Considering Spiritual Games

This Division – Spiritual Games revolve around polar concepts – a decision between two notional ideals.  When a spiritual game is played the Players choose the spiritual ideal that each wants to exemplify the Thesis – the Referee chooses another- not necessarily opposite – but situationally relevant ideal – the Antithesis.  Then each player ascribes a value – between 2 & 19 to their Thesis.  Thereafter during the encounter, the players must roll under their number in order to succeed, spiritually using their Thesis.  Meanwhile rolls over that number indicate that the Referee’s Antithesis is the succeeding factor.  If the number is rolled on the nose then chaotic things occur & there is a mingling of the ideals leading to a Synthesis – which brings the encounter to its conclusion. 

While the options for spiritual ideals are innumerable – the suggested poles are based upon the alignment system present throughout the game.  Situations may arise in which the suggested ideals aren’t the right fit, though, so any alterations to these divisions should be expected. 

       AUDACITY Daring, verve, cleverness & boldness            8             

       CREATION Invention, artistry, whimsy & vision 2            

       DEVOTION      Intensity, certainty, focus & faith      7            

       EMPATHY Kindness, compassion & civility                    1            

       HOSTILITY      Contempt, nerve, wrath & brutality  5           

       WHIMSY  Dreams, hopes, fantasy & mysticism 4     

       MASTERY Skill, talent, innate & learned                        3            

       NOBILITY Sincerity, courage & propriety                       6           

       POSSESSIONS   Material, gain & acquisitions             0           

       REALITY  Pragmatism, sense & caution                         9           

These provide some default options for players & referees to use during spiritual encounters.  If you are playing in a game where players tally their deeds or associate one or more of these virtues for some purpose – such as In The Ruins – the referee may indicate that the player’s number for each of these is equal to the number they have achieved in that virtue. 

An example of a spiritual encounter: 

The valiant knight Farsipal seeks a divine vision through prayerful meditation upon the ideal of Purity.  The Referee deigns to propose Insolence as the opposing ideal.  Farsipal gives his number as 8.  As he encounters mythopoetic concepts within his meditation he rolls to interact with them.  At the outset he is tested by the vision of his own dying mother, afflicted by plague commanding him to ‘curse god and die’.   Farsipal rolls & gets a 4.  He renounces this vision & adheres to purity & lifts the disease from his mother, beatifying her in her final moments, giving peace.  The redemption of his mother on her deathbed changes Farsipal’s number – it becomes 6-8. 

Thereafter Farsipal crosses a river of broken glass in aid of this he encounters the steel boatman – an armored steer that navigates the flow.  Farsipal attempts to lure the boatman to his side of the river.  Rolling again he gets a 12.  He is overcome by insolence and defiantly crosses the river insensible to the billion cuts he endures along the way.  These cuts become infested with the dross of the river & Farsipal’s number changes – it becomes 6-10. 

At the final segment of his vision-journey Farsipal comes to the court of the King Unbidden who grips his shoulders & leers in his face – the vile adversary tries to tempt Farsipal with illicit pleasures.  Farsipal rolls to confront this adversary & gets an 8.  He now has Insolent-Purity.  This gives him the wherewithal to overcome the wicked king unbidden through overwhelming force of personal agency.  Farsipal leaves the meditation having gained a greater sense of self & of his internal power.  The encounter is ended. 

Had Farsipal rolled an 8 on his first test – he would have gained no Purity nor any Defiance – but would have overcome the encounter & gained the experience.  However, because he gained both Purity & Insolence he comes through the experience, not unchanged – but with both ideals more firmly established within his character. 

Had he failed to have any purity – never rolling below his number, he would emerge from the experience far more Impudent but no less pure.

Pattern for Spiritual Games  –

&       The Encounter is initiated & declared as a spiritual encounter.

&       Players each declare the ideal with which they will encounter the divine

&       The Referee declares the ideal that they must struggle with

&       The Referee narrates the scene & prompts players for their actions

&       The Players take turns rolling their dice to determine how they narrate their own actions. 

&       As the spread of numbers increases based upon going over or under the number the players achieve Synthesis – as they do so they drop out of the encounter. 

&       When all players have achieved Synthesis the encounter ends & the referee disburses the consequences. 

Adjudicating Spiritual Games – A Guide for the Referee –

As with other encounters a spiritual encounter has no truly fixed outcome & as with other encounters a clear objective is in place when it is declared.  For this reason you’ll want to place your spiritual encounters into your stories where they’ll have some relevance to the plot or the schemes of the players – vague goals aren’t a great fit for spiritual encounters – but questions meant to disassemble the vagueness within the story do make for good encounters.  Examples –

&       What do we do next? 

&       Who is the real enemy in this situation?

&       Why is this *specific thing* happening? 

If the players want to engage with the divine it should be for a specific goal. 

&       Help to expel a diabolical presence

&       Vanquish or drive out a ghost

&       Gain a vital insight into the mind of god

The Rewards for this type of encounter are thus defined by the objectives of the players – since they know what they’re seeking they determine what success in the encounter looks like.

These types of encounter shouldn’t be merely narrative advancement though.  There are consequences – both good & bad for the player when they engage in these sorts of games.  The consequences largely derive from the events of the game rather than the final outcome – since the game continues until Synthesis occurs, this sort of game will always end with players getting something.  But what they get is colored by the Synthesis of Thesis & Antithesis. 

If Players have it all their way – rolling under their number & sticking to their Thesis – they are rewarded by having that Thesis reinforced – grant a boon based upon the thesis that triggers when the ideal comes up in other encounters. 

If Players are unlucky & the Antithesis is dominant in the game – then this should affect them.  If they champion goodness against evil & evil holds sway – then they should be tainted, overwhelmed by darkness & thwarted.  Let them suffer disillusion. 

If the Synthesis is easily arrived at – the players are consequently comfortable with the Thesis & Antithesis – they will see these as complimentary rather than adversarial. 

In all these cases the players agency is a bit under stress – since you’re putting thoughts into their character’s heads – since this isn’t always agreeable to players it should be stressed at the outset of a spiritual game that the consequences are often a change in perspective & personality. 

Specific Rewards -

Here are a few specific gifts that may be granted to a character based upon their interaction with the game: 

&       A new prayer or religious spell

&       An enhanced ability in specific circumstances i.e.: a blessing

&       Important or valuable information

&       Liberation from a curse or condition

&       Status within an organization i.e.: an anointing

&       Pacification of an adversary

&       Warding or sanctification of an area

&       Desecration or decommissioning of an area

&       Charming an object or infusing a relic with holy power

&       Access to prior lives or incarnations

&       A boon or wish from an immortal being

&       The ability to access other dimensions i.e.: transcendence

&       The rescue of a soul i.e.: resurrection

Player Acquired Modifications to this Game -

&       Firmly Held – your belief in a specific ideal allows you to use it in any spiritual game.  You need no other devotion.  7

&       Unwavering – You declare a range of numbers rather than a single number when you begin.  You declare one ideal for which this holds true when gaining the ability.  6

&       Open-Minded – You are amenable to the persuasion of the antithesis & can add a number to your rolls allowing you to explore Synthesis more easily.  1

&       Deep-Thinker – You may gain more than one reward & achieve Synthesis more than once in such a game – allowing you to continue beyond the ordinary ending.  3

&       Unquestioning – You can deduct a number from your roll when you play this game, helping you to cleave more closely to your spiritual core.  2

&       Holy-Place – You can reduce the size of the die when playing a spiritual game in a sanctified location.  9

&       Diabolical Presence – The die size increases when the encounter occurs in a place of strong antithetical power, but you can ignore this.  8

&       Relic of Virtues – You may sacrifice a possession to allow a reroll of the dice.  0

&       Witch-Hunter – If you roll your Thesis number or lower you can manifest the Antithesis & fight them physically. 5

&       Deep Lore – You always gain added information or a prayer when you gain Synthesis.  4

Skills - from A to Z starting.... Now.

Some Thoughts about the Skill of Alchemy. 

The science of the black land hangs within the Hobby as a kind of pinata - it's overhead, swinging - it tantalizes us all with bright colors, exciting possibilities.  But everyone who takes a crack at it is blindfolded & swinging wildly while unseen forces pull & push - drag it away.  Eventually someone smacks it open - old Alchemy, and everyone hopes that it was full of the candy that they specifically like. 

Which sounds pretty stupid, actually, when you put it like that.  What I'm getting at, I think, is that a lot of the defined elements of This-Thing-We-Do-Together are rules & they're tried, true & played out practically.  A lot of rules show up & offer different variants of the same sorts of things & those same sorts of things tend to be Fighting, Magic, Skills, Race, Class & Gear - not every game has all of these, but games that don't have one of them are bound to try & explain why at some point.  If they don't have coherent systems of Chemistry & Physics?  Doesn't seem to matter. 

My intuition is that Alchemy, if it's going to be part of your game, really has to ask itself - What It Is.  Is it a precursor to Chemistry?  To Physics?  Is it a mystical tradition based upon the esoteric goal of achieving spiritual perfection?  Is it a magical discipline?  A craft?  Is it merely mixing ingredients randomly in pursuit of some buff or debuff?  I think it can be any of those things - but also, only one of those things.  That is - if it's a talent for mixing up potions, it's probably not also a search for enlightenment.  If it's a science - it probably isn't also an esoteric lodge-based tradition of mysticism.  Now - depending on which of those things you think Alchemy is in your game - then it's got to work by some type of rules.  Because Rules are at the bottom of This-Thing-We-Do-Together. 

Now I've experimented with a lot of different idiomatic variants of alchemy in my games.  I've played with specific potions that may be fabricated in specific situations.  I've toyed with alchemy as an esoteric tradition akin to the Rosy Cross.  At some point I stumbled upon a formulation that I have found myself clinging to so often that I may as well adopt it as my canonical device - the polar elements & the Wave-Form cosmos.  What it is is stated by Geometer Brenner fairly abstractly: 

The Waveform Cosmos – From the Geometer Brenner Water-over-Wind's address to the Essentialists of the Lodge of Six Colors – YK 2036

 We know or at least say and believe the Six Forces.  But the question remains – if everything is composed of forces how does anything have substance?  It was by the incomparable work of Marcus Fire-over-Light (7^th Century YK) that first grasped the unity of opposites – but not until the great work of Hugo Stone-under-Dark (12^th century YK) and his students Johan and Mercar Light-above-Light that the forces were shown to be only forces and thus lacking substance – since all the forces may operate in Void – the definitive absence of matter.  Often we are asked-  and often for the wrong reasons – What is Substance?  There are those of course who have attempted to subvert our mathematics to say that Nothing at all exists.  But this is a misconception.  Energy – that is Forces (not Energie – the force) all are transmitted in waves.  Hold a string and make it move regularly – it gains heights and nadirs-  the forces are just so.  The apogee of Energie for instance is perfect heat, the nadir is perfect cold.  We speculate as to absolute values – that is – a theoretical absolute perfect apogee and nadir – but in fact these are unreachable – the High and Low Infinities as described by Ramen Water-above-Wind (11^th century YK).  The forces that we experience are near the middle of the waves' Lengths and that was how it came to be understood that the forces are given substance.  How does the wave progress in direction?  If energy is a wave originating in an unreachable original infinity – and travels in a direction – it must reach a point – even if it never reaches its final destination – that place being another infinity.  Nevertheless there is 'Place'.  Hugo Stone-under-Dark saw that and understood what we call the Media – the pseudo-material through which the waves travel.  But later still Hugo's students showed that the Media is likewise composed of Forces!  The heights and Depths of the forces are all sequential – meaning they travel through a media – but that media is themselves.  Here the understanding of the Wave metaphor takes on another image.  A wave is a portion of a line – but as the circle is a section of a sphere- the waves are sections of a hemispheric solid – the media is the varieties of overlapping forces transmitted through this shape.  That is upon the innumerable waves of the Force of Air that we breathe-  which are shallow ponderous waves – we are 19 steps from the median.  But it has been discovered in this generation of Geometers that everything we experience is in fact on the 19^th step from the median – whether it is a positive point or a negative!
 Materially there is a correspondence – we exist at what I have described as the "Period" upon all waves and so it seems that in the instantaneous "Moment" of wave-correspondence there is a material expression of a force.  The seconds of time that we experience are the various "moments" of each wave simultaneously existing upon the 19^th "period"!  So time is in fact absolute.
 It has been shown by the tireless work of many Geometers that there are an infinity of other corresponding Periods which cause different Moments of simultaneity upon all the waves.  It is expected that each of the Periods is another entire existence which are by their varied construction unrecognizable to our own.  I won't speak for the Essentialists but I know that they have contended that that among these existences there must be the capacity for transit of portions of forces – which is held to be the source of the Essential Spirits.  Because it is known that the Essential Spirits exist an explanation is required for their existence – nevertheless the Essentiallists and Geometers have not agreed upon this point.

 

That's a quote from a novel of mine.  Brenner speaks here in an intentionally obscure & hard to follow form - it's meant to make it all seem much more complex & technical & specialized.  But - I'll make it clearer - state it more clearly

  

• There are 6 Elements in this system & each has a positive & negative polarity.   
• The high & low points of these poles exist on a wave-pattern.  
• The waves of each of the 6 is part of a larger wave.
• The larger wave is the universe.

So an example is this wave - the Illumans wave which encompasses both Dark & Light - which are in this construction - poles of a single element.  

Now, imagine all the elements are similar waves.  And each of them is woven into a single thread that is the sum of all waves they move through some unintelligible media but along curves set by the Universal Wave.

Okay - now there are many waves making up one wave.  This one wave comprises the entire universe and all possible universes.  The material universe that we know & love - exists only at very specific points along this curve  The distance between these points is the planar-frequency - the interval at which this specific universe exists.  Further up the wave or further down - that's a frequency that corresponds to an entirely different universe.  

Now, the essential waves that make up the universal wave are in some type of resonance so that things exist in a recognizable pattern (e.g.: Fire is hot & bright) & continues to be so on every tick along that planar frequency.  The planar frequency is nice as well because it gives a rationale behind the appearance of sequential time.  

We also have an infinite variety of universes up & down the wave that are very, very close to one another - so close that a universe may seem to be completely identical.  But also far enough away that some basic forces are completely out of sync (E.g.: Fire is not but not bright).  So there are varieties up & down the planes - potentially including ones where the universe is dominated completely by one pole of an element or another - say a universe of pure heat without cold.  

This pattern & structure really checks off the boxes for me in terms of worldbuilding & game-design because:  

• It creates some framework where there are predictable results.
• It has a high degree of randomness
• It allows for higher & lower dimensions with different experiences of time
• It includes the physical material that all things are comprised of
• It has mysterious & inexplicable elements - i.e.: what medium does the wave pass through?

I think that I like this cosmology so much & that it's versatile enough that I can build any amount of settings using it - and it's a big enough idea that needs so much more explanation that I can formulate any number of further ideas from out of it.  So - it's a kind of constant in my worldbuilding.  Maybe all my worlds are just different frequency universes on this same wave - that's fine.  I can work with this as a model & adopt it as my own personal canon.  Done.

So what's this mean for Alchemy?

I love this even as I plan how to remove it forever...

I could, I suppose just invent millions of possible combinations of things & then extrapolate results.  That's possible, sure - Fish + Toothpaste = Dire-Venom or some-such.  I don't really hate this as a thing that people do in a game.  But I think that I want alchemy to be more...  

Pure.  I'm not sure at what point fish+toothpaste=the Chymical Wedding but I don't care to find out either.  I'm Invested in a system that has functional boundaries but also modular components, that has prescribed & expected results - but also a realm of random possibilities.  So for pure, you've got to get to the pure, unvarnished, hidden atomic truth.  

For that - the elements.  I'm sticking with my 6 - because I like them & because they symmetrically apply to the 6 statistics that everyone knows so well.  This matching is helpful - for game design - because it builds in types of effects based on the elements in question.  So here's my pure 6/12 elements that do the lifting for the system to come:

Heat ß  Energie à Cold

Light ß Illumans à Dark

Water ß Floe à Air

Mineral ß Chthon à Metal

Chaos ß Protean à Void

Flesh ß  Viscera à Wood

Naturally, I'm putting it all into fantasy-Latin-Greek-Esperanto - but I could stand to wash it all in the thesaurian bath a few more times.  I'm content with the items - more than I am with the names, the names can be different for different groups etc...  Sticking with the core here-  I have 6 axes & 12 poles to describe effects both.  This is the place I start from when I start to think about Ruling-Up alchemy as a skill.

Don't start me talking. I can talk all night.

And when he was come to the other side into the country of the Gergesenes, there met him two possessed with devils, coming out of the tombs, exceeding fierce, so that no man might pass by that way.

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?And there was a good way off from them an herd of many swine feeding.So the devils besought him, saying, If thou cast us out, suffer us to go away into the herd of swine.And he said unto them, Go. And when they were come out, they went into the herd of swine: and, behold, the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea, and perished in the waters.And they that kept them fled, and went their ways into the city, and told every thing, and what was befallen to the possessed of the devils.And, behold, the whole city came out to meet Jesus: and when they saw him, they besought him that he would depart out of their coasts.

When The Face can beat the encounter by just talking at the monsters - that's compelling stuff.  It's not what you want for every encounter though - and before you think about it too much just put it in the perspective of the other people at the table.  It's easy to fall into a conversation between the Referee & some star-player.  It's easy to leave everyone out of it all & just let the PC eat up scenery.  It's quite a bit harder & quite a bit rarer in the literary canon to see a group of people involved in a social discussion (or at least in one that actually progresses matters).  

But This Thing We Do - is something that We Do Together.  It just won't do for the better part of the party to sit on their hands while the single face character talks their way out of an encounter.  Well, not all the time anyway.  When We Do This Thing Together it has the virtue of allowing everyone to have the spotlight sometimes, to shine out best & greatest among their peers at the table.  Everyone gets their moment.  But not every moment is one for the spotlight.  Sometimes the whole group needs to have a say, have something to do in a scene, even if the scene is just a conversation.

Locus & Platea are theatrical concepts that fit nicely here - an idea of people being at the center of the discussion while others act out their own roles at the edge of that focus.  At the table the concept tends to prevail, in the systems of initiative where people take turns consciously, and in the typical flow of interactive narration, where someone is always the focus of the Referee's attention.  You see this dynamic over and  over again & while I think it's useful to consider, it's also something I think worth avoiding when possible.  Everyone should be cued to know their time & turn.  Everyone should have a voice in a scene, if they can.    

Again, I'm coming up short on scenes in which the ensemble speaks in turn to get across a point or to make a specific bargain.  The best iterations you might commonly encounter are variants of Good Cop / Bad Cop - where two people on the same side try to persuade a third who is not.  So what about a scene where there are between 5-9 cops are they all different shades of good or bad?  Well...

So sometimes people can be part of the scene & be a presence without saying anything.  In the case of Good & Bad cop there's naturally the entire apparatus of the criminal justice system that is effectively a character, judges & lawyers & jailers are all in the minds of the person being interrogated as are their opposite numbers in the criminal underworld.  So - these can exist in the scene and still not speak.  How much more persuasive is the bad cop if there are heavily armed men standing at his back?  Or a torturer or executioner?  These don't need to say anything to make the bad cop's speech more terrifying - but they do have a presence.  

So let's take Jesus as the face - defeating the diabolical forces of perdition through bargaining.  This has a backdrop but let's consider it as an encounter typical of a fantasy game.  The PCs are traversing the wild roads of the frontier and they're warned away by the presence of monsters.  This is a party of 13 or so & it's no doubt difficult for the Ref to adjudicate it all.  When they decide to continue despite warnings the Face/Leader takes charge of the ensuing encounter.  Here,  making a bold demand that the devils acquiesce to.  

But the exchange isn't just between Jesus & the Devils.  There's JHVH - who's presence is on the minds of everyone in the encounter.  But as well there's Jesus' gang of 12 guys.  So we can imagine, if we are players - that this encounter is occurring with the unstated statistical advantage of having 12 guys on hand who may or may not be up to the challenge of beating up a pair of possessed guys.  But, if you're a demon - hey why take the chance?  It's easy to think of this encounter falling out a whole other way - in which Matthew relates the story of Jesus & his disciples kicking a pair of lunatics into submission...

Which is to say: "We could make this encounter go as easy or as hard as you want it to go.  You can just go over there and be in those pigs, or you can test your luck against 13 guys."  During which time of course all 13 guys are making Strength checks to flex on the demons.  That's one way of making the conversation an ensemble conversation.  

Se we can, if we want, build a mechanic around a scene where players can choose to make it a social interaction - one where they're effectively turning the tables on the Referee to talk their way out of danger or past an obstacle.  There's, again, too few examples of this outside of The Hobby for me to really grab on to any given example.  But there are counter examples - a whole counter-game in fact.  What about a combative conversation between many and one?  What about the villain trying to talk their way out of being captured?

This is difficult, to say the least.  One thing that's inevitable at the table is a bit of mega-game sensibility.  Players, no matter how good they are, hate to be told what their characters believe.  No matter how they love to use the dice to test their own believably - no amount of failed saving throws will let a player really believe that their character believes something they don't want them to.  Or - to put it more succinctly you can't rely on tricking Characters - you have to trick Players.  This line of thinking is more of an aside though - more of strategy for Running the Game than it is a system that can be used in Designing the Game.  So I'll leave it be & consider it another time.  

Really though - this whole direction lends itself beautifully to asides & discursions.  Thinking now about the example of Jesus vs. the Devils & you know - I don't know of many religionists, let alone any players playing a religionist (clerics & paladins oh my) who go into a fight with the dark forces of perdition with anything like the confidence that Jesus has.  That's a fairly intimidating display right out of the gate - just immediate certainty that Yahweh's got your back.  

So thinking of that - this construction:  There are devils who are threatening you and you threaten them back & they ask for something & you negotiate.  It's a zero sum game - someone wins & someone loses.  Zero Sum Game is the essence here - you wouldn't roll dice or make the interaction into a game if it didn't already require that there be a winner and a loser.  So let's take that as the basic framework - fundamental to our structuring of the game.  

Assumptions made so far:
1  - There's an interaction where we want to resolve matters as a conversation.  This is a Social Encounter.
2 - Someone will win the encounter & someone will lose.  
3 - Everyone who's playing needs to be able to participate.

So here I think it's worth looking at negotiating postures.  What are the tools you can bring to a negotiation.  I'm thinking, broad strokes, about the kinds of demeanor you can use & what are the end-game goals of this discussion?

Off the top of my head I'm seeing a few broad-strokes options.  Bargaining - that is pleading & requesting & offering.  



Then there's Coercion - that's straight up intimidation, arm-twisting insistence. 

After that straight up Lying - Deception.

And at last there's flattery, seduction maybe.

Are there more ways to talk to people?  Probably.  I'm going with these four using a bit of essentialism here - saying that you can have a demeanor that asks for something in 4 distinct ways.  By force, by conniving, by seduction & by obsequiousness.  So there.  Let's settle on these together shall we?  Say that they're the 4 temperaments - Sanguine, Phlegmatic, Choleric & Melancholic.  It'll be an exercise for the reader to settle on which is which.

So given these approaches - we're down to working out what the PCs can do in a scene.  I'm thinking that the Players can have their characters approach one or another of these methods as a preference.  One of the Doormen always lies, one always flatters, one always commands & one always begs.  It's a harder logic puzzle, for sure, but it's...

Well it's an environment.  In the end the game is that - a place where there are systems that can work to create story.  I'm interested in a story where the players harangue the hobgoblin with pleading & lies & bluster into giving up their wicked ways.  At least once in a while.

So as an environment for a quasi-staged conversation I think these bases are good.  They each suggest an action.  Recall the basis of the game-within-the-game -
1 - Induction
2 - Sequence
3 - Objective
4 - Options

This foundation is holding up so far, so I'm sticking with it.  I'm not sure, but I think I can bear a few more social methodologies - or maybe fewer.  It's getting to be a matter requiring rules testing more than rules speculation.

The Thing as a Fight: Crafts as a Party

Fashioned at last into an arrowy shape, and welded by Perth to the shank, the steel soon pointed the end of the iron; and as the blacksmith was about giving the barbs their final heat, prior to tempering them, he cried to Ahab to place the water-cask near.
"No, no – no water for that; I want it of the true death-temper. Ahoy, there! Tashtego, Queequeg, Daggoo! What say ye, pagans! Will ye give me as much blood as will cover this barb?" holding it high up. A cluster of dark nods replied, Yes. Three punctures were made in the heathen flesh, and the White Whale’s barbs were then tempered.
"Ego non baptizo te in nomine patris, sed in nomine diaboli!" deliriously howled Ahab, as the malignant iron scorchingly devoured the baptismal blood. 

As a kid this scene from Moby Dick always spoke to me.  The blood, the curses - the hate.  In magical traditions & tango there's a concept of intention a sensibility that guides you from the essential core of the self.  It's not something you can fake or pretend to have - it's something that projects from out of your self.  Ahab's got all kinds of intention, and he binds the rest of the crew to his mad purpose.

There's another influence from my youth that speaks in the same tone of voice.




The team gathering together to create something as a solution to the immanent crisis is an interesting trope to work with.  Building it into the system to create a Game-Within-The Game then becomes an interesting challenge.

Based upon my deconstruction of the basic Game-Within-The Game  I'd like to create a mechanical system that allows everyone to participate in a kind of building-montage.  In order to create a bounded scene with full-participation we need to look at the requisite features of a proper encounter.

It must have a clear boundary - something analogous to Initiative.

It must have an implicit objective - something similar to the win & loss conditions of a melee

It must have opportunities - a chance for each player to participate using their distinct abilities

It must have a time frame - a sequence of phases in which each player can interact with the task.

In the Moby Dick passage Perth is creating the harpoon's head but Ahab filibusters & insists on making it participatory for more of the crew.  In the A-Team example everyone is busy constructing a different component of the battle-jitney and even those bringing little to the task at hand are able to contribute in some way.

So we want to establish a system that is recognizable from its inception as a Crafting-Game with its own internal framework & opportunities for player agency to be respected.

Initiative is highly focused & a crafting game needs for a similar mechanic.  In the Game of the North we can consider Initiative not merely as the order of combat - but use the first definition of initiative & reflect the individual's desire to initiate action.  Do the PCs spontaneously begin creating something?  Does one lead the project?  There's no reason we can't repurpose the initiative score encompass the larger meaning - saying that the character's innate drive & alacrity sets the terms of their participation.  So one system for creating a Game that encompasses the crafting montage would be to simply call an initiative roll - giving everyone participating a place in the order of things, allowing them to put the thing together.

If we use the Moby Dick passage as a template - Perth has taken the initiative while Ahab follows & is in turn followed by Queequeg et.al.  Then Perth finishes & then Ahab offers his diabolical benediction.  There's no necessary order to the creation - rather its designed after the initiation.

So let's consider the path here - One person is committing the muscle & the skill - creating the object itself.  Another person is affecting this initial plan by devising a complicated ritual surrounding it.  The three pagan participants are offering their blood to the project & the mastermind of the enterprise consecrates (or desecrates) the whole project. This is interesting in relation to basic framework which demands the inclusion of an objective - but I'm not exactly certain what to make of it mechanically. 

Compare to action economy in The Game of the North & in other games. 

In Game of the North – players have a movement capacity – they can move a number of spaces or meters equal to their Movement statistic.  All players can move – so we want to carry over this mechanic – say that players can range as far as they need to to make the thing.  The distance they travel then sets the timetable for the rounds & turns structure that the system prefers.  If they must travel around the world to get the things - the project may be a months or years long process.  This in turn sets the parameters of what can be used to make the object.  Say that the PCs have an afternoon to rig their van into an ersatz tank.  This limits the scope & means the PCs may only be able to deal with the materials they have on hand.  

Start with the basic elements -

Move- everyone can do it if not prevented & they have unlimited choices.  Giving everyone a universal capacity for movement makes time the abstraction & the amount of movement required sets the abstracted time.  I need to run all over the city to make this = hours or days of construction. I need to run all over the territory = days or weeks & etc… We look at the distances traveled to gather materials to set the time frame.

Turns – establishing a series of turns that don’t coincide with the time-scale of the combat – everyone has a chance to participate in the making.  Actions on your turn:

-          Make a Stat check

-          Supply materials

-          Use a piece of equipment

We want for players to have options here & for each player to be able to participate - even in a small way.  So bloodletting by making a CON check or carrying the ammo crate by making a STR check.  This type of action can be easily included but not intensely planned out.   

Rounds – The whole project can be considered as a Round

-          Use a skill check to plan the construction

-          Use an ability like magic or tinkering

In a combat encounter the round encompasses everyone's turns - so the round here must be all the turns of the characters involved - certain actions should require the complete round - these are the main activities in the creation-game, the guiding activities.  

Objectives – So there's a basic objective-  build something.  But in a fight there's an opposing side with an opposing objective.  Here the Players are just rolling dice & narrating - which is amusing, sure, but it falls short of being a Game.  This is another area where I've got competing notions of how to execute this.  First, I'm thinking of Hit Points - HP is best when used abstractly - in my opinion to indicate the vitality & willingness to fight of an opponent - rather than the actual integrity of their corporeal form.  So it's an abstract quantity that sets a goal that the team of players must whittle down to zero in order to win.  It's almost dirty, when you put it that way, but it's also true.  It seems that this is a portable mechanic - something that could be used in this crafting game.  Perhaps there's a secret value - held by the Referee who considers the item's ultimate value in say - Silver Pieces.  Each action could add to this value & when the value is reached the thing is created. 

That's not a terrible way to go - it has the virtue of including the unfortunate anti-climax all players know about.  How many times have you stood, poised to unleash your best & most useful move only to have the player whose turn strikes before yours end the battle.  You're left with nothing to do as the game crosses out of initiative.  So Imagine the harpoon being made before Ahab even speaks up, in the example from Moby Dick.  I like the potential for this in any given system - surprises & disorientation focus attention.  

But what about opposition.  In the Combat Game the players can be hurt, can be killed themselves by an opposing side.  What about here - what's the opposition?  So here, maybe the Referee can oppose with a series of approximate NPCs.  Have you ever heard of the Person From Porlock?  Having your efforts to create things spoiled by random intrusions is something every creator knows about - why should PCs be denied the pleasure of thwarted dreams?  

So - If we consider the crafting game as a series of activities aiming at completing a task - we can look at the things that oppose or hinder that as effective counterattacks.  In the combat-parodying system above the idea then is to include these on separate turns.  This would mean that hindering events would need to be treated as NPCs or environmental effects.  This is...  Actually Fine.  Perfect in fact - but an idea that needs more development prior to presenting (I work through ideas here, I work through concepts with the intention of figuring out how I'd like to create a game - so this is me having an epiphany).  

Simplified:  

On initiative turn 20 - The environment intervenes.  Rain?  Hurricane?  Power outages?  Earthquakes?  These are things that should be randomly decided & then resisted through Saving Throws.  Failures increase the final cost of the thing.

On initiative turn 10 - NPC interventions.  People come around to pester you about your insurance situation, neighborhood kids come to watch & ask too many questions.  A wandering monster appears on site & attacks...  This is something that needs to be beaten through a Social test or a combat encounter (although - probably you shouldn't beat up some neighborhood kids for being curious).  Failing means that the thing is set back - maybe considerably.  Maybe the NPC intervention is a robber who steals what's already been made, for example.

On initiative turn 5 - Moment of Truth - Here's where the project enters its proving phase.  It's all well and good to bolt armor to your custom van - but what if it's too heavy & it pops all the tires?  What if your blood-soaked harpoon deforms under stress?   This should be worked out as a single check made by the initiating player.  Let them devise their response to the proving of the work & then have them make the check - aided or assisted by the other players as they're able, of course.  A failure here sets the project back considerably - but doesn't thwart it utterly - work can resume, but it's almost a back-to-the-drawing-board scenario.  

What's left then is to quantify the respective values.  How much does a skill check remove from the target value?  How much does a failed NPC interaction deduct from the Player's accumulated points?  How many of these abstract points need to be accumulated in order to create the object in question?  

Finally - how does creating the object affect play going forward?  What good does making the battle-jitney do you?  Does it allow you to defeat a specific encounter without a combat?  That's not a terrible conclusion to come to.  Does it allow for a single, ruthless, magical attack upon a single, ruthless, magical enemy?  From here - at the end of this effort to work through the ideas - I think that the effectiveness of the thing being made should be built into the initiative declared when creating the thing.  So - when Ahab plans that the harpoon be a cursed weapon of Moby Dick slaying - that is where the desired effect is being declared & the value of the object must be adjudicated by the Ref.  When B.A. starts customizing the van to allow a bloodless defeat of the impending mook-wave - that sets the target.  

Good.  Good...  Work cut out for me, objectives defined, I must begin making all of my rolls to accomplish the crafting of a rulebook.