I'm interested in some conversation about the changes I've made to the rules. Of course I think they're improvements, that they make the game tighter, but I'm interested in doubts and contrary opinions you might be harboring.

So, the main differences between the first playtest rules text and the rules used for the Forge Midwest playtest:

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.

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.

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 the Forge Midwest playtest, 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. And the formulas have been revised to reflect all of these changes.

And the differences from the Forge Midwest playtest and the "new evil" rules text I posted on Friday:

17. "Direction" is gone, as is players being able to kill each other's characters.

18. Against Nobodies, you now discard a number of rolled primes equal to the number of NPCs you've killed. (Before, you discarded vs. Nobodies only for the number of other player characters you'd killed.)

19. If another player's character is your Underling, you make the scene decision when it's his turn. And if you choose for the GM to name the NPC, then you frame the scene.

And my own open thoughts, if you'd like to offer an opinion:

I'm pleased at how aggressive I've managed to be in my streamlining. It's not easy for me to cut things like "Direction" that I think are creatively interesting. But so far on Acts of Evil every hard cut continues to feel like it was the right decision.

I'm worried the "disadvantage the occultist and Aspect the scene" framing advice will result in repetitive-seeming scenes; again and again the occultist characters will find themselves framed into scenes on the unfortunate sides of dust-ups. I need to figure out how for this not to be the case. This past weekend I read the first few chapters of Clive Barker's The Great and Secret Show. And in one scene, the main character is given the task of sorting and opening all the undeliverable mail in the dead letter office. He doesn't resist, and he's not quite an occultist yet, but my gut tells me there's an important lesson in that scene. Except I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe the important scene framing advice is "disadvantage the occultist, or put him to use, and Aspect the scene"? If the essential conflict in the scene is that the character is a down-and-outer, with bills, who needs the job, what's the Aspect there?

I like the way setting creation will provoke careful strategizing, but I wish there were fewer stages to it. It feels a bit cumbersome.

Change #19 was the suggestion of Scott Knipe, and I'm very excited to see it in play. I wanted the game to be a conflict between occult badasses, and so I had players killing each other's characters. This framing thing I think is way better. It's creative rivalry. It's making the other player character an Underling to your own personal antagonism within the context of the drama.

So, what do you think? Doubts? Concerns?

Paul

  At Forge Midwest, I remember making another player's character an Underling.  He observed that, under the rules, being my character's Underling didn't hinder his agenda in the least.  I think change #19 will improve the game dramatically.

I haven't digested eveything yet, but for a quick comment there seems to be a problem with number 19. If I make another player an underling how do they get free? For instance let's say I'm a problem player, I make someone else and underling and then I only use the calling for a specific NPC type function, but never call for a teacher. This would make it so the underling doesn't have a chance to confront me and get out from underneath my thumb.

Hey Clyde,

An excellent question. I think you get out from under him in one of several ways:

1. He chooses to have a scene with you, hoping to use your Underling status to reduce his Resistance. He fails the roll, and can't/won't pay a point of Power to keep you at your Underling status. So then you're Rivals again.

2. He advances to Scourge, or to Anathema, and loses all his Underlings. (The rules should be more specific here. The Underlings all become Rivals.)

3. He tells the GM to frame you into a scene with a Nobody (or Victim, or Rival, or whatever). The GM frames you into a scene with that character type, but has his character present as well. Your first roll has to be against the NPC, but your subsequent roll can be against his character.

Keep 'em coming :)

Paul

I think change #19 will improve the game dramatically.

Thanks Chris. I think #19 is a pretty great rule.

With additional thought though, I am still concerned about the scene framing. "...or put the occultist to use" is dangerously deep into My Life with Master territory. I think it runs the risk of being protagonizing of the player character. It risks us sympathizing with the character. And Sorcerer-style Bangs are also too protagonizing. They give the character thematically meaningful choice over his actions. In Acts of Evil, the player character should be thematically static, an antagonist. I need to figure out how to frame a wide range of scenes in which the player character occultist is the antagonist to the scene's primary NPC. Right now I only know how to put the occultist at a disadvantage in a physical fight or argument. And I think that's because fights and arguments represent challenges to the character. I could frame lots of scenes where the occultist character is at an advantage relative to the NPC, but I'm thinking those kinds of scenes would be pretty uninteresting from an audience perspective. Bang-driven scene framing in Sorcerer presents authorial challenges, with audience interest maintained through the thematically compelling humanity question. In Sorcerer the question imbedded in a bang framed scene is "Where do you draw the line and how will your humanity be affected?" In Acts of Evil, because of the thematically static nature of the occultist characters, scene framing must present creative challenges to the player in a competitive context. I'm thinking the question imbedded in the framed scene is something like "What will you do and will it be enough?" In Acts of Evil, the task of the occultist is to chew up the scenery and to stay significant by being a threat.

Hey Paul,

I got through the rules. Sorry it's taken a week. I can't comment on the changes since I'm not really that familiar with the old rules. I'm not going to comment too much on the mechanics of status changes and resolutions yet as I want to see those live to get a real understanding of them. Anyway...

In no particular hierarchy of coherence.

1.  I absolutely love that you took death out of the game for PC's. That was an area I thought could be problematic and it focuses the game more towards your inspiration of corporate folks trying to get power over one another.

2. Some of the language was difficult and I actually had to go to the dictionary for ipseity, and plaga.

3. Under the heading, "The Lebesque Primes." You should change: "...set aside the dice that show 4's and 6's..." to include 8's. As an aside, why do you call them Lebesque Primes? I looked him up and saw he did work with primes but couldn't find the specific connection to the primes you are using.

4. Under the heading, "The making of an Occultist." You state, "All characters are timebound until they transcend time." This caused me quite a bit of confusion as it seems like a non-sequitor in that section and doesn't make sense until you get much further along reading. You might add to that a bit so it is understandable, even if it's just to let people know that statement will make more sense later.

5. Under the heading, "Aspecting," you state, "Except for conflicts between Player Characters, in which the person who called for the scene has the power to insist on the aspect." I could twist this to force my opponent to use his least strong attribute, regardless of the appropriateness of the trait.

6. Under the heading, "Resolution against Underlings," you state, "... or the underling becomes a rival." Does this rule apply to PC Underlings also? this wasn't clear to me.

7. Is Power doing what you want it to do? I'm taking Power as something you are using to let Players get involved in other peoples scenes so there is less a feeling of observation when it's not your scene. I don't see myself ever using Power in this way since I also need it to protect my position from rivals (especially with the addition of rule 19) and the final showdown with Ephactha.

8. Fetishizing is still not clear in my mind. I'd recommend a couple examples that might demonstrate what you would see as an acceptable progression. Even better would be rules detailing each step so it's more readily apparent what should be acceptable.

9. End Game. It is unclear to me whether other player characters can spend power to help Ephactha win over the Anathema PC? If so that makes me think that achieving end game may be highly unlikely.

10. There doesn't seem to be enough info to get across to the GM what they should be trying to do when setting the scene. Since I played with you I feel I have a good idea, but if I had only the text to work with I wouldn't be sure.