Henbane: role‐playinge the detestable wickednesse of wytchcrafte

[Chad]

Hi folks,

I have recently put together the Henbane PDF http://www.ookytentacles.com/Henbane.htmland would like to get your take on it.

Henbane is a witty take on shakespearian witchcraft. It's has grandiose faustian themes with a lot of spite and trouble-making thrown in. Players play witches, not nature worshipping pagans, but real witches - with familiars and black capes, and evil plans. I asked myself: If Tim Burton was to direct an adaptation of Macbeth, with the screenplay written by Niel Gaiman & Terry Pratchett, what would that kind of game be like? Henbane is what I came up with.
At its heart Henbane is about the temptation of power and how giving in to that temptation creates trouble. Trouble, which leads to further temptation to use that same power, again, to get out of trouble - which leads to even greater trouble!

Its also about detestable wickedness - old fashioned, melodramatic, silly evil. And it turns out that kind of evil can be fun to role-play!
It started out as visual concept based on 16th century woodcuts(I am an illustator/designer by day) but I couldn't get the mechanics to work. I shelved it, and later showed it to Joe Prince (Contenders, Swansong) who liked it and encouraged me to continue with it. He also suggested the Tarot for the resolution, which worked out rather with the setting.

In particular I would love feedback about the escalation mechanics which tie into the tarot suits - any holes?

Of course any other feedback would be welcomed.
Thanks,
Chad

[TonyLB]

I'm ... I'm very confused.

All the good stuff in this is the stuff that happens when the Witches aren't there, right?  When Macbeth believes their lies and therefore goes and kills the King.  The Witches weren't there.  They didn't even force him to it.  They just laid the seeds of destruction, and he watered and tended them because of his own human weakness.

So ... uh ... how is this supposed to happen in the game?

It seems to me that you have plenty of rules for witches to stab someone, or poison them, or push them off a cliff ... and precious few rules that tell you how to tempt someone else to stab someone, or poison them, or push them off a cliff.

Have I misunderstood?

[Chad]

Hi Tony,

I think that kind of manipulation would come about through role-play and agenda setting. As the rules stand they encourage conflict - but stabbing and poisoning certainly are not favored as such. Rather violent activity as at the very top of the conflict stepping order, because its the most dangerous. What the rules do, is tempt players to engage in an ever increasing level of conflict that will bring down more trouble, by making it a seductive, but destructive, to turn it up a notch. 

Its not about role-playing Macbeth as such, rather its a comedic interpretation of the of Shakespearian notions of witchcraft, in which player assume the roles of witches.

You are right, however, that there need to be more explicit rewards or rules encouraging PC's to provoke others to do evil - any thoughts?

Best,
Chad

[Graham W]

Chad,

I like this a lot. You're using a very Dogs-like mechanic, which is fine (always steal from good games).

I'm slightly worried about the escalation system, though. What's to stop me always "escalating" the conflict to whichever card I want to play at that moment? I worry that, rather than actually escalating the conflict, this will have the effect of making the conflict jump from Wits to Gall to Wits to Gall to Craft to Wits...do you see what I mean? Or can I only escalate the conflict one way - does it say this in the text?

Can I change the terms of the conflict in the middle of a hand? If one player plays a "Wits" card, can I immediately escalate to "Gall", or must I wait until the beginning of the next hand?

The other thing that worries me slightly is that there isn't much payback for escalating the conflict. In Dogs, you get fallout, which means that if you escalate to gunplay, you're more likely to have a fatality. In this, Consequences are slightly weaker, which makes it hard to see why I shouldn't always escalate a conflict.

And why are you making me buy a Tarot deck to play your game?

The game is looking good, though, and well written. I hope it goes well.

(Would it be churlish of me to point out that many scholars think that Thomas Middleton wrote the witches in Macbeth?)

Graham

[Chad]

Hi Graham,

Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And DiV has been a big influence on Henbane.

Chad,

I'm slightly worried about the escalation system, though. What's to stop me always "escalating" the conflict to whichever card I want to play at that moment? I worry that, rather than actually escalating the conflict, this will have the effect of making the conflict jump from Wits to Gall to Wits to Gall to Craft to Wits...do you see what I mean? Or can I only escalate the conflict one way - does it say this in the text?

Yeah, escalation is one way only - once you step up, you can try to de-escalate by going back down to Gall from Craft, in terms of character actions - but the native conflict cards no longer beat all other cards.

Can I change the terms of the conflict in the middle of a hand? If one player plays a "Wits" card, can I immediately escalate to "Gall", or must I wait until the beginning of the next hand?

A conflict consist out of rounds, so you cant escalate in the middle of a round of cards, because everyone stated their intentions for the upcoming round and the cards are revealed simultaneously. The highest narrates the resolution of the round taking the compared results into account - describing progress toward the conflict agenda (or reversals).
To escalate, you simply state your intention to step up your actions to say, Craft based activity, from Gall for the next round of cards. But your agenda needs to be altered from "I convince the Innkeeper that Goodwife Mary is trafficking with evil spirits" to an appropriate Craft based agenda relating to the current conflict. However, once you have opened that can of worms there is no going back. If you start working witchery in front of the Innkeeper, it had better work because it's the 16th century and people get burnt at even the whisper of witchcraft.

The other thing that worries me slightly is that there isn't much payback for escalating the conflict. In Dogs, you get fallout, which means that if you escalate to gunplay, you're more likely to have a fatality. In this, Consequences are slightly weaker, which makes it hard to see why I shouldn't always escalate a conflict.

To thought the fallout is implicit in the setting, because paranoia and fear of witches is rampant. Everyone believes witches are the cause of all their misery (they might be right in Henbane). Discovery of the witches identity brings immediate torture and burning.

What I was hoping to create, is the kind of game play, in which players are tempted, constantly driven, to reveal their true nature, or use their power, only to suffer the worst consequences. A witch escalates to Craft from Gall, and an episode of intimidation or lying becomes one of sorcery, which is met with torches and pitchforks (escalated to swords). Once its a swords conflict no more escalation is possible, because swords(hand) is at the top of the conflict ladder. The witches can try some magic to get out of it and step down to craft again, but the native cards rule is disabled and its stays a swords conflict for the angry mob...Make sense?

And why are you making me buy a Tarot deck to play your game?

The tarot is cool! and it enhances the arcane quality of the setting - not to mention the Beseeching mechanics require interpretation of the major arcana cards, to allow players to introduce plot elements or characters.

The game is looking good, though, and well written. I hope it goes well.
(Would it be churlish of me to point out that many scholars think that Thomas Middleton wrote the witches in Macbeth?)

Thanks, and right you are, about Middleton. I think I need to tone down the Macbeth connection somewhat anyway. I think those kinds of associations will automatically be made, and might cause confusion that its a game about Macbeth, which its not. Rather its a humorous spin on popular mythology around medieval witchcraft.

Cheers,
Chad

[TonyLB]

I think I need to tone down the Macbeth connection somewhat anyway.

Awww ... but I was so looking forward to referring to it, in a low tone of superstitious dread, as "The Scottish Game."

[Graham W]

What I was hoping to create, is the kind of game play, in which players are tempted, constantly driven, to reveal their true nature, or use their power, only to suffer the worst consequences. A witch escalates to Craft from Gall, and an episode of intimidation or lying becomes one of sorcery, which is met with torches and pitchforks (escalated to swords). Once its a swords conflict no more escalation is possible, because swords(hand) is at the top of the conflict ladder. The witches can try some magic to get out of it and step down to craft again, but the native cards rule is disabled and its stays a swords conflict for the angry mob...Make sense?

Ah...

Yes, that does make sense, and that's nice.

Graham

[Chad]

Oh yes, Graham

It occurs to me that it would be simple to use regular playing cards instead of tarot. One assigns the card suites to the Aspects Hand, Gall, Craft and Sword. You wouldn't be able to use the Beseeching mechanics to introduce plot elements, which is fun - but should work.

Cheers,
Chad

[Mark D. Eddy]

I seriously think you need a Discovery mechanic. Some way in which the next conflict automatically becomes "Hephzibah is found guilty of withcraft." It needs to be tied to the escalation mechanic in some way, so that the mechanics reflect the color text. In other words, there should be no chance with Wits or Gall, a small chance with Craft, and a larger chance with Hand.

Also, there are many old books on card-reading that include the significance of a regular deck of playing cards -- at which point you could have a "conflicts" deck and a "beseeching" deck, as long as the two decks are visually distinct.

[Eric J-D]

(Would it be churlish of me to point out that many scholars think that Thomas Middleton wrote the witches in Macbeth?)

Sorry to divert from discussion of the game for a moment, but this caught my eye.

I think it would be more accurate to say that many scholars suspect the songs that appear in 3.5 and 4.1 to be by Middleton since songs with the same opening phrases appear in a draft of Middleton's The Witch (c. 1613).  It's true that some scholars have suggested that Middleton may have written and added all of 3.5 and perhaps parts of 4.1 on the grounds that they depart stylistically from the rest of the play, but that argument isn't particularly strong given that a much earlier play by Shakespeare like Midsummer contains sections that are very different stylistically from the rest of the play (cf. the opening of 2.1, Robin's speech in 2.2, Oberon and Robin in 3.2 etc.)

Pedantry hat off now.

So far the game looks very spiffy.  I would need to playtest it first to see if it needs the Discovery mechanic Mark mentions.  The good news is that it piqued my interest enough that I just might try to get some folks together to play this! If I do I'll be sure to post feedback for you.

Cheers,

Eric

[Chad]

Hi Eric, Mark

I think the discovery mechanic you suggest is a very interesting possibility. Some way in which the true identity is obscured or revealed, maybe a suspicion score of sorts that gets eroded every time a witch does something suspect. A check would happen to see if she is discovered, that kind of thing. Will think about it, probably there is a more elegant way of doing it.

Thanks for the interest! and I would glad for your feedback after playing a game - just give me a shout and I will include any playtester names in the credits.

Cheers,
Chad

[chris_moore]

I just read through the game and I'm very, very excited to try it out with my local group.  Especially a Wyrding scene invented off of a card reading...yes!  I envision it as a kind of anti-Dogs town creation.  Instead of "What's wrong?" it would be "What could we make wrong?"  cackle, cackle.

I enthusiastically second the motion for a discovery mechanic.  Then, the risk would be made much more palpable to the players, and the boundaries would be much clearer.  I'd like to see some kind of rules "wire" being "tripped" as a consequence of Dramatic Encounter resolution, myself.  An eroding number would give the player the abillity to play it very safe, and the risk would be lessened. 

[Chad]

Hi Chris,
Great to hear you are keen on giving the game a whirl!

I agree about the eroding suspicion score, its a bit safe. There needs to be more tension - I like the trip wire analogy, and have been thinking about Mark's suggestion that it be tied into the escalation. That makes a lot of sense. It also needs to be explosive, so there a serious sense of risk during that kind of escalation. I have some solutions in mind, but they seem a bit dry and mathematical. Hopefully some more testing will bring creative solutions to mind.

BTW, before playing - Its become clear to me that the starting Aspect points as well as the max Aspect score is a bit too low. Instead of 1-6 the, Aspects should range from 1-8 (or thereabouts). Starting points should be around 18, rather than 12. I am still figuring out the exact numbers.

Low aspect scores could lead to players running our of cards during a conflict. The stop-gap rule has been; draw a single card to play, if your run out of cards - play or fold, until the conflict is over. This should happen very rarely, but there needs to be rule for it.
Cheers,
Chad

[Mark D. Eddy]

I've actually been thinking about a discovery mechanic for Henbane today, and I think I've come  up with something:

If the Good Father (yes, yes, or Good Mother) wins a round in Craft with the King or Queen (of Pentacles/Diamonds) or wins a round in Hand with a court card (Page, Knight, Queen, or King of Swords/Spades), the conflict immediately shifts to "Is the witch discovered?"

Or, if you want it less risky, you could make it King in Craft and King or Queen in Hand. This would mean that the witches can sometimes tell that they have no chance of being discovered, which is perhaps not a bad thing...

(Hearts/Cups, Diamonds/Pentacles, Clubs/Wands, Spades/Swords is the usual way to match suits)

Heh. I just realized that the mechanic is trick-taking, like bridge or whist. So the rounds are actually tricks, and the conflicts are hands of cards.

[ivan23]

Very keen - I'm excited about this one and will try to get my group to give it a whirl.

Here's my top-of-mind idea for the suspicion mechanic. After the players draw their cards - keeping the cards secret - they must pass any Face cards to the Good Parent, face-down, so their fellow players cannot see. The players are given new cards to replace the face cards.

The Good Parent holds the cards in a separate "discovery" hand.

At an appropriate round in the game, the Good Parent may play a Discovery card of the proper Suit before playing their normal card. There must be a Townsperson of the appropriate type involved in the conflict: A child, a youth, a woman, a man, for page, knight, queen and king. If the Good Parent wins the hand, the Witches are discovered - if the Good Parent loses the hand, the possibility for discovery still exists so long as that Townsperson draws breath.

Why I like this: First, it adds some intraplayer conflict and suspicion. If I know I passed the Good Father a Queen of Swords, I'm not going to lift a hand against women throughout the game - and I might try to maneuver a fellow player who has crossed me earlier in the game into escalating against one. I think the Dark Forces would relish this, as they naturally want the witches to die before their familiars do (nullifying the contract and lien against the witch's soul).

Second, it gives a really good reason for the players to escalate to Hands against the Discoverer, which of course means the likelihood of a bloodier outcome.

Just a thought. I don't know enough about odds and the like to say whether this would unbalance the game in Discovery's favor, but I think it's thematically apropos.