Hi folks,
I have recently put together the Henbane PDF http://www.ookytentacles.com/Henbane.htmland would like to get your take on it.
Henbane is a witty take on shakespearian witchcraft. It's has grandiose faustian themes with a lot of spite and trouble-making thrown in. Players play witches, not nature worshipping pagans, but real witches - with familiars and black capes, and evil plans. I asked myself: If Tim Burton was to direct an adaptation of Macbeth, with the screenplay written by Niel Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, what would that kind of game be like? Henbane is what I came up with.
At its heart Henbane is about the temptation of power and how giving in to that temptation creates trouble. Trouble, which leads to further temptation to use that same power, again, to get out of trouble - which leads to even greater trouble!
Its also about detestable wickedness - old fashioned, melodramatic, silly evil. And it turns out that kind of evil can be fun to role-play!
It started out as visual concept based on 16th century woodcuts(I am an illustator/designer by day) but I couldn't get the mechanics to work. I shelved it, and later showed it to Joe Prince (Contenders, Swansong) who liked it and encouraged me to continue with it. He also suggested the Tarot for the resolution, which worked out rather with the setting.
In particular I would love feedback about the escalation mechanics which tie into the tarot suits - any holes?
Of course any other feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks,
Chad
I'm ... I'm very confused.
All the good stuff in this is the stuff that happens when the Witches aren't there, right? When Macbeth believes their lies and therefore goes and kills the King. The Witches weren't there. They didn't even force him to it. They just laid the seeds of destruction, and he watered and tended them because of his own human weakness.
So ... uh ... how is this supposed to happen in the game?
It seems to me that you have plenty of rules for witches to stab someone, or poison them, or push them off a cliff ... and precious few rules that tell you how to tempt someone else to stab someone, or poison them, or push them off a cliff.
Have I misunderstood?
Hi Tony,
I think that kind of manipulation would come about through role-play and agenda setting. As the rules stand they encourage conflict - but stabbing and poisoning certainly are not favored as such. Rather violent activity as at the very top of the conflict stepping order, because its the most dangerous. What the rules do, is tempt players to engage in an ever increasing level of conflict that will bring down more trouble, by making it a seductive, but destructive, to turn it up a notch.
Its not about role-playing Macbeth as such, rather its a comedic interpretation of the of Shakespearian notions of witchcraft, in which player assume the roles of witches.
You are right, however, that there need to be more explicit rewards or rules encouraging PC's to provoke others to do evil - any thoughts?
Best,
Chad
Chad,
I like this a lot. You're using a very Dogs-like mechanic, which is fine (always steal from good games).
I'm slightly worried about the escalation system, though. What's to stop me always "escalating" the conflict to whichever card I want to play at that moment? I worry that, rather than actually escalating the conflict, this will have the effect of making the conflict jump from Wits to Gall to Wits to Gall to Craft to Wits...do you see what I mean? Or can I only escalate the conflict one way - does it say this in the text?
Can I change the terms of the conflict in the middle of a hand? If one player plays a "Wits" card, can I immediately escalate to "Gall", or must I wait until the beginning of the next hand?
The other thing that worries me slightly is that there isn't much payback for escalating the conflict. In Dogs, you get fallout, which means that if you escalate to gunplay, you're more likely to have a fatality. In this, Consequences are slightly weaker, which makes it hard to see why I shouldn't always escalate a conflict.
And why are you making me buy a Tarot deck to play your game?
The game is looking good, though, and well written. I hope it goes well.
(Would it be churlish of me to point out that many scholars think that Thomas Middleton wrote the witches in Macbeth?)
Graham
Hi Graham,
Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And DiV has been a big influence on Henbane.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on April 10, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
Chad,
I'm slightly worried about the escalation system, though. What's to stop me always "escalating" the conflict to whichever card I want to play at that moment? I worry that, rather than actually escalating the conflict, this will have the effect of making the conflict jump from Wits to Gall to Wits to Gall to Craft to Wits...do you see what I mean? Or can I only escalate the conflict one way - does it say this in the text?
Yeah, escalation is one way only - once you step up, you can try to de-escalate by going back down to Gall from Craft, in terms of character actions - but the native conflict cards no longer beat all other cards.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on April 10, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
Can I change the terms of the conflict in the middle of a hand? If one player plays a "Wits" card, can I immediately escalate to "Gall", or must I wait until the beginning of the next hand?
A conflict consist out of rounds, so you cant escalate in the middle of a round of cards, because everyone stated their intentions for the upcoming round and the cards are revealed simultaneously. The highest narrates the resolution of the round taking the compared results into account - describing progress toward the conflict agenda (or reversals).
To escalate, you simply state your intention to step up your actions to say, Craft based activity, from Gall for the
next round of cards. But your agenda needs to be altered from "I convince the Innkeeper that Goodwife Mary is trafficking with evil spirits" to an appropriate Craft based agenda relating to the current conflict. However, once you have opened that can of worms there is no going back. If you start working witchery in front of the Innkeeper, it had better work because it's the 16th century and people get burnt at even the whisper of witchcraft.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on April 10, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
The other thing that worries me slightly is that there isn't much payback for escalating the conflict. In Dogs, you get fallout, which means that if you escalate to gunplay, you're more likely to have a fatality. In this, Consequences are slightly weaker, which makes it hard to see why I shouldn't always escalate a conflict.
To thought the fallout is implicit in the setting, because paranoia and fear of witches is rampant. Everyone believes witches are the cause of all their misery (they might be right in Henbane). Discovery of the witches identity brings immediate torture and burning.
What I was hoping to create, is the kind of game play, in which players are tempted, constantly driven, to reveal their true nature, or use their power, only to suffer the worst consequences. A witch escalates to Craft from Gall, and an episode of intimidation or lying becomes one of sorcery, which is met with torches and pitchforks (escalated to swords). Once its a swords conflict no more escalation is possible, because swords(hand) is at the top of the conflict ladder. The witches can try some magic to get out of it and step down to craft again, but the native cards rule is disabled and its stays a swords conflict for the angry mob...Make sense?
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on April 10, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
And why are you making me buy a Tarot deck to play your game?
The tarot is cool! and it enhances the arcane quality of the setting - not to mention the Beseeching mechanics require interpretation of the major arcana cards, to allow players to introduce plot elements or characters.
Quote from: Graham Walmsley on April 10, 2006, 03:05:44 AM
The game is looking good, though, and well written. I hope it goes well.
(Would it be churlish of me to point out that many scholars think that Thomas Middleton wrote the witches in Macbeth?)
Thanks, and right you are, about Middleton. I think I need to tone down the Macbeth connection somewhat anyway. I think those kinds of associations will automatically be made, and might cause confusion that its a game about Macbeth, which its not. Rather its a humorous spin on popular mythology around medieval witchcraft.
Cheers,
Chad
Quote from: Chad on April 10, 2006, 05:48:16 AM
I think I need to tone down the Macbeth connection somewhat anyway.
Awww ... but I was so looking forward to referring to it, in a low tone of superstitious dread, as "The Scottish Game."
Quote from: Chad on April 10, 2006, 05:48:16 AM
What I was hoping to create, is the kind of game play, in which players are tempted, constantly driven, to reveal their true nature, or use their power, only to suffer the worst consequences. A witch escalates to Craft from Gall, and an episode of intimidation or lying becomes one of sorcery, which is met with torches and pitchforks (escalated to swords). Once its a swords conflict no more escalation is possible, because swords(hand) is at the top of the conflict ladder. The witches can try some magic to get out of it and step down to craft again, but the native cards rule is disabled and its stays a swords conflict for the angry mob...Make sense?
Ah...
Yes, that does make sense, and that's nice.
Graham
Oh yes, Graham
It occurs to me that it would be simple to use regular playing cards instead of tarot. One assigns the card suites to the Aspects Hand, Gall, Craft and Sword. You wouldn't be able to use the Beseeching mechanics to introduce plot elements, which is fun - but should work.
Cheers,
Chad
I seriously think you need a Discovery mechanic. Some way in which the next conflict automatically becomes "Hephzibah is found guilty of withcraft." It needs to be tied to the escalation mechanic in some way, so that the mechanics reflect the color text. In other words, there should be no chance with Wits or Gall, a small chance with Craft, and a larger chance with Hand.
Also, there are many old books on card-reading that include the significance of a regular deck of playing cards -- at which point you could have a "conflicts" deck and a "beseeching" deck, as long as the two decks are visually distinct.
Quote(Would it be churlish of me to point out that many scholars think that Thomas Middleton wrote the witches in Macbeth?)
Sorry to divert from discussion of the game for a moment, but this caught my eye.
I think it would be more accurate to say that many scholars suspect the songs that appear in 3.5 and 4.1 to be by Middleton since songs with the same opening phrases appear in a draft of Middleton's
The Witch (c. 1613). It's true that some scholars have suggested that Middleton may have written and added all of 3.5 and perhaps parts of 4.1 on the grounds that they depart stylistically from the rest of the play, but that argument isn't particularly strong given that a much earlier play by Shakespeare like
Midsummer contains sections that are very different stylistically from the rest of the play (cf. the opening of 2.1, Robin's speech in 2.2, Oberon and Robin in 3.2 etc.)
Pedantry hat off now.
So far the game looks very spiffy. I would need to playtest it first to see if it needs the Discovery mechanic Mark mentions. The good news is that it piqued my interest enough that I just might try to get some folks together to play this! If I do I'll be sure to post feedback for you.
Cheers,
Eric
Hi Eric, Mark
I think the discovery mechanic you suggest is a very interesting possibility. Some way in which the true identity is obscured or revealed, maybe a suspicion score of sorts that gets eroded every time a witch does something suspect. A check would happen to see if she is discovered, that kind of thing. Will think about it, probably there is a more elegant way of doing it.
Thanks for the interest! and I would glad for your feedback after playing a game - just give me a shout and I will include any playtester names in the credits.
Cheers,
Chad
I just read through the game and I'm very, very excited to try it out with my local group. Especially a Wyrding scene invented off of a card reading...yes! I envision it as a kind of anti-Dogs town creation. Instead of "What's wrong?" it would be "What could we make wrong?" cackle, cackle.
I enthusiastically second the motion for a discovery mechanic. Then, the risk would be made much more palpable to the players, and the boundaries would be much clearer. I'd like to see some kind of rules "wire" being "tripped" as a consequence of Dramatic Encounter resolution, myself. An eroding number would give the player the abillity to play it very safe, and the risk would be lessened.
Hi Chris,
Great to hear you are keen on giving the game a whirl!
I agree about the eroding suspicion score, its a bit safe. There needs to be more tension - I like the trip wire analogy, and have been thinking about Mark's suggestion that it be tied into the escalation. That makes a lot of sense. It also needs to be explosive, so there a serious sense of risk during that kind of escalation. I have some solutions in mind, but they seem a bit dry and mathematical. Hopefully some more testing will bring creative solutions to mind.
BTW, before playing - Its become clear to me that the starting Aspect points as well as the max Aspect score is a bit too low. Instead of 1-6 the, Aspects should range from 1-8 (or thereabouts). Starting points should be around 18, rather than 12. I am still figuring out the exact numbers.
Low aspect scores could lead to players running our of cards during a conflict. The stop-gap rule has been; draw a single card to play, if your run out of cards - play or fold, until the conflict is over. This should happen very rarely, but there needs to be rule for it.
Cheers,
Chad
I've actually been thinking about a discovery mechanic for Henbane today, and I think I've come up with something:
If the Good Father (yes, yes, or Good Mother) wins a round in Craft with the King or Queen (of Pentacles/Diamonds) or wins a round in Hand with a court card (Page, Knight, Queen, or King of Swords/Spades), the conflict immediately shifts to "Is the witch discovered?"
Or, if you want it less risky, you could make it King in Craft and King or Queen in Hand. This would mean that the witches can sometimes tell that they have no chance of being discovered, which is perhaps not a bad thing...
(Hearts/Cups, Diamonds/Pentacles, Clubs/Wands, Spades/Swords is the usual way to match suits)
Heh. I just realized that the mechanic is trick-taking, like bridge or whist. So the rounds are actually tricks, and the conflicts are hands of cards.
Very keen - I'm excited about this one and will try to get my group to give it a whirl.
Here's my top-of-mind idea for the suspicion mechanic. After the players draw their cards - keeping the cards secret - they must pass any Face cards to the Good Parent, face-down, so their fellow players cannot see. The players are given new cards to replace the face cards.
The Good Parent holds the cards in a separate "discovery" hand.
At an appropriate round in the game, the Good Parent may play a Discovery card of the proper Suit before playing their normal card. There must be a Townsperson of the appropriate type involved in the conflict: A child, a youth, a woman, a man, for page, knight, queen and king. If the Good Parent wins the hand, the Witches are discovered - if the Good Parent loses the hand, the possibility for discovery still exists so long as that Townsperson draws breath.
Why I like this: First, it adds some intraplayer conflict and suspicion. If I know I passed the Good Father a Queen of Swords, I'm not going to lift a hand against women throughout the game - and I might try to maneuver a fellow player who has crossed me earlier in the game into escalating against one. I think the Dark Forces would relish this, as they naturally want the witches to die before their familiars do (nullifying the contract and lien against the witch's soul).
Second, it gives a really good reason for the players to escalate to Hands against the Discoverer, which of course means the likelihood of a bloodier outcome.
Just a thought. I don't know enough about odds and the like to say whether this would unbalance the game in Discovery's favor, but I think it's thematically apropos.
Gosh, both those ideas seem rather good.
What I like about your idea Mark is that the players can tell, if they have the right cards in their hand. What worries me though, is what if the witches start doing some truly obvious witch stuff in front of the goodly. If the GF has no Kings or Queens, does he pretend that they don't notice if the witches are conjuring hellfire in the town square? Have I understood correctly?
And I like the whole deductive player suspicion thing with yours Ivan. That could be a lot of fun - it has that 'host a murder' mystery element, because one or more players will know which cards are in the discovery hand. But the problem is similar, what if the players engage in some obvious witchy stuff - but you don't have the right towns person in the discovery hand or in the scene?
An option I have been thinking about is a variation of Marks idea: If the conflict is escalated to Craft (pentacles) or Hand (swords), or if the PC's do something overtly suspicious, the GF draws a card (possibly more depending of the seriousness of the situation)- if its a king or queen the agenda becomes "are the witches discovered?". But, Ivan's secret discovery cards, do seem to add a bit of spice to things - which makes me wonder if there isn't a clever way to combine the two...
Cheers,
Chad
Chad,
Well, I was assuming that if the witches weren't careful then the consequences mechanic would kick in, even if there wasn't a required discovery conflict. One of the consequences listed is, "The Sherriff of Willowsbridge finds Jarmara suspect. +1," which I wouldn't change. That's the roleplaying part of the game.
Another way to tweak it is to use the trumps rather than face cards in your version of the escalation draw, indicating that Wyrd Shitte is happening -- It could be something good, it could be something bad, they'll just have to push the button to find out.
Also remember that the GF or players can add people to the narration if they have narrating rights. Which brings up something else. Progress on their agenda goes to the winner of the round (trick), but "the highest card is also leads the story telling." This means that you could have someone deliberately play "off-suit" to gain narration rights in spite of the fact that that means they don't get to make progress towards their goal. Now, I see this as a feature rather than a bug (other than the stray "is" in the text), but I want to make sure that you intended it that way.
Again, I like the idea as it stands, but I want to make sure you know that's what the text is saying.
Ah, OK I see it now. To be honest, it was a silly oversight. I didn't take the trumps into account - assuming that the highest card would always be winner, and therefor have narration.
No matter - happy accident! And it really makes the discovery mechanic, much more dynamic. Because as you say, it can go either, based on who is narrating. Another nice element is that your method's threat level scales in proportion to the GF hand. Which makes total sense because he would be drawing more cards based on the dramatic potential of the scene - so its built in. And your right about the consequence mechanic kicking in - so feedback is immediate.
Tres cool.
As to "not having the proper person on the scene ..."
Any witchfynder worth his salt is going to be more than capable of hiding in bushes, skulking nearby, etc etc. I had seen this as a "sudden reveal," in which once the witches escalate (say) to Craft, the GF plays a card and narrates a dark figure detaching itself from the shadows of the wood to denounce them for their wyckeddnesse, or a child's gasp at the edge of hearing followed by the sound of rapidly retreating footsteps.
It's my opinion that if you do put in a mechanical discovery option, you ought to strip out the roleplaying option; which means that yeah, there's a chance the witches could be throwing around bolts of hellfire under Reverend Ezekiel's nose and he just doesn't see it. What if, as suggested by your Escalation Draw, the GF draws an extra number of cards equal to the level of escalation? So when they use Wits, the GF gets one extra card, Guile 2, Craft 3, Hand 4. That mechanically ramps up the odds of being discovered every time the witches do any "Wyrd Shitte," which is now officially my favorite chapter heading or band name ever, Mark.
I like the idea of using Trumps in this draw as well.
A question that I may have missed in the text:
Let's say I put down a 5 of disks, and a 3 of swords. If disks is trump, do these cards beat, for example, a six of disks?
Sorry if I missed something,
Chris
That's right, Chris. The cards stack in value. If a trump is one of the cards played during the round the, native conflict card rule kicks in - effectively making your 5 of discs an 8 of discs because of the + 3 of swords.
Cheers,
Chad
Ivan,
I see your point about the 'sudden reveal' dynamic - makes perfect sense to me. Even if the witchfynder, just happened to stumble across the business, or whatever. One thing about the draw mechanic that attracts me too (even though Marks is more integrated) is that it can be triggered during Wit and Gall conflicts in the same way as with Craft and Hand. Also it has more immediate sense of anxiety when its activated, where the face card has more of a surprise element - only the GF knows. However if a face card is used for the discovery signifier, then, knowing that the queen of pentacles is in a players hand the coven can conjure the Dark Stranger himself right in front of Reverend Ezekiel - knowing full well that they wont be discovered. I think trumps would be a lot riskier, in a good way...
Totally agree. I'd go with the Trumps.
So, what I'm reading as the new mechanic (and correct me if I'm wrong) is roughly as follows:
Any time a Dramatic encounter occurs, the GF pulls a discovery card from the trumps deck (the same deck that is used for Beseeching Intervention &c.). If the conflict escalates, the GF pulls another card for each level of escalation.
At a dramatically appropriate time, and only when the GF has narrating rights, the GF reveals a personality trump as a person who has discovered the Witches' secrets. The Personality Trumps are The Fool, The Magician, The High Priestess, The Emperor, The Empress, The Heirophant, The Hermit, and The Hanged Man.
Now, that's eight out of twenty-two cards. I'd suggest that it should be draw one card for craft and two for hand, just to be vaguely fair to the players. I'd also note that the trumps are great for choosing consequences if there isn't clarity about what the consequence of the Dramatic encounter should be.
Oh! no, that's not what I meant with trumps. I meant trumps in the sense that its used in whist - being any suit that beats (trumps) all other cards. So during a Craft conflict the trumps would be pentacles, and during a hand conflict the trumps would be the swords cards. So the if players have a whole bunch of pentacles in their hands they know the odds are less of a 'trumping' or winning native conflict card being drawn in the discovery draw - leading to 'wyrd shitte' (I am using that term in the text Mark. Its really good). With the face card option - if they have it in hand they know with 100% certainty that they can go undiscovered. See what I mean?
Actually, knowing they can go undiscovered, with certainty, could be a lot of fun - and might suit the games tone really well. I worry that the players might come across the face cards early on in the game and hold on to them, safe in the knowledge that can wreak havoc without discovery.
I think the best way to find out is during play. So, methinks I shall play-test both ways this coming weekend to see which one is the most enjoyable!
Cool. Thanks for clearing that up. Now I just need to see if I can get this played.
OK, the new version of the Henbane (http://www.ookytentacles.com/Henbane.html) rules are up. It includes the provisional discovery mechanic. The way Arts work have been altered greatly - the stacking rule was creating havoc. Too much handling time and other serious complications. The art now grants a draw instead of a stacking card play.
Cheers,
Chad