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.