Reverse Engineering (2025)

I've been thinking on how to handle the skill check mechanics for the sequel, and I realized the original idea had gotten away from me, somewhat.

In TNP, the skill "check" die is a d10, and the bonus die is a d6; to mimic this in a d6 system, the obvious thing to do would seem to be replacing the d10 with 2d6. But somehow I'd gotten to a place where it had morphed into some variation on "d6 pool for everything, all the time," and it still seemed to miss the mark. Without beating a dead horse, the effective mod range is a bit limited, and the dice rolls that matter are likewise pretty limited. So I went back to the fundamental 1d10+1d6 idea.

Ok, let's say the "check" die is 2d6; anytime you make a check, you roll 2d6. Against a DC10, this gives you only a 1/6 chance of success -- so some more dice and/or mods are clearly needed. The average on 3d6 is 10.5, meaning that 3d6 vs. a DC10 is basically a coin flip. What TNP does is essentially increase the number of "bonus" dice you can roll, thus increasing the odds of rolling a high bonus/modifier to your check. We could apply this same logic to a 2d6 system; the base check is 2d6, and the bonus is the highest d6 out of a pool. If we're using the current baselines, this would be a maximum of +2 from Attributes, and probably the same for Skillsets (maybe +3?)

Using anydice, we can figure out the odds for how this works vs. a DC10:

• 2d6+1d6 = 62.50%
• 2d6+[highest 1 of 2d6] = 75.23%
• 2d6+[highest 1 of 3d6] = 81.13%
• 2d6+[highest 1 of 4d6] = 84.37%
• 2d6+[highest 1 of 5d6] = 86.35%

This actually looks really promising, because as the chance of failure drops towards that 15% threshold, the diminishing returns on further boosting a skill start to kick in. Adding the implicit assumption of a 3rd die (except in the case of a +0 mod) also gets around the problem of "only 5s and 6s matter." The problem is that this breaks the check into 2 distinct rolls, which is a bit inelegant; the base 2d6 clearly can succeed, but is unlikely to do so -- but pooling them all together completely changes the math. If the 2d6 is a 3 or less, then the bonus dice become irrelevant (because the check has no chance of success) but a result between 4 and 8 means that success is still possible -- unlike with the "dice pool only" model, where it's just... 2 out of X dice have to equal 10, so if you roll all 4s and 3s (or lower) you're just screwed.

So now that we've established that this works, the immediate question is, can we further reverse-engineer this into a combat system? As I've often said, you should either have a unified system (that usually works great for one subsystem and badly for another) or you have distinct subsystems, but both serve their purposely excellently. The conundrum of an "all d6 system" is that it's not very unified if there are still distinct mechanics for combat vs. for skill checks -- despite everything using the "same" dice. 

The current combat mechanics are based around the supposition of 3d6+mod, where 2 dice (plus a flat mod) are used for the attack roll, with the remaining die (plus the same mod, probably) being used as the damage roll. To make this work anything like the check dice... basically it would mean a significant boost to hit-chance, assuming we're sticking with a cap of +2/+2d6 modifiers (which, you can't really meaningfully go lower than that, so...)

As mentioned in the previous post, the fact of attack rolls having damage as a "release valve" for unused dice means that the attack mechanics will likely/necessarily have to be different than the skill check mechanics. The other consideration is that the "acceptable ranges" for both types of rolls are different; skills should mostly fall in the 45% (i.e. a -1 mod, in D&D terms) to 85% range, whereas attacks probably need to have 55% or 60% as a baseline, and increase to 90% or possibly 95% with teamwork and other bonuses. This all makes it hard to unify mechanics, since unified mechanics should (presumably) produces unified outcome ranges -- so if that isn't the goal, then unified mechanics likewise shouldn't be the goal. This new idea now gives us mechanics that hit both of our prescribed benchmarks; the question next is can we do anything to further simplify and/or unify these two systems, and still produce comparable outcomes?

...

Next post is due on (or about) March 15th, so check back then for more!

Stream of Consciousness [2025-02-23]

Today's post will be a bit of a meandering, scattershot affair. Consider yourself warned.

As I had mentioned in a fairly recent post, the math involved with just doing skill checks entirely as a d6 pool (without any static modifiers) is appealing, but this problem still persists:

My first intuition was "Skillsets add ranks, and Attributes also add ranks," or in other words, neither adds a flat modifier, but both could add to the "d6 pool." The problem with this (as was brought to light in discussion) is that it amounts entirely to randomness, whereby you're just rolling more and more dice and hoping for some combination of 5s and 6s on two of those dice (or a 4 and a 6, obviously.)

From a tactile perspective, this is really a problem; no matter how many dice you're rolling, it's really only the 5s and 6s that matter, and the rest are kind of a big waste. The combat mechanics avoid this problem by turning unused attack dice into damage dice, but the skill mechanics don't have any comparable sort of "release valve" for excess dice.

So the temptation is to work flat modifiers into the skill mechanics, so that dice results other than 5s and 6s can still make a difference. The problem then becomes the fact that (obviously) a +0 modifier does nothing, and a +2 modifier (stacked with another +2) does too much -- so in other words, it feels like we almost want there to be a flat +1 modifier to all skills, combined with the +0/+1/+2 Attribute bonus. In which case, what's the point? Put another way, the already narrow +0/+1/+2 range for Attributes is likewise narrowed down to (just) +1 and (maybe) +2, for Skillsets. It might be the case that a reroll or "mastery" mechanic is necessary for the skill math. Perhaps something like, in addition to the modifiers adding dice to the pool, you can also reroll a number of 1s equal to the total modifier? I wouldn't even begin to know how to calculate that (aside from drawing it out on a very long, wide spreadsheet.) Maybe the rerolls are instead of the pool, rather than in addition to it?

Anyways, I feel like I've harped on these proposed sequel mechanics enough, and I'm kind of running around in circles with it. So, onto something else!

Foundations & Building Blocks
An idea that recently came to my mind was that of using a standard set of dominos, for some sort of RPG mechanics. For those unfamiliar, each domino basically has two numbers, between 0 and 6, with each combination of numbers occurring only once -- creating a total of 28 dominos. So why this? Well, it harkens back to a couple of other things I've mentioned before, on the blog:

1. In the game Feint Wars (that I did some playtesting for) 3 suits of cards were used, effectively numbered 1 through 6; each suit trumped one of the other suits (almost like rock-paper-scissors) giving it a +3 bonus in combat, which was resolved by using opposing cards (much like the simple card game War.) Cards were also effectively action points, so they could instead be used to move, up to the number of spaces on the card.
2. Italian Cards: As I've mentioned previously, these cards use 4 slightly different suits, but also the numbered cards only go from 2-7 (aces are still included) rather than the usual 2-10; this range more closely mirrors that used in Feint Wars, but also, a maximum movement speed in the 5-7 squares/hexes range is pretty standard for tabletop RPGs.
3. I've played Settlers of Catan with an add-on deck of cards that sort of mimicked rolling 2d6, just with the deck representing a standardized/normalized/(whatever the proper mathematical term is) bell curve of the range of rolls, equally represented -- thus, removing most of the randomness.

This last one in particular probably most reminds me of the number ranges/values used on the dominos, because the dominos are so closely mapped to 6-sided dice. I know I've also mused about using a full standard deck of 52 cards somehow in RPG design (such as in the random campaign generation system, for TNP) as well as pivoting the current sequel designs towards purely d6 mechanics.

I think these kinds of things are important, because they are so ubiquitous, accessible, and present such a low barrier to entry, both in terms of availability but also cost. In an increasingly online world (where I've heard it said by someone in the RPG space that, "all games are becoming video games,") I want to make games that are simpler and more down-to-earth. I think this is even reflected in the earliest seeds of TNP, where each die shape represented the entire suite of mechanics for one class.

Perhaps my earliest great love in tabletop gaming was the original Axis & Allies, but I also ended up playing a lot of Risk with my friends, since it was a little bit more digestible. I never was one to think of making a whole new map, or adding all sorts of different new types of units; I always wanted to make alternate/historical scenarios out of what the game already had, so that I could create a fun, new, accessible experience for people who owned and loved the game. I feel the same about these fundamental pieces of gaming, such as dice, dominos, and cards.

How can we bring RPG design back to these sorts of fundamentals? It's a question that I find is very rewarding to explore.

...

With the shortest month out of the way, this leads us into the part of the blogging schedule where updates are """""planned""""" to be on the 5th, 15th, and 25th of each month, until the scheduled break during the month of July. Check back on (or about) March 5th for the next post!

Basic Bookkeeping (2024)

Part of the design ethos that went into the 2021 draft was to use class dice as sort of a "keyword" for certain character statistics, but also to bind some of these stats together.

For example, "reserves & surging" were treated as a paired set of statistics, but this produced some odd results. The 1d4 class die "expression" translated to 8 reserves and a surge value of 4, with 1d6 producing 6 and 12, respectively. On some of the classes that were updated most recently (Druid being the one that comes to mind) some expressions were de-coupled, in order to make these statistics operate more smoothly.

I think part of the reasoning for pairing the stats together in the first place was so that there were fewer expressions you needed to remember; if your class has two class dice, then you'd only ever need to memorize two class die "expressions" -- making it so there was a 50/50 chance that you'd be able to guess which value to use, if you couldn't remember. That sort of falls apart when sometimes 1d4 means 4 and sometimes it means 8, as mentioned in the example.

It also didn't really manage to facilitate what it was meant to do, within the design ethos (namely, to raise the floor on certain numbers.) These expressions being unituitive just meant that their functions ended up needing to be spelled out on each class loadout anyway, or else you'd have to refer back to the core rules that explained the values these expressions were meant to generate. In other words, something that was meant to speed things up and streamline the jargon, actually seems to have made things less clear, not more.

This all sort of highlights the limitations of the overall TNP design ethos, whereby "all of the numbers have to derive from the (class) dice," but also highlights how the added flexibility of using a 2nd class die is so important... or at least helpful.

Pivot Point
Since HP in the current versions is calculated as the maximum value of your initiative check (including initiative bonus) HP and initiative bonus will necessarily continue to be paired together. However, I don't think that there's necessarily any benefit to keeping your engagement value coupled with your initiative bonus, as was the case previously.

The idea that I'm moving forward with is that engagement, initative bonus, reserves (per day), and surge value will all be based off of the following class dice expressions, each with their own entry (rather than coupled together):

• 1d4
• 1d6
• 1d8
• 2d4
• 1d10
• 1d12
• 2d6

Obviously, when used as an initative bonus, these dice will be part of a roll, but for the other statistics, they will just straightforwardly use the maximum value of the expression. This means that you can still make a subclass like the Wizard have 8 reserves and a surge value of 4, it's just that you'd use 2d4 as their reserve value and 1d4 as their surge value -- rather than saying 1d4 translates to 8 and 4, respectively. 

I can also confidently say that with the little bit of number crunching I've done over the years on the topic, the 1d4 expression will not be used for "reserves per day" -- effectively raising the 'floor' on that number to 6. In the paradigm of most classes having two class dice, the reality is that almost all classes/subclasses will have between 8 and 12 reserves, with the Rogue (Scoundrel) being the obvious exception to this -- although this could just as easily be handwaved to 2d6, if no other subclasses are going to use 6 reserves as their minimum.

Updating Designs

As I've talked about before, this sort of lends to the idea that classes with "1d10" reserves should have a 1/day reserve-burning class feature, whereas classes with "1d12" or "2d6" reserves could have something that's closer to 1/encounter. This actually leans more into the Essentials-style ethos that TNP tries to go for, where some classes have encounter powers and others have daily powers (compared to core 4e D&D, where all classes have both.)

Previously, reserves always had to be rolled in order to regain HP. In recent drafts, this has been revised to only occur during combat, or if your character is at 0 HP once combat is over. Otherwise, spending one reserve will heal you up to full, without needing to roll. This means that the "HP per reserve" is a lot more even across the classes (vis-a-vis surge value) so we can worry less about that as a consideration, in the overall reserve-burning design space.

Looking back at the text of the 2018 playtest version, there were also a couple of other rules that have since fallen by the wayside; classes with a surge value of 4 were given expertise (mastery) on the d20 roll to restore HP, and you gained advantage on the roll if you weren't bloodied yet. This has me wondering if some take on these mechanics could/should make its way into the current rules. Generally, I'm leaning in the direction of having fewer rules and fewer exceptions overall, and just streamlining things where I can.

...

As was mentioned in the Discord, I've recently begun work on compiling a new draft of the rules -- which is what led to the topics being discussed in today's post. I'm going to continue to work on this draft, as time allows.

Next post should be up on March 23rd, so check back then for more!

What comes after The Next Project?

I'd like to take a bit of a detour today, and discuss something I've been asked a few times in the past: 

"So what's your next game going to be?"

While I did work on a few homebrew TTRPG designs in the past, I've always sort of thought as 'The Next Project' as being my magnum opus within the genre; I've often answered the question with, "I'm not a game designer, I'm just a guy who designed a game."

Early on, what inspired me was the question, "what are the classes for the next Diablo game [after Diablo 2] going to be?" My penchant for playing niche builds in the game (such as archer Paladins, and staff-wielding Amazons) combined with the idea of remixing the different skill trees, ultimately to end up with 6 different classes.

Somewhere along the way, that morphed into the more generic, 1d10/1d6-based system that I generally referred to as "Unnamed RPG" -- the 6 classes I came up with were instead broken down into a combination of whether you were a spellcaster or a warrior, and whether you had light, medium, or heavy armor.

Anyways, getting back to the question: what would I like to do next?
Well, there's a couple ideas.

One of the games that I had the pleasure of playtesting a bit was sort of... a wargame miniatures-esque system with a fantasy theme to it, called 'Feint Wars.' The basic mechanic was that you had a deck of cards consisting of 3 suits, each numbered 1 through 6 (2 through 5? something like that...) Now, this deck was split between you and your opponent, so there was an element of card-counting involved. You could use a certain number of cards on your turn, either to move or attack; you could move a number of spaces equal to the card's value, or attack with that value vs. an opposed card from the defender. The twist was twofold: you would both select your cards and then reveal them at the same time, but also there was a "rock-paper-scissors" element, where each suit trumped one other suit, effectively granting the card a +3.

Now, the idea that this gave me was, "could you base a similar sort of game off of a deck of Italian cards?" Generally, these are pretty similar to a standard deck, with a few notable exceptions, the most pertinent in this instance being that the numbered cards only run 2 through 7. There are still 3 face cards in each suit (although the naming conventions are slightly different) as well as aces; the suits are also different, and there are no "black" or "red" suits. Translated, the four suits are swords, sticks (batons), cups, and coins. Anyways, it isn't really an idea I followed up beyond my brain making that initial connection (and perhaps the suits lending themselves more to an RPG setup.)

The other idea I had for a game is likewise somewhat nebulous; I always just think of it in one phrase:

Ability Scores, done right.

Now, what does that mean, exactly? Basically, in the vein of something like 13th Age, it'd use the conventional 6 ability scores (or something close) but do it in a more modern way. For example, one hack that I always thought would be handy in 4e (or a 3.x paradigm, without multiclassing) would be to have Knowledge skills from your class skill list use either your highest mental stat, or else get a flat bonus in place of an ability modifier if you weren't "trained" with the skill. 

I also like the ways that both 4e and 13th Age do defenses, namely by using the higher of two mods, or using the middle of three mods (respectively.) My basic thought was that each defense would have one or two default stats, but that the special perk of each class would be that they could substitute in their main stat for some (or all) of those defenses. (For example: using Charisma as effectively a sort of 'luck stat' when making Reflex saves, which would otherwise use Agility.)

Another idea in that vein came out of my experience with 4e; couldn't you just use your ability score for your defenses (rather than 10 + ability mod + class bonus + magic item bonus + half-level bonus + feat bonus, etc. etc.)? I think that'd be an interesting quality-of-life simplification... if you could make the math work, which is always the rub.

As you might guess from the attributes used in TNP, I'd like to do something where Agility and Dexterity are split up, and maybe the functions of Constitution are governed by something separate from ability scores. I'd like it to include a Wisdom stat as well, if at all possible. Another thing I'd like is the possibility of having a handful of basic classes, and mixing them together somehow to expand the roster (For example, Fighter crossed with Priest creates a Paladin character.)

In the broadest terms, I think if there were a new project on the horizon, I would want to revisit the 1d10/1d6 paradigm. The thing that I've realized in working on TNP is that there's a value proposition (and an ergonomic quality) in using percentile dice to model advantage/disadvantage (as TNP does with skills, as well as monster mechanics.) The d20 gaming zeitgeist seems to be shifting more and more towards the idea of bending the flat math into a bell curve, by modifying the roll with other dice rather than with flat modifiers -- something which has always been a cornerstone of TNP, but also pioneered by systems like 'Shadow of the Demon Lord' with its boons/banes mechanic.

In lieu of the "d20 + class die" mechanic of TNP, a more generic/universal system with something like this as its backbone would appeal to me greatly. In particular, I think it would work great for a system that is meant to be small in scope (say, 6 different playable classes, maximum) rather than the sort of "greatest hits" mentality that can be attributed to the size of the TNP roster.

---

Anyway, those are my thoughts for the time being. There's barely a week left in June, so expect the next post to be up on (or just before) Friday the 30th.

Damage Rolls (2023)

One thing that derives out of the new ethos for bonuses, is the necessity of keeping the dice for attack rolls and damage rolls separate from each other. This is a little unintuitive for me, since I tend to roll them both together (when I'm playing D&D) to speed up play just slightly.

Since class dice are used for the functions of both attack bonuses and base damage, it's important to know which dice are for what, when you're physically rolling them. One thing I wrote into the most recent draft of the rules is that it's a good idea to have at least two trays to roll dice into, in order to help facilitate this.

In one of my recent posts, I hinted at possibly removing the advantage mechanic from base damage. If we were to take it a step further, allowing mastery on base damage to apply to extra damage, this would make it possible for all damage dice to be rolled together -- without the need to delineate between the types of damage rolls. Since base damage is always going to be 1 or 2 dice, but extra damage can be from 1d6-5d6 or 1d10-3d10, the application of mastery separately to each expression seems valuable, to keep damage from spiking. On the other hand... does it really make sense to have "mastery on extra damage" as a separate mechanic from "mastery on base damage"?

The most likely application of mastery on base damage would come from combat mastery; this is attainable from positional mechanics (like targeting prone creatures in melee) as well as status effects (a.k.a. debuffs, conditions, etc.) such as a target being Incapacitated. So where would mastery on extra damage come from? This seems like an obvious bit of design space for class features (much like mastery on initiative bonus, for example.) It's just a question of whether having separate instances of mastery for the two damage types is worth the added overhead; there would be something of a 'quality of life' improvement if the damage could all just be rolled together, and have mastery apply to everything.

The problem with this is that it creates an exception to the general rule, whereby mastery on a given type of roll does not extend mastery onto the bonus dice for that type of roll. This is particularly important for saving throws and skill checks (where there is the potential to stack multiple dice bonuses) because adding mastery would significantly skew the math, in unintended ways.

There's also an argument to be made for not allowing mastery to apply to extra damage at all. In short, the mechanic changes the average damage on a d6 from 3.5 to about 4.33, and on a d10 from 5.5 to 6.4; this means that the average damage on 5d6 is over 2 points higher than 3d10, once mastery is applied to both. Again, this 'solution' would still mean extra damage ends up being the 3rd roll in the attack sequence:

Attack roll + bonus dice -> base damage -> extra damage

It might also be the case that the break between calculating base damage and extra damage has some value -- sometimes the extra damage might just be overkill. It's probably worth mentioning here that since monsters such as swarms and minions have a number of "hit dice" (rather than "hit points") they actually take damage based on the number of damage dice inflicted on them, rather than the exact value of the dice rolls. So, if you hit one of these creatures, you only really need to know whether your base damage does 1 or 2 dice of damage, and how many dice of extra damage you would apply (as well as any bonus dice which are able to be used to deal damage) -- effectively only needing to physically roll the attack die and its bonuses.

---

Check back for another post, between the 25th and 28th of May.

Party Composition (2023)

So, building off of the earlier posts on role mechanics as well as class categories, I felt that party composition was something I should touch on for today.

Generally speaking, TNP is built around the idea of having a party of 4 characters. This sort of leans on roles, and sort of leans on class categories... but not really. So let's get into it.

The basic idea for party composition in TNP is that, in its totality, the party should have training with each core skill, twice over. That is to say, at least two members of the party (mixed and matched) have training with each core skill. Each class will have training with 2 attributes/skillsets, with 'skill expert' classes gaining a 3rd, plus 'skill expert' and 'jack of all trades' classes having the option to take a feat granting an additional trained attribute/skillset.

Going the route of having both a 'skill expert' and 'jack of all trades' in the party, (and taking this feat twice, as a group) a party of 4 characters can end up with 11 instances of skill training, covering the 5 skillsets/attributes. This means there is a little bit of wiggle room, since at a minimum, a party of 4 would still have 8 instances of skill training, meaning most skills should be covered at least once.

Just as not every class category is covered by a party of 4, this also means that not every role or 'role mechanic' would necessarily be covered either. This is why it is useful having these mechanics as something that certain classes can toggle on or off; 'jack of all trades' classes and 'disciple' classes both have the option to select a different combat role at the start of each combat, essentially allowing such classes to plug different gaps in the party.

As such, while the class categories used in TNP are grouped by slate (and slates are loosely based on power sources) this is not analagous to 4th Edition; class category does not determine your class' combat role within its slate / power source. Instead, it is more of an indication of which "pillar" your class focuses on:

• Skill Experts focus on core skills, and generally have the easiest access to Infiltration skills
• Ideologues focus more on knowledge skills, and generally have access to more knowledge skill ranks than other categories -- but they also tend to specialize, rather than generalize, in this regard
• Jack of All Trades classes are the most customizable, and meant to fill gaps within parties through bonus feats and their access to role mechanics
• Blade Masters are (obviously) melee classes, and so generally focus on combat, of the melee variety -- either tanking/defending, or as melee strikers (and within that, they're more of a 'skirmisher' or 'brute' role rather than a 'lurker')
• Disciples are...still kind of a mixed bag, at this point.

So that sort of begs the question...
...if skill expert is the Subterfuge (♠) category
....and blade master is the Combat (♣) category

...does that make 'jack of all trades' the Social (♥) category?

...should the Exploration (♦) category be the Disciples, or the Ideologues?

A compelling argument could be made that Warlord should be the Social disciple, and Druid should be the Exploration disciple, leaving Occultist as (probably) the obvious Subterfuge disciple. But I would be remiss if I didn't also acknowledge Warlord as basically a literal "disciple of Combat" (duh)

Knowledge skills (i.e. ideologues) tend to lean towards exploration skills, but they do have some social applications as well (specifically the Local, Streetwise, and Nobility & Royalty skills.)

If we're looking at the 'jack of all trades' category, Fighter is the obvious Combat class; Bard (Scholar) could be Exploration, and Bard (Performer) could be Social, with Adventurer (Scout) being Exploration and Adventurer (Skald) being Social... then is Exploration or Social the obvious secondary pillar, for the Fighter?

Circling back to roles, I should reiterate that most "support healing" in TNP does not spend reserves. The rationale being that we do not want that role to create an additional drain on reserves -- as was the typical knock on 'leader' classes in 4e. (Some people people have argued that "Damage is King" and healing is wasteful and unnecessary, but I can't say I've lived that experience.) Part of the reason for doing it this way is so that you can better compose your party to the tastes of your players, without necessarily needing to fill every "role" in combat. This (hopefully) allows people to play more to their preferred style, rather than tailoring to some real or perceived necessity, within the party composition mini-game. And it certainly isn't mandatory to have one of each "category" in every party, or that you shouldn't double up on a given category, either.

---

Alright, I'll leave it at that for today. Next post will be aiming for April 25th or 26th, so check back then!

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.

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!

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.

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!

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!

Expansionism -- Part 2: The Lost Children

Earlier this year, I teased some ideas for potential new content that could be added to TNP, at some point. The idea of doing a 4th slate of classes is one I want to talk about today, and (in particular) why I think it probably won't happen.

Over the months, in various discussions with acquaintances and fans, there basically emerged two possible paths that a 4th slate could take: Monstrous Races, or, what I dubbed "Heroes of Wrath & Redemption."

The first idea is probably one that appeals to the interests of a specific segment of tabletop gamers. I think the demographic is probably a cross-section of the DMs who get heavy into the "monster manual" side of running RPGs, and the players who are always looking for more and more options. While monsters generally use the same basic mechanics of the system, a lot of times they get abilities that are never presented as PC options. Some suggested "classes" for a slate consisting of monstrous races were:

• Dragon
• Drider
• Sphinx
• Centaur/Minotaur

The reason I can't see myself writing this sort of content, is simply because I don't fit into the demographic of people interested in those options. I've always come at gaming more from the "player" side, rather than the DM side, so my interest in monstrous creatures hasn't really ever been there. I don't have the breadth of knowledge (in terms of mechanics) nor a grasp of the appeal (in terms of flavour) to really present those options in a meaningful way. It's one thing to be able to mechanically analyze a class that you've never played (but one which interests you) and do a thumbnail sketch of it; this is essentially the process that produced the Warlord and the Spellbinder, amongst other examples in TNP.

The other big sticking point is that it doesn't quite conform to my ideas about fantasy games, in general. A lot of people are of a mindset akin to "anything you can't do in real life, should be in a fantasy game." My own perspective is more along the lines of "there should be some fantastic and impossible things going on, but the characters should be relatable." Now, this is sort of where we end up with elves that are just tall humans with pointy ears, and dwarves that are just short, fat humans with beards. But I think that having characters be close enough to our day-to-day selves (perhaps just with one or two characteristics taken to extreme) makes them more... well, human. So I can't really see myself writing player options that make the characters something else -- at least not without the help of people who are really passionate about that conceit, and that design space.

Now, the second part kind of hits at something that was touched on in my most recent post. By and large, the classes that are presented in TNP come from a handful of books in the 4th Edition D&D line:

• Player's Handbook 1
• Player's Handbook 2
• Heroes of the Fallen Lands
• Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms

There are some outliers, of course: shades of "Heroes of Shadow" can be seen in the Blackguard, Necromancer, Assassin, and School of Trickery subtypes (and I'd argue that the Acrobat is a cousin of the Executioner, as well.) The Skald and the Barbarian lean heavily on their counterparts from "Heroes of the Feywild," while the Monk and Swordmage appear in 4th Edition in the PHB3 and "Forgotten Realms Player's Guide," respectively.

So who got left out?

Well, everyone from PHB3 not named "Monk" for starters. The other notable exception would be the Avenger (PHB2).

Let's run down the list, and see where the problems start to crop up:

Avenger sort of suffers the same fate in TNP as it did in 5th Edition; with its main mechanic (Advantage) being made universal, the class loses a lot of its weight. Taking it a bit further, with this game obfuscating things like weapons, armor, and ability score usage, it would be difficult (if not impossible) to really mechanically represent the Avenger within the system. Some players have suggested that the Paladin (particularly the Blackguard archetype) as well as the Swordmage or even a great-weapon Fighter could simply be reflavoured as an Avenger.

My preliminary thoughts about what an Avenger would look like in this system pointed me in the direction of the d4 or d6 framework; low HP, but potentially large weapon damage from using the "double roll and stack" mechanic. This ends up overlapping the Acrobat and Fighter design space a bit too much, though (and arguably those are already cramped by classes like Guardian, Adventurer, and Barbarian.)

Psionics as presented in 4e (namely the power point classes) might not stretch beyond one class, within the TNP ethos (where classes are able to have more than one Role.) Porting in that whole subsystem for such a small payoff hardly seemed worth it; the other problem they present is that while historically they represent a different power source (or at least, a different way of "doing" arcane magic), they really... couldn't, in this system.

Runepriest is another example of a 4e class I was always interested in, but never had a chance to play. With regards to its possible place in TNP, I always saw it more as a subtype for either the Cleric or the Paladin. The "rune state" mechanic effectively functions as a stance, which maps closely to Paladin auras -- the rest is just fluff. The alternative would be to slot it in as a Cleric subclass, which would mean bumping the Invoker in some way or another. I always saw Invoker as a d6 class (akin to a blasty, sorcerer type) or a d10 class (damage-stacking, surge-burning) but I never saw it really as more than an subtype within a bigger class, and I didn't see a fit for it as a Paladin archetype (since Paladin is a decidedly melee class, and Invoker is ranged.) Do you split up the Rogue, and put Sorcerer with Invoker? And then do you add Avenger onto Assassin? Or staple Assassin onto Fighter? 

In short, the Runepriest sort of falls victim to it necessitating a whole game of "musical chairs" in order to fit in where it should (and even that "where" was never clear.) This happened a bit, back when the design transitioned from Beta 3 to Beta 4, but I would really need to have an overarching change in the framework to want to do something like that again -- not just to accommodate one class.

Seeker has sort of the same problem that Avenger does; it uses an unconventional ability score for its attack stat, and that doesn't translate to this system at all. I think the Hunter from Essentials (also represented in TNP) does the "bow-wielding controller" niche adequately -- if somewhat more "safe" or "mundane" in design than the Seeker.

Some other classes that got tossed around were the Vampire (or perhaps a "Blood Mage"), as a d4 class -- with Druid-like mechanics for extra HP, a reserve-based mini-game, or potentially other effects while Bloodied. Since each slate is intended to have both a healer and a defender, either Artificer or Ardent would have to make an appearance, with perhaps roles stapled onto an Avenger or Death Knight class, in order to cover all the bases. Elementalist as an unconventional, ranged, d12 class also sparked my imagination a bit.

Ultimately, the trouble with "Heroes of Wrath & Redemption" is a combination of factors. There isn't much of a unifying theme, in terms of either flavour or mechanics; in a lot of cases, they seem like classes that are just "this class, but" or "this other class, only more." There would be a lot of overlap with those classes that are currently using the Divine and Shadow power sources, so the temptation is there to just restructure all the slates from the ground up -- making them conform more closely to Power Sources, for example. But the biggest problem is that almost all of the suggested classes would need mechanics custom-built (or at least completely reinvented to fit the system) in order for them to function, and I'm just not sure the design space is really there, for most of them.


What do you think? Are there ways some of these idea could be implemented in TNP?
Is an entire 4th slate viable, or should some of these classes just appear as options for the existing roster?

Playtesting (Beta 4)

We put together a party of 5 for the playtest game, with each Class Die represented.
Here's what the composition looked like:

• Druid (d4)
• Rogue [Assassin] (d6)
• Cleric [Invoker] (d8)
• Paladin [Blackguard] (d10)
• Spellbinder [Swordmage] (d12)

Some of my thoughts so far:

Druid

The boosts to maximum HP from Wildshape don't functionally do anything, since there is no cap on "overhealing" when you're in combat. Overall, the class needs damage boosts, and the Summoner in particular needs some improvements to get rolling faster, since combat is so short. The form of the Great Eagle is meant to be for utility, but might not be useful enough to see much play. I'm strongly considering giving the Druid a healer ability, because the class might not have enough to do, and it feels weird not having one.

Assassin

Overall, the class seems to function well; it definitely does a lot of damage (as intended) but there still doesn't seem to be enough incentive to get into melee. I might end up limiting the use of combat skills to 1/turn. I'm also considering limiting the d20 bonus damage ability of the Assassin, so that you cannot become hidden on the same turn that it is utilized.

Invoker

Since this class relies on area attacks to hit its damage benchmarks (and its area attacks are so reliant on positioning) I'm going to look at giving the Invoker some "battlefield control" abilities, such as being able to either shift or teleport enemies into a maelstrom. Bless also didn't get much love; as a standard action, it is very powerful, but perhaps this is mitigated (again) by the short combat. I'm considering changing it to a minor action, but curbing its potency in some fashion.

Blackguard

As with the Assassin, this is one of the oldest classes, and so has had a fair bit of design energy put into it. The class works well as an attacker, but getting the most out of its defensive perks relies on your allies' positioning. It's definitely a class that relies on using the "basic moves" in order to get some variety in combat; these may need to be highlighted in the class itself, rather than just being spelled out in the core rules.

Swordmage

This class can function very well as a damage-dealer, particularly if you're able to win initiative and/or get favourable positioning, albeit burning reserves at a good clip. We saw this class get a lot of the spotlight in combat. I definitely think I will need to cut back on some of the action economy perks the class gets, and I may limit their reserve ability to 1/encounter. The class perk to Intimidate will need some revision (as will the similar Skald ability) which touches on enemy design a bit, too. Mechanically, I think the class functions well, all around.

---

As part of the testing, I've been trying out some of the ideas I've had for how to use and customize the party's opponents, so the next blog update will probably touch on that.

Expansionism (Beta 4)

With playtesting currently underway, I have been focusing my efforts on running the game; as such, I don't have a lot of work being done on (or changes being made to) the existing material, so I wanted to pitch a few ideas that have bounced through my head at various times.


Alternate Archetypes/Prestige Classes
In particular, I keep thinking I might want to do a slate of Archetypes centered on adding pets to classes that currently don't have any, or focused around using mounts in combat. Ideally, I would want these to work for multiple classes, but that might be difficult given the disparate distribution of Archetype/Path/Subclass between the various classes.

Some example ideas:

• Cavalier: Cleric, Paladin, Warlords or Fighters with the Divine power source
• Death Knight: Paladin, Mystic, Hexblade, Warlords or Fighters with the Shadow power source
• School of Golemancy: Wizard, Sorcerer, Guardian
• Mounted Archer: Archer, Ranger, Adventurer, Monk, Assassin, Fighter
• Beastrider: Ranger, Necromancer, Druid
• Death Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Shadow power sources
• Nature Domain: alternate archetype for classes who take Divine or Primal power sources

Races

I've kind of had some fleeting ideas about how I might want to structure a loose framework for adding fantasy races to the game. Basically, they wouldn't provide stat boosts, but conceivably could add extra skill training. I would mostly want them to mostly provide things akin to the Background features seen in 5th Edition D&D, or Theme benefits from 4th Edition. Beyond that, some examples of stuff that I've thought might work:

• Dwarf: If you choose a d4 or d6 class, you have double the normal number of reserves; you can also double roll and stack the damage of your melee basic attacks.
• Elf: If you choose a d4 class, you can double roll and stack the damage of your ranged basic attacks; you can also add your class die to any untrained DEX or WIS checks you make.
• Half-Elf: If you choose a class with Paths, you can instead treat them as Archetypes. If you choose a class with Archetypes, you can instead treat them as Subclasses.
• Human: If you choose a class with Roles, you can instead treat them as a Form or Concentration ability; you can change between Roles as a Minor Action. You have Expertise on all untrained skill checks.

Slates/Power Sources

Should there be a 4th slate of classes? Or a 6th power source?

The one power source that's really missing (when compared to the 4e lineup) is Psionic. I think if we were to follow in that vein, any psionic classes would have to have something resembling a power-point mechanic (i.e. an additional resource-management subsystem) built onto them. Another consideration is, which Knowledge skills does it make sense for a Psionic power source to have? How would we differentiate it from the existing ones?

Since TNP doesn't operate in the 4e paradigm of "Role + Power Source = Class" it might not really be possible to create Psionics as more than one class, even.

-----

Today's post is a day behind, mostly because of scheduling considerations; next post, likewise, should be up on April 26th, so check back then!

Heroes of All Stripes (Beta 4)

In 4th Edition D&D, the Dark Sun campaign specifically banned or limited power sources -- effectively cutting back on the number of classes you could pick from.

Just as a thought-exercise, I looked at what sorts of effects this might have, if implemented in TNP; based on that research, I'll be making some adjustments. What ended up happening was classes that are locked into 2 (or even 3) power sources are unlikely to make the cut, whereas classes that get to freely pick both/all of their power sources will always be an option.

As such, I'm leaning towards changing around classes to fall into one of these two setups:

• one power source is locked in, the other can be chosen from a short list
• both power sources can be chosen freely, but from a list of only three options

Generally, I think it will be thematically best to keep your party composition within 2 class slates, but there is no necessity to limit your party as such; limitations on class slate or power source selection should only be done to reinforce the theme or flavour of a campaign, or party cohesion, and only on the agreement of everyone at the table.

-----

Another thing I've been digging into recently is increasing the customization levels of classes, without adding to or changing their abilities drastically.

Some classes have explicit Roles, while others have implicit roles. For example, the Guardian breaks down into Warden and Shaman subclasses, which each effectively occupy a different role (just as the 4e versions did.) However, their abilities are structured such that they all draw from their "role ability" and they cannot really be extracted from each other. Simply put, these subclasses can't be changed to Archetypes, because one of them must be selected, in order for the class to function in combat.

Because of this, subclasses have been changed to be the "mandatory Role" form of customization; classes with subclasses to choose from can now select one at the start of combat, but should have a default one set, which they are most familiar with.

For some classes, this would not thematically make a lot of sense. For example, the Rogue has Assassin and Sorcerer as its subclasses; on its face, it would not make much sense for a character to swap between such drastically different characters at the start of each combat. In those cases, the subclass tag has been changed to "Path"; your path must be chosen when you create one of these characters. This change will apply to the following classes:

• Cleric: Path of the Crusader, Path of the Invoker
• Sage: Path of the Monk, Path of the Wizard
• Rogue: Path of the Assassin, Path of the Sorcerer

I've also been working over the past little while to make it so that classes with Archetypes to choose from still get basic functionality without having to pick one. Granted, having an Archetype will grant you an additional Iconic Ability and/or additional riders on your powers, but I want characters who don't pick one to still have the standard of 2 trained sets of core skills, as well as at least 1 (or preferably 2) power sources.

The current state of the Paladin is probably the best showcase for this type of design; the class functions fine without an archetype, but picking one gives you some mechanical perks in combat, as well as more options for customization.

-----

EDIT: A new playtest recruit is now live, on the forums. So if you're a goon, sign up!

Laying the Foundations (Beta 4)

One of the ideas I have been kicking around for a while, is to do a "level 0" setup, for beginners to get into the game system. The idea would be that you pick a Class Die, plus one power source and skillset (maybe?) and play a couple of encounters, before settling on a full-blown class to play.

To facilitate this, I want the damage to be roughly balanced, but it would probably have to be less than that of a full class. As a matter of course, kicking this idea around while still working on the damage math, the two ideas have sort of cross-pollinated with each other.

If we look at 5th Edition D&D, light weapons (those suitable for two-weapon fighting) are exclusively d4 or d6 weapons. In The Next Project (where the damage is a bit higher, and all classes are expected to have the ability to hit more than one target in a turn) it probably makes sense that d4 and d6 classes should be able to attack more often. When we look at the current d4 classes, I've had to add some attacks just to keep the damage up; with the d6 classes, I'm noticing it leans heavily towards single-target attacking for some loadouts, so that might be something I'll have to dig into.

The logical starting point for figuring out the damage for "level 0" characters is to start with the math for their full-class counterparts, and hack off one Class die, starting with the d12. So, I'm looking at this as a baseline to tweak from:

• d4: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); you deal 2d4 damage when you use this attack as a Standard Action. You can also make this type of attack as a Minor Action, dealing 1d4 damage.
• d6: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You can also make this type of attack as a Standard Action or Minor Action.
• d8: Choose one type of attack (melee or ranged); You have Advantage on the damage rolls of this type of attack.
• d10: You have Expertise on damage rolls.
• d12: You have Disadvantage on ranged damage rolls.

---

In terms of the DM advice areas of the rules, the groundwork is already in place for what sort of shape an "adventuring day" will take.

Classes have between 4 and 12 reserves. In terms of design space, reserves fulfill the same role as Healing Surges in 4th Edition D&D, however, classes in 4e have between 6 and 10 surges (plus your CON modifier.) To help try and bridge the gap, classes on the higher end of that scale in TNP tend to have abilities that can burn reserves for other uses in combat, whereas those with fewer reserves tend to have abilities to mitigate damage. In addition, Reserves provide more healing per use -- typically a full heal.

All that being taken into account, we get a framework that should roughly line up with that of 4th Edition -- specifically, to aim for around 4-6 encounters per day. Encounters per day and reserves per day might both have to be adjusted after some playtesting, but I think it's a good enough place to start from.

The important thing to keep in mind is that an adventuring day is not a literal time-based day, nor should it end when your gaming session ends. If an adventuring day spans more than one session, it should be considered a "two-part episode" in much the way TV series often do (even when a series usually conforms to "one-shots.") As such, I am considering alternate names for "adventuring day," such as "chapter."

---

For monster math, the baselines for PC damage have been established, so it is a simple matter of reverse-engineering from there. If we expect PCs to deal 15 DPR (or 3 hit dice of damage) on average, then in order to facilitate 3-round combat, an encounter should include 45 HP (or 9 HD) worth of enemies per PC participant. We can round these numbers off for simplicity -- 50 HP or 10 HD -- if we want something easy to remember.

Likewise, if the PCs have between 24 and 32 HP, and our objective is to reduce their HP by about half each encounter, then it makes sense to have standard monsters do 4-6 DPR over a 3-round combat. Assuming the PCs only successfully defend 50% of the time, this works out to about 10 damage for each standard monster's turn.

I think when class abilities come to bear, playtesting will show that the PCs are a bit heartier both in terms of damage and defense. As such, I'm betting that enemies will have to be adjusted "up" based on playtest feedback, but that should be easy enough to do.

Object of the Game (Beta 4)

After a bit of playtesting, I've been thinking about what the measuring stick for success should be, on a campaign- or adventuring day-level. Pretty much the only resource management in the game currently comes in the form of Reserves, which are a "daily" resource.

On its face, the point of this style of game is generally to get as far down into the dungeon (or advance the story arc as far as possible) before needing to return to safety and take a rest. But since we're not using a framework where levels, magic items, or wealth are used as the driving force of progression, the only measuring stick we have is how much content is completed before going back to "town."

Should the rewards simply be a matter of keeping score? There are a couple possible shapes this could take: rewarding players "points" either based on the number of encounters they have completed before going back to base, or by how many of their Reserves they have left after a predetermined amount of progression has been completed.

Either option requires some amount of balancing, and ultimately the solution may be to introduce additional subsystems to the game, to provide additional means of progression.

Separation of Powers (Beta 4)

As part of the process of polishing up the character classes, I took a look at the distribution of trained skills and skill expertise. Most classes end up with 2 trained skill "lists" (i.e. Skillsets or Basic Abilities) with particularly skillful classes getting 3 or 4. In addition, most classes get expertise with one skill list. I might look into adjusting some classes to fit more closely into these general guidelines.

Another thing I want to work on is making the structure of the classes more unified, in terms of their Iconic Abilities, Archetypes, and so forth. I want to see if classes can be broken into smaller chunks, beginning simpler and adding layers of complexity. This is not meant as a leveling system, per se, but as a way to ease newcomers into the game, rather than front-loading all of the character generation. This could also potentially shape the "starter classes" quite significantly.

The problem is that currently Archetypes do different things for different classes. For example, the Sage's archetypes are essentially two distinct sub-classes (Wizard and Monk) whereas the Barbarian's archetypes prescribe slightly different playstyles, but don't significantly modify the base class. Further to that, some classes have additional layers of customization that others don't, such as Roles, or the Cleric's domains, the Guardian's totems, and the Sage's disciplines. I might be able to remedy this disjointed nature by simply altering terminology in a few places, or it might require more significant changes. The path of least resistance might be to simply take each class and break its parts down on a case-by-case basis.

As was mentioned in my previous post, my intention is to add power sources to each class; knowledge skills would be tied to these power sources, helping to flesh out your character's background. Another part of the intention for adding this layer of customization, is so that there can be a rule allowing players to change their class at narratively appropriate times, but limited to classes that share at least one power source with your current class.

The challenge then, is ironing out which parts of the existing framework to hang power sources on. In particular, I think it makes sense to have the Sage gain one power source based on the discipline they take, whereas tying power sources to Cleric domains or Guardian totems doesn't work as well. It could also be made completely independent, but too much customization goes against the design intent to have quick and simple character generation. On the other hand, a simple character could conceivably start with nothing but a background/power source, and then buy into a class later on.

...

Work on the "math pass" continues, along with other bigger and smaller edits as I go along; the 2nd slate (Magic & Shadow) is effectively done, though I may still take a hard look at the Sorcerer archetype. The 3rd slate (Wilderness) is probably done, particularly since most of its classes were completed/updated so recently, but I may give the Druid some closer scrutiny. The 1st slate (Martial & Divine) will get a once-over, but is probably mostly set; I've done considerable edits to the Acrobat already. Once I feel this iteration is "done," expect a long blog post with a log of all the changes.

...

One major change: "The Warrior" has been renamed to "The Adventurer"
I think that Scout/Skald wasn't quite war-like enough to merit the title of "warrior" so I think the new name is a better fit; Scout having been a class from the book "Complete Adventurer" back in D&D 3.5 sort of cemented this change.

...

Check back January 25th for the next post!