Roulette

[iago]

I'd suggest something like the (sadly, cancelled, though brilliant) show on F/X called Lucky, about the life of a professional gambler who is simultaneously battling his addiction to gambling, as your basic seed notion.  Caper films (e.g., Ocean's 11) would be a solid and smart way to position this as well.  Tarantino-style True Crime stuff may make for a good candidate as a setting as well.  Regardless, I see this as an undeniably modern-setting game (though you could go near-future or historical if you found the exactly right gig).

I'd suggest simply calling the game 'Roulette', and then coming up with some extra-lethal rules variants which you can enable so you're playing Russian Roulette.

[Mike Holmes]

Well, if you have two options to bet on, each that have the same odds, and you're unaware which one (if either) shadows the other person, which are you going to pick?  Am I missing something?  ::is puzzled::

If the player offsets aren't equal, then it's incredibly hard to shadow the other player (I suppose that you can make the same type of bets, but then you have to find some number that has all the same combinations that the other one does; I don't even think it's possible with corner bets). So you don't make that assumption. Given that it's random, you assume that it might be that your offsets might be equal and shadow exactly. That way you will hit if lighning strikes, and your offset equals the opponents.

Am I making any more sense? Do it on your own. Make a bet, and then try to "randomly" shadow it under the assumption that there could be any offset. Compare that to just putting your chips where your opponent does.

Ack.  And the simple solution eludes me.  I thank you.
(Though I'd say player 1 is offset 0, 2 is offset 1, etc.)

The reason I went with two is that, IIRC, it's harder looking at the table and wheel to calculate what the offsets are in order to make a shadow. But one may be confounding enough given the same problems I cite above.

But if you assign each player his offset, then it's easier to strategize around it and shadow someone, if that's their goal, nu?  Hm.

Only if, as I said, one can calculate what the numbers are down the wheel. That is, if you make a corner bet, I have to then try and figure out which corner bet my offset equals. That might be very difficult. Especially if they're spread out by more than one.

I really don't know how to answer that question.  It's still a work in progress, plus I'm not sure quite what you're asking (honestly).

I'm imagining the game is "about" romantic, cinematic, free-wheeling, life in the fast lane, where luck is capricious and it's as easy to crash and burn as it is to come out on top.

Right, but what kind of characters, and what do they do? What you have is more of a color or, "how they do it" sort of explanation. Is the game generic? Or do you envision coming up with a setting for it?

For some reason I keep seeing Bogart movies.

Mike

[Lxndr]

An American Wheel:  http://www.paignio.com/en/ch4/images/image4-7.gif
A European Wheel:   http://www.paignio.com/en/ch4/images/image4-2.gif

On both sides, "1" is red.  From that, you can figure out which other numbers are red or black.  Zero and 00 are always green.

It looks like the displacement and disjointed randomness on either wheel is enough that a straight 1,2,3,4,5,6,etc. offset would work well enough.  On the american wheel, someone bids on the row 1,2,3.. move things over one and it's the equivalent of betting on 13,11,15 (or 20,25,26 on the european wheel).  The outside bids are the easiest to be "shadowed" on, but that's a given anyway, since they're the largest overlaps.

So, one is counfounding enough, and I can be linear enough to say "Okay, player one, you have no offset; player 2, you have an offset of one" and so on.  :)  And the whole thing is confounding enough that I don't need to worry about discouraging shadowing through secrecy.  Yay!

Right, but what kind of characters, and what do they do? What you have is more of a color or, "how they do it" sort of explanation. Is the game generic? Or do you envision coming up with a setting for it?

For some reason I keep seeing Bogart movies.

The kinds of characters are, generally, high-rollers, free-wheelers.  I haven't narrowed it down beyond that point.  I think the game is "generic" insofar as it's set up to explore the "theme?" of high-stakes living, rather than having a particular setting.  I'm far from being sold on that, though.

The movies that comes to mind most often for me, personally, is that Mel Gibson movie "Maverick," that john cusack movie "the grifters," and the 1991 richard greico spy movie "if looks could kill."  I think this game COULD handle movies like "plunkett and macleane," "sneakers", and that new bruce willis movie "Bandits."

[Mike Holmes]

The risk element and making it non-setting based, make me think of Sorcerer, of course. One of the defining things that makes that game work is that Sorcerers are required to have a reason behond hy they are willing to take on the risks of Sorcery.

Do you see that as a central part of defining characters? Or are all characters just adrenaline junkies, and something else drives thm in play? Goals perhaps? What makes one character different than the next thematically. The stats would do this a little, but not enough to create situations in play out of evolving plots. What's that element for you?

Oh. How about Life in the Fast Lane for a title?  :-)

Mike

[Lxndr]

The risk element and making it non-setting based, make me think of Sorcerer, of course. One of the defining things that makes that game work is that Sorcerers are required to have a reason behond hy they are willing to take on the risks of Sorcery.

Do you see that as a central part of defining characters? Or are all characters just adrenaline junkies, and something else drives thm in play? Goals perhaps? What makes one character different than the next thematically. The stats would do this a little, but not enough to create situations in play out of evolving plots. What's that element for you?

With the Big Four statistics as fluid as I am hoping they will be, moving up and down in time with the rhythm of the game, I'm pretty sure they won't be enough to differentiate individuals.  Right now, the biggest differentiation I have is the "Life" trait, which I'm still pondering and working out.

The basic idea behind the Life trait is: "What would your character fill in the following blank:  '_________ is my life.'?"  Every person has their own answer.  

Is your work your life? (and what do you do for a living?)
Is your family your life?  (a wife?  kids?  both?  neither?)
Is some addiction your life?  (gambling?  women?  alcohol?)
Is your wealth and/or status your life?

Some people have mutliple answers to this question, and that's fine, they can get the trait multiple times.  Some few people might not have an answer at all.  So far, that's the major mechanic I have for character differentiation at this time.

I think you're right, though.  I need some way to get an answer for, "why are you in the fast lane?" from each character.  Even if it's just "I'm an adrenaline junky."  And I'm thinking that "Life," while an important trait of its own, is not the way to do it.

Hm...

Oh. How about Life in the Fast Lane for a title?  :-)

Ha!  I was considering calling it just "Fast Lane" last night.  Great minds think alike, and apparently so do yours and mine.  ;)

[Lxndr]

Some random notes:

1.  There are now five "statistics" in my working version, (plus Life and the lucky #), not four:

Assets - both tangible and intangible, wealth and appearance
Guile - physical and social sneakiness, treachery, agility
Nerve - physical and mental fortitude and strength
People - your connections, people you know, names you can drop, and how well THEY like YOU
Sobriety - mental and social clarity and perception

2.  I have decided to adopt the following rule:

Whenever a contest succeeds, the associated attribute goes down by one.  If the contest fails or ties, the attribute remains the same.

This will ensure that even success has a price, which feels right in a game like this.

3.  Players can "sell back" any attribute at any time and get back the full chip value invested.  On the other hand, they can only raise an attribute value with winnings, before they're returned to the bank (but they can raise any attribute, not necessarily the one they used).  Raising any attribute must be addressed/justified in the narrative monologue.

4.  If any one attribute (other than Life) goes down to zero, the character dies or is otherwise taken out of the game.  Of course, since this normally only happens after a successful contest, the player can narrate his character's blaze of glory as he succeeds in his task.

5.  The dice-based option now has the GM rolling dice as well as the players.  IF the GM rolls snake-eyes, then the "wheel" comes up a zero for everyone.  Any other roll the GM might make counts as nothing.  Also in the dice-based option, everyone rolls their "spin" separately, instead of worrying about an offset.

6.  Player can "sell back" any attribute at any time and get back the full chip value invested.  On the other hand, they can only raise an attribute value with winnings, before they're returned to the bank (but they can raise any attribute, not necessarily the one they used).  Raising any attribute must be addressed/justified in the narrative monologue, and reducing attributes should also have an in-game justification.

7.  Players, after failing a bid, may pay down the GM-set target number on a 1:1 basis by cashing in attributes for chips, with the knowledge that EVERY chip used this way goes directly to the GM's bank.  If the target number is reduced below the player's winnings (or is reduced to zero if the player had no winnings at all), the player wins (which takes the "winning" attribute down one).  If it is reduced exactly to the player's winnings, it is treated as a tie.  Either way, this reduction of attributes should be explained in the resulting narrative...

[Mike Holmes]

The losing characteristic falling just makes the basic threshold higher. Given that you can buy and sell stats at this point, saying that you lose a stat (but can buy it right back) is merely saying that you need to have that many more chips to break even.

What sort of a conversion rate were you thinking?

As it stands, with no inefficiency in the exchange rate, it makes no sense to keep any chips in your back that would exceed the highest stat. That is, given the ability to cashout stats at any time, it's best to keep the investment there as much as possible. This will lead to stat inflation as player push every spare chip into stats whenever possible.

For example, if the rate of exchange is 3 to 1, and my highest stat is 3, I have 3 chips in my bank, and win 12 more, I'll raise my stats up until I have as many chips as my highest stat. Let's say I want to pump that highest stat up. I put in 9 chips to raise it to 6, and then put my other 3 in my bank with the others. Now I have the 6 chips that I need to bet up to my max. Occasionally, if I'm not a betting man, I'll keep more chips in the pool, but as you note that's only a more sure way to lose them over time (havint to spend chips out of my bank more often because I can't bet as much due to lower stats).

I'd put in some cash out inefficiency to make it a real investment. That is, if it costs 4 to raise a stat by one, it only gets you 3 to lower it by one. Or somesuch. So that the player will have to more closely consider what he's doing. When he's flush, he'll indulge, but when he's not, he'll avoid investing. The greater the inefficiency, the more you'll make this true.  

Mike

[Lxndr]

Hm.

You're right, that does encourage attribute inflation more than I want (I put that in hoping to encourage a yo-yo effect, but it devalued the option of leaving coins in the bank).

I've toyed with the idea of saying you can ONLY "sell-back" statistics when making up a loss (in other words, you'll never see those chips in your bank again; you can only cash them out when trying to win).  Thus, once they're out of your bank, they'll get burned up, one way or another, in your winnings.

That method seems, on the surface, to encourage the same thing - have the player more closely consider his choice to raise a statistic, encourage indulging during peak times, and avoidance during lulls.  And it also has a symmetry with the "attributes only change during or after a contest" concept that pervades the rest of my rules.

(I'm also tempted to say:  "You can't sell down the attribute you used in the contest - you have to sell down OTHER attributes")

And there's even an inefficiency, of sorts, built in.  If the cost ratio is 4:1, but I only need to buy that TN down three to win...  if I cash in one of my attribute points, I'll be able to buy myself a success, but the GM would get all four chips.  How much do I really WANT to win?

(This also solves another worry I had:  that of someone jacking up ONE attribute to high levels, then whenever he needed a different attribute, just pissing attribute #1 away, buying up attribute #2, and using it.  Wash, rinse, repeat.)

Now I've got this weird economic system:

Code Select Expand

                                /+> Player's Bank
                               /
Player's Bank -> Bid +> Winnings +> Attributes -
                   \                         /
                    \-> Losses +> GM's Bank<+
                                      \
                                       \->Target Numbers -> Nothingness

Which I'm not sure if I'm graphing right, but it looks reasonable to me.

What sort of a conversion rate were you thinking?

After a lot of thinking, I'm convinced a linear improvement system works best - I'm currently toying with either 2:1 or 3:1.

[Lxndr]

Life?  Don't Talk to Me About Life!

In Fastlane (the current working title for this primordial game), characters have several mechanical descriptors.  They have their Lucky Number, a free bet on any spin they make, even if they don't spin anything at all.  They have their five attributes: Assets, Guile, Nerve, People and Sobriety.

And they have their Life.

Life is a special trait.  It differs from the attributes in several important ways.  In my gut, these differences seem important to me.  I'll list them first, and then I'll try to spell out the unease I'm feeling about Life.

1.  You can have more than one Life.

Unlike the other attributes, Life can be (and should be) taken multiple times, each time representing different things that the individual cares about enough to say "X is my life!"  With the other mechanics below, this will hopefully lead to situations where one Life is played against another.

2.  Life should not go down when used.

Unlike the other attributes, which are ultimately fluid aspects of character, a character's Life is supposed to represent an anchor, something that grounds him in the otherwise free-wheeling high-stakes world that Fastlane is supposed to represent (regardless of individual setting).  So I would rather not see it yo-yo in the way I am encouraging the other attributes to do.

Nonetheless, there should still be some mechanism for its change (both up and down).  See below for some musings.

3.  Life is never used on its own.

Although it is given a numerical value, like other attributes, Life is never used in a contest by itself.  Instead, it either augments an attribute, when their Life is on the line... or it can penalize an attribute, when their Life is used against them.  No matter what, a character always gets his Lucky Number bet.  When augmenting an attribute, Life simply gives the OPPORTUNITY to bet more... and never actually gives additional chips.

(When choosing a Life for a character, the player should define some situations where the Life is an advantage, and where it can be used agains the poor sap.  Btw, even if Life is a person, you don't lose this attribute if that person dies - "She WAS my life" is as poignant a theme as "She IS my life," and can still be used AGAINST a character).

4.  Life is a source of income.

Whenever a character's Life is used against them, and they take the penalty, then after the contest is over, they earn a number of chips equal to their Life value regardless of winning vs. losing.  This is (and hopefully will remain) the only source of income outside of winnings (which can happen either through risking a bet, or through the Lucky Number).

My Thoughts[/i]

Edit: Um, I hit Submit instead of Preview.  I'll put my thoughts in a separate post, but feel free to chime in while I continue writing, as long as the cat is out of the bag, since I probably won't finish until after my lunchtime.

[Lxndr]

Over lunch, I mulled over Life and came up with an acceptable multi-part answer that answered my misgivings.  A good thing, since I still don't know how to express what my misgivings really were.  Anyway, I submit this just to end this thread - I think it's time to follow the advice Mike gave a page ago - stop, write a first draft, and move into playtesting.

(anyone interested?  I'll be posting an "open call" on indie-netgaming in a week or a month or however long it takes, for an IRC playtest since that's going to be more likely than a "real life" playtest for a while)

Anyway:
* To get a new "Life," you have to spend EACH of your attributes down one, and have a scene where you actually "invest" a part of yourself in it.  A new Life starts at 1, but can go up and down as described below.

* Whenever you use your Life to get a bonus, and you fail in the attempt, it goes down by one.  Using your life to get a bonus "puts it on the line" somehow... and if you fail, you've "betrayed" it.  This erodes the connection.

* Whenever someone uses your Life against you, and you still wind up succeeding, it goes up by one.  Risking yourself like that, and succeeding, strengthens the connection between your Life and yourself.  (Risking and failing doesn't weaken it)

* If your "Life" is reduced to zero, it stays on your character sheet.  It can still be "used against you," and if you succeed, it will go back up to one.  Since it was at zero before, though, you won't get any points.

Alright, off to write the first, extremely rough draft of Fast Lane.  Thank you, everyone, for all your help.  I'm not going to "officially" close this thread, but I think the game is ready to move to the next stage.