Swiftguard TTRPG Design Log #1

Big Picture Questions

Welcome to the Swiftguard TTRPG Design Log, a series of posts logging the development of my new d20 fantasy TTRPG, Swiftguard.

For this first entry, I want to start with the big picture. The TTRPG market is seemingly flooded with many well-known fantasy TTRPGs. Why create another one? How does Swiftguard distinguish itself from other systems? And what content do you have to look forward to?

There’s a lot to cover, so let’s dive in!

WHY make a Fantasy TTRPG now?

After all, several other companies have either released or are leading up to the release of their own fantasy TTRPG systems. Wizards of the Coast has released D&D 2024’s Core Rulebooks, Kobold Press has released Tales of the Valiant, and we’re coming up on the release of Darrington Press’s Daggerheart and MCDM’s Draw Steel!. Why release a fantasy TTRPG when these other behemoths are already riding two years of hype?

Firstly, because none of them quite deliver the ideal system I’d want to run or play. That isn’t to say I think any of these games lack quality or that a system I’d design would be superior, but rather the system that I’m envisioning has unique qualities these others don’t have. In fact, the one that’s probably the closest is D&D 2024, but it also has some rough spots that I’m interested in smoothing out, and with the recent release of SRD 5.2, now is a better time than ever to create what I want to create. Just because there happen to be a lot of fantasy TTRPG offerings right now doesn’t mean I shouldn’t make mine. If I were looking at this from a purely economic perspective, maybe, but at this time, Swiftguard is a passion project, not a money-making one (although that isn’t to say that if it becomes commercially viable that wouldn’t be a path I’d eventually walk).

As a deeper reason though, I believe that TTRPGs are an unusually effective way for us to discover who we want to be in our real lives. Through playing TTRPGs, I’ve witnessed parents bond with their kids, romances bloom, and individuals gain the confidence to come out to their friends and families. These things might’ve happened on their own with different activities, but something about TTRPGs accelerated this emotional growth. I’ve had fellow co-workers design characters with the explicit purpose of personal growth and development, and become more well-rounded people as a result. To be clear, I’m not saying that this is the “correct” way to play or that your TTRPGs should feel like group therapy sessions, but rather that the enjoyable time your spending with friends and family can accomplish this parallel result if one is aware of it, without changing anything else about the game.

While I believe all TTRPGs are unusually effective tools for personal growth, I also think there are particular systems that align with that goal more than others. Systems with two many mechanics become about those mechanics, and often distract players’ attention from the parts I want to design for. Likewise, if a system is too rules-light, it overly relies on the GM’s soft skills to deliver a great experience, and the experience stops feeling like a game and more like a writer’s room. Again, citing the marketing I’ve seen for the other systems I mentioned before, there is a lot of focus on mechanics and how they help shape the table’s shared story. While I find this integral to the conversation, I also want a system that addresses the third element - the real world players and how reflecting on their game experience informs who they want to be outside of the table.

All this being said, that’s why I think fantasy is the genre that matches best. In fantasy TTRPGs, one of the clearest insights we glean is our relationship with power. Some players intentionally optimize, shoring up their weaknesses and maximizing the power they have over the game’s system. Others go in the opposite direction, running away from power and intentionally choosing weak options. How does a GM feel when players steam roll a supposedly deadly encounter? How do the player’s unique imaginations contribute to the shared story? There’s a lot of possibility in the space created by fantasy TTRPGs that I think is a tad more difficult in other genres, at least in my experience.

So fantasy is the genre that has the least resistance in having personal growth reflections about a TTRPG experience, and D&D is the system that currently has the closest balance between rules-heavy and rules-light that I’m looking for. This brings us to our next question.

HOW is Swiftguard different from 5e?

In my experience trying a few different systems, 5e has been the closest example of a system that fulfills my core WHY of playing TTRPGs. It’s got enough rules for players to be confident contributors but not so many as to become their own distraction. It’s a system that I’m comfortable designing for and a huge number of TTRPG players are used to playing. For that reason, many of Swiftguard’s systems are built on 5e’s scaffolding, with some minor adjustments. The core resolution mechanic is to roll high on a d20, creatures have six ability scores (called attributes in Swiftguard) that fulfill similar functions (Strength, Constitution, Dexterity, and Charisma are the same, with Intelligence becoming Knowledge and Wisdom becoming Awareness), and the Skills should all be very familiar. However, there are some significant differences.

Let’s start with the biggest one, Action Economy, the things each player can do on their turn. In 5e, each player can move and take an action. Sometimes, they can also take a Bonus Action, which is supposed to be a small extra thing they can do. The problem with this system is that some players optimize their character’s build to have a Bonus Action to use every round, which in my experience makes their turns feel more fulfilling than a player that just has one action, even if that one action is more powerful than an action / Bonus Action combo.

In addition, Bonus Actions have some weird restrictions that can be frustrating to understand. For example, in a recent game of 5e, my sister was playing a Druid that was Wild Shaped into a giant spider. My character took a bunch of damage and dropped to zero hit points. Knowing that she couldn't cast Healing Word on me as a spider, she wanted to change back into her normal form and use her healing spell, essentially doing two Bonus Actions, or two “little things” on her turn instead of taking an action. Unfortunately, the Bonus Action rules prohibited this from happening, even though in the game’s story, it would make sense that she was doing two little things instead of a little thing and a big thing.

So, in Swiftguard, each player gets three actions on their turn. There aren’t separate categories for movement or Bonus Actions. Rather, it’s the big thing, what 5e would call an “action”, that’s the exception to the rule. Every turn, a player can take one “Main Action”, or do a big thing with one of their actions, and their two other actions are little things that support it. They may move up to their Speed twice, may grab an object and cast a quick spell, or choose to Jump over a Prone enemy into a Guard position. There may even be situations, like the Spider situation with my sister, where the best thing a player does is not take a Main Action and instead do three little things on their turn. From my playtest experience with this system so far, when players each take their full three actions on their turns, they don’t feel like they wasted any of their action economy in the same way that a 5e player might when they don’t get a Bonus Action. Most importantly, this action economy is intuitive, meaning that players that aren’t as interested in optimizing the game’s mechanics won’t feel as punished for “doing what their character would do”.

Another significant divergence is that character progression is not Class-based. Rather, like Skyrim or Fallout, perks (called Abilities) are acquired individually. This allows for a greater breadth of character builds that don’t lock players into a predetermined path. One of the benefits of a Class system is how guided character progression can be, whereas so-called à la carte systems are notoriously difficult to balance. That being said, from that argument, 5e’s current multiclassing system already has balance concerns, and an à la carte system with suggested archetypes solves the “blank canvas” issue of new players being overwhelmed by too many options without being so restrictive that experienced players can’t build outside the box. It also means that GMs interested in homebrew can test ideas one ability at a time. If they have a creative character idea, they don’t feel pressured to make a whole subclass that precludes other Abilities - they can start small and build out from there. In some ways, it actually makes homebrew easier to balance because it’s easier to add on or remove.

Lastly, a system I’m curious to playtest is cumulative Advantage. While I respect the simplicity of 5e’s “roll two d20s and take the highest result” approach to Advantage, the mechanical benefit coupled with how easy it is to acquire advantage makes things a little too easy for the players, in my experience. With this alternative system, a player rolling with Advantage rolls a d20 as normal and rolls a d4, similar to 5e’s bless spell. However, if there’s an additional source of Advantage (such as a creature being Prone and Stunned, for instance), the Advantage die increases from a d4 to a d6. Similar systems have been criticized for having to track various sources of Advantage, but the benefit I see is team-minded players working together to maximize the Advantage to each others’ rolls. Rather than one player casting faerie fire and the others forgoing Advantage-granting abilities, I’d prefer if players get to see how their cumulative contributions strengthen each others’ efforts. It also doesn’t change the likelihood for a Critical Success or Critical Failure - there’s still a 5% chance either way. I’m not necessarily married to this system in the same way as I am the three action economy or à la carte progression, but it is something I’m curious about.

WHAT do you have to look forward to?

I started Swiftguard’s design with SRD 5.1, just in case SRD 5.2 was less usable than I thought it’d be (turns out it’s quite robust). When the 2024 Free Rules were released in September, I pretty much converted all of the SRD 5.1 language to the 2024 rules using the Free Rules, knowing there’d be some content in the Free Rules that wouldn’t be in the SRD. With SRD 5.2 now in Creative Commons, I’m scanning through SRD 5.2 to remove anything from the Free Rules that aren’t available in SRD 5.2. I’m currently in the middle of the Rules Glossary.

Once that’s done, I’m going to bring all the content into Affinity to design the first packet. Content-wise, almost everything is ready. Really, it’ll come down to how quickly I can create something somewhat visually workable in design. From there, the first packet will be ready.

So what’s the actual content you have to look forward to?

For Swiftguard, the first playtest packet will have:

• The core system with all the general rules of play

• The full character creation suite, including Species, Abilities, Spells, and Equipment (including some crafting rules)

• The Rules Glossary, further organized from what’s in SRD 5.2

• Some sample monsters

My goal is to also design some simple adventure paths that highlight some of the game’s systems for GMs to more easily teach players the system’s highlights. To do this, it’ll take more time, which brings me to my final question.

Would you prefer to see the system sooner without an adventure path, or would you like to wait for the adventure path to be included?

Let me know through the comments on this post, in the Darkmore Podcast Community Discord at https://discord.com/invite/wdz8gHs or through the new Swiftguard Discord at https://discord.gg/mtS6Yb4N

Thanks for your support, and remember, Your Story Matters.

-John