[The Mountain Witch] Another playtest

[Eetu]

I've been taking sporadic interest in The Mountain Witch on The Forge ever since its entry into the IGC. Now, the recent threads about the trust mechanic again sparked my interest. After playing DitV (and building on a background of Sorcerer and MLwM), I was especially interested in any games whose themes deal with positive and cohesive behaviour on equal ground or in juxtaposition with negative and self-serving. So, I emailed Timothy to ask for the playtest version of the game to test with my gaming group. These are our experiences.

First, the players: We were five in all, with an interesting mixture. Four of us (three guys and a gal) are seasoned gamers, and have been meeting once a week for the past year to experiment with different playing styles and innovative games - while the fifth (my girlfriend) was a complete newbie to roleplaying.

All in all, I think our game was a mixed success, with problems arising almost singly from issues unrelated to the core game system. The biggest problem was time. I wanted to wrap the whole playtest up in a single evening's session, and my hurrying hurt the game at more than one stage.

First, there was character generation. Everyone liked how easy it was. No points to divide, no dice to roll, and a sufficiently diverse but not overwhelming collection of "character templates" (zodiacs) to choose from. An interesting bit was that while the guys scanned through the descriptions of the various zodiacs before choosing, the girls both just spontaneously took the zodiac whose animal they liked the most. It's nice that in this way the system, at least to an extent, supports both building up a character from your own ideas and just playing what you get in a semirandom draw.

We also liked how the skills add breadth and not competence. I love the complete absence of competence measures in the system. The absence of skill differences focuses the game wonderfully. "Yes, we are all skilled swordsmen, and maybe our skills are not completely equal, but on this journey, that difference doesn't matter one bit." Somehow the absence of measures also set a firmer understanding in the players' mind of their characters baseline. Tracing back from the simple fact that they were fighting on equal terms with creatures of Japanese myth, they were able to deduce that they were hardened, able warriors much better than from say a rating of 85% in swordmanship.

So, chargen seemed to whizz by like a breeze, but in retrospect, I hurried it along much too quickly. While the forms the individual fates took looked good at first glance and the two key points of back-story (why are you a ronin, and why do you need the money for this gig) were at least adequate for all, it's now clear to me that we should have invested way more time in the characters. In play, all the ronin felt pretty hollow, and we didn't learn really much of them. Next time I want to do a quick-moving adventure, I think I'll make every player state explicitly at least the main points of their character's temperament, so it'll be easier to empathize with them and riff off their actions and outlook. This is one thing the rule book could maybe discuss a bit more, now the feeling I got from it was that the fate and the two points of history should in themselves be a sufficient amount of background work, and went with that.

On to the actual adventure. I played it along the suggestions of driving hard and not giving the players much slack. I also bought full the notion that their physical journey was only a manifestation of their real metaphysical internal journey, and told the players up straight that the obstacles would just keep on pouring right until I felt that they had advanced their fates sufficiently. That worked extremely, wonderfully well, and gave the game whole new depth. It was a really powerful image to keep in mind that the threat of death by the relentlessly attacking tengu was actually in itself completely irrelevant, being only the universe's hammer forcing the characters down their own dark inner paths with each drop of blood spilled on the virgin white snow. The fact that all the enemies (and the surroundings the way I described them) were fantastical just added to the feeling.

If this metaphysical formulation of the story is intented or wanted, and I think it should, it should be typed in large bold red letters as one of THE core ideas of the game.

So, again, the system and setting seemed to work like a charm. And yet again, however, our hurry proved a problem. The whole adventure was over in just four scenes, with two of the characters succumbing to their fates and eliminating the other two. Well, this would have been a fine ending, if properly prepared, but because of the hurry we hadn't had really enough time to build a true counterargument for trust against the fate. While the characters had interacted in the story, even saved each others lives, the players didn't just feel any real bond had been forged between them. It was too easy to just choose betrayal.

Based on this, I think the chapter on pacing should include advice to lay back the onslaught once in a while (probably best after each scene) and let the characters just relate to what just happened and how they were saved from certain death by their peers. Such campfire intermissions would probably serve as powerful catalyzers for the forming of emotional bonds between the characters.

As a whole, I think the system is lovely. Our group has a natural aversion for complex mechanics and playing tactics with them (when that is not in itself the point of play), and the simple mechanics of TMW gained many friends. Even our newbie didn't have any trouble. Oh.., I don't know what's the official stand on this, but I sometimes gave a single opponent more than one d6, for example when a big avalanche threatened to drown two of the ronin.

We did have some trouble keeping in mind how trust flowed (ie. that the trust points YOU could use on ANOTHER character were trust HE had put in YOU). At times it also felt counterintuitive that when someone helped you, you sort of temporarily lost trust in them, in the end not being to accept aid from the ones who had helped you most. My players also commented that the trust point mechanic resulted in quite a lot of bookkeeping and thought that the determination of who will aid whom in each round of a conflict was a bit too much of constant mechanical intrusion.

After a brief brainstorm, the following was suggested as a replacement mechanic:
- Drop the trust points, but keep trust levels.
- If not otherwise stated, everyone is assumed to be aiding everyone else.
- When calculating your score, add to your roll all those rolls that were under your trust for that particular aiding character. So, for example, if Akechi trusts Kawabe with 3 and Sakamoto with 2, and they roll 3, 2 and 4, Akechi's final result would be 5.

Of course, this would be quite a major alteration to the way the game currently plays. Buying narration would have to work differently (btw, it was used just once in our game, to save a character from dying), and there would not be such a sharp increase in desperation to get a scene ended as the only thing pressing you down would be wounds instead of wounds plus running out of trust points. On the other hand, this would solve the problem of dead-locked tengu fight another playtest group was having, where after sucking off the final trust points the fight would just drag on and on.

All in all, thank you for a great game and I look forward to testing it again.

- Eetu

[timfire]

Thanks for the great write-up! It sounds like you had fun, and that's the most important thing.

The biggest problem was time.

Yeah, I really need to address this. As I said elsewhere, whenever I've let a scene run its course naturally, it tended to last around two hours. That means that a complete game is going to last 2 or 3 sessions.

We also liked how the skills add breadth and not competence... Somehow the absence of measures also set a firmer understanding in the players' mind of their characters baseline.

I'm glad to see this confirmed. I didn't want abilities to be the focus of play. I really wanted characters to be defined by their actions and by their relationship to others. When I was first developing the game for the IGC, I didn't even have abilities. But I decided I needed a little something to better differentiate the PC's from one another.

While the forms the individual fates took looked good at first glance and the two key points of back-story ... were at least adequate for all, it's now clear to me that we should have invested way more time in the characters. ... Next time I want to do a quick-moving adventure, I think I'll make every player state explicitly at least the main points of their character's temperament... This is one thing the rule book could maybe discuss a bit more, now the feeling I got from it was that the fate and the two points of history should in themselves be a sufficient amount of background work, and went with that.

I may mention this, but its something I'll leave to player discretion. I, personally, like the idea of leaving the PC's personalities undefined pre-play. I sorta like the notion that just as the characters don't know each other prior to the start of the game, neither do the players know the characters. I also like the idea that PC's then get defined by their actions, rather than by a pre-play description. But that sort of thing takes time to develop, which is something you admit to not having.

I played it along the suggestions of driving hard and not giving the players much slack. I also bought full the notion that their physical journey was only a manifestation of their real metaphysical internal journey, and told the players up straight that the obstacles would just keep on pouring right until I felt that they had advanced their fates sufficiently...

If this metaphysical formulation of the story is intented or wanted, and I think it should, it should be typed in large bold red letters as one of THE core ideas of the game.

I'm glad that GM'ing strategy worked for you. The idea that "their physical journey was only a manifestation of their real metaphysical internal journey" is definitely the way that I view the adventure. But that, too, is something I'll leave to player discretion. I'll probably allude to the idea, but I don't want to force the idea on people. People who appreciate that sort of thing will, I believe, pick up on it pretty easily as you did. But I don't want to alienate poeple for whom that sort of thing isn't their cup o' tea.

Based on this, I think the chapter on pacing should include advice to lay back the onslaught once in a while (probably best after each scene) and let the characters just relate to what just happened and how they were saved from certain death by their peers. Such campfire intermissions would probably serve as powerful catalyzers for the forming of emotional bonds between the characters.

Yeah, that's how I've started playing it. I would actually suggest giving players these 'reflection moments' after every major conflict/event. The don't have to be long, but the PC's should have a chance to comment on what just happened.

Even our newbie didn't have any trouble.

I'm glad to hear this. While I didn't intentionally design the system for non-gamers, I recognize that its a strength of system, and its something that I've tried to build on.

Oh.., I don't know what's the official stand on this, but I sometimes gave a single opponent more than one d6, for example when a big avalanche threatened to drown two of the ronin.

Did you add those dice together, or take highest? It's not bad if took highest, but I definitely wouldn't add the dice together. How did you handle that situation - did you have the ronin each roll and take highest, or did you make each of the ronin roll seperately?

We did have some trouble keeping in mind how trust flowed (ie. that the trust points YOU could use on ANOTHER character were trust HE had put in YOU). At times it also felt counterintuitive that when someone helped you, you sort of temporarily lost trust in them, in the end not being to accept aid from the ones who had helped you most. My players also commented that the trust point mechanic resulted in quite a lot of bookkeeping and thought that the determination of who will aid whom in each round of a conflict was a bit too much of constant mechanical intrusion.

That's a valid comment. I'm definitely working on making that section on Trust easier to understand. I'm not sure there's a way to get around the bookkeeping/intrusion issue without drasticly changing things. (Do you think Rob MacDougall's poker-chip trick would help?)
___________________

Thanks again!

[Rob MacDougall]

We did have some trouble keeping in mind how trust flowed (ie. that the trust points YOU could use on ANOTHER character were trust HE had put in YOU). At times it also felt counterintuitive that when someone helped you, you sort of temporarily lost trust in them, in the end not being to accept aid from the ones who had helped you most. My players also commented that the trust point mechanic resulted in quite a lot of bookkeeping and thought that the determination of who will aid whom in each round of a conflict was a bit too much of constant mechanical intrusion.

After a brief brainstorm, the following was suggested as a replacement mechanic:
- Drop the trust points, but keep trust levels.
- If not otherwise stated, everyone is assumed to be aiding everyone else.

Wow. Everyone's entitled to their opinion, of course, but changing the game that way would remove what I found to be perhaps the best aspect of the game. The fact that Trust is a scarce resource, and that every action demands the player decision to aid or not aid from your fellows--that was key for us. We had our bumpy patches with the game, well chronicled in the thread Tim just linked to, but I think everybody appreciated the spending of Trust Points as the engine that made the whole thing go.

Rob

[Eetu]

I sorta like the notion that just as the characters don't know each other prior to the start of the game, neither do the players know the characters. I also like the idea that PC's then get defined by their actions, rather than by a pre-play description. But that sort of thing takes time to develop, which is something you admit to not having.

I can see how it can be fun for the players to not really know the characters before play, but I think this is at least orthogonal or at worst counterproductive to the core premise of exploring trust and betrayal. Your second point however remains valid and close to that core. And in the end, there's probably not that much difference in molding a character before play or in play - as long as there's still enough time in the arc of the game to actually study the premise after the characters have been sufficiently well formed.

The idea that "their physical journey was only a manifestation of their real metaphysical internal journey" is definitely the way that I view the adventure. But that, too, is something I'll leave to player discretion. I'll probably allude to the idea, but I don't want to force the idea on people. People who appreciate that sort of thing will, I believe, pick up on it pretty easily as you did. But I don't want to alienate poeple for whom that sort of thing isn't their cup o' tea.

I think you are probably doing the right thing keeping play styles open and interpretations not nailed down. But I also still hope that these more focused interpretations are at least pointed out clearly as strong possibilities - because at least for me, they were the key in wrapping the whole thing so beautifully tightly around the core premise.

I'm not sure there's a way to get around the bookkeeping/intrusion issue without drasticly changing things. (Do you think Rob MacDougall's poker-chip trick would help?)

I think it would have helped (I actually would have used it but had chips in only three colors). No erasing and rewriting numbers in bookkeeping, and also declaration of aid would be even less intrusive, just throw in a chip of the appropriate color or not.

The fact that Trust is a scarce resource, and that every action demands the player decision to aid or not aid from your fellows--that was key for us.

I can see this as a valid and fulfilling style to play the game. I think we just weren't interested in "micromanaging" trust, and wanted to focus on the issues and flow of trust on at least a per-scene scale.

I also most wholeheartedly agree that trust, particularly at the beginning should be scarce, but don't think that the alternative rule set my group proposed actually changes that, just gives arbitration away from the players into the hands of the dice.

Oh, and finally, what I forgot to mention in the original writeup was that we too had some problems with the Fear -fate, even after I specifically warned the players that that fate might be problematic and isolated, and should be made to relate to the other characters in some way. The form that fate took was "fear of being attacked in the forest by undead".

- Eetu

[Rob MacDougall]

Oh, and finally, what I forgot to mention in the original writeup was that we too had some problems with the Fear -fate, even after I specifically warned the players that that fate might be problematic and isolated, and should be made to relate to the other characters in some way. The form that fate took was "fear of being attacked in the forest by undead".

Interesting, but not surprising to me after our game. I think people who have played and digested the whole game can come up with interesting and powerful backstories for that fate but I expect players who walk in to a session without having played or read the rules are going to continue to come up with fairly limited and often unsatisfying versions of that particular fate. It just doesn't point towards a story of trust and betrayal in the way the others seem to do.

[timfire]

Oh, and finally, what I forgot to mention in the original writeup was that we too had some problems with the Fear -fate... The form that fate took was "fear of being attacked in the forest by undead".

Interesting, but not surprising to me after our game.

Hmm, yeah. I'm giving some more thought to that Fate now (I'm not saying I'll get rid of it, just giving it some thought). I think the thing a Fate needs to do is cause an ongoing tension between PC's. I mean, the other 4 Fates all imply some other loyalty besides the party. I think the thing with the Fear Fate is that its too easy to make a one-time event that doesn't have any lasting consequences. My original idea behind the Fear Fate was that the party would somehow know that the Fear-PC was somehow "behind" or at least associated with the monster/ supernatual event. I'm sure you could see how that would cause tension with the group.

It's definitely nice when a Fate references another PC or some sort of backstory, but I don't think those things are essential.