One of the unique things in TNP is that the system does not use ability scores, or derived ability modifiers. When I was first learning D&D (with 3.5e) I couldn't wrap my head around the way that you got these numbers. As I've kept up with the game over the years, I eventually picked up on how it works... but the game also has slid into more of a "paint by numbers" sort of ethos, as far as ability mods are concerned.
The example I gave in an earlier post lays out this idea pretty succinctly. Essentially, if your attacking stat's modifier is assumed to be +3 and your starting proficiency bonus is +2 (such as in 5e D&D) then you should be able to hit a fairly-baseline AC of 15 about 55% of the time. The same is true if you just ditch the +5 modifier, and roll against a 10 AC. This is the nature of the 'flat math' provided by using d20 mechanics. By keeping the target number as a consistent 10, TNP dispenses with those minor 5%-10% deviations you get from not painting by numbers properly. It also means that enemies will always be an appropriate challenge (assuming damage and HP math is correctly mapped and implemented) but doesn't really allow for that flexibility to gain minor advantages in combat.
For example, with 4e effectively having 4 defenses (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) some characters could kit themselves out such that they could always target more than one of these, narrowing in on an enemy's weakness in any given battle. There were even feats such as Lightning Rush, which (if memory serves) let your charge attacks target Reflex rather than AC; the issue I take with this is that, by and large, it's "just another +2" by a different name. (As per "monster manual 3" math, AC was typically 2 points higher than the other defenses.)
The problem with ability scores and ability modifiers, is that they have become outdated. Class features do more to determine your character than anything else, and we've outgrown the era where the 6 stats were all you needed to run your character. They also end up pigeonholing which skills you're good at, based on the necessity of cranking up whichever ability you use for combat (or other class features.) In my previous RPG designs, this is why the "attributes" were literally described as just being the numbers that your mechanics and stats derive from; they weren't based on physical or mental prowess, and the combat applications of those numbers were not coupled to your non-combat skills.
Even when it comes to damage, ability modifiers have a similar effect to how they impact the d20; they increase the floor and the ceiling in a linear fashion, but don't actually push bad rolls "off the table" (so to speak.) This is why I preferred a mechanic such as mastery, over just endlessly stacking flat modifiers. But looking back on my older designs, I do find myself having a greater appreciation for some of the upsides of using flat modifiers -- rather than leaving every mechanic up to some interpretation of the dice, as in TNP. However, another issue with the d20 ethos is that a +1 to hit translates to a lot more average damage than a +1 to damage.
The more I consider the possibility of designing another game after TNP, the more things such as this crop up, as examples of where I should figure out a way to "square the circle." TNP doesn't use flat damage modifiers (or attack modifiers) or additional [W] expressions (as 4e does) to beef up damage, so the perceived "elegance" of d20+class dice ends up losing its lustre -- because so many extra things need to be piled on, to make the math work. I feel like the correct dose of flat modifiers could help alleviate some of this, but I'm also sort of honing in on the idea of keeping d6 and d10 as the extra damage dice, and limiting their other uses (at least as far as combat and/or 'class die' applications.) It'll be interesting to see where things go, in the future.
...
Next post should be May 15th, so check back then!
No comments:
Post a Comment