a la "Ginger Snaps" and "The Craft", the players are powerful outcasts who conflict with one another.

Why do they fight each other? a Dark Fate a la Mountain Witch. Chosen in secret (multiples of the same Fate allowed).

eg.
Die by a Witch’s hand.
Make a Witch Love you Totally.
Isolate a Witch from all Contact.
Make a Daemon kill a Witch.
etc

Persuasion measures how well your Witch can convince others of things that they believe. To persuade is to attempt to change someone’s mind on honest grounds and includes such activities as emotional blackmail, impassioned speech and reasoned argument, as well as charms. If someone hurts your Witch while you are trying to persuade, then the Fallout will be getting more passionate or fanatical about your beliefs and a bruised ego (rated d4). 

Deception is the ability to convince others of things you do not believe. Techniques such as simple lying and bullshitting, and also tricks and glamours. Fallout from deceiving someone usually means your Witch will become more cynical and sceptical, not to mention distrusted (rated d6).

Mutilation includes any kind of direct coercion to make someone behave differently, regardless of what they think. Threats and blackmail are popular methods, but the Witch may also uses hexes or curses. If things go wrong the Fallout will mean that the Witch will have to enact her threats, and thus become more aggressive (rated d8). 

Domination measures attempts of dishonest coercion. It is the ability to change a person’s mind directly against their own nature, such as torture, psycho-conditioning, and even possession. Fallout may include a whole variety of disorders, such as phobias or schizophrenia (rated d10).

Destruction is the end of the line, when your Witch simply cannot allow someone to exist anymore. It is murder by any means, but it may even involve erasing all memory of their existence. Fallout from such behaviour is usually some kind of psychosis or severe disorder (rated d12)

Example Dysfunctions: Repulsive, Loves the Unattainable, Kleptomaniac, Consorts with Beasts, Depressive, Talks to Herself, Hates to be Touched, Underweight, Self-Harmer, Speaks too Quietly, Too Competitive, Obsessively Clean, Slut, Protective of Insects, Scared of Crowds, Angry to Strangers, Albino, Alcoholic, Virgin, Jealous of Success, Always Feels Cold, Cannot Keep Secrets, Over-protective of Siblings, Cannot feel Pain, Has a Tail, etc.

Hi there,

One thing I've found from all the games that lack GMs is that they need a turn structure, or a management-step feature of some kind. Just as in a card game, everyone always knows whose turn it is and what the obligations of a turn might be.

You'll find that Capes is built on such a thing, as are Universalis and other games like this. These games' play-structure isn't as rigid as a typical card game's - for instance, you can grab a turn - but they are definitely organized in a way that most role-playing isn't, at least not formally.

So I'm thinkin' something like that might be worth considering. The good news is that you said you can visualize what play would look like ... which might mean that you do have such a structure in mind, even if you haven't formalized it yet.

One question: for daemons, what do you mean by "NPC"? Say I'm playing a witch ... who plays the daemon on my turn? When it's their turn, do I play that same daemon? Could it be something like, "on any given person's turn, the person to their left always plays the daemons?"

Best, Ron

Rigid turns is a must yeah. Not sure what the possible actions and reactions will be in a given turn

Forgot to explain the NPC usage properly:

Any NPC you bring in is yours. You narrate how you manipulated them into your service (but no dice are rolled i dont think) and then they are owned by that player for exclusive use.

But if you lose a conflict with that NPC then someone else has successfully manipulated them against you and so the level of control you have drops (they can only escalate to a level one less than before) and the winner can then press their advantage if they want and try and break you up.

If they do decide to press the advantage and steal the NPC from you, they can do so by starting a  little follow-up conflict where they narrate your NPC against your Witch (the NPC demands answers or revenge from you for whatever claims have been made or whatever illusion they are under). If the original owner loses this conflict, then NPC transfers to the winner permanantly. If it is won the original owner gets the NPC back and most of the damage done is reversed by successful counter-manipulation (either way, still with the decreased amount of control though. NPCs arent comfortable when they know they are being messed with).

Daemons are the same as any other NPC (i think) except for control for them works backwards. If you bring a Daemon in, it means you are wanting someone dead or possessed or something, because they need to be controlled super well if you just want to use them for less harsh manipulation.

May I suggest a setting?

Salem, 1692.

Cheers,
Roger

Sounds like a really neat game. My own apocalypse girl (currently utterly broken and strewn in greasy pieces on my garage floor waiting for me to figure out how to put it together so it actually works..) has similar objectives, and takes a similar approach of "NPCs are assets controlled and fought over by the players," so you might want to check out the (very) rough draft -- it's in my sig file. Guy Shalev is working on some general theory about "Competitive Story Interaction Games" that is available online in various places, as well - I don't have links handy at the moment, but Google the phrase.

I'd echo Ron's advice that a robust, clear turn structure is a must. (In fact, I think it would be a huge help even for games that do have a GM: The most exhausting thing about GMing my current The Shadows of Yesterday game is figuring out on pure gut instinct how to "cut" from player to player).

I'd further add that a game driven by competition among the players needs very strict and clear rules about when you can use what ability: Even if 90% of the time everyone goes, "yeah, of course, that makes sense," the 10% when people look at each other in bafflement and sincere disagreement can be really painful.

And I'd honestly disagree with Roger about setting this in Salem: I think you'd do better to stick with the movies you're inspired by and go for a "present day, with creepy witches" setting that makes it much easier for players to imagine what's going on and get into it.

Howdy!

I'm a big fan of Apocalypse Girl (I spammed that opening piece on a philosophy board cos i love how powerful the it is) and I wish I had recognised its usefulness earlier. Any source for plundering mechanics is extremely welcome, and if I could plunder that awkward, innocent, utterly harsh and totally powerful atmosphere too, I'd be made. :)

Setting wise, I'll leave it "neutral". Its the social status versus actual power of the PCs that matters, all that angsty emo stuff where they are hardcore powerful but no one understands them cos really they are enormously fucked up.

I'm envisioning the mechanics so that you could easily downplay the supernatural side of things too, and have something like Nicotine Girls (only much clunkier, and more directly confrontational) though given that the PCs are better at manipulation than everyone else, it would probably be best rendered as popular kids who are secretly falling apart (but everyone really knows it) and hated by everyone (except to their face).

The supernatural setting is only there so that I can get players to feel that harshness without it being as goddamn uncomfortable and real as Nicotine Girls. No idea if that will work though.

Why do they fight each other? a Dark Fate a la Mountain Witch. Chosen in secret (multiples of the same Fate allowed).

Quote
eg.
Die by a Witch’s hand.
Make a Witch Love you Totally.
Isolate a Witch from all Contact.
Make a Daemon kill a Witch.
etc

So, once a Dark Fate is fulfilled you enter some kinda Endgame and the person who triggered it gets some kinda bonus. The trick is to make your character fulfilling your Fate not too obvious so that you can do it unopposed, while guessing the other Witch’s true motivations and stopping them

The game is GMless, but with character identity. NPCs are brought in by a Witch as tools of manipulation to use against other Witchs or their NPCs. Control of an NPC can be reduced and then transferred to another Witch (because control drops each time an NPC is transferred, fighting over an NPC will make it unusable. They will realise they are a pawn).

Mcrow wrote:
I really like this concept. Squirrel Attack uses the same sort of mechanic, though in the game the characters are set and the "fates" are set, you can easily generate your own characters and come with your own fate. In SA! you gain points when which @ the end of the game determines who wins. SA! is mean as a beer and pretzels game, but I think the basic concept is nice. Obviously the rewards would be very different in your game.

Now, GMless games (like Ron said) need a very tight and defined turn structure.

Would this type of game lean in the gamist direction?

Here's the link:
http://www.hinterwelt.com/Squirrel-Ref.html

It's not exactly the same as your concept, but I think it applies to what you are thinking.

You know, I'm liking this more and more. You really seem like you know what you want, and that's important.

So: primarily, this game is about counter-strategizing and possibly winning. Solid Gamism stuff, with a lot of competition both among characters (the Witches want different things and can't get along) and among players (because it's mainly competing for resources and interfering with one another's tactics).

But all with a very strong imagined-situation, with characters that make sense in that context and "do stuff" in the sense that they are fictional characters rather than (say) the shoe or the hat in Monopoly. Emphasizing whole enemies/sisters thing seems perfect, especially since there isn't some Awful Force in the background they need to mobilize against.

Cool!

I am looking forward to some serious playtesting accounts. I agree with Sydney that you should check out Guy Shalev's ideas, but bear in mind that he's only presenting ideas and has not put them into practice yet. I also suggest checking out the Ronnies contests here at the Forge from last year. A lot of entries were sharp, hard-hitting competitive games with absorbing imagined-material. You can find the links in the sticky at the top of the Endeavor forum.

Best, Ron

I am curious about the Endgame conditions myself.

Also, what is there to define strategy? I only see the Dysfunction "Big Dice" moving over, what is there to stop you from just bringing out everything each time? DitV has the Narration Requirement. How about having Dysfunction also have some mechanical drawbacks, for being, well, Dysfunctions? Perchance they get in the way of getting along with the NPCs and Witches who don't also have them?

As for my own stuff, there is the <a href=http://competitiverpgs.wordpress.com>CSI Games Blog, where I give out my 'General Theory' regarding Competitive Story Interaction Games. There is also the <a href=http://competitiverpgs.pbwiki.com>Wiki which you can use to look at other deeply Competitive and/or Gamist RPGs.
Last, I feel important to note that my theory is used and not only discussed. The theory lead to the game, and the game was explained by the theory, the two are deeply entwined. The game is <a href=http://craniumrats.pbwiki.com>Cranium Rats. There are two Playtest threads on the first page of the Playtest forum, to see what worked, and what didn't.

I'll keep an eye on your project.

Ron, cheers!

Thunder_God wrote:
I am curious about the Endgame conditions myself.

Also, what is there to define strategy? I only see the Dysfunction "Big Dice" moving over, what is there to stop you from just bringing out everything each time?

DitV has the Narration Requirement.

How about having Dysfunction also have some mechanical drawbacks, for being, well, Dysfunctions? Perchance they get in the way of getting along with the NPCs and Witches who don't also have them?

All sounds cool.

A note about "NPCs" (or really, "secondary characters" in this kind of game, since players control every character): How much do you want the players to care about them, as oppose to treating them as disposable pawns? People will sometimes do this spontaneously without rules support, but it's rare (happened in just one apocalypse girl) playtest so far), and making this work right is so far one of my biggest problems in apocalypse girl.

Hmm. Tricky i guess. I dont have much problem with some NPCs (normal people characters?) being pawns, but it would be nice if not all were.

There are as statted as much as witches are, and they can be just as powerful against other witches, but they are expendable, and perhaps they shouldnt be so much.

Plus there's (a) caring about NPCs as tactical assets vs. (b) caring about them as (fictional) human beings. If you're going all-out Gamist, then you really don't care about (b); if you want to use Gamist techniques as what Ron call as a "turbocharger" to rev up a game that's fundamentally about "Story Now" (Narrativism), as in Capes, then you have a tricky balance. The single most happy-making thing for me from an apocalypse girl playtest report was when someone noted, almost bemusedly, that his group had gotten very excited about fighting over a particular character and were driven to do things about that character that weren't necessarily tactically smart. But that happened all of once, so far. When I can reliably produce that kind of play -- when every game involves every player going at least once, "Darn it, I should just sacrifice that minor character, but I can't bring myself to do it, because I like them too much" (again, this happens a lot in Capes) -- then I'll consider my design successful. Whether this is a goal you want to aim for is up to you, of course.

Hi Oreso,

Do you have a mechanic to determine the strength of NPC's? Did I miss that? My game Outside is also without a GM, and players can make up NPC's on the fly. In my limited playtesting the major problem that has come up from this is determining the strength/effectiveness of the NPC's. I'm have been working on cards as a solution, so they have a couple random options to use for addressing the strength. I think having maybe a bidding system where each player can add or perhaps subtract from the strength of the NPC could be interesting, and I'm sure there are other ideas.

Clyde, randomly generated NPCs are what i was thinking, but they will all be roughly the same power level, or perhaps choosing from a set of personality types. The only difference in power level would come from them gaining more Dysfunctions than usual through play in the service to a Witch, or the Witch having more control over them (thus allowing them to escalate more).

Sydney, fictional human beings should be a valid, even desirable, and even inevitable in some cases. I have no problem with some NPCs just being assets (so you seduce someone's boyfriend and turn them into a hitman for you, who cares?) but there should always be the option (or the threat) of them getting some life of their own (through your own actions or someone elses). Part of the situation is that the witches may want to treat them like assets alone, but cant, because they are still human themselves (mostly) and towards the end they may want to treat them like humans but are forced to treat them like assets for the greater goal. 

I'd like it so that Witches can spend some time together in a scene and become more under control the more the Witch confides or something. Would provide an easy option to boosting your control while simultaneously getting you more attached as a player.

To cut down the suicide troopness, there should be some method of transferring bigass Dysfunction from the NPC to the owning Witch, probably when another witch is contesting control of them.

As in the player has to decide between sacrificing the minion or transferring "damage" to the Witch and putting her at risk? Very cool.

I think that Social Contract is a necessity for Competitive games, and will also have much to do with how are the "Assets" treated, because of the general mindset in which they are used.

Also, I suggest having Tactical assets only be protected in story/emotional ways and not in tactically overt ways. That way, when you are acting in a tactical manner, you still have to act in a manner that expresses some care about the fictional person.

Uh, Guy, do you mind explaining those points a little more fully? I can see that the "social contract" among the real people playing needs to be different for an explicitly competitive game than in a lot of other types of RPGs, but a functional social contract is essential for any group playing any game ("No, Bill, although the rules do not explicitly forbid it, you still may not throw your excrement at me while we play chess. Please stop it."). And I'm not sure what you mean by "story/emotional" protection as opposed to "tactically overt" protection.

Sure thing man :)

A Social Contract is always there, true. I mean Social Contract as part of the actual game-text, ala The Comic Code in Capes. I think the benefits it'll reap are quite large, if only for the explosive nature of these games.

I believe that protecting Assets(NPCs) should(well, at least consider it) be done in such a manner that you can only protect them via "story methods", which will help you connect to them, even if all you want from them is their tactical asset.
Now, the other option, "Tactically overt" protection, is when I go, "I threaten your Minion Zed" you go "I use resources X and Y, eat that!", I want it to be all sorts of "The Minion is slowly drawn away from you, approached by the sinister call of my witch, Esmeralda", and you go "Tiffany bulks at the idea, but her minion which she saves for her Omega Plan? She feels he's getting away from her, and if not for him, her plans will all lay in ruins, so she decides to bed him...".

Anything else?

I.e. you have to narrate in story terms what you're doing in game terms, not just shuffle numbers/dice/tokens around? Sure.

No, I slowly take that to be obvious(especially when the source material includes DitV), this is deeper than that, have the Mechanics have less impact on these sort of things than the Story bit. For example, have someone portray the Important NPCs, and he gets to choose what he'll do, with some mechanical outcomes/causes(like only if Trust>=Opponent's Pull you can even try) bearing in.

I don't know how to implement this just yet, this is one of the major hurdles games that try to marry competition to story face.

No, I slowly take that to be obvious(especially when the source material includes DitV), this is deeper than that, have the Mechanics have less impact on these sort of things than the Story bit. For example, have someone portray the Important NPCs, and he gets to choose what he'll do, with some mechanical outcomes/causes(like only if Trust>=Opponent's Pull you can even try) bearing in.

I don't know how to implement this just yet, this is one of the major hurdles games that try to marry competition to story face.

gah. that is not to say this is just a dice game btw. Info from folk's imagination should be fed back into the play, and that really matters, but that imagination shouldnt be running off on its own without the tactical considerations, since those considerations are what is driving the story along.