbrained nature of this post; hopefully it at least gets the intent across. Check for the next post on November 20th.

Classification & Categorization (2018)

One of the things that will need to be polished up for the upcoming versions of the game is the leveling system, which is a new feature as of the 2018 Edition writings. Part and parcel to this is the upgrade system, in turn tying itself into the slates and categories of classes. So I wanted to take some time today and untangle all of this, in order to give an idea of where I'll need to be taking the designs, in the future.


Inspiration
First, I want to start of with a bit of nostalgia (without making a full-blown "Origins" post.) Back in 4th Edition D&D, each Player's Handbook (PHB) introduced several classes, with successive books also adding classes with new power sources (Primal in PHB2, and Psionic in PHB3.) Further on, players options would also appear in "Power" books -- geared to all classes within a particular power source, despite these classes often being spread across more than one of the PHBs. I had always thought it would have been nice if they (at some point) made some sort of compendium books, based on power source -- a reprinting of each class (including errata) as well as all of the additional players options for that power source, which had come out along the way.

This ended up forming the sort of thematic basis of the class slates, in TNP. Where 4th Edition's PHBs each had classes spanning no less than three power sources, I initially wanted to have my class slates each based on only one. Ultimately, that would have meant expanding to five slates, or cutting down the number of power sources, so I instead settled on three slates, with (ideally) two main power sources, each: the 1st slate being Martial/Divine, the 2nd being Arcane/Shadow, with the 3rd being mainly Primal.


Metamorphosis
Now, as I had touched on in a previous post, where 4th Edition essentially defines a class as "role + power source" (creating its "class slates" by filling in that grid) TNP tries to go in a different direction. Classes are mostly defined by their Class Die and (what I've come to refer to as) their "category" -- which is, in short, the ways in which a class can be customized, namely by Subclass, Combat Role, and Specialist Class. There are 5 combinations of these options, and each slate contains one class for each combination.

With all this in place, once I began to break these options out into what could or couldn't be used for purchasable upgrades (in order to help build the leveling system) it became clear that (because of their category) certain classes would need additional upgrades. For example, a class which gets both Combat Roles and Specialist Classes to pick from, would already have two possible upgrades already built for them -- whereas a "Subclass only" character would effectively be "fully customized" from the get-go.


Evolution
This is where the idea of "Category Upgrades" came into being. Certain categories simply needed more options for upgrades, but this also opened up the idea that such upgrades could be transferred among classes of the same category (if the player chose to change their class) without needing to purchase the upgrade again. Flowing from that idea, was the notion that classes sharing a category should (ideally) have something in common. In the case of the "Subclass only" category, it seemed to make sense that generally those classes should get access to more skill training; the 3rd slate was retooled slightly, to allow for Ranger to be put into this category, alongside the Acrobat and the Rogue. Likewise, it was loosely determined that "Specialist only" classes should get an extra power source as a common perk.

In the same vein, since classes of a given slate were not limited to a single power source, I wanted to have something mechanically linking them together. This is where the idea of "Slate Upgrades" started from; being able to keep a thematically-appropriate perk across all the classes of a slate would encourage players to stay within a given slate (assuming they chose to change their class) if and when they had opted into this type of upgrade.


Ascension
I want to expand on this idea in the future. In the case of the 1st slate, the simple "Expertise with one Attribute"-upgrade was basically just something I noticed most of the classes already had, and so I ported that over from being a class perk to a slate perk -- but that's a little bit bland. I'm much happier with the idea (if not necessarily the execution) of the 3rd slate's perk, granting certain skill bonuses that utilize class die, for each of the five classes. Likewise, I think the idea of having the 2nd slate be more "knowledgeable" is a good fit, thematically (in particular, with it containing presumably smart classes like Sage, and skillful classes like Rogue and Bard) but it needs a better mechanical implementation.

With the more recent drafts of the rules, I've tried to hammer out a more definitive listing of the power sources available to the classes within each slate. In the process, I've noticed that while slates 1 & 3 effectively each have a couple "primary" power sources and a couple of "secondary" power sources, the 2nd slate is more closely married to its primaries, but then its secondaries vary across the board, from one class to the next. This sort of gives the thought that perhaps extra power sources could be the slate perk, here -- both because power sources are the method of gaining knowledge skills, but also since this slate seemingly positions itself as the pivot point between the other two. Again, before I can give this final approval, I'll have to consider it in the context of the category (or categories) of classes which end up with "gaining additional power sources" as one of their signature upgrades.


---


I'm thinking of doing another "Origins" post for my next entry, but I haven't 100% decided on the topic just yet. In any case, it'd be the final such post for this year; check back on November 10th for that.

Bringing Backgrounds to the Foreground (2018)

It's been a busy week for me, so I haven't had much time to write. One of the few things I've been thinking about a bit (again) is the Power Sources and Knowledge skills in the game, so I want to touch on that a bit today.

So, generally, we want Power Sources to serve a few roles:

1. To give theme or flavour to a class
2. To inform the background of a particular character
3. To provide characters with their Knowledge skills
4. To be the mechanical axis by which players can "re-spec" their class

Let's break this down into more detail:

• Arcane classes are those that deal with magic -- pretty straightforward
• Divine classes deal with religion, gods and demigods, etc. and usually dabble in healing
• Martial classes are the ones that fight using weapons (or hand-to-hand) -- warriors
• Primal classes deal in the elemental, the natural, and the primitive
• Shadow classes deal with dark powers, or shady elements within society

One of the design choices that came out somewhat recently, was tying 2 specific Knowledge skills to each Power Source, and giving Training/Expertise based solely on that (rather than previous iterations -- which would let you pick 2 skills out of 3, or have a separate Knowledge progression alongside Power Sources, among a few other ideas -- that were eventually scrapped.)

Arcane characters get Arcana and Royalty & Nobility. Characters with this power source have both an affinity with some sort of magic, but also an understanding of political structures (and perhaps contacts at high levels of government.) These two concepts may or may not be connected to each other, on a given character; Paladins and Druids with the Arcane power source may simply be trusted bodyguards or advisers to a king, or a tribal leader, in addition to their magical talents.

Divine characters get Medicine and Religion. Typically these two are tied together, thematically. Usually classes that bestow healing are based in some sort of faith (in the case of Druids, Paladins, and Clerics, for example) or else are generally expected to be knowledgeable characters all around (such as Monks or Bards.) Alternatively, this power source can serve as a sort of motivation or specialty for otherwise martial-focused classes, such as the Acrobat, Fighter, or Warlord.

Martial characters get History and Local. The History skill represents a familiarity with significant events, their causes and effects, and the lessons that can be drawn from them; the Local skill represents familiarity with the common folk, including customs and etiquette. As has been said, this power source will mainly be found on warrior classes, but it can also be used to give a sharper context to others -- such as Clerics, Bards, or Spellbinders. It could also allow classes that are expected to be widely knowledgeable to expand their skill sets.

Primal characters get Geography and Nature. These skills both potentially cut very wide swaths. The Geography skill can provide knowledge of the literal locations of things, but also insight into what the current terrain features tell about what might lay ahead. The Nature skill can help discern weather patterns, tides, properties of various plants, as well as various information about wildlife. Again, while this Power Source is mainly found on classes like Druid, Ranger, and Barbarian, it can also be used to differentiate one Fighter or Warlord from another.

Shadow characters get Dungeoneering and Streetwise. Generally, the Dungeoneering skill helps when identifying anything to do with the underground world; Streetwise is for dealing with the figurative "underground" world. So this Power Source ends up covering a lot of ground, from Rogues (wheeling and dealing within various black markets) to Occultists (searching for lost secrets in forgotten catacombs) to Rangers (living on the peripheries of society, and hunting the darkest, most dangerous monsters.) When applied to a class like the Acrobat, it turns a simple Martial Artist into something that feels more like an Executioner, for example.

Nuts & Bolts

Now, the basic mechanic of "re-specs" is meant to allow players to change their class, while maintaining some thematic consistency with their character. To achieve this, we make it so that it is easier to re-spec into a class which shares a Power Source with your current class. With that in mind, the baseline idea is to give every class at least two Power Sources.

In this way, Arcane subclasses like Invoker, Sorcerer, and Wizard can be related to Druids and Shamans; Fighters and Warlords become "cousins" with Rangers and Barbarians; shadowy archetypes like Blackguard and Hexblade begin to cross paths.

The other mechanical lever that we can use Power Sources for, is to grant additional customization to classes that don't have as much (such as Roles and/or Specialist Classes.) Right now, each character starts with one Power Source, and gains another at 3rd level; certain "specs" gain an additional Power Source, whereas most subclasses give its parent class alternate options for which Power Sources they can pick (at starting level or at 3rd level.)

I'm thinking this might change a little bit: probably classes with less customization will gain a 3rd Power Source at 5th level; the classes currently gaining Power Sources from a "spec" will likely instead get this power source as an option (much the same way that certain subclasses do) but they may also get an extra Power Source at 5th level. These are just some ideas that I have been kicking around, which will hopefully both streamline and unify the progression tracks a little bit (much the way Performance skills need to be ironed out, I feel.) This will also help in the process of making sure that Power Sources are available to a wide enough number of classes, that none feel underutilized or too niche, but also that there isn't a overabundance of classes which simply have access to all the Power Sources (or combinations thereof.)

---

More busy times still to come, but nevertheless the next post should be up on October 30th.

Let me know what you thought of this post, and if you'd like to see more in-depth discussion of anything we've touched on today.

The Next Revision (2018)

So back at the start of this year, I went over how I would be doing the new draft of the rules section by section, and eventually bringing the pieces all together. This would culminate (in April) with the "2018(a) Playtest" draft of the rules.

Since playtesting ended, most of my blog entries have been about ways in which the rules need to expand even further, so that we can give greater clarity about how the game should function, and how the mechanics should be used. This will likely take on a similar writing process; however, I first want to release a new playtest packet. (The intention always having been to do 2 or 3 drafts, throughout 2018.)

This draft already includes a few rules changes/clarifications, coming out of the playtest and other sources of feedback -- but largely, this is not what I would call a "stable" or "finalized" draft. This time around, it'll be more of a work in progress (as was largely the case in Beta 4) and I intend to be continually adding smaller changes as needed, as well as stapling on whole new sections, as they become complete.


The Next Project -- 2018(b) Playtest

Current changes: [from 2018(a) to 2018(b)]

• Included a longer explanation of the "Expertise" mechanic, hopefully reducing confusion
• Changed the "Reliable" property to only work with basic attacks that are made as a Standard Action
• Changed the rule for "Power Attack" to make its interaction with Advantage a little simpler;  removed the option to deal the higher attack roll as extra damage, to facilitate this (and also because that option was overpowered/overused)
• Made some clarifications to Advantage/Disadvantage/Expertise applying to dice which are stacked onto a d20 roll (generally, Expertise should apply, but the others should not; this may need further attention)
• Expanded on some of the core dice mechanics
• Added an example of when Advantage (from a critical success) might be applied before making a roll
• Clarified the game term "maximum value" (specifically, max on d10 is 10, rather than it being used as a 0-9 scale)
• Explanation of "Training Die" added to the core dice mechanics
• Clarified some of the mechanics around "Double Rolls" (specifically, those pertaining to treating a Basic Roll as a double roll; added explanation about the uses of the dice from a double roll being a function of the feature that is using the roll, rather than there being a general rule that is always used.)
• Changed list of classes to a table, rather than bullet-points
• Clarified the amount of HP characters have after a rest; if they began the rest with more than their maximum, then it is reset to their maximum.
• Added a rule for the off-chance that a class gets a single Power Source, 3 times
• Changed the rules for applying Advantage (from a critical success) to a skill check; this can now be used on any check (not just Untrained) but specifically only applies to the d20 roll
• Explanations for basic attacks (under the "Actions in Combat" section) were expanded a bit, as per feedback/suggestions

Changes that still need finalization:

• The "Weakened" effect will probably need to be changed, in order to make it function properly with Monster Math expressions
• Expanded rules for summoned creatures i.e. when they do or do not count as allies (work-in-progress)
• Expansion/clarification of the "Nearby" position

---

If you have any feedback or suggestions, please get ahold of me however/wherever you link to the blog from.
The next post should be up on October 20th, so check back then!

Power Tools (2018)

Something that I will want to look at (as classes continue to be revised) is how damage and effects are worked into various types of attacks.

One of the important considerations with any d20 system, is that requiring more rolls essentially equates to creating more possible failure points. Particularly when dealing with trying to set up "combos" during an encounter, having to succeed at multiple rolls makes the task even trickier.

4th Edition D&D would generally have encounter powers do "damage + effect" on a hit, with daily powers typically doing both on a hit, and either the effect or half-damage on a miss. In any case, you'd only roll once to determine success or failure. In 5th Edition, generally what you see happening (particularly with Monks, "Battle Master" Fighters, and Paladins) is the requirement for both the player-character to score a hit (for damage) as well as the enemy to fail a saving throw (for effect.)

I've borrowed a little bit from 5e, by allowing any melee attacks to either be used for straightforward damage, or to attempt a "brawl" maneuver. However, I do want to try and hew a little closer to 4e when it comes to building distinct powers for each class; if setting up a cool combo is part of their shtick, then that class should be able to do it with one roll.

This is where it's sort of important to have effects and debilities be well-defined within the mechanical framework. To wit, the "push" mechanic (as defined in the rules) can easily be created using a skill check (as it is currently, with the Brawl skill) but can easily also be tacked onto a simple attack feature; in other words, by not defining every "push" as being the result of a specific type of check, we can use the mechanic elsewhere, without always requiring its own check every time.

Another important consideration is action economy. If the baseline assumption (in combat) is that making a skill check uses a Standard Action, then we have a few methods by which we can make this easier, as a way to build class powers. For example, if a particular class is meant to be good at hiding, we can say, "When you make a successful basic attack, and are not in a maelstrom at the end of your turn, you can become Hidden." This effectively gives the benefit (Hidden) of a successful Stealth check, without requiring the extra roll -- again, because this is an effect that is defined outside of just being the benefit of a successful check. Alternatively, we can allow such classes to make a Stealth check as a Minor Action, or perhaps as part of a Move Action.

The final consideration within the existing framework, is the fixed "DC10 rule" coming into play. When comparing a "trained" skill check to an unmodified attack roll, the skill check is far more likely to succeed. Now some classes (or at least, specific powers) will include modifiers to attack rolls, beyond just Advantage and Expertise; this has generally been done in order to bring expected damage output up to par, without needed to inflate the number of attacks being made. So if we're building skill checks into powers (or onto other actions) then we need to be able to assume that that class will have a good chance of succeeding at that check -- meaning we need to further ensure that those classes are always trained with those skills -- and leaving no possibility of creating a "trap option" where the players unintentionally make their character ineffective.


---


A bit of a rushed post today, so apologies if it's a little short and messy.
Check back October 10th for the next one!

Design Origins -- Part 5: Skills

Today I'm going to talk about the origins of the skill system in TNP, which I think is particularly important, due to the bigger role it's taking within the overall designs.


Filling in the Grid
Probably the most wide-reaching question to ask, is where did the "Core Skills grid" come from? There are a few points of influence, and (as with many things in this system) the short answer is that it's a blend of various editions of D&D, plus my own previous designs.

The actual list of skills I went with, was mostly just a blend of 3.5 and 4e -- unifying some skills where 4e did, but adding in some of the old skills it had left behind. The idea was mostly to have a slightly bigger toolbox on hand, in order to deal with non-combat situations. Professions and crafting were still left by the wayside, since there isn't any itemization or money used in TNP -- without which, those skills are largely just fluff.

After a few iterations, I would also separate what I would call "ribbon skills" (Knowledge and Performance) from the Core skills; ultimately, I never thought they were as valuable, and they never really fit into the grid (i.e. having them linked to attributes.) What made more sense, was to borrow from 4e -- by having Knowledge skills more closely linked to Power Source; Arcane classes typically got Arcana as a trained skill, Divine classes got training with Religion, etc. This also helped to give Power Sources more mechanical weight than just interacting with re-specs; generally they didn't do much in 4e, until you got deep into feats and optimization (which is a design space that I wanted this game to avoid.)


The Advent of Skillsets
As I've touched on in one or two other posts before, 4th Edition D&D had a group of class skills that were sort of ubiquitous to all "Fightman"-type classes (namely Athletics, Endurance, Heal, and Intimidate.) Similarly, the Thievery skill was limited to a very small niche of classes, and that was something I sort of wanted to preserve; there might be many classes which could be good at stealth, but deeper forms of skulduggery should still be more limited in their availability. So I was starting to lean more and more into the thought of a "skillset" really being a reflection of "what skills are iconic to this class?"

The idea of allowing classes to be built as "good at a skillset" was intended to avoid M.A.D. -- the design conceit of requiring a character to have several high ability modifiers -- in this case, to be good at their class skills (i.e. Athletics using Strength, Endurance using Constitution, Heal using Wisdom, and Intimidate using Charisma.) Essentially, the system should let you make a character that's good at all the skills in the set, without needing to be "good at" each attribute that the skills are tied to.

Another part of the thought process behind grouping skills into sets, was to allow each group to include skills for each type of encounter (combat, social, and exploration.) This would allow a character to always be able to contribute meaningfully, even if they were only good at one skillset. Ultimately, I would end up keeping skillsets aligned a bit more thematically, but I still think this goal ends up being achieved; generally, each class gets training with at least two groups of skills, which helps to cover the different encounter types.

Now, in the previous game I had worked on, there were 6 skillsets (which at various points in development were coupled and then de-coupled from attributes.)

• Athletics
• Acrobatics
• Influence
• Information
• Deception
• Detection

We can see how this setup clearly influenced TNP. Eventually, Information would become Knowledge (which was then moved to the background skills.) A friend who I had showed the designs to, asked me why I had separated Athletics and Acrobatics, and eventually I decided to just put the two together; conversely, the Deception skillset covered too much space, and would later be split into Subtlety and Infiltration.

The Fifth Element
I can remember when 5th Edition D&D was still in the playtesting phases, one of the notions put forth was that of combining any skill with any ability modifier. Ultimately, I would say that's not what 5e actually implemented, but then neither did TNP; instead, I kind of pivoted slightly, to the idea of distinct skills being the intersection of an attribute, and a skillset.

For example, instead of "Deception" just being a Charisma skill, it would be a skillset; where Deception and Charisma intersected, would be skills like Bluff or Disguise. Other "Deception" skills could be found by intersecting with other attributes, such as Sleight of Hand using Dexterity, or Forgery using Intelligence.

4th Edition D&D flirts with this sort of "mixing and matching" as well, largely due to the necessity of prioritizing your combat stats above all others. This manifested itself in the idea of replacing one ability mod with another, for certain skills. The example that always came up was the feat that allowed half-orcs to use Strength (an attribute which they got a bonus to) for Intimidation, in place of Charisma.

5e allows DMs to use this as sort of a general... piece of advice (I'm not sure you could call it a rule) when appropriate. What all these workarounds solidified for me, was the simple need to get rid of "traditional" ability scores -- the kind that govern both combat, and non-combat. Instead, by using "ability scores" (Attributes) as part of the skill grid, they serve as a second method for grouping skills -- creating another vector by which classes can be distinguished from one another.


Modifiers & Math
In 4th Edition D&D, the design around skill difficulty was something I felt was a problem, and it entirely comes down to the stacking of modifiers. When the game was released, I think the intention was that having either a high ability modifier or skill training would be sufficient to be successful with a given skill (in most cases.)

The problem was that the rest of the system strongly incentivized maxing out one or two stats, and also that there was nothing preventing a high stat from being combined with skill training. When the DCs were revised later on, it was (seemingly) done so, to take into account this sort of rampant overspecialization -- with the obvious side-effect of making it so that combining a low stat with training became suboptimal (and almost pointless, if the stat was low enough.)

So the seeds for the idea of "skill training or ability modifier, but not both" had already been planted in my head. How this manifested in my designs, was by allowing bonuses to a skill to come from either its Skillset, or its Attribute, but having each bonus apply only once -- even if the character had the same bonus to both groupings.

In the earliest incarnations of TNP (with the original slate) there had been skill mechanics based off of each class die; I quickly came to the decision that I wanted a more unified system for skill resolution (particularly as I began to add more classes.) My first thought was to use d6 and/or d10 -- again, leaning on ideas from the previous game I had written; the existing skill mechanics for all 5 class dice could simply be "rounded" up or down, to fit.

I was never sure of the exact implementation I wanted, but when I went in and crunched out the probabilities, it became obvious. The d10 on its own (when added to a d20 roll) pushed the crit chance way too high, and when combined with Expertise, it nearly pushed failure completely off the table. Since the d6 roll combined with Expertise produced comparable results to an unmodified d10 (without the drastic increase in crit rate) axing the d10, and just sticking with d6, presented itself clearly as the simplest solution. I also like that this uses one of the most common dice, sort of keeping in line with the game's more tactile-based design choices.

---

That's all for today! I may dig into some comparisons of the execution of skill systems a bit more, in another post.
In any case, check back on September 29th for the next update.

Character Layouts (2018)

Some of the feedback that came out of the playtesting -- really just from new people putting their eyes onto the materials -- was that I should look into making a standardized character sheet form, and that the various bits of character generation should be listed by level.

Currently, the design of the class documents is essentially:

• Skills/Starting Feature page
• Upgrade page
• Combat page

Now, there are exceptions to every rule -- "Starting Features" aren't always combat features, but (even if they are) they're always on the first page. So that could definitely be cleaned up a little bit; probably the best solution is to have those starting features which are combat features be mentioned in both places, perhaps with just a reference on the first page, and the actual mechanics on the combat page.

Ultimately what the intention is with using this formatting, is to have the classes broken down into distinct modes of play, on a page-by-page basis: when you're in non-combat scenarios, the Skills/Starting Feature page will be used; the Upgrade page will be used during leveling-up (which may or may not take place "at the table"), and; the Combat page will be used for combat encounters.

During recruitment for the playtest, I made the suggestion (which I was taken up on, by most of the players) to add a copy of the Core Skills grid to their "character sheet." Particularly in electronic format, it's easy enough to take the class documents, and make your specific character by simply deleting any "toggle options" that were not selected. Even then, having a separate reference (outlining a character's Training and/or Expertise with skills) was found to be really helpful, and will probably constitute the backbone of any standardized character sheet, going forward.

I think if the "Combat page" aesthetic remains mostly intact, it will be worthwhile to add a listing of the Combat Skills to it as well, allowing a space for the players to mark off any Training or Expertise they may have with those skills, on that page. Really, it's kind of a no-brainer.

It will probably make sense to have extra space on both the "Skills page" and the "Combat page" to allow upgrades to be written in. Most upgrades tend to provide additional features for one of these sections or the other; the "Upgrade page" itself could be used as more of a bingo-card, for keeping track of which upgrades have been taken -- and it could also serve as a natural place to keep track of XP, as well.

I could go so far as to even split "Subclass" classes up a bit, as far as this formatting is concerned. It might make sense for the Sage, for example, to have its two subclasses use the same "Upgrade page" while having separate skill pages and combat pages, for both the Wizard and the Monk. This would kind of lay bare that some of these subtypes (within the same class) have more differences than similarities, but I think it might be a worthwhile change, for ease of use and for simplicity's sake. Breaking things up this way might also help some of the more lengthy class descriptions -- ones that spill onto a 2nd combat page -- to get back down to the one-page benchmark.

---

Next post is planned to be an "origins" post, talking about the basis of the skill system.

Check back for that on September 19th.

Balancing Act (2018)

One of the distinctive features of The Next Project is the lack of a magic subsystem, and I wanted to touch on that a bit, today.

When we look at editions of D&D that use the "3.x" style of spellcasting, what becomes immediately apparent is that the classes are split into "haves" and "have nots." Ultimately, spellcasting classes are interacting with an extra layer of design -- they gain additional resource management, but also have much greater breadth of abilities.

So what do spells typically end up doing, in practicality? In short, you use them for both combat and non-combat, and generally what you're doing with them is spending limited resources to exceed baseline expectations. You can make an area attack to deal more damage than a single weapon swing, to more targets, or you can use it to overcome an obstacle -- whether that be in social encounters or in exploration. You can cast Knock to open a locked door, or cast Charm Person to get past the guard, or sway the regent, or whathaveyou. Generally when you're targeting a creature, there is a save involved, but a lot of times spells "just work" -- you're spending a limited resource, so the game doesn't make you roll.

Now, that being said, you still (as a spellcaster) have the option to not use these resources; you can swing your weapon all day, and you can try and use skill checks to get past non-combat encounters. This was sort of a problem I ran into with the Backgrounds in 5th Edition; they're a great starting point for giving characters declarative power, but everyone gets them. Spellcasters are still operating in a completely different design space than non-casters, while at the same time overlapping everything that the non-casters can do.

What I wanted to do with this game, is to even that all out: classes have their unique features for combat, and non-combat is handled using skills. That's it. We don't need magic as another layer of design that just duplicates things that are already covered; instead, it's used as a method of applying theme or flavour, to how a particular class handles combat or uses skills. We also don't want to be trying to balance off combat and non-combat utility against one another -- a classic "apples and oranges" analogy -- which is why the combat and non-combat aspects of characters are siloed off from one another, and why resource management is kept very minimal, in the game's overall designs.

This also avoids the pitfalls of having the spellcasting classes be the most versatile, powerful, and influential -- a feat which I think was one of 4th Editions greatest successes. As I've said before, the focus on teamwork meant that classes had to be designed to contribute meaningfully, and on about an even par with one another. What this allows the player to do, is to pick the class that most closely approximates the character that they have in mind, learn the ins and outs of that class, and just play -- secure in the knowledge that they haven't made a false choice, will under-perform, and feel like dead weight, bringing the rest of the party down. Balancing classes is important for enabling players to enjoy the game, by helping them to fully realize their character concepts.

Now, the problem with flattening the power curve, is that it is possible for classes to either look (on paper) or feel (in actual play) very similar to one another. This is where I think the design of TNP has the potential to execute better than some of its predecessors, because of class dice. In order for parity to be maintained, a party of 5 characters -- all operating off of different dice -- necessitates each class having unique and different mechanics. Admittedly, this requires a lot of number-crunching by the designer (me) in order to ensure each class can contribute equally. But overall, I think it's a meaningful goal to have, and one that helps guide much of the design process.


---


This sort of touches on one of the snags that have hit the class designs a bit. Trying to emulate D&D-style fantasy classes can mean dealing with some classes that have too much design space, and others that have too little. In most cases with this project, I've had an easier time of reigning in bloated classes, than in expanding classes that are a bit too narrow in focus. The one that always comes to mind in this regard is the Acrobat, and I'm hoping I can find a satisfactory solution for this class, as well as others.

In the near future, I'm hoping I can crank out a minor revision of the current playtest rules, but I also want to finish up a few more classes -- and make some of the needed changes to the new class format and leveling systems.


---


Next post should be on September 9th, so check back then!

Money, Power, Respect (2018)

A little while ago, I did a very mechanical comparison between TNP and D&D's 4th and 5th Editions. Today I want to talk about things in a little bit less-specific manner, and touch on some of the building blocks of characters.

If we look at your typical D&D edition, there are a few ways you can customize a character:

1. Ability Scores and Skills: though generally your class goes a long way to proscribing which skills and ability scores you can potentially be good at, there is generally a little bit of wiggle room within that framework.
2. Feats: little perks that can (in theory) be useful for any character, and are lumped into one big pool to draw from.
3. Spells/Powers: things that give you specific actions, either within combat or outside of it.
4. Magic Items: actually pretty similar to spells and powers, but are not constrained by class (making them similar to feats.)
5. Multi-classing/Dual-classing/Hybrid: combining two or more classes together, to get perks from both.

As we can see from these descriptions, a few of these building blocks overlap one another, somewhat. We can break these things down into essentially two broad descriptors: things which come from your class, and things that don't. Ultimately, what I wanted to do with TNP was to eliminate the customization that comes from outside of your class.

I can remember looking at 4th Edition D&D, just seeing Cleave as a power that Fighters could take (rather than a feat, as it had been in 3.5) and I really liked that simple change. I also liked how so much of the game that (as a player) you could really figure out by simply having an understanding of your class, and the powers you got from it.

When Essentials came around for 4th Edition, it sort of "missed the target, but hit the tree," for me. Where I felt 4th Edition needed simplification and streamlining, was in the areas of both feats and magic items (things from outside of your class) rather than with powers (things from within your class.) The fact that the former design spaces (which were meant to be the most universal) were the ones that became the most bloated, served to make the game more and more inaccessible as its lifespan went on.

Magic Items tended to be the big offender in this regard, in my view. They essentially duplicated the design space that I felt should have been owned entirely by classes. It also served as a crutch for weak or poorly-designed classes; I can remember playing as a Scout, and basically needing to incorporate specific magic items into my build (for basic survivability, in combat) because the class itself failed to provide those tools.

You also end up with less uniqueness to classes, once customization starts to homogenize things too much. The standard "Charge kit" for 4th Edition could be basically built onto the chassis of any class, creating an effective (if boring) playstyle around feats and items, rather than being built through your class and its powers.

Really, this all just boils down to my personal preference, and my experience. My introduction to RPGs was with Diablo 2, and I was immediately captivated by the whole "skill tree" setup for classes. Once magic items which granted cross-class skills were introduced (and the game's true focus on merely farming items became apparent) I was no longer interested. I much preferred the idea that your character was a function of your class, and how you chose to build your character within that class.

---

So how does money figure into all this?

Well, in short, it'll tie into something I mentioned in my previous post; the need for skills to be bigger and more fleshed-out, within the designs.

Money (particularly in the last few editions of D&D, as well as 13th Age) has sort of waned in importance -- the games simply don't give you enough to do with it, or don't properly account for the amount of gold you tend to end up with. (I've even heard it suggested that in 13th Age, money could be used as a "temporary background" as a way of simplifying the whole process of using money.)

The way I look at it, is that money is just yet another thing that comes from outside of your class, which is used to define what your character can do -- so get rid of it.

Weapons? Armor? Those are all functions of the core mechanics now.

Why not take it a step further?

We aren't gonna be buying magic items, clearly. So what does that leave (in the typical D&D play-experience) to spend money on? Equipment and services.

Potions? We have Reserves to cover our healing, and keep the mechanical structure unified.

Lockpicks? Battering Ram? We have skills that cover this design space; just make a check, and narrate it however you want. Whether or not 'Jimm, the Fighter' brought the right tool for the job when he goes to break down a door, is just an exercise in needless bookkeeping. It also makes the inanimate object more crucial to success than the character, which flies in the face of what we want to achieve.

Want to rent a room? Buy a wagon? Get a few horses?

Make it into a roll, using your social skills. If you rolled bad? Then it looks like you're a little short on coin today -- so tell us a story of where all your money ended up, last night.

If the DM wants to make it a little harder on you, then not being able to sleep with a roof over your head (or a wagon full of supplies) might end up costing you a Reserve.
Not being able to get horses to cover ground faster might mean the doomsday clock moves a bit closer to midnight.

In every case, the money isn't the important thing -- it's what happens in the fiction.

All this, coupled with the existing guidelines for skills, should help us figure out how money can be handled in the abstract. "You couldn't possibly have enough money to bribe the king," the DM says, adding, "don't even bother rolling."

---

Next post is due August 28th, so check back then!

Crunch Time (2018)

As was kind of expected, playtesting showed that the game isn't fully ready to be released "into the wild."

Since the game's non-combat aspect leans entirely onto the skills, it will be important going forward to have this facet of the game a lot more thoroughly defined. The mechanics of each skill, the basic assumptions of what happens outside of combat, as well as who commands the flow of the action (and when) will need to be codified. I think it will also be important to define when and how to fall back on Attributes, Skillsets, and Power Sources, i.e. when there may not be a specific skill that covers a certain type of action.

The "monster workshop" guidelines will need more testing; there were some flaws with the theorycraft behind solo monsters, and I can only assume that the same will be true of the other new monster types. Likewise, the rules for summoned creatures need to be expanded upon -- specifically, when they should or should not be treated as "allies." Mechanically, the Ranger's animal companion needs to be reworked, since it can potentially soak a lot of damage, with no real penalty or drawback if it's killed; it can simply be 'recast' on your next turn.

Another thing that was shown to be troublesome was various passive and defensive buffs. Boosts to defense rolls can be disproportionately powerful, since a character can potentially make several of them in a round. Whereas bonuses to attacks are generally limited to Basic Attacks, which (among most classes) happen only once, on their turn. The need to balance off these different types of benefits was reflected in the updated Cleric class, which I wrote during the course of playtesting. Always-on buffs will need to have their effectiveness scaled, to match their projected frequency, or simply have that frequency adjusted to match their potency.

A few of the more basic concepts of the game need to be defined -- "Death and Dying" (so to speak) being one of them. I mentioned previously that Reserves are meant to function as out-of-combat HP top-ups, but the mechanical ability to use them needs to be cleared up a bit. Can you spend Reserves at the end of combat, if you are "dropped"? Does initiative immediately end when all enemies are defeated, or should you finish out the round (potentially letting support characters get more healing in)? These kinds of things need to be explained in the text. "Expertise" (I feel) also needs to be straightforwardly called out as simply a piece of mechanics jargon, or it needs to be renamed (because it continues to cause mental logjams with new readers/players.)

Last (for now) is the fact that I need to finish writing the remaining classes, which also means needing to crunch their damage numbers, and make sure everything balances. The class features all need to be reformatted, and the slate/category upgrades need to be instituted across all classes. The "Performance" progression needs to be ironed out and finalized; some classes being able to gain it as an option at 1st level, but with no actual benefit until 2nd level is something that needs to be fixed. "Subclass only" and "Archetype only" classes will need to have unique and interesting upgrades available to them.

Once the classes are set, they will all need to be tested, re-tested, and re-balanced; if the playtesting has shown anything, it's that things are never as close to completion as they seem, and that the devil is in the details. For the game to reach a finished state, there will need to be a lot of bug-squashing; I'm hoping I can find faster ways to identify problematic, vague, or breakable mechanics, going forward.


---


Keeping with the blog schedule, the next post should be up on August 18th, so check back then.

Design Origins -- Part 4: The Core Mechanic

And we're back!

Today I want to talk about one of the more basic, mathematical conceits of the system, and how I eventually settled on it -- specifically, the "DC10" rule.

When you look at the basic resolution mechanics for d20 systems, it shakes out something like this:

Attack: d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus
Armor: 10 + ability modifier + armor bonus

My immediate thought was to strip away the extra modifiers, and just go with d20 vs. 10. This way, it keeps the math streamlined and balanced across the various classes in the game.

I also like the way that Apocalypse World has the 3 different ranges of results, based on 2d6. Similarly, TNP breaks down into miss/hit/crit, but based on the d20.

The fixed "DC10" rule also lends itself to using the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic. Because the range of numbers does not have to be continually increased (with bigger/higher/more modifiers) to hit escalating target numbers, a mechanic like this can be used to tinker with probability more consistently and elegantly.

This also touches on one of the weird quirks of systems with increasing modifiers -- you end up with one of two outcomes: either the difficulty increases in a manner proportional to your capability increasing (thus keeping the actual math relatively flat), or; your capability increases, while the difficulty remains static (in which case... the game starts out hard and gets easier.)

If our goal is the former, then the easiest way to ensure that the math is as flat and balanced as possible, is to strip out modifiers where we can, and avoid inflating numbers -- which is ultimately what TNP ends up doing.

Another idea I borrowed from, was the 'feel' of the roll-under mechanic. Generally how this works within d20 systems, is you have your standard ability scores (generated by rolling 3d6, producing a range of 3-18.) Then, (to make a skill check, for example) you roll a d20 against the appropriate ability score, and try to "roll under" that score, in order to succeed.

What this means mechanically, is that having a higher score increases your odds of success. Most d20 systems use the conceit of "you want to roll high" thus making bonuses additive, and a little easier to wrap your head around; in a roll-under system, you actually want to subtract from your roll to increase your odds of success, thus your "bonuses" end up being negative numbers -- which is a little counter-intuitive.

But I liked the basic idea of rolling 'against' your number (in order to succeed) rather than rolling against the enemy's number. This helped to unify the mechanics of Attack/Defense/Skills within the designs; the PCs always roll, you always want to roll high, you add/reroll dice for your bonuses, etc.


---


Next post should be up on August 8th, so check back then!

Classes, Now in Session (2018)

So, I didn't finish all of the classes that I wanted to, but I'll update this post with links to them here, as well as in the core rules doc (in the sidebar) as I get them finalized.

• The Druid (d4)
• The Rogue (d6)
• The Cleric (d8)
• The Occultist (d10)
• The Spellbinder (d12)

The first class I got done was the Druid; I think it still needs a few more checks (in terms of math) but I like how well it fit into the new formatting and progression systems, and overall the class is just a lot cleaner now. I'm still a little iffy on breaking the forms into upgrades, but hopefully some testing will give a sense of whether each one is useful enough to justify it.

Next up was the Occultist. It helped that Druid was already out of the way, because the two classes share a "category," and so ended up being structured fairly similarly. One major change was to no longer have Eldritch Blast and Animate Dead as "role features," instead making them part of the core class, and splitting up Banishment, to give each role a more distinctly-flavoured version. Curse was likewise broken up, with the basics of it made into the class' "starting feature."

I then moved on to the Cleric. There were a few more outdated mechanics here than in some of the other classes, and a few more tweaks that needed to be made. Cleric has always been sort of a "vertically integrated" class, but it has enough room for customization, that it can be built in a handful of different ways. I'm particularly happy with some of the changes to Bless and Divine Smite, making the class overall more built around the "double roll" mechanic.

I had a few ideas for the direction I wanted to take with the Assassin, but the Sorcerer is going to be a bigger job to tackle. In terms of the leveling, the foundations are already more or less in place, with the Ranger being part of the same "category" and already having the Sage ready, from the same slate. With the Warlock being less of a distinct class now, that could have some impacts on how Sorcerer is built.

The Spellbinder hopefully should be a quick fix; with most of the action economy stuff and combat math ironed out after the previous playtest, it will likely just be a matter of updating the 4.1 version to the new designs.

---

That's all folks! This here blog is on break for summer; expect the next post on July 27th!

Why We Call Them Heroes

One of the seemingly minor changes in the latest draft of the rules, is the inclusion of the term "heroes." Today I want to talk a little bit about that.

If we look at 4th Edition D&D, this term was used to describe characters in the first "tier" of the level progression; even a level 1 character was referred to as a hero. The assumption (whether mechanical or narrative) that characters could/would/should be ineffectual or incompetent simply wasn't there. Everyone had a job to do, and your mechanics made you capable of doing it -- so your backstory had to be something that fit that level of capability. In earlier editions of D&D (which I haven't played, but have read about) Fighters, even at first level, were titled "veterans" because the assumption was that they (like other classes) would be experienced at what they do.

Another thing that was made expressly clear in 4e, was that player-characters (heroes) should not be evil or chaotic; 4th Edition simplified the "nine alignments" down to five, and (at least in the first PHB) said that PCs should only fall under three of those: unaligned, good, or lawful-good. The purpose of this was to encourage teamwork; the focus on roles and party balance meant that cooperative play was essential, and character backgrounds needed to reinforce that mechanical paradigm.

Now, as an aside, from my playing days in 3.5, one of the big takeaways that I got from looking into alignment a bit more, was that evil characters still understand and appreciate loyalty. Once you're a part of a team, there should be cohesion -- even if some of its members are "dirty" or "scummy" -- and everyone should be working towards the same goal: the big picture.

We can see all of these influences in The Next Project; it's not even really mechanically possible for PCs to attack one another. Simple things like class dice give a framework for how your team should be composed, and that everyone has a part to play, together.

Now, some of the classes in TNP have a darker, more evil bent to them -- Assassin, Blackguard, Necromancer, etc. Things such as the Shadow power source, however, should tell us about what drives or inspires these darker characters -- not be an indicator of their unreliability.


But here's what I think is possibly the most important point:

The characters we create are a heightened, stylized ideal -- a fictional conceit that we admire, from whatever media we consume. They're the brawny protagonist in an action movie, they're the cold anti-hero in a western, they're the swaggering scoundrel in a space opera. They are fantastic, and so they exist in a fantasy world. There is always something about them that we look up to (and that we hope our fellow party members and players might look up to, as well) because they are always, in some small way, a reflection of ourselves and our imagination.

We root for them to succeed, we watch them grow and change, and we fill in their past as they move forward through their adventures. We carry them over -- across editions, campaigns, settings, parties, playgroups -- and each time we do, our characters (all of them) become more and more refined. They become more real, they become more human.



So, why do we call them heroes?

Because they're our heroes.

Playtest! (2018)

A new playtest has been unveiled! So if you're a forums goon, check out the recruitment thread here; the roster filled up fast, so expect the gameplay thread to be linked soon.

Based on early feedback, I'm going to look into hammering out a unified character sheet for players to use. In the past, generally people would either just post their abilities in shorthand, or else save a copy of the class document, and simply cross out or delete any options they did not select for their character. Going forward, I'm going to try and have a form, at least to keep track of things like skill training/expertise, with some open space for Combat Features (and the like.)

I'm also going to probably rearrange the class sheets a little bit, so that Combat Features (which are generally all automatic) come immediately after Starting Features, and are then followed by 1st Level features, and then "Gaining Additional Levels." Archetype Features will most likely be at the very end, and possibly Roles, too.

Since we very quickly got to 7 applications, it kind of made me wish that I had more classes prepared by now. On the other hand, this will help test out more of the different subclasses and archetypes, so these classes will get a more thorough inspection.


---


That being said, I do want to try and have the next "playtest slate" of classes ready before the summer break. I've been trying to balance off some of the class utility (in terms of skills) as well as making a point of including at least one class from each of the three main slates, and a relative balance in terms of "category" distribution.

 Here are the classes I've settled on:

• Druid (d4) [Roles]
• Rogue (d6) [Subclasses]
• Cleric (d8) [Subclasses + Specialist Classes]
• Occultist (d10) [Roles]
• Spellbinder (d12) [Specialist Classes]

As the d4 and d6 mechanics have evolved and been sharpened, some ideas for how to better execute on the Druid and Rogue have come along; I look forward to implementing those in the near future. In particular, I think the mechanic of doubling damage on a crit (currently showcased on the Fighter's two-weapon style) is something that'll fit well with the Assassin subclass.

The advent of "Starting Features" gives a design space where I think the distinctive Subclass Features from the "4.1 Cleric" can be slotted in. The Mystic class has been renamed "Occultist" but otherwise remains mostly the same -- aside from a few ideas I have for additional mechanics. I'm also looking at implementing a unique little subsystem for d10 classes.

The Spellbinder is a class that has a lot of fluff to draw from for inspiration; both of its subtypes are interesting of their own accord, but the base class itself has kind of taken on its own personality as I've written it (specifically, being a captivating and confounding sort of character.) It's hard to do much math-wise for the d12 classes, so I think they will have to rely on design spaces other than damage mechanics, to make them interesting in combat. Warlord already has the "enabling" niche mostly cornered; Spellbinder seems like it would logically lean towards debilities and status effects, so expect them to sport more of those in the next draft.

This slate does sort of lean towards the more magical side, with the current playtest slate being more "martial" overall. The classes on this 2nd slate have also seen a fair bit of playtesting already (compared to most other classes) whereas the entire slate for this playtest saw no testing during "Beta 4." Overall, the third playtest slate will be more of a balance between the two, in both of these regards.

---

Check back June 16th for the next update!

Status Report (2018)

Just a short post to round out the month of May:

In TNP, there are effectively only a handful of debilities/status effects, which can potentially be used as riders for monster attacks:

• Push
• Prone
• Weakened
• Immobilized
• Grappled
• Incapacitated

My early intention is to class these based on how debilitating they are; the more debilitating, the less the damage of the attack would be, and vice-versa. I would categorize them as such:

• High damage: push, prone, weaken
• Medium damage: immobilize, grapple
• Low/no damage: incapacitate

So, using the established mechanics for stepping-down monster damage, (Advantage, Trained, Untrained, and Disadvantage) this should give us a framework for building status effects onto monster attacks, by using their baseline damage expression and reducing it down depending on the effect being added.

Since the default assumption for Standard Monsters is that they deal "Untrained" damage, this limits how far their damage can be stepped down; by extension, this means they should not have access to the strongest debilities, and that these effects should be limited to stronger monsters, exclusively.

Now, that being said, this is essentially all "theorycraft" since it is hard to give a firm numerical value for these effects, which could be directly equated to an amount of damage. Nevertheless, I feel this gives a solid base from which to conduct playtesting, and then begin to troubleshoot the design.

...

Next post should be up on June 6th, so check back then!

Design Origins -- Part 3: The Monster Roll

May is Monster Month! (...I've decided, retroactively.)

Today I'm going to do an "origins" post, talking about where the Monster Roll came from; if you're not familiar with this mechanic, it's in the new Monster Workshop doc which was featured in the previous blog post.


Reverse Engineering
Back in about... some time prior to 2013, I briefly took over DM duties for the 4th Edition group I had been playing with. I kind of liked homebrewing monsters (once I had gotten into it) with the help of the guiding formula provided by Blog of Holding, known as "Monster Manual 3 on a Business Card."

The core component of the monster math for 4e, as broken down in their post, was this:

• Attack roll: d20+5+level
• Average damage: 8+level

I decided pretty early on that I wanted to make a universal dice expression to represent this math, so that I could use it for any monsters that I was controlling as the DM (instead of having to refer to a half-dozen different stat blocks, for weapon damage.)

What I came up with was this:

• Attack roll: d20+d8+level
• Average damage: 1d6+1d10+level

To further streamline, I integrated "recharge" and "when first bloodied" mechanics into the d8 roll (using roughly appropriate percentages from the source material, for this conversion) as well as using it for situational +4/+5 bonuses; the most common example I can refer to would be instances of bonus damage for being hidden, or bonuses to AC against opportunity attacks while charging.

The damage would be scaled up, per tier -- adding an additional 1d6+1d10 in place of every 10 levels of flat damage bonus.

Making it Your Own

Around the same time, I would be working on my previously mentioned Unnamed RPG, which was essentially a change from my earlier tabletop designs (more rooted in "Diablo 2"-style skill trees and classes) to something that was a bit more "lego-bricking" in character-creation -- but with 4th Edition as its basis for things like movement, area, and powers. Those who have read about this RPG before, will know that it used 1d6+1d10 for its resolution mechanic, as well as using only d6 and d10 for its damage rolls.

After a few iterations, some critical analysis from the outside, and an abortive playtest, I decided to abandon this project and move onto the next. It was around this time that 5th Edition D&D had come out, and so the designs therein had started to shade and shape what I wanted to include in this game.

Whose Roll is it, Anyway?

In the early playtesting for TNP, the PCs had one die worth of HP; this meant that monster damage had to be relatively low. In order for it to be balanced across the classes, I kept it to 1 point per "hit" (or maybe 2, for stronger/solo monsters.)

Now, this is where I should mention how 5th Edition (along with my own DM experience) were influences on the design. The DM has a lot to do, so I wanted (as much as possible) to download some of the mechanical "heavy lifting" onto the PCs. This idea was meant not only to ease the workload of the DM, but to also keep players engaged during their off-turns. 

So I looked at 5th Edition's design: some attacks are rolled, but others call for a "save." (In 4th Edition, the rule is "attacker always rolls.") I realized that a way I could achieve my goal was to simply make all monster attacks trigger a "save" -- this would be called the "Defense roll" in TNP. Conversely, when the PCs attack, they make an attack roll.

What we end up with is a consistent rule, albeit one different from 4th Edition:
"PCs always roll"

This goes against the convention in D&D (generally) of monsters and PCs being built the same way, and using the same mechanical framework. The problem that then presented itself, was that if monsters were to use skills, they still needed to make a roll (since the core mechanic for skills is the flat "DC10" rule, and because generally skill checks are not made in opposition to each other.)

The Witch's Hammer

So as the design evolved, it was decided that PCs should be given more HP. The natural progression of that line of thinking, was that monster damage needed to be increased, too.

This is when monsters started to move away from 1 or 2 points of damage, and minions took up that design space. I had always liked using homebrewed "2-hit minions" in 4th Edition, so the opportunity to build them into the design from the ground, up (rather than have them as a work-around) was an exciting prospect --  a chance to put more tools in the DM's hands.

Somewhere along the way, the idea of taking the "universal roll" (used in both the Unnamed RPG and my own 4e monster homebrews) and applying it to the monster math just sort of came together. It was probably around the time I was making the first monster math posts, and I realized I needed to put pen to paper on how I wanted things to run, and what the mechanics should look like.

With the 1d6+1d10 mechanic, I had a damage expression I could build around, as well as a resolution mechanic for skills -- which worked within the existing framework. It was a unified mechanic, in the sense that regardless of which action the monster took, the dice that the DM needed to roll for them remained the same; if the PC's Defense roll was successful, the result of the monster roll would simply be moot. It also opened up a new design space for monsters: the potential for deciding their action after making the roll.

A roll of 10 or higher would mean a significant amount of damage... but only if the Defense roll failed. However, if used to make a skill check, that result would be a guaranteed success. This makes for some interesting choices to be had. It also lets the monster's actions be a little more scripted, in the case of lower rolls; a roll that has no chance to succeed as a skill check will invariably be used as a damage roll. The hope with this is that it can speed up turn-taking for the DM; a big complaint about 4th Edition was the length of combat, and since the DM operates the largest number of combatants, I figured it was the side of the table where the most headway could be made, in that regard.

In Conclusion...

So now you know the "how" and "why" of the Monster Roll. Since I'm currently focusing my efforts mainly on monster-building tools for TNP (at least when I'm not playing D&D, or making new characters) I'm hoping that all the aspects mentioned in this posts will continue to be further refined and sharpened, in the very near future.

Check back May 25th for the next post!