Dust Devils: Old West RPG

[Mike Holmes]

I haven't yet decided whether to include or yet figured out just how to handle a betting mechanic. I'm mulling some ideas that let players place wagers for chips, which they could then use to expand or improve character abilities, knacks, etc.

The idea that strikes me is to use something like the Hero Wars Action Point mechanic. Then you play poker hands to determine who wins the Action Point pot. Each player instead of saying "I raise five" must instead describe some character action that is representative of the amount bet (not success, of course, just continuing action and declarations of intent). So, in a quickdraw duel, the bets might be represented by dialog as the competitors try to goad their opponent into drawing first, or just psyching the opponent out.

I see attributes as being like wild cards in your hand. You have a 5 Guts, that's the same as having a permenant five of clubs. The cool thing about such a sysetem is that you can actually use real poker rules, and play different games for different tasks. You might play Guts for a quick contest of, well, guts (any club set beats any non-club set as a dealer rule, the dealer being GM; see how neatly that works). For long, drawn out contests like a barroom brawl, perhaps you play Baseball. For potentially long tasks that might end at any time, play Between the Sheets. And we all know what you play Indian for. ;-)

Knacks might boost your beginning stake (more AP), or something like that. I've always thought that someone should do a proper poker mechanic, and I think that this is an opportunity to see that happen.

Mike

[Valamir]

I'm not sure I'd put a betting mechanic in the rules at all.  Dealing out a poker hand for resolution is a great technique but not exactly fast, especially with drawing additional cards.  I think that adding a layer of bidding to the process may slow down things too much.

In fact, for "quick resolution" one might want to strip it down even further, to that other classic cowboy game...High Card.  Modified for game mechanics deal a number of cards equal to a knack or trait.  High Card wins.

[Ron Edwards]

Hi folks,

As a general principle, I suggest avoiding inserting new mechanics for any reason besides a driving actual-play mechanics need.

Adding Color to the existing mechanics is another thing, and that might be cool.

One more movie reference: No Name on the Bullet (Paul Czege recommended this one to me and it's one of the finest westerns I've ever seen)

Best,
Ron

[Matt Snyder]

Ron, you make a good point. I don't want additional rules to weigh down the game. That is, I don't want ideas that make the rules cool, I want rules that make gameplay cool. I think that's what you're getting at.

The talk of gambling mechanic has got me thinking, however. Right now, I'm mulling over how to include some sort of mechanic to improve/advance characters -- namely their knack and attribute ratings, for example.

Right now, I'm leaning toward a very simple mechanic I'm calling "Stakes." For dramatic or significant conflicts only (a showdown with one's archrival, for example), the Dealer announces the Stakes of the hand. Very simply, I think this will be one or maybe two points a player can earn to improve his character's attributes or knacks. If the player's feeling particularly bold, he might go "double or nuthin'," wagering to earn two points should he win the hand, or give up an already earned point should he lose (obviously, he must have earned points to do this).

Stakes points might also be used capture a round of narration. So, players can spend a point (that they earned previously and saved) in any given round and describe the scene, even if they don't have high card. I'm also thinking about making this a sort of "fate point" mechanic that lets the player's character avoid any ill effects, but he must describe the scene of how he miraculously avoided injury.

Any thoughts, folks?

[Valamir]

That I like a lot.  It gives the GM the ability to explicitly state "climactic scenes".  You need to use poker chips or loose change for this that you can "throw into the pot" to signify the stakes.  The player could then "raise" by taking some of his previously won stakes and add them to the pot, forcing the GM to "call".

Plus, the stakes wouldn't necessarily have to be "improvement points".  The GM could throw alot of things into the pot.  They could be mechanical like points of "hero point" variety where they can be spent to draw extra cards etc.  One interesting feature of some games of cards is the ability to chose the Wild Card for that hand.  Perhaps part of the stakes could be winning point that could be used in this way.  After looking at the initial deal, a player who spends a point can name a wild card for the hand.

But Stakes could also be "story oriented".  The stake for this hand is Five Dollar Jimmy will tell you where the bandit hideout is, or Lucy the dancer will take a fancy to you.  The player could then raise saying "No, if I win this Hand Five Dollar Jimmy will lead to the bandit hideout", or "Lucy will completely fall in love with me".  The GM can decide what the PC must add to the pot as his bet.



Unrelated to the above but on the subject of rules in general, be sure to provide a rule that gives the GM the ability to grant a bonus card or two for good roleplaying or for having a second knack that kind of related to the situation at hand, that sort of thing.  

Also a great use for "Damage" would be to give the players an option.  Instead of using the Damage, the player could elect to take an advantage or give a disadvantage.  This would translate into extra cards for an advantage or fewer cards for a disadvantage.  For example in a fight, if I win a round with a pair, instead of doing 2 damage to my opponent I might describe how I threw a chair at him and now he loses two cards from his next hand.

[Matt Snyder]

You need to use poker chips or loose change for this that you can "throw into the pot" to signify the stakes.  

Yup, that's the idea.

Plus, the stakes wouldn't necessarily have to be "improvement points".  The GM could throw alot of things into the pot.  They could be mechanical like points of "hero point" variety where they can be spent to draw extra cards etc.

Yeah, I think you're on to something, but to simplify it, I'll just have to come up with a list of things that all Stakes points (or chips!) can be used for, rather than have separate uses for different stakes. For example: Spend earned stakes to: double down, assume narration, maybe earn an extra card in the deal, avoid damage, etc. Maybe even your idea about naming te wild card -- "Fours and Whores" or "Suicide Jacks!" Heh.

But Stakes could also be "story oriented".  The stake for this hand is Five Dollar Jimmy will tell you where the bandit hideout is, or Lucy the dancer will take a fancy to you.  The player could then raise saying "No, if I win this Hand Five Dollar Jimmy will lead to the bandit hideout", or "Lucy will completely fall in love with me".

Say, that's pretty clever. I'll give that one some serious thought. Either the Dealer can offer Stakes or "story" developments/interactions. Neato.

Unrelated to the above but on the subject of rules in general, be sure to provide a rule that gives the GM the ability to grant a bonus card or two for good roleplaying  ...

Also a great use for "Damage" would be to give the players an option.  Instead of using the Damage, the player could elect to take an advantage or give a disadvantage.  This would translate into extra cards for an advantage or fewer cards for a disadvantage.

I don't think this is really necessary, because that's exactly what damage does -- it subtracts from the opponent's abilities, which decreases the number of cards he draws. Remember, the attributes determine how many cards you're dealt, then knacks determine how many you draw back.

[Valamir]

I don't think this is really necessary, because that's exactly what damage does -- it subtracts from the opponent's abilities, which decreases the number of cards he draws. Remember, the attributes determine how many cards you're dealt, then knacks determine how many you draw back.

True, but I was thinking it'd be useful for a number of ways.

1) for those times where it isn't really apparent what would be "damaged" even with a fairly liberal interpretation of damage.   For example I attempt to cover my tracks while your injun scout attemptst to follow me.  I win with a 3 card hand.  It would be a little odd to call this 3 points of damage to the scouts "eyes".  Easier would be a loss of 3 cards to a future attempt to find me.

2) It may provide an interesting choice between using 3 damage spread out over multiple attributes that last as long as applicable, or using 3 damage to directly reduce a hand by the full 3 but only for 1 draw.

Just provides an extra degree of flexibility in how to interpret the outcome of events.

[Bailywolf]

You might want to elminiate the term 'damage' come up with something more colorful... er.... here is a fair place to look:

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~poindexterfamily/OldWestSlang.html


Basicly- when you include in 'damage' any kind of setback-  your talking about consequences.  

In my house rules (QAD- they evolved here on the boards), I describe three levels of consequence:

Minor- these don't last past the scene

Major- these last for a good while; days, weeks, months... they get better though.

Critical- these are permenant, and can only be recovered by improvement.  Maimed limbs, missing eyes, insanity, shattered confidence that leaves you a seven-day drunk with a hand shakes like a rattler's tail... or just pushing up dasies.


Something like a bar-room brawl in a typical western would be Minor consequences unless someone whips out a knife or something.

A running gunfight or knife fight would be Major consequences (death for mooks, real injury for major characters)

A duel- two men draw, one man falls- would be Critical.  Only if every party is willing, can a Critical contest be entered into.  The risk of character death is here... but in this genera, characters never die accidentaly.  Only be willingly agreeing to a Critical situation can major characters be rubbed out... or have the chance to rub out their enemies.


Perhaps by eliminating the idea of 'damage' you can better capture what loosing in differing situations actualy translates into.

[Mike Holmes]

As a general principle, I suggest avoiding inserting new mechanics for any reason besides a driving actual-play mechanics need.

My suggested poker resolution system is not just color. The idea would be to meter out narration as the betting occurs. The tension of the hand would (hopefully) reinforce the tension of the scene that it was resolving by linking the betting with the narration. Much in the way that the wagering system in Hero Wars does.

So, yes, play high card for those short task resolutions that aren't dramatically important. And use a longer game when it is dramatically important to draw things out. Remember, dealers chioce.

That's the theory at least. I still think it would work.

Mike