Spellsword RPG Development Update #10 — July 14, 2026

Hello Reader, here are the latest Spellsword updates!

Snapshot / TL;DR

Warrior and Wizard are done, and final review starts next. All classes now have drafted starting spells.
The first Mass Combat concept pass failed stress testing, so we pivoted to batch resolution instead.
An initial batch resolution test found real problems to fix before the next pass.
Faction creation and order forms are built (internal alpha only), and Faction Play test infrastructure is live internally. Testing begins shortly.
Added Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, and Refund and Cancellation pages to the website.
The Challenge Map plan is locked down. We're still working out the encounter layout.

Major Progress This Cycle

Starting Spells: The Full Set Is Drafted

Warrior and Wizard spells are drafted and checked. That closes out the last two classes. Every class now has a complete starting spell draft. They will serve you well when you need to start your game quickly, and they provide basic formats you can build upon or use as inspiration.

We're moving into final review of the whole set before export and upload. Once this is finished, you will see them live in the Character Creation chapter initially and possibly duplicated in the Runes and Spells chapter after a few revisions.

Mass Combat: First Pass Failed, Batch Resolution Takes Over

Our first Mass Combat concept pass failed. Math and concept stress testing killed it.

We didn’t move requirements around. Mass combat has to scale seamlessly from a single hero to army-scale conflict without guaranteeing outcomes or compromising the underlying combat mechanics. This first attempt failed during testing.

We started over with batch resolution. Instead of resolving each clash individually, we take the average outcome across a handful of clashes and use it to represent a group. The time scale flexes with the scene: a hero cutting through a mob can run round by round (though there are still some issues with this playing out right), while a skirmish between forgettable troops could resolve in three rounds, establish a casualty rate, then stretch out to minute-by-minute. Our clash-based combat system, which works so well at “duel-scale” combat, allows the victor of a clash to prevent their foe from harming them. The previous pressure-based model never tracked that.

We ran an initial exploratory test of batch resolution using batched skill checks. It surfaced a real problem: our instructions were inconsistent across time scales and combat scales. Some initial solutions are already surfacing, and a last-minute test before this update went out showed great promise.

Faction Play: Internal Testing Begins

We started building the infrastructure with Google Forms to run Faction Play and Campaign testing internally. Unfortunately, Google Forms are painful to share widely without tangling up shared resources, so we're testing internally first to make sure we like this format for orders and faction creation.

Once we know this is the right direction, we will start preparing instructions so clubs can start up their own faction play with Google Forms later. (Google Forms are free to use at the scale y’all will operate at, so no worries there.)

Legal Pages Added

The Privacy Policy, Terms of Service, and Refund and Cancellation pages are now live on the website. This simply got missed in the blur of development, so we fixed it. If you like boring legal docs, take a look.

Systems Under Active Refinement

What We're Iterating On

We're still locking down a consistent time and unit scale for Mass Combat, defining which wounds matter, and working out attrition math ahead of the next internal test.

The overall plan for the Challenge Map is locked down, but we're still working out the actual encounter layout.

Problems We're Solving

Mass Combat still needs a single consistent rule for time and unit scale rather than shifting rules mid-resolution. That inconsistency was the main failure point in our latest test.

We still need to define which wounds matter at the mass-combat scale, how we track them, how they drive attrition, and how morale factors into it all.

What's Still Uncertain

The final Challenge Map encounter layout still isn't set.

We're still testing how much of the batch resolution math holds up once wound tracking and morale are plugged in, how much speed we gain, and how easy it is to use.

Design Insight

It looks like we are finally getting better at targeted testing.

Rather than spend weeks working out Mass Combat rules in my head and polishing up a first draft, I scratched out some ideas and notes and threw them at my alpha testers.

Needless to say, that didn’t go very well, but I expected it to be rough.

Mass Combat needed to fail once before it could work.

The rule was simple going in. Whatever we built had to scale from one hero to a full army without guaranteeing outcomes or breaking the combat mechanics that already work for a duel-scale fight.

The first version didn't clear either bar.

It used pressure, comparing offense and defense to grind down a unit's capacity over time. Clean on paper. But when we ran the math, clashes stopped mattering. Attrition wasn’t being tracked with sufficient detail for the scales we tested. A unit that fought well and cut down half its attackers effectively had to battle the whole group for the entire mass combat round. Wounds weren’t factored. The first attempt was completely disconnected from the duel-scale experience and felt like a crappy bolt-on.

So we killed it.

Now the approach is Batch Resolving unit conflicts. Instead of tracking some vague pressure, we resolve a handful of clashes that each represent a group of characters and use the outcome to resolve the conflict as though each roll were from a single character. The idea was a step in the right direction.

So we tested it. It broke again.

Not the math this time, though. The instructions were too confusing. We asked testers to switch between time and unit scales within the same session to cover more ground, which revealed a gap in the rules that we need to resolve. This failure didn’t mean that batch resolution had to be tossed in the trash, just that we needed to tinker with it more. It worked just well enough to reveal what problems needed to be addressed next.

Which was awesome.

I'd rather find that now, in an internal test with a handful of people, than after this ships to every table running Spellsword. I’m sure you agree. Playing with broken toys is frustrating. As gamers, we are all too familiar.

On the next test pass, we will lock down just to one time and unit-scale to the level of detail we actually care about. We have an idea of which wounds count at the mass-combat scale, how we should track them, and how they translate into attrition. Then we add a very basic morale system on top. (We ran this test last night! Fantastic developments. You’ll hear about that next update!)

In the end, pressure sounded right but failed. Batch resolution tested well, but hiccuped.

Testing things at the right layer, in the right way, with the right focus made all the difference.

—Christian

What Members Should Test

Try the Companion App build. The UI overhaul and experimental features are live (and some more features dropped!)
Review the Culture Type and Station framework (if you haven’t already) and tell us whether it gives enough structure without locking down your setting.
Share feedback in our Discord.

What's Next (2-Week Objective)

Finish the final review of the complete starting spell set, then export and upload it.
Fix the time and unit scale and wound-tracking issues found in Mass Combat testing, then run another internal pass.
Continue building Convergence Campaigns internal test infrastructure and copy-paste instructions for clubs.
Lock the Challenge Map encounter layout.