mcdm
patreon
Playtest Report: Against All Kobolds!
🕑 Added 2023-03-02 17:39:16 +0000 UTCWe ran another playtest last Friday. I don’t think every playtest will automatically cause an after-action report like this, at some point we’ll be testing too often for that, and sometimes we won't be testing anything new, just “what do new players think?”
But this one was interesting! We tested all of the following
- New initiative
- Stamina
- Weapons
- Negotiation Pillar
- Surges
- Kobolds and the Mage
That seems like a lot! But remember, we’re still running simulations of our classes, not the real thing. We don’t have skills yet, we have no idea how progression (i.e. leveling up) works, and we don’t know how to make a character! So, we still don’t know most things, but we’re also not full-time on this game yet so from where I sit it still seems like we’re making crazy good progress.
Against The Kobolds
We were getting a little bored fighting Nothing But Goblins, so James whipped up some Kobolds and we went at it! I think it’s pretty easy for him to mock up new monsters because they’re just ports of the Flee, Mortals! Monsters. He’s not inventing the idea of kobolds, he’s adapting them from FM.
Now, spoilers, everything we were testing is going to take a lot more than one encounter to test. So there’s not going to be any great revelations in this post. Nothing seemed obviously broken but then nothing seemed obviously awesome either. A lot of stuff, you can’t tell if it’s “working” until it’s been tested under a lot of conditions.
Imagine how healing works in whatever RPG you’re playing. It’s probably pretty straightforward 80% of the time, but then there are these specific situations where “how does healing work?” becomes really important. The system really only matters under those conditions.
So you need to test a lot in order to flush out those critical situations. Most of the stuff we’re testing, we know it’ll work under Ideal Conditions, it’s what happens when players start relying on it and trying to push it to its limits that we discover whether a new rule is working.
The Setup
James set up the scenario by describing a mine the local humans were working. They broke through into a cave system and kobolds came pouring out!
So we’re the heroes the town sent to unfuck the situation. Classic. All the encounters we’re testing are very “classic fantasy RPG” stuff because the game has to work under those conditions. If you can’t fight goblins and kobolds in a mine or cave in this game, we’ve done something very wrong.
This was a good setup as will be demonstrated later.
As you can see, OD joined us on his lunch break. That meant we had to cut things a little short once he had to go back to work but it was fun to play with OD and get his impression of the new system.
It wasn’t obvious to him how your stats related to your abilities, but I think that’s really just a problem of how we failed to explain it. Right now, if an attack says “Damage: Reason” and your Reason is “2” then you roll 2 attribute dice and count how many 🗡️ come up. That doesn’t seem particularly crazy to me but when you’re looking at a character sheet with 0 presentation, literally just a google doc full of text for a game you know nothing about, nothing is perfectly obvious.
If there’s an asterisk next to Reason, that means you’re proficient in all tasks that use Reason and you add the Proficiency die.I’m pretty sure the actual final game won’t work that way? It’s gonna be a little harder to get the Proficiency die. It’s probably not going to be “add the Prof Die to everything that uses this stat.” For instance right now the Tactician has proficiency in Might. So any time they do anything that uses Might they add the Proficiency die. Ok, makes sense. But in the real game you’re going to have Weapon Proficiencies and even though “all these weapons use Might” you only get to add the die to the weapons you’re proficient with.
Skills and magic will probably work the same way.
But otherwise, OD was able to parse his Tactician abilities and do dope shit and I have confidence we’ll get better at explaining and presenting the game, especially considering there is Zero Presentation right now!
Initiative
We’re trying a new initiative system and it was fine. It worked. It wasn’t flashy or particularly exciting, but it did what we wanted and I think it’s a good framework to build on.
The new initiative system is pretty simple. Both sides roll Agility (different classes might modify this) and whichever side’s total is highest goes first. Unless one side is surprised, in which case the other side goes first. Which is how I suspect it’ll work in a lot of battles.
Like in this one, we surprised the Kobolds. I think James had us make rolls to see if we could keep quiet? But however it worked it was just placeholder rolls since we don’t even have skills yet, much less Hide/Sneak/Perecption skills/rolls for that stuff. So we surprised them!
When one side acts, they pick a character who hasn’t acted this turn, and that character takes their turn. After that character takes their turn, the other side picks a character who hasn’t acted this turn, and they take their turn.
If one team runs out of “characters who haven’t acted this turn” and the other side still has characters waiting to act, those characters all get to go. Then the turn ends and you start again.
That’s it. Eventually we may have abilities that use the “end of turn” mechanic, but right now it’s just a formality. And we may develop rules for “squads” of enemies, especially when dealing with things like kobolds or goblins where “these goblins are all the same and they all act together” makes sense. And you can imagine rules for the Heroes that let them break these rules in interesting ways. Like the Shadow may have an “I also go now” ability that lets them act WITH another PC.
What this means is; it’s up to us who goes next. Which means every time it’s our turn, right up until there’s only one character left to act, we talk about what we should do.
This may seem like a minor point and it’s not like it produced some life-changing difference in the experience of play compared to other games but, from my point of view (I’m only one player!) it did its job. Every time it was our turn, we talked about what we should do next.
That’s planning and tactics and teamwork. All that from one simple rule. And it seemed to work! It was usually just two players talking about “should I …? Or should you….?” Because it was usually sort of obvious: among who’s left, who should act next? Even when five players could all go, not all five argued that they SHOULD go.
Like for instance, I was playing the Talent. Usually I waited to go until “me acting now” would make a difference and I rarely thought it would. So I wasn’t engaging in the “who should go next” discussion usually. My brain can fry a kobold anytime, doesn't have to be right this second.
Then OD’s tactician wanted to attack a Kobold Discipulus who was standing on a level above us tossing explosives down on us. Well getting up to the second level of this mine was gonna take a little work and probably leave OD exposed once he got up there, so I made a suggestion.
“If I move forward [to get in range] I could use concussive slam to damage that Discipulus and pull it off the edge of the second level, down onto the floor with us. Then OD can attack him!” Also, he took an impact die’s worth of damage when he fell, so that was nice.
This worked! Everyone agreed it was a good idea, and I did it!
This is a very simple example of our initiative system and sure, it COULD result in players not agreeing and arguing and we’ll see how often that happens and whether we need rules to handle it, but my attitude has always been; if the players are arguing over the rules? They’re wasting time; make a ruling and move on.
But if they’re arguing about “what should we do?” They’re playing the game. Let them fight. Within reason!
At the end of my little maneuver, I realized “shit, now I’m up here with the kobolds!” I had used both my maneuver (to get into range) and my action (to attack) which means I really wanted a second maneuver!
Maneuvers
My Talent is very squishy and being up in the front rank was not awesome, and I wanted to run back to the rear. But I had already used my maneuver!
The way this works is; on your turn you get an Action and a Maneuver and you can do them in any order. Most of your abilities require using your action.
But everyone has a bunch of simple things they can do in combat involving positioning. Here’s the current list James wrote up. This does not cover everything you WILL be able to do, just the stuff he came up with that made sense and gave us examples to use in testing;
[Where you see “equal to your Might score” that literally means the number listed after Might. So Might 2 means you can climb two squares for free, and if you want to climb more, roll your might which means rolling 2 attribute dice.]
Maneuvers
Climb: You can climb a number of squares equal to your Might score. If you wish to climb further, make a Might test as part of this maneuver. You can climb one additional square per success up to a maximum of your speed.
Jump: You can climb a number of squares equal to your Might score. If you wish to jump further, make a Might test as part of this maneuver. You can jump one additional square per success up to a maximum of your speed.
Move: Move up to your speed. You can move some of your speed, take an action, then move the rest.
Shift: Shift up to half your speed (rounded down). [Shifting doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks.]
Stand Up: You stand up from prone. You can also move up to half your speed as part of standing up.
Push: You can push an adjacent creature up to a number of squares equal to your Might score. As part of pushing the creature, you can shift up to half your speed, moving in the same direction as the target. You can’t push a creature whose size is greater than yours.
Reload: Reload a crossbow.
Hopefully you can see how the system is shaping up. If you want to do something primarily concerning positioning, either yours or an enemy’s, that’s a maneuver. If you want to attack someone, that’s an action.
Right now we only have generic maneuvers, but you can imagine how some classes could have unique maneuvers! I love the idea that pushing someone is not an action. So you can attack someone AND push them! As long as you were already in position. 😀
Well, I was very much NOT in position. I had used my maneuver to get into range of the Kobold Discipulus and now I was basically in the front rank.
So it was time to test Stamina!
Stamina
We’d all been dancing around the idea of a Second Health Bar or something like it for a few weeks, and I suggested basically combining all our ideas into one thing and testing it. So if this falls apart in testing, that’s on me.
But Stamina is basically a second, independent pool of hit points that you deplete first before taking real damage and lowering your actual hit points. Think “temporary hit points” from 5E except everyone starts every battle with some.
The trick is, you regain ALL your stamina at the end of an encounter. Automatically. I think of it like the Halo shield bar. And it does the same thing.
It encourages you to take risks and put yourself in harm's way up to a point. Because you know; sure I'ma take some hits for this, but I’m going to get all my stamina back at the end of this fight anyway. I might as well use it! As Aimsley Pinwhistle says “no point in dying with your bag of tricks half-full.”
Compare this with actual hit points which do NOT automatically refresh unless…well, actually we don’t know how you recover hit points yet but we expect it’s going to be like this; they recover slowly over time, or can be magically healed quickly at the expense of some long-term resource. And there will probably be milestones where they DO auto-refresh because it’s the end of the adventure, for instance.
We like the idea of a Recovery action, but right now I think we think it gets you some Stamina back based on your Endurance stat. That feels real good to me, because it means that stat now matters in a new and interesting way. We might have some Self Healing like 4E’s Healing Surge, but we really haven’t talked a lot about that. I suspect it would be a Between Combat thing anyway. If you want to recover real damage, i.e. hit points, in combat, you’re gonna need magical healing.
This also helps us understand “how does healing work?” You can have characters like the Tactician who might have a “shout at someone” ability that refreshes some Stamina (“ON YOUR FEET SOLDIER!”) whereas the Conduit or the Censor might have prayers that restore real actual hit points. Then we just gotta figure out how you recover hit points between fights.
Stamina = More Maneuvers
Yeah ok that sounds cool but WHAT IF, right, what IF stamina was ALSO a resource you could SPEND?
Hear me out.
Stamina is not intended to JUST be a temp hp pool, it’s meant to represent your ability to push yourself and keep fighting. Which is one of the things we associate with hit points. But in this system you can also SPEND stamina to take another maneuver. Not another action that’s too useful a thing to earn just by spending stamina (hence why it’s the default result for the crit). Just a maneuver.
I think I started with 6 stamina and 6 hp? And it costs 3 stamina to take another maneuver on your turn. I suggested the Stamina concept, James mathed it out and decided “three stamina to take a second maneuver” was about right and it seemed to work!
Knowing this was how Stamina worked, and seeing that “running up there and telekinetically grabbing that kobold” was going to leave my Squishy Talent in the front rank, I said;
“Could I use my maneuver to run up there, then use my action to grab the kobold, then spend some stamina to get a second maneuver and run my ass back to the rear?”
I asked this because A: I was pretty sure this was how it worked, but James was the GM and he’s the designer who implemented this idea so, best to check with him first but also B: this way the other players would see my thought process, and maybe learn how stamina worked along the way.
James confirmed yes, that is legal, so I did it!
As you can see, being Far Away meant I didn’t get knocked on my ass when the Kobold Warbeast erupted out of the ground.
Explaining it just now took way longer than actually doing it. I ran up, grabbed the kobold with MY MIND, slid him off the ledge he was on, and then I spent 3 stamina to get the hell out of Dodge. Simple. I was now down three Virtual Hit Points, but I was pretty sure that was a worthy trade since it meant I was way safer in the rear.
So, our first test of Stamina as a dual resource worked! But like I said, we knew it would work like that. What we don’t know is; are we overburdening one resource with too much functionality? Do we have the right amount of stamina, does an extra maneuver cost the right amount? What happens when you have someone who can refresh your stamina for you? Do the bad guys all have Stamina? How is it for the GM tracking all that? Do only NAMED enemies have stamina?
Lots more to learn, lots more to test! Some of the things we’re testing are gonna require longer tests with more encounters, so we can see how recovery and healing work.
This might all sound real noodly, and it is. You got successes (🗡️), crits (💥), surges (⚡), hit points, stamina, actions, and maneuvers. That’s a lot! Maybe too much? But this is our Big Tent RPG, it’s designed to model an enormous variety of characters and scenarios and do all that robustly. That means we need a lot of design to grab on to. I think of it as “surface area.”
And it may be we don’t like Stamina as a resource you can spend to get maneuvers, because our game is about battles getting MORE epic as they go, and obviously the longer a battle goes, the less Stamina you’re gonna have.
But I think it’ll work because A: an extra maneuver is probably more useful at the beginning of the battle than the end anyway and B: the stuff you can do with your Class Resource (focus, ferocity, fury…other things beginning with ‘f’) is gonna be way cooler than taking an extra move.
But also I think there’ll be lots of ways to recover stamina during the battle. It’s that kind of resource. Spending and gaining stamina should be common, taking and healing damage should be less common.
Finally, we don’t want to lose that “out of ammunition, fixing bayonets, God Save the King” feeling of desperation, back against the wall gameplay. Being out of stamina, but full of ferocity, should get us that, I think.
“Beaten, broken, outnumbered and outmatched. Forced to rely on cheats and dirty fighting. Situation normal for the Chain of Acheron.”
Weapons
This was also the first test of our new weapon rules. Again, it was fine, I think. Weapons all have properties, you’d recognize most or all of them, and these properties are designed to differentiate between many different weapons.
These properties are all cool! When you see what different weapons can all do, it looks neat. The question is; is it too much? Does everyone remember what their weapons do in the heat of combat?
Here’s what I mocked up…
Overwhelmed is our version of Flanked. According to the rules, you are Overwhelmed when there are three or more enemies adjacent to you. While overwhelmed, adjacent enemies gain +1 impact die on their weapon attacks against you. Impact dice on average add 2.5 success which is the same average as the Proficiency die, but the standard deviation is way higher. The Impact die (a d12) is intended to be the MOST volatile, and so has a Zero Successes facing and a FIVE successes facing and no other die has those.
So on paper it's not a huge deal since the average is just 2.5 but in practice, the fact that it COULD be +5 feels like a big deal, and so getting to roll more impact dice means you feel like you’re doing something epic.
Wounded and Bleeding are both conditions that persist and so they are much more rare than either a crit 💥 or a surge ⚡. But the odds of getting both those symbols are 1:24 which is not THAT far off from getting a crit in a d20 system.
In fact that’s really what I wanted to test with those abilities. I dunno if wounding someone on a 💥 ⚡ is a good idea, I dunno if the Wounded debuff is a good idea, but I liked the idea of SOME abilities firing on a 💥 ⚡, so I thought this was as good a place to test that as any.
You can see me trying to support different archetypes of melee warriors. Like the character who uses Only A Rapier. Okay that sounds cool but what’s the advantage there?
Well a rapier is a light weapon, so if you’re wielding only a rapier you have One Hand Free so it’s harder to overwhelm you (because your weapon is light and you’re not carrying anything else so you can defend against more enemies more easily) AND since it’s light, surges gain you free movement. That feels like a good reward for the player who wants to play a swashbuckling, highly mobile, dueling hero.
A generic Longsword is a Medium weapon and those grant you a little defense, since unlike a dagger or a rapier, it’s heavy enough to block incoming damage and it’s easier to get your sword into position to block incoming damage since it’s not a big heavy War Maul or whatever. And I think there’s some historical precedent there, I did some research on Actual Swordfighting for my novels and they were used as much to block as to attack.
I like it when design ends up mimicking reality but I have zero problem with design that ignores reality in order to satisfy the expectations of fantasy readers and gamers.
Like for instance I wrote up a crossbow’s properties and it included “does not require proficiency” which I did not bother to explain. One team member asked “what does this mean?” and another answered “I think it means you ALWAYS roll the proficiency die even if you’re not trained with it?” And I said “That is exactly what it means!”
Now, that is not great language to express that idea, but it’s a cool idea! And it represents what real crossbows were about. They hit hard and did not require training like a longbow. But, gotta reload them, which takes t i m e.
Weapons also add a flat number of successes to your damage. Previous tests had fake weapon damage built in, but now we had Real Weapon Rules (or a reasonable facsimile thereof) so we stripped all the damage info out of the character sheets and let everyone pick weapons and armor for their characters.
We don’t even have proficiencies yet, we don’t even know how Dual Wielding works, but in spite of this it all seemed to work.
For instance, I could have taken Heavy Armor for my Talent, but I wanted to be highly mobile and so took No Armor and that worked really well for me. Without intending this, it meant I had enough movement to stay in the back, then run all the way up to the front rank and use my action. If I’d taken any armor, I would not have been able to stay safely in the rear AND have enough movement to get into the front rank.
So far it seems to be working, but I don’t know if everyone remembered all their weapon properties? I don’t know if anyone forgot. I just don’t know either way, as I was paying attention to other stuff.
I think it’d all be clearer if we were playing in person with pen-and-paper character sheets. Right now your character lives only in Google Docs and when you just start typing in there, it doesn’t feel like you’re “adding a note” it feels like you’re editing your character class which is a subtle but meaningful difference.
And I don’t even really believe in this weapon design! I think there’s a better version of this same idea, but I couldn’t see it starting from zero, so I did enough work to have something to test, confident that we have smart people who will discover problems and solving those problems will result in the real design.
That’s the process.
We also tested giving everyone something they can do on a surge, since surges are on the Attribute die and could come up anytime. Right now you get to shift 1 square per surge and that seems about right. But, like this other stuff, it’s hard to tell from one test whether that’s the ‘right’ design. If you have abilities or items that use a surge, it’s up to you how you spend them.
We like that “it’s your resource, do what you want with it” design, but that means we need multiple uses for these things and that means the design gets a little more complex. It’s a trade-off.
NEGOTIATION
Hello, this is the debut of the prototype of our Second Design Pillar. Like everything else, it went okay. 😀
The premise here is that there are often times in a Fantasy RPG where negotiating with someone, be they an enemy leader, an enemy lieutenant, a shopkeeper, an inamorata’s parents, the Director of Antiquities at the Royal College of Sorcery, becomes a critical and dramatic moment in the adventure. Either in-combat or out-of-combat.
And a kind of binary, pass-fail system doesn’t seem robust enough for the kinds of outcomes we want to simulate. We want the following range of results;
- Yes.
- Yes, and…
- Yes, but…
- No
- No, but…
- No, and…!
And that means we need something with a little more teeth than a simple pass/fail skill check. Even if not every NPC and not every encounter supports all those potential results.
The basic premise of the current system is thuslywise;
Anyone you’d be likely to negotiate with (most NPCs, enemy leaders and lieutenants, but NOT other PCs, that’s verboten) has an Attitude, like Hostile, Suspicious (of YOU), Neutral, Friendly, Allied etc… We don’t know how granular this particular thermometer is, but you get the idea.
And if you want to negotiate with them to adjust their attitude, you need to A: make an argument and B: roll. Actual adventures will tell you what these attitudes mean for this NPC. Like “If you get Queen Bargnot to Neutral, she’ll call off her gobbos. If you get her to Friendly she’ll loan you a unit of Goblin Light Infantry. If you get her to Allied she’ll loan you her elite Goblin Sappers.”
Now, “making an argument” doesn’t mean you have to roleplay the whole thing in character. You CAN do that but you can also just…describe to the GM how you’re trying to convince this person.
What you CAN’T do is just roll. Sorry, you need to actually think about A: what does this person want and B: how can I use that to convince them to help us? This is always how I’ve run negotiations. Some players, especially those coming from video games with dialog trees where there is always a Best Answer and you just gotta figure out which button to push, don’t like this. They get frustrated that they actually have to think about this stuff because yeah, you might have a dumb idea. That should be less likely to move the needle than a good idea.
A lot of new players who haven’t experienced this before get angry that “do what we say or we’ll kill you!” isn’t a good way to get someone to trust you. My rule is; you can’t use the dice to avoid playing the game. If you want Queen Bargnot to stand down, and maybe help, you need to figure out what she wants, and then formulate an argument.
Now “figuring out what this NPC wants” is a big deal! If you’ve read The Siege of Castle Rend in Strongholds & Followers you saw that every major NPC has a “motivation” section describing what they actually want. Specifically, what is motivating them to do the things they’re doing?
We added a bunch of sample dialog the GM can either use at the table, or just read to get a feel of how this person talks. Between just those two features, not anything like a system, we saw a LOT of players and GMs who were stoked because the players actually negotiated with Bonebreaker Dorokor! And each negotiation was unique! It was super cool reading players’ after-action reports of that adventure, mostly because of the ways the negotiation went (or didn’t go!).
Our goal is just to give those ideas some teeth. With the right system, you’d get bonuses for stuff like “do you speak this person’s native language? How well?” People are pretty impressed if you can negotiate with them in their own tongue, and you’re less likely to be misunderstood. It’s ALSO much easier to figure out “what do these kobolds want?” If you can understand them while eavesdropping, or just understand what they’re saying to each other in combat.
If all this works, suddenly there’s a reason to speak different languages, and even support for different levels of fluency!
After we’d pounded on these kobolds for a couple of rounds and thinned their numbers quite dramatically, a Special Kobold came out and waved a white flag. They want to take us to their Fleet Captain! It was time to negotiate!
Well, in point of fact, I think the battle was basically over already. James was advancing the plot and skipping a bunch of stuff because we had to wrap it up and he wanted to try Negotiation.
Once your enemy is surrendering the time for negotiation is usually past. But we knew there were a BUNCH of kobolds back in that warren so the idea was we were negotiating now to avoid fighting the rest of their century.
I jumped at this! “Well, my Talent watched the Original Star Trek episode Devil In The Dark and so suggests the humans and kobolds could work together.” The humans will work the mine and share the proceeds, in either cash or forged weapons, and the kobolds will help defend the mine and their warren.”
This seems like a reasonable offer which means it’s an Appeal To Logic. 😀
Along with an Attitude, each NPC has three negotiation defenses. Three ways they can be convinced. Logos, Ethos, and Pathos.
Logos is an Appeal to Reason (i.e. Logic) like my offer to the Kobold Centurion.
Ethos is an Appeal to Ethics. I.e. “this is the right thing to do.”
Pathos is an Appeal to Emotion. Basically making someone feel bad. Or really, feel whatever emotion you need them to feel. Guilt, love, anger. Whatever. Making an enemy lieutenant angry at the villain they’re working for is just as effective as convincing them what they’re doing is illogical.
Now, two things should be obvious. A: it should be clear how each of these work and you probably already have ideas about how you might use them but also B: there’s a lot of overlap between these! Often, the right thing to do IS the logical thing to do! Well, that’s a feature, it’s by design. We want the system to be flexible and it’s a good thing if you can come up with an argument and see maybe two different ways it could be used. Because then you get to pick your best stat (or, more likely, your skill).
My Talent had the idea but Hannah’s Mage actually speaks Kobold, so I beamed my idea into her brain and let her do the negotiating.
In kobold, she made a peace offering and it included not only a reason to stop fighting, but a way forward that could be profitable for their century. It’s always important, in a fight, to give your opponent a way to cease hostilities without losing face. Sun Tzu called it “building a golden bridge for your opponent to retreat across.” This is the rare instance of me quoting Sun Tzu rather than von Clausewitz. 😀
So it was time for a roll! Reason is used against Logos, Insight (formerly Intuition) is used against Ethos, and Presence helps you manipulate your opponent’s emotions, which is Pathos,
- Reason vs Logos
- Insight vs Ethos
- Presence vs Pathos
I feel like this is both straightforward and powerful. But it’ll take a lot more than this one test to determine that. This is the recurring theme of this update. One test can prove something broken, but it can’t prove something balanced. That takes many testings.
Anyway, Hannah rolled well, and we got a deal! Yay!
This was pretty good, not because I think it made a huge difference in the encounter (it DID save us fighting several more encounters full of kobolds) but because the system seemed to make sense to all the players, even those who had never heard this idea before and weren’t negotiating.
To me, the great success of this moment was that it really very closely simulated a lot of the fiction that inspires our fantasy gaming in the first place. It's actually pretty rare in the movies and TV shows and comics and novels that we read and watch that both sides just fight to the death. Usually the heroes giving their enemies a chance to stand down and negotiate is what makes them heroes. It's what separates them from the villains.
Of course, If this isn't your group's style, there's no requirement to use these rules. We could have just kept fighting the kobolds no problem. Or even just accepted their surrender and dictated terms like in any other campaign.
But the fact that we had the tools to not only give them an out, so we didn't have to keep fighting, but also "end the episode" like that meant I felt a lot more like Captain Kirk or Captain Picard than I normally do playing fantasy RPGs.
Kobolds & The Mage
Lastly, this was the first test of our Kobolds. They seemed to do their thing. They are intended to be easier to kill than Goblins, but much more organized and coordinated and therefore not something you can ignore. That all seemed to work as expected.
After much discussion about “what is magic in this world?” And “what is the fantasy of playing a Wizard” we came up with the idea that magic is powerful, it breaks the rules, but it is unpredictable. Now, that’s just one fantasy of being a Wizard, we may end up with more than one way to be “someone who casts spells.” That’s fine!
But armed with this specific archetype, Hannah came up with a mechanic that included both spells and a Side Effect Chart. Now, this is not my design and I was not playing the Mage so I dunno how much fun it was to play? But it seemed cool! Hannah managed to ‘encourage’ all the kobolds forward into our choke point by lighting a 10’ square of the mine on fire.
This had the Unintended Side Effect of causing her to levitate for a round. Mages roll the Cosmic Die and look the result up on the Side Effects chart. The idea is; the more you do stuff the less chance of a side effect. But also your most powerful stuff is probably whatever you just learned. So at 1st level, you got some spells you just learned, very risky. But eventually they become rote and there’s no risk. But by then you’ll have leveled up and now you know new more powerful spells! But you’ve never cast them before so there’s a good chance of a side-effect. Literally a learning curve!
Now, is this how mages work in this game? We have no idea! But it seemed cool? Might require dialing in the side effects, we don’t want it to feel like Wild Magic or a Wand of Wonder where suddenly your team’s Tactician turns into a potted plant. (although…) We think it’ll be mostly stuff related to the spell itself—ways in which the spell works but differently than intended or at more of a cost. Unpredictability balancing power.
We probably have at least two different ideas of how spellcasters might work, and that’s separate from the Talent which has its own system of Strain and Clarity.
That’s about it! We tested a lot of new shit! None of it seemed obviously broken but it’s gonna be a LOT of testing before we know how exactly to dial all these things in.
Next playtest? No idea! Flee, Mortals might mean we don’t do a test this week, that’s fine.
In the meantime, I ain’t got to make one of these cool classes yet, so I’m going to mock up a version of the MCDM Barbarian, aka The Fury. Stay tuned!
This report written while listening to Soft Music To Do Nothing To II by Red Means Recording.
Comments
Edward Welsh
Love this negotiation system. I never even realised before that in d&d, one stat (Charisma) basically has a monopoly on the entire Interaction pillar. Giving each character a chance to shine is a great idea.
Anaximand
A Question about the negotiation system - how does subterfuge / deception fit into this? It feels like it should be a bit different depending on if you're sincere or not
JJGYET
My only thoughts: That becomes a very long "Push". Of course, this is fantasy, so that fantasy (I see a lot in anime) moment where you shove someone back and they slide across the terrain for a while but no other penalty is totally feasible. Of course, I am also assuming standard 5ft squares. That said my mind when picturing this I can see it being tied to your movement in someway: You can "Push" one square back, but if you want to go farther than that you have that " you can shift up to half your speed, moving in the same direction as the target" section of the action. You can then push as far as you move on a shift + plus an extra square. So you move you and the target up to a number of squares equal to your shift distance, and then (optionally) you can move them an extra square back thus leaving an empty space between the pair of you. Think of it like some form of (American) football tackle: Pushing them back and then a little further after the movement as the momentum (aided by you extending your arms to "push") keeps them going back a bit. Just my thoughts on all that.
gm_naahz
for health as a resource check out Numenera, for different ways to pass/fail in a non-binary way check out the SWRPG by FFG->edge publishers or the generic version of the same system GENESYS
Kyle Dresser
Really excited about the possibilities that this type of high-mobility, destructible environment heroic combat system might create. One thing that could be really cool is to move in the direction of not just a monster fighting, but a monster hunting game with survival and exploration mechanics. Since the combat will be more heroic/cinematic, you could make the non-combat parts of the game like OSR resource management, ala Shadowdark. Item slots. Torches that go out at inconvenient random times. Needing to consume rations with a long rest to recover hit points, and maybe even recovering actual hit points at a slow rate (1-3) per night’s sleep with a meal and heal stamina points at the same rate, but per hour or short rest, rather than per night. My favorite concept with OSR games is less about the swingy combat, and more about the verisimilitude that limited inventory and resource management provides. It makes my heroes feel less like video game protagonists, and more like real people. Throw in some tracking, research, hunting, and quarry-chasing mechanics, and you could have something REALLY unique and different. I’ve never heard of an RPG with a focus on hunting & tracking or even an RPG with both heroic/cinematic combat AND OSR survival mechanics used together.
BasicExp
I very much like the idea of using a health pool as a resource, especially as a means of creating parity in resources between martial and non-martial characters. I also like it for push-forward game design. The idea that you can spend health to make an encounter: a) shorter b) cooler, trends combat in a preferable direction. Having the pool refill allows players to always do something interesting while removing the dull anxiety of "what if I need it later?". Players can gravitate to the simple calculous of "spend stamina, then use heavy hitting, scarce skills" for common encounters, making resource management easier and intuitive for games/sessions designed around multiple encounters between full recoveries.
Joaquin Sanchez
I love the STAMINA feature... it makes combat (as well as other situations, I guess) more ... tactical (tricky part is avoiding it to get more complex). But in general I like the idea a lot (for those of us that like managing resources in our RPGs) STAMINA could even be useful for say.. activating a PARRY to avoid damage in exchange of tiring yourself. I think this has a lot of potential... About the NEGOTIATION system, I agree that it would be beneficial of straying away from the binary checks. I didn't get how the check between Reason vs Logos worked (was that a simple skill check, opposed check?). Intriguing the way they decided to segment the way of influencing a NPC through LOGOS, ETHOS and PATHOS ... agreed that in some cases they could overlap. Would love to hear more examples of each... Overall... great progress! kudos!
Gavin
Having read through most of this, I'd just like to say that I'm really glad to hear basic Unfuckery should still be a supported scenario style
Ron Griffis
The Stamina/HP mechanic looks great, especially spending stamina for special actions. Very cool idea. It is reminiscent of the 80’s RPG DragonQuest by SPI, which used Fatigue/Endurance. It was a great mechanic back then, worked very well. Fatigue also played into DQ’s exhaustion mechanic and into spell casting – spells cost Fatigue to cast, which limited casting instead of spell slots, and also caused casters to make tactical combat choices. I love what y’all are creating, can’t wait to see more!
Dundough Breadbox
Glad to see Negotiation having three legs more for standing than its resignation to fluff in most other systems. Double plus on Stamina's trade-off mechanics.
Perran Fletcher
I like the ideas of the negotiation mechanics; though I’m most interested into how to view someone with a high Logos score? Or more, how using Logos as a defence, do you represent these archetypes? The Demagogue (not interested in logic, so difficult to persuade with it), The Lawyer (logical, but skilled in arguing, so difficult to persuade) The Interlocutor (someone who is not uncritical, but is willing to listen to arguments. Medium-easy difficulty as long as the players have good arguments, but would be hard to persuade with a bad one) The Layman (someone who is least motivated by logic, but is still amenable to it, so medium-ish to persuade with Reason) (Apologies if anyone finds the names inflammatory, consider it Greyboxing) So does a high Logos mean you are more resistant to reason, like the Demagogue or the Lawyer, even if the players have a good or well made arguments? Likewise, does that mean a credulous and honest individual should have a low Logos? What happens when the players make a bad-faith or poorly reasoned Reason persuasion? How would the Interlocutor’s Logos score account for both good arguments and bad arguments from the players? (or is this where the Advantage/Disadvantage space in this system comes in?) Or maybe I’m just confused. Any way, like pretty much everything I’m seeing here! Might write something on the weapons also, but I know that’s ultra first drat atm so don’t want to get too anally retentive, especially since this is explicitly cinematic>simulationist
MCDM Productions
Yeah we also don't like wild magic. That's what I meant when I said the results aren't things like turning an ally into a potted plant. "Side Effect" does not mean "wacky hijinks."
MCDM Productions
Oh ok, I'm glad we got that sorted out. :D
Holly
I really like the ideas about negotiation so far! One thing my players love when I run Vampire is that NPC interaction is so much more central to the game. Social skills are spread out across multiple stats, so no PC is completely inept and different ones can be better at taking different angles--and that's before you take into account all the abilities you can use to put a finger on the scales. In contrast, as a player in D&D socializing is my LEAST favorite part of the game, because in every party I've been in it boils down to "the bard/sorcerer/etc does 100% of the talking and everyone else sits on their phones, then gets mad if the bard/sorcerer/etc rolled poorly, because why did we waste 10 minutes if we were just going to fight this NPC anyway." But the mechanics you've mentioned have a lot of potential to a) allow every class to meaningfully contribute to social time and b) change the stakes from just "either you completely win this person over or you completely shit the bed." Which I think is not how it works RAW but is how it's gone in every game I've played in. I also hope (though I'm sure this is far away) that, similar to Vampire, there will be PC abilities that can influence social rolls that are actually reasonable to use during a negotiation. (Extreme side-eye at 5e's constant use of "On a successful save the creature knows you used magic and becomes hostile.") Not that PCs should constantly be resorting to mind control, but it's nice especially for new players who are less comfortable with RP to have something concrete on their sheet that they can contribute. (However, I have to say that as someone who plays a Wizard in real life, the Mage ideas here do not excite me. Mostly because it reminds me of Wild Magic and Wild Magic is exhausting to keep track of.)
Wesley
Depends on the genre of fantasy you're aiming for really. If you lean into more of a swords and sorcery Robert E. Howard/Joe Abercrombie area, there's really no such thing as risk free magic. Mastering magic just means maybe you won't fuck it up badly enough that you die. Personally I love that flavor of fantasy, but it's not for everyone.
BasCB
Isn't this where the NPC's attitude comes in though? As well as the actual reasoning having to make sense
Chris Ford
Really like the heroism that Stamina encourages. Fits the genre you're going for so well. Maybe to help differentiate it from classic "HP", it could be thought of more as "Luck". It has always bothered me when thinking of my games cinematically that all damage is from physical (or magical) blows. Like a character is being stabbed/shot with arrows over and over. That is what the D&D mechanic is telling me, but when I picture heroic fantasy in my head... when goblins are surrounding my character and succeeding in their attacks, they are not actually stabbing my character. They are swinging and either missing or hitting armor but the more they are doing that, EVENTUALLY a killing blow will land. Like a Boromir moment. If Stamina was Luck, then it would make sense you could spend it to do some daring, heroic stuff and then be more vulnerable afterwards. Feels like the tactics + cinematics that you are talking about. Very inspiring!
Brent Clark Palmer
I apologize in advance if I am misunderstanding something. I can see having a character where goofy stuff happens to them every time they cast a spell. But I can't see having an entire class be that way. Surely not everyone who uses magic is subject to luck in that way. Just by virtue of mastering magic, they would have mastered the occurrence of goofy side effects as well. Thanks for reading. I've never met personally a person playing a magic user who wants to be a bungler or a bumbler. Most think of themselves like a sniper or assassin.
Graham Schofield
I like the stamina idea. It has been a thing I have been trying to model in 5e by allowing PCs to gain exhaustion to get back uses of their abilities, and simultaneously spend hit dice to negate exhaustion (2-1 level of exhastion in the moment, or 1-1 level during a rest). I like increasing decisions using a shared resource rather than tracking different usages for different abilities. (i.e. my level 5 goliath monk has ki abilties plus three different things that are tracked based on proficiency bonus, why can't I just use some ki points to goaliath tank more if I want? I also really like support for levels of fluency moving away from a binary 'hey does anyone speak infernal? No? cool this clue/secret/message is just useless to you. Instead being able to say 'you only grok a couple of words like 'light, eat, and war'.
Jerry Hamilton
Man. I love the way you guys think.
Bicarb
The 2handed weapon overwhelmed w/2 instead of 3 really grabbed something exciting in me as a GM. too often the difference between 1 & 2 handed weapon users is just a mindless die size jump where bigger is always better. yes/no __ was missing one maybe two conditions though *No BECAUSE... Sometimes a player wants to use an argument with NPCs that just doesn't work. You got hired to clear out the old haunted lumber camp so the town could rebuild the bridge after that flood... of course no the merchant can't special order you more holy water from the city if you wait & he's annoyed with you because he chipped in to pay some adventurers to do that. There should be a real cost for not paying attention & using the GM to remind you of these kinds of things while working out the best answer in a dialog tree being built in the process of doing so. *Yes BECAUSE... Some kind of compel type tool for the toolbox. If the mechanics are going to provide players a way to basically force an NPC with dice there should be a chance of "yes bob you will show up to the negotiations in the church unarmed wearing street clothes BECAUSE Alice is a freaking paladin & would never let you defile a church like that" or "Yes Cindy you will investigate this matter BECAUSE of the [treaty of hypothetical] with your boss lord so&so"
Peter Newton
I really like reading these updates - thanks! The stamina system feels like it both makes sense for new players and could add that additional layer of strategy for those who are seasoned vets of the game/TTRPGs. I also really like the idea of magic becoming less risky as it becomes part and parcel of your character - it feels like it does mean that you can play out the fantasy of the classic wizard in a tower studying world breaking magic who doesn't give a second thought to using a simple magic spell to get a book off a tall shelf in their library. I also like how you put that 'things went ok' with a smiley face after, cos for the most part (as you alluded to in the post), things will hopefully just flow most of the time and let people have fun together rather than worrying about rules - something that is hard to remember as a bunch of TTRPG mechanically minded folks like myself technically pick apart your system before it is finished. Looking forward to reading more!
Mal
Level of fluency is a bad idea.
Josh Rodell
Love the sound of stamina, and the sound of the Reason/Insight/Presence Logos/Ethos/Pathos relationship. It really sounds like the basis of a system that lets everyone play the talking minigame, which is usually not the case at all. I like the intent of a dangerous chaotic magic system, but I'm not sure this implementation is it. Casting a known spell and having one of a list of known other things happen doesn't sell that narrative to me. I feel like I'd want the spell itself to be wrong in some way.
BranuMate
My overarching feeling with all the new things tested is they reflect the fantasy. This is good.
Roman Penna
Very cool update, excited to see how the negotiation system develops!
Richard Miller
Stamina sounds really promising. I think it might make a good way distinguishing extras from featured characters. I think having it refresh after every fight will also encourage players to press on when the 5E mindset often seemed to be "We expended some resources, time for a rest." Negotiation seems good too, though I think you may want to consider some bonus beyond "choose which to roll" when the argument appeals to two or more criteria. Clever players will already shaping an argument that plays to their strengths--maybe a bonus die (or two?) for a two or three pronged argument. I'm skeptical on the magic. Probably my disdain for wild magic coloring that reaction, but there you go. If it's something that comes up rarely--critical failure, maybe. Maybe it could come off surges or crits (or both). That might keep it rare enough to no be tedious or burdensome. An array of positive, neutral, and negative side effects would not feel quite so bad if you also did something awesome. Perhaps multiple tables of side effects--individualized to the spell seems too labor intensive. Maybe peculiar to the type of magic and/or element involved? A page or two worth of tables--might not be too onerous if it only comes up 1-in-24.
Dion Spyro
Obsessed with the Stamina system! Flexible and risky
Matthew Donley
Love reading these updates. What really resonated with me were interleaving actions and the stamina system. I play a board game called Vagrantsong where there are interleaving actions and our group (4 people) constantly talk about strategy at the top of the round and throughout. In the game itself you’re facing off only one enemy so positioning of the enemy keeps changing, but I can see how this can be successful in an RPG. As for stamina, I think about my experience with the Avatar Last Air Bender RPG. Players manage their Fatigue. One category of actions (you choose a category vs a specific action) is evade and maneuver. When you do this, you regain Fatigue *and* do something cool like escape the scene, change the environment, etc. I’m excited to see what y’all come up with on your own system.
MCDM Productions
Thanks for the encouraging words. :D I think if this system works, it'll work because it's more of a framework than a ridid set of rules. It's just there to give the players something to grab onto. Really, the important part is; you need to actually think about "what does this person want?" and "how can we both come out of this looking like winners?" If you can get your head in that space, the rest is commentary.
MCDM Productions
I'm confident we'll figure something out.
Timothy Baim
i really love hearing about how the tests went! I found the negotiation pillar ideas particularly engaging, and i thought logos ethos and pathos were particularly interesting! I feel like alot of times players have a good idea of how they want to achieve something in conversation, but lack the words to give it form, both in and out of character, and these concepts seem alot more engaging than a simple coercion check! Keep up the great work guys!
Nicholas Nyberg
God I hope you guys can secure a European distribution partner or some sort when this game goes to crowdfunding, cause if it continues in this direction I’d be very interested in backing it! Keep up the good work!
MCDM Productions
Yeah I'm not sure what the downside would be of using this in 5e? I'm sure there is one, but I bet it could be designed around.
MCDM Productions
Well it's not going anywhere! Take your time. :D
George I Lemke
Great post!!! So long though... I could only skim it. I will need to read it carefully later tonight. Thanks!
Atlas Burr
Loving that initiative system, I am going to try it with my group. During combat some of my players take their turn then zone out. Player remaining engaged while there is combat going on one things I as gm struggle with.
Harry Bond
I like the Ethos/Pathos/Logos split. I can easily see you could have a scenario where you apply a massive debuff to one approach and a buff to another - trying to convince a violent mob that the priest is evil wouldn't be a good time for Logos, a great time for Pathos and neutral for Ethos.
Zuezazon
To your last point: It makes sense to me to have Logos/Ethos/Pathos. It's basically like psychological armour. In the same way that being great at punching faces in, doesn't make me better at taking punches. You can have an Insightful priest who is still swayed by appeals to ethics. Or a high Presence bard who who can't help but be moved by emotion.
Alex Walhout
I like the concept of stamina, but as pointed out, it really depends on how healing is implemented. For instance, 5e D&D basically already has the idea of Stamina depending on playstyle. If your players take a long rest in between each encounter (which other than in dungeons seems pretty common) then you recharge your health (Stamina) at the end of each battle anyway. But I always felt this wasn't very fun, I like the idea of health not being such a come-and-go resource. I like the idea that with hp AND Stamina, you have more of a risk/reward system, but you may feel the consequences for a long time -- depending on how healing ultimately works. I also like maneuvers. Rather than a simple move, you can do something more with it that is tactical, and incorporating Stamina just feels good in this example. The weapon mechanics seem a bit complicated to me, I'm looking forward to seeing further examples of how it evolves. I like something mechanical with Negotiation that's more than yes/no, I like the idea of a GM being allowed by the mechanics to let players succeed, but add in a caveat. However, I don't see much grammatical distinction between the and/but options. Is 'but' a more negative and 'and' a more positive caveat? That's starting to feel like D&D's alignment. "Are you a 'Yes, but' or a 'No, and'?". I do like enforcing some sort of logic to accomplish a Negotiation, rather than just rolling and ruling on the size of a number, but the "attitude levels" of NPCs seem like they're just going to adjust based on the size of a number anyway. Not quite sure how a "Yes, but" is going to get Queen Bargnot from Neutral to Friendly as a mechanic. However, there's also the problem with a system requiring a logical argument for Negotiation: what if my dumb player is playing a really smart character? What if my player's character should absolutely know how to construct the argument, it's just that the player doesn't know how? What if the player is a 9 year old kid who doesn't understand complex negotiation, but they're playing the king apparent? I like the idea of making persuasion or intimidation more than just a dice roll, but the more complicated it gets, the harder it is to use. I think to Burning Wheel's negotiating system -- we've never used it at my table because it's too complicated. I don't like Logos, Ethos, and Pathos. It's a cool idea, but why isn't it just Reason vs Reason, Insight vs Insight, etc. for the sake of keeping it simple. Why do stat blocks have to have different offensive and defensive numbers for each aspect of a character? Why do I need an Agility stat AND a Clumsiness stat? I don't; so why do we need Reason and Logos, etc?
Tristan Arnold
I like your idea of certain effects bypassing the "Stamina Sheild". If HP stays relatively low perhaps critical attacks split half damage to stamina and half to HP.
Tristan Arnold
If you haven't already you might check out their Twitch Vods. I like to put Matt or James on when I'm doing something tedious. They don't only talk about The Yet Untitled Inevitable MCDM RPG but all of it scratches that itch of wanting to consider the design more. At least it does for me!
Scott Davis
I finally caught up on the updates on this new endeavor since right before the whole thing with the license... Like many here, I am excited to see MCDM's take for a Big Tent RPG to provide some contrast and variety to those that were brought in by 5e, but are now seasoned to seek out different experiences. I resonated with not only the portions of the video and post regarding rapid prototyping but also regarding armor, "What assumptions do people bring to the table...anyone who's played any fantasy game or even just seen movies or read books has a shared expectation..." and the emphasis to be had on keeping a through-line for Cinematic & Tactical is very much inline with how I'd like to experience things in my games...and provide that experience to others. "We should not be in the business of trying to talk people out of their fantasy archetypes. In fact we sort of want to meet them." Which is why I wanted to bring up my...concern? regarding class names at this early stage as I believe they do not pass the litmus test for the sentiments I quoted above that have been reinforced across various posts. And the fact that they, in contrast to other things in the reported playtests have not been changed/revised since the first announcement has me worried that they have already calcified in the design. Tactician, Shadow, and Beastheart are ones someone might be able to puzzle out with some familiarity of their respective archetype's prior use of those or similar terms. But I fear some might see strings attached where there might not be any. A Shadow sounds like someone who has given themselves to dark powers in exchange for a trickle of them. For some a Tactician conjures up one who does not enter they fray but prides themselves on knowledge of combat in the historic sense and perhaps oversees the overall effort towards a certain end. More a "Commander" rather than a "Proficient fighter". Which I know some would say "Wouldn't that be a Strategist?" Maybe that only further proves my point that the term is too far away from the archetype people expect. Illrigger, Conduit, Censor, Discipulus, Fury, *Talent*? These could bring out an excited "Oooh, what's that?!" sort of response to prospective players in the right framing...but I think they can also bring out some "Um...can I just be a Paladin please?" without realizing that the archetype is encapsulated in one of those. Because the bridge from "Censor" to that schema in their head is not a strong one. At least not for the common use definition of the word. "So the Censor, what, keeps others from speaking? Do they also make themselves silent? So they are some sort of Rogue/Mage hybrid, focusing on debuffs? Hey, can I make someone cancelled, haha?...." For some, their expectations and weight of prior experiences works against them, and won't realize that "Conduit" and "Talent" are PC classes on first reading, and not their typical use as a item type descriptor and game mechanic name respectively. Lines like "For instance, I could have taken Heavy Armor for my Talent, but I wanted to be highly mobile and so took No Armor and that worked really well for me." Is a perfectly reasonable sentence with both the old usage and this game's use of the term...although re-reading it here it does conjure up the thought that "No Armor" is a class as well. Maybe that will be the Monk stand in... Others lines heard/read as downright confusing with a player's expectations weighted in prior ttrpg experiences. These sort of simple mixups I feel can be and should be avoided for those just delving into the game. Instead, give them things familiar to cling on to and then shift them slowly into the esoteric or more Orden/MCDM elements to provide that unique game flavor. I will admit something: I hadn't ever encountered the word "inamorata" before this post. But because of the prior names consistently being a degree more esoteric, I had went about looking it up immediately to see what classical class name it was supposed to coincide with...just to find out the line is essentially "talk with your significant other's parents"... I recognize the bigger friction at play here. You can't just up and lift/crib all the class names from DnD. Both as a matter of copyright for some of them (I presume) as well as on the virtue of differentiating your game from it, to reinforce that things are going to work differently here in the land of MCDM...But I believe there's a better middle ground to struck that will not only help (very willing) players to migrate to your system but re-open parts of their minds to new opportunities with those standard archetypes. As for other matters, I fully agree and support Sean Westberg's feedback on Stamina and second their thoughts, having had similar suggestions for its interaction with things like healing as well as its utilization as a matter of focus in casting. Matthew B's comment on Negotiation is how I typically process a given encounter's success in the play by post game I participate in and fully second it as well. It's something I would desire to be able to do on the fly in a table setting for ttrpg if not for my low improvisation skills. I find that I have gotten far too used to having ample time in writing the response that matches one of those response types on the spectrum. Maybe this new system can help me with that.
Tristan Arnold
Every time one of these is released I stop what I'm doing to read it! As excited as I am to eventually run this game I'm enjoying just considering the game design as much if not more. It reminds me of watching old Extra Credits game design videos. The stamina system excited me the most. It supports the tactics and strategy feel of combat well. Evaluating whether I need this as health or I need to actively manipulate combat with it (or in the example you used, am I likely to take more than 3 damage if I don't use it to fall back). Then it adds the question of 'Do I use it now, or will I need it more later?' with the push-back of 'Sense I get it back after battle if I don't use it then it was a wasted opportunity. I see that it doesn't fit the ramping up during combat idea but I feel its value as a strategic facet to combat out ways and maybe even benefits from its discontinuity. I like that it also adds something for magic items, spells, and class abilities to interact with. Finally, I feel like it gives another slider to character creation and play style. A way to make your character unique. Though I acnolage more things will come to fill this role as classes, skills, and abilities continue (or begin) to develop.
MixUpPixels
Really excited to hear more about your narrative pillar as you explore it
Jacob Montague
Oh yeah, and stamina sounds great! I love the idea of having some expendable hitpoints to take risks with or push yourself with.
Jacob Montague
How exciting! The basic idea for negotiation sounds fantastic. I love the idea of using logos, ethos, or pathos.
Sean Westberg
Yup, Star Wars and Spycraft both used Wounds/Vitality and I prefer that personally to the D&D style massive pool of HP.
Richard Neve
Thanks for another really interesting update. They feel like mini game design lessons as well as looks behind the curtain. All the negotiation stuff looks really cool and easy to implement. If it stays in the game I'm excited to see how asking players to appeal to logic, ethics and morals helps them develop their own character
Sean Westberg
Shields parry blows and absorb damage so shields make sense adding to AC but offhand weapons and free hands like a swordbreaker don't absorb punishment so much as they let you control the battle a little better. I think it makes some intuitive sense that your off hand can either help you absorb damage, dish damage, or manipulate the combat. Exotic offhands, spiked shields, dual wielding seem naturally to help bridge two categories. Swordbreakers can manipulate the battlefield and deal a little damage. Spiked shields can absorb damage and deal a bit of damage, not sure what would work for absorb damage and manipulate the combat but you could come up with something, maybe a small buckler or something or even a tower shield, since you can probably just block off one whole facing with it and still absorb blows.
Anthony Fontana
I should add that I love seeing these posts. It's the whole reason I joined your Patreon! Even small updates more often would be sweet. Just hearing what the team might be thinking about next, even without tons of context. Love it!
Anthony Fontana
Spending strain to gain an extra maneuver is also familiar from the Start Wars Genesys system. And there are talents in that system that enhance our impair strain.
Lev Vaesinis
Love the idea of Stamina as a "health" bar that can also be regenned and spent, very cool risk/reward system and opens it up for different classes to want to spend it in different ways. I like that the magic is unpredictable but the "wizard" trope specifically feels like it should be the more controlled version but that's just a name issue. The part of the one-handed weapon making it harder to be overwhelmed makes some sense but also seems like it should apply to a shield and not a weapon, but then is the shield not just extra armor that doesn't cost movement? Who knows! Very exciting to see the twists and turns.
Sean Westberg
Feedback on Stamina- This is a perfectly fine concept and leads to all kinds of fun stuff. In fact, I prefer D20 systems with a wounds/vitality system because it adds to far more fascinating scenarios. As you said, stamina/vitality is a hit point pool that encourages more bold action because it returns fast, and it's a resource pool. I've played enough spycraft D20 and D20 Star Wars to know that it's not a horrible system that adds too much overhead, and the payoffs are worth it. I don't know if it's worth it at the stamina & HP numbers you're dealing now, but in Wounds/Vitality in D20 crits didn't do extra damage- they applied directly to your HP and bypassed your stamina. With low numbers like this that might not be a good idea, but if you end up having a bigger pool of stamina than HP as characters advance, then it's a potentially good idea to have ways to get around those massive Stamina pools so that characters don't feel invincible. Two ideas- First, crib from Wheel of Time: Magical healing of your actual HP *can* have an easy to track cost- Stamina! 1 to 1, your max stamina is lowered by the amount you've been healed until you can take a long rest and get some food in you. Healing takes a lot out of you. Higher magic healing may halve or eliminate this cost but that should be rare and sought after, or be a consumable. Or maybe surges or crits can offset that cost. Lots of room for systems and options there. Second- If you're going to have side effects in your magic, akin to Warhammer and 40k psykers, those are fun but sometimes a pain to track and refer to charts. Spending Stamina to suppress side effects makes sense, especially if you're thinking of magic as something that has to be mastered. You expend significantly more effort and exert more control, but it's exhausting, the way that forcing yourself to play an F barre chord on the guitar is exhausting to your hand as you're learning it but you *can* hit it clean if you make the effort. It seems like if you're going to do levels or orders or whatever, a hierarchy of spells and how powerful they can be, then associating the side effects with your highest power expenditures make sense. If you approach magic like Shadowrun say, where spells are spells but the caster decides how much "oomph" goes into each one, then you can have side effects for maxing out your spells. Good options here. I'm amused and encouraged that you've approached the initiative the way you did. I always did like the slot-based init in WFRPG 3rd where everyone rolled for init and then anyone on their side could act in those init slots in any order. This seems like a decent middle compromise to make paperwork less complicated.
Echo
the classes and game mechanics thus far have me way more excited for this than i’ve felt for any other ttrpg i’ve played. it seems to echo (hah) a lot of my own design thoughts in my home games and it’s great!
Patrick Wall
(I'm unaccustomed to posting on patreon, so forgive me if I've edited my post several times since you've read it)
MCDM Productions
I think this shows the power of the system if properly implemented. Just reading the six different outcomes You already kind of understand how they would work.
Matthew B
Good info and I especially wanted to highlight the Yes-No spectrum. I immediately had to go and write this into my game notes as a reminder, but I reordered it from best to worst results: YES AND - you get what you want and more YES - you get what you want YES BUT - you get part of what you want or everything at a cost NO BUT - you don't get what you want but maybe you move towards it NO - just no NO AND - you don't get what you want and something else you don't want happens
Patrick Wall
I love the idea of using the modes of persuasion (logos, pathos, and ethos) in the game system, but the rhetoric scholar in me has to point out that ethos isn't (just) about "what is right." Instead, Ethos is best viewed as an appeal to authority of the speaker and it's about their persuasiveness as a speaker because of their status, relationship, or bona fides. If you want the game system to have "honor" or "status" or "faction relationship" mechanics, these would absolutely be a part of the ethos mode of persuasion.
Ole Ingvar Stene
I think I love all of this. Gives me a good feeling of how the game will, well, feel!
Alex Hitchen
Watching with great interest as the system develops, very excited to make content for it in the future. I'll be interested to see how the negotiating mechanics develops when it ends up the hands of the masses, for me I'd be all in with this kind of structure, it will be interesting to see how the majority take to it.
Kane Sweeney
A river to your people!
