I’m considering trying to DM a group of friends and there’s a concept that I haven’t found any rules for. How would player possession work? The way I’m imagining it is as a death state in the sense of ghost attacks cause harm like “weakened will” or something in the same vein and once it hits a fatal level the PC would “die”. On the topic of ghosts, PC ghosts can’t possess at the start therefore they can’t satisfy their need, correct? By that logic they cannot reduce drain till after their first advancement right?
I’m considering trying to DM a group of friends and there’s a concept that I haven’t found any rules for.
I’m considering trying to DM a group of friends and there’s a concept that I haven’t found any rules for.
To effectively possess a PC, you should inflict level 3-harm, Possessed. Take it off when that no longer makes sense. They should be able to resist it as usual, or let their body just be directed by a tormented spirit.
As for PC ghosts, they can interact with drain just like stress, except to clear it they must hunt prey during downtime to do it. So their indulgence carries potential risk, and they can spend and consume life essence, just not “possess” people on the fly – that’s special (it’s also their ticket to vampirism).
Yes, ghosts need to advance first and take “possess” before they can clear any drain.
That’s explicitly stated on page 213 in the rules.
Level 3 harm possessed like Mark suggested is a neat idea. It also means that the player could push themselves to act despite the possession as long as they still have stress to burn.
But as Mark also pointed out, you probably won’t get to do this to your players because resistance rolls are a thing, and most players won’t want to give up their agency. Also you can’t actually kill a player until their trauma track is full (unless the player is cool with it), and a death state via possession sounds an awful lot like death. More likely they would just hit their trauma after awhile and the ghost would leave them for dead and yet they’d survive somehow. Sounds like a great reason to take the Haunted trauma!
I could probably do the level 3 harm and have certain triggers for when they’d need to resist the possessor. Something like a potential complication of a roll or a “resist or lose one downtime action as the spirit takes control and does something”
Sure. I would be careful about the downtime activity stealing though; possession is super temporary and so it doesn’t make fictional sense to me but I guess you could explain it to your table to justify it.
Use the Possess ability wording about “challenging control” as guidance for when the control should end. Or wait-
are you thinking they might allow the possession to continue into downtime?
^re: guidance. The standard rules for the Possession ability work well when applied to PCs. A summary to help you use it in that way
–This is a temporary effect; until “control is challenged” – but the possessor can make a roll to maintain control.
Note that there are three ways a target can challenge control:
1. if the possessor consumed spirit energy from the target (the PC)
2. when magical shit opposes the possessor
3. when the host’s will is driven to desperation (you push them too far, which sounds a lot like an NPCs way of resisting, so resisting should fulfill this condition to effectively “challenge” it)
Basically, the mere challenge ends the control, unless the possessor keeps at it (and successfully). The harm is just to ensure its clear when they are possessed or not, and what the ruling is regarding actions they want to take while it persists.
* they need help or can push yourself
* otherwise they are essentially KOed, and they must “heal” the harm down with recovery, which is a loss of downtime action already)
With your wording on that it makes me return to my first thought of it just being a wound track. My second idea was more of a longer form/narrative possession, i.e. if it’s a non-feral ghost. The idea was that the longer form possession would be a clock to get rid of the possessor using the highest resistance dice as the dice that dictates clock progression, dependent on the power level of said spirit. For short term stuff it just seems more like rather than a traditional possession it would be mechanically just the method the ghost is damaging the PC. That damage could be healed normally after the fight.
If you wanted a player to be possessed but still have some ability to act of their own volition, maybe they could start with level 3 harm and have to push to act, but over time (successful LTP maybe), they manage to convince the ghost to body share with them. That could open up some cool abilities and knowledge for the player to have access to (you and your group could decide what that could include). Might be fun to try, though I’m not sure about balance.
Ah, thought you wanted more of a RAW solution. I would iron out any custom stuff live with your table if you want to create a different experience.
Either way, clocks might be a good way to portray a particularly strong ghost with special protection against challenges to control (e.g. start an 8-clock, Can Challenge Control). I wouldn’t do that as the norm of course (normally, they can just resist as usual to shed the harm), but it might make sense for your particular narrative.
If a PC is the one being possessed, and chooses not to / can’t resist it for some reason, I’d play it AW style:
-Tell them what the possessing ghost wants them to do. When they do that, give them 1xp, and +1 forward on such actions.
-When they don’t do that, give them -1 forward on all actions in contradictions of the ghost’s desires. Maybe make them burn 1 stress if you really want to be harsh about it.
-Make very clear what they have to do to get rid of the ghost, and limit the ghost’s ability. It may get to push the PC 3x, or 5x, or have an 8-count clock or something, but it doesn’t ride them forever.
The carrot-and-stick will result in a tug-of-war between the PC and the ghost as they wrestle for control, but MUCH more importantly: it leaves player agency entirely intact. If they’re “possessed,” they can embrace it whole-hog to swallow up delicious XP candy, or if they really hate it, they can burn some player resources to keep them acting free while they chase down a Whisper.
This approach is championed in AW and other PbtAs for an important reason: these games don’t suck because they’re about the player characters and the people playing them. Player Agency is paramount, because every rule in the game has one goal: get players to say cool, interesting things that surprise and entertain them and the people around them. When you compromise player agency, you significantly deteriorate their ability to participate in the game, and thus derive enjoyment. I’m going to say that again for emphasis, taking away control of a PC usually ruins the experience for the person, your friend, sitting next to you at the table and playing the game. Don’t ruin their game.
Whatever fictional reason you think you have – don’t. I’d say it’s tantamount to killing their PC, but it’s not, because in this game even death just changes your playbook. Stress exists just to mechanize the player’s ability to say, “No, GM. Just goddamn No. That’s not happening.” This game double-dips on mechanical solutions to ensure the player never loses agency. Carrot-and-stick them; don’t take away their ability to control their PC.
The long-form possession was never gonna be something that was irresistible it was something that would build a deal of stress up as a sense of how the battle of wills would be a taxing experience on the PC. If they wanted to see what the ghost would do then they can choose not to resist. Keep in mind the way I’m considering doing it is influenced by how our group tends to do things in other tabletop games.
J Stein Multiple problems with that. The players retain their agency through the ability to resist. No need to take extra steps to sidestep that.
The division of narrative power in Blades is quite a bit different from AW. Isn’t your idea about the GM saying what will be “reasonable solutions to the problem” of possession subverting the players’ power to have final say? (see p.6)
They also already get rewarded for saying cool and interesting things by resisting – or not – or whatever they do next. Isn’t what you are doing with the XP candy machine already covered by the fact they might express their beliefs, drives, heritage, or background with their actions (or inaction) – or struggle with a vice like “spiritual vacations” – or easily justify they’ve been dealing with challenges above their current station?