[Compass Gods] No Snappy Thread Title Today

[Filip Luszczyk]

I playtested Compass Gods with Jacek and Kamil. We've been playing via Skype, marking coins and stuff this way. The game lasted for over three hours, though rules discussions ate maybe a half or so of that.

I like the game, since it seems like one of possible ways to do Exalted right to me. It reminds me of my old Exalted heartbreaker concept - one which suffered from needless rules complexity, though. In our playtest, the main problem was that apparently we didn't fully grok the intended playstyle. Also, we did some things plain wrong. Nevertheless, I think quite a lot of rules issues got exposed.

Keep in mind the playtest was sponsored by Polish Demolition Squad. Obviously, I'm focusing on problems encountered.

It doesn't seem like the playtest document communicates the intended way of playing the game all that well. Our habits from other games were getting in the way, too. Also, we've been playing somewhat loose and it certainly affected the game. After the playtest, we can see how we should have paid much more attention to details, keeping things more specific. A lot of our input was way too general. Distracted by rules discussions, we didn't always keep the overall continuity in mind. As a result the story came out somewhat inconsistent. I suppose we could do better next time, now that we know how the thing works.

Kamil was somewhat confused as to what he could actually do and had problems with getting how the rules work. Explaining stuff to him was somewhat difficult and he commented it's all pretty unintuitive. He had a hard time coming up with effects, too, even though he didn't experience such a block in Illumination, which uses concept-based freeform effects as well. I find his troubles strange, as I've been playing a lot of different games with him, including much more complicated stuff. Dunno, maybe he had a bad day.

Jacek liked the game a lot. He seemed to especially enjoy the flashback option, using it as often as he could. It turned out much more attractive than I initially though it would. However, I have this impression Jacek was adding a whole lot of stuff that didn't really interact with mine or Kamil's input all that much. It seems he was focusing on fleshing out his character's backstory rather than the setting. Also, we had a discussion on how much stuff could actually be added in a single flashback, and Kamil mentioned that without clear limits players might try to use them as an opportunity for unconstrained input, affecting the game more than they really should (we pointed out flashbacks need to relate to what the coin was spent for, but I'm not sure it fully addresses his issue).

As for our setting, Jacek suggested that the palace was a high-tech underground metropolis and we sticked to that idea. The concept we came up with were Machine, Soul, Sky and Money. A number of possible Marks were proposed and we settled on mutable, living tattoos.

I wonder about the procedure for establishing concepts. It seems to me that depending on the number of players, the distribution can be quite uneven. In a two player game, I'd go for two concepts defined by the GM and the other two by the player, for example. If there are more than four players, someone doesn't get to establish the concept, which might be problematic.

However, I wonder whether there needs to be rigid distribution in the first place. Couldn't the group simply brainstorm the concepts and pick four that everyone is cool about?

We weren't sure whether the players should come up with some general character concepts, but since there was nothing about it in the document, we decided to start with none. Just some demigod guys covered in living tattoos, with no pasts, faces or names.

In practice, it proved a bit problematic as the scope of blank coins usage was a bit fuzzy. For example, we've been wondering whether it should be possible to name a character without spending a blank coin. The same goes for establishing their appearance, equipment and stuff. Can the player just state his character carries a bazooka around or is it something that requires spending a blank?

All in all, our general conclusion was that the prep is insufficient. However, I'm not perfectly certain about that. Possibly, we'd have to play it again to say for sure.

It took the players, especially Kamil, a while before they got a handle on using blank coins. For example, Kamil complained he had no reason to care about stuff at first – even though he had four blanks available to introduce those reasons. I think it needs to be clearly spelled in the game document that at the beginning the players should try to spend blanks to give their characters more shape and purpose.

Possibly, an option to turn one or two coins to blank side after the initial cast could be useful. It would ascertain that everyone has means to immediately establish those few basic facts needed to give the game more direction. It seems it currently takes a while before the characters get differentiated (unless we got the character creation wrong, that is).

Another thing is, I had some problems coming up with situations and NPCs. Again, it might be because of the initial confusion with blanks. However, I think having an additional thing to bounce one's imagination from could be good. Maybe some sort of formula for creating scenes and NPCs? Possibly tied to four concepts somehow?

Maybe establishing concrete sides of the world-spanning conflict would be enough. A single faction per direction, with a leader and goal defined during setting creation? Or, maybe there could be some kind of predefined matrix for the political situation, e.g. four ways to approach the death of the empress, one of which would get assigned to each direction? Maybe each compass point could have some fixed role in the initial situation?

We weren't sure whether it's OK to use blank coins to establish facts about NPCs when the NPC is not present in the scene or if it doesn't include one's character. Also, could a blank coin be spent to make a statement about a whole group of NPCs (i.e. Jacek wanted to define the religion for an encountered tribe of nomads – we went with that, and it seemed to work cool), or about an implicit NPC who wasn't formally introduced yet and described by the GM, but could be there (i.e. actually establishing the existence of an NPC with a coin – in some scenes, I just didn't explicitly introduce an NPC that was needed to the player)?

Since the core conflict was sketchy, the players quickly turned their characters against themselves. Now, we weren't perfectly sure how to deal with inter-player conflicts, especially when it comes to the interaction of powers. Occasionally, timing was tricky, too – once they started acting against one another, it suddenly became important who did his declared stuff first. It led to players trying to shout their actions past one another. I don't really think the game needs rigid initiative rules, as unless it comes to inter-player conflict the timing of actions can simply be discussed, but this thing should probably be addressed somehow.

Also, we had some fact-battles. Several times, I was effectively blocked as a GM, since the player kept introducing fact after fact to secure his position. Also, at one point the players struggled to take control over the situation by adding facts about an NPC. Note that they were often very proactive with their coin spending.

Overall, we basically played it in a “say yes or spend the coin” mode. The rules weren't used sparingly – we've been turning to them after nearly every single piece of input. Now, I think this actually worked well. What was more problematic was that our input was too general and we didn't focus on the details of particular situations strong enough. This led to occasional confusion as to what to do next.

Oh, and come to think of it players weren't asking questions about the environment – we kind of assumed that the GM is powerful in the game as the primary “world provider” and player's creative input is somewhat limited unless backed up with coins, but we forgot about some basic stuff that makes such approach work. As said earlier, habits from other games were getting in the way. Really, it's like we totally forgot that in some games, even though they can't actively add or demand stuff, players are entitled to freely ask the GM questions about their surroundings

We had a tricky situation when Jacek wanted to make an NPC Kamil character's lover. It effectively meant introducing a fact about another player character. Since the NPCs gender wasn't stated yet, but it was implicit he was a man, we weren't sure whether a coin could be used to make it the other way. If not, it would equal defining Kamil's character as homosexual, and he didn't want that.

At the beginning, Kamil wanted to spend a blank coin to declare the crew of an airship dying from their wounds. I allowed that, though not being sure how legit it was.

We were somewhat confused by the duration and scope of power effects. Take the examples like “birds can talk now” or “the nation is barren” - they sound quite permanent. Would they require spending coins permanently? If not, how long should effects like that last?

Also, my big mistake was that I forgot about the rule that permanent effects can't be tied to the character. Kamil permanently spent his Sould coins to turn his character ethereal and later he spent his Money coins to establish he had vast material resources at his disposal. Both turned problematic, but I think that even if we made it the right way, we'd have issues with determining how much could be achieved with permanent effects. Should the permanent stuff have a fairly defined and specific use or should there rather be some flexibility? For example, if I craft the ring of etherealness, can I use it only to become immaterial, or can I be more creative with its later use and, say, declare I'm instantly transported to the other side of the world, since I'm no longer bound by material space? Kamil suggested that if both permanent and flexible effects were possible, permanently spending coins would be overpowered (i.e. it wouldn't really narrow one's options with the power, but at the same time the power would always be available regardless of how the coins fell down).

Kamil was spending his coins permanently twice and both times, he had no spent coins he could add the sticker to. What happens in such cases? Is the player limited to picking consequences, or is it possible to add the sticker to one of the unused coins?

Also, is it OK if the player adds the new sticker to the very coin he is spending or are only those spent before available for that purpose?

Jacek wanted to use his Soul coin to give Kamil's character a vision of events happening in the palace – but it seemed like establishing such a fact would rather require spending a blank for a flashback. This made us wonder how concepts like Time or Destiny would work in the game.

At one point, Jacek used his Sky coin to bring a storm on a behemoth. It was stated that the beast was colossal – i.e. only a part of it was visible due to the horizon. We weren't sure how the area of effect rules should interact with it (i.e. it was a single target, but definitely outside immediate vicinity scale) and whether a storm big enough to affect it could be created. Next, Jacek spent his blank coin to decide that the awakened behemoth was his character's airship – which was an awesome idea and all, but we weren't sure whether turning an NPC into an object like that should be allowed.

We only reached two coin effects, as Kamil kept getting a lot of blank coins. Jacek re-cast his coins several times, though, getting lots of stickers – but he kept choosing consequences instead of new stickers.

Now when it comes to consequences, I felt somewhat weird coming up with them. At the beginning, when we didn't have enough context to invent consequences that actually hurt the character. Later, however, the main problem for me was that when I had to create a consequence, I felt it was just too open. I could do screw up the characters as much as I wanted, the players helpless about it. I think it would work better, for me at least, if the potential consequence was defined before choosing between it or a new sticker. That way, the player would always have an option not to accept too harsh consequences.

Also, we weren't sure whether the consequences could affect other characters and whether they could be effectively mitigated with later coin use. Both issues are tricky, I think.

I wasn't sure how strongly I could really threaten the characters. For example, I started the game by describing how Kamil's character falls down from an airship's balloon, during an aerial battle. He declared that indeed, he falls down several thousand feet. Later, when a burning airship was falling into his direction, he just took it on his chest. We weren't sure whether there was any risk of death involved. The rules state the character dies when the player permanently spends his last coin, but should it be read as “dies only” or “can also die”? “Dies only” would effectively mean only a great sacrifice could result in character dying (i.e. one obviously needs a really good story reason to spent your last coins permanently), which could be interesting in a way. However, if it's not “can also die”, the GM's ability to create adversity for the players would be severely limited.

Otherwise, I wasn't sure whether the fall from mere few thousand feet was sufficient to injure the character or how the injuries should actually affect the game. I imagine I could use injury as a good reason to say “no, you can't” to the player, but hey, I can do it anyway for any reason anyway, can't I?

Well, I know it's all a bit chaotic, but I think I managed to cover everything important. If you need more information about something, ask questions

[Filip Luszczyk]

Oh yeah, one more thing. At one point, Kamil spent his blank coin to establish his character has been hunting Jacek's for the last twenty years. By the rules, it's not possible to directly establish facts about other player's PCs. However, should this sort of positioning be possible? It automatically affected both characters, obviously.

[Simon C]

Hi Filip,

So sorry I missed this earlier.  This is amazing work you've done, and I'm incredibly grateful.  You've really clearly exposed a lot of problems in the document, and in the game as well.

You've brought up heaps of stuff, so I might not respond to it all right away, but I'm tinking on it.

The biggest thing I want to talk about is the use of blank coins, as opposed to the normal resolution system of the game.  How much were you using Drama to resolve conflicts?  My initial conception of the game was that for the most part, the GM and the players would operate using Drama exclusively (i.e. the player says what their character does, and the GM, with complete fiat, describes what happens).  The coins act as an interruption of that process.  It sounds like the players in your games were using coins a lot more proactively than I anticipated, but it sounds like that worked ok, and I don't think it messes with the concept of the game too much.  You're absolutely right that preconceptions about how to play really mess with the game.  It took me a long time to get used to having so much power as GM, and it's really draining not being able to just leave it up to the dice. 

I think "say yes or spend a coin" is the right way to look at it, except of course that it's the players saying yes or spending, rather than the GM. In some ways the game is actually very traditional in moment-to-moment play, excepting the coin spending.  At least, that's how it was when I played it. Perhaps if I talked about my design goals a little, that would illuminate things.

My basic premise, going into the game, is that failure is usually boring.  I wanted to make a game where the players would choose whether to succeed or fail, and could choose to succeed most of the time, and for that to still produce interesting play.  So as GM, you're not really trying to stop them getting what they want, but rather playing with the consequences of them getting what they want.  The "premise" of the game, I guess, is "what do you do with the power to change the world?"  Is what will happen if you don't change it worse than what might happen if you do?  Given this world-changing power, can you ethically do nothing?  With that in mind, then, the GM really needs to act just as the world, reacting to the characters, with the ulterior motive of playing up consequences and tough choices. 

Character death is an interesting problem.  My feeling is that spending all your coins is the only way for a character to die completely.  However, the GM has total fiat to narrate injury, incapacitation, and I guess even death and reincarnation (and that's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of before).  The limit, I think, is that the player should always have the ability to change the world, until the character dies.

Your point about prep is well taken.  I think there's definitely potential in the "situation creator" concept you bring up.  I really like way the game currently begins with no information about the characters at all, but I can see how that's tricky to GM.  I guess that the idea is that the characters define themselves by the situation they're thrown into - what side they take begins to define who they are.

Did you begin play with all the characters in the same location?  I think perhaps the game would work better in the Trollbabe style - seperate interweaving stories.  I like then that the flashbacks and the big coin spends have the power to affect other people's stories even when you're not in their scene.

Speaking of which, you're absolutely right that there needs to be more definition of the scope of flashbacks and so on.  Do you have any suggestions for this? It feels really clunky to have hard limits on things like this, and I'm not especially happy with the limits that are currently in place - time duration, for example. 

It sounds like you were playing with blank coins having a much wider scope than I'd intitially imagined - a scope that makes them much more powerful than the stickered coins, in a lot of ways.  I'm not sure if that's bad or not.  Definitely the idea is that for the most part the characters are in the "GM's world", and so getting to invent too much stuff (outside of flashbacks) is a bit weird.  But then, the examples you've mentioned all seem really cool.  I think keeping in mind that the stuff introduced has to be related to a conflict with the character is important, but then, that brings up all kinds of problems of identifying conflicts, that I wanted to avoid.  I really wanted a game that could avoid the kind of "conflict limbo" that happens in some games, where everything is up in the air until the dice are rolled.  What I want is for everything the players say to happen, at the moment they say it, with no takebacks and no conflict resolution.  I think that a blank coin should only be used to contradict something the GM has said, and to give a reason why.  Does that sound reasonable?

What I'd like to do from here is hammer out another playtest draft, this time paying attention to readability and examples of play and stuff.  We can see if the clearer document (and any rules changes I introduce) resolve the issues you've brought up here, of if there's more work needed on the draft before the next playtest version is finalised.

Thanks so much for this work.  It's incredibly invigorating to have my design put through its paces like this.  I'll be sure to thank you and the Polish Demolition Squad in the final version, and don't hesitate to let me know if you need any kind of work done for any of your projects (I have a lot of free time for proofreading, for example). 

I'll think about this more, and I'll probably come back with more thoughts shortly.

[Filip Luszczyk]

I'll deal with stuff in a point by point way, for clarity.

How much were you using Drama to resolve conflicts?

Almost not at all, really. The players were very proactive, too, and we've been discussing how it pays, as spending coins is effectively the only way to secure one's position against GM's whim.

Possibly, if re-casting the coins was tied with some cost for the player, the incentive to spend coins lightly would be lower. However, I'm really not certain about that. I kind of like the way it currently works.

But then, our habits are our habits. Lately, we often notice how habits from one game make things difficult for us when we switch to another (and we switch between games a lot).

In fact, I'd like to read a transcript (or hear a record) from one of your games. At least an illustrative scene or two, anyway. That would probably communicate the way you play the game accurately, providing a reference point.

I think "say yes or spend a coin" is the right way to look at it, except of course that it's the players saying yes or spending, rather than the GM. In some ways the game is actually very traditional in moment-to-moment play, excepting the coin spending.

Heh, I could have phrased it better. What I had in mind was rather "say yes or require the player to spend the coin in order to get it." Though obviously, these are two sides of the same coin, so to say

However, the GM has total fiat to narrate injury, incapacitation, and I guess even death and reincarnation (and that's an interesting idea I hadn't thought of before).

This should work well, but I'm not really sure what to think about the reincarnation thing.

I guess that the idea is that the characters define themselves by the situation they're thrown into - what side they take begins to define who they are.

Yes, the players had their opportunities to do that at the very beginning. Kamil didn't do it immediately, though, and it took him some time before he decided to establish his character's position in the world. I suppose it was at least partially because there wasn't enough setting context to pick sides, only immediate events - but then, as a GM I didn't know enough about the characters to move action forward. Jacek had his character introduced a bit later than Kamil's and he was quick to take sides at that point, while Kamil did it soon after him, knowing how to conflict their characters.

Did you begin play with all the characters in the same location?  I think perhaps the game would work better in the Trollbabe style - seperate interweaving stories.

I started with Kamil's character, introducing Jacek's character after a while, in the same location. They completely split their ways soon after and for the rest of the game I've been alternating between them.

Speaking of which, you're absolutely right that there needs to be more definition of the scope of flashbacks and so on.  Do you have any suggestions for this? It feels really clunky to have hard limits on things like this, and I'm not especially happy with the limits that are currently in place - time duration, for example.

As for durations, I think it could be solved by clearly differentiating three cases: instant effect (e.g. fireball - the fire is gone, but injuries stay), truly permanent effect (e.g. the ring of etherealness - the character can be ethereal as long as he wants, whenever he wants), and the prolonged effect case. One way to limit it I can think of would be to allow for such prolonged effects to be active only until another colored coin is used. Say, I want to use my Sky coin to spread wings and fly - I could fly as long as I wanted, but spending a Soul coin to fire a spirit-rending missile would terminate my flight power instantly. I think it would be a concrete enough restriction, and it wouldn't require anyone to actually track time.

Area of effect is another thing. In our game, the point of confusion was scale/volume (i.e. it was arguable whether the behemoth could be affected). I'd suggest to just stick to concrete targets/reach restrictions, the way it is now, only making it clear that a single target is a single target, and the effect scales to the target. I think it could work - but then, we've only seen a single two coin effect, so more games might be needed to get a better idea of how the area of effect rules work.

Flashbacks are tricky. Kamil had an issue with them, but personally I think it should be enough if the flashback is required to be related to the situation at hand. Unless the player is under a strong pressure to add more facts than he would otherwise do, due to a really tough high stake situation.

The main problem is that I don't suppose quantifying facts would be a good idea here - I feel something like that would make things feel artificial. Maybe giving the group the right to say "hey, that's too much" would be sufficient? But then, I think it might be problematic if the GM gets the right to stop a flashback - that way, the player wouldn't really gain more power with it than he normally has in the game.

It sounds like you were playing with blank coins having a much wider scope than I'd intitially imagined - a scope that makes them much more powerful than the stickered coins, in a lot of ways. (...) I think that a blank coin should only be used to contradict something the GM has said, and to give a reason why. Does that sound reasonable?

I wonder about the scope in our game. I think it would be good if the document included a lot of examples for that - cases of typical coin use, cases of edge use, and cases of wrong use, with explanations. Note that in our game more radical uses of blank coins were often backed up with flashbacks, so yeah, maybe they just belonged in the flashback realm.

The solution with contradictions sounds simple and good enough.

However, what about character definition in that case? Should spending blank coins be required to define basic facts about the character (name, equipment, looks etc. - all the stuff we were confused about)? The GM gets the world, but does he get any input into the characters? If not, since the players start from a blank page, how to pace character's definition? Should it actually be restricted in any way?

Well, I'll be waiting for the updated playtest document - I think I'll give the game another go eventually, though not necessarily in the very immediate future.