The unspoken campaign

The game is running as smoothly as can be expected. Everyone is having fun, every week you get together, catch up with your friends, possibly eat some kind of meat-splosion. You play the game, push the story along, roll some dice, have some victories, catch a few defeats, you laugh and play a little bit too late and go home to get too little sleep. The next week the game is mostly forgotten, but here and there you think about what you are going to do with your character, how you are going to tackle the next challenge. Maybe you shoot a few emails back and forth before you pack up your dice and do it all again the next week. The game keeps on going like this for weeks and weeks, and eventually years and years, building up into one of those epic games you talk about for the rest of your life.

Or

The game is running smoothly, you meet, you eat, you play, you clatter dice and everything is great. Then at the end of the night someone says, “Hey I just picked up Whaling Red Seas, the game about steampunk space whaling on mars. I'm thinking about running it when this campaign ends.” Now you go home tired, get too little sleep and go about your week. Only now instead of thinking about what your character is going to do in the upcoming game, you are considering what character you are going to play, Martian dolphin shaman, Chunkor the one armed harpoonsman, Cogmartial Goodman hunting down a rogue difference engine? You might think of the minor quibbles you have with the current game and how Red Seas would fix them. You might email character concepts around, then someone might email you back, and soon there is a growing snowball of enthusiasm. You miss a few weeks of your current game due to the holidays or vacations, and next thing you know, the epic campaign is dead, and you are on to the next thing. Soon space whales are replaced by supers in the dustbowl which is replaced by cavity creeps the rpg... and you are a serial next big thing gamer.

Now I can't help it, I love trying new games and systems, I have long since accepted my fate as a next big thing gamer. However I hate that feeling when a game isn't working quite right and the game dies before its time, it never feels good to have a game die early. Perhaps it is unfair to the games that I'm playing to be constantly playing the next game in my head. It almost certainly is bad for the current game to talk about future games.

The long open ended game is great. I love the long term building of a character, the chance to build a bigger story, the freedom to wander down random little corners of the world. The short term game is great too, the chance to tell a focused story, to try new things, to maybe play a character who is a little reckless. We are telling a story together, and that includes the time not at the table. So we need to keep focused on keeping our current games going strong rather than looking into the future. Next time I'll try to keep the extra games in my head, or somehow find more time for gaming!

What should we put here?

Fez Flip is about two month in on our tiny journey down the well trodden path of geek culture internet blogging. I think things are going pretty well. It is fun to have a place to write about random topics. The constant pressure to keep on writing hasn't been oppressive. Most of our pageviews probably come from me obsessively refreshing the page, but we just started cross posting and providing other ways to get into the blog. I know that consistently providing interesting post that challenge our readers is the best way to grow the audience. So tonight while staring at the blank page I have decided to make a distinctly boring navel gazing post. Who needs readers? Instead of writing something cool, I'm going to write about all the cool things I could have written.

Something thinky: These posts tend to just be whatever I'm thinking about at the moment. I almost wrote about my love hate relationship with narrative rpgs, and I probably still will. These kinds of posts seem the most self indulgent but they are also the best way to get across a particular take on a subject. I worry that what I have to say isn't that interesting, novel or well put together, but making a blog at all implies that I think I have something to say. As to the point of well put together, that is something I need to work on. Rather than writing the night before I need a post up, I really have to start doing a couple of drafts. Look for improvement on this front.

Reviews: Fezzypug and I were talking about this tonight. Reviews are good content and I think it is something that we want to do. We are working on a format, or at least talking about one. So far I think we are leaning toward shorter overview articles without any kind of numerical score. Another thing we agree on is only reviewing things that we like. If we are talking about something it probably means that we liked it. It would be nice to have some kind of gimmick, but well reasoned opinions are more important than being quirky. I think reviews of everything should be on the table, movies, video games, board games, music, rpgs, food, beer, tv, comics, novels. The other benefit of reviews is that they can be cross posted easily and try to pull some eyeballs our way.

Mining: The mining articles I really like. They allow us to talk about things that arent' necessarily great, in positive way. And it helps show our process when it comes to filing away those game ideas. They are also easy to write because they don't require original content. We are just butchering a movie or whatever and laying out the choice cuts of meat. I probably should have done one of those about the directors cut of Nightbreed.

Adrift: Adrift is our series of rpg games that will never be played. I think I want to expand this into game that are beyond my capability of even making. Why stop at rpgs I don't have time to run? Why not talk about ideas for computer games or board games?

PC posts: There is a ton of Gm-centric material out there. I think because most of the people writing content tend to be Gms rather than players, but also because it is much tougher to create good content for players. Players have considerably less control over your average rpg than a gm, but I think this is a subject worth covering.

Now on to some things that I think I might want to do that require a bit more work.

Monthly adventure: I'm thinking it might be fun to try to put out some kind of larger rpg content once a month. This could be a generic (or specific) scenario. Fezzypug mentioned putting together NPC profiles for games. Those could make good individual blog posts, or be bundled into a monthly pdf. Or both! I have a bunch of background material from my short lived Fort Pitt game that I would love to do something with.

Videos: One thing that we talked about tonight was video reviews for RPGs, it doesn’t seem like there are a whole lot of them out there. RPGS are a bit tougher for video reviews in the sense that they don't have as much to show. Board games have bits, movies have trailers, but an rpg book might just be a few pieces of art. So I was thinking that an rpg review really needs a quick bit of actual play to spice it up. Is it possible to effectively sum up an rpg in 5 minutes of game play? I wouldn't want it to go longer than that. The big drawback I see to this is it works against my other big plan.

Samurai game dev posts: I've been working on this samurai western game for a while now, and it seems mostly in a playable form. What I need to do now is playtest the hell out of it. There are a ton of moving parts to it and I know for sure it needs to be streamlined. What aspects of a game to keep and what to cut can only really be figured out by contact with the player characters. There are plenty of things to write about it for sure. As my friends can attest I will talk about this game to no end. This is really the project I should be dedicating my time to, but procrastination reigns supreme.

So if you are one of our 3 readers, what kinds of posts do you like? What do you want to see more of? What don't you like?

Like a Boss

I was watching a streamer on Twitch the other day play through the latest DLC for the game Dark Souls 3.  I like watching people play this game.  I love the sense of exploration.  I love the loot that you can find in the game and the fact that a large portion of the game world's lore is actually found when you inspect each item you find and read it's description.  I love that the equipment is not just another sword or helmet, but it was someone's helmet, and they had a story, a purpose.  The enemies are almost artistic in their art styles and their varied fighting techniques.  There is artistry in the incredible visuals, the mind-blowing music, and the attention to details that many may overlook in a rush to beat the game.  It is a world that invites you to stay and explore, to become part of it's story.  But I said I love watching it played.  What I do not like is playing it.  And that is for one reason:  the boss fights.  If there is one mechanic in gaming that I dislike more often than not, it is the boss fight. 

The Dark Souls franchise is built on a foundation of wild and intricate fights with epic boss characters, each a feast for the the eyes and the ears.  All of the exploring and loot-gathering is merely a preparation to face these gods of the game world.  And each boss fight is a game unto itself.  Dark Souls is not easy.  It is not meant to be easy.  Dying to a regular mob is not uncommon.  But the bosses, they are on another level.  They each have their own powers and moves, their own phases (new parts of the fight that unlock after getting them down to a certain health level), and it is your job to learn the dance that comes with these moves and powers in order to defeat them.  I have heard of people spending hours and hours on one boss fight alone, encountering the boss, trying to learn a bit more of the dance, then dying, and repeating the cycle.  I played the first game, loved it right up until I hit the first boss.  Then, after trying a couple of times, I set down my controller, got up, removed the disk from my machine, and never went back. 

Boss fights are like nails on a chalk board for me.  I get why people like them:  they are the epic finale to everything that you work for in many games.  They are the root of the problem that you are trying to solve, and the quickest way to solve it is to punch it, shoot it, stab it, or kill it by whatever means you are equipped with at the time.  There is a sense of accomplishment at fighting something greater and overcoming it.  But for me, it is many times a jarring interruption in the gameplay that, up until that point I had been enjoying.  I am the first to say that I am not a hardcore-mode kind of person.  I play for story and escapism, not to slam myself repeatedly into boss gates that often seem thrown in because they are expected.  Dark Souls does boss fights well, but I don't have the interest to spend my precious gaming time on those gates.  I have played countless games in my decades of gaming and there are very few times when I have enjoyed fighting bosses.  More often, they leave me frustrated and feeling like I am wasting time I could have been enjoying the game. Don't get me wrong:  I have no issue with difficulty in a game. I even welcome it in many cases, unless I know that a difficult game also has boss fights.

 I know I am not the usual gamer and I am ok with that. Unfortunately, that means I have to suffer through the inevitable boss fights if I want to play many games.  And in more than a few cases, like the Dark Souls franchise, I choose not to play them despite knowing that I would enjoy all other aspects of the game, no matter the difficulty.  Many times when I have this conversation, people ask what alternatives to the standard boss fight there are.  Boss fights have been in games so long that it is often hard for people to grasp the idea of a game without boss fights.  But there are alternatives, and to me these games are a welcome breath in a world smokey with the fires of bosses.  One good example is a recent game named Deus Ex: Mankind Divided.  Though flawed in its own ways, the game sucked me in with the promise of bossless play, and it delivered.  But how?

Beyond the setting, cyberpunk, the game play of Deus Ex revolves around missions.  The beauty of the game was twofold.  One, you had a choice in how to complete those missions.  You could be stealthy or violent, murderous or pacifist.  All that mattered was that you accomplished your goal.  The rest was up to you.  And those goals included taking down someone with more power or thwarting epic plans.  But instead of straight up boss fights to decide the outcome, missions had you erode power bases or steal items important to the plans so that they could not carry them out, or had to figure out some other way.  I played the game stealthy and only killed one person the whole time and that occured at the very end, during what was set up to be a big final boss fight.  The beauty of this fight, though, was that you again had multiple ways of taking care of the boss outside of straight violence, and my method was discovered thanks to wandering off the beaten path and exploring.  What I found was a very game-appropriate way of taking the boss out without firing a shot, and I felt extremely satisfied with my conclusion to the game.  And there is the other side of boss fights for me: if they have to occur due to story, give me another way to defeat them outside of the dance of the boss fight. 

There are many games nowadays that eschew the traditional boss battles, thankfully, so my game card can stay filled without fighting more than a few bosses.  After all of my words against boss fights, I will say that, if they are few, are integral to the story (and not just an artificial game play gate), and offer me a way to utilize the skills that I have developed in the game, then I am not totally opposed to the occasional boss fight. Sometimes I even welcome it if it adds value to the story and is not some devious dance that I have to learn that breaks the pattern of game play.  But if the game revolves around the idea of the boss fight being the driving goal, then I will probably give the game a hard pass.  I don't have the time or patience to offer to those games.  For those, I will turn to watching my favorite streamers on Twitch to experience vicariously the thrill of victory and agony of defeat versus my gaming nemesis:  the boss fight. 

Ghosts n'at

We all know that Halloween is the best holiday. There is no holiday mandate other than to give out candy and dress like a monster. Giant plastic spiders inhabit our bushes. It's the time of year for horror movies and spooky tv specials. Cheetos look like skeletons and discount candy is right around the corner. Also I think this is the only time of year you can find bottlecaps, so chalky, so root beer flavored, so much love. Most importantly, it is time to run Halloween one shots!

In the ongoing quest to try new games, and maybe a little bit because of the promise of a prep free game session, I went with InSpectres. If you haven't heard of InSpectres it is a narrative style rpg. The players are franchisees of a low rent paranormal extermination chain, they are normal every day Joes going about the work of getting rid of ghosts and other nasties. There are two big mechanical twists that lie at the heart of IS, one is that the players narrate the outcomes of their successes, and the other is the reality show style confessionals. Otherwise it is a pretty typical ultralight die pool game.

Players taking full narrative control of the results is what drew me to the game. When making a skill check the player rolls a die pool, take the single best result, and if it is 4 or higher, the player describes the outcome. This is an exact flip of the conventional rpg, where the gm narrates the success based on his knowledge of the scenario. The player is encouraged to take the wheel of the story and drive it right off the road. The GM gets to describe the outcomes of failures, and all the the middle in between bits, so it isn't completely up to the players. I could easily imagine running this game GMless with some kind of rotating narrator.

The reality show confessional mechanic is a stroke of genius. I have never seen a potentially complicated game mechanic like this be so clearly understood and embraced. The gist of it is that a player may stop any scene and do a solo cutaway, as if they were interviewing with the producers on a reality tv show. The player can do several odd things during a confessional. One thing is that they can add characteristics to other player characters. Go ahead and tell the camera about how your co-worker botched the job because he was obsessing about his fantasy football team, or how you are so sick of your driver's inability to ever remember anyone's name. The other player is encouraged to role play this characteristic but not required, it is certainly in the spirit of the game to roll with it. You can also use the confessional to help guide an upcoming scene, "I thought this was a run of the mill cat. 2 phantom, but things got crazy when the Russians showed up!"  The players really seemed to embrace and make good use of the confessional.

Rather than genning up characters before the game we went with the recommended method of generating characters and the franchise at the table working together. Being in Pittsburgh of course we gravitated toward a yinzer franchise, Ghosts n'at. Karen ran an ex CMU professor run out for her crazy theories on the paranormal, Scott ran with a mythical Heisman candidate Pitt QB, washed up and living in the past.

We ran two quick jobs, a very short starter job to get the format of the game down. That consisted of going to the court house to eliminate a terrible stink. The gang had busted a ghost there the week before. but it turns out it was ghostly star crossed lovers that they had split up. It was quickly dealt with despite a poorly functioning robot. The second job was a little more involved, the players went to city hall to dispatch the ghost of a corrupt mayor from 100 years ago. The ghost mayor was out for revenge against the family of the white knight DA who busted him. The DA's grandson is the current deputy assistant mayor (Pittsburgh is has no shortage of government positions).  The DA had been sucked into a ghostly dimension. The players busted the evil ghost but didn't bring DA back from ghost world. So I started to wrap the night up.

That's when something unexpected and weird happened. Scott and I were both ok with leaving the night at that.  Karen on the other hand wasn't going to let it stand that they didn't rescue the DA. It was late so we weren't going to run a third job, but we ended up talking through what the potential followup job would look like. It involved time travel, finding the DA, finding out he had become his own grandfather and deciding to stay in the past. It was just a lot of fun to have the investment in the game to do the follow up, and since the game was a one shot the freedom to just brainstorm our way through the rest of the story.

All in all I was very surprised at how well InSpectres went over with the group. There is no way it could hold up as a campaign, but as a pick up game or a one shot I think it works pretty well.  Your mileage may vary depending on your group, but with the right buy in it can be a blast. I suspect that with a few more plays it will be easier to slide into the game's particular style. For ten bucks for the pdf it is a steal.

The Favored: Deadlands

Image Copyright Pinnacle Entertainment Group

I was staring at a blank page, struggling with what I should write about today.  There are times when the well is dried and there is not much you can do to fill it.  I started down some paths and quickly gave up.  Nothing was hitting me.  In frustration, I glanced at my email to see if anything new showed up, and lo and behold I see an email from a recent Kickstarter that I backed: the 20th Anniversary edition of Deadlands, the Weird West RPG that won my heart long ago with the simple subtitle, "The spaghetti western...with meat!"  I had just received my pdf copy of the book, and paging through the copy, taking in the new art while the latest album from the Pine Box Boys played in the background (The Feast of Three Arms, of you want to check it out...horror-themed country folk), I realized I might as well talk about one of my all-time favorite systems and settings.  So here it is, one of my top 5 RPG systems and settings:  Deadlands Classic.

Now, before you go off and google Deadlands, let me clarify which I mean, because there are two versions of the western setting (as well as a couple of versions of a post-apocalyptic setting using the same world and system).  Originally, there was what is now called Deadlands Classic.  As the years progressed, the creator sought to streamline the system and make it more accessible, as well as usable in a number of ways, so he created the Savage Worlds system.  The version that I favor is the Classic system.  Savage Worlds is a decent generic system but suffers the generic system issues of losing setting-specific flavor and unique systems in favor of lighter rules that lean towards bland in order to fit into a number of settings.  Though I would happily play a Savage Worlds game, I much prefer the older system.

Deadlands Classic is a bit of a mess, system-wise, let me tell you that up front. The combats are probably the roughest part, with each attack action taking a number of dice rolls to determine to-hit, damage, location, magic rolls if needed, etc.  So one combat can go on for hours, if you let them.  The system is also ranged-oriented, so the melee rules are a little wonky, at least in the original version.  A later update smoothed some of the issues out, but the system remains close to broken in a few ways, but if you aren't above house ruling, then you should be fine.  

What it does right is add a number of setting-specific mechanics that give the system its flavor.  You use poker chips to represent experience gained, as well as chances to change dice rolls, avoid damage, etc.  Since gambling is a big theme in the mythology of the west, you have to decide whether to hang on to those chips for that experience at the end, or burn in them in a chance to alter your fate.  To keep with the gambling theme, you use a deck of cards to determine initiative.  In addition, one magic class, the huckster, actually plays a hand of cards with a demon in order to cast their spells.  Those that hate randomness in games may want to steer clear of this class because you can get anything from an epic, god-like cast off of a hand in one cast, and a complete dud in the next.  But that wildness, to me, is part of the flavor and the fun.  Beyond these unique mechanics is a skill-oriented system augmented with a merit and flaw system to build depth in a character, and a way to be rewarded for actually playing to your flaws.  

Beyond the system is the heart of the game:  the setting.  Deadlands is the epitome of "weird west", combining history, magic, horror, and a touch of humor to create a wonderful backdrop to tell stories.  The best Deadlands game can move successfully from a straight western to pure horror as a normal situation is turned on its ear by something beyond the norm.  In Deadlands, fear is food for the dark entities causing the horror in the west, making nightmares real in an attempt to sow more fear in a bid to terraform the Earth in preparation for their eventual return.  Player characters represent the light in the darkness, doing their best to fight fear with hope.  Their strongest weapon is storytelling, telling everyone the see of their victories against the darkness and lowering fear levels.  Otherwise, fear can reach a high enough level that an entire area is claimed by the darkness and only the strongest can push it back.  

The alternate history setting gives game masters (called Marshals in Deadlands) the leeway to play with historical events and figures, giving them different outcomes or backgrounds to suit the story they are telling.  In addition, death is not necessarily the end for characters.  If they die, they have a chance to come back as a sort of sentient undead called Harrowed.  If they are chosen by a dark spirit (called manitou), they must play through their worst nightmare in order to fight the manitou for control when they return to the world of the living.  Harrowed enjoy some powers and benefits, but they must constantly fight the manitou riding inside.  If they fail, the manitou can take temporary control use the character to cause the very fear they are fighting.  

I could keep going, but I will spare you my gushing.  Suffice it to say, Deadlands is one of my favorite systems.  Is it perfect?  Absolutely not.  But the unique system mechanics, combined with the wonderful version of weird west storytelling it offers makes it rise above its faults in my opinion.  So if you have never had a chance to play or run Deadlands Classic, look for the 20th Anniversary edition coming soon from Pinnacle Entertainment Group and dive into your own spaghetti western...with meat! 

All those tiny glass screens

Nick Bentley over at  the Move38 blog recently published a blog post about smart phone integrated board games, and the general current board game boom we are experiencing.

Smart Board games in the age of screens

The general thrust of the article is that, A: Part of the board game boom is a reaction against screentime and B: This screen fatigue is a major reason that smart phone integrated board games haven't performed very well so far.

I think that maybe there is a different influence that phones and social media gaming have had on the current board game boom. Cell phones are ubiquitous now, we carry them everywhere. Having a pocket computer allows us to do all kinds of incredibly useful things, central to the use of the phone, we can speak with anyone anytime, can send messages and mail with incredible ease. As secondary uses go we have an array of applications that bring incredible utility, guitar tuners and metronomes, Appalachian trail maps and guides, sound and light board control interfaces, medical device monitors, every interest and industry seems to have benefited from pocket applications. Social media is so perfectly suited to the device that personal networking has surpassed the original function of person to person voice communication that phones were originally intended for. The end result is that we have created devices that are so useful to us that in a short 20 years it is now more common in the world to have a cell phone than it is to have indoor plumbing. We haven't even mentioned mobile gaming yet.

Mobile gaming, gaming on a small screen in short limited amounts of time pushes mobile games into a few design spaces. One type are the quick simple control arcade experiences, endless runners, flappy birds etc. Another big one is the turn based or time sink style games, things like clash, or farmville where you can just hop on now and again do your thing and let the game run in the background. Where there are games there is the need to compete as well, but the play at your own pace style of phone games also needs to apply to competitive games as well, simple designs, turn based, ease of learning and mastery. All of these design elements already exist in classic board games. So mobile developers are smart to mine board games for ideas. Words with friends is the most obvious example, just a simple scrabble clone that works perfectly on the platform.

So now we have a massive market, playing games that are essentially digital board games already. It makes sense that some number of these users are going to be reminded of the good times they used to have with board games and go looking for them. Back to the article linked in the move38 blog, they say that in 2015 the board game market made 250 million dollars, (still less than half the CCG category!) The overall mobile game sector in the same year was 34.8 billion dollars. So even a small number of mobile users looking for board games creates a big swing. It feels more likely to me that rather than people fleeing screens for face to face games, that our screens have created more gamer in general. This is a case of a rising tide raising all ships, only in this case it's the mobile gaming tide pulling up the board game segment.

Or more likely it is a combination of both unplugging and new interest.

So if I'm right we should see better performance of these smart phone integrated games. Well in fact we are seeing good sales from these games, when they are good games and the integration makes sense. To look at some of the games listed in the original article we see some winners and losers. Golem Arcana is often pointed out as an example of failed digital integration in a board game. I was at gen con this year and attended a panel by the main developer of GA, and my impression is that he is very interested in the potential of hybrid games, and as such they may have pushed the envelope too far, making the game totally dependent on the app, rather than having the app be a tool to assist in the game play.

Alchemists on the other hand was one of the better selling hobby board games of 2015. The phone in that game is used more as a tool than a game engine. It is used to randomize and moderate mechanics that would be tedious otherwise. Similarly Mansion of Madness second ed seems to be doing well, in Mansions the app manages the bad guys and the map, while the players work together against it. I think the reason we haven't seen more success in app integrated board games is that we just haven't seen that many of them yet. We are just starting to see them and everyone is learning how to execute them properly. It feels more likely that these games fail because of poor execution rather than a societal backlash against screens.

That said, I'm old and curmudgeonly enough that I'm not especially looking forward to tech enhanced table top games. I enjoy the pushing of cardboard bits, I like that you have to understand the mechanics of a game instead of having them hidden. These app games are coming though so the best we can hope for is that they are fun. From looking at Move38 they seem to be working on it, but seeing how they are making proprietary widgets, I can see why they would have a bias against screens!

Mining: The Exorcist (FOX tv series)

It's October, that magical time of year when everything comes up horror.  Rather than digging around, trying to find scraps of horror in movies and television, we get a banquet of content.  Books, comics, even music all turn a darker shade of crimson as the leaves turn and the pumpkins dominate the entrances to stores and homes all over.  On this table of bounty, I have been enjoying a number of horror offerings.  One of which is the new Fox series The Exorcist (I know, it will probably be cancelled after its first season, but I can't help myself).  I went in extremely cautious, and after 3 episodes I can say without reservation that I have moved to cautiously optomistic.  

A quick review before I do a quick mining session.  The first episode sets the stage and as such, moves fairly slowly until the very end.  We are introduced to the young priest, the old priest, the victim's family, and the victim herself. This is not a rehash of the movie, though, and the show makes sure we know this.  It also ties to the movie very briefly with an article in an old paper mentioning the tragedy at the end of the first movie. But this show is definitely a new entry in the world of the Exorcist, despite the initial similarities. There are some segments that give you hope that we will have a true horror series and not just a family drama, but it is really the last 10 minutes or so that fills you with hope for what the series will become.  I am excited to see where they go with this show, and if the horror elements of the episodes so far are an indication, it should be a fun ride.  As long as Fox execs don't screw it up...

So what can we mine from this that we can't get from any other possession story?  The one nugget in the three episodes so far that could be used for gaming purposes is the way the possession occurs.  Most posession stories show the posession from the witnesses and not from the victim.  In this show, we see the descent from the victim's perspective.  The demon is given a face, it interacts with the victim, and most of all, we see that the possession is not entirely unwilling.  We see a broken girl with issues that give the demon a way to work its way into her willingly.  It is not a hostile takeover.  It is a seduction.  What we see is a girl, hungry for attention and tired of being second best in her family, despite her successes.  At first she resists, but the demon wears her down, acts as first friend, then loved one.  This is so far one of the strongest pieces of the show, and also the nugget of rpg usefulness that I am mining from the show.

So how do we use this seductive possession scenario in our games?  From an non-player character (NPC) perspective, they are not a victim.  The seduced NPC that the player character (PC)s are meant to save may actually resist their attempts to help.  They do not see the entity as an enemy, but a friend.  Perhaps the way to defeat the entity is not an epic boss fight or intricate ritual, but a social contest with the NPC victim themselves. They must convince the NPC that the entity is an enemy and that it is the NPC's fight to win and not the PC's.  Perhaps the "final fight" requires one or more PCs to continue to convince the NPC to fight while the rest of the party deals with manifestations caused by the entity to delay or eliminate the party.  In this, we have more than a two-dimensional possession scenario, and one that can create more depth for the story and for the NPC, as well as the entity itself.  The entity is not some boring bag of experience points, but something with motivations and character.  A three way social contest between PC, NPC, and entity would be a highly entertaining final battle.

The other way the seductive possession can be used is on an NPC.  Perhaps the entity comes from a particular item the PCs pick up.  Perhaps it latches onto a PC when they visited a particular area.  Or perhaps the game master (GM) sees a particular PC flaw on a sheet that would be a powerful invitation to an entity to start its seduction, something that happens completely unrelated to the current game story line.  During play, the GM could privately send messages to the PC, tempting them with help or with ideas that could get them out of sticky situations (at some sort of cost, of course).  These can be played as social contest requiring dice rolls, but it depending on the player, it could be pure choice.  Accepting the help gives the entity another tick in possession, however the GM decides to track this.  After a certain number of ticks, the PC begins manifestations, then potentially loses partial control of their character as the entity asserts itself.  This could even happen in the middle of an adventure, so suddenly the focus is on understanding what is happening to the PC and helping them.  This could even set up a choice for the party:  help their party member and fail the quest, or finish their job at the risk of the possessed PC sinking deeper into the entity's clutches.  

There are a number of ways to use the seductive possession in a game, both on PCs and NPCs alike.  It creates an interesting dynamic, an enemy that can't be chopped or shot, and one that is not a brute, but a cunning and manipulative entity that preys on the weaknesses of mind and spirit that exist in any individual.  It is a frightening concept, much more frightening than the faceless, angry spirit that most possession stories show.  It forces a confrontation of self and of flaws that we may not want to acknowledge.  That is a horror of a different sort...