What is Wrath of the Autarch?

Bandits are stealing your grain, a border dispute has ignited with Crescent Hold, and the peasants are uprising ever since your guard accidentally murdered an innocent. Amidst all of this, the Autarch's spies are everywhere... it is only a matter of time before they launch a full scale assault. There aren't enough resources to deal with all of these threats, but what gets ignored?

Wrath of the Autarch is a kingdom building role-playing game. The beta rules are complete and freely available here: Beta Rules

I'd love to hear from you! Please post your thoughts in the WotA G+ community: G+ Community or the WotA rpggeek community: WotA on RPGGeek

Wrath of the Autarch features:

• Domain Management
• WotA owes its inspiration from 4X video games, and role-playing games like Birthright, Houses of the Blooded, and Pendragon
• The main character in WotA is the Stronghold, a society the players grow over a number of seasons
• The Stronghold controls regions, large areas of land that can be used to gain valuable resources
• Troupe Style Play
• There are a limited number of available heroes for the Stronghold. These heroes are leaders and skilled characters capable of accomplishing important missions
• Each session of play highlights one season of time, focusing on one important mission for the Stronghold
• The players choose which heroes to play based on the type of mission they elect to undertake
• GMless
• WotA is a set of rules written for a specific campaign included with the game
• The Empire of the Autarch is a powerful kingdom bent on the Stronghold's destruction
• One player takes on the responsibilities for managing the Autarch, while the other players all manage the Stronghold
• The Autarch player allocates points to various threat pools over the course of the campaign, which lets them inflict miseries upon the Stronghold
• There is a strategic interaction between the missions the Stronghold takes as seasons go by and the threats the Autarch wields against them
• Campaign Frame
• There are five different minor factions present in the world, each with different goods and services they're willing to trade for, as well as different capabilities they possess
• Allying with compatible factions is a key part of the strategy for the Stronghold
• The Autarch may sabotage relationships with minor factions using threats
• The factions and the world they inhabit is not fleshed out in detail, giving players a framework to use, but plenty of mechanisms to make it personal and unique
• Structured Missions
• Each season the heroes from the Stronghold go on one mission
• The mission choices are alliance, conquest, assassination, sabotage, or dealing with a looming threat
• Missions consist of a challenge phase and a conflict phase
• Challenge Phase
• The challenge phase is open and flowing, with all the players contributing to the unfolding narrative
• There is a constant time pressure to succeed at the challenges for the Stronghold players
• The Deck of Fate is used to help spur creativity and create challenge scenes
• Conflict Phase
• WotA employs four types of conflicts: diplomacy, infiltration, skirmish, and warfare
• The type of conflict used depends on the mission
• Conflicts use similar action types, but each have their own flavor and tactical options
• Based on Fate Core
• WotA is based on the Fate Core rules, and uses the same four core actions, as well as the familiar skill ladder, stunts, and aspects
• Instead of one type of aspect, there are three, based on their duration: minor advantages, mission aspects, and campaign aspects
• The longer the duration of the aspect, the more important it is, and the harder it is to create
• WotA heavily uses the Deck of Fate (although Fate Dice may be used instead)
• Stunts, developments, and other effects modify how the cards are used
• Stress for success is an option to succeed with cost for any action type: allowing a player to increase their result by drawing cards and applying the suns as physical stress and the moons as mental stress
• A unique relationship mechanic is used that rewards both helpful and hindering relationships
• There is a special system called "aspect burning" which lets players convert free invokes on campaign aspects into other in game effects (units, familiars, allies, advantages in conflicts)

I've tried to provide an overview of the key features that distinguish Wrath of the Autarch from other role-playing games. If it sounds interesting to you, feel free to look over the rules and comment!

WotA, Fate, and Step Dice

I've posted about alternatives to Fate dice before, and it's an idea I keep coming back to as I work on Wrath of the Autarch. Mainly this comes in the form of varying a single dice by steps (d4, d6, d8, d10, etc) and then subtracting d6 from it. The baseline roll of d6 - d6 is a slightly more chaotic approximation to 4dF.

One of the motivations comes from compels. Traditional Fate compels aren't a good fit for the game. Their function is typically to introduce narrative complications into a character's life. They propel the story forward and add new wrinkles.

Will a d14 be needed?

But Wrath already has a mechanism for that. In the narrative phase, players can get narrative control and introduce all manner of complications. If they use an aspect as the basis for that narration, they get a Fate point. They have motivations for adding those sorts of complications.

So far, though, in playtesting, that doesn't generate quite a big enough stream of Fate points to the players. Using step dice presents another, more mechanical, option.

I've been playing with the idea of invoking aspects to step up the first dice, and compelling them to step down the first die. Once the first die is chosen, it's locked into place. After the roll, Fate points may only be spent on re-rolls. This opens up the option of players using aspects negatively against themselves, and just stepping down the first die roll.

This is less valuable than a normal use of an aspect, since it's only an expected value of +1, rather than a guaranteed +2. But it's also a little easier to keep the Fate points flowing, so maybe it will offset.

Also, this opens up some options for sources of increasing die steps:

Developments

It makes sense for different development types, such as Improved Casting, Advanced Armors, Thieves Tools, etc, to grant bonuses to the first die on any applicable rolls.

I would like it if at least some development provides bonuses for each mini-game (Infiltration, Skirmish, Diplomacy, and Warfare). Currently it's pretty random, with some mini-games like Diplomacy not having any such developments.

I'll have to think about that. I do have some developments that I'm not so keen on, and could probably swap out for a different effect.

Stunts

Stunts could also be used for bumping up dice rolls in a similar fashion. It will be tricky, though, to not overlap what developments are doing too much. Developments are more significant, since they apply to every character.

Using step dice also opens the door to stunts like this:

Wild Attack - Step up both the positive dice and the negative dice by one when using Fighting to attack.

So, a character could roll d8 - d8 to attack, increasing the range of the results.

Relationships

Currently characters have bonds with other characters that are just modeled as aspects. I reset all of these with one free invoke to encourage their use.

Another option would be to allow one step up/down on any applicable roll. This would make relationships really desirable, and make for some conscious choices on how characters interact.

Even more so if there are limited relationship slots. Because this is a troupe style game, this would make for some interesting choices when picking characters to take on a mission.

Stronghold Oath

Finally, there might be room for some sort of interaction with the Stronghold. After all, the Stronghold has aspects, and it's assumed that each character feels some way towards them.

So, in a similar style to relationships, having the option to step up/down the dice based on a particular Stronghold aspect might be interesting.

Baseline d4 - d6

If there are *too* many ways to step up dice without spending Fate points, it may be necessary for the baseline roll to be d4 - d6, just because the first dice will frequently get bumped up higher than that.

Rerolls

One thing that stepping up the first dice does is increase the value of re-rolls. As the range of results widens, they become more and more valuable.

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).

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).

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.

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.

Equipment in WotA

This week I wrestled with how to handle equipment in Wrath of the Autarch.  Fantasy games have a history of defining characters by the combat gear they wield.  The tough part about including rules for equipment in WotA was that it potentially creates a situation where combat is overemphasized compared to the other parts of the game.

Ultimately, I decided to just roll all the functionality of equipment into Stunts.  Stunts have a number of mechanical effects, such as adding to rolls, reducing Stress damage, improving effects, etc.  By abstracting out equipment to stunts, it has a way of grouping everything that modifies rolls into one spot.  And furthermore requiring players to invest in Stunts by spending Fate Refresh.

Equipment is handled very narratively.  If you want your character to have gear, they just have it.  There are no rules for encumbrance or costs for items.  There is an assumption that every character has some basic equipment necessary to use their skills.  Using Fighting implies the carrying of a weapon, etc.  However, there aren't any mechanical benefits for this type of gear.  If you want them to have awesome gear, which provides mechanical benefits, then you have to spend for it.

FateThulhu

I've been interested for a while in marrying Call of Cthulhu with FATE.  Still haven't looked around to see if it's already been done, but it seems like a natural fit.

In particular, I like the way Trail of Cthulhu distinguishes between investigative skills and general skills.  It seems like treating investigative skills similar to aspects might be a fun way to make a character.

Similar to Trail, all the investigative skills are divvied up between the players, and then used without rolling dice.  If you have the relevant investigative skill, and are involved in the scene, you get the clue.  Instead of treating the skills like pools, FATE points could be used when it's possible to get some extra result above and beyond the clue.

General skills would be handled in a more traditional FATE fashion.  However, since sanity is such an important part of Cthulhu, it might be good to add some extra mechanical weight to sanity.  Consequences might work, particularly if the GM could use free tags to really play up the consequence.