U-turn

So far in 2025, I've mostly been wrestling with trying to hammer a "d6 pool" TNP sequel into shape. I think what the previous post highlighted is that the DC10 mechanic is hard to get away from, but also that it simultaneously works so much better in a d20 paradigm. Also, the closest translation of the d10 skill check into a d6 mechanic feels kinda fake and weird -- but on the other hand, nothing else seems to work, or feel right.

I've been contemplating what the solution might be; does it make sense to do a d20+d6 system? Would it work better to start by fleshing out the character classes first, and then circling back to the mechanics?  

One of the problems is the wild swings that even small mods seem to provide, in a d6 system. This is a lot easier to manage in a d20 system, where every +1 is a flat 5% increase, and even something like a d6 pool being stapled on top of that provides very reliable math. Earlier theorycrafting basically sussed out that having "weapon dice" as well as a d6 pool wasn't going to work, in a d20 system -- it's just too much of a mess. So do you do something with static mods? As dumb it kind of sounds sometimes, one of the core notions I had behind doing a sequel was the possibility of an "ability scores, done right" ethos; as a direct successor to TNP, the obvious way to translate that was to start from the Attribute "ranks" of the skills system, and extrapolate that out to modifiers for the combat system.

But is there really any point to that? It seems like the answer is "not really," particularly if the assumption is that the d6 pool would likewise be keyed off of Attribute "ranks." So that begs the question, is it worth it to jump from "class dice do everything" d20 TNP to "d6 does everything" d20 TNP? I think that comes back around the the question of the character classes; if it's a robust system where the 6(ish) classes really sing, that could be a tight, compelling style of game. If there's one drawback I can foresee, it's that d20 still doesn't provide an answer as far as the skills system -- to wit, "d20" TNP doesn't use d20 for skill checks.

At this point, I'm feeling like enough ink has been spilled on the sequel, while ultimately arriving at an idea that isn't really that distinct from the original. So I'm leaning towards pivoting back to "old" TNP and finishing that up. Whether or not I change my mind again in another week is yet to be seen; if I have some big revelatory "eureka" moment, that could still change.

...

Apologies for the slight delay on this post; expect the next one to be up prior to April 18th.

Table of Contents (2024)

I found myself thinking about which parts of the TNP system need to be finalized and bolted into the documentation, so I figured a good way to go about listing the missing parts is by listing what's already there. So here's an overview of where the system document currently stands, and how it is structured:

1. Basic Mechanics

• TN10 and TN20
• Mastery and Combat Mastery
• Advantage and Disadvantage
• 5 basic rolls and the 5 dice bonuses (overview)
• Skill Check mechanics
• Saving Throw mechanics
• Attack Roll mechanics
• Extra Damage mechanics
• Class Dice Bonus mechanics

2. Characters

• List of the 3 slates of classes
• Combat Roles (overview)
• Class Categories (overview and breakdown)
• Character Progression
• Core Skills
• Power Sources (knowledge skill progression)
• Skill Synergies
• Feats

3. Combat Mechanics

• Character Statistics
• Engagement, Surge Value, Reserves
• HP and Initiative
• Base Damage and Opportunity Damage
• Initiative mechanics
• Status Effects & Conditions (external doc)
• Actions in Combat (overview and list)
• Skill Checks in Combat
• Disengaging
• Standing Up
• Push/Trip/Shove
• 'No Action'
• Interrupts
• Getting Open
• Engaging
• Standard Actions
• Iconic Attacks, Melee Basic Attacks, Ranged Basic Attacks
• Ranged Attacks
• Melee Attacks
• Reach

So as you can see from this list, what needs to be implemented are (largely) the "DM-side" mechanics. Older drafts of the monster mechanics exist, and a cleaned up overview of those has also previously been posted, here on the blog. (One thing that was mentioned there which also needs to be added are the keywords for things like Forms, Summons, etc. which are interacted with by the archenemy monster type.) The other pillars of these mechanics are the campaign-building, including building of both combat encounters and non-combat encounters.

In the discussion of monster mechanics, the idea of how to handle minions/swarms (with regards to the card-based random generation for campaigns/encounters) basically ironed itself out. The mechanics for "winning" a social or an exploration encounter definitely need to be mapped out; as an adjunct to that, the rules document needs to include a detailed explanation of how Skills are meant to be used.

As you might notice from all the links in the preceding paragraphs, these ideas have already mostly been laid out in the blog -- it's just a matter of incorporating them into the main documentation, cleaning up and refining as needed, and then (hopefully) running everything through some playtesting.

...

That's it for 2024! If there's anything else you think should be included in the TNP documentation in order to help you run or play the game, leave a comment below or join the discussion on Discord.

As mentioned previously, blogging is planned to resume sometime in the 2nd week of January.

Foundations & Pillars (2024)

Throughout the past year, I've covered a variety of topics (in greater or lesser detail) relating to the game system; today I'm going to go over as many as I can come up with, and talk about where things are, and how they'll all need to come together.

On the DM side...
There are a few basic components:

• Monster Manual: the basic mechanics of monsters, the different types of monsters, general encounter-building advice, and some sample monsters
• Campaign Builder: the guidelines and mechanics for building out an entire campaign, either randomly or via a more curated approach, as well as handing out XP/leveling
• Non-combat encounters: the rules surrounding exploration, subterfuge, and social encounters -- including any exceptions to the general rules around skills (such as opposed checks rather than straight DC10)

In terms of general mechanics, the types of dice rolls and bonuses have been sharpened to a fine point. The conditions/status effects have been laid out and codified. I think part of the process of finalizing the designs will include making sure that the dice bonuses and status effects are utilized properly and adequately throughout the text. One thing that I need to iron out pertaining to positional conditions is whether to handle things like high ground, elevation, altitude, and hovering/levitation separately, or just amalgamate them together.

In terms of combat, the action economy and actions in combat need to be edited and updated, but the framework is essentially there; with the character classes now complete, the largest chunk of the combat mechanics are done. The class categories and their various progressions (as well as the general character progressions) have been hammered out, and the skill mechanics have been solidly in place for a while now. Feats need to be built out a bit, to include more combat-focused options in addition to skill and power source feats. Some of the classes were sort of hastily reworked, and so the proposed implementation of daily/encounter powers didn't really materialize for most of them; this might be something that can be redressed as things go on.

One other thing that will need to be hammered out (in terms of general rules) are things like keywords. Forms, concentration abilities, summoned creatures, and restoration abilities are just some examples of mechanics that have worked off of keywords in the past. These all need to be updated, and built into other mechanics (such as "boss" enemies being able to turn off abilities with certain keywords.) Stealth and surprise (and how those interact with initiative) as well as the interception and tumbling mechanics all need to be formalized, but the basics have already been laid out.

___

Overall, the challenge I've found with designing the rules is how everything seems to feed into everything else. For example, if you knuckle-down and focus on hammering out character mechanics, sometimes you go back to monster design and realize you need to rethink things in light of new character stuff that has been implemented -- so every part of the design is (effectively) constantly evolving. Trying to find the right point to lock things down can feel like a game of whack-a-mole, at times. I think going forward, it'll be key to focus on fleshing out things that are not complete, rather than retooling things that are already considered to be "finished."

Winter is Coming...

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


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


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

For 2019, I want to resume blogging in March.

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

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

The Task at Hand

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

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

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

Restructuring

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

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

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

How the Other Half Lives

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

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

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

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

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

Endgame

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

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

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

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


---


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

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!

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.

What to expect from 2018

Happy new year, everyone!
For those keeping score, the blog had just over 1000 views a year ago, and now it's at just under 3000.

Today I'm going to try and touch on as many thing as I can, pertaining to what I plan to write about on the blog this year, as well as the sorts of innovations and changes that will appear in the game design itself. But before getting into any of that, I'm happy to announce that the first draft of the "starter slate" classes is all ready to go:

• The Sage (d4)
• The Fighter (d6)
• The Ranger (d8)
• The Adventurer (d10)
• The Warlord (d12)

I should point out that these classes have been written with much of the new framework in mind; it shouldn't be difficult to have the rest of the classes match up to that. Notably, since there are no "archetype-only" classes in this slate, it'll be important to make sure that those classes have enough customization options, once they are re-written.

In terms of the blog itself, of course I will be including information on changes to the designs, as they come up. In addition to that, I would also like to go back and discuss how some of the existing ideas came to be, and why those decisions were made; for example, I'd like to write about the original slate of 5 classes, the use of Class Dice, and the skill setup. In terms of scheduling, I'm hoping to stick to the plan laid out here, adhering to my "every 10th day"-ish routine, with breaks in July and December.

As I touched on in my previous post, in terms of development, I want to essentially update the classes to the 2018 Edition aesthetic, one slate at a time -- rather than doing all classes in concert with one another. What this means is that (once the core rules are likewise updated) I intend to do some playtesting with the starter set, then adjust those classes (and the core rules) as needed, then work to release another slate of classes, playtest them, and so forth in that fashion.

...

For some mechanical changes (in addition to those already announced) I'm going to work at streamlining and fixing a few things:

Opportunity Attacks: Though I like the conceit of just doing auto-damage with these actions, it's not a good fit for TNP. With some classes getting "double roll and stack" on this damage, it clashes with the positional mechanics that can impose disadvantage on OAs, requiring a specific rules-exception that I don't like. Also, not having an attack roll makes it sort of a misnomer, and I haven't found an alternate piece of jargon that's to my liking. As such, OAs will now use a traditional attack roll. One potential benefit of this is that it will allow for classes to have both a basic attack and an Opportunity Attack "loadout" which may open up new design space.

Trade-offs/Double Rolls: The mechanic of Trade-offs is one that has often been classed as a misnomer, by some of the readers. As the designs have evolved, the specific use of Trade-offs has not been applied uniformly enough, in my estimation. Since things like Counter-attack and Power Attack already have design changes planned (to make them operate without using Trade-offs) I'm going to remove this piece of jargon from the rules, completely. This means that some class abilities will have to be (or have already been) completely changed or replaced. For other instances, the "double roll" terminology will be used instead. Since double rolls that are not just advantage or disadvantage are generally limited to using Class Dice (rather than d20s) you can expect to see that spelled out more explicitly, in the next draft of the rules.

Advantage/Disadvantage: I am considering a few changes to these mechanics:
1) a return to "if you have both advantage and disadvantage, roll 3 dice and use the middle result" (which appeared in earlier drafts.) I might want to have this in place, so that the design space of using both the highest roll and the lowest roll remains viable, in instances where both advantage and disadvantage would apply.
2) re-rolling the dice, in the case of disadvantage resulting in a tie; overall, I don't like to have re-rolls (particularly for play-by-post purposes.) However, the general rule of "treat one result as its maximum value on a tied double roll" functionally does nothing, with disadvantage -- I may want to change that.
Neither of these are set in stone yet, but they are both on my radar.

...

That's about all for today; check back next weekend for another post!

The Road Ahead (2018)

Today I'm going to go with a rough overview of the changes you can expect to see in the upcoming draft.

Classes
Whereas in Beta 4, I wanted to develop and refine all 15 classes in concert with one another, in the 2018 Edition I'm planning to first implement the classes planned for use with the "starter slate."

• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Adventurer (d10)
• Warlord (d12)

Once the full versions of these classes are completed, their starter versions will simply remove some of the decision points, i.e. Subclasses for Sage and Ranger will be picked automatically (Wizard and Hunter, respectively) as will things like skills and Archetypes, for all classes.

I do intend to to keep all of the 15 classes from the previous version, but they will be rolled out over time, rather than all at once.

Leveling

Right now, the intention is to have 5 levels of progression (though I am not 100% decided on whether characters will start at level 1 or level 0.) This means that ideally, we want each class loadout (i.e. Subclass only/ Subclass + Archetype/ Archetype only/ Role + Archetype/ Role only) to have at least 5 possible upgrades to purchase (ideally, more.)

Archetypes, additional Roles, skill training, and Power Sources have been identified as upgrades that can be bought using the leveling process, i.e. Experience Points (XP). Now it becomes a matter of unifying class structures, such that those upgrades can be moved off of their current frameworks without breaking anything. Instances of Power Sources tied to Subclasses (for example) will need to be reworked.

Slate upgrades are definitely something I will want to include as purchasable upgrades, though similar upgrades for "Categories" (i.e. loadouts) are currently up in the air.

It's also intended that in lieu of purchasing an upgrade to your current class, XP can be used to change your class, within certain parameters. Currently, the intent is that you don't have to spend XP as soon as you earn it, but also that at earlier levels, changing your class would not come at an XP cost. This is meant to make it easier for newer players to ease into their class, or make changes to their character if they find the class they picked is not the right fit.

Backgrounds

My intention for handling Performance skills, is that they will be on their own progression track (i.e. gaining 'ranks' in them will not be purchased with the same currency as other upgrades) and this track will only be unlocked for certain classes and/or Archetypes.

As for Knowledge skills, I am moving away from the structure I had written about previously. Instead, one of two possible paths will be integrated into the rules (or possibly both will be presented as options.)

The first method is to keep Power Sources as an upgrade (much as they currently exist in the designs) but instead of granting training with 3 knowledge skills, they would instead grant training to one skill, and Expertise to one skill. Depending on the Power Source, this might mean training with one skill and Expertise with another, or both benefits to one skill. Layered onto this, characters would have a Knowledge progression track, where they would gain 1 benefit per level (either training with an untrained skill, or Expertise with a trained skill.)

The alternate method is to adopt something more akin to the 13th Age system for Backgrounds. Specifically, I would get rid of granular Knowledge skills entirely, and instead have knowledge checks rely solely on your Power Sources. Two possible ways of handling this immediately present themselves:

1) Simply replace the 5-level Knowledge progression track with a Power Source progression track -- you gain training with a Power Source or Expertise with a trained Power Source, each level, or;

2) You gain Power Sources more or less as currently devised within the system -- having one Power Source applicable to the knowledge check in question would provide the benefit of training, and having more than one would grant Expertise to the check.

Combat Math

Behind the scenes, I've been working on crunching out the damage of various existing (and potentially future) attack routines. Broadly, the designs are moving towards more streamlined dice usage, including previously-outlined changes, using things like Advantage and Expertise. Another important change is to the assumed baselines for damage.

I've mentioned before that earlier playtests showed classes doing around 15 DPR, and that I had been using that as my benchmark. Through the process of working on the math, I've moved the target to 13.5 DPR; I found that it's quite a bit easier to fit the smaller dice (in particular) under this guideline. As an example, an attack dealing 2d12 damage, with both Expertise and the Reliable property, hits this mark almost exactly -- a reasonable attack routine to use as a base.

For d6 classes, I am trying to move the designs towards the "universal" maximum of 24 damage, with a situational perk that can boost it to 30 (i.e. an additional d6.) In their preexisting versions, Fighters get an additional d6 against prone targets, and Rogues get an additional d6 when attacking an enemy they are already Engaged with. The trick will be in trying to make the "universal" numbers more reliable -- specifically, the Rogue and the Guardian rely a bit heavily on situational damage boosts. One thing I have found effective in patching this, is granting double damage on critical hits (typically in conjunction with boosts to crit chance) so expect to see this benefit implemented widely, particularly for d6 classes.

Blog Scheduling

I would like to keep up with posting roughly 3x per month/once every 10 days, as I have been. I'm not 100% sure on which rotation I'll go with for 2018, but I've narrowed it down to two possibilities. In either case, there will be 5 posts over January and February, 1 post in late July, and 1 post in early-mid December; all other months, I should be able to do 3 posts.

The next blog update will be about a month from today, so check back then!

A New Start

Today I want to talk about using pre-generated characters (or a "Starter Slate") and what I think that should look like.


The Basics

When you look at the "Basic" rules for 5th Edition D&D, they give you essentially one build for each of the "Core 4" classes (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, and Wizard.) Similarly, the boxed starter set for 5e features 5 characters based off of these same classes; there are 2 Fighters, with one focused on melee and the other on archery.

Building off of this, there are basically 5 character types that I think should be represented in any sort of pre-gen package:

• Archer
• Tank/Defender
• Healer
• Magic-user/Spellcaster
• Skill Specialist

For The Next Project, ideally I would also like to try and represent as many of the "Core 4" classes as possible, while still using each of the 5 class dice.

In the Beta 4 rules, the pre-gens were effectively:

• Acrobat [Archer] (d4)
• Rogue [Assassin] (d6)
• Cleric [Crusader] (d8)
• Mystic [Warlock] (d10)
• Barbarian [Shieldbearer] (d12)

Same Class, Different Dice

If we look at the ways these classes will be changing around for the 2018 Edition, we notice that the Rogue and Acrobat overlap, in that they are both cast as "Skill Specialist" but also that they both only use Subclass as their subtype. So I wanted to sort of mix things up a bit. I figured the best place to start was with figuring out who should be the archer of the party, if not the Acrobat.

An intentional part of the design for TNP, was the idea that a particular niche could/should be represented different ways, across the 3 slates -- preferably using a different class die, each time. As such, we have archers in d4 (Acrobat), d6 (Fighter), and d8 (Ranger) flavours. Similarly, different takes on the Rogue and Bard exist, in particular as archetypes for the Adventurer class.


Making the Selections

From the 3 options for archer, I decided to go with the Ranger; with the Beta 4 starter slate including Barbarian as its "Tank/Defender" class, it stood to reason that the next best candidate to fill that role in the 2018 Edition would be the Fighter, so I didn't want to use that as my archer class.

This leads into the next decision point: with Ranger in at d8, that meant Cleric was out -- and that the "Healer" job would have to be filled by a class which uses a different die. With d6 already spoken for, and Bard being another d8 class, the list narrowed significantly. Since it was such a popular class in 4th Edition (particularly among goons), I decided that Warlord should get the job.

That leaves the roles of "Magic-user/Spellcaster" and "Skill Specialist" to be filled out. Through some informal polling, Warlock and Scout rated highly for those respective roles. Unfortunately, they both occupy the same class die, and with Warlock having been in the previous starter slate, I'm going with the Adventurer for the d10 class, occupying the role of "Skill Specialist."

So for the final role to fill, we're left with two options using the final remaining class die (d4) -- Druid, or Wizard. Since sticking close to the "Core 4" was one of the guiding principles I set out, the Sage gets in as final member of the 2018 Edition starter slate.


Updating & Integrating

So here's the final lineup:

• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Ranger (d8)
• Adventurer (d10)
• Warlord (d12)

Ideally, it would have been nice to also include one class from each subtype loadout (Fighter and Adventurer overlap, in this regard) but we do end up with at least one class from each slate.

The previous starter slate was also pretty good for this as well, but I think it's worth noting that the classes listed here which utilize Subclass (Sage and Ranger) are pretty clearly going to be narrowed down into one option (Wizard and Hunter, respectively.) Since the idea of pre-gens is to facilitate quickly picking up and playing the game, these options will be already selected by default, when presented within the starter slate.

I also think the decision to gate Archetypes to something "purchased" at later levels, will help make classes that use them a little more accessible (as opposed to everything being frontloaded) and that the Fighter, Adventurer, and Warlord classes are particularly well-suited in that regard. I may not include both Archetypes for each class as options for pre-gens, but that's still something that hasn't been 100% ironed out (along with Roles, for Fighter and Adventurer, which I may limit to one each.)


Next Post

In the previous post, I mentioned that there will only be one post in the month of December, and that it will try and tie up any loose ends.

With that in mind, now is a great time to leave me feedback or questions, here in the comment section or via other means of communications (i.e. wherever you're linking to this blog from.) If there is anything you would like answered, addressed, or clarified in the upcoming post, I would love to hear from you!

Back to Basics -- Part 2: Numbers & Nomenclature

Everything old is new again, as today's post is a sort of follow up to a post I made just over a year ago.

There are a few things I want to touch on in specific, but overall this post is going to be about some changes I want to make, in order for the game to be simpler and more accessible.


Expertise

When I sat down to write the actual text for Beta 4, I had decided that I wanted to make Basic Attacks somehow distinct from Iconic Attacks. What I mean by this, is that generally they use the same dice rolls, so I wanted to add something a little extra to Basic Attacks, to make them distinct. My initial thought was to use the "roll and compare" mechanism: "when you make a Basic Attack and the attack and damage rolls are equal, treat the attack as a critical success."

This effectively increases your "critical threat range" by one number (i.e. 5%) regardless of the class die being used for the damage roll. The problem is that Basic Attacks are given so many modifiers by class features, that it becomes clunky and untenable. So, I decided to give all Basic Attacks the Expertise property; this gives the same increase to crits, but also a little boost to damage as well.

Through the process of working out "bonus math" and subsequently trying to integrate those mechanics when crunching damage output for various attack routines, I came to realize that "always-on" Expertise needed to go. Particularly with so many d4 and d6 classes being able to use the "double roll and stack" rule for their damage, layering Expertise on top of that just had the effect of further narrowing the possible range of results -- or, as I put it, making it closer to flat damage, with none of the elegance of flat damage (because it still required rolling.)

(An interesting note, worth making mention of here, is that the average result of "double roll and stack d4" is the same as "d8 with Expertise"; the same is true for d6 and d12, respectively.)

The result of all of this, is that it frees up the design space of Expertise, to be used more meaningfully. In the earliest drafts of the game, characters gained Advantage on their attack rolls for doing things that were iconic to their class: Rogues benefited from attacking "flanked" enemies, and Barbarians got the benefit when they were raging, for example. The problem is that Advantage ends up being a huge bonus, and eventually most instances of Advantage were ripped out or dialed back. However, this is where a smaller bonus like Expertise can (I hope) step in to fill the gap.


Advantage

Following from this "dialing back" of Advantage, gaining it as a bonus to attack rolls changed in the rules to being almost exclusively the purview of positional considerations -- High Ground, Prone, etc.

The intent, then, was to start using the aforementioned "bonus math" to give classes their boosts gained from fighting "in-character," so to speak. Two main problems arose with this: first, no matter how streamlined the mechanisms for the bonuses got, they always tended to be unintuitive, and to have the potential to slow down gameplay; secondly, when crunching out damage for actual attack routines, Advantage always made it a lot easier to hit the benchmarks, because it tends to be such a huge boon, mathematically.

All this being said, I think that bonuses using class dice will be limited to "support" abilities, which will allow them to layer onto other bonuses, such as Advantage and/or Expertise. As such, Advantage will start to make a return to the designs of some classes, but Expertise will be used in instances where it is more appropriate.

Bottom line: the math has to work, but the gameplay has to be smooth.


Damage on a Miss

The mechanic used for this in TNP (known as the "Reliable" property) has always been "deal damage equal to the unsuccessful attack roll." I've always preferred this over alternatives of "half damage" or "minimum damage" (in the case of their being multiple damage dice stacked onto one attack) just because it is a little quicker to adjudicate.

This gives us a range of miss damage from 1-9 (or 2-9, with Expertise) for an average of 5 damage (or 5.5 with Expertise.) The problem with this expression comes when applied to attacks that normally could not reach the high end of that range, i.e. 1d4, 2d4, 1d6, and 1d8.

As such, "Damage on a Miss" will only be used as a tool for boosting DPR on attacks that could deal more than a maximum of 8 damage, on a 'hit'. Probably attacks that would result in a single d10 of damage will also be excluded, so mainly this would be utilized on attacks where d6s, d8s, or d10s are being "stacked" -- or where a d12 is being used. So while classes making attacks below this range would not natively be given the "Reliable" property, it could still be given to them by a bonus "support" mechanic, as it currently exists for the Warlord.


Basic Attacks, Power Attack, and Counter-attack

With the Expertise mechanic no longer being a defining characteristic of Basic Attacks, a few properties remain unique to them: Reach, Reliable, and the ability to Power Attack with them.

My intention with Power Attack is to change it from this:

Before you make a basic attack as a Standard Action, you can choose to make a Trade-off using your class die; apply the lower roll as a penalty to the attack roll, and apply the higher roll as a bonus to the damage roll.

To this:

Before making a Basic Attack, you can impose Disadvantage on the attack roll; if you do so, you can treat a successful attack as a critical success.

What this would do, is make access to Advantage more clearly beneficial when using Power Attack. It also removes the disparity between the penalties involved (a d4 being a much smaller one than a d12, for example.) Counter-attack could use a similar rule, granting an Opportunity Attack if the triggering Defense roll is successful.


Basic Abilities and Iconic Abilities

The initial structure of classes was such that you had Iconic Abilities, which gave you suites of benefits. Generally speaking, every class also had an Iconic Attack, which differed from Basic Attacks, as has been explained above. However, some Iconic Abilities simply offered benefits that modified Basic Attacks; there was confusion over whether this was meant to be considered an Iconic Attack (for the purposes of whether Expertise/Reach/Reliable properties applied, or if Power Attack could be used) which it was not.

Going forward, the phrase "Iconic Ability" will not be used. Instead, these will be labeled as either Class Feature, Subclass Feature, Archetype Feature, or Role Feature, as appropriate. Features that grant a modification to a type of Basic Attack, or that grant an Iconic Attack will subsequently be more clearly defined, with each having its own entries under that Feature's heading.

Related to this, Basic Abilities (STR, AGIL, DEX, CHA, INT, WIS) were named as such, since they were not ability "scores" in the traditional sense, and were more fundamental and simple than the Iconic Abilities. The temptation has lingered around to simply lump these in as "Skillsets" but I think there is still use within the design in having the two be separate; some classes have the option to gain training in one "Skillset" of their choice, for example, and it is not intended for them to be able to pick a "Basic Ability" set for that option.

With "Iconic Ability" terminology going away, now is a good time for a change here, too. I've decided that Basic Abilities will be re-titled as simply "Attributes." This terminology is fairly common in the RPG space, and is probably more accurately descriptive for its utilization within TNP.


Blogging/Scheduling

I'm planning to get out one more post before the end of the month, so check back for that on November 30th.
I will also do another post before the middle of December -- likely a year-in-review sort of deal, tying up any loose ends.
Then, I will be on break for about a month, during which time I will start work in earnest on the new draft of TNP, which I am tentatively referring to as the "2018 Edition."

Scattershot (Beta 4)

I'm a little behind on my blogging, but I don't really have enough material on any one topic to make a solid post, so I'll just touch on a handful of things instead. Hopefully they can each be expanded upon down the road.


Subclasses/Archetypes
In the interest of allowing classes to be broken down into smaller bites, and thus less front-loaded, I've been making some tweaks here and there regarding Archetypes. Wherever possible, I'm making it so that choosing an Archetype is optional; where this does not work as well, I've changed the archetypes to instead be called Subclasses, which are mandatory.

This leads to the classes being somewhat asymmetrical, but also kind of gives a clearer indication as to which ones are straightforward, and which ones have more customization.


Combat Math (roughly)
The basis for the damage/HP calculations roughly originated from one of my earlier playtests. I hadn't crunched the numbers that closely, but expected classes to do around 10 damage per round (DPR). In practice, they were doing closer to 15 DPR, so that's been the benchmark for average damage, that I've been aiming at.

With the intent of keeping damage roughly equal, the smartest thing was to work from the biggest class die (d12) and see how best to fit the other dice into it. The best starting point was to assume that d12 classes would be doing 2d12 of damage on their turn (a maximum of 24) which obviously is hard for d10 classes to fit under. This is alright, since d10 and d6 classes are expected to have a slightly higher damage output; essentially we want each class to have a maximum damage output (aside from critical hits) in the 24-30 range. This gives us a couple of possible expressions for each class die:

• 6d4, 7d4, 1d4+1d20, 2d4+1d20
• 4d6, 5d6, 1d6+1d20
• 3d8, 1d8+1d20
• 3d10, 1d10+1d20
• 2d12

So using things like Advantage, Expertise, and "double roll and stack," we can bump the average damage of individual dice without increasing the maximum range. (This is something that D&D typically doesn't dabble with, instead using +1s to increase minimum, average, and maximum damage.)

For example, the Acrobat gets to double roll and stack the damage of their specialty basic attacks (and basic attacks also get Expertise.) So by being able to make basic attacks as both a standard action and a minor action, they're effectively doing 4d4 damage (before adding in things like Power Attack.) However, their average will be much higher than a Wizard doing four individual 1d4 attacks with their Magic Missile iconic attack, because the Acrobat is more likely to do maximum damage with each die.

I'm in the process of slowly crunching out the actual DPR of each class' attack sequences, to make sure they actually hit that 15 DPR benchmark; as such, some classes have already been given a few damage perks or additional attacks.

Housekeeping

I'm still going to try and keep up with posting 3x per month. I've been keeping a change log of any edits to the classes and core rules, so I'm hoping I can use that as the 3rd post of each month.

The remaining posts due for this month will hopefully be able to be done on time.

Turning the Page on 2016

I've been working on The Next Project for a while now, but I've only been blogging since this past August. In that time, the blog has received over 1000 views! Most posts have each gotten 30-40 views, but some have gone as high as 60-70.

Going forward, my intention is to post 3x per month. From January through June, I'll be posting on the 5th/15th/25th of every month; I'm going to take a break for a bit in July, so details for beyond then will be ironed out closer to the end of June.

Leading up to 2017, all 15 planned classes were completed, across the 3 slates: Heroes of Martial Might & Divine Power, Heroes of Magic & Shadow, and Heroes of the Wilderness. I'm hoping by the end of January to complete a "math pass," specifically focusing on the damage values for each class. To this end, I've worked out a few dice expressions that achieve the expected values; now it's just a matter of checking each class to make sure it fits within those guidelines. I'm also going to try and strip out excessive rolling if/when I can, and simplify things mechanically.


A few changes to player options will be forthcoming:

• Classes that have "Roles" will be able to change their role as part of their initiative check (currently includes Fighter, Bard, and Warrior.)
• Power Sources will be added to player-characters (Arcane, Divine, Martial, Primal, and Shadow); each character will have 2 Power Sources.
• Rules for changing your class/archetype between adventures; hybrid/dual-classing/multi-classing rules will be looked into.
• Knowledge Skills will be tied to Power Sources, helping to streamline these skills, and to give additional mechanical weight to Power Sources.
• Starter Classes will be finalized once the core classes are done; expect the text to be trimmed down and simplified as much as possible.

Beyond that, I will be seeking feedback on the writing/mechanics, hopefully getting a few extra sets of eyes on things. With this, I'll be looking to make sure the language is clear and there are no gaps in the rules, possibly resulting in an FAQ as well. I'm also going to try and get the formatting for classes into a more unified state.

The DM-side of the rules still need to be published, so that work may begin in parallel to the other revisions, or begin once those are completed.


...

Next post: January 15th!

Fifty Days of Design (Beta 4)

Another quick post to announce my latest plans:

10 classes in 50 days!

 As of right now, these classes are what I would call "done":

• Acrobat (d4)
• Sage (d4)
• Fighter (d6)
• Paladin (d10)
• Barbarian (d12)

So, over the next 50 days, I'm looking to finish up the final 10 classes, each with 2 archetypes:

• Druid (d4)
• Rogue (d6)
• Scout (d6)
• Cleric (d8)
• Bard (d8)
• Ranger (d8)
• Mystic (d10)
• Guardian (d10)
• Warlord (d12)
• Spellbinder (d12)

Since I am trying to post every 10 days, that works out to 2 classes for each blog post!

Some of the classes are in a more complete state than others (specifically, those from previous iterations mostly just need some tweaking) so it's not as huge a feat in some cases.

...

As a minor note, Knowledge skills have finally been moved away from the structure of other skills, in what I consider to be a satisfactory manner in terms of the language used for them. Knowledge skills will fall into 4 categories: Battlefield, Social, Exploration, and Lore.

Also, if you haven't had a look at the core rules yet, check them out here!

The Road Ahead (Beta 4)

A quick-ish post to take stock of where The Next Project is at:

About half the classes need some major form of writing; either new classes that need to be written from the ground up, archetypes that need to be added, or classes/archetypes that need to be converted from one slot to another. The other half could still use some touch-ups, but a couple of them are what I would consider "done."

The core rules are probably done; it'll just be a matter of whether playtesting turns up any bugs that need to be fixed. Movement and status effects might cause hangups.

The monster math/encounter design stuff is more or less there, in my head. So I need to put pen to paper with that, and get an updated draft ready. I also want to at least have some sample monsters rolled out, if not an entire full-length monster manual.

I also want to do up a DM guidance doc, explaining how to utilize the system from both a technical as well as an aesthetic perspective. Specifically, I want the game to support both DM-driven as well as player-driven campaigns/narratives, so there should be advice for that bundled with the system.