[Witch!] How to implement?

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

Hi Oreso,

Do you have a mechanic to determine the strength of NPC's? Did I miss that? My game Outside is also without a GM, and players can make up NPC's on the fly. In my limited playtesting the major problem that has come up from this is determining the strength/effectiveness of the NPC's. I'm have been working on cards as a solution, so they have a couple random options to use for addressing the strength. I think having maybe a bidding system where each player can add or perhaps subtract from the strength of the NPC could be interesting, and I'm sure there are other ideas.

[oreso]

Clyde, randomly generated NPCs are what i was thinking, but they will all be roughly the same power level, or perhaps choosing from a set of personality types. The only difference in power level would come from them gaining more Dysfunctions than usual through play in the service to a Witch, or the Witch having more control over them (thus allowing them to escalate more).

Sydney, fictional human beings should be a valid, even desirable, and even inevitable in some cases. I have no problem with some NPCs just being assets (so you seduce someone's boyfriend and turn them into a hitman for you, who cares?) but there should always be the option (or the threat) of them getting some life of their own (through your own actions or someone elses). Part of the situation is that the witches may want to treat them like assets alone, but cant, because they are still human themselves (mostly) and towards the end they may want to treat them like humans but are forced to treat them like assets for the greater goal. 

I'd like it so that Witches can spend some time together in a scene and become more under control the more the Witch confides or something. Would provide an easy option to boosting your control while simultaneously getting you more attached as a player.

To cut down the suicide troopness, there should be some method of transferring bigass Dysfunction from the NPC to the owning Witch, probably when another witch is contesting control of them.

[Sydney Freedberg]

As in the player has to decide between sacrificing the minion or transferring "damage" to the Witch and putting her at risk? Very cool.

[Thunder_God]

I think that Social Contract is a necessity for Competitive games, and will also have much to do with how are the "Assets" treated, because of the general mindset in which they are used.

Also, I suggest having Tactical assets only be protected in story/emotional ways and not in tactically overt ways. That way, when you are acting in a tactical manner, you still have to act in a manner that expresses some care about the fictional person.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Uh, Guy, do you mind explaining those points a little more fully? I can see that the "social contract" among the real people playing needs to be different for an explicitly competitive game than in a lot of other types of RPGs, but a functional social contract is essential for any group playing any game ("No, Bill, although the rules do not explicitly forbid it, you still may not throw your excrement at me while we play chess. Please stop it."). And I'm not sure what you mean by "story/emotional" protection as opposed to "tactically overt" protection.

[Thunder_God]

Sure thing man :)

A Social Contract is always there, true. I mean Social Contract as part of the actual game-text, ala The Comic Code in Capes. I think the benefits it'll reap are quite large, if only for the explosive nature of these games.

I believe that protecting Assets(NPCs) should(well, at least consider it) be done in such a manner that you can only protect them via "story methods", which will help you connect to them, even if all you want from them is their tactical asset.
Now, the other option, "Tactically overt" protection, is when I go, "I threaten your Minion Zed" you go "I use resources X and Y, eat that!", I want it to be all sorts of "The Minion is slowly drawn away from you, approached by the sinister call of my witch, Esmeralda", and you go "Tiffany bulks at the idea, but her minion which she saves for her Omega Plan? She feels he's getting away from her, and if not for him, her plans will all lay in ruins, so she decides to bed him...".

Anything else?

[Sydney Freedberg]

I.e. you have to narrate in story terms what you're doing in game terms, not just shuffle numbers/dice/tokens around? Sure.

[Thunder_God]

No, I slowly take that to be obvious(especially when the source material includes DitV), this is deeper than that, have the Mechanics have less impact on these sort of things than the Story bit. For example, have someone portray the Important NPCs, and he gets to choose what he'll do, with some mechanical outcomes/causes(like only if Trust>=Opponent's Pull you can even try) bearing in.

I don't know how to implement this just yet, this is one of the major hurdles games that try to marry competition to story face.

[oreso]

No, I slowly take that to be obvious(especially when the source material includes DitV), this is deeper than that, have the Mechanics have less impact on these sort of things than the Story bit. For example, have someone portray the Important NPCs, and he gets to choose what he'll do, with some mechanical outcomes/causes(like only if Trust>=Opponent's Pull you can even try) bearing in.

I don't know how to implement this just yet, this is one of the major hurdles games that try to marry competition to story face.

I follow and agree up till here.

The mechanics drive the story. You cannot make a tactical decision apart from a story decision really (bear in mind that the tactical goals are all pretty obscure story ones and the tactical methods are driven by character personality traits). The only issue is whether given this tactical objectivity can folk still get into the story, Capes says 'yes' to this, but what is more, unlike Capes, i want main character goals to mirror player goals to a greater or lesser degree (if your goal is die by another witches hand, then your character secretly wants this too).

So yeah, there are 'no story choices' followed by 'mechanical outcomes', the whole thing is mechanical, but the question is whether folk can feel (and feel for) the story being woven with it.

[oreso]

gah. that is not to say this is just a dice game btw. Info from folk's imagination should be fed back into the play, and that really matters, but that imagination shouldnt be running off on its own without the tactical considerations, since those considerations are what is driving the story along.