As an organizational tool for myself and to provide clarity to the reader, here are some general thoughts about design philosophy.

1.1 Complexity

My experience in playing and running D&D is that it is at its best below level eight. Above that and I find that most players (myself included) struggle to keep track of their growing list of character traits, equipment, magic items, etc. Player turns drag on at higher levels as the sheer volume of options can cause significant decision fatigue. As a game master, I sometimes plan encounters or even whole sessions with specific loopholes that encourage a player to use a specific trait from their class, only to find that the player has forgotten that they have that ability. To that end an explicit goal in Delver’s Deep is to minimize complexity. At max level a character sheet should take up no more than a letter sized sheet of paper and stats, traits, and equipment should be simple and easy to interpret.

I’ll digress here to consider game complexity vs. character complexity. I feel that a game with very low complexity in terms of character options loses out on tactical depth and re-play value. I think it is beneficial to have a large number of options for players to chose from (i.e. high game complexity), but to constrain the total number of stats, traits and equipment that a given character will have access to (i.e. low character complexity). So in general the goal here is simplicity.

1.2 Choices and Tradeoffs

One gripe that I have with modern D&D is that some features, items, etc. come with very limited or no downside at all. I think this generally reduces the impact of player decisions, and often ends with characters that are generally at least good at everything, and exceptional at a few things, with no real weaknesses. This often occurs in expansions to the game (i.e. power creep), and the new features that are introduced are sometimes so powerful, with no or limited tradeoff, that from a purely performance oriented perspective (combat and otherwise) your party is losing out if they don’t have the newest options.

I doubt I will be the one to solve the age-old problem of power creep, but I do believe that designing a game system such that every character will either have a significant weakness or else be a jack-of-all trades (master of none) is beneficial to the game overall. In my experience, having a character with a significant weakness incentivizes players to rely on each other and consider the situation at hand carefully. With a character that is a powerhouse in all aspects, the risk of consequences for your actions is very low, and I find that player become dis-engaged from the game and treat it as a playground to break things in. Occasionally I have been guilty of this behavior as well.

In general the goal is to make most choices in the game come with an upside and a downside such that nothing is so optimal that it is always the best choice.

1.3 Rogue-like

I think that one concept that is significantly missing from modern D&D is the aspect of real risk. In some sense the first couple levels are the most engaging part of the game because every combat encounter carries with it the threat of real, permanent character death. In my experience on both sides of the table, the most engaging and exciting sessions I’ve been a part of occur when the chips are down, everything is on the line, and the risk is real.

Please understand that despite all of my criticisms of D&D, I love the game and I’ve spent thousands of hours on it. However, modern D&D really can’t tolerate significant risk of character death because the storytelling forward focus of the game makes frequent character death not rewarding. As both a DM and a player, a meat grinder game is no fun, but the total lack of risk really takes the bite out of the game. Death becomes a hiccup and the only threats in the game are those which can truly annihilate your character requiring narrative deus machina to bring them back.

So as a design philosophy, I think death needs to be a risk in every combat encounter. Random character generation with a permanent roster is my answer to take some of the sting out of losing your treasured character with their carefully crafted backstory. Each session, or even multiple times a session, the players can choose which character(s) they want to play depending on the challenge ahead. As part of the framework of the game not all characters will make it out, but allowing players to choose from a roster of permanent characters will both allow players the flexibility to explore new play-styles within the same game and reduce the emotional impact of losing a character while maintaining a sense on continuity.

1.4 Magic

I dislike Vancian magic systems. I think it ends up turning magic into a tabletop spreadsheet simulator, and the concept of spell slots and levels as its implemented in D&D really reduces flexability for casters and requires player to have an intimate knowledge of long lists of spells. Additionally, more recent iterations of D&D have really limited how much magic can influence the game state and battleground, perhaps for the better as magic in earlier versions was maybe too powerful. I would like to be able to implement more impactful and flexible magic, even if that means that it will be more simple overall.

1.5 Running the Game

Another criticism of D&D is that there is fairly limited support for DM’s to run the game. Even some of the prewritten modules are little more than a framework with some general plot points that require significant effort from the DM to rewrite into a usable product. It takes several years of experience and a very deep knowledge of the game to develop the skills required to create challenging, but too challenging, combat encounters that can fit within the narrative framework that drives the game in D&D. Embracing random generation as the method for designing bounties and extended delves will take some of the effort out of running the game for the gamemaster.

Anyone who has uncovered a deck of many things by accident at low levels could tell you that totally random tables do not make for a contiguous game experience. While that zaniness is often fun, it usually peters out within a session or two. As a design philosophy, I think it will be best practice to include a system of weighted tables and guidelines that will help the game master create content quickly, while maintaining a sense of world design and reasonable combat design. A tall order, but nothing can be done without trying.

1.6 Inspiration

I’ll openly admit that I am heavily inspired by games that I love. In general a typical campaign setting in Delver’s Deep will share a similar feel to a typical D&D magical-medieval world, although I tend to lean towards dark realism. I highly admire the extremely tactical and low-fantasy combat gameplay of Battle Brothers, and I want to implement a fatigue system inspired by that game. Also, I love Darkest Dungeon’s stress and madness system, as well as Giffyglyphs work to adapt some of those concepts to D&D.

---

1.7 Summary

In summary my goals for this project are:

• Balance overall game complexity with the goal of simplicity
• Ensure that most choices come with a tradeoff
• Balance character design such that no one character can be too strong at everything. Most character should have a core strength and a core weakness
• Implement a flexible but simple magic system.
• Provide a system of generating content that maintains a sense of continuity while reducing overall burden of prep work. Also include realistic advice for gamemasters

Next up… Premise and Structure

---