littlestkobold ([info]littlestkobold) wrote,
@ 2007-08-29 09:29:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current location:halfway between heaven and hell
Current mood: pleased
Entry tags:games, gaming, ordinary angels, playtest, steampower publishing, writing

[Ordinary Angels] First playtest

So yesterday I had some friends over and we had a quick playtest of Ordinary Angels, my game of angelic cops. Me and

[info]drivingblind talk about it quite extensively here.

We were going to play it on saturday night but I suggested we watched the Prophecy to get in the right mood (for those who haven't seen it, it's Christopher Walken chewing up the scenery as a bad-ass Gabriel) but it proved to be such a big turn off we ended up playing something else. So sunday afternoon, with the Prophecy fading in our memory, we tried again.

Character Creation

Character creation was painless - distribute 11 points between the 3 stats and then pick a duty. We ended up with:

Leliel, the Sword of God, played by Geoff
Belief in Self 3
Belief in Man 2
Belief in the Word 6

Velon, the Angel of Mercy, played by Dave
Belief in Self 3
Belief in Man 5
Belief in the Word 3

Zagzagel, Protector of Children, played by Jan
Belief in Self 7
Belief in Man 2
Belief in the Word 2

Chapter Briefing

The game is split into chapters, chunks of the divine Plan assigned to a unit of angels, which serve to set the mechanical pace and purpose of a session. We setup the first chapter with the unit called into the office of their recalcitrant, desk-bound captain, Archas. He opened a case file, telling them that they were to complete the harvest of the soul of a girl, dying of cancer, who the angels tasked with watching over her had managed to lose.

Each chapter is mechanically divided up into Plan tokens, which represent progress towards solving the case and completing the Plan. Success during the session buys off these Plan tokens and the GM can use them to introduce adversity and complication. These tokens act as both a measure of pace and progress, as well as converting into experience at the end of a session. During the briefing the tokens (5 for each player) are split between 4 categories – adversaries (fighting), intervention (social), mysteries (investigating) and complications (a miscellaneous category for making things worse). By favoring one category over another at this stage the tone of the session can be changed.

I split the tokens evenly, narrating as I did so that the angel who had lost the girl was Zophiel (intervention), and that Ba-Ulgura, a demon, had designs not only on the girl but also her family (adversary). As Zophiel had lost the family, the captain did not know where to point them (mystery). At this point the players could butt in and define elements of the case too, but decided to go with what I’d defined up front.

Verse 1

The group started by going looking for Zophiel. Dave tossed me a point of faith to seize the narrative narrated finding Zophiel revelling in his doubt in a seedy bar. Doing so earnt him an intervention token from the plan. The others quickly got onboard, roughing Zophiel up and asking him where he saw the family last. Zophiel proved reluctant to help, knowing he was falling and unwilling to let the other angels claim credit for putting his mistake right. Leliel began to quote scripture at him, rallying him with reason and faith, and a promise of credit where credit was due. Geoff tested his Belief in the Word, getting 2 levels of success and the remainder of the intervention tokens. Zophiel pointed them to an address in Hell’s Gate and the intervention/talky side of the case was now over.

Verse 2

The unit headed to the address to find it empty, save for a teenage boy with track marks and scars up and down his arms, and empty eyes that had gazed into Hell itself – a demon. The angels and the demon snarled at one another for a bit, before provoking the demon to attack Leliel with tooth and nail. Leliel, quoting scripture and not missing a beat, spent a point of faith to manifest the Sword of God – a massive silver pistol that fired bullets that each had angels dancing on the head. In game terms this just provided a bonus die to his next roll, possibly a little weak.

In turn I spent one of the complication tokens to have a second demon drop from the ceiling and give myself a bonus to the roll. Leliel tested his Belief in Self, but tied with the demon, the conflict going unresolved. The demons fled and Leliel and Zagzagel split up to chase them, leaving Velon to search for clues.

Verse 3

Zagzagel tested Self to catch the demon, on the one hand succeeding, but rolling three 6s in the process. I knew this was especially bad, but hadn’t quite pinned down the mechanics yet. So it just proved to be an escalation of badness – Zag caught the demon, but as he did so Ba-Ulgara stepped out of the shadows, flick knives drawn as sharp as his toothy smile.

Verses 4-5

Leliel caught up with the other demon, only to be taunted about how even now his comrade was at the demon lord’s mercy. Meanwhile Velon discovered a new address, outside town, but I complicated matters with a mystery token, revealing some mysterious angelic script playing in the shadows in the corner of the room. The script suggested that God wished the entire family to be harvested, not just the terminally ill daughter. Velon bridled at this, keeping it to himself.

Verse 6

Elsewhere, Zag and Ba-Ulgara fought, Zag manifesting a flaming sword from the air itself. Zag won the conflict, removing another couple of adversary tokens, but not enough to defeat the demon. At this point Beliel narrated himself into the scene with a faith token. I described how Zagzagel and Ba-Ulgara were locked together, Zag’s sword burning into the demon’s side and Ba’s knife pushed up under the angel’s neck.

Verse 7

Ba-Ulgara taunted Leliel, asking him if his belief in his God was enough to save his friend. Leliel assured him it was and fired. Triple 6, but a success all the same. Ba-Ulgara was dead, but not before his knife had cut a deep groove into Zag’s face. Beliel was wrong, his belief was not enough and the scar on his friend would remind him of this. It became obvious what a triple 6 should do – it should increase the doubt of the angel, the measure of how close they are to doubting their beliefs and falling.

Verse 8

At this point there were only a couple of complication tokens left on the plan, so all that remained was the harvesting of the girl. The party drove out to the address Velon had found, a shack in the woods outside town. They split up and Velon found the girl’s father. Keeping the plan’s instructions to harvest the whole family to himself he rose up to his full height, manifested in all his glory and ordered the father to pack up his family and flee, leaving his eldest daughter behind. He passed his Belief in Man test and the family fled. One of Velon’s duties was “thou shalt show mercy, even to one whom the Plan decrees must be slain”, so he gained faith back for fulfilling that.

Verses 9

The unit closed the chapter by descending on the daughter in her sickbed, Zagzagel closing her eyes and reassuring her before harvesting her soul for the armies of heaven.

Epilogue: The Testament of Leliel

The game finished up with a testimony from Leliel, an in-game, “to camera” piece much like confessionals in InSpectres that are the only way to get rid of doubt. Me and Dave interviewed Leliel about his doubt, asking him why his belief had faltered. It proved to be a nice epilogue for the game.

What didn't work

So, the mechanics all held together, nothing seemed to falter in play and the players didn’t find anything overwhelming or cumbersome. All in all a good first playtest. But, there were a few issues that will require some work.

1. Duties – duties are the only means to regain faith tokens, but rarely cropped up in the game. Each duty is structured as 3 statements such as “thou shalt not allow harm to come to a child” or “thou shalt always show mercy” but it was commented that these might be too passive and vague. I think these need reworking so that they are more active in play. I’m looking for the feel of Keys with the style of the Ten Commandments, but keep coming up with vague, passive and overly broad instructions. Any suggestions as to how to improve them?

2. Pacing – the game lasted an hour, and we weren’t especially rushing. If the plan tokens are meant to act as pacing, they’re not doing a terrific job as 1 hour is way too short. I think the initial answer might be to simply use more tokens, maybe 10 per player. Thoughts?

3. Doubt – increasing your doubt score is meant to be a real temptation for the players, skipping the use of faith points and testing beliefs but getting closer to falling. However, the only time anyone took a point of doubt was when Geoff rolled triple 6. Currently doubt is just used instead of a faith point, which is handy when you’re out of faith but less so at other times – I wonder if it should be more powerful, to make it a real temptation? Or perhaps next session, with some of the players running low on faith it might crop up a bit more as a necessary evil. Does that sound like a fair assessment?

What did work

On the other hand, if I had to point at bits of the game that really sung in play, that I want to tap into and help bring into every game, it would be the point at which the demon and Zag were locked in combat, with Leliel's beliefs tested as to whether they were strong enough to save his friend. Also, Velon turning his back on the Plan to spare the rest of the family from being harvested. Those two moments captured, for me, what the game is all about.


(Post a new comment)

Duties
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-29 03:10 pm UTC (link)
Let's talk about Duties first.

In function, Duties are, to use my Fate terminology, aspects which are compel-only. So, what can we learn about Duties, using that as a lens?

- Strong guidance should exist that tells the GM to build sessions around the characters' Duties. If a Duty reads "thou shalt not allow harm to come to a child", then a child should be imperiled.

- Players might be empowered to "put a Duty on the line", using it to narrate a detail into a scene that makes the scene a tough/necessary situation for their character. If I have "thou shalt always show mercy", then I might be allowed to create situations that contain temptations for me to be merciless.

- "Thou shalt not allow harm to come to a child" is immediately more tactile and potent to me than "Thou shalt always show mercy". Why? Because the first Duty specifically suggests situation, an event that I am put on this Earth to prevent. The second is almost entirely inward-focused and does not have built-in situation. So as far as formation of the Duties goes, I think there needs to be a careful eye put towards situation. This is sort of the Good/Better/Bam! principle from SOTC in application, here... But more on how to achieve this for OA in my next point.

- The Duties themselves might not need to be fixed, but situation does need to come into play somehow. Duties might benefit from having a list of up to three things under each duty which is more specific ("parables", "psalms", "scriptures", something like that), essentially empowering the players to author a set of kickers (to use Ron's term) for each Duty that may be incorporated into the game whenever the GM sees an opening for it. Whenever a given parable comes to a close, it's checked off/cashed in, whatever, but it then gets erased (or moved over into the Book of Deeds, where parables of the past are recorded and the story of the character's experiences grows from play) and replaced by a new parable that the player authors.

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Duties
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-29 03:48 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for the comments Fred. Some interesting things to think about.

- I was about to counter your point about comparing duties to compel-only aspects by saying "they're more like Keys." Then I thought about it and realised they're the same thing - a mechanic that generates currency by creating interesting situations. That's exactly what a duty is - it's the mechanism for restoring faith (pretty much the only way), and it does so by putting the character into an awkward but compelling situation.

So say I'm Lemiel, Sword of God. By taking that duty I'm saying to the GM that a) I find the Fallen interesting and want them to be in the game and b) I want to be rewarded for getting into scrapes and tough choices when confronting the Fallen and c) this is the sort of gameplay I want to be rewarded for.

- So as written the duty, Sword of God, has to be compelling enough to make both player and GM realise this, and for them to jump the gap between the mechanics on the page and the situation at the table, by way of the duty as the method for doing this.

- Thou shalt always confront the Fallen implies action and situation. Thou shalt not allow harm come to a child implies action and situation. So how can thou shalt always show mercy do the same? And by slavishly following my pattern of "thou shalt", am I making things needlessly confusing?

- So rather than follow my current progression (which essentially follows the TSOY structure of keys: 1. gain 1 xp when x is in a scene/when doing x; 2. gain 2xp when x complicates life for me; 3. gain 5xp when x puts me/the Plan at risk), I should have it made up of 3 situations that are rewarded when they come up in play.

- In theory, both the GM AND the players can spend Plan tokens to introduce complications, which are likely to revolve around the duties. So as a player I might spend a Plan token by making things worse for me or my comrades by introducing the Fallen into the scene or putting a child at risk or requiring me to be merciful. Then, if I tick the necessary box I get to claim the token. It's very fuzzy tho, and didn't come up in play, which suggests it needs more work.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Duties
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-29 04:05 pm UTC (link)
I think you're thinking things through in the right way here.

I would say "Thou Shalt" is a great structure for the Duties; it ends up being a guiding statement for then coming up with the specifics of situations (the "parables" that would be listed under each Duty, the way I envision things). Parables aren't restricted to the "Thou Shalt" language, but they are oriented on placing situations in front of the character that force him to confront his Duty.

And, yeah, I think ditching the TSOY key structure and doing something a bit more fluid, oriented on situation, will serve you better.

And, sure, I like players spending tokens to introduce complications, and they most certainly should -- I would say that doing so is exactly how they author their parables into play, even. The GM might be able to author them in as well, but that's essentially a kindness; let the players spend their tokens in order to create the situations in play that help them confront their duties. That's really what I see as the purpose of player Plan tokens ...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Duties
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 01:40 pm UTC (link)
Currently a Duty looks like this:

Protector of Children

I. Thou shalt not allow harm come to a child.
III. Thou shalt not suffer one who means harm to a child to live.
V. Thou shalt not allow a child to die, even if it means the death or suffering of others.

With the escalating "thou shalt" situations netting an increasing amount of faith.

So would it change to something more akin to:

Protector of Children: thou shalt not allow harm come to a child.

And then I'd author 3 parables:

1. stand guard over a child against those who would harm him.
2. seek out and slay one who means harm to a child.
3. save the lift of a child in direct contravention of the Plan.

Something like that?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Duties
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 04:41 pm UTC (link)
Something like that, yeah. A parable in my mind should:

a) Have a "spot" in it for a character (so parables act as frameworks through which NPCs may be introduced or have their stories expanded)

b) Describe a reasonably specific situation

c) Describe a situation that forces the angel to make a choice.

Your three parables seem to pass the 'a' and 'b' tests just fine. 'c', I'm not so sure, save for #3.

Thinking about it, I might say:

1. Stand guard over a child against those who would harm him, even if it means leaving an adult unprotected.

2. Hunt down one who means harm to a child, and see that your justice is visited upon him.

3. Save the life of a child, even though the Plan demands her death.

Something like that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Pacing and 6-6-6
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-29 03:42 pm UTC (link)
I think what should happen is whenever you roll 6-6-6 is exactly as you say -- the doubt of the angel increases.

But rolling 6's on dice could have another effect in addition to that... consider one or both of these options:

- Whenever any single die rolls showing a six, the GM gains one token, which he must spend immediately based on the circumstances of the roll, complicating the plot. (Thus, the game always organically extends its length with a feedback loop from the events of play.) With this option only in effect, a 6-6-6 is three tokens, which is pretty nasty; but even a single 6 adds a token. If you want to "blunt" the effect of this -- if it's too powerful -- then let any '1's cancel out '6's for the purpose of token generation. Roll 6-6-1, and it's only 1 token generated, or 6-1-*, and it's 0 tokens. Regardless, a roll will generate 0, 1, 2, or 3 tokens, with this rule.

- Whenever 6-6-6 is rolled, the Doubt Effect occurs, but also, SIX tokens are generated, which must be used immediately. Combined with the previous rule, it means a roll is generating 0, 1, 2, or 6 tokens. Without the previous rule, it means 6 tokens get generated, but only one in 216 rolls, statistically speaking. Granted, your game featured, what, two or three 6-6-6 results, so statistics are bunk. Personally I think this rule is weak on its own.

I think this might be better than simply increasing the number of tokens in play. Sometimes short sessions where no-one rolls 6's will happen... but that's not terribly likely. I might encourage both rules, with the 1's cancelling clause in effect. That'll get you a spread like this:

6: 1 in 216 times (0.4%)
2: 12 in 216 times (5.6%)
1: 51 in 216 times (23.6%)
0: 152 in 216 times (70.4%)

Mushed together this means every roll should generate 3/8ths of a token -- in other words, an average of three tokens every eight rolls (though a minimum of 0 and a maximum of 48).

Get rid of the "ones cancel", and the distro is:

6: 1 in 216 (0.4%)
2: 15 in 216 (6.9%)
1: 75 in 216 (34.7%)
0: 125 (58%)

Then 1 token is generated every 2 rolls (ish) on average. Might be more desirable. It would suggest that the story "complicates itself" up to roughly half again as many tokens as get invested in it, if each token essentially corresponds to at least one person making more roll. If you're looking to bulk the story out, you want to call for more rolls per token event than one...

Is this making any sense?


(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Pacing and 6-6-6
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-29 03:46 pm UTC (link)
Also:

It's possible your pacing isn't THAT broken, and that a session should be composed of multiple, um, psalms (that's what I find myself naturally calling a mission when it's divided up into verses). Even better if those two or three psalms are entangled with one another in some way.

Remember, this isn't just a procedural, it's a noir, with the players acting as investigators piecing through a mystery in order to solve, essentially, crimes. Noirs often have multiple crimes that are all tangled up with one another... a couple murders, a theft, someone getting blackmailed... and part of addressing the mission is disentangling ALL of those elements. So I'd love to see a set-up where there were two or more psalms/plans running concurrently, as your method for sustaining more than 1.5-2 hour sessions...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Pacing and 6-6-6
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-29 03:58 pm UTC (link)
I may have screwed up a bit and thought that your game involves always rolling 3 dice. I'm probably wrong about that, now that I review the AP.

In that case I think the token generation will be even more plentiful, and that's kind of awesome...

The more dice you roll, the more complicated the adventure will be. Are you SURE you want to test your high-number-of-dice Faith in the Word? Maybe testing your weaker stat will keep things simple... but you might fail.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Pacing and 6-6-6
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 12:41 pm UTC (link)
Currently, and arbitrarily, you split 11 points between the 3 pillars of faith/beliefs. This might be too many, we'll see. But I wanted some differentiation between the beliefs, so some are lower than others and fall prey to doubt first.

And I think token generation, if cancelled out by 1s and 6s, will probably even out nicely.

And the more dice you roll, the more likely things are going to get complicated. But then, the more you believe, the more you are going to be tested, and the harsher those tests will be, right?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
11 points
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 04:42 pm UTC (link)
11 sounds fine. That means your most balanced is 3-4-4, which is nice enough. You could probably drop that to 10, giving 3-3-4, which is interesting. Consider the "story" implied by each of those.

3-4-4 says "there is one of my faiths which is not as strong as my others"

3-3-4 says "there is one of my faiths which is stronger than the others"

Interesting distinctions there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 11 points
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 05:24 pm UTC (link)
Both of which are interesting in their own right. I'll think on that one, but I think I prefer the 3-3-4 twist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 11 points
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 05:32 pm UTC (link)
I think these are all of the 11 point possible splits:

1-1-9
1-2-8
1-3-7
2-2-7
1-4-6
2-3-6
1-5-5
2-4-5
3-3-5
3-4-4

I think these are all of the 10-point splits:

1-1-8
1-2-7
1-3-6
2-2-6
1-4-5
2-3-5
3-3-4

If I'm right, that 1 point makes quite a difference in terms of the number of different configs available.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 11 points
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 05:39 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for doing the heavy statistical lifting Fred! Much appreciated.

I instantly recoil at the 1-1-8 and 1-1-9. That's got min-max written all over it. Take 1 point of doubt and you lose 2 of your beliefs (boy were they a passing phase) but then it's a long haul before you even come close to falling. Of course, until then, you're pretty much neutered as to what you can get stuck in with.

I prefer the 10 point spread - there's less extreme differences within the splitting of points.

Unless I get all abitrary again and have the minimum starting belief to be 2?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 11 points
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 05:49 pm UTC (link)
Things get VERY interesting when you say "minimum of 2" for beliefs. Look at the above and knock out everything that has a 1 in it, and the sets that result seem nicely focused...

11: 2-2-7 2-3-6 2-4-5 3-3-5 3-4-4

I think these are all of the 10-point splits:

10: 2-2-6 2-3-5 3-3-4

You could also consider saying no belief greater than X, as another way of limiting the minmax.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 11 points
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 06:06 pm UTC (link)
Ok, those are interesting, and swing me back to the 11 point split, but possibly having the range 2-6. That way you get:

236 246 335 and 344

Which seems like a good mix, and typically results in 1 belief that is higher or lower than the others, which itself asks more questions than it answers.

I think that's more interesting than the 3 options with 10 points, which are far more focused. That said, 10 points, minimum 2, means you have to make some tough choices if you want a high belief in any one area.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: 11 points
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 06:35 pm UTC (link)
Yep. You're thinking in the right ways now, though, so I've got nothin' to add. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Token generation by dice
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 04:44 pm UTC (link)
the more dice you roll, the more likely things are going to get complicated. But then, the more you believe, the more you are going to be tested, and the harsher those tests will be, right?

That is EXACTLY what I was driving at, and why I think this works pretty yummily. More dice is always better for your success, but it's not always better for your *situation*, and that, my friend, is a very interesting circumstance.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Pacing and 6-6-6
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-29 04:13 pm UTC (link)
I had put in provision for splitting tokens between chapters (originally called cases) so you could have multiple ones on the go at the same time, but ditched it when it looked like there'd be too few tokens rather than too many. I might dust that off again. In fact, that fits the film nicely - the film comprises at least a couple of cases/chapters.

I went for chapter (and verse, which is the name for scenes) in the biblical sense. That way it's the Plan, chapter 4: verse 3. This makes me smile :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Pacing and 6-6-6
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 12:39 pm UTC (link)
Aye, it is. It would be a way to generate complications and tokens throughout the game, to turn the screw a little and make a bad situation that little bit worse. Plus, if you wind up with a windfall (by rolling 666), then you could really turn the screw by having a full-blown Fallen or Rider of the Apocalypse show up to mess things up big time.

I dig the 1s cancelling out the 6s, but wonder if this makes it needlessly fiddly - I tried something similar at one stage during my Game Chef entry (which we both discuss here), which you suggested that any dice manipulation needed narrative elements attached to it. So, what would be the narrative element to 1s and 6s? To-ing and fro-ing between the divine powers, the waxing and waning of heaven and hell?

Also, as the mechanics involve opposed rolls, both the player and the GM can roll 1s, 6s, triple 6s and triple 1s. As written at this very moment, a triple 6 rolled by player or GM is bad times for the player, and vice versa for triple 1. How do you think this meshes with your suggestion?

And finally - the question of triple 1. Should there be a counter balance rule that favours the angels? Currently triple 1 nets the player an additional token from the Plan, as well as a faith token.

What if, instead of getting to harvest an additional token per margin of success for a regular roll, you get 1 token for a success and an additional token for each 1 you roll (that hasn't been cancelled by a 6)? Then the triple 1 can have the super bonus effect triple 6 has (double the number of tokens, plus a point of faith).

Or am I taking this way off-road and into complicated-ville?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
6's, 1's, and cancelling
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 04:52 pm UTC (link)
I dig the 1s cancelling out the 6s, but wonder if this makes it needlessly fiddly - I tried something similar at one stage during my Game Chef entry (which we both discuss here), which you suggested that any dice manipulation needed narrative elements attached to it. So, what would be the narrative element to 1s and 6s? To-ing and fro-ing between the divine powers, the waxing and waning of heaven and hell?

Yep, that's it exactly. 1's represent the Divine trying to keep the situation sticking to the Plan, and 6's represent the Infernal's mischief in making things more complicated than they originally seemed. Narratively, that's potent, and it's important for you to make sure that that representational element is put front and center when you talk about the rule.

You *could* say that it's the GM's 1s that cancel the players' 6's -- this way, you'd essentially be saying everyone's actions are always subverted a little by the dice. So a player's 1's wouldn't cancel his 6's, etc... But I don't think that's necessary; I like the whole pool getting combined as far as the 1's and 6's go.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Triples: 6-6-6, 1-1-1
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 04:59 pm UTC (link)
As written at this very moment, a triple 6 rolled by player or GM is bad times for the player, and vice versa for triple 1. How do you think this meshes with your suggestion?

I think this meshes just fine. I like the idea that a player's 6's work against him, and from the GM's perspective, the GM's 1's work against him. Each side "wants" different dice to show up. Playtest will answer this question, that said, more definitively than my speculation.

And finally - the question of triple 1. Should there be a counter balance rule that favours the angels? Currently triple 1 nets the player an additional token from the Plan, as well as a faith token.

Well, triple 1's mean that three 6's aren't generating plan tokens, which is good from the perspective that the situation is not getting more complicated. That said, there are a few ways to go:

- Triple Ones could actually allow you to *remove unspent plan tokens* from the target of your choice. This might be a good "valve" on making sure that stuff doesn't get TOO much more complicated, and help avoid an "infinite session prolongation loop", where you keep adding more tokens, and keep rolling more sixes, and so it goes and goes... That said, the idea that 6-generated tokens must be spent immediately means that it's rarely a *long term* problem that gets introduced by rolling 6's.

- Triple 1's could trigger Confessionals. Not sure if that's a good fit.

- Triple Ones could generate points of Faith as you've already suggested. I think this is simple, elegant, and on-target, so it's probably the front runner.

I'm sure there are others I'm not thinking of.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Tokens, Tokens, Tokens
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 05:01 pm UTC (link)
What if, instead of getting to harvest an additional token per margin of success for a regular roll, you get 1 token for a success and an additional token for each 1 you roll (that hasn't been cancelled by a 6)? Then the triple 1 can have the super bonus effect triple 6 has (double the number of tokens, plus a point of faith).

Or am I taking this way off-road and into complicated-ville?

Are we talking plan tokens here? I'm losing sight of the denominations we're talking about, I think, right around this part of what you're saying...

This might be complicated or it might be awesome... right now I can't tell. What I would recommend is to not add TOO much additional stuff -- the '6's = plan tokens concept may be enough right out the gate -- before your next playtest. Earmark this idea as "something to consider after more testing".

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Tokens, Tokens, Tokens
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 05:22 pm UTC (link)
Yeh we're still talking plan tokens. Tokens tokens everywhere ... I think I need a better name, if only to differentiate faith from plan. Badges? Marks?

Anyway - yes, you're right, it's not so much the mechanics I'm in danger of over-complicating but certainly the playtest rules are at risk of too much too soon! One bit at a time I think.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Doubt
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-29 04:00 pm UTC (link)
So, Doubt. Reviewing the conversation we had previously, it seems that the only temptation we built into the system for electively accumulating Doubt is to increase the score you roll when you're NOT being tested. But with Self, Man, and the Word on the table, we didn't ask the question -- is there any conflict where one of those three WOULDN'T be tested? The answer, I think, is no, and that's where the problem lies.

As it stands, with 6-6-6 being the only way Doubt increases involuntarily, Doubt doesn't really enter into the game very much until it starts getting rated equal to or higher than one of your three Pillars of Faith, at which point it starts subsuming those scores as the better one to use in a test. That is really where it starts to come into play.

And maybe that's good -- if you want Doubt to be a long-term concern rather than a short-term concern, it will function as intended with no tweaks to the rules.

If you want it to be a short-term concern, it's clear there are missing rules, and they're all in what characters might *elect* to do. Right now you've only got a little of that, by having their Doubt increase when they want to spend Faith but don't have any.

What you need to do is make them want to spend Doubt when they DO have Faith. Luckily, the pointer for what to do is right in the text of your actual play.

Leliel, quoting scripture and not missing a beat, spent a point of faith to manifest the Sword of God – a massive silver pistol that fired bullets that each had angels dancing on the head. In game terms this just provided a bonus die to his next roll, possibly a little weak.

Nah, that's just right. Faith is a nice boost, but it's not a HUGE boost. God only helps you out so much, Faith is a long-term play, not a short one, conceptually. You have to stick with it even when things don't turn out the way you want.

Doubt, on the other hand, should give you exactly what you want, in the short term. Sword of God as a single bonus die? That's faith. Sword of God as double the dice? That's doubt. And almost CERTAIN to generate some sixes, which means the circumstances of using doubt will far more often lead to complications, if we look to the above rule suggestion about token generation. That's kind of nice, and an organic way to essentially say "when you use doubt, the darkness grows even if you succeed".

(Reply to this) (Thread)
Re: Doubt
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 01:02 pm UTC (link)
I've tweaked it a little so you can also choose to put your Doubt up by 1 and use it instead of a point of Faith - so take a reroll, give yourself a bonus, break a tie etc.

I do like the idea of doubt providing some sort of super bonus though - I had considered letting you spend a faith point to reroll a failed roll, but to spend a point of doubt to let you automatically pass the roll and skip the dice entirely. But that's probably a little too powerful.

Geoff points out in the other thread I've got going here, that if something bad happens when you hit 0 faith, you're going to always want to take that extra doubt, if the bad thing is bad enough. I was thinking that the bad thing was the possibility of being killed - you can only die when you have no faith left, so there's that incentive to doubt rather than leave yourself open to dying.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Doubt
[info]nuclear_powered
2007-08-30 04:31 pm UTC (link)
"had considered letting you spend a faith point to reroll a failed roll, but to spend a point of doubt to let you automatically pass the roll and skip the dice entirely. But that's probably a little too powerful."

Is it though? You can't take the points of Doubt very often in that manner otherwise you'll become one of the Fallen pretty sharpish but it does give that definite incentive to do it on a really crucial roll; one where you can't afford to fail (and degree of success doesn't matter much) and don't want to be rolling a 666.

Also, did you catch my aside point about Doubt, Faith and Testimonials in my 3rd post on your CE thread (the one you haven't responded to yet)? I mentioned the thought that another penalty for having no Faith might be an inability to do a Testimonial to remove Doubt. If you have no Faith can you really cast out your Doubts?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Doubt
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 05:27 pm UTC (link)
I did, and have indeed now replied to it! I think it's a nice corollary (not intentional, I must add), that once you're out of faith, you're no longer able to cast out your doubts. After all, you no longer have faith, so all you have left are your doubts.

So we have two possible mechanics - doubt could double your dice, to hell with the 6s you roll, you're going to succeed and succeed big time, or you're going to go out in a blaze of glory.

Or doubt could be a free pass, do not pass go, do not collect complications or 6s or faith points. You succeed automatically, but at the cost of a piece of your soul, of doubting that little bit more.

Both make for interesting situations. I could go either way on this one.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Re: Doubt
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Doubt might let you temporarily suspend the effect of 6's when you use it, in addition to the Faith-like effect of bonus/reroll. Think about it: if you're willing to doubt your beliefs, that's a victory as far as the Infernal Adversary is concerned; no need to add complications to your situation by having the 6's generate plan tokens for the GM.

Add to that the idea that you have less control over your character's fate (i.e., the GM is less limited in what "stakes" he can put on a conflict) when you run out of faith, I think you have a pretty solid incentive program there.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Doubt
[info]drivingblind
2007-08-30 05:05 pm UTC (link)
Potentially obvious add-on to that thought is that you need to figure out what the constraints are on what the GM can do, so you know what powers the GM gains over a PC when that PC is out of Faith.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Doubt
[info]littlestkobold
2007-08-30 05:10 pm UTC (link)
I'm thinking that a PC who has run out of faith can be killed. Not as in, you run out of faith and you die, but as in, you run out of faith and suddenly the death of an angel is put on the table as a possible outcome.

I think, however, that just like falling, dying should always be a player driven choice. So when you're out of faith, you can go that one final step and put your life on the line, not just your faith.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…