[Last One Standing...] New Game Idea

[Grover]

I really like the idea of voting players off in a horror game, but I've been busy lately, and haven't had a chance to get my ideas down.  As a result, my approach is pretty different from what you have come up with, but  now that I've finally had a chance to sit down and write it out, I thought I'd share it.

Last One Standing (bit of a misnomer - the game can finish with more than 1 person still alive, and also with nobody alive)  [I haven't come up with precise system mechanics yet - square brackets indicate a place where actual game rules are needed]

Core mechanic - the vote.
Every player is a hero, a monster threat, or an environment threat.
Every hero has a hero point, which gives [Insert mechanical benefit here].
When at least half the heroes have spent their hero point, a vote occurs in which one hero will be voted off.
Ties are broken by previous votes - if it's still a tie, vote again, if it's still a tie vote again, but the tied players have immunity (if this isn't possible because the number of players remaining is too small, then bid [Insert mechanical benefit for the voted off player here])
The player which is voted off becomes a monster threat - they get to narrate the next scene, in which they must describe their hero ceasing to be a hero.  In the process of this scene, they should describe a new aspect of the supernatural threat facing the heroes.  They will be playing that new aspect for the remainder of the game.  Note that their hero doesn't need to die, but if they don't die one of 2 things must happen:
1) They join the side of the monsters.
2) They become incapacitated - from now on, one of the heroes must take [Insert mechanical penalty here] or the character will be abandoned to die a horrible death.
After the vote, the remaining heroes have their hero points reset to 1 (unless there is only 1 hero left - in which case he doesn't get a hero point).

Related advantages and disadvantages:
Innocent - character takes [Insert mechanical penalty here], but in each vote, the number of votes against them are reduced by 1.
Badass - character gets [Insert mechanical bonus here], but in each vote, they get an automatic vote against them.
(There's room for more voting-related advantages and disadvantages here, but these are the two that I see most strongly reflected in the genre)

Example of (well, not play, but what I think play could be like)
Zombie movie
Opening - Truck carrying radioactive materials goes off the road near a small town - the body of the trucker is mysteriously missing.
1) The zombie trucker attacks and kills one of the heroes (established fact - zombies)
2) The jock hero organizes a posse for revenge, but when they track him down, they discover a horde of zombies - there's a big fight, everyone flees, but the jock hero doesn't make it out alive. (established fact - there's a horde of them)
3) The cheerleader heroine realizes that she left her little yipping dog outside, when the town is under zombie attack - she foolishly leaves the group to save her dog and disappears. (established fact - zombies can see in the dark) (Note - this is a dynamic that I'm really proud of - in horror movies you see characters doing _stupid_ things - wandering into the basement, leaving the group, and otherwise behaving in a manner so that the entire audience can predict their death - this mechanic encourages that behavior)
4) The hunter hero starts hunting down zombies - he incapacitates them with high caliber shot, and then dismembers them with a chainsaw.  The camera zooms in when he accidently nicks himself with the chainsaw - he's infected, and gradually turns into a zombie over the course of the next day. (established fact - zombiism is an infectious disease).
5) The scientist hero decides that zombiism is actually advantageous - look how hard zombies are to kill.  He fiddles with technobabble, and eventually turns himself into an intelligent zombie.  (established fact - scientist zombie who doesn't just try to kill people, he's still intelligent, and goes around trying to turn everyone into a zombie too).

Bystander points.
Depending on the scenario, there may be a number of bystander points available to heroes.
Each bystander point represents 1 person or group of people.  
Heroes can get [Insert mechanical advantage here] by spending a bystander point.
When a bystander point is spent, that bystander is killed.
Threats can get [Insert mechanical advantage here] by describing how the bystander (or group of bystanders) dies.

Hero agendas.
Each hero may have an agenda.  Having an agenda gives a benefit to the hero on actions relating to that agenda, but all agendas give [Insert mechanical penalty here] when directly confronting a threat (this represents the hero doing stupid things like trying to take samples while under attack).  Each hero can have at most 1 agenda.  Agendas can have different levels, for larger bonuses and penalties.
Agenda list:
We must study them! - gives benefit to science related actions
We must profit from them! - gives extra resources
I will display my strength by destroying them! - gives benefit to fighting (penalty goes away if character is the only one left)
We must use them! - gives benefit to actions related to intended use. (industrial - technology related actions, medical - first aid related actions, weapon - fighting related actions)

Scene framing.
Scene framing rotates around the table starting with the first threat (the only player who didn't start as a hero).  Scenes framed by heroes come in 3 different types:
1) Unrelated - the scene has nothing to do with the threat, and is there primarily to show off an aspect of the hero.  Framing a scene like this gives [Insert mechanical bonus here] to the hero for that scene.
2) Seeking Immunity - This scene represents a hero trying to guarantee their own survival, without regard to other people.  [Insert method of generating Immunity level here].  The player with the highest immunity level cannot be voted out.  Immunity goes away after each vote.
3) Confronting the Threat - This scene represents a hero trying to go destroy the monsters.  [Insert mechanism for confronting the threat here].  Succeeding will create a benefit for all heroes who confront the threat in the future. [Insert mechanical benefit here] (Note that just because a particular hero frames the scene doesn't mean that's the only hero confronting the threat - all the heroes can confront the threat)

Scenes framed by a threat come in one type.  Trying to kill a hero.  [Insert mechanism for killing heroes here - should be related to the mechanism for confronting a threat.  Should get more difficult as more heroes are voted off].  If the threat is successful in killing a hero, the player of the hero becomes an environmental threat.

When a player is voted off, they frame the next scene, and scene framing rotates from there.

Types of threats.
Threats come in 2 types - supernatural threats, which are an aspect of the horror that the heroes must deal with, and environmental threats, which are some problem in the environment which wouldn't normally be a big problem for the heroes, but makes confronting the supernatural threat more difficult.  An example of an environmental threat for the zombie game would be the power plant being destroyed, so now there's no electricity in the town.
Sample supernatural threats:
- the monster is ...
- the monster can ...
- there are more monsters ...
- the monsters have found location ... (think Tremors)
- the monster has negated one of it's weaknesses (Dracula tricked the maid into inviting him into your house)
Sample environmental threats:
- Infrastructure destroyed (no power, no lifesupport, no water)
- Nature gone bad (too cold, too hot, blizzard, storm, solar flare)
- Meddling humans - must be from outside the scenario (i.e. not bystanders) (CDC has cordoned off the town and is shooting people trying to leave, MIBs come in and try to kill everyone who knows about the threat, Shortsighted officials come in and try to negotiate the threat)  All of these threats involve some effort which is doomed to failure, but will make fighting the threat harder.

Endgame.
The game ends when all the heroes are killed, or when there are at least as many supernatural threats as heros and every remaining hero frames a scene in which they successfully confront the threat.

Notes about mechanics.
Some general effects I'm looking for:
When a hero is voted out, confronting the threat becomes easier, and it becomes more difficult for threats to kill heroes.  When the threat successfully frames a scene killing a hero, there is no effect on the difficulty of those actions.  At the start of the game (1 threat, n-1 heroes) it should be very difficult to successfully confront the threat, and killing heroes should be very easy but not inevitable (greater than 50% chance, drops to less than 25% chance if the hero spends a hero point).  If there is one hero left, and the threat has not succeeded in killing any heroes (1 hero, n-1 supernatural threats), confronting the threat should be a virtual certainty, and it should be practically impossible to kill the hero.  If there is one hero left, and no heros have been voted off (1 hero, n-2 environmental threats, 1 supernatural threat), then the odds should be worse than they were at the beginning of the game (because every environmental threat gives the heroes a penalty).
I'm kinda thinking about a dual-level mechanic here.  There should be one level of mechanism for interactions which don't involve the supernatural threat, and another level of mechanism for actions involving the supernatural threat.  I'd like to incorporate some level of inter-hero competition, and I think a hero-hero mechanic would be useful, but it should be completely trumped by the hero-threat mechanic.

Steve

[shaheddy]

I love this idea - everything, the survivor-style, the hero point idea, reducing down to one person. I'm just wondering though - do you think it will be scary? If everyone knows the premise, they know that most likely their characters aren't going to last long, so they won't get too attached. The competition aspect between players also takes focus away from the scary threats: the zombies or whatever. Instead, the players would focus on the REAL threat, namely, the other live players. And when a player gets voted off, the other players feel relieved instead of frightened.

What if the "dead" players instead voted who gets killed next? Here's my suggestion: at any point, the "dead" players pick one of the survivors to target. That hero must do something foolish and in character (like the cheerleader going after the yipping dog) that puts their character in danger. At this point, if the rest of the group can attempt to save the vulnerable character, possibly using their hero points in the process. Perhaps you could forbid the targeted character from using hero points in their own favor - that sets up an interesting dependency dynamic amongst the good guys, with a party that cooperates lasting longer. Also, it creates a more in-game way of letting the survivors "vote" by deciding or refusing to spend a hero point. If the character dies, replenish hero points etc. If the character lives, rinse and repeat without replenishing points.

[arete66]

I love this idea - everything, the survivor-style, the hero point idea, reducing down to one person. I'm just wondering though - do you think it will be scary? If everyone knows the premise, they know that most likely their characters aren't going to last long, so they won't get too attached. The competition aspect between players also takes focus away from the scary threats: the zombies or whatever. Instead, the players would focus on the REAL threat, namely, the other live players. And when a player gets voted off, the other players feel relieved instead of frightened.

That's kind of why I wanted to remove the restriction that the endgame is triggered when one character is left.  Instead, drive toward *everyone* dying and only the characters' desperate attempts can give them a chance of anyone surviving.  Then it will be scary, competitive, and tense.  If you can hit the right balance of all the forces at play, of course.  

I like Steve's riffs on the idea.  I will comment once I've had more time to digest them.

Cheers,
Tom

[Grover]

That's not quite what I had in mind for the endgame -
The game is over when 1 of 2 things happen.
1 - everybody dies - pretty obvious :)
2 - every surviving hero succeeds in confronting the threat, and there are at least as many supernatural threats as heros.

So theoretically, only half the initial players are doomed to die, and it's possible that they all could die.

As far as fear goes - I dunno if I'm aiming for that  - If you want the players (as opposed to the characters) to fear the monsters, you need them not to have a sense of control over the monsters - which would tend to indicate a more GM-centered game, like Call of Cthulhu.  Note that players do not have a total control over who dies - in addition to people being voted out, the monsters can also kill players.

Steve

[arete66]

...that's why I thought there should be a voting out mechanic *and* possible lethality in between those voting points.  Otherwise, there's really no threat in between the voting points and I think that would be rather lackluster.

And I guess if fear is the aim, I've played in horror games where the GM had total control of the monsters.  It still didn't necessarily produce tension and fear.  (I'd say tension is a better aim, anyway.)  

The way I see the overall tone of the game is one of tension and urgency...as I said in a previous post, the players should get the sense that if they don't do something risky, timely, and smart, they'll all die.  A mechanic that supports that, say an adventure that has as many voting junctures as players, assures that exactly that will happen.  Unless they derail the "natural" course of events, they're doomed.

I've played horror games that support a sanity/fright mechanic adequately, but I was trying to come up with one that includes mechanics that create a sense of threat and urgency.  Anyway, that's my 2 cents for now. :)

Cheers,
Tom

[xenopulse]

Here's a thought for balancing the options of how many people survive, allowing for team spirit, and causing paranoia as well.

How about having a mechanic, either at the critical junction points or in between, where players can decide to divide their character's points (or whatever) between two things: defeating the evil, and ensuring their survival. The allocation is secret until the critical junction. Whoever has allocated the least points to own survival has the highest chance of dying. As soon as the players have spent a certain amount of points on defeating the evil, the threat is gone (but they don't know the amount of points). So each time the player has to make this decision, he or she has to decide whether it's more advantageous to try and end the game early, or to ensure that one's own character makes it farther in the game.

- Christian

[arete66]

Now that's cool.  I love it.  It's simple, clean, and gets rid of the need to vote "someone off the island", as it were.  That could get cumbersome and have the vagaries of favoritism, etc.

Characters could gain and lose overall points depending on their success and failure in between critical junctures.  

Maybe with a gambling element...the more you risk, the higher the danger and the higher the potential reward in points.  Which would then both help you defeat the overall evil *and* survive at the critical junctures since you have more points to divide between the two.  

Many checks and balances.  How much to risk in between critical junctures?  If you don't risk anything, maybe you end up with less points to spend on survival and defeating the evil, thereby leaving you short when the critical junctures occur.

Wouldn't you then just assign zero points to defeating the evil and put it all into surviving if you didn't have enough points to compete with the others?

Maybe you make it so two people have to roll off at each critical juncture...the one who assigned the least points to survival and the one who assigned the least points to defeating evil!  Wouldn't that be twisted?  Then you'd really have to think about how you assigned your points.

Cheers,
Tom

[xenopulse]

I really like your idea of gambling for more points... you take a lower risk in between junctions (but still a risk that others might not take) in order to have a better shot at not being the one killed at the junction. And that way, you have RP scenes in between that actually matter.

I don't think taking the lowest for survival and the lowest for defeating evil would work well, since then everyone will land in the mid-field, and it would take away import from the selfish survival expenditure. Instead, I would create a repercussion mechanism where, if players realize one character is out only for him/herself, they can disadvantage him/her. For example, a player can cancel someone else's points with their own, so three players can lose one point each and cost the traitor three points. Imagine friends ganging up on one another to get one specific guy killed! Maybe it's just my personality that that sounds like a lot of fun. Especially when that guy beats the odds and is not the one getting sliced&diced, and now he can gamble for major payback :)

And maybe some people would assign everything to survival and not gamble at all, but to prevent that from being a sure-fire way, you have to make the gambling rewards simply big enough. No gamble=3 points. Gamble=5 to 10 points, or something like that.

So, you end up with four phases: Hero Phase (gambling for points), Decision Phase (splitting up points secretly), Backstab Phase (cancelling other people's points once revealed), and Time To Die Phase (if evil not defeated, two lowest survival score characters square off). All phases involve role-playing on how the outcome is achieved.

That's just one way, I am sure you can come up with many others.

All in all, I think you have a great idea on your hands here, and I'd love to play it once it's in a playable stage.