So, I dropped Phillip Wessels Pack of Strays on my gaming group last night and got a few takers (we’re a large group, usually split into two games. There were three of us, so we decided to try kind of a collab/GM-less thing. That worked pretty well. The issues I had, and maybe we were playing it wrong (?) is that we started introducing other groups who had territories in the city — gangs, faeries, a death cult… and suddenly it wasn’t wolf against wolf anymore. It turned from a game of interpersonal conflict and power struggles to, essentially, Urban Shadows.
The main thing I noticed is that there’s not a mechanic for the GM to make any kind of move against the players, which was especially important in last nights run. Being new to PBTA type games, and having never played Lasers & Feelings or Monsterhearts before, I’m still getting used to the concept of just assigning harm in a conflict.
So, to sum up, my group really enjoyed the game, particularly having a populated city with lists of names and places and smells. I just found that if the conflict extends beyond the pack that things kind of break down. I think this could be really important, because with a pack in tension like this outside pressure could really up the ante.
Just my (and Chuck’s and Marc’s) two cents. So, six cents total. Thanks for the game, we had fun! Also, it’s got me wanting to write an PBTA werewolf hack now, so look for that in the future, I guess.
/sub
/sub
Hey Edward Hickcox, I’m stoked you brought Pack of Strays to the table! This is a really great post.
Do you know what version you used?
There was actually an older version that did have different gangs around the city (different monsters and such), but the gangs got nixed. From playtesting it was apparent that they steered the focus away from the pack too much. Older versions had shared GMing too, but it wasn’t received well. I’m curious as to how you went about it! Before, it was that one of the pack was always off being rabid, and when another went rabid, the first could roll to come under control.
If you are looking for PbtA terminology, the soft move is to trespass with NPCs (you can find a table of “trespasses” on the 2nd page). The hard move is to ask how they feel and test control. You want to create complicated situations with NPCs in which the players need to act smooth but you are chipping away at their control; this leads them to messing things up with rabid impulses, creeping towards going fully rabid, and other pack members bringing those alpha strings into play.
It is very much like Monsterhearts in that it sings if you entangle them with crazy NPCs. I think if you focus on this first, you can actually move on to bringing in supernaturals and it will probably work OK (I actually like to have other known werewolves right from the start). I think if you steer away from the lives of the pack members and the people they are entangled with, it definitely becomes more like Monster of the Week / Urban Shadows.
Hey Edward Hickcox, I’m stoked you brought Pack of Strays to the table! This is a really great post.
Do you know what version you used?
There was actually an older version that did have different gangs around the city (different monsters and such), but the gangs got nixed. From playtesting it was apparent that they steered the focus away from the pack too much. Older versions had shared GMing too, but it wasn’t received well. I’m curious as to how you went about it! Before, it was that one of the pack was always off being rabid, and when another went rabid, the first could roll to come under control.
If you are looking for PbtA terminology, the soft move is to trespass with NPCs (you can find a table of “trespasses” on the 2nd page). The hard move is to ask how they feel and test control. You want to create complicated situations with NPCs in which the players need to act smooth but you are chipping away at their control; this leads them to messing things up with rabid impulses, creeping towards going fully rabid, and other pack members bringing those alpha strings into play.
It is very much like Monsterhearts in that it sings if you entangle them with crazy NPCs. I think if you focus on this first, you can actually move on to bringing in supernaturals and it will probably work OK (I actually like to have other known werewolves right from the start). I think if you steer away from the lives of the pack members and the people they are entangled with, it definitely becomes more like Monster of the Week / Urban Shadows.
Also, I don’t think you’ll need to have played L&F or MH before… It’s my goal to get trespasses to do the work for the GM. But they are not doing that right now. It’s the next thing I’m hammering away at.
Also, I don’t think you’ll need to have played L&F or MH before… It’s my goal to get trespasses to do the work for the GM. But they are not doing that right now. It’s the next thing I’m hammering away at.
I view one of the goals of the game is to look at the internal pack struggle.
For me this makes me think of every external threat in terms of “How does this external threat accentuate/highlight/cause an internal pack problem? How do I show this in play?”
The external threats are less interesting if they are just things that need to be solved externally, and have no ramifications on the internal pack dynamics. For me this often means, making the NPCs divide and separate two PCs. Either by making them desirable to both PCs (but can only go to one), or desirable to one, but harmful to another, etc. If the external threats are a problem for the WHOLE pack, they’re way less interesting than if they are a problem for ONE pack member but beneficial to another pack member.
I view one of the goals of the game is to look at the internal pack struggle.
For me this makes me think of every external threat in terms of “How does this external threat accentuate/highlight/cause an internal pack problem? How do I show this in play?”
The external threats are less interesting if they are just things that need to be solved externally, and have no ramifications on the internal pack dynamics. For me this often means, making the NPCs divide and separate two PCs. Either by making them desirable to both PCs (but can only go to one), or desirable to one, but harmful to another, etc. If the external threats are a problem for the WHOLE pack, they’re way less interesting than if they are a problem for ONE pack member but beneficial to another pack member.