[Illumination] Major changes... again

[Filip Luszczyk]

I've run another playtest of Illumination a while back, to crash-test the changes I introduced after the previous game. Prep and scene structure seem to work better now, but unfortunately, the new conflict rules completely broke down.

I modified the prep procedure slightly and planned to quickly convert the setup from the last game, as I mainly wanted to see the resolution in action. However, Kamil suggested that we go through the whole prep again, and so we did.

Currently, I have a diagram with four big boxes (consensual paradigm, protagonist paradigms, antagonist forces and key independent supernatural elements) and arrows connecting them. Each box contains guiding questions for establishing Dogmas for a given paradigm. The group picks one of the boxes and comes up with one Dogma in that paradigm, and then either adds another Dogma from the same box, or moves to a different box following guiding questions attached to the arrows. These instruct how to derive a new Dogma from the one that was just established. Then, the group picks one of the already established Dogmas and derives another Dogma from it, following the arrows. Once all the Dogmas are ready, the group assigns levels to them and that's it.

To illustrate, we started by adding Corporations protect the world from an environmental disaster Dogma to the consensual paradigm. That way, we established that an average citizen is convinced the world is on the brink of an ecological crisis (and consequently, there actually is such risk). From this, we followed an arrow to the Otherside's box and it asked us to add something connected that most people would normally dismiss. So, we derived There is a hidden world of primal, untamed wilds as an Otherside Dogma. Then, we moved to Kamil's character, defining his Identity Dogma through his relation to the wilds. I've been suggesting a druid or a shaman, and in the end Kamil decided to play an activist who fights to bring back old hippie ideals. Next, we moved back to the Otherside, adding Zion: a hippie commune devoted to personal freedom, reachable through drug trips as a supernatural element he regularly interacts with. We derived Only work makes one complete human as another consensual Dogma from it.

We continued creating Dogmas that way, including a bunch of rigid social laws, Kamil's character's drug-induced powers, Corporation Omega that tries to cause a world-spanning apocalyptic bad trip through its Geigerian technology, a TV God and hallucinations-focusing Excalibur, the ultimate weapon.

Until now we've been defining paradigms separately, and even after removing any set preparation order we've been focusing on one at a time. The result was that they didn't connect together all that well, and our setups lacked instantly apparent dynamics. This time, even though the process wasn't very rigid, following the guiding diagram drove our prep and helped us to tie things together. Also, I think the whole derivation thing might have facilitated coming up with weird stuff.

Still, the diagram and questions are currently very rough and definitely need more work. Anyway, I won't be sure whether these prep techniques are really effective until I playtest them more, preferably with someone else than Kamil. He pointed out that the weirdness might just as well be the result of our gonzo mindset. Also, he commented that there's a risky element in the prep - if the starting setup turns out too interesting in itself, the group might be discouraged from trying to change the status quo, and that would miss the point. The initial setup needs to include at least some elements the group would want to further shape through play.

I'm not sure if the number of starting Dogmas per paradigm is good. Last time, seven seemed to be more or less fine. This time I went with six, making them a bit more descriptive, and it felt like adding the last ones was a bit forced. I wonder if I really need to have a set number of them, though. Maybe it would work better if the players simply created as many Dogmas as they needed. Currently, they are assigned levels from a fixed spread - so I'd have to switch to point distribution or allow the players to set the levels as they like. The latter option would be simple and interesting, I suppose, but I'd have to change the role of all this in game's economy a bit for it to work.

Also, I wonder whether a rule that would distribute input during the prep more evenly would be useful. Currently, everything is worked out collaboratively but this poses a risk that more active players dominate the process.

After the prep, we went through some scenes quickly - it was already pretty late and I've been mostly interested in how the numbers work, so we created only the minimum context required. Anyway, it immediately became apparent that the new conflict mechanics were completely broken.

I wasn't very satisfied with the previous conflict rules, as the longer I thought about them, the more exploitable holes I could see. Since the removal of Substances and connected mechanics required me to modify the resolution anyway, I re-worked these rules from scratch. The new rules didn't really had holes that would scream "exploit me!" to the players. The problem is, this time most of the action options lacked strategic sense, and the overall resource economy felt clunky.

It seems Dogmas have too many mechanical functions at this point, and the way they switch is confusing. For example, at times only the Dogma's description matters and other times it's all about numbers. Basically, after reducing the number of Beliefs/Dogmas per player and getting rid of Substances I don't have too many options as far as designing the conflict rules goes. Not if I want them to be structured around actions and somewhat strategic, at least. There's only so much one can do with a limited set of mechanical elements without going overly board-gamey.

Kamil suggested that I could use some additional props like tokens or dice to clearly separate fiction-relevant and abstract resources in conflicts. Although I liked the thought of using index cards with pieces of information about the character for everything, he makes a good point. So, since I don't want to return to heaps of tokens, I think I'll drop the idea of designing this game diceless. Introducing the dice definitely opens many new options. It also diminishes the need to use index cards, so it's possible I'll go back to more standard character sheets (the thought of a fragmented character sheet is still compelling to me, though).

Currently, I'm tinkering with some loose ideas for dice-based conflict resolution. I think I could use two types of dice, probably d6s and d10s, one gained for proving and the other for disproving the beliefs and both useful in different ways (i.e. both low and high rolls would be needed in various situations). Players could accumulate the dice during build-up scenes, being awarded by the group for confirming and undermining Dogmas through their characters' words and actions, including the acts of blatant reality-shaping. Then, in conflict scenes they could assign the dice to different pools, depending on what they're trying to achieve with their actions and who is targeted. Applying Dogmas to the actions could provide some mechanical bonuses - most probably based on the number of faith and doubt marks accumulated on the Dogma, depending if the action utilizes the belief or stretches it. Then, the dice would be rolled and somehow compared with the levels of involved Dogmas and the rolls of other participants, resulting in transferring the dice between the pools and generation of faith and doubt marks. The eventual winner could distribute the generated marks among the affected Dogmas, potentially causing paradigm shifts.

I'm trying to come up with conflict mechanics that would provide the players with some strategic options, but without being overly complicated. Nothing is fully crystalized yet, however.

As for the overall structure of play, I'm currently working with what I came up with after the previous playtest. There will be three or possibly four types of scenes. All scenes will be framed around Dogmas. In focus scenes, a problem that can seriously affect the chosen Dogma will be introduced by the group. In build-up scenes, one of character's Dogmas will be challenged, giving the player an opportunity to confirm it or put it into doubt and gain faith or doubt dice accordingly. This will be possible only once per session for each Dogma, I think, although I'm considering including color scenes that would allow for unblocking a Dogma after giving the belief and its implications some interesting exposition. Finally, conflict scenes will deal with resolving the problems introduced in focus scenes, through the use of action-by-action resolution mechanics (basically, making for a climax of previous tension build-up). I'm considering some more fitting terms for scene types, but that's it for now.

For example, if the character believes the dead continue to live physically in the underworld, the focus scene could feature him receiving a call for help from his dead girlfriend. Later build-up scenes could deal with his travel to the realm of the dead and challenge his beliefs on the way. Is it an entrance to the underworld or just an abandoned subway station? Does he need a sacrifice to command the spirits of the dead or can he make them do his bidding through sheer force of personality? Are they spirits at all, or just a bunch of drag addled bums and elusive shadows? Finally, the conflict scene could deal with him arriving in the place he takes for an underworld and struggling to save the girl. In the end, the character could either bring her girlfriend back to the surface, strengthening his Dogma or come out empty-handed, believing that the underworld is not what he thought and only darkness awaits after the death.

All in all, I find it amusing that the game that basically started as my Mage: the Ascension heartbreaker there are no magic-specific mechanics. I've been struggling with the dynamic powers system, and in the end the whole reality-shaping thing is just a tool for shifting the world-views and is mechanically relevant only as much as the reward one can receive for it.

[Spooky Fanboy]

Glad to see this is back on the drawing board, and that you're tying paradigm closer to what makes the game flow. I'd like to see it in action.

[Filip Luszczyk]

Ah yes, our discussions from months ago were quite useful and helped me focus my design goals for this project. Basically, with every playtest I feel I'm getting closer to what I want, as the gameplay successively gains new desirable qualities. Unfortunately, there's still a lot of mechanical noise that I need to move out of the way for it to work solid.