Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts
Showing posts with label video games. Show all posts

Friday, July 10, 2026

Why aren't TTRPGS more like Paper Mario + Granular Damage Upgrades

When it comes to TTRPGs and their video game cousins, the obvious D&D inspired games come to mind first. But one thing I find weird is the seeming rarity and lack of "very low number" games. Paper Mario & Thousand Year Door are the most prominent; along with their more modern offspring like Bug Fables. Specifically; games with turn based combat, small scale battles with few characters or units, and very small damage numbers; typically ranging from 1-9 as a soft maximum for "normal" attacks, usually only accessible very late in the game. Instead, much more of the focus is placed on things like timing imputs to increase damage or reduce incoming damage, status effects, resource management in the form of consumable items and FP/TP/abilities, specific attack types and their counters (spike on head = can't jump on them) and target priority. While some of these are video game specific, most of the elements could be translated directly into a tabletop RPG style game with no issue. The strange thing is I really haven't seen it done before. I'm sure there are some smaller games that have similar systems in place; but the closest I can think of is something akin to fantasy wargaming or Warhammer-like games. This fits for them because making the many hundreds of units and models as complex as your average D&D character would be too daunting; so simple wound or instant-death mechanics, armor counted as single numbers which must be met or beat by attacks similar to Paper Mario defense; with dice more deciding individual outcomes over granular damage/health systems is a good fit here. Ironic that the game-mechanics I'm thinking would be the simplest and most immediately useful system for TTRPGs goes right back to the hobby's roots.

The benefits of such a system? Small numbers keep match simple and easily approachable. There is a level of strategy that is present here that isn't in more "swingy" dice-combat games like D&D. Hit Dice are a good approximation of how much health an enemy has, but even a d6 weapon has six possible outcomes, meaning any approximation of your resources in how many more turns it may take to defeat this enemy, or how much ammunition or spell-dice you need to use, or how many bandages you need to use to heal someone; etc. could all be off by about six times your estimate. It's unlikely, but a possibility. With a smaller number system, you can predict these things much more. Secondly, you create more immediate and obvious strategic depth in its basic systems. Defense reducing all incoming damage by +1 is much more obvious then a D&D esque weapon vs Armor-Class penetration rate; even though you know padded armor gives you +2 AC against blunt weapons or whatever, how much damage does it actually prevent? First you have to calculate the chance of the attack and then the average damage on a roll and so on, where as a Paper Mario system doing something similar is just -1 to damage. Very simple. Abilities that penetrate or remove armor (or grant bonus damage) are immediately obvious in how they'll influence the outcome of a battle. You can't grant +1 to a character's Attack per level up or +1 Defense per small gear upgrade for example, it'd be way too overwhelming and quickly break the math of the game- games with larger numbers have a lot more leeway. Plus, the smaller numbers makes moments of bigger impact grander and more memorable. I won't really notice when enemies start doing 1000 damage to me if the last fight they were doing 500+; but you will remember the first time a boss or a mob hits you for 10 damage in a Paper-Mario-Like. That's reserved for the "oh shit" moments. I also find systems like this more fun to mess around with, as there is a certain challenge to designing in such a tight space; But more on this later.

Of course, there are good reasons why we don't use this "small number" system for TTRPGs: Granularity. Highly granular systems allow for smaller advantages or changes that can adapt for more situations; a +1 to hit on a d20 is a fair benefit for a racial bonus or background feature of a character to show a varied and complete person as simulated in the game world. Giving a +1 to your Attack in a Paper Mario esque system could translate to a 50% increase or more; which means it could be many, many sessions or power-ups or require a big in-universe justification for this increase. Second, it also greatly reduces the amount of variety and "fuzz" of the rules, meaning situations play out with less randomness and encounter design has to be stricter. D&D can already kinda be solved in a math-y way but with a system like this it would get way worse. Players could potentially figure out the outcome of any given fight or encounter, leading to a more boring or "pass/fail" style of gameplay that wouldn't be as fun in my opinion. There might be some strategic value in knowing that you can always beat an ogre at your level (it does 3 damage a turn to you, you do 4 damage to it, and it has 20 health, so as long as you have at least 13 health and you can go first you know you can win), I don't think it's the kind of strategy or "character building" most people want to play TTRPGs for.

Also, obviously, it's because rolling dice is fun and tied to the wargaming roots of the hobby. This system necessitates dice rolling as being less important, and therefore, the most fun part of the hobby is less represented. All of this is obvious, and doesn't need to be stated by a pseudointellectual like myself. So instead, we're going to end this rant prematurely and go on to the game theory bit that's actually good.

How to add Damage Upgrades for Small Number Systems
Specifically for a Bug Fables or Paper Mario-like game or a TTRPG with a similar setup.

As stated above adding a +1 Damage modifier is only something you can do very occasionally as it throws the entire game out of whack. So how do we have meaningful character progression? The first way are increases to non-direct stats. So increased chance to hit, ease of minigame success, increased maximum hit points, having stronger or more varied access to moves and status effects, etc. This is already covered above. But how do we actually do more damage? Without relying on these conditionals or random chance mechanics? Instead, we do it based on damage deference and the action economy.

Abilities that pierce Defense could count as a damage increase. For example, you can upgrade your attack so it ignores one point of the opponent's Defense. This effectively means it deals +1 damage against armored opponents. However, I consider this a sidegrade, because it doesn't increase your damage to non-armored targets. While it is still an improvement (obviously if the choice is between an attack with one pierce and an attack with the same damage and zero pierce it's still better) it's still a conditional and will usually have some kind of opportunity cost. As such, this is more of a sidegrade then a direct improvement to our damage.

Another low impact upgrade that's more granular and modular is bonus damage over a long period, which I'm calling long-distance damage. Something like a "deals one bonus damage in ten turns" which upgrades into a "deals one bonus damage in nine turns" count as a form of progression but are so granular that they miss the breakpoint of the system. While technically being identical to an increase of +0.1 damage for our attack it won't factor in to most combats if the enemies we're fighting have reasonable (small) HP pools and our attacks deal at least 2-5 damage a turn with proper setup. You could also use this for a damage improvement mechanic but it's very boring and lame.

Finally, the other is "bonus damage per X turns of combat". Something like a charge or initiative bonus, where you get +1 damage on the first round of combat. Upgrade it, now you get +1 damage on the first two rounds of combat, and so on. While technically a damage increase, it's also a conditional (based on turn number) and once again too strong for what we are going for (small granular improvements to our attack power). So how we increase our damage output for a basic attack that has immediate effect (turn by turn), based directly on turn order/effective for the action economy, not based on a conditional or resource, and not superficial or too granular to be useful?

Stage Zero- Basic Attack
Deals a set amount of damage in one or more hits. This is the vanilla attack, or zero investment.

Stage One- Basic Attack w/ Vulnerability Frame
Deals a set amount of damage and makes the enemy vulnerable to damage (taking +1 damage) if you hit them again in the following turn. The reason why this is a small granular increase of effective damage here is because it's a one turn status effect, which means you have to capitalize on it for next turn or you lose it. This means if you are stunned, need to block or heal, out of magic point for your attack, enemy moves, etc. you cannot capitalize on it. This could also be improved one or more times (by making this vulnerability last one or more extra turns) but this I would not consider an effective increase in our damage output enough to count as a higher "stage" of damage improvement, as it is simply a more convenient method of +1 damage.

Stage Two- Basic Attack w/ Deferred Damage
Deals a set amount of damage and the enemy will take +1 damage after their next turn. The after part is important. If the status effect did damage at the start of the turn, it would be functionally identical to a damage increase when it matters. (ie; enemy has 1 HP remaining after you hit them, at the start of the their turn means they can't act as they are defeated which is the same as if you just did +1 damage to them on your turn.) But by having it happen after their turn, the enemy can take their turn/action (potentially being saved by a heal or dealing damage to you) AND THEN takes the additional damage point, effectively giving your attack +1 damage when it CAN'T hit the breakpoint of stopping an enemy's action.

Stage Three- Basic Attack that deals +1 Damage
Deals a set amount of damage +1. Effective and immediate damage increase.

This three stage system is the most granular method of increasing damage in a way that actually changes the turn economy (ie; defeating an enemy before another turn can pass). Obviously game mechanics can be much deeper then this, but at its core mathematical principles, this one could serve as the basis for a character to advance their attack power in a game like this in a way that's actionable. So instead of getting a +1 Attack badge, you'd have to equip three to get that same effect, and each badge would give you the next stage. If you had four advancements in this system, then the attack would do +1 damage and give a 1 turn vulnerability frame and so on.

Wednesday, July 1, 2026

What's the Fourth Role?

The holy trinity of combat roles in cooperative video games (popularized by MMOs) are the Tank, DPS, and Support. Later on, these roles became more commonplace in competitive and cooperative games; even designing game systems around them such as Overwatch or Marvel Rivals with its hero shooter elements with characters in dedicated roles. More flexible games may allow characters of various classes to offset these roles; like a Warrior being able to specialize more in damage by dual-wielding weapons or carrying one weapon and a shield for "tanking". It's important to note this distinction transcends class, race, weapon choice, etc. this is the ROLE in which this character or player is supposed to be played. It goes beyond the "class fantasy".

For a combat focused game; I think you can't do much better then the holy trinity. I don't honestly have a problem with it. Tabletop games have a slightly different, though similar approach to this, but we get more into the class fantasy stuff later. For multiplayer video games, the common sentiment is that this trinity can't be broken because it encompasses all the of the possible interactions in the game space; Dealing damage, surviving damage, and reversing damage are pretty much all of the direct interactions you can have with another team of players or NPC monsters in a standard game not related to game specific gimmicks or mechanics; which go outside the scope of this role breakdown.

Note: I also feel I should mention here that it's likely equally as viable (and perhaps more interesting) if these basic roles just do the same things as usual but in different ways. Like a burst healer vs a regeneration healer, or a tank who gains stacking defensive buffs to reduce their damage taken or regenerates a portion of damage dealt, or a "dodge tank", etc. The flavor of the exact mechanics can vary and make characters and roles feel unique even if they all eventually boil down to "do damage and don't die". 

The most commonly put out 4th role to this system is a split of the support and healer role; usually with a debuff or crowd-control focus being on the 4th new role and a sole focus of healing and sustaining on the healer class. While I quite like this thematically; the issue is that very few games actually have such an important focus on crowdcontrol or buffs/debuffs that an entire role needs to be dedicated to it. Imagine a game where a person buffing your damage output was as necessary as a healer; you would have to do so little damage at baseline that the game would be extremely unfun. So to if you couldn't survive against a wave of enemies if you literally didn't have this 4th Mezzmer class to stun them; then trying to complete this content or dungeon or whatever would be extremely reliant on some kind of specific mechanic; more like a puzzle then a fair and creative combat arena. Many games instead split these abilities up and across the other roles; Tanks having the stuns or shields or slows that keep enemies from getting too aggressive, and Supports having escape abilities, shields, or buffs as part of their kit to improve teammate effectiveness when not directly dealing damage. Damage-Dealers tend to have the least of these moves but that's because they are also the most effective role at actually completing the objective (killing people) and are differentiated from tanks with having high mobility or range; so it's a fair trade off; but sometimes they get stuff like short term stuns or mobility-reducing tools to make it easier to finish off opponents.

The other issue with making the 4th role a Support/Buff/Debuff specialist is if the game also features solo play. Since your type of interaction is "support allies/reduce enemy effectiveness" you have the worst solo effectiveness right besides the healer, who at least gets to heal themselves. If anything you could break the class Trifecta down further into just two sides of a coin; Damage Dealers & Support. Because let's face it; in most games, tanks CAN also do damage. It's no fun if you literally can't hurt enemies, and in MMOs especially tanks need to be able to grab enemy aggro, so there is really a sliding scale between survival/offensive power between tanks & dps classes. This is even a common role in some games; something like a "Bruiser" or "Off-Tank" which has some of the properties of both these roles.

Another 4th possible role, and a personal favorite of mine is the "utility". This sounds similar to the above Support/Buff/Disabler role but instead more focuses on providing some kind of useful non-numerical combat advantage to their team, similar to an Engineer from TF2 with teleporters, some of the operatives in Rainbow Six Siege providing vision and information, the XP soak and map control of a Lost Vikings player in Heroes of the Storm, etc. The problem with this role is it isn't as universal across all games and game-modes, and is often too character specific. For example off the top of your head you could easily imagine five different DPS characters with different primary weapons; pistols, shotguns, sniper rifle, rocket launcher, flamethrower. Without even giving you any more information how these characters are or what skills or stats they may have; you can already imagine five different playstyles and unique ranges where these characters could be useful and fit the DPS role. The issue with a utility character is five different variation of "deployable teleporter that get your teammates back in the fight quicker" isn't nearly as interesting and doesn't conjure up ideas of different gameplay. It also has an issue with the game and map design. 

For example, if the game has only one game mode, like a standard 5v5 MOBA, then a utility character fully focused on map control and pushing waves that doesn't interact as much with the enemy team is fine. But now if the developers wanted to add a 4v4 arena deathmatch mode; this character would be almost useless. Contrary, if they added a 3 to 5 player PvE cooperative mode where you defend a fortress from waves of enemies; this character could instead become extremely broken and stronger then all the others because it was designed with the mindset that it'd be weak in a straight up fight (outside the holy trinity) but strong in the macrogame sense. It can also be annoying from the "dps is fun and healing isn't" perspective. If your game featured a character that can give other characters flight for a limited time, that power would be extremely strong and a desirable character on your team. But why play the guy that gives other people flight when you could be the cool gun character that kills everyone now with wings? Healers are already a role developers have to coerce players into playing with bonus XP and strong mechanics because nobody wants to be the "support" that enables their teammates to do everything. There's also just less ideas that work to fully design a character's kit around that aren't tied to damage/combat in some way; partially because we've been acclimatized to games where combat is the main/only focus, so it's naturally much more deep and complex feeling then most other game systems out there.

Of course, this entire Tank/Healer/DPS paradigm is related to combat focused competitive games. Games without combat or with a much different focus don't have the same goals and your characters will be different, and as such, players will instead have different roles.

Fighter, Rogue, Mage
The classic fantasy archetypes of Fighter, Rogue, and Mage are extremely common in fantasy fiction, and act as a sort of basis for character classes and choices. I personally really like this setup, even though I think it suffers from some very specific limitations. If you boiled down every class to its core elements, removing all the setting-specific fluff, it would come down to one of these three archetypes or a combination of them. But notice how these archetypes exist without a gameplay loop tied to them? It's less of an optimized combat trinity and more of a aesthetic and role-in-the-fiction.

Originally in D&D, the original trifecta was Fighter, Magic-User, and Cleric. I don't think this really works for our purpose because too many archetypal characters are cut out (Dashing rogues, archers, dick-ass thieves, etc.) and it's too specific to it's setting fiction. Plus having the axis be Fighter (no magic) to Wizard (all the magic) and Cleric (half magic but a little fighting too) feels wrong to me; makes Cleric feel less like a distinct class and more of a multiclass option. Having just one of the primary archetypes be magical feels "right".

Briefly I'd like to touch on the oldschool "square" of Fighter, Thief, Cleric, Magic-User. I think this one is a bit better then the above Fighter/Cleric/Wizard system, but I still don't like it. Having 50% of the class choices have a magic archetype, even if the magic is very different, feels negative to me. We also get into the above video-gamey problem of Wizard stepping on the toes of the other roles, but that's a much bigger topic talked about to death. I think for a dungeoneering squad it fits well, since the Cleric kinda has a role as a healer/support class that the Wizard doesn't, but it doesn't have that same distinctness that the Fighter/Rogue/Wizard trifecta does. It's also much easier to imagine more classes building off that base formula. Fighter + Mage makes a spellblade, or warlock, or paladin or whatever is easy to understand. Thief + Mage makes a Bard or Shadowblade. That's cool. But if you have four, how is that supposed to work? Fighter + Cleric makes... Paladin? What's a Mage + Cleric? How do you divine up between these roles for potential secondary archetypes? Or what if you want to include a setting whose fictional world doesn't have the cosmology that supports a Cleric? I'm not saying you can't do it, I just don't like it.

This fantasy trinity is useful to act as a baseline for creative work. But it's not based on direct gameplay like the combat triangle is in our above example; it's more based on aesthetics and the roles within the fiction. In D&D or generic fantasy TTRPG adventures; what sort of trifecta would we use instead? 

Fighter, Rogue, Sage
My concept, which I have shilled endlessly on this blog, is basically to take the three core fictional archetypes above (Fighter, Rogue, and Mage) and twist them into roles fitting the core gameplay of a standard D&D-esque OSR dungeon-crawling adventure. Basically having each class specialize in one of the roles. I renamed the Magic-User to Sage, simply to denote the difference in their role, but aesthetically they are very similar (wise, read spellbooks, use a staff, limited armor and weapons, etc.). This keep most of the aesthetic of a Wizard but more as a support class. It's a concept I used to shill a lot over the years, but in recent times I have greatly softened on it. The main purpose of this though was to try and fit the Sage underneath one of the core pillars of OSR gameplay; which is Resource Management. Using this, each class has a role they specialize in doing to overcome the challenges of the game world.

Fighters specialize in combat and direct force.
Rogues specialize in (safely) exploring the dungeon environment & overcoming hazards.
Sages specialize in resource management.

These three obstacles; Combat, Exploration, and Resource management are the primary vectors of "gameplay" and the difficulty or challenges to overcome in the game world. I think these three classes fit onto these most neatly; the attempt to pair classes with their actual gameplay function similar to the Tank/DPS/Healer roles in a video game. But there's a small issue here. These three obstacles are not the same as the three pillars of D&D. They don't encompass the entire game. The (official?) Three pillars I am referring to are the pillars of Combat, Exploration, and Social Interaction. One issue I have with this definition is, while the pillar of Social Interaction is certainly huge in the TTRPG game space, it's usually the most "freeform" part of the entire game. It's certainly an important aspect, but it could be regulated to a background element, or even roped in to the "Exploration" part of the game. For example, the pillars don't dictate that worldbuilding, lore, or environmental interaction is its own pillar, but these are background elements that determine what is going on just as much as character interaction. I don't disagree with it, but i find it strange that Resource Management isn't included, when it's so core to even modern D&D's game design, much less OSR style stuff.

With that said, if you want to continue our above design of making classes specialize in one of the "pillars" of the game; how can you do that for Social Interaction? If you want to say the Fighter & Rogue specialize in the combat and exploration part of the game; who is the social interaction master? The wizard is one option, as Wizards often have the tools required to interact socially both with friendly NPCs and monsters (Charm, comprehend languages, etc.) but that's usually not their explicit role in a party AND it also flies against the fiction, where Wizards are often less Charismatic then other classes since Charisma isn't an important stat. So if not Wizards; or if we include Wizards in our above schema, what roles can we create that exemplify social interaction?

For one, I don't think social interaction can be gamified as easily as other systems. You could make it into a minigame where players can't choose directly what they say; in the same way you can't arbitrarily decide if your attack hits or misses; or the much discussed "social combat system". As such, you can't choose to say a smart thing in a situation when trying to convince something of something. This is often rolled into Speechchecks or the Charisma modifier, but I never liked this solution as similar to Perception rolls you take the control out of the hands of the player. It'd be like forcing players to make an Intelligence check or roll a "Tactics" skill to make a good battle plan before a fight; it's just not something that is done.

(However I do like thinking about it; like imaginable an alternate universe where D&D never had a dedicated combat system and so it's as freeform as Speechcraft is, but diplomacy is so important they focused the majority of the game's mechanics around it.) 

Courtier class from Fantasycraft
So how would this social interaction specialist look? Would they have daily powers, or enhanced reaction checks? Similar to stealth (which is already a big problem), the binary success or failure states of a reaction check is kinda difficult to base a class around. Fighters get lots of chances for their benefits (high health, high chance to hit, etc.) to shine through even with randomness, Wizards get their spells, but Roguish or skill characters kinda just have to suck it up if they make a bad roll. Even if they're bad at it, they still have to be the one to do the action. This is a greater problem in TTRPGs over the concept of the "face" character doing all the interaction (always the one with the highest Charisma score) as it's not a real tactical or game play-inspired choice. Making this a class would only solidify this role even more. Second, I have a small pet peeve around making classes where you only need one. Having more Fighters is always good, having more Magic-Users or Clerics is always good, since that means more spells, but usually you don't really need more then one Thief. Having maybe two as a backup in case the first one dies might be good, and maybe more could be added if the game featured a lot of specific-skills where each individual rogue could specialize in different things so you can justify having more then one, but there is just less inherent usefulness to having multiple. The social interaction guy would be even worse for this because, presumably, you'd always have him be the "party face" and having more then one besides a backup is pointless.

Secondly; any rule you add to restrict social interaction is another rule that restricts player creativity and the "gameplay" of the game. Even if you're "allowed" to technically bribe people, your social expert getting a +2 bonus or letting the money be treated as 50% higher in amount for the purposes of bribing officials equal to their yearly salaries for a small benefit or whatever will force players to use this to their advantage, because otherwise it would not be optimal play. (Side note: Reading the Courtier description back does give me an idea for its secondary usefulness as a healer/support role if you use a abstracted HP or grit system, like Goblin Punch's recent Spirit post. But is this just a reskinned Cleric for your city-crawling campaign? Yikes.) Being able to force people to be your friend or hear you out once per day or w/e is interesting but it's a daily power; a forced gamification of a system that should be a part of the main game. The exception of course being supernatural or mystic powers; but still this is less interesting then just having it be default. The other more obvious rule restriction on social interaction is languages and this, fair enough, would give the class a useful benefit and/or give a reason to bring multiple. So you could have one who speaks Bugbear and one who speaks Gnollish or whatever. The issue with this is it's a very binary, kinda boring system. You either know it or you don't, and shutting off social interaction entirely unless you bring the specific key skill needed is a type of encounter design that I don't think is very popular. If you have a hint that there could be Frost Giants in your adventure early on and people decide to learn Giantish then that's interesting enough; but it's more something a character would want to learn on their own and not as interesting as a class feature.

The third and final primary issue with the social-specialist class is a matter of theme. There are a lot of Charismatic characters in fantasy and fiction, but it isn't really an "archetype" the way a Fighter or Mage is. The charismatic, attractive lead is a narrative archetype, but isn't really their "class". Sometimes the pretty face of the party who talks everyone out of trouble is the dashing rogue, or the cunning Wizard, or the damsel in distress. Having a game world you're using in an attempt to emulate myth, legends, and fun fantasy adventures and 1/4th of all adventurers are some courtesan or merchant class would take me out of it a bit; even though I think these are the best examples of roles you could make into this social specialist class. Bards? Maybe, but specific. Merchants or Courtiers? Very tied to social class and often NPCs.

But what if I told you there already was a social specialist in D&D-esque adventure games? And I don't mean player role or the DM's favorite, I mean an actual mechanically backed class. This is probably of no surprise to you, but... it's just the Rogue.

Even if we ignore later D&D skill rank systems in which Rogues tend to get the most points, Rogues have a lot of benefits that give them a social advantage. Being able to hide away out of sight, they can kinda avoid monster encounters; which means they can avoid social interactions they aren't well-prepared for. Being able to climb and sneak around means they're more likely to be able to interact with people out of the way; like the rare friendly monster, a captured prisoner without the guards knowing, or first contact with talking magic items. AD&D also has thieves cant, which while a setting-specific inclusion, is something that would theoretically make a Rogues/Thief just so slightly better at social interaction then other classes; even the Name-Level benefit of a thief in getting to run a thieves guild or a gang of scoundrels is very a "urban" type of reward and likely is set up at an important town with lots of trade and important NPCs, as opposed to the more utilitarian Fighter fortress or Magic-User's reclusive wizard tower and laboratory.

I always wondered what Class benefited the most from Charisma. Obviously having more hirelings (and starting gold) is useful for everyone, but who actually benefits the most from it? I honestly still think it's the Rogue. You could think of Charisma as a sort of "Stealth Defense" score; since it's highly likely that if you get caught sneaking somewhere they'll be some explaining to do; this also allows me to pair off the base attributes to the three class archetypes in a way that tickles me. Fighters like Strength and Constitution, Wizards or Sages like Intelligence and Wisdom, and the Rogues like Dexterity and Charisma. That way, in the same way Fighters can be more hit-y or tank-y, and Wizards can be smart or wise, Rogues can kinda lean towards being dashing or sneaky. Instead of a 4th archetypal role, we expand one of the existing ones and fatten up our trifecta.

Saturday, February 28, 2026

Alternates to Hit/Miss Defense for Dex-Based Characters in RPGs

Path of Exile does it, Diablo 2 does it, Torchlight does it, Last Epoch does it, Titan Quest does it, Grim Dawn doesn't do it but kinda but that's game weird so who cares. Basically; these games have miss/hit chances when you attack enemies and when enemies attack you. (And also Morrowind and pretty much all CRPGs and every roleplaying game which shares its DNA with the you-know-what dragon game.)

Characters with a lot of Dexterity; Rogues, Archers, Amazons, Tricksters, Assassins, and so on tend to primarily build their PASSIVE defense around increasing the chance to avoid hits. This makes sense both in universe (dodging attacks meaning you don't take any damage at all instead of just reducing them the way a heavily armored warrior might endure enemy attacks) and also acts as a mechanically different form of defense then simple damage mitigation in the form of armor. But there's a few issues with it. Mechanically, this defensive type is inherently less reliable then the other types as it relies on randomness. On top of this, other base systems heavily skew this system to being either overpowered or very weak, such as a minimum hit chance percentage. In a properly balanced action game this may not be an issue, but in your typical ARPG with a huge amount of character build, gear, enemy, and encounter variance this quickly falls apart. While running into a monster with a "attacks always hit" modifier should be scary for a Dex character regardless under this system; it uniquely screws over this character worse then a "purges your defensive auras" monster or a "penetrates your armor" monster since rarely do these characters have a secondary form of defense and there tends to be less secondary forms of mitigation to offset this. This makes the game for these characters much more like rocket-tag; you either kill everything in one hit or they kill you in one hit with no inbetween.

This contrasts to the other characters with their own stats and defensive schemes. In PoE, which is the one I'm most referencing in and building from; Strength based characters use Armor which reduce incoming damage by a percentage, Dexterity uses our Evasion rating described above, and Intelligence has energy shield, which simply acts as a second health bar that recharges quickly when not in combat. Hybrid classes that mix two primary attributes use both of their attribute's defenses but to a lesser extent then a pure class. ie; Strength/Dex equipment grants Armor and Evasion but less then a pure Armor value then a pure Str piece of equipment would in that slot. 

Side note: While writing this post I had a sudden sense of Deja Vu and then I remember I did write this exact same thing before. This really is the autistic hyper-fixation blog. Doesn't matter, I have new ideas to add to the pile. I won't go into detail about high Evasion characters should have it easier in dodge enemy attacks though since I covered it there and I still think it's a decent mechanical idea- for video games, of course. While I cover a lot of tabletop stuff this mechanics heavy stuff isn't as viable at the table in my opinion.

While mechanically making Dex-based evasion mechanics more interesting is the goal, passive defense is inevitable in this genre and also important for the stat and character building side. How do we make this system more interesting while keeping its theme and making it distinct from the other forms of defense, like Health tanking, armor, block, or magical shields?

Definition of Terms- Accuracy Ladder
In most games with these systems, attacks either miss or hit in a very binary system. It has its roots in tabletop gaming; which is represented on a d20 attack roll. Crits are usually a secondary calculation with its own statistic; though sometimes it can be a factor. Roughly you can think of it like a ladder of different outcomes based on the roll and possible results.

(Critical Fail -------- Miss ---- Hit -------- Critical Success)

Increasing your To-Hit, Attack, or Accuracy rating essentially weighs this table towards successful hits, where as increasing your Defense weighs enemy attacks towards missing. I should also mention in this example, "Critical Hit/Fail" doesn't necessarily mean it's enhanced in any way; just that it's the guaranteed hit or miss hard boiled into the system. Path of Exile in particular engages towards this basic system more, since crits require a "confirmation" hit roll behind the scenes to activate. This means having high Dexterity & Evasion makes crits harder to land on you (Defensive) and having high accuracy and crit chance makes your attacks hit more and are more likely to crit (Offensive). However, this basic ladder concept can be applied to more then a binary hit/miss system. A good example of this, and the exact mechanic that inspired this post, is the Pillars of Eternity accuracy vs defense ladder or Attack Resolution system.

(Miss - Graze - Hit - Critical Hit)

In Pillars; a Graze means an attack or spell deals -50% damage or has -50% reduced duration, and the opposite applies to a critical hit. This heavily incentivizes Accuracy as something to build for any character, including spellcasters. Narratively this makes sense; highly agile characters dodging attacks and magic spells at close range so they are only grazed by them and are less phased by them as a result. But having a form of mitigation that reduces the incoming negative effects is a bit of a problem for our schema; as this is very similar to what our potential concept of Armor (strength) characters already do. At this point if included in the game; the difference between a chance to negate 50% damage or having a set amount of damage reduction becomes a math puzzle and is far less interesting to me then three complete, different defensive mechanics. It's still a useful starting point for our ideas.

As you can see, this small addition of mechanical depth can change a lot about the binary pass-fail system. But what should we actually do with it?

Alternate Concept #0- Fumbles & Counterblows
Whenever you are attacked, the enemy has a chance to hit based on your dexterity score and evasion. Very high difference of scores unlock the worst result, in which case the enemy fumbles their attack.

(Fumble - Miss ------ Hit ------ Critical hit) 

Whenever an enemy fumbles an attack against the player character; they not only miss but also slow down considerably, and become vulnerable to a counter-attack. The next time the player hits the enemy within a short window they take increased damage. Ideally, this would also be animated and shown in the game, either with a whiff or stumble animation, to further sell the illusion the player-character dodged or tricked the enemy so much they lose their balance and open them up to a counter.

This concept allows for more depth and increased reward for Evasion-based builds. It also indirectly helps with avoiding damage by increasing damage output; you can kill enemies quicker to avoid them hitting you again. This concept also fits with the general theme of Dex-based character fantasies; duelists or rogues striking enemies down in a glass-cannon playstyle. However, this doesn't actually change the core mechanic being chance-based. There are other mechanics that could make it deterministic, such as the first enemy attack each enemy makes against you always misses or fumbles with an increased chance to fumble; not to mention abilities or skills that can force an enemy fumble/stun animation and so on.

The other issue with the fumble mechanic is that it gives the player-character a special mechanic or advantage the enemy doesn't have (or if you did implement it the other way, attacking certain enemies would be suicidal or just really annoying to deal with; much in the way enemies with really high evasion already are). This increases the feeling of disparity between the player and monsters in the game; a nice thing about the Hit/Miss/Crit scale concept is that the player and enemies are essentially playing by similar rules, making it a sliding scale of combat. But this isn't universally true and lots of games already don't really have enemies with random chance to crit on attack; so thinking of a fumble just as a "defensive crit" in the context of the miss/hit random chance system it's more reasonable to think only players get access to it. Obviously once again this is only counting the passive defense aspect of the game; special enemy attacks could always make a player fumble or enemies could enter a guarded stance which automatically parry a player attack is a given as a possible mechanic to spice up the combat.

Alternate Concept #1- Active Defense Enhancement
More detailed in the other rant post; essentially allowing Dexterity focused characters more mobility & active ability to dodge attacks or telegraphed AoE zones of damage is another form of damage mitigation that is unique and separate from other forms of damage reduction. However the issue with this is the implementation. If every point of Dexterity just gave you +1% faster move speed and you could use that to dodge attacks; it would quickly be totally out of control with the character either zipping around the map so fast or every other type of character being almost unplayable in terms of speed. But you can't make the investment too small; if a max level Archer or Rogue is only 10% faster then everyone else and that's all the benefit you got from Dexterity then it would feel like a massive investment for just a chance to dodge enemies more often. Of course, given how insanely powerful movement skills seem to be in every game, maybe it'd be a fair trade off, but for average players I think it'd feel weird. It also has to do with scaling and impact; for an entire game's worth of content, a system like this would only be able to increase whatever movement speed or animation speed by a tiny fraction of fraction; meaning your gear upgrades would do almost nothing as you move through the game. For standard Accuracy/Defense rating however it works well since these values can scale off each other; so small dex/evasion/attack bonuses early in Act 1 can feel impactful while still needing constant upgrades throughout the game. If these stats were just "+X% chance to dodge all attacks" they'd need to be highly constrained or limited by certain hard caps or else you'd literally be increasing your modifiers by 1% per item swap throughout the campaign by the end or can't even get this gear until way later. There's a reason why games don't really set these as passive stats you can just grind for with level.

Second? This isn't really what we're talking about. This is kinda supposed to be... passive mitigation, right? Like armor, shields, stuff like that? Plus rarely is movement speed or mobility tied to a single stat like this; it tends to be a part of an overarching character design and part of the "power budget" of a character. Like Archers already tend to have moves that either keep enemies at distance or let them get back, and being ranged means they naturally have to be weaker in melee to make them not just straight better then a melee character.

One semi-simple solution is to have this archetype have multiple levers. Perhaps every point of Dexterity does increase your movement speed, but only when using the rush skill or dodge skill every character, has, giving a slight advantage (like PoE's dodge roll), that way Dex characters aren't literally able to just freely avoid every single slow predictable enemy attack. But this is just one mechanic; you can also stack evasion to increase your block/stun recovery time, making you less likely to get stunlocked. While this mechanic is usually thematically reserved for warriors, having it for agility-type characters also makes sense. Then on top of that; you have resistance to status effects, but especially slows. ARPGs seem very hesitant to actually put slows on the characters unless from very specific enemies (curses) or elemental types that you're meant to protect yourself against (cold dmg). As such, in this hypothetical scenario Dexterity could do a little bit of all of these. Increasing your resistance to slows, decreasing the size of enemy slam attacks or reducing the amount of damage you take from them (treating you as farther from "the center" for damage calculation), increasing your general action, attack, move, and stun recovery speed; and maybe enhancing your other movement based skills like dodge rolls, sprints, dashes, and so on. Tying this all to one stat or ability score is probably not ideal for game progression but might be interesting from a design perspective. And ALL of this, just to mechanically equal a passive chance to avoid attacks because I don't like the RNG engine. Yikes.

Alternate Concept #2- Damage Threshold
The higher your "Defense" or "Evasion" rating is, you avoid all attacks that deal damage underneath that value. Any attack that does over that amount of damage, you take the full amount of damage. Effectively means weak attacks from minions or spam spells won't do anything to you and you just dodge them, but big powerful attacks from stronger monsters or AoE damage spells and slams still hurt you. Extremely simple.

Unfortunately, I don't see this one really working in practice. These types of games tend to have random damage numbers or alternate damage types (elements, magic v physical, pierce that ignores armor, etc.) and would come out to be very difficult to predict how well defended you really are. While slightly less random then Evasion rating, it would still feel very "random" in that you suddenly take big hits from enemies if enemies have randomized damage enough to slip past your DT. Secondly, becomes a huge balancing nightmare as if you can raise your DT too high enemies will just literally not be able to do anything to you, or you can still take one shots when enemies stack multiple modifiers or amplify damage curses or what have you. However, I do think it thematically fits these types of characters well; and fits with the theme of scoundrels, bards, and assassins being cocky and untouchable until they just get slapped for a million damage out of nowhere causing sudden panic and being less reliable or as tanky as an armor user who presumably has more normal damage mitigation. The argument could also be made that this actually fits armor thematically better; so perhaps switching roles (evasion reduces damage by a percent, armor has a DT value) might fit these defense classes more. Though maybe in a perfect world, PoE style the class that specializes in the Damage-Threshold-Evasion would actually be the Duelist or Str/Dex hybrid; but this category has gone on far enough.

While we're treating this damage type as an absolute value, it also doesn't have to be and could be roped in with another defensive layer or schema. Like the accuracy ladder from before;

(Miss/Bonus DT --- Hit v Damage Threshold --- Hit v Damage Reduction --- Pierce)

Your absolute threshold only applies to "good" defense rolls vs enemy attacks (equivalent to a accuracy/evasion miss), where as a smaller Damage Threshold is applied to normal attacks that "hit" you successfully or instead just reduce the damage by that flat amount (maybe these could be swapped effects?) Finally, the equivalent of an enemy crit with this system would just deal full damage regardless of how large your threshold is. However writing this out, I'm basically now realizing this is basically what hit chance vs evasion is but the "damage threshold" is just the defense vs attack rating lmao. All in all I don't like this one; the absolute nature of it means that partial investment is almost useless you make even super late game enemies have very weak attacks that can still fit under a character's normal damage threshold that doesn't specialize in evasion, and it doesn't stop the pass/fail nature of random hit chance just offloads it to a slightly more predictable outcome just based on how strong an enemy is or whatever. Still, I have to include it in this list.

Alternate Concept #3- Potential Damage & The Vulnerable State
Instead of taking the damage directly, you receive "potential" damage. This could still be tied into a Dexterity system, like a percentage of the damage you take becomes potential damage or a certain type of hit you can take (between a miss/hit/crit etc.) deals a portion of the damage immediately and the rest is deferred in this way. Think of this as a secondary form of delaying damage but instead of being over time and guaranteed its a big lump of damage you could take at some point in the future.

While this sounds a little strange at first given the fiction of the game I think it fits pretty well. It contextualizes the combat system as being slightly more story based or requiring suspension of disbelief as when the skeleton hits your character you don't actually take the damage from the hit, but instead you are put slightly off balance, or reeling, or being pushed back and starting to feel doubt essentially, to the point that the next hit may be the lethal one that ends your adventure. I also think this well fits the leather clad "dex fighter", archer, rogue, or other similar archetypes often associated with this defensive stat.

There are then a few possibilities on when this potential/stored damage can actually hit you then. Without a reliable means for this type of damage to actually hurt you, it'd essentially then be no different from damage reduction. I actually have a really fun idea on how to represent this too given the genre staples; represent it as a crack in your character's life orb that slowly creeps towards the top as you have more and more of this "stored" damage. When the amount of potential damage is equal to or greater then your life total; you enter a "vulnerable" state, where the next solid attack that hits you will kill you instantly (because you take all the potential damage at once). Of course if this could be any random generic skeleton sword slash attack it would be no different then eating a high damage crit with a chance-based dodge rating; which is why instead I would have it so regular monster attacks become potential with Dexterity or evasion scaling, but area of effect or dodgeable spell attacks can pop your potential damage. As an addition visual indicator, a DbD Terror Radius like heartbeat appears in the center of your character with a loud heartbeat sound, which acts as a useful indicator you need to back off an use a recovery ability or wait for your potential or stored damage to disappear.

Thematically, I like this potential form of damage a lot. It gives a more active form of defense and also fits with the general aesthetic of "Dex based" characters; like thieves or rogues who run in an bite off more then they can chew, and will suddenly get put in their place if they try to get too fancy with it. And it also allows you to stay in combat longer if you take the risk; perfect gimmick for a arrogant rogue type character like PoE's Shadow. I also think, contrary to first opinion, that it may actually be fine to have this NOT as a character-specific passive ability or active "smoke bomb disappear risky ninja defense skill", but as a game-wide mechanic. Why? Because characters who aren't stacking evasion/dex won't have this vulnerable state happen that often and will more likely die from normal damage; but when it rarely does happen it'd make for an interesting gameplay moment of the Warrior going into their defensive block stance to avoid taking a critical strike or a Sorcerer quickly teleporting away or using their bubble shield to avoid getting one-shot through their defenses. Certain enemies could also specialize in this kind of damage; like if you walk through spider webs or let invisible rogue enemies stay behind you too long and now have to deal with them over any other enemies to avoid getting one-shot. 

The issue with this concept is twofold though; firstly being something that may be useless for characters who don't build into it (if too low-Dex can't turn damage into potential damage then splashing a little evasion doesn't do anything for you; where as in PoE even a small amount of evasion will reduce some of the damage you take sometimes at least), or even worse it could actually be MORE beneficial for character who don't specialize in it then those who do. Like imagine if a heavily armored warrior gets enough evasion that 50% of the damage they take is deferred as potential damage; but they don't convert enough that they ever reach the "vulnerable state", meaning they essentially get a form of damage mitigation better then the evasion character who might reach multiple "vulnerable" points during a single combat encounter with a boss and therefore has more chances to actually die in the fight. Part of avoiding this is just how the vulnerability state is mechanically implemented; for example I'd have the vulnerability state only activate when you mitigate a hit large enough to actually chunk your hit points, which causes the heartbeat visual and audio warning, which then beats faster and louder if it grows to be capable of killing you in a single hit. So midway through a fight you might mitigate enough that a single hit will put you at half HP, which you have to worry about a bit, but full "balls to the wall one hit will kill you" moments are more rare and not something you get often with this form of damage resistance. The second problem I have with it, which is more nitpicky, is that this just the PoE Energy Shield in reverse. Instead of getting out of combat to recharge your temporary defensive shield, you are getting out of combat to avoid a large hit, but if this potential damage is deferred after a few seconds of safety then it's exactly the same as an ES build just more complex and harder to make a build around imo. With all this in mind; I'd keep this as a special character power or rare mechanic for certain mobs; like rare mobs with a "Heartseeker" modifier that lets them charge up a lethal crit on you if you fight them for a long time, or a method for an lifestealing vampire dexterity character to avoid death by entering a vulnerable state for 3 seconds whenever they reach 1 HP IF they can manage to lifeleech all their health back or w/e within the time limit. But this leads perfectly into the last concept...

Alternate Concept #4- Damage Deferral
The simplest, and by far my favorite of all alternate defensive stats for Hit/Miss systems is simply damage deferral. You still take some or all of the damage from the attack, but instead of taking it all at once, you take the damage over time. At first glance, this may seem really bad. Why would anyone use this? You still have to take the damage, right? Yes, but the rate of taking the damage is reduced significantly, which means you don't have to take it all at once. Instead of dying to a single bit hit or rapid series of hits, your health drops but you now have a safety net of time to use to recover your hit points, complete the combat encounter, or both.

Most of these kinds of games have some form of healing; like potions, flasks, lifesteal on attacks, life gain on kill, and so on. With damage deferral, you can simultaneously survive hits while also undoing the damage of those attacks through healing. Most of the time there is also a base health regeneration rate, which already helps greatly reduce the amount of damage you're taking, but this fully depends on the interval of time. This would have to be adjusted for the speed of the game; with slower games naturally having slower damage deferral timers, and fast paced games having much shorter ones. While this depends immensely on the theme of the game; Dexterity characters often have a lifesteal or life-gain-on-kill focus, or a focus on alchemy and self-healing. Path of Exile's claw weapons, which are a Dex/Int hybrid weapon, have a base ability of restoring life or mana on hit. Already the ability to defer damage would go hand in hand with this archetype; but it's even better with the Armor/Evasion/Energy Shield scheme as you could essentially be taking damage to life while regenerating or blocking damage with energy shield acting as an extra barrier. Same as all games with healing; healing over time with a shield is doubly effective since you are essentially restoring the health and preventing further health damage with the ablative effect of a barrier or bonus HP or whatnot.

Of course, the exact amount of damage deferred and how/when it is applied is important. If evasion is a pure damage deferral tool; then all attacks would be damage over time which for whatever reason rubs me the wrong way. Instead you could use the accuracy ladder, but instead with damage being deferred or immediate being the outcomes instead of attack roll. For example, you could still have misses, but a very high evasion role could mean enemies hit you with a slower damage over time effect (100% of the damage taken over 12 seconds) where as a medium hit or lower evasion score results in taking half the damage now, and the other half over a shorter time period. (like 50% and the rest of the damage over 4 seconds). In this protocol the player is less actively managing the damage deferral in the shorter term, instead more relying on the life steal/regen/other damage mitigation effects to sustain them. You could also apply a secondary reduction of damage to just the overall amount as a new modifier to items, character skills, or to other abilities. Like "75% of the damage taken is taken over 4 seconds" with whatever is leftover just being lost, but this is starting to get back to the realm of pure mitigation and damage reduction, which is more armor's thing. I think having a character with just a flat amount of damage mitigation built in to their evasion mechanic is fine though, since it helps a lower HP/armor character survive who doesn't have those sorts of magical/ranged defenses Wizards might get in our potential game.

(Miss - Graze (100% deferred) - Glance (50% deferred) - Hit - Critical)

I also believe this concept really thematic fits the Dexterity characters and their style of defense; they "dodge" attacks to make themselves bleed or avoid the damage for a short time, but still have to mitigate the damage as a high risk/reward kind of defensive mechanic, and adds a decent amount of active management to the system. If you see your life draining from hits, drink a health potion or use your defensive options; perhaps even moves that delay the damage even further, though once again this could be more of a character-building thing over an active part of the combat system.

However there are a few negatives to it. Firstly; it's much harder to tell exactly how dangerous or to differentiate monster types if they're all dealing delayed and mitigated damage. For example, in an RPG where you can go to high level areas early, your first warning sign to leave is usually coming up to an enemy that deals half your life in a single hit or something similar. Even if you manage to defeat the opponent or run away, this subtly tells the player they need to improve their gear or level up more. While rapidly losing all your health from a powerful enemy attack is similar, I don't think it has quite that punch. In the same vein, running into a pack of enemies in Diablo 2 and being chain smacked by several powerful melee enemies reminds the player to keep their sorceress or whatever back and reinforces the combat style; where as an Evasion character might wade into big groups of enemies not realizing they're "playing it wrong" since they're mitigating the damage and not seeing the immediate effect of their actions. These are just gut reactions though, and I think players could learn to adapt to this new system. Along with this; I do think a game where almost every enemy deals damage over time could be really annoying just from a player perspective, but hopefully this would mostly only matter to our evasion/dex player and they'd see it as a positive and a result of their hard work building their character.

Secondly; what to do with lethal damage over time damage? This is trickier then it seems. I can easily see a situation where a player has frustration over running into monsters, killing them easily, but taking a lot of deferred damage and dying right after because they don't have the healing or lifesteal to sustain their build. Or even worse, standing there awkwardly watching their health tick to zero as they realize they have nothing in their inventory or try to rush to open a town portal scroll and go back to town before they die (this could also be extremely fun however).

If you do something like make healing more effective for "overflow" damage to your life total or make it so healing always ticks before damage (ie; you can't die from damage over time while you have a healing effect active) then it might be too easy to cheese. However I feel like this might be completely fine, since presumably players have limited healing resources. The second solution to this is to just make the damage from mitigated hits nonlethal; which means you can't actually die from pure deferred damage. Similar to poison in a lot of games; this means it just lowers your survivability but won't actually kill you. I also like this solution from a possible action game perspective, as this would also fit the character fantasy of high risk high reward Dexterity rogue archetype we like; but once again this might be too easy to cheese encounters by just getting really high evasion and disengaging from packs and waiting for your deferred damage to go away or returning to town after every fight for a heal; which is certainly not what is intended. Still, I think this solution is a really interesting way to represent a Dex-build evasion type character in a game that doesn't have to rely on a static hit/miss chance.

Sunday, February 1, 2026

Valve cooked BUT I liked the old patron names more

Note: Writing this blogpost in January when the update first dropped. By the time this is out the characters will likely already all be released and the hype will have worn off. Despite how much I like Deadlock at the minute, I still kinda liked the old patrons. "Street Mother" and "Hidden King" don't have the same ring to it IMHO. 

The "Patrons" I felt had a very supernatural, mystic aura with their naming convention and voices that fit very well will the idea of them being these almost unknowable, elder gods without it being a straight ripoff of Cthulhu mytho stuff. Amber Hand & Sapphire Flame felt like names and titles given to them by foolish mortals who astrally projected to view them; the beings otherwise otherworldly and out of the realm of human understanding. The occultists looked into another realm and just saw endless blue fire, constantly consuming, burning with eldritch knowledge, everywhere, which spoke to them in a voice; that's why it is called the Sapphire Flame. It didn't pick that name, but it accepted the name mortals gave it so it could spread its influence into other realms. This vibe is more present here then with the the more mundane and pedestrian new patrons. It also gave them identity that was somewhat generic and expandable; allowing you to easily imaging more rituals going on in New York between other, smaller entities.

At any rate; have some more Deadlock style patron names.

Otherworldly Patron Names [d12]
[1] Sapphire Flame
[2] Amber Hand
[3] Ruby Throne
[4] Emerald Eye 
[5] Onyx Tower
[6] Amethyst Star
[7] Opal Blade
[8] Pearl Shroud
[9] Jade Wing
[10] Agate End
[11] Garnet Hydria
[12] Diamond Chain

Thursday, July 31, 2025

TF2 Mercenary Generator

In this episode of "I thought I wrote this blogpost like 5 times over the past decade this blog has been around", I could have sworn I made this before. But time and time again I realize I never actually did. Time to amend that.

Team Fortress Mercenary Generator -
 (Roll Once per category unless otherwise stated)

Combat Role (Roll 1d10)
[1] Reconnaissance
[2] Mobile Infantry
[3] Shock-Troop / Terror Weapon
[4] Demolition
[5] Heavy Weapons
[6] Combat-Engineering
[7] Medic
[8] Long Range Specialist
[9] Espionage
[10] New Role. Roll again for general category (1-3 Offensive, 4-6 Defensive, 7-9 Support, 10 for an irregular) If you can't think of anything, make a Generalist.

Primary Weapon (Roll 1d8)
[1] Explosive
[2] Projectile (Non-Explosive)
[3] Shotgun
[4] Rifle
[5] Machine Gun
[6] Liquid / Gas "Thrower" Weapon
[7] Actually, their Melee is their main weapon. No primary weapon, secondary for ranged.
[8] Crucial gadget, tool, or piece of apparel that defines their Role. Roll 1d6 on the Secondary table for their main weapon they actually use to fight with.

Secondary Weapon (Roll 1d8)
[1] Sidearm (Pistol)
[2] Shotgun
[3] SMG
[4] Throwable
[5] Explosive
[6] Mobility or Escape Tool that accents their Role.
[7] Deployable Trap / Gadget that accents their Role.
[8] Roll again on Primary table and they just straight up get another one; because their "role" is to be overpowered and they just get two strong weapons, like Demoman.

Melee Weapon (Roll 1d6)
[1] Non-combat tool related to their Role
[2] Non-combat tool related to their Nationality
[3] Weapon related or often paired to their Role
[4] Traditional/Historical/Iconic weapon related to their Nationality
[5] Scavenged or Improvised
[6] Impracticable or Gag Weapon (or bare hands)

Class Gameplay Gimmick (Roll 1d8)
[1] Have innate immunity to something related to their role; like fall damage, drowning, fire, etc.
[2] Have an innate ability related to movement. (Double jump, slide, going prone, etc.)
[3] Tanky class or has an innate mechanic improving survivability.
[4] Have a powerful ability related to their role that has to charge up. Ubercharge.
[5] MAIN weapon has a very useful and/or interesting alt-fire.
[6] Class has to gather a resource for optimal play. (Metal, organs, heads, etc.)
[7] One or more of their items have a strong sci-fi twist. "Spytech".
[8] Has a subclass-defining unlockable for one of their weapon slots that totally changes how the class plays. If you can't think of anything, then they have a really funny taunt kill instead.

Art @Valve obviously. Check out the released concept art if you haven't!

Nationality / Stereotype Table
(Roll 1d50)
[1] Russian.
[2] Unknown, but seem rich & old money. Transatlantic accent, like an old movie.
[3]
 American. Southern. (Cowboy)
[4] American. Southern. (Cajun or Redneck)
[5] American. Boston.
[6] American. Chicago.
[7] American. Northern; Minnesota accent.
[8] American. New Yorker.
[9] American. California. Hippy.
[10] Native American. Yes with the "How" and the feather. Stereotypical but it's TF2.
[11] Canadian.
[12] Quebecois. Their only joke is getting offended by being called Canadian.
[13] Mexican. Desperado type. Poncho and sombrero, all that.
[14] Mexican. The exotic, passionate revolutionary type.
[15] Hawaiian.
[16] British. Posh.
[17] British. Cockney or "chav".
[18] Welsh. Their only joke is nobody understands what they're saying.
[19]
 Scottish.
[20] Irish, but mystical and Celtic and might be a Tuatha fairy person.
[21] Irish, but normal.
[22] French.
[23] Spanish.
[24] German.
[25] Italian; roll 1d2 for spicy meatball type or cool mafioso type.
[26] Swiss. Only joke is "not so neutral now, huh?"
[27] Brazilian.
[28]
 Polish.
[29] Finnish or other European micronation. Only joke; "nobody knows my country exists"
[30] Turkish.
[31] Egyptian. Has the kohl eyepaint and everything.
[32] Romani or "Gypsy" stereotype
[33] Arabic.
[34] Israeli.
[35] Greek.
[36] Sicilian.
[37] North African. 
[38] South African.
[39] Indian.
[40] Chinese. If you roll this a second time make the 2nd Merc from Taiwan for the banter.
[41] Australian.
[42] Mongolian. Has to have at least one taunt with throat singing.
[43] Korean. Might be North Korean spy.
[44] Japanese.
[45] Japanese. "Honorable Samurai" type and still pissed at WW2 given TF2's time period.
[46] Malaysia, Papua New Guinea or Sentinelese Islander. Only joke is cannibal.
[47] Swedish.
[48] Norwegian.
[49] Danish.
[50] Roll on Special Background Table.

Special Background Table (Roll 1d8)
[1] From the lost underwater nation of New Zealand.
[2] Wears a total body-concealing suit related to their role. True origin is a mystery.
[3] Unfrozen caveman. Go unga bunga. (or maybe the last yeti Saxon missed?)
[4] Very obvious vampire.
[5] Not so obvious time traveler. Gets confused about the TF2 time period, reveals future events in voicelines, but in a subtle and cool way. Spytech is just "normaltech" to them.
[6] Roll again on the Nationality table, but with a widely unexpected race, age, or phenotype.
[7] Roll again on the Nationality table, but this time... they're a woman!!! If you were planning on doing female Mercs anyway, then add some kind of disability like being blind, prosthetic, etc. instead.
[8] Roll again on the Nationality table, but they are even more stereotypical and have an even more outrageous accent. Are actually a spy for another Mercenary company undercover; poorly.

Character Personality Gimmick (Roll 1d10)
[1] Has a stable family, romantic interest, and mentally healthy. Extremely weird for TF2 Mercs.
[2] Has a little pet related to their Nationality or Role, carried in a special cage or pocket.
[3] Has a budding bromance with another class.
[4] Has an unhealthy obsession & rivalry with another class.
[5] Has a verbal tic or stutter or talk with a robot voice or whatever.
[6] Complains about an old war wound or is heavily scarred/burned.
[7] Has an artistic hobby unrelated to their work. Flipflops between terrible and really good.
[8] Extra substance abuse OR irrational phobia of something dumb like clowns or axe-wielding headless horsemen with flaming pumpkins for a head.
[9] Class gameplay gimmick is integral to the character's background, lore, or motivation. For example, their abilities are from a cursed bloodline, or they invented their Spytech gadget, etc.
[10] Obsessed with a food item related to their Nationality or cultural background. One of their unlocks is that food item, which provides appropriate buffs or benefits.

Example Generations- 

Russian Medic with Shotgun primary, explosive secondary,  Cossack shashka melee sword. Spytech gimmick. Phobia of spiders(?)
Throws healing bombs that blow up to burst heal. Radiation shotgun unlockable called "Kovarex Process" which shoots healing radiation bullets in a vertical spread sci-fi gun. Pinecone jelly unlockable which grants overheal and regular heal at the same time but much less. Stock shotgun. Klevet warhammer deals crit damage to those launched by healing bombs into the air like a reverse Market Gardener?

Chicagoan Long-Range Specialist with explosive primary, throwable secondary, gag weapon (pizza spatula), with an innate movement ability. Obsessed with foot (pizza) pizza unlockable regens.
Mortar bomber with metal implants in spine, can go into ragdoll when in the air to become immune to fall damage and fly faster ie; mortar jumping. Secondary undecided, probably an M79.

Cannibal Mobile-Infantry with Melee primary, mobility secondary, and impracticable/gag-weapon/barehands melee, spytech gimmick. Food obsession gimmick is people of course lmao.
Flies around with techno claws that rend opponents and give dash attacks like Psylocke from Marvel Rivals. Focus as "infantry" means frontline so probably needs some lifesteal or something but the dash and some free overheal can help.

Friday, July 18, 2025

More Gemcraft Whining + The Problems with "Optimal" Choices in Games

So I wrote a bunch about my favorite tower defense game(s) ever in this previous blogpost, and in a very rare move for this blog I actually went back and edited it to add more of my thoughts to it, but I decided that STILL was not enough so here I am writing even more. This concept sort out branched out from me thinking of what I wanted out of my "dream" new Gemcraft game. Since the developer isn't working on the next one right now (which is fine by the way, after making and improving the same game for like 15 years you get a break, go off King), but after a lot of thought about it, I started to realize a few things, specifically about the colors of Gemcraft gems and limitations of a game.


Quick reminder; every color of Gem grants a special effect on a hit, like poison for green gems or slowing for blue gems. Gems in traps have great special but shit damage and range, where as towers have great range and damage but weaker specials. Mixing gem colors reduces their specials by a lot, but will slightly increase their base gems in dual and triple color gems.

This leads to a an interesting and (hopefully) strategically deep choice in the game. Do you want to run towers with weaker damage but better specials? Which specials? Or is the special so important you put in a trap? This already has a slight problem as there is almost no reason to put a dual or more color gem in a trap unless you can actually make it stronger with a buffing gem (Poolbound, Bloodhound) or make it hit multiple enemies (chain), but the core choice of what gems to use is part of the game and your strategy. I like this on the surface. But with more thought, a problem arises. Even if all gems are otherwise equal; There are just certain gems you're never going to put in towers and some you're never going to put in traps. Because they have different roles in the game, what types of gems are best for each are exclusive to each type. For example, putting an armor-shredding gem in a tower lets it remove a small amount of armor whenever it hits an enemy. Even if armor shredding was so important that it became a vital part of your strategy, why would you ever put it in a tower when you could put it in a trap and get the main value instead? Tower gems are things that support their function of damage with maybe a secondary effect. So crit gems, chain gems, maybe slow or poison and that's being generous along with the no-brainer gem colors that just make your gems "better" at everything. Meanwhile, gem effects that weaken monsters on a hit are just better to put in a trap, because they hit so much faster. Tower gems at least encourage you to mix and match colors for the dual or triple gem power bonus; so with no other important choices to make; I usually just defaulted to putting a Mana Gem as a tower gem component, since it will still generate a little bit of mana even when diluted since they attack so much. And this led to the real problem.

Engine Generation
In any tycoon, strategy, or game focused around resources or management; anything that generates more resources is always going to be the best strategy. This is totally fine in games designed around it, typically the idea is finding the best return on your investments or how to capitalize on them, but the problem is when they're provided as an alternate or "equal" choice to others.

Just think about it for a second. If you're playing an RPG and get the choice to take a reward from a quest and you can choose between a sword much better then your current one, a powerful and rare healing consumable, or an accessory that increases your experience gain by +5%, which one are you going to pick? Almost everyone is going to pick the experience booster. Not only because it's implied to last longer then the others, a temporary benefit as opposed to a permanent increase, but also because experience is going to be the engine driving the game and your progression forward. We can see this in almost every game. In 4x games, science tends to be King, and so the faction with the best science is almost always top of the tier list. In a fighting game, the character with the fastest attacks and best frame-data-advantage is going to be the best character, because they get the most "resources" in that style of game. Gemcraft exemplifies this problem even more because of how central mana is a resource; not just your method of crafting your defense but ALSO your health and ALSO your ability to invest in bombing enemy waves to get more XP and ALSO used as a panic button if things get too scary. It's the central resource of the game. The problem here is that a single gem color is by far and away SO much better then the other gems, so integral to the game's mechanics, that every single possible build and combination of strategies will feature them prominently. From beating a map normally to challenge modes to endless endurance waves to see how long you can last; all of them feature mana farming with orange gems as a core strategy. Using chain+mana+bloodhound for bonus to specials from hit can create an insanely powerful synergy that you place in traps near the start of each course, so every monster naturally gets hit by them, and you can build as many as you want. This not only trivializes campaign levels, but also lets you get to the highest scores of endurance and beat the hardest challenges as long as they're allowed within.

Do you see the issue with this?

I dislike games with false choices. Something obviously and miles above better then everything else doesn't lead to interesting and meaningful decisions in a game. TTRPG example? Oldschool Haste or Speed spells letting you get additional actions. So much stronger then any other choice, given the turn based nature of these types of games, that it becomes dumb NOT to use them. But I think the real issue with this is it creates a false dichotomy within the game itself, the player when playing, and the community around the game. The common argument of "if it's too strong just don't use it" doesn't really work, even for a single player game, because the game subconsciously or otherwise is DESIGNED with these strategies in mind. For Gemcraft in particular, the endgame super endurance waves are literally not feasible to beat without mana-farming, as monsters gain exponentially more hit points and armor to comparatively less and less mana farther on as the game goes. It is no longer just another tool in your toolbelt to decide how to built your defense, it is a mandatory part of every strategy that the other choices then take actual conscious thought. As such, it pains me to say that they won't be included in my much coveted Dream Gemcraft game, never to be described or quantified.

However, this isn't meant to be a total condemnation of the concept. Obviously, implementation matters more then inspiration; if the mana Gems had a cap (which older Gemcraft games had) or an extremely small return on investment, like it's only possible to get 10% return on a gem even after using it a hundred waves, then yes it would be much more "balanced", but would lean towards uselessness. Technically speaking there has to be some level where the effort and cost-basis is too much and a different effect would be better, it's just more of a mathematical effort then most people are willing to make. Finally; it should also be noted that no matter how well intentioned, balanced, or well-designed you make a game there will always be a "meta" or optimal strategy. That's just the result of human nature. I just find "economy engine building" type best strategies the most boring of all.

Tuesday, July 1, 2025

Deadlock Character Design is neat + Tabletop Class Specializations via Abilities


So I've been playing Deadlock recently. Played it a bunch last year and playing it a bit more now that more characters have been added and it's been getting some decent updates. While the game at its core is a hyper-competitive MOBA mixed with MOVEMENT SHOOTER elements, and is as such even more repellent to the casual gaming audience who only sometimes plays only competitive games like me, I DO quite appreciate the design of many of its heroes.

Deadlock's heroes all have their own gimmicks and niche, but one thing I appreciate is that many heroes have a "balanced" kit.

Teamwork Focused TTRPG Classes
The idea here is to steal a MOBA or Deadlock style active abilities and shift them for TTRPG classes. So each class would have three abilities in this simple example, one focused on offense, survival or escape, and healing/support of teammates. This would be in addition to attack, move, using items, etc.

Whenever you level up, in addition to your hit points and to-hit bonuses, you get to increase the Y value of one ability, forcing you to specialize in your niche of support rogue, or offensive fighter, etc.

Fighter
Power Strike- The classic. You swing your sword, but harder. You must declare this move before you make your attack roll; which is modified by Y-3 (this means you actually get a higher chance to hit with enough investment, what of it?) and on hit you deal damage +Y. Each time you use this, reduce your Y by -1 until you take a short rest to recoup your strength.

Second Wind- Instead of attacking, you can spend your round breathing in deep and restoring some of your endurance and strength. You restore 1d6+Y Hit Points, usable once per day.

Defender- Whenever adjacent to an attacked ally, you can step in the way of the attack and have the enemy try to hit you thru your AC instead of your ally. Whenever you do this, you can increase your AC by +(1/2)Y.

Rogue
Cheap Shot- If you attack a target upon whom you have some advantage; such as the target being blinded, you being behind them, the target is tripped, etc. You automatically deal maximum damage on a hit and add an additional +Yx2 damage.

Evasion- Instead of attacking, you can spend your round dodging enemy attacks. You ran tumble (move-thru) and force enemies to use their prepared attacks or attacks of opportunity on you. You can do this a number of times or squares equal to Y, but enemies still get a chance to hit you using your normal AC or saving throw chance. You can increase your AC when performing this action by +(1/2)Y.

Distract- Whenever you are adjacent to an enemy, you may choose to distract them instead of attacking. Each adjacent enemy gets a negative of Y to their To-Hit modifier. Whenever you move-thru or tumble past an enemy, they also receive this negative for the round.
Note- Instead of directly healing allies, the Rogue distracts enemies. This could be like a bard issuing taunts and making fun of the enemies, a thief-acrobat tumbling past them and tying their shoes together, maybe a monk hitting pressure points, etc.

Mage
Empower Spell- By taking an extra round to incant a magic word, you can increase the Spell-Level of a Spell you cast by one, up to a maximum of Y.

Jinx- Select an enemy within view and gesture at them, hitting them with a minor curse. If they perform a specific action you dictate on the next round (such as "attack me"), they take Y damage automatically. This manifests as bad luck, something breaking, random sparks jumping at them from a nearby fire, etc. All enemies hit with a Jinx always know what action they are forbidden from taking and can choose to do something else to avoid triggering the Jinx. You can also only forbid one specific action with a Jinx, so "advancing towards me" could be a Jinx, but "moving at all" can't be.

Power Ward- Blocks (Y-1) Spell-Levels worth of spells targeted at you or any party member. Once you activate the ward, it requires constant concentration to maintain and you cannot perform any other action then keeping the ward up. Once the ward is broken thru, or your concentration is broken, you must prepare to cast the ward again by studying your spellbook as per any Spell. 

Cleric
Burning Light- Creates a light source equal in luminosity/radius to Yx5 in ft or squares. Deals one damage per round to all undead or evil beings illuminated by it. Lasts Y rounds.

Desperate Plea- Instantly heals one person by (1/2)Y Hit-Points. Instant as in instant. Can be done even if the Cleric is stunned, immobilized, turned away, blinded, etc. They just have to pray and believe, and it happens. Usable once per day.

Blessing of Protection- Gives a party member +1 to AC and Saves for Y rounds. Takes a round to bless them, but otherwise no limit. Blessing someone again with this just refreshes the duration.

Wednesday, December 25, 2024

Tony Hawk should have been the last Smash-Pass Fighter and your KNOW I'm right

Alright we got Sora, which is like fine or whatever, but I feel like we had a big missed opportunity in Smash Ultimate. With the final roster all set in stone years ago; there isn't much to add or complain about. After all, it's unlikely a new Smash game is coming out any time soon and even if it does it likely won't have every character. Ultimate was the last hurrah, and the last time we experienced Sakurai time; the endless speculation and fan arguing. Smash was a once in a life time event, and it was fun while it lasted, but it's sadly time to move on.

But something I've thought about over the last few years? The final Smash Fighter really should have been Tony Hawk. No I'm not kidding. Really think about it for a minute.


Now of course, it's important to remember this is all pie in the sky stuff. Anyone can wish for any fighter for Smash, since it's a crossover game. But Smash fighters tend to have a few restrictions or areas of impact. So typically the game has to be at least somewhat famous, representative of a genre or series, or add to unique and interesting gameplay.

While being primarily based on Nintendo IPs, Smash is kind of meant to be a museum of gaming as a whole, at least in the time when it was created. You have the entire indie and PC gaming scene represented with Minecraft Steve, you have JRPGs like Square's FF and Dragonquest representation, you have casual gamers represented, and then you have crowd pleasers and fan favorites like Banjo and K Rool. But you know what Smash really doesn't have representation for? Sports Games. Sports games represent an absolutely massive portion of the gaming market. But just making a generic "football man" or something doesn't work, it needs to be a real person, even if it's one of Smash's rules not to include those. Besides; what of the gameplay implications? With Steve Smash proved they can take even the most boring and basic characters and give them a fun and interesting moveset; but how would you do that for a Sports character? Wii-Fit is kind of the closest, but I view that as a different genre, more of the casual gamer or "game as application" type then a Sports game. 

Tony Hawk straddles this line between Sports but also arcadey and action-oriented the best. You can instantly see his moveset potential. Using different tricks to slide around the stage, grinding on edges and hitting opponents with sick kickflips and the Superman. You could even see him having a unique mechanic like a combo meter that builds up and multiplies his damage the longer he goes without falling down or getting hit, stringing together multiple hits and good movement for insane damage potential.

Of course, practical concerns make this less likely. Activision apparently put Tony's name into insane licensing hell, hence the 'Tony Hawk's existential nightmare" meme. But if we're handwaving that concern, then what about the music? The Tony Hawk games are some of the most iconic music of the era, alt-rock, punk, grunge, and various other genres that make up that comfy 90s and 00s rebellious nostalgia. Just imagine beating people up in Smash Bros to Superman or Bus Driver's Imaginary Places. It doesn't really fit other music tracks in the game, which are strictly video gamey or more orchestral.

As for the Stage? It's gotta be New Jersey. You've got stage hazards with toxic dumps, halfpipes in drained swimming pools, and more. Maybe it could be a transforming map, with you switching between the New Jersey slums, to the inside of the Warehouse, to a professional skate park with lights and everything to fit the narrative of Tony Hawk's Underground, which is more what this representation is based on, though the entire series is rife with alt-colors and costumes for Tony Hawk as a character.

We could see the other skaters from around that time and the various stars of Jackass, another massive well of nostalgia for Smash fans, as alt-colors. Or just outfits inspired by them, similar to how other Smash Fighters have alts meant to show off other characters even if they can't have them in the game directly.

Finally; I want to talk about the WTF factor. Yeah, Tony would be a WTF pick, and I think one of Smash's rules is "no real world people" in the first place, but I think if we ignored that for this concept it would be the perfect capstone for Smash. Representing Sports games, bridging the gap to the real world, and finally being UNEXPECTED. One of my favorite Fighters that came with Smash ultimate was Piranha Plant, because nobody expected it. It's clear that things you don't expect are a huge part of Smash hype and the culture that came with the game, even if those days are long since passed. It's just a fantasy, but I love the idea. Maybe just because I hate Kingdom Hearts beyond belief. Anyway, Merry Christmas.