So about a year ago I started to lay the groundwork for my new tabletop campaign. I knew I wanted to wrap up my current campaign, it was a homebrew fantasy setting using 5e Dungeons and Dragons, and those kinds of campaigns need finality to the character arcs. Also, I think 5e is irredeemably broken past a certain power level and we were well past that power level. So I started to aim that campaign to an ending point. I also used this time to revisit my cyberpunk system, Burning Light, which I have written about previously. 

Originally, I had planned to build out many themes and then let DM’s include whichever themes fit their world(s). I actually backed off of that plan because of how that often works at the table. Anytime WotC released a new expansion to D&D people wanted to play those classes/races even if they did not fit the world at all. In fantasy, including an odd race is slightly jarring but is often hand waved and still works ok, but in sci-fi introducing radically different technology can derail the entire setting. Recognizing that this disconnect was incoming, I pivoted. 

So I removed all the class/theme limitations from the game entirely and retitled the system “Star Chaser”. Anyone can be anything and use anything. And that worked really well. I asked my player to “stay adjacent to your character idea” but also over multiple sessions “grow your character”. They did this without a problem. I think it has more to do with specific players learning to love specific weapons and items… which is fine. Specific characters have developed a specific feel to them and a tactical specialization that the player maneuvered around without the need to create classes. Gear as class not only worked, it is better because the exact details of that balance shift somewhat session to session. 

This approach to players of “no, you tell me what you want to play and I will match you with options” really opened up player creativity. I would not have made half the ideas and class-like roles that the player naturally came up with. This open call to create something new and weird really worked. 

In Burning Light, we had the pawn shop function which was little more than me dealing the top 6 cards from my stack of 50 or so 3×5 cards, but in StarChaser there are way, way more items. From about 50 items in Burning Light to 3,000+ in StarChaser. That said, I still leveraged that pawn shop function. I am only in the second version of it, but currently it is 3 random weapons/armors, 3 random utility times, and 3 items with a shared idea like all are relics from a specific faction or all ground vehicles or all new crew members.  

Originally I had some crafting options to act as a backup to the pawn shop. I have since removed them. Partly, this was because the pawn shop generation needed some work as it was generally providing under powered or uninteresting items. Secondly, the alternative crafting method was way too powerful. The players were leaning on the alternative method almost entirely. At the end of the day, I wanted power gain to be connected to the world, not the character, and people trying new ideas, not a strategic level up process. Players have some control over the process by where they complete missions at. Either way, this puts the players dependent on the world to power up and not a rule set.

The long term goal here is this allows the DM to control gear/classes/power-features of the game directly via the pawn shop. If the DM does not like an item, reroll the option if it comes up in the pawnshop. This level of control is still session by session and not all the start of the game. So this is not a DM saying “low magic” during a campaign’s session zero or banning specific classes or builds. Instead the DM is holding back the magic items until much later on in the campaign or simply not letting a class’s mechanics be available in play. I.e., instead of a “No Monks Rule” the party just never seems to find Monk items. This is a more organic, and entirely behind the screen, balancing mechanic for the DM to use if needed. This also allows the DM to keep their world focused on the themes they want to play around. It stops that random idea derailing your world because a designer for a completely different setting published a fun book that works for their world but not yours. If players pull their power from class/source books, that different designer is a threat. If players can only pull their power from engaging in your world, then the DM can pick and choose the ideas that fit their world from that designer. That threat is now a buffet. 

Power scaling in gear is still something I am pinning down. In Burning Light, there was generally only one level of gear. A few pieces had an upgraded version. Originally in StarChaser I had 10 levels of power. Currently I have scaled that down to 4. The “new” four are just levels 1, 4, 7, and 10 of the previous system. That said the overall power scaling may still be too much. I may later scale them to 1, 3, 5, and 7. That said, my players have not really played a ton at the higher level and those items all contain drawbacks. We will have to see how hard that drawback hits as to if we need to scale those items back. 

I think I can get the weapon options a bit more flesh out within the current constraints, but 2 more options would really help. A lot of relic choices have not been fully leveraged so that will partially fill this gap. I also think this system will open up a bit when the drawbacks start to kick in. Some of the movement driven options are also only now being fully utilized. That said, even just 2 truly new weapon types may add in a lot of extra diversity to the combat options. 

So with 6 months of game play behind us, I am happy with mechanics overall. Improvements are needed in places, but happy overall. I think the real challenge of this system has been the world building. 

So where to even start? First off, I am used to building a world made up of cities, but in this system I needed to build a galaxy made up of systems made up of worlds made up of cities. I was two exponential scales larger than I was used to so I would have to invent new solutions. 

So I started at the largest scale and worked down. I spent a bit of time seeing if there was a way to make a functional 3D map but that was a rabbit hole with no easy solutions. So I decided on a flat map with about 100 solar systems. That is an awful idea and I was committed to it. I also wanted some randomness in the locations and pathing. To do this I spent some time in excel, basically using a random number function for 1 to 4 and then removing all results for 2-4. Wanting a 100 systems, that means I needed a 20 by 20 grind. I generated a few of these and picked the result with the more interesting set of patterns. This ended up being 94 systems. 

I then set out to create a random solar system generator. I did some research of what Nasa has found in its search for exo-planets and then applied some of the ideas into a random number generator. The idea here was to create different mixes of stars and then place planets in different bands. I ended up generating the star types first because there are S and P styles of binary star orbits. P types are close together and the planets rotate around both stars. S types are far apart and do not share planets. Each S type star with all their planets rotate around a mutual point between the two stars. 

For single stars and P-types, I used multiple bands beyond the star(s) with the possibility of empty results, asteroid belts, and gas giants with their own moons. The inner system always had 1-2 habitable planets, a low possibility of a gas giant, and a high possibility of a rock world in the first band. The out ring had a moderate possibility of a gas giant with moons in the first few spots and a mix of none, asteroid belts, or small rock world in the last few spots. For S star systems, I just ran the inner system twice and removed the outer system. 

I tweaked this system a bit and ran it a few times, once again picking the option that produced the most interesting mix overall. I also then decided to hand make the “core world” as those systems are actually the systems closest to the real earth, so when good quality data is available, that overwrites the randomly generated system. 

This is actually an approach I think works really well. Use random generation to create something different and unique, then as the DM respond to it and edits it as is needed. Do not hold the random result sacred, instead let it be an inspiration point. The random result will do the bulk of the work for you, but you will tie everything together. 

From here I realized I had just created 780+ worlds. I thought about all the work I had put into just one world in D&D and then released how much work may be in front of me. So take a deep breath, divide up the content, and go at it. I started by just working on the bottom right corner of the map. Sure enough, the solar systems created were interesting enough in their own right, I was able to ask myself “how would this system work?” and was able to come up with answers inspired by the systems. Some stories were smaller, some systems were denser and messy. Some systems were rich empires and other systems were barely scraping by. 

Part of this process was going out and finding every image of a planet I could find. Movies, video games, fan art, all of it was taken and categorized. When building the solar systems I then moved through the various rocks, forest worlds, etc. as they came up in order. This was a quick and dirty solution that worked really well. 

With the galaxy, solar systems, and planets taken care of, I was only left with cities… which has actually turned out to be the hardest part. I was spoiled when running fantasy games and there are so many great village maps and even full one village generators. Neither is true for sci-fi cities. I was kind of able to use some of the village generators… some of the time but only after a lot of manual manipulation. Right now I am working on a project to grab assets and be able to build out the cities in the raw directly on d20. I am not a huge fan of that solution so stay tuned to see how well that goes. 

So today we are going to get very esoteric and do some high level game design analysis: why are all RPGs unbalanced? Seriously, show me a MMORPG that does not have a hundred reddit posts complaining about balance. Or long winded blog posts complaining about balance on tabletop RPGs. Or dark scroll style games that don’t develop cheesy strategies or underwhelming/overwhelming character builds. Why are really skilled game designers getting this wrong everywhere all the time? 

I blame Gygax. I respect the hell out of Gygax, but it is also his design that is causing this problem. To be fair, other designers have had 50 years to improve the Gygax’s underlying design but instead they keep following the same structure dogmatically. So let’s walk through that. 

There is a concept in design known as an Iron Triangle. It is one of those “you can pick any 2 of 3… but you can’t get all 3.” So “service, quality, and price” is the classic example of this idea. I argue that we face a similar trade-off in the RPG design space: player input, balanced output, and deterministic outputs. 

The core of the Gygaxian design that underlines most MMORPGs, tabletop RPGs, and Dark Soul style games is centered on player input and deterministic outputs. The more you can tweak your character, specifically in little details, and those systems directly translate all numbers (which is so ingrained it is assumed) the more room there is for players to find an unbalanced outcome. As these games are highly complex, there are always combos of options where some numbers will not align as expected. I know every designer says to themselves “yea, but this time I’m doing it so this time we will get it right!” and once again we get another unbalanced RPG. 

So what would happen if we did this in the opposite direction? What if we start with the output? What if instead of building a system to generate the outputs… we just design the outputs, let players pick their outputs, and skip all the nonsense in between? In fact, let’s look at all three possible options: 

1. [player inputs + deterministic outputs = unbalanced game]
2. [balanced output + deterministic outputs = no room for player’s character design]
3. [player inputs + balanced output = builds are not continuous]

So most RPGs, etc., systems follow the first option. MOBAs and fighting games follow the second design mix which works great for competitive games but lacks variety. You can play Ryu, but everyone’s Ryu is the same Ryu. The 3rd is the most interesting to me. What if we predetermine all outcomes but let players select between outcomes? Yes, this removes “my warrior does +8 base damage with 11% critical hit and your warrior does +9 base damage with 9% critical hit” but is that slight level of customization worth an unbalanced game? 

And this is my pitch to game designers. We need to stop trying to make players engage in the spreadsheet game. So yes, still have customization, but instead of a contentious mix what if we just figure out how to build 12 different kinds of Ryu and then let players select between them all? We can still use the ideas behind stats… but balance each character based on those ideas. So have a slightly stronger Ryu, a slightly faster Ryu, and a Ryu with a higher critical hit chance. Each of those answers are messy in a deterministic system because each character might need a different mix of speed boost or critical hit chance. Those aren’t universal answers across different character types and when we treat them like they are we get an unbalanced game. That or we do what World of Warcraft ended up doing, which is make those numbers work differently in not just every class, but every spec within every class. A “+ critical hit” bonus becomes very powerful for some and for others it does not. That is a massive balancing project and one that only makes sense in the context of a computer game which does all the math for you and a very large and well funded design team that constantly patches their game… and the balance is still wrong in most expansions. 

So what does it look like to design to determined outputs? And how does this fit into leveling mechanics? 

My first attempt to do this is found here: https://seanwitherspoon.com/2019/09/07/alpha-test-of-my-cyberpunk-table-top-game/ and it worked well. This version tested end points with characters having access to a limited pool of gear. This version did limit gear access by a class like mechanic and gear did not level up, all progression as horizontal. It gave players lots of choices that they like and the players thought it felt really well balanced. It was also super straightforward to make a character and select options. 

While I think this was a great starting point, it is time to push it further. In my next iteration, I will be both adding in leveling elements and removing the class limitations. Both of these elements may unbalance the game, so that is something I will be watching for. Adding in leveling elements was a fun problem for me to solve for and my answer is actually fairly simple. I created a spectrum of power options for different profiles of weapons/powers and placed everything somewhere on that spectrum. This creates a really simple system to answer the question “what does the leveled up version of this weapon look like”. This spectrum has also been leveraged to build a very fluid crafting system and gear upgrade system. A nice side effect of this approach. 

The balance concern comes from two places. The weapons profiles are built around the idea that some weapons should do more damage because they are hard/risky to use and some should do less damage because they grant some other bonus. I did this with the weapons in my cyberpunk game and it worked really well, but does it scale well? Does it still feel balanced if different characters are upgrading different parts at different times? I am leaving the upgrade mechanics pretty wide open here so we will see if that gets out of hand. 

The second balance issue is I am no longer relying on classes as a balance crutch. Yes, classes are a balance crutch in most systems because if everyone can do something special then you need everyone even if 80% of the time that other class is notably sub optimal. Classes can be used as a way to provide a minimal level of balance. You are the best at least 20% of the time, so it is ok if you suck the other 80%… but it actually isn’t ok it is just bad design. Previously I had 7 classes and everyone was a combo of 2 of them. Here I will be leaving classes out entirely… but some higher level items will require training or other in game options/investments that limit access to them. The idea here is to have so many good things worth investing in that not everyone will invest in everything. This is a way to back into classes at mid levels using softer systems that players can invest in now or invest in later. 

So there you have it. In a few weeks I will start to test this new design which removes the deterministic outputs and instead focuses on pre-balanced outputs, character input being a selection between them, and player not forced to struggle through the weeds of additive stats or multiplicative class features. 

So after 3 posts criticizing D&D 5e, here are the reasons why you should choose it over other tabletop games. If you don’t remember my analysis method from the first post in this series, there are 3 key metrics I use to analyses games: range of content, simplicity of systems, and impact of choices. 

1. 5e is winning on content and will continue to do so 

Wizard’s of the Coast has really put the time and work into their products. They have detailed and beautiful books filled with great ideas. I think some of those ideas need to be fleshed out or left out, looking at you tools, but as a whole they consistently put out a very large amount of content for players and DMs to use. 

I truly believe that the Players Handbook is better viewed as a buffet than a rule book.This has always been D&D’s strength. In the old days, magazine articles released new classes and monsters. 2nd edition has the spell compendiums to add a ton of new spells to the game. 3rd and 4th edition featured splat books to add in new classes, feats, and combat options. 5th edition has doubled down on an ever increasing range of races and subclasses. It has never been purely “here is how to play” but more “here are more ways you could play”.

While there are a ton of other tabletop games to choose from, due to the popularity of 5e, more and more content is being made for it. D&D has the longest lineage in this field and there are ways to convert that older material into 5e. The DM’s guild allows independent content makers to publish D&D 5e materials. Wizards of the Coast is making sure they are not just leading in content, but providing content at a scale beyond what others can even attempt to do.  

2. They are tied on simplicity and impact, but that is due more to a weak field of options 

This game is either slightly simpler than others in the field or tied with them. This is less to do with 5e innovations and more to do with how almost all of these games link themselves back to the older versions of D&D. They try not to stray too far ways from that or they seek to recreate that feel which puts them back on that same path. 

Going back to my first critique, all of them do this. Why? There are way simpler ways to handle my first critique and frankly, the original elements of D&D are just an odd design. Everyone is copying the structure of that design because that is the norm for these games. Those table top norms have become so ingrained, become such sacred cow, that no one touches them. In the few cases that they do, they don’t fully reject but instead slightly modify them. This attempt to keep to the gaming tradition has hampered innovation in game design as both developers and players reject systems that are not attributes into modifiers into skills/weapon/spell. 

That said, 5e has worked hard to streamline abilities in a lot of places and leverage as few rules as possible to create as many mechanics as possible. This gives them a small edge on simplicity. Many of the OSR approaches use an older attribute to modifier system which lowers impact, once again giving 5e just a bit of an edge on impact as the other games are moving in the wrong direction. That said these two metrics are not that different when applied to other systems as they each have their own simplifications and special bonuses to give them each a bit more impact or a bit more simplicity. In the end, the race between the options is very close. 

This is why I call this a weak field of options. There are lots of options, they just aren’t that different from each other. D&D 5e is the best version of that game, but that game could use an overhaul. 

3. It is what most people are playing

And here is the real reason, the Schelling Point. Roll20 published a list of their 78 most popular games by accounts. 5e was 55% of all game, Uncategorized was 14%, Call of Cathulu (all editions) was 9%, Pathfinder was 5%, and 4 other games were between 1%-2%, the other 70 games had less than 1% each. Roll20 is mostly 5e and that matters. Most tabletop games, right now, are 5e. This makes 5e the universal language of tabletop games.

Even if you are not going to play in 5e, 5e will serve as your reference points. This is our Rosetta Stone to other systems between random gamers and that counts for something. Frankly, it is easier to modify 5e into whatever you want than to relearn all the other mechanics that a more custom system offers. This makes a cyberpunk mod of 5e a better tool for DM’s than an entirely new cyberpunk specific game or a modern age mod of 5e a better tool than a unique Noir system for that murder mystery you want to run. 

Since D&D is fundamentally a social game, going to the social over the game makes sense and that puts you into playing 5e. It is not a game design or mechanics question, it is popularity question.

This is the third in a series of posts.

1st: my high level critique of D&D 5e’s game design issues.

2nd: specific issues, 1 through 6.

Today we will be picking up with specific issues 7 to 13.

7. Make proficiency a flat bonus

Go back to my rule for a +1. It takes level 1 to level 13 for the proficiency bonus change enough for it to matter. That is only 1 “real” change in the lifetime of the character. Just set it to a flat +3 or +4 and let’s all ignore it and move on. Expertise feels good at mid and high level games. At the lowest levels it feels crappy so setting a flat number also sets a flat expertise which is far simpler and feels better. This inflation makes it so lower and higher level characters can offer very little to each other. It actually makes story sense for a party of high level players to go find a 3rd level rogue for their sleight of hand… unless their sleight of hand expertise is nerfed by the scaling proficiency. 

8. Don’t make the DM roll saving throws. 

This just slows down the game. As the DM, I have to track 6 things on my enemies: to hit, damage, health, AC, movement, and special abilities. With me rolling saving throws I now have to track their 6 stats, note which are and aren’t saving throws, and note what it’s proficiency bonus is. Great, that just took it from 6 things per enemy to 19 things per enemy. Yes, if you do the prep work that brings it back down to 12, but 12 is still way too much per enemy and I have to pause the fight to look it up. Right now I pick one stat per enemy and give them a large bonus, everything else is a 0 and I set all movement to 30 unless there is something special happening. That change removed about 60% of the times I had to look something up on a creature while running the game because it lowered the number of things to track to 6 (hit, damage, health, AC, special abilities, and the special stat). 

If this monster is special and needs a special rule for saving because that is how it is unique, great! Lean into that. Do not place that rule tax on every other creature. 

I get why this is here. It is to give magic users more options to play with and it makes their cantrips more interesting. 4th edition did this but they streamlined it down to 3 options which were set up like alternatives to AC. If this was reworked so the player rolled it and it targeted the caster’s “magic complexity” level or something like that I would be ok with it. Giving magic users a way to cheat around a high AC is fine. 

To spell this out in detail 

• Basic Attack: roll to hit, 1d10+2 damage, most enemies have AC 14 but some have AC 18. Normally great, weaker against the high AC creatures 
• Complex Magic Attack: 1d8 damage, all enemies have a DC 14 because the player is rolling their own spell complexity magic check. Normally a worse option against creatures, but against the high AC creatures it is better. 

The player is still taking the action, the DM gets to track 6 things instead of 19, the player still gets the reward for using their special Complex Magic Attack against high AC enemies… but if it is the only thing they ever cast then they actually do less damage than normal. This gives the player a choice instead of giving the DM more to track, it encourages the player to “figure out” the enemy, and it rewards the player for taking different kinds of cantrips. 

9. Monster design is boring 

So right now the leader in monster design is not D&D. It is World of Warcraft. Back in their 3rd expansion they reworked all of their enemies so they did something cool and interesting. D&D… did not and enemies are mostly large stats blocks. Some enemies have special abilities… but they are not much more than powerful versions of their base attacks. That is the problem, you can just power through them. This goes back to the idea of impact: it should change how players approach the enemy. If it does not change their actions then that special ability has no impact. Mechanics should reward players to take specific actions like moving out of a charged attack, maintaining distance, or casting resistance against a spell damage type.

If the basic attack is 1d20+4 with 1d8 damage but sometimes it is the special attack of 1d20+6 with 1d10 damage… then the design sucks. Those attacks are nearly identical and the player would approach them in an identical manner. Try instead changing the damage type… but only if they could play around that with magic items or spells to counter it. How about the attack include a knock back effect. How about just 1d20 to hit but it hits for 4d6? Low AC characters should run away more than normal. How about it can hit two adjacent targets? This area of effect element means the party should not bunch up. Make a powerful range attack happen if no one is in melee range. These would all allow for optimal play via a change in player behavior. This rewards players switching up their tactics. 

10. If the result of the saving throw is I can’t do anything… then why are you wasting my time by being here.

Here is a list of better ideas then “you lose a turn”. 

• Take 1 damage for every space you move 
• Movement is half 
• Make a dex/wisdom save if you move more than half 
• Spells cost 2 spell slots
• When you cast a spell, deal 1d6 damage to yourself 
• You are confused. When you cast a spell roll 1d4. If you get a 1, target the closest friendly unit instead of the enemy. 
• -4 to attack rolls 
• You can either attack or move, but not both 
• Your weapon is knocked out of your hand and now it is over there. Go get it. 
• You can either try and break the grapple or attack the enemy. You think something bad will happen to you if you stay grappled. 

All of these allow players to still make a choice on their turn. Their turn is weakened and they may not accomplish anything, but at least they still get to try. They still have player agency. Abilities that just tax turns feel really crappy. Disabling attacks from enemies should actually enable different kinds of choices on the player, not remove their ability to play. 

11. The crafting system sucks… more specifically, there is not a crafting system

Quick note of tools. I love this idea, it is a super interesting way to flesh out a character and I really think it rounds out the world… but the Players Handbook needs to include a list of items players can produce with cost, sell price, and production time in them. Great idea, but they totally dropped the ball on fleshing out the details. There is 1 page to cover all tools and instruments, it can easily be 10 pages information. In Xanathar’s there are 7 pages talking about how tools interact with skills., but not a list of “Use X to make Y, it costs this much”. They have published 7 rule books and none contain a crisp simple table of craftable items by tool. 

The big problem with this is when you pair it with the skills bloat. Players are given these tools as part of their background or class. They want to use them and frankly, it is actually hard to avoid getting a tool proficiency. You do not give them enough information to use them. Imagine making the Wizard class with all the details on spell books and spell slots and subclasses focusing on different types of spells… but then you leave out all the spells. That is what they did, but worse. Most backgrounds as well as some classes and some races give out tools. You broke the majority of character by leaving out basic information on crafting but then force players to be crafters. If you are not going to support a system, don’t put it in the game and absolutely do not systematically weave it into the majority of the player characters.

12. Races are boring… so boring they were just retconned… twice … neither of which isn’t going to help 

First off, we have already talked about +1 and +2 mechanics, which is the driving carrot for which race you select. The second most common carrot is dark vision… which is great in a dungeon crawl unless anyone has the light cantrip or a free hand for a torch at which point the DM just hand waves the whole light issue because it is kind of a pain. So, meh at best. Some races get a low level spell… which they can only use once a day. 

Look at OD&D for a second. There are only 3 classes… but an elf can freely switch between 2 of the classes at the start of each adventure. That is interesting and because they are still only playing one class at a time, no balance issues or complex multiclassing rules. That is way more interesting than a 5e high elf with a cantrip and a proficiency in long swords. Seriously, the difference is “always have a cantrip” vs. “sometimes be a full magic user” and “always have a longsword” vs. “sometimes be a full fighter”. How did the races get so watered down? 

Dwarves got big bonuses to saving throws and they take half damage from giants and ogres. That changes how they play depending on the enemy they are fighting and both sets of bonuses make them feel sturdy. It also encourages them to seek out those fights… which fits their story as a race. Good stuff. Way more flavorful than you can wear medium armor. Oh wait, we will give you tons of default options so you will either already have medium armor or have access to an option that is just as good if not better. Yes, Dwarves will almost always have access to a better option than what they are given by their race… which means that racial bonus means nothing.  

Xanathar’s tried to fix this by creating a bunch of racial feats. Some fun ideas here… but not alot of impact. Some are ok but most are meh. Tasha’s tried to fix this by creating a template where you can just build a race with flexible rules for modifying current ones. This is better… but this option uses the previous system which lacks impact so races still feel bland. Congrats, now you can make your own unique flavor… as long as that flavor is vanilla. 

So what should we do here? I actually like how the cleric subclass handles this question. It does not define the pantheon but gives a framework for one without pigeonholing the DM’s lore. The Cleric now has their default healing skills and their subclass abilities. This works because they can choose to heal or choose an action from their domain. Races need this kind of mechanic. We can do our class thing or this racial thing. The problem here is there is no real universal shared mechanic between classes except for hit dice or special types of actions, but maybe that is enough. Maybe only Dwarves get access to the defense action and they gain the rogue’s evasion action as well. Maybe Elves can use their hit dice to heal others as an action. This gives players specific choices during play, not bland bonuses. 

Here is a second alternative: Instead of just race, why not merge race and background? We really don’t need both, instead use one to influence the other. DM’s can use these as a way to make your campaign feel different from other campaigns and introduce the world’s lore, cultures, or political issues to your players. Thematically this makes sense. Wood Elves as outlanders, dwarves as guild craftsmen. Yea, that fits the common flavors. It is still not great but it is more engaging than another +2. 

Have the DM pick types of kingdoms then assign the races/background combos to those kingdoms. This would even give DM’s the ability to do things like assign multiple castes within a kingdom or multiple races to a kingdom. All members of the kingdom could share a specific background or different subgroups could have different backgrounds. We already have the noble and urchin background, what does it say about a kingdom if all your elves are nobles and all your halflings are urchins? What does it say about a kingdom’s politics if neither background is available? What if only one human kingdom has access to the paladins class and another has access to the warlocks class and both those Kingdoms gain a bonus when fighting the other one. This would require the DM to do a bit of work upfront… but frankly it is the kind of work they are already doing and now players are fitting into their world right out of the gate. Your character choices at the start are your exposition dump and one the min/max will actively engage in. 

These two better alternative systems are a great example of the problem with granularity. Granularity creates the illusion of difference. And that illusion can quietly block an opportunity to tell a better story. 

13. Health, just list it. 

Forcing a complex calculation and modifiers and special rules for mixed classes for a health pool is a lot of complexity for a simple outcome. Just set the health by level and move on. If you want players to mess around with this, use the feat. But Sean, this means the constitution score is almost completely worthless! Yes, yes it does. Kill that sacred cow and move on. The toughness feat is great and let players take it multiple times. Solved. If the constitution is no longer needed… then remove it.

Thank you for reading. Next time we will pick back up with our 4th and final post in this series: why should play D&D 5e anyways.

Round 2: my giant list of complaints (read: rant) 

My previous post deals with more design level issues and my philosophical underpinning for how I judge games. The next two posts actually dive into more specific examples of where I think they dropped the ball. I give alternatives options in as many places as I can. If I can’t give an alternatives, I at least try to give an example of what it should look like on a redesign.

1. Attributes, Modifiers, and Saving Throws… pick a mechanic and stick with it

We do not need all 3 of these. Pick one and stick with it. Modifiers make the most sense, but if you can build a system using one of the others and only one, great use that instead. Remember my minimal impact point from last week? Here it is, modifiers can be -3, 0, +3, or +6… or another blocky scaling similar to that. Nothing else and nothing in between. Big blocks and easy to remember. No more trying to recall if that was a +3 or +4 or a +1 unless it is a saving throw then it is a +4 or wait did I gain a level so it is a +1 unless it is a saving throw then it is a +5. This, this right here is what slows down D&D games.

But Sean! I think saving throws are super engaging! Ok, fine. Make a feat to gain some saving throws. Oh wait, that is already a feat and no one takes it. Seriously, I have been playing 5e since the first night of the play test including many years of playing at adventurer’s league and dozens and dozens of one-shots and I have never once seen anyone take this feat. Not even on a joke character. Ever. That is how engaging saving throws are vs. base stats. 

This is the biggest example of complexity for little to no reason. Every time you add an element to a game you have to ask yourself “is the impact or range of options worth this additional complexity” and here it clearly is not. You don’t need 3 different mechanics to say “that character is the smart one and that character is the strong one”. 

I get why this system is still here. It is a sacred cow from the 70’s. Let’s kill that cow.

2. Way too many skills/tools/languages are given out 

Rogues used to be the skills monkey. Return to that or more specifically the idea that powerful skills are an unique and defining element to your character. If you want your character to have special skills, great! Use the feats to gain those skills or gain them as a class feature. Want humans to be less bland… I mean special but in a general way? Great! They now gain 2 skills, which means something unless everyone is swimming in skills already. Your 1st and 2nd skills are interesting. Your 6th and 7th are not just forgettable, they are actually often forgotten and at the table players look down and say “oh, I am proficient in that, huh.” Same for languages and tools (a note of tools later). Let characters be special but don’t force special, that just creates bloat which then makes those skills/language/tools bland. Can you make a case to me that Rangers should have Survival and Wizards should have Arcane? Yes, yes you can but why do you need them to also take the other 3 skills to get that one? Let the classes get their one bonus skill and move on. 

The more you make people track extra stuff because it was tacked onto their class the more they will forget what they chose and have to pause the game to look it up. If I take a feat to gain a skill, I gave up something else to get that so I will remember it. Special skills aren’t special if everyone has so many that they overlap by happenstance and people forget what they have. I would favor far less skills given out and bigger bonuses on each. What if we did only expertise? Some classes gain 1 skill, but they get a +8 in it? See, that is a big, meaty bonus. That is something that defines who your character is. 

This is actually an overarching design issue. If a mechanic can affect one class, they want to make sure every class has a little piece of it…. Because why? If a class can do something special then just let them do something special and move on. 

3. Action, Move Action, Bonus Action, and Reaction… is just too much. 

So this is actually not my complaint but a complaint of Mike Mearls, the co-lead designer on 5e. While I will be harsh to D&D 5e, there are clearly some solid designers behind this game and they are very self aware. They were very data driven during the play test and shared much of that data. They have also been very honest about the strength and weakness of some of their designs… which as a DM I find super helpful. I have a ton of respect for Mearls, Crawford, and team… but I am still going to pick on you a bit. This is a rant after all.

If you give someone resources like Bonus Action and Reaction to play with then they will want to use those… and if they have nothing to do with them they will feel they are being wasted and their turns will draw out as they try to figure out what they can do. What this means is that instead of doing 2 things they are trying to do 4 even if their class is not really designed to use all 4. Often the bonus action and reaction are complex and thus slow down the turn more than an action. 

I get it, you want the swashbuckling dex classes to get extra cool things to do. Less powerful attacks but more of them? Great! Build a mechanic into those classes to do that. Monks get 4 attacks as part of their attack action if they are not using weapons. Solved. This is how Extra Attack works and you nailed the design on that one. No need to add a new kind of action that burdens other classes. If you still want Monks to have bonus actions and reactions, fine, but give those to just Monks. There is no reason for the Barbarian player to juggle that piece. The original design goal was for bonus actions to be rare, now they feel mandatory for every class.

Mike Mearls has pinpointed this as an oversight in design. They intended it to give players a cool extra thing they could do… but only from time to time, not every turn. As they started to add those in they need a speed limit, thus the bonus action was born. This was meant to be a maximum, they never thought of it as a minimum. The designers talked about a 2 action system but rejected it. They did not want a 2 action system… but when players got their hands on it they started to heavily leverage the bonus action and it fell into a 2 action system with the second action just being limited. This kind of makes the bonus action the worst of two designs.

In the case of the swashbucklers, the bonus action was leveraged as a was to give them a style choice. Do I make this character a dual wielder or someone who can hop in and out of the front line without getting an attack of opportunity? They can dabble in the other, but it was assumed they would mostly do only one. The constant switching up turn to turn was not intended by the designers. 

This could be handled by just making a selectable choice at a low level. If you are a rogue then gain 1 of the following 3: 1) never triggering opportunity attacks 2) always double moving or 3) you get the off hand attack. There, we just created 3 new kinds of rogues that play very differently and removed the complexity of juggling bonus actions. We increased Range of Outcomes, Impact of Outcomes in unchanged, and it is now a much simpler system overall. We improve 2 of 3 elements that make up our elegance of design equation. Our rogues are a bit more limited but now there is more diversity between rogues. 

4. Vancian Magic Spell Slots… are the most complex and least interesting way to play. 

The DMG contains alternative options for spell points. You should always use that, or maybe that -15% for a bit more balance.  It gives the player a more organic way to play. It steps a little bit of the sorcerer’s toes… but who cares. Don’t make other classes suffer so one class can be special. If it is a better mechanic, give it to everyone and then find something else for the other class. Credit to the designers… wait a second? Are the spell point costs and spell levels different numbers? (facepalm)

I joke a bit here. Part of 5e’s issue is it is held to the older designs of D&D and that forces some odd numbers. Still, instead of the whole spell point system, translate that to spell levels (yes, it will be unbalanced) and then round down the total number of spells level they can cast by the 15%-ish. This better system is  “your character can cast X levels worth of spells”. So if X = 6, you can cast two 3rd level spells or two 1st level spells plus a 4th level spell. This gives players flexibility and it is much easier to track.

The issue here is the spells in 5e are just not balanced to work that way. They are balanced for an uptick in power with 3rd level spells. That is why I added in the -15%. You may want to also give a small bonus to first level spells, possibly second. As a house rule, I would say they are always an extra 1 or 2 dice over what a cantrip at this level does. This way spending a single spell level is always an attractive option and there is already a cost in terms of action economy so I think this still works. Either way I think a big pool of castable spell levels is far more engaging than the accounting of Vancian Spell Slots.

If you wish to keep higher level magics less spammable, I would use 1 of 2 hybrids. First hybrid, keep level 6th to 9th spells spell slots and make the rest a pool. Second hybrid, keep the highest level of spell slot a spell slot and make the rest a pool. And yes, you can actually use both of these system together, with the second hybrid being used below level 10 and the first hybrid being used above level 10.

5. The good levels are 3 to 8. Make everything else play like that. 

Levels 1 and 2 are really designed to teach new players the game and stop multi-classing from being runaway powerful. So… if multiclassing makes all other classes worse, what should we do? A) create a complex rule set with a ton of exceptions, competing rules for variation between classes, and to allow for granularity so we can spend 6 hours trying to juggle in another +1 which doesn’t really have an impact yet sometimes creates broken combos or B) tell people you get 2 and you have to split them evenly…. 

Wizards of the Coast, you picked “A” didn’t you? 

Post level 8, the problems becomes health inflation and challenging your players. At higher levels the game just breaks because they become unkillable Gods… which sucks. Really, Really, sucks. I mean I have put in about 300 man hours to my 1 year long campaign and now my characters are so powerful I can’t challenge them without retconning every enemy, town guard, and soldier in my world. It is a shitty world building tool if it forces me to tear down my world and rebuild it every 4 character levels. If your design works against world building, it is quicker for me to just break your design then rebuild my world. 

It is worth noting that older versions of D&D solved for this. You gained levels until 8 or 9 and then just followed a formula for +1 or +2 health for every level afterward. Levels did not go to 20… they technically went on forever but the additional class features stopped near level 10. And let’s be honest, if a player has leveled up their character from level 3 to level 10, are they really still playing for the power gain? No, they are playing for the friendships, character stories, and the world… which just become broken because of the power inflation. Speaking of which… 

6. Remove the inflation 

This is actually my biggest complaint and what makes it worse is this design decision works against the best parts of 5e. By creating a large level of power inflation you actually remove content from the game because that content is not relevant to your players at that point in time. Yes, you need power gain. But if the power gain is so great it turns giant sections of the world into “instant death” or “nothing here can kill me”, you have greatly limited what I can do with your content at any given moment. 

And in terms of engagement, gaining a +1 to attack when you know that all the enemies have just gained a +1 to AC is just not engaging. Bigger numbers are not fun, impactful numbers are fun. Also, bigger numbers just make the math harder which slows down the game. Huge health pools just feel strange in play. If you are going to give a creature a ton of health, I would also make the creature change somewhat at different health points or it just feels like you are headbutting a brick wall until the brick wall randomly falls over. 

Next week we will have the other half of my list of specific issues as we move to part 3.

Today I will be reviewing D&D 5th edition using two approaches: first is walking through its “elegance of design” and secondly through a more free form “pros, cons, this is broken, here are my fixes” kind of list. 

When judging table top games, I have a very specific method I use to determine “elegance of design” 

(range of outcomes) x (the impact of outcomes) x (simplicity) = (elegance of the design)

Range of Outcomes 

This is simply how many choices you have to create your character. A game with 12 classes is a better framework than a game with only 4. If you know anything about the various editions of d&d, adding new classes was a design priority in the early years. Some new classes were simply alternative versions of previous classes… which is fine. If they give you a different feel or a notably different set of options in play, great. 

Sometimes specific mechanics or flavor elements just rub specific players the wrong way, so alternative classes can “save” that element of play for other players. See the Wizard spell casting table vs. the Warlock spell casting mechanic. Those feel different at the table. 

For D&D 5e, this is where the game shines the most. There are a moderate number of classes but also a moderate number of subclasses within each. There are also plenty of races to choose from, many feats, and a huge list of spells. This is where 5e shines out shines almost every other d20 style game. 

10 out of 10 on Range of Outcomes. 

Impact of Outcomes 

This is a measure of how much your choices actually matter in play. Now I want to be super specific here: I am NOT arguing that there is a statistical difference or that “on average” this feature is really powerful. What I am looking for is that a given feature is so powerful that it changes how you play the game. Do you ask a specific character to roll a specific check type on behalf of the party because in play you have noticed they always do well without knowing their exact bonus? Do you choose to charge into combat instead of staying at range because of a specific feat you gained last level? 

Before I give you my answers to this let me address the two most common arguments. But I can feel a +1 bonus, that counts right? No, a +1 is not good enough. Does the player next to you feel your +1? Do you change what action you are going to take this round because you now have a +5 instead of a +4 with swords? A bonus needs to change the actions and perceptions at the table, not just give you a bigger number. Levels effects feel. Low level is deadly and at high level I am an unkillable God. That is a difference right? Actually, that is just bad game design. If you look at the monster numbers, you will see that they tried to design the game so that variation by level wasn’t really a thing… they just failed at the balance point or DM’s ignored the balance rules because the suggestions did not fit their world. DM’s can also choose to make low level forgiving and high level deadly but it is just harder to do that in 5e because of the way the monsters and players were built. Yes, having 10 health feels different from having 40 health, but if monsters just go from dealing 1d6 damage to 4d6 damage, have the outcomes changed? That is just inflation. 

So how much of a bonus do you have to give a character before the effect is felt: I think at the lowest, it is a +3. I think a +4 is honestly the most likely answer. There is a case to be made that it is actually a +5 before it is consistent enough for other people to see/feel it at the table. So our answer is somewhere between +3 to +5… but a lot, and I mean a lot, of D&D is built around a +1. Now, multiple +1’s will get you to a notable bonus, but that means that from level 1 to 20 you are really only gaining 2 or 3 bonuses of impact assuming you line them up perfectly. The rest of your bonuses are just power inflation. This lack of impact is clearly D&D 5e’s greatest weakness. This is rooted in a system that is too granular and trying to hide impact in power inflation. 

While I am harsh on D&D for its impacts, there are exceptions. Some feats grant things like bonus to initiative, skills expertise, or dramatically extend the range at which bow are accurate. Those do change game play. There are plenty of class features that do change game play… but far more that are just inflation or tiny bonuses. At the end of the day, 5e is a mix bag of tactical shifts and wrestling with inflation. I consider this power inflation a tax built into the system. If you don’t take some upgrades into your main power sources your combat power will lag behind. This means characters are really choosing between maintaining power and impactful play options as they level up. 5e has some good power ceiling and floor mechanics to help with this, but that tax is still part of the game design. To make a balanced character, I still think you are limited to 2 or 3 real impact options with the rest of the upgrades playing down the inflation tax bit by bit. 

3 out of 10 on Impact. 

Simplicity  

5th edition D&D is highly refined and you can tell. A lot of needless complexity has been removed from older additions and core elements have been streamlined. I would call this one of the simplest of the d20 systems… but there is still plenty of room for improvement. D&D is still based on the assumption that your character is complex enough that you will always have a reference sheet nearby. That is a crutch. The character sheet filled not with story and items, but with references to other complex mechanics, is an admission that a character is so complicated that a player can not reasonably be expected to remember what their character can and can not do. It is better than most d20 systems, but most d20 systems are great examples of over complexity for the sake of over complexity. 5e is the least guilty, but not innocent. 

Now I happily point out that of my three variables, this is the one that is the most debatable. Many players really do enjoy the complexity of certain systems. They enjoy the min/maxing. They enjoy learning that 101 unique systems a game has to offer. These are people who play to learn, not play to play. There is nothing wrong with playing to learn. I enjoy doing it myself… but I quickly leave those games to try the next one. That is a very different kind of activity then having a story or world you want to explore and choosing a system to do it in. 

6 of 10 on Simplicity .

Results

So back to our original equation:  

 [(range of outcomes) x (the impact of outcomes) x (simplicity) = (elegance of the design) 

(10*3*6) = a score of 180 for D&D 5e 

But what could it be with some improvements? What if we removed some complexity that has minimal impact on play? What if we replaced a large number of tiny bonuses with a few bigger impact options? What if we removed the inflation and just plain bloat from the system? 

I think it is possible to get the impact moved up a few points from 3 to 5 and I think the complexity can be improved to 7 or maybe 8. To do this, we would have to give up a few things along the way. 

Assuming we could do that it would get us: (10*5*8) = 400… which is a huge score improvement. So… what are those design changes and why didn’t they make those to start with? 

We will talk through those next time. 

D&D 5e’s CR system is… bad. In fact I will take it one step further: it is a disservice to DMs. The problem is the whole system is built around a single design assumption and this assumption simply no longer describes the most common way people play D&D. 

That assumption is you should have 6 to 8 encounters per day and about half of those should be combat. But is that what DMs actually do? What if I want to have one big fight per day? 

The reality is we need a mix of answers for a proper CR system, I propose 4: 

1. One fight per long rest against 1 strong enemy 
2. One fight per long rest against lots of weak enemies 
3. 3-4 fights per long rest, this specific fight is against 1 strong enemy 
4. 3-4 fights per long rest, this specific fight is against multiple weak enemies 

DMs need this mix of answers to try and build a variety of combat options for their player. This flexibility will also allow DMs to respond to what players naturally do in game. The CR system is fine for doing 3 to 4 combats, which works great for a classic dungeon crawl. It sucks at 1 or 2 combats more common in more narrative focus play. The problem here is 1 and 2 is what players and DMs naturally lean into. It is what they inherently do. Yes, a thousand forum posts point out that you should do more encounters per day, but to that I have to say… 

Bullshit. 100% Bullshit. I see it on every CR forum thread and this thought process, this counterpoint, is completely and fundamentally wrong. 

I encourage everyone who thinks “you should do more encounters per day” to reread your favorite fantasy story or rewatch your favorite fantasy movie. And as you do, actually try to count out the combat encounters per day. Yea, heck of a lot more one fights per long rest then 3-4 fights per long rest aren’t there? Why? Because that is GOOD STORYTELLING. 

Yes, from time to time a dungeon run with multiple encounters is great. That is part of the game and any system that did not do that well would also be doing a disservice to D&D. But storytellers have for centuries relied on an episodic structure of big events, move/reset, then another big event for telling epic stories. Throwing that out is trading The Odyssey, The Arthurian Legends, and most of the works of Tolkien to get improved dungeon balance. Are we sure that is a good trade? I think it is an awful trade. 

If your party needs to travel 7 days from one town to another, are you going to have to fight 28 random encounters against bears and wolves? That is a lot of combat and real world man hours to go to the next town and talk to an NPC or do a basic fetch quest. Most DMs don’t do this. There may be 0-2 encounters on that road along the way, but those will have a long rest in between them. This is also where your ranger or druid can shine by helping you dodge an ambush or pacify a fight. 

Want to do a big battle between two warring factions? Yea, your PCs will do everything they can to have a long rest before that happens… which is exactly what real generals did with their real armies before real battles. If you try to stop your players from doing that.. it will actually harm the immersion of the game. 

The first thing any useful CR system needs is a way to calculate for one big battle per long rest. You know, like in The Hobbit when they meet the trolls on the road, or the goblins inside the mountains, or the spiders in the forest, or breaking out of the elf jail, or the dragon in the mountain, or the big battle at the end. That right, everything in The Hobbit was one encounter per long rest. D&D 5e’s CR system can’t properly balance a recreation of The Hobbit or even a single chapter of The Hobbit (/facepalm). 

Ignoring it altogether is bad design. Now while we are at it, let’s go ahead and address the other counterpoints in the room. Is your group playing D&D to play D&D or are they trying to tell/experience an epic fantasy story through D&D. 

This matters because it changes a single word: should. Should you have 6 to 8 encounters per day? Well, if you are playing D&D for the sake of D&D and that is what the rules say, then yes you should. But if you are telling a story via D&D then you should set story flow (encounters) to match the needs at hand and then bend the difficulty to match that flow. Maybe that is 4 smaller combats as intended, but maybe that is 1 really big combat or 8 tiny combats or 1 medium combat followed by 1 larger combat. 

So I did an experiment on this. In my game we were coming up on the mid campaign big bad and I knew they would be doing so after a long rest… because my players are smart so of course they are. So instead of setting all the fight details, I kept parts of it to be determined. I determined his damage and AC, but then built out a list of nasty tricks/abilities and instead of removing health I just tracked how much damage my party did and then when it was down to the wire decided to let the next hit kill him. 

The party was four players at level 8, one player at level 9, and a good mix of abilities. The battle was the big bad, a pair of low CR guards at the start of the fight, and 10 low CR guard equivalent enemies at the end of the fight divided into 2 different hunting parties. In the middle of the fight I had the big bad use some, but not all, of the nasty tricks I had built. When all was said and done I did my best to reverse engineer what I did to what CR that actually was. It was CR 16 for a party of mostly CR 8 characters. I did not expect it to require that high a CR to challenge my group. To retest this I had a fight against a dozen Hun-like riders and archers. This time I explicitly set it a CR of 12 as they were just a group of bandits on the road. They were taxed, but I think they could have handled another fight of the same size. 

Assuming this scales, and I do not know if it does, that would give a new standard of: 

• 1 encounter per day: twice their level in CR 
• 2 encounters per day: +50% their level in CR 
• 4 encounters per day: their level in CR (current default) 

There are a few additional issues to take into account when doing one big fight. First, long rest centric classes will be stronger vs. their short rest cetric counterparts. For my party they were a good mix but take into account your party as needed. Secondly, there are multiple healing options in 5e vs.older additions, but the new healing dice and healer’s kits are not viable so a healer with full spell slots is more critical then normal. Third, my combat design was centered on having 3 “phases” to the fight, given that this was centered on one big fight I basically treated it like it was 3 small fights back to back. It took place on a giant map of the whole town, with different elements being pulled in at different phases and containing a polymorph of the big bad at the start of the 2nd phase and ending at the start of the 3rd phase just to hammer home the differences between the phases. My CR 12 fight was a 2 phase fight with additional calvary swing in about half way through. 

The hard truth is I just don’t think the current CR is built to be used like this. I can kind of force it too… but I make a lot of little edits along the way. D&D is very consistent in terms of AC, bonus to attack, and dice used per magical attack. Pushing the CR like this both adds risk for a run-a-way TPK and enemies that will never miss or never be hit. On the table top, I can fake this behind the screen but I currently DM on roll20 so those rolls are in the open. 

The design assumptions behind CR in 5th edition are just wrong. I think it works great for a 1980’s convention hall dungeon run. I don’t think it works for an episodic fantasy tale. 

With Covid-19 being an issue, I have been using roll20 as a way to socialize with people other than family. As part of that I wanted to try something different so I looked into a few Sci-fi games. Most of this genre is dominated by setting specific systems, i.e. people who want to do Star Wars or Star Trek and happen to be doing via a table top game. In the end I settled on a system called “Stars Without Numbers” which I was informed is a simple system and gave DM’s a lot setting control so hopefully I could find a group with a unique setting and some of the bigger ideas that makes sci-fi great.

The system seems super flexible and simple when you read through it, but as you sit down to make a character it become very clear that you actually don’t have a clear guideline on how to make a character. This system gives you flexibility by burying your in exceptions, alternative rules, and unclear paths. So I have written this break down. Mostly, this is just me figuring out how to make my own character, but I’m putting it forward to helps others that are hitting the same confusion. Note: these are rough guild lines, exceptions are listed below.

*NCNP: non-combat, non-psychic

This is not a 100% correct guide. This system has lots of exceptions that allow you to switch out different mixes of skills or trade skills  attributes or other bonuses.

• Most foci give you a skill
• If you roll on background options you may improve your stats instead
• Con is added to health and gain each level
• level also effect saving throws

The result of all of this is the following big point. At level 1, a warrior will most likely start with 6 skills (3 from background, 1 from bonus, 1 from warrior combat, and 1 from foci) while an expert will most likely start with 6 (3 from background, 1 from bonus, 2 from foci) The other things not listed here are the big bonuses to the 3 non-hybrid options. Both Experts and Warriors get a very strong reroll ability and full Psychic get a twice the range of skills.

Part 3: the larger goal

My goals for this system are far grander than this specific game and even this specific design. Cyberpunk is a broad set of ideas without a single definition. Much like fantasy settings will often label specific races as optional or provide guidelines for a low-magic version of the game, I’m seeking to build a flexible system that allows people to make their vision of the future. Part of the challenge here is that cyberpunk/sci-fi is actually far broader in scope and options than most fantasy settings.

So let’s talk about those themes. In actuality, I’m building out 18+ themes instead of just the 7 I gave to my players. Here is the rough idea of the grand vision: before there is a formal character creation process by the players, there is formal world creation process by the DM. That DM will look at all the themes and label each in one of 3 ways: Nope, Specialized, or Widespread.

Nope simply means that this is not part of your world and you leave those cards/elements out. The Nope option is critical because it lets me design the weird stuff from the start and balance it against everything else. This insures there is a niche in the game for those skills to fit into if you want them and they have interesting gear choices that are neither overwhelming nor underwhelming nor redundant vs. other themes. At the same time, I expect that most of the weird stuff is going to get a Nope from the DM… and that is great! If these elements are in your world, they need to affect your world. If those kinds of stories don’t fit what you are trying to do, by all means just leave them out. Nopes are a powerful tool to shape your world. In my test version, I gave a Nope to 9 of 18 options, or 50%, and I feel like we still have a diverse world.

Specialized means that it is in the game but only some players can use it. These will be the class flavors of your game. As a DM, you will also need to decide how many of these specialized themes your players can have. There is a case to be made for different approaches which we will talk about later. The goal of the specialized themes is they are interesting and will draw your players into the game on its own as well as provide them with those clutch moments that are unique to that character in the party.

Widespread means everyone can use it. This basically means the specialized gear is now treated like basic gear. Once again, this is a way to express the nature of your world. Is it heavily militarized? Make the Marksmen cards widespread. Are drones and robots all over the place? Make the Rigger cards widespread. The game will always have basic options, but these are somewhat limited so you need 1 or 2 widespread themes to flesh out that pool of cards and give players a reason to engage with the basic cards of your world and switch up what they can do. This is also a great way to give players a critical choice, alignment like issues, or other similar mechanics.

I do not know what the right mix is yet for players between these labels on themes. If I had to guess, and I feel like a need to so I can at least give people a starting point, I would suggest one of the following:

• 2 Widespread, 7 Specialized (Selects 2), and 9 Nope
• 4 Widespread, 5 Specialized (Select 1), and 9 Nope

Notice I used Nope on 9 themes. I feel like that gives you a tight, consistent world that people can quickly digest. As people become more familiar with this system that maybe too many nopes, but I think it works well for now to both focused world creation and still giving players plenty of options. That said, don’t be afraid to make decisions based on your players. If they like tons of system, use only 1 or 2 nopes. If you know it will always be 4 players, then you can only have 4 specialized with single select.

It is also worth talking about another play variations.

• You can have “specialized” meaning it takes 1 gear slot if you have that theme and 2 or 3 gear slots if you don’t have that theme.
• You can also simply house rule that you are allowed to have 1 piece of specialized gear from a theme you don’t have.
• You could also select 1 major specialty and 2 minor specialties. The major works as normal. You are then allowed 1 piece of gear from between your minors.
• Another option is to keep to a single specialty but carving out 3 to 5 sets to be widespread so there is a deep pool of options for players to pull from.

Once again, I want DMs to have extreme control over the kinds of worlds they can build, while giving players quick and interesting cards to select between. I classify these variations options as “1+”. It is a single specialty with a niche exception allowed. All of these are just other ways to combine gear and choices. Simply giving players 2 specialties also works well.

Part 2: How well did it work? 

TL;DR

Good but still needs refinement 

• Characters were quick and easy to both make, play, and change between sessions 
• I need to slack up on the constraints, most players found it too limiting 
• I need to give a few more options within each archetype 
• Classes based on gear is odd. It will take a mental leap to engage with the system 

Full Story

Everyone picked up the game quickly and made their character quickly. The buffet of card choices worked really well and the players read each one multiple times. I could tell they were debating between their options (interesting choices!) and when they were given a chance to buy more cards they were into it and quickly started to negotiate with each other for resources. The card system worked! Our Face, who has access to less gear and thus spent less money, instantly turned into a loan shark which I did not foresee but totally fits the character and theme. 

We played a total of 3 missions over 2 seasons. The first was an infiltration with a lengthy stakeout, a systematic break-in, and then a rolling gunfight. They RPed the stakeout great. Gear was well used for the break-in and they handled the fights with a mix of tactics and gear. I also gave them an NPC to help and then killed off that said NPC to show how deadly this world is. Not sure if that hit home.  

The second was to find a specific person. I gave them 3 locations to RP through and then a tactical escort mission in the sewers. They dodged the red herring location and then missed two of three clues at the remaining locations. The third clue was enough to get to the location of their escort mission. A great blackmail attempt is in process by one of the characters against one of the corps. That is fantastic because it means people are doing their own RP in the system. Part of why you build a dystopia is because you are ok with your players burning it down. Now doing this RP caused her to miss the clue she was looking for, but the RP is more important. 

The third and last mission was reactive, they were being infiltrated. This placed them in a responsive position. They spent 2 hours trying to plan for every extra sly option they could think of when my plan was a straightforward frontal assault by crashing through the front door. I ended up adding in an unplanned rooftop assault to “reward” their creative thinking and over planning. Never forget that your players are always smarter than you are. 

I also almost killed one of the players. I pulled my punches just a bit because someone else was playing his character. He still had to sit out 6 turns to heal himself which was good with since he charged 4 people with assault rifles while wielding a sword. Never forget that your players are always dumber than you are. 

Missions aside, let’s talk about how people interacted with the system. Getting people to understand each theme took some time. I’m not sure they are 100% there yet. Since the game unloads all those mechanics on to cards, you truly don’t know the class until you know all the cards. That is a bit of a messy answer. I will continue to expand the options via the pawnshop until this feels better. This is a spot where a quick simple cut sheet and a bit of RP style may be very helpful, like what they did with Cyberpunk 2020 but include gear examples. Understanding what your players know is also a very nebulous concept, so I may be underestimating them. I will be watching to see how they react to some of the additional cards. 

I do not know what the optimal number of skills selection within a character is. I’m currently expanding that card pool because I think the additional options will continue to be engaging. Specifically, I’m trying to put a bit more breath into some of the themes. More alternative ways to do what the theme already does. 

Classes based on gear is odd to people. In D&D people are forced to pick from a specific spell list or select only 1 subclass. People are fine with limitations. That seems to not bother people but switching between gear does. They keep wanting the thing they left at home. I will expand the gear limit to 5 next game but they are also getting a chance to buy more gear so I’m not sure if that will help or hurt. They really aren’t balancing themselves as a group yet, so that may alleviate the pressure. I know these players like to build characters, so I’m wondering when they make the jump to seeing this as character building and not limitations. 

I think the super simple form of hacking let my hacker be creative. I gave him minimal signals and he jumped to great ideas. I need to give him more interesting options while hacking or from his gear. 

Changes for Next Times 

There are two big changes we are going to test next time. 1) People can carry 5 pieces of gear. My players pitched a few ideas about extra gear for more gear dependent characters. I may go that way in the end. For now, I will just make it a universal law. 2) Revert to low health system matching the enemies. This removes the asymmetry between the players and enemies. This means reworking some gear but I think it will help overall. My group is more timid than most, so I’m a bit concerned that less health may make them clam up more.