Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

This is a real design doc written by the design director and shared with the team. This was not originally intended to be a patreon post. It has been lightly edited to reflect this.

What’s the purpose of Armor in a fantasy RPG?

Image

Players arrive at the table with archetypes already in mind, and they don’t even know where they got them from. The Paladin wears plate mail. The Thief wears leather. The Monk or Barbarian wear no armor, but are tough as hell. The Wizard wears no armor, and is squishy as heck.

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. Not, meet the expectations of people who like this one RPG, I mean meet the greater cultural archetypes. Lots of players arrive at the table for the first time having played lots of fantasy games and they expect our game to broadly conform to those expectations.

Customization

Players like customizing their character. They want to believe their choices matter. Some RPGs get around this by presenting the fantasy of “these choices matter” but in fact they mostly don’t. You get basically four kinds of armor; heavy, medium, light, and none. And for most classes, there’s one “correct” choice. Or there are really two choices, the “I can’t afford the best choice yet” choice, and the best choice and this matters almost not at all, since money doesn't really matter.

Mechanical Benefit

And, of course, players expect armor to do something. They expect at least two things; armor somehow protects you, with heavier armor protecting you more, and armor somehow makes you more bulky. Heavier armor somehow disadvantages you more than light armor.

So it’s a tradeoff and people “get it.” Rogues wear light armor, and thereby gain more benefit from their dex. Paladins wear heavy armor with higher AC but gain no benefit from dex.

Of course, that sort of balances out, doesn’t it? In a game where “bulkiness” is just “less dex” and dex is AC, there isn’t a lot of difference between a high dex Rogue and a heavy armor Paladin. They just tweak the values so the Paladin’s value is higher to make the paladin more of a tank.

The game assumes, in other words, that playing a paladin is the choice to play a tank. So it awards those players a “tank bonus” to AC, they just hide it in their armor rules.

Most games don't seem to take seriously the idea of a Paladin in Light Armor. That PC would face an uphill battle, because they’re losing their Tank Bonus to AC, but not gaining any commensurate benefit, since Paladins don’t usually have high Dex.

How Armor Should Work

It seems to me that we could easily meet all these criteria if we boil armor down to: you sacrifice movement, for protection. The opposite is also true, sacrifice protection, and you gain movement.

Additionally, in a Heroic Fantasy game where movement and positioning matter, where characters are routinely being thrown around (thereby reducing the ‘movement only really matters in the first round, then everyone’s basically where they want to be’ phenomenon) heavy armor making it harder for people to move you around (ie reducing forced movement) suddenly makes a difference in a way it hasn’t in other games. Sure it slows you down, but sometimes that’s good. A tank becomes literally harder to move because of their heavy armor. Tanks are now not just hard to kill, they’re also sticky.

If armor protects you by reducing incoming damage but weighs you down (less movement) then what armor your PC chooses becomes more of a playstyle issue. A Shadow can wear light armor, sure, the safe choice. But if they want to be more mobile, they could wear no armor. If they want to be more of a brawler, more melee, more in your face, they wear medium armor. But what about a Shadow in plate?

One of the things people didn’t appreciate about 4E was: you couldn’t really make a bad character. Unless you didn’t understand the choices you were making.

So Proficiencies help us there and this may be why proficiencies work the way they do currently. We know that a Shadow in Heavy Armor is gonna have a bad time, because that class is all about mobility. If we said “anyone can use any armor” then you get some weird edge cases where we’d be letting the players ruin their own fun.

So a Censor could wear no armor, that might make more sense than a Shadow in Heavy Armor. But if the Censor is about being a Tank, then maybe they have abilities that use their armor in a way a Shadow doesn’t. So maybe they don’t have Light Armor proficiency. You can’t ruin your own fun. Unless the design of the Censor makes sense for a character in light or no armor. Probably the Censor is explicitly a tank? We’ll see.

Magic

Now armor has two qualities and they are mechanically balanced against each other. Which means magic can break that rule. Light armor that protects more. Heavy armor that grants more mobility!

This seems like fertile ground to explore, we should test this.

Comments

Schoopdoop McGoop

The idea that wearing heavy armor also makes you harder to be moved is very interesting to me and the perfect solution to this issue, I think.

mcdm

It makes more sense if you imagine the game is a little more *dynamic* and people get moved around more. More abilities that kick you back a few squares, throw you into a wall. Ogre tosses you around. Obviously you can go overboard with this, that's what testing is for, but we think it'll make things more fun, more dynamic and yeah more cinematic!

Tohellwithyourcrap

Rainbow 6 Vegas 2 had an excellent armor to speed ratio mechanism. Armor and Speed had a max score of 10 each, and you (essentially) had 10 points to play with. You either had 3 points in armor and 7 points in speed or any variation of the 10 point spread. I've never seen it replicated but it was elegant and the balanced tradeoff worked so well in practice.

mcdm

I mean, I think that's basically how this will work? :D Just maybe less granularity than 10 points. Maps you use at the table tend to be a lot smaller and cramped than FPS levels.

Tohellwithyourcrap

Oh for sure a direct translation would be odd. I only meant that in principle I adore the foundation y'all are starting with :)

Jacob Montague

I like the idea of protection vs mobility. It's real evocative.

Zachary Durst

I kind of like when different armor is good against different things. Having light armor be a reasonable choice for the fighter that wants to kill casters or something of the like is interesting.

sklogw

Man, I love getting these insights. Also, what a cool opportunity to do it right without the obligation of catering to legacy mechanics.

Elisha Swihart

I like the concept of a more movement based tactical system. People in films don't just stand toe to toe and start beating on each other. Cinematic combat is dynamic!

mcdm

Not every problem is easy to solve, but sometimes it seems like "why didn't it work this way before!? This is better!" We'll see what happens come testing though. Lots of good ideas don't survive contact with actual play!

Bruce Mastorovich

I'm curious if you can get away with a bigger armor difference between light and heavy if you are making a game where players expect to hit and get hit (as in your some things automatically work post). D&D 5E mostly expects a lot of missing. +1 to a D20 roll is a 5% change, but not all 5% changes are equal. Going from a 60->65% chance of hitting is a relatively bigger change than going from 90-95%.

Kane Sweeney

The Shadow! I know what that is immediately, and I’m excited about it and what it can do. And I think that’s what the name supposed to achieve!

Mindless0_o

I like the idea that if you wear an armour your “proficient” in, you have abilities that go along with it. That sounds cool

Bruce Mastorovich

Similarly, if you are going the damage reduction route instead of the chance to hit route, I think you can have more interesting differences in armor types. The guy in heavy armor reduces 3 damage from every 4 damage goblin attack and isn't afraid to take on many at once. The guy in light armor that only reduces 1 damage wants to get each goblin one on one. Neither one of them wants to take the heavy hitting 10 damage single attack from the boss, so the group has abilities to try to deal with those as they come (healing, parries, etc.)

Zachary Cox

Thank you for sharing! Really enjoying seeing the design process from the outside.

Dylan James Kinard

Cannot overstate the value (to me at least) of getting to read all these development posts!

Musical Coder

The only argument I think of in regards to the "Tank" not allowed a 'Light Armor Proficiency' is situational... but when resting/sleeping during an adventure - I would allow my Heavy Armor wearers to wear light armor while sleeping, so that should combat arise, and they won't be able to get into their heavy armor before being attacked, they have some protection...

Kelby

Nice insight, thanks for the share!

Temple Pate

Hm, wonder if magic armor will have any differences? Maybe something like runic armor which could be medium, but have similar defenses as heavy. Though guess that'd be a specific magic item ruleset instead of core rules

Matthew Donley

I really like where this is heading, even if it proves to a dead end. It’s almost as if we are reading drafts of Designing the Game.

JACOB GRUNDHOFER

Fascinating stuff! Thank you for sharing this!

Daniel Quaresma

A shadow! I don't know if that's going to be a class, but damn that's good name.

James Warner

I haven't been able to watch the streams as much recently, is The Shadow a new thing?

Bryce Miller

Is there a tag for these system posts? An "MCDM RPG" tag would be fun to look back on!

Roman Penna

Really cool. Something I've never thought about before but super cool indeed, and makes a lot of sense.

mcdm

Great idea! So great we should do it! –Hannah

Triglav Games

Kinda sounds like MCDM Rogue, but I might be wrong obviously

Corey C

I just want to reiterate how wildly awesome it is to see this stuff. I don't care what you keep, what you don't keep... being able to read transparent game dev progress is in and of itself a tremendous value!

JW_316

As some who doesn't play many multi-player video games I am aware a 'Tank' may have a different meaning in that field. But in a military sense a Tank always has some trade off between mobility, armament and armour. So the idea of sacrificing for Mobility for Armour is interesting and worth exploring. It might be worth bearing in mind that to successfully be a Tank it still needs to be mobile enough to be able to break through enemy formations if that ability is lost you are no longer a Tank but diminished into a Shield role for the protection of others. This can be fun for example in Pathfinder 2E their Champion (Paladin equivalent) is primarily a Shield for the party allowing the Barbarian to take the Tank role as the line buster. But may need clear sign posting so players don't sign up for a role they don't want.

The Watcher on the Walls

This is really interesting, and 100% how armour should work. The tradeoff between agility and protection is logical, it's certainly how I'd imagine it, and seems reasonably easy to implement in game, as well as giving real choices to players based off how they want to play their class. However, it made me wonder about the Monk and Barbarian (or their MCDM equivalents, who might throw a wrench into things. Both these classes don't use armour, but are 'tough as hell', but in very distinct ways. It needs a careful balancing act to keep the two tough, whilst maintaining their freedom of movement. The solution for the Barbarian seems easier. It was already mentioned that they will likely be the Might+Endurance/Toughness Class, so I assume their secondary ability will simply be toughness, which will give them more health, and when combined with something like the current Rage ability, will simply let them mathematically soak up more damage than other characters, leaving them with more movement, but without the protection of armour, which is provided in other ways. The Monk, I think is harder. They are certainly a class who shouldn't wear armour, and should recieve the corresponding movement benefits. But they also need something to simulate their own dodging of attacks, which should be similar to the protection afforded by decent armour. Balancing the Monk's speed and their damage reduction, when they should receive both will be interesting. I'd also wonder how speed will be determined. Especially in a scenario where it will actually matter in battle, which will be awesome. Certainly armour should limit ones movement. But it doesn't sit right that a wizard wearing no armour should get the same movement as a rogue doing the same. But it couldn't just be tabulated off agility, as all differnt classes rely on different stats. Anyway, thats just my series of likely incoherent ramblings on two classes whose relationship with armour might be more complex, and, to an extent, how it might be dealt with. Looking forward to seeing what MCDM come up with for all this, but these posts are an amazing insight into how the game is made. Even if there was just a weekly update, and occasional docs like this, it would still be amazing. Thanks!

Graham Schofield

I don't want this to be perceived as a negative, but this some of the dev notes so far sound like they could have been taken from the design notes at the beginning of 4th ed. Certainly not all of it, but some. I find it very interesting and am grateful for the window into the process.

mcdm

I think you literally are! Hahah. :D

mcdm

It's why we're here!

mcdm

Here's how you know it's the right name. We didn't even say what it was, but you *intuited* it's the MCDM Rogue. The Inevitable Shadow....

mcdm

Not new internally, but this is the first public mention of it.

Belegor

Thx for sharing. I really enjoy the mental excercise you provide by calling the base assumptions of "D&D" into question. The post mentioning group initative e.g. led me to explore other ways initative and turns in general could work. Now I am really excited to try out a combination of round by round determined group initative with actions being declared before initative gets resolved.

mcdm

I think a more dynamic game, where moving and positioning remains important through the entire battle (as opposed to: move into position, stand there for most of the battle) gives us MORE qualities to track. "Tankiness" no longer just means "hard to kill," although it can mean that. It also also mean "stickiness." "You would really like to move me, but I am hard to move." That's exciting to me. We'll see if we can make it work.

mcdm

4E was fun. We're not trying to replicate it, but we're gonna end up in the same ballpark just from convergent evolution.

Peter Leo Melendez

It's awesome to be able to read these design docs! Just watching the cool ideas flow.

Belegor

I could also see opportunity attacks (if they exist) tying into this. Like having light or no armor will give u advantage on avoiding opportunity attacks where as heavy armor imposes disadvantage.

Evan Little

Tank should make themselves difficult to move, and also make it difficult to move nnear them. You need a reason to want to move the tank, lest it just gets left behind.

Gus Griswold

Sounds cool, intuitive at least in explanation such that I imagine there's a cool, tactical way to roll it out on the table 👍

Eli David Dierks

I always hated that I was stuck with uncustomizable weapons and armor in RPGs. Why can I only get base model on those designs? Especially if I'm a blacksmith myself? At best, games offer something like variant materials like in 3.5. Why couldn't/wouldn't an adventurer with a large shield decide they want to leave some of the armor off of their shield arm because it's already heavy enough with the shield and if the monster gets around that he's already in enough trouble to need to leave anyway? Would a wizard really not be able to figure out ANY single piece of physical protection that wouldn't get in the way? What bard is going to look at the standard version of anything they were and say, "Meh, good enough." Clerics, Paladins, and Fighters all find the same version of plate armor to be the best version? It seems very dumb to me. Even in reality every piece of heavy armor was a custom job. And what fantasy series doesn't put the heroes in special armor? I really like the fantasy of martial characters. But the mechanics of RPGs often make using weapons and armor very easy to dip into. This makes the martial characters feel less like combat experts and more like mall ninjas. The wizard took one feat and now is literally as proficient with a greatsword as a fighter? What? While you were partying I studied the blade. I get that equipment rules can get needlessly complex with this philosophy, but I really think it should be structured more like the spells are in D&D. You can endlessly study your options and create a completely unique and optimized situation. Or you can skim the listing and pick some generic option that will always be useable, like magic missile. Maybe I'm underestimating how difficult that would be implement. Or maybe I'm overestimating how much anybody else cares. I don't know. But rules for RPG equipment always feels to me like everybody was burnt out that day and said, "Screw this, let's just punch out at 5 for once."

Rich Coker

Something I’ve often wondered about armor mechanics, and granted I’ve never looked into real world armor, but why doesn’t armor break or deteriorate? Is that just an annoying one more thing to track? Or could that be an enjoyable RP opportunity?

Swaynn

There is a need for an aggro system if you restrain movement. A tank is a tank because it can also pull the aggressiveness of the monsters and use its HP/Armor to mitigate damage. If any and every ennemy can go to the backlines and ignore tanks because they have bad mobility, the game will quicly be unbalanced and frustrating for those in heavy armor.

BasCB

Yeah, in earlier D&D editions actually armor did get damaged sometimes. And things like rust monsters actually degraded both armor and weapons. It just isn't much fun for people to keep track (and it becomes only an annoyance and a bit of a money sink once you get a VTT or a game mechanic to track it).

BasCB

that also depends on the monsters' abilities though. If some of them need to be closer to hit harder or affect more targets / allies they need to be closer to the action. I do think drawing aggression is/should be part of being a tank though, yeah.

DMChase

I've always had a soft spot for systems that used damage absorption in their armor mechanics. Hackmaster (the current one) and Unisystem for example.

Dudimus

I see the foundations of party cooperation here. The tank can't reach the archers, so the wizard casts magic vacuum to suck them close by. Or, the "shadow" (epic sounding name) cuts a hamstring, so they can't run away. Abilities that compliment and enhance each other. Sounds cool.

Jon Mattison

This is also my background (Warhammer Fantasy RPG 2e). Let's say incoming 10 damage, Armor 4 and Toughness 3 absorb 7, only take 3 wounds. Whereas the 70s game increases your AC, making you "harder to hit". This is less intuitive in my opinion, but in games where we're looking for a better balance between abstraction and simulation it is a functional mechanic.

Jon Mattison

At a glance I don't have a problem with 'heavy armor for tanks' and 'wizards wear less armor for reasons', but perhaps move the 'tank' buffs/abilities from the 'armor' itself and to the character class that can benefit from it. In other words, the Warrior can 'tank' better, regardless of armor choice. While the Wizard can be protected by full plate as they wish, but can't 'tank'

BasCB

Hm, what you say with the monk would point to the need / wish to have a good way to actively defend - i.e. the monk would have a solid chance to avert attacks by using their key mechanics to parry/deflect. And preferrably do things like in Judo where you use the strength of the opponents attack against them? That might be a really cool way to do things with a monk actually (a monk subclass?)

Diogo Monteiro Costa de Oliveira Silva

"It also also mean 'stickiness.' " As long as this means the target can't simply get away *from you* as well. Nothing more frustrating when the caster simply take step away and keep wailing spells on you, consequence-free.

Long InTheTooth

What if armour mobility is affected by strength as well. Stronger characters are less impacted by wearing heavy armour, their movement and dex penalties are reduced. This gives a natural advantage to the martial classes, whereas the mage can wear the armour but is too weak to move. Every armour type could have a maximum dex allowance based on str, rather than a simple all, +2 or nothing. Consider some extremes, Mr Puniverse in his full plate, with no training, can bareley move, his cat like reflexs are wasted. He is a sitting duck in a tin can, his effective AC should be relatively low, he is relying entirely on the mechanical protection from his armour. Your Conan type with his near super human strength, speed and superior training can dance around the battle field, virtually unimpaired by his splint armour, his effective AC should be very high.

Cormac Connolly

The shadow! Cool! Sounds like a rogue with shadow magic. I like the idea presented here! I do hope armor isn't a flat damage reduction. Maybe it removes a damage die or something? Doing another layer of math after the attack can be obnoxious. Though I have very little context and I'm sure it will be thoroughly tested and tweaked. Excited to see what you come up with!

Bruticus

I was thinking about this. But what if armor reduced a static amount of damage dealt per dice. With a minimum amount going through equal to the quantity of dice rolled. So just throwing numbers out, not knowing actual values. But what if, say heavy armor reduced 3 points of damage per dice rolled. Jenny rolls her greataxe savage attack against the dark knight. She rolls 3d6 damage, 4, 4, 6. Reducing the damage to 1, 1, & 3. Still 5 get through,

Long InTheTooth

This system would have a lot of hits that do no damage. Consider this against 3d4, 2d6 or 1d12, normally you would expect similar damage outputs, but they would vary hugely with this mechanic applied. If you employ this then you need to change the hit system to reflect the quality of hit, with over rolls doing extra damage. You are getting into the realms of areas of protection and damage types. So does it protect equally against piercing and bludgeoning damage, is the head more vulnerable etc. It gets very complex to play at the table. It is a game, so it does not have to reflect reality to any great extent, the mechanics should have enough variety to make tactical decisions relevant, whilst adding flavour to your play style, but not necesarily anymore than that.

gm_naahz

MCDM team, I encourage you to look at the fantasy people want to play more in terms of how it is portrayed in books and movies rather than how it is portrayed in an MMORPG. There are plenty of youtube videos that show how easy it was to move in well fitted plate armor and its not nearly as loud as ONE-particular-RPG tries to use that as a "balance factor". In a recent One-RPG game all my different players all had the same AC 15 or 16 to start. So in that game it is hitpoints that makes you a tank. IMO the key is not taunt mechanics or sticky mechanics. It literally should be that not everyone is dangerous in mellee and if you turn your back on the warrior in plate with a halberd he's just going to kill you. That's how a front line is established. a truly new RPG needs to consider things like different kinds of fights (against a bunch of shadowcats maybe the warrior in plate actually sucks, but against a dragon they are absolutely imperative until it breathes fire, when suddently the mage casting fire protection on the warriors shield as a COMBO (all too shallow in TTPRG design) that works.

chunkyfunker5

What you're saying appeals to simulationism, but this RPG is explicitly tactical and cinematic, not simulationist. The way that you can and are forced to move around an action scene is very important from those perspectives.

gm_naahz

Julian, are you on the design team? If so I'm curious how you arrived that my comment is not tactical or cinematic. I started with suggesting books and movies (rather than MMOs) as a cinematic starting point and ended with a specific tactical example. To me a simulation RPG game is something like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium%27s_End . To me the cinematic reason orcs _don't_ ignore Aragorn and Boromir and take down the wizard and the rogue first during the Moria fight is because Aragorn and Boromir will cut them down if they just try and dodge past them, they also form a front line. And when a monster breaks past that line with special abilities (the troll) it adds a tactical threat and cinematic tension! Its not because they have a taunt button like an MMO warrior that the goblins don't and a taunt button wouldn't work on a troll :) . Personally I found the fight scenes of LotR very cinematic and very tactical. Hopefully this example helps convey my point on why the MCDM should draw inspiration from the fantasy action presented in books and movies rather than a desire to fulfill the 'fantasy of being a fighter' as defined by D&D and similar fantasy RPGs. i.e. strive to fulfill the original fantasy of the artistic genre rather than strive to fulfill the fantasy of playing a particular class. thanks for reading :)

Josh Rodell

I mean, if you wanted to be realistic to actual plate mail, no one should be walking around in it in the first place. TTRPGs are a medium, and all art is inherently defined by the strengths and limitations of its medium. One of the limitations of the medium are that everything needs to be fun for everyone. A player playing a sneaky charactef shouldn't have to wait out battles that are better suited to a tank and vice versa. This is why the medium tends to rely on role-specific abilities, so that everyone has something to do.

Mykayla Harris

I completely agree! I really wish there were more weapon and armor options to help make martial characters more unique. Not just "eh, you have a +1 shield now" lol

Alex Walhout

I think this is a really interesting design approach to armor and the idea of armor affecting movement works well with a tactical design. It was excellently used (conceptually) in the tactical game "Into the Breach" by Subset Games, and I would really like to see more movement tactics in a TTRPG. Additionally, as was mentioned in the Mechanical Benefit and Customization section, we want Armor to do something and be more useful than a "journey to the one best answer" for a character build. I think games like "Monster Hunter" by CAPCOM have a very healthy design for tactical Armor in that each armor set offers trade-offs to resistances, and adds synergies with weapons in a game all about countering a monster's damage types and taking advantage of their vulnerabilities. I would like to have a reason in a tactical TTRPG for carrying one or two alternative armor sets for a tank, etc. As mentioned in the Magic section, perhaps one set allows me to move further without sacrificing for a lower AC, but another has the same AC plus some typed resistances?

Gustavo Campanelli

I can see an edge case of a wizard tank, with heavy armor and a drain spell that grants temporary hitpoints while damaging the enemy. Or damage reflection or redirection that can help move damage elsewhere for a certain amount of time.

LN Sylvester

I wonder if perhaps there could be a third trait for armor that might make it more interesting. If the only components of armor are protection and mobility, then I feel like we are on a slider, but the end effect is that none of it actually matters. What I mean by this is character A has heavy armor. He can't dodge, but shrugs off most damage. Character B has high mobility and low armor. He dodges most hits, but when he gets hit it's for a lot. At the end of the battle, they are basically in the same position. A was hit often, but for small amounts adding up to X damage. B was only hit once, but for X damage. The same result. BUT if there were a third interesting trait that armor grants or hinders, this might add enough of a new complication to make the choices between what types of armor to don more interesting. I'm not sure what this third trait could be... perhaps types of damage. Perhaps resistance to types of magic. Perhaps something to do with exhaustion or social standing.

Jan Wiśniowolski

I had this thought also: high armor and high DEX are the same things. But it's valid only for the "everyone’s basically where they want to be phenomenon." As I understand: MCDM RPG's goal is to create tactical movement in combat - then it makes sense to choose between mobility and armor. Especially when the tank could hold a group of enemies in one place and rouge could quickly change their position for advantage. Especially when such actions are a more significant benefit than "I hit them for 1d8, again." Can't wait for more :3

Darren Copple

Maybe a third slider of stamina/endurance. Every round wearing armor costs ~n amount of stamina (which could be tied to CON/STR) or to move. This could lead to certain scenarios where a player has to choose to stand still to fight or move and not fight e.g. The char stamina pool is at X, but they only have enough to do either Y fight, or Z move. If a char started each fight with ~n stamina, then tactical chooses would have to be made. If stamina is used per round for fight/movement, wearing plate uses 3 stamina, chain 2, and leather 1, and no armor 0, then making an armor choice in a game system that revolves around movement would be something to really think about.

BrokenSes

It seems like there is a conflict between players having choice and character archetype. If a player is given the choice to put their Paladin in no armour or light armour does that Paladin still meet the archetype of a Paladin? Can players be given wiggle room within the archetype for choice?