Writing a ttRPG - Wyverns & Warrens (Pt 8 - Hero McHeroface) (Patreon)

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

I'm designing Wyverns & Warrens (WyvWar), an effort at a short, easy-to-learn, easy-to-play, fast-paced fantasy ttRPG that still has a depth of options. And I am doing that in weekly installments, exclusively for my paying Patrons! You can check out the earlier articles at the links below.

First Look - Wyverns & Warrens Fantasy ttRPGPreview 01 - When Are Hit Points Not Hit Points?Preview 02 - Paths & EdgesPt. 1 Writing and RPG (How We Got Here)Pt 2. First Outline DraftPt. 3 - Core Mechanic, Attacks, and DamagePt. 4 - Target NumbersPt 5 - Damage and BenchmarksPt 6 - Time, Space, Scale, Distance, Movement, and RangePt 7 - What Defines A Character, First Draft: Attributes

I ended the last article by promising that this week I'd present "Hero McHeroface," which prompted some Patrons to ask me what the heck I was talking about, and how it was part of designing a ttRPG.

So, let me tell a story.

When I worked at Wizards of the Coast on the d20 Star Wars game back in 2000-2001, the RPG R&D team took several on-the-clock hours a week to playtest new material from various teams. So even though my own work was focused on Star Wars and Wheel of Time content, I playtested a lot of material for 3rd ed D&D, Call of Cthulhu d20, and [Redacted][Never Released]. One of the most common playtest formats for player-facing content was the Xs vs the Os.

Put simply, playtesters would make two teams of PCs, one of original PHB-content characters, and one built with whatever new content we were playtesting. One side was designated "X" and the other "O." Half the players took the X team and half the O team, and they pit them against each other in various situations, ranging from empty arenas to ambushes of one team by the other, roadways, mazes, ship assaults, aerial battles (where appropriate), and so on.

An Xs vs Os playtest isn't perfect of course, and only works in games where some kind of opposing conflict is an important part of the game (combat for all the playtests I was part of at Wizards, but we did cover things like different starship combat rules). But when your game has character vs character conflict as an important part of its assumed play style, it can be a great way to test the impact of new rule options vs old rule options, and even to see if some specific kind of character is performing better or worse than intended in a group setting.

So what does any of that have to do with WyvWar?

(You can also put multiple Xs against one O and see how it goes. Art by Dean Spencer, used under license.)

As early as feasible in a game design process, I like to built some generic characters. The idea here is twofold. First, to see what things I still haven't defined that I want on my character. Second, to begins having Xs and Os I can use for a slugfest playtest later. The more different concepts of PC I build, the more ideas I stress test to see if the game supports them, and the more Xs and Ox I have to pass out for a playtest. And that brings us to Hero McHeroface, our generic theoretical WyvWar player character.

So, let's say I want a bog-standard, uninteresting melee combatant hero. I know I have 10 attributes, so let's assume I have 20 points to distribute among them, with nothing less than 0 or more than 3. How would I build my Melee Mike character? Well, let's remind ourselves what those attributes are.

AttackCunningDodgeHealthPerceptionSocial InteractionSpeedSpiritStealthStrength

Before I spend a single point, I am immediately bothered that HALF of these start with S. It's a silly little thing, but the sooner I fix it, the less find-and-replace I'll have to do. I hate the two-word "social interaction" attribute anyway, so I'll switch that to Demeanor. Strength can become Might. I'll switch Stealth to Concealment. Again, I'm not stuck with these forever, but I like them more than what I had so that's an improvement. That gives me these 10.

AttackConcealmentCunningDemeanorDodgeHealthMightPerceptionSpeedSpirit

Okay, I want Melee Mike to be good at Attack, so I'll give him a 3. But I DON'T want him to be as good at ranged. That means I need my specialization rules for attributes sooner, rather than later. I don't care much about Mike hiding himself or other things, or being particularly clever, or having great interpersonal skills, so I'll do '1' for Concealment, Cunning, and Demeanor . Health is crucial for a combatant, I'll throw in a 3. The entire reason to separate Attack and Might is to ensure you don't have to be a weight lifter to be a fencer, but I do want Melee Mike to have a level of fitness, so I'll drop 1. Melee Mike might be a town guard, so I'll go big on Perception with a 3. I have 4 points left, and 2 attributes, so I'll go Speed 2, Spirit 2. Of course I have no idea how fast a Speed of 2 is at the moment, because I didn't settle on the duration of a round... so THAT needs to be done. I also suddenly have an idea that a character can make as many attacks in a round as they have points in Attack (minimum 1), but they have to divide their attack value among those attacks. That might then be limited by their Speed. Indeed, maybe you can take multiple actions of any one Attribute -- spirit for magic, perception for looking around, but are always limited by your Speed? There are pitfalls in this idea but it's... interesting.

Here's Melee Mike so far.

Attack: 3Concealment: 1Cunning: 1Demeanor: 1Dodge: 3Health: 3Might: 1Perception: 3Speed: 2Spirit: 2

And I have a series of critical "basic" things I still need to work out: Specialization Rules for Attributes; Duration of a Round; Distance Moved with Speed; How many Actions/Attacks can someone have.

Also, of course, an initiative system, equipment, a magic system, definitions for how these Attributes actually work, and so on.

The magic system is the HARDEST of all of those... So I'll take a stab at it next week!