Mike Mearls Games
patreon
Layering Abilities in TTRPG Design
🕑 Added 2024-11-12 15:08:10 +0000 UTCIn TTRPGs, the intersection of the action economy and content design yields gameplay. You can think of your action economy as your fuel or energy budget. It tells you how much stuff you can do. Your content design then layers on top. It's what you can do.
Let's look at combat in 5e as an example. You can imagine a 1st level barbarian considering the following options on their first turn. Let's assume a boring encounter with a single orc.
Move: Move up to the orc
Bonus Action: Rage (?)
Action: Attack
This is a fairly simple sequence, but even here we have an interesting question - should the barbarian rage? That comes down to context (is this orc a chump, or a mighty foe?).
Each piece fits into a clear slice of the action economy. If we wanted to be overly detailed, we could slice it up like this:
Move: Move anywhere within 30 feet, barring terrain
Bonus Action: Rage
Action: Attack, dash, dodge, disengage, help, hide, influence, magic, ready, search, study, utilize
If you're familiar with 5e, you can see that most of the options under action are poor or irrelevant choices in this situation. Again, context does matter. If the orc is surrounded by a halo of magical energy, or pleading for help rather than attacking, different options rise to the top.
In D&D design, the challenge has always been that hitting the attack button eventually becomes boring. Barring a DM who creates interesting, exciting encounters with options embedded in them, combat grows fairly dull.
In D&D '24, the designers added an additional level of decision making. For barbarians and other characters, they nested a new set of decisions under attack:
Attack: Weapon mastery, class features
For the barbarian, the sequence looks like this:
Pick a weapon to use its mastery
Post 2nd level, use Reckless Strike or not
Post 9th level, if you used Reckless Strike, use Brutal Strike or not
This layering makes sense as a way to add more options to combat, but I think the design structure is flawed. It buries the player's options at the bottom of the decision tree and requires the player to work backward from the effect they want.
Take for instance a 9th level barbarian who wants to push an opponent. They need to decide to attack, check to see if a weapon mastery can do that, opt into Reckless Strike, then use Brutal Strike to push of their weapon can't.
That's an awkward set up, especially the Reckless Strike bit. My sense is that, absent a very rules fluent player, most groups will apply Brutal Strike without accounting for Reckless Strike.
TTRPG option layering should always guide the player closer to their destination. They should never need to take blind turns or rewind their decision tree to get where they want. Look back at the barbarian path above:
I want to push a foe.
I can't do that with my weapon.
I then need to gain advantage on my attack, and grant it to all attackers.
I then need to cancel advantage to get the benefit I seek.
We don't connect intent to mechanic until step four. Ideally, we do that at step two. A well-designed character class guides the player to the correct choice.
As an aside, I think this is why D&D's weird magic system works well. Dividing spells into levels looks awkward, but from this angle we can see how it helps players dial up their intended intensity. In a tough situation? Start with your highest level options and go downward. Want to preserve resources? Do the opposite.
A cleaner design would look like this:
Reckless Attack: By exposing yourself to risk, you can gain added effects to your attack. Until the start of your next turn, you grant all creatures advantage on attacks against you. In return, pick one of the following benefits:
You gain advantage on your attack rolls until the start of your next turn.
When you hit a creature with an attack this turn, you may push it up to 15 feet away from you.
Etc.
Later on, you can add more options to the menu. Personally, I think using one name for the base ability (Reckless Attack) and a different name with no clear connection to it (Brutal Strike) for its extensions will play a big part in any confusion.
You should design these options to avoid competing with other elements of the class. The universal nature of weapon mastery is awkward, as you need to account for its functions when building these lists.
To sum up, when designing class features always remember your action economy. What does the decision landscape look like for your player? How can you manage options to create the smoothest journey from intent to choice?
Comments
Mike Mearls
Yeah, the can't have disadvantage thing is pretty fiddly. The effects are also all over the map. I can either push someone, or make them vulnerable to an encounter ending spell. It's all over the map, and without a costing mechanism the design is forced into an awkward place.
Swiss Calavera
It's seems weird to tie it to Reckless Attack, because they actually use the exact formula you describe after for Brutal Strike by adding "Improved Brutal Strike" at 13 and 17. I am guessing it is because they need/want attacks vs the player to have advantage. I think the reason it's a different ability entirely is because it also is necessary to not have disadvantage on the attack very specifically so you couldn't use Brutal Strike as a way to easily escape restrained or prone. I think you still base it into Reckless Attacks as a list, but you would need to add a "can't have disadvantage" clause to some/all of them. It is still confusingly written even at that though because you have to really read it and parse the syntax to understand that that the attack can't have disadvantage to start with, since on first read I think a lot of people are going to think that is redundant since you would be eliminating disadvantage with reckless attack. I do think your list idea is a step up cause the naming is as you said not tied together, but I think it would need a subset list within it for, "If your strike has no sources of disadvantage applied, you can do these options:" I'm also in favor of that, because I like weird little power delineations, but that is also more crunch.
Lojaan
Well put
