[Last One Standing...] New Game Idea

[arete66]

"Last One Standing..."

OK.  I'm a rookie, so go easy on me. :)

I've had this idea about a Horror game rattling around in my head and felt compelled to share it.  If it doesn't come to anything from my efforts, maybe it will generate some useful ideas for somebody else's efforts.  Or maybe some collaboration can occur.  (Read "No NDA, I don't care if anyone steals the concept, etc.")

So, the basic premise is, like many cheap horror flicks, one character survives.  Every other character dies.  The built-in end condition is that when the last character is left, the game is over.

I want to use a "Survivor" like model in which all players, including those who's characters have already perished, vote at certain critical crisis points on the play of all other players.  They rate their fellow players on three factors:  How heroic their character has behaved (the most important),  how entertaining their play has been, and how good their ideas and problem solving have been (about equally as important, but less so than how heroic their character has been).  The GM tallies the scores, assigns the qualities to the appropriate players, and then everyone makes a die roll with modifiers for being awarded the above qualities.  The lowest roll snuffs it. "And so, as the zombies crash through the front door of the convenience mart, little Billy O'Connell is ripped limb from limb and devoured alive."

It wouldn't be the only way to bite it, of course.  Just a set way to make sure the field is whittled down over time.

As each player's character snuffs it, they take over an aspect of the story...the big bad guy, the big bad guy's minions, the annoying NPCs, etc....so as the game progresses, you have more and more players collaborating on the conflict end of things and some mounting tension as the brain power shifts from the "Good guys" to the "Bad guys".  You get more ideas about how to make things onerous but interesting for the survivors.

I guess I'm looking for a couple of things that I find lacking from many horror RPG sessions I've been involved in:  

First, characters die.  They should.  It's horror, dammit. Not
"Barney and Friends".  

Second, the tension mounts over the course of the game and the brain power working on making things deadly but interesting goes up as the game goes on.  

Third, there's an aspect of competition.  And yet, a tension with the benefits of being Heroic (adding to your survival roll).  It seems that horror very often has this as a central theme:  "I want to do the right thing, but in the end, I don't have to run faster than the bear, I only have to run faster than the others."

Is this too incoherent of a concept?  It seems like I might be trying to mix a gamist approach with a narrative approach to ill effect.  Obviously, it would never lend itself to a long running campaign and would quite often be a game that resolved a group of character's stories in a night or two.  But is it remotely engaging as an idea?

Cheers,
Tom

[Grover]

This actually sounds like a cool idea to me :)  I wouldn't make it a bonus to a roll or anything - I'd make it absolute - whoever the players vote out dies next.  Now, given that, it seems to me you'll need some sort of mechanism by which the remaining players can influence the game.  Maybe allow them
to play the role that the last 8 people on survivor do - like a jury of some
sort?  Still, that's not very involved.  Anyway - cool idea :)

[Jason E Leigh]

Welcome to the Forge, Tom!

It's an interesting idea, for sure.  I don't think it's a problem creating a hybrid game (i.e. coherent combos of gamism and narrativism are certainly possible, and maybe even enjoyable).

You've nailed what's the tough thing for most designer's already: "What is it like to play the game?"  You can see (I hope, because your words made me see) how the game will be played by the real players sitting around the table, what the stakes are between the real people, and what the 'point' of the game is going to be.

I'd say it makes a great 'one-night' game (a weekender at most).

Design very quick (maybe partially done-in-play) character generation and settle on the simple, easy to use mechanics.

BTW - it's these mechanics (specifically reward mechanisms) that will determine to a large extent whether or not Nar play is more heavily supported or Gamist play is more heavily supported.

One final thought, FWIW, I disagree with Grover.  You should definitely make the dice roll.  Allowing the players to vote one-another bonuses for the roll is cool - but think of the motivation that the uber-roleplayer losing the dice roll to someone else brings to the table.  The UR has real 'get even' Step On Up motivation to make the winner suffer...

I hope you keep going with this idea - could be a really neat final product - kind of the Titus Andronicus of the Horror RPG niche.

Cool.

[arete66]

OK, so brainstorming on character creation and task resolution...

An unstated rule of character design (or maybe it has been stated here with all of the excellent terminology and deep thought about RPG design), it seems to me, is that the mortality of the character should be directally proportional to how long and involved it is to create that character.  

If the character has a high chance of snuffing it early, you don't want to have the player and GM put a lot of time into creating the character.  I think one of the funniest examples of the counter to this rule is the classic version of Traveller, where you go through an elaborate die rolling process to determine your character's background during which time the character could actually croak, thus wasting your effort and time.

So, with the very short life expectancy of Last One Standing characters, character creation should be very straight forward and quick.  

For task resolution, I want something highly narrative and collaborative, yet with a deadly twist to it.  Maybe a twist on the brilliant and elegant octaNe resoltuion system? (High roll on dice:  1, 2 GM Narrates outcome 3 GM narrates outcome with player adding one detail 4 Player narrates outcome but GM adds one detail 5, 6 Player narrates outcome.)

How about the same resolution system except with a d20 mortality roll made in conjunction with dangerous tasks?  The GM could set a mortality level based on what the character is trying to do and what danger they are facing, and set the low end of the d20 roll as a mortality range?

For example, a battle against a minor henchman or threat could include a mortality roll of 1.  Even if you succeed and get to narrate the resolution of the task in its entirety, if you roll a 1 on the d20, your character dies.

Really risky direct confrontations against the Big Bad could have a mortality range of 1 to 5.  

Why would you take such a risk if all it gets you is a big bonus to the survival roll at the critical junctions?

Hmmmm.  Now I'm thinking that if the characters are passive and ineffective, maybe only one survives, but if they are aggressive and effective, more might survive...Last One Standing might not be such a literal title.  Players could end the threat early before it gets down to the last survivor.  The risk of heroic acts could be balanced by the possibility of avoiding death for all but one character.  And the fact that players who's characters have already died are now part of the creative force behind the threat means that the surviving characters actions would have to be very convincing and effective.   I doubt someone who's character snuffed it already would be willing to let the survivors "off the hook" easily.

The mortality and survival rolls could still drive a sense of urgency and tension.  The players would know that if they don't confront the problem well, it will take care of the characters in short order.  

What do you think?  Any thoughts...

Cheers,
Tom

[MrSalt]

I am quiet a fan of players deciding among themselves who's gonna die next through votes.
But I feel it's a bit of "nice" game if everyone has to vote for best actor. Furthermore, there will be difficulties in sorting a dead body when the number of living characters will decrease. My suggestion is:
1.   GM decides who dies first, preferably through a totally fortune-based mechanism (i.e. everyone rolls a dice; the lower is called a meal for the zombies).
2.   After that, on every climax*, the players whose character is dead choose the next casualty.
Thus, you avoid the possibility of players carefully counting votes and deciding at the last minute to vote to save themselves instead of bringing all their guts in the role-playing phase. Furthermore, players of dead characters will be as an audience, advising zombies tactics and finally deciding who's next.

This design clearly entails narrative play over gamism.

* I would also advise that decision making is best made when every character is in potential danger: Butch in the basement, his light fading away, Sally under the shower, unaware of the strange shadow in her back, Larry struggling to his feet in a dark and too-peaceful lawn...

[Tobias]

First: I like it.

How about the same resolution system except with a d20 mortality roll made in conjunction with dangerous tasks?  The GM could set a mortality level based on what the character is trying to do and what danger they are facing, and set the low end of the d20 roll as a mortality range?

For example, a battle against a minor henchman or threat could include a mortality roll of 1.  Even if you succeed and get to narrate the resolution of the task in its entirety, if you roll a 1 on the d20, your character dies.

Really risky direct confrontations against the Big Bad could have a mortality range of 1 to 5.  

Why would you take such a risk if all it gets you is a big bonus to the survival roll at the critical junctions?

You realise that, to a Gamist Gamer, this might be enough reason?

Say, you're free to choose (as player) the mortality rating for the next 'scene', and if you live through your choice, that's the amount of d10 you roll on the next 'critical junction' check. Lowest sum dies.

(One problem is that there might be an optimal mortality rating (probability-wise) that people will then always pick. So there needs to be some reward for making people choose different figures some times.)

Sample options are:

1. Have a hidden 'global effect' in play for each critical junction. Come junction time, it's revealed. A deck of cards will do well, for instance.
2. Have a limited set of mortality ratings a player can choose from, that depletes over play.
3. 'ramping up the tension' - have some reward for large swings in chosen mortality rating

Hmmmm.  Now I'm thinking that if the characters are passive and ineffective, maybe only one survives, but if they are aggressive and effective, more might survive...Last One Standing might not be such a literal title.  Players could end the threat early before it gets down to the last survivor.  The risk of heroic acts could be balanced by the possibility of avoiding death for all but one character.  

I'd say: go with the Horror movie feel you want to capture. There are Horror movies in which everyone dies. There are Horror movies in which the loving couple (& their sidekick) lives.

If you have a traditional GM as well, he could always just roll 1d4-1 (depending on group size) to see how many will live 'this movie' - and not reveal to players.

I, personally, would like the change from 'normal' heroic RPGs and KNOW that there's going to be slaughter. If I wanted a chance for my 'party' to live, I'd play D20 Horror (or somesuch).

Good luck with it!

[Selene Tan]

This is an idea that just came to me... Why not eliminate the role of the GM? One person starts out leading the opposing forces, and as the other players die, they join in. Maybe they get to add forces to the opposition under their control, or maybe they just rise again as zombies out for brains. It's kinda like that game Zombie Tag (or whatever it's called), where everyone who gets tagged turns into a zombie who can tag other people, and at the end there's a room full of zombies and one person trying to escape.

[arete66]

You realise that, to a Gamist Gamer, this might be enough reason?

Say, you're free to choose (as player) the mortality rating for the next 'scene', and if you live through your choice, that's the amount of d10 you roll on the next 'critical junction' check. Lowest sum dies.

(One problem is that there might be an optimal mortality rating (probability-wise) that people will then always pick. So there needs to be some reward for making people choose different figures some times.)

Ah, see, but that's where the voting comes in. If you're min/maxing like a fool, the rest of the group could say, "Nah, that's not heroic."  And vote someone else more heroic, instead.

Also, I guess I wasn't clear.  I would *never* let a player vote for themself for anything.  You have to vote for another player for each category.  In fact, I might develop a sheet that alllows you to vote for two other players in each category just to cut down on the probability of a tie.

I think I like the idea of making the game very deadly, with perhaps *everyone* dying if the group is passive, and the possibility of some surviving if they are creative and aggressive.  A problem I've experienced in a lot of horror role playing games is the players just kind of sit there and when you geek them, they get angry!  This kind of system puts deadliness in with an assumption that unless you "beat the clock", "think your way out of the situation", "confront the evil", you're all GOING TO DIE! BWAH-HA-HA...  

*sorry*

Anyway, so I'd keep the same mortality rolls during scenes (octaNe resolution with a GM set mortality rating on a d20), and the same "someone dies" vote and roll at each critical juncture, but if the players do an adequate job and succeed at tasks, they can actually bring about an end to the game before everyone croaks.  

Now, what about character details.  I'm thinking maybe a diminishing dice pool mechanic to create even more of a sense of urgency, but maybe that isn't necessary.  I definitely think three or four characteristics max with a range of 1 to 5 dice per characteristic or something.  And maybe one thing characters are good at that let them roll a bonus d6 or two...

Cheers,
Tom

[Tobias]

If you're going to approach it from a movie-standpoint (or at least a 'plot'), there's no need to have 'strength', 'dexterity', etc. (you could, but there's no need, really).

You could have 'heroism', 'ruthlessness', 'luck' and 'appetizing' as scores, for instance.

Just to help you keep thinking outside of the box....

[Doug Ruff]

Hi Tom, and welcome! That's a great game concept.

One quick thought about how to allow heroic actions to influence the "vote". Each time a character performs an heroic action, he gets "votes" which he must cast there and then against the other characters. The more heroic the action, the more votes won.

At the end of a predetermined period (or as a result of a random event), tally up the votes, and whoever has the most "votes" cast against them is the Red Shirt, and dies horribly.

This means that the more behind you are in the vote, the more heroic you have to be to survive, which means you are more likely to die anyway.

"Ganging up" on one guy only should be discouraged; remember that the character in last place could die from heroic attempts to catch up, which means that the next-to-last player is going to bite it.

Hope this is useful (and evil) enough for you!

Regards,

Doug

[Grover]

I just had a thought.  So - the threat level needs to escalate as you go, but since characters will be getting killed off, you want the remaining characters to gain in effectiveness, so the escalated threat doesn't overwhelm them.  How about this:
There is a shared pool of 'hero points' (probably want a better name than that)  Anyone can use hero points at any time - however, the pool is only refreshed when you get to the vote and someone dies.  If you want to, you can grab all the hero points at once to do something really heroic, and the other players can't stop you.  However, they can all vote for you to die in the next vote.
So this way, as people die, they can join the other side, and increase the threat level without making the game inevitably doomed for the heros.
I like this idea - I'll try to write it up more clearly next week, when I have more time.

Steve

[Chris Geisel]

An ideas that popped into my head that might fit the game you're working on (cool idea, btw):

Instead of character generation, how about a set of pre-generated archtypes that anyone can take control of and run. They are fodder for the monster until they successfully become heroic. I'd see this as risking something and succeeding. Perhaps there should be a player resource that they amass and spend. It seems to me that the characters don't compete--the players do.

For instance, in John Carpenter's The Thing (movie), Kurt Russell's character becomes the hero when he subdues a character who has gone off his rocker and is shooting at people. Up until that point in game terms, he was expendable and had no player ownership.

Just a thought about what to do with players whose heroes are killed through misadventure.

[Simon Kamber]

An interesting possibility is to design the game as a sort of "survivor-style" game. Have the game progress, one scene at a time, with each new scene setting the scene for one or more dead people, voted on by the living (secret vote probably works best). This'll require some players who aren't going to get pissed when they get "voted out" of cause. Dead characters' players take on some aspect of the "evil", like the ghost hunting the living people.

That means that there's no mechanics to "judge" a character but his fellows. The sense of paranoia that builds between the players could well support the mood.

[Tobias]

Note that Chris' idea on pre-made templates also would be very fitting on making it an 'introductory' game for new roleplayers.

'How to host a Murder Mystery', Horror-style.

[arete66]

One thing I'm seriously considering, given Chris's input, is to just have a set cast of generic characters.  After all, if I'm basing it on standard horror movies, there usually is a set cast of character types.  

Jock
Nerd
Floozie
Good Girl
Annoying Kid
Crazy Guy

Keeping to the mortality theme, I figure the archetypes should be fairly normal.  No Kung Fu master or Sharpshooter or anything.

Any other normal horror movie archetype ideas?

By the way, some great ideas out there on how to run with this.  I like the heroic die pool idea and the characters as something player's exchange and "inhabit" throughout the game.  Maybe there's a couple of variations cooking out there that might work out...

Cheers,
Tom