Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision | |||
principles [2025/06/22 15:31] – Ron Helwig | principles [2025/07/04 00:23] (current) – Rewrote with updated style, edited for consistency Ron Helwig | ||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
# Principles | # Principles | ||
- | This page collects | + | This page outlines the **core principles** and **design goals** that should guide the creation of a modular, flexible, and engaging |
- | ## No Lore in Rules | + | --- |
- | Rules for a general-purpose RPG should be **free of setting lore**. Most lore is invented and subjective, and requiring players to learn someone else's invented setting is a barrier to entry. | + | ## 📚 No Lore in Core Rules |
- | Instead, RPGs should be about **players and game masters creating their own lore**. | + | Core mechanics |
- | This doesn’t mean *no* lore should exist—just that it shouldn’t be baked into the rules. Separate worldbooks | + | - Lore is optional, subjective, and personal. |
+ | - Basing core rules on invented histories, gods, or cultures creates barriers to entry. | ||
+ | - Systems should support a **wide range of settings**—homebrew, historical, | ||
- | ## Not Afraid of Math | + | Lore belongs in **separate supplements**, |
- | If adding small numbers is a burden, that’s not a game problem—it’s a life skill problem. | + | --- |
- | - Adults should be capable | + | ## 🧠 Not Afraid |
- | - Kids benefit from practicing math through play. | + | |
- | A bit of math should not be seen as a barrier to good design. | + | Mathematics—especially basic arithmetic—is |
- | ## Campaign Length | + | - Simple calculations keep gameplay fast and reinforce life skills. |
+ | - Players, including kids, benefit from practicing math through play. | ||
+ | - Systems should not fear a little math in the name of smoother mechanics or deeper decision-making. | ||
- | Most modern campaigns are **too long** for the average player. Advancing through 20 levels over multiple years works for podcasts—but | + | Mechanics should reward |
- | **Design goal**: A character should reach their peak abilities after ~6 months of regular play. | + | --- |
- | Also, ability complexity must be manageable. In my [D&D classes](https:// | + | ## 📈 Manageable Complexity |
- | We aim for: | + | ### Character Complexity |
- | - Strategic variety during character growth | + | |
- | - No more than **a dozen options** during moment-to-moment play | + | |
- | ### Complexity Grows with Mastery | + | Character options should be **easy to manage** during play. |
- | Characters | + | - Early characters |
+ | - Depth and variety should unlock **gradually** as players gain experience. | ||
+ | - In-the-moment choices should be limited enough | ||
- | ## Proficiency Should Be Use-Based | + | A good rule of thumb: a character should rarely need to consider more than **a dozen active options** per turn. |
- | Proficiency should be earned through **use**, not granted universally. If a character never uses a skill, they shouldn’t get better at it. | + | --- |
- | - Proficiency bonuses should apply to individual abilities or skills. | + | ### Campaign Length |
- | - Unused proficiencies might even decay slightly over time (though no more than 1 point, and only slowly). | + | |
- | - Advancement could be **exponential**—the more advanced you get, the more uses it takes to improve further. | + | |
- | Ultimately, we aim to **remove global proficiency bonuses** and replace them with **task-specific progression**. | + | The system should support |
- | ## Bell Curve Mechanics Over Flat Probability | + | - Campaigns should reach a meaningful conclusion within **4–6 months** of regular play. |
+ | - Advancement pacing should reflect typical group schedules and attention spans. | ||
+ | - Power progression should feel impactful without requiring years to reach “endgame.” | ||
- | The D20’s flat randomness means a skilled character can still fail 5% of the time—and unskilled ones can randomly succeed. That feels off. | + | --- |
- | We prefer mechanics that: | + | ## 🔁 Use-Based Progression |
- | - Use a **bell curve** distribution | + | |
- | - **Reward investment and choice** | + | |
- | - Reflect character expertise with consistent, reliable results | + | |
- | ## Classes Are Too Limiting | + | Character growth should be based on **action, not abstraction**. |
- | As noted in the [Why section](start# | + | - Skills, powers, or traits should improve through **frequent use**, not just generic leveling. |
+ | - Progression should reflect | ||
+ | - The system may include **decay** for neglected abilities or make improvement require **increasing effort** over time. | ||
- | - Players should be free to build the archetypes they envision. | + | This supports **narrative consistency** and player agency in character development. |
- | - Rigid classes force developers to guess what players want. | + | |
- | This applies equally to **races/ | + | --- |
- | ### Level-Free Advancement | + | ## 🎲 Bell Curve Over Flat RNG |
- | If we eliminate classes, then traditional | + | Random outcomes should reflect |
- | - No need for hit dice or level-based HP increases | + | - Systems should prefer probability curves that **reward expertise** and reduce extreme outcomes. |
- | - No predefined “power curve” tied to level | + | - Flat distributions (like a single d20) allow unskilled characters |
+ | - Dice mechanics should provide **consistent, | ||
- | Instead, characters grow through **use, discovery, and deliberate advancement**. | + | --- |
- | ## Sheet + Cards Model | + | ## 🧩 Modular Character Building |
- | The main character sheet should | + | Character creation |
- | All other abilities and features | + | - Systems should avoid rigid **classes** or **species** that lock players into predefined roles. |
+ | - Instead, characters should be built from **modular components**—such as roles, features, or abilities—that can be mixed and matched. | ||
+ | - Advancement | ||
- | - Players can sort and group cards based on current context | + | This allows players to create characters that **match their vision** |
- | - Keeps choices visible but not overwhelming | + | |
- | - Speeds up gameplay by reducing cognitive load | + | |
- | ## Accommodate Player Personality Differences | + | --- |
- | While systems like [Daggerheart](research: | + | ## 🗂️ Sheet + Cards Model |
- | Instead, we prefer | + | Gameplay should support |
- | - Everyone gets a spotlight | + | |
- | - Shy or quiet players aren’t overshadowed | + | |
- | ## Rests Should Not Be Total Resets | + | - A character' |
+ | - All abilities, features, and powers should be **separate reference items**—such as cards, tokens, or tiles. | ||
+ | - These items should be easy to sort, group, and manage during play. | ||
- | The standard **long rest** in D&D fully resets a character, encouraging constant rest abuse. | + | Benefits: |
+ | - Reduces clutter and cognitive load. | ||
+ | - Helps newer players remember and use their features. | ||
+ | - Encourages dynamic play without endless page-flipping. | ||
- | We prefer a **gritty realism** model: | + | --- |
- | - Long rests recover only **half** of what short rests use up (e.g. half of the hit dice are recovered) | + | |
- | - Actual healing happens during **short rests** | + | |
- | Rest should not feel like a "get out of jail free" mechanic. | + | ## 🧑🤝🧑 Built-In Teamwork |
- | ## Modular by Design | + | Systems should encourage and reward **cooperation**. |
- | Every component | + | - Players |
+ | - Actions or abilities that support allies should feel **fun and worthwhile**, not like sacrifices. | ||
+ | - Shared resources, combo actions, and reactions can all promote teamwork. | ||
- | The system is designed with digital | + | Good systems reward |
- | - GMs can swap, edit, or remove rules | + | |
- | - Custom modules can be published and shared | + | |
- | **Domains** exemplify this: | + | --- |
- | - GMs can select which to use | + | |
- | - New ones can be added to reflect the campaign tone | + | |
- | - Encourages flexible design over rigid canon | + | |
- | ## Inherent Teamwork | + | ## 🧭 Designed for All Pillars of Play |
- | The rules should | + | All parts of the system—character abilities, adventures, mechanics—should |
- | For example: | + | - **Combat & Conflict** |
- | - Bard-like characters can act on others’ turns | + | - **Exploration & Travel** |
- | - Optional | + | - **Social Interaction & Roleplay** |
- | - These should cost a small resource (e.g. 1 stress or 1 used action) | + | |
- | - Slightly stronger than regular actions to make them appealing | + | |
- | **Teamwork Actions** should be easy to use and frequently rewarding. | + | Players should never feel like they’ve built a character who can only function in one of these areas. Every build should have the tools to **engage in the full game world**. |
- | ## Meaningful Progression | + | --- |
- | Progression shouldn’t just increase numbers. | + | ## 🧠 Growth Through Mastery |
- | - Gaining a new ability is more fun than just adding +1 to damage. | + | Progression |
- | - Leveling | + | |
- | ### Mastery-Based Growth | + | - Advancement should depend on **using and mastering existing tools**, not just ticking XP boxes. |
+ | - Gaining new options should be tied to **meaningful play choices** or player achievement. | ||
+ | - Systems should avoid rewarding repetition or spammy tactics. | ||
- | Characters should grow by **demonstrating mastery** of their existing abilities. | + | This encourages |
- | This encourages players to: | + | --- |
- | - Explore the full toolkit | + | |
- | - Avoid “spamming” basic attacks | + | |
- | - Engage more deeply with the system | + | |
- | ## Well-Rounded Character Expression | + | ## ⚙️ Modular by Design |
- | Every source of character options—Domains, | + | All rules should |
- | - **Combat & Conflict** | + | - Each subsystem—combat, |
- | - **Exploration & Travel** | + | - Game masters and players should be able to **swap in alternate mechanics** or **remove unused rules** without breaking the system. |
- | - **Social Interaction & Roleplay** | + | - Modular design also supports **digital or printed curation**, where a group can tailor the game to their needs. |
+ | |||
+ | A strong system supports customization **by default**. | ||
+ | |||
+ | --- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## 🔄 Realistic Resting | ||
+ | |||
+ | Recovery mechanics should avoid **full resets**. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Resting should be meaningful and impactful, but not a “get out of jail free” card. | ||
+ | - Partial recovery encourages **resource management** and **strategic pacing**. | ||
+ | - Short rests should matter; long rests should help but not erase all danger or tension. | ||
+ | |||
+ | This supports a **gritty, lived-in world** and prevents abuse of rest cycles. | ||
+ | |||
+ | --- | ||
+ | |||
+ | ## ⏳ Structured Play for All Personalities | ||
+ | |||
+ | Not all players want to fight for spotlight time. | ||
+ | |||
+ | - Systems should include | ||
+ | - This supports | ||
+ | - Freeform play is still valuable—but | ||
- | This ensures: | + | --- |
- | - Characters feel capable in diverse situations | + | |
- | - Players can express their character beyond just combat | + | |
- | Each Domain Tier or feature group should offer a mix of these options—even if players only pick a subset. | + | ## ✅ Summary |
+ | | Principle | ||
+ | |-------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------| | ||
+ | | No baked-in lore | Support all settings with neutral core rules | | ||
+ | | Math is good | Encourage fast, simple arithmetic for smoother play | | ||
+ | | Complexity scales | ||
+ | | Use-based growth | ||
+ | | Reward expertise | ||
+ | | Modular characters | ||
+ | | Clean reference | ||
+ | | Team-focused | ||
+ | | Full gameplay support | ||
+ | | Growth via mastery | ||
+ | | Modular system | ||
+ | | Realistic recovery | ||
+ | | Structured spotlight | ||