[Witch Trails] poker conflict resolution

[Marshall Burns]

First, I have to admit that I got this idea from Dogs in the Vineyard.  Once I had the idea, I started building a game around it, and that game is Witch Trails, and it's about a clandestine, government-funded militia in the 19th century (and turn of the 20th century) whose mission it was to clear the American frontier of heathen spirits so that it would be safe for pioneers and settlers to move in.  Basically, as it's been pointed out to me, X-Files in the Old West.

The resolution mechanic itself is meant to parallel the sort of conflicts you see in Western flicks:  someone starts it with a threat or a mean-spirited comment, and there's lots of bluff and bluster back and forth, tension and emotions rising until finally it explodes into a quick, often violent, decisive exchange of words and/or blows that either leaves one guy lickin' his wounds and the other more or less triumphant, or leaves them both in a world of hurt.

Instead of dice, it uses a deck of playing cards (52, plus 2 jokers).  The characters have 4 stats (called Qualities) -- Vigor (strength & toughness), Wits (intelligence & alertness), Touch (speed & finesse), and Sand (guts, will, sheer piss 'n vinegar) -- each of which is related to a suit of cards -- hearts, spades, diamonds, and clubs, respectively.  The Qualities range from -2 to +2.  Characters also have a number of Chips, represented by poker chips or some manner of substitute, that are their basic resource for impacting the game world.  Think of it as stamina, provisions, ammunition, all rolled into one.  The Chips are used in a betting mechanic similar to poker (the betting is explained for people unfamiliar with poker).

Now, as for the conflict mechanic itself, here's the outline of how it works:
1. The Ante
2. The Draw
3. The Escalation
4. The Showdown
5. The Exchange
6. The Washout

THE ANTE
When someone wants to start a conflict, they announce their intent and their character's initiating action, then "Ante Up" a number of chips into the center of the table ("The Pot").  There is no limit to the amount of chips you may ante.  After that, all entities with a stake in the starting conflict have to match ("Call") that ante, or else they can have no impact on the outcome of the conflict.
Declining to Call the ante effectively means that your character takes it on the chin without any defensive effort.  So, if the conflict is physical, the character takes the beating without fighting back; if the conflict is verbal, the character yields to the initiator's will without an argument.  But the severity of the outcome is determined by how many chips are in the pot, so backing down at the ante can be a good way to keep the hurt at a minimum.

THE DRAW
The entities involved in the conflict are then dealt 5 cards facedown apiece.  From those 5 cards, they select one to keep and discard the other four (all cards still facedown).

Here's the catch:  the suit of the card delineates what course of action you can use to resolve the conflict.  That is, if it's Hearts, you have to use your Vigor; if it's Clubs, you have to use your Sand; and so on.  You want to be sure to pick one that you have a plan for, because if you get all the way to the Showdown and can't think of a course of action that makes sense with your card, you forfeit the win to the feller who came second. 

Note that your course of action is not required to exclude the other three Qualities; it merely must feature the Quality matching the card played as its key element.  And jokers are wildcards, so you get carte blanche as to how you do it if you play a joker.

THE ESCALATION
This is where it gets interestin'.  At this point the stakes start rising, and the tension along with it, until someone backs down or the bets square.
Starting with the initiator, the involved players start betting in turn around the table.  Since everyone ante'd the same amount, at this point the bets are even, and the first in the rotation can add to the stakes by putting more of his/her chips into the pot (a "Raise"), or he/she can defer to the next player (a "Check").  Anytime the bets are even (that is, the pot has not been Raised since your last bet) you can Check.  As for Raising, there's a 3-chip Limit.

If the stakes have been Raised, on your turn you must either match their bet ("Call") or drop out of the conflict ("Fold").  Folding means you forfeit any chips you have already bet, and you lose your chance at deciding the outcome, but it also means you prevent yourself from losing any more chips.
Once you've Called a bet, you can Raise it even further.

All actions in the Escalation should be accompanied by the player narrating the action his/her character performs in-game to represent the betting action (see the examples later in this section).

For every 5 chips that are added to the central pot in this stage, the Dealer puts one chip from the bank into a second pot over to the side; this is the Counter Pot.  You also have an option to bet directly into the Counter Pot instead of the main pot; this is a way of hedging (or copperin', in cowboy parlance) your bets, as will be explained below.

The Escalation ends when the rotation gets back around to the initiator and he/she Calls without Raising (squaring the bets).

THE SHOWDOWN
This is the moment of truth, when we find out who comes out on top.  All players that are still "in" (haven't Folded) now lay their card face-up so that everyone can see it.  To determine the winner, take the face value of a player's card and add the value of their character's corresponding Quality.  You also add the values of any Specialties (skills and abilities, ranked +1 or +2) that are going to be used.

THE EXCHANGE
This is where the winner of the conflict describes the manner in which he/she did it and its direct effect on his/her opponent.  The amount in the main pot indicates the severity.  The higher the stakes, the more intense the outcome:  under 10 is pussy-footin' around while 50 and over is a real barn-burner.  This first part of the exchange is narrated and controlled by the winner of the conflict, but if it doesn't jibe with the stakes, the GM may have to step in and call for changes.

The second part of the Exchange is the Counter.  This part is controlled by the loser of the conflict, and its intensity is based on the size of the Counter Pot.  You could bet so heavily into the Counter Pot during the Escalation that you would accomplish your goal in the Conflict even when losing, although you'll pay through the nose for it (an example would be sustaining an opponent's shot in a duel to give you enough time to aim your own shot).  The actual action of the Counter may occur before or after the main action of the Exchange, as long as it does not contradict the actions already declared.

In an Exchange involving more than two entities, each one can act against opponents with lower scores.  The narration should begin with players with lower scores and moving up to the entity with the highest score.  All of these actions carry the full intensity indicated by the pot size.  However, the entity with the lowest score may only Counter.

THE WASHOUT
This is narrated by the GM.  This is where we see the aftermath of the conflict's resolution.  Maybe some stray bullets hit a bystander, or a weakened structure collapsed, or the bartender's sick of you tearing up his bar and he's getting his shotgun.  The nature of the Washout varies on the situation, but, like the Exchange, tends to be more intense the higher the stakes of the conflict were. 


There's a few other rules and guidelines, but that's the gist of it.

So, I'm really excited about this mechanic.  It's totally different from anything I've ever designed or played before, and I think it's really cool and would nicely model the Western-flick-style conflicts it's intended to model.  But I haven't yet had the opportunity to test it, and there's always a bug somewhere.

Does anyone foresee any problems with it? 

(If you want to see the other rules and the context of the whole thing, I've got a first draft of the game text that you can grab from this link: http://www.angelfire.com/indie/btw/witch_trails_text.doc -- it's in a Word document format, and thanks to the magic of Microsoft will probably look entirely different on your computer than mine, but there it is)

[Seth M. Drebitko]

I tried to check out your main page out but anglefire responds with an error page. In regards to what I can see so far the game looks pretty tight, I like flow of resolution. Other than general opinions are there any specific concerns you have regarding the game?
Regards, Seth

[Marshall Burns]

Ack!  Man, that's embarassing.  I can see from my site data that other people must have tried too.  Sorry, everyone, I should have tested the damned thing first.

Here's a link that should work:
http://www.angelfire.com/indie/btw/witchtrails.html
It'll take you to a page from which there are links to the text.  Unfortunately, there is a (single) pop-up.  Please don't shoot me, I'm just poor.

Thank you for letting me know that was broken!

As for specific concerns with the game...
I don't really know.  I'm very happy with the way it looks, but I know from experience that the first draft of anything is never right (not even Jack Kerouac actually pulled it off).

I'm partially concerned with how accessible the poker mechanics will be, will people complain about "a game within a game, can't we just roleplay," but I really don't care about that.  If they dislike the game for such a superficial reason, I don't care.  But if they don't like it because it doesn't work then I'd care.

I think the magic system might be a bit inaccessible, but I don't think I care about that either, as long as it works like it's supposed to.

I really need to playtest it, but I'm having a devil of a time getting enough people.

-Marshall

[Seth M. Drebitko]

I will read through as I get time, and give some feed back once I have gotten a bit further into things. First impression I would say that weird wavy font used for narration is kinda hard to read sometimes. I would advise to make it an easier read a font like http://www.urbanfonts.com/fonts/Freebooter.htm or some thing along those lines. Like I said though once I have a better grip on the game itself I will post back.
Regards, Seth

[Marshall Burns]

I didn't use any wavy fonts.  It would appear that I used a font that you don't have, so the program is substituting it with something else.  That's the magic of Microsoft for you.

-Marshall

[jag]

I think both the setting, and the idea of the mechanic, are very compelling.  I very much like the fact that players can choose how they want to contest the outcome -- via their wits, guts, etc.  However, i'd have two concerns (neither of which might bother you):

1. Your quality modifiers (+-2) are paltry compared to the random distribution of the cards (2-14).  That means, if it gets to the call, the outcome is primarily luck (a la poker).  This isn't inherently a bad thing, but it means that your conception of your character (he's a grizzled and wily old veteran) has little effect on the resolution.  If you're looking for strong character conception, this might be a hindrance.

2. Poker is a game of skill and experience, as well as chance.  Thus players who are very good poker players will have a significant advantage.  Again, this isn't inherently a bad thing, but it might get frustrating if the other players (or even the GM) are far better poker players than you are.  Combined with point 1, you may well have far superior characters defeated by superior players with far inferior characters.

One possible resolution to these is to change how Qualities affect the outcome.  Something that came to mind that i like is that your relevant Quality affects the cards you can use/keep/exchange.  Maybe something like you are dealt 5 cards, which stay in your hand.  When the final resolution happens, you can use as many cards as your quality + 1 (ie, if i have a 0 Touch but +1 Sand, i can use two clubs but only 1 diamond.)  Combine with chances to exchange cards (or a hold 'em/stud mechanic of slowly revealing cards) could lead to a very interesting dynamic, in which characters with higher qualities have a strong advantage, but still need the luck and skill to use it.

The more i think about it, the more i really like the fact that you can oppose your opponent's wits with your vigor, but only to the extent circumstances permit.

james

[Marshall Burns]

James,

You raise some good points.

Regarding point #1:
The small Quality values were intentional; running some statistical tests, I found that it could become very difficult to beat someone with +4 or higher on a Quality, more difficult than I wanted it to be for one human to beat another human (when it comes to spirits and fearsome critters, this is a different matter).  But for the grizzled old veteran, there's also Specialties that can be added, if they apply.  (Although the veteran's main advantage is his number of Chips)

Basically, what I wanted is that it doesn't matter how big the guy is,or how smart the guy is, but whether or not you "play your cards right," literally and figuratively.  (Again, with spirits and fearsome critters it's a different matter.)

Regarding point #2:
Human characters are, stat-wise, mostly equal.  This is because, as part of my vision of the setting, I wanted all the people to be more-or-less equal.  I don't want any unstoppable juggernauts, I want human fragility.  So there will very rarely be a superior character and an inferior character.

Your suggestion about using multiple cards, the number based on Qualities, is interesting.  I might have to try it.  My only concern is that the numbers might get too large -- that is, it may be too easy to get into a position where you're unstoppable.

I'm gonna keep thinking over these things.  I'll get back to you if I have any epiphanies or revelations.
-Marshall

[Guy Srinivasan]

Regarding just the poker mechanics, there are a few things that caught my eye.

1) What happens if no one matches an ante or if no one calls a raise? Are the chips spent or not?

2) The ante is any size, the raise cap is 3. I'd be interested in hearing the rationale behind this. The examples show the ante freedom can be used by the Dealer to establish that a conflict will have high Washout no matter the betting, is the raise cap 3 to prevent the final pot from becoming too large, or to help the Dealer keep track of the Counter, or all or none of the above?

3) It appears that only the initiator of a conflict can end the conflict ("The Escalation ends when the rotation gets back around to the initiator and he/she Calls without Raising (squaring the bets).", and in all of the examples the initiator made the last call). Is this true? If so, I ante 1. Oh, you're in? Well, I call if necessary and raise by 3 every time until you fold. Maybe this is what you wanted but it seems like a strange effect.

4) Sometimes you will draw all < 9s (I assume that's low) during a conflict where the ante is large (say 10). Are you just sad? Bluffing has no psychological impact here because your options are 0, 1, 2, or 3 chips. You can't bet high. Unless, I suppose, you're the initiator and the other players can't close the betting? Then refusing to close the betting and just raising 3 every time is like betting high, but more irritating.

5) Playing a joker automatically wins the conflict (except vs another joker, I'd imagine?) and restores all of your Luck. Have you considered the other way around, where the smaller cards give meta-game benefits while the larger cards help win conflicts? As it is now, there will certainly be 2 sessions in a row when a player draws no jokers the entire time and becomes frustrated.

6) Hm, we figure out which modifiers apply after seeing what the relevant cards are? And before narrating? Seems like there's a disconnect somewhere. "Oh, you have a 7+2=9 and John has an 11-1=10. John wins. Wait, in the future, given that you win this conflict, you're going to use your Specialty for Dance +2 during narration? I guess you win then." What about during the betting, if a specialty comes up, the Dealer says "yep you used your Specialty for Wrasslin' there, you'll get a +1 to the final total"?

7) The 3-way example has a missed chip, a 3-way pot shouldn't be 50 chips large. Looks like John didn't call Ben's raise of 1.

In poker, playing with chips you care about is qualitatively different than playing with chips you don't. Players take very different actions if it's play money or real, even if they "agree to play like it's real". I'm guessing that the players care about their chips and the Dealer doesn't. This might be something to watch during playtesting.

Guy

[Marshall Burns]

Guy,

1.  If you don't call the other guy's ante, then you take it on the chin, and his chips are still spent.

2.  I wanted the ante's size to represent how *big* you ante'd.  For instance, if someone was walking away from the bar and you stepped slightly in front of them, arms crossed, that's definitely an ante, but it's a pretty small one, about 1 or 2.  On the other hand, if you throw the curtain off a gatling gun, that's about a 10.  I'm beginning to think I should put a limit of 10 on the ante, though.  The betting limit of 3 is just to keep the pot from becoming too large too fast; 3 is really quite a lot when you consider that when the other guy calls it's a total of 6, which is more than a tenth of a "barn-burner."

3.  *That* was an error, and thanks for catching it.  If the initiator makes his bet (call, check, or raise, it doesn't matter) and nobody after him raises him, then the bets square; the initiator doesn't get another chance to bet.

4.  Betting 3 chips *is* high, given the scale of it.  But if you draw all 9s, you still might be able to win; it depends on what the other guy's got.

I had a discussion last night with a friend about the degree of fortune involved in this.  He expressed concern that it's not really about the character's level of skill, but about the cards and the player's own ability to formulate a conclusion based on the suit.  But that's exactly what I wanted; it's not intended to simulate *real* old Western conflicts, but Spaghetti Western conflicts.  Take, for example, A Fistful of Dollars.  Our protagonist, Clint Eastwood as the Man With No Name, and the villain (whose name eludes me at the moment) both have about the same level of ability.  In their final confrontation, it's not skill that wins the fight, but that extra something up your sleeve.  In this case, knowing that the villain was an expert shot with the rifle and could hit the heart every time, Eastwood wore a boilerplate under his poncho and marched relentlessly toward the villain.  Every time the villain shot, Eastwood said something to the tune of "You better hit the heart, or you'll never stop me," and just kept coming, which had a devastating effect on the other guy's nerve.  Eastwood used his bullets on the guy's henchmen, and the villain used all his bullets on Eastwood.  Eastwood says, "You remember when you said that when a man with a revolver meets a man with a rifle, the man with the revolver is dead?"  and they both hasten to load a single bullet before the other guy does--and Eastwood wins, not because he's faster, not because he's a better fighter, but because it's just faster to reload a revolver than a rifle.

Another example I used was the confrontation between Malcolm Rennolds and the Operative in Serenity (which is just a Spaghetti Western in space).  Malcolm doesn't win by being the best fighter (which he definitely isn't) or by being the fastest draw (which he is) but simply because he had taken a piece of shrapnel in some nerve cluster back in the war and had it moved.  That is the ONLY reason he won that fight.

At this point I had my friend convinced.  It's the small things, the unexpected things, that win the conflicts; whether or not you play your cards right, literally and figuratively.  That's what I was going for.  My friend said that it's like "playing Cowboys & Indians, except the cards are like a referee."  Which is perfectly fine for me.

5.  A joker vs. a joker is a tie and goes to sudden death, yeah.  But there won't be 2 sessions in a row when no one gets a joker; the deck is shuffled for every conflict.  Apparently I left that out.
Using the small cards for metagame benefits is an interesting option.  Or maybe some kind of High-Low (a poker game in which the best hand and the worst hand split the pot) mechanic might be interesting.

6.  I'm a bit confused about this one.  You play your card, add your stat, and declare what, if any, Specialty you would use in your resolution.  Whoever has the highest total then gets to narrate their half of the Exchange (and what they say goes, unless it goes outside the range of the stakes level).
Your suggestion about Specialties during the Escalation is interesting, but it doesn't fit the way I want it to work; during the Escalation, there's not much that happens except bluff & bluster, insults, etc.  You might slap a guy in the face during the Escalation, but you wouldn't put him in a headlock or anything.

7.  Yeah, that's another error.  Thanks for catching it.

8.  Well, the NPCs have a limited amount of chips each as well, so the Dealer can't just go wild all the time.

-Marshall

[Guy Srinivasan]

Cool, I have a much better idea of the scale of the chips. About declaring Specialties? In the Josiah/Sam example, for instance, they were tied at 13, then Charlie said "Sam's going to Knock Some Heads! +1, he wins the conflict." What happens if Ben then says "Actually, Sam's going to try, but Josiah's got a pretty Quick Trigger. +2, he wins." I like how you have it in Risk Resolution, where the player declares relevant Specialties first, and only then is the Dealer's card flipped. My first thought was maybe both players have to declare the Specialties their characters are using before the cards flip, but that would encourage trying to kludge in as many Specialties as possible, all the time, which isn't the best design. Unless it would be over-the-top awesome of course. I realize that the players and Dealer will do a fine job policing this sort of thing, but if the mechanics did it that'd be nice.

Also, about how many Conflicts (where you can play a joker to gain luck) will an individual player get in per session? If the answer's around 30 then jokers are fine, if it's around 10 then failing to draw jokers is going to frustrate someone, and if it's in-between then they're on the edge.

Here's another random thought (that would definitely need playtesting) - what if after you chose your card, you threw the others face up? Then if you draw 3, 4, 7, 8, 8, with nothing in your good suits, you could keep the 3 and drop the others and bet high with your fingers crossed behind your back. Surely you have at least a 9.

Guy

[Marshall Burns]

About declaring Specialties? In the Josiah/Sam example, for instance, they were tied at 13, then Charlie said "Sam's going to Knock Some Heads! +1, he wins the conflict." What happens if Ben then says "Actually, Sam's going to try, but Josiah's got a pretty Quick Trigger. +2, he wins."

Josiah would then win.  All of which sounds perfectly fine to me.

Declaring Specialties before cards has one major problem:  most specialties are clearly related to a specific suit (like "wrasslin' +1" is clearly related to Vigor, and "Quick Trigger +2" is clearly related to Touch).  I don't want there to be any inkling of what suit's gonna be played beforehand, other than knowing your opponent's Qualities (another reason they're just +/-2).

The odds of drawing a Joker are 2 out of 54, or 1 out of 27; a little less than 4%.  In a Conflict, where you draw 5 cards, the odds become about 19%.  So, about every 5 Conflicts, someone's likely to get a joker.  How many jokers crop up during a session just depends on how many Conflicts (and/or Risks, jokers used in Risk count too) you get into.

Oh, wait, I just realized I mis-read your post.  You ask how many Conflicts they get in.  Well, that's up to the players.  30 is definitely a possibility.

Discarding face-up is an interesting idea.  I'll probably try it.

-Marshall