Leveraging Synergies (2025)

A recent topic of discussion on the TNP Discord was how D&D 2024 compares to TNP, in terms of what it's doing with skills.

In 5e, you have a proficiency bonus that scales up as you level (starting at +2) and generally speaking, you get proficiency with 4 skills -- 2 from your class, and 2 from your background. Certain features (such as Jack of All Trades, for the Bard class) let you add half of this bonus to your skill checks; other features allow you to add double this bonus, a mechanic which is typically referred to as "expertise." Barring these outliers, your proficiency bonus will scale up to +6 and your ability mods will cap out at +5; a +11 modifier effectively means a 10% success rate against a DC30 (i.e. only a d20 roll of 19 or 20 would succeed.) Most DCs in 5th Edition are done in increments of 5, with each increment representing a 25% swing in difficulty; with advantage, a d20 roll with no modifiers vs. a DC10 is equivalent to about a +5 bonus, or about 25% (coincidentally).

As you can probably guess, this leaves 5e with a fairly narrow band of DCs it can meaningfully use. So with the 2024 rules, they've tried to crowbar in advantage, if/when you can reasonably argue to the DM that proficiency bonuses from a skill/tool/etc. would overlap for a given action; instead of stacking/doubling these proficiency bonuses, the DM is instead encouraged to grant advantage on the check. The problem is that not all skills have a tool which makes an obvious pairing with them, causing a difference in effective DC of potentially 25% (the difference between advantage vs. a straight roll.) In short, this is an afterthought, and that's why it's mechanically/mathematically unsound.

If we go back to 3.5, there was a system for "skill synergies" whereby 5 ranks in a given skill granted a +2 bonus to a related skill. Even this was a very "pick & choose" kind of affair, where it was not universally applied. By contrast to what 3.5/5e D&D are trying to do, both TNP systems have skill synergies built into their baseline assumptions. Every "core" skill falls under an Attribute and a Skillset; what this means is that adding bonuses to a skill always increases the bonuses to the other skills that are related to it.

For example, in 3.5 having 5 ranks in Bluff gives you a +2 to Diplomacy and Sleight of Hand checks. In TNP, if you increase your Subtlety skillset, that would increase both your Bluff and Sleight of Hand skills; likewise, increasing your CHA attribute would increase both your Bluff and Persuasion skills. Because all core skills fit somewhere on the grid, this built-in system for synergy works across all core skills; the skillsets effectively serve as another vector (in addition to attributes) by which thematically-linked skills are able to be synergized. In TNP, you can gain training and/or a bonus rank in either the attribute or the skillset for a given skill; instances of overlapping training do not stack, but they do provide the "mastery" bonus to such skills. In the sequel, each bonus to a given skill's attribute or skillset would add an additional d6 to the pool for that type of skill check.

Now, admittedly, where this idea falls short in the TNP systems is with knowledge skills; although they are grouped by power source (and only half are unique to a given power source) power sources are not given a "score" nor do knowledge skills have "skillsets" or any other such 2nd vector to group them together. In TNP this is somewhat remedied by additional ranks (beyond 3rd) being more readily available, for knowledge skills. As for the sequel mechanics, those details are still being worked out.

I think a strength of the 2d6 ethos for the sequel is that every die you add into the pool has the potential to matter. One complaint I've heard about older versions of the World of Darkness system is that it's still all down to random chance; you roll X number of d10s, and need a 10 to show up, in order to succeed. Likewise, when I play Call of Cthulhu-based boardgames, you end up needing a 5 or a 6 on a d6 in order to succeed; if you fail, you spend a token and gamble again. In both cases, your previous failures don't get you any closer to success. (Worth mentioning here, most newer versions of Axis & Allies, including some 3rd-party off-shoots, allow for previously-failed technology rolls or "tech tokens" to accrue towards eventual success at such research.) With the sequel mechanics, the fact that you are always adding 2 dice together, means that you avoid the pitfalls of the WoD and CoC systems, because low rolls are still potentially useful and therefore worth something. The other thing is that having 2d6 as the DC provides some variability in which results will succeed, as well; obviously, high rolls always have a better chance at success, but nothing is out of the realm of possibility in an "opposed roll" paradigm.

---

Running a few hours behind schedule, but managed to stay caught up for August.
Look for the next post around September 10th.

Deep Dive: Skills (2024)

Rather than get bogged down in the dice mechanics and such, I want to break down what skills are actually included in TNP, and what they should be used for.
One thing I should add is that the general advice I would give if a specific skill doesn't accurately describe an action, fall back to the closest skillset first, and then fall back on attributes 2nd; for these purposes:

• Strength is generally meant to use the arms and/or upper body
  
• Agility is generally meant to use the legs
• Dexterity is generally meant to use the hands/fingers
• Intelligence is how knowledgeable you are about things
• Charisma is how knowledgeable you are about people

(P.S. this is why there isn't a distinct Swim skill: so that you can use whatever attribute you see fit, for that.)

Brawl (Athletics or Strength) is your general purpose skill for grapple, shove, trip, etc.
Climb (Athletics or Strength) is pretty straightforward; in the rules it is one of the methods of gaining high ground provided by "infrastructure." The other method is Jump (Athletics or Agility)
Break Objects (Infiltration or Strength) is meant as the equivalent to "Bend Bars/Lift Gates" from earlier versions of D&D, but in combat is meant specifically to destroy infrastructure that may be providing cover and/or high ground (at the DM's discretion.)
Acrobatics (Athletics or Agility) is meant to cover skills/actions likes Balance, Escape (Artist), or Tumble (i.e. moving without provoking opportunity attacks) as well as landing on your feet when falling, and doing a kip up.

Intimidation (Communication or Strength) probably needs no explanation, but under certain circumstances in combat it can be used to get enemies to surrender (which is mechanically just as good as being at 0 HP) in order to make this option appealing, but also potentially to speed up combat.
Decipher Script (Communication or Intelligence) is meant to be used when reading text that is written in a language foreign to you, or to crack coded messages; likewise Linguistics (Communication or Intelligence) is mean for speaking other languages and understanding the spoken word, in other languages; the general assumption is that your character would use this for languages they aren't fluent with.
Persuasion (Communication or Charisma) is sort of the opposite of Intimidation; you try to get people to go along with your line of argumentation through general positive reinforcement and the force of your personality (rather than threats.)

Lockpicking (Infiltration or Dexterity) does what it says on the tin; for more complex mechanical devices or traps, you may need to use Disable Device (Infiltration or Intelligence)
Similarly, the Forgery skill (Infiltration or Intelligence) is about creating false documents of a sufficiently convincing quality -- oddly enough, this is something I would class as a "social" skill, because it effectively is used to interact favourably with people, rather than with 'things.'
In that same vein, Disguise (Infiltration or Charisma) involves both creating and using a convincing disguise, and giving an effective portrayal of the person you are impersonating; Bluff (Subtlety or Charisma) is more about telling a convincing boast or recounting of events, that are untrue. You may very well need to make such checks while using a disguise, but you can make them under other circumstances as well.
Sleight of Hand (Subtlety or Dexterity) involves pick-pocketing or otherwise snatching items without arousing suspicion, but can also be used for planting contraband or incriminating items onto other people without them noticing.
Stealth (Subtlety or Agility) is your general 'hide' and/or 'move silently' skill.

Rounding out the list are the Detection skills.
Search (Detection or Dexterity) is meant to be used for finding things by your sense of touch, especially your fingers; the example I always think of is trying to quickly find the right coin or key, in a stuck drawer -- where you can fit your hand in, but can't actually see the contents.
Investigation and Perception (Detection or Intelligence) are lumped together here, largely because there is no 'Wisdom' attribute in TNP, but also because they seem to often be used interchangeably in 5e. Perception from 4e onwards has been the combination of 3.5's 'Listen' and 'Spot' skills; Investigation... well, it isn't quite 'Appraise' or 'Search'... but it seems to be "solve puzzles/riddles through brain power rather than sensory input."
Insight (Detection or Charisma) is your lie-detector and/or 'Sense Motive' skill -- pretty standard.

As for the knowledge skills, they're kind of a mixed bag of knowledge/exploration skills, as well as kind of a sub-set of social skills:
Arcana (Arcane power source) is your general knowledge of magic and the occult, other planes, spellcraft, etc. As in 4e, this would be the skill check you make to 'detect magic'
History & Geography (Martial power source) is your knowledge of pertinent historical events and places of particular significance; in 3.5 this was (as you might guess) two separate skills, but I felt it was worth combining them together.
Religion (Divine or Arcane) is generally associated with monster knowledge about the undead, but could also apply to demons/devils; deities, mythology, religious traditions and ceremonies, etc.
Wilderness Survival (Primal power source) generally covers any uses of 'Survival' (including the Use Rope skill) or the Nature skill, as it pertains to things other than animals/beasts... Animal Handling (Martial or Primal) involves using, training, or communicating with animals (whether through basic verbal or visual cues, or magical/telepathic means) including using them as a mount (i.e. the Ride skill)
Dungeoneering (Arcane or Shadow) typically involves knowledge of caves and caverns, but often is about places like the Underdark, and its denizens.
Medicine (Divine or Primal) generally functions like the Medicine skill in 5e, or the Heal skill in 4e or 3.5; this would likely also cover your 'Detect Poison & Disease' spell/ritual.
Streetwise (Shadow power source) essentially functions like your 'Gather Information' skill, when dealing with the (figurative) underworld; Local (Martial or Shadow) functions similarly, but for commoners or "middle class" people and societies; Nobility & Royalty (Divine power source) is essentially the upper-class version of this sort of skill.

It's probably worth mentioning who got these as 'class skills' in 3.5:

• Local -- Bards, Rogues, Wizards
• Gather Information -- Bards, Rogues
• Nobility & Royalty -- Bards, Paladins, Wizards

• Handle Animal -- Barbarians, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers
• Ride -- Barbarians, Druids, Fighters, Paladins, Rangers
• Nature -- Bards, Druids, Rangers, Wizards
• Survival -- Barbarian, Druids, Rangers
  
• Use Rope -- Rangers, Rogues

• Heal -- Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers
• Religion -- Bards, Clerics, Paladins, Wizards

• History -- Bards, Clerics, Wizards
• Geography -- Bards, Rangers, Wizards

• Arcana -- Bards, Clerics, Monks, Sorcerers, Wizards
• Dungeoneering -- Bards, Rangers, Wizards

Meanwhile in 4th Edition (sorting the PHB1 & PHB2 by power source)...

• Arcana was extended to Druid (primal), Invoker (divine), Shaman (primal), Warlock (arcane)
• Dungeoneering was extended to Rogue (martial), Sorcerer (arcane), Warden (primal)
• Heal was extended to Barbarian (primal), Bard (arcane), Fighter (martial), Shaman (primal), Sorcerer (arcane), Warden (primal), Warlord (martial)
• History was extended to Druid (primal), Invoker (divine), Paladin (divine), Shaman (primal), Warlock (arcane), Warlord (martial)
• Nature was extended to Barbarian (primal), Shaman (primal), Sorcerer (arcane), Warden (primal)
• Religion was extended to Invoker (divine), Shaman (primal), Warlock (arcane)
• Streetwise -- Bard (arcane), Fighter (martial), Rogue (martial), Wizard (arcane)
  

In TNP, classes generally lean towards one or two power sources, with a choice of another (Acrobat is the only class that sort of fits into any of the 5 power sources)

• Paladin (Divine/Martial; Arcane or Shadow)
• Cleric (Divine; Martial or Arcane)
• Druid (Primal; Arcane or Martial)
• Rogue (Shadow; Arcane, Martial, Primal)
• Warlord (Martial; Divine or Primal)
• Spellbinder (Arcane/Martial; Divine or Shadow)
• Occultist (Arcane/Shadow; Primal)
• Adventurer (Martial/Primal; Arcane or Shadow)
• Barbarian (Martial or Primal)
• Bard (Arcane/Divine; Martial or Shadow)
• Sage (Arcane/Primal; Martial or Shadow)
• Ranger (Martial/Primal; Shadow)
• Guardian (Martial/Primal; Arcane or Shadow)
• Fighter (Martial; Divine, Primal, Shadow)

So if we were to, for the sake of argument, combine the 4e and 3.5 class skill lists, and try to represent them in TNP, a few examples would be:

• Paladin: Divine (Nobility & Royalty, Medicine, Religion) + Martial (Animal Handling, History & Geography)
• Cleric: Divine (Medicine, Religion) + Martial (History & Geography) + Arcane (Arcana)
• Druid: Primal (Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine) Arcane (Arcana, Religion) + Martial (History & Geography)
• Barbarian: Martial (History & Geography, Animal Handling) + Primal (Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine)
• Ranger: Martial (History & Geography, Animal Handling) + Primal (Wilderness Survival, Animal Handling, Medicine) + Shadow (Dungeoneering)
• Fighter: Martial (Animal Handling) + Primal (Medicine) + Shadow (Streetwise)

...

Anyways, this is getting long-winded and ramble-y. But hopefully that illustrates how skills are supposed to be used, and how I've tried to recreate the class skill lists from D&D, while coming at it from a slightly different angle. Things have been expanded a little bit where I felt it was needed, but I've tried to more or less be faithful to the "source material." With 4e including skills like History for Warlords and Paladins, it made sense to me to put that as a Martial skill, for example (even though Fighters for some reason didn't get History, but I digress.) Likewise, being able to mix Primal skills with Arcane and/or Martial skills goes a long way in making TNP classes like Druid and Guardian feel like the ones they're inspired from.

Next post is due up on September 10th, so check back then!

Skill Layout (2024)

One topic that's been on my mind lately, is how the skills should be laid out, vis-a-vis some sort of character sheet format. The way that upgrades are given to skills in TNP makes this sort of thing hard to map; this is why (if I design a followup game) I'm considering other possibilities -- such as training only being applied to skillsets, and ranks only being derived from attributes.

To wit, TNP has 20 "core" skills and 10 "knowledge" skills; the closest comparison would be D&D 3.5, with 35 and 10, respectively. The question in mind is whether the character sheet should simply list bonuses by attribute and by skillset, which would then be hashed out using a player aid, such as this one -- something designed to be read (somewhat) easily either vertically or horizontally. The alternative is to simply list all 30 skills, and do something akin to World of Darkness -- with either one or two training 'dots' and two rank 'dots' to fill in, for each skill, corresponding to attributes and skillsets.

Basically, the intent with the mechanics (as discussed more thoroughly in this post) is to cover as much of the spectrum of those typical adventuring skills, without having to track different skill points for 35+ distinct line entries. By having an overlapping system of 5 skillsets and 5 attributes, the whole process can be simplified. Also, the intention was to build in a system of diminishing returns, so as to encourage branching out, rather than overspecialization; I also didn't want training to stack, in order to avoid the kind of numbers bloat I would associate with skills in 4th Edition D&D.
For example, training in 4e would give you a +5 to a skill, and your ability modifier in your main stat could easily start as high as +5 -- meaning it was impossible to fail a DC10 with your main skills, while a skill with a +0 bonus was effectively a coin-flip. What TNP essentially does, it make it so you can get that +5 from your attribute or from your skillet, but not both; you can have training in both, but then the diminishing returns kick in.

The other reason that the skill mechanics now use the 1d10+1d6 system, is that there was some rumbling about a desire to have a greater variety of skill gradations. Under the d20 system, there was effectively only 4 skill levels, and the numerical jumps in between them were not very smooth. With the current mechanics, a skill check can be made with or without training, or with training + mastery, as well as applying 1, 2, or 3 skill ranks (potentially more, but rarely more than 4.) This means a total of 9 possible combinations, however this is all kept neat and streamlined by the "skill grid" of attributes and skillsets.

Now, knowledge skills function a little differently than "core" skills, in two ways:

• they can potentially gain mastery without training
  
• they can more easily exceed 3 ranks in a given skill

Much like how an attribute or skillset is a suite of core skills, a power source is essentially a suite of knowledge skills; when you gain a power source, you either gain training with 2 of its 3 associated knowledge skills, or training with 1, but mastery with all 3. Since every power source shares 2 of its skills with other powers sources, and because most character classes should be able to get at least 2 power sources, this gives some amount of flexibility to branch out or to specialize. Since knowledge skill ranks are part of character progression and/or class category progression, you also have a lot of latitude in how you scale up these skills, regardless of the power source you start with.

The question then is, since half of the knowledge skills are associated with more than one power source, should the character sheet list each of these skills twice? Or would that cause too much confusion? It seems like it'd be easier to just list all 10 knowledge skills (than it would be for all 20 core skills) with 'dots' for training and ranks -- mention of power source in that mix might not even be entirely necessary, come to think of it... perhaps you could have the knowledge skills split between those that are unique to one power source, and those that are shared.

I wonder if the tack to take with skills more generally is to only write the ones you have training/mastery/bonus ranks with, onto your character sheet. I actually tend to write my 5e characters out by hand (on lined paper) and this is the way I do my skills, within that ethos. Since the baseline assumption in TNP is that a skill check is 1d10+1d6, you only really need to make note of the skills with which you would roll something other than that. You could have a set of blank lines where you fill in your specialized skills, with spaces beside each to write in the relevant attribute or skillset, and beside that, additional space for noting training/mastery/bonus ranks -- possibly using some kind of a 'dot' system.
(One other thing to mention is that since 1 or 2 skills can exist at the intersection of any given attribute or skillset, while TNP has 20 core skills, there are actually only 15 such intersection points -- further shortening the list. For example, Brawl and Climb both fall under Strength and under Athletics, so their bonuses will always be the same as each other -- no need for separate line entries, despite being two different skills.)

So how would you like to see the skill layout handled, for TNP characters?
Let me know in the comments below.
Next blog post is due up on February 22nd, so make sure to check back then.

Party Composition (2023)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

Scattershot (2018)

I have a few ideas that I want to put out into the world -- mostly half-baked -- that kind of cover various areas of the designs. This post is going to be a bit jumbled, so bear with me.

Skill Dice
A couple of comments that I've received are that the skill system needs more gradients (typically, there needs to be something between "Expertise (untrained)" and Trained) but also that maybe there should be a bonus for being trained with both the Attribute and the Skillset of a given skill. I haven't really come up with anything to address the former, but in terms of the latter, I toyed around with a few different ideas (without straying too far from the existing framework.) Really the only thing that didn't seem broken would be to allow the training die to be rolled with Advantage, in that instance. This sort of borrows from the "boons & banes" method of die bonuses, from Shadow of the Demon Lord.

The problem I've found with this, is that the math pretty closely mirrors that of having both Training and Expertise (thus, feeling like "change for the sake of change") with the obvious difference of being able to still layer Expertise on top of it, for further benefit. Doing so puts the success rate pretty close to what using d10s did, in earlier iterations (as was mentioned in the "origins" post about skills.)

Now, this presents the question of, should "skillful" classes simply be able to upgrade their training die to d10, in these circumstances? As I'm typing this out, I'm starting to lean towards "yes," in large part because the overall designs have been trying to avoid mixing double-rolls and Expertise (because it is rather clunky) while still remembering that d10 was completely discarded before, because it pushes success rates too high.

This also does nothing to solve the initial premise of adding a gradation below "trained" -- so I'm not entirely sure I'll use any of this. I'll have to try and crunch out some math, but my first instinct is to try and do something akin to the class dice mechanics of "roll & compare" but utilizing the training die, instead of class die. I'll have to see if that's feasible, without being clunky.


Subtypes
As was mentioned in the recent post about classifying/categorizing classes, right now each slate of classes is set up to include one class for each of the five "categories." These categories essentially grew out of the earlier decision to pare the number of subtypes down from four, to three. This change got rid of "optional combat roles," and left most classes fitting into the current setup.

As I've said before, the 3rd slate was sort of bashed into this framework, and I've never been completely happy with the results. Similarly to the skill conundrum, two questions have presented themselves: does the design conceit of "categories" actually present something worth preserving, and do the classes (overall) have enough customization?

I feel like the continual worry over "subclass only" and "spec only" classes sort of goes to show that maybe this setup isn't viable. The question then becomes, can we add to these classes using the existing subtypes? Should we try and add roles to all classes (in all honestly this has never been my intent) or should we just "upgrade" these two categories?

Likewise, when I looked at the 3rd slate again recently, I found that Druid probably makes more sense as a "subclass & role" loadout -- but that isn't a category that exists in the current designs. (Also, the other classes in the slate could/would probably work better by being slotted into different categories, I feel.) Making the Druid be a unique category on its own means that it loses the design space of having transferable "category upgrades" while also calling the entire framework into question. Does the "symmetry" of each slate having the same five categories really... do anything?

Should "subclass only" classes get roles or specs stapled on? Should "spec only" classes get roles or subclasses stapled on? Should we change only one of these categories, or both? Whichever solution gets settled on, it will mean serious consideration and redesign work.


Monster Math
I haven't looked at it as much, but the framework for monsters is also something that needs a lot of hard thought. Aside from solo monsters needing a more thorough system (as it pertains to positioning) I also am sort of leery about the way things like Advantage/Disadvantage and Trained/Untrained work differently for monsters than they do for PCs.

It sort of results in there being two distinct rulesets -- one for PCs and one for DMs -- where the only place the two cross paths is in situational and positional considerations in combat, where both sides have to interact with one another. It might be a necessary evil, but just the way the terminology is recycled, without the mechanics being unified across the two paradigms... it's something I find worrisome.

The main utility that I like about the "monster roll" is that it can help DMs run their monsters, by letting the dice decide -- allowing for some level of automation, which can speed things up and negate "analysis paralysis." The problem is whether or not the burden of DMs having to familiarize themselves with both paradigms is outweighed by this little bit of utility, or if they would be better served by having monsters be more straightforwardly d20-based.


---


Next post will be up November 30th, so check back then. Just a heads-up, that will be the final post of this year.

Bringing Backgrounds to the Foreground (2018)

It's been a busy week for me, so I haven't had much time to write. One of the few things I've been thinking about a bit (again) is the Power Sources and Knowledge skills in the game, so I want to touch on that a bit today.

So, generally, we want Power Sources to serve a few roles:

1. To give theme or flavour to a class
2. To inform the background of a particular character
3. To provide characters with their Knowledge skills
4. To be the mechanical axis by which players can "re-spec" their class

Let's break this down into more detail:

• Arcane classes are those that deal with magic -- pretty straightforward
• Divine classes deal with religion, gods and demigods, etc. and usually dabble in healing
• Martial classes are the ones that fight using weapons (or hand-to-hand) -- warriors
• Primal classes deal in the elemental, the natural, and the primitive
• Shadow classes deal with dark powers, or shady elements within society

One of the design choices that came out somewhat recently, was tying 2 specific Knowledge skills to each Power Source, and giving Training/Expertise based solely on that (rather than previous iterations -- which would let you pick 2 skills out of 3, or have a separate Knowledge progression alongside Power Sources, among a few other ideas -- that were eventually scrapped.)

Arcane characters get Arcana and Royalty & Nobility. Characters with this power source have both an affinity with some sort of magic, but also an understanding of political structures (and perhaps contacts at high levels of government.) These two concepts may or may not be connected to each other, on a given character; Paladins and Druids with the Arcane power source may simply be trusted bodyguards or advisers to a king, or a tribal leader, in addition to their magical talents.

Divine characters get Medicine and Religion. Typically these two are tied together, thematically. Usually classes that bestow healing are based in some sort of faith (in the case of Druids, Paladins, and Clerics, for example) or else are generally expected to be knowledgeable characters all around (such as Monks or Bards.) Alternatively, this power source can serve as a sort of motivation or specialty for otherwise martial-focused classes, such as the Acrobat, Fighter, or Warlord.

Martial characters get History and Local. The History skill represents a familiarity with significant events, their causes and effects, and the lessons that can be drawn from them; the Local skill represents familiarity with the common folk, including customs and etiquette. As has been said, this power source will mainly be found on warrior classes, but it can also be used to give a sharper context to others -- such as Clerics, Bards, or Spellbinders. It could also allow classes that are expected to be widely knowledgeable to expand their skill sets.

Primal characters get Geography and Nature. These skills both potentially cut very wide swaths. The Geography skill can provide knowledge of the literal locations of things, but also insight into what the current terrain features tell about what might lay ahead. The Nature skill can help discern weather patterns, tides, properties of various plants, as well as various information about wildlife. Again, while this Power Source is mainly found on classes like Druid, Ranger, and Barbarian, it can also be used to differentiate one Fighter or Warlord from another.

Shadow characters get Dungeoneering and Streetwise. Generally, the Dungeoneering skill helps when identifying anything to do with the underground world; Streetwise is for dealing with the figurative "underground" world. So this Power Source ends up covering a lot of ground, from Rogues (wheeling and dealing within various black markets) to Occultists (searching for lost secrets in forgotten catacombs) to Rangers (living on the peripheries of society, and hunting the darkest, most dangerous monsters.) When applied to a class like the Acrobat, it turns a simple Martial Artist into something that feels more like an Executioner, for example.

Nuts & Bolts

Now, the basic mechanic of "re-specs" is meant to allow players to change their class, while maintaining some thematic consistency with their character. To achieve this, we make it so that it is easier to re-spec into a class which shares a Power Source with your current class. With that in mind, the baseline idea is to give every class at least two Power Sources.

In this way, Arcane subclasses like Invoker, Sorcerer, and Wizard can be related to Druids and Shamans; Fighters and Warlords become "cousins" with Rangers and Barbarians; shadowy archetypes like Blackguard and Hexblade begin to cross paths.

The other mechanical lever that we can use Power Sources for, is to grant additional customization to classes that don't have as much (such as Roles and/or Specialist Classes.) Right now, each character starts with one Power Source, and gains another at 3rd level; certain "specs" gain an additional Power Source, whereas most subclasses give its parent class alternate options for which Power Sources they can pick (at starting level or at 3rd level.)

I'm thinking this might change a little bit: probably classes with less customization will gain a 3rd Power Source at 5th level; the classes currently gaining Power Sources from a "spec" will likely instead get this power source as an option (much the same way that certain subclasses do) but they may also get an extra Power Source at 5th level. These are just some ideas that I have been kicking around, which will hopefully both streamline and unify the progression tracks a little bit (much the way Performance skills need to be ironed out, I feel.) This will also help in the process of making sure that Power Sources are available to a wide enough number of classes, that none feel underutilized or too niche, but also that there isn't a overabundance of classes which simply have access to all the Power Sources (or combinations thereof.)

---

More busy times still to come, but nevertheless the next post should be up on October 30th.

Let me know what you thought of this post, and if you'd like to see more in-depth discussion of anything we've touched on today.

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.

Money, Power, Respect (2018)

A little while ago, I did a very mechanical comparison between TNP and D&D's 4th and 5th Editions. Today I want to talk about things in a little bit less-specific manner, and touch on some of the building blocks of characters.

If we look at your typical D&D edition, there are a few ways you can customize a character:

1. Ability Scores and Skills: though generally your class goes a long way to proscribing which skills and ability scores you can potentially be good at, there is generally a little bit of wiggle room within that framework.
2. Feats: little perks that can (in theory) be useful for any character, and are lumped into one big pool to draw from.
3. Spells/Powers: things that give you specific actions, either within combat or outside of it.
4. Magic Items: actually pretty similar to spells and powers, but are not constrained by class (making them similar to feats.)
5. Multi-classing/Dual-classing/Hybrid: combining two or more classes together, to get perks from both.

As we can see from these descriptions, a few of these building blocks overlap one another, somewhat. We can break these things down into essentially two broad descriptors: things which come from your class, and things that don't. Ultimately, what I wanted to do with TNP was to eliminate the customization that comes from outside of your class.

I can remember looking at 4th Edition D&D, just seeing Cleave as a power that Fighters could take (rather than a feat, as it had been in 3.5) and I really liked that simple change. I also liked how so much of the game that (as a player) you could really figure out by simply having an understanding of your class, and the powers you got from it.

When Essentials came around for 4th Edition, it sort of "missed the target, but hit the tree," for me. Where I felt 4th Edition needed simplification and streamlining, was in the areas of both feats and magic items (things from outside of your class) rather than with powers (things from within your class.) The fact that the former design spaces (which were meant to be the most universal) were the ones that became the most bloated, served to make the game more and more inaccessible as its lifespan went on.

Magic Items tended to be the big offender in this regard, in my view. They essentially duplicated the design space that I felt should have been owned entirely by classes. It also served as a crutch for weak or poorly-designed classes; I can remember playing as a Scout, and basically needing to incorporate specific magic items into my build (for basic survivability, in combat) because the class itself failed to provide those tools.

You also end up with less uniqueness to classes, once customization starts to homogenize things too much. The standard "Charge kit" for 4th Edition could be basically built onto the chassis of any class, creating an effective (if boring) playstyle around feats and items, rather than being built through your class and its powers.

Really, this all just boils down to my personal preference, and my experience. My introduction to RPGs was with Diablo 2, and I was immediately captivated by the whole "skill tree" setup for classes. Once magic items which granted cross-class skills were introduced (and the game's true focus on merely farming items became apparent) I was no longer interested. I much preferred the idea that your character was a function of your class, and how you chose to build your character within that class.

---

So how does money figure into all this?

Well, in short, it'll tie into something I mentioned in my previous post; the need for skills to be bigger and more fleshed-out, within the designs.

Money (particularly in the last few editions of D&D, as well as 13th Age) has sort of waned in importance -- the games simply don't give you enough to do with it, or don't properly account for the amount of gold you tend to end up with. (I've even heard it suggested that in 13th Age, money could be used as a "temporary background" as a way of simplifying the whole process of using money.)

The way I look at it, is that money is just yet another thing that comes from outside of your class, which is used to define what your character can do -- so get rid of it.

Weapons? Armor? Those are all functions of the core mechanics now.

Why not take it a step further?

We aren't gonna be buying magic items, clearly. So what does that leave (in the typical D&D play-experience) to spend money on? Equipment and services.

Potions? We have Reserves to cover our healing, and keep the mechanical structure unified.

Lockpicks? Battering Ram? We have skills that cover this design space; just make a check, and narrate it however you want. Whether or not 'Jimm, the Fighter' brought the right tool for the job when he goes to break down a door, is just an exercise in needless bookkeeping. It also makes the inanimate object more crucial to success than the character, which flies in the face of what we want to achieve.

Want to rent a room? Buy a wagon? Get a few horses?

Make it into a roll, using your social skills. If you rolled bad? Then it looks like you're a little short on coin today -- so tell us a story of where all your money ended up, last night.

If the DM wants to make it a little harder on you, then not being able to sleep with a roof over your head (or a wagon full of supplies) might end up costing you a Reserve.
Not being able to get horses to cover ground faster might mean the doomsday clock moves a bit closer to midnight.

In every case, the money isn't the important thing -- it's what happens in the fiction.

All this, coupled with the existing guidelines for skills, should help us figure out how money can be handled in the abstract. "You couldn't possibly have enough money to bribe the king," the DM says, adding, "don't even bother rolling."

---

Next post is due August 28th, so check back then!

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 3: The Monster Roll

May is Monster Month! (...I've decided, retroactively.)

Today I'm going to do an "origins" post, talking about where the Monster Roll came from; if you're not familiar with this mechanic, it's in the new Monster Workshop doc which was featured in the previous blog post.


Reverse Engineering
Back in about... some time prior to 2013, I briefly took over DM duties for the 4th Edition group I had been playing with. I kind of liked homebrewing monsters (once I had gotten into it) with the help of the guiding formula provided by Blog of Holding, known as "Monster Manual 3 on a Business Card."

The core component of the monster math for 4e, as broken down in their post, was this:

• Attack roll: d20+5+level
• Average damage: 8+level

I decided pretty early on that I wanted to make a universal dice expression to represent this math, so that I could use it for any monsters that I was controlling as the DM (instead of having to refer to a half-dozen different stat blocks, for weapon damage.)

What I came up with was this:

• Attack roll: d20+d8+level
• Average damage: 1d6+1d10+level

To further streamline, I integrated "recharge" and "when first bloodied" mechanics into the d8 roll (using roughly appropriate percentages from the source material, for this conversion) as well as using it for situational +4/+5 bonuses; the most common example I can refer to would be instances of bonus damage for being hidden, or bonuses to AC against opportunity attacks while charging.

The damage would be scaled up, per tier -- adding an additional 1d6+1d10 in place of every 10 levels of flat damage bonus.

Making it Your Own

Around the same time, I would be working on my previously mentioned Unnamed RPG, which was essentially a change from my earlier tabletop designs (more rooted in "Diablo 2"-style skill trees and classes) to something that was a bit more "lego-bricking" in character-creation -- but with 4th Edition as its basis for things like movement, area, and powers. Those who have read about this RPG before, will know that it used 1d6+1d10 for its resolution mechanic, as well as using only d6 and d10 for its damage rolls.

After a few iterations, some critical analysis from the outside, and an abortive playtest, I decided to abandon this project and move onto the next. It was around this time that 5th Edition D&D had come out, and so the designs therein had started to shade and shape what I wanted to include in this game.

Whose Roll is it, Anyway?

In the early playtesting for TNP, the PCs had one die worth of HP; this meant that monster damage had to be relatively low. In order for it to be balanced across the classes, I kept it to 1 point per "hit" (or maybe 2, for stronger/solo monsters.)

Now, this is where I should mention how 5th Edition (along with my own DM experience) were influences on the design. The DM has a lot to do, so I wanted (as much as possible) to download some of the mechanical "heavy lifting" onto the PCs. This idea was meant not only to ease the workload of the DM, but to also keep players engaged during their off-turns. 

So I looked at 5th Edition's design: some attacks are rolled, but others call for a "save." (In 4th Edition, the rule is "attacker always rolls.") I realized that a way I could achieve my goal was to simply make all monster attacks trigger a "save" -- this would be called the "Defense roll" in TNP. Conversely, when the PCs attack, they make an attack roll.

What we end up with is a consistent rule, albeit one different from 4th Edition:
"PCs always roll"

This goes against the convention in D&D (generally) of monsters and PCs being built the same way, and using the same mechanical framework. The problem that then presented itself, was that if monsters were to use skills, they still needed to make a roll (since the core mechanic for skills is the flat "DC10" rule, and because generally skill checks are not made in opposition to each other.)

The Witch's Hammer

So as the design evolved, it was decided that PCs should be given more HP. The natural progression of that line of thinking, was that monster damage needed to be increased, too.

This is when monsters started to move away from 1 or 2 points of damage, and minions took up that design space. I had always liked using homebrewed "2-hit minions" in 4th Edition, so the opportunity to build them into the design from the ground, up (rather than have them as a work-around) was an exciting prospect --  a chance to put more tools in the DM's hands.

Somewhere along the way, the idea of taking the "universal roll" (used in both the Unnamed RPG and my own 4e monster homebrews) and applying it to the monster math just sort of came together. It was probably around the time I was making the first monster math posts, and I realized I needed to put pen to paper on how I wanted things to run, and what the mechanics should look like.

With the 1d6+1d10 mechanic, I had a damage expression I could build around, as well as a resolution mechanic for skills -- which worked within the existing framework. It was a unified mechanic, in the sense that regardless of which action the monster took, the dice that the DM needed to roll for them remained the same; if the PC's Defense roll was successful, the result of the monster roll would simply be moot. It also opened up a new design space for monsters: the potential for deciding their action after making the roll.

A roll of 10 or higher would mean a significant amount of damage... but only if the Defense roll failed. However, if used to make a skill check, that result would be a guaranteed success. This makes for some interesting choices to be had. It also lets the monster's actions be a little more scripted, in the case of lower rolls; a roll that has no chance to succeed as a skill check will invariably be used as a damage roll. The hope with this is that it can speed up turn-taking for the DM; a big complaint about 4th Edition was the length of combat, and since the DM operates the largest number of combatants, I figured it was the side of the table where the most headway could be made, in that regard.

In Conclusion...

So now you know the "how" and "why" of the Monster Roll. Since I'm currently focusing my efforts mainly on monster-building tools for TNP (at least when I'm not playing D&D, or making new characters) I'm hoping that all the aspects mentioned in this posts will continue to be further refined and sharpened, in the very near future.

Check back May 25th for the next post!

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!

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.

Knowledge is Power! (2018)

One of the things I've been fiddling with recently is how knowledge skills will be given out, and I've come to some conclusions that will be implemented for the new draft. Despite being more "flavour" than mechanics, this has always been something I've wanted to get just right, probably agonizing over it more than was really warranted. But I feel like I've got it whittled down to a sharp point, now.


Origins

I mentioned in my last post that at one point, "Knowledge" was treated as a Skillset -- essentially, a grouping of skills -- meaning that you could either be good at all of them, or at individual skills, based on whether or not you were good at the attribute related to that specific skill. This presented problems, and eventually knowledge skills were migrated away from being a skillset, to being tied to Power Sources. The intent here was to give additional design weight to Power Sources, beyond just their function for re-specs.


Next Steps

Initially, each Power Source was assigned 3 knowledge skills; if you had that Power Source, you had training with all 3 skills. Since there are only 10 knowledge skills in the designs, this meant that some of the Power Sources overlapped. This lead to some classes (assuming two power sources for each class) would end up with 6 trained knowledge skills, and others would end up with 5.

The main thing I didn't like about this setup (probably) was that it didn't mirror other skills in terms of math, i.e. those skills could have both training and expertise. With the plan to implement leveling also coming into focus, it seemed like a good idea to have knowledge skills be a part of that progression.


Present Day

So the idea going into the 2018 Edition (at the start) was to narrow the skills of each power source from 3 down to 2, and then, grant training to one of those skills, and expertise with the other (at the player's choosing.) Over and above this idea, was the plan to allow a separate progression track for all characters: each time you gained a level, you would also gain training with a new knowledge skill, or expertise with a trained knowledge skill.

The problem with this is twofold. First, "Knowledge" as its own separate progression becomes messy, if it is intended that the upgrades it provides can also be applied to skills gained from power sources -- specifically, it causes problems if a power source is changed, as part of changing your class. The two methods of gaining/improving knowledge skills needed to be untangled from each other. Secondly, it still ended up giving out too many trained skills, meaning that party members would be stepping on each others' toes; gaining one trained skill per power source, plus up to 5 more as you gained levels (from a list of only 10, to start with) just didn't make sense. Even at two power sources per class, this would be too much, and I already knew that I was going to have a handful of classes be able to get three.


Moving Forward

After much deliberation, the solution I have come to is this:

Each power source is associated with two knowledge skills.
When you gain a power source, you gain one of the following benefits with those skills:

• Training with both skills

• Training with one of the skills, and expertise with both

The decision to remove "knowledge progression" as a tool for precise customization was kind of a tough one, but I feel it is in line with the game's premise -- that The Next Project should be more of a "pick-up-and-play" gaming experience, than be about character creation and crunch. This setup allows for knowledge skills to function like other skills (mathematically) while also helping to reign in the number of skills each character will have. It will also allow two characters with the same power source to still have differences in their skill loadouts.


Backup Power

All that being said, I kind of what to utilize the system that was suggested previously, as sort of a backup/catch-all/fail-safe kind of measure. Specifically, if a situation reasonably calls for a knowledge check, but doesn't map to a specific skill, the players can fall back on their Power Sources. If the DM feels a PC's power source is applicable, the knowledge check can be made as a trained check; if more than one power source would apply, the check could also be made with expertise. As mentioned before, this is fairly similar to  the 13th Age system for Backgrounds, but a little more narrowly-focused.


Next Post

Hopefully I'll be able to get some more writing/designing done, before the next post is due to go up. I am always taking requests for blog topics, so send me your ideas!
Check back March 13th.

Constitution -- Part 2: Hit Points and Attributes (2018)

Today I'm going to quickly talk about HP, as well as the concept of Constitution as an "ability score" or "attribute" as it relates to TNP.


Attributes & Skills
In earlier designs, knowledge skills and performance skills were tied to attributes, the same way all core skills are; much like 4th Edition D&D, knowledge skills such as Arcana, History, and Religion were tied to Intelligence, whereas Nature and Dungeoneering were tied to Wisdom. Now, as I've mentioned before, I wanted classes that typically got Heal (or its equivalent) as a class skill, to actually be good at it -- namely, by tying it to an attribute they would likewise be good at. The idea I had was to move it from being a Wisdom skill, to a Constitution skill; since Heal sort of deals with the health and durability of characters, it wasn't that big a leap in logic to use an attribute that deals in the same things.

I quite liked this solution, at least for this one specific attribute. For the other attributes, it sort of devolved into the same problem that 4e had, where classes that were "supposed" to have high Intelligence end up being better with the Religion skill than classes that were supposed to be religious. Eventually, I decided to pull Knowledge skills away from being a Skillset (with individual skills being the intersection of that Skillset, and one attribute.) With the 2018 Edition of the game, I am going to be likewise removing performance skills from the structure of core skills.

Originally, I had Fortitude as sort of a combined Strength/Constitution attribute, but it began to make less and less sense in my head. Having "Constitution" as the key attribute for performance skills such as singing or playing a wind instrument at first seemed fine, but it ended up pigeonholing classes a little too much -- particularly for something that is meant as more flavour than mechanics. The end result is we can use the term "Strength" instead (and have it be straightforwardly combat-focused) without having to worry about it tying to background skills.


Hit Point Calculations
In terms of HP, in the earlier versions, it was simply a function of your class die. It started out with having your maximum HP be something like, "roll your class die with Advantage and Expertise," and that would be the amount of HP you had. You could also re-roll it at the start of every adventuring day -- sort of to reflect the benefits of a long rest, but also potentially the negative results of a poor rest. 5th Edition D&D similarly leans towards the low end for HP (at first level) so I kind of wanted to take a similar approach -- but to implement and execute it better, within the structures I was writing for my system.

As such, monster damage was made to be very low (typically only 1 or 2 points per "hit") which sort of handcuffed the design. It also meant that a player who rolled poorly could be taken out of a fight easily, particularly if they were focus-fired; even if they weren't "dropped," being at your last Hit Point meant you had to play very defensively. This was particularly true, given that there were not many healing options available to the "original slate" of classes. (Indeed, for quite a while there, I had not intended to have "combat healing" in the game at all.)

My first thought in trying to alleviate this problem was to simply use "maximum value of your class die" for your HP. However, it was quickly pointed out that having d12 classes get triple the HP of d4 classes would be problematic. It proved to be difficult to balance around, and made encounter- and monster-design more unreliable. So eventually, in the Beta 4 version of the rules, the HP calculation became "maximum value of your Basic Roll," i.e. 20 (the maximum value of a d20 roll) + 4/6/8/10/12 (the maximum value of your Class Die.)

Why I like this, is because it keeps with the game's ethos of having everything derive from the dice. What gives it some mechanical validity, is when we compare it to how 4th Edition D&D handles HP, at first level. I went and delved into this math, to see how it stacked up to the new formula for TNP.

In 4e, your HP was composed of your Constitution score, as well as a static value provided by the role of your class. Now, since I didn't want to have ability scores (nor did I want modifiers seemingly drawn from the ether) I couldn't just copy+paste over this solution, hence the need to come up with my own formula.

Your starting ability scores in 4e range from 8 to 20; typically, Constitution would not be lower than 10, but also rarely higher than 15 or 16 (again, at 1st level.) As for roles, Defenders would start with 15 HP, Leaders and Strikers with 12, and Controllers with 10 -- in addition to HP equal to their Constitution score. (Some classes would get bigger bonuses to HP; off the top of my head, Barbarian gets more than the baseline for a Striker. But this is the exception, rather than the rule.)

This gives us a practical range of about 20-30 HP, with the extremes of 18 and 35 still being in the realm of possibility. So with the "max Basic Roll" equation for TNP producing a range of 24-32 HP, it seems like a perfect fit. Narrower HP ranges allow for our monsters to pack a similar punch, no matter which party member they target -- making it so that their design can be simpler, and also less reliant on DMs "pulling punches" to make sure combat feels fair.


Appendix
As I touched on in the previous post, I don't intend to tinker with HP values, for the new draft of the rules. I also mentioned that "doubling" the HP you get from your class die would be a feature for certain classes/subclasses. Generally speaking, I think this will be the tack to take for the melee subclass within certain d4 and d6 classes (for example, the "Monk" subclass for Sage, and the "Martial Artist" subclass for Acrobat.)


Next post will probably touch on some recent changes to Power Sources -- unless I get any amount of strong requests for more deep-dives into the subject of Constitution. Check back on March 3rd for more!

Writing the Rules (2018)

Rewriting of the "core rules" has begun in earnest, and I'm coming at it from a little bit of a different angle than I have previously.

When I was writing Beta 4, what I essentially did was start with the most central design concept, and then introduce more concepts as they became pertinent -- usually one idea dovetailing with another. For example, the idea of both a "Basic Roll" and "maximum value" needed to be introduced prior to introducing the starting HP mechanic (which uses the maximum value of your Basic Roll.)

What I'm doing this time around, is essentially writing up each idea or mechanic as its own thing; any time I think of a new one to write, it's going into a separate document. One of the reasons for doing this, is it helps me to worry less about spacing and length -- trying to cram things together so there aren't long stretches of blank space, keeping the overall doc to the fewest number of pages, etc.

As you might expect, this means that the "core rules" this time around will be a fair bit longer. Granted, the Beta 4 version topped out at a mere 14 pages in google docs; the addition of the leveling mechanics alone will push 2018 Edition past that number, but I do hope to expand on and clarify rules wherever it's needed, which will also add to the length.

Here's a quick look at the topics the rules are covering, so far:

• Changing Your Character: rules about changing your Class/Subclass/Roles/Archetype, and what to do if you find yourself unhappy with a character, late in a campaign
• Character Customization: the basic mechanical explanations of Subclass/Role/Archetype
• Combat Skills: expanding on the previous version's text about which skills are used in combat, and their specific implementations
• Double Rolls: updates to the mechanics of Advantage/Disadvantage and double-rolling class dice (with the Trade-off mechanic written out)
• Positioning: touch-up of the positional rules, including streamlining the jargon
• Power Attack/Counter-attack: rewritten mechanics, incorporating changes to Advantage/Disadvantage and removal of Trade-offs
• Skills: cleaned up and expanded text pertaining to the skill mechanics and descriptions, going a bit deeper into Background/Knowledge/Performance skills

...

One thing I'm considering changing the jargon for is the "subtype" descriptors. Essentially, an idea I had was to use Path, War Path, and Paragon Path in place of Subclass, Role, and Archetype (respectively.) After having spilled some ink on the designs, I think I want to keep Subclass, just because it relates closely to Class -- essentially, most Subclasses would be their own classes in other systems, and as such, changing your Subclass is going to work similarly to changing your class, in the mechanics.

With that sorted, the whole "path" nomenclature idea falls apart pretty quickly. Another snag that has come up, is that people unfamiliar with 5e D&D have often pointed out Archetype as a misnomer; it's a broad identifier, whereas in TNP, they serve to more-narrowly identify a character. Some have also pointed to Role as being too vague (on its face) at least until you get into reading their specific mechanics.

As such, I am considering changing Archetypes to Paragon Paths, and renaming Role to something like "Combat Role." I think at the table, if players choose to shorten those terms down to just "Path" and "Role" then that's fine. However, the rules jargon should be adequately informative in addition to being concise; Subclass does this very well, but Role and Archetype need a bit of a tune-up. I haven't settled on these changes, but both are under consideration.

...

Next post should be on January 30th; as always, if you have input on any of the topics discussed here, feel free to comment below, or get ahold of me wherever you read about the blog.