Fifty Days of Design (Beta 4)

Another quick post to announce my latest plans:

10 classes in 50 days!

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

The Road Ahead (Beta 4)

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

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

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

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

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

Compare and Contrast (Beta 4)

One of the things I wanted to do with The Next Project was to get rid of static modifiers, and instead use more dice rolling. I kind of want to limit the straight-up addition of other dice rolls to d20 rolls, but so far there is still some of that in the game.

Using Advantage, Disadvantage, Expertise and "roll and compare" mechanics allows for improving hit chance and crit range, but doing so with dice has a fun, tactile side to it; simply having +1 to hit or "18-20 crit" on your sheet doesn't give you the same kind feel.

I also like Advantage/Disadvantage better (particularly as I have defined it in this game) rather than just bigger and more numbers being added to your roll. The nice thing with the "compare and contrast" mechanics, is that they can be layered over top of Advantage/Disadvantage, without skewing the numbers the way simply adding to the roll would. It also helps to mitigate the downside of Disadvantage, and further minimize the randomness of Advantage.

For example, if you're using "roll and compare" with a d8:

• With Disadvantage, you stand a fairly good chance of matching your d8 roll, assuming you don't roll doubles with the d20s to begin with. So while statistically the Disadvantage will give you a much higher chance of rolling unsuccessfully, that d8 can potentially turn that around
• With Advantage, you gain another safety net against bad rolls, without the swinginess that greatly expanding crit range (by adding dice) would bring into the game.

Trade-offs also work to keep things interesting; even something as simple as Power Attack is more interesting when the penalties and bonuses are subject to a roll of the die, rather than being known, flat numbers. There are limited ranges though, and the math isn't too tough to figure out, for those who want to crunch the numbers and optimize their actions.

Basically, I think it all plays off of that added rush from the "gambling" aspects of it. More dice-rolling means less of the same outcomes over and over, and more randomness -- but it has to be tempered by the design elements, to keep the math within acceptable ranges. This is what makes the process of design long and challenging, but also fun.

Back to Basics (Beta 4)

One of the things I have to continually remind myself of, is that The Next Project is meant to be a distillation of the general D&D playstyle. To this end, it's important to occasionally dial back some of the more grandiose ideas that crop up. I am giving some consideration to doing an "Advanced" version (that would functionally be an expansion of the game) but I think the base game needs to focus on being simple and accessible; the typical newbie probably doesn't need to dive in at the deep end of "great RPGs of the modern era" and thus, I don't think this game needs to fully emulate everything that would entail. To this end, the skill system is going to be kept very freeform, within a simple mechanical framework.

The other thing with coming at it from this angle, is that while it's important to introduce new players to some of the D&D classes that don't quite conform to existing fiction, not every D&D class in the history of the game needs to be represented. In terms of class design, I'm moving away from "filling in the grid." I found with a lot of slots, I was staring at a class name, with no idea of how to represent it mechanically and still make it unique. The other thing is, using Archetypes as a design conceit of the game, you can take class concepts that are relatively minor or don't quite translate to this system, and still have them represented while making them play effectively.

So right now, I am planning on doing 3 slates of classes, with each class having 1-3 archetypes. As currently constituted, each slate will be composed of 1-2 "power sources." Some classes within a slate will lean towards one power source or the other, while some will have an archetype for one power source, and a second archetype for the other power source.

The idea with this is that, if the system is to be monetized at some point, each slate would be its own supplement, that you could build a party out of (similarly to how the Essentials books were laid out, in 4e.) I also have plans for a demo/starter 'party' that would borrow classes from across the slates/supplements, with one archetype for each class; barring major changes, that 'basic' slate would look like this:

• d4: Archer
• d6: Rogue
• d8: Cleric
• d10: Mystic
• d12: Barbarian

With the question of slates figured out, it's just a matter of finishing off the last few classes that need to be written/expanded upon. Then, my attention will turn to developing the DM side of the game.

Casting the Dice (Beta 4)

Occasionally I get people asking me why I've gone with the design that I have for this game, and the answer is usually, "I'm an in-the-box thinker."

Fitting within limitations is a fun thought-experiment, when it comes to design. Figuring out which classes fit with which dice thematically is one thing, but so is fitting together dice mechanics with class abilities. Something I did in preparation for Beta 4 was to work out some math (which I have talked about briefly in other places) pertaining to "roll and compare" mechanics.

What I figured out was a set of unique mechanics for a couple of the class dice, that generally would be applied to "support class"-style abilities.

• d4: When an unsuccessful d20 roll is made, roll this class die; if the d20 result does not exceed the d4 result, treat the roll as a critical success.
• d8:  When an unsuccessful d20 roll is made, roll this class die; if the d20 result equals the d8 result, treat the roll as a critical success. Otherwise, combine the rolls together.
• d12: When a d20 roll is made, roll this class die and use either result; if the d20 result equals the d12 result, treat the roll as a critical success.

Effectively what each of these mechanics do, is to turn rolls that would normally "miss" into successes or critical successes; mostly they do not turn successes into critical successes.

Now, while you can use other dice to produce similar outcomes, my experimentation found that d6 generally ended up working as either "same as the d4 but stronger" or "same as the d8, but clunkier." The same held true of the d10, when compared to the d8 or d12. This sort of works out ok, because generally the intent was to use d6 and d10 as damage-stacking classes, rather than support classes; this math just serves to outline how that kind of "ergonomic" thinking actual dovetails logically into the mechanics (i.e. every set of polyhedral dice comes with two d10s; every boardgame in history uses one or more d6s, so most households have extras they can dip into.)

Upon this, we can layer the use of class die as an effective cap on the range of results. So, for example, the Monk as a d4 class can roll their class die and make a number of attacks equal to the result; this means they will be doing 1-4 attacks on their turn, which we can modify further (with mechanics like Expertise or Advantage) but still will never exceed that range. The Beta 3 version of the Mystic had a similar mechanic, but using d10s with Disadvantage; this ends up a bit clunkier, and with a higher (if statistically less likely) top range.  Also, the d4 "support" mechanic specifically is a straight increase in crit chance rather than "hit" chance, which makes it distinct from the other support mechanics.

Likewise, d12 as a class die translates to higher HP and more Reserves, thus informing that these classes should generally be inclined towards the middle of the fray, with perhaps fewer options for outright damage mitigation. So, it was decided back in Beta 3 that d12 classes' niche should be in melee, or possibly built around burning those resources (HP or Reserves) to fuel more-powerful effects. A unique thing about the d12 is that it's the only class die that dips into the "hit" range (aside from the d10, which ends up a little weird, being that it can only "hit" on one number.)

With d8, we end up with something that's sort of "middle of the road." It works well as a support class, if we use the class die mechanic introduced above, but it also works well (I think) for a class that is meant to dabble between melee and range (as the d8 Ranger class has done, since the beginnings of The Next Project) but leans more on the "core" dice mechanics. The d8 is interesting in that its range covers most of the "miss" range on the d20, but none of the "hit" range.

So if d10 and d6 are meant to mostly be damage-stacking classes, this gives us two "flavours" for that sort of design space; one that can take a few hits and mix it up in melee, and one that probably can't/shouldn't. The existing Sorcerer (d6) archetype and Paladin (d10) class from previous versions illustrate this the best, I think.

Taken on the whole, the various mechanics paint a roadmap to how any future classes should be built:

• d4: multi-attacking classes / high crit support
• d6: ranged damage-stacking
• d8: "skirmishing" style combatant / good hit support
• d10: melee damage-stacking
• d12: melee combatant / minor hit support

Building upon the foundations established in previous posts, we can fiddle with this a little bit, by letting d4 or d6 classes use 2 class dice for certain things. However, I've found that mixing this sort of "doubling" with "roll and compare" mechanics is a bit clunky; I want to keep those things separated, for the most part.

Classes & Slates (Beta 4)

Towards the tail end of Beta 3, the first two slates of classes were finalized, with two classes for each Class Die. That looked like this:

• d4: Mage, Monk
• d6: Rogue, Trickster
• d8: Ranger, Druid
• d10: Paladin, Mystic
• d12: Warrior, Warlord

Now, each class had at least 2 archetypes. Sometimes archetypes were "Roles" and other times they were subclasses. In some instances, archetypes served to put classes with similar fluff and skillsets together, despite having different mechanics.

The other notable thing is that there was a distinct split between the two slates; the first was mostly fighty-types, and the second was mostly magic-users. So the idea came to me that I should try and have a slate of "martial" and a slate of "magical" (a slate being one of each Class Die.) The problem comes with the fact that in the d12 slot, there were two very decidedly-martial classes, and that shortly after finishing the first 10 classes, I came up with an 11th (the Archer, a d4 class.)

The solution was to try and have more slates:

Monk and Paladin would be the beginnings of the Divine slate.

Druid and Warrior would be put into the Primal slate.

Archer, Rogue, Ranger, and Warlord would just about make a complete Martial slate.

Mage, Trickster, and Mystic would likewise form a strong base for the Arcane slate.

This presents the problem of trying to "fill in the grid."

What does a d12 Arcane class look like?

Should archetypes that are 'mechanically' closest to being their own class, be split off? Or should it be archetypes that better fit a slate thematically, that get moved over (even if this results in 2 or more classes with very similar mechanics?)

Another concern is that abilities were already starting to get borrowed between the first 10 classes, so expanding that out further might just serve to compound that problem.

Instead of focusing on making full slates thematically, it might be better to simply fill slates mechanically -- such that each class die has the same number of character options to choose from.

Stolen from the Apocalypse (Beta 4)

Continuing on the topic of how to group skills, if bonuses are to be doled out based on thematic groupings, then it seems like borrowing the idea of class-specific moves vs. "basic moves" might be a direction to explore.

General rules for using Combat skills might prescribe a Basic Ability and/or Skillset to use when taking a particular Combat action, such as Grappling, for example:

"When you attempt to bodily restrain an opponent, roll FORT"

"When you attempt to escape a grapple, roll AGIL" 

"When you attempt to initiate, reverse, or escape a grapple, roll Athletics" 

Likewise, so-called "Background Skills" could be made into class-specific moves:

Paladin: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Religion, Royalty, or Nobility, roll CHA

Cleric: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Religion, roll INT or WIS

Ranger: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Nature or Geography, roll WIS

Bard: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Geography or History, roll INT or Knowledge

Wizard: When you attempt to recall a piece of lore pertaining to Arcana or History, roll INT 

And so on, in that fashion.
Since we're using d20 math, I've decided to go with the following skill bonuses:

• Trained: roll 2d20 and use the higher result (i.e Advantage)
• Proficient: add 1d6 to the roll
• Expertise: (whether combined with either of the above, or not) treat any 1s rolled as maximum value on the die

Whether you are Trained or Proficient in a skill would be mutually exclusive; in the end, this all works out to give us some values that fall roughly in line with the established baselines, coming out of the Apocalypse. The use of a Proficiency die breaks from the idea of using Class Die + d20 for all of the mechanics, but it makes the math easier to keep consistent.

The ranges established in previous iterations of The Next Project are going to be used, and also follow from the d20 combat math:

• <10: bad
• 10-19: good
• 20+: very good

Most likely, in-combat skill usage will have 'bad' rolls and 'good' rolls just be normal 'miss'  or 'hit' (respectively) rather than have complications; outside of combat, skills can be made more involved. 

The next step is to add a bunch of words to all of these skills/moves.