Hi y’all! Today I have an interview about Seco Creek Vigilance Committee with Keith Stetson! Seco Creek Vigilance Committee is currently on Kickstarter and sounds like a really fun time! It’s a one-shot length, western themed game. Check out Keith’s responses below!
—
Tell me a little about Seco Creek Vigilance Committee. What excites you about it?
The thing that really excites me about Seco Creek is how the situation balances on the knife edge. There are no easy answers and there are no right answers. In the shifting landscape of moral ambiguities every action has a reaction that pushes back against what the character thinks they believe and they want. Everyone has to find their own path through the fraught situation. I’ve run the game dozens of times; it rarely ends well, but it never ends the same way twice.
What inspired the Favor mechanic, and what kind of responses does it provide in game, especially in the one-shot format?
Players generally approach Favor in one of two ways. The first type grabs onto it as a way to amass power and directs their actions to gather Favor with as many Factions as possible. The second type does whatever they think is in keeping with their character’s nature and lets the Favor show how the world is reacting. Both are totally valid ways to play.
Seco Creek being a one shot means folks are less cautious about losing Favor and harvesting enmity from Factions. There is no tomorrow, so they go all in today. Conversely it means that if you’re sitting on a fat stack at the end of play, your character’s epilogue is looking pretty sweet.
How has Negotiation played out in game – how does it work mechanically, and how have players reacted to the level of control?
Now, if you want to start throwing haymakers and wrassling for keys, then you Negotiate. Mechanically, the acting player says what they want to come to pass:
I want to stop you from leaving the room, I want to knock the gun from your hand, I want to punch you in that ugly mug of yours.
The acted upon player says what they require to make that action true:
Alright, I don’t leave the room, but as I stride towards you, you flinch and everyone sees it. The Townsfolk no longer think you can keep them safe, and you lose a Favor with them. Plus, you get labeled a coward.
If the acting player agrees, everything stated occurs. If not, the players go back and forth until they can establish terms. If they can’t, the Judge (the GM role) decides the situation, most often to no one’s liking.
This works really well for most players, because if your character wants something bad enough, they can nearly always get it; you just have to be willing to pay the price. It gives you a similar level of control as Fate Points do, but what you’re spending is narrative positioning. Where are you willing to be weak so you can be strong here? And again we see a version of Avery’s Dream Askew mechanic popping up.
Is that a callout to 3:10 to Yuma I see in that initial descriptive text image? What are the inspirations for Seco Creek Vigilance Committee – movies, books, other games?
However, all those influences are secondary ones. The entire premise of the tense situation the players step into comes from Warlock by Oakley Hall. I’ve tweaked some particulars, but on the whole what you see is the set up that made me want to see it played out in an RPG desperately enough to write one. Warlock is a terrifically well written and nuanced book, and I’m actually thinking of using another section from it to craft a stretch goal…
Why a one-shot? What about this format really appeals to you and makes the game shine?
—
Thanks so much for the great interview, Keith! I hope you all enjoyed reading it, and that you’ll check out Seco Creek Vigilance Committee on Kickstarter, and share the interview with your friends! 🙂
This post was supported by the community on patreon.com/briecs. Tell your friends!
To leave some cash in the tip jar, go to http://paypal.me/thoughty.
If you’d like to be interviewed for Thoughty, or have a project featured, email contactbriecs@gmail.com.