Tactical Compels

I enjoy tactical mini-games in tabletop RPGs that help to break up a larger freeform narrative. For example, in Fate Core, the conflict mini-game is utilized to allow for more tactical thought via zones, which make positioning and distance relevant.

Wrath of the Autarch has four such mini-games (diplomacy, infiltration, skirmish, and warfare), which take inspiration from the mini-games in Diaspora as well as the conflict rules of Fate Core. Much of this post was written after recent playtests of the warfare mini-game, but it could apply to other structured resolution systems as well.

I grapple with how to handle compels in these sorts of structured mini-games. Compels make sense to me outside of those more structured parts of the game (and I include Fate Core conflicts here), but during the mini-games I find them less satisfactory. When I switch to this more structured mode of thinking, I prefer less GM fiat, and allowing compels tends to bring in lots of fiat.

There's also the issue that compels aren't designed as levers to alter mechanical structure within those mini-games.

For instance, compels are "help the kid in distress" or "you're a wanted lady, here come the guards", not so much "end your movement" or "move to this zone because of this situation" or even "you show up two turns after the conflict has started". However, I'm interested in exploring the pros and cons.

It seems like there are a few options in dealing with compels in highly structured situations that have less GM fiat.

No Compels

Many different sorts of tactics are already possible just with a combination of the basic Attack, Defend, Create Advantage, and Overcome Obstacle actions as described in Fate Core.

Aspects can be created in zones to serve as blocks or barriers, or allow for various parties to perform defense rolls. Supplementing these actions with a form of Success with Cost that allows for success in exchange for consequences further makes compels unnecessary.

It could also be supplemented with the sort of tactical stunts that +Sophie Lagace has been blogging about for the War of Ashes RPG.

The one downside is the limited flow of fate points, which could be undesirable if the mini-game is epic (like a large warfare scene). Fate points would still move about by invoking aspects on target characters (or units, in warfare). But that results in a dwindling pool.

Limited Actions

In Diaspora, compels during the mini-games just have limited uses, also reducing the need for GM fiat. For instance, in the warfare mini-game, they can be used to end a unit's movement if an aspect justifies such a thing. There is no GM fiat at all in the Diaspora warfare mini-game.

It seems possible to twist this dial infinitely, so additional effects could be added for different mini-games.

Glow in the dark FTW!

The downside here is that a list of mechanical effects for compels may create a pretty complex mini-game without much added benefit.

It seems like the effects would have to be carefully thought out with the benefit of getting a fate point, but there may be some room for interesting ideas.

Done well, there may be some interesting options. Compelling that cavalry unit to slow it down while it marches through the fens is a good idea to allow your archers time to fire, but if the cavalry unit makes it to the archers, having lots of extra fate points to spare won't be too fun for the archers!

It's also easy to not do them well. For instance, ending a unit's movement is fine if you're controlling armies with many units, but nothing is more boring than losing your turn if you don't get many to begin with.

Actually, while writing this blog post, I found the following entry by +Brad Murray regarding the choices of compels in Diaspora mini-games: http://www.vsca.ca/halfjack/?p=479. Good stuff, and very much the sorts of things I've been thinking about lately.

Negotiated Compels

It might be possible to allow for any action given a more open negotiation framework. Off-hand, it seems like this could slow the game down unless there is a healthy dose of GM fiat to keep things in check.

Even with GM fiat, though, allowing compels to have any mechanical effect seems like it would invite abuse.

Thoughts

My current feeling is that compels aren't really worth it for these mini-games, since it seems like most situations could be handled without them. If an avenue for gaining fate points is really needed beyond getting your aspects invoked against you, it might be easiest to just offer a thematically appropriate avenue depending on the mini-game. Of course, I can't think of any off-hand.

WotA Strategy Game Recap Pt 1: Rethinking Magic

WotA Strategy Game

I created a java program to help model the long term strategy in Wrath of the Autarch. It basically abstracts a session of play (one season of game time) into a few clicks that only take a couple minutes. It does this by treating characters very abstractly, with only a rank that says how good they are, and a major and minor focus which correspond to the four mini-games in WotA. Missions have one difficulty number, which is compared to the rank of the heroes to see how well they do. Resources, regions, and developments and such are treated fairly closely to how they are in the game.

I might blog more about it some other time (the program is online where the rules live), but I'm hoping it helps me examine whether or not all the mission types are worth doing, how resources can be gathered and managed, whether some developments are wildly overpriced, as well as just figuring out how the game feels as a whole. I've found quite a few areas to think about, and I'll slowly incorporate the changes back into the model and see how they feel. First up is magic.

Current Magic Rules in WotA

Magic in WotA comes from the land, from the wild, untamed areas of the realm. This is similar to the theme of Birthright, as well as coming from Arthurian myth (and probably many fantasy works). Using magic is always risky, particularly the release of powerful magic. The risk comes in the form of backlash, which is damage done when magical power is released (usually to the land from which it's drawn). These two foundational ideas aren't going to change.

Currently in the rules, spellcasters slowly accumulate mana each season they remain on a mana-rich region. This mana is then released when casting a spell. This concept isn't bad thematically, but it's really fiddly - particularly tracking when a sorcerer is on this or that region, and how much mana they get. Already in playtests it's something we constantly forget to do.

It also greatly penalizes sorcerers, because they spend all their time getting mana from regions, rather than training or going on missions.

Bound Regions and Starting Mana

Instead of having mana fluctuate between seasons, spending some here, gaining it there, I'm going to have each spellcaster start bound to a region. This region they're bound to forms a big part of their identity. In fact, I think it will be a mandatory aspect that each sorcerer has - such as Sorcerer of the Obsidian Wood. The players can work out what this means, what is the temperament of the land to which your bound? Is it calm and tranquil or wild and chaotic? That will help the players and GM decide when it's appropriate to invoke or compel the aspect.

At the start of each session, sorcerers get starting mana equal to one-half their Channeling skill times the mana value of the region.

For instance, Kara has a Channeling skill of 3.  If she's bound to the Obsidian Wood, which has a mana value of 3, she'll start every mission with 4 mana (3*3 = 9, 9/2 = 4).

This is much easier to track, because skills don't change very frequently, and neither will the mana value of a region. It also creates a nice range of mana for design reasons, because mana will generally range from 0-10, with 15 being an absolute maximum if the Stronghold is heavy into the arcane arts through heavy development research.

It is possible for a caster to switch regions, but I'm thinking it will take at least a season of doing nothing. If the land forms that big a part of their identity, changing a bound region is probably like forsaking a loved one.

Spell Power Ranges

I'll probably keep the "base magic effect" idea that's already in WotA. That is, a hero may spend one mana to transform their Spellcraft skill into an effect related to the sorcery they know. So, spending a point of mana when casting the Secret of Fire would allow a spellcaster to roll Spellcraft instead of Marksmanship to attack something in combat, etc.

Extra mana spent on the spell would function like fate points, either adding +2 or allowing a re-roll.

Besides that base effect, though (Apprentice level magic), there are additional spell effects cenetered around three bands of power roughly corresponding to spending 5 (Initiate), 10 (Journeyman), or 15 (Keeper) mana points.

The details of the effects would depend on the particular spell, but they would be exponentially better than using the mana points as simple fate points. For instance, spending 15 mana on a spell would do things like raise an army of the dead, blow apart castles, or sway the will of a civilization. That level of power is the pinnacle of a campaign.

Each of these levels of power is accessed through Spellcraft skill stunts.

Backlash

The general procedure for casting a spell works a little like Dresden Files RPG, with one pretty big difference: spells always succeed.

• First, the spellcaster spends mana to cast a spell, rolling their Spellcraft skill to determine the overall effect. The effect depends on the spell and the amount of mana spent.
• Next, a Channeling skill vs. mana spent check is made, with any difference below the target number taken as backlash. Most commonly, each point of backlash means one resource from the caster's home region is gone. The land is dying - and it's your fault!

This is pretty harsh, because there's almost always going to be a chance of backlash, no matter how good the caster becomes. In the case of huge mana spends, like 15, it's pretty likely the whole region will be destroyed and turned into a wasteland.

I might allow the caster to absorb some of the backlash as mental stress - maybe taking a consequence to lower the backlash by one. That might be a good Channeling stunt?

As I mentioned at the start, though, magic is risky, and I don't want any combination of stunts or abilities to remove that risk. Just lower it.

Developments and Artifacts

These changes are going to wreak havoc on the Arcane developments I have, because many of them are built from the previous method of gaining and using mana. I've re-thought them as follows. Oh, and a word about the following stunts: I've been using d6-d6 rather than 4dF (the four fate dice) for my WotA games lately, and many stunts and developments rely on that fact.

• Mana Forge - The land gains one extra mana.
• Advanced Mana Forge - No longer exists
• Improved Channeling - Roll d8-d6 for backlash skill checks. (Add one if using fate dice)
• Advanced Channeling - Roll d10 - d6 for backlash skill checks. (Add two if using fate dice)
• Expert Channeling - Roll d12 - d6 for backlash skill checks. (Add three if using fate dice)
• Improved Casting - Roll d8-d6 for all spell effects related to rolling Spellcraft.

• Advanced Casting - Roll d10 - d6 for all spell effects related to rolling Spellcraft.
• Expert Casting - Roll d12 - d6 for all spell effects related to rolling Spellcraft.
• Mages Guild - Every character gains one Spellcraft stunt that they have the prerequisites for, or may become an Initiate in a secret even if they don't have the correct prerequisites.
• Thedda's Palimpsest (artifact from Burgan Vale) - Every region controlled by the Stronghold has one extra mana for the purposes of channeling spellpower (even regions with no mana may be treated as having one).
• Artificer - Unchanged.
• Battle Mages - Unchanged.

Since regions have 0-3 mana, this puts the far upper limit of spellpower available at about 15. If the region had 3 mana to start with, along with a mana forge, and the Stronghold has retrieved Thedda's Palimpsest, the region will grant 5 mana for the purpose of casting spells.  With a Channeling skill of 6 (high, but possible by mid-game), this is 15 mana to start each session.

Getting to the point where spellcasters start each mission with 15 mana requires a massive dedication to the Arcane tech tree, forming the backbone of the whole Stronghold strategy. It's definitely a risky, but potentially powerful, strategy.

Neutral Regions with Mana

Another area that I've really noticed in playing the strategy game is that some of the neutral regions really aren't that appealing in terms of targets for conquest missions. Part of this is because too many of them are a mish-mash of resources, without much thought being given to how they fit into various Stronghold strategies.

I'm thinking of really restricting regions with a mana value of 3 to Dusk's Ayrie (where the great wyrm Arankh makes his home) and probably one of Burgan Vale's home regions.

That makes both of those bigger targets for the Stronghold that wants to go the magic route. Of course, attacking Burgan Vale seems unlikely since they would be the best ally to a magic-centered Stronghold.

Retroactive Compels

One of the things that I really like about Cortex+ is that there exists a mechanism for players to easily gain plot points (story points or fate points or whatever you wish to call them) by adjusting their dice pools prior to rolling if some trait (aspect) applies in a way that makes life difficult.

In my experience both playing and running in Fate games, GMs almost universally have trouble keeping the Fate point economy moving enough on their own, and players usually don't overcome the table inertia to subtly maneuver for compels.  Certainly, familiarity with the characters helps, as does practice on the part of the GM, but I still find myself not doing it well when I run traditional Fate games even though I'm consciously looking for opportunities to do so.

In Wrath of the Autarch, I remedied this by allowing players to get a Fate point when they failed a roll during the narrative phase, and then used an aspect to color the nature of the narration.  If the aspect involved a relationship with another player, both players could get a Fate point.

This worked really well to bring the downside of aspects into play quite a bit more, because failing a roll is a such an easily remembered concrete trigger.  It also worked really well to springboard into the next dilemma, failing forward to the next problem.

In WotA, during the narrative phase, players have quite a bit of narrative control over the developing story, more than in Fate Core, but I don't see any reason this couldn't be used in a similar fashion for standard Fate, although I've yet to do so.

There is an economy of rolls in the narrative phase of WotA that doesn't exist in Fate Core, so it might have to be constrained a little (particularly for subsystems like the Conflict rules which have lots of rolling), but I still think it could work in general.

The benefits of something like this are twofold: a way for players to easily get Fate points without GM oversight as well as a method to make failure a little more rich by bringing in new problems related to a character's aspects (failing forward).

Autarch Strategy in WotA

I've blogged in the past about strategy from the perspective of the players running the Stronghold.  This post concerns the Autarch strategy in Wrath of the Autarch (what the Autarch player does to win).  Previously, I had developed a system where the Autarch would gain access to various threats based on the year of the campaign.  Basically, for every year of the campaign, the Autarch gained access to more powerful threats of various sorts (Warfare, Diplomacy, Infiltration, and Skirmish).

However, because the Autarch gained access to every sort of threat, there really wasn't any strategy on the part of the Autarch player - just choose the threat type that couldn't be defended.  It also wasn't that fun to be the Stronghold players, because investing in defense in one area just left another area exposed.

The further I get in design, I also have a better vision for what this game is all about.  Wrath of the Autarch is a competitive strategy role-playing game.  While there is a GM of sorts, there is no GM fiat, and the GM/Autarch player is trying to win.  In such a game, it's far more interesting if there are strategies for both the Stronghold players as well as the Autarch player (I may shy away from using the term GM in the book - not sure).  So, I came up with the following.

Threat Pools

The Autarch player allocates points into a set of four threat pools in order to harm the Stronghold in various ways.  There is one pool for each mini-game in WotA (Warfare, Diplomacy, Infiltration, and Skirmish).  Threats have various requirements in terms of threat pool levels, and not surprisingly the mini-game used in that threat is the same as the pool name.

Rather than have the Autarch player secretly track all of these pools, however, I use a method of revealing hidden information that I first saw in War of the Ring: the Autarch player only allocates points into pools when executing a particular threat or when forced to by the Stronghold players (via an Infiltration mission or something similar).

Note that the pools are not expended when a threat is chosen, rather they represent requirements for more powerful threat.  Maybe pools is the wrong word here?  Instead, the number of threats are restricted by current year (each year may only have a number of threats equal to 1/2 the current year) as well as by type (the same threat may not be used more than once a year).

Example

For example, here are some Autarch threats, along with requirements of different types:

Propaganda Campaign (Infiltration)
  Requirement  7:  -1 stability
  Requirement 12: -2 stability
  Requirement 17: -3 stability

Military Strike (Warfare)
  Requirement   9: Standard infantry, archers, and cavalry.
  Requirement 14: Advanced infantry, archers, and cavalry.
  Requirement 17: Elite infantry, archers, cavalry, and catapults.
  Requirement 21: Elite infantry, archers, cavalry, and cannons.

Turn Faction Against Stronghold (Diplomacy)
  Requirement  6:  -1 Disposition
  Requirement 11: -2 Disposition
  Requirement 16: -3 Disposition

Let's say it's the end of the Winter of the second year (8th season), and the Autarch player has not been forced to declare where points are allocated to threat pools.  In that case, during the declare threats phase (end of season) - the Autarch player may either choose to launch a Propaganda Campaign or to Turn Faction Against Stronghold, since both of those have options which require eight or fewer points.

If the Autarch player decides to Turn Faction Against Stronghold, they would be forced to allocate pools as follows:

Infiltration: 0
Warfare: 0
Skirmish: 0
Diplomacy: 6

This is because the Turn Faction Against Stronghold threat requires a Diplomacy Threat pool of at least six.  The Autarch player would also have two points left over.  Now the Stronghold players would know that the Autarch is going to use Diplomacy to bother them, so they better strengthen their relationships with allies!

Continuing with this example, let's fast forward to the Spring of the fourth year (13th season).  Assume the Autarch has the same pools as above, as well as seven points that haven't been allocated.  Five of them could be put into Diplomacy, gaining access to a better Turn Faction Against Stronghold threat, or the Propaganda Campaign could be used, putting seven into Infiltration.  Finally, in two seasons, a military option could be chosen, if the Autarch is comfortable waiting.  The Autarch decides to wait - preferring the flexibility of a future threat to acting now.

However, in the Summer of the fourth year (14 seasons), the Stronghold players decide to Infiltrate the Autarch in order to figure out future plans.  They succeed, and choose as the success condition to force the Autarch player to allocate the eight points which aren't allocated!

The Autarch player decides on:

Infiltration: 0
Warfare: 8
Skirmish: 0
Diplomacy: 6

So, the players know that the Autarch is changing gears, supplementing Diplomacy with naked aggression in the form of military attack!  And they only have one season to prepare!

Strategy

While this method of choosing threats will require tracking four more attributes on the Faction sheet, it makes for a far more interesting game in terms of acting and reacting  to different threats.  The Autarch player has a tension between acting earlier, giving away strategies, and acting later, while keeping options open.  Although, waiting too long will force the Stronghold players' hands, making an Infiltration mission more and more worthwhile, in order to determine what dark intentions the Autarch has in mind.

Sadly, it's going to take some more strategy game testing in order to get these values roughly balanced, but initial sentiment was pretty lukewarm regarding the way Autarch threats were previously handled, and this way will hopefully fix the biggest concerns (essentially, that there was no way to defend against what the Autarch was up to since they could do everything well).

The Wrath of the Autarch - Endgame

Another part of the game that I'm adding in is a "final Autarch threat" - the victor of which wins the game.  The motivation for this is largely to function as a timer.  I'm calling this threat, appropriately enough, The Wrath of the Autarch.

It will be triggered in two ways: when the Autarch's stability is low enough (down to one or less), or when a certain amount of time has elapsed (the Spring of year nine).  The key point is that the Autarch's power will grow significantly over the eight years, such that it greatly behooves the players to force this threat earlier rather than later.  This threat would probably be handled using Skirmish, with the Autarch unleashing a full arsenal of horrible onto the important people of the Stronghold.

I think adding in a narrative reason for this would be fitting (some long term ritual she's a part of, in order to gain power).

Designing Tabletop Strategy RPGs

Wrath of the Autarch is, for lack of any better terms, a tabletop strategy role-playing game.  Or, alternatively, maybe a tabletop 4X RPG is a good descriptor.  Designing such an uncommon beast has proven very difficult, and I'm now aware of why I couldn't find many such games in the first place.  The difficulty comes from merging competition with long time scales.

When initially designing WotA, I looked at many kingdom building RPGs, like Birthright.  However, I quickly realized those games weren't as useful to me as a designer, because they largely don't address long term strategy.  Rather, the kingdom is more of a framing mechanic for the narrative.

The most useful game that I've read is Houses of the Blooded, since it has competition and long term strategy.  Sadly (to me), competitive RPGs are rare enough (Contenders being one of my favorites), but competitive strategy RPGs are basically non-existent, with Houses of the Blooded being the only one I know of.  If you're reading this and know of another one, please let me know!  The big difference between Houses of the Blooded and Wrath of the Autarch is that, instead of the many vs. many PvP as in Houses, WotA has many vs. one (the Autarch) PvP.

The Incompatibility of GM Fiat and Competition

The first, and most immediate way, in which competition makes RPG design very difficult is it necessitates a certain rules framework in which all the players can operate within.  Rather than the traditional RPG design, where the GM is a facilitator to a story, the GM is instead another competitor.  This is easier at a local tactical level - after all, D&D combat in virtually every edition is a competition between the players and the GM, but it gets much harder when that competition is featured at the strategic level.  Put another way, the biggest tool in the RPG toolbox, GM fiat, is now verboten.

I handled this by providing a mission currency for the players (see the previous post), as well as a threat investment structure for the Autarch player (which I'll discuss some other time).  But, the key point is that strategy RPGs can't have a global GM fiat.  This may seem obvious, but the point is certainly worth mentioning, as it becomes readily apparent just how difficult design becomes when that is removed.

Uncertainty of Victory / Winning From Behind

Other design difficulties come from the mixture of strategy and competition, such as maintaining a level of uncertainty (or not) until the completion of the game.  That is, in a long-term strategy RPG, it's best to try to avoid the derivative state where one side or the other knows the game is over, yet it is quite some time before it actually becomes so.

One way to avoid this in games is to decouple the victory condition from the power source.  Otherwise, as you get further behind - you lose any ability to catch up.  I think another method is perhaps to have a few different options for victory, some of them being more unlikely (but perhaps more final) options.  The Hail Mary play as it were.  Note that many computer strategy games don't do this - but it's a little easier to say "Good Game" and move on earlier than it would be in an RPG, where there are narrative considerations as well.

My strategic playtests have revealed that I was guilty of this problem.  In this first place, stability - the measure of stability in your Stronghold, was both a way to build developments (and hence get power) and was also a win condition.  I decided that population is the way to build developments, with stability being a win condition.  All factions (the Stronghold, the Autarch, the five minor factions) are measured by these two metrics.

I'm still working out some Hail Mary victory conditions.  One of which might be assassinating the Autarch, which is no small feat.  I don't have a good option for the GM, but it might be the alternative: showing up with the Autarch somewhere, and trying to force the issue.  This has to be done with care, though, because a grand strategic advantage shouldn't be easily trumped by a long shot move.  Rather, such missions will at least serve to formally end the campaign when one side realizes it's most likely over.  It's more narratively interesting to go out in a blaze of glory than slowly die a thousand cuts over another four or five sessions of play.

Time Scales

Another difficulty of the genre is handling the time scales that a strategy game needs.  The important people from the kingdom are the lens through which the narrative is told, but this must necessarily be abstract in some measure, otherwise too much time is spent on narrowly focused concerns without moving the narrative forward.

In this, there are some good examples in existing RPGs.  The classic Pendragon accomplishes this by only focusing on the very important considerations for the year, not dealing with adventuring minutae.  This is also the tactic that HotB employs.  Birthright is slightly different, and uses both long term moves (kingdom level actions) as well as 2nd Edition D&D style adventures, intermixed.

I chose to employ actions at the level of the season (like HotB), such that each season the narrative progresses.  However, something like this must be done so that the kingdom itself grows.  It's possible to become even more abstract, where players don't role-play characters anymore, but rather narrate the actions of empires.

Winning!

I could write a great deal more about this topic, but I wanted to try to impress upon any other designers of tabletop RPGs the unique challenges present when competition is part of an RPG at the strategic level.  It turns out there is much to learn from boardgames (naturally - since Civilization was first a boardgame) and videogames, although there are challenges in adapting the form into a game where players assume the roles of important characters in the narrative (most notably time scale becomes an issue).  As well, there are difficulties when looking at kingdom building RPGs and making them strategic (most notably the limiting of GM fiat).

Missions in Wrath of the Autarch

Under advice from people smarter than I, I have been playing through the longer term strategy in Wrath of the Autarch, trying to get it humming along.  This takes the form of having a player handle the seasonal details of the Stronghold (building developments, rolling for threats), and then abstracting out the actual missions.  For lack of any better resolution system, I just give a ballpark result, based on what I think would (or should) happen.

Because the player running the Autarch is trying to defeat the players running the Stronghold, it is important for the players running the Stronghold to have some understanding of what options are available and why they would take them.  Unfortunately, the text at this point isn't all that helpful - so this article is the first of a few which summarizes the strategies present in the game.  Hopefully this will serve to crystallize my own understanding of the design, but it will also help players who are going through the strategy game understand their options.

The building blocks of the campaign are missions.  Each season, a few heroes from the Stronghold may undertake one such mission.  Choosing missions carefully is the backbone of any strategy.  Winning!

• Conquest - Conquest missions allow the Stronghold to acquire a neutral region, from a list of available neutral regions.  Only one neutral region may be acquired each year (although the Cartography development grants two regions a year).
• Why do it? Because regions are the lifeblood for resources, and resources are used for many different things.  Almost any strategy is going to require a couple neutral regions.
• Mini-game - All mini-games are used, although most of the time Skirmish is necessary.
• Trade - Set-up a trade deal with one of the five neutral factions.
• Why do it? Successful trade improves disposition with the faction, and a high enough disposition means the faction becomes your ally.  Furthermore, trade helps build developments quicker (the type of development depends on the type of faction), as well as giving access to certain quests for artifacts.
• Mini-game - Diplomacy.
• Espionage - Steal secrets about a development from a faction.
• Why do it? Makes building a particular development much easier.  In a few cases, developments provide a different benefit than build points (such as leverage against the faction in an upcoming Trade, or military advantages).
• Mini-game - Infiltration
• Sabotage - Destroy a development within a faction.
• Why do it? The biggest benefit is usually a stability hit for the target faction.  If stability drops enough, the faction is no longer around - in the case of the Autarch, that's the victory condition!  In addition, a few developments provide other benefits, like neutralizing military advantages.
• Mini-game - Infiltration
• Military - Attack a region that a faction controls.
• Why do it? To steal the resources a faction has, and lower their stability and population in the process.  To do this mission, the Stronghold really needs to be committed to a solid Military strategy, supplemented by many developments.
• Mini-game - Warfare
• Assassination - Take out the leader of an opposing faction.
• Why do it? The stability of the target faction will most likely drop (sometimes by a lot if it's an influential leader).  Furthermore, getting rid of leaders can render a faction weak in a particular area (such as killing a military leader).
• Mini-game - Infiltration
• Quest - Gain a powerful artifact.
• Why do it?  It's hard to gain access to quests, since it requires an allied faction.  Once one becomes available, it's usually worthwhile to grab it, since it can be the capstone of a particular long term strategy.
• Mini-game - All mini-games, although Skirmish is mainly used.
• Threats - Threats are all the bad things that happen in regions, with factions, and from the Autarch.

Fortex+ (Looking Deeper into Alternative Fate Dice Distributions)

After hearing some gripes from players in my WotA group about Fate dice, I've been interested in exploring the pros and cons of various alternatives.  I'm particularly interested in the following features:

• No re-rolls.  This is in an attempt to place all the tension at the moment of the roll itself, rather than a negotiation afterward.  I'm also not a huge fan of the re-roll option in Fate - it's sort of another hoop to jump through.
• Player driven compels.  One thing I like about Cortex+ is the simplicity of player driven compels, where there is a mechanism for players to generate their own currency (fate points, plot points, etc).  I'm not against GM-driven compels, but I *really* like a mechanism for players to bring in currency without the GM's guidance.  The way I handled that in WotA was just to let players take a Fate point anytime they could narrate how an aspect they had caused problems on a failed roll.

Anyway, I was interested in exploring the d6 - d6 distribution for Fate, and then extending that to rolling a set of dice, taking the highest rolled, along with rolling a set of dice, and subtracting the lowest rolled.

• Start with d6 - d6.
• Spend a Fate point to:
• Step up a die in the first pool, or add a new d6 to the pool.  For instance, with two fate points, you could roll d10 - d6 (incrementing d6 to d8, then to d10).  Or you could roll 3d6 (taking the highest) - d6.
• Add a d6 to the second pool, taking the lowest of the results.  So, with two fate points, you could roll 2d6 (taking the highest) - 2d6 (taking the lowest).
• Rolling d4 - d6 counts as a compel, granting a Fate point.  Of course, an aspect is needed for this, and it must make narrative sense.

This system does fulfill the no re-rolls and player driven compels features.  However, it also compromises much of the player agency that Fate provides.  Anyway, it was interesting to explore the probabilities of such a system.

The first metric to look at is expected value.  For expected value, the best way to use Fate points is just to bump the first dice up.  Adding extra dice doesn't help expected value as much.  In the last entries below, the parentheses indicate rolling a set of dice and taking the highest (if before the subtraction) or the lowest (if after).  As can be seen from expected values, a Fate point in this system is worth much less than in regular Fate (it's roughly +1 instead of +2).

• d6 - d6 : 0
• d8 - d6: +1
• d10 - d6: +2
• d12 - d6: +3.0
• d12 - (d6, d6): +3.97
• (d6, d12) - (d6, d6): +4.46

That said, expected value is only one way to look at probability.  It doesn't take into account the distribution of results.  For that, rolling a set of dice and taking the highest naturally makes the lowest results even less likely, while simultaneously making the highest results less likely (or impossible).  For instance, the graph at right shows cumulative probability density functions for when three Fate points are available.  In that case, the first dice can be bumped up three times from a d6 to a d12, or two extra dice could be added to the first pool (taking the highest) and one to the last pool (taking the lowest).  Thus, if you really need to get above a two, more than you care about rolling really high, it's better to go the pool route.  Because rolling a -5, -4, or -3 is very unlikely.

So, there are some real trade-offs in this approach, and risk can be involved.  Interestingly, if the pools are removed and traditional Fate re-rolls are used with the stepped up dice (d8 - d6, etc), it's worth a re-roll if the expected value or less is rolled.  So, if a +2 is rolled on d10 - d6, it merits a re-roll.  This is another possibility that could be interesting: allow re-rolls, but the first dice must be stepped up and locked down before any re-rolls take place.

Anyway, after thinking about how this might work in WotA, I think I'm going to stick with the standard Fate model.  However, I am considering using d6 - d6 for Fate rolls and allowing certain Stronghold developments to bump up the first dice.  There's something very visceral about rolling d12 - d6 and nailing a +11.  But I would keep Fate points the same (add +2 or allow a re-roll).

WotA Playtesting During Origins

So, I got in a number of playtests of Wrath of the Autarch during Origins.  Weirdly, they were all of the Infiltration mini-game, probably because it has an element of finality to it that the other mini-games don't.

Anyway, I don't have any huge revelations or overhauls (probably a good thing), but I did think of some minor changes both during play and afterward.

• Use spatial maps for Infiltration.  This isn't required, but it does make it fun.  The only issue is that the default mode is that any zone can be reached from any zone, and that's not always true when you bring in a map.  Have to think if that will make it too hard.
• For casting spells in the narrative scene, the first mana spent should just fuel the spell (and not also act as a fate point).  It's good enough to use Spellcraft for a power.
• Use compels to add new obstacles related to the players aspects.  I did this a lot to great effect - need to make sure it's spelled out clearly as an option.
• Limit the narrative phase to three rounds, instead of four.  Four was a little too long, and that needs to be as quick as possible.  Luck could really sham the players occasionally, but as it stands now I think it's a little too easy.
• Need to make sure there are a good variety of outcomes for Infiltration missions on the strategic game, particularly for things like assassination.  I'm guessing assassination could already be covered as just a way to sabotage certain developments, but this needs to be spelled out.

Other thoughts, outside of that, revolved mostly around trade missions and the overall strategic game.  I've simplified trade a little, but I may need to go further.

I have some other thoughts on what I'm going to do with the document going forward, but I'll save those.  For this week, I think I'll add in those tweaks, and maybe work to completely finish the Autarch chapter.  That will give me a good template for all the other factions.

Fate and Mass Battles

So, yesterday was the first real playtest of the Warfare mini-game in Wrath of the Autarch.  It went about how all the other mini-games went when I first played them: a mixed bag.  In this mission, the players mustered their (pretty crappy) troops to withstand an attack from a limited strength Autarch force.

I went for a more Diaspora-like model of platoon combat as my basis, rather than something like the abstract model that Legends of Anglerre has.  My desire was to fight out units moving around zones, rather than having whole armies roll against each other.  There are many ways to do it, but that level of detail fits better with the rest of the missions already in place.

The narrative phase went well - but no rules have changed there for quite some time.  There were some cool scenes involving leaders from Bavin's Hollow (the Stronghold the players have created) pleading with some local farmers to get out of the path of the oncoming Imperial army.  I compelled one of the players to play to her character's nature and contradict what the other heroes were trying to do.

The Warfare mini-game, though, was a little slow and involved.  I think the mustering the troops went fine (that was pretty easy), and I had drawn out the zone map ahead of time.  But, there were a few issues that I've thought about this evening, and hopefully can resolve before the next playtest of this mini-game.

• The map was too big.  I had too many zones on the map, it was about 8 X 6 (in zones).  Of course, zones aren't grids, but that's still roughly how it was shaped.  That was too many zones.  The units moved too slow, and there was too much down time before it really clashed.  You need more zones than Skirmish (which only has four or five or so), but that was too many.
• A few of the players felt like their heroes didn't have enough options.  In particular, they wanted their bad-ass fighter heroes to be able to do bad-ass fighty stuff.  As it stood now - leaders (commanders of units), could Create an Advantage (makes aspects), Overcome Obstacles (remove them - or get around various static obstacles), or redeploy units under their command.
• Looking back, we weren't creative enough in the creation of aspects.  For instance, it's feasible a warrior could create an aspect which would demoralize an opposing unit simply by wading in and attacking.
• The players were interested in having the ability to attack a leader of the opposing force.  I'm not against this - so I'll probably put it in the rules.
• Too much Create an Advantage can slow things down.  This is sort of a byproduct of the previous issue.  The other mini-games have more options for the characters.  Most of them have a choice of Attack/Create an Advantage/Overcome Obstacle.  Because attack was gone (at least as it pertains to leaders) - that made it drag.
• I'm not sold on rolling for movement.  In Diaspora, each platoon rolls for movement.  In Fate as well, during Conflicts.  For this mini-game, though, it didn't seem to matter much.  It seems like a roll means you can spend Fate points.  But it felt like a lot of rolling for not that much benefit.  I'm thinking of just saying a leader and commanded units can move some base amount - depending on the slowest unit they command.

Those were the main issues.  That battle of itself, which I thought was going to be *very* lopsided, was closer than I anticipated.  The heroes, although they just had poorly trained militia on their side, also had some pretty serious spell power (it's one of their main focuses), and that helped tremendously.

So, it was interesting to see in action, but I have some work to do to make it come together a little better.

Storygames and Metagaming

So, this semi-rant can safely be filed under pedantry.  I've read a few people recently mention they don't like RPGs with lots of metagame decisions, then they mention games like Fiasco.  I've seen this enough that it seems common, but it doesn't really jive with my understanding of the term.

A metagame decision, as I understand it, are the concerns outside the structure of the rules.  An example consisting of something like watching the clock during your D&D game, knowing that the GM has to wrap up the scenario soon, so it's a good idea to blow all your cool spells now.  Or taking it easy on whoever brought the beer that night.

However, talking about scene currency in Fiasco isn't a metagame decision, since it's part of the rules structure.  I guess a metagame decision might be avoiding certain types of scenes based on the comfort level of the players, or something to that effect.

Anyway, this falls back to probably a larger issue in that communication about RPGs is a messy thing.  I guess communication is itself messy, so it's not surprise we can't talk about RPGs very well.  But I think gamers have a variety of terms we love to use, but rarely agree on: crunchy, fluffy, gamist, story game, indie game, simulationist, metagame, simple, complex, railroad, sandbox, old school, new school, munchkin, power gamer, etc.  If nothing else, it provides for conversation.

WotA Playtest Packets

With summer con season approaching I've been thinking about coming up with some different playtest packets for WotA.  Since WotA is a kingdom building game, it's a little harder to come up with a way to showcase how it works, but I think trying to come up with a "use case" for each of the mini-games is a good way to go.

The mini-games are: Skirmish, Infiltration, Diplomacy, and Warfare.  The Infiltration and Diplomacy mini-games are probably where I'll focus first.  The Skirmish mini-game is basically the Fate Core conflict system, so it's not very unique, and Warfare is a little trickier to demo, since there's more overhead in terms of an area to lay out different counters for units and such.

I think it would be nice to come up with backstories for different Strongholds, focused on different sorts of activities.  That way, I can have playtests which are varied both mechanically, and thematically, showing off the different possibilities in the game.  It will also probably help me in design, since I can see how valid the various strategies are.  I would group a set of five pre-generated characters with a sheet for the stronghold, and one mission.

For diplomacy, probably a trade mission is the best way to go.  Maybe a trade mission to Lily Manor in year two or three, with the goal of getting assistance setting up various methods of tracking commerce and trade, with the hope of increasing soft power.  This could feature diplomatic maneuverings and highlight how the trade system works.  It's helpful to have a cultural theme for the Stronghold - maybe a sort of fantasy Renaissance Italy?

With Infiltration, I already have quite a few options fleshed out (courtesy of what my home group has been doing).  One that sounds good is a mission to help Burgan Vale (they're sort of the hippie mage faction), that are being attacked by the Autarch via a bizarre mana draining device.  This would fit a group that was going a more magic/stealth route.  I've wanted to base one Stronghold after a fantasy Asian (maybe Chinese?) theme, and maybe this would be a good fit.  This Stronghold would also probably be a mid-game society (year two or maybe three).

For Skirmish, I can probably just use the characters already in the book and one of the initial Conquest missions, probably to take Sightrock - which seems to be a de facto opening season move.  I'm also not really as interested in playing Skirmish during playtests, not because I don't like it, but because it already works fine, and I don't see it changing.

I'll probably punt on Warfare for now, but I think that would be suited to a late game Stronghold, with a strong military, attacking the Autarch.  But I'll have my hands full just creating characters and sample Strongholds for the Infiltration and Skirmish cases, so I doubt I'll get to Warfare, but ideally, I would like to have one strong playtest ready for all four types of mini-games.

Diplomacy in Wrath of the Autarch

I'm still thinking of ways to make the diplomacy mini-game in WotA a little more flexible.  Currently, what I have involves the players taking turns trying to gain support from leaders of an opposing group, while under time pressure in the form of a hard limit on the number of turns.  The more outlandish the request, the more support is needed from the leaders.  This is monitored by a support track that each leader is placed on.

The WotA diplomacy mini-game has been pretty fun, but it has a number of tricky elements.  One is that it's pretty rigid, since it involves only opposing leaders with whom you are trying to gain support.  I think that element will always be there - diplomacy is about coming together and gaining support.  However, there are occasionally other people involved (third party antagonists), who serve mainly to gum up the works and create obstacles.

The other element that is tricky is balancing the mini-game for different numbers of players.  As it stands, if there are more leaders than players, they can use the Create an Advantage action to make it very difficult for the players to succeed.  I accommodated this by adding extra turns if there are fewer players, but they still can get overwhelmed pretty easily.

There are other options out there - for instance, Fate Core's conflict rules can handle social conflict.  I'm not as fond of using the conflict mechanics, because it just feels like "fighting with words", and I would prefer a different aesthetic.  What I have does feel a little more like diplomacy, since there are issues raised and addressed, and overall support levels calculated.  I also feel like it's close to being right, so I may do some more fiddling before looking at larger overhauls.

Really, the "third party antagonist" issue and the "scaling for players" issue may be closely related.  It might need to be solved by having a limited pool of actions for the GM rather than one action for each character the GM controls.  If the number of actions was based on the number of players, that might scale it pretty well, while also giving flexibility to having different sorts of opposing characters.

All the players could take their turns, then the GM gets to activate one character for each player - either leaders raising issues and debating or a malevolent third party intent on obstructing the character's intentions. Or, actions could be taken in order of the Society skill as they are now, but the GM would still only get some number of characters based on the number of players.

So, setup would consist of selecting opposing leaders as well as interested characters from third parties (like the Autarch).  Each leader would still be placed on a separate track, and if their support is gained, some amount of Influence is added to the total support.  Depending on the mission, the amount of total support gained after the number of turns has elapsed determines success or failure.  The key thing about diplomacy is that it's less about success or failure than about building relationships and setting up potential future problems.

The Fate Fractal and WotA

Over the weekend, some of my friends and I took a look at balancing the strategic elements in Wrath of the Autarch.  That is, the longer scale strategies of deciding which sorts of missions to undertake, and how that feeds back into the overall balance and structure of the game.  It's a very difficult process - something that WotA inherits due to its aggressively gamist core.  There's a lot to talk about there, but that's a separate post.

Anyway, the fate fractal came up again, but outside of the aspects for the factions, I'm just having trouble seeing how it fits into the current design of kingdoms.  I also looked at Legends of Anglerre again this weekend, and it very much embraces the fractal.  Kingdoms are characters, with skills, aspects, stress, and stunts.

However, after refreshing my memory on how LoA works, it doesn't seem like a direction that I'll take (or at least, I don't see it at the moment).  I think LoA opens up a very abstract way to play, which supports a more open toolkit approach.  For instance, a huge battle could be resolved by rolling a particular kingdom's Arms skill against an opposing kingdom - and then dealing stress.  Or a thieves guild could roll their Assassination skill to take someone out, etc.

Early on, though, one of my design goals was to create a game that was fairly easy for a GM to prep for.  WotA isn't a simple game, but it is a low prep game.  The way I'm accomplishing that is by sketching in many of the details for how the various factions interact.  I think that open toolkit approach doesn't really make for a game that's easy to prep for.

In WotA, if the players choose to infiltrate a faction and steal their secrets, there is no Security skill that's rolled against.  Instead, all action is zoomed in - the characters undertake a mission against resistance listed in that particular faction's chapter.  Some societies are better at stopping that sort of thing than others.  This is pretty much the case for all the various skills I could come up with for kingdoms.  Rather than rolling a skill, there is a mission to undertake for that season.  The missions are the abstract currency of the game.

So, aside from heavily relying on aspects for pretty much everything - factions, aspects, relationships, etc, I'm going to put trying to use skills with factions on the backburner.  I'll probably keep stability and population as the only main values that get tracked, and continue to key off of those.

There are of course some pros and cons to this approach.  One of the cons is that it's really difficult to design - each faction has an identity in the game, and your Stronghold is defined by who your allies are just as much as it is defined by various developments you build.  It also makes for a rigid system.  WotA is very much not a toolkit.  I'm sure it could be mined for ideas - but it's built in order to take advantage of all the particular elements at work.  One the plus side, I do hope it means that there's a wealth of directions players can go, each of which don't provide all that much work for the GM to prepare for.

Embracing the Fate Fractal: Building a Fantasy Kingdom

After about ten or so really solid playtests of the Wrath of the Autarch, I feel like much of the play experience has come together.  However, the area that still might need some work comes from how to represent the factions, regions, and resources which form the backbone of the long term strategy in the game.  To this point, I haven't really embraced the Fate fractal for those elements - that is, the idea that everything can be represented as a character, with aspects, skills, stunts, stress, and consequences.

It's probably time to revisit how well the Fate fractal works with the strategic elements in Wrath of the Autarch (factions, regions, and resources).  I'll start with the most important part of a kingdom building game: the kingdoms themselves (also called factions in the rules, since they might not literally be fiefdoms).  For WotA, the two most important factions are the Autarch and the Stronghold (the faction the players will control).  Although, there are five other minor factions constructed in identical fashion.

Factions have aspects, which can be used in play as per normal - essentially functioning to help flesh out the society and give a global pool of aspects all the characters can access.  Fate fractal in full effect.  Other than aspects, they also have developments, which are very similar to stunts.  The provide benefits for all of the characters attached to that faction, in more or less concrete ways.  Sometimes they make getting other developments easier, or help in defense.  But, the parallel is definitely there - and I like the idea, so I'm not interested in changing that around right now.  That said - only the Stronghold really gains new developments over time, the other factions are basically static in terms of developments.

However, the last two key attributes for a faction are stability and population - and these aren't very Fate friendly.  Stability is very important - functioning as the lifeblood of a society.  If it drops down to zero, the faction collapses.  If such an event happens for the Stronghold or the Autarch, the game is over - one side is victorious.  This is represented as a number from 0-40.  Population is also represented on the same sliding scale, from 0-40.  It's pretty unlikely population will ever drop down to 0, but it would have the same effect of ending the game if it happens to the Autarch or the Stronghold.

These are the only two values tracked for all the different factions.  For the Stronghold, they function to determine how easy it is to build developments, and fluctuate somewhat independently.  Population can increase in response to a higher stability, and stability goes up and down in response to wars, threats, as well as successes in building certain developments and dealing with threats.  Besides these areas, population and stability determine how many units the Stronghold has available during military missions - or when using the military to deal with threats.  For the other factions, these attributes mostly inform units raised in warfare, and can be affected by the Stronghold.

So, taking a more Fate approach, stability and population could be modeled as stress tracks or skills.  Initially, I did take a skill-centric approach, and each faction had a number of skills (security, military, diplomacy, etc).  However, they slowly became obsolete, because of the mission based nature of WotA.  It didn't really matter what a faction's diplomacy was - because if you wanted to set up a deal with them, then that was a mission onto itself, not a roll.  So, I moved away from using skills.  Legends of Anglerre is a fantasy fate game which takes that approach, and it might work for a more abstract treatment of factions.  It may even work in a more limited fashion here, but I haven't fully embraced it - it doesn't quite create the effect I'm going for.

Another option is the stress track approach.  In some ways, this seems like a better fit.  After all, if losing your stability means the kingdom has collapsed, that does fit the stress track/consequences idea very well.  Maybe population and stability could be rolled up into one stat for all the other factions (just track stability).  After all, it's really stability that matters, not population.  That also allows the creation of consequences - always a fun way to narratively detail just how a kingdom is going into decline.

There are a few details, though, that get tricky:

• Taking Stability Stress: It seems like stability stress would only come in small amounts, for the most part.  It also isn't really variable - it's a byproduct of threats or war, and the way it's calculated is fixed.  Small, fixed amounts of stress don't seem to fit the stress track idea as well.  Warfare could feasibly cause a chunk of stability losses, though.
• Building Developments: Currently the stability score feeds into "build points" for the Stronghold to create developments.  By making it a stress track, I don't know how to keep that idea.  It functions more as a skill in that case - as in, rolling to make progress building a development.  Maybe population could be a skill for the Stronghold, and stress consequences can be freely invoked to lower the rolls somehow?
• Funding War: Finally, stability factors into how many troops are available for factions (including the Stronghold).  This again, feels more like a skill than a stress track.  I guess I could re-introduce a skill like Warfare for attacking with troops, and like in the building developments case, the stability stress would somehow impact it.

Anyway, I would like to really embrace the fate fractal as much as possible, but when I set about doing that, it seems like I might end up with something even more fiddly, which certainly isn't what I want.

Effects of Infiltration Missions

The recent playtests involving the Infiltration mini-game (used during Espionage and Sabotage missions) have been really fun.  However, an area that still needs more work is the overall campaign effect of Espionage and Sabotage in terms of benefits to the Stronghold.  This is an area that needs work on the whole, but is particularly poorly defined for those two mission types.

I had envisioned Espionage as primarily making it easier to build certain developments (the "tech tree" stuff that builds the kingdom up), essentially by stealing information from the target faction.  This would most likely translate to some sort of build point bonus (build points being units of "work" necessary to create a development).  Coming up with an exact number might require some revisions, but it should be good enough to merit attempting the mission, such as reducing the cost by half or something similar.  It's also possibly to get added build points by using Diplomacy with a faction, and having them directly aid your Stronghold.

It seems like not every development would benefit from Espionage (although, just glancing through them, I can justify some benefit to stealing secrets for all of them).  The specific effect of Espionage might need to be development dependent.  That also opens the door to effects besides simple build points.  For instance, maybe using the Espionage mission on a target castle plants a mole there - a mole who might be able to lower the defenses at a critical point during a future military campaign.  Similarly, it might be possible to learn some sort of forbidden lore through an Espionage mission.  That opens up the idea that one development might have more than one type of Espionage mission attached to it.

For Sabotage, the general idea is to inflict damage on a development, rendering it useless.  This is a little more problematic for the factions - since the GM doesn't keep track of their developments, and many of them really have no function for the faction.  Factions are really only described by two main attributes: stability and population.  Factions also have regions, with resources, although the resources aren't spent on anything - rather they exist only as locations to fight over.  A faction also has leaders.

So, most Sabotage missions function to lower the target's stability or population or both.  It's possible to assign some stability loss to developments (for instance, taking out their Improved Mining doesn't affect any resources, but drops their stability by some amount).  Another option for Sabotage might be a mission to assassinate a target leader, which would also have lasting consequences, to both Warfare and Diplomacy missions.

In order for this method to work, each development would need a list of all results of Espionage and Sabotage (could be none), as well as a general level of difficulty, which is used to add adversaries in the Infiltration mini-game.

Here's a sample development entry using this method:

• Mages Guild
• Build Points: 240
• Mana: 8
• Ore: 9
• Timber: 8
• Luxuries: 2
• Prerequisites: Mana Forge (Advanced), Expert Casting, Expert Channeling
• Effect: Caster may double effect of all mana expenditures (spending 4 mana now as the same effect as spending 8).
• Infiltration:
• Steal Secrets (Security: High) - Gain 120 BP toward building a Mages Guild.
• Destroy Ancient Library (Security: High) - Faction loses 3 stability as well as all effects of Mages Guild.

Most of the complexity in WotA comes from the choices available between missions, and this continues that pattern.  So, while play is fairly straightforward, it will probably be necessary to include some rough strategies to expose players to a few of the options that are available.

Depictions of the Autarch

In working on Wrath of the Autarch, I've been primarily focusing on mechanics to this point.  While there are six important factions in the game (including the Autarch's), my goal is to walk a line where the factions are somewhat fleshed out, but not excessively so.  That is, I would like to "leave space" for creativity and collaborative worldbuilding, but also provide sketches and snapshots to help creativity during play.

However, I vastly underestimated how much concrete detail needs to be understood when creating the art.  The indomitable Doug Kovacs is doing much of the art, functioning as a collaborator and designer.  I have also badgered my friends for help as well, which certainly hasn't been uncommon to this point.

Anyway, one of the first orders of business is to really think about the Empire, and the Autarch in particular.  I had written up a snapshot in the book - they're a plutocracy of sorts, where heads of numerous guilds form a collective senate and rule.  The Autarch is somewhat a figurehead, a historical position that is selected and put in place by the guilds.

This Autarch, though, is somewhat more savvy than those before her, and is less "figurehead" and more "get things done" - to both the delight and displeasure of various guildmasters.  I imagined her to be in her mid-30s, and we were giving her a slight Roman look (much of the Empire is inspired by Rome).

For the cover composition, we thought it would be cool to have her on a palanquin, held up by guards.  Surrounding her would be some sort of depiction of the seasons - hinting that it's a kingdom building game.  One idea was to have these seasons on a stone tablet, maybe showing the construction and destruction of a development (like a keep or a wizard's tower) through the seasons.

We also thought she should look a little elaborate - formal robes, a headband or icons of some sort surrounding her.  She's in "regal" attire on the cover - not in her more functional ass kicking gear.  In her hands are a magical ruyi scepter, cradled in her left, and a sword across her lap.  The ruyi scepter means something akin to "as you wish" and depicts prosperity.  Historically it was also a talking stick of sorts.  I really like that symbolism - as the Autarch is the wish granter and the one whose voice is heard.  The sword represents the enforcement of their will.  It has a nice blend of bizarre and formal.

I also really like the look of Byzantium color schemes and accoutrements.  The Empress Theodora, in particular, had a cool look, and might inspire the look of the Autarch - sort of a combination of Rome and Byzantium.
  

I think having some ornate robes is in order, with various bands symbolizing the importance of her station.  Although, I'm thinking of toning down the headgear a little - emphasizing the Autarch as someone who gets things done, and probably wouldn't be *as* comfortable with some of the formal restrictions, shying away from it perhaps more than her predecessors.

I also need to think of symbols for either her or the Empire.  I like the idea of a raven - symbolizing wisdom.  A bear also sounds cool.  We were thinking of using sun icons for the various depictions of the Stronghold (the protagonists) - since the Stronghold could look so many different ways.  Another option might be a stylized coin or something to that effect, further emphasizing the importance of prosperity and economy in the Empire.

OSR Analysis #12: Gamemastering as Probability Creation

So, I picked up Gygax magazine a few days ago and have been reading through it.  It has been a fun experience, probably a little heavy on the nostalgia department, but then most of the OSR strikes me as having a large component of nostalgia (nothing wrong with that).

The magazine itself certainly brings up fond memories of the heyday of Dragon magazine, when I was introduced to the hobby.

Anyway, I ran across a comment in an article by Lenard Lakofka.  "The DM has the final ability to rule and conduct the game.  If something a player wants to do is outlandish, give it a 3-8% chance of success, but if it's well thought out and doable make it 75-90%.  In those cases, where it is not a sure call in the DM's mind..."  Standard OSR boilerplate "Rulings not Rules" stuff, right?

But it got me thinking.  It strikes me as maybe the dividing line between old school and new school.  In old school, there are a ton of systems - all of which are completely optional (save for usually combat, which holds a hallowed place).  However, the one ur-mechanic which drives old school play is the ability of the GM to create a probability for any situation.  Indeed, that seems to me to be the defining characteristic.

But, what is going on here?  It's the GM's job to judge the worth of an idea, and assign a probability to it?  More than that, such probabilities seem to be neither 0% or 100% as a matter of course.  Is a really, really, really good idea worth 99%?  And a really, really bad one worth 1%?

Now look at a game like Dungeon World.  In that game, all the probabilities are largely fixed - good and bad ideas are going to make it into the mix.  They tend not to be tuned by probabilities, but rather by table consensus and other social factors.  Fiasco also dispenses with such probability assignment, favoring table consensus as well (although it is such a different model of design that there aren't many parallels).

Another new school game, FATE, is on the surface closer to that old school "let the GM judge the probabilities" method.  After all, the GM has a strong stance, and there are skills, with various difficulties assigned for success.  However, the escape hatch comes in the "Create an Advantage" action, which allows a player to put aspects into play.  With enough aspects that may be invoked for free - many actions become not just possible, but true.  In essence, a player is adding to the narration in exchange for success - also a marked difference from that old school philosophy of GM as probability creation engine.

Of course, the difference between old school and new school (to the extent that those nebulous terms even have a center) is much more complex than that, but that quote did strike me as a glaring exemplar of the old school mindset.

Diplomacy Revisited

A big part of Wrath of the Autarch are the threats which harass the heroes on their path to remove the Autarch from power.  In considering the threats which the Autarch may employ, one that considered fun might be targeting a faction in order to lower their disposition.  In essence, swaying a faction to become loyal to the Autarch rather than the Stronghold.

Unfortunately, the current Negotiation mini-game doesn't handle this very well.  Thinking a little more about it, it may be possible to make the mini-game a little more generic, and allow some interaction like this.

Currently, the Negotiation mini-game models a barter - two sides haggling over a final price.  This threat would be two sides trying to sway a third side.  One possibility would be to use the main pieces - tracks for each leader from the faction - and a total support track.  But instead of representing barter, the end total support would map to disposition (either gained or lost).  The leaders could still be placed on tracks, such that moving them to a supportive side aids the Stronghold, while putting them on an unsupportive side aids the Autarch, etc.

It may be possible to make the "raise an issue / address an issue" actions more generic as well.  There are already the "create an advantage / overcome an obstacle" actions present in the narrative scene and the Skirmish.  These would map to issues.  Then it becomes the basic aspect mechanics in play.  The concept of magnitudes would be lost in Negotiation - but Fate core brings that back a little bit by having succeed with style create multiple free invokes (which makes the aspect essentially have a magnitude).

A third type of diplomatic interaction could occur in the game during a Conquest mission, when the heroes are trying to persuade a native population to join the Stronghold.  This fits better the barter model - although maybe not in terms of trading this-for-that.  Instead, it might just be a set of difficulties that the Stronghold must hit, the result being a net population which joins the Stronghold.

Fate Core!

I've finally had a chance to look at the new Fate Core doc in more detail.  It's a solid and clean update to Fate.  Some of the changes were directions I was already headed while working on WotA (like cleaning up the invoke/tag language, and generalizing the creation of aspects).  Other changes I didn't foresee.  On the whole, it's a good addition.

Compared to Fate Core, WotA is intentionally heavily constrained.  There is an action economy in scenes that isn't present in Core.  However, it's still probably worthwhile to make WotA as close to Core as possible unless I can think of a good reason otherwise.

Some of the changes, like number of stress boxes and consequence tracks, should be fairly easy to port over.  That may require lowering the difficulty of missions, however, but that shouldn't be too hard.

The stunts section was illuminating.  Some of the stunts in WotA currently don't fit the desired Fate design pattern, in that they would see use too much.  They're more general bonuses to rolls, which Fate Core suggests be used with the expenditure of fate points.  The demarcation between stunts and developments is an area in WotA that needs to be thought out better in general.

Also, Fate takes a more standard approach to stunts in general, as they don't have costs anymore, but rather all fit the same power level.  That might be tricky in WotA, as magic is modeled as a stunt, and magic is more powerful than one stunt slot at the moment.