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.