Tactical Goal Strategy

March 17, 2017

This isn’t a new anime, I promise. It’s our design philosophy for combat mechanics. We’ve got one more important concept to talk about, and it’s the goal of well designed combat mechanics; Flow. Flow is the pace of combat and how fast a turn can be completed so the next person in line can go. When it takes a long time to make the decisions that go into a turn, the whole combat gets bogged down. This is also true for anything that requires hard steps (like 3.x’s Move then Act priority system). When you have people waiting to go, it’s best to have a system that’s flexible, easy to work with, and keeps everyone engaged.

Flow, by far, is the thing that suffers the most from having an unbalanced combat system, as well. It’s always a tragedy when one player just sits around not engaged during part of the game. This goes double for a segment so important to the design, like combat in D&D’s many incarnations and variants.

Read the rest of this entry »

So, we’ve got to talk about combat, the wading into and the rivers of blood. The gritty crush of metal and wood, flesh and bone, rage and focus. Powerful mages firing spells into a melee of warriors and rogues deftly avoiding arrows fired from the rangers and snipers hiding on the edges. The rush of the cleric’s healing saving a brawler’s life before they throw a barbarian into the enemy’s paladin. The fast, brutal way combat must be portrayed.

It’s time to talk about combat economics.

Read the rest of this entry »

Dungeons and Dragons has shaped the way that roleplaying has developed. We can’t ignore that. It’s part of the reason that games are inherently simulationist in some fashion; we simulate a character’s abilities in a real-like world (skills, damage, ability scores, etc) rather than their effect on a story or their role in a party. That is, itself, left over from earlier war games that shaped D&D, but it’s something we can’t ignore. While this version of the game is much more about storytelling and engendering a roleplaying environment, it is still a Dungeons and Dragons game and will have a lot more to do with combat than most other things.

Which brings us to skills; how do we make a system that is both more complete than “NonWeapon Proficiencies with Difficulty Number” but isn’t needlessly complex or require tons of bookkeeping?

Read the rest of this entry »

Occupational Theory

March 11, 2017

So I’ve got a few ideas for what Occupations should do for their half of Origin. Part of it is inspired by D&D5’s kind of ideal of how a class starts, and part of it borrows the Backgrounds from the same. It’s definitely more than that, though, I think and I’d like to call it “Background” but I’m afraid of calling it something that’d conflict with another system that’s copyrighted. Maybe History? I’m not sure. Anyway, let’s get into this.

Read the rest of this entry »

So, we’ve done some of the ground work for our themeing. We’ve got our classes down, we’ve got a basic idea for our construction, and we know what “D&D” is. So, how does the game¬†work?¬†

The environment that D&D takes place in, a tabletop RPG with a focus on storytelling and tactical combat, there are three levels of resolution. Three tiers of granularity in how much we want to simulate the environment. Those three levels are the most simple kind of resolution (like a “strength check” for something coming up but not having a dedicated rule system), the skill resolution (like a “Diplomacy check” for something that has a rules system attached to it but it’s not very granular), and the Combat Resolution System. There’s a huge, wide gulf between type 2 and 3, while there’s barely any difference between type 1 and 2. I feel like we can do better than this.

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: