Recoil: Concept

[Lance D. Allen]

So perhaps a Conviction trait which is defined by the player?

Example Convictions:

Save my family;
Save the little girl I Recoiled into the first time;
Get to Heaven/Wherever, someday....;
Fight EVIL;
I'm a soldier. It's what I do;
I can't let my new friends down;

And then a set of check conditions, determined by the GM and the player. Whenever the condition is met, you make a check to see if they lose a point of Conviction, or gain a point of Conviction.

Examples:

Whenever my family is threatened, but successfully protected, check to gain/whenever family is harmed by something I couldn't stop, check to lose;

Whenever my church/religious group is defended, check to gain, whenever I have cause to despair that Heaven/the afterlife is lost to me, check to lose;

Whenever I successfully defeat a Naughtwraith, or some other evil, check to gain/whenever something causes me to believe that the evil might win after all, check to lose;

et al.

Sound good?

Thanks to Thomas Tamblyn and "Not Evangelion" for the inspiration for these.

[philreed]

If you can get a hold of a copy, you might take a look at Whispering Vault.  It has sort of a similar theme.  PC's are dead people given power to create bodies randomly through time and space.  Each mission centers about finding and fixing a flaw in reality caused by another form of being.  There is the idea of being Outside of reality.  In PC creation you even are supposed to describe your character's personal realm.

Torrent

Find the Vault is easy these days. Check www.rpgnow.com under the horror section. I purchased the game last month and have released everything (including never-before released books) in PDF.

End of cheap plug.

[Lance D. Allen]

Okay, back on this one. I've decided that there's enough unique that the strong resemblance in overall concept to WV isn't a big deal.

I'm toying with the idea of an in-game time limit. I like the idea, as it fits with the overall concept. But how to apply it without detracting from the play of the game is stumping me.

The idea is that Mortis, when it detects a death or mass of deaths caused by Naughtwraiths, can send the agents back in time before it happens. How long prior they can be sent back depends on the concentration of Oblivion's power used in the deaths, and is partially random. (for example, for a single, power 1 Naughtwraith it can range from half an hour to 5 hours prior to the incident.) Some of the problems arise from the level of detail that Mortis is able to get from the deaths; basic location, number of deaths, and basic circumstances surrounding it. (i.e. 15 people dead due to Naughtwraith influence, in a subway derailment within a mile of Times Square.)

The idea here is that the agents have to figure out what the Naughtwraiths are doing, how they are planning to do it, and try to stop it before it happens. So they've got to beat the clock.

The problem I'm running into is how to keep track of time without nitpicking the details of every action. Am I overestimating the problem this is going to be? I'm imagining it being a problem on longer missions (say, 4 days or so?) moreso than on shorter missions. Basically what I don't want is the game to bog down with the players arguing about how long a given action took.

Any suggestions on how this could be done? Is it even worthwhile? Or am I just exaggerating the problem in my own mind?

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

You wrote,

The idea here is that the agents have to figure out what the Naughtwraiths are doing, how they are planning to do it, and try to stop it before it happens. So they've got to beat the clock.

The problem I'm running into is how to keep track of time without nitpicking the details of every action. Am I overestimating the problem this is going to be? I'm imagining it being a problem on longer missions (say, 4 days or so?) moreso than on shorter missions. Basically what I don't want is the game to bog down with the players arguing about how long a given action took.

In a lot of ways, you're going to have to make a difficult choice. Either (1) you don't do this time-before trick at all, and the agents are out for correction/justice/revenge (as in The Whispering Vault), and you have no how-long-it-took-to-research-the-clue controversies ... or (2) you do, and you do.

If you go with #2, and I hope you do, then the question is not whether to have time-of-actions issues in play, the question is how to make them fun.

I suggest thinking always in terms of trade-offs. Never mind the traditional gaming-thing, in which you have a huge list of how long it takes to do things, and if takes five hours to do X, then some feeb bitches about why wasn't it four hours and twenty-seven minutes this time. No. Instead, always present you can do X ... if you give up doing Y. You can do Y, but you give up doing Z. You can do Z, but you give up doing X. That sort of thing, where X, Y, and Z all confer benefits or advantages to stopping or rectifying the perpetrations of the Noughtwraiths.

That's just a principle, of course, not a system, but I think with a little thought, you can turn it into one.

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the trade-off thing, Ron. Let me give a couple scenarios, and see if you can use them to explain it to me a bit more clearly.

#1. Mortis tells you that a death has just occurred. A single person, but ripped bodily in half by another person. It can Recoil you within one block of the incident. You have (anywhere from 30 minutes to 5 hours, for this example, so we'll compromise at) two and a half hours to find the Naughtwraith and stop it before it does this.

#2. Mortis tells you that a mass of deaths has just occurred. 15 people killed, and likely many others injured in a subway car derailment, within 1 mile of Times Square in New York. You have (2.5-25 hours) twelve and a half hours to find out where and how, and stop it before it happens.

Once the agents are Recoiled, they'll have to get their bearings (which may mean with their host body, as well as the physical location) find out any information that can help them figure out how to stop the Naughtwraiths, and either track them down and destroy them, or otherwise foil the plan.

So how would you work the trade off into these situations?

[Valamir]

Not that it has direct applicability to this game, but Jared's newly posted Ninja Game
has an interesting time mechanic that kind of meets Ron's criteria.

You draw stones from a limited supply for each unit of time you're using doing "stuff" (reseach, preparation, shopping, etc).  So to get the benefit of the stuff, you wind up emptying the supply.

Might be some inspiration there.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

If I'm understanding correctly, these are two separate examples, not one single two-pronged example. Right?

If I'm right ...

#1. Mortis tells you that a death has just occurred. A single person, but ripped bodily in half by another person. It can Recoil you within one block of the incident. You have (anywhere from 30 minutes to 5 hours, for this example, so we'll compromise at) two and a half hours to find the Naughtwraith and stop it before it does this.

Waity-wait. You're switching on me. "Find the Naughtwraith and stop it before it does this." Is that the mission? Or is the mission to prevent the person from being ripped in half by anyone in any way? Or what if the Naughtwraith, thwarted but not stopped for good, rips someone else in half? Is that failure? Or what if it manages to rip the person in half? Do we just give up and be done, even though it's rampaging about even worse? Think clearly about this - it's a big big deal.

Anyway, let's talk about the trade-offs. I'm not going to discuss it in system terms at all; that's your concern.

Jeannie Hahn, advertising executive, has been cheating on her husband with her boss. She's having a bad morning - after a second session with her counselor, who she's been seeing at lunch breaks, she's decided to reveal the affair publicly at the office, quit her job, and try to patch things up with her husband.

Trouble is, her husband found out about the affair and is already at the workplace, determined to beat up the boss. Trouble is, the boss has already prepared some misinformation about Jeannie swiping company funds to cover his ass. Trouble is, the Noughtwraith shows up.

Who's the host? It could be the husband, the boss, Jeannie herself (the dreaded Noughtwraith suicide trick), or someone who simply exploits the situation (like the bicycle messenger who shows up).

Now for the trade-offs. The more researching into Jeannie's situation, the better - it's important to know what the victim is up to, in order to understand the complicated confrontation and stop the Noughtwraith.

That's why I need to understand the mission better, in terms of the questions I asked above. What if the Noughtwraith is really after the husband, but Jeannie turns out to be the better target when the agents appear? What if the boss pulls out a chainsaw and tries to cut Jeannie in half, no Noughtwraith involved, as the agents stop the Noughtwraith? The research I'm talking about, the investigations to understand the hassles of Jeannie's emotional situation, will all permit the agents to cope with the confrontation better ... and there's no way for them to get it all.

#2. Mortis tells you that a mass of deaths has just occurred. 15 people killed, and likely many others injured in a subway car derailment, within 1 mile of Times Square in New York. You have (2.5-25 hours) twelve and a half hours to find out where and how, and stop it before it happens.

Again - come up with about eight different ways for the derailment to occur. The agents have to figure out what the Noughtwraith has to do with it, because it may just be that the derailment is not the problem at all. They have to run down leads, see who was hosting the thing, track that person, and figure out just what it is that they are supposed to stop. Everything they do find out means something else that they don't.

That's what I mean by trade-offs: no matter what, there's no way to research and understand everything. But instead of railroading it into what they must and must not find out, just let their own choices dictate which is which.

That's what you wanted from your time-constraint mechanic in the first place, right?

Best,
Ron

[szilard]

Hi Lance,

A couple of thoughts... first on Time. Why not leave time in the abstract? I don't get a particularly simmy feel from this game - it strikes me as rather, ummm, impressionistic. Instead of a random number of hours, how about a random number of scenes (which can range in length from minutes to hours)?

Also, is there any reason the characters' mission has to start with them going back in time? Could they do some after-the-fact research in the present and then go back and make some changes?

Oh... another thought... what about creating some sort of lasting connection between characters and people they use as hosts? This could go in one of many different directions, but it seems like there is a lot of potential there... if only as a source for recurring NPCs, if nothing else.


Stuart

[C. Edwards]

I think limiting the number of scenes has good possibilities.  Similar to the drawing of stones Ralph mentioned but... different.  Every time the players want their characters to persue a certain aspect of the mission it eats a scene.  The past is being eaten up Langolier style and there are only so many scenes left. ;)  

You could tie in how many individual actions/rolls can be made in a scene with how well the character has adjusted to their Host body. I'm using something similar, which I refer to as Proximity, that represents how connected a character (in this case a 'goblin') is to events that take place in the When and Where (as opposed to that Outside space we're all so fond of).

-Chris

[Lance D. Allen]

::blinks, mouth wide-open, at Ron:: Did I mention that Mortis isn't a big planner thinker?

Okay, bad excuse, because Prime is. I suppose I ought to give a little more information on the overall mission. Remember now that the agents are there to protect reality, not to act as vigilantes and stop every crime they see, though they're free to, if they wish to do so. In the first example, the idea I had was something along the lines of the Naughtwraith, possessing a person, and by brute, inhuman strength, ripping someone in half, possibly in public. The Naughtwraiths will kill whenever possible, but as their power is limited, they'll generally save their powers for when it will do the most bad, shake the most belief. In general, the specific mission will be to thwart the specific activity, but if they can dispatch the Naughtwraith in the process, all the better, because that Naughtwraith won't be able to cause anymore mischief. What Mortis tells you is limited information, because it only has limited information to give.

I also left out a lot of different things that the agents can do, such as an ability to see things not of the Coil (though it's not fool-proof) such as Naughtwraiths, and each other.

Ad for the exact events leading up to the incident, I'm thinking about a system which is pretty free and open, in similar vein as InSpectres, though not QUITE as player driven. The specifics of the crime are left undefined at first, because it hasn't happened yet, and the players' decisions can affect how it will happen, as well as the character's actions, if they fail to prevent it. The only solid things they're likely to know before Recoiling is that X amount of people died in Y fashion in the proximity of Z, due to the direct influence of Naughtwraiths.

Anyhow, I think I see where you're going with the trade-offs, but in the end I think it will be okay, because whatever causes seems most likely to the agents probably will be. Just got to look into how to implement it all.

Stuart: Time as an abstract is possible, but at the moment, it feels right to me that the time should be solid. A lot of what the players will do, in longer term missions, won't be played out in scenes until it starts getting down to the wire. I'm trying for a narrativist approach, but I've got a certain amount of Sim in my blood and bones, so the goal I'm going for is a lightly sim engine used to drive narrativist play.

As for researching in the time following the incident.. In all honesty, I never even considered it. I suppose it could be done easily enough, and now that I'm thinking on it, it would allow the players to place more concrete definitions to the event, which could circumvent some of the problems Ron mentioned. I would, however, make any time spent in the present/near future count against their total, as the available Past is catching up with the present. Thank you for giving me the idea.

On agents making personal connections with hosts, I've also considered that. At the highest level of synchronicity, the host is aware of the agent, and can actively help if they choose. One of the various different abilities of the agents will be the ability to attune themselves to a given host, so that they can find them again if they are Recoiled into that area again, rather than Recoiling into a random host. I can see some definite potential with the idea of going to research in the present of the incident with this, as well. Imagine trying to Recoil into an attuned host, only to find that you can't, because they died in the incident. It would put a definite fire under the agent's proverbial ass to stop that incident from happening.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

I strongly suggest considering the following question:

Is the point of play to have a fight scene between the agents and the Noughtwraith?

If so, then all the stuff I talked about, as well as any concerns about the timing of whatever before the confrontation, is moot. They show up in time to stop it (or else there's no point). They see it, they see each other, it sees them, so there's no ambiguity. It does or doesn't kill the person is tries to get; they fight it, and kill it or drive it away. That's it.

If not, then you don't need to concern yourself with engineering the circumstances or game-system to ensure that everyone gets into "the right fight." Play in this case would focus on relationships that get established among agents themselves (e.g. differing approaches), on relationships with the actual people in the situation (which you seem to limit to hosts for some reason; note that Jeannie in my example is not the host), and on scoping out any number of issues surrounding the eventual possible confrontation - the fight is an afterthought to whatever moral issues the characters themselves are all about.

If you look at the literature surrounding The Whispering Vault (an awesome, powerful game), you will see a ton of people who answer the above question "Yes," and then are all shocked to find that the game itself assumes the answer to be "No." Then they bitch about how the game "sucks" or whatever.

Don't fall into that trap. Know your answer and drive the game, system, and presentation thereby.

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

Yes, and no. More yes than no.

It is possible, in many circumstances, to foil the Naughtwraith without combating it. But it has to be banished, or else it will continue to make trouble. There will be two ways to banish them, though really it's just variants on the only way. Naughtwraiths, like the agents, have a certain amount of power. Generally a lot less individually, but they've got their own advantages. That power is used to fuel their abilities, and also to keep them in the Coil to mess with things. Directly attacking the Naughtwraith can reduce their power, the same as a direct attack on the agent. Attacking the host can also reduce their power, as they'll have to heal it to keep it alive so they can inhabit it, or abandon the host, which is the same as banishment, so long as there's not a Rift. Finally, the least direct way to banish a Naughtwraith is to let it expend it's power, but fight the effects so that they do not damage the Paradigm, or at least not as much.

So, yeah. Confrontation is pretty much inevitable, but success is not necessarily so, especially if the agents don't make a concerted effort to understand and nullify whatever the Naughtwraiths are trying to do, either through preemptive banishment, or other means. It's still a victory for Oblivion if the Naughtwraiths are able to force a Rift and lay waste to a city block before the agents can banish them. I'd say that each skirmish will eventually be won by the agents, but the cost of victory is what counts in the long run.

On relationships, I didn't really mean to give the impression that hosts were all that the agents could form attachments to. But for the most part, agents can't go around advertising themselves, because most people know there's no such thing as spirits that possess people, and having it proved to them would shake their belief, which is counterproductive. When/if they reveal themselves, it'd best be in a time of great need, or done very carefully.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Lance,

Forgive my brutality ...

It can't be both yes and no.

I'm not referring to whether the agents kill or fail to kill the opponent. I'm talking about whether the actual violent confrontation is the payoff and the point of play.

Think about it in the most basic of terms: I'm a guy who makes up a character to play in a game of Recoil that you're running. I make up the character. That's an investment of time, energy, attention, and social interaction on my part.

What's the payoff for me? In Recoil Dimension A, it's seeing how well my choices in character creation and play turn out as expressed in the events & outcome of, specifically, the fight. In Recoil Dimension B, it's seeing what my choices in character creation and play mean, thematically, with the outcome the fight just being one of the events involved.

No waffling, man. Either the fight is a subset of thematic character-conflict, or character-stuff is raw material and strategy for the fight. In which dimension is your game?

Best,
Ron

[Lance D. Allen]

Well, see, that's the thing..

Violent, climactic confrontation is usually the last thing an Agent will want to get to. Most times, as the pursued, the Naughtwraiths will end up choosing the ground, and they'll likely choose places where there will be a lot of collateral damage, and a lot of people to see things that Just Aren't Possible.

Combat is going to be very simple. Human bystanders will basically be mooks, with the hosts only being able to withstand what they do because of the abilities used by the agents or Naughtwraiths. There will be a very good chance of bystanders winding up dead if battle is joined in a public place. The smart agent will either ambush the Naughtwraith in as private a place as they're able, or do their best to make the Naughtwraith use up it's powers harmlessly.

I guess what I'm trying to make clear is this: The agent can handle a couple of fairly powerful Naughtwraiths with moderate ease if violent confrontation is all it's about. A small group of agents is more than a match for a medium to large group of Naughtwraiths. But it's not about the fight. It's about saving the people, and preserving reality. All the power in the world can't do that by itself; the agents have to use it properly. The Naughtwraiths have no scruples about destroying everything, in fact that's what they're there for. The agents have to stop them from doing that without destroying it all themselves.

So, I guess I don't really know if the answer is yes, or no. Conflict is inevitable, but battle is to be avoided unless you know you can win. Kinda like TRoS. What's worth fighting for, and when is it worth it to fight?

[Christoffer Lernö]

Forgive me for plunging into the discussion at this point, but isn't Ron asking "what's the reward for the players?"

Is it gonna be about "beating the bad guys" (let's separate it from the setting specific details for a while) or is it about figuring out how to work as an agent or something completely different?

For example, in D&D we had the task of defeating monsters, if the players' characters defeated monsters they were successful.

At which point can we say that a player has success? What is supposed to be the thing generating satisfaction?

Satisfaction in gamist D&D play is seeing the character improving and winning getting big rewards.

In a narrativist game on the other hand, the satisfaction might come out of creating a meaningful theme through play.