So I have thus far not written a post-mortem on my last game, Star Chaser. So let’s do a quick good/bad. 

The Good: 

• The flexible gear system means the players switch up their characters every session. This means every session people have to coordinate and make choices. Those choices often took a bit of time for some players. This is actually a system I used in the first game Burning Light but it worked here as well. 
• The choices were mostly balanced. More precisely, they were balanced enough that people would switch up what they were doing and go in different directions between sessions.  
• Players often moved freely between multiple characters or NPCs. This switched up the play style once again. 
• Players made wildly different characters. I was super happy with the level of customization and unique characters. 
• We flipped between lots of small scale combats and then a few larger multisession battles with mechs, tanks, and large infantry squads. 
• Near the end of the game I had a repair system for the large battle-scale assets that worked well to make those big hitters only used rarely. 

The Bad

• Sci-fi as a setting is just not as popular as fantasy. This makes recruiting for new players hard, specifically as most boards are specifically focused on 5e D&D. 
• We originally launched with a crafting system that my players speed runned within 6 weeks. We had to disable that because it just was too much too quickly
• While the horizontal advancement was great, the vertical advancement was minimal and that was ultimately unsatisfying to a few players. The number balance was good so I need ways for some characters to “be better” without unbalancing those numbers. 
• Consumables weren’t a thing for most of the game. There was already power creep happening so a burst of power from consumables was not sustainable. 
• I made some even higher tier weapons but at the cost of less flexible builds. Players never took those options. 
• This took a huge amount of time to prep for. As talked about in a previous post, the world build work was very large and I was just lacking in some of the tools needed to tell these kind of stories at a consistent quality given that scale. 
• I had players coming in and out. I kept trying to execute on player centric arcs… only for that player to leave the game. Thus I feel that although the setting was good I need something where it is not character arc driven but still has character arc potential. 
• This whole blog on my failures to get space combat to be fun

I sunset the Star Chaser campaign and switched over to a Blackmoor/Westmarches style fantasy campaign. This has been great for a few reasons. Because it is an open world where I prep things and put them out there, I have only needed to do a fraction of the prep time compared to previous campaigns. I was also able to repurpose something from earlier campaigns for it, so while there are new dungeons and a new town, that is very minimal compared to what I was doing before. This means I can focus on other things and be a bit more loose while DMing, which has made this my favorite campaign to run thus far. When I want to prep, I do so I am not held to a content deadline of 6 days for the next session. It is done when it is done and can wait there when the players are ready for it. We are 6 months into the current campaign and I have 1½  years worth of content waiting for them. I am sure I will add more onto that as we move forward and I have other DMs adding in their own content. 

That said, I am missing Sci-fi. Despite the problems it is just more engaging and interesting. And that is why I have started to work on “The Wondering Station”. 

The broad idea is I am trying to take the best parts from my last 4 campaigns and get them all into one place. 

• From the Burning Light I am taking the satirical dystopian setting and the easy to use slot system. 
• From Before the Empire I am trying to build a more rich and focused world with larger character arcs. 
• From Star Chaser I am bringing many of the oddities, large scale war systems, and the “big crew” feel. I am also porting over a lot of the old maps as well. 
• From Ruins of Ah’Moor I am bringing the flexible xp system, the town centric West Marches style of play with player driven changes to the town, and the “everything is just a d20 roll” mechanic.  
• I am also pulling inspiration from the Beat system found in Slugblaster and many, many systems and secrets found across the various SS13 servers.

In terms of game play, my goals is to focus in on these 4 elements: 

• The prepped large dungeons work well both in terms of my workflow and craving out space for others to try DMing in the setting. Those are now alien archeology sites. The station is part of the corporate office of “Galactic Research Arcologists and Verification Experts with Robust Operational Budgets and Battle Effectiveness for Risky Situations”. These can be specific to each world, connected via Stargates a la Stargate GS-1, and other DMs can add in whatever they like. These are alien worlds… so we can get weird with it. 
• I want to do more mysteries and town based RP sessions. These are designed to take place on the station itself, so players will already know the characters and the station. This gives us more opportunity to RP in the open world setting. I have been using ChatGPT to help write a mystery style missions. Overall, I have not been too impressed with ChatGPT’s writing ability, but that is partially a complaint about dialogue which is something I would improv. 
• The Station will also “jump” from time to time. This new location creates an opportunity for thematic crew members to join, new tech/weapons options, and villains/threats specific to this area. The station will have a shuttle for taking some of the larger combat elements to larger battles, i.e., the Mechs and Tanks from Star Chaser, which can be invested in leading up to combat. This gives the players some of the long term investment options. 
• The players can make periodic investments to improve the station and themselves. This will change the station itself and open up other options for the players. The updates grant session to sessions bonuses as well as long term upgrades. 

So how do characters work? – The general design 

I need characters that can both 1) be interesting on missions from session to session 2) be interesting across their development as characters and 3) be interesting across the development of that station and crew as a whole. 

I think I can broadly accomplish point 1 with the gear slot system I have used in the past. The lower tier of items are accessible to anyone. The higher tier of items require training in them. I think that is a good but not great solution. I want to add powerful consumables into that mix as well to give a bit more variety but at greater costs than I am doing now in Ah’Moor. 

For point 2, characters need a more traditional leveling up path. I plan on leaning on the station side, specifically spending xp to gain access to crafting consoles and or specific skills. There is a lot of room complexity and growth here. Part of the goal to create more character development is to make the verticality happen on the station side and in stockpiling resources for the big battles. I want that element to absorb the big hitting powers, not every session of the game. In part, this means I am trying to answer point 2 by making it point 3. 

The second way I want to accomplish point 2 is through Slugblasters beat system. In our system a 1 or 20 on a d20 for trouble and style that then attaches to your job on the station. Instead of these turning into teen angst flashbacks, they will turn into issues on the station. This is a way to force the story telling a bit and connect the players to their specific jobs in a more natural way. 

So how do players work? – The details

So first of all…. all of this is due to change. I am sure that as I flesh out more of the details I will find problems and develop new ideas that just work better. Think of this blog post as a dev update, not a release. 

So broadly there are 4 kinds of characters. The first 3 are standard, then the 4th is the oddity. The 3 are the Station Crew, the Mad Scientist, and the Marine Clone. The Station Crew largely focuses on the ship’s morale, which is what I use for health in Ah’Moor. Many of these positions are pulled from Space Station 13 and they affect both healing between sessions and max health during sessions. Most Station jobs contain some strange and secret bonuses for those who really master their field. A lot of the bonuses here come from spending xp to gain access to new machines or making items for the crew. 

Next is the Mad Scientist, which once again pulls ideas from Space Station 13, and they invest in the bigger picture things like explosions, giant fighting robots, bigger explosions, superhuman mutant powers granted by pharmaceuticals, different kinds of explosions, research on those acquired alien relics, and… explosions. They are trying to make things available for those big battles or develop new options for the Marines to play or the Crew to use. 

The 3rd is the Marine Clone. A semi-lost soul being born and reborn into valor. These are basically just a Star Chaser character but with extra lives and focused on the combat side. The specialist versions of these are based off of TF2 characters to give you a thematic starting point. Your skill gains are access to more weapons, armor, and combat gear options.

The 4th and final is not really anything specific. Part of what Star Chaser did right was leave room for oddness. That is available here as well. I have a giant list of strange ideas but will also take ideas from players. I want a more limited pool of Strange Characters as they are the hardest to balance and work around. So maybe let player either choose 1 of the main 3 or they can roll and take what every they get, with Strange being accessed this way.

After that there are lots of options within each of the 4 big groups so players still have lots of choices to make. Currently I have about 10ish subclasses in each of classes so players still have plenty of choices. There is also the option of letting some people to take 2 options (roll over 16 of each?) but have a higher xp cost or another similar mechanic. Once again limiting this to random rolls.

And on a final note about characters…. I want these to be more communally held, not just “your character”. This happened with the NPCs in Star Chaser and it was great. I will probable just make some random characters as examples and then allow players to add in more characters if they want but only after they have played a session or two.

As I am working on my next campaign, I thought I would take a few minutes to write some of the context that goes into that. For this post we will have two parts: 1) elements of play and 2) trade-off between combat systems.

Element of play or What the heck is this game going to actually be? 

The early Blackmoor campaign, from which D&D was derived, was an odd mix of mostly crawling a single large mega dungeon with characters being units from a war game, raising an army for the big end battle, and then a smaller mix of one-off adventures in the land. 1st and 2nd editions of D&D, or OSR if you prefer, are also focused on a mix of smaller dungeons and hex crawling. In the early game, getting a burst of power to work through a dungeon works. For a mega dungeon… not so much. Raising an army for large battles was important in Early D&D but only in late game. Modern D&D is mostly split between DM’s doing small dungeons with a specific theme and then lots and lots of characters and one-off adventures matching them. 

The reason why this matters is because we have to call out what a character needs to do if we are making something like a class or character creation process. Given the previous ideas: 

While every campaign is different, between the editions there has been a shift in focus on what D&D games are and are not. On what kind of content they do and do not tackle. One of the reasons why more recent versions of D&D have struggled with designing Fighters is because in the early version the two most important things about Fighters is their ability to raise armies and their use of magic swords. Now everyone gets magic items and they are not raising armies, i.e. everyone is now part-fighter and half of the Fighters job is no longer a core part of the game. No wonder they are bland. 

There is also this core idea of player feedback in response to the content. Originally there was no thief class. Players created the thief class and suggested it to TSR, not TSR offering it to the player. And the original thief class is a completely logical response to a dungeon filled with traps and trickery. As the published modules started to lean on hex crawls more and more, the Ranger class went from a specialty within the fighter to its own stand alone thing. The Ranger class and its themes only really make sense in a game that is leaning into that niche of content. Rangers in 5e struggle… because they are best Hex Crawlers in a game that does not hex crawl. 

So if you ask me “How do I make a good Ranger class?” my answer to that will vary wildly based on which edition of the game you are playing or what kind of campaign you are running. In a Dark Sun like setting where you have to scavenge for water, Rangers are totally overpowered. In a generic superheroes in high-fantasy setting, Rangers have lackluster DPS. 

So in this next campaign, what are the marquee ideas I am pinning the campaign on?

• Mega-Dungeons… or at least much larger dungeons with interactive elements between sections. 
• Hunting down great beasts… with a focus on turning their hides into armor and weapons 
• Faction Play… with a focus on building an army, raising a castle, and improving the realm with infrastructure 
• A Real Time game, so one day in the real world is one day in the game. Time is a resource you use for self healing, regaining magic, crafting, self training, and training others. 

So how do these ideas affect the game? The biggest is how the real time game interacts with magic. There is always a cost to regaining magic so there is always an incentive to not cast a spell. At the same time, there is a meta level of play where magic users can stack up a large pool of spells in their magical arsenal. It is best to look at magic users not in terms of long rest but instead in terms of their total magic over their career.

Tools, which are throwaway items in 5e, are actually super critical to helping you and your allies to power up. Crafting will be more powerful and reliable than enchantment magic. It also means that many players will be dependent on other players for their “level up”. I double down on this idea with a team being needed to hunt down large monsters to make better weapons and armor but that creature only giving a limited amount of crafting material. 

And finally, given the faction play element, it is important to look beyond your character and instead look at your role in the world. Gaining +1 soldiers is more powerful than gaining +1 to your sword hand when fighting in a big battle. This creates a very different leveling experience because you are facing a trade off between different elements of play.

This goes back to the classic failure of modern D&D players to read only the class section of the older player handbooks and declare that Fighters are linear. They are not, they keep gaining extra attacks and more health via adding more minions to the battlefield. Neither the Beastmasters Ranger nor conjuring Wizards are the best pet class in D&D. The 1st Edition Fighting-Man is the best pet class in D&D. That is why Fighters use basic mechanics. You’re basic because you will be playing 4 Fighters at once. 

Of these three examples, note how they interact with each other. Crafting, regaining magic, training others, and resting to recover from tanking a dungeon all share the same resource: Time. Something like an Eldridge Knight or a Bladesinger becomes challenging in this system because they would want to drop all their Time into resting and regaining magic, but doing that ;eaves them with nothing left for Faction Play or leveling up their character with training and crafting. Those kinds of apex dungeon crawlers can be a thing… just know that sustaining those is hard and comes at a cost to other parts of the game. 

The Iron Triangle of Combat Systems 

This is the iron triangle of tabletop RPG systems. You can pick any two options for your RPG, but you can never get all three. 

Now all of these three ideas are good insights and fun ideas. There are plenty of reasons to support any of these and any combination of these. However, as a designer I have to accept that I will always sacrifice the third option is I prioritize the other two. 

For 5e D&D, the vast majority of combat ends in 2-3 rounds. That is the game working as intended. But as a DM and storyteller, I hated this. It removes any chance for the party to have to regroup and find a new approach to re-engage the enemy. That engaging back and forth matters. I find this hilarious because this is actually something the D&D movie gets right but that game gets wrong. From the first few scenes of the movie you know that Chris Pine’s bard is going to have to outwit the final boss. And he does in an entertaining way. But it is only entertaining because one the first attempt it failed. More rounds were needed for the regroup and second try. That is just the basics of good storytelling.

The problem is if you want those fights with lots of player options and power as well as the back and forth, that is just a really long fight. Great for the climax of a film, too many hours at the table. This is part of the mistake 4th edition D&D made. Combat took way too long and was way too complex. 5e was largely built on 4e’s math and 3.5e character sheets but with things gutted down to a 2e level of simplicity, or at least as close to that level of simplicity as they could get. The key with 5e being that they designed the characters and monsters to be 2-3 fights because they were actively avoiding longer fights. 

And that is the choice here: 1) the 5e approach of lots per round but only 2-3 rounds or 2) what I just did in Star Chaser with 6-10 rounds but less options per round. Both systems preserve the top of the triangle. I think that part of the Triangle is the most mandatory just due to the practicality of running games regularly. 

Now in Star Chaser I did sneak around that a bit. Most sessions were the red line while one or twice a year we had a series of green line sessions. Those green line options were large scope battles that lasted multiple sessions. I did this not by giving each character more options, but instead just gave everyone many simple characters to play all at once. I think that worked well in the campaign, fits right in with what the Blackmoor campaign did, and is actually what the D&D movie did as well. I think this mostly red line to sometimes green line but never blue line design is what the OSR community has backed into. The problem being that as time goes on, the obvious addition is adding in more things to classes which pushes you from the red line to either the blue line (with weaker monsters) or the green line (with stronger monsters). 

Combining these two frameworks 

Traditionally a character class is define as “here is the list of cool powers you get” 

So what is a character class in a system with a focus on: 

• Faction level play 
• Combat with lots of rounds but minimal per round 
• A focus on very large dungeons with real resource limitations 
• And character growth limitation governed by Time, not selecting between bonuses 

That is the challenge I am working through. This is not about balancing the DPS of different classes. This is about larger structural questions on how a class would interact in a much larger world and seeking more long term goals.

And that says nothing of things like characters aging, creating a lineage of characters, or the details of Kingdom management and technological development or magical development. This is not really a class system but a whole series of class system applied to different aspects of the game.

Warning: this is a 3,000+ word analysis of my previous 1,000 word design pitch. 

As part of my creative endeavors, there are a few processes that I have found helpful over the years. Three of them are… 

• Write out your ideas to the point that it is in a testable state. Don’t try to build the perfect system or a full system, just get something down. You do not need to fully flesh out every permutation of a subsystem, but you do need to have a few options for each for testing and clarifying ideas. Once this is done, publish a draft or preserve in a state as a reference. 
• Give yourself some time before you return to the previous draft. Then iterate with a focus on challenging assumptions, unifying systems, and really drilling down to where the fun or interesting idea is. It is really easy to build a complex system that is unfun to play and get bogged down in the rules. It is hard to build a simple system that is intrinsically fun to play. 
• Make sure you understand what your characters/classes are not. I think this is a detail lots of designers miss. If this is a group centric game, creating internal group dependence is powerful. 

So in doing that with this design from my last post, we have to pull out a bit and ask the question: do I need classes? What would a classless version of this look like? 

So let’s review the things in the original design:

• Crafting 
• Might 
• Weapons 
• Cunning 
• Magic – Divine/Druidic 
• Magic – Dark Sorcery 

In the original design Barbarians and Elf were the middle 2 classes in the spectrum and they got 3 options. This gave each of them a nice internal triangulation to work with so they had an interesting choice to make every time to gain an upgrade. The Dwarf and Sorcerer were the end pieces, which only got 2 options but they each got one of the most powerful options in the game. Both the Dark Sorcery and the Crafting have a ton of smaller options within them, thus giving tons of customization and flavor. Those two end pieces are also more powerful than the other options. The game designers sleight of hand here was that 2 of the 4 classes have heavy design asymmetry which means that they can’t be easily compared. 

To further the class distinction I gave half, Barbarian and Dwarf, some specific bonuses with weapons/armor. This helped split the Barbarian from the Elf, which otherwise were too similar, and gave the Dwarf a bit more combat options since currently they have the least. This does make the Barbarian a bit of a stronger choice than the other 3 options… but I am actually ok with that. This is a sword and sorcery setting, I was wanting a disproportionate number of barbarians in my world. I was thinking about making an optional 1d6 to choose your character with 1-3 all being different kinds of barbarians. I think the design itself may produce similar results. 

So with the explanation of why the previous system is what it is, can I make a classless system? Let’s not answer the question of should I make one just yet, just can I make one. 

So basic idea: There are 6 things, gain any 2. Maybe later you can gain a 3rd. Simple enough. Does this create a good system across characters and within characters: no, I think there will be notable imbalances. Specifically: 

• The internal choices of melee vs. magic at the character level 
• Crafting maybe too powerful given the extra downtime without a penalty 

So there is clearly both a feel and power difference between melee and magic. On the table melee is far more reliable but magic is more powerful. Or at least sorcery magic is more powerful, the divine/druidic magic is a smaller set of spells that serves to give other classes support. Supporting other classes gives you the power impact of… those other classes, thus support is generally self balancing with martial options. This is why the Elf has standard health and melee options while the Sorcerer is designed as a glass cannon. That is a balance correction. They are more powerful but also riskier to play. So what happens when we are about to mix sorcery with the other classes? Well when leveling sorcery is always better in a one on one choice against a melee option. 

This is an internally design imbalance. I want sorcery to be game changing in challenging situations like it is in early D&D. The problem in early D&D is players quickly become reliant on magic like the sleep spell which turns every combat into feeling similar. There is a similar feel in games like Everquest where classes like the Enchanter can charm enemies to fight for them. Note that in Everquest any given enemy is always notably more powerful than any given player character. Heroes can never go mono e mono and win thus they have to rely on groups. The Enchanter’s charm ability to control something more powerful then they are is thus very powerful… but sooner or later the enemy will resist it and turn to attack the party at a random time. Thus charm is both overpowered in the offense it brings to a group but also overly risky in consequences when the offense turns against you. That is the kind of magic we want here. 

So to use make a mathematical example here: if a barbarian does 2 damage, a sorcerer needs to do 6 damage to feel the impact. Note, this is not 6 raw damage necessarily but something that has the impact of 6 damage. But to balance the game we need to get that back down to 2, thus the DC mechanic on the spell so they only work two-thirds the time. This lowers the result to an average of 4 and it forces the players to not rely on specific spells all the time, thus fixing early D&D’s Sleep issues or 5e D&D’s Fireball issue. This forces sorcerers to develop multiple answers instead of focusing on ways to overleverage a single answer again and again. The sorcerer also needs some other penalty of -2 in some way so they are weaker or more limited than a Barbarian. This makes the Barbarian a 2 & 0 while the Sorcerer is a 4 & -2. 

Now many of you may point out “you don’t need the extra penalty, just make spells only work one-third of the time.” While that is mathematically correct… it feels awful in play. A low chance event in a system where they can be repeated on a success actually introduces more randomness than fewer high chance events in the same system. The average result is the same, but the low chance approach creates a much larger distribution. We are seeking a Goldilocks zone of sorts here which is really tricky to determine. We want magic to be unreliable enough that players always make a plan B but not so unreliable that Sorcerers are worthless 75% of the time and Gods the other 25% of the time. 

Currently I have that -2 as just weaker weapon options, lower health, and a lack of other roll choices. I think that works fine for Sorcerers and fits into the classical “glass cannon” of magic users that we have seen in past games. It works fine, but I am open to other kinds of -2. I have strived to keep this game simple, so I am unsure what the other penalty options would be here. But if we opened up to the classless system I would be happy to say “if you gain sorcery, you also have to take this penalty set of your choice”. I just have no clue what those other penalty sets would be at the moment. 

So looping back to the topic of a classless system, for me the issues above create an interesting question: if Sorcerers need this kind of penalty, do any of the other options need it? 

Cunning, Might, and Weapon all have pros and cons already. Divine/Druidic Magic is balanced with those as discussed before. Crafting is a bit trickier. 

Crafting actually has lots of powerful long term effects and short term boosts built into it. This also allowed for me to lean into the Dwarf vs. Elf dichotomy with each have opposite martial skills and completely different party support mechanisms. Both classes are medium power martial classes with support elements but since neither class shares a single element of either, they feel very different to each other.  

Since I limited the Dwarves combat potential a bit in original design I was happy to give them the free crafting downtime. This design asymmetry let me dodge the question of balancing crafting vs. other melee investments. Basically, if crafting comes with a free downtime then take crafting becomes an automatic pick for the free resources that happens outside of your downtime investment. Thus not really a choice, you do this or you are just wrong. 

Currently in the crafting system there are tons of options. Some have temporary effects, like increasing regeneration out of combat or a small batch of potions to use in combat. Others have significant campaign effects, like setting up a castle or training mounts/pets. Since downtimes serve as our leveling mechanic here it is debatable if those one-off bonuses are worth the investment. I am not sure if I am comfortable with short term power at the cost of a character being weaker in the long term. I think that is less of an issue in this system than most others since the power curve is flatter, but it does feel like a character build trap and I never want to design for that. I don’t want a player to get pressured into being a permanent brewer of health potions every downtime and thus never improve their baseline abilities. Having a full-time alchemist would be powerful for the campaign, but weak for the player in the long term.

So I think the answer for crafting is similar to the answer for Sorcerer, we need that X & -2 format if you get a free crafting option each downtime. That -2 has to be a big enough penalty that people don’t want the free powerful crafting bonus abilities. 

So restating the classless design with updates: There are 6 things, gain any 2. Later you can gain a 3rd. 

• Crafting with the extra crafting downtime but also with a notable penalty 
• Might 
• Weapons 
• Cunning 
• Magic – Divine/Druidic 
• Magic – Dark Sorcery but also with a notable penalty 

I like where this is going in terms of balance and more character options, but I have a lot of work to do on penalties options. 

So now we come back to the question of can vs. should. Let’s assume I come up with good penalty options for Crafting and a few alternatives for Sorcery too. Is this version of the game better than the original 4 class design? 

Pros of classless 

• More flexibility in character creation, more ways to make your character you own 
• That “gain a 3rd” moment has a nice feel to it. I like the idea of really forcing players to focus their downtimes on just two ideas early on and develop a strong character specialization and feel and then the character has a maturing/versatility moment at a later level.
• Allows later game players to invest in areas that are needed after the world has become more settled. 

Cons of classless

• Way less specific class identity. This may muddy the waters a bit but I don’t think it does so too much. This is something to watch for. 
• The advantage of the HeroQuest 4 classes design is people already have a strong feeling for those specific class ideas. Even if you don’t know this specific game at all, people near instantly understand the ideas behind those characters. Losing classes means losing that instant clarity for new players. 

The interesting thing about the classless design is that I don’t think it contradicts the 4 class HeroQuest design. I think you can just add in a 5th class, let’s call it the Vagabond. A character who picked up an odd mix of things as they traveled. I would expect the Vagabond to have lots of crossover with other classes, maybe even identical characters but that is an outcome that is already possible. 

So what would the Vagabond add or remove from the game? 

• A magic and martial hybrid different from the default Elf. Sorcerer penalties limit how good these will be. 
• Crafting and different martial builds. Need a more fleshed out set of penalties applied to crafters to understand any drawbacks here. 
• The Enchanter style character: a sorcerer or healer who is as focused on crafting. 
• That maturing moment later in the game 
• The other 4 classes have great clarity for new players. The Vagabond is messy. 

I think this will be a net gain for the system. Getting the crafting penalties figured out will be tricky because the campaign needs crafters more than the dwarves need to craft. The design choices around the dwarf is a really powerful sleight of hand that I can no longer use, so I now have to either create a balanced integration for it or find a good set of penalties to apply to crafters. 

So I want to talk about one more thing here: the Bard Problem. Having a character that is a jack of all trades and master of none is a very tricky piece of design. In 3rd edition D&D Bards were the worst class. In 5th edition D&D Bards are the best class. First place or last place, they are never in the middle. 

Why am I talking about Bards? Because I think the obvious unanswered question here is: if everything costs a downtime, why limit it at all? Why not let anyone invest in anything at any time. And the answer is because I don’t think that level of balance is possible. I don’t think you can make every choice balanced with every other choice. Very slight imbalances in those kinds of systems lead to an automatic pick option which leads to everyone making the same character or at least very similar players. To take that even one step further, even if you could perfectly balance everything, I think doing so is a bad idea. What I want is different people at my table playing slightly different versions of the same game tailored to the way they like to play. 

Types of players and how this game meets their styles: 

• Helpful to the party: Support magic both provides more complex tactical options as well as feels different at the table than stabbing an enemy with a sword. The game itself is better with them but the individual player may or may not be. That is ok, because some players just like to be helpful and this gives them a clear path to that. Some crafting does this as well but in a more circuitous way. 
• Overpower: Might and Weapons provide players the abilities needed to overpower their enemies. Paired with the push your luck action economy for a more fluid set of choices on each and every turn, this gives player’s their power fantasy options. 
• Out Smart: Cunning and called shots are for players who want to think around situations instead of bulldozing through them. They want to out smart the DM. They want to leverage their game knowledge against specific enemies. Here is a clear set of tools to do so. Some long term crafting options also fit this choice as they are ways to prepare for specific enemies or situations. 
• Seeking the Big Moment: Sorcery is built entirely around this. The overpower melee  also allows for this kind of game play by saving up for the big moment instead of using resources bit by bit. The encounter has to pivot around this big action. These are super satisfying for a lot of players. 
• World Changing: These are for the player who is less interested in any given dungeon or any given villain and more interested in the world as a whole or just the advancement of their group members. There are parts of crafting that lean into this heavily. Things like taming mounts, building keeps, and enchanted items help change the long term status of the game and the characters in it. The devoted smithy slowly and steadily making every Barbarian a full set of armor, one piece at a time. I have not written all the spells yet, but I expect some Sorcery or Divine magic options for long term effects may emerge. Think a network of teleportation circles or sanctifying a temple. 

The problem with the “everything available” Bard option is the style ideas above are not shared by everyone, or to be more precise, different parts are favored by different amounts by different people. To make each idea work and feel good at the table, some may need to have a bit more kick than the others. That is ok if groups are a team of specialists, because there is a need for a bit of everything. Slight differences in the power of styles does not hold up in a more free form system because if some options are just a bit more powerful those options now mathematically become the “best” pick, thus an automatic pick, and thus a mandatory “choice”. 

So the balancing challenge now becomes selecting between two different choices: 

1. trying to balance each option within each style to be fun against similar options 
2. trying to balance each option within each style to be absolutely equal to every other option in every other style

Given those two choices, I lean to option 1 which does not work with the everything system. I would much rather have more fun options within a style than a perfectly balanced system across styles. If this was a computer game, I would have more faith that an option 2 balance could work. That is because you can reasonably do things like fractional damage, track lots of complex bonuses, or make minor game play changes like a 4 1⁄2% increase to swing speed. That kind of granularity and complexity works in the video game space, but it does not on a table top. You can also track the play of 1,000 players down to the smallest detail as part of your alpha test. Video games also have sound effects, VFX, and other animation tricks to make an ability or spell feel impactful in a way that a table top just does not have. 

The Bard problem leads me back to one of the points I made at the start: make sure you understand what your characters/classes are not. By determining what they can’t do first, you remove the automatic pick option because different skill mixes will have different pros and cons. Designing from a negative space instead of a positive space is a bit trickier but worth the effort as it can produce some interesting ideas and is a great way to ensure a diversity of options is being pursued. It can’t produce a Bard but it can produce a Vagabond. 

So thanks for sitting through my 3,000+ word analysis of my previous 1,000 word design pitch. Yes, it does often take this level of analysis to answer simple questions like “should I add a 5th class that is a hybrid?” For some designers that is a “why not” question but for me I want to make sure it actually has something worth adding to the system.

Let’s start at the beginning… 

What is a role playing game? Broadly speaking, something where players act out their characters’ choices/reactions and also face challenges in the game. Those challenges and the character powers to face those challenges are often highly tied to the settling/genre. So fantasy gets swords, arrows, world bending magic, and dashing tricksters with feathers in their caps over bardic charisma while sci-fi gets energy swords, lasers, world bending technology, and dashing tricksters with vests over their Harrison Ford-like charisma…

Yep, those are totally different things. 

But either way, I have always tried to build games that are high on impact and interesting decisions and low on minor technical fiddly bits. That means avoiding +1 bonuses, they neither change decisions and these are the most fiddly of bits. I prefer combat which has a healthy back and forth between the enemies and the players. This means avoiding combat where players charge in, unleash all their powers on turn 1 or 2, and then the enemy is dead before there is any back or forth much less adaptation by the players. I want my players to have real choice and for those choices to play out over a dozen rounds of combat or so. There needs to be time to punish the usual tactics if relevant, allow the players to adapt, and then overcome the enemy.

But that is at the ground level, the infantry level. When you get into fantasy you start to ask about how Kingdoms and large monsters affect the world. While in sci-fi you have to wrestle with the limits of different kinds of technologies, space travel, how industrialization or automation affects daily life, and even how just the scale of it all affects it all. 

For this blog post, I want to zoom in on just one of those Sci-fi ideas: space combat. So same goal here, I want my space captains, crews, and ace fighter pilots to have real choices and for those choices to play out over a dozen rounds of combat or so. 

So what are the options that came before me for this genre? Well, there are 3 approaches and sure enough these 3 align with 3 big sci-fi IPs. I have never seen official names for these approaches so forgive the over dramatic names I will be making up. The first is the “multiple different phase command bridge” which is used in multiple Star Trek games. The second is “WW2 IN SPACE!!” which is used by fantasy flight in their Star Wars minotaur game. The final is not a well known IP but it has become a bit of a darling in the tabletop community, and that is Lancer, specially Lancer:  Battlegroup whose playstyle I would describe as “stack +1, 2 rounds of nothing, then everything dies in round 3”. 

So let’s start with the Star Trek example because I think in many ways it is the most telling. Trekkies… are nerds, and like all good nerds and other people of great taste they have a long and deep love for table top games. This is where I started my hunt for an example of a good space combat system I could bring into my game. It is also a place I failed very, very quickly. I start to grab the many, many, many archives of Let’s Play the videos of Star Trek games. Many had additional small but devoted reddit communities. I started to run a few in the background and once I heard space combat I was going to start taking notes. 3 days of podcasts later I stopped that approach without a single instance of space combat. So to reddit I went to ask why. Across many games and many different versions of Star Trek tabletop, there was a surprising universal answer. Space combat sucks, you play this for the interesting away missions or not at all. This was universally agreed on across niche fan communities that it was just an unspoken rule. 

The reason? The phases were very complicated. There was no room for imagination. And even if you did it right, it was very hard to follow the battle or make it feel impactful. It was a lot of work for all involved for no narrative or imaginative reward. To make this worse, the away mission play was solid so no one wanted to give up that bit of play time for the other. Thus, the space rules are largely ignored. I was able to find 1, only 1 example of play during a let’s play. At the start of the episode after that one, they announced they were not going to do space battles any more and apologized to their fans. Yikes. When your space combat is so bad Trekkies apologize for it to other Trekkies for being too niche and nerdy, that is saying something. 

The problem is other games have followed suit. Stars Without Number and the classic Traveler also split their roles into pilot, engineering, sensors, weapons, or repair with people doubling up in the last two as is needed. Things tend to be balanced around “energy” with a pool of it being smaller than the number of systems it could run. So power is moved around to meet the needs at that moment. Once again this quickly gets into the fiddly bits of design and while the goal is for everyone to do something useful, power may limit that and basically cost someone their turn. Also, not all of those roles are anywhere near equal to each other. If you want things like sensors and engineering to be meaningful, multiple phases with their own complex or set of bonuses will likely be needed which just adds in more complications. 

I get why people like this design and I think it does have potential… but has the potential shown itself? If a few hundred Trekkies can’t fix it, I doubt a lowly normie like me has a chance. So what is the next option? The Star Wars miniature game. 

So this is a really fun game and can still be found in most game shops. The mechanics are taken from an older WW1 war game and is overall a good design. Each player has limited movement options, hides their movement choice, and then both sides reveals it at the same time. You fire but only at the end of your turn. This means both players or teams of players have to find a way to maneuver around their enemies and out-think them. This matches great for Star Wars as many of the original space battles were actually modeled directly off of WW2 footage. 

This is actually the best version I have tested thus far. The problem is: role playing stops once this mode starts. It also requires a Star Fox like set up where everyone is a fighter pilot or they have nothing to do. The hidden maneuvering and only firing forward with those you maneuvered behind is the limitation that makes this puzzle engaging. Add in turrets or larger ships and it quickly loses its spark. It does the fighter niche well, but fails if you push on it any other way. That inflexibility makes it a bad fit for a tabletop game.

So this takes us to Lancer: Battlegroup. As you would expect from a Lancer game: great art, great story, and tons of customization options. But most things are not impactful. So some slight context. The whole battlegroup acts as your character, so they all stick together and share an action economy. There are 3 kinds of ships: Battleships for long range fire power but only after spinning up big weapons for a few turns. Carriers which can launch your expected fighters and bombers but also medium sized escort ships for defense and boarding pods filled with mechs…. because this is Lancer after all. All of those launched assets are only good at short range; it takes a few turns to get in range. And finally Frigates provide defenses bonus and just extra hulls to hit. You get 20 points to build your battlegroup. Ships cost between 3-5 points and most have 0-4 point worth of optional upgrades. Battlegroups run 3-5 ships depending on where you fall on the quality vs. quantity line. 

The result of this design are two fold: 

1. There are only 2 kinds of battlegroups 
2. Nothing happens in turns 1 and 2, tons of death in turn 3, little happens in turns 4 and 5. 

So how does this happen? Well, basically the optimal way to play is to build your fleet around either Battleships or Carriers but never both because they are optimized to play at different ranges. Mix in Frigates to your desired level of protection. 

The first two turns are just maneuvering a bit, spinning up large weapons, and maybe gaining some minor bonuses that will most likely not be relevant. What does not happen here is decision making. If you build your battlegroup to do X, then you do X. There are zero situations where you switch gears and do Y instead. This makes the game almost programmatical in nature. It is less a tabletop game and more like the novelty electric football game from the 1970’s that was based on vibrations. You set it up and then let it go and what happens, happens. Everything is built to do something specific so there is limited room to do something else. 

With turns 1 and 2 out of the way the Carriers are now in range and the big guns of the Battleships come on line. The big guns are hit big, miss big and a few lucky rolls hit make or break the whole battle. Expect to see 20 health Battleships with +2 bonuses from maneuvers get hit for 35 points. Carriers do a bit more consistent damage per turn but less upfront. So you either break their back, or they break your back, and then the Carriers clean up over a few turns. That is every battle in Lancer: Battlegroup. The NPC fleet is weaker than the PC fleet, so you will win most fights but bad luck will catch up to you sooner or later and you will lose everything quickly. Nothing you can do about it. This is just a really complex weighted coin flip. 

So which of these best fits a sci-fi campaign? None of them. The “multiple different phase command bridge” is a known loser and while it does leave some room for RP moments it is largely an exercise in tediousness and favors some roles far over others. “WW2 IN SPACE!!” only works if it makes sense for everyone to be a fighter pilot. And even then, I am unsure if there is role play potencial there. And finally the “stack +1, 2 rounds of nothing, then everything dies in round 3” may be the most scientifically accurate and worse option. If you are a 5e player that likes to go nova the exact same way in every fight, you will like this. I think that good stories do not come out of those kinds of mechanics. Or most specifically, that kind of combat shuts stories down faster than they can carry the narrative forward. 

… and so I return to my journey to find option 4….