Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Content

Hey folks, Matt Colville here with what I think will be a short update, but a big deal. We just ran our first playtest of a new die mechanic only slightly permuted from what we’ve already talked about, but that slight permutation should make a big difference.

The test went well, we may do some more internal testing, but I expect that will go well, and then it’ll go to the testers. So what did we change, and why?

When Last We Left Our Heroes….

Ok so you know how the game used to work right?

Attacker rolls 2d6 plus some relevant attribute determined by whichever ability you’re using.

Armor reduces incoming damage. Heavy armor imposes a minor penalty on your Speed.

If you reduce the incoming damage to 0, you get to retaliate.

Retaliation used to be a flat 3 damage, then we switched it to 1d4. Why? Well, people liked rolling. It feels more interactive…because it is!

Why This Wasn’t Working

I mean, it was sorta working, we shouldn’t overstate the case. It wasn’t unplayable. But it meant certain classic archetypes were having a problem archetyping. The problem comes down to the difference between Avoidance and Mitigation.

Any sufficiently robust Fighting Monsters game is going to have some version of Avoidance and Mitigation. Avoidance lets you avoid damage, mitigation lets you withstand the damage you couldn’t avoid, and all characters have a little of both.

In classic d20 fantasy, the way you avoid damage is having a high Armor Class. Armor and Dexterity both add to this. This creates the “I miss, next” experience we’re devoutly trying to avoid.

Then, the way you mitigate damage is through some combination of a high Constitution and choosing a class with a big hit die.

In our game, you mitigate damage by buying armor. Armor reduces damage.

But how do you avoid damage? Ah…well…you buy armor! The more armor you have, the more damage you avoid. Your Agility factors in there! But the main value that matters is what armor you’re wearing.

This was not working. Shadow players got frustrated that, while there were ways to increase their retaliation damage…they couldn’t retaliate! They didn’t want to use Heavy Armor, because of the speed penalty (and also, why is a Shadow running around in Full Plate?) and so they never got to retaliate. Armor was BOTH Avoidance AND Mitigation and so it wasn’t possible to be good at one, and not the other.

This sucked. You should be able to avoid damage without buying armor. There ARE things we could have done like…just give the Shadow a shitload of Agility. But then the math of our game gets super wonky. Or we could have given the Shadow a special rule where they get to add…double their agility–or more!–to their defense when wearing no armor.

But I am very skeptical of design like that. Sometimes it works, there’s a ton of it in d20 Fantasy and people don’t even notice it, but I think a better design wouldn’t NEED to patch classes like the Shadow that way. It feels like a kludge to me.

What to do?

The Solutions

We changed a couple of things and I think they’re gonna work. Still tons of work to do on the REST of the game, but I have this feeling like we’re close to the core die mechanic here.

First, Armor is now Health! 😀 That was Jason’s suggestion, he’s not a designer but he’s played a LOT of games, wargames, board games. James and I were talking about the Armor problem, which was really the Avoidance problem. And Jason just said “Guys, a lotta games, armor just gives you bonus health.”

My jaw hit the floor. “Armor is health” I said. “Yeah. You want more health? Buy armor!” James also had a very positive response to this suggestion.

This prompted a short discussion about whether that meant you needed to repair your armor. “This ain’t that kind of game,” I said. You can imagine your character spends part of their Rest repairing their armor if you want, but I don’t think a Heroic game like this should be worrying about that stuff. “It just works” is the idea. It’s just a flat bonus to health, and you treat it like the rest of your health. It recovers just like the rest of your health. Yes, this means if you take your armor off, you lose that health. Of course it does. But unless armor doesn’t matter in your game, you’re gonna lose whatever bonus armor grants when you take it off.

I immediately loved this idea. It’s clear and straightforward. It means Armor matters, and it means we can support a robust variety of armors. And I think it gives more different classes a reason to buy armor if they want.

Now I expect there will be some tradeoff. This game isn’t about tracking small amounts of gold, so everyone can “afford” Full Plate. Under that model, why WOULDN’T everyone buy Full Plate? Well I dunno but it’s going to be some combination of: Armor Proficiencies (The Talent is not proficient in Heavy Armor, makes sense) & high armor brings a corresponding debuff, probably to movement. Characters start with 8 speed and I don’t expect even the heaviest armor to impose more than a -2 on that. So it’s not like…+8 health comes with a -8 speed penalty. No. Light armor probably has no move penalty.

Ok so Armor is just bonus health. We like that.

Then James and I focused on the Avoidance part. How is the Shadow “good at avoiding damage” without just giving them more health?

We went back to our original idea of: all attacks are an opposed roll. Attacker and Defender both roll 2d6, they add their respective attributes. Highest wins. This would certainly make it easy to let people be good at Avoidance. Just give them a bonus to their defense roll.

This might work if we noodled on it more, but at first blush we detected a problem. Under the old method, if the attacker rolls a 10 on 2d6, they know they rolled well. Under this model, they have to wait and see what the defender rolls. If the defender rolls a 10, 11, or 12, then it turns out the attacker didn’t roll well enough! That sucks! It sucks that a really good defense roll could “steal the fun” from the attacker.

Speaking only for myself, at this point I was starting to feel like this was an unsolvable problem. But we didn’t give up! I just put the problem down and worked on the Career Path.

Working through the problem we hit upon something that might work. Something that seemed obvious in retrospect, which is always a good sign.

Why is the defense roll 2d6?

Right? What if…what if the attacker rolls 2d6 plus an attribute, and the defender rolls 1d6 plus an attribute? Basically, it’s an opposed roll, but we give attackers a +1d6 buff. This is good because we WANT attackers to "hit" most of the time. We want to encourage and reward attacking. Fighting monsters game!

The more we thought about this…the more it seemed like it might work. An opposed roll; 2d6+x - 1d6+y. If the result is positive, the defender takes that much damage. I started thinking of the d6 roll as the Evasion roll. Because “avoidance roll” sounds dumb. 😀

What does this get us?

By pulling Avoidance OUT of Armor and giving it its own die roll, we let classes like the Shadow be good at avoiding damage (Agility adds to the Evasion roll, Shadows are High Agility), while the Tactician is good at mitigating damage (heavy armor) and the Reaver is a little of both (medium agility and high endurance for extra health).

We ran a test of this today, James gave the Shadow a passive where their evasion roll is 2d6 take the highest. And…it worked? It seemed like it worked! It seemed pretty good to me actually.

I think there will always be players who get frustrated if they can’t regularly avoid most damage but this comes down to your choice of class and play style. I played a Talent in today’s test and I never really had to worry about health. Whereas the melee classes absolutely did, but they survived!

So, it seems like the system is working? And it’s fun to roll dice, it’s fun knowing, no matter how well the monster rolls, you can still do something about it. Even if YOU roll badly to Evade, you still reduce SOME damage! And if you do Evade all the damage, each class has a couple of Retaliations to choose from.

All Health

Now, you COULD do everything with Health. That is a thing you could do. Think about the classic d20 Fantasy you already know. The intended design is: all things being equal, you’re gonna miss 35% of the time.

Let’s imagine that means the bad guys are gonna miss twice per encounter on average. And let’s imagine they do…8 damage on average at 1st level. That’s 16 damage (on average) you’re gonna avoid because the monsters missed you. Well, you could just GIVE all 1st level heroes and monsters +16hp, and let everyone hit all the time. You could do that and, apart from the vagaries of the die rolls, it would be the same. Battles would take the same number of rounds. The results would be the same.

So we COULD say “Characters who are good at Mitigating get Health…and characters who are good at AVOIDING get Health.” It would math out the same. But is that fun?

We don’t think so. I think it’s more fun to roll dice. That’s what this all came down to. We realized we could just math the entire system to work using Only Health. Everyone Always Hits, and Everyone Has A Lotta Health. Mathematically equivalent to missing sometimes, and having less health, but we don’t think that’s fun!

We think it’s fun to roll dice, and with this system it feels good for attackers and defenders when they roll well. And it gives us some fun ways to distinguish characters, which we’re always looking for.

Maybe the 1st level Shadow can’t roll 2d6 and take the highest one. Maybe that’s a higher level Shadow ability, maybe low level Shadows just…reroll 1s. Or…add their Reason PLUS their Agility? Lots of ways to make characters Good At Avoidance now!

This is a good sign.

More testing to come! Probably at least one more internal test? Then it’ll go to the testers.

And we got LOTS of feedback from the testers on the previous version (the other branch of the fork. Yes, forks have branches now) so there’s plenty to do. AND we have a prototype of the Soldier Career Path I’ve been working on which…it’s insane, but it might work. Stay Tuned!

Once we have a build of the game where we feel like Things Are Basically Working, and it’s stable and not changing every week, that will be the packet you folks get. And we may be close to that now, but that’s up to the testers so…fingers crossed.

See you folks at the live Q&A tomorrow!

Comments

David Stanley

Love seeing how the game develops

GAZZA

IME, rolling lots of dice is fun for players, less so for the GM, especially if you're going to put variants of these mechanics on some monsters (e.g. maybe air elementals get to roll twice on their evasion die and pick the highest, much like you are proposing for Shadows). I know personally that when I DMed "that other game" I used house rules that essentially had players roll everything but damage dice (i.e. when they were attacked, they rolled a "defence roll" rather than me rolling to hit; when they cast a spell, they rolled to see if they overcame a DC rather than me rolling a saving throw; mathematically it was the same chance). Admittedly this is less of a problem in something like Roll 20 or Forge (and virtually all of my gaming is digital nowadays; started during COVID, but we've kept it up). Still, though, I'd advise simplifying this from the bad guys perspective. There's no need PCs and monsters need to use the same rules. Just my 5c.

Roman Penna

Oooh this is really cool. I really like seeing the development and how armor has morphed into health. That's a cool idea!

Schoopdoop McGoop

I think they already know that PCs and Monsters don't need to use the same rules. But, having attacks and damage be calculated basically the same way between Player and Director does make things a lot simpler.

Schoopdoop McGoop

Evasion Roll! Armor is Health! What a simple solution. Mitigation and Avoidance is a serious issue in every game. I've seen people make weird solutions for the Seattle Game which adds in a Mitigation system for Armor and changes AC to compensate. I'm glad that this issue was fixed early and with such a simple and fun way too!

Nathan Bateman

I'm generally, uh, opposed to opposed rolls as a base mechanic simply for speed of play. As much as I love GURPS, having both parties ALWAYS involved in roll can be exhausting. There are definitely trade offs here. However, it is also important to distinguish between the fantasy of the armoured warrior and the evasive one. I don't really have much of a comment here, lol, but I do find the extra die roll add up over the course of a campaign.

mcdm

James has been tracking how long rounds take, and both versions of the opposed roll system went faster than the old way. Now, there could be a lot of reasons for that not directly related to the dice, but this is the data we have.

Nathan Bateman

That's awesome! I do really like armour has health, btw. That's how it works in Final Fantasy Tactics and it isn't problematic there. It's also easy to track (No subtraction, like with armour as damage reduction) and makes the resilience of a given foe very transparent at a glance for the Director

mcdm

I ran a bunch of combats with opposed rolls and have played in lots of games (Troika!, Savage Worlds) that used opposed rolls. They're fun and dramatic. I love them as a Director. Everyone's different, but I don't see rolling as a great hardship. In fact, I enjoy doing it. -James

Kuroshi

The Avoidance roll is really interesting. It really communicates that both the attacker and defender are actively engaged in the battle when an attack is being made. I'm curious about whether Boons and Banes will be at all applicable to the Avoidance roll.

Davis

Have been checked out for a few months, this is all sounding great! Super excited to play something soon. I see people worrying about rolls. I know in that past, Colville has talked about having players control monsters (a 'devils advocate' IIRC haha), so the Director can focus on other stuff. I wonder if that is a workable homebrew solution? Have another player(s) track the evasion rolls of NPC combatants? Either way, I'm excited to try it as written before home brewing mechanics. Great stuff!

Ricardo

The idea of armor might be pretty good. But it has to be balanced in such a way that the player sees it as an option, not a requirement, otherwise the game might as well not have armor and just have higher hit die per class. I'd also not call armor "health", why not just call it... Armor? Some games have the concept of temporary hit points. Armor could be similar. It depletes before health during a fight. This would also open up some possibilities for strategies. Maybe a class has a "mending" spell that repairs armor mid-fight, or any other sort of mechanic. It might be more interesting to have it as a separate "damage" pool As for the opposed rolls, this is interesting, but it most likely has a trade-off. It increases engagement, but maybe at the cost of combat speed. All in all, interesting developments! Thanks for the update!

Eugene Cheney

Damn it seems to me as y’all dial in the core the changes become much more impactful!! This sounds very very cool! Definitely can see how this iteration will let y’all really play into the fantasy and play style of each class! Excited to see where it goes from here

Tithann

In this version, do you envision a healing spell healing Armor (since Armor is health)? I guess it works mechanically, but it feels "immersion breaking". Another way would be to have healing spells and/or Medicine checks for "Character Health" and mending spells and/or Crafting checks for "Armor Health", but might be tedious to track.

Alexandre Carreira

How would healing affect this mechanic? Is armor health unaffected by divine magical healing? I know how you’ve spoken about health being an abstraction that represents your heroism but even though that may be the case here, most people (in my limited sample pool) never see hp in it that way.

Plaidpoet

Nooooo, the game just pivoted from something I loved to my biggest annoyance with D20. Rolls take up so much time and are just empty calories. As a DM I hate rolling. My job is to set challenges and narrative events for players to navigate and overcome, not be bound by chaos like these puny mortals! A core mechanic of “the director has to stop what their doing and roll every time any monster is attacked” seems so overwhelming. I just ran jagged edge and imaging that but I roll every turn, multiple with minion/Cleave, is deflating. I’ll have no downtime to improvise or plan in combat if I have to keep rolling on players turns AND monster turns. I thought the armor reducing the amount of rolls per turn was a Brilliant idea. Losing it was always a possibility but to have it killed by the mechanic i loath is depressing.

Wesley

Armor as health is definitely a place where my suspension of disbelief runs into a wall. My armor got dented but then a medic slapped a bandage on me and it was fixed. I was beaten to within an inch of my life but then I put some armor on and I felt fine. I realize you can rationalize around these scenarios, but personally, that's just a place where my brain rebels against it.

Wesley

Wow, we are total opposites. I find it so hard to get behind any system that takes away my dice as DM. One of the many, many reasons I can't stand Apocalypse World and its progeny. I'm curious why you don't like rolling.

Plaidpoet

The overall randomness has ruined more cool moments than created ones for me. Villains aren’t dramatic if I roll all 1’s for damage (I prefer average damage every time now ) Quick monsters getting destroyed because I rolled a 1 on initiative (which I do a lot, I’m cursed. anytime rolls make flavor pointless is a negative for me) Rampaging giant misses 6 attacks and dies in 3 rounds (villain actions help tremendously to overcome this. the auto hit roll damage of mcdmrpg system is something I really enjoy) These could be seen as just issues with the D20 system but I think the dm needing to roll is the core issue. Hero’s get by with str, skill and a little bit of luck. The random chance part of the game should be player focused and only action based, players rolling to overcome obstacles. ( non action rolls: Rolling for HP each level is insane to me, a temporary moment of fun, hoping for a high number, and months of real world negative impact when you get a 2? What a terrible trade) Despite this dissertation lol, I’m not anti-dice, just anti DM dice.

Wolven

Fair but that's a personal perception thing. Seems like the majority of people like rolling and that why they made that change

Plaidpoet

I’d agree that players do for sure, but idk if the GMs are as obvious.

Wesley

So there's the different philosophy. I don't feel like rolls make flavor pointless, more that they keep players on their toes. Like sometimes they destroy they fast guys because they were unusually slow off the mark, but I like them winning and I know that probably a couple combats from now an ogre will roll a 20 on initiative and completely get the drop on them. I feel like it offers a wider range of experiences and less certainty for the players as to how things will play out. My personal style is just that I don't mind at all if it results in surprisingly easy victories or devastating defeats. But I see how that would not be enjoyable for everybody.

Plaidpoet

Your opinions are valid and the normal mindset with modern D20. I just want to be a director who paints a scene as “Darth Vader is intimidating and powerful” and not worry he’s gonna fight like Rick Moranis

Resonance

I agree with Plaidpoet. I really dont like the idea of adjudicating every attack with 2 people rolling and having to compare results. Seems like it is going to slow things down. I know this is a 2d6 system, but the distribution of 2d6-1d6 is pretty similar to a 2d8.

Wesley

I also fix the Darth Vader fighting like Rick Moranis problem (excellent turn of phrase by the way) by not even pretending to make my boss fights balanced. Recently I pitted two level 4 characters against an aboleth. In its lair. Underwater. And they won! But they sure had to earn it. Obviously, not to everyone's taste.

Skexxis

I think this idea is adaptable enough for a wide range of DM/GM/Director's. Some can handwave the idea and lump them all together and not care about "healing" armor. I would have my players track 2 separate "health pools", armor and hit points. Damage goes through armor first then hit points. I would definitely make my players repair their armor because I like fiddly bits. While they would have to heal their actual hit points. I am also a little sadistic and would enjoy seeing my players trying to decide mid dungeon if the damaged armor is worth keeping (to repair later), abandon all together or wear some newly found armor (which might not be in the best condition) to finish the delve. The possibilities are swirling in my head. MUHAHAHA!!

Flaer McGrath Holmquist

If you dislike the excessive randomness of a d20 system, you may be interested to learn that MCDM uses a 2d6 attack roll, which is more predictable than a d20 because 2d6 has a bell curve.

Plaidpoet

? Yes I know that lol

Tony Sladky

I know you're not *intentionally* recreating Final Fantasy Tactics in tabletop form, but every so often, one of these posts describes design that is straight out of the best PS1-era Final Fantasy game (if not the best in the entire franchise), and I can't help but get excited. Spells that take multiple turns to cast? Armor adding to your pool of HP? I played this game in 1997, and it was amazing.

LeFlamel

I have 200HP, half health half armor. I get reduced to 50 HP. Then I take off my armor. How much HP do I have?

Kevin Brown

'Yes, this means if you take your armor off, you lose that health. Of course it does. But unless armor doesn’t matter in your game, you’re gonna lose whatever bonus armor grants when you take it off.' Just a peanut gallery suggestion: IMHO, it would be best if having [X] armor just gives you the health bonus and you don't worry about what happens when you take off the armor. It is now just an intrinsic part of your character, whether they aesthetically are wearing the armor or not. This solves a multitude of both tedious and non-dramatic math questions about what happens under X or Y condition when you take off the armor (nothing, because the armor and associated +HP are just part of the character now), strips a lot of feelsbadman scenarios out of the play space, makes the mechanic character-centric instead of gear-centric and allows for a lot of design real estate regarding the manipulation of armor values without having to factor-in characters taking off the armor. Sure, you can obviously take your armor off - but in mechanical terms, that doesn't do anything. To further support this argument, I'll also just note that the cited tactical games where armor = HP are structured with linear systems so that you never take off a unit's armor. You upgrade that armor, but it always stays on, which is fundamental to it being a functional system.

Rhys Cottle-Vinson

Maybe instead of being a simple extra health pool, it's a separate pool that you can divert damage into? Say, your highest attribute plus your level for each hit.

LeFlamel

Ah, that's valid

Rhys Cottle-Vinson

Plus, that means that there becomes a play difference between "lots of little hits" and "one really big hit," which is a bit of strategic nuance I'm a big fan of!

Erik Bittner

why couldn't the Shadow just have a passive that lets it Retaliate when it completely avoids all damage?

Malachi Lynch

I'm pretty sure all creatures just can. "If you reduce the incoming damage to 0, you get to retaliate."

Andrey Pronin

I'm late to the party, but ad a thought: What if evasion is a d6+Y roll that is done first. And if it reduces the damage to zero, you get to retaliate. And then armor is a fixed number you get to subtract from damage after evasion. But if you get to zero or below at this stage, you don't get to retaliate. You just let it hit your plate, maybe wince and stagger a bit, but then press on on your turn. So, you have two ways to deal with damage coming to you: (1) easy and reliable (fixed numbers) armor, or (2) less predictable (d6+Y), but if you manage to roll high, you not only evade the attack but also control your attacker's movement to put them in a compromised position, where you can effectively retaliate. Or another way to think is hard block using armored parts vs soft redirection. Feels quite thematic. Though requires quite a lot of balancing to keep both parts of the defense meaningful and still not reduce most attacks to zero. And adds a bit of extra crunch to calculations.