Apples & Oranges (2024)

One of the gripes I have with the design of 5e is how incongruous it is.

The example that immediately jumps off the page to me is how armor progression is essentially attribute-based for light armor users (or unarmored builds), but is money/loot-based for heavy armor users. Would it be so undesirable to just have heavy armor AC improve with STR, the way light armor AC improves with DEX?

Likewise, I find this same problem when you compare (for example) an archery Fighter build vs. a Warlock eldritch blast build. Right off the bat, the Fighter has the clear advantage, from being able to take a +2 to hit with their fighting style, and already adding +DEX to ranged weapon damage -- whereas the Warlock needs to spend "class feature currency" to gain +CHA to their eldrtich blast damage, and no comparable way to increase their hit chance.

Where the Warlock pulls ahead, is the fact that they deal force damage right out of the gate; again, the ability to deal "magical" weapon damage, or non-mundane types of damage as a Fighter comes down to loot... which in itself either comes down to plot contrivance (in the case of a published adventure) or outright DM fiat. At levels where resistance to mundane weapon damage becomes more ubiquitous, a Fighter without an appropriate magical weapon will see their damage fall off substanstially.

The odd thing about it is, the solution is already in the game, in other places; as a 6th level Monk, "your unarmed strikes count as magical for the purpose of overcoming resistance and immunity to nonmagical attacks and damage." A rogue with the Soulknife archetype can deal psychic damage basically at will, from 3rd level. Likewise for Paladins, "By 11th level [...] Whenever you hit a creature with a melee weapon, the creature takes an extra 1d8 radiant damage" in addition to the push-button radiant damage they can do with Divine Smite, or other types of magical damage they can deal with their buff spells. It's also pretty easy for Wizards or Sorcerers to have at least two different "flavours" of damage from their cantrips alone.

The question I find myself asking is, what is the point of this type of design?
We saw some steps forward with 4e, such as making sneak attack not care about the anatomy of your target in order for it to work. And the distinction between piercing/bludgeoning/slashing weapons had more to do with qualifying for feats than resistance/immunity. But at later levels, this cat-and-mouse game started to creep in, where ongoing damage started at 5 and resistance started at 3, with both scaling up over the tiers of play. We also see this kind of thing in Diablo 2, where after a certain point in the patch history, all paladins became spellcasters because dealing magical damage was more effective than buffing your sword swings -- and that's to say nothing of the fact that Diablo games are fundamentally about gathering more and better loot, whereas (in my opinion) D&D should not be.

I guess at the core of my meanderings is this opinion: it doesn't work. Designing some classes (and their progression) around their attributes and class features, while others are effectively designed around the loot they find...? It doesn't work for TTRPGs. You need to pick a lane in terms of your designs, and stick with it; if a class fundamentally can't function without specific loot or gear, then those items need to be made into class features instead. And if you're going to build a resistance/immunity mini-game into your combat, it's probably best done as a mechanism by which you allow one party member to shine; the double-edged sword with that is you essentially pigeon-hole your designs around the assumption that all parties must be composed a certain way, or there will be enemies they either can't win against, or will struggle a lot harder to deal with.

This is why TNP has always been built around the concept that "all damage is created equal." This helps with a lot of the abstraction, including things like base damage dice; whether a Fighter is dealing 1d6 damage with a shortsword or a quarterstaff or a scimitar is irrelevant. When looking back at my previous designs, added damage types created additional effects, such as poison damage ignoring damage reduction from armor, or cold damage causing penalties to speed and initiative; I think this is a lot better way to handle this sort of concept, within a table-top setting.

...

Next post is due up on May 5th, so check back then for more!

Filling the Toolbox (2024)

When setting out to build the mechanics of a game, I think it's important to figure out what things you want to emulate and what not to emulate.

To give an example, the 3.5/4e paradigm of using flanking to provide a +2 attack bonus (referred to as Combat Advantage, in 4e) placed an emphasis not only on precise positioning and grid-based combat, but also a focus on tactics, co-operation, and teamwork. Without this as a baseline rule in 5th Edition, sources of advantage or other dice bonuses more or less boil down to "magic did it."

When I started off working on TNP, I always sort of envisioned a system where "playing to type" would give you advantage on the action you were taking; the easiest example I can put forward would be attacking in melee as a barbarian. This ethos could also be applied to something like which skills you use; to wit, earlier versions used class dice for the skill mechanics, and some of those included replacing d6s with bigger class dice for skills that were "iconic" to a given class.

Along with advantage/disadvantage, I had always envisioned expertise/mastery as being the signature, cornerstone dice mechanic that TNP would operate off of -- but in actuality, class dice ended up being its own layer of class-specific mechanics (particularly when it came to attack rolls.) In the recent drafts, the decision was made to standardize the class dice mechanics; a d4 bonus granted by a Cleric would be the same as a d4 bonus granted by an Acrobat, or a Druid, or a Sage, etc.

This is also around the time I started to ask a question, what really are the core dice mechanics of the system? Part of what created this impetus was the decision to move away from d20 for skills. What came out of this question was the 5 core rolls (attacks, saves, skill checks, initiative checks, and base damage) and the more standardized, streamlined bonuses that applied to them (attack bonus, save bonus, skill rank bonus, initiative bonus, and extra damage.)

Another aspect of "filling the toolbox" with regards to the game's mechanics was the skill grid. I've mentioned it before, but essentially, between the core skills (aka ACIDS tests) and knowledge skills, TNP pretty much covers all of the skills included in D&D, from 3.5 onward. Not to say that I necessarily think all of those skills will be used in every campaign, but by fitting them all somewhere into the grid, you can bolt the skill system (even, potentially, without bolting the rest of TNP) onto a game or an adventure where all of those skills are assumed to be part of the designs.

One thought I've had as it pertains to the skills grid is the idea of how it could be implemented differently. For example, in an ethos where "ability modifiers" are kept to a minimum of +1, you could easily substitute those numbers for your skill ranks, with each +1 bonus adding another d6 to the dice pool; if attributes determine skill rank bonuses, then the implication would be that skill "training" (i.e. advantage on the d10 component) would be a function purely of skillsets, rather than being applicable to skillsets or attributes (as it currently is.) This would actually be an interesting way of doing things, particularly in a potential "2d6" DC10 system, described in a previous post.

I think the other big bit of "toolkit-building" in TNP relates to the status effects and conditions. I actually have already made a quite lengthy post on the decision process behind which ones to include, so I won't rehash all of that here. What I will say, is that I think perhaps these designs are a bit "over-engineered," for purpose. It may very well be that this serves as the baseline for a new system, since I keep finding myself rarely incorporating these deeply into the character class designs, any time I do a re-draft. 

Part of that is because I think of TNP as being designed more as an "HP attrition" game first and foremost. A lot of the optimization mentality in 4e was that debilities just drag out the (already lengthy) combat, essentially forcing the party to spend more resources (particularly healing resources) whereas building around higher damage helps to more quickly advance combat to its natural end-state. "Damage is king," as they say. Circling back around to what I said earlier in the post, playing to type was meant to make your character more effective (i.e. deal more damage) in combat.

The other part of it is as a response to 5e having such poorly-designed and under-utilized conditions. To wit, seemingly every spell has its own conditions, and if a spell does reference one or more of the pre-established conditions, it always builds some clunky exception(s) into it. Much like standardizing the class dice bonuses, I wanted TNP to have standardized conditions, which do the things you expect things to do, in a D&D game. To this point, while I think the 4e conditions are sometimes very "gamey" and don't always lend themselves to this ethos, I think the format and the standardization of 4e's conditions laid a good foundation for how this sort of thing ought to be done -- and that's why TNP apes this formatting so closely.

If there's one more idea I'd include in this exercise, it's the mechanics of the monster roll. As I've mentioned before, one thing I did when homebrewing monsters in 4e, was to standardize the damage expression -- rather than having each subtype of each monster race using different types of dice. The fact that the MM3 math was so standardized, made this sort of thing easy to reverse-engineer. Part of the monster-building "toolkit" is this idea of having a standardized damage dice roll, regardless of the monster type. Part of the thinking behind "using the dice for everything" in TNP (rather than having static modifiers) is that it creates a stable cap on what damage expressions can potentially be -- and nowhere is this truer than with the monster mechanics; each swing is only ever going to be 1d10+1d6, with standard monsters only using the higher die, effectively capping them at 10 damage, while elites, solos, and archenemy types are capped at 16 (albeit solos and archenemies will likely take more than one swing per round, or have access to multi-target abilities.) With the HP for PCs varying between 24 and 32, this also gives us a pretty good handle on what combat length should look like, once we account for "save" chance and come up with DPR expectations for monsters.

---

A bit of a retrospective post today, but I'm also thinking of how I can move things like the mechanics forward, into future designs. So I find these little exercises in navel-gazing to be occasionally helpful.

Next post is due up on April 24th, so check back then!

Core Designs: "Players Always Roll" (2024)

In the earliest iterations of TNP, the idea was that monsters would always do a flat amount of damage (usually 1 point) when they targeted the PCs. This was partly because HP was a lot lower (essentially capped at "maximum value of your class die") but was also done to speed up gameplay; it was one less roll the GM needed to make. When I decided to expand the monster roster to include minion types (and swarms) this idea of fixed damage was integrated into their designs, and other monsters were given a damage roll, often referred to as the "monster roll" -- specifically a d10 and a d6.

(Without going on too much of a derail, this was derived from my own hack of the "MM3 on a business card"-math that came out of 4th Edition D&D; essentially, I used 1d6+1d10 (per tier) as the monster's damage roll.)

In 4e, the ethos is "attacker always rolls" i.e. you don't roll a Reflex save when targeted, instead the attacker rolls vs. your Reflex defense to determine whether their attack succeeds. TNP kind of... does an homage to this, by saying "players always roll," which means you roll if you're attacking OR if you're being attacked. This was an interesting quality-of-life improvement on the DM side, particularly in the play-by-post playtest games I've done; the DM could declare the monsters as targeting certain PCs, and say, "roll defense; take X damage on a fail," and the play could move on to the next person in initiative. Eventually the roll made when a player was attacked got renamed from a "Defense roll" to the more familiar "saving throw." 

Where this tends to get gummed up is in status effects and conditions. For example, if an effect gives you disadvantage on attack rolls and saving throws (such as the Incapacitated condition) how does that work for monsters, who don't make either? Well, the short explanation is that while the monster roll funcions as the damage roll (on a failed saving throw) it is treated as also being the monster's "attack roll" for the purposes of applying such penalties; the disadvantage is applied to the d10, thus making the monster roll effectively a "percentile" die roll which models advantage/disadvantage, and with a d6 added to it.

(Worth mentioning here is that this is also how skill checks are handled, as they use the exact same dice. In the new draft I have been working on, skill checks are therefore recommended to always be rolled as percentile dice with a d6 bonus die, rather than "1d10+1d6" -- but more on that in a future post, probably.)

Alright, so what about the disadvantage on saving throws? Well, the Incapacitated condition (which gets nested into lots of other debilities) also causes anyone with this condition to grant combat mastery to their enemies. Now, this is where I need to have a big think: Should the condition expressly say, "monsters are impacted in X way, but PCs are impacted in Y way," or, should this condition cause PCs to both have disadvantage on saving throws and grant combat mastery, while monsters only do the latter? This seems overly-punishing in a way that isn't really intended, so I'm thinking some of these conditions might have to stipulate different effects for monsters or players.

The same issue arises with things like positioning or terrain effects; since "advantage on saving throws" has been excised from the mechanics, these effects instead grant the PCs a save bonus (a d6, which can be stacked, but only the highest d6 roll is kept.) But what about the monsters? Well, they don't make saving throws, so instead the PCs should have disadvantage to attack enemies with one or more of these effects in play... Which then begs the question: Instead of a save bonus to the PCs, should cover (or similar) instead grant disadvantage on the monster's "attack" roll, just so that the terminology being used is consistent (even though the mechanical applications are different)?

I do think that the way in which conditions and status effects were built out in 4e was slick, and very much worth emulating. I'm just having a bit of trouble translating that ethos over to a system with a different mechanical underpinning. This is one of the other reasons that I'm becoming more convinced I'll want to take on the task of doing a followup game to TNP. I think the game could be made to run a lot smoother with some different mechanical underpinnings, such as "attacker always rolls" and using things like flat modifiers in some places (instead of dice, for everything) -- but then it wouldn't be TNP anymore; it'd necessarily have to be something different.

...

Next post is planned for April 4th so check back then!

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!

Positioning, Distance, and Ranges in Combat (2024)

When talking about this topic, I find it helpful to compare and contrast the difference in ethos between 4th Edition D&D and 5th Edition D&D.

In 4th Edition, generally each character's move speed was 6 squares, with the smaller races getting 5, and the odd ones (such as elves) getting 7. This is pretty comparable to 5e, where the ranges are all multiplied by 5ft, but otherwise remain the same.

Also worth mentioning is that in 4e, the ranges of most spells were 5 or 10 squares (compared to 30ft-120ft for 5e). Most ranged weapons were between 10-15 squares (vs. 30ft-100ft for bows/crossbows in 5e) and their long ranges were only double the base range (as compared to quadruple, in 5e). The charge action in 4e allowed you to move your speed and to make a melee basic attack, all as a standard action; what this meant was that a character with the typical speed of 6 could move 12 squares while still attacking on their turn. I would also point out that class features such as prime shot (for the Ranger and the Warlock classes) incentivized players to keep within about 10 squares of the center of the action.

What I observed from playing 3.5 and 4e in particular is that combat tended to involve crowding into whatever was the obvious open clearing in a given map (often near the middle.) Particularly with the flanking rules, there ended up being sort of a conga-line of melee characters and enemies all bunched up together. There wasn't a lot of "verticality" involved, most of the time, either.

This intention to keep the action close together is what inspired the more abstracted rules around positioning, in TNP. (Also, at a certain point, if you're far enough away, is it even fair to consider the combatants to be in the same "arena" as each other? Should they be in initiative against one another?) The system heavily borrows from 13th Age, where combat has effectively a front rank, a middle rank, and a back rank -- which TNP simplifies down to two ranks: essentially, melee and ranged (actually, "maelstrom" and "open").

The exception to this would be forms of "verticality" which in TNP have been either described as high ground (typically terrain or structures) or altitude (typically from flying or levitation). Cover also functions similarly to high ground, in that it is typically granted by terrain or architecture, and serves to bestow certain bonuses or penalties depending upon the relative positioning of the combatants involved; it's also possible to be behind the same piece of cover as an enemy, just as you can potentially be on the same piece of high ground with them.

When you are in melee with one or more enemies, this is called a maelstrom, and there are all sorts of rules around who can attack what, when in a maelstrom. This is also described as being adjacent; allies may join each other's existing maelstroms, and you can be adjacent to enemies or allies. If characters are in separate maelstroms from each other, they are not considered to be nearby; only allies who are in the same maelstrom together or who are open, are considered to be nearby. This is relevant for targeting with certain abilities. When you are in a maelstrom, you have disadvantage on ranged attack rolls, as is comparable to the rules in 5e.

You are not considered to be in a maelstrom anytime there are no enemies adjacent to you; this is referred to as being "open." As discussed in the previous post, some actions require you to be open, in order to take/trigger them. In TNP, making a melee attack when you are open is essentially the same as making a charge -- so there is no separate charge action; you close the distance with your target, and then attack it. Once you are adjacent to an enemy or enemies (i.e. in a maelstrom) your melee attacks can only target enemies in that maelstrom (until such time as you leave the maelstrom, of course.) Some classes can gain reach with their melee attacks, which allows them to target enemies outside of their maelstrom, as well as enemies which have some form of verticality.

The other "range" in terms of positioning (sort of, kind of) that I would include is being prone. Basically, since 4e functions off of a move action, it used this action to stand up from prone; since 5e functions off of move speed, it instead takes half of your speed to stand up. Moving while prone (i.e. crawling) essentially slows you to half-speed, in either edition. For TNP, since movement is so abstracted, I've settled on allowing any other normal movement while prone, but doing so will provoke opportunity attacks from adjacent enemies; this may need some testing to iron out. And obviously, you will need to stand up before you can attempt to climb or jump (which are the mundane methods for gaining high ground.)

---

As always, let me know in the comments if there's anything glaring that I missed.
A bit of an extended break until the next post; check back for that on February 12th!

Updated Mechanics: Double Rolls, Advantage, Disadvantage (2023)

In previous iterations of the designs, advantage and disadvantage were nested under the idea of "double rolls" -- which seems reasonable enough, given that in those instances, you're rolling the same die twice. One of the added mechanics that TNP was using pertains to what would happen if you rolled doubles (i.e. a tie) on a double roll; specifically in the 2018 draft, "if a double roll results in a tie, you can redo the roll, or treat one of the dice as having rolled its maximum value."

Generally speaking, the reason for adding in this rule was because you always feel kind of robbed when advantage turns up the same result on both dice. Since disadvantage would always use the lower result, this added rule didn't impact the result of a tie with disadvantage, unless you chose to reroll.

Since the designs are moving more towards the "2dX" expression (rather than describing those as being some sort of double roll) as well as moving towards class dice bonuses and away from advantage, things have been reworked in the latest designs.

Specifically, advantage is only going to be applicable to certain types of rolls:

• Initiative Checks (d20)
• Skill Checks (d10)
• Base Damage (class dice)
• Initiative Bonus (class dice)

Now, since the class dice expressions mentioned here can use 1dX or 2dX, in order to have advantage work as a generic bonus that can be applied to these rolls, the old double roll mechanic has been broken down into its composite parts. Essentially, when advantage is applied to a 2dX expression, the "treat one of the dice as having rolled its maximum value"-rule is used, on a tie. Part of the rationale for doing it this way is that, interestingly enough, 2d4 with advantage and 1d8 with mastery produce the same average result as each other (about 5.375) as do 2d6 with advantage and 1d12 with mastery (about 7.42). This is potentially very helpful in ensuring that base damage expressions (as well as initiative bonuses) remain reasonably balanced with each other.

The idea with allowing advantage to be applied to initiative bonuses was meant to create another little piece of design space to work with, in terms of class features. With advantage on initative checks being more of a specific, situational bonus (as mentioned in the previous post) I didn't want to have class features tinker with the checks themselves, too much.

In order to streamline things (and make some of the calcuations a bit simpler) the option to reroll on ties has been removed. Also, as a general rule, disadvantage will override advantage; this means that if both would apply to a roll, only disadvantage is applied. This makes sense in the context of skill checks in particular, where training with a skill gives you advantage, but debilities to skills are intended to give you disadvantage -- whether you have training or not.

To avoid any further confusion with the 2dX mechanics, there is no applying disadvantage to base damage or to initiative bonus, within the new designs; generally speaking, disdvantage will only be applied to:

• Attack Rolls (d20)
• Saving Throws (d20)
• Initiative Checks (d20)
• Skill Checks (d10)

Generic double-rolls do still exist within the mechanics, and always use the mechanic for ties. This is typically utilized where a specific number range is meant to be produced. For example, the Sage's magic missile ability targets a number of enemies equal to the stacked value of the double roll (effectively, 2d4 number of targets, taking into account the mechanic for ties.) and each missile deals damage equal to the lower of the two double-rolled dice (i.e "lowest 1 of 2d4") The result is that the number of targets will be from 3 to 8 (skewed towards the average of 5.375) and the damage of each missile will be from 1 to 4 (skewed towards the average of 1.88).

---

A fairly brief topic for today, but I figured it was one worth touching on.
Hopefully I can get us back on schedule going forward; next post is planned for April 5th.

New Mechanics: Status Effects, Conditions, and Initiative (2023)

I'm choosing to not call this post an overview, because some of the information presented here isn't completely instituted into the game, and I expect some of it to change with playtesting. Where status effects and conditions intersect with initiative, is when you try to sort out the notion of "surprise" rounds or a "surprised" mechanic/condition; that will be touched on towards the end of the post.

Laying the Groundwork
As one might expect, when looking for inspiration, the first thing I did was make up a spreadsheet to help me compare conditions from 4e/Essentials with those in 5e. In my opinion, the conditions in 5e are poorly constructed and underutilized in the designs; that's not to say 5e added in a bunch of unneeded conditions, just that they didn't execute on them. (It has been hinted at that 'One D&D' will rework things to make status effects actually line up with spell effects, something I think potentially could be a big improvement.)

The short version of this comparison:

• 4e does not have a Poisoned, Frightened, or Incapacitated condition
• 5e does not have a Slowed, Dazed, Surprised, Helpless, Removed from Play, Weakened, or Insubstantial condition

Breaking down these outliers is probably a helpful place to start, in explaining why or why not to keep a condition in the game.

Poisoned: disadvantage on attack rolls and ability (i.e. skill) checks
This always struck me as weird, since such a generic debuff is tied to such a specific flavour of damage. For TNP, we're going with Exhausted as "disadvantage on all skill checks," while having "disadvantage on attack rolls" end up elsewhere.

Frightened: disadvantage on ability checks and attack rolls while the source of its fear is in line of sight, and cannot willingly move closer to the source of the fear

I feel like this is one of those seminal control-type abilities in RPGs, and I genuinely think it's pretty well-written in 5e. We're keeping Frightened in TNP, but it's beefed up to more of an "action denial" effect, rather than just disadvantage on rolls.

Incapacitated: cannot take actions or reactions
My own DM'ing experience has led me to decide pretty early on that this type of effect wouldn't be in TNP. If you want to be really mean in combat, what you can do is combine more than one action denial effect; in 4th edition, dazed (can only take one action) and prone (needing to use your move action to stand up) was a pretty good example that I came up with.
I tend to refer to this condition as "lose a turn" -- and oddly enough, the 4e condition "Removed from Play" does exactly that; Stunned in 4e does the same, and Surprised is effectively "stunned during the surprise round." Suffice it to say, there's a lot of verbiage being thrown around on a concept that I ultimately wasn't going to use. Instead, if you are surprised at the start of initiative in TNP, you are Shocked, which is similar to 4e's Dazed condition -- limiting how many actions you can take, but not denying you the ability to act, outright. The term "Incapacitated" in TNP is instead recycled as the generic debility, granting you disadvantage on attacks and saves, and granting your enemies combat mastery against you -- while you yourself are unable to gain combat mastery against enemes (that last bit was something that was ultimately added in to the Blinded effect, in Essentials.)

Slowed: your speed becomes 2, do not pass 'Go', do not collect $200
This one from 4e was pretty hard to mimic in a more-abstracted movement ethos. Effectively, this is absorbed into the Immobilized condition, which restricts all forms of movement except for teleportation or forced movement. 'Restrained' is a bit of a sticky wicket; in 5e it reduces your movement speed to 0, whereas in 4e it adds that you can only move by teleportation. Both also effectively give you a penalty while granting enemies a bonus to attack you. In the current draft, Restrained in TNP makes you Immobilized, Incapacitated, and unable to move or be moved by any means, in addition to disadvantage on certain skills (i.e. Weakened.) Grappled is essentially "Immobilized while the grapple is maintained" so as such, it seemed reasonable to make it a little stronger than just regular immobilization; in the current draft, this translates to also applying disadvantage on off-turn actions.

Helpless: you grant combat advantage

Now, specifically the only time this condition is used in 4e is when you're unconscious, although the Essentials text more or less says the DM can slap you with this if you're tied up real good, or similar. It's also the prerequisite for a coup de grace in 4e (if memory serves.) Suffice it say, we're not using this in TNP. If a creature is Dropped (i.e. surrenders or drops to 0 HP) they fall Prone -- which is an effect that grants combat mastery in melee.

Weakened/Insubstantial: you deal/take half damage (respectively)

I just never like the mechanics of doing half of anything, and having to round up or down. Effectively, hitting or being hit 50% less often mimics the same effect, and so that's where the disadvantage mechanic is a handy catch-all. Again, this is not used in TNP.

Rounding Out the List:

Now, at its core, the status effects in TNP (aside from those based on positioning in combat) are all designed off of a few basic building blocks:

• Combat Mastery
• Incapacitated
• Shocked
• [disadvantage on skills]

As said earlier, Exhausted grants disadvantage on all skill checks. Weakened grants disadvantage on Strength and Athletics checks; this effect is nested into Restrained, in the current draft. Dazzled is simply disadvantage on Detection skills; the Dazed and Dominated conditions have Dazzled nested into them. Likewise, Frazzled is disadvantage on skill checks using Subtlety (i.e. Stealth) and Communication (i.e. Intimidation); the Fazed and Frightened conditions cause the target to also be Frazzled. (Alliteration is fun!)

I also didn't want the bigger/badder conditions to simply be a combination of smaller conditions -- otherwise, you don't need to make a new condition, you can simply mix and match the smaller ones to get the same effect. So for the higher-end effects, there's also usually a little something extra:

• Dazed creatures are Dazzled, Incapacitated, and unable to see
• Fazed creatures are Frazzled, Incapacitated, and unable to hear or speak
• Dominated creatures are Dazzled, Shocked, and cannot attack or disengage from the source
• Frightened creatures are Frazzled, Shocked, and "Cannot take movement actions except to disengage from the source, or to take cover"

Beyond all this, there are things like cover, high ground (as it has been called in earlier drafts) or altitude (as it's tentatively called in the current draft), as well as being Hidden (covering both the Stealth skill as well as any magical forms of invisibility) and the 4e-staple Bloodied condition.

The trickiness with some of these is the mechanic of "players always roll" rather than enemies attacking players, bringing into question whether or not a particular condition should always apply "evenly." In other words, should an effect that grants disadvantage on saves (i.e. to players only) make the target also grant combat mastery to those targeting it (something that can apply to players, and monsters)? This uneven application can potentially lead to a double-penalty where one is not intended -- theorycrafting doesn't always catch everything, so this is where playtesting has to step in and find issues.

Surprise! Roll for Initiative
I mentioned in earlier posts that initiative checks will be it's own "thing" rather than piggybacking off of skill checks. This is because the change to skill check dice (i.e. no longer using d20) produces a flatter result, meaning the initiative numbers would be clustered together, when in practice it's better if they're spread apart. The question becomes, how do you determine who has surprise? It doesn't make sense to just go by highest/lowest initiative, but we also can't simply compare opposing initiative checks, since they are no longer skill checks.

What I'm considering is this (and admittedly, this is clunky and might bog things down):
Whenever you're out exploring, and danger may arise, each player should choose whether they're sneaking, on lookout, or taking a 'balanced' approach (snazzier terms for these, TBD.)

• If you are sneaking, you roll stealth: on a success, you are Hidden at the start of combat; on a failure, you have disadvantage on your initiative check (i.e. only the d20 component of the roll.)
• If you are on lookout, you roll perception: on a success, you gain advantage on your initiative check (again, only for the d20 component); on a failure, you are Shocked at the start of combat.
• If you are taking a balanced approach, you do not need to make a skill check; you do not gain any of the possible penalties or benefits to initative/at the start of combat.

By structuring it this way, we get the benefit of the 5e approach (where there is no 'surprise round' per se) while making it more clear as to who has the jump on who -- since it can be adjudicated on an individual basis, rather than... whatever the hell 5e is trying to do. (I find the idea of "group checks" to be a bad mechanic, just generally.) It also sort of lines up with the 4e notion of surprise, where the ambushers get a round to take limited actions, while the "surprised" get to do nothing; instead, in TNP you have the ambushers able to act fully and with a bonus (i.e. combat mastery from being Hidden) while the "surprised" are limited in their actions, and have a penalty (granting combat mastery from being Shocked). I also like the structure of having Shocked be an in-combat status as well as the one used to model surprise -- rather than 4e having two different statuses that are functionally the same thing.

Teaser:
The other application to consider is whether certain effects should be 'at-will' while others require you to burn 'encounter' or 'daily' powers -- or whether burning reserves can upgrade effects, along a certain track. It's definitely something that will need to be worked into the overall designs.

---

Well, it's anyone's guess when the next post will be out; hopefully March 26th, at the lastest.

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.

The Next Revision (2018)

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

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

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


The Next Project -- 2018(b) Playtest

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

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

Changes that still need finalization:

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

---

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

Design Origins -- Part 5: Skills

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Crunch Time (2018)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


---


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

Design Origins -- Part 4: The Core Mechanic

And we're back!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


---


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

The Sincerest Form of Flattery (2018)

I think one of the most important parts of designing TNP (along with aiming to be accessible) is to make refinements and improvements upon the games that inspired it. In order to avoid being wholly derivative, you have to be able to identify weaknesses and problems in a system you personally enjoy, and actively work to iterate on its design. So today, I'm going to talk a bit about how TNP compares mechanically to similar d20 systems, and touch on where certain designs came from.

Off-Turn Actions
4th Edition D&D: Characters have a 1/round "immediate action" and a 1/turn "opportunity action"
5th Edition D&D: Characters have a 1/round "reaction"
The Next Project: Characters have a 1/turn "off-turn action"

To greater or lesser extent, this is sort of the "Goldilocks" approach -- not too hot, or too cold. Where I can understand 5e wanting to clean things up and reduce the frequency of characters acting out of turn, it simply reduces things too drastically. A defender who can only make an opportunity attack once per round (5e) is far inferior to one who can do it once per turn (4e).

Furthermore, the important thing to remember is that off-turn actions always have to be triggered -- if the trigger doesn't happen, then you don't get the action. This should naturally keep things in check, particularly if the DM is playing the enemies smart, and not choosing to make them provoke extra attacks. Unifying the mechanics (rather than cutting them to the bone) was the way to go, I feel.

5th Edition's design choice in this regard is particularly frustrating for a class like Fighter; you have opportunity attacks, the Protection "fighting style," and feats (which historically are their "thing") like Shield Master or Defensive Duelist, all competing for the same resource within the game's action economy. Meanwhile, something like the 5e Rogue's "uncanny dodge" is a reaction that is designed around being once per round -- it would be almost infinitely spammable if it were available more often.

By setting off-turn actions to once per turn, it also allows additional triggers to be a meaningful design space for class features. The more ways you can trigger this action, the more likely you'll be able to benefit from this boost in action economy, on any given turn.


Minor Action vs. Bonus Action
4th Edition D&D: On your turn, you have a Standard Action, Move Action, and Minor Action; Standard Actions can be traded down to Move Actions or Minor Actions, and Move Actions can be traded down to Minor Actions.
5th Edition D&D: If you have a feature that allows you to use a Bonus Action, you may do so once, on your turn -- otherwise, you effectively do not have this action type. You can move up to your speed, at any time throughout your turn.
The Next Project: On your turn, you have a Standard Action, Move Action, and Minor Action. You can perform any Minor Action or Move Action using a Standard Action; however, you cannot take the same Minor Action more than once on your turn.

I think the 5e approach is a reaction to the 4e char-op mentality: if you're doing anything less than using every action at your disposal to be dealing damage, you're being sub-optimal. This makes at-will minor action attacks valuable, because they are very repeatable within 4e's action economy. In both 5e and TNP, something like a two-weapon attack uses your "main" action and your "simple" action, so not being able to trade down movement for another attack creates the desired effect within the designs.

Actions in 5e are simultaneously the thing that does everything, and the thing that can't do Bonus Actions (which strikes me as odd.) TNP kind of tries to split the difference: Standard Actions can do any "smaller" actions, but Move Actions cannot be traded down.

It's also worth noting that where 4e would use minor actions for interacting with items or the environment (such as doors or levers) TNP eschews items altogether, thus not requiring an action to draw, stow, or use them. 5e has a sort of vaguely-defined "interact" action for these uses, which is limited to once on your turn. TNP does not have many "universal" minor actions; different uses for this action type largely come from class features.

As a side note, TNP navigates the Move Action vs. Move Speed divide, both by using its more abstract positioning scheme, as well as allowing movement as part of other actions (such as melee attacks and certain skill checks.)


Bonuses & Penalties
Generally speaking, 4e uses a +2/-2 or +5/-5 system for modifiers tied to either status effects, positioning, or powers. Some debilities imbue a -10 penalty to things such as Perception checks.

In 5th Edition, it's pretty much down to Advantage/Disadvantage, although there are a few interesting uses of proficiency bonus (which starts at +2) being halved or doubled, and then added to rolls where it would otherwise not apply. There's also bonuses from things like Maneuvers, Bardic Inspiration, or spells such as Bless, which add (or subtract) a dice roll to a result.

For TNP I went with Advantage/Disadvantage (which is functionally analogous to the +5/-5 from 4e) and use Expertise as my "+2" allegory. There are also bonus dice used for some features, but they all function off the conceit of "class dice" so as to make things a little more uniform.

Generally larger penalties are just a way of saying "don't even try it," so in this regard, I've followed 4e's lead, and instead used penalties to action economy -- requiring "bigger" actions to complete the same task, or requiring a successful skill check in order to do it quickly.


Durations
4th Edition D&D: Generally the duration for an effect is defined as either "until the start of your next turn," "until the end of your next turn," or "save ends" (meaning the effect can be saved against once per round, generally at the end of the effected creature's turn.) Some feats or similar features allow you to "save" out of an effect at the start of your turn. Things such as zones often have a "sustain minor" clause, allowing you to extend their duration by spending a minor action.
5th Edition D&D: Generally you save against an effect when it happens, but sometimes you must roll a save on each of your turns to continue trying to shake it off. Concentration abilities require a constitution save from the character creating the effect, if they take damage, and you can only maintain one spell with this keyword at a time.
The Next Project: In the latest revision, the "Sustaining" keyword basically specifies that if the feature bestows a benefit, it lasts until the start of your next turn; if it bestows a penalty, it lasts until the end of your next turn. These features can be "sustained" by repeating the same action once your turn comes around again.

Within the 4e char-op circles, effects that lasted for one round (i.e. until the end of your next turn) were found to be the most powerful and reliable, since they could not be saved out of. Since saves in 4e were generally a coin-flip, the chance that you wouldn't get more than a round out of a "save ends" effect was pretty high.

TNP gets rid of the mechanic of saves altogether, instead allowing you to maintain these abilities reliably -- so long as you're willing to pay the action economy cost. It also has less-painful debilities, overall.


---


This post has already gotten a bit long, so I'll cut it off there. I still have a few comparisons I would like to touch on, so that may appear in a later post.
I'm also going to try and find time to work on updating another slate of classes, with Druid as the first priority.

Check back May 5th!

Functioning As Intended? (2018)

I wanted to take this post to go over some of the (seemingly) more odd-ball mechanics that are in the game, and outline some of the thought processes behind them.

Combat Skills
One of the rule changes that came out of playtesting, was to limit each character to one skill check per turn. The reason for doing this ties into how the mechanics behind intimidation work.

The baseline rule that I came up with was that you can intimidate an immobilized enemy into surrendering; this causes them to be "dropped" and therefore removed from combat. The rationale for this was that I wanted a mechanic whereby the enemy has to be in a vulnerable position before they'd consider surrendering (from a narrative standpoint) but also mechanically, I didn't want it to completely invalidate combat.

The problem cropped up with classes that either get to make grapple or intimidate checks as a minor action (since grappling is the main way to immobilize an enemy.) This creates a scenario where, by succeeding on two checks on the same turn, a player can remove an enemy from combat without a fight. This doesn't really conform to the narrative intent, nor the mechanical assumption of fights typically lasting for three rounds.

To compensate for removing this combo, some classes were given the ability to intimidate enemies who are bloodied (or who are immobilized.) This keeps a feature like being able to intimidate as a minor action still useful, while also requiring the players to engage in the combat mechanics.

Similarly, elite monsters were made stronger, by requiring that they be both bloodied and immobilized before they can be intimidated into surrendering.


Inspiration & Restoration
I specifically went out of my way to not use the terminology of "healing" within the rules; rather, restoring HP is meant to be as abstract as possible.

It's generally accepted that HP itself is an abstraction, often combining wounds, stress, and the will to fight (among other things.) Using the terms "inspiring" or "inspiration" for most of the HP restoration mechanics serves to highlight the "will" part of the equation. It also makes it easier for non-magical/non-medical characters to have abilities that restore HP.

This brings me to another point: what is the role of "healing" within combat?

As mentioned before, since the earliest designs, there hasn't ever been much in the vein of "combat healing" in The Next Project. The idea behind spending reserves is that it should be a way of returning your HP to its maximum, once combat has concluded. This is more of a DM-side contrivance, because it then allows all encounters to be balanced around the assumption of "all PCs will be at max HP, at the start of every combat." (It should be noted that this is also true of 4th Edition D&D.)

The goal within combat is to simply survive until the end, at which time you are then safe to heal up. In-combat healing is meant to be about on-par with "striker"-level damage; it's something that helps the party to better survive until the end of the fight, while also being a mechanic which is in keeping with a particular play-style, but without being a further tax on limited resources (i.e. reserves.) This is one of the ways that healing operates differently from 4th Edition.

All that being said, HP is further abstracted in TNP by effectively folding the design concept of "temporary hit points" into it. The whole "not real hit points" distinction is sort of meaningless, in a concept already so abstract -- so we junked it. When you receive "healing" in combat, it is allowed to increase your HP above its maximum; any excess is lost at the end of the encounter, however. Likewise, spending reserves after combat cannot increase your HP above its maximum.

What this serves to do is functionally increase the times when it is "appropriate" for a support class to use their restoration ability. In 4th Edition, generally the right time was whenever an ally's HP was down below their surge value, since the standard "leader" heal was usually [surge value + an ability modifier, or 1d6]. Further to this, the "bloodied" mechanic being a condition which all combatants were aware of (once someone had that condition on them) was an effective way of signposting to the support characters, when someone needed to be healed.

Because of how TNP handles HP and in-combat healing, you may very well consider "inspiring" an ally before they have taken any damage, since they will still receive the extra HP (and it may very well make sense, if they're a class who you can expect to soak a lot of damage; if they don't end up taking the damage, it'll have been a waste of one of your actions, so choose carefully.) It also avoids the pitfalls of 5th Edition D&D, where the only time to restore someone's HP is when they're at zero (because damage so drastically outpaces healing, you really only use it to prevent death and/or loss of actions.)

Also, by going with the "once per ally" model for these abilities (akin to the Healer feat, in 5th Edition) rather than the "twice per encounter" model from 4th Edition, these abilities effectively scale to fit a party of any size. However, once a party's size exceeds the typical number of rounds a combat is expected to take, choosing who to heal (and when) suddenly becomes a tactical consideration once again. Overall, I think this framework allows for more interesting decision-making options for the healer "role" and I quite like that outcome.


---

Check back April 24th for the next post!

The Moment You've All Been Waiting For! (2018)

It's finally time for me to officially release the 2018 rule-set into the wild!

This has actually been ready since just after the previous blog post (and I've distributed it to a few, select places) but now it is out to a worldwide audience. I've added a link to the sidebar, so it'll be on the front page of the blog, going forward.


First things first
So what is this document, exactly? Well, I'm calling it a "playtest" version, because it is sort of the bare-bones minimum needed to run the game, from the player-side; I still need to do up a "monster math" compendium, with some DM rules/advice, in order for everyone to really be able to run it. (That being said, the pertinent info on monsters is on the blog: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.)

I had mentioned previously, that I was writing down the rules section by section, but in light of recent D&D-related considerations, I felt it was finally time to make a (rough) full assembly of what I've got so far. Really, the only things that are missing (in terms of player content) are the rules for character re-specs, and a list of skill descriptions.


Updates
A lot of this will just be re-stating things that have been mentioned in the blog (or planned for) previously. Anyway, here's a loose outline of the changes:

Double Rolls have been rewritten for clarity, and to feature more prominently in the text; "trade-off" has been removed from the jargon.

Bloodied Threshold has been changed to function as it does in 4th Edition D&D.

Surge Value is a new piece of jargon, used to describe the minimum HP restored when spending a reserve; for most classes, this is still "maximum value of your class die."

Subclass replaces the "Path" subtype from Beta 4
Combat Role replaces the previous subtypes of both "Role" and "Subclass"
Specialist Class replaces the term "Archetype" from previous iterations (abbreviated as "Spec")

Knowledge Skills/Power Sources have been implemented as described here.

Attack Types have been more clearly explained, i.e. Iconic vs. Basic Attacks, melee vs. ranged, etc.

Stacking rules have been cleaned up a bit; only one die can be added to a d20 roll, but there is no limit to stacking of damage dice.

Power Attack/Counter-attack have been changed to no longer use "trade-off"
Opportunity Attacks have been changed to use a standard-style attack roll, and have also been clarified a bit further.

Sustaining keyword has been greatly overhauled, to help make its intended implementation more clear; essentially, effects with this keyword last one round, unless the appropriate action is taken to continue them.

Combat Skills were cleaned up a bit, giving a better idea of which skills can be used with which actions, and under what other qualifiers.

Positional Rules have been revised a bit. Rules for "reach" and "high ground" have been clarified; "Adjacent" replaces "Engaged" to allow allies to group up more easily, and to have more distinct wording from the "Engage" action; "Open" replaces the sort of non-jargon of "unengaged"


Other minor changes can be found throughout, so give it a good, solid once-over!


---


Upcoming Content
I recently came up with a rough timeline of blog posts, specifically pertaining to actual-game content (i.e. playtest versions such as the one posted today, as well as updated versions of the remaining character classes.) Basically, I should have already been doing some playtesting by now, so hopefully that will get rolling soon. Additionally, if the 2018 Edition is to be completed... in 2018, then the next slate of classes will need to be out very soon -- hopefully within about a month. So stay tuned for that!

As per this year's blog schedule, the next post should be out on April 14th.

Design Origins -- Part 2: Class Dice

Continuing on from where "Part 1" left off, today I'm going to talk about something I consider to be the defining characteristic of The Next Project: Class Dice.


The Previous Project
As I touched on last time, to a greater or lesser extent, TNP evolved out of the previous RPG that I had written. That system was defined by using only the d6 and d10, for all of its mechanics. In discussion and in playtesting, people found it unintuitive; it essentially functioned as a d20-style system, but with 1d6+1d10 as your "action" die. The main "selling point" of this particular dice gimmick simply wasn't compelling enough.

The game also suffered from being more of a "point-buy" style of character assembly, with only the thinnest of fantasy trappings applied. Players sort of had to take the jumble of mechanics and create their own "skin" for what sort of character their "class" was supposed to be. The game just failed to click with people, on an emotional or psychological level.


Paradigm Shift
So for my next project, I knew that I wanted to do something more recognizable -- something class-based. I had also basically settled on using the d20 for the "action" die; whenever you make an attack or a skill check, just roll the d20. You may need to modify it, after making the roll (i.e. by adding static modifiers or additional dice to the roll, or rerolling using Advantage/Disadvantage) but I knew I wanted something straightforward, and easier to tinker with than 1d6+1d10 had been.

However, I still wanted to retain some of the sense of "these two dice are all you need" that the previous game had brought to the table. Somewhere in an internet discussion about purchasing extra dice, it was pointed out that buying the sets of polyhedral dice (with 1d4, 1d6, 1d8, the "percentile" dice, and 1d12) was sort of a waste, since the d4 and d12 are so rarely used, particularly prior to 5th Edition coming out (which was when this discussion took place.)

That was where my mind sort of made a connection.

Instead of having the entire system function around the same two dice, use the d20 for the core mechanics, and the other die-shapes for the class mechanics.

This was something I really liked, from a tactile perspective: a table of players with just one or two sets of polyhedral dice could/should be able to play an entire party of characters. The idea of using dice rolls for bonuses was also something I liked from 5th Edition, as I wanted to remove any redundant or fiddly modifiers.


Credit where credit is due
Games such as Dungeon World and 13th Age sort of influenced this design ethos, with the former using damage dice as a class-based mechanic, and the latter having the combination of class and weapon "group" determine the damage die to use -- Rogues do better damage with daggers and shortswords, whereas Fighters get the most out of a greatsword or greataxe.

The idea, then, was to figure out which classes each of the dice would represent.


The Original Slate
As mentioned in the last post, from the outset, the first slate of 5 classes was probably going to include some combination of these classes:

• Bard
• Rogue
• Barbarian
• Ranger
• Fighter
• Monk
• Paladin

In 4th Edition D&D, the numerical stats for classes are generally just reverse-engineered from the baselines established within the mathematical framework -- there's nothing really flavourful about them. So I went back to D&D 3.5 for inspiration.

If you think of a Wizard in 3.5, they have a d4 for their hit die, they generally will have a dagger or darts for their backup weapons (using d4 for damage) and one of their iconic spells is Magic Missile (also using d4 for damage.)

Similarly, when you think back to Rogues, one of their iconic abilities is the stacking of d6s for sneak attack damage -- conveniently, they also used d6 for their hit die, in 3.5! The same kind of thinking went into the Ranger (d8 hit die, d8 weapons such as longswords and longbows) as well as the Paladin (d10) and the Barbarian (d12)

I wanted this first slate to be as quintessential as possible, which is why I went with the 5 classes I did: Mage, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Barbarian.


Growing the Roster
A similar process was undertaken when designing additional classes, in order to expand to a 2nd and 3rd slate. In some cases d4 and d6 were used to mimic the d8 and d12, giving those dice some additional design space to muddle in:
 - Monk was designed as a "1d4" class, with the Archer as a "2d4" class (and later the two would start to blend together, in the Acrobat.)
 - As a class that would gain HP by shapeshifting, it made sense to slot Druid in at a d4, adding one extra die to its HP in "cat" form, and double that for "bear" form.
 - When the Fighter finally became a d6 class, it was so that it could simulate both dual wielding (shortswords,) archery (shortbow,) or two-handed weapons (greatsword,) to showcase it as the "weapon master" style of class. Doubling the d6 for their HP helps to slot them into the frontline "warrior" space.

Having a Warlock (with a d10 Eldritch Blast as its iconic ability) also helped push me towards mixing things up a bit, instead of having every d10 class be melee-focused. Conversely, the need for a "heavy mage" made d12 the obvious slot for the Spellbinder.


From there, most other classes just sort of fell into place, to flesh out the three slates:

• Warlord as the "heavy martial" made for a nice d12 class, for the 2nd slate
• a fireballing Sorcerer for d6 -- almost a no-brainer
• Bard and Cleric at d8 (as the support classes) seemed the right fit for dabbling in both melee and ranged combat, without being the strongest at either.
• Adventurer as a two-weapon, melee fighter made sense for d10
• Guardian with a "2d6" melee subclass (Warden) and a "1d6" caster subclass (Shaman) seemed the right fit

-----

Next Post

Check back April 4th for the next update; hopefully by then, I will have at least a playtest-ready version of the rules document compiled, to share.

Skill Difficulties (2018)

In the previous post on this topic (for Beta 4) I covered most of the fundamentals about how skill usage should be handled, in The Next Project; it's probably worth re-reading before diving into this post. Today I want to expand on that, get into the skill math a little bit deeper, and also touch on "free-form" skill use vs. more structured "skill challenges."

We've already set up the parameters of "when not to roll" -- if a course of action is either trivially easy, or impossible -- but perhaps that needs to be expanded on a bit, with some more crunch applied. Specifically, this means that if/when the DM is going to ask for a roll, there is going to be a chance of failure. So what does that mean in numerical terms?


Math behind the Madness

The 'Beta 4' post established the different degrees of competency that characters can have with each skill; with our universal difficulty (or "DC") of 10, this gives us the following success rates (including critical successes):

1. untrained: 55%
2. expertise: 60%
3. trained: 72.5%
4. trained+expertise: 81.666...%

What this means is that at the highest competency level, the failure rate caps out just below 20%, with the DM having the discretion to further reduce that to zero -- if they declare that a course of action simply succeeds without needing to roll.

Meaningful Results

If we look at the numbers when allowing multiple rolls at the highest competency level, the chance of failure almost immediately starts to approach zero (which, if that is the desired result, then the established rule for "trivially easy" actions should have been invoked.) So while it has always been enforced in my playtests, I'm not sure this has ever been explicitly written into the rules: the party should not be allowed to attempt the same skill check more than once, to overcome the same obstacle. If they are required to roll, it is because the DM wants there to be a chance of failure, and if failure is the result, then the party must attempt a different course of action, in order to proceed.

The example of this from the previous post would be "picking a lock" vs. "breaking a door down" -- if one doesn't work, the party can try the other (or they must simply choose an alternate path.) But the effect of the failure is that the approach must be changed, instead of just rolling the same approach until it succeeds.

Another tool we can put at the disposal of the DM borrows from 4th Edition D&D's skill challenges; a failure can mean a change in approach, or a loss of resources. In some cases, it might be appropriate to allow a failed course of action to succeed, if the player is willing to sacrifice one of their reserves to do so.

Structure vs. Restriction

If only one attempt can be made at each skill check, it also incentivizes party members to diversify their skill selections, across the group; each character should have their own area of specialization, and should only really overlap in case the party gets split up. With all of this in place, we can see how the system helps to facilitate teamwork and "sharing the spotlight" a little bit. The question then becomes whether this needs to be formalized mechanically, even further.

The way skill challenges worked in 4th Edition, it was essentially turn-based; you went "around the table" and everyone took a turn making a skill check of some sort. This, however, is counter to the best practices that came out of actual play experience, with the system. My own anecdotes line up with the advice that "the best skill challenges are the ones the players don't know they're in." 

The best way to achieve this is to put the party in a non-combat scenario with multiple different leads or threads that can be followed, and then ask them which ones they choose to pursue, and how. Giving everyone a chance to act and to have their share of the spotlight is important (as it always should be in gaming) but "gamifying" it into turns can sometimes get in the way of the scene evolving organically, or "the action flowing from the fiction."

Turn-based skill challenges should be a tool in the DM's kit, but one that is used sparingly. All characters in TNP are designed to be able to meaningfully contribute in any encounter; there should be no "risk aversion" on the part of the players, in non-combat encounters. If this is a problem that a DM consistently runs into with their group, then instituting a round/turn structure can be used to help cajole people into putting themselves out there a bit more.

Keeping Score

The next question when examining skill challenges is how you measure success -- and I'll just come right out and say, that I think this comes down to taste.

If a non-combat scene requires the party to amass a certain number of clues, the DM can weigh the numbers of successes and failures it took to get them all, and decide (based on that) whether to award XP or not -- perhaps even going so far as to penalize reserves for particularly unsuccessful outings.

Alternatively (if appropriate to the scene) failure at a skill challenge can end in combat (resulting in a similar expenditure of reserves) albeit with the express understanding that whatever knowledge there was to be gleaned from the skill challenge will be given to the players, at the end of the fight. In any case, the over-arching plot still needs to be advanced, regardless of the outcome.

---

Next post

Work has been going on behind the scenes on compiling the new draft of the rules, but there haven't been any real revelations from that process -- it's just the usual, expected grind.

As always, check back in 10 days for the next update. If you have any questions or requests for blog content going forward, leave a comment below, or get ahold of me wherever you get your TNP links from.