[Morituri te salutant] Gladiator - based on relationships

[Tobias]

This is a little idea that's been bubbling in my head. Inspiration comes from talk about (C)CGs, Relationship maps, equal player power, etc., and the 'bag without redraw' concept once mentioned for YGAD (which is being stripped down to its roots and re-examine for the kind of play I want). As well, it should be a game where you can play a complete 'game' in 2 hours - buy highly serialisable.

Here we go. There's no GM, but there are 5 players, sitting around a table. All players 'are' Gladiators (in classical Rome, but easily adaptable to anything similar) who are scheduled to fight each other in an upcoming fight. (I'm not getting into the semantics of separation of player and character in this post). The rules are simple - last man standing wins - with a twist.

Now, the Gladiators may have all kinds of different backgrounds (pro, former soldier, captured christian, whatever), but they're assumed to have managed to live a year in the arena - this is the big end-of-year-blowout.

1. So the start of the game is a round of description, just in words, from every player, what their character is like (background, attitude, experiences in the arena, looks). Short & sweet - a couple of minutes a person, until everyone's done.

2. Then, based on these descriptions, each Gladiator picks another Gladiator which they hate. They make up a reason (for themselves), which they may, or may not, share with the group after everyone's done. It is possible for multiple players to hate 1 other player, or for players to remain unhated.

3. After this is done, the arena's evil overlord consults Fate. This is the 'twist' mentioned in the introduction. All players roll dice to determine a ranking from low to high. Players take new seats around the table, starting low and sitting down clockwise with increasing numbers. To each player's left is the person who is superior to them. If, for some reason, at the end of the fight it's just you and the person to your left (at the original seating for step 3) that are left, the person to your left wins (but, at least, you get to live).

3b. The players now write down their 'stats' - the game only has 4: Tactics (increases the range of options in a round of fighting), Strategy (allows you to keep some options back to make later combo's or hold on to defensive stuff when you need it), Speed (amount of maneuvers/strikes in a round of combat) and Hits.

4. The fight itself is resolved by players drawing from a 45-card deck in which are several special maneuvers, several offensive hits and some defense and a few fun combo's. The composition is slated so that it's a downward spiral - there's more damage in there than restoration, so people are going to go down. The mechanics are also set up to make sure the 45 cards are all in player's hands at the start of a round (so all of Fate is in the balance, nothing is left out). In a round, each player plays a number of agressive (maneuver/strike/combo) cards equal to his speed. After a round, all the cards are shuffled and distributed randomly for the next round. There are also 5 weapons which the players may start with, with slightly different mechanical effects. (I'm considering adding a few other items or 'divine favor' effects, or effects that will enhance serial play, see #6).

5. At the end of the fight, as well as during, there is a bonus if you managed to strike/kill the gladiator you hate. (haven't figured out how this works yet). There will be a simple talley of the # of killing blows you have landed + a champion bonus (who is always #1) to determine ranking.

6. For the serialisation of play, the next round (whenever it is played) carries over a little bit of the information from the earlier game. The champion is allowed to play his character again (or can retire him), so is the other survivor. They are also allowed first pick out of the 5 weapons for the next round. Every character is assumed to have had a chance to train some rudimentory skills to protege(s) - so players whose character died may start with a character with a bit of skill derived from any dead gladiator. (I'm thinking this should be something a bit more colorful than just an increase of a stat).

I'm happy with the card-play (or at least, there will be little problem fleshing that out and debugging it), but I'm looking for tips on possible other relationships that might be fun to add to the mix, and tips on how to make the 'pre-fight' part at least as interesting as the fight itself. I wouldn't mind if the pre-fight period of the game strongly influenced how the fight itself was going to turn out.

(Example: if there was a rule of 'double damage on the gladiator you hate', this would be a strong fight result-shaping effect from the pre-fight period).

References to similar games welcome. Comments on stuff where I'm shooting myself in the head - also welcome.

Thanks for looking, as always.

[Jason Morningstar]

It'd be interesting if in addition to "I hate X" there was also the capacity for alliances - I was thinking about the trust mechanic in The Mountain Witch, maybe something like that.  

If you were looking for a competitive, horse-trading vibe, why not let the players choose from the available cards in sequence,  in order of fate ranking, rather than distribute them randomly?  Or let them partially choose and distribute the rest randomly.

[Tobias]

Thanks for the feedback!

Hehe. Alliance is definately the one relationship that I wanted to build in. I'm finding it hard to do, in a 'last man standing' version, though, but it's good that there's at least the same desire to incorporate it.

As the card game is written now, it would be a huge advantage if there was some ability to choose cards up front. Maybe a 'redraw' instead, where you can dump useless cards from your hand and draw back up to handsize once each round?

(note that there isn't really an advantage or disadvantage associated with Fate score at this point, which is deliberate. It's just a method of seating 5 people at the table randomly.)

[Jason Morningstar]

I think even in a last man standing context, trust/alliances would work - they'd just be early, and temporary, and everyone would know that in the end, even boon companions would be forced to turn on each other.  Pretty fun and dramatic, in my opinion!

[Tobias]

yeah, that's about the result I came out with as well... and it might even occasionally not lead to bloodshed, if two neighbouring players had pre-defined trust in each other...

Right now I'm thinking something along the lines of: pre-define 1 other player you have trust in (or who you want to ally with - trust workst better, though, as it can be one-way).

Anyone may give away cards they draw during each round to anyone during the maneuver phase (face down) - he may choose to accept them.

If he accepts them, he sets himself up to betrayal (cannot defend against the donating player's strikes) unless the donating player 'trusts' the accepting player. The donating player is also defenseless against the accepting player, if the acceptor accepts, but will gain a hit/lifepoint if he's not attacked by the accepting player.

You cannot trust and hate the same player - but someone you hate might trust you, or vice versa. Or someone you hate or trust could be your right- or lefthand neighbour, causing all kinds of different wackyness.

Now to make the pre-fight play a bit more interesting than just setting hate or trust at will, I guess.

Oh, another point of note: there are two heavy strike cards (out of 45 total cards and 14 strike cards) that require you to use them, that round, against the player you hate. If you invoke/reveal your hate at any point to the player you hate, all your strikes are at +1 against that player, and if you hit him for 5+, you gain a hit/lifepoint (the thrill and morale boost of succeeding at killing what you hate). You might even gain more life for killing the one you hate.

[daMoose_Neo]

Watch any number of Reality TV shows to see Temporary Alliances in action ^_^

Actually, from what I've seen of Tim's Trust, that may work.
Might I suggest another step, a pre-match "moment", where the players are waiting to go "on stage"? , where by they can approach someone else and say "Listen, if you help me take Bob out in the first round, I'll watch your back against the others."
This could also be intersting- a character who does that, approaches the person who hates him but hasn't revealed it. "You want some help? Alright!" *grins evilly. Guts him in the Arena when the other guys back is turned thinking he's safe*

[Tobias]

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to Trust/Hate betrayal. And that perfectly illustrates why the whole pre-match setting of Hate and Trust should not be solitary choices, but created through some interaction. Otherwise it's just a card game with a few personal options decided on your lonesome (which is not what I want).

edit: this just gave me an idea... what if I model the whole 'year prior to the fight' (as well as 'pre-fight deals') stage by just letting the players roam through my house, free to talk at will (in-character), and only after some of that roaming, setting their hate and trust? (Maybe trust needn't be an explicit stat/designator, then. It all depends on whether the players/characters have gotten to trust each other through interaction. The 'donate card' mechanic is already open to anyone.)

Oh, and I should probably, in addition to being the champion, throw in a benefit for the one who lands the killing blow against the old champion.... ;)

[Walt Freitag]

As impressed as I've been with The Mountain Witch and other recent game designs that include relationship mechanics, I'm having trouble seeing the utility in this one. Perhaps it's my German Boardgame Enthusiast side getting in the way, but deciding whom to trust -- that is, what players I as a player choose to trust -- seems to be the whole point of playing out the tactics of the battle.

If I know that (for example) my character is not attacking the character who it would be in his best interest to attack (i.e. the ones whose players are to my left), due to the current state of the trust statistics, then what's the point of making tactical decisions about card play (what weapons to use, what attacks to make, defensive postures and so forth)?

I might change my mind when I see some details on the trust system, but at present either of two other possibilities makes more sense to me: (1) leave players free to decide whom to trust moment by moment in the combat, based on the current strategic situation; or (2) make the game a relationsip-building game instead of a combat game. That is, as you suggested in your latest post, focus the play on the time leading up to the battle when the characters' trust and hate networks are being built -- but then play out the melee mechanically, as a finale, based on those networks with little or no tactical decision-making involved.

In most combat systems I've ever seen representing roughly evenly matched opponents, rarely does a player who gets into the short end of a four-on-one, three-on-one, or two-on-one fight have much of a chance. Therefore, unless your combat system is really unusual, the trust issue (whether it's mechanically regulated or just whom the players freely decide to team up with/against round by round) is guaranteed to overshadow the combat tactics.

- Walt

[Tobias]

Good points.

I might change my mind when I see some details on the trust system, but at present either of two other possibilities makes more sense to me: (1) leave players free to decide whom to trust moment by moment in the combat, based on the current strategic situation; or (2) make the game a relationsip-building game instead of a combat game.

I've gone with a bit of both. There is no reward for explicit trust in the early game, but there is a system of donating cards (which requires inter-player trust because it makes you vulnerable). (this is your #1)

The early social game (about 25 minutes) is all about having the characters meet and interact with each other (and give a cause for character hate). (this could be your #2, but it does not translate to mechanics during the fight yet.)

If this current setup doesn't produce the effect I want, I will let you know. I'm running out of time so cannot finish the write-up right now (which I wanted), so you'll have to wait till monday... ;) )

Thanks!

Edit: thought I might as well paste the first ('social') bit of what I've written up.

GLADIATOR
the game of chaotic battle, trust, hate and fate.

Gladiator is a game of two experiences: the rough social life of those fated to die, and the chaotic time of do-or-die as you fight to death in the boiling arena, shouted on by thousand of blood-hungry onlookers.

You need 5 people and the deck of 45 playing cards provided with this game. You might also find a some writing materials practical. A typical game of Gladiator takes about 45 minutes.

You are all Gladiators in the great Roman arena. The reason you became one is not pre-set: you might have chosen the life, forced to enter it as a slave to bring glory to your master, had debts you couldn't repay, were a captured enemy – the reason is your own to think of.
You have been a gladiator for a while now – at least a year. You've made some friends – and some enemies.

And now, you are all forced to fight each other. To the death. Until there is only ONE (or rarely, two), of you left.

The waiting: trusting and hating

Before the big fight, there's the waiting. Sure, you might fight the occasional non-lethal match, train, or be forced to perform some duties, but there's always the big fight at the end of the year to keep in mind. Before the waiting, there's one thing you do:

Define yourself. Take a few minutes to think up your Gladiator's background, how he (or she) got here, what he looks like, how he feels about being in the Arena, what his fighting style's like, and possibly, the mask he puts on when he deals with his fellow gladiators. After everyone's done defining themselves, from that point on, during the whole game, they act like their Gladiator.
Everyone then quickly present themselves to the others. Have fun playing this up! Here are two examples:

(In a haughty tone of voice) "I am Maximus Minimus Novus. As you can tell from my elocution, I obviously wasn't born to be here amongst you rabble. Why am I here then? Call it a wish to prove that quality of breeding always rises to the top. I have no beef with any of you personally – I am just here to win, and thus prove to my soon-to-be-father-in-law that I am worthy of his daughter."

(In a gruff tone of voice, with an icy stare) "My people call me the Beast-slayer." (Folds arms across each other and demonstratively stops speaking)

Then, the waiting starts. The waiting is a time where everyone is free to wander through whatever place you're using to play this game in. Remember to act and talk like your Gladiator during this time. You might wish to have a chat with your fellow gladiators. After about 5 minutes, a task is assigned to everyone. For the next 5ish minutes, everyone is occupied with a task (assign these randomly however you like):

Two gladiators will be training together. They will go to a separate room to talk about how they fight, what happens, etc. Feel free to act out this training physically, as long as you take care to not hurt each other or destroy the premises.

Two gladiators will be performing some menial task together. The other three gladiators decide what this task is – this should be something simple like taking out the garbage, or getting everyone a round of drinks.

One Gladiator will have a fight scheduled (with animals or other combatants that are not the other player Gladiators). After the 5 minutes, this Gladiator tells the others how his fight went (skin of the teeth, glorious victory, slayer of lions, adulations from the crowd, whatever).

Another few minutes of 'free time' follow, and then another round of the tasks happens, followed by another 5 minutes of free time. (If you're having a really good time with this, feel free to continue this for longer!).

You, mighty Gladiator that you are, should now have a good idea of the kind of horsemeat you'll be entering the arena with soon. You might have formed a bond with someone, someone you think you can trust, at least initially. You might have even mentioned this to the other Gladioator. You might even have a deal. But there's no guarantee you can keep it – or will even try. Still, it's lonely and, more importantly, deadly out there without allies...

You might also have grown to dislike someone. In fact, the game positively assumes there's a foul Gladiator out there that you would like to see dead! Hate is a strong emotion. It might even be the one thing that's kept you going the whole year of waiting.

Pick one other Gladiator that you hate. Think of a reason why. It might be anything from "he wouldn't do his tasks with me" from "I entered the arena only to kill him. Back before we were both gladiators his father raped my mother, and I swore to kill him or die trying." During the game, you will have certain bonuses against the one you hate, and whenever you successfully injure him, you'll grow stronger, fortified by the thrill of bringing down the object of your hate.
At this point you're free to tell everyone of your hate. If you do, you cannot lie or fake it. Spit out your venom, and watch the other players take this knowledge into account. You're also free to hide this fact, for now, it will come out during the fight inevitably anyway.

Evil, haughty, wimpy or otherwise despised Gladiators may find themselves Hated by more than one other Gladiator. Them's the breaks.

Lastly, you get to slightly customise your Gladiator and his fighting style. The card game is set up to start with 5 players and 45 cards. The card game is played in 'Rounds' – every round starts by dealing out the cards (minus the ones held back by the players as part of their strategy) so that all the cards are in the hands of players. Each round is made up of four segments: Trust, Maneuvers, Strikes, and Defense. Each Gladiator has 4 statistics which determine how this play happens:

Tactics: Starts at 6. Determines how many cards you are dealt at the start of each round.

Strategy: Starts at 1. Determines how many cards you may hold back at the end of round to keep until next round.

Speed: Starts at 4. Determines how many cards you may play in the Maneuver and Strikes segments.

Hits: Starts at 18. Determines how many points of damage you can take until you are dead.

You get to add some points to this starting description: no Gladiators need be exactly alike. You're allowed to distribute 2 points between the first two statistics, and 2 between the lower 2. If you put a point in Hits, you get to add 6 to your Hits score (all the other scores you just add to directly without multiplying). This is the point where those writing materials come in handy.

The Glorious chaos of the fight: fate

(insert all the rambling about the card system, the trust mechanic, and the seating order: but then nicely written out. ;) )

[daMoose_Neo]

VERY interesting- pure improv, no mechanics involved for the first, what, 45 minutes?
Love to see how this folds out ^_^

[Kedamono]

3. After this is done, the arena's evil overlord consults Fate. This is the 'twist' mentioned in the introduction. All players roll dice to determine a ranking from low to high. Players take new seats around the table, starting low and sitting down clockwise with increasing numbers. To each player's left is the person who is superior to them. If, for some reason, at the end of the fight it's just you and the person to your left (at the original seating for step 3) that are left, the person to your left wins (but, at least, you get to live).

3b. The players now write down their 'stats' - the game only has 4: Tactics (increases the range of options in a round of fighting), Strategy (allows you to keep some options back to make later combo's or hold on to defensive stuff when you need it), Speed (amount of maneuvers/strikes in a round of combat) and Hits.

I take it that the "ranking step" is simply to determine who will fight who in  the game, correct? Since there are 5 players, who does the 5th player fight? Or is it #1 and #2 fight, then the winner of that battle fights #3, then #4, then #5?

Or is it a grand melee? Typically, the Romans would pair certain styles of fighters with other certain styles. A murmillo, "fishman" armed with a sword or a lance, a scutum, and a metal helmet, would fight a retiarius, or "net-man," who wore no armor at all. A retiarius attempted to ensnare his opponent in his net (or used the net to trip the other man) and then to stab him with a long, razor-sharp trident, or three-pronged spear.

On top of that, it was never to the death, gladiators were too expensive to waste that way, unless it was a special occasion. In any case, the downed opponent could raise a finger to ask for mercy. Have you thought about including that?

http://www.murphsplace.com/gladiator/glads.html

http://depthome.brooklyn.cuny.edu/classics/gladiatr/index.htm

[Tobias]

Thanks for the comments. :)

I like the 'pure improv' section. I wonder if it will 'take', though - it's combining two rather different playstyles. As I commented to someone - this game's not for everyone('s tastes).

The 'ranking step' is just to determine seating order (and thus, relative superiority). All cards are played in a somewhat chaotic fashion of 'slap em down simultaneously'.

I know gladiators are too expensive to be wasted (thanks for that catch!), which is why I have the game styled for an end-of-the-year-blowout. I did have my gladiators armed with appropriate weapons (net+trident, spear, sword/shield, etc. - and poisoned armspikes/strap-on claws, for a bit of tongue-in-cheek-Hollywood).

Thanks for those links and the terminology, though - I'm sure the game will benefit from some flavor!