Shotgun Musashi

[Rich Forest]

Hi all,

While editing octaNe, I finally decided that it was time to write up one of my game ideas and get it out there.  So I sat down and wrote.  And when I ran out of words (although not yet out of ideas), I stopped.  

Here it is.  

This one's called Shotgun Musashi, and I tried to make it relentless in its focus: reputations.  

Any and all comments are welcome.  

Rich Forest

P.S.  I can't post this game without also mentioning this thread.

[Mike Holmes]

First, excellent mechanics. I think they'll work very, very well. I like the escallation of the stakes. Believe it or not, JB had suggested a stakes mechanic for Synthesis, and we worked one out, but it was too floppy. So we dropped it. What you have is superb.

Still, being the tinkering bastard I am, I'd suggest a further level of escallation. Rank them like this.

1. Nothing at Stake
2. Something at Stake
3. A lot at Stake
4. Everything at Stake

Number one and two remain the same. If I bid something, and you counterbid, them we go to 3. A Lot at Stake. At this point, either party can choose to select another of his or the opponent's traits of the same or higher level that is appropriate to the conflict, and maneuver the conflict to that. At any point, either side can back down, leaving it at a #2 situation where the other side wins. Or they can at any time go for broke, and bet it all. If they declare Everything is at stake, then the opponernt must do the same or lose (similar to 2). The difference at #3 is that only the currently wagered reputation is subject to loss. At #4 the character's life, or his family reputation is at stake. At level 3 you can't wager your family Reputation, only at level 4. If you wager your family reputation and lose, you can be certain that there will be repercussions. If you do not wager the family reputation and lose, the charcter buy's the farm.

Howzat sound?

I assume that "appropriateness" is moderated by the GM? It doesn't say in the rules. Or is it up to the players to think up reasons why their selected traits are appropriate in the situation, and all players must accept that reasoning? Also, the shotgun rule; that's a GM call as well for whether or not you get the extra card?

The only other thing I'd ask, is why this setting? I kinda get it as a humorous setting for games like you mention, but I'd find it really hard to take this setting at all seriously. I'd very much be tempted to change to a Feudal Japan setting, or something similar. Can you explain what the appeal is supposed to be? Other than the self parody that I think is likely to develop? I realize that there was nothing funny about the Hatfields and the McCoys (250 plus dead), but in retrospect it still doesn't seem impressive. Just wasteful. I don't find myself feeling like I want to empathize with such characters. Am I missing something?

Mike

[Rich Forest]

Hi Mike,

Thanks for the comments.  I think I'll have to try out your suggestion ("A lot at stake") in play to see how it plays.  I originally went with three levels of escalation because it seemed just fine enough a distinction without being too fine.  It just felt like the right level of granularity.  However, I can definitely see the potential of four, particularly because of its possible effects on player decisions.    

Also, thanks for the questions on clarity.  I was thinking that players decide what Reputations are appropriate for accomplishing what.  Sort of the, "use them to do whatever you want, as long as you can explain the application in a way that is satisfying to the other players and the GM."  The "shotgun rule" was kind of an afterthought.  I'd guess that it's basically a group consensus call, but ultimately deferring to the GM just because somebody has to have that kind of power to avoid getting sidetracked by the decision during play.  GM makes a judgment, the game moves on, and the decision is only reevaluated after the game session is over.    

As far as the setting goes, all I can say is, "your mileage may vary."  I can see how it might not work for you.  In fact, I'd guess that it won't work for a lot of people.  Especially if you're only experiences with such characters are through media representations of retarded banjo players or savage backwoods rapists.  It works for me because I see a reflection of myself in the characters, and I can emotionally connect to their lives.  I suspect you've never practiced throwing ninja throwing stars at the side of the barn, spent time shooting a twelve gauge at the burning barrel out in the back yard, or built tunnels with bales of hay in the loft of the barn as a kid.  Probably, you can't name a half dozen kinds of hound dog off the top of your head.  Now, what I just said might sound like a "you might be a redneck if" joke, but it isn't.  Those statements all apply to me or one of my players.  

Really.  

Hell, if the wording of my example of play (the fight "in the mud, and the blood, and the beer") made you think of a Johnny Cash song, this setting might be right up your alley.

That said, probably most people won't dig it.  Let's face it, these folks are one of the last groups we can make fun of without getting yelled at, and even that might be fading (as exhibited by Scott's report of people overreacting to the humorous approach he takes in Appalachia Now!).  I'm not one of those people who is overly sensitive, by the way.  I can poke fun at people in a good natured way, and I enjoyed Applachia Now!.  But at the same time, I have no problems taking these characters seriously, either.  

Besides (and this may not apply to you), if we as gamers can empathize with the characters in Orkworld, Violence Future, and Vampire: the Masquerade, why not with the people of the county?  Hell, how far removed are cowboys (Dust Devils, Deadlands), even, from the setting of Shotgun Musashi, except for their special place in American myth?  I'm not saying this to criticize any of these games.  I have good things to say about all these games.  

Of course, the main reason for the setting of Shotgun Musashi right now is, well, a lot more mundane.

Ultimately, the setting is integrated into the description of the game right now because it's where I started.  For me, the setting was just kind of a cool idea.  "Dueling with shotguns, neato," I thought.  Chronologically, the setting came first, and the system arose from it.  Now, while it happened, I started to see a lot more applications for the system, to the point that it kind of overtook the setting in regards to its importance.  The game was no longer even about "dueling with shotguns."  But the setting is still in there as a holdover from the chronology of design.  What I'll probably do next is reorganize the game.  The game system (which doesn't have a name of its own) could be applied to a number of settings, as long as those settings fulfilled two criteria: the setting must be focused on one community, to reflect that the Reputations are known by all; and the setting must be one in which Reputation can be treated as an overriding focus of play.  The presentation of the game could be: system first, followed by a bunch of different setting possibilities, with Shotgun Musashi only one of the many presented.

For example:

Samurai: Absolutely, Mike.  I think this would work really well.  Families and Reputations are important.  Why else would the greatest fighters spend so much time calling out their names and lineages in the midst of battlefields?

Urban Street Gangs and their neighborhoods: Again, for me this would be a no-brainer.  That said, however, I don't think I could do it justice.  I just don't have the background to do it without the danger of it being a ridiculous cliché.  

Mafia:  Hmmm.  Family reputation, personal reputations, and plenty of grist for adventure.  Yup.

Heroes in a fantasy, medieval, or classical world: Possible, with a little tweaking of what Reputation means.  In this case, you could interpret the "community" as only the heroes of the world.  So, while they may be geographically separated, they are still a single community.  Reputations are things that only great people have.  Regular folk just play one card to do things, two cards for whatever profession/role they belong to.  But everyone knows who the great people are, the heroes (and villains), and everyone knows of their deeds.  Now that's a Reputation.

European High Society of the 18th and 19th centuries: Salons, duels, and a tightly knit community allow for Reputations to rule.  

Hollywood Babylon:  Social maneuvering among the "gods" of the modern day.  The stars of Hollywood.  Reputation is important, and everyone knows who you are and what you're doing.  You "live or die" based on your Reputation, and you're only as good as your last movie.  

And that's just off the top of my head.  There are probably plenty of other options.  

I hope I answered all your questions--thanks for asking them.  

Rich