TTRPG Modernism Versus the Fake Machismo of The Old School

I try not to write negative pieces in this space.  There is already so much negativity on the Internet that i don't really like to add to it, and there is also so much positive stuff that I prefer to focus on it those things.  But there is a difference between a negative reaction that is merely negative, and a negative reaction that provides a vehicle for refining one's own positive position on something.  It's not just negativity for the sake of negativity, but negativity toward something.

It is in the later category that I place Episode 17 of the "Reading D&D Aloud" Podcast, released on July 14th of this year.  The podcast is co-hosted by Ben Riggs, author of Slaying the Dragon, a history of late-stage TSR, and Scott Bruner, an academic studying ttrpgs.  For what it is worth, I really enjoyed Slaying the Dragon and generally liked Riggs's previous podcast Plot Points, though I thought his rending of garments over the end of 5e's dominance over the hobby a few months back was silly and wrong-headed.  This podcast, though, was bad.  Maybe the wildest part was Bruner stating that 5e is "perfectly balanced," which is an absolutely buck-wild statement--5e has virtues, but its "balance" is not remotely one of them.   

But mostly it was bad in the now predictable way in the ttrpg space--it was over a half-hour of nostalgia-wank for older versions of D&D.  In listening to this, I came to the realization that I am a thorough-going ttrpg modernist.  I've been playing these games since 1989, but I hold basically no nostalgia for any of the old games as games (separate and apart from the experiences of playing those games).  Modern games are better games, in basically every dimension, so much so that I truly don't understand the appeal of the OSR and OSR-adjacent games that insist on using those old mechanics and systems.  Absolutely anything that you might want to do, including all of the things that are seen as characteristic of those older games, can be done, and better, with newer (better) systems.  Moreover, much of the argument and rhetoric on the other side is really about a combination of straw men of various kinds and bad faith posturing, trying to pass off nostalgia as Boomer-esque "the Kids These Days" complaints. 

The specific example that shows this off from the podcast was an extended discussion of the purported dichotomy between "combat as war" and "combat as sport."  Combat as war, which is said to characterize older versions of D&D, was far more serious because it was much more challenging, unpredictable, and  with higher lethality, which required out-of-the-box thinking and problem solving.  Modern combat as sport, by contrast, is consequence-free and non-substantial because the lethality is reduced.  As I previewed, I think this is a completely false dichotomy.  More specifically, I think combat as war is not a real thing.  The people who say they are doing "combat as war" are either (1) playing a sport with different rules; or (2) playing a bad sport; or (3) both.

Since we are talking about "combat as sport," let's talk about sports, specifically baseball.  Ted Williams, arguably the greatest hitter in history, famously said that "hitting a baseball is the hardest thing to do in sports."  To that end, Williams had one full season, 1941, in which he had a batting average over .400 (technically his season average in '52 and '53 was over .400, but he only played a couple of games those seasons, on account of the fact that he was doing his other job--being a fighter pilot and fighting in the Korean War).  Batting average is a bit of a complicated metric, but if you want to simplify it down, this more or less means there was only one season in which the greatest hitter in history failed to do the thing he was trying to do fewer than 6 times out of 10.  And the scope of this achievement is demonstrated by the fact that no one in the major leagues has hit over .400 since Williams in 1941 (Tony Gwynn hit .393 in 1994; George Brett hit .389 in 1980).  Coming down from the truly exceptional results to more normal ones, failing only 7 times out of 10 in a given season--hitting .300--is a standard benchmark for being a really skilled and productive hitter.  Baseball is a game in which the rules and structures of play are stacked in favor of the pitcher and against the hitter to a very significant degree.  

By contrast, if you turn to football (American), the league leader in completion percentage for quarterbacks over a season in the NFL hovers around 70%.  On the other end of the spectrum, and at the risk of kicking someone who is down, Bryce Young--the 1st Overall draft pick in 2023--had a completion percentage of 59.8%, a number low enough to raise questions about his viability as a starting NFL quarterback.  Ted Williams fails 6 out of 10 times and he is the GOAT; Bryce Young succeeds 6 out out 10 times and he might be a bust.

If you talk to people who are really into either baseball or football, you will get opinions about the tuning of batting versus pitching and the passing game versus pass defense.  But in a big picture sense, baseball is built around the idea that hitting is really hard and mostly unsuccessful, while football is tuned around the idea that passing is usually going to work.  If you changed the difficulty scale of either element, you would radically change the play experience.  In the baseball example, if you made hitting much easier, baseball scores would be in the hundreds and games would take days--and we know this because cricket batting is much easier, and scores are in the hundreds and matches take multiple days.

The point is that difficulty is not good or bad; difficulty is a game play element that needs to be integrated into and coordinated with the goals of the game as a whole.  Turning back to ttrpgs, there is nothing whatsoever wrong with making combats very difficult.  If the goal of the exercise is to stack the deck against the players and require them to use tricks or out of the box thinking in order not to have PCs die like flies, then that can and should be built into the structures of the game.  Pathfinder 2e, for example, is known for its challenging combats that require players to exercise tactical skills.  But that level of challenge is always within the context of the game as it is designed.  Hard fights with high danger that require outside the box thinking are still a sport; they are just hitting a baseball as opposed to throwing a football.  They are not "war," they are just tuned differently.

Because the real problem with all of this "combat as war" talk is that it is immediately followed (as it was in the podcast) with the idea that "combat as sport is for entitled soyboy players these days who can't handle losing, whereas the Real Men of the past embraced combat as war."  And that's exactly the same as saying that quarterbacks are soy because they succeed most of the time, while baseball hitters are tough and macho because they mostly fail.  That's nonsensical in the sports context and equally dumb in the ttrpg context.  Difficulty is a motivated game design choice to create a particular sort of play experience.  It has nothing to do with how macho you are.

Or, at least, it should be a motivated game design choice.  The other problem with this silly rhetoric about how macho the old school games are is that it is often deployed to cover up or excuse bad game mechanics and bad design.  And nowhere is this more true than when talking about 5e and its CR system.  First off, it has become fashionable in these sorts of discussions (as Bruner did on the podcast) to decry the very idea of CR or any similar system as a new imposition of soy notions of a "balanced encounter" onto the purity of the D&D experience.  Nonsense.  Going all the way back to OD&D, monsters were organized by Hit Dice into a hierarchical power system, which was tied to the idea of "dungeon level" and a similar progressive power increase.  The fact that Hit Dice is not a very good encounter balancing system doesn't change the fact that it was an encounter balancing system.

Like Hit Dice, the purpose of systems like CR is to give the DM the ability to assess the difficulty of an encounter when deployed against a party of PCs of a particular level.  These systems are good or bad insofar as this communication of information is accurate.  What the DM does with this information is always a separate question.  If I want to throw a really hard combat challenge at the players, I am free to do that in OD&D or 5e or Pathfinder 2e or 13th Age (or 4e).  The difference is that in Pathfinder 2e and 13th Age and 4e--games with good encounter balancing structures--I as the DM am much more likely to know exactly how hard the fight is going to be, and in fact be sure the it will indeed be a very hard fight in play.  Whereas with 5e or OD&D--games with bad encounter balancing structures--I am guessing in both cases.  If you as the DM for whatever set of reasons don't want to know how tough a particular fight is going to be, then you are free to ignore this information.  But there is no utility at all to having bad mechanics in this space, which is what 5e and older editions of D&D have.  And it certainly isn't a virtue.

But it is not just the CR system that gets covered up by this weird machismo.  At some point during the podcast, there was a discussion of the MCDM RPG, and the fact that PCs do some damage on every attack.  This was, again, portrayed as giving everyone a participation trophy and not being sufficiently manly.  That completely misses the point of what MCDM RPG is trying to do.  MCDM RPG, like several recent games that use 5e as both a jumping off point and a set of problems to fix, recognizes that a turn where you make your attack, miss, and thus do nothing (which happens a lot in D&D) is a bad play experience.  It's not that players have some sort of ontological entitlement to making the HP number of the monster go down, it's that in a game where the only real result of combat is to make the numbers go down, not doing that means you have effectively done nothing.  "Lose a turn" is always the least enjoyable possible game mechanic because you basically don't get to play, and the player is here to play the game. Now, there are a variety of different solutions to this problem.  One is to make failure interesting, with a diverse set of narrative consequences--Daggerheart, drawing on the fiction-forward tradition, goes in that direction.  One is the MCDM RPG approach.  But framing objections to missing in combat as players being soft covers over and excuses the very real design problem (especially when you pair it with the cyclic initiative model of D&D, so the player might not get to do anything for a while) within D&D and derived games.

Or consider another rant in the podcast about how 5e conditions are weak because they don't embody save or die effects.  Unless you are playing a DCC/Shadowdark funnel where each player is running multiple characters, character death means that the player doesn't get to play anymore.  And, again, the player showed up at the table to play D&D, and so you are taking that out of their hands. It's one thing if a character dies as a result of some sort of satisfying story element or lengthy, dramatic fight.  But having your character get bitten by a giant spider and failing a saving throw during encounter #1 and thus having to sit out the rest of the session is a bad play experience.  Losing weeks or months of character progression via old-school energy drain is a bad play experience.  Getting rid of these sorts of things made the game better.  And this goes both ways, as well--for every save or die effect that could be directed at the player, there was a similar effect that could be pointed at the DM's monsters.  And whether you like 5e's concept of Legendary Resistances or not (spoiler: I don't), it is at least a nod to the idea that the DM should be allowed to have fun letting his or her Big Bad Boss Monster run amuck for a bit.  

The thing is, I do think the scales are tipped too far in favor of the players in the context of 5e, and everything we have seen about the 2024 books suggests that it is about to get worse.  I don't think 5e provides a good play experience for the DM at all, and worse seems completely unconcerned with the DM's play experience (Sly Flourish a/k/a Mike Shea has a good discussion of this on a recent podcast of his).  But the solution to this problem is not to throw super-challenging, un-calibrated, un-fun encounters at players and kill off their characters left and right, and then beat your chest about how macho the whole thing is.  That's not fun for anyone except a DM who is a bit of a sadist.  The fact that this sort of thing used to happen on the regular in D&D, whether the DM and players wanted it or not, was a design problem that later editions appropriately and at least somewhat successfully addressed.  This is a move in the right direction.

At the end of the day, D&D is a game.  Games are supported to be enjoyable and engaging for the people playing them.  It is not an exercise in enduring tedium and bad outcomes in the name of "building character" or to advance some purported virtues.  Challenge and creative problem solving and immersion (which is another can of worms--looking at you, Black Lodge Podcast) are instrumentals that can add to the fun, but they are not goals in and of themselves.  So much of the discussion in the ttrpg space, especially coming out of this nostalgic well, seems willfully ignorant of the fact that these are games. Players and GMs are, in fact, entitled to an enjoyable play experience.  The experience of playing this game has to be fun, and if it is not fun then you should be doing something else with your precious free time.  Why play a game that isn't fun?  Why are you here?  Let's just acknowledge that, and not pretend this is about something else.

The Once and Future King: 13th Age (2nd Edition) Preview

As we sit here in the summer of 2024, there are a ton of high fantasy ttrpgs.  Many of them are built around the d20 dice rolling mechanic pioneered by Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition.  And while I will never criticize anyone for digging deep into the nuances of each particular d20 fantasy game and debating their respective merits, the overwhelming majority of these games are great.  Even the forthcoming 2024 WotC D&D revisions, which I am very likely not to jump into for a variety of reasons and notwithstanding the criticisms of the previews we have seen, is going to be a very fun game that lots of people are going to get enormous value out of.  We are truly spoiled for choice as ttrpg players and GMs.

And yet, even with all of these excellent options out there, I think there is one game that stands out from the rest, and has done so consistently since its introduction almost twelve years ago--13th Age by Rob Heinsoo and Jonathan Tweet, published by Pelgrane Press.  I have written about 13th Age several times--a general review, a discussion of 13th Age Glorantha, and a discussion of the Quickstart from a few years back.  I think it has the best writing of any ttrpg product line (both in the core materials and in the supplements)--clear, enjoyable to read, useful, often very funny.  It has a keen eye for evaluating all the pieces of the d20/D&D experience, finding the fun parts, and leaving the rest behind.  It brings into the basic D&D experience ideas from more narrative focused games in a way that highlights the strengths of both (in fact, Daggerheart, which I also love, is in many ways the mirror image of 13th Age, starting from the narrative world and adding back the fun parts of D&D).  It is, IME, far, far easier to GM than 5e, in large measure because it puts thought and effort into what makes GMing clean and fun (and, as I will get into in a bit, 13th Age is about to remove one of the biggest pain points to GMing the game).

About a month ago, 13th Age completed their Kickstarter for a 2nd Edition of the game.  Since the meaning of "edition" has become a contested space in the ttrpg discourse, it is worth talking about the scope of this project.  In essence, 13th Age 2nd Edition promises to be to 1st Edition what the 2024 "don't call it a new edition" D&D books promise as to the 2014 5e books.  In other words, all of the supplemental materials like adventures and monsters from the 13th Age line will still be usable as is.  As a Kickstarter backer (and playtester of 13th Age 2nd Edition for a while now), I've looked at what we are going to be getting for 2nd Edition, and I can tell you that the new material is going to work pretty seamlessly with the old material.  In fact, because classes in 13th Age are more self-contained than in 5e, I predict intermixing old and new material in 13th Age is going to be far easier than in 5e.

For this reason, if you are interested in getting into 13th Age, there is no reason to wait until the new materials are fully available (likely next year).  All of the current material is going to work with the new stuff, so none of your money will be wasted.  Still, in reviewing the new playtest material, I am very, very excited about the 2nd Edition material.  The recently released "Gamma" playtest (which is a draft text of the entire 2nd Edition core books) keeps all the stuff that made 13th Age great before and brings with it significant improvements. 

The biggest change, and the element that I think is an absolute home run that will improve the experience of playing 13th Age immeasurably, is the new Icon Relationships chapter.  The core concept is the same--each PC has a connection to one or more of the Icons, major archetypical NPCs ("The Archmage," "The Emperor," "The Elf Queen," etc.), and their associated faction.  At the beginning of each session, each PC rolls a d6 for each connection, and for each 5 or 6 that comes up, a resource that can be used during the session to generate a boon related to the Icon is generated.

As the designers have noted, while this structure has been consistent across the life span of 13th Age, the explanation for what GMs and players should do with those Icon rolls has varied wildly from book to book.  In the original 13th Age core book, at least as I interpreted it, it was up to the GM to work the Icon rolls into the story.  And, IME, this was a pain point for 13th Age GMs, since it represented an element of the game that was on the player's character sheet (so to speak) that the GM had to keep track of and keep in mind as he or she was running the game.  It was very easy to simply forget about a player's Icon rolls.  Later advice pushed the idea that Icon rolls were supposed to be a collaborative process between the player and the GM, without providing a great deal of concrete guidance for how to do that.  In addition, Icon results were presented as narrative elements, so while it made sense to place the responsibility for handling them on the GM it increased GM task loading in a way that ran counter to the general thrust of 13th Age.  The final element was that a roll of 5 on the Icon die resulted in a complication, which flagged ahead of time that a particular Icon point was going to have a trap. My experience is that there are some ttrpg players who simply will not self-impose a penalty on their character, and if you put spending complicated Icon rolls on the player, they will never spend them. 

For 2nd Edition, the core change is that Icon relationship points are now explicitly a player resource, which players can now spend in two ways.  First, the player can generate narrative outcomes, in a manner similar to the previous implementation, with a lengthy descriptions and examples for each Icon.  So, the lift of dealing with Icon relations is off the shoulders of the GM, and put in the hands of the players in a way that they can actually use.  The other option is to use Icon rolls in combat to give the player 5e-style Advantage on a roll (in essence, it works like pre-2024 Inspiration).  This is a much simpler implementation, albeit less interesting, but I think this has an important place in the game because it provides a backstop if the players are struggling to come up with a good narrative use for their rolls.  But, in order to push players toward the narrative option, the combat option is twice as likely to generate a "twist," the equivalent of the 5 on the Icon die from the 2012 Corebook.  This works because now the player checks for a twist after spending the Icon die, so the sort of player who would be inclined to skip complicated Icon dice can't do so anymore.  

The bottom line is that I think this is going to run far, far better than the previous version, without changing the fundamentals of what the Icon system does in the context of 13th Age campaigns.  It delivers on what the Icon system promises, in a way that hasn't fully come to the fore yet.

The other major change is the reworking of the eight classes that were in the 2012 Corebook (Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, and Wizard).  Some of the changes are "quality of life" improvements that make the classes easier to understand and use.  For example, all spells are now cast automatically at your character level, greatly simplifying the learning curve.  Another smaller change is to beef up the some classes, especially the Paladin, that were designed to be easy to play but also tended to be underpowered and, more importantly, uninteresting at higher levels. There are also new and more interesting spell choices, as well as an editing pass on all of the Class Talents.  But some classes--the Fighter, the Ranger, and the Bard--got complete rebuilds.  The new Ranger is now structurally similar to the Demonologist class from The Book of Demons, in that Class Talents are divided into three pools (Hunter, Warrior and Magician), with abilities keying off of how many Talents are taken from the Hunter or Warrior pool.  This allows for the Ranger to encompass the many different "versions" of the Ranger that have existed in d20 games throughout time.  

But the star of the show for me is the new Bard.  Bard has become something of a meme class, in part because of the unique flavor and part because 5e Bards have full access to 5e spellcasting, making them very powerful.  The 2012 13th Age Bard was probably one of the most complicated classes, with a wide variety of somewhat disparate abilities.  The new 13th Age Bard leans hard on the flavor piece, setting up Class Talents based on which instruments or forms of art the Bard practices, which in turn provide a suite of abilities.  Likewise, the spells are laser focused on the Bard flavor--there is a spell that forces all combatants to take a full round of combat to talk about why they are fighting, with no attacks allowed.  It looks effective as a class, without being overpowered, but most importantly it feels incredibly fun.  And that's what you want in general, but especially for a Bard.  Rob Heinsoo says the new Bard is his favorite part of the new edition, and I see why.

Two other global changes are on the GM side, with monsters and magic items.  Heinsoo and Tweet have been candid that they really hit their stride with 13th Age monster design in the first Bestiary, leaving the core monsters in the original Corebook both a little weak and a little boring compared to later-designed creatures.  One thing I noticed with the new designs (and something I hear Rob Heinsoo mention in an interview) is a move away from what was one of the most distinct elements of 13th Age, having monster powers trigger based on whether the d20 roll was odd or even (i.e., if the d20 is an even number and it hits, the attack inflicts ongoing damage on top of the normal damage, while an odd hit does not).  Now, many of those abilities simply inflict the rider unless the PC makes a save.  Since the default save is 50/50, it ends up being the same outcome, and I think the idea here is that it makes the players stay active during monster turns.  To be honest, this is the one change I don't love--what I really liked about the odd/even mechanic is that it makes a single roll drive a lot of play, which speeds up combat.  But the odd/even mechanic is not gone, just de-emphasized in a couple of places, and if it proves to slow down play it is trivially easy to ditch the save and go back to odd/even.

On the magic item front, the new idea is permanent magic items now have abilities that upgrade as the character advances in level.  This pairs well with the 13th Age concept that all permanent magic items are intelligent and form a bond with their user--the longer that pairing goes on, the more that pairing results in greater mechanical effects.  From a game perspective, it avoids the problem of what to do with lower powered magic items--throwing them away or selling them pushes the game toward a commoditized approach to magic items, which is not how many campaigns want to present magic.  This puts it 13th Age in a middle place between 3e and 4e (as well as Pathfinder) and the commoditized magic item model and 5e which really doesn't know what it wants to do with permanent magic items. 

The bottom line is this--in a world of ttrpgs that has many, many wonderful options, if you told me I could only play one d20 fantasy rpg, there is no question in my mind that I am going with 13th Age.  If you told me I could only play one fantasy rpg period, the only other game that would compete with 13th Age for my choice is Daggerheart.   It is an outstanding game, criminally underrated and underappreciated, and if you are a person who finds himself or herself looking around for options at this point in time, 13th Age should be one of the options you consider.  If for nothing else, you will enjoy the process of reading the books and having a conversation with Rob and Jonathan about fantasy games.

Daggerheart--Beta Playtest Full Review

Much of the discussion around the "children of January 2023"--fantasy ttrpgs games announced on or around Wizards of the Coast's attempt to rework/cancel the OGL at that time--has involved whether or to what extent any or all of them will be "D&D Killers."  Part of the problem with this discourse is that no one can agree on what it means to be a "D&D Killer."  If you take the term literally and define a "D&D Killer" as a game that will be so popular and relevant that it causes Dungeons & Dragons to be driven from the market, then I think it is pretty safe to predict that none of the games on offer will meet that standard.  Nor could they, reasonably--that's an absurd standard.  But I think a more reasonable definition would be a game that not only has a long run and significant product line, but one that draws a material number of people who otherwise would play D&D away, such that D&D becomes meaningfully diminished in the market.  By that definition, Vampire: the Masquerade was a D&D Killer in the 90s.  I think there is a strong case that Pathfinder 1st edition was a D&D Killer in the early 10s.  If you expand the scope of the analysis, I think you could say World of Warcraft was a D&D Killer in the mid 00s as well.

Using that standard, if you told me that there will be only one game out of the children of January 2023 that qualifies as a D&D Killer, I would absolutely put my money on Darrington Press's Daggerheart.  Many of the games in this space either are or look to be really good.  But I think only Daggerheart brings with it the promise of (1) targeting an identifiable slice of the D&D player base that is or could be open to a different approach to play; (2) providing a play experience that really serves that slice far better than 5e does; and (3) being backed a marketing machine in the form of the broader Critical Role extended universe to bring people to the game.  It is still in Beta, but if it continues along the lines I have seen in the current version, I think Daggerheart is going to be a home run.  So much so that I, a notorious ttrpg dilettante, think that Daggerheart is going to become my primary fantasy ttrpg going forward. 

Before getting into my review, I should note that the game is in beta test, and as of this writing the current version is 1.4.1.  It is possible that the game will change radically, possibly in a manner that takes away the things that I think make this game great.  However, the recent revisions are much smaller in scope than the early revisions, suggesting that the designers are refining as opposed to reconstructing (as compared to MCDM RPG, which based on the design notes has changed radically since the first playtest document I discussed previously).  As a result, I suspect that the final form of the game will be very similar to what we have now.  In addition, it is worth mentioning that the beta is free, and is fully playable--not only in terms of the state of the rules but also in terms of the game aids (more on that later).  So if you are interested in the game, you can pick up what is nearly the full rules and get playing right now, for free.

Getting back to those three elements I mentioned, I want to talk about #3 first, and then work my way back to the other two.  I understand that there is a dedicated and passionate crowd of Critical Role Haters out there, people who genuinely believe that both the style of play represented by Critical Role and the people brought into the hobby as a result of the rise of Critical Role has been some sort of disaster for "true RPG players" or whatever.  I also know that there is a group of people who are passionate Critical Role fans, who can at times be a bit uncritical and even militant about their fandom.  But in between those poles, IMO, exist the vast majority of people in the ttrpg space who have generally positive thoughts about the Critical Role enterprise and various levels of engagement with their products and activities.  And, because Critical Role is by far the largest enterprise of its type, it has a reach that other producers simply don't have.  I write as someone who hasn't watched a full Critical Role episode in many years, but who is generally aware of what they are doing and am generally positive about Critical Role as a whole.  It was because of their prominence that I became aware of Daggerheart, and I was curious enough to try out the playtest, even though I would say going in I was less excited about Daggerheart than some of its competitors like the MCDM RPG.  The point is that Critical Role got me "in the door," and the fact that there are a lot of people who will be similarly situated is a massive boost to the reach of this game.  That's an enormous advantage.

This brings us to the question of who this game is for.  I think the best and most direct answer to that question is "people who run games, or who want to run games, that are more or less like the games showcased on Critical Role."  This means at least two different things.  First, they want character-driven game play, in which players can develop rich backgrounds and have those backgrounds drive play and the course of the overall narrative.  But it also means that they want a robust combat system that provides fights that are tactical and interesting in their own right, as well as story-relevant.  Given that there is a large number of 5e players who were brought into the hobby via Critical Role and/or other streamed games, this style of play and sensibilities represents a significant audience for this sort of game.  But, again, not just those folks--I don't fit that description in terms of how I got into this hobby, and it reflects my style as well.  Not only is this a sensible audience for a fantasy game to target in general, it is also particularly sensible for a game affiliated with Critical Role.

This second piece brings me to one of most common lines of criticism of Daggerheart I have seen, and one that I think is fundamentally wrong-headed.  Daggerheart is obviously (and transparently--there is a list of which games influenced the design in the first couple of pages of the rules) influenced by the Powered by the Apocalypse/Forged in the Dark line of "fiction-forward" games.  More specifically, it borrows some key terminology and concepts from those games, especially the idea of "GM Moves" (which I personally don't think is a particularly helpful or explanatory term, but YMMV).  But it also takes inspiration from other, more mechanically oriented games.  One persistent line of criticism says that drawing from these two streams is "confused," and that Daggerheart should learn all the way in to being a fiction-forward game in the model of the PbtA/FitD family.

I think this line of criticism/advice is wrong-headed because while PbtA/FitD games can deliver the character-driven storytelling piece, I would argue that they do not, and cannot deliver on the engaging combat piece.  Dungeon World, the most prominent "generic" fantasy PbtA game, says it provides the D&D experience in a fiction-forward form, but for me it never delivered on that promise.  One of the core principles is that combat is just another storytelling exercise, and as a result combat lacks that fun game element of combat-as-sport.  If you take that away, you have a fundamentally different experience.  At the risk of generalizing the PbtA/FitD fans, they generally don't see the combat-as-sport dimension to D&D as being a positive feature, or at least a value-added element, and so the lack of this element isn't a problem.  But I would say for most of the D&D fanbase, including the Critical Role and Critical Role-adjacent fans, the lack of robust combat in the PbtA/FitD games is not going to fit the bill.  The crunchy elements are, in my opinion, very necessary and central to the appeal to the game. 

Which brings us to the rules execution.  Darrington Press could market game to the maximum degree and target it perfectly at a key slice of 5e players, but it has no chance of making a long-term impact if it doesn't execute on these ideas.  And, for me, Daggerheart nails it.  

The first truly exceptional element of Daggerheart is what you might call its "form factor."  Keep in mind--this game is in beta test.  It is not a finished product, and there are some friction points in terms of accessibility (the proto-rule book is tough to navigate, for example).  But the game clearly has given enormous thought to how it is going to present information to the players and GMs, and how that information is going to be used during play.  Chief among these ideas is the implementation of cards.  Each subclass, Ancestry and Heritage (the same division of "race" as ToV's Lineage and Heritage and A5e's Heritage and Culture) is expressed in terms of a card that lists all the relevant abilities, along with a descriptive piece of art.  Perhaps more importantly, most of the class abilities take the form of access to two different "domains," which in turn take the form of selecting discrete power cards.  The player thus has a hand of cards that represent their core character abilities.  Higher level characters select from among their available cards to form a "load out."  

The question that this structure immediately brings to mind is "how is all of this going to work online"?  To address this, Daggerheart released with a fully functional implementation on Demiplane (the competitor to D&D Beyond, made by the former D&D Beyond team).  And while Demiplane is not a VTT, it provides a seamless on-ramp for folks used to using D&D Beyond or similar systems for either in-person or online games.

Beyond the cards, Daggerheart provides a series of player and GM tools.  Each class has a bespoke character sheet (clearly inspired by the PbtA "playbook" format) and a "sidecar" which slides alongside the character sheet and highlights the key elements of the sheet--a kind of "cheat sheet" for the character sheet.  There are also several GM cheat sheets, along with (beautiful) blank word maps that can be used to develop a campaign world, a process that is well described in the rule book.  The rule book in its current form has no lay-out or art, but judging from what is there with the other components I am confident that Daggerheart is going to set new standards for ttrpg presentation and lay-out.  Just A+ all around. 

The second exceptional element of Daggerheart is the way it takes what I will call "risks" in its design.  I talked a bit about the Hope/Fear system here, but there are other systems that at first glance seem strange and even counter-intuitive, but prove to be really thoughtful and effective in play.  Perhaps the best example is the full embrace of asymmetric mechanics.  At least since 3.0 D&D, and outside of D&D for far longer than that, it has been an article of faith that you want a single, consistent resolution mechanic for all actions, whether they are player actions or GM actions.  Daggerheart abandons this concept completely--players roll 2d12 for their actions, while the GM rolls 1d20.  At first I thought this was a bit of sop to those who might be confused and frightened by the lack of a d20, but having run the game I now see this is a very smart bit of intentional design.  The use of the d20 brings with it the "chaos plateau"--outcomes are very unpredictable, because each outcome on the die is equally likely.  That's fine, and even fun, when it applies to NPCs who are one of many and not necessarily repeat players.  If your bad guy can't hit the broadside of a barn (as happened in my last session), that's not a big deal.  But if players, with their one character, get hit with the d20 randomness curse in games like 5e, it produces a negative play experience.  So, Daggerheart gives the players a nice bell-curve with results clustered in the middle, alongside a high crit chance (1 in 12 or 8.3%) to spice things up.  Keeping the d20 chaos plateau for NPCs but getting rid of it for players is really inspired and clever, and brings the best of both worlds in many respects.

Another element that I think many would consider a risk, at least based on some of the early reactions online, is the "lack" of an initiative system.  In Daggerheart when combat begins PCs take turns as they wish, with each time they take an Action they give the GM an "Action Token."  The PCs continue until either a player rolls "with Fear" or the GM spends a Fear token to seize the initiative.  Then, the GM spends Action Tokens to take actions, and when those tokens are exhausted or all of the NPCs have been activated, play passes back to the PCs.  The concern that was expressed about this system is that a single player can simply continue to insist on acting at every possible opportunity, monopolizing the game and depriving the other players of a chance to do anything.

To address this, there is an optional rule that each PC gets three actions that they can make, and then their pool does not refresh until each PC has spent their three activations.  This rule is perfectly fine and seems to me like it would fix the problem identified completely.  But I have found it to be wholly unnecessary in our games, because no player is taking more than a couple of turns in a row.  In fact, if anything, I find myself reminding players that they can take back-to-back actions if it makes sense in the context of the flow of the fight, because everyone assumes that they must take turns and share the spotlight.  I hesitate to say generally reductive things like "this is only a problem if your players suck" but . . . I think Daggerheart's combat sequencing is only a problem if your players are jerks.  All I can say is that I have found zero problems with it, and I would strongly encourage people who have concerns to just give it a try.

In addition, the rest of the GM-facing mechanics are exceptional.  Like games such as 13th Age, and very much unlike 5e, monsters and other antagonists have only the bare minimum of stats for the GM to keep track of, focusing on the cool special abilities they can perform in combat.  I love this sort of design in 13th Age, and it works equally well here.  The Fear Token system also provides a very clean way of balancing monster "specials" behind a limited GM mechanic.  This is matched up with extensive use of countdown timers for events, allowing the GM to both model events happening "in the background" as well as adjudicate timing events during encounters.  But the piece of design that works the best is the environments system.  Locations have a simple set of stats, along with activations for both Action Tokens and Fear Tokens.  It makes location-based encounters both simple to run and mechanically interesting, while also making the combat encounters more dynamic (since GM gets to use both the monster activations and the environment activations), all without a complex series of rules.  It is the best implementation of set-piece locations I have seen, the text provides strong samples to work from, and it is very easy to design your own.  10/10.

The final exceptional piece to Daggerheart is the way it brings in the best ideas from the fiction forward games it draws from.  As much as I think Daggerheart benefits from providing a more mechanical framework for portions of play, especially the combat piece, the action-reaction "yes, and" dynamic of PbtA/FitD games does create a very satisfying narrative flow, and Daggerheart adopts that structure completely.  Perhaps more importantly, I think the way the game explains how that flow is supposed to work is one of the cleanest and simplest presentations of the basic structure.  PbtA/FitD games can be, IMO, somewhat opaque and jargon-heavy, making it difficult for GMs coming from more traditional games to internalize its ideas.  Daggerheart keeps the basic terminology ("GM Moves"), but the explanation is very clear and very helpful to new GMs, and also people like me who have struggled a bit with applying these concepts in play.  

This feeds into the character-driven style of play that Critical Role is known for.  Daggerheart plants a flag on the side of shared the world-building process between the players and the GM, but more importantly gives concrete, step-by-step advice on building out that sort of campaign.  To me, this is critical, because a player or GM coming into the hobby via Critical Role or similar games is going to see the end product of that sort of campaign style on the screen, but not the process of getting there.  And then the products available for sale for 5e, whether Exandria-focused or not, are much more prescriptive and pre-built, and thus also provide not much in the way of guidance for this project.  It is not at all intuitive how to go about build a collaborative campaign with the players, and there are a number of people out there who want to make a campaign that is inspired by Mercer and the gang as opposed to completely copying their work.  Daggerheart speaks directly to those players and GMs, providing very concrete and detailed explanations of how to go about planning and executing such a campaign. 

There is still some work to do on this game, both in terms of the actual design and in terms of learning how to best run the game from a GM perspective.  The numbers, like difficulties and damage, could use a little bit of fine-tuning.  We do not know if Daggerheart is going to be published under an open license that allows for 3rd Party content--I suspect it will, and I hope so, because I think people are going to want to fill in the "gaps" with a lot of conversions of D&D elements into Daggerheart.  But what is here is exceptional, and there is every indication that it is going to continue to be refined and improved prior to its final release next year.  And it is fully playable now.  

Whether it proves to be the "D&D Killer" or not, Daggerheart is an exceptional game, and it is for my money right now the most exciting  offering out there in the space.  If you have any interest in a hybrid between the fiction-forward play of the PbtA/FitD school and more "trad" play, I really encourage you to check it out.

The 5e Substitutes--Tales of the Valiant vs. Advanced 5e

A couple of years ago, I reviewed Level Up: Advanced 5e from ENWorld Publishing.  At the time, I said that it offers itself as an alternative not so much currently existing 5e, but whatever new version of 5e was coming down the pike from WotC.  In the interim, we had the great OGL crisis of January 2023, leading to a slew of games from former 5e publishers that were explicitly set up as WotC alternatives.  Many of these games--Daggerheart by Darrington Press, MCDM's currently untitled ttrpg, to take the two most prominent examples--went far afield from 5e, at least in terms of mechanics.  But there was also Kobold Press's Tales of the Valiant, which was released to Kickstarter backers last week and like A5e is pitched as being compatible with 5e material.  As a result, ToV and A5e are the two clearest choices for people who just want to be free of WotC without reorienting toward a different rules structure.  

In addition, as Mike Shea of Sly Flourish has been pushing for some time now, because they are compatible with 5e, you can mine both of these sources for material for your (WotC-based) 5e game. I think it is worth pointing out that both of these products are fully stand alone, and I would argue they are both designed to be used as complete substitutes for at least the three 5e core rulebooks.  In both cases, I think the intended use case is to adopt either ToV or A5e in total and then add back in WotC or other 5e material (especially adventures).  But Shea is certainly right that you can pick and choose pieces to work into your existing games.

Which brings me to the purpose of this post--to try to compare the two games, in order to give a roadmap to 5e DMs who are open to adding in this material in whole or part into their games.  Both games are, at least in their full forms, substantial investments.  Both also provide a large amount of material to try to wade through.  Finally, while both games are similar in the sense that they are based on 5e, they provide a fairly distinct philosophy and approach, so a 5e DM may easily find that one or the other is not in line with what they are looking for.

One last introductory comment.  Because these games both have 5e under the hood, there are some "5e-isms" that cannot be changed without breaking compatibility.  So, if you don't like the underlying math of 5e in terms of how die roll bonuses increase as you level up ("bounded accuracy") or the triple digit HP for medium to high level monsters or the basic class progression paradigm, neither of these games are going to be the solution you are looking for.  Those elements (whether they are "problems" is in the eye of the beholder--I think they are, but obviously lots of people disagree) are baked into the core of what 5e is, and they can't be changed without the game becoming something else.

Complexity Level:  As the name implies, Advanced 5e is self-consciously a more mechanically complex version of 5e.  In the broadest terms, it takes what is present in 5e and adds additional mechanical systems on top--for travel, for social encounters, for more nuanced skill use, for combat maneuvers.  There are some elements that replace existing 5e components, but it is mostly an additive process.  If you were to run all of A5e, you would end up with a meaningfully more complex game than 5e.  

By contrast, ToV is if anything an attempt to slightly simplify 5e.  Mostly, this comes in terms of standardization and cleaning up some terminology issues.  Many of the systems in 5e that are not explained well (Stealth and Hiding is a good example) are explained far better in ToV, but ultimately it is the same system.  This is not to say the ToV is a "rules light" game, and it ends up being more or less in line with baseline 5e.  But if you are looking for a 5e substitute, ToV is going to be less complex than A5e, while A5e is more mechanically robust.

New Dice Mechanics:  ToV replaces Inspiration with a Luck point mechanic.  When PCs fail attack rolls or saves, they gain a Luck point; in addition, the GM can award Luck points for "good role playing" and clever play.  A Luck point can be spent on a one-for-one basis to bump a check, or three points can be spent to re-roll a check.  To prevent players from hoarding Luck points, if the a PC accumulates more than 5 Luck Points, a random number of them will be deducted (which is sort of clunky, but I get why they do it).  

A5e adds the Expertise Dice, which works sort of like Bardic Inspiration but is added to checks via class abilities, and scales up as class levels go up.  Because of the way the Expertise Die is tied into the rebuilt A5e classes and/or some of the combat changes, it is far less modular than ToV's Luck point mechanic.

Three Pillars of Play:  Probably the biggest selling point for A5e is the increased support for the non-combat elements of play.  I particularly like the exploration challenge rules, which set up mechanical systems for overcoming terrain or situational obstacles, complete with XP rewards.  Daggerheart has a similar system, and it is one of the best parts of that game, so having this sort of thing in 5e really fills out the game play.  While these exploration challenges are deeply tied into the class design, they are still something you can lift out into other 5e games.  Similarly, there are stronghold and follower rules that can easily be lifted into other 5e games.

ToV has reworked the downtime activities, and they are much better and more flavorful than the base 5e versions in the DMG (as does A5e to some extent, but not as much as ToV).  Otherwise, ToV doesn't do much more with exploration or social than 5e.  It is worth mentioning that a ToV gamemaster guide is due in September, and based on some previews it seems like there is going to be this sort of material in that book.  But, for now, if you are looking for more material to fill out the other pillars of play A5e is clearly the place to go.

Class Design:  Both games rebuild all of the classes that are listed in the 5e PHB.  ToV standardizes the progression of "subclasses" (now a standard term--A5e calls them archetypes) across all classes, which are selected at level 3.  A5e adds travel and social-oriented class abilities for every class, which often interact directly with other mechanical systems found in A5e.  In both cases, mostly because of OGL-related rights issues, the books provide a new suite of subclasses/archetypes for each class.  ToV's subclasses are in general pretty similar to the ones found in the 5e PHB, while A5e's are more divergent and, to me, a bit more interesting.  ToV adds a "Mechanist" class, which is another take on the Artificer, while A5e adds a "Marshal" class which is clearly inspired by the 4e Warlord (and A5e also has an Artificer, but not in the core books).  As a heads-up, A5e renames some of the core classes (Monk is now "Adept," Paladin is now "Herald," Barbarian is now "Berserker") which I still think is more confusing than helpful.  In addition, the A5e Ranger is no longer a spellcaster (though there is an archetype that adds it back in).

Both games state that you can mix and match the classes from 5e with the classes present in their games.  But ToV states up front in their conversion guide that their classes are more powerful on the whole in combat than 5e classes.  Similarly, the fact that A5e classes provide access to combat maneuvers (see below) makes the martial classes more powerful than there 5e versions.  In addition, the 5e classes will be significantly less competent in travel and social situations than the A5e versions, as they lack the specific class abilities that work in those domains.  From my perspective, the class piece in both games is both the most interesting part and the least able to be incorporated into 5e, which is why I am of the view that both games are designed to be used as a whole.

"Origins": A5e calls the elements of character creation that don't involve the class piece "origins," and that's a handy umbrella term.  Both games divide what 5e calls "race" into what you might think of as the "genetic" component (what sort of being the PC is) and the "cultural" component.  ToV calls the "genetic" component "Lineage" and the cultural component "Heritage," while A5e calls the genetic component "Heritage" and the cultural component, well, "Culture."  In both cases, Ability scores bonuses are decoupled from either of the two categories--ToV simply lets the player assign the bonuses however they wish or bakes the normal +2/+1 bonuses into the standard array, while A5e attaches the bonuses to Background.  For what it is worth both work fine, but if we have agreed that we don't want to tie numerical bonuses to some particular genetic element, I think you might as well do what ToV does just make them floating modifiers.  A5e provides for Heritage abilities that come on line at higher levels.  As mentioned, A5e Backgrounds tack on the Ability Score bonuses, while ToV Backgrounds provide every character with a Talent, the ToV equivalent of a Feat (one of the reasons ToV characters are more powerful--everyone gets one at 1st level).

In addition, A5e adds the concept of an "Destiny," which is both a global motivation for adventuring as well as mechanism by which the character gains Inspiration.  ToV Backgrounds also add an "adventuring motivation," which replaces the Traits/Flaws/Bonds concept from 5e.

ToV's "Origin" components are fairly easy to port over to 5e games--just remember to add your floating bonuses at the end and you are good to go.  Keep in mind that ToV Backgrounds give everyone a Feat-equivalent, making them much more powerful and relevant than 5e Backgrounds.  A5e requires a little bit more work, because different pieces of what 5e includes under "race" are scattered among the components.  Maybe you don't care, but if you have players who want to make sure they are getting everything they got in 5e, you may need to fill in some holes if you mix and match components.

Combat:  In general, the combat rules in both games are the same as 5e.  A5e adds new tactical elements, including core flanking rules and new core combat actions.  The big change A5e adds is a very extensive set of combat maneuver rules.  There are a set of maneuvers that everyone can do, but martial characters have access to one or more Combat Traditions, which in turn give access to a suite of bespoke maneuvers powered by a pool of "exertion points."  Weapons also have a bunch of new weapon properties.

ToV ties combat maneuvers into weapons, with each weapon providing a particular sort of maneuver that it can do.  You can choose to do the maneuver instead of inflicting damage, and some martial classes have a feature which allows them to spend a bonus action to do the maneuver in addition to the normal attack.  To be honest, I like ToV's version of combat maneuvers more than A5e's, mostly because of its simplicity, and the way it makes weapon choices meaningful.  I have not really found any combat maneuver systems where the "juice" of more options is worth the "squeeze" of more complexity and the slow down of balancing the options.  That is definitely a YMMV situation, but that's where I come down.  In addition, I would point out that the ToV system is far more modular that A5e's combat maneuver system, which is deeply integrated into the class design.

Spellcasting:  ToV makes four relatively minor but smart changes to the 5e spellcasting rules.  First, "spell level" is remained "spell circle," which is a tremendous change because the distinction between "character level" and "spell level" has confused literally every person I have introduced D&D to.  Second, they ditch the idea of class-specific spell lists in favor of four unified lists--Arcane, Divine, Primordial, and Wyrd.  Third, long casting time, out of combat spells are designated as rituals and are learned separately from the the other spells (similar to 4e's handling of those types of spells).  Finally, the ToV Warlock ditches its bespoke spell slot system (i.e. fewer slots that refresh on a short rest) in favor of making them half casters a la the Paladin and Ranger.   All smart.

A5e also changes up the Warlock, using the optional spell point system from the 5e DMG for the Warlock alone, which is a bit of a strange choice.  But the real meat of A5e is found in the spells themselves, many of which are reworked.  More specifically, A5e nerfs many of the more notoriously problem spells in 5e.  For example, A5e Fireball does 6d6 as opposed to 8d6 damage using the base 3rd level slot, while Counterspell cannot dispel a spell of a level higher than the slot used, and even if Counterspell works the caster can still get off a lower level spell as a consolation prize.  On the flip side, a number of spells that don't have higher level casting options in 5e do in A5e, making the spells more flexible.  Finally, A5e introduces the concept of rare, "named" versions of spells, that are upgrades that can be given as treasure (a great idea, and one that can easily be ported in to other 5e-based games).

A couple of commentators have lamented that ToV didn't do what A5e did to the spells, and I agree that this was a bit of a missed opportunity.  But I don't see any reason why you couldn't use A5e's spells in either 5e or ToV.

Monsters:  Both ToV and A5e provide a full monster book that rebuilds all of the common D&D monsters--humanoids, dragons, giants, undead, etc.  I have not done a comprehensive survey of each monster in both books as compared to the 5e versions, but there are some pretty clear trends.

ToV, and the designers are very explicit about this, buffs up all of the monsters from their 5e versions.  Kobold Press's previous monster books are well known for having monsters that were somewhere between meaningfully and significantly tougher than 5e monsters with equivalent CR, and the ToV monsters are designed to be at the same level as the other Kobold Press books.  To take an example, the ToV troll has 10 more HP than the 5e troll, buffs bite damage from 1d6+4 to 2d8+4, and adds a bonus action that lets wounded trolls make a free bite attack and heal the damage it inflicts.  Likewise, the Wight goes from 45 to 69 HP, and all of its attacks do double the damage of the 5e version.  There are some interesting mechanics added to some of the monsters (I particularly like the ToV giants), but most of what ToV does to its monsters involves making the numbers bigger.

A5e approaches its monsters in a different way.  There are some numeric buffs (sticking with the troll, there is a slight damage buff on the bite attack), but the primary changes revolve around adding more interesting special attacks and abilities.  For example, the A5e troll has a "severed limbs" ability, such that when the troll is attacked with slashing weapons creates a series of limbs that make additional attacks, while the Wight has a cold aura and a grapple attack that triggers the life drain attack.  In doing so, A5e monsters are similar to the "action-oriented" monsters that MCDM put forward in their Flee Mortals! book, which in turn is clearly and transparently inspired by 4e's monster design ethos.  It is also worth noting that the A5e monsters also include built-in results for PC knowledge rolls, random behavior from the monster, and pre-created encounters using the monster--all very useful, and could be used even if you don't use the stat block.

Putting it together, if you are a DM that thinks that 5e monsters are weak, then ToV is the place to go to fix that; if you think 5e monsters are boring when running them, then A5e is going to be the place to go (or, also Flee Mortals!).  Truthfully, the monster piece is by far the most modular part of either of the game, so this might be the easiest and best way to dip your toe into these product lines.

Just as an aside, both ToV and A5e have monsters with spell lists, which is no longer the design paradigm with 5e.  YMMV.

Daggerheart, 2d20, and the "GM's Game"

A couple of weeks ago, Critical Role's imprint Darrington Press released the beta playtest packet for their new fantasy ttrpg Daggerheart.  I have run it for a group, some of whom had no ttrpg experience, and it went incredibly well.  We are going to keep playing, and some new people are going to be recruited into the group.  So, you might say I am incredibly excited about this game.  It is still very much in beta, and there are some rough edges to smooth out, but the tabletop experience it produces is excellent. 

On Page 11 of the current (v. 1.3, released yesterday as of this writing) of the Playtest Manuscript, there is an extensive list of games that inspired Daggerheart.  Notably absent from the list is Modiphius's 2d20 system.  In part because I am familiar with the 2d20 games in a way I am not with other listed touchstones, I was surprised by this exclusion, as Daggerheart feels very similar to the 2d20 games.  After running it, and particularly after digesting the 1.3 version, I think this is less an example of inspiration and more one of parallel evolution.  Daggerheart and 2d20 games arrive at a similar place, especially from the point of view of the GM experience, but they do so via different starting premises.  In this post, I want to break down these differing lines of development, and then talk about why I am coming around to the view that these styles of ttrpg are my personal sweet spot, as a player but especially as a GM.

Both Daggerheart and 2d20 games have at their heart a game mechanical "economy" that utilizes what are usually called "meta-currencies."  Players (not the characters, the players) and the GM have resources that they can spend to change the way the story proceeds.  As the excellent deep-dive video that Derik from Knights of the Last Call astutely points out (beginning at 51:00), this is related to but conceptually distinct from so-called "fiction first" games and game mechanics, which try to avoid interjecting mechanics into the narrative space.  Here, these currencies are tools to allow players and GMs to intervene in the story flow and introduce new elements or change the dynamic.  But, they are "economic" in the sense that they are a limited resource, and the game is predicated on players and GMs making decisions about how they will spend them--do I intervene here in this way, or do I save it for some future opportunity?  This is an aside from this post, but there is a line of criticism from advocates of fiction first games (especially the Powered by the Apocalypse/Forged in the Dark line) that these sorts of mechanics impose unnecessary and counterproductive limitations on the players and the GM "following the fiction."  For my own tastes, I am firmly in the camp of these limitations are features not bugs, for reasons I somewhat explored here and here, and will say more about at the end of this post. 

In any event, let's talk about 2d20 [as a brief aside, Modiphius's new 2d20 game Dreams and Machines adds another economic "loop" to the basic 2d20 system, but here we will skip that and focus on the other games in the family].  The fundamental economic unit of the 2d20 system is the success.  Every time a players has to make a "check," they get 2 twenty-sided dice to roll, and those dice can each generate between 0 and 2 successes, depending on the rolls and the related character abilities.  Likewise, when NPCs make a check, they usually get 2d20 to roll and generate successes.  As the name implies, successes are used to succeed on whatever task generated the check--difficulties are rated on a scale of 0 to 5 total successes needed, with most checks requiring either 1 or 2.  But the reason successes are economic is that any additional successes generated beyond the ones needed to pass the check are converted into a currency, called "Momentum" when the players generate the successes and in most 2d20 games "Threat" when the GM rolls. 

Momentum/Threat can be used in basically three categories of ways.  First, they can be spent immediately to add riders or status effects onto the outcome of the check itself.  So, for example, an attack that rolls well and generates Momentum/Threat can have that new resource be spent to cause additional damage or perform a combat maneuver like disarming the foe or knocking them down, or even take another action.  Or, they can be banked for future use.  The most common future use case is to buy additional dice to roll on a subsequent check.  Not only does this increase the chance of success on that roll, but it makes it more likely that there will be additional Momentum/Threat generated from the roll, creating a feedback loop.  But there are also other, more narrative spends for Momentum/Threat, especially on the GM side and especially with the more abstract and narrative focused versions of 2d20 (like Star Trek Adventures and Dune).  

The wrinkle here is that Momentum and Threat are convertible with each other.  A player can spend 1 Momentum to buy 1 additional dice to roll on a check, or she can give the GM 1 Threat to obtain the same bonus d20.  Another wrinkle is that checks can generate complications, which can either be immediately imposed on the scene, or converted into Threat (+2 Threat if it is a complication generated by the players, -2 Threat for an NPC complication).  Likewise, a spend of 2 Threat at any time by the GM, and in most cases 2 Momentum by the players, introduces a complication into a scene for the other side.  And, thus, Momentum and Threat function as commodities with clear pricing and the ability to be traded back and forth between the players and the GM and spent in various ways.  It's worth noting that each player has a Momentum pool cap of 6 and a mechanic where Momentum bleeds away over time, while the GM's Threat pool is uncapped and remains until spent.

Finally, 2d20 games generally use a fairly traditional action economy and turn structure.  In a combat sequence, for most games the turn order is PC/NPC/PC/NPC, and in a turn you have a standard action (which involves a check) and a suite of minor and free actions.  Other than the lack of cyclic initiative, it is basically the same concept as d20 games like D&D. 

Now let's look at Daggerheart.  Like 2d20 games, the players and the GM have respective meta-currencies, Hope and Fear.  And these meta-currencies are generated primarily from checks.  But, unlike 2d20, the generation of Hope and Fear is separate and apart from succeeding or failing the check.  Success and failure involves adding up the 2d12 plus modifiers to beat a target number, just like d20 games.  However, depending on which of the d12s is higher, the roll will also be "with Hope" or "with Fear," and this outcome is independent of the success/failure dichotomy.  So, you can Succeed with Fear and Fail with Hope, as well as Succeeding with Hope and Failing with Fear (you can also critically succeed, which has distinct effects but from an "economic" perspective is a Success with Hope).  If PCs roll "with Hope," then they get a Hope point.  If they roll with Fear, then (as of the v. 1.3 revision) the GM either "makes a move" (which is broader than but functionally similar to 2d20's imposing a complication) or takes a Fear point.  Critically, this mechanic only applies to player rolls--when the GM rolls for NPCs, he or she uses a completely different die mechanic that does not generate either Hope or Fear.  So, as compared to 2d20 games, the total volume of Hope and Fear being generated is significantly less.  On the flip side, Hope doesn't degrade on the player side, and the GM is capped at 6 Fear (reduced down from 10 in the v. 1.3 revision).

A critical difference in Daggerheart is that Hope is not directly convertible into Fear in the way Momentum and Threat are in 2d20, at least not in the current draft.  I have seen complaints online that players are Hope starved at times, and one of the obvious solutions coming from a 2d20 background is to let players buy Hope in return for Fear.  I'm probably going to experiment with this at some point, but given the relatively small Fear pool for the GM I am not sure this will work.  Another very important difference is that v 1.3 removed any Fear spends that allow the GM to boost NPC dice rolls.  At first, this was a bit of a head-scratcher for me, but I think the idea is to cut any links between success/failure and the Fear point mechanic.  Now, they are wholly separate, and instead Fear points are now used to activate NPC and/or environmental special abilities.  This concept was there in the v. 1.2 draft, but has been strongly enhanced by a more robust explanation of environmental spends, including lots of environmental spends for out of combat situations.  This parallels the game flow of 2d20 games, where Threat is used to activate terrain features and other environmental elements.

But the other primary use of Fear points relates to the action economy.  Much to the consternation of many online commentators, Daggerheart has no initiative system (even the so-called "turn based initiative" optional rule in the v. 1.3 packet is not really an initiative system in the d20 model, but a way to regulate intra-party actions).  Whenever a player wants their PC to do something, they do it.  But, when they do something that counts as an "Action" (which usually, but now not always, involves a dice roll), they hand the GM an Action Token for the Action tracker.  When players fail a check, "initiative" passed back to the GM, who then spends Action Tokens to activate NPCs to take actions. Critically, Action Tokens can be converted into Fear Tokens and visa versa at a 2 Action Token to 1 Fear Token exchange rate.  In other words, every time a player takes an Action, they hand the GM the equivalent of half of a Fear Token as the "cost" for taking that Action.  In addition, the GM can spend 1 Fear to seize the initiative from the players after any check (down from 2 Fear in v. 1.2).  So, on a roll with Fear, even if successful, the GM always has the option of seizing the initiative from the players by taking a Fear point and then immediately spending it.

As a result, while the fundamental economic unit of 2d20 games is the success, the fundamental economic unit of Daggerheart is the action.  Every action the PCs take generates a counter resource for the GM.  Rolling a Fear result gives the GM a Fear token, which converts to an additional two actions down the line.  One of the definite changes in emphasis in the v. 1.3 draft is that the designers are making clear that "Action Token" does not mean exclusively "Combat Action Token," as the implication is that this Action Token structure can and should be used for set-piece non-combat scenarios like big negotiations or social gatherings.  In such a situation, PCs will take non-combat actions that generate Action Tokens, allowing the GM to then spend them on counter-actions (especially as the v. 1.3 draft now makes the "Stress" tracker feel much more like "mental HP" than "stun damage").  

I predict the PbtA, fiction-first crowd is going to hate the v. 1.3 draft, as it moves Daggerheart in a more "gamified" direction.  I, however, love this direction, because I think these sorts of narrativist game mechanics are much more enjoyable from the GM side of the screen.  The problem with fiction-first games IME is that the GM is almost forced to take on the "story concierge" stance that I mentioned in the previous post.  Fiction-first games are designed around the players leading the narrative and the GM "yes, and-ing" in response.  It's a very passive set-up, at least during play (and even out of play, as those games tend to push the idea of the players as co-creators of the world, for sound reasons but nevertheless resulting in even further reduction in opportunities for GM creativity and freedom of action).

But, more to the point, there is no game there for the GM in the fiction-first games.  And games are fun.  2d20 games and Daggerheart, while there are differences in their implementation discussed above, both give the GM a set of fun toys to play with.  I as the GM can look at my pile of Threat/Fear tokens and figure out how to most effectively use them on behalf of the NPCs, knowing that because they are a limited resource I have a much reduced danger of unfairly steamrolling the PCs in an un-fun way.  I as the GM can play a fair and fun game, matching wits with my players without being antagonistic toward them.  I know people love the PbtA games, and you should play what you want, but I think the more mechanically-forward games like 2d20 and Daggerheart are just more fun from the GM side.  I like being the "Master of Ceremonies" (as Apocalypse World calls its GMs), but I like actually playing a game, too.

As far as between the two, I like that Daggerheart appears to me moving toward at once a more focused and also more widely-applicable set of options for the players and GM with its currencies and mechanics.  2d20 games tend toward menus of options for Momentum/Threat spends, which can result in choice paralysis. Daggerheart is directing Hope/Fear spends toward a more discrete set of options, which while limiting options makes it easier to pick up.  On the same line, while much of the GM flexibility for manipulating scenes seems to be cabined in the environmental Fear spends, improv-oriented GMs can just improv the environmental effects, while more prep-oriented GMs have the structure as a back-stop.  That's a nice compromise between styles. 

My one question is whether it makes sense for Daggerheart to simply collapse the Action Tokens and Fear Tokens into a single pool. I think the conversion rate of 2 NPC actions to 1 special ability use feels right, so if you collapsed the two pools you would need to award 2 Action Tokens for a roll "with Fear."  That's a bit awkward, and breaks the symmetry between the with Hope and with Fear result, which is why I think the designers have not made this move.  But having a single pool would make the economy behind the game fully transparent.

In any event, while I understand why this game is not going to be to everyone's taste, I think Daggerheart is shaping up to be excellent.  And, perhaps more to the point, precisely in my personal wheelhouse, such that I think it has a strong chance to become my go-to fantasy ttrpg.    

The MCDM RPG--Playtest #1 Notes

One of the weirder, and by "weird" I really mean "wrong," talking points out in the ttprg space is the notion that 13th Age is the successor to D&D 4e.  To be clear, I am a long-time fan of 13th Age (see here), and I am someone who got back into D&D and the ttprg hobby in general with 4e back in the day.  So, this is not a case of "how dare you associate [game I like] with [game I hate]!"  No, the issue is that I don't think the two games are actually that much alike in terms of the core of what brings people to the respective games.  If you liked 4e enough to be interested in a successor, you surely liked at least to some degree the robust, heavily tactical combat system that had movement and forced movement as a key lynch-pin.  13th Age has none of that, and in fact has a more abstract movement and positioning system than, for example, 5e.  So, while it is true that Rob Heinsoo was a key designer on both games, and its is true that there are a handful of mechanics (healing surges/recoveries come to mind) from 4e in 13th Age, if you liked 4e specifically I don't think there is any particular reason to think you would like 13th Age any more than any other fantasy game.

No, the real successor to 4e is MCDM Productions' forthcoming RPG, currently known simply as "The MCDM RPG."  In December, the MCDM RPG broke records by raising $4.6 million via Backerkit.  The final version of the game is promised for Q2 of next year, but you can get access to the Alpha playtests via participating in MCDM Productions' Patreon program.  I backed both the crowdfunding and the Patreon, and last Sunday I finished up running the first Alpha playtest packet.  And having done so, it is very clear to me that MCDM RPG is trying to capture the feel of 4e, and especially the feel of the core combat loop of 4e, while improving on some of the problems that pushed people away from 4e.  The game is still very much in its nascent stage, but I can report that it feels like they are well on their way toward hitting that target.

Let's talk first about the combat loop.  Like 4e, MCDM RPG is predicated on the idea of using a grid and counting squares for movement.  But the similarities go deeper than that, as many of the abilities that characters and monsters use in combat have "riders" that either force the opponent to move in a particular way, allow the character to move, or both.  This in turn makes the battle space and using the battle space a key part of game play--in our playtest folks were thrown off roofs, against walls, down pits, etc.  It's worth pointing out that the focus on forced movement and controlling movement distinguishes MCDM RPG and 4e from another popular tactical fantasy RPG, Pathfinder 2e, which is designed around the idea that all participants in the battle space will generally have free movement (by, for example, cutting way back on the prevalence of opportunity attacks). 

Likewise, a key part of the game is that the abilities synergize with each other, including abilities of different PCs and different monsters.  Here, I think MCDM improves on the 4e in a significant way by ditching the post-3e cyclic initiative model (where you roll initiative in the beginning and get locked into a fixed order within a turn) in favor of a system where the players and the Directors (the MCDM RPG term for the GM) can set the order of action each turn within a basic "you go, I go" format.  This allows PCs and monsters to set up combos and stage actions in a way that really causes both sides to think about what they are doing.  I've used similar systems in other games (Torg: Eternity and Modiphius's 2d20 games come to mind) and I simply like it better than the cyclic model--it's more fun and more engaging, for both players and GMs.  And as we got more familiar with the options in the game as the playtest went on, we found fun combinations and uses for the various abilities.

There is no question that MCDM RPG is still a work in progress in many respects, but I think the core combat loop, building on what was fun about 4e, is there.  So much so that I think the real question is the degree to which MCDM RPG fixes the problems with 4e, such that it can become a true successor as opposed to a copy-cat.  Here, I think we can identify the four most common complaints about 4e (putting aside truly technical problems, like 4e's early wonky monster scaling and math) and see the degree to which MCDM RPG addresses them--(1) "4e didn't feel like D&D;" (2) "all the classes felt the same;" (3) "combat was too slow and too much of a slog;" and (4) "4e was too combat focused and lacked other play dimensions."

"4e Didn't Feel Like D&D."  Of all the complaints, this is the most amorphous one, and for me the least salient.  D&D has existed in some many discrete forms, with so many different assumed styles of play, that I think "feels like D&D" is going to necessarily mean different things to different people.  Nevertheless, it was a big part of the negative discourse around 4e, and so it should be mentioned.

Here, I think MCDM RPG fixes the problem simply by not having the word "D&D" in the title.  Whether fair or not (and I think not), people picked up the new 4e Players Handbook with the expectation that play will feel like all of the other times they sat down to play D&D.  Because this is a new game, albeit one certainly influenced by D&D, I think players and GMs will come to MCDM RPG without that baggage, and will be better positioned to accept the game as it is. 

In fact, not having "D&D" in the title allows MCDM RPG to go further to address problems with the D&D paradigm that would not be well received if the game was attempting to be in continuity with previous editions of D&D.  In a recent development stream, Matt Colville mentioned that he thinks one of the sources of the "linear Fighter, quadratic Wizard" problem is that the jack-of-all-magic Wizard is too all-encompassing a concept to properly balance.  The first playtest packet does not contain an arcane spellcaster, but it looks like the direction they are going to go is toward more specialized concepts (they have floated a "Summoner" and an "Elementalist" as future classes) and no generalist wizard/magic-user.  Colville is probably right about the inherent and unfixable problem with the Wizard as a concept, but I think an edition of D&D that says "no wizards" is going to cause enormous wailing and gnashing of teeth among the D&D fanbase.  The MCDM RPG avoids this problem by simply not being in the direct lineage of D&D, and thus does not have to cater to those concerns.  [For what it's worth, this is how I interpret the line in the MCDM RPG marketing materials about being "unburdened by sacred cows from the 1970s" which got the usual suspects in the OSR community so fired up online].

"All the Classes Feel the Same."  4e placed all PC abilities into a fixed structure, where at a particular level a PC got a certain number of "At Will" abilities, a certain number of "per Encounter" abilities, and a certain number of "Daily" abilities.  Because the focus was on balancing abilities across classes, the criticism was that all of the abilities were mechanically the same with different flavoring, and thus the play experience of each class is the same.

MCDM's takes this three tiered structure and replaces it with two--"Signature Abilities" that fill the same place as 4e At Will abilities, and "Heroic Abilities."  Heroic Abilities are fueled by a "Heroic Resource" pool, and each class has different mechanics for gaining and spending points from the Heroic Resource pool.  Critically, each class's Heroic Resource mechanics are wildly different.  The Fury (the barbarian-type class) gains Rage points at the beginning of every turn, gets a lot of them, and gets passive bonuses based on the number of Rage points in the bank, incentivizing the player to "walk the line" and keep the Rage points in the bank high.  The Shadow gains "Insight" through using Signature Abilities, incentivizing the player to have MMO-style rotations in combat.  The Talent (the psychic/psionic class) has a negative resource that they accumulate which debuffs (and can eventually kill) the PC for using Heroic Abilities.

Thus, while each class is structured similarly, the play experience of each class is wildly different.  While it definitely took a bit to get a handle on each class's mechanics, my players were very happy with their class choices, and the Talent that I was playing for a bit nearly blew her brain up with Strain, which was exactly what you want out of that class.  We will have to see each of the classes and how they work, but what is there right now is really strong.

The other piece that works with this structure is the Victories system.  Basically, every encounter the PCs successfully overcome (whether a combat encounter, a trap-based encounter, or a social encounter) grants 1 Victory, and these Victories persist until the PCs take a full rest (in which case the Victories are converted into XP).  While in general Heroic Resources reset at the end of a combat, each Victory in the can usually results in starting with that many points in the Heroic Resource pool at the beginning of the combat.  As a result, the more encounters that have been successfully overcome in a particular session, the bigger pool the PCs will have to use their more powerful Heroic Abilities.  This allows for a natural power progression during a session, while simultaneously disincentivizing PCs from resting after every encounter to maximize resources.

All of this, I think, is a home run, and I predict classes and class design will be MCDM RPG's "killer app."

"Combat is Too Slow and Too Much of a Slog."  The big move that MCDM makes in this space is to get rid of the attack roll.  Each attack simply does a certain amount of damage.  The advantage here is basically two-fold.  One, and I think most importantly, on each turn each player does something meaningful--there are no "whiffs" where the attack roll fails and the PC essentially does nothing.  Second, there is simply one less die roll in a round, which speeds things up.

Does this fix the problem?  I think my answer here is "maybe?"  The "no whiff" part is nice, especially since one of my players has truly terrible dice rolling luck.  But a couple of things give me some pause.  First, because everyone hits on every attack, HP are quite high even at lower levels.  For example, the boss encounter at the end of the adventure had 140 HP.  Damage was in the teens to low 20s on most attacks, but I am a bit concerned about HP bloat, which was a problem with 4e (and 5e).  But, this is ultimately a tuning issue and an easy fix, to the extent it is an issue.

Another slow down we ran into was the boon and bane system.  Along the lines of advantage and disadvantage, a boon adds 1d4 to a roll and a bane subtracts 1d4.  Unlike 5e, there can be multiple boons or banes on a roll, alongside floating fixed-number modifiers.  So, at times, it took a bit of time to calculate what the proper dice pool to roll on a particular attack actually was, even though the base amount was on the character sheet.  This is definitely in part a system mastery issue, and also that we were not using a streamlined VTT experience.  But my concern is that the gains realized from getting rid of the attack role will be lost in increasingly the complexity of the damage roll.

So, this one is a "TBD" for me.  The combat loop is so much fun that my tolerance for taking on complexity is going to be pretty high, but this is definitely not going to be a rules-light game.  Finding that balance is going to be key.

"The Game Is Lacking Non-Combat Dimensions."  The MCDM crew has made clear that the game is going to very focused on heroic, cinematic stories with pitched battles with monsters.  It will not be a proceduralist dungeon crawl, nor a hexcrawl.  It also is clearly not a narrativist or "story game."  So, I think this question of what this game brings to the table other than combat is an important one to both the long-term success of the game and my level of long-term interest.

This is also a TBD question, for very understandable reasons.  In its current form, the MCDM RPG takes the form of a "vertical slice."  It is not a full game, and it will not be a full game for some time.  The ultimate answer to this question will not be clear for a year or so.

The sneak peak to MCDM's answer to this challenge is the Negotiation system.  The NPC to which you were negotiating with has a numerical rating expressing their attitude toward the PCs (Interest), and a numerical rating for how long the NPC is willing to sit around and continue the negotiation (Patience).  The NPC has a few things that the PCs can say that will automatically bump up the Interest level, and a few things that will automatically bump down the Patience level.  For everything else, there is a skill check--succeed and you bump up Interest, fail and you bump down Patience.  When the PCs get what they want, or Patience goes to zero, the Negotiation is over and the level of Interest determines the outcome.

This is somewhat similar to the, umm, controversial skill challenge mechanics from 4e.  Part of the criticism of the 4e skill challenge system was that it was anti-roleplaying, in that what you might say narratively to the King was completely divorced from what game mechanical results you get via the skill check.  I think this system fixes that problem, since if the players are clever at figuring out the right things to say to the NPC they basically auto-succeed, while still allowing PCs to flail around a bit and try things with the hope of moving things forward (while avoiding the "mother may I" problem of requiring the players to say whatever magic words the GM has come up with ahead of time).  It needs some tweaks--as with the early versions of 4e skill challenges, I thought the DCs of the "in between" skill checks were too high--but I think the idea is very solid.

Moreover, I think this formula is replicable to other sorts of non-combat events.  The playtest adventure had some really fun traps, and one of them in particular had a similar model of "this will disarm it, or you can make a skill check and see what happens."  For all sorts of challenges, I like the model of "A, B, and C will automatically work, X, Y, and Z will never work and will make things worse, and everything else is a die roll."  It rewards player creativity and role-playing, while also allowing PCs to "brute force" the problem through good dice rolling, avoiding plot cul-de-sacs where the players just can't figure out the puzzle.

So, my advice to the MCDM folks is to really lean into this formula and structure, and make the negotiation mechanic more generalized and more expansive.

****

The bottom line here is that I went into this playtest very excited about the MCDM RPG, and left even more excited.  If you haven't gotten on-board the MCDM train, I would highly encourage giving it serious consideration.

More on the OGL, and What We Might See Going Forward

OGL-gate continues to power its way through the ttrpg Internet, basically undimmed for a month or so.  Trying to cover the story (or, really, stories) is a bit like being a deadline writer at a newspaper--I've put together drafts of posts that were 3/4 of the way done, only to have the next development invalidate them.  

I am once again at the risk of having this happen again with this post.  But, let's give it a shot, because I would like to talk about the recent draft of what is now called "OGL 1.2."  You can find the text here.  Much of the commentary, not surprisingly, has been focused on what this means for creators that would make, or would consider making, content for One D&D.  That is, at the end of the day, the target audience for OGL 1.2--at least unless you believe that OGL 1.2 is entirely pretextual on the part of Wizards, in the sense that they know no one will agree to this and want to use that to shut down 3rd Party creators in toto.  For what it is worth, I don't think it is pretextual.  While it is clear Wizards wants 3rd Party creators to have a relationship to Wizards that is more tilted in favor of Wizards that the previous framework, Wizards has made moves (particularly getting rid of the royalty provisions) that only make sense if you actually want people to use the license to make stuff.

But, at the end of the day, I'm not really interested in the One D&D ecosystem.  I've been out on 5e for a few years now, and I cannot see myself engaging with One D&D except out of mere curiosity over what they have done.  What I am interested in is how OGL 1.2 affects the folks that make competitor games in what is known as the "d20" space.  I have said on numerous occasions that I am a big fan of 13th Age, which currently in playtest for a revised edition.  I'm in the playtest program, and Rob Heinsoo has asked that playtesters not comment about the specific changes, but I can say in general terms that I am extremely pleased with what I have seen, in that it makes small but meaningful changes to the mechanics in ways that improve the game flow without invalidating any of the previous support material.  I would really, really like to see that game come over the finish line.  Likewise, I have reviewed and been very impressed with both Pathfinder 2e and Level Up, and I would like those games to continue to grow and develop.  And, finally, Kobold Press has announced that they are going to do their own game system.  In my judgment, Kobold Press's 5e material is the best around, better by a significant margin than Wizards' material.  I stopped buying Wizards' 5e stuff, but I still buy Kobold Press's stuff, so their project is something that I am very much looking forward to.

All four of the publishers of the games mentioned above have signed on to the "ORC" initiative, spearheaded by Paizo, which aims to create a new OGL-like framework outside of the control of Wizards.  Thus, they are not going to be using the OGL 1.2 structure for their games.  So, my interest here is to what degree does the OGL 1.2 framework impact or hinder the publication of these games.  

Right off the bat, the first element of OGL 1.2 is that it states that OGL 1.0(a) is "deauthorized," which means (according to Wizards) "you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after [a date to be determined]."  However, that same paragraph states "[i]t does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license.  Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."

The ORC initiative, or at least Paizo, has taken the firm position that Wizards does not have the power to deauthorize OGL 1.0(a), and that question will have to be resolved (to the extent it gets resolved), via litigation.  But let's put that to the side for a moment and assume Wizards can deauthorize 1.0(a).  The second part of that paragraph is pretty clear that, for example, Paizo would not have to pulp all of its existing copies of the Pathfinder 2e core rulebook, as they were printed under the then-valid OGL 1.0(a).  And I think the language strongly suggests that Paizo could print more copies of the Pathfinder 2e core rulebook, since the core rulebook was "published" prior to the deauthorization of OGL 1.0(a).  The question, though, is whether Paizo or any of the other OGL 1.0(a) publishers can make new works that are based on previous OGL 1.0(a) material.  Pathfinder 2e has its own SRD, but that SRD is by its own terms derivative of the OGL 1.0(a) (at least right now).  OGL 1.0(a) is the base of the tree that all of these games rely on, and so if you get rid of that, then it seems likely to me that all of the branches are cut as well.

This is in large measure what ORC is for.  Presumably, Pathfinder 2e and Level Up and 13th Age will be re-published under ORC, and ORC will form the base of a new tree from which those games and any supplemental and derivative materials can grow, recreating at least in general principle the framework of the now-"deauthorized" OGL 1.0(a).  In doing so, the argument will be that these games are now completely separate from Wizards' ecosystem, not subject to OGL 1.2, and free to go their own way.

But that in turn raises another set of issues.  Each of these games utilized at least some version of the SRD, and derived their game concepts from that document, which is Wizards' IP, at least to some degree.  When all these games get republished under ORC, Wizards could sue on the theory that they infringe Wizards' copyrighted material which is only accessible under OGL 1.2, which these parties are not using.  Presumably, all of the ORC participants would like to avoid that if they could.

While it affects all of the d20 publishers, the most interesting case to me is Kobold Press's "Project Black Flag."  In their most recent post, they stated that they intend to make Black Flag "forward compatible" with at least some of KP's 5e offerings (Deep Magic 2 was mentioned).  So, it seems like KP is going to try to make a game that is as compatible with 5e as they can.  But, this is a double-edged sword, as the closer they get to 5e, the greater the chance that they will get sued by Wizards under this copyright infringement theory.  So, how close can they go?

This leads to the second interesting element of the OGL 1.2 draft, which is that it creates a third tier of D&D-related materials.  Under OGL 1.0(a), there is the material in the SRD which is Open Game Content that participants in the OGL can use, and there is Product Identity which you can't use (at least not via the OGL).  Under OGL 1.2, there is a third tier of material, so called "core D&D mechanics," that will be licensed under a separate Creative Commons License.  Thus, anyone can use those materials without having to agree to any of the other OGL 1.2 terms, so long as they abide by the attribution requirements of the CC license.  This CC-designated material consists of specified excerpts of SRD 5.1.

This material is significant.  It includes, for example, the 5e XP advancement table (pg 56 of SRD 5.1), the idea of (and one example) of Feats (pg. 75),  the six ability scores and how they work (including conversion of ability scores into bonuses--pg. 76), the Advantage/Disadvantage mechanic (pg. 76), saving throws (pg. 83),  all of the combat rules including HP, hit dice, and the death and dying mechanics (pgs. 90-99), all the rules for spellcasting (pgs. 100-104), and all the rules for how monsters work (pg. 254-260).  Because it will be in CC, Kobold Press can use all of this material in their game, if they want, with no potential problems.  This will make it easy to make at least some of their previous content compatible and usable in Black Flag.  So, for example, because the basic rules for how monsters work is accessible, all of KP's (extremely good) monster books could work in the new game.  It also means that you can use these concepts generally, even in wildly transformed ways, because the CC license in question allows for transformative works.  So, I would say that any use of the six core D&D attributes is unambiguously permitted, to take an example.

On the other hand, some critical elements of the SRD will not be CC--notably all the classes, all the spells, and all the monsters.  Presumably, KP is going to want to have a Fighter in their game, and Magic Missile, and goblins.  The degree to which they can depends on how much Wizards can actually copyright the material in the SRD.

Take the spell Magic Missile, as presented in the SRD 5.1 (for reference, it is on page 161 of SRD 5.1).  It is helpful, I think, to think of that text as having three components.  First, there is the name "Magic Missile."  Second, there is the game mechanical elements of the spell--1 Action, range of 120 feet, does 1d4+1 points of damage per missile, can be cast at a higher level to generate an additional missile per level of slot.  Finally, there is the text in the box that describes how the spell works.  The general consensus is that Wizards does not have a valid copyright as to the second component, as the United States Supreme Court has held that you cannot copyright a process, and rules for a game are basically a process.  So, even though Magic Missile is in the SRD, I think there is a very strong argument that you could have a spell in your game that takes 1 Action to cast, has a range of 120 feet, and auto-hits for 1d4+1 damage without falling under the ambit of OGL 1.2 or Wizards' IP.

On the flip side, it is also pretty clear that if you copy the SRD 5.1 entry in its entirety, including the descriptive text, then you are utilizing the SRD and are subject to OGL 1.2.  The question comes in between these two poles.  For example, what if you use the title "Magic Missile," keep all of rules elements, but re-write the descriptive text?  That's basically what Level Up does, in addition to adding some additional rules associated with its "rare spells" concept. In isolation, I don't think that Wizards has any control over the title "Magic Missile"--it's not trademarked, and it is too generic to be something that really is within its intellectual property.  So, if Wizards doesn't have any real IP rights to the mechanics, and it doesn't have any rights to the name Magic Missile, then the argument would be that the two of them together must also not be something that Wizards can control  [FWIW, this seems to be the argument that the Electronic Frontier Foundation advances in this piece].  On the flip side, the name plus the mechanics is much closer to what is in Wizards' copyrighted SRD than either of the two separately, so I could see a judge saying that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

What about the fact that Pathfinder 2e's version of Magic Missile alters the mechanics slightly--instead of one action, Magic Missile is now 1 to 3 actions, with the number of missiles determined by the number of action spent?  Does that make it outside the scope of the SRD?  Paizo certainly seems to think so, as they assert that Pathfinder 2e is not a product of OGL-dependent material.  And, if that is true, then KP could just tweak the mechanical parts of the classes, spells, and monsters (which they likely want to do anyway) and they are in the clear no matter what they call them.  

Of course, Wizards may not look at things that way, and try to sue on some of these corner cases.  I think in the end that KP and the rest of the ORC contingent have the better of the argument, if for no other reason that they also have all of the OGL 1.0(a) revocation arguments in addition to these IP arguments (because if OGL 1.0(a) is irrevocable, then it doesn't matter how close anyone's games are to SRD 5.1, as they could just use that).  And it is possible that Wizards might choose not to push the copyright infringement claims out of a fear of a court giving them a ruling they don't want on the revocation issue.  But, if Wizards chooses to sue, it will be expensive and protracted, and thus very difficult for small companies, of which all of them except arguably Paizo are.

Paizo is clearly going to stand on its arguments that its material is different enough to fend off any IP challenge. 13th Age is, if anything, more different from 5e than Pathfinder 2e, so I suspect they will ride it out as well.  Does Level Up do the same, or do they revise their material?  Since the core mechanics are now not at issue, I would be inclined to ride it out if I were Level Up, but then I don't have to pay to defend an IP suit from a Fortune 500 company.  And then there is Kobold Press.  We are supposed to see playtest documents next month, and I will be really curious if it has "Magic Missile" in the first packet, or whether it says something like "Force Missile."

The bottom line, as I see it, is that this new OGL 1.2 makes it far, far less likely that we are going to see full-on "lawfare" between Wizards and the members of the ORC initiative.  Wizards has, on its own initiative, dramatically reduced the places in which their IP might clash with that of these other games.  This signals to me that Wizards is not itching for a fight--a fight that has big risks for Wizards.  Taking the OGL 1.2 release as a whole, it seems to me that my initial instincts were correct--all of this is not about shutting down Paizo and Pelgrane or EN Publishing, or even preventing Kobold Press from "Pathfinder-ing" 5e, but about preemptively protecting its soon-to-be released VTT from other competitors in the VTT space who would otherwise run One D&D.  Rightly or wrongly (and I think wrongly, but we will see), I think Wizards does not view Paizo or Pelgrane or Kobold Press as real competitors, at least not real enough to risk a lawsuit that might declare that Wizards has almost no rights to the D&D IP.  Whatever the wisdom of Wizards' position, it means that I suspect that fans of Pathfinder, 13th Age, and other d20 games will have uninterrupted access to their preferred games in a form that is basically the same as it is now.  And I think Project Black Flag will be fairly close to 5e, or at least as close as the KP team wants it to be, with perhaps some names changed.

At the risk of being very controversial here, I think this is what really matters with this whole OGL kerfuffle.  I get all of the technical, legal arguments about whether the OGL is irrevocable.  But at the end of the day Dungeons & Dragons, the trademarked brand of a ttrpg, belongs to Wizards of the Coast.  I don't believe that they have some positive obligation to allow people to play in their sandbox, let alone do so under any particular terms.  Nor do I think they have some obligation to allow VTT makers to be able to provide a platform for playing D&D.  But to the extent Wizards was going to use these OGL shenanigans to try to shut down or hamstrung their once and/or future competitors, that to me is fundamentally unfair, and is a problem for the ttrpg industry as a whole.  If you don't like the terms under which Wizards allows you to make One D&D content--and I don't blame you for not liking those terms, to be clear--the proper response is to play a different game.  The good news about OGL 1.2 is that I think the draft text suggests that Wizards is far less likely to be positioned to prevent people from pursuing alternatives.  That's a reason to be celebrate.