Writing a ttRPG - Wyverns & Warrens (Pt 3 - Core Mechanic, Attacks, And Damage) (Patreon)

(This article is not part of the content of this blog that is covered by the OGL 1.0a.)

Wyverns & Warrens (WyvWar) is my current ongoing attempt to design a short, easy, fantasy ttRPG that still has a depth of options. And I am doing that in weekly installments, exclusively for my paying Patrons!

Since I now have a rough outline for this ttRPG, it's time to just jump in and start writing. I have to accept that I may end up using NOTHING of this early writing. Obviously, the hope is that I create usable content on my first try, but when creating an entire ttRPG from scratch, I don't want to be married to my first stab at anything. I want to be able to explore, iterate, and seek out feedback.

But I have to start somewhere... so I am starting with the core game mechanic of WyvWar.

(When developing game mechanics for a ttRPG, think about the situations you want your game to be able to handle. Art @Dean Spencer, used with permission.)

A roleplaying game doesn't HAVE to have a 'core mechanic.' You could absolutely design a game that uses rock-paper-scissors to determine if you win a fight, percentile dice for skills involving inanimate objects, and hands of poker for social interactions. There are even good reasons to do so in some cases.

But that is NOT what I'm doing with WyvWar.

Especially since I want the game to be contained in a small rulebook, easy to learn, and play fast, I want a single "core mechanic" to cover the majority of things you do in the game. For reasons I discussed here, I've decided on 2d10 + bonuses as the core of my core mechanic. But knowing what dice to roll and if you want to roll high or low is only the start of determining a core mechanic.

Since I'm hoping a single mechanic (perhaps with sub-mechanics) is going to handle most action resolutions in WyvWar, I want to see if I can define those first.

Having a name for a game mechanic can be useful when referring to it later, so I'm going to name everything for now, but I can change or drop all of these later if I decide I don't like my original names.

ACTION CHECK

Action Check: All Action Checks are made by rolling 2d10, adding them together, and adding one or more bonuses. If the sum of an Action Check meets or exceeds the related Target Number (Target #), the action is successful. If the sum is less than the target #, the action fails.

I'm trying to decide if I want to add critical hits if an Action Check is 5 or more higher than the target #, and critical failures if it's 5 or more lower. There are things I really like about that kind of numerical crit system, not the least of which is you can have a specialist in a given kind of check be regularly critting (and thus feeling rewarded for being a specialist), while a 'typical' character can still succeed and contribute to the task. The ability to have people with radically different levels of proficiency at a task both feel like A: They are contributing and B: They are rewarded for their level of specialization can be a big help in players enjoying a game.

There ARE downsides, though. First, it's another step. Every extra step a rule or die roll requires is one more thing for everyone at the table to remember, and has at least a little drag on the speed of the game even when everyone knows the rules. Second, it's another level of math. With my desired 2d10 mechanic, the 'logical' value to set for criticals is 5 above and below target number--making it 10 would be close to having it never happen. And while most people have no trouble determining if 17 is 5 above or below 22, it IS less intuitive math than if 17 is 10 above or below 22.

I don't have to decide this right now. And, honestly, I SHOULDN'T decide right now unless that idea is a core part of my vision for the game.

Also, I might want to go for a much less formal-sounding definition of Action Checks.

Action Check: Most actions are resolved with an action check. To make an action check, a player rolls 2d10 and adds the appropriate bonus from their character. If the total is at least as much as the Target Number (Target #) stated by the GM, the actions succeeds. Otherwise, it fails.

DAMAGE

I wasn't focusing exclusively on combat with my Action Check rules, but while writing them an idea hit me for damage rules. Especially early in game design, I like to follow my muse when she strikes.

Reducing steps in determining total damage (the number of die rolls and calculations you have to make to determine if an attack is successful and how much damage it does and if that gets past any defenses the target has and if there's any effect beyond damage) speeds up the play of a game. Reducing how many different things you have to know to take the needed steps makes a game faster and easier to learn.

One of my favorite games, Pathfinder 1st edition, has a LOT of steps in this process. An attack roll to see if you hit. If that is in a given die roll range (which varies), and another die roll to see if the attack is a critical hit. If there's concealment, there is ANOTHER roll to see if you overcome a percentile miss check. Then rolling damage. That damage can be percision damage... or not; it may be doubled or tripled or only SOME of it may be multiplied, it could be nonmagic or magic; bludgeoning, piercing, slashing, acid, cold, electricity, fire, or sonic; a force effect, there may be energy resistance or damage resistance or a multiple for vulnerability, or there might be immunity. If fighting a swarm, it might do reduced damage if it's not area effect. And you have to know exactly what dice to roll and bonuses to add to calculate the attack's core damage even before all of that... A +1 longsword dealing 1d8+1 magic damage that is flaming for +1d6 fire damage and used for a sneak attack doing +2d6 precision damage against a creature with DR 5/-- and 2 points of fire resistance that does take precision damage but has a % change to ignore it can take a LOT of time to make sure you're doing everything right, even if you are SUPER expert in the rules.

So here is my initial idea for attacks and damage in WyvWar.

Damage: A single Action Check determines if your attack hit and dealt damage, or did not. Things like cover and concealment and shields will all be part of that Action Check (I'll figure out the details later, the point is my goal it to make ONE roll, not a roll to hit, a roll to overcome a miss chance, a roll to confirm a critical hit, and a roll to appease Punchicus--God or Ouchies). Damage is Ordinary (weapons, claws, falling, and so on) or Extraordinary (fire, magic, acid, poison, disease, and the Ruby Rays of Punchicus).

Attacks do Low Damage (in which case the attack does damage equal to the lower of the 2d10 rolled in the attack - think of a dagger), High Damage (equal to the higher of the two d10s -- think of a longsword), Very High damage (add the two d10s of the attack roll -- thing of a great sword), or Massive damage (expressed as Massive Damage and then a multiple, such as Massive Damage x3, which means combine the two d10s, and multiple it by x3 -- think of a siege weapon).

A target might be Resistant to damage in some cases, in which case it takes half damage. This is calculated after all other modifiers (so if an attack dose Massive Damage x5 but the target is Resistant, you add both d10s from the attack roll, multiply by x5, then halve the end result).

That's obviously NOT how the final rule would be written, but it covers the concept well enough for me to build things around it. Once I have more rules roughed out, I can worry about how to express them in a final form.

My PLAN is to have Health values be fairly low and not grow much, with characters depending on Combat Points (or... maybe Action Points? name still in flux) to get tougher as they advance by avoiding more attacks and hitting more often. If that works, then a fairly tight range of damage works at a wide range of combatant skill, so numbers don't have to get bigger and bigger for attacks to remain relevant for more advanced characters.

If I needed more variation than four ranges of damage there are at least two mechanics I can think of that won't add another roll to damage resolution. First, i could allow static damage modifiers, such a +1 for a magic weapon, or +3 for a skilled combatant, or even just daggers being Low Damage +2, and hand axes only being Low Damage +1.

The other thing that immediately comes to mind is weapons having minimum damage values. So, a hand-and-a-half sword might be Very High Damage (minimum 5), and a great sword be Very High Damage (minimum 7).

And, of course, these could be combined. My gut says to have types of weapons use minimum damage to differentiate them, and for bonuses to come from other factors (user skill, magic effects, and so on). So that's what I'll assume for now, while keeping in mind if I don't like it as I get deeper into the design, I can change it.

So, what do you think? Like any of these ideas? hate them? Want to make a case for the game going in a different direction? Let me know!

Next Time: We talk Target Numbers!