[Coven] Struggling for "Ah ha!" moment.

[Simon C]

"Coven" is a sort of proto-game I've had rummaging around in my head for a little while, and I'm looking for some fresh ideas to hopefully spur me to an "ah ha!" moment, where I can see what the idea needs to turn it into a proper game.

Here's the kernel of the game:  The players are a witches coven, possibly in a modern day or maybe historical setting.  The premise of the game is that you get together to cast spells, always with the stated aim of helping another, but furthering your own goals at the same time.  The mechanic for casting spells is still vague, but goes something like this.  There is a dice pool, called the "Cauldron".  This starts with, say, a few d6 in it.  The players add iongredients to the cauldron, represented by numbers and kinds of dice.  Rare (hard to obtain) ingredients get higher dice types (maybe?). Items belonging to a particular person get more dice (maybe).  Once everyone has added all the ingredients they want to, the "Cauldron" is rolled.  Then, dice are assigned in a kind of Otherkind-esque way (maybe) with matched dice representing different people, and different dumbers representing different story elements (or something).  Then the players (or one player?) narrate a scene, incorporating the information from the dice, to show the effect of their spell.  I have a vague idea of maybe each player gets to choose a certain part of the story, or a certain set of dice that is their purview, but that the whole scene is a group effort.

As you can see, this is a pretty vague idea.  I want the game to be about getting to have cool power in an unusual way, having fun creating a shared narrative, and also some thematic stuff about how you'll use the power you've got.  Will you kill people?  How much will you twist the spell to your own ends?  Will the other witches let you?  I can only really imagine the game being fun if the players care, not just aboput their own characters, but also about those who are the subjects of the spell.  I initially concieved of this as a historical/fantasy game, but I think maybe it would be more fun in a modern setting, with more "hip" witches, with more personal goals.

So, my questions are:

Do the mechanical aspects of spellcasting seem like they'd be fun to play?

Can some people suggest more concrete ideas for the game mechanics?

Does the game need other mechanics?  Like, apart from spellcasting.

Does the word "Cauldron", and the mechanics of spellcasting tie this (in your mind) too strongly to a particular type of magic, and is this a bad thing? 

[Callan S.]

I want the game to be about getting to have cool power in an unusual way, having fun creating a shared narrative, and also some thematic stuff about how you'll use the power you've got.

The thematic stuff might come ahead of the power aquisition, but I'll ask about that anyway. Do you mean the powers come in an unusual way, or a way that is difficult to understand - say a direct opposite to something like feat selection in D&D, where it's rock solid mechanical?

What if the extent of the power was developed by going from player to player, each getting to add something (not anything they want, as thats uninspiring - they'd roll on a category of power they add or some creative restriction). Ensure that its not conch shell design somehow, even if that's just textually noting everyone should be shouting out ideas, not waiting silently. Then once the powers done, assign it randomly.

[Simon C]

Sorry - that wasn't very clear.  What I meant by having cool power in an unusual way is that your magic power is handled in terms of narrative, rather than mechanical authority.  Perhaps I could give you a description of how I imagine a spell working?  Let's see!

Three characters are casting a love spell on a married man, to make him fall in love with a woman who has petitioned the witches for help. 

Character one says "I bring a lock of the man's hair."  *adds XdX to the Cauldron*

Character two says "I bring the woman's locket."  *adds XdX*

Character three says "I bring blood of a stillborn calf." *adds XdX*

They roll all the dice they have added, plus a base number of dice.

They do some mechanical stuff, maybe assigning dice to pre-defined categories, like Otherkind, or maybe comparing results to charts, or whatever.  Anyhow, the important bit is that the dice represent fragments that they can add to a scene.  Maybe matched dice are things the players can use, and the GM gets to use unmatched dice?  Anyhow...

Now, maybe taking turns... ...ok, we'll do it that way?

Player one says "The man awakes" *chooses some dice to represent the man*

Player two says "and feels compelled to go to the woman's house" *chooses some dice to represent the compelling*

Player three (who wants revenge on the man) says "but his wife awakes also, and follows him" *chooses some dice for the wife*

The GM says "the wife is suspicious and angry" *chooses some dice for the emotion*

Player one says "The woman opens her door to let the man in" *chooses some dice for the woman*

Player two says "They fall into each others' arms" *chooses some dice for the emotion*

Player three says "but the wife walks in on them making love" (needs no dice because it's not introducing new elements)

GM ends the scene.

How was that?
So the basic rules are something like "Choose some dice to represent new elements in the story.  You can't remove or rebutt or ignore anyone elses contribution.  The scene ends when someone wants it to, or when you're out of dice, maybe?" But what you add is constrained by the dice, like, you need doubles to add a new character, numbers over five to add an emotion, triples for a death... something like that.

Does that make it more clear?

[dindenver]

Hi!
  It seems like you have a group of individuals, temporarily united by a single goal. So, maybe that is the "real" core mechanic. How does the group decide which individual goal to pursue? When the coven is united over the cauldron, they can only really cast one spell at a time, how do you decide which spell to cast? To me, that's the real question. So, maybe what you need is a relationship map mechanic. For instance, I used my one ultra-rare Dragon Liver for your spell, now you owe me a favor, And maybe next time, you will bring an equally powerful ingredient when it is time to cast my spell. Something like that maybe?
  Maybe, players get a mechanical penalty if they don't respond in kind at the next meeting of the coven. So, the game sessions, would kind of go in 3 acts, Act 1, would be the char dealing with their own issues, act 2 would be gathering ingredients for the upcoming commune and act 3 would be the meeting of the coven to cast the one big spell?
  Anyways, I think you have the core idea for a cool game, good luck man!

[Callan S.]

Hi Simon,

With your example - are players really going to want to contribute "He wakes up". I know your giving a simple example to outline it. But I think it's something to consider - players will want to contribute more than that - they'll want to go in some sort of direction. But when its the next players turn, as I understand it now, their contribution is issolated from previous ones. There is no motive to carry on someone elses direction while at the same time giving their own direction.

For example,
player one says "He wakes up, and drinks a whole bottle of whisky"
player two intended to say "He then gets dressed as a woman and heads to a club" but is now scratching his head - where the hell was the first player going? Should I give up on what I said, since it may clash with what he wants? But if I give it up, thats boring for me. But if I just add what I want, perhaps I'm tramping over his contribution.

Etc, etc. Perhaps there should be some flags players can call in, to better outline the general direction they are going, like
player one says "He wakes up, and drinks a whole bottle of whisky. I use the flag of regret!"

So the second player could guess that the guy regrets his urges - or you can just ask and already be clued in by the flag use. Another important thing is that the first player knows that the flag he pins his flag on, is the important thing. He wont go thinking whisky is important and get his nose out of joint if its not picked up on - it forces him (in a good way) to think about whats important and explicitly express it.

Does that sound okay or am I forge wanker? :)

[Simon C]

No, that's useful.  You're right that it might be frustrating for the player to contribute "he wakes up".  Remember though that what the player has actually contributed is more than "wakes up", it's also "the spell will involve the actions of this man", which is still not much, but a little more.

In terms of flags, that's a good idea, but I'd like, as much as possible, to have all the information encoded in the dice.  So, for example, the player choose dice rolled from　the cauldron to represent their intentions in the scene.  So, rather than "the flag of regret", the player would choose, say, a pair of twos to represent the man.  Two represent regret (as has been determined by the game rules), so the player narrates regret (drinking the whiskey).  This might be too constraining though.

You're absolutely correct that it could lead to problematic play, having each player unsure of what the previous one intended.  One of the ideas I'm working with is trying to turn that kind of thing to advantage.  Characters may have different goals in the spell-story.  Twisting the previous players' contributions is intended to be a part of the game.  But I think this requires stricter rules, not looser ones, so you've definitely given me something to think about.

I guess one problem that I'm running into is that the cauldron seems to provide a lot of data, and I'm struggling to work out how to use that data.  I like the mechanic of everyone putting dice into a pool and then rolling it to represent a group contribution to a spell, I just don't have a good idea of how to use that mechanic to determine the outcome.

I had a vague feeling that higher numbers would represent more overtly magical effects, while matched dice would represent known quantities, objects and people, and that these things combine.  So, for example,　a pair of 4s could represent a normal person.  A pair of eights could represent a person who would not normally appear, or a stranger.  A six can represent an emotion or urge that's slightly out of the ordinary.  A ten represents freak chance or uncanny coincidence - dead crows falling from the sky, six black cats on a windowsill.  A twelve represents an overtly supernatural effect - a person's mouth filling with locusts, a house bursting into flame.  A pair of twelves could be a demonic presence, or a ghost.  This way, different spell ingredients get different effects.  Your 3d4 lock of hair means you'll almost certainly affect the person most relevant to the spell.  That single d20 dragon blood means you might get someone to spontaneously combust.

Maybe? What to do with triples? Quadruples? Should I use d20s?

It strikes me that I'm not really responding to your point very well, and I've gone off on a tangent instead.  Sorry.  Writing helps me think, and this stuff comes up as I go along.  Your suggestion is very helpful though, and I'll probably respond to it later on.

[Callan S.]

In terms of flags, that's a good idea, but I'd like, as much as possible, to have all the information encoded in the dice.  So, for example, the player choose dice rolled from　the cauldron to represent their intentions in the scene.  So, rather than "the flag of regret", the player would choose, say, a pair of twos to represent the man.  Two represent regret (as has been determined by the game rules), so the player narrates regret (drinking the whiskey).  This might be too constraining though.

How do you mean constraining? Do you imagine the player being forced to look at a list like dread, regret, bitterness - having to chose one and then inventing something relating to that? The way I had it, the player invents whatever they want, then chooses from the list whatever is the closest fit (even if it's not a very close fit). That way you could have him going off to a party and dancing, while the dice of reget are used (he's in denial). While if you go regret first, it has to be something that matches that, which is constrictive.

You're absolutely correct that it could lead to problematic play, having each player unsure of what the previous one intended.  One of the ideas I'm working with is trying to turn that kind of thing to advantage.  Characters may have different goals in the spell-story.  Twisting the previous players' contributions is intended to be a part of the game.  But I think this requires stricter rules, not looser ones, so you've definitely given me something to think about.

Do mean a real advantage amongst players, or players looking for advantages for their PC to take is a way of creating tense stuff in play? The latter doesn't require any advantage gained by real life players and is pretty useful - while real life advantage easily becomes the point of play itself, rather than adding to your cool couldron game.

Maybe? What to do with triples? Quadruples? Should I use d20s?

I'll wait on the other questions before I take this one on. :)

[Simon C]

Damn this Japanese keyboard! I'd replied, then rolled a one for my "post" roll, and fumbled it.  I'll try again.

"constraining" referred to my idea for implimenting the "flags" concept, not flags themselves.  If you want to narrate anger, but the dice of anger don't come up, that's constraining.  I like the idea of flagging your intentions with your narration, but I think that tying that to the dice is maybe a bit tough.  I think that a lot of that can be done informally by just saying stuff like "he's filled with regret".  So, rather from choosing from a formal list, you just say "I'm pulling in this eight for a very powerful, unusual emotion - he's filled with rage" or "I'm using this three for a weak emotion, not far out of the ordinary - he feels regret"

Do you think there's an advantage to a formal list of emotions?

When I was talking about "advantage", I meant that my plan was to turn the "bug" of players being able to misinterpret others' narration, and to twist their contribution, and turn it into a "feature".  The characters all have their own goals and motivations, possibly at odds to the goals of the group, or to other characters in the group.  The characters are constrained by what they can do to further those goals by the caveat that their spells must always nominally be for someone elses benefit - no selfish magic.  So while casting the spell, and making sure the original intent of the spell is honoured, the characters try to twist the incidental narration to benefit them.  In the original example, for instance, one character with a grudge tries to sabotage the new relationship by having the man's wife show up.  I see what you mean that it's important that this remain a tension between characters, rather than tension between players, but I'm not sure exactly how to draw that distinction.

I had some ideas about how to reign in players who exploit the looseness of the rules, however.  I'm not sure how good this is (so you can say "that's crap"), but I was thinking of running with the idea that, really the cauldron and the ingredients are just props.  There's no law of magic that says that you need a powerful ingredient to get a powerful effect.  It's just safer that way.  Characters who flaunt the traditions of magic, and create too powerfull an effect without "paying for it" with dice from the cauldron pay for it in other ways, as toy with forces more powerful than they can control.

In game terms, it means as GM you never say "No, you can't get that effect with only a six".  Instead, you say "Miranda's eyes darken, and her voice becomes gravelly and deep.  Blood drips from her nose".  With more dire consequences for repeat offenders.  The advantage here is that it doesn't break the "fourth wall" of the game, you don't have to step in as GM to intervene directly, and there are no "take backs".  Also, it fits with the events in most movies about witches, where there's always one who goes to far and goes evil.  The disadvantage is that it puts the GM into an arbitration position that could easily leave some players feeling hard done by.  As GM I don't like having to worry about consistently ruling grey areas in the rules.

Thanks very much for engaging in this dialogue.  The game is undergoing revolutions in my head, just from the more disciplined thinking about it I've had to do to write about it here.

Cheers,

Simon

[Callan S.]

"constraining" referred to my idea for implimenting the "flags" concept, not flags themselves.  If you want to narrate anger, but the dice of anger don't come up, that's constraining.  I like the idea of flagging your intentions with your narration, but I think that tying that to the dice is maybe a bit tough.  I think that a lot of that can be done informally by just saying stuff like "he's filled with regret".  So, rather from choosing from a formal list, you just say "I'm pulling in this eight for a very powerful, unusual emotion - he's filled with rage" or "I'm using this three for a weak emotion, not far out of the ordinary - he feels regret"

Do you think there's an advantage to a formal list of emotions?

Yes, when Jim informally says "He's full of regret" then it's Jim's version of regret. Who knows what that is exactly? The next player is just as clueless as before.

When it's the games version of regret, well that's pretty open to debate - no one owns it in particular. Thus when jim attaches the flag of regret, he's saying 'Part of my narration involves quite alot of creative wriggle room on the concept of regret!'. Also a formal list prompts players to give a flag each time, rather than other players having to remind them. Also I'd make the flags a voluntary thing, but with a reward attached. Thus when a player uses them, they are actually doing something (not just following instructions).

I don't quite get your concern with tieing this to dice - I didn't include dice with my original idea. If you see a problem with attaching this to dice, why bring in the dice? Are the dice that important?

When I was talking about "advantage", I meant that my plan was to turn the "bug" of players being able to misinterpret others' narration, and to twist their contribution, and turn it into a "feature".  The characters all have their own goals and motivations, possibly at odds to the goals of the group, or to other characters in the group.  The characters are constrained by what they can do to further those goals by the caveat that their spells must always nominally be for someone elses benefit - no selfish magic.  So while casting the spell, and making sure the original intent of the spell is honoured, the characters try to twist the incidental narration to benefit them.  In the original example, for instance, one character with a grudge tries to sabotage the new relationship by having the man's wife show up.  I see what you mean that it's important that this remain a tension between characters, rather than tension between players, but I'm not sure exactly how to draw that distinction.

Being a tension between players is fine - if that's whats supposed to be enjoyable about play. That's the thing - what's this twist of incidental narration for? Is the enjoyable part of play supposed to be a very rich, entwined world full of inter character intrigue? Couldn't players just work together on this "Oh yeah, see how you forgot to say he puts on clothes when he gets up!! And my PC wants him to lose his job!" "Oh my god, yeah! What a twist - and a bus load of nuns could be driving past, cause my PC likes to give it to organised religion!" or such. Even if you want the surprise "He's naked" that could still be organised to an extent. To actually pit players against each other seems to be a very inefficient method to meet that payoff, if that's the payoff your going for.

I had some ideas about how to reign in players who exploit the looseness of the rules, however.  *snip*The disadvantage is that it puts the GM into an arbitration position that could easily leave some players feeling hard done by.  As GM I don't like having to worry about consistently ruling grey areas in the rules.

I think there are two types of 'exploiters'. One is a person who doesn't actually want the same thing as you at all. It's kind of a missunderstanding. Best not to play with them and forget about it in terms of design.

The other person is someone who does want what you want, but has figured out how to use the system to very effectively get it, so much that they have a great amount of sway in terms of what you both want. This isn't automatically a bad thing, but we can talk about it if you want.

Thanks very much for engaging in this dialogue.  The game is undergoing revolutions in my head, just from the more disciplined thinking about it I've had to do to write about it here.

Cool man :)

[Simon C]

I think we're talking past each other a little bit because my ideas are still so vague that it's hard to pin down exactly what I'm talking about.  With that in mind, I'll reply to your points (which are excellent), and then in a while, once I've thought about this some more, I'll post a new topic with some more concrete ideas. 

List of emotions:  You're right.  For the reasons you've listed, this is a great idea.

Inter character tension: Point taken.  I like the idea of characters sometimes subtly working against each other, working things into spells that the others don't want.  But I don't want this to become vindictive, or to break up the narration to the point where it becomes farcical.  I need to rethink how this design goal is reflected in my game.

Exploiters:  I don't think I expressed myself very well.  What I was trying to get across is not that people who exploit the rules will be punished, but rather that choosing to exploit the rules will be a valid, thematic decision.  It has "in game" consequences, so players can make a decision to risk those consequences if that's the direction they want for their character. It turns the problematic "you're a filthy powergamer" argument into a possibly fun, in-game "your character is dangerously ambitious" situation.  So, by all means, milk the rules for everything you can, just be aware that this decision has consequences for how people will view your character, and might have negative results in the long run.

Feel free to reply here, but I think the conversation might benefit from me having some time to formulate some more concret mechanics for us to discuss.

[Bailywolf]

This is very very interesting...  I haven't digested everything yet, but I did have one possibly useful thought immediately.

Since this is a game (or a system) about collaboratively spellcasting, then perhaps the members of the coven (the players' characters and gmc's) should have distinct roles within the ritual structure which reflect the kinds of things that can bring to the magical table.  If you can't get your coven's Mother involved, then you can't do healing spells.  If you can't get the Crone, then you can do death magic.  These roles need not be specifically imbued with color, but could be defined in terms of areas of effect- one coven witch is tasked with the lore of human emotions, another with the relationships between people and nature, another with the dead and the living. 

So casting a spell first involves getting all your coven-mates convinced to go along with your plan, and then getting them to participate in the ritual the way you want them too.  So, internal coven politics and personality conflicts leading to cooperative magic leading to possible fallout, trouble, and interesting times where the coven and the rest of society interface.

And example...  Marcus is the Convens Regent, and a master of the magics of authority and social order, but his friend from the town comes ot him as says, "Marcus, I know the town hasn't always been kind of you and yours, but theres a terrible sickness spreading, and we could really use your help."  Marcus (for whatever reason- perhaps he has some kind of mechanical link to the town) agrees, and goes to the Coven to make a case for helping the town out.

To heal the town, Marcus needs Dawn, the coven's Matron, but she and Marcus have been at odds for a long time.  So, before the magic can be worked, he must resolve his conflict with Dawn, and then around the Cauldron, he has to trust her to go along with the spell as he conceives it.  After the spell- success, failure, or unexpected intents- the effects on the town, Marcus's relationship with it, and with Dawn plays out.

Something like that- spellcasting as scene rather than action. 

-B