[Circle of Hands] Playtest: venture 2, the funeral

[Moreno R.]

I have a serious problem with mechanics based on "you can get this cool effect, but there is a 1% that the character die". As in... I never have seen a single one working.

If the risk is too little, and the powers too cool, what usually happen is that the players do it anyway, and you have a lot of characters that die senselessly, with the player that immediately rolls a new character because... that's the kind of game, now? The ones where you lose characters left and right for a single bad roll so you don't care a lot for them.

If instead the risk is too great, because the game makes you care about the characters, or because the risk is not worth it in terms of chances and coolness... you simply don't use these "cool" power, never, ever, and you could simply erase these pages from the game.

There is no middle ground, because these lines are personal, not objective, and the middle ground in this case sum both evils, it's the worse position.

What I have seen working is a very, very different kind of risk, like the one in Dogs in the Vineyard for example: you risk your character's life not when he "use a power" or when he does something boring, to avoid him from using boring parts of the game: the moment when you risk the character's like in DitV is when you can't allow a specific thing to happen, at any cost. It's tied to a very, very specific fictional situation, and it's the most dramatic moment of the game.

Circle of Hands already has a mechanic for these moments. It's the Oath

So, in brief: adding a chance of death on a power-up would have the following results in CoH, based on my experience with every other game that has these:
1) Most group would simply houserule them out of the game as "totally unfun" or because they add rolls and complications.
And in the group that don't remove them, you can have two other effects, depending on the specific risk and rewards:
2a) Nobody uses these spells, ever.
2b) Everybody uses these spells like before, and when the character die, who cares? You do another.

But talking about mechanics that instead tie specific fictional situation with powers, like oath...  some spells could be tied to an Oath. This would add sense to a oath (the way they are now, I would make oath all over the place and simply renounce them 5 minutes before the session end). NOT because then it would force you to follow the oaths or have chances to die if you don't fulfill them or something like that, but because you would have to say "I want this power to fight this specific person or group in this specific battle", and could not cast it "just in case"...

I still prefer my suggestion about having a certain number of spells not expiring, because I see no sense in having spells and then forcing people to avoid using them, but tying a spell to a certain kinds of oath would permit to limit their use to a specific fictional situation and remove the problems of a numeric duration (as in "x rounds, begin to count..."), because the duration would be "until the fight is over"...

[Nyhteg]

Excellent. I follow your points, Moreno, although at the moment I'm not 100% certain I agree with them.

The inference I'm reading from what you've posted (I'll probably mess up what you actually mean, but just to keep the conversation going...) is that:
1. If it's too risky, players won't use a feature;
2. PCs should be basically be free to cast away and pile up points and Tallies because...magic is there to be cast, otherwise why have the spells?

I appreciate I may be stating either or both of those more extremely than you actually are, but my response to what I think I'm reading is:

1. Yes, too much blind or unearned risk can spoil things. But 'risk of death' is part of the point of the game, isn't it? I mean, we know combat in this game is brutal so why enter combat at all if a character dying is a problem? Done carefully, I don't think that factor is an obstacle to fun.
2. And I feel this strongly: Characters are practicing Grey Magic.
Constantly loading up in a single colour should come at a significant cost. Balance between black and white should have a distinct benefit in terms of living longer. You don't have to...and it' super interesting when you don't...but there's a clear and present risk.

Your experience tells you that dying on a single die roll sucks. Can't argue with that. It does.
Except I'm suggesting this 'kill me roll' should never just happen on its own.
There is a run up of consistent prior actions that have now made death likely or possible if another step is taken.

My previous post was extreme on the "cast it and die angle" but I do think the principle is correct and if we just pretend that was how it worked - ie under specific, player-created circumstances, casting a particular spell might or will have dire consequences - I actually believe play would come out far more like DiTV than you suggest.
Because of how much prior emphasis a player has placed on spells of one colour, the character can now risk their life on a single roll if they decide to.
So... With that situation given and understood, you don't risk your character's life...unless it really matters, right?
If a character is running 8:1 in favour of Amboriyon, all that's required is a black spell and the danger is over for a while.
You nevertake that potentially devastating action without knowing what all the risks are up front.

Which is absolutely not the same as 'this spell always carries a chance that you will die'. Which sucks.

I'm actually kind of expecting Ron to come in any time soon and say "Guys, step down, I've got this...", but I just know it's really interesting to explore these issues together, so I'm happy to keep chatting if you are. :)

I think my current point of view can be summarised as follows:
Just as CoH combat comes with a major health warning, the label on spell casting read: Handle With Care - Contents May Explode If Shaken.

G

[John W]

I agree that the idea that magic use has consequences is central to this game.  The tallies (and side-effects) were meant to be the main consequence, but I think they have turned out to be more attractive to players than perhaps was intended.

I don't like the risk of death options either.  Random character death never feels good.

The main remaining consequences to having colour points and tallies are in dealing directly with Amboriyon and Rjaba zones and beings.  They're not fresh in my mind right now, but things like: certain creatures will act more aggressively towards characters with tallies or the most colour points of one of the colours.  And, spellcasting near a zone is more risky?  I don't have time to re-read it right now.  But maybe these consequences need to be amped up.

In addition, the side effects of gaining tallies should definitely put one at an extra disadvantage to C vs.12 rolls.  People can see that you have gone far down the path, maybe both paths, and you scare them, the same way a wild-eyed guy with prison tattoos and needle tracks scares us.

And I like some of your other, not-insta-death options, Gethyn.

-J

[John W]

Your latest post came in while I was typing mine. :)

I think the point is that risking death on a single roll is fun (i.e. dramatic) if the PC consciously decides "this issue is so important to me personally that I am willing to risk my life to do what's right."  Then, even if the PC dies, they feel that they have done the right thing, the player is happy to have created a perfect, dramatic death scene, and in-game the character's action may even inspire others and turn the tide of mob opinion. 

But if on an arbitrary roll the PC gets unlucky and finally feels the consequences of many days of magic use, he says "oh well I guess I had that coming," and it makes a certain amount of sense, but it isn't fun.

Sure, risk can accumulate.  But can we think of a more fun (and thematic) outcome than death?  Like: the risk accumulates of also summoning an Amboriyon or Rjaba being when you cast a spell.  Or the risk of creating a zone when you cast or use a tally power.  Or, when you cast a black spell, the risk of losing the ability to cast white spells until sundown/sun-up (and vice-versa).

I agree, we're engaged in armchair game design and not playtesting, but... :)

-J

[Nyhteg]

>>But if on an arbitrary roll the PC gets unlucky and finally feels the consequences of many days of magic use,
>>he says "oh well I guess I had that coming," and it makes a certain amount of sense, but it isn't fun.

Hm. I know what you're saying, but to my eye, that would actually suggest a player's lack of engagement with the game.
It's not "oh well, shucks, I guess I had it coming" but "meh, I've got all these tallies and I'm almost maxed out on that colour but...this spell is so cool and...I could die but...ah screw it, whatever,  I'm casting it anyway..." I'm not saying the death-mechanic is right, but not caring if your character dies in the first place would be the problem there.

And just the be clear, I know it might seem like I'm pushing insta-death as the only true way, but I don't. I keep mentioning it simply because that's how I started talking as a for-instance. It's not a religion or anything.

I think the actual touchstone is the "Serious Health Warning" aspect (with Grey Magic as the answer to that) rather than Sudden Death being the best or only bad consequence available.

Your suggestions have a lot of potential I think and definitely hold to the spirit of that. I like the loss of spell casting ability one in particular. :)

G

[Moreno R.]

Ron is at Forge Midwest now (there a pictures of him on G+ playtesting GoH there) so we can freely abuse his forum until he returns...  :-)

But I think I have already said what I wanted to say at this point about these issues, before continuing I would like to get Ron's feedback.

But the more I think about it, the more turning some spell into Oaths (and turning the Oath's effect from a bland numerical bonus into some cool power) makes sense to me...

(ADDED to having longer-duration spells that you don't need to cast again and again and again.. I still like that idea. Another way to get it to work could be having them as enchantment, changing the rule into having B "blocked", and not spent and lost, when you enchant something....)

[John W]

Some day I will go to Forge Midwest, some day...

[Ron Edwards]

There's a lot to review in the thread, and many variables to consider, based on my weekend's playtesting as well as the experiences discussed in this thread. For example, deciding whether Sacrifice is broken numerically or too difficult to enforce in fictional terms (killing the creature). More generally, whether tweaking the details of various spells to make them more consistent, or adjusting fundamental concepts like the distinction between prolonged spells vs. enchantment.

The tally issue is very important and deserves a discussion of its own. Briefly, they are not intended to be disincentives, but merely to boost play into different level of consequence. The current rules for the Amboriyon/Rbaja zones are terrible, however.