Math-o-logical (2024)

As mentioned in the previous post, TNP does not use any static modifiers. This is one of the rules which bound the system (another being that all character statistics must be derived from class dice.) Part of the reason for this is to simplify some of the math, but also to encourage "teamwork bonuses" for increasing your chance to hit, in combat.

That all being said, I feel like the flat 55% success rate just doesn't cut it; I've even heard that some D&D-alike systems have chosen to eschew attack rolls altogether. As such, one of the things I've been juggling with my future project, is having a simple attack bonus to increase the hit chance -- namely, the weapon dice mechanics, as well as the d6 pool mechanics which I've touched on in recent posts. So it's probably a good time to look at the math a little bit.

Sticking with a DC10:

• 1d20+1d4 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 17.5% crit chance
• 1d20+1d6 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 22.5% crit chance
• adding the higher of 1d4 and 1d6 to a d20 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 24.58% crit chance
• adding the highest 1d6 out of 5d6 to a d20 gives us a 50% hit chance, and 32.15% crit chance

So what does that mean, in practical terms? Well, one thing I've always talked about within the designs of TNP is that the math should have a "meaningful" chance of failure -- a number I've typically pegged between about 15%-20%, particularly for skills. If we're incorporating these sorts of bonuses into the designs of the combat math, we can see that we're rapidly approaching that threshold for failure chance; we can't really increase hit chance much higher, particularly if "teamwork bonuses" are meant to be over and above what's accounted for here.

The knock-on effect is that it brings into question the idea of using 1d10 for skill checks. Apart from the ergonomic value of using percentile d10s for an advantage mechanic, if the combat system is using d20, and is based around the assumption of a hit rate in the range of 67.5%-82.15%... then why not just go back to using d20 for skills, too? With the idea being to unify all of the dice bonuses into d6 pool mechanics, this would have the added benefit of allowing attributes to be +0 or even possibly go into negatives, while still allowing the skill math to work properly. The only big sticking point (for me) is deciding what (if anything) a critical success on a skill check should do; using a d10 vs. DC10 system neatly side-steps this consideration.

The other question is whether this scale makes more sense than the d10 skill check math:

• 1d20-1d6 = 37.5%
• 1d20+0 = 55%
• 1d20+1d6 = 72.5%
  
• 1d20+[highest 1 of 2d6] = 77.36%
• 1d20+[highest 1 of 5d6] = 82.15%

Another thing I'm considering is that while most special abilities will be keyed off of attributes (for example, a +2 DEX providing a pool of 2d6) the flat modifier for those attributes might also be used as a damage bonus, just to improve the "oomph" of basic attacks. Another use for flat modifiers might be a sort of 'mastery' mechanic, whereby a die result cannot be lower than the modifier, or could be rerolled if lower/equal to the modifier.

If we're sticking with the 5 attributes of TNP (Strength, Dexterity, Intelligence, Charisma, Agility) and we're assuming the d6 pool will consist of one attribute, plus any "teamwork bonuses," then it stands to reason that our attributes shouldn't really exceed 3 (working from the TNP cap of 5d6 "extra damage" as our baseline.) So how many "points" should we be able to spread, between our attributes? Assuming a minimum attribute of +1 and maximum of +3, we could use 10 points to give us an array of +3/+3/+2/+1/+1. I almost wonder if the better alternative is to start with +1 to all, and then have class/background/whatever give you a +2 to two stats (as in 4e) or +2 to one and +1 to another (as in 5e). I think it'll really come down to what "feels" like the "right" amount of points.

...

That wraps up another meandering post, for now.
Check back on August 21st for the next one.

Outlining the Mechanics of TNP (2024)

I felt this would be a useful time to sort of recap the structure of TNP's current designs, such as they are.

The general conceit is that each class is based off of one or two dice, referred to as class dice. Within those designs, each class has two subclasses, but may also have additional methods of character customization (such as roles or domains.) But what does this really mean? Which mechanics are based off of the class dice?

Each class has 3 damage expressions: melee, ranged, and opportunity damage. Each of these will be represented using the class dice for that class, and there may be some variance from one subclass to another within each class.

In addition, reserves, surge value, and your engagement capability are all functions of the maximum value of a class die. Your initiative bonus (and by extension, your maximum HP) is also determined using class dice. Reserves are a resource you use to restore HP, typically outside of combat; surge value determines the minimum amount of HP you regain from spending reserves (under taxing circumstances.) Engagement determines the number of "open" enemies which you can group into a maelstrom, keeping in mind the abstracted positioning which the combat system uses.

It should be noted that in order to balance out the math and general utility of the class dice, 2d4 and 2d6 are used for some of these expressions (damage, reserves, surge value, etc.) in addition to 1 each of the 5 class dice.

Another cornerstone of ths sytem is using class dice as an attack (and damage) bonus. Each of the 5 class dice may all be applied to any given attack, but only one may be used to modify the roll; dice not applied as an attack bonus are not wasted, however, as they can still be used for bonus damage.

That all being said, saving throws and skill checks do not use class dice for their bonuses, instead using d6 pools; this is part of the reason why future designs are going to be pivoting towards using d6 mechanics for other functions (such as attack and damage bonuses.) Also, as you might have guessed from the context above, I'm leaning towards standardizing on something like 10 reserves, and possibly doing something similar for HP.

Characters start at level 0 and progress up to level 5, with two separate progression tracks, basically mapping to your core competencies plus combat mechanics, and to non-combat skills, respectively. The idea generally has been that a campaign would consist of 54 encounters (using a standard deck of cards, with jokers, for randomization) spread across the 6 levels (4/6/8/10/12/14 encounters at the appropriate levels, ideally.)

The "core mechanic" is that of a DC10, sometimes known as TN10 (target number) whereby the player-characters succeed at an attack roll (d20), saving throw (d20), or skill check (d10) by achieving a result of 10 or higher. Most notably, the mechanic of "players always roll" means that the designs are sort of incongruous; monsters do not roll to "hit" (only to deal damage) but rather the players must roll to be "missed." Under certain circumstances, opposed skill checks (rather than vs. a DC10) may be used. Monster/enemy types are planned to consist of minions and swarms (both with varying numbers of hit dice) as well as standard, elite, solo, and "archenemy" villains.

In addition to various additive and "pooled" dice bonuses, disadvantage is used as a penalty, with advantage being used as a bonus for checks (skill checks and initiative checks, only) and "mastery" being used in lieu of rerolls; this mechanic allows a roll of 1 on any given die to instead be treated as whatever is the highest number on that die. TNP does not use static modifiers (+2, -1, etc.) of any kind in its mechanics.

As you can probably gather, the system has sort of outgrown its simplistic beginnings, in order to provide a broader number of possible classes to play, while maintaining mechanical and mathematical balance between those options. This is why it has become my intention to do some sort of a followup game, which manages to strip things back down and simplify them for ease of use. It has been my intention that the current designs of TNP will be compiled and formalized before the end of this year, but no real new development is taking place on its designs; all new ideas will be part of my future project(s).

...

So, the intended schedule for this "semester" of the blog looks like this:
August: 1st/11th/21st/31st
September-November: 10th/20th/30th
December: 10th, ish (to make up for the missed post from May)

Re-iterating the Designs (2024)

The current designs for attack bonuses focus on the "class dice" with the bonus essentially being a non-stacking "typed" bonus. What this means is that while you might have one of each class dice bonus (and you can roll all of them) you only actually use one of these dice as your attack bonus -- the rest are used as a damage bonus.

The way I've decided to iterate on this idea (for whatever follows after TNP) is to instead use d6s for this bonus; only the highest d6 would be used as the attack bonus, but all of the d6s will be used as a damage bonus. With the designs pivoting towards d4/d8/d12 as the "weapon damage dice," I am also considering using this roll as a bonus to the attack roll, which can be used instead of the d6 bonus. The basic idea would be a stripped down version of the TNP class dice bonuses: the d4 would be added to the attack; the d8 would be added to a miss, and; the d12 would be used in place of the attack roll (and probably crit if both the attack roll and the d12 would 'hit'.)

Now, a while back, I was looking at potentially replacing the d20 mechanic with a 2d6+mod system. The interesting thing with this, is that it essentially required that all of the modifiers be positive, in order for the mechanic to produce suitable ranges under a DC10 paradigm. This sparked a connection in my brain, since the skill mechanic in TNP essentially has "skill rank bonuses" that likewise have to be positive -- but they're a d6 bonus, rather than a flat modifier.

Building off of this idea, and porting this latest d6 mechanic onto it, I got an entirely new idea rolling. Generally skill ranks were capped at 3, but in some cases it might be possible to get it as high as 4 or even 5 (particularly with knowledge skills.) In the ethos of "extra damage dice," TNP was likewise capping at 5d6 or 3d10, both with a maximum of 30 damage.

What if we devised a system where the skill rank bonus and the attack/damage bonus were keyed off of the same modifier?

For example, a +2 DEX attribute would let you roll 2d6 and keep the highest, as a bonus to your skill checks (1d10) using that attribute. However, a Rogue might also get a perk when using suitable weapons/attacks, where they would be granted a d6 'sneak attack' bonus based on their DEX attribute; +2 would grant 2d6, with the highest roll being added to the attack roll, and both dice being added to the damage. Barbarians could do something similar with their STR attribute while raging, as another example.

I quite like how this design ethos is shaping up. The one misgiving I have is whether weapon damage dice are a meaningful enough design space, or whether the whole thing could fire off of d6 and d20 alone; would we even need/want to keep d10 for skill checks?

I also think by breaking out of the "class dice" paradigm, it allows this kind of a system to be a lot slicker, more unified, and potentially run a lot faster. I think it would benefit from standardizing on something like 10 reserves for each class, and possibly even 10 HP per character (if enemy damage is scaled back accordingly) -- rather than necessitating that these things be extrapolated off of class dice, or a constitution score. This also allows for the possibility of unifying under d6 as being the bonus die for all rolls (attacks, saves, checks, initiative, and damage) rather than having a mix of d6, d10, and class dice, as in the current ethos; this seems like a meaningful quality-of-life improvement, especially if this can all be neatly tied back into attributes.

---

Time for summer break! This blog should return by the start of August, or possibly sooner (as mentioned in the previous post.)

Collaborative Storytelling?

I don't know who needs to hear this, but I have some bad news for you:
D&D is not a collaborative storytelling game.

At its roots, the mechanics of D&D are that of a wargame, in most respects; the more I watch of The Players Aid, the more convinced I am of this. What this means is that it comes from an ethos of there being some amount of balance between the opposing sides, but that ultimately there are winners and there are losers. This is something which is sorted out by the rules of combat and the rolls of the dice. To wit, whether or not your character lives or dies at the end of a combat has nothing to do with what is "narratively" or "thematically" appropriate; the sport of D&D combat is the only determining factor in your survival.

Now, I've heard of RPGs where characters only die when they "want" to (such as when it is narratively appropriate, a meaningful sacrifice is being made, etc.) But I don't even need to go that far; I can point to something as simple and mechanically D&D-like as Knights of the Old Republic to give an example of the PCs basically never dying. One could similarly point to the Mass Effect franchise as an example of party members only dying when it is narratively "earned."

D&D doesn't do this at all. And I'm not even necessarily saying that it should. What I am saying is that unless a system mechanically supports character death as being narratively driven... it won't be. So, if you're expecting D&D to be a game where you build grand narratives with your party members, then at best you're likely going to have to fudge things in order to make it so.

I guess this is all to say that, you can reduce the lethality of a D&D-like game, in order to improve the longevity and consistency of a party, so that collaborative storytelling can take root... but you do so at the risk of losing any sense of stakes, or at least create the necessity of coming up with better, more meaningful stakes than just "live or die [and respawn with Jimmmmm, the Fighter, at the next town.]"

I also think that in pursuit of accessibility and simplicity, D&D fails at being a sport -- and collaborative storytelling suffers as a consequence of that. When combats seem abritrary and unfair, death seems cheap and meaningless (and don't get me started on traps). I really think in a lot of ways, that D&D has lost its direction, because it has no identity; it can't decide what it does or does not want to be, because it wants to be everything to everyone -- and fails.

And this is why I've always felt that the focus on mechanics is so important, when it comes to TNP. The combat in the game may feel more like a pro-wrestling match than an actual fight, or even a team sport -- but it should ultimately be challenging and fun, and punctuate some of the drama. The DM shouldn't have to feel like they need to pull punches in a fight, for the sake of the narrative (nor should they feel like they need to punish in-character or IRL actions with things that happen in combat.) This is why I think that the idea of a "collaborative storytelling" RPG is sort of... aspirational? Because the mechanics just have to work, if you want to have any of that other stuff just work, too.

I've never looked at systems that are purely narrative and really felt like I was playing a "game" when I did it; if anything, it felt like a "choose your own adventure" where you inevitably have very bad things happen to you (with little or no agency over them) because that's what's deemed to be "dramatic" or "interesting" or what drives the story forward: failures, shortcomings, debts, etc. It always feels weird, and unheroic. And frankly, I come to TTRPGs from the Diablo 2 paradigm, of basically being a huge badass; playing as a shitfarming peasant just isn't want motivates me, in the RPG space -- never has, and possibly never will.

--- 

Anyway, I guess that's a topic that's been on my mind, as I play through my 5e campaigns, in what clearly is the twilight of this edition. I hope some of you are at least able to gain something from my occasional rambling post, such as this one.

Next post should be up sometime after the 25th but before the end of June; I may do one post near the end of July as well, but we'll see.

Filling in the Grid: Roster Construction (2024)

A topic that came up in the TNP Discord recently (piggybacking off of the last blog post) was how to determine the roster construction in an RPG. In my previous designs, there were effectively 6 "classes," built off of a chassis of picking whether you were a (martial) warrior or a (spell) caster, crossed with whether you used light, medium, or heavy "armaments" (effectively, armor, in a damage-reduction role.) This mapped pretty closely to the vanilla World of Warcraft classes, but was actually built off of the classes I had sketched out for a presumptive (at the time) Diablo 2 follow-up; Mage, Warlock, and Cleric being the light, medium, and heavy casters (respectively) with Rogue, Hunter(? I think?), and Knight being the warrior classes.

4th Edition D&D started off with a similar ethos to where TNP is now, so let me explain that a bit. 4e was essentially trying to take the pre-existing D&D classes, and map them onto what I refer to as "the intersection of a role and a power source." So for example, Clerics (being a holy healing class, generally) were given the 'Leader' role and the 'Divine' power source.

(As I've probably said before, power sources didn't matter much, until you get into bolting specific feat perks onto your powers; generally power sources informed what your default trained skill would be, as well as your class skills -- this being more or less what got carried over to TNP, mechanically.)

So, with the first PHB, 4e introduced 3 power sources: martial, arcane, and divine. Since the book contained 8 classes, the intention was to (more or less) have 2 classes for each of the 4 roles; famously, this didn't work out because the "martial controller" was nowhere to be found in the designs (until the Hunter subclass, in Essentials.) But the formula for how to "fill in the grid" in 4e was already taking shape; PHB2 added the Avenger (striker) and Invoker (controller) classes to fill out the divine power source, which already included the Cleric (leader) and the Paladin (defender) from the first PHB.

The 2nd PHB also codified Druid away from being a "divine" spellcaster, making the 'Primal' power source its own thing, for really the first time in D&D. The design was kind of kludgy (owed mostly to the fact that Druid is kind of a hybrid, "do everything" class insofar as it's roots in 3.x editions of D&D) so pinning Druid down into the controller role felt sort of forced; to wit, the Essentials and post-Essentials versions of the Druid took the class into completely different directions and roles.

TNP essentially came at its roster construction from the same place as 4e: taking what came before it, and trying to fit it into a defined framework -- namely, class dice. With the earliest iterations of TNP, every class was based off of a single die (either d4, d6, d8, d10, or d12) meaning that a "slate" necessarily needed to have at least 5 classes (whereas every power source in 4e ostensibly should aim to have 4 classes, one for each role.) TNP pretty quickly expanded from one slate into two, and as soon as the 2nd slate was finalized, it began spilling into a 3rd. This is how we got to the current roster of 15 classes.

With the decision to implement a 2nd class die (instead of having just one, for every class) TNP would have had to either expand to a 4th slate, or contract down to just two slates -- in order to keep the class die utilization "balanced." Instead, one slate was kept as single-die classes, while the other two were used to make up all of the 10 combinations of class dice. Similar to 4e trying to fit Druid into a single role within the Primal power source, TNP ended up with "class categories" to try and fit classes into a 'role' within their slate -- which would then make for mechanics/progression that could be mimicked on classes within the same category, on other slates. For what it's worth, I think this works very well on the 'Skill Expert' and 'Jack of All Trades' categories, but is a little shakier for the others.

So why do I bring this up?
Well, it's beginning to seem more and more likely/obvious that there will be an "after TNP" game, in my design future. That said, I think it is worthwhile to ponder, what sort of constraints or framework should be used when deciding what classes to include or exclude from the designs.

TNP has 15 classes, and with subclass mechanics taken into consideration, it tries really hard to at least cover the design space of (if not necessarily faithfully reproduce or "pay homage" to) the 40-odd classes/subclasses presented across the span of 4th Edition (the Psionic classes being the notable absence, in TNP.) Compare that to 5th Edition, where they've started with 12 classes, and more or less just built onto those (adding the Artificer and Blood Hunter, later on) mostly with things that are recognizably prestige classes from 3.5, or (arguably, such as the sprinkling in of Warlord mechanics onto the Fighter class) inspired by 4e.

You can even go back to something as seminal as Final Fantasy 1, to get a sense that 6 classes is kind of the bare minimum; compare that with the "core 4" in D&D of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and the 5e version of "essentials" making Bard the de-facto 5th class. (You could make a case that this maps to "one class for each ability score [excluding CON].") TNP, by its nature, necessitates 5 classes being the minimum -- although if the framework is shifted from class dice to anything else, this could quickly change.

The question I'm posing to myself is, how many classes would I want, in a follow-up to TNP?
I definitely (if I haven't made it clear in my last few posts on the subject) want to make something smaller in scale, so a straight reproduction/port of the TNP roster is probably off the table. Based on everything we've gone over in this post, 5 seems like the absolute minimum, with 12 probably being the ceiling; ultimately the framework (or "grid") will likely determine what the right fit is.

...

Scheduling is a bit jumbly lately, but I would expect the next post to be between June 15th-19th, with the 3rd post this month coming after the 24th. Stay tuned!

Deconstructing the Dice: A "Generic" TNP? (2024)

One of the overarching conceits in TNP is class dice, and how they power all of the mechanics, for each and every class. But what if we were to take a more traditional "generic" D&D-style approach, particularly to the roles of the dice? This is an idea I've been pondering recently, and I've alluded to the general concept of it in at least one previous post.

Specifically, what I want to focus in on today is weapon dice, and how you might start from the general (particularly 5e-ish) D&D approach, and "TNP-ify" the concept. So lets get down to basics.

Broadly speaking, 5e has very few weapon damage die archetypes, with (usually) one obvious best choice out of the available options. Now, not every character is proficient with every type of weapon, but let's set that aside for now. Broadly, most thrown weapons do 1d6 damage, whereas thrown finesse weapons do 1d4; likewise,  'light' weapons (i.e. suitable for two-weapon fighting) do either 1d4 or 1d6 damage. For all intents and purposes, any other one-handed melee weapons cap out at 1d8; two-handed melee weapons are either 2d6 or 1d12, and polearms (i.e. 'reach' two-handed weapons) are 1d10. The 'simple' versatile weapons are 1d6/1d8, but the 'martial' versatile weapons are 1d8/1d10 (worth mentioning that in 4e, two-handing a versatile weapon simply gave it a +1 damage, rather than a different die.) Most ranged weapons are either 1d6 or 1d8, with the 1d10 option being a heavy crossbow, that really requires feat investments to be worth it, IMO.

What am I getting at with all of this? Well, what if instead of scaling the class dice bonuses back to just 1d4, 1d8, and 1d12, we instead scaled back the weapon dice to 1d4, 1d8, and 1d12? Since d6 and d10 are the de facto "extra damage" mechanic dice in TNP (despite also having class dice bonus mechanics available to them) it seems logical that if you were to "TNP-ify" weapon damage dice, you might exclude d6 and d10, for use with other mechanics.

For example:

1d4: thrown weapons, light weapons

1d8: one-handed melee weapons, ranged weapons

1d12: two-handed melee weapons

So, you're necessarily leaving out some of the more niche weapon properties, but if the idea is to strip things down and abstract them a lot, it makes some sense that this would be the way to go. You could even do something to prop up two-weapon fighting by saying that characters with martial weapon proficiency (or its equivalent) could use 1 light weapon and 1 one-handed weapon to do TWF (1d4/1d8, comparable to the typical 1d6/1d6 loadout of 5e) and have a feat that could bump that to doing TWF with two one-handed weapons (ie. 1d8/1d8, exactly as the 5th Edition feat does.) Another thing is you could keep the 'versatile' property by mixing in the +1 damage mechanic from 4e, and even potentially do something with 2d4 weapons(?)

So what would you do with the d6 and d10? Well, to me, the d6 has always been the go-to "extra damage die" because they are so ubiquitous and also ergonomic; if late-stage 4e was any indication however, the actual go-to was d8, but assumedly that boils down to that game's math. Anyway, I started thinking to myself, does the system really need two extra damage dice, if we're not in a "class dice" paradigm, and any character class can be using any die for their mechanics?

That's when it hit me. 

I'm sure I've said in conversation (when discussing the TNP skill mechanics) that the percentile dice actually make the most sense as a default advantage/disadvantage mechanic. In the new drafts of TNP, when making a skill check (or monster roll, as the DM) you can roll both percentile dice, and the "1s" die is assumed to be the "natural result" whereas the "10s" die is the disadvantage or advantage result (when/if applicable.) So what if we used the percentile dice in this fashion, but applied them as the bonus/penalty to a d20 roll? For example, have the "1s" die be disadvantage, and the "10s" die be advantage; applying this die to a d20 roll, vs. a DC of 10 produces comparable results (within ~5%) of the standard advantage/disadvantage mechanic, with just using a d20 (i.e. roll 2, take the highest/lowest, respectively.)

(The other angle to come at this might be to have the weapon die function as both the damage, and the attack bonus; that way you could potentially free up the d10 for one more weapon die, or switch the roles and have d10 be the "extra damage die" with d6 being the additional weapon die.)

If we're going to do a "generic" TNP (i.e. as a sequel, or follow-up project) and move away from class dice, it makes sense to keep some of the original DNA, by giving each dice these kinds of specific mechanics -- so that every die has a "role" (pardon the pun.) I do think you lose something by shitcanning the 5 class dice bonuses, but sometimes it's a case of addition by subtraction; to be fair, these mechanics have only really existed "in the ether" (something that came into the designs after the relatively-stable 2018 edition) but were meant to be the unique selling feature of TNP, going forward. Whether or not they carry over to a post-2024 TNP is yet to be seen.

I think there's a couple ways to do a proper followup to TNP: 

1) you go more traditional/generic with it, something that's more recognizably "D&D-ish", possibly with full-on ability score mechanics

2) you go back to my previous RPG designs, with (ideally) only two dice forming all of the mechanics, leaning heavily into modifiers, but stripping the classes down to the bare essentials

3) you make an ultra-lite mechanical system, that fires off of d6s only (and maybe a standard deck of 52 cards) that can easily be played on a bus, or out on a camping trip

I haven't settled on what the followup will be, but in the back of my mind I'm always trying to come up with fresh ideas for how to make a new TTRPG tick.

---

Apologies for the delay(s)! If you ever need more updates, remember to check the Discord.
Next post is planned for June 6th; the scheduling pattern may change going forward, but I'll try to keep to the "3x per month" frequency (likely with a makeup post in December.)

Ability Modifiers & Target Numbers (2024)

One of the unique things in TNP is that the system does not use ability scores, or derived ability modifiers. When I was first learning D&D (with 3.5e) I couldn't wrap my head around the way that you got these numbers. As I've kept up with the game over the years, I eventually picked up on how it works... but the game also has slid into more of a "paint by numbers" sort of ethos, as far as ability mods are concerned.

The example I gave in an earlier post lays out this idea pretty succinctly. Essentially, if your attacking stat's modifier is assumed to be +3 and your starting proficiency bonus is +2 (such as in 5e D&D) then you should be able to hit a fairly-baseline AC of 15 about 55% of the time. The same is true if you just ditch the +5 modifier, and roll against a 10 AC. This is the nature of the 'flat math' provided by using d20 mechanics. By keeping the target number as a consistent 10, TNP dispenses with those minor 5%-10% deviations you get from not painting by numbers properly. It also means that enemies will always be an appropriate challenge (assuming damage and HP math is correctly mapped and implemented) but doesn't really allow for that flexibility to gain minor advantages in combat.

For example, with 4e effectively having 4 defenses (AC, Fortitude, Reflex, and Will) some characters could kit themselves out such that they could always target more than one of these, narrowing in on an enemy's weakness in any given battle. There were even feats such as Lightning Rush, which (if memory serves) let your charge attacks target Reflex rather than AC; the issue I take with this is that, by and large, it's "just another +2" by a different name. (As per "monster manual 3" math, AC was typically 2 points higher than the other defenses.)

The problem with ability scores and ability modifiers, is that they have become outdated. Class features do more to determine your character than anything else, and we've outgrown the era where the 6 stats were all you needed to run your character. They also end up pigeonholing which skills you're good at, based on the necessity of cranking up whichever ability you use for combat (or other class features.) In my previous RPG designs, this is why the "attributes" were literally described as just being the numbers that your mechanics and stats derive from; they weren't based on physical or mental prowess, and the combat applications of those numbers were not coupled to your non-combat skills.

Even when it comes to damage, ability modifiers have a similar effect to how they impact the d20; they increase the floor and the ceiling in a linear fashion, but don't actually push bad rolls "off the table" (so to speak.) This is why I preferred a mechanic such as mastery, over just endlessly stacking flat modifiers. But looking back on my older designs, I do find myself having a greater appreciation for some of the upsides of using flat modifiers -- rather than leaving every mechanic up to some interpretation of the dice, as in TNP. However, another issue with the d20 ethos is that a +1 to hit translates to a lot more average damage than a +1 to damage.

The more I consider the possibility of designing another game after TNP, the more things such as this crop up, as examples of where I should figure out a way to "square the circle." TNP doesn't use flat damage modifiers (or attack modifiers) or additional [W] expressions (as 4e does) to beef up damage, so the perceived "elegance" of d20+class dice ends up losing its lustre -- because so many extra things need to be piled on, to make the math work. I feel like the correct dose of flat modifiers could help alleviate some of this, but I'm also sort of honing in on the idea of keeping d6 and d10 as the extra damage dice, and limiting their other uses (at least as far as combat and/or 'class die' applications.) It'll be interesting to see where things go, in the future.

...

Next post should be May 15th, so check back then!