Hi guys,

This is late. It may end up long. It's my recollection of the Acts of Evil playtest we had at Anvil-Con. (A Forge is where you prepare the object for creation, an Anvil is where you beat it into shape to test your ideas.) I'm putting it here as I don't know what to keep in this forum and what to put elsewhere, so I'll leave that to Paul. I'm going to give my recollection and then give you everything I've got for questions and comments.

We had four players at the table plus Paul, and some onlookers who were interested in the game. The players clockwise from Paul were Chris, Kelli, Clyde(me), and Tom.

We started with Paul giving us a rundown of the characteristics, the choices on our turns, how things were resolved, the dice mechanics,and a bit about the setting.  We then created characters. We had 13 points to place between 7 characteristics (Aspects and Dispositions). I weighed in heavy on the four physical attributes as I reasoned they probably would be for fighting, and Paul had mentioned something about your rage increasing alot. I hadn't quite grasped how the resolution system worked as this seemed to be a losing strategy for the choices I tried.

We then chose a number of 8 sided dice to roll. The more we rolled the greater our chance of rolling the highest prime and getting to create a setting, and for each prime we would get to create either a victim or a nobody. The disadvantage was for every prime you rolled you gained a point of resistance. I chose to roll one die to minimize my resistance, as I didn't like the way the trait sounded. I rolled a 7 and so did Kelli, and Tom. So the three of us tied for highest prime and all had settings. Afterward we created our settings and NPC's.

Kelli created a setting that was an asylum in the 1970's. I created a setting that was less focused which was the South during the Civil Rights era. Tom created an Egyptian setting. My setting was a fairly spontaneous answer, which generated my character concept almost immediately. This was interesting as it points to some unconscious stuff going on.

Then we filled the settings with NPC's, and assigned questions to the victims. I made someone my character could despise and easily victimize, a racist sheriff victim. I believe the question I gave him was, "Why do I feel inadequate." *frowns* That's not right, I can't remember the question exactly. My hope was that he would get humanized during the game and thereby turn my character into a Monster. Kelli made a catatonic patient in her setting and a black hooker (nobody?) in mine. Tom made a husband (his character was female), and an administrator in Kelli's setting. I think I might have been being a bit too aggressive in my eagerness as I think Tom got a tiny bit miffed at my asking if someone wanted ideas when they seemed stuck.

So then Paul went through and dealt with each of us in turn. I won't do a play by play of every scene. It seemed that the most popular choice was to ask for an NPC type rather than to set a scene. Chris seemed to do well mechanically and brought his character to life. Chris had you read the text, or did you just grasp the rules better than I did? Kelli seemed a bit timid at first, but started to warm up. Tom had a couple of early set backs but rolled with them and came out on top at the end.

I got brutally beat up by the system. I was just trying to push at the game to see what happened, it pushed back. My character was a huge failure and it was great. He was very human and fallible.

I'm rereading this and I'm not sure whether I've actually said anything. Well hopefully my comments and questions will be better.

Already expressed comments:

• I enjoyed playing the game alot.
• The Game is very dependant on the ability of the Gamemaster.
• Text explanations on the character sheet need some bold and some bullets. I couldn't focus on the text to read the rules. I just looked at the block, and just listened as Paul made references to the text.

I know there were some others.

I'm sorry. Tired just hit me in the face hard. I can't remember the jumble that has been milling around in my head. I'll put in the new comments that occurred to me, and my questions after I get up tonight. Sorry about the cliffhanger.

Chris had you read the text

Chris: Did you just get lucky or did you find a successful strategy to use? Also I'm not trying to make any aspersions in my comments I'm just trying to throw out any little thing in an attempt to be helpful.

So here's a few more comments and questions.

• If you didn't roll the highest prime when we rolled for settings you didn't get to make a setting. This seems like it was meant as a disadvantage. Other than not getting to engage in creation, why is this a disadvantage? You have no more control over setting than another player, and in that point of the game no one has enough power to kill anyone. It seemed to me that low resistance was greatly more desired than setting creation, and npc creation.
• Why is it so hard to resolve someones question if that's your goal? I understand the game ends if all of them are resolved, is it meant to be kind of random? For the game to end will Players have to deliberately set up those two type of failures or is there another end game state? Is it a legitimate strategy for me to seek to answer questions if I'm ahead in the race to Godhood, or perhaps if I'm behind to prevent godhood.
• Why Primes? I understand that it is probably helpful in generating someones interest in having a neat mechanic, but using the primes required people to "spell" through the primes everytime they rolled. I remember there was even a time where someone thought they had rolled two successes until it was pointed out they actually had 5 or 6. This was obviously a difference between success and failure. It seems like you could generate the differences between GM dice, and player dice by having target numbers and it would be more readily understandable. For instance a 3 or better on GM Dice (d6's), and a 4 or better on Player's dice (d8's), generates the same probabilities.
• If I understood the game better I probably would have tried to min/max my character in such a way as to gain power and then kill off rivals early. Do you intend for the game to have a very aggressive PVP? The learning curve is going to give someone with a few games under their belt a fairly large advantage over someone who is just checking the game out. I know there was a penalty to killing players, but we never had that happen, so I don't remember how detrimental it was.

That's still not all the jumble. I'll add more questions and comments as I remember them.

Hey Clyde,

Thanks for starting this post-game conversation. Since I haven't yet updated the playtest rules thread in this forum, probably I should summarize the main differences between that text and the rules used for our game this past Saturday, just so everyone can follow:

1. Aspecting is more formalized. The GM determines the Aspect of a conflict from the roleplaying leading up to the roll. The player can indicate what he was aiming for, but the GM is the arbiter. Except for conflicts between player characters, in which the player who called for the scene has the power to insist on the Aspect.

2. Capacity and Used Capacity have been eliminated. They weren't doing anything interesting. They were the product of my inner simulationist urging me to extend the game's corporate metaphor to include cash and debt as mechanical factors.

3. Denial is a new stat. Resistance represents how held back you are by the lingering vestiges of your human decency, your risk aversion, and how comfortable and decadent you've let yourself become. Denial represents mental repression of Resistance. The following two formulas have been altered, so as to no longer increase Resistance, but Denial instead: Resolution Against Nobodies and Change a Nobody to a Victim. And a failed Resolution Against Rivals now results in adding Denial to Resistance, and then setting Denial to zero. Essentially, if you fail against a Rival, the veil of your Denial is shattered and becomes a true hindrance to your occult endeavors. It becomes real Resistance.

4. If you're Misanthrope, you roll d8's for everything. If you're a Scourge, you roll d6's for everything. If you're an Anathema, you roll d4's for everything. The GM always rolls d6's, and always wins ties.

5. The rule that you can't kill non-occultist NPCs whose Traits don't add up to a prime number is gone. You can kill any single NPC in your scene by forfeiting the results of a successful roll.

6. Being thrown through time/space as a consequence of a failed Change a Teacher to a Rival is gone. As is being able to force a Teacher to take you through time/space with a successful Resolution Against Teachers. The new consequence of failing a Change a Teacher to a Rival is, in addition to the increase in Clarity, an increase in Resistance.

7. It used to be that every player character occultist started in his own setting. Now, before character creation is a bid, which produces a landscape of times and places and NPCs in which the game's initial conflicts will play out. Players select a number of dice, with more dice representing a more aggressive bid, and put them out covered by their hands. And then reveal and roll them simultaneously. Look across the dice and determine the highest Lebesgue prime rolled. This number is the Absolute Prime. Any player whose roll includes the Absolute Prime will create a setting.

8. It used to be that the game started with no Victims. Now, players who rolled the Absolute Prime create a setting by choosing a time and locale, reporting that information to the other players, and then creating a quantity of Nobodies and Victims equal to the number of primes they rolled. They create Victims in their own setting, and Nobodies in the settings of other players.

9. Each of these initial Nobodies and Victims is created by the player giving the NPC a single Trait, as well as a Question, which is an open ended question about the future of the character. Basically the same kind of question the NPC might ask if he or she was having a tarot reading, just written in third person:

Will she find her lost twin sister?
Is her husband cheating on her?

10. Players who rolled the Absolute Prime create their occultist characters into the settings they created. Those who didn't roll the Absolute Prime create their occultist characters into any of the settings created by the other players.

11. It used to be the game ended when only one player still had his original character. Now it ends when a player successfully achieves godhood, or when all the questions of Nobodies and Victims are answered, whichever happens first.

12. Humanizing is now called Personizing. And it works a bit differently. If you're required to Personize, you have a choice. You can describe a scene that answers the Question of any non-occultist NPC who has more Traits than the sum of your Denial plus your highest Disposition (Ambition, Rage, Clarity), or you can describe a humanizing scene that gives a Trait to any non-occultist NPC.

13. All of the "transgression plus location" advice for scene framing is to the curb. In our session, when I framed a scene, I was describing a conflict situation as much for the NPC as I could. The conflict would, more often than not, directly involve the player's occultist character. And as the framer of the scene I would take my description all the way up to positioning the occultist character relative to the conflict. I was also partly trying to Aspect the scene. "...and he has just shoved you back against the wall, with his measuring staff to your throat." Then we roleplayed the scene, with the possibility of the Aspect changing from the roleplaying.

14. When players choose to frame their own scenes, no longer can they give non-occultist NPCs multiple Traits. They can start them with either a Question or a Trait.

15. Even when a player frames a scene, the GM makes the call regarding Aspect.

16. The revised formulas are:

Resolutions

Resolution Against Teachers

For Resolution Against Teachers, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to the lower of Clarity or Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance plus Clarity, increased by one die for each prior Resolution Against Teachers roll by the player in the current scene, and reduced by one die for each point of Power the player elects to spend (and also possibly increased or reduced by other players spending Power).
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, increase his occultist character's Clarity by one point.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, the occultist character must Personize a human NPC.

Resolution Against Rivals

For Resolution Against Rivals, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to the lower of Clarity or Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance, increased by one die for each prior Resolution Against Rivals roll by the player in the current scene, and reduced by one die for each point of Power the player elects to spend (and also possibly increased or reduced by other players spending Power).
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, he increases one of his occultist character's Aspects (Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory) by one point.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, increase his occultist character's Resistance by the value of his Denial, or by one point if his Denial is zero, and then set his Denial to zero. (Essentially, if you fail against a Rival, the veil of your Denial is shattered and becomes a true hindrance to your occult endeavors. It becomes real Resistance.)

Resolution Against Underlings

For Resolution Against Underlings, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance, increased by one die for each prior Resolution Against Underlings roll by the player in the current scene, and reduced by one die for each point of Power the player elects to spend (and also possibly increased or reduced by other players spending Power).
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, reduce his occultist character's Resistance by one point.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, reduce his occultist character's Clarity by one point, and he must pay one Power or the Underling becomes a Rival.

Resolution Against Nobodies

For Resolution Against Nobodies, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to Ambition plus Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory, and discards a number of rolled primes equal to how many other occultist player characters he's killed.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the higher of the occultist character's Resistance or Power, increased by one die for each prior Resolution Against Nobodies roll by the player in the current scene.
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, his occultist's Power is increased by one point.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, increase his character's Denial to the value of the Nobody's Trait Count, or by one point if the character's Denial already exceeds the Trait Count. And he must narrate the Dissolution of his occultist's identity.

Resolution Against Victims

For Resolution Against Victims, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to Rage plus Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance, increased by one die for each prior Resolution Against Victims roll by the player in the current scene.
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, his occultist's Power is increased by one point.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, increase his character's Rage to the value of the Victim's Trait Count, or by one point if the character's Rage already exceeds the Trait Count.

Status Changes

Change a Teacher to a Rival

To Change a Teacher to a Rival, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to his occultist's Clarity.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance plus Clarity minus the total number of Underlings he has, and reduced by one die for each point of Power the player elects to spend (and also possibly increased or reduced by other players spending Power).
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, the Teacher is changed to a Rival.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, increase the character's Clarity by one point, and also his Resistance by one point.

Change a Rival to an Underling

To Change a Rival to an Underling, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to his occultist's Clarity.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance minus the total number of Underlings he has dedicated to this specific rivalry in prior scenes, and reduced by one die for each point of Power the player elects to spend (and also possibly increased or reduced by other players spending Power).
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, the Rival is now an  Underling.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, he must Personize a human NPC.

Change a Nobody to a Victim

To Change a Nobody to a Victim, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to his occultist's Clarity and discards a number of rolled primes equal to how many other occultist player characters he's killed.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance, plus one for each of the human's traits.
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, the Nobody is now a Victim, and the player must Derogate a human (usually, but not necessarily, the Nobody who just became a Victim).
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, resolve the scene as a failure, increase the character's Denial by one point, and the player must narrate Dissolution of the character's identity.

Change a Nobody to an Underling

To Change a Nobody to an Underling, the player rolls a pool of dice equal to his occultist's Clarity and discards a number of rolled primes equal to how many other occultist player characters he's killed.
The GM rolls an opposing pool of d6's equal to the occultist character's Resistance, plus one for each of the human's traits.
If the player rolls more primes than the GM, the Nobody is now one of his character's Underlings.
If the player rolls fewer primes than the GM, or the same number of primes, resolve the scene as a failure and increase the character's Rage by one point.

Paul

Clyde observed:

If you didn't roll the highest prime when we rolled for settings you didn't get to make a setting. This seems like it was meant as a disadvantage. Other than not getting to engage in creation, why is this a disadvantage? You have no more control over setting than another player, and in that point of the game no one has enough power to kill anyone. It seemed to me that low resistance was greatly more desired than setting creation, and npc creation.

Hi Paul,

Thanks for posting those rules. I have a bit of a better understanding now that I have actually had a chance to sit down and read the rules. Strike my "why primes" question. I understand now since you use smaller dice as you gain higher understanding. As for my PVP question, I'm still curious about what you intend in that area, but I see that killing players makes it more difficult to effect status changes on nobodies and victims which I guess is a way to make it harder for the player killer to get more rungs to climb over.

I'm really curious about the purpose of questions for the non-cultist? Is it to create humanity, or is it more to give them a story that needs to occur?

Are there any areas you want to focus on more than me just rambling?

Let's start first with the question of Chris having been more effective. Clyde, you invested your character points heavily in the Aspects (Flesh/Voice/Imagination/Memory). Chris, if I recall, you invested heavily in the Dispositions (Ambition/Rage/Clarity). What differed as a result of setting creation wasn't your starting Resistance, but your starting Denial. Both of you started with 1 Resistance, 0 Power, and Denial equal to the number of primes you rolled in the setting creation bid. But Denial, if I recall, never got written over as Resistance for either of you, because neither of you ever had a failed Resolution Against Rivals. So Denial actually had no impact on your effectiveness in the scenes we played.

What gave Chris greater effectiveness was having invested more heavily in the Aspects. But the drawback was that he was much further from advancement than Clyde.

Paul

Alrighty, the setting bid is complex. Initially I had it where every player created a setting for their character. And there were no Victims at the start of play. In fact, there were no NPCs at all. Just the ability for Teachers and Nobodies to be created during play.

I'd done it this way because I knew mechanically how vulnerable an occultist player character could be to another occultist player character who took an early lead in the race for Power. I was thinking I needed the characters distributed in different settings, so each could nurture his stable of Victims and build up a little Power before one of them advanced to Scourge and started putting the hurt down on the others.

But this was problematic in a lot of ways. The lack of potential for interaction among player characters seemed counter to the "rivalry among occult badasses" vision I had for the game. And on top of that, in play the scenes felt like separate and unrelated stories. I was hesitant to shorten the pre-Scourge portion of the game somehow, because I felt like there needed to be time for the NPCs to develop and become interesting. And I hadn't yet invented the Questions mechanics, or even decided that there should be some Nobodies and Victims created prior to play. So I implemented a rule where if you failed an attempt to Change a Teacher To a Rival, the Teacher would throw you through time and space to somewhere else.

It kind of worked, but it created other problems. Down the slippery slope I was allowing successful Resolution Against Teachers rolls to result in the Teacher taking a character to another time or place. But other types of NPCs didn't have anything special like that. It felt anomalous and awkward.

I felt like what I really wanted was for there to be more than one starting setting, but fewer than one per player. And what I didn't want was an Alryia or PtA style setup session for Acts of Evil. That style of setup is work, with the promise it'll payoff later. I determined that what I wanted for Acts of Evil was something more like the character stats auction in Amber. Except for setting. The Amber character stats auction is more a part of play than it is pre-play work. It's tense, and exciting, and more than just informing the creation and content of scenes the way a PtA or Alyria setting does. It matters to conflict resolutions. It fires the blood.

The current setting bid mechanics are my effort to achieve that goal. I want setting creation that matters to the conflict resolutions of subsequent play. I think the bid mechanics are a step in the right direction. But they aren't exactly right. And I'm not sure why. I thought having Victims in your setting to start would be a desired mechanical advantage. Maybe the current mechanics seem to produce too full a landscape of Victims? I thought having Nobodies with Traits in your setting would be a disadvantage. But single Trait Nobodies don't seem to be much of a problem.

Maybe in the setting bid, a player must first spend his primes creating a Nobody in each of the settings of the other players, and only if he has points left over can he create Victims in his own setting? I'm hesitant to allow initial creation of multi-Trait Nobodies and Victims, because I think it would be too hindering to the occultist characters in that setting, and because I think multiple Traits sort-of pre-plays the NPC, if that makes sense. Maybe I should revisit shortening the pre-Scourge portion of the game, and hope Questions prime interest in the initial cast of Nobodies and Victims?

I'm very much open to suggestions on making the setting bid more relevant.

And does anyone know Kelli's username on The Forge? I'd like to invite her to this conversation.

Paul

Hi Paul,

After reading the rules I see why Chris was more effective. I think when I play again my strategy will be to make Clarity and one of the physical powers equal and try to develop everything else equally. Say Flesh and Clarity of 3 for a physical character. Then make sure to resolve problems with that power.

So the idea of setting creation is to have something that makes players kind of vie with each other for placement like Amber? Hmm... I like Amber's bidding system, but only if Players are fully informed. The rules as written to not give the players all the information and to be somewhat deceptive about values has been a bad experience for me. Players seem to resent being mislead in the importance of characteristics and powers, but when they are informed it works fine.

Anyway, the setting bidding as it is now... it doesn't seem to have any confrontational or competitive value. I also think that making players put their NPC's in other settings before their own will devalue rolling more than one die as there is less benefit to me as a player to pick up more than one as it actually helps other players. A bit of a spin on that idea might be that you first have to make an NPC in the setting of the person who rolled the highest total number of primes. This actually gives a benefit to winning. It also means if someone rolls one die they are unlikely to recieve any benifit. Another idea I had was perhaps you can turn a certain number of successes into an underling. Maybe three primes can make an underling rather than 3 non-cultist npc's. This would mean you have an increased resistance which I'm guessing makes moving into the next stages of power harder, but you have a edge in acquiring the power to get to that point.

Neither of those options really helps create what it sounds like you are wanting. If you want to have something like Amber have you considered bidding? Perhaps there are a finite number of resources based on the number of players and they bid primes to get them. I'm not sure what all you would offer to make it important enough for the bidding process to be fun, as I don't see building the setting as having much value myself other than if you have a certain color for the character in mind. However, I do see the value of having already established victims in whatever setting you enter.

Hey Clyde,

So the idea of setting creation is to have something that makes players kind of vie with each other for placement like Amber? Hmm... I like Amber's bidding system, but only if Players are fully informed. The rules as written to not give the players all the information and to be somewhat deceptive about values has been a bad experience for me. Players seem to resent being mislead in the importance of characteristics and powers, but when they are informed it works fine.

I agree. My final game text will definitely have strategy advice.

I also think that making players put their NPC's in other settings before their own will devalue rolling more than one die as there is less benefit to me as a player to pick up more than one as it actually helps other players.

Having a one-Trait Nobody in your setting is actually a disadvantage. Because when you call for a scene with a Nobody, the GM will add a Trait, making the NPC a two-Trait Nobody. If your setting had no Nobodies, then you'd call for a scene with a Nobody and the GM would create one with a single Trait.

I'm not sure what all you would offer to make it important enough for the bidding process to be fun, as I don't see building the setting as having much value myself other than if you have a certain color for the character in mind. However, I do see the value of having already established victims in whatever setting you enter.

If the setting creation mechanics forced you to spend the primes you rolled creating a Nobody in each of the other settings before you could spend them to create Victims in your own setting, would that make the bidding more meaningful?

Thanks,

Paul

Paul wrote:
Hey Clyde,
...

If the setting creation mechanics forced you to spend the primes you rolled creating a Nobody in each of the other settings before you could spend them to create Victims in your own setting, would that make the bidding more meaningful?

Thanks,

Paul

Just had another thought that goes with the home field advantage idea. To me that seems like a strong incentive. What if there were N minus 1 possible settings? You could hold an auction for a setting, perhaps by having players bid primes, with a tie resolved by the total of adding the values of the primes. That seems like a wash for the low bidder though. Hmmmm...

Hey Clyde,

Another idea could be that you have a home field advantage. Confrontations with other cultists who aren't teachers in your setting would give you something like the fetish die?

A couple of sessions into our local playtest, Scott Knipe proposed something similar. He suggested that you win ties in your home setting. It just seemed like too much of an advantage. Your qualifiers (occultists who aren't teachers) narrow the advantage way down to just conflicts with Rivals and Underlings, which seems like a more balanced advantage. But would it be too easy to forget that extra die in play? You get an extra die in conflicts with Rivals and Underlings in your home setting?

Paul

I like the idea of some kind of home field advantage.  It sounds like an advantage worth bidding for, and simply more fun!!  It would feel even more evil to destroy a rival... in their own realm!  cackle, cackle... While this isn't nuts and bolts type of advice, I think it's important to mention.

Chris

I don't think it would be hard to remember personally. I could be wrong.

I was thinking about it tonight and if you want to tighten the bonus down some more... you could make the bonus die always be a d8. So the home field advantage, while helpful, loses some of it's benefit as you gain higher understandings and are using smaller dice. Which to me makes sense as it seems you would be pulling away from connections like that as you become more inhuman and godlike.

Another idea might be that the homefield advantage is only usable on beings in the first state that players are in. This would mean that the bonus would only apply to players who start in your setting. Someone else who goes to the next stage could come to your realm and such minor things like the homefield advantage would not apply to them, just like teachers.

If you put those two together you have a bonus that could be important in the beginning, but goes away by the mid-game. I assume by mid-game you have a little more ability to deal with your resistance also?