Greetings, I present a new Skin that sprang from a character’s desire to play a character with a curse similar to Ella from the book (and some extent movie) Ella Enchanted.
It wasn’t until a few other players recently looked over the skin and decided they wanted to play it that I considered releasing it.
So I present for your enjoyment, The Enchanted!
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-CsmTIE6etDazlkRkxpLVp0dzg/view?usp=sharing
This is a different take on codependence than the Mortal or Infernal offer, so I think there is some potential to be interesting.
Enchanted Item seems underwhelming as a move.
Maybe Wishes can be a bit expanded. About who defines the circumstances.
I’ll agree that Enchanted Item is rather underwhelming. On the other hand, Bide Your Time is overpowered. If you spend a String to offer someone XP and they decline, you get the String right back just as if you never spent it. That’s way too good.
Unless it’s a placeholder, Wishes needs a more concrete trigger. Maybe a list of common fairy tale wish triggers and the player chooses one when they take the move.
I think Obedience needs to be split on half; the first part about following orders and taking a String, the second part about resisting an order.
I agree with Philipp Neitzel that The Enchanted takes a different approach to the Mortal’s codependency angle. I’d like to see that get pushed even more with some other moves. Instead of Voice of Honey and Oil, Razor Wit (and maybe even Enchanted Item) which reward the Enchanted for being proactive and acting for themselves, add a few new moves that reward the character for being subservient.
The Mortal can be uncomfortable to play because of how you are encouraged to ignore abuse. That’s intentional. I think the Enchanted go do something similar.
I would think the first Strings question:
“Someone made you do something that hurt something or someone you cared about. Take a string on them.”
That sounds more like that should give them a String on you, than you on them. But I can see where you do need a question that gives the Enchanted a String.
I’m seeing much too much thematic overlap with the Selkie here. Cold and dark, enforced obedience.
Francis, I don’t necessarily find that a bad thing. A lot of fairy tales have thematic overlaps. I do think it’s different enough for a quite different play experience.
The Selkie usually is blackmailed by just one person. While the Enchanted can get conflicting orders in their need to please everyone.
I would add a space to write in the orders on the sheet too. To visualise them and also to make the Playbook all the paper you need.
Thank you Philipp Neitzel Mickey Schulz Christopher Stone-Bush for your input.
I intended for the circumstances of Wishes to be defined between the MC and the Player like the circumstances of the Orders. I supposed I need to add that to the sheet though because no one is a mind reader. But yes Wishes should be more defined I was just leaving all of that definition up to the MC and Player
With my groups play-testing they seemed to find Enchanted Item decently strong though since it is modeled after Unknowable of the Infernal I suppose it is only half it’s power. I may add an additional effect to a 10+. Suggestions for that would be appreciated
Bide your time is a correction that many of my players have wanted. It makes the spending of the string to offer another player a more safe seeming proposition without taking away the other player’s control. It also ensures that the strings the Enchanted gets from following orders will be guaranteed to stick eventually. The net result I see is encouraging more player to player interaction especially between the enchanted and the other players (Which will only get the enchanted into more trouble eventually with their obedience) and actually more spending of strings in the long run.
I intentionally made obedience one move because splitting it seemed like it would just leave a useless half move somewhere that completely required another move to operate effectively and make the move that did work completely restrictive on the player. It would make Obedience and undesirable option for other skins to take if they wanted to hybrid with advancements which is always a main goal for me when I design a skin. “How will these moves appeal to other skins for their ‘Take a move from another skin’ advancements”. This is also why I’m hesitant to scrap the useful independent moves that accompany this skin for ones that tie directly into Obedience. Obedience itself rewards the player for being obedient (Though I may alter it’s reward from being a string gained to being a string gained or a point of experience though with the Enchanted I have played with and how often they got orders (They played with very loose conditions on their orders [basically anyone telling them to do anything was a order] would have really racked up xp which is why I stuck with strings and the caveat of something you don’t want to do). I can see that there is a whole in the skin for people who want to play subservient (mostly because the players I play tested wanted to play the person barking at the end of the leash trying to get free from their total servitude) and would not be opposed to switching out one move for one that rewarded s I would have to see suggestions for how such a move to reward would work before considering changing what is working right now.
The closest thing I can think of to reward subservience would be a adding the caveat “If you find nothing but overwhelming joy and happiness in fulfilling the order, mark a point of experience” into the obedience move itself. Possibly rewording it to “When you first fulfill an order, if you hate and despise what you were made to do, take a string against the one who gave you the order. If you find nothing but overwhelming joy and happiness in fulfilling the order, mark a point of experience”. Perhaps that could be a separate move in and of itself but I do like that as part of the one move package
The goal of the Skin is to provide the tools to tell the type of story that the player wants to tell. I already have a another player interested in trying the skin out but wants to take the concept from the very fairy or unknown curse to make it something more akin to a genie (Which means the Enchanted item plays a much stronger role and will Wishes, while both still fit the original story concept too). I don’t see it tied in the with Mortal who is very much trying to make their own path. Every mortal I have ever seen played was not subservient at all. They were delusional to another person but they were the one calling the shots. As for the Selkie, as stated above the skin is not about blackmail. While a Selkie could very easily transition into an Enchanted or vice versa. The same works for the Infernal or the Fae. additionally I have seen the Selkie removed from many a group because it is not one of the main skins.
As for adding the strings question. The reason they take a string is because this is the person that they have a grudge against that person for that the made them do in the past. Which is a theme for that the skin does. As mentioned in the blurb it is about getting even.
As for adding a spot for orders to be recorded on the sheet I was fairly certain it was included right under where the moves are listed. If not it was an oversight that got accidentally removed in the drafting process as I specifically remembered discussing it;s placement
Nah I overlooked it.
I know the skin is about subservience. But I would really love to see a move that allows the player to actively subvert the intentions of the order.
I mean, I guess you could do that in play. Deliberately doing things that follow the letter of the order if not the spirit. But some mechanical teeth would also be nice. Perhaps if Obedience was split, like Christopher suggested it would be able to be fit in there. Maybe burn a string to ignore or misinterpret the order. or something along those lines perhaps?
Twisting/Misinterpreting the order is just part of clever play. Its up to the player to find ways to battle the orders they get with subversive behavior. It makes the character look strange, but that is part of the fun. If given the order ‘Get me some water’ the player can march to the kitchen, grab the dirty dish towel and wring it out over the head of the order giver. Water has been got. Of course acting this way creates problems for the character and orders can be made so specific its iron clad. Subservience without resistance is only the darkest self, not the whole character.
In fact, its not really about subservience at all, its about rebellion.
I agree, Sarah. It’s like the Fae getting promises. You have to do it through game play. It’s up to the player to decide how they want to play the skin and that’s hard to leave the skin open when you’re adding moves that pretty much tell the player how to play their character. There does need to be a balance between clever play on the players side and allowing them to depend on the dice.
I dislike the idea of changing the main move into two moves because that gives the player less choice in how to customize their character. Either you give them both of the two moves and they only get to select one, or you only give them the core part which forces the player to select the other half of the move to actually be able to play up that aspect of the skin.
Just like the Mortal skin is designed to be with someone who mistreats them, this skin seems designed to work against being a slave. It states that in the intro to the skin. I don’t see the point in playing this skin if you actually want to do everything you’re told as it’s about the struggle.
Marc Benson I think you basically said all that was need to be said in your own post “I guess you could do that in play”.
Truthfully I specifically had some mention of this sort of thing in the Playing the Enchanted Section at one point. It would appear it got cut somewhere in the drafting process but honestly that answer is so simple that it even if you had to mention it in your post, so it’s lack of inclusion doesn’t seem like that big a deal.
Many of the skins I see made by fans seem to put too much focus on making rules for everything in a game that is very rules right. My ethic is that a player should be rewarded for doing things that get them in trouble or did really good RP. I want to keep it light for people to do with as they please. I want to give them just enough of a base to build their own stories on top of the things I make for them
If you want a nods to the play style in the rules I’m going to go back to the new line I added about how with Enchanted feels about completing orders
*When you first fulfill an order, if you hate and despise what you were made to do, take a string against the one who gave you the order. If you find nothing but overwhelming joy and happiness in fulfilling the order, mark a point of experience. When you subvert the letter or spirit of the order, Carry one forward to your next roll to resist an order *
I actually like that benefit because it fits thematically because you are both feeding your nature to obey, which would mean it would get easier to resist another order, and but unlike finding joy in the submission you aren’t subjugating yourself to the affliction and weakening your will, you are instead strengthening your free will which would mean you get a benefit to resist another roll.
That is a lot better than something like letting them spend a string they are going to get by following orders and then just say “I do it”.
Additionally I think most people here haven’t tried playing with it yet (Since it has been only a few days It would have had to have been the shortest turn around in history of ever). I think that spot checking and conjecture are good but getting play-tests is gonna be the only way this actually gets any progress
Branden Leavens you are right to think that play-testing is important, but it is most certainly not the only way to get good and useful feedback. Sometimes that “spotchecking” you mentioned is even more important when you first post something, because there can be glaring problems with any creative work or rules mechanic that are easy to see with “spotchecking”, but are missed by the creator because the creator is too close to the work and either has forgotten or missed a small key function or the creator has assumptions about how something will be used and cannot see that what is actually written on the page does not support the assumptions that the creator had in mind.
It happens to us all.
A lot of what you have here seems really good, but there are a couple of concerns I have that would prevent me from letting a player use this in a game I run:
1) Bide your time is a circular function. Other Skins have to make a careful choice about offering experience to other characters, because if the character refuses they lose a resource (the string spent to make the offer). With Bide your Time the Enchanted always gets their money back if they don’t get what they want. It’s a circular loop, no downside to making the offer. If you got something back other than a String, this could be a really interesting power. Maybe carry 1 forward against that character? Personally I would prefer “carry 1 forward on any roll to hold steady”, where being refused makes the Enchanted makes them toughen up a little and resolve not to back down in future. You could also give a condition instead. The key though is that the benefit should not be the same as the cost of the action, give something other than a String. Experience would be too much though I think.
2) Wishes is too vague. I completely understand wanting to leave things open for interpretation to make gameplay more interesting and allow more diversity in characters and in story, but I need a little more than what is written.
My biggest questions are “Who sets the conditions that need to be met?” and “When do the conditions get decided upon?” Does The Enchanted decide what conditions need to be met when choosing the power, and then when those conditions are met she can make any wish she chooses? Does the MC set out the conditions when the Move is chosen? Does the MC or player get to set new conditions each session? Season? Does the MC get to spontaneously decide in the middle of a scene that “the conditions have been met by random act that occurred within the scene” and the Enchanted has to make a wish right there or lose the wish?
As written, Wishes doesn’t have quite enough in it.
Personally I think this is a great Move to include a short list of options for “conditions” the player to choose from when they select the Move. “Choose the condition for your wishes from the following list: When you see a shooting star, When someone gives you a gift of clothing, when someone kisses you, when you enter your darkest self”
However you do it though, it needs at least a little bit more clarity.
Those are the two big issues I have, the things that I would need changed in order to allow the Skin in a game, however there are a few other smaller concerns that also cause a bit of concern:
1) Is there a limit to the number of Orders that can be sitting on you at one time? There is something written to remove orders, but it seems that there is no limit to the number of Orders others can give you, and it costs others nothing to give you an Order, so in a single scene someone could lay out fifty different orders with no repercussion other than giving the Enchanted a +5 bonus to resist any of them but still forcing the Enchanted to make a lot of rolls to try and do anything.
Would you consider making others pay a String in order to place a binding Order on the Enchanted? It would make it more interesting for other characters to try and word things carefully because it costs them every time they want to give an order.
Personally I would want to make it cost a String, especially since you start with someone knowing the secret.
That being said, I would change the Backstory to say that “Someone knows about your curse”, without adding that they are actively using it against the Enchanted. That’s something that I would leave up to the players at the table, because even if it begins with the other character not actively using it against the Enchanted, it will be very tempting for them to use it as the game goes on, and it will be interesting to watch them try to keep the Enchanted’s secret for them.
2) I like what Enchanted Item does, but beyond direct reference to source material I don’t know that it fits the feel of the character. Even something as simple as renaming it “Precious Item” I feel would fit a little better. This one is a little nitpicky, I know, but I’m trying to give you all the honest feedback I can.
3) I agree that “Someone made you do something that hurt something or someone you cared about.” feels like something that would make you give someone a String on you, not the other way around. Still, I would rather reword this, and still gain a String on someone rather than leaving the wording as is and having another person with strings on the Enchanted.
Overall there is a lot of good here, and I like it a lot better than most fan Skins I see crop up, at least in their first online draft. I would be eager to see it in play, but only after those first two concerns I mentioned were addressed.
There isn’t a limit on orders, but there is absolutely a consequence. The Enchanted gets a string for every order, on the order. Not per scene. So someone could give them ten orders, giving the enchanted a marked advantage over them immediately. In addition, it is up to the gm to punish players for behavior like that. A character could attack 50 people, but that doesnt mean that there would be no consequences.
Furthermore, you couldn’t make a price for someone to order them, because most player characters wont know about the enchanted’s affliction. It doesn’t make sense to set up a mechanic that centers on carefully wording an order to an ostensibly normal person.
Daniel E I feel like you should try playing/running the Skin before saying that moves don’t work or need to be changed, as was already pointed out above. The only reasoning I see behind your suggestions is “I don’t like it.” Nothing that I as a GM would not allow in my game would be for such thing. If you had said that the move is overpowered or doesn’t fit with the theme of the Skin and/or game of Monsterhearts, that is something I could fully support for not allowing it.
If the player and GM don’t like how something is working, that’s between them to discuss and rework. This can even be done between sessions if you find something just isn’t working. The creator of a system, class/skin, module or whatever else cannot tell you how to play. Especially in a system like Monsterhearts which is very rules light, you’re basically asking to have everything spelled out rather than going with whatever would make the most fun for the group. D&D suffers from that, and while I do enjoy the system, I want to cry every time someone has to argue the rules because it means we’re going to lose 10+ minutes of game time while someone looks it up. I like Monsterhearts because it is designed to be flexible.
Daniel E Thank you for your comments. I want to also thank you for the compliment that you liked this skin. Allow me to tell you that I found the Frozen’s core move of people losing strings on her till they can’t and becomes her darkest self because no one is around her truly inspired.
I’m not dismissing other peoples comments. If you read above you see I have already suggested some changes for things people said. I came here for other people’s eyes on this but I also take most personal opinions with grains of salt. After all, opinions are like assholes. There is a certain sense someone can get to think something is uninteresting or will not play well, but I personally cannot hold other opinions over the play-testing I have seen with my own eyes. Such changes are fine for something you are making for personal group use but would not be something I would incorporate into a the release version of a skin as a product, especially without seeing how it works in action. After all these are subjective judgments on how mechanics might/will play without ever actually playing them.
You mentioned you liked this better than most other skins you have seen. That is possibly because this isn’t a first draft it’s just the first draft I’m showing the public. I have had this thing Spot-checked and have released it here now for even more and for some discussion and defense. I’m on to see people actually play this without me there hand holding to correct so I can see what problems ACTUALLY crop up and correct them (Either in mechanics or explaining the skin better). Even a status report of problems encountered when playing and the questions you asked below are of more help then suggested mechanics tweaks to a fully formed skin.
It also seems like you may have missed some of what has already been covered. The issues with wishes have been addressed. As mentioned it is decided upon by the MC and the Player it will be clarified along with a list of suggestions in the Playing section to still allow for the desired freedom. It’s one of the issues that the spot checking solved. I wondered if the wording there was sufficient and it obviously wasn’t people want more clarification it’s my job to give them that (in the playing section)
As for Bide your time, it was designed to be circular. It was intentional and not a mistake or oversight. I don’t see any compelling evidence as to why it being circular in it’s mechanics is a bad thing except that it is circular. I do not feel your aforementioned level of careful consideration before offering a point of Xp adds to the game. The move as written (or at least as was used in playtests) encouraged more interaction and bargaining between players which increases engagement in the game which overall makes the experience even more enjoyable and is not just a power boost for the sake of power boost as many fan created moves seem to be.
It could be said that Short Rest for the Wicked can be viewed in the circular mechanics way (and I’ve seen that abused way more than I can ever see bide your time being abused because a character still has choice in the matter) “Other characters have to be careful in dangerous situations and not just run wild with no fear of consequences, but the ghoul gets to just run wild. It’s circular in nature. You take 4 harm you pass out you wake up good as new and repeat”. Short Rest however is there to encourage such reckless behavior by giving little to no penalty for death (Which is already able to be bought off). Additionally please note that its not just “The Enchanted” who get it. It would be ANY skin interested in taking the move which nullifies any advantage that it would have over other skins, just like “Short Rest” has been a popular option.
Additionally there is another benefit to the mechanic you aren’t seeming to notice. It makes other players more likely to accept the xp without taking their agency and choice away. It is a mechanic that, without forcing a player and therefor removing any agency they have, nudges them to accept instead of just ignoring something they would not normally dream of doing because another player told them to.
However, I will concede that the circular nature of the wording is clunky (It was the best I could think of at the time). If your concern is simply about the circular nature, I can somewhat see that and offer this for straight replacement.
o Persuasive
When talking with another PC, you may offer them a point of experience to do something you want them to do, If they accept lose a string on that player. You cannot use this power if you currently hold no strings on the player
Truthfully I actually do like this wording better than the original which I agree was circular and clunky and the only way I could think to say it at the time (hence why I wanted other eyes on this). Part of me even would go so far as to perhaps remove the “Cannot use if you do not have a string on that person” (or perhaps string loss addendum altogether) and just let this go for free if the person hold no strings (that would even more accomplish the goal of inter player interaction but it might unleash a free for all and be too powerful with people just giving each other xp).
I will also throw out one other option for your consideration because I sense you would not be pleased with the above edits and would want something that still results in a loss for the benefit (Because I can see some value in the concept of sacrifice I just don’t think it out rates the interaction boost I saw with this move).
o Persuasive
When talking with another PC, you may offer them a point of experience to do something you want them to do, If they accept, lose all strings on that player.
If you cannot abide any of that I fully understand. You are entitled to your opinion and I do not want to force you to use my skin (and I also can’t stop you from taking it and making your own version of it with the changes you want (I certainly have already done that with the Frozen in attempt to make it acceptable in my games (I would be happy to discuss or share on that if you had interest or curiosity))) However I personally do not see String/resource management a big draw for the game Monsterhearts. I see inter-player interactions as the main draw. If your issue is just the implied circular nature of the move, I have addressed that but if it’s the the mechanics of it I fully stand behind them. I would ask you give it an honest try with those mechanics before you actually dismiss it.
There I have now addressed both main issues you raised and will now address your smaller issues. A lot of these were very helpful and let me get out some snark. All of this is in good fun and I do thank you again for your time and effort. I am even willing to hear rebuttals to the points raised above if you feel there is something simple I’m not grasping.
1) “Is there a limit to the number of Orders that can be sitting on you at one time?”
No there no inherent limit to the Orders someone can have (unless the MC and PC decide on one). A limit like that applied across the board would be silly in many circumstances and not have a good source in fiction and it’s number would be completely arbitrary.
“There is something written to remove orders”
Yes, There is. Glad you mentioned that it will become important later I think.
“it seems that there is no limit to the number of Orders others can give you”
Yes indeed! So long as they are stated properly, Yes the player can give 50 orders to the Enchanted in one scene!
“and it costs others nothing to give you an Order”
Yes, so long as the orders are properly roleplayed and the MC and PC haven’t decided it does cost something to give an order.
“So in a single scene someone could lay out fifty different orders with no repercussion other than giving the Enchanted a +5 bonus to resist any of them but still forcing the Enchanted to make a lot of rolls to try and do anything.”
Um No. There are more repercussions than just the +5. Like the enchanted gaining some division of 50 strings on the person giving the order, and/or points of experience, and/or carry forwards towards resisting orders (Which can be used when the orders are being carried out OR when received). So the Enchanted does 5 things and finds them actually pleasant gaining her 5 points of experience and an advance. Follows 4 commands and hates the other person for giving her these ones and gets 4 strings. She then uses The remaining orders she has and any Carry forwards to resist an order not to harm or kill the person removing it, then spends the advance to pick up the Chosen’s Final Showdown and spends those 4 strings she got (With special approval of the MC because Karma is a bitch and your guy has it coming to him) to crush the life from his throat with her bare hands. So there that’s less than 10 to 15 orders and the guy is a grease stain who isn’t coming back no matter what but you’re missing the bigger point.
While the Enchanted may have to make lots of rolls at times (Not always), A) They CHOSE this skin for that very reason (and btw my play-testers order conditions were “Any order received” and they had a blast in practice) And B) Monsterhearts comes with a nifty little thing called the MC. They have to power, at any time, tell the person giving orders to shut their pie hole and let the Enchanted respond. The MC is well within their rights to make a hard move to mess with the person tormenting the Enchanted and fucking SEPARATE THEM. The MC could also just reach across the table and slap the player in the face and tell them to stop being such a dill hole and let the person playing enjoy the game too, or just boot them from the call. And if it’s the MC being a utter jackass might I suggest a ragequit with optional table flipping action and finding a better group/Mcing yourself
Anything can be abused by someone trying to be a jerk
“Would you consider making others pay a String in order to place a binding Order on the Enchanted? “
Yes I would consider it under the following two circumstances
A) I was playing an Enchanted in a game
B) A player planning on taking the Enchanted Skin brought it up as an idea
I think the real question is “Would I ever force all players playing the skin to use this specific circumstances for Order” and the answer there is Hell No! Even in the two above mentioned circumstances I would only CONSIDER not DO it. Limiting it to spending strings means you have effectively inverted Bide your time in the worst and most un-fun way possible. It means you aren’t going to get to use the ENTIRE PREMISE OF THE SKIN except in rare situations where you can make a roll to avoid it. It’s a foolish idea and if a player came to me and suggested it I would suggest they just choose another skin.
“It would make it more interesting for other characters to try and word things carefully because it costs them every time they want to give an order.”
Oh you mean like the D&D Wish conundrum. Funny thing. That works great for people who know but not for people who don’t know. It also means that there can never be any accidental order being given to her because the stars aligned properly and the person doesn’t even know what is going on. There already is enough RP chicanery that happens when the rules are simple for orders and people who don’t know trying to stumble upon giving orders to the character totally by accident.
“Personally I would want to make it cost a String, especially since you start with someone knowing the secret. That being said, I would change the Backstory to say that “Someone knows about your curse”, without adding that they are actively using it against the Enchanted. That’s something that I would leave up to the players at the table, because even if it begins with the other character not actively using it against the Enchanted, it will be very tempting for them to use it as the game goes on, and it will be interesting to watch them try to keep the Enchanted’s secret for them.
The issue with that is it has no teeth. If the Player wants an ally that knows about their curse/condition and is helping them they are free to declare and make that NPC themselves (or make that arrangement with another PC) but that removes drama from the game. Having someone out there that both knows what is going on and is willing and capable of using it adds all the drama to the character, be that person an NPC or fellow PC.
2) “I like what Enchanted Item does, but beyond direct reference to source material I don’t know that it fits the feel of the character.”
It does if you’re playing a Genie. No, I did not call this skin the Genie because… well that would be a pigeon hole. The Enchanted is a much more nebulous a name that encompases Ella and Genies together as well as many other things. The Enchanted Item is then your “lamp”. It would probably play heavily into your orders (Likely someone has to be in possession of your lamp to give you orders). With that in mind, it actually fits pretty well into the skin as a whole work and it’s usefulness is heavily hinted at in the playing the skin description. However it may not be of use to all players and all stories. The good news is, you don’t have to take that move. Even if you buy all the moves you will still have to leave one out (a conscious decision I made in designing all skins and you must makes when playing). You leave out the move that fits least. in this case if the item does not “fit” it gets discarded, but because there are MANY, MANY ways in which it will fit it has a proper place in the skin. It’s kind of like the Queen’s one move that makes her a literal hive mind. If you DON’T want to be a supernatural Queen you DON’T take that move. Additionally it gives you something to guard and protect possibly jealously. For a character that has so little, it’s one thing that is yours and something that someone else might want to take and inspire you into action.
“Even something as simple as renaming it “Precious Item” I feel would fit a little better. This one is a little nitpicky, I know, but I’m trying to give you all the honest feedback I can.”
Oh? a name change? Sure! consider it done. “Precious Item” works.
Actually While going through this with one of my spot checkers and play testers for their feedback. She suggested I tell you that Enchanted Item is better because it implies the magical nature of the item in question and besides if it’s just a name you have issue with I’m going to file that under “Things that are personal problems”.
3) I agree that “Someone made you do something that hurt something or someone you cared about.” feels like something that would make you give someone a String on you, not the other way around.
Good for you! You’re still as wrong as the other guy. You seemed to have again completely missed the mechanic where when someone makes you do something you don’t want to do (Like hurt something or someone you care about) you gain a string on them (To represent your desire to get even with them. I modeled this after strings and not a condition because special conditions are a dime a dozen and frankly boring as hell. Making it strings also made it the main way the Enchanted will gain string when someone is dumb enough to get them to do something they do not want to do). Personally it makes no sense for it to be the other way around. The other individual already used their power over you and got their effect. Their exchange is over and possibly forgotten about (maybe they never even KNEW they made you do it with a careless word like “Go jump off a bridge” which you went and did. Maybe you even did it to them when they were quoting Tyler Durden from Fight Club). It only makes sense as something the Enchanted is dwelling on and hasn’t forgiven or gotten even for yet, not something someone else has.
“Still, I would rather reword this, and still gain a String on someone rather than leaving the wording as is and having another person with strings on the Enchanted.”
Of course because that would be a pretty crappy thing to give to the Enchanted. Thankfully this is my skin and my call, The simplest answer is leave it as is. It fits the theme of the character which as Sarah so pleasantly explained is about REBELLION at it’s core. If the skin was all about being a subservient puppy dog all the time then you might have a point but, it’s not. I’m going to leave it at “Not Broken! Don’t Fix it”. Seriously, though, these things are about handing out strings and making a pool for interesting RP to evolve. So long as it’s interesting and makes sense whats happen why care? Maybe I could add “and you hate them for it” as a tag on the end to be more clear but I was pretty sure most people could figure the reason out on their own (or just wouldn’t care and saw it as the thing that deepened the story that it was meant to be)
I will start by apologizing here, Branden Leavens . Initially, I read through the Skin, quite intrigued but had a couple of issues with it as I first saw it. I read through the other comments quickly, not giving each comment or response the careful consideration I should have. I will also say outright that I somehow misread the Orders power, completely missing the point where the Enchanted gains a String on the order giver.
A moment about where my comments were coming from: From the initial comment with the Skin, I did not see that you’d already reached playtesting and that you had given the careful consideration that you seem to have to all aspects of the Skin. I came to my comments with the impression that this was a well written first draft, and it was the first draft I saw here.
My comments on the value of proofreading prior to playtesting perhaps came off as more heavy handed than intended, and were meant for more than one person in the comment stream not just you Branden Leavens . As someone who was taking their first look at the skin though, proofreading is what I do first, with any Skin. It wasn’t clear to me from my brief reading of the comments just how much thought and care you had seemed to put into the Moves and structure of the Skin as a whole. Most Skins I see for the first time online have issues in them that often stem from the issue I mentioned last time, a writer being too close to see the issues with their ideas. With my brief initial notes on the Pixie, it was clear I’d made a mistake with the Darkest Self in exactly this fashion.
So, I clearly have some adjust views on the Enchanted Skin now.
On the Move Persuasive: Circular mechanics I find are commonly a sign of mechanics that just aren’t thought through well enough, sometimes a matter of the writer forgetting part of the rules that results in the circular nature of it. My issue with Persuasive when I first read I suppose was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction, but basically I saw that the power eliminates the cost of performing a key aspect of the game: convincing others to go with your plans. It means that you can continue to offer over and over and over without repercussion to your character. Now, my first though at the time was “no repercussion = bad”, and this is founded on the idea that so much of Monsterhearts is about forcing you to pay for what you want. Afterall, 7-9 results are almost always about getting what you want, but at a cost. Now I can see that you have put a lot more thought into this than I had first believed, and now I can see why in this instance it might very well be worth having such a Move, despite it ‘running against the grain’ of the game in general. Once I was able to give it more thought, I could see how it particularly suited this Skin, the idea of Cinderella constantly and consistently asking to go to the ball. Strangely enough I actually prefer the Move as written to either of the suggestions you offered – mostly I think I needed to be convinced that you had thought it through carefully and had seen the ramifications of creating the circular mechanic, and that the point was to embrace that. As I said so often I see circular mechanics coming about as a result of Moves not being thought through well enough. You, sir, have convinced me. I ask you please to leave the wording stand, as is.
A side note: I see Short Rest for the Wicked as something very different from Persuasive. Yes, it does present a circular mechanic of sorts, but as you pointed out the game is about character and player interactions and generally I see that if a player is driving the story in such a way that they are being injured until they die, repeatedly, then they are going to be dragging other problems and costs on to themselves. Part of my initial reaction to Persuasive is that offering strings repeatedly to get what you want might make an incentive for others to accept (as you suggest) but offering strings is (unlike violence) unlikely to bring a whole lot of other repercussions down on you. Some repercussions, sure, but not the same as violence.
On the Orders Move: I actually don’t have much to say here. As I mentioned previously I misread the part about the Enchanted gaining a string on the order giver. That right there is all the ‘cost’ that I wanted to see in the Move. I was seeing a problem that wasn’t there. My bad.
On the Enchanted Item Move: This is one of those parts of my comment where I guess I wasn’t clear about making clear parts that were purely personal preference on my part. When I said “I like what Enchanted Item does, but beyond direct reference to source material I don’t know that it fits the feel of the character” I was not trying to say “this piece doesn’t fit in the puzzle” so much as I was trying to say “This piece goes in the puzzle hole, but seems a little loose. I wonder if there is a way to make it fit a little more snugly”. The name was the only thing about it I had any real issue with, and it was purely a personal preference thing. In my initial comment I included my own personal preferences as well as questions on the mechanical nature of things because I thought it might be helpful to have an additional personal perspective to review in case it stoked your creative fires. I tried to separate the mechanical concerns from the purely personal preferences in my previous writing, sorry I wasn’t more clear on that. As for the implied magical aspect of the name, I think that was actually what made me unsure of it (actually that’s probably the best way to describe my view on the name for this particular move. I didn’t have an ‘issue’ with it, so much as I was just ‘unsure’ of it). I thought it might be better to leave the magical aspect of it out, but with a name like Precious Item then the player can always write in their own magical cause for it if they like. Anyways, in summary: The possibility of a name change was something I thought worth considering, so I tossed it out there. Nothing wrong with considering it and saying ‘No’.
On the Background of gaining a String on the one who Ordered you to hurt someone: This is an odd situation, because I can now see exactly why you made the choice you did here (again, I misread the part about gaining Strings on people who order you to do things) and I wish there was a way to make that clearer while keeping things short and succinct and open to interpretation. I agree with you in that you shouldn’t add anything like “and you hate them for it”, it makes it to clunky and closes too many options for the player. What I would like to suggest though is a small, subtle change of wording. If you change “Somebody made you do something” to “Somebody Ordered you to do something” that might be just what it needs to remind the reader of the effect of that Move and how it plays into the Backstory of the skin, and that this skin is different than others about how a situation like that would affect Strings.
Anyways, I hope this helps clarify and rectify things. I’m sorry it took so long to reply but a) It is my busiest season at work and b) your lengthy reply deserved a much better reading of things then I gave it my first time through. I can safely say that you have addressed both of the concerns I had that would have prevented me from presenting this as an option to my players, and I would actually be very curious to know what you changed with the Frozen skin before you presented it to yours. Was it the version 1.3 Frozen that you modified, or an earlier version?
Thank you again Daniel E I fully understand how easy it is to miss something and I again want to thank you for your time you have put into your response.
You do raise a good point that “Someone ordered you….” is better wording and is likely something I will likely change and update.
As for Enchanted Item, while I am pleased with how it work and somewhat hesitant to fix it, that is mostly because I find less problem personally with moves that might be “under-powered”. I can admit adding something to it might be a good idea.
I just can’t come up with a good idea. 10+ already gives remove a condition, and carry one forward as rewards so they are out. Giving someone else a condition makes no sense, a point of XP is too much and doesn’t make sense, gaining a string on someone makes the most sense of the standard rewards. I don’t want to just say “May choose the third option as well” because that always seems like an op cop-out. The thing in my head is my personally made re-roll mechanic. “When you roll Something be it stat or move you may choose to re-roll the result, you must keep the second result” I Like this because the gambling nature make a 7-9 an even tougher choice than normal while statistically meaning that a character will fail less often without removing the probability of failure the way a flat bonus does.
The other option I have though of while writing this is opening it up to be something that anyone who holds the item could use and not just the Enchanted. This would make the item, even if not the source of her control, something that others would fight over when they find out about it.
As mentioned above I would appreciate suggestions on it, otherwise I think it will stay as is
I will send you my comments on the Frozen skin privately. Again thank you for your time and effort and there are no hard feelings over any misunderstanding and I hope I did not come off too hard myself
Actually Branden Leavens I think you misunderstand me again about the Enchanted item: Mechanically it is great. I Like very much what it does and how it functions. The only thing I was ever unsure about was the name, and the mysitcal aspect that it imparts. One of your other players is obviously in favour of it, when I read it I couldn’t help but think that with a different name that did not have any mystical quality to it, it would open the power to non-magic character stories. Quite frankly as is, I like the use of the move. But again, the naming of a thing like this? Personal preference and the writer needs to make the call on what they feel is best.
Actualy, I thought of something you could do to make Enchanted item slightly more enticing – add “Carry 1 forward to pursue what your item shows you” just to make it a little more enticing.