[RPG Idea] Mexican Stand Off

[Dregg]

I was speaking via list with Capes Designer Tony B about prize support for an up comming convention. The Idea was for an RPG, non related to our current work that we could give away for free.

I am a huge Fan of Tarrantino and Woo and have always wanted to create a game that the players are all part of a mexican stand off. A game to recreate scenes like that at the end of Reservoir Dogs.

There is only two ways out this game, talk your way out or death
The game would consist of rounds where each player would add to the dialog and bring the story forward or end it with a single bullet.
The play would have to delevlop on keywords and possibly even a bid system like Heroquest.
The Idea is now born, now to just start to flesh out.

I though I would toss it aound on the Forge if anything to just see if anyone liked the idea or think is has merit.

[Larry L.]

Well, I like the idea. (Hey, you've seen "Way of the Gun," yes?) If nothing else, it's a cool concept for a game with a very tightly focused premise.

I guess I always like the idea of a Mexican standoff because it's such a great (game theory) distillation of all kinds of other tension situations... modern geopolitical strife, interpersonal politics, etc. So I think the key is to have a system that really builds tension between the players with each accumulated turn. Sort of like a Jenga RPG.

I'm also thinking about the old Chris Crawford computer game "Balance of Power." It was basically a Cold War simulation, USA vs. USSR. Either player could move troops around, support insurgencies, the expected mucking about in the third world. But the key to the game was that either player could attempt to veto the other's actions by initiating a diplomatic confrontation. This could be escalated all the way up to DEFCON 2. (If you pushed into DEFCON 1, of course, you lose because you trigger nuclear war.) With the escalation the stakes increased in terms of global prestige, with the player who backed down from the confrontation losing the prestige and the other gaining. A really slick model of the brinksmanship that occurred in the geopolitics of the era.

Applied to the Mexican standoff... Some kind of bidding/stakes system. You need to convince the other players they should be pointing their gun an the other guy. These attempts, however, risk a loss of cool on the part of the convincee. First guy that loses his cool pulls the trigger, wherever his gun is pointing. Winner is the guy that doesn't have a gun pointing his way when this happens.

[Dregg]

I agree with the Jenga or House of cards model for the base structure of the Mechanics. What the game cannot use in my opinion is a randomizer. No cards or dice could even simulate the stress and fear that the situation would generate. The system would have to rely heavily on Idioms and Tropes to enforce the player's position in the situation.
By being clever and manipulative to get the other player to stand down is going to be a key factor, anything else is going to get the player killed within the game.
So words, body language and dialog are all going to be important.
But how to actually make this work.

The game Dread uses a Jenga set to simulate the tensions of the players reaction to the situation, but does there even need to be a physical component?

[Larry L.]

I dig props, like poker chips or whatever, so the players can easily assess the stakes as they stand. I don't know that I'm enthusiastic about it being a dexterity contest. How might you come up with a mathematical model for this sort of thing, though?

So there's this hypothetical core mechanic based on building up to the breaking point, which could feasibly stand alone as an excercise in game theory. But if we're going for a role-playing game, it needs to be more than that. So I figure you hang a narrative system over it that encourages the spontaneous creation of all kinds of crazy backstory for how it got to this point. I figure half the fun will be coming up with weaselly lies and establishing credibility for alibis.

Things I'm assuming here, based on my understanding of the, uh, "genre":
There's no simulationist gun mechanic. If you have a gun pointed at you when the shit goes down, you die.
Somebody has realized that he is getting fucked over.
Two things trigger "the shit goes down:" someone loses his cool (accumulates too many pressure tokens?), or somebody simply makes a foolish tactical mistake in the chain of who's targeting who. (There's not a gun pointed at me anymore, time to wax this turkey.)

Think you could break down an example standoff from a movie to see how it might translate into game-type actions?

[Jason Mical]

I'll second a vote for a system involving chips. It would actually be kind of cool to make the characters invest in their "bluffs," to see how far they would go to avoid being shot.

I also agree that breaking down a scene in a movie would help your cause - or have some friends try to act one out using nerf guns or something, and take notes.

[BrennaLaRosa]

Why not combine the two? A chip system that bids for who pulls a brick. Only you bid for another guy to pull. Okay, maybe that doesn't work so well...

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Let me add my voice in favor of a diminishing resource pool for this game.  Once all your dice, chips, tokens, whatever are out, the PC is faced with a choice:  Shoot my wait out or wait to be taken and see what happens.  Once he runs out of resources, he's effectively out of ideas (system-wise).

Things that might cost chips/resources would be: finding cover from an explosive tossed in the room, avoiding a spray of bullets into the room, misdirecting the antagonists outside, making a phone call for help, etc.  Resources should be spent keeping the character alive with all options open.  Once he's out of resources, he's got nothing left but 16 in the clip. ;)

Peace,

-Troy

[Kit]

I really like this idea.

Some thoughts:

I'm going to disagree with Troy about the use of resources. In order to work, I feel the game needs to be played on an entirely psychological level for the characters. There is no backup coming, you don't have any extra resources to draw upon. All you've got is a gun, and so does everyone else. If one of them is point at you when the shit goes down, you're a dead man.

I like the idea of a Jenga based game. Among other things, I really like the mental image of using it as the mechanism for declaring the shoot out. You don't say `I shoot', or anything like that. You just sweep away the blocks. It has a nice symbolism, and when the tower is big and the tensions are high, damn will it make people jump. :-)

Can I suggest the following variant:

You either don't start with a full Jenga setup, or you have two sets of Jenga pieces. You start with the base tower, and everyone has a collection of blocks in reserve. This then allows two moves:

1) A normal jenga move, where you take a block out and put it on top. This is trying to deal with the situation as it is.
2) The ability to take a block from your reserve and place it on the tower. You're bringing something new in.

The second option gives you more room to maneuver and is somewhat safer: You're not likely to accidentally knock the tower over. But in the long run it makes the whole thing that much bigger and less stable.

This then sortof fits with part of Troy's suggestion (albeit with `resources' meaning something slightly different). The blocks then correspond to your `mental resources' - what you have up your sleeve to help you get through the situation. Once you're out, you're left desperately trying to balance what's there, which gets harder and harder.

As resources, you can also use them as a sortof medium of mechanical exchange - trying to persuade people to point their gun elsewhere by offering them blocks.

That leads to another suggestion I wanted to make:

If someone points there gun elsewhere, this means that the balance of power has shifted and everyone must react in an instant. If someone shifts then *everyone* must immediately declare who their gun is now pointing at. (I don't know if it should *have* to change to someone else, but it's not a bad idea. It certainly makes it more interesting. :-) )

Just some random thoughts,
David

[Dregg]

Heya,

Let me add my voice in favor of a diminishing resource pool for this game.  Once all your dice, chips, tokens, whatever are out, the PC is faced with a choice:  Shoot my wait out or wait to be taken and see what happens.  Once he runs out of resources, he's effectively out of ideas (system-wise).

Things that might cost chips/resources would be: finding cover from an explosive tossed in the room, avoiding a spray of bullets into the room, misdirecting the antagonists outside, making a phone call for help, etc.  Resources should be spent keeping the character alive with all options open.  Once he's out of resources, he's got nothing left but 16 in the clip. ;)

Peace,

-Troy

Troy, I agree
The fact that the counters are get taken away is what I was thinking as well. I wrote "Mexican Stand Off" Last night (well a Beta anyway) while waiting for my wife to get off of work (my design process is wierd). I will get off my Lazy Arse tonight and type it out and post a link.

Again I appreciate all the ideas that everyone has tossed in.

[Dregg]

Hi Kit
I would want to stray away from Jenga, just because 1. it is the core mechanic of another RPG, and two it would not fit into how I envisioned the game to run.
I agree with you it is very much psychological in nature, and yes once the trigger is pulled you are dead! Period!
To answer the infamous Jared A. Sorensen question of "How is your game played"  6 players standing around a table trying to keep the player next to him from pulling the trigger.

I am almost seeing something like "are you a werewolf" in nature with the game honestly lasting about 5 or 6 rounds.

It is not a convetional RPG, in most cases characters are not going to bringing thier characters into the Temple of Elemental Evil to kill orc the next game.
I think of it like Mountain Witch, where you play it once. No Campigning, just a heavy roleplaying experience.

Thank you for the suggestions though =)

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Can't wait to see the beta, Dregg!  Good luck with it :)

Peace,

-Troy

[Dregg]

Ok here is the work in progress

Mexican Standoff
(Beta)
Players 4-8 plus one moderator
Needed
Beads or Counters (about 20 per player)
Deck of Standard Playing Cards
Deck of Plot Twist Cards (concept still Work in Progress)

Rules
Each Player is part of a Mexican Standoff
It is assumed that each player has one pistol (although this can change with a plot twist card)

Basic Idea
Players will bid counters (Stress Points?) on their turn to signify their stake in the exchange. The Amount of the bid will depend on the actions or wording used during their turn in the round. Also an increasing minimum bid will have to be made regardless each round to simulate the building tension between all involved.
Minimum bids
Round 1 = 2
Round 2 = 4
Round 3 = 6
Round 4 = 8
Round 5 = etc.

Initiative or order of exchange
The order of exchange will be based on the suit of a deck of cards
Diamonds act 1st
Clubs 2nd
Hearts 3rd
Spades 4th
An Idea is to add a mood to each of the suits so it gives a base emotion. This will be a bit of a helper for the player to figure out his or her reaction.

Bids are made on the players turn
After the player makes the initial bid he at that point may play a special card.

Plot Twist Cards
At the beginning of the game each player is given one "Plot Twist" card
The Ideas behind the cards are still WIP, but the ones that come to mind are
Two Pistols:
Change Focus: (person pointing pistol at you now points it in the other direction)
Narc: exposes other player as a cop forcing him to loose double his minimum bid on his turn.
Well placed Save: Brings a player up to a positive amount of counters so he will not pull the trigger
Rounds end
After all players act on their suit, play plot twists, and bids are made the moderator flips over a final card and all who had cards that match the suit win the bid and get to share the counters, all others loose the counters.
Winners start with another plot twist card.

Any player who has 0 counters at the end of the turn pulls the trigger at whom he was pointing at.

Dead players are removed and circle get smaller

Last Ditch Defense
A player can choose to Sell out or Bluff to keep another player in the game and not pulling the trigger. At the beginning of his turn he can call "Last Ditch Defense" and give half of his counters to another player to keep them in the contest. (and themselves alive)

Rules Challenges
The Role-playing aspect. I want to add the Role Play aspect to the bidding process, but this is where it gets difficult. I was thinking making a list of verbal challenges and basing the bid structure on that.
Like I said still work in progress

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Frist glance, this is one thing I'd like you to discuss:

Any player who has 0 counters at the end of the turn pulls the trigger at whom he was pointing at.

It appears the idea is to keep as many counters as you can (btw, I do like "Stress Points" as a name).  However, if at 0 counters, you get to pull the trigger, how is that necessarily a bad thing?  If you pull and the person you are pointing at isn't ready to pull, then you've nailed a potential enemy.  Running out of counters in that case seems to become a *good* thing.  Or did I misinterpret what you wrote?

Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

What are the possible outcomes?

I'm missing something. It seems that the original setup is that the reason you don't shoot is because if you do, you will be shot. Let's say, for simplicity, you're dealing with two players. If, in fact, you can get away with shooting the other player, you'll just do it. So one of two things must be true: either shooting the other player will get you killed, or there's another reason, as yet unexamined, why the characters are not shooting each other.

So which is it? Can you survive if you shoot? Or can't you? If you can, how do we know? If you can't, then what does it matter how many pistols you have? Or is that only for games with more than two players? In a game with more than two players, if A shoots B, then C wins because he shoots A and is not shot by B? If that's the case, then basically you're trying to get the person you're aimed at to shoot, right?

What happens in a four player game, however? A shoots B, but can C shoot A without being shot by D? If not, does the game then move to being a three player game? If so, then why not simply shoot the fourth player right off? That is, everyone will simply try to do so as soon as possible.

It seems to me that with the system you have set up that there will be an easily determinable optimal strategy in bidding each round. Isn't that problematic? And how is this all really linked to the in-game color? At the moment, it sounds like you could simply play this as a card game without the in-game descriptions of the character's speaking, by simply declaring a level of bid. Yes, the moderator can make a difference, but that seems to me like you're really putting the GM in the middle of a very competitive game, and making his biases quite telling in terms of who wins. That seems problematic, too.

I like the concept, but I think it's got some problems yet.

Mike

[tj333]

Can you get more stress points after you hit 0? Or do you just keep pulling the trigger on one more person until someone goes for a last ditch effort to give you some of theirs?

I agree with Troy and Mike in that something more is needed to the game as it stands. It has more of a cold manipulating feel of getting other guy to snap then a when the shit hits the fan will I be left standing that I think a Mexican stand off should have. Perhaps some kind of downward spiral/endgame mechanic?

How about adding some special conditions that allow you to pull the trigger? Perhaps if the guy pointing at you pulls you can make a bid to fire as well? Or something that leads up to players pulling the trigger if they are at a small number of Stress Points when someone else does? That would lead up to a Jenga like fell as one bad move destabilizes everything.

One other thought I had is that Stress Points just keep going around the table with the total between players remaining the same. How about some things that cause the lose of stress points from the game?
Perhaps when someone dies everyone just forfeits 2 SP for the first, then 4 for the 2nd and so on.
The Plot Twist cards seem like another good way to remove Stress points. Give each card an activation cost in SP that needs to be payed before you can activate it.

Edit: Order of shooting! I think that when the shooting starts those with SP left should be in a higher shooting pass or be able to buy their way into one.
Perhaps shoot from highest to lowest SP remaining with the option to spend SP equal to the guy shooting you +2 to shoot first?