Hello,

Here's the feedback from our session of ReCoil, played last night at the campus club with me and four players. I'll post the one-sheet and the characters later.

1. Here's the Big Thing, which affects every other point on this list. It's hard to tell what the point of the Agents' mission is supposed to be, regarding three ways to conceive of it: (a) save the people's lives in any way possible, (b) stop their deaths from being wacky, in knowledge that the deaths are fixed or semi-fixed; stop the Naughtwraiths' influence over the deaths regardless of whether the people live or die. I like the third, except that the obvious solution is "shoot the hostage."

2. In developing the Situation Web, I see a parallel with the storymapping technique in Legends of Alyria: it takes work to prep further, after the Web is done, which makes the process a little rough for immediate play. In our group, people tended to ignore how powers work when they scooted straight into play, for some reason, and I suspect other groups would similarly find themselves "dropping" stuff in that transition.

Here's a related question: do you carry out the 4d10 roll for hosts taken later in play? If so, what if role-playing up until that point has established important stuff about that host, e.g. he must be really high-Senses because he spotted something earlier? Since the players in my group did get emotionally invested in the NPCs all the way back in the Situation Web creation (which is a good thing), they also tended to fix NPC features in their minds based on their performances. I could see that being a problem if you whip out the dice and "do over" that person as a host, when occupied.

One player really, really liked the setup and was also instrumental in teamwork and taking down the first Naughtwraith.

3. I think the time-limit, Mortis Pool, and other Oblivion-derived values need to be made more mathematically elegant.

4. I hate, hate, hate the d10 for starting Conviction and also for each "dose" of Slivers of Mortality. Just set each at 5. By contrast, I do like the d10 for Passive Perception for both Naughtwraiths and Agents; in fact, it's brilliant. I also like the 4d10 host rolls. You can probably see the underlying principle under these judgments based on comparing the roles of these two pairs of rules during play.

5. The Naughtwraiths

- You need a Nazgul lieutenant guy. The players all liked the utterly mysterious nature of Oblivion, but they wanted "middle management" that had lots of personality.

- The Naughtwraiths themselves need to be individualized to some small extent, otherwise they're tater chips.

- How do you get rid of them for good? (one player suggested a possible combo: bind + sever to 0)

- Players didn't bring them into the scenario, and perhaps didn't realize they could. Reflecting about it, I'm not entirely certain that's a good idea anyway, otherwise they just flush'em out and stop'em, right? (this issue is clearly related to the Big Thing above)

6. What's the Perception roll for? Host senses are used for most "noticing," right? If not, then what's the difference between Host senses and the Agent's Perception?

The real concern that came up during play was to discern whether someone was a Naughtwraith host when Passive Perception didn't kick off the alarm. That seemed like the only concretely-understandable use of Perception, but it raises some problems. For instance, running Perception, gaining successes, and using them as facts to say "he's a Naughtwraith! I feel it in my bones!" seems like an ultimately uninteresting way to play. The players liked the idea that I would have seeded the Web with Naughtwraiths much as they seed it with their choices for hosts.

7. Guns and Martial Arts never happened! I think that the only way they will happen is if the GM really threatens the agents physically, because there's absolutely no point to killing Naughtwraith hosts or just the plain old normal folks. Also, if the Situation Web includes violent stuff (mob bosses, hits, stolen money, planned murders, etc), it could also happen, but if it doesn't, then ... no violence seems necessary. Again, dealing with this inquiry requires that you really nail down the Big Thing first.

8. Personal Mortis Points seem very vulnerable at typical values of 3. I'll need to playtest this more; I like the idea that pulling from the shared Mortis Pool is common, but I also dislike the idea of being flung back to the Penumbra all the damn time, scene after scene. The players in my game were reluctant to spend Mortis because of that (what's the point of making a neat host and then bumping out of him almost immediately?), and that seriously hampered one player, whose character's situation pretty much required that the others use Sending to clue him in. When they didn't, and he didn't Send to them, the player felt isolated and pissed off. Whether he was being unimaginative and whiny, or whether he has a point, I don't know. I do think that "spend!" should be mechanically encouraged, if not necessarily safe.

9. Target Number issue ... oh boy. All right, the first thing is this: it's a very bad idea to have a TN-based system which holds the TN fixed in some instances, and then variable in others. That's what you have here, with your "opposed vs. unopposed" notion. Second thing, it's also a bad idea (despite it being common) to let the number of dice in a dice-pool vary, as well as letting the TN-per-die vary just as freely.

That's a serious issue, screwing up all sorts of things in the so-called Storyteller games as well as in systems inspired by them like TROS. I've noted, for instance, that people playing TROS, when modifying skill rolls, apparently choose to stay consistently with either number of dice or TN (usually the former, to match the combat system), deliberately restricting the by-the-rules opportunity to adjust either. The Burning Wheel avoids the problem (I think) by making the number of dice far more variable than the TN variation, which seems more "locked" by comparison.

So my solution for ReCoil is, ditch the difficulties in TN. Just lose'em. Instead, always roll dice in opposition, and either use 5 as the TN (converting the dice into slightly-lopsided coins) or use the highest-die Sorcerer mechanic. I'm thinking the former, with a "difficulty" scale now rated in opposition dice.

That leads us to the next thing: the context for opposition. You have a really, really neat thing going for you in ReCoil: the idea that opponents may each be up to something (let's call them X and Y), and that one has to decrease one's successes at (say) X in order to prevent Y to whatever extent you want. This is excellent, and it's the feature that I'm trying to preserve with my recommendation above.

But during play, I find that it only works if you really have an X and a Y. If an Agent tries to bind a Naughtwraith, and the Naughtwraith "just defends," then the GM has nothing to roll. In fact, I suggest that is a good thing, that a full-defense roll, just to generate successes to block the other guy, is too powerful in this system. So the key factor in GMing ReCoil is to make sure that opponents always have their X, Y, or whatever well-stated, and that it can't be "I just defend."

Whew! OK, that's it. Any thoughts, comments? I'll post more details about my handouts and the characters later, as I said.

Best,
Ron

Wow.

Thank you, thank you Ron. This is precisely the sort of feedback I need. Um. I can address a few points immediately, but many of the others I'll have to mull over.

Ron Edwards wrote: It's hard to tell what the point of the Agents' mission is supposed to be, regarding three ways to conceive of it: (a) save the people's lives in any way possible, (b) stop their deaths from being wacky, in knowledge that the deaths are fixed or semi-fixed; stop the Naughtwraiths' influence over the deaths regardless of whether the people live or die. I like the third, except that the obvious solution is "shoot the hostage."

2. In developing the Situation Web, I see a parallel with the storymapping technique in Legends of Alyria: it takes work to prep further, after the Web is done, which makes the process a little rough for immediate play. In our group, people tended to ignore how powers work when they scooted straight into play, for some reason, and I suspect other groups would similarly find themselves "dropping" stuff in that transition.

This brings up a related issue in my mind. At current, the hosts have potential stats up to 10.. And I feel this to be a major bug that I am considering how to fix. The way I see it, 3 dice should be "respectable" and 5 dice pretty damned good. Remember that 5 dice is potentially 5 facts or actions that can be done, stated or changed. That's quite a bit of power, and with hosts having stats up to 10, it seriously minimizes the abilities of the agents in the corporeal world.

...idea is essentially that each person killed adds to Oblivion's power...

As for randomized Slivers, I've already mentioned two possible changes, one of which I will probably adapt.

I think perhaps I may want to go back and use that old technique of writing out a session of play as I see it, and see how I can add stronger encouragement for those aspects I want to be common.

I... like that second idea for host stats, Lx. I may have to keep that in mind, though there is Ron's point in the prep thread about stats/skills and defaulting anyhow.

For the point on killing Naughtwraiths et al. I want to point out that damage is totally subjective. You don't have to kill unless you want to. Likewise, sometimes killing is a calculated risk.. If the Naughtwraith has 4 points of Oblivion, and you kill the host, you're still ahead by a net 3 Oblivion. It's a chance you may choose to take, but it's a gamble just as well.

And concerning violence.. Yes, I suppose I do want it to be more common. I view this as a fairly action-oriented game, and action usually involves violence (though obviously not always..) of some form or another. There will always be non-violent solutions if that's where players want to go, but I figure that violence should be a common option for solving a given problem.

Hi Lance,

Here's my take on the combat issue, and I suggest that you do a little bit of a reboot about it.

1. Clearly, at the very outset of the design process, you had an image in your mind about the events in ReCoil play. That image is very Matrix-y: agents of secret sides fightin' one another, leapin' about, firin' guns one-two one-two like Chow Yun Fat, and sudden appearances into and disappearances out of scenes.

Right?

2. Actual play of your design so far yields extremely different results from the players and GM. Not only do the players tend not to initiate open combat, but the GM finds it counter-intuitive as well. We can talk about how it "might" be promoted better, but neither of us (and you have several experiences, not just one) are actually seeing it.

Right?

I think the "why" is very, very easy. Violence solves nothing, for Mortis' agents. It is gratuitous abuse of the living people (hosts), whom the players have happily made up and feel some ownership over. It doesn't stop the Naughtwraiths as entities, and it doesn't stop the Naughtwraiths' nefarious scheme.

In fact, it's far safer to know whom a Naughtwraith is hosted in and leave them there in that person, than it is to challenge and expel the Naughtwraith - then you'll have to look for the sucker in the Situation Web all over again, and they'll certainly have been up to no good when out of your sight.

3. My stern thing to say to you today (and you'll notice I'm being rather a bastard about ReCoil; there's a reason for that) is this: Never rely on in-game justification to influence player behavior. That means that all of your suggestions that center on "Mortis wouldn't like it" are completely off-base. The appropriate, predictable, and fully understandable player response is, "Then fuck Mortis." If you try to back Mortis up with (say) Mortis Pool penalties, then you're hitting a social/creative death-spiral that will kill your game dead in the water.

I suggest that instead, you make violence accomplish something. I like the idea, for instance, that a Naughtwraith cannot be expelled from a host unless the host is damaged, even lightly. This is nifty, because you now have agents reluctantly hurting hosts a bit, then shifting to Sever or whatever to deal with the Naughtwraiths ... and the hosts will certainly remember "You hit me!" and lead to all kinds of role-playing.

Although that doesn't solve the "why expel the 'wraith if it just comes back" issue - for that, I suggest the bind + sever combination I mentioned earlier, to kill the 'wraith really-dead.

See? Justification for physical attacks on the people, and an element of accomplishment regarding expelling the Naughtwraith.

Thoughts?

Best,
Ron

::blink::

The 'wraiths don't come back. Another thing I assumed, but obviously didn't make clear. Naughtwraiths can jump hosts much the way Agents can, but there's no Penumbra for them to lounge around in, regroup and return. If a Naughtwraith is ever without a host, it's done for.

The rationale for such can be various: perhaps Oblivion isn't forgiving of failure. Perhaps it's simply that Naughtwraiths only exist when Oblivion creates them within the Coil. I leave the theories of how Oblivion operates to players, though I do have my own pet theories.

A small example to illustrate more how I intended this to work, with the proposed addition of deaths adding Oblivion points: You begin the mission with, say, 15 Oblivion points. Those 15 points could mean 3 'wraiths at Oblivion 5 each, or any combination of weaker 'wraiths. We'll go with the 3-at-5 combo for this example, tho'.

So the agents come at this 'wraith. Being given to violence, they decide to just shoot the host so they don't have to worry about chasing him down. The agent shooting decides to incapacitate him, level 2 damage.. a shattered leg, say. So they bear down on him to Sever the 'wraith, and the 'wraith jumps to a shocked bystander who immediately, upon possession, runs up and kicks the shot man in the temple, killing him. Oblivion is now 16. The agents realize right away that this man is the Naughtwraith's new host, and act to destroy it. The Naughtwraith edits reality in the brief interval it has before the agents act, pulls a gun out, and shoots the closest agent, killing the host. Oblivion is now 17. The second agent immediately Attacks the 'wraith, getting 3 successes, not quite enough to destroy the 'wraith (now at 4 points after editing reality, and down to 1 after the attack) The third agent is a bit on the violent side though, and after watching his buddy get shot down, attacks the 'wraith's host and kills him. Unfortunately, as the 'wraith was only 1 point left, it breaks even as Oblivion is raised due to unnatural death.

Breakdown: 15 +1 for the first death, +1 for the second death, -1 for the editing, -3 for the Agent's attack on the 'wraith, -1 for the 'wraith being destroyed when it's host dies, and +1 for the third death, for a final total of 13; only a 2 point gain for the agents, and possibly some damage to paradigm in the process, not to mention the various consequences of a firefight in the street, which it seems the agent's started.

Now let's take a (briefer) alternate outcome to the scenario.. The 3 agents see the Naughtwraith before it sees them. They weigh the consequences, and decide just to kill the host. They pile into the borrowed car, and drive past the 'wraith, and as they do, the agent in the back fires off several shots, killing the Naughtwraith's host, and thereby destroying the 'wraith. Then the car speeds off.
Breakdown: 15 -5 for the destroyed Naughtwraith, +1 for the death for a final total of 11, a 4 point gain for the agents, none of their hosts have been killed, and the incident looks like random gang violence. The Naughtwraith never had a chance to jump and raise the deathcount, so in the end, the agents can call this a win. On the other hand, had it been a 1-point 'wraith, they would have only broken even. It's a gamble for the agents.

The system at current allows for this type of play, but obviously fails to encourage it.

Hi there,

Naughtwraiths get permanently expelled? M'm. All righty then.

The larger issue is how killing or hurting people relates to the mission at hand. I like your example, but I'm still groping around regarding that Big Question that I asked ... what are the agents trying to do?

I also think that increasing the Oblivion points seems both abstract and laborious, as a during-play mechanic. Oblivion sets ... let's see,

- the total power of the Naughtwraiths, so if it goes up, does that mean the remaining Naughtwraiths increase in Power by the difference? Doesn't seem like an incentive for violence.

- the time you have before Moment Zero; I'm assuming this would not change due to Oblivion points.

So I guess I'm not getting why increasing Oblivion means anything important. I could be missing something obvious, though.

Oh yeah! You mentioned the Naughtwraith jumpin' around from host to host, in the classic Possessor-Hop mode. Can agents do that too? What kind of roll is involved? I'm 99.99% sure that it's not mentioned in the rules. All I can recall are (a) choosing another host if you get a lousy Synch situation, which isn't what I'm talking about; and (b) getting popped back to the Penumbra and coming back in a subsequent scene.

Best,
Ron

Yeah, I guess that was another one of those things I just assumed people would know.

Yes, Agents can jump to a new host. They don't have to make any rolls, other than the rolls to create the host stats. All that is required is that they can see the new host However, if the synch roll comes up X, they get bumped to Penumbra, and have to ReCoil again, so there is a bit of risk involved.

As for the violence angle.. Remember that killing isn't necessary... But sometimes, it's a gamble the agents will decide to take. In the example given, violence up front might be a risk worth taking, or stealth might be a better option. It depends on how the agents want to go about it.

I see the violence mostly as a playstyle thing, I suppose.. It's supposed to be a viable option, and something that can sometimes be forced upon the agents by circumstance and Naughtwraith actions. But killing is something that the agents should be discouraged to do.

Also, I'm not seeing how increasing Oblivion points is particularly laborious. It's a single statistic that fluctuates up and down based on certain actions, which are fairly cut and dried. As for it's effects..

Fluctuations during play do not affect the time on the clock. But the power of the Naughtwraiths is affected.. The way I see it playing out, the only Naughtwraith that is defined and assigned an Oblivion point rating is the one which is "on screen". Any Naughtwraiths not currently sharing a scene with an agent do not have a particular power level, and may not necessarily be assigned a specific host; I think I was a bit misleading on this point in my example.

As for why the Oblivion level is important.. A single, 1-point Naughtwraith can potentially cause the incident at "Moment Zero". With the Oblivion rating fluctuating, the agents have no solid idea of the power level of their opposition, and so therefore must destroy as many as they're able, and find a way to discover the specifics of the incident and prevent them. Failure to either destroy all of the Naughtwraiths (ie, reduce Oblivion to zero) or prevent them from committing the deed which had the agents sent into the Coil in the first place will result in them failing, and a Rift being opened.. Ie, the shit hits the fan.

Is this answer enough, or am I still missing something you're getting at?

Hi Lance,

Wow, that body-hopping changes everything. It also raises the question of NPCs who are brought into play constantly by the GM but who aren't in the original Situation Web. A good example might be a waitress who serves a character in the diner, who's invented into play by the GM because diners have service staff. But even more important are the victims who didn't get included in the Web - in our game, for instance, there were 11 deaths to consider, and our Web accounted for about five of them. Those other six characters are quite likely, although not guaranteed, to come into play.

I presume that the solution is merely to keep adding people to the Web, and if they're not especially connected to anyone (e.g. the waitress), just keep a list off to the side. But I do think that's something that should be explained in the text.

I think the most important problem of game writing is that whatever you think is obvious and are looking forward to seeing in play is probably not going to get written into the rules on the first go-round, and if you're not careful, it won't show up at all.

I see the violence mostly as a playstyle thing, I suppose.. It's supposed to be a viable option, and something that can sometimes be forced upon the agents by circumstance and Naughtwraith actions. But killing is something that the agents should be discouraged to do.

Also, I'm not seeing how increasing Oblivion points is particularly laborious. It's a single statistic that fluctuates up and down based on certain actions, which are fairly cut and dried.

As for it's effects..

Fluctuations during play do not affect the time on the clock. But the power of the Naughtwraiths is affected.. The way I see it playing out, the only Naughtwraith that is defined and assigned an Oblivion point rating is the one which is "on screen". Any Naughtwraiths not currently sharing a scene with an agent do not have a particular power level, and may not necessarily be assigned a specific host; I think I was a bit misleading on this point in my example.

You can swap hosts? Wow, no, that wasn't obvious at ALL. :-)

That's nifty. It also means that you can remember the previous hosts, and shift back to them if needed, knowing what your sync level will be.

Brian.

Hello,

I was reading over my post and realized that my wording was potentially misleading for this section:

I played the game with that desire: no fu/guns. You played the game, presumably with that desire or at least readiness to see it: no fu/guns.