[Hex Rangers] Strange Fruit revisited

[Marshall Burns]

Hex Rangers is my design that was formerly titled Witch Trails. It's a game of investigating and exterminating the paranormal in the American frontier.

A couple weeks ago, I ran the "Strange Fruit" scenario for my cousin James and his fiancee Krystal. It was her first time playing an RPG, although she had watched me, James, and Steven play Super Action Now! one time and made an engaged (and occasionally participating) audience, so I really thought she'd have a good time with it, even though it was out of character for her. She did, and even stepped into speaking in-character (even while persuading NPCs with her character's feminine wiles) with ease and no apparent discomfort.

The system has gone through a few changes since then. Lemme give you a rundown of the process of play:

The PCs are Hex Rangers: a secret, government funded organization tasked to rid America of supernatural threats. These threats mostly boil down to nature spirits who are pissed off at white expansion. (There's room for Premise there, so the game could be Drifted to Story Now easily, but as-designed, the game is a Participationist Right-to-Dream thing.)

The PCs investigate, looking for signs of supernatural activity. Along the way, they get into conflicts, which are played out in poker hands, similarly to DitV but with some crucial structural differences. The chips that are used in the conflicts are replenished when the PCs call it a day for the investigation.

Meanwhile, the threat has an agenda with a timeline. The longer the PCs take to figure out a) where the threat is and b) how to kill it, the worse things get for nearby civilians and/or the PCs.

Some particularly successful system changes have been:
the introduction of the timeline as a required step of GM prep;
using the Qualities (attributes) as betting limits and a way to regain chips at the end of a conflict, with none of the older functions;
solid guidelines for ranking traits: "If it's normal, it's 1 card. If it's famous, exceptional, or rare, it's 2 cards, with a 1 card complication [a negative thing that gives opponents cards and may be brought into play by the opponent once the trait is used]; if it's magical, it's 3 cards, with a 2 card complication."

Those all worked really, really well.

As for problems:
Converting the stakes of a conflict (here referring to the chips in the pot, not a statement of Intent) into Trouble (damage) is becoming problematic again. It gets clunky, and it's hard to make sure that all of the chips get used: you end up having to shoe-horn in some rather silly stuff in order to meet the requirements, or else you just discard them and freeform it, which brings me right back to the same problem I used to have with this. I'm not sure what to do about it.

Also, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to explain the magic at the table. I try to explain that it's folk magic, and I try to explain what that means, but I never do it right. I'm all, "It's folk magic! It's cool and different from stupid light-show Disney-glitter Hollywood magic!" and the players say okay, and then proceed later on to narrate shafts of purple light and wounds closing up and pixie dust. I try to re-explain that that's not the right vibe or scope of effect, but I end up relenting because I explain so badly that the players don't get it. And it has a definite negative impact on my fun.

How do you explain American folk magic to someone who has only heard "Pow-wow" used as a term for "meeting," and who has only heard of Hoodoo because they saw Skeleton Key? WITHOUT making them read an essay?

As for the play: it went well. We had fun. I ran the scenario a little different this time, starting it a day before Emily's transformation into a cannibalistic monster; the first Sign of supernatural activity was the disappearance of some workers from the orchards. This one difference, intersecting with the different players' methods of investigation, led the scenario on a very different path. It was interesting. It was also a solid validation of the prep techniques, because I had no problem keeping up with these differences (which included many unexpected actions) without resorting to railroading.

- Marshall

[Patrice]

Also, for the life of me, I cannot figure out how to explain the magic at the table. I try to explain that it's folk magic, and I try to explain what that means, but I never do it right. I'm all, "It's folk magic! It's cool and different from stupid light-show Disney-glitter Hollywood magic!" and the players say okay, and then proceed later on to narrate shafts of purple light and wounds closing up and pixie dust. I try to re-explain that that's not the right vibe or scope of effect, but I end up relenting because I explain so badly that the players don't get it. And it has a definite negative impact on my fun.

How do you explain American folk magic to someone who has only heard "Pow-wow" used as a term for "meeting," and who has only heard of Hoodoo because they saw Skeleton Key? WITHOUT making them read an essay?

Tell them it's magic as a rainbow softly appearing as you touch the hand of the woman you love for the first time is magic, as the snow blocking the mountain road pass your enemies were about to cross to get at you is magic, as your friend phoning you just when you were thinking about her is magic, as turning the radio on, hearing what you've just said in the lyrics of the haphazard tune is magic. Give them a single card complication instead of 2 if they manage to use magic in a way that might be considered as not magical to an outside observer, or 3 instead of 2 if they don't. Tell them it's made of small ordinary rituals. Tell them that it's maybe not even magic, who knows?

Why do I advise you that? Because if their idea of magic is tied so much to what you call Disney-glitter or fantasy novels magic, there's no easy way they will get a sense of what ritual folk magic is about. Makes me think of a Castaneda book in which Don Juan says "do you hear? the world agrees with me" when some kettle boiled as he was talking.

[Simon C]

Steal Away Jordan has, in my opinion, the hands-down best implementation of that kind of magic that I know of.  It's worth a look. 

But I understand you're looking for ways to explain your mechanic, rather than new mechanics (although it's possible if the magic keeps coming out wrong in play, your mechanics could use a look).  Folk magic contains nothing that couldn't be dismissed as chance, or the wild imaginings of a superstitious person.  Folk magic is about using ritual to control those things that are uncontrollable.  It's wearing the same pair of underpants to every football game.  It's crossing your fingers for good luck, it's touching wood, it's your "lucky" fishing lure. 

Oh! I just remembered a comic I read that is exactly what you're talking about: http://niemann.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/master-of-the-universe/

[Marshall Burns]

I'm gonna have to check out SAJ. I've been meaning to for a while now anyway.

As for the mechanics, there's barely any to it at all (which could be part of the problem). The players tell me what they're trying to do, and describe the ritual. I, as GM, judge the ritual on aesthetic & symbolic grounds and assign it a score, and possibly also a complication score. The magic always works unless acted upon by other magic (which, y'know, happens when you go fucking around with spirits), in which case it goes to cards and is handled like any other conflict.

[Simon C]

Interesting stuff.

I'm always wary of "GM assigns a score based on aesthetic judgement" kind of mechanics.  Not because I don't think GMs should be making judgement calls (indeed, I think it's a fundamental requirement), but because the scope of those judgements is often too large.

What about providing some guidelines for that judgement, that went hand in hand with guiding players in the right tone.  Something like:

Hemlock: +1 for spells against men (I'm just making shit up here)
+1 for each hour spent on the ritual
Pine needles: +1 on spells for injury
Binding cords: +1 for spells about movement
Blood: +3 all spells, but +1 complication

Or something like that.  So if you spend three hours winding a spig of hemlock in twine, you have a powerful spell to restrict a man's movement.

The downside to this is that you have a huge list of components and procedures.  Depending on your game, that could be a good thing or a bad thing.  If magic is a central mechanic, I think it's fine.  If it's not, it's possibly too cumbersome.  I think only a fairly small number are needed though to seed ideas for others.  Players will ask "what herb works against women?" and if the answers not in the book, maybe they have to find out in character, or maybe they can make it up.  That seems like fun to me.

[Marshall Burns]

Yeurgh, no. That's not magic, it's chemistry. When you provide guidelines like that, it stops being magic, starts being technology, and gets dull, dull, dull.  I don't mean to be snarky, but it's exactly that sort of approach to magic systems, all but ubiquitous in RPGs, that I've been railing against for years. I hate it.

This is magic:
Joe finds out that his woman's been sleeping with another guy. He gets really drunk and goes walking out in the middle of the night. He falls down by the river. His hand falls into some clay, so he scoops it up. He starts kneading it furiously, working his sweat into it, and his anger, and his grief, and his drunkenness, and finally his semen.

The woman gets pregnant, and dies from complications in childbirth. The child survives, and is born without the ability to feel fear. And even though she was sleeping with someone else, Joe is certain that the child is his.

It's all about a particular, unique iteration of symbols, expressed in action, emotion, and circumstance. On the surface, it looks normal, but there's a certain something that makes it seem a little off, but not enough for the uninitated to suspect anything.

Also, and importantly, it will never happen exactly the same way twice.

[Simon C]

Cool.  Something else then?

When you're making your aesthetic judgement about the ritual, what guides you? What do the rules say should guide you?

[DWeird]

I'm not sure how unique little actions and raw feel can go together with the actions of what's essentially a government-contracted problem-solving organisation. To Hex Rangers, deaths of innocents and such is likely to be a question of efficiency of the fairly cold "do you push a single featureless person in front of a trolley to save five featureless persons that the trolley endangers?" mental experiment variety.

Do you have any mechanics for the characters to become emotionally invested like you did in Rustbelt?

[Marshall Burns]

When you're making your aesthetic judgement about the ritual, what guides you? What do the rules say should guide you?

The poetic weight and aptness of the symbols. If it feels right, it gets a good score. If it doesn't, it gets a poor score (even lame rituals work). If it's so dead-on that everyone at the table nods their heads like, "Yeah, that's exactly how it happened," it gets a great score.

Do you have any mechanics for the characters to become emotionally invested like you did in Rustbelt?

No, not really. The "Temperament" traits are only slightly similar, and are far more similar to Aspects in FATE. Rustbelt is for Story Now, while Hex Rangers is for Right to Dream. The morality of the game is set as a sort of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly thing. Saving civilian lives is just a matter of efficiency, and also a matter of not getting your superior officers pissed off at you.

However –
As a Hex Ranger, yes, you are government contracted. Yes, you have a strict code of conduct, with priorities, that you are ordered to follow. But you're also out there in the field, just you and your partner(s), and it's a long way to the nearest base of operations. Rules get bent or broken and priorities get shifted in the field. But that, too, is part of the expected morality of the game: Blondie in TGTBATU is only "good" in that he's less bad than Angel Eyes and less ugly than Tuco.

So, that's where the rawness and the feeling comes in. Or is supposed to, at any rate.
Oh, right, and speaking of Temperament, I suppose I should explain how that mechanic works. They're traits that describe some part of your character's personality, and their complication value is equal to their positive value. But the neat thing is that the complication is the trait itself; it can be used against you, just as much (and at the same time that) you use it to motivate yourself. My favorite Temperament trait so far was called "Just another dead sorcerer." This belonged to one of the characters in the first Strange Fruit run, and described that character's exact attitude upon learning of the grief and rage that motivated Gil Cutter to do what he did. As far as the Ranger was concerned, it didn't matter that Gil's land had been unmercifully taken, or that his true love had left him; "He's just another dead sorcerer to me."

[Mike Sugarbaker]

Yeurgh, no. That's not magic, it's chemistry. When you provide guidelines like that, it stops being magic, starts being technology, and gets dull, dull, dull.  I don't mean to be snarky, but it's exactly that sort of approach to magic systems, all but ubiquitous in RPGs, that I've been railing against for years. I hate it.

This is magic:
Joe finds out that his woman's been sleeping with another guy. He gets really drunk and goes walking out in the middle of the night. He falls down by the river. His hand falls into some clay, so he scoops it up. He starts kneading it furiously, working his sweat into it, and his anger, and his grief, and his drunkenness, and finally his semen.

The woman gets pregnant, and dies from complications in childbirth. The child survives, and is born without the ability to feel fear. And even though she was sleeping with someone else, Joe is certain that the child is his.

It's all about a particular, unique iteration of symbols, expressed in action, emotion, and circumstance. On the surface, it looks normal, but there's a certain something that makes it seem a little off, but not enough for the uninitated to suspect anything.

Also, and importantly, it will never happen exactly the same way twice.

This thread is full of stuff that should probably go directly into your game text, including the above. In fact if I were you I'd put it on the very first page inside the front cover, Polaris-style.

[Marshall Burns]

You know, you're probably right.

My plan (which is just a starting plan, and thus quite ambitious; I'm sure reality will tone it down) was to make the game a boxed set, with a core rulebook for the mechanics, a how-to-GM book, and an easily-photocopied pamphlet for the players called the Hex Ranger's Field Guide that would explain everything they needed to know about being Hex Rangers. I wanted to write that pamphlet "in voice," but, the more I work on this game, the more I realize that I can't do that. I have to address the players directly, in meta-voice, in order to explain issues like magic.

Speaking of magic, I've had a bit of an idea.
In the rules for making spirits, the first step is to create its Domain:

Domain
The Domain is where the spirit intersects with the visible world. This can be something very local – a certain deer, a certain tree, a certain mountain. Or it can be more general – storms, forests, stone. It can even be conceptual – luck in the hunt, good harvests, warfare. Basically, the spirit must have some link to the world of humans; otherwise, what is it doing here?
   This link is central to the spirit's profile. Its Desire, Vulnerability, Manifestations, and Powers should all flow from its Domain (but feel free to use poetic logic here). After all, it is through the Domain that the spirit acts on the mundane world. Really, it is the Domain that gives the spirit an identity at all.

From the Domain, you design everything else about the spirit. That's how you define its powers and weaknesses and everything.

Suppose the PCs had something similar to that for their magic? Like, a specialty regarding certain kinds of sources/methods. Like, this guy's the blood magic guy, this guy's the fire magic guy, this guy's the dreaming magic guy. I suspect that this, coupled with the GM/player negotiation regarding it during chargen, would go a long way towards focusing the magic issue. What do you guys think?

[David Berg]

Communicating Folk Magic

Examples are good.  That guy at the river is one good one, but you need others to show other facets and possibilities.

Does the Hex Rangers setting include one flavor of magic, used by PCs and antagonists alike?  Or do the PCs do folk magic and the badguys do something else?  Your examples ought to show the kinds of magics that will occur in play -- either useful stuff the PCs will want to do, or nasty stuff they'll want to not have happen to them.  Or both.

Visuals are also good.  Even crappy Pow-wow and Hoodoo images from the internet could be a starting point.


Arbitrating Magic

I agree with Simon that it'd be good for the GM to have a list of criteria for evaluating how a spell should take effect.  However, I tink the criteria themselves should be aesthetic, not scientific.  And the game text should provide guidance to the GM in making these specific aesthetic judgments.  Example:

-how well does the spell's color evoke (in the minds of the players) its intended effect? (0 - doesn't, 1 - vaguely, 2 - clearly, 3 - strongly or cleverly)
-how well does the spell's color evoke its intended target?
-how well does the spell's color represent "Hex Rangers magic"?

The better the score in each of these categories, the better the spell (a) produces intended type of change, (b) affects desired target, (c) produces intended extent of change.

Another option would be to somewhat formalize the system of "if everyone at the table says that's perfect, then it works well".

Or those options could be combined, with some sort of a bonus vote thing where players sway the GM's judgment.  "I was thinking 'vaguely evocative', but it got two votes, so I guess 'clearly evocative' is fair."


Awkward Resolution Outcomes

Your comment about having to shoehorn in consequences of the card-playing sets off alarm bells for me.  I've never played Right to Dream using Conflict Resolution, so I'm curious to see what that looks like.  But it sounds like you've found an obvious pitfall.  When the answer to to "why did that happen" is obviously "cuz the rules say so", that can jar a dreamer.  The GM would do well to make sure "why did that happen" never gets asked -- some GMs are up to this, with  fast, clever, plausible improv -- but others may find it tricky without some resources to fall back on.  I'll stop speculating now; I guess my real point is that I suspect this is a very important issue, one that might trip me up if I ran it without having seen you run it first.


GM Prep

Marshall, we need to compare notes on this.  Delve uses a timeline too.  For me, it's mainly a reminder to periodically inject some dramatic urgency, plus a brainstorm checklist of how to do that.  Same for you?


What does folk magic look like, and how does it behave?

Just brainstorms here.

-color apt to "magic"
       -sacrifice
       -deal-making
       -secret-utilizing
               -secret symbols
       -gross
       -visceral
       -taboo-breaking
       -altered mental states
               -frenzy
               -trance
               -weeping

-color apt to target
       -part of it
       -effigy of it
       -symbol of it

-color apt to effect
       -drowning
       -dessication
       -discarding
       -shaping
       -merging
       -detecting/revealing

-power source
       -blood
       -semen
       -precious item
               -gem
       -rare item
               -frog bone
               -albino squirrel
       -personal offer
               -child
               -spouse
               -virginity
               -name
               -soul
       -nature
               -sun
               -moon
               -special tree
               -whirlpool
               -4-leaf clover

Based on process/effect and target, you could generate some rough idea of the kind of change wrought, and where it occurs.  At some point, either the game or the GM would have to determine the specifics: "Yes, your wife is affected, but burning the effigy, rather than burning away her lust, only enflames it."  Brainstorm: the GM might choose or roll randomly on lists of ways a spell could go:

scale of obviousness -- first thing you might expect -> barely traceable to ritual

scale of degree -- weaker than optimal -> stronger than optimal

scale of specificity -- effect too narrow -> effect too broad

scale of polarity -- optimal form of effect -> exact opposite of that

scale of backlash -- no side-effects for you -> permanent side-effects for you

Alright, brain-dump complete.

[Marshall Burns]

Does the Hex Rangers setting include one flavor of magic, used by PCs and antagonists alike?

All magic rituals are done in the same flavor. The PCs use them, as do witches*. Spirits*, devils*, and abominations* may use them, but also have Powers that are like magic in that they can be combated with magic, but require no ritual or anything; they just DO them. Sorcerers* also have rituals, but only to traffic with and command spirits.

*These are just different classifications of badguys. There's also fearsome critters, but they don't use magic. Joe, from that example, would technically be a witch -- while the fearless child born from the spell would be an abomination.

Awkward Resolution Outcomes

Your comment about having to shoehorn in consequences of the card-playing sets off alarm bells for me.  I've never played Right to Dream using Conflict Resolution, so I'm curious to see what that looks like.  But it sounds like you've found an obvious pitfall.  When the answer to to "why did that happen" is obviously "cuz the rules say so", that can jar a dreamer.  The GM would do well to make sure "why did that happen" never gets asked -- some GMs are up to this, with  fast, clever, plausible improv -- but others may find it tricky without some resources to fall back on.  I'll stop speculating now; I guess my real point is that I suspect this is a very important issue, one that might trip me up if I ran it without having seen you run it first.

Trouble happens after conflicts because the conflict escalated to a certain point. Not "cuz the rules say so," but because things boiled that hot. It's meta, sure, but this isn't a game-physics, [Threefold] Sim kind of Right to Dream. It's a genre-emulation, Dramatism kind of Right to Dream. In a Spaghetti Western, the further the conflict goes, the worse it is for the guy who loses it. Not because of guns or whatever, but because he lost and didn't fold before then to cut his losses.

I've been thinking that, instead of converting stake points to Trouble points, I can just have a "Trouble meter" that I compare to the stakes, one that tells me, say, "At 25 stakes, X, Y, or Z happens" and the winner chooses. In other words, use more of a Poison'd-style consequence-for-escalation mechanic.

GM Prep

Marshall, we need to compare notes on this.  Delve uses a timeline too.  For me, it's mainly a reminder to periodically inject some dramatic urgency, plus a brainstorm checklist of how to do that.  Same for you?

Um, sorta, maybe?
Here's some text from the how-to-GM guide I'm working on:

THREAT AGENDA
All Threats have an agenda. That agenda is, in some way, what makes them a threat to the civilians; that is, they're agenda needs to be to make something terrible happen. If you're using a combination of Threats, they could be collaborating on a single agenda, or they could be pursuing separate agendas. However, as separate agendas are liable to conflict, I don't recommend that you try them until you've got a handle on running the game.
   The agenda needs to be a multi-step plan of action that, unless foiled, they will follow. Each step should correspond to one Segment of gameplay [the period of time between when the PCs resources are refreshed and when they call it a day, either because they're out of leads or they're out of resources –MB]. 
   Whatever the agenda is leading up to, it needs to be really, really bad. Furthermore, things need to get progressively worse as the agenda continues, such that the longer the players take to figure things out, the worse things get for the people they're supposed to be protecting.
   This is important! Notice the rule for replenishing chips? The players get their chips back when they decide to call it a day and end a Segment. Which advances the Threat's agenda by one step, and makes the situation one step worse. So the players have to be careful about splurging all their chips on conflicts, lest they run out and are forced to allow the Threat to get worse.
   Now, if the players manage to foil a step of the agenda, but don't manage to take down the Threat, you'll have to improvise changes to the agenda. Don't worry if the improvisations aren't as clever as the agenda you had cooked up; this mirrors what your Threat is going through. His plan is going all to hell, and now he's got to try something more dicey, reckless, or even desperate.

AN EXAMPLE THREAT AGENDA
The Threat is Jack Gossman, a Witch who can create undead slaves. Their bite carries on the curse after 24 hours. The idea is to turn the entire town of Cedar Grove into these Abominations.

1.   Kidnap Eleanor Wingham.
2.   Drown Eleanor in the well, and allow her body to be found.
3.   When Eleanor's curse takes hold, she will kill and turn the mortician, Thaddeus Burnow, who was, of course, preparing her for burial.
4.   From here on, in each step, each extant undead Abomination will kill and turn one of the townsfolk apiece, until the entire town has been turned, at which point they will turn their attention toward the PCs.

The way this will work in play is thus:
When the PCs arrive in town, inform them somehow of Eleanor's disappearance – it should be the talk of the town – and react to their attempts to investigate it. On the next segment, inform the PCs of the discovery of Eleanor's body. On the next segment, inform the PCs of the discovery of Thaddeus' body (with strangely human bite marks) and the disappearance of Eleanor's corpse. And so on, for each new victim.

So, in "Strange Fruit," Gil Cutter (a sorcerer, by the way, pacted with the bloodfruit tree, which is a spirit) wants revenge against the town. The agenda goes like this:
1.   Kidnap workers from the orchard and sacrifice them to the bloodfruit tree.
2.   Test bloodfruit by feeding one to Emily.
3.   Make pies.
4.   Get pies to the pie contest, where they will be eaten and contaminate as many people as possible, prompting mass bloodshed, grief, wailing, and gnashing of teeth.

What does folk magic look like, and how does it behave?

This is a good idea. I should probably make something like this.

Based on process/effect and target, you could generate some rough idea of the kind of change wrought, and where it occurs.  At some point, either the game or the GM would have to determine the specifics: "Yes, your wife is affected, but burning the effigy, rather than burning away her lust, only enflames it."  Brainstorm: the GM might choose or roll randomly on lists of ways a spell could go:

This is really good, especially because I don't have to make the GM choose or roll on how the spell could go weird; he can just introduce the possibility as a Risk.

Speaking of Risk, this thread has occasioned me to realize that I don't use the Risk mechanic NEARLY enough. It's like this:

GM poses a danger, pushing forward a number of chips proportional to the danger's severity.
Players decide how their PCs try to deal with it. They can either "pay off" the danger by spending a number of chips equal to how many the GM put forward, or they can pay off part of it and then Risk it, or they can just Risk it totally.

When you Risk it, you draw cards, using traits as normal, but with only one round of actions, and no betting. Then you compare cards to the GM; if your hand is better, the danger is averted. If the GM's hand is better, the danger comes true and Trouble happens based on how many chips you didn't buy off.

[David Berg]

All magic rituals are done in the same flavor. The PCs use them, as do witches*. Spirits*, devils*, and abominations* may use them, but also have Powers that are like magic in that they can be combated with magic, but require no ritual or anything; they just DO them.

Okay, cool, so rituals all kinda look like other rituals.  Removing the ritual process will obviously make Powers look somewhat different... but are there any constraints on what Powers could look like?  Are you still going for the color elements present in the rituals (e.g. visceral, taboo, using power source, or whatever else from my or your lists), or could a critter's Power look like "Speak Egyptian backwards to shoot laser beams!"?  I guess I'm trying to nudge you to find a good limit case that'd help define your aesthetic.

Trouble happens after conflicts because the conflict escalated to a certain point. Not "cuz the rules say so," but because things boiled that hot.

Hmm.  So, the quantity of mechanical Trouble matches the intensity of the fictional action... it's just hard to derive the right identity of that trouble from the fictional events?  Is that right?  Maybe all you need is a list of types of Trouble to assist the GM's ad-lib.

Brainstorm:
-loss/damage of PC valuables
-collateral damage to nearby persons/property
-new animosity
-negative markings (from mundane scars to hairy palms to no reflection)
-PC stats go down
-allergies or aversions required (could be situational mechanical penalties or just color)
-lies circulate
-threat jumps ahead by one Segment

It's meta, sure, but this isn't a game-physics, [Threefold] Sim kind of Right to Dream. It's a genre-emulation, Dramatism kind of Right to Dream.

Gotcha.  Sorry for the sidetrack.  I was a bit off base, but still, no one likes stuff that feels shoehorned.  I'm glad you're tackling this.

I've been thinking that, instead of converting stake points to Trouble points, I can just have a "Trouble meter" that I compare to the stakes, one that tells me, say, "At 25 stakes, X, Y, or Z happens" and the winner chooses. In other words, use more of a Poison'd-style consequence-for-escalation mechanic.

Yeah, might be tidier.  I submit my brainstorm list above for possible Xs, Ys, and Zs. 

THREAT AGENDA
. . . The players get their chips back when they decide to call it a day and end a Segment. Which advances the Threat's agenda by one step, and makes the situation one step worse.

This reminds me a bit of what I've heard about Survival/Tension in Dead of Night.  It sounds like a significant reward mechanism to me, but I don't remember any descriptions of it in your play accounts.  Do you intend to make players aware of this dynamic?  If so, will you do it directly, on the meta level, player to player, as part of "how to play this game"?

   Now, if the players manage to foil a step of the agenda, but don't manage to take down the Threat, you'll have to improvise changes to the agenda. Don't worry if the improvisations aren't as clever as the agenda you had cooked up; this mirrors what your Threat is going through. His plan is going all to hell, and now he's got to try something more dicey, reckless, or even desperate.

I suggest that you provide some rules of thumb for this improv.  Maybe reference to the basics of Threat Agenda Creation will do the trick, but some more guidance might be nice too.  Stuff like, "Try for the same end goal, invent a new way to get there, invent a way that the new way is more constly to the badguy" or "Try for the same process just with different specifics, including a different end goal if apt" or whatever you deem most important.

AN EXAMPLE THREAT AGENDA
The Threat is Jack Gossman, a Witch who can create undead slaves. Their bite carries on the curse after 24 hours. The idea is to turn the entire town of Cedar Grove into these Abominations.

1.   Kidnap Eleanor Wingham.
2.   Drown Eleanor in the well, and allow her body to be found.
3.   When Eleanor's curse takes hold, she will kill and turn the mortician, Thaddeus Burnow, who was, of course, preparing her for burial.
4.   From here on, in each step, each extant undead Abomination will kill and turn one of the townsfolk apiece, until the entire town has been turned, at which point they will turn their attention toward the PCs.

The way this will work in play is thus:
When the PCs arrive in town, inform them somehow of Eleanor's disappearance – it should be the talk of the town – and react to their attempts to investigate it. On the next segment, inform the PCs of the discovery of Eleanor's body. On the next segment, inform the PCs of the discovery of Thaddeus' body (with strangely human bite marks) and the disappearance of Eleanor's corpse. And so on, for each new victim.

As a prospective GM looking at this, I'd be asking, "Where do I start?" and "How do I get from Step 1 to Step 4 (or vice versa)?"  Do you have any guidelines for this?  A good Threat Agenda Creation could very well make this game.  I have an early draft of Delve's scenario creation process online here if you want to compare thoughts.

Speaking of Risk, this thread has occasioned me to realize that I don't use the Risk mechanic NEARLY enough. It's like this:

GM poses a danger, pushing forward a number of chips proportional to the danger's severity.
Players decide how their PCs try to deal with it. They can either "pay off" the danger by spending a number of chips equal to how many the GM put forward, or they can pay off part of it and then Risk it, or they can just Risk it totally.

When you Risk it, you draw cards, using traits as normal, but with only one round of actions, and no betting. Then you compare cards to the GM; if your hand is better, the danger is averted. If the GM's hand is better, the danger comes true and Trouble happens based on how many chips you didn't buy off.

Huh?  How have you NOT being using that?  It sounds integral to resolution...

[Marshall Burns]

Okay, cool, so rituals all kinda look like other rituals.  Removing the ritual process will obviously make Powers look somewhat different... but are there any constraints on what Powers could look like?  Are you still going for the color elements present in the rituals (e.g. visceral, taboo, using power source, or whatever else from my or your lists), or could a critter's Power look like "Speak Egyptian backwards to shoot laser beams!"?  I guess I'm trying to nudge you to find a good limit case that'd help define your aesthetic.

That's gonna take some thinking about. "Speak Egyptian backwards" is really cool. "Shoot laser beams" isn't. Somewhere, there's an identifiable divide here.

This reminds me a bit of what I've heard about Survival/Tension in Dead of Night.  It sounds like a significant reward mechanism to me, but I don't remember any descriptions of it in your play accounts.  Do you intend to make players aware of this dynamic?  If so, will you do it directly, on the meta level, player to player, as part of "how to play this game"?

In this session, I specifically told the players that when they rested to replenish their chips, the situation would get one step worse, and thus they were running against the clock. I'm not sure what influence this had on their decision-making, but they did seem reluctant to replenish until absolutely necessary. Combined with a tendency to push a little harder than was prudent in conflicts, they had a few moments where they nearly had to let the villain get away due to lack of resources.

Huh?  How have you NOT being using that?  It sounds integral to resolution...

I don't have an explanation. I don't really know why. The players led their characters toward conflicts exclusively – they never declared any risky thing outside of a conflict – but that's no reason why I can't introduce a risk on my own.