Last Saturday I ran Beast Hunters for a group of four players at the Ennead Game Night. We had about a dozen players who showed up ready to get their gaming on, and despite being sick, Jake ran Panty Explosion for the majority (kudos) while I ran BH in the other living room. This gave me the opportunity to test the BH multiplayer rules with people who'd never played the game before. I sat on one of the couches, with Matt to my left, Gabe and Charles on the couch opposite of me, and Nick to my right.

** The Characters **

I decided to have the group be tribal warriors doing their rite of passage; they had not yet been trained as actual Beast Hunters. This was based on the fact that most hunts are single-player events, and I wanted to keep things more straight-forward for the multiplayer group. So the characters are all about fourteen, brought up in a violent matriarchal tribe in which there are opposing groups among the females, some of them treating men almost as equals (who just can't lead), while others beat and oppress the inferior males. The scenario was based on a tribe member who'd been taken captive, and the rite of passage consisted in the characters being sent on an almost suicidal mission to free her, either because they were considered prodigies of great bloodlines, or because their enemies in the tribe hoped they'd never return from their mission.

I didn't collect people's character sheets, so I'm going to be a bit fuzzy on the details. We went through the four steps of character traits and resources together: parents, tribe, enemies, and self.  Matt's character was a religious female warrior who was in touch with a guardian spirit. She was experienced in fighting the Tarrag, the people who'd kidnapped their tribe member.  She was also socially adept and tied into the tribe, something that we didn't get to incorporate much in the game. Overall, it showed that Matt had experience making up interesting freeform traits.

Gabe's character was a male who'd been beaten all his life, leading to him being able to withstand unusual amounts of pain and punishment. He also had a connection to animals and owned a horse. In the default setting, the tribes don't use horses, but I'm against canonical things like that when the players want to introduce an element, so in this game horses became a part of the setting. Gabe had the hardest time of all players with coming up with traits and resources, but in the end his character turned out very well, and he was most involved in the planning of the final rescue challenge. He also came up with a rival tribe, the Black Skulls, which his character hates with a passion.

Charles' character was the second female in the group, a warrior who'd spent a lot of time in the wilderness. She was originally a captive from the hated Black Skulls tribe who now had a chance to prove herself to her new tribe--initially her tribe was supposed to have been wiped out, but when Gabe created the Black Skulls, Charles linked his character to that, which I thought was very cool (that's the advantage of group character creation).  She and Matt's characters, as the females in the group, would share the leadership role.

Nick's character was a huge, powerful male, even at fourteen. Tall and strong, with sword and shield heirlooms, a canine companion, and an obvious lust for blood and destruction. He had sense-enhancing "herbs" as a resource as well. 

As we were on a one-shot schedule, we didn't play up the interactions among the characters very much, instead focusing on playing through the challenges together. When, at one point, there was a chance for a conflict among their characters, it turned out to be resolved in a different way after all.

** The Good **

The mechanics allowed me to focus on the challenges and give each player a chance to bring out the advantages of their character. I actually resolved two or three challenges just through negotiation, when they came up with good enough solutions that we didn't need to play out.  They made it through an icy, storm-ridden canyon by letting the horse go ahead and all hanging on to a rope while staying out of sight of a Tarrag cavalry squad. And at the end, they spent a lot of time figuring out their plan for breaking into the fortress that held the prisoner and getting back out, a plan which included disguises, stealing horses, setting a fire as distraction, scouting out the guard routines, and surprising and murdering isolated guards. I moved to phase 3 (complications) of the negotiation, confronted them with a couple of complications, and, satisfied by their responses, could let them accomplish their goals without having to resort to dice. (I've had twice the amount of planning and care go into plans when playing D&D, only to fail the first disguise roll and have it all be wasted time.)

The best challenge was a fight with a pack of half-crazed wolves in a ruined village on their way to the Tarrag mountains. The characters picked up on the sounds of the wolves and climbed onto nearby ruins, and were thereby able to figure out a plan while the wolves were still approaching.  They placed Gabe's character as bait at the end of a narrow alley, with the other characters on the flanking rooftops. The cool thing is that they all gained advantage points for doing so many different actions that helped win the battle: Gabe's character distracted the wolves and constantly looked for more advantageous positions and escape routes. Matt's character invoked his spirit guide to tell him who the alpha wolf was, then charged into the fray calling the wolf out by name. Charles' character started a fire and rained down burning debris and planks on the mass of wolves. And Nick's character, in the action I valued the highest (maybe because I've been playing too much God of War recently), kicked up one of the wolves whose fur was on fire, grabbed it, and proceeded to bash the other wolves with their own burning kin.

All throughout I was happy to award them rather high advantage points despite the fact that their traits were low compared to the wolves, because their actions were all just so different and cool. Finally, after maneuvering around the wolves, Gabe's character charged the lead wolf who was by now flanked by the other characters and, using all of those reward points from earlier strategizing and maneuvering, delivered a powerful fatal blow that won the challenge (rolling 4D6: 6-6-6-4).

** The Bad **

The very first challenge we played revolved around Charles' character keeping a group of Black Skulls from discovering and following the tracks of the Hunter characters.  I made it a one-on-one challenge so that everyone could see the mechanics at work in a simple example.  While Charles had some good ideas and accumulated a lot of advantage points, his strike roll botched and he had to resort to inflicting lighter damage a few times for it to add up to a win. That dragged out the challenge, and I just gave at some point, when it became obvious that he would win it soon. I should either have given earlier to avoid it going on for that long, or I should have introduced more elements to spice up the challenge, because it wasn't set up to provide enough options for a very prolonged conflict.

It turned out that we didn't actually play any social challenges.  There were a couple of occasions at which the players could have chosen to have a social challenge, but it didn't quite turn out that way.  I'd have liked to have at least each domain (mental, physical, social) represented.  While that was okay in general, I think especially Matt's character would have been more involved if we'd had a social challenge.

Overall, I went to the game wanting to base a lot of the challenges on the characters we'd end up with and being very spontaneous, to make the most out of the flexibility of the mechanics. This approach worked great in the previous playtests.  I think because we were dealing with four characters and a more streamlined adventure, however, it didn't turn out quite as intense as I'd hoped this time.  I would prepare more challenges and details beforehand for the next game. Not necessary ones, but more fleshed-out options on hand, rather than making 90% of it up as we went along like this time.

** Conclusion **

All in all, I greatly enjoyed running the game, and it appears as though the players all had a good time, too.  For me, the time flew by and I barely noticed that five or so hours had gone by.  I would, of course, be very interested in more detailed feedback from the players on how it went for them, and hope one or two of them will chime in.  I'd be especially interested in hearing how you felt about the offering of advantage points.

Great write up, Christian. And I'm glad to hear that you guys are doing a game night at chez Ennead. Yay!

The very first challenge we played revolved around Charles' character keeping a group of Black Skulls from discovering and following the tracks of the Hunter characters.  I made it a one-on-one challenge so that everyone could see the mechanics at work in a simple example.  While Charles had some good ideas and accumulated a lot of advantage points, his strike roll botched and he had to resort to inflicting lighter damage a few times for it to add up to a win.

I moved to phase 3 (complications) of the negotiation, confronted them with a couple of complications, and, satisfied by their responses, could let them accomplish their goals without having to resort to dice. (I've had twice the amount of planning and care go into plans when playing D&D, only to fail the first disguise roll and have it all be wasted time.)

Hi Emily,

Thanks for the questions :)  Here's an overview of how the economy works in Beast Hunters.

The Hunters, i.e. the protagonist players, give me, the Challenger, a budget for buying adversity and a limit.  In this case the budget for the adventure was 80 points and the limit for how much I can spend on any one challenge was 5 per player.  That means in a one-on-one challenge, I can spend 5, but if all four players are involved, I can spend 20 adversity points on the challenge.  The points buy me aspects of a "proto-character," such as damage levels, traits, resources, and initiative, all of which comprises a Hunter's character as well.  Instead of modeling 20 wolves, for example, I just had a challenge adversity consisting of many damage levels and a couple of traits and resources.  While my traits and resources are going to be higher than theirs, at 20 points, I only get to act once while they get four actions (one for each player).

The good thing about this system is that it's self-regulating.  Their reward point gain is equivalent to the amount of adversity points spent (usually).  If the adventure turns out to be too easy, next adventure they can raise the adversity pool and limit, reaping more rewards in turn.  Now, if you want to hunt a beast and gain a tattoo of power, there are requirements as to the minimum pool and limit for that hunt, so that the adventure leading up to the beast is also tougher if the beast is more powerful.

On to the particular examples:

Charles' tracking challenge could end up as a failure in two ways: Either Charles gives up, in which case I get the adversity points for that challenge back, or I inflict incapacitating or fatal damage on his character.  If either had happened, there would have been a complication: the Black Skulls would have found and attacked them.  But they had already inflicted some damage on Charles' character, so if he had given up, that would have been in vain because he would come away damaged, but I wouldn't have lost anything.  Also, a Hunter only gains reward points for a challenge that they win.

To explain how the final challenge worked, I have to give another little rule insight.  There are two ways to deal with a challenge.  The first one is negotiation.  Every challenge starts as a negotiation.  It has up to three phases, and at the end of each phase the Challenger can give up, move to conflict resolution (using dice), or go to the next phase (except at the end of phase 3, naturally).  The first phase is the solution: the Challenger describes the challenge, the Hunter(s) ask questions and describe their solution.  Phase 2 is elaboration: the Challenger asks questions about the solution, maybe some hypotheticals or clarifications, and the Hunters get to preactivate one trait to use if it comes to conflict resolution (each trait can only be preactivated in this manner once per adventure).  Phase 3 is complications: the Challenger accepts the solution to a point, walks through it, and then points out that one or more complications have arisen.  The Hunters can now describe how they overcome those.

If all of this works out to the Challenger's satisfaction, he can give in any of the phases.  In the example, the last challenge, we went through all three phases.  The Hunters gain reward points according to the phase in which the Challenger gave (1, 2, or 3 points).  That's less than you'd get from conflict resolution, but there's also no risk of taking damage.

If I had gone through conflict resolution, I'd have bought adversity and played through rounds of taking actions and trying to deal damage until the challenge is defeated, like we did with the battle in the ruins.  But the plan was so well done that I didn't have to do that; I just confronted them with the complications, then gave them 3 reward points, and off they went riding away with the prisoners :)

The negotian phases are neat, Christian. I am reminded of how going to dice is sort of a last resort in Polaris. 

Are playtest copies of the game available?

best,
Em

Yep, Polaris was a big catalyst and definitely the main influence on the negotiation phases.  I can't say enough good things about Ben's stuff.

I had initially posted a (substantial) first draft on here, but I've changed quite a few things, so I took that down.  Now I was expecting to have the final game done soon, and haven't put together a new public version yet.  But there'll be one hopefully soon, like a demo or lite version.

I'm usually just lurking here, but okay. I played the priestess' daughter, Marah, of the line of Yane. I enjoyed this game immensely, even without a Social conflict. A lot of my thinking about the game has more to do with inspirations for my own design or GM-craft, (the tinkerer in me won't often let me immerse myself as a player), but I might have a couple thoughts in the playtesting feedback vein.

I *really* like the core of the system: Hunter description of action/intent -> Challenger offer (numeric) of advantage toward goal -> Hunter "Accept or Roll" is just brilliant. I think it will have wide appeal - it simultaneously appeals several different gamer "types" within my own preferences. I think that this core worked very well within the context of a one-shot with new players, new to a system.

I do find myself wondering about the engine of the Challenger offer and hope that the game text provides very clear advice for the prospective GM on how to gauge the offer with *some* objective criteria, and how to convey this criteria well to the prospective players.  As the author, you've likely internalized the best way to communicate the criteria.  The rest of us will need more help.  I also recognize that each group may find their own consensus criteria over the course of several plays.  Playtests of a non-author GM with some other groups, perhaps some with players that are less familiar with the form of play Beast Hunters provides might measure how well the game text communicates this.

Any game where the GM is effectively constantly holding up a judge's scorecard valuing either the narrative skill or the strategic acumen of the players *could* cause friction in some groups.  I think the built-in option to reject the Challenger's offer and move to dice that reflect the character's skill and resources at the defined action is an excellent safety valve mechanism here.  But many GMs will want clear guidelines for a median offer and the specific attributes of narration that shift that median offer up or down by X points, so they have rules authoritative backing to support their offers.  Giving a twelve point offer, for example, might only occur when most of the group responds to a Hunter's narration with expletives or slack-jawed awe.  And of course you've got to make sure you've got the math right - it sure looks/feels like it to me.  If your design preferences resist a more regimented offer scheme, there should at least be some textual warnings about favoritism dangers and recommendations for pre-game/campaign discussion of such issues.

Part of it was the late hour and a lack of sleep, but I have a low tolerance for putting together a strategic plan toward an "Mission Impossible" scenario like busting someone out of a prison.  I know this is a personal preference, and I also know some players, yea, entire groups absolutely *live* for building a great plan.  Whether it is GM-craft or supported by the game mechanics, I like the idea of a GM being able to say/determine "the plan you've come up  is so good, we're not even going to go to the dice mechanic."  I felt like the game dragged a bit for me towards the end of the evening when we were forming the plan to spring the hostage out.  I think Nick might have been anxious to speed that phase on a bit more too.  Since your game (or at least your verbal explanation of the game) tacitly holds out the Carrot of "success without fortune" for the "perfect" plan/description, some cautionary GM advice or even some game mechanic that rewards expeditious play might be warranted.  I know Spirit of the Century has some good thoughts on this issue, and there are some other designs that address this.  Again, this is just something that I have strong feelings about that I know many do not.

When Gabe's character, having built up some advantage through effective maneuvers, rolled a "22" on 4d6 to dispatch the wolf pack threat, I was perfectly content.  I imagined the scene in a narrative flow where Marah had contributed to our common goal by seeking out and chanting the "true name" of the alpha wolf by consulting her spirit guide.  Mechanically, however, that roll meant that the light "wound" Marah had done and any medium or heavy "wounds" inflicted by Charles' and Nick's characters were rendered ineffectual.  That's just the way dice are sometimes, as we all recognized.  I wonder if some players might (or did?) feel robbed in that context, and I wonder whether some mechanic that gave some sort of consolation prize toward the next conflict to the other characters might mitigate this potential.

As you already recognized in your post about the tracking conflict, some GM advice in the game text about concession when a conclusion seems forgone is probably a good idea if it isn't already in there.  As a GM, I could see myself rolling one damaging strike in a conflict of this nature, and then giving in.  But I think it was fine for us in this case as we were in learning mode.

Well, probably not quite what you were looking for, but there it is.  I admire and envy the design and am really looking forward to seeing the final product.

Matt,

Sorry, but you're wrong: this is exactly what I was looking for :)  Thanks so much for writing all that up, it's definitely given me additional insight into the way the game works for the players.

This is the current textual guidance for offensive maneuver offers:

* Maneuver Offers

During Conflict Resolution, you will offer a certain number of advantage points to the Hunter, depending on several factors.  The following are guidelines on how best to decide how many points you should offer for a particular maneuver.

First, look at the activated traits.  If the Hunter has a big advantage in his offensive traits against you, you should take that as the baseline for your overall offer.  Otherwise the Hunter would be better off rolling the dice in any case.  For example, if the Hunter has two offensive traits active at +5 each, and you have no defensive traits activated, your basic offer should start somewhere between 5 and 10 points.

Second, add a certain number of points for the quality of the maneuver.  You take into account whether the Hunter used his traits and resources in the description, whether he is making good use of the environment, whether he's thinking up possible weak spots of the opposition that make sense, whether he brings in elements of the description you gave for the opposition and the situation, and whether the Hunter is really trying to come up with something cool.  If you feel like the Hunter's maneuver sounds flat and that he's not really making an effort, don't add any points to your basic amount or even subtract some (but remember that you have to offer at least two points).  If you think it's a solid proposal, add a few points.  If you feel like the Hunter is displaying great tactical skill and putting a lot of effort into the maneuver, add up to 8 points.  And if you are wowed by how cool the maneuver is, add up to 12 or even more.  Finally, if you feel like the Hunter has come up with a perfect maneuver that would put an immediate end to the opposition and that's very likely to succeed, you can just give.  That should be a rare event, but it should be achievable.

* Momentum

Whenever a Hunter inflicts damage during a challenge, he gains Momentum.  The amount of Momentum gained depends on the damage inflicted:

Light -- 1 point
Medium -- 2 points
Heavy -- 3 points
Incapacitating -- 4 points
Fatal -- 5 points

Momentum can be used during a Strike to function as additional advantage points that increase the damage dice.  Momentum spent in this way is expended and can only be refilled through inflicted damage.  Momentum can be spent in any challenge, no matter in which challenge it was earned, even if it was earned during a challenge in a different domain.  The maximum amount of Momentum that a Hunter can have is the Limit of the current adventure.

My workload freeze is thawing along with the snow here, so just a quick thought on Momentum.

I lack the experience with and insight into the game's economy as it stands, but my off-the-cuff response to that proposed tweak would modify the scheme thus:

Light -- 1 point
Medium -- 2 points
Heavy -- 3 points
Incapacitating -- 0 points
Fatal -- 0 points

or *perhaps*

Light -- 1 point
Medium -- 2 points
Heavy -- 3 points
Incapacitating -- 3 points
Fatal -- 3 points

My reasons are:

1) Less impact to the balance/economy you've established up to this point.  You could test with a little Momentum initially and increase the effect later if testing seemed to warrant it.

2) Those who've achieved Incapacitating or worse Damage have gotten their spotlight.  Incapacitating or Fatal Damage is unlikely to be felt as "wasted."

You might also consider a cap on the amount of Momentum that can be expended for a single Strike. (3?  5?  6? 10?)

Also, perhaps Strikes fueled with Momentum do not generate further Momentum?

I may have more feedback later, but back to the salt mine for now…

Good points.  Let me mull it over.

I had "No Momentum from a Strike using Momentum" in there at first, then thought it might negate the desired effect, since you still might just make a light wound or something even when using Momentum.

I figured, since you can only have as much Momentum as the Limit, that would impose a cap already.  In our game it would have been 5.  In a high-level game, it might be 20, but there are also much higher odds to overcome.  Still, yes... worth thinking about.

Thanks.

Mulled the Momentum issue over some more on my lunch break.  Couldn't resist some more scattershot thoughts:

- Once you introduce Momentum, you've got some more numbers to track.  Possibly Momentum earned based on Damage strength, caps on Momentum earned in a given conflict, caps on Momentum that can be spent in a given conflict, caps on total accumulated Momentum for a given adventure.  Plus possibly having to track whether a given Strike met the requirements to generate Momentum.  That might be piling on a lot to "fix" an issue that might not be a problem for most players.  I do like the general idea though.

- The character doing the good work of Maneuvers that remove the opposition's Resources isn't earning *any* Momentum in this tweak.

- Maybe a KISS principle approach with less gradation?  Something along the lines of "At the end of a Conflict, any character that did not deal the Incapacitation or Fatal Damage, but either did some amount of Damage or removed a Resource during the Conflict, earns a point of Momentum (a token?).  This Momentum can be spent in a future conflict to increase the Damage dice rolled on a Strike by one rank."  (might not be using the right terms here, but trades in 6 Advantage points and their Momentum token to roll 1d10, or trades in 20 Advantage points and their Momentum to roll 4d6, etc.)  Okay, that's all horribly worded but serves as an example of a simpler solution.  Maybe Momentum tokens are earned for each instance of Damage (w/o regard to how much) or Resource denial and are turned in later for some lesser effect?  That's the idea anyway.

- some genre or setting appropriate Color to explain the principal of Momentum might be cool.  (Spirits thirsty for glory?  Something to do with tattoos?)

I'm certain that's enough meddling for now.

Here's what I'm going to do: I'll work through the numbers and implications, settle on an easy way to get this in, and then make it an optional rule.  I'm realizing that I don't want it in the basic rules, but it will be there in the options if the players want to use it.  That also allows for people introducing the additional bookkeeping only if they want it.

With that, I'm going to put that in on the weekend, fix up the text to be a little more easy to use (it's in a very basic format right now to make layouting easy), then give it to people who have asked or will ask to playtest it without me being involved.  I'll send you a copy as well, Matt, so you can look it over if you want.  Anyone else who's interested in running it, please PM or email me.

Thanks again for all the suggestions.  This is not a closure of the thread--if anyone has further thoughts, or if any of the other players would like to chime in, you're more than welcome to do that. :)

I've only have a few minutes here, but i would like to say i really enjoyed myself playing beast hunters, i love the social physical and..ah mental i think it was aspect, its great, with the idea of actually having rules to defeat someone in a conflict other than hitting them i think is a necessity in all games that you find so few have, I'm also a huge fan of the setting, and the brilliance of awarding points for just the description of actions was so much fun, i really got a kick out of playing.

Thanks for the input, Nick.  I really enjoyed seeing your character in action :)