[Rervoir Dogs] First playtest

[WonderLlama]

This game is described in the Design forum.  I don't know how to link to it, but it is in the topic [RPG Idea]Mexican Stand Off.  Keep in mind, I did not intend to be writing a complete game at all, and from the time I even thought about the idea at all until the time I was playtesting it was less than two days.  So this was a very pre-alpha playtest.  The real game and title are subject to very drastic change, and there may be multiple completely different games written by different people.

We played twice, but the first game is barely worth mentioning.  We all ended up dead about as fast as possible.  No one had any idea what to do.

The second game had five players, which is certainly too few.  We all had randomly assigned roles.  I will match players with roles now, but keep in mind we did not know each other's roles for the most part.

Myself - The Boss (known to all)
Elaine - The Guy with the Loot
My brother - dog
Vishal - The Friend (secretly picked Andy to be his friend)
Andy - The Dying Guy (known to all) who will die at 10 minutes (known only to me, because I'm on his left) who also happens to be The Rat (secretly)

If you've seen the movie, you'll note that this is almost the same as the movie.  Except there was no psycho.  That's purely random, and I'll probably never see The Friend pick The Dying Rat to protect again.

I had given people some idea of what to do, but it turned out not to be nearly enough.  I had told people to try to figure out each other's roles, try to convince each other that they had a good role, and protect themselves at all times with their guns.  I should have told them more, and of what I told them, only a little stuck.  So I ended up leading most of the game.

We all pointed our guns at someone, and generally defended ourselves, but we were more confused than anything, and no one intended to do anything.

Andy was worried that he was going to die.  He asked me to take a look at him.  He didn't know whether he would die sooner, later, or not at all, but I did.  I told him he was fine, that it was a flesh wound, and he should suck it up.  I figured he wasn't going to die soon, and if we all lived that long, and he was on my good side by then, I could tip him off that he was going to die later on.

My next point of business was to find out who had the loot.  So I asked.  Everybody seemed to think they should follow my lead, since I was the boss.  That really doesn't have to be the way, but it worked.  Everybody started looking at each other.  No one came forward.  Turns out Elaine had the loot, but didn't say anything.  I was expecting people to fight over claiming to have the loot, because that's the last person anyone wants to shoot.  But maybe Elaine was smarter than me.  It turns my brother was going say he had the loot after someone else did, and call them a liar.  If that happened, only Elaine would know he didn't have the loot, and it could have got bloody.

After we established that no one had the loot, I did some math.  There was only one card buried.  It was presumably The Guy with the Loot.  Andy had one card buried, which was presumably the Psycho, since I knew that wasn't in play.  That left a real good chance someone was The Rat.  I don't think all the other players understood the game well enough to come to that conclusion, plus they couldn't see my buried card.  I announced that we had a rat in the house.  And we needed to find out who it was before we left.  I tried reading people, but I got nothing.

I decided to accuse Andy, the only person I knew wasn't The Rat.  I dramatically pointed my gun at him and started accusing.  I wanted to get a read on whoever relaxed at that point, thinking they had a breather.  My brother followed suit.  Vishal, good Friend that he was, pointed his gun at my brother.  I would have liked him to have done some pleading that Andy was innocent or something, but he had never roleplayed before, and no one was really sure what they should be doing, so he said nothing.

My brother just decided to fire at about the five minute mark.  He didn't know that Vishal was Andy's Friend, of course, and was therefore obligated to shoot my brother.  I'm not sure he would have cared if he had known.  Andy had his gun pointed nowhere useful.  So Andy died, and my brother followed soon after.

That left me with my gun pointed at Andy's corpse, Vishal quickly pointed his gun at me, and Elaine had been targetting Vishal for some time.   I just holster my gun.  I tell everyone the rat is dead, so stop fooling around and lets get some food.  Vishal lowers his gun to leave.  Bad move.  Elaine offs him.

Now Elaine and I are left.  I know she's no rat, cause she shot Vishal.  She doesn't know if I'm a rat or not.  But the odds are against it, and if either one of us points at the other, we'll probably both die.  (When you point your gun, you have to give others a chance to react before you can fire.)  So we both walk off and split a pretty hefty payday, courtesy of Elaine.


In judgement, the game went proabably better than I had a right to expect, but not great.  The events that happened were pretty cool, but the other players' involvement in the game wasn't what I hoped for.  I definitely have some work to do, and I definitely need to give people a much better idea of how the game works before starting play next time.

[Andrew Morris]

How long did the game take, in real-world time?

[WonderLlama]

A little over 6 minutes.  The game has a 10 minute time limit.

[Mike Holmes]

This just has so much potential. Somebody dial Quentin Tarantino. Chris, you got his number?

Anyway, it seems to me that it's a cop out to say that you just need better roleplayers. I think that the game can probably be designed such that anyone can pick it up more quickly. I think also that rules that promote poor strategy, but make the player do something, anything, are a good idea. That is, the strategy of the game should be very hard and nigh impossible to come up with in the short amount of time left. I think that it'll be a better game the more random it is, allowing players to get really good at it.

I'm also still not seeing the roleplaying, however. That is, it still seems to me that if you just talk the rules you'll do better. For example, if you say, "He doesn't have the rat card because he shot X, so Y must have the rat card," it's just as good as if you say, "Well so and so must be the rat."

Further, I don't like that you have such a good ability to predict the presence of the rat or the like. That is, how about if there were two of each card? And then you can have players draw cards or something to gain more information as time passes. Still not sure how to link that to the narration, however.

Anyhow, I hope that this gets ironed out before the cons. Because I'm so definitely going to play this with the people I'm with there. We already bring zebra guns to the con, and I'm sure that the booth will see a lot of play. If you can make the cardplay a bit more intense so it requires a deck to play, I can see this being a huge seller.

Mike

[Andrew Morris]

I also think the short playing time is a selling point. Too often, the time commitment is a killer when setting up games.

[WonderLlama]

Anyway, it seems to me that it's a cop out to say that you just need better roleplayers. I think that the game can probably be designed such that anyone can pick it up more quickly. I think also that rules that promote poor strategy, but make the player do something, anything, are a good idea. That is, the strategy of the game should be very hard and nigh impossible to come up with in the short amount of time left. I think that it'll be a better game the more random it is, allowing players to get really good at it.

Very true.  This isn't a game that should be limited to hard-core roleplayers.  A rule that forces players to do something would be good.

I used Flux cards for the roles with pictures that kind of corresponded.  But only one player had read the rules, and my two minute synopsis was very lacking.  I need to write up the rules in a more friendly manner, and ideally the role rules should be written right on the cards.  That might make it easier to learn.

I'm also still not seeing the roleplaying, however. That is, it still seems to me that if you just talk the rules you'll do better. For example, if you say, "He doesn't have the rat card because he shot X, so Y must have the rat card," it's just as good as if you say, "Well so and so must be the rat."

This was the very first version of the game.  I definitely agree that you are right.

What I need is a way to encourage roleplaying without destroying the real time nature.  If I go turn-based, it's no problem.  But hectic is good.

Maybe I can come up with a real time narration bid system that can go on while people are arguing and pointing guns.  It would require a moderator, and put a lot of strain on him, but hectic is probably good for the moderator too.  I'm also intending to add manditory out-loud countouts when you change targets to indicate when you can start a showdown.  We may just see how far we can push hectic.

Further, I don't like that you have such a good ability to predict the presence of the rat or the like. That is, how about if there were two of each card? And then you can have players draw cards or something to gain more information as time passes. Still not sure how to link that to the narration, however.

First, keep in mind I was wrong.  Since Elaine lied to me, everything I figured out was worthless.  The only person I was sure wasn't The Rat, was The Rat.  The game is currently set up so you can't possibly figure out whether the rat is in play without trusting someone.  The intent is for it to be possible to figure the odds of some things, but if the game is working right, it will be way too hectic to do easily.

Two or more of some roles should definitely be in.  I intend for the set of roles to change from game to game.  And there should be a lot more roles available than just the 6 we have so far.  But I envisioned that working to set up different types of games to keep each game fresh.  I didn't intend to just throw every role card together and deal totally randomly.  Though I suppose nothing should stop people who want that.

Anyhow, I hope that this gets ironed out before the cons. Because I'm so definitely going to play this with the people I'm with there. We already bring zebra guns to the con, and I'm sure that the booth will see a lot of play. If you can make the cardplay a bit more intense so it requires a deck to play, I can see this being a huge seller.

Umm, yeah, well.  The Con.  I've never been to a con.  My friends have been trying to get me to go to Gencon for a couple years.  Maybe I should go.  But I have no idea what it is like, and less idea how to set up a booth.  Got any advice?

And selling cards.  Keep in mind, last Wednesday I hadn't even thought of this game, and yesterday I still thought I was just offerring Dregg advice on his game.  This is all going awfully fast.  It might be possible, but I'm out of my depth here, and I need to get my bearings.

Now if I do include more role cards, with multiples of some, with the rules printed on them, that's a start.  And I definitely want a random event deck.  Really, I think timing cards and showdowns don't need special cards.  But that might get to the 50 card range.  That might be enough.

You have given me several ideas.  I'll try and make them coherant and put them in the design post.

[Mike Holmes]

I used Flux cards for the roles with pictures that kind of corresponded.  But only one player had read the rules, and my two minute synopsis was very lacking.  I need to write up the rules in a more friendly manner, and ideally the role rules should be written right on the cards.  That might make it easier to learn.

The way I'm thinking of it, actually, it should be such that one player can teach the game just as you did, and have it stick. How many people actually read the rules to monopoly, as opposed to being taught it by people who already know how to play? Most games are simple enough in concept that they can be taught by one experienced player to the extent that the players really get at least the basics of how the game plays.

Maybe the game is at that point already, and it's just the pressure nature that causes people to stumble. Or a lack, as I said, of rules that cue people to take action. One of my favorite subjects, mechanisms often need cues for players to understand that it's time for them to make the decision to do some particular sort of action. My point is that I don't think that the rules are unclear, or that they're too complex. I think it's that after having them explained, they're such that the player is left wondering what he should be doing at any given point in the game.

Or, perhaps, the nature of the game is simply that it's not easy to master. Which is fine if the things that keep it that way are what also make it fun to play once you "get it." But these represent a chance to optimize the design.

What I need is a way to encourage roleplaying without destroying the real time nature.  If I go turn-based, it's no problem.  But hectic is good.

I think that turn-based might be cool. That is, make it so that the time that a player takes on his turn is part of gameplay. Sometimes you want to play fast, because time is running out. Sometimes you want to play slow to pressure other players.

Maybe I can come up with a real time narration bid system that can go on while people are arguing and pointing guns.  It would require a moderator, and put a lot of strain on him, but hectic is probably good for the moderator too.  I'm also intending to add manditory out-loud countouts when you change targets to indicate when you can start a showdown.  We may just see how far we can push hectic.

I think that's something you definitely have to try. I'm not sure about the particular mechanics. But the sense of pressure that you're looking to create almost seems to be the whole point of the game. The player should feel some of the stress of really having a gun pointed at him by somebody who might fire it.

As for the roleplaying, I'm tempted to say just chuck it. It might just be counterproductive to the game. I'd like for there to be some way to keep it. But with the high level of mechanics to playtime, and the drive to play the mechanics, it's hard. The only way to enforce roleplay is to link success to it somehow. But then you always have that subjective judging like you suggest with the moderator. Optimally you'd do away with the moderator, and find some way to objectively use the narration. Not sure how feasible this is, or even how to approach it.

First, keep in mind I was wrong.  Since Elaine lied to me, everything I figured out was worthless.  The only person I was sure wasn't The Rat, was The Rat.  The game is currently set up so you can't possibly figure out whether the rat is in play without trusting someone.  The intent is for it to be possible to figure the odds of some things, but if the game is working right, it will be way too hectic to do easily.

I get what you're saying. But with the setup you have, I think that the information is coming from very artificial sources. The number of cards remaining unplayed, for instance. That makes the game substantively different for different numbers of players. If you have enough, then you know that there is a rat somewhere, right? I think it would be more interesting if it was always unknown as to whether or not there was a rat. And if the information came from some more "in-game" source.

Two or more of some roles should definitely be in.  I intend for the set of roles to change from game to game.  And there should be a lot more roles available than just the 6 we have so far.  But I envisioned that working to set up different types of games to keep each game fresh.  I didn't intend to just throw every role card together and deal totally randomly.  Though I suppose nothing should stop people who want that.

Umm, yeah, well.  The Con.  I've never been to a con.  My friends have been trying to get me to go to Gencon for a couple years.  Maybe I should go.  But I have no idea what it is like, and less idea how to set up a booth.  Got any advice?

Several points:

[*]No rush on this. All I was suggesting for this year is that I have a deck so that I can play it with people at the Forge booth. It would be cool to have it in time for this year, but that might not be feasible. Think about next year.
[*]Your friends are right, you need to go to GenCon. All gamers need to go to GenCon. It is gaming Nirvana.
[*]As for a booth, if/when you do actually produce this game, just join The Forge booth. See the conventions forum for details. If that doesn't suit you, find somebody else to hop in bed with. For example, if you end up with Key20 as your fulfilment house, then they'll be selling it for you there.
[*]As for advice on how to get started with printing and such, ask Moose. Moose, introduce yourself. [/list:u]

Now if I do include more role cards, with multiples of some, with the rules printed on them, that's a start.  And I definitely want a random event deck.  Really, I think timing cards and showdowns don't need special cards.  But that might get to the 50 card range.  That might be enough.

Heck if 30 cards are all the game needs to play, that's enough. The game needs what the game needs to play. And if the game is fun, that will sell.

Mike

[WonderLlama]

As for the roleplaying, I'm tempted to say just chuck it. It might just be counterproductive to the game. I'd like for there to be some way to keep it. But with the high level of mechanics to playtime, and the drive to play the mechanics, it's hard. The only way to enforce roleplay is to link success to it somehow. But then you always have that subjective judging like you suggest with the moderator. Optimally you'd do away with the moderator, and find some way to objectively use the narration. Not sure how feasible this is, or even how to approach it.

Chucking the roleplaying might work.  The question is whether players will have enough to talk about without it.  But the only way to see what players will talk about is to try it out.  In my first playtest, players didn't have enough to talk about.  Maybe some of the other ideas will give them enough.

Actually, the idea for the moderator I had described had no power whatsoever.  He was just a glorified notetaker, plus he read some of the cards in secret.  But really, especially if we scrap the role-changing mechanic, the moderator wouldn't be necessary.  Whoever has control of a given random event could read it, and keep it secret himself when appropriate.

I get what you're saying. But with the setup you have, I think that the information is coming from very artificial sources. The number of cards remaining unplayed, for instance. That makes the game substantively different for different numbers of players. If you have enough, then you know that there is a rat somewhere, right? I think it would be more interesting if it was always unknown as to whether or not there was a rat. And if the information came from some more "in-game" source.

No.  The game as written calls for a total number of cards equal to the number of players +3.  That's exactly enough to guarantee at least one card is always hidden.  That number may well have to change for different sets of roles.  So you can't figure anything out without trusting what someone says in-game.

No rush on this. All I was suggesting for this year is that I have a deck so that I can play it with people at the Forge booth. It would be cool to have it in time for this year, but that might not be feasible. Think about next year.

When is GenCon?  Or whatever other upcoming con you were thinking about.

I can probably get you some kind of the latest and greatest to print out and glue to playing cards if you really want to try something at a con (unless it's really soon).  But it's liable to not be well-tested at all.

[Mike Holmes]

Chucking the roleplaying might work.  The question is whether players will have enough to talk about without it.  But the only way to see what players will talk about is to try it out.  In my first playtest, players didn't have enough to talk about.  Maybe some of the other ideas will give them enough.

Yeah, you're talking about interactivity. And that's key to where I think you should be going next. Right now the strategies seem very simple. I think you need to complicate them a tad. That might create the back and forth interaction.

No.  The game as written calls for a total number of cards equal to the number of players +3.  That's exactly enough to guarantee at least one card is always hidden.  That number may well have to change for different sets of roles.  So you can't figure anything out without trusting what someone says in-game.

I still sense that the distribution is giving the players some information that's allowing them to create strategies that are metagame. Might not be a problem for the non-RPG version...

When is GenCon?  Or whatever other upcoming con you were thinking about.

I was thinking of Origins, at the end of June. GenCon is near the end of August.

I can probably get you some kind of the latest and greatest to print out and glue to playing cards if you really want to try something at a con (unless it's really soon).  But it's liable to not be well-tested at all.

That would work. Heck, if you could just post the list I could make my own cards. I don't mind it being a playtest version if that's where the game is at.

Mike