[Channeling] Binding Demons and Spirits

[Brian_W]

Somehow, I completely failed to figure out a fairly major part of my game...
For what i have right now you can get a PDF of my notes at http://shadowedgames.awardspace.com/channeling.html
Channeling is a game where the players play characters that, while having no power themselves (beyond the channeling talent), can bind demons and channel that power into spells and effects. Part of the characters power is their stats, but the other part is the demon and spirits they have collected. I have most of the character attributes worked out, however, i completely forgot about how the characters actually bind demons. I can think of a few ideas, but not sure which i like, so i'm asking opinions...
Version 1: Characters can simply bind any demon or spirit they find. Thus, the limiting mechanic falls on the GM to limit what they find. Honestly, i don't like this one... i want binding to have some risk to it, but i figured i'd through this out there anyway.
Version 2: A set roll. Similar to above, but adds in a chance that they would fail to bind the spirit. Again, the limiting factor for power is what the GM lets them find. Not ideal, but at least there is an element of risk.
Version 3: A skill of Channeling, fitting inside the normal skill tree. This has the flaw that it would require characters to build up to it (Skills in my system are in a system of 4 tiers that are used together, so a given skill usually needs 3 others to work with it), but allows the character to affect how good they are at binding spirits.
Version 4: An attribute of Channeling. This seems to me to be the best. It would work similar to a skill in that it would generate a straight roll thats improvable by the character, but since it's not a skill, it can stand alone.

So... any ideas or does one of these work?

[Brian_W]

and... through my not paying enough attention... wrong forum. Doh. This was intended for First Thoughts....

[Pôl Jackson]

Hi Brian! Looks like your post has been transplanted to First Thoughts, so we're all good here.

Version 1: Characters can simply bind any demon or spirit they find. Thus, the limiting mechanic falls on the GM to limit what they find. Honestly, i don't like this one... i want binding to have some risk to it, but i figured i'd through this out there anyway.

I immediately liked this option, actually. It reminds me of an element of the Weather Warden books (by Rachel Caine). There are powerful spirits, the Djinn, that the Wardens seek to bind into their service. All that is required is to say, "I bind thee into my service" three times, and the Djinn is yours. Enslaving a Djinn increases both the Warden's and the Djinn's powers dramatically. Owning a Djinn is a status symbol, and a free Djinn is a rare find!

On the other hand, if Binding is done with a Channeling roll, then Channeling becomes the most important skill in the game. Why wouldn't I put all my points into my Channeling skill?

But before we get too deeply into this, I want to point out that each of these options changes the emphasis of your game.

• Version 1:  Binding is automatic. In that case, the main thrust of the game would be hunting and uncovering free demons and spirits, to corner and bind them. This could easily become a "player vs. player" game, as each character wants to get to the demon or spirit first. (This sounds like a lot of fun to me! But is it what you want?)
  
• Version 2:  There is a flat chance of failure in every binding. There's no inherent reason to work with others, but it's not necessarily a bad idea. After all, you may need friends for backup if the binding goes horribly wrong.
  
• Versions 3 & 4:  Binding is based on Skill  This certainly encourages character cooperation, I think. It's in every character's best interest to increase their Channelling skill, and the best way to do that is to team up. A channeler could strike out on her own, but she wouldn't gain experience as quickly as she would in a group.
  

And so, to answer the question of how Channeling should work in your game, we find ourselves looking back at the "Big Three" questions. What is the game about? What do the characters do? What do the players do?

Way back in March, you answered those questions:

1)  What is your game about?
The game is about a group of people (the players) who all share the relativly rare skill of channeling magic. In the world, Channelers are often feared and hunted, because of their rarity and supernatural way of working.

2)  What are the characters supposed to do?
The end goal of the game is determined by the players and/or GM, but it almost always involves their ability to channel. They could choose to use the power to help people, get money, hurt people they don't like, or just try to hide it. Or maybe they could hire themselves out to hunt other channelers...

3)  How do the players play the game?
The mechanics are primarily d20, but the character stats and abilities are completely different (the stats are much closer to a White Wolf style) and a completely different skill and spell system. The actual playing of the game would be similar to d20, just a simple adventure story that will probably be best suited for quasi-RP hack and slash campaigns, but hopefully allow real RP as well.

From these answers, it sounds like you definitely want the characters to be a cohesive group. In that case, versions two, three, or four might be your best options. Version one (binding is automatic) could still work, but you might want some in-game reason for characters to work with one another. (Perhaps binding generates "leftover" power, which can be absorbed by other channelers. Perhaps spirits travel in groups - one for everybody!) Also, you probably don't want to make it easy or desirable to "steal" a demon or a spirit from another party member.

It looks like your game has undergone some serious revisions since you wrote those. I'd be interested to see your current answers to the above three questions, perhaps in a new thread. The "Big Three" is really the first three of a larger set of questions, the "Power 19". I think you'd find it useful to look at those questions, as well.

- Pôl Jackson

P.S:  I like your website, by the way. Uncluttered and easy-to-read.

[Brian_W]

By my original ideas, i do think your right that 3rd or 4th would work best... but i'm starting to wonder how well this would work with a bit more player versus player in the game... unfortunetly, i have never played a game with any kind of encouraged PvP... any suggestions on some to look at to get an idea on how it works?

[Pôl Jackson]

By my original ideas, i do think your right that 3rd or 4th would work best... but i'm starting to wonder how well this would work with a bit more player versus player in the game... unfortunetly, i have never played a game with any kind of encouraged PvP... any suggestions on some to look at to get an idea on how it works?

I'll answer that, and then I have some further thoughts about this process.


Functional PvP Games
As far as "player vs. player" games go, I've heard good things about The Mountain Witch (http://www.timfire.com/MountainWitch.html). It's set up to encourage a slow building of trust between the characters, culminating in bloody betrayal. I also understand that Agon (http://www.agon-rpg.com/) encourages (even demands) one-upmanship between the players, even as the characters are working together as a group. I have yet to play either of those games, though.

My own play experiences with functional PvP games are fairly limited. Paranoia, of course, but I think that's best as a "one-shot" game. I've played a lot of the Amber Diceless RPG, which can range from either full-on PvP (a "Throne War" scenario) to full cooperation between the characters, with every flavor in-between. (Depends on the group, really.)

The important thing is that all the players are on-board and ready for that kind of play experience. A well-designed set of rules helps immensely, but you also need players who will enjoy the shared story - even if their own character does poorly. "Oh man, I can't believe you stole my demon and then pushed me off that cliff! That rocked!" There's a thread over in Actual Play where functional PvP is being discussed now:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=21712.0


Further Thoughts
Brian, I glanced over the other threads you started about Channeling, and I noticed a pattern. You begin with a design idea; someone suggests a different idea; you then abandon your original design, and grab the new one.

Not that this is bad! Often, it's another person who comes up with the Brilliant Idea that is a perfect fit for your game. It's perfectly OK to jettison old ideas and let new ones in.

Except in this case, I'm not convinced that you're grabbing the ideas that are best for your game. There are hundreds of fantastic ideas floating around the Forge, and I think that you're getting distracted by the possibilities. Your game is still in that nebulous, "could-be-anything" stage. You don't actually know which ideas are best for your game, because you don't yet know what your game is actually like.

Does that sound familiar? If it does, then take comfort; you are not alone. I know that I, personally, get inspired by whatever game I've played most recently, and I know that I'm not the only one. "That's a great mechanic! I wonder how I could fit it into my game?" It takes me a few days (or weeks!) before I can look at the Brilliant Idea critically, and evaluate it without bias.

That's why the Big Three questions are so important. (What is the game about? What do the characters do? What do the players do?) Does the Brilliant Idea support what the game is about? Does it support what the characters do? Does it support what the players do? Because if it doesn't, then it doesn't matter how brilliant the idea is... it doesn't belong in the game.

I get the feeling that your answers to the Big Three questions aren't really nailed down, yet. That's why you keep jumping from one idea to another; you don't have a solid idea of what it is you're trying to design. Getting comfortable with your Big Three answers takes time. If you're like me, you'll change your mind multiple times before you get answers that you're really happy with. You'll just have to trust me when I say: It's really worth it to start that process. Re-evaluate your Big Three answers, and focus on the aspects of the game that really excite you the most. Once you've done that, you'll have a solid foundation to build the rest of your game on. It'll be much easier to evaluate new ideas, because you'll know what your design goals are.


Of course, I could be completely wrong about everything I've written above. Perhaps you're perfectly happy with your vision of the game. In which case, no worries! We'll go ahead and talk about whatever it is you'd like to talk about.

In either case, I fear I've drifted you terribly off topic. Let's use this thread to talk about binding demons and spirits in Channeling. You can start a new thread to discuss PvP in Channeling or the Big Three questions, if you like.

[Brian_W]

Brian, I glanced over the other threads you started about Channeling, and I noticed a pattern. You begin with a design idea; someone suggests a different idea; you then abandon your original design, and grab the new one.

I have actually noticed this myself, as i was looking through my rules and found several different sections that were completely unconnected, from me changing how i wanted to do something after having written something else.

Currently, i am trying to straighten it out... part of why i keep absorbing suggestions is i actually have limited experience with RPGs other than D&D and White Wolf, so i'm partly still learning what an RPG can do.

On your suggestion, i will write out another Big Three... or maybe even the full Power 19... and this time, stick to it better...

And by the way, i loved your theoretical quote from PvP Channeling...

"Oh man, I can't believe you stole my demon and then pushed me off that cliff! That rocked!"