In Which the Author Makes Two Confessions but Only One Apology

 It is traditional in the field of blogging that whenever one returns from an unplanned and unannounced hiatus, an apology should be offered.

Mea culpa. Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa.

However, I bring much joyous news. While there was literally no time for blogging, much work has been done on the game itself: new classes, bloodlines, a gold-based XP system, a clearer (and yo-yo free) in-combat healing system, mounted combat, grappling, a lookup-free light system, grappling rules, player-owned regiment/business/vehicles, mass combat, NPC party members, professions, a revamped magic system w/ spell lists, environmental hazards, a revamped levelling chart, the entire item system, an un-simplified in theory but simplified in practice conditions chart, a new system for creating or modifying stat blocks (and noting them in as little as 1 number,) a Unified Economic Grid (UEG) and most importantly rules for intoxication have all been added. 

As well, playtesters have been recruited and an unplanned *second* "product" has been added, a setting book with 20 suggested classes covering the world of the beta test, and a *third* "product," a pre-fabricated starting village.

Why has so much work been done when there was no blogging time? Why has the "product line" expanded so much? Why hasn't any of this made it to the blog yet?

Because I'm not working alone anymore.

From the beginning, g/x was planned to be a one-person show: I believe in paying your contractors in money and my budget is $0 for a completely non-commercial product. Ergo, I am my own contractors. And I was fine with this. I absolutely, positively did not contact anyone.

Someone contacted me specifically to ask for one of their team members to get a chance to work for experience and exposure. I contacted them, half out of courtesy and half out of a desire to talk them out of such a one sided trade. And what I got back was a clear and rational explanation that by allowing them to take on technical writing and layout duties I would legitimately be doing a favor for someone with talent, desire, and no foothold in the industry whatsoever. And it wouldn't suck for them if a couple of those playtesting invites fell off the truck, either.

So after much reassurance I am I-wouldn't-say-proud-but-I-will-say-happy to welcome Ragtag Heroes to the team as technical writing staff.

My first time working with a technical writing staff, in fact.

Help.

On Dice Rolling Systems and Their Discontents

 One of the first things I changed was the dice rolling system. GLoG uses roll under, with different sizes used for different tasks.

I replaced it with an asymmetric, unified roll-over mechanic that wasn't even my favorite among those I considered, and how I arrived there seems worthy of a blog post.

My first consideration was compatibility. What I wanted was compatibility with everything, and thanks to Blog of Holding I found it: every face on a d20 is a 5% probability. Ultimately, bonuses represent either side "claiming" a face. If it's d20 to d20 it's apples to apples, everything else can just be converted to % and then divided by 5.

So ultimately you've really only got 4 basic moving parts: the dice roll or rolls, the base expectation (usually 10,) the total bonus, and the total penalty. What's fascinating is that you can generally move those around wherever you want them, changing them to negatives as needed.

Generally, I personally prefer math-first approaches: calculate the base, bonus, and penalties to generate a target number then roll to see if the dice meet or beat it. A bit venial but I like the way that everyone nearly instantly knows the moment the dice is rolled. A particularly elegant form is the "mathless" version: the roll is successful if it rolls *under* the attack value but *over* the defense value. In exchange for the weirdness of wanting middle numbers you don't have an explicit stop to math step anymore.

But I didn't use either as my default style of dice rolling. Because what I ultimately wanted wasn't elegance in theory but elegance in practice, and in practice what will generally happen is the player will have their numbers in front of them and the DM will have the situations numbers in front of them, and all those systems required math-in-the-moment: the DM (usually) gives the player (usually) the modifier, the modifier is applied each time, then the roll occurs.

If that's split, though, the system becomes much easier: the DM has pre-calculated targets and the player has a pre-calculated attack bonus: roll, add, and see. Communication becomes as straightforward as "beat a 12" and in practice, over the course of  whole game session, that matters, especially when it comes to saving wear and tear on the DM. So in g/x the statblocks are all written target numbers so the DM *can* add modifiers when it makes sense but otherwise can just use aas written.

Furthermore, all the roll-dependent stats are target numbers: the players roll both to attack and to defend, another huge break with tradition. This one's a little more straightforward: in my opinion, rolling dice and doing the math isn't the best usage of the DMs time. Descriptions, time management, strategic decisions, evaluating how the game is going, modeling the thought processes of the combatants, and any number of other things are already occupying DM attention. Pausing the game for math stones just creates dead space where it doesn't need to be.

Players like to roll dice, let them. DMs can make more impact elsewhere.

So, ultimately, that's the system I settled on: 1d20 + Bonus vs Target. ties go to the roller. Simple, consistent, smooth.

Buuuuut if anyone wanted something different, I did tuck a little backdoor in: want to run a Target into a Bonus? Subtract 10 and use as needed. Just in case somebody needs it in the future.

Your Author's Discourse on the Purpose of g/x and The General Purposes of the Creation Thereof, also Serving as an Index to the Design of said Rules System

So, why another b/x retroclone?

It's not another retroclone.

So if you're looking for "tonal and mechanical fidelity to Dungeons & Dragons as played in the game's first decade" it's not going to be that and you can stop here. Tonal, maybe, but not mechanical. I already own b/x, if I wanted to play b/x I'd play b/x.

What I'm trying to build instead is a system that:

1. Is something that I want to use to play a game with actual players at an actual table using paper notes instead of a stack of hardback books. Sue me, I'm eating first. (Bounded Bookkeeping)
2. Allows me to easily use anything I like from any game I like, but especially materials from b/x *and* 5e. It was especially important to me to be able to use GLoG classes as written. Mostly. Knight needed 1 edit. (Wide GM Support)
3. Allows me to take advantage of things that I've learned about gaming in the *mumble* years I've been doing it, not to mention all the advances that have taken place since 1981. Off the top of my head:
1. Only Players Roll is a precious gift. (Asymmetric Gameplay)
2. Bestiaries belong at the prep table, not at the game table. (Chekhov's Gun, DM Edition)
3. Character sheets are the UX the players use to interface with the game world. Nothing should be unneeded or fiddly and it should never come up when it isn't needed. (Checkhov's Gun, Player Edition)
4. The only things the players know about the game world is what the DM manages to convey. Anything that makes that clearer, from mapping to explicit ACs/DCs to keywords are a net bonus. Most DMs are not as good at description as they think.
5. In line with 4, characters are competent adventurers and should not make stupid mistakes based solely on miscommunication between the player and the DM. Keep secrets secret, but only keep secrets secret.
6. Attributes should either be point-buy and the most important thing on the sheet or rolled and the least important thing on the sheet. I already have a system for the first so I'm making a system for the second.
7. The most important thing about the rules is that they should be known in advance, generally useful, trustworthy, and stay out of the way until they're needed. (No rule zero, or golden rule)
4. Came pre-stocked with the tools for maximizing improv and minimizing lookups.

So, is this using GLoG as written? Nope. 100% Compatible with b/x? Nope. It's designed to use those materials in pursuit of what they pursued, not to pursue it how they pursued it.

Already existing changes include:

1. The roll engine has been dramatically altered: Success when 1d20 + Bonuses meets or beats a Target Number given by the DM with Advantage/Disadvantage.
2. New equipment and crafting system with generally available enchants.
3. Task Challenges, which are skill challenges that aren't necessarily tied to skills.
4. Explicit rules for grappling, mounted combat, swarms/mass combat, economic systems, and greatly expanded morale/reaction.
5. A strongly modified damage system with neither Death & Dismemberment nor Death Saves that avoids both death spiral and yo-yo healing mechanics.
6. An elemental damage system and a general magic system for NPCs, 
7. An explicit change to XP.
8. Explicit adoption of 3rd party systems for travel and timekeeping/inventory.

So, why go through all this trouble to make a hybrid b/x-GLoG-4e-5e-0e-Numenera-WoW-Final Fantasy-Poker-Historical Buddhism-Medieval Pseudocatholicism simulator?

Again, because I want one. You're welcome to come along but if you can't leave the comments section better than you found it don't comment. That includes keeping language PG-13. Unfortunately.

(As the blog develops, this document will change as well, being edited for both "style" and content with the goal of eventually expanding to an index of the system that will directly link to essays about design changes made and the explicit rules used.

Changelog:

7-15-21: First Post)