[Witch!] How to implement?

[oreso]

a la "Ginger Snaps" and "The Craft", the players are powerful outcasts who conflict with one another.

Why do they fight each other? a Dark Fate a la Mountain Witch. Chosen in secret (multiples of the same Fate allowed).

eg.
Die by a Witch's hand.
Make a Witch Love you Totally.
Isolate a Witch from all Contact.
Make a Daemon kill a Witch.
etc

So, once a Dark Fate is fulfilled you enter some kinda Endgame and the person who triggered it gets some kinda bonus. The trick is to make your character fulfilling your Fate not too obvious so that you can do it unopposed, while guessing the other Witch's true motivations and stopping them

The game is GMless, but with character identity. NPCs are brought in by a Witch as tools of manipulation to use against other Witchs or their NPCs. Control of an NPC can be reduced and then transferred to another Witch (because control drops each time an NPC is transferred, fighting over an NPC will make it unusable. They will realise they are a pawn).

Control of an NPC only increases when it successfully manipulates another Witch.

Conflicts are of the form of manipulating each other. Mechanically, think Dogs but the stakes are always concrete changes to behaviour. A solid line of escalation is present to show the methods of manipulation (think Dogs, but it is a definite scale and Fallout received is based on the highest one you used, not the one your opponent used cos Fallout represents a Witch's attitude to herself, external harm is just a symptom of this). These diferent levels of manipulation are rated as Stats:

Persuasion measures how well your Witch can convince others of things that they believe. To persuade is to attempt to change someone's mind on honest grounds and includes such activities as emotional blackmail, impassioned speech and reasoned argument, as well as charms. If someone hurts your Witch while you are trying to persuade, then the Fallout will be getting more passionate or fanatical about your beliefs and a bruised ego (rated d4). 

Deception is the ability to convince others of things you do not believe. Techniques such as simple lying and bullshitting, and also tricks and glamours. Fallout from deceiving someone usually means your Witch will become more cynical and sceptical, not to mention distrusted (rated d6).

Mutilation includes any kind of direct coercion to make someone behave differently, regardless of what they think. Threats and blackmail are popular methods, but the Witch may also uses hexes or curses. If things go wrong the Fallout will mean that the Witch will have to enact her threats, and thus become more aggressive (rated d8). 

Domination measures attempts of dishonest coercion. It is the ability to change a person's mind directly against their own nature, such as torture, psycho-conditioning, and even possession. Fallout may include a whole variety of disorders, such as phobias or schizophrenia (rated d10).

Destruction is the end of the line, when your Witch simply cannot allow someone to exist anymore. It is murder by any means, but it may even involve erasing all memory of their existence. Fallout from such behaviour is usually some kind of psychosis or severe disorder (rated d12)

The level of control a Witch has over an NPC determines what the maximum level of manipulation they will use on their behalf.

Witches have much higher stats than NPCs.

Why use NPCs at all? Because they have less Dysfunctions than Witches and can thus use their Dysfunctions against them and win without escalating too much. A Witch would have to kill a fellow Witch before she would change her behaviour, but using her mother or that boy she likes to get at her is much more effective.

Example Dysfunctions: Repulsive, Loves the Unattainable, Kleptomaniac, Consorts with Beasts, Depressive, Talks to Herself, Hates to be Touched, Underweight, Self-Harmer, Speaks too Quietly, Too Competitive, Obsessively Clean, Slut, Protective of Insects, Scared of Crowds, Angry to Strangers, Albino, Alcoholic, Virgin, Jealous of Success, Always Feels Cold, Cannot Keep Secrets, Over-protective of Siblings, Cannot feel Pain, Has a Tail, etc.

Dysfunctions are rated for Presence and Intensity. Presence indicates how easily they are revealed (number of dice). Intensity reveals how severe they are (die size).
Dysfunctions may be brought in to help in a manipulation, but if the conflict is subsequently lost then all Dysfunctions used gain more Presence (either cos you gain a reputation or they simply manifest more). Fallout gained in a conflict would increase their intensity. In this case, Dysfunctions are a good thing (bigger dice and more of them).

However, if the highest revealed Dysfunction is owned by your opponent, you can use it against them (those big dice become yours). Havent got a mechanic for how it would be revealed (you need to be able to use Dysfunctions without revealing them, but revealing them should be devastating enough that an NPC could win through it).

Daemons will be NPCs which have inverse control. Ie. they start off willing to kill, and gradually they become useable for less extreme stuff as the Witch controls them. Not sure these are necessary, but it would be good to have something more powerful than the Witches so they have reasons to unite (briefly).


So yeah, some major gaps but i know what sorta play i want. I expect I'll learn alot from Capes and The Mountain Witch when they arrive on my door mat, but any other suggestions on how to implement this stuff mechanically?

Cheers for any help!

[Ron Edwards]

Hi there,

One thing I've found from all the games that lack GMs is that they need a turn structure, or a management-step feature of some kind. Just as in a card game, everyone always knows whose turn it is and what the obligations of a turn might be.

You'll find that Capes is built on such a thing, as are Universalis and other games like this. These games' play-structure isn't as rigid as a typical card game's - for instance, you can grab a turn - but they are definitely organized in a way that most role-playing isn't, at least not formally.

So I'm thinkin' something like that might be worth considering. The good news is that you said you can visualize what play would look like ... which might mean that you do have such a structure in mind, even if you haven't formalized it yet.

One question: for daemons, what do you mean by "NPC"? Say I'm playing a witch ... who plays the daemon on my turn? When it's their turn, do I play that same daemon? Could it be something like, "on any given person's turn, the person to their left always plays the daemons?"

Best, Ron

[oreso]

Rigid turns is a must yeah. Not sure what the possible actions and reactions will be in a given turn

Forgot to explain the NPC usage properly:

Any NPC you bring in is yours. You narrate how you manipulated them into your service (but no dice are rolled i dont think) and then they are owned by that player for exclusive use.

But if you lose a conflict with that NPC then someone else has successfully manipulated them against you and so the level of control you have drops (they can only escalate to a level one less than before) and the winner can then press their advantage if they want and try and break you up.

If they do decide to press the advantage and steal the NPC from you, they can do so by starting a  little follow-up conflict where they narrate your NPC against your Witch (the NPC demands answers or revenge from you for whatever claims have been made or whatever illusion they are under). If the original owner loses this conflict, then NPC transfers to the winner permanantly. If it is won the original owner gets the NPC back and most of the damage done is reversed by successful counter-manipulation (either way, still with the decreased amount of control though. NPCs arent comfortable when they know they are being messed with).

Daemons are the same as any other NPC (i think) except for control for them works backwards. If you bring a Daemon in, it means you are wanting someone dead or possessed or something, because they need to be controlled super well if you just want to use them for less harsh manipulation.

[Roger]

May I suggest a setting?

Salem, 1692.



Cheers,
Roger

[Sydney Freedberg]

Sounds like a really neat game. My own apocalypse girl (currently utterly broken and strewn in greasy pieces on my garage floor waiting for me to figure out how to put it together so it actually works..) has similar objectives, and takes a similar approach of "NPCs are assets controlled and fought over by the players," so you might want to check out the (very) rough draft -- it's in my sig file. Guy Shalev is working on some general theory about "Competitive Story Interaction Games" that is available online in various places, as well - I don't have links handy at the moment, but Google the phrase.

I'd echo Ron's advice that a robust, clear turn structure is a must. (In fact, I think it would be a huge help even for games that do have a GM: The most exhausting thing about GMing my current The Shadows of Yesterday game is figuring out on pure gut instinct how to "cut" from player to player).

I'd further add that a game driven by competition among the players needs very strict and clear rules about when you can use what ability: Even if 90% of the time everyone goes, "yeah, of course, that makes sense," the 10% when people look at each other in bafflement and sincere disagreement can be really painful.

And I'd honestly disagree with Roger about setting this in Salem: I think you'd do better to stick with the movies you're inspired by and go for a "present day, with creepy witches" setting that makes it much easier for players to imagine what's going on and get into it.

[oreso]

Howdy!

I'm a big fan of Apocalypse Girl (I spammed that opening piece on a philosophy board cos i love how powerful the it is) and I wish I had recognised its usefulness earlier. Any source for plundering mechanics is extremely welcome, and if I could plunder that awkward, innocent, utterly harsh and totally powerful atmosphere too, I'd be made. :)

Setting wise, I'll leave it "neutral". Its the social status versus actual power of the PCs that matters, all that angsty emo stuff where they are hardcore powerful but no one understands them cos really they are enormously fucked up.

I'm envisioning the mechanics so that you could easily downplay the supernatural side of things too, and have something like Nicotine Girls (only much clunkier, and more directly confrontational) though given that the PCs are better at manipulation than everyone else, it would probably be best rendered as popular kids who are secretly falling apart (but everyone really knows it) and hated by everyone (except to their face).

The supernatural setting is only there so that I can get players to feel that harshness without it being as goddamn uncomfortable and real as Nicotine Girls. No idea if that will work though.

[Mcrow]

Why do they fight each other? a Dark Fate a la Mountain Witch. Chosen in secret (multiples of the same Fate allowed).

Quote
eg.
Die by a Witch's hand.
Make a Witch Love you Totally.
Isolate a Witch from all Contact.
Make a Daemon kill a Witch.
etc

So, once a Dark Fate is fulfilled you enter some kinda Endgame and the person who triggered it gets some kinda bonus. The trick is to make your character fulfilling your Fate not too obvious so that you can do it unopposed, while guessing the other Witch's true motivations and stopping them

The game is GMless, but with character identity. NPCs are brought in by a Witch as tools of manipulation to use against other Witchs or their NPCs. Control of an NPC can be reduced and then transferred to another Witch (because control drops each time an NPC is transferred, fighting over an NPC will make it unusable. They will realise they are a pawn).

I really like this concept. Squirrel Attack uses the same sort of mechanic, though in the game the characters are set and the "fates" are set, you can easily generate your own characters and come with your own fate. In SA! you gain points when which @ the end of the game determines who wins. SA! is mean as a beer and pretzels game, but I think the basic concept is nice. Obviously the rewards would be very different in your game.

Now, GMless games (like Ron said) need a very tight and defined turn structure.

Would this type of game lean in the gamist direction?

[oreso]

I really like this concept. Squirrel Attack uses the same sort of mechanic, though in the game the characters are set and the "fates" are set, you can easily generate your own characters and come with your own fate. In SA! you gain points when which @ the end of the game determines who wins. SA! is mean as a beer and pretzels game, but I think the basic concept is nice. Obviously the rewards would be very different in your game.

Cool, you got a link?

Now, GMless games (like Ron said) need a very tight and defined turn structure.

I still agree totally.

Would this type of game lean in the gamist direction?

Um, yeah. Player skill will make a difference to winning and there is a definite goal, so sure i guess. To stop it getting purely tactical i wanna lay on the emotion to those numbers though. Your resources are people, your powers are your weaknesses and your enemies are your sisters after all. With Capes, as i understand it, alot of the strategy arises from getting people invested in conflicts which you can oppose, so doing something down that route would be good methinks (both winning and losing should be conflicted because Dysfunctions are).

Cheers again for the replies.

[Mcrow]

Here's the link:
http://www.hinterwelt.com/Squirrel-Ref.html

It's not exactly the same as your concept, but I think it applies to what you are thinking.

[Ron Edwards]

You know, I'm liking this more and more. You really seem like you know what you want, and that's important.

So: primarily, this game is about counter-strategizing and possibly winning. Solid Gamism stuff, with a lot of competition both among characters (the Witches want different things and can't get along) and among players (because it's mainly competing for resources and interfering with one another's tactics).

But all with a very strong imagined-situation, with characters that make sense in that context and "do stuff" in the sense that they are fictional characters rather than (say) the shoe or the hat in Monopoly. Emphasizing whole enemies/sisters thing seems perfect, especially since there isn't some Awful Force in the background they need to mobilize against.

Cool!

I am looking forward to some serious playtesting accounts. I agree with Sydney that you should check out Guy Shalev's ideas, but bear in mind that he's only presenting ideas and has not put them into practice yet. I also suggest checking out the Ronnies contests here at the Forge from last year. A lot of entries were sharp, hard-hitting competitive games with absorbing imagined-material. You can find the links in the sticky at the top of the Endeavor forum.

Best, Ron

[Thunder_God]

I am curious about the Endgame conditions myself.

Also, what is there to define strategy? I only see the Dysfunction "Big Dice" moving over, what is there to stop you from just bringing out everything each time? DitV has the Narration Requirement. How about having Dysfunction also have some mechanical drawbacks, for being, well, Dysfunctions? Perchance they get in the way of getting along with the NPCs and Witches who don't also have them?

As for my own stuff, there is the CSI Games Blog, where I give out my 'General Theory' regarding Competitive Story Interaction Games. There is also the Wiki which you can use to look at other deeply Competitive and/or Gamist RPGs.
Last, I feel important to note that my theory is used and not only discussed. The theory lead to the game, and the game was explained by the theory, the two are deeply entwined. The game is Cranium Rats. There are two Playtest threads on the first page of the Playtest forum, to see what worked, and what didn't.

I'll keep an eye on your project.

[oreso]

Ron, cheers!

I am curious about the Endgame conditions myself.

The conditions for triggering the Endgame are fulfilling your fate. Doing so gives a big healthy bonus in those final conflicts. I'm thinking once a character loses a conflict in the Endgame they leave. The conflicts will be to tie up the loose ends with the NPCs and hopefully a few will be killed off or seduced or whatever to raise the stakes for the showdowns between the sisters.

People can still get those bonus dice for fulfilling their fate too, so there's still something to aim for.

Also, what is there to define strategy? I only see the Dysfunction "Big Dice" moving over, what is there to stop you from just bringing out everything each time?

Because you are taking a risk when you do so, and your opponent might not be (NPCs are buffers and suicide troops, but if you treat them like such they'll become traitors).

Winning gets you a new Dysfunction (or increases the intensity of an old one) proportional to the level of manipulation you used to win. If you have Murder on your conscience early on in the game (a d12 intensity Dysfunction), you better pray it never gets any Presence and someone doesn't roll lucky against you, cos thats a big weapon they can use against you. Sure you can always pull out more resources, but your NPCs will be quickly turned against you (since they lack big Dysfunctions they are powerful against careless guilty Witches) and soon you will be left with no NPCs to hide behind and you are outnumbered by your sisters. However, if your Fate is to die by another Witches hand this is all great obviously. There is more to the strategy than winning every manipulation, it is fooling the other players so that you win the conflicts you want, without crippling yourself on those you dont. 

(btw. i'm thinking even if a Witch is killed, they can still operate fine. Either as a memory in the other Witches' heads, a daemon has her soul perhaps, or a ghost or whatever.)

DitV has the Narration Requirement.

Of course I'll require narration. This isnt a dice game. If you can't think of a way to bring something in, you can't. Considering that Witches have reality bending powers though, I don't think they'll be a problem. You bring in your most intense Dysfunction: "Always Feels Cold" for the purposes of Mutilation and you say "The lights gutter and an unnatural cold seeps through the floor. But worse, I brush your arm and send a shiver through your spine and soon you know you are colder than the room, as if there was something dead in your bones, sucking in the life."

How about having Dysfunction also have some mechanical drawbacks, for being, well, Dysfunctions? Perchance they get in the way of getting along with the NPCs and Witches who don't also have them?

Thats exactly what they do. If your character knows about someone elses Dysfunction and its worse than the ones they know about you, then you can use it against them.

I'll look into your stuff, it looks really good, but i wanna nail some stuff down first.

Cheers again, this is much help.

[Sydney Freedberg]

All sounds cool.

A note about "NPCs" (or really, "secondary characters" in this kind of game, since players control every character): How much do you want the players to care about them, as oppose to treating them as disposable pawns? People will sometimes do this spontaneously without rules support, but it's rare (happened in just one apocalypse girl) playtest so far), and making this work right is so far one of my biggest problems in apocalypse girl.

[oreso]

Hmm. Tricky i guess. I dont have much problem with some NPCs (normal people characters?) being pawns, but it would be nice if not all were.

There are as statted as much as witches are, and they can be just as powerful against other witches, but they are expendable, and perhaps they shouldnt be so much.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Plus there's (a) caring about NPCs as tactical assets vs. (b) caring about them as (fictional) human beings. If you're going all-out Gamist, then you really don't care about (b); if you want to use Gamist techniques as what Ron call as a "turbocharger" to rev up a game that's fundamentally about "Story Now" (Narrativism), as in Capes, then you have a tricky balance. The single most happy-making thing for me from an apocalypse girl playtest report was when someone noted, almost bemusedly, that his group had gotten very excited about fighting over a particular character and were driven to do things about that character that weren't necessarily tactically smart. But that happened all of once, so far. When I can reliably produce that kind of play -- when every game involves every player going at least once, "Darn it, I should just sacrifice that minor character, but I can't bring myself to do it, because I like them too much" (again, this happens a lot in Capes) -- then I'll consider my design successful. Whether this is a goal you want to aim for is up to you, of course.