[RPG Idea] Mexican Stand Off

[Harlequin]

Hmm - coupla tossouts.

One is that I'd side with the camp that says that it'd work better without a mechanical representation of the stress.  Do it, instead, by upping the mechanical incentive for a player to talk faster and harder - you have to get more convincing (perhaps recognized by mechanically acknowledged 'nods' of the head from the other players - Baron Munchausen at the barrel of a gun?) with no upper limit, and if you can't come up with something on your 'turn', it's talk or shoot.

The other tossout for this is just one word.  Flashbacks.

- Eric

[Larry L.]

Mike, you rock. I'd been banging my head on that stuff and trying to break it down to constructive terms.

So which is it? Can you survive if you shoot? Or can't you? If you can, how do we know?

The way I think it works in the "genre" is that the chain of who shoots who is more complicated than one would like given the stress of the situation. You're forced to evaluate the relationship map very quickly. Who do you trust? Who's out to get you? Choose wrong, you're dead. You think your trusted buddy's covering your back, but just when you think you've got the upper hand he turns on you and you're S.O.L.

Really, I think pointing your gun at another player is not saying, "I WILL kill you given the opportunity," it's saying "Convince me why I shouldn't kill you."

Here's how I see those base situations working out:

Situation: Mr. Teal aims at Mr. Muave. Mr. Muave aims at Mr. Teal.

The compelling reason not to shoot is that you will be shot in return, thus both losing. This is a stalemate. What breaks the stalemate? Hmm... Trick the other guy into lowering his weapon? Paralyse him with the momentary realization that, due to outside circumstances, he's gonna be dead anyway?

Situation: Mr. Teal aims at Mr. Muave. Mr. Muave aims at Mr. Teal. Mr. Ochre hasn't decided yet.

Same stalemate as before, with a potential tiebreaker to court. Teal and Muave each try to convince Ochre to shoot the other. If either Teal or Muave shoot, they know they'll both lose and Ochre wins by default.

Situation: Teal at Muave. Muave at Teal. Ochre at Muave.

If Teal shoots, Muave shoots him back. Ochre (redundantly) shoots Muave, and wins.
If Muave shoots, he's kill Teal but be shot by the others, and Ochre wins again.
If Ochre shoots, Muave dies but Muave shoots Teal, again leaving Ochre the only survivor.

Therefore, Muave needs to point out to Teal that Ochre is going to win no matter what, without drawing the ire of Ochre, who could pretty much just shoot and win right now. So... what's stopping Ochre from pulling the trigger? Hmm... confusion due to the swiftness of events? (You can't shoot yet.) Or... perhaps Ochre has a vested interest in Teal not dying?

Hey, that's cool. Maybe one of the other players is secretly assigned to be your "ally," the one guy who's not screwing you over, and you have to figure out who that is. (Plot twist cards?) You kill him, you'll never see the money or whatever. A strategy is convincing other players that they are that ally.

Maybe the stress pool is actually a "confusion" pool. You don't have the nerve to pull the trigger until this is depleted. Or maybe there's a progressingly diminishing random chance you won't do it.

[Sydney Freedberg]

Baron Munchausen at the barrel of a gun....Flashbacks.

Yeah, I think Eric's nailed it. Lots of people standing around pointing guns at each other? So what? What makes it matter -- what makes the guns move from target to target -- is their history and how it comes out in the game.

Which means the power of the game, and the focus of the mechanics, should be on establishing backstory on the fly.

You need something where Player A can look at the Player B, whose character is currently aiming at A's, and go "But B, you gotta listen, it wasn't me that took the loot! It was C! I seen him put the black duffel into that beat-up old Grand Am of his!"

And then Player A invests some kind of narrative authority points into making his statement true, and maybe C's player invested narrative authority points (NAP?) in undermining it, and at the end B's player decides whether he points his gun elsewhere or not -- and maybe C's player decides A is setting him up and points his gun at A. At which point you get decisions like "which is more likely to get me killed, letting this jerk keep bad-mouthing me or pulling the trigger?"

With a sufficiently robust system (stripped-down & customized Universalis maybe?) and a flexible enough group of roleplayers, you could go in with no character definition whatsoever, making a perfect pick-up game: "You're all hoods, something went wrong with the job, now you're all pointing guns at each other, go!" And then things like "but Tony, you can't shoot me, your own brother!" or "don't you trust me, after all those steamy nights we shared in Acupulco" pop up during play, as bids to get the gun off you, and establish who's friends with whom and who's screwed whom literally or figuratively.

[timfire]

Baron Munchausen at the barrel of a gun...

That comment got me thinking. This is how I would do it. People just keep talking. At any point someone can simply yell "Bang!" At that point, everyone writes on a piece of paper who they shoot (one person only). They do this secretly. Then, they announce who they shot. Whoever's still standing continues to play.

Calling for people to "stand down" is effectively the same as yelling "Bang!" People write on the paper whether they stand down or whether they shoot (& who they shoot.)

Play continues until either one person is left standing or until everyone stands down.

You know, you might also want "interrupt" tokens. These tokens can be used for two things -- to either contradict what someone else said, or to stop someone from yelling "Bang!" or "stand down."

Players start with something like 2 or 3 tokens. When they use the token, they pass it to the player in question. That player can then re-use the token. If the player is using the token to contradict, the other player can can re-assert his fact by giving the first player a token (instead of taking the token). The players can then bid tokens to determine if the fact is true or false. Spending a token to stop a "Bang" or "stand down" is automatic, it cannot be out-bid.

Also, I would require every player to carry a toy gun and point it at another player the entire time. I think it would be great for building tension. [edit] The person they are pointing the gun at doesn't have to be the same person they write on the piece of paper. That way, you can never be sure who they are likely to "shoot". [/edit]

(PS - this is basically Baren Machausen with the addition of the "Bang/Stand Down" idea.)

[Doug Ruff]

Dammit, I'd just typed up the idea I'd had, and then I realised it was virtually the same as Tim's!

One additional suggestion: if someone yells "Bang!", they don't get to write down who they shoot on a piece of paper, they must shoot the person who the gun is pointing at (otherwise pointing your gun is meaningless.)

However, anyone who shouts "Bang!" also gets initiative. The person they shoot doesn't get to do anything, they're dead already. So there's an incentive to crack.

I'd also give each player a secret marker (say, a die under a cup) so that they can determine in advance who they are going to shoot (including "noone") if someone cracks. Give regular opportunities for each player to change their orders. This means the aim is to guess when no-one is aiming at you and then start the firefight.

[xenopulse]

Cool idea, yelling Bang and all, scribbling frantically (there should be a five second time limit)... but what happens when there are only two people left?

[Doug Ruff]

Cool idea, yelling Bang and all, scribbling frantically (there should be a five second time limit)... but what happens when there are only two people left?

If there are two people left (this isn't guaranteed by any means) then I think they should have another chance to speak, then secretly determine (scribble or use a marker) whether they shoot or stand.

If they both shoot, they both die. If they both stand, they both get to live (and split the loot/lead a new life in Mexico/whatever). If only one person shoots, they live and the other person dies. Classic Prisoner's dilemma, the decision is based on how much you want to see the other person dead, and how much you value your own hide.

[xenopulse]

Classic PD, single game, rational players will always choose to defect (i.e., shoot). I guess that works out with the gritty feel of the game. :)

And yeah, it might turn out that, e.g., when three people are left, two of them die in one round.

[timfire]

One additional suggestion: if someone yells "Bang!", they don't get to write down who they shoot on a piece of paper, they must shoot the person who the gun is pointing at (otherwise pointing your gun is meaningless.)

This would work, I thought about that myself.

However, anyone who shouts "Bang!" also gets initiative. The person they shoot doesn't get to do anything, they're dead already. So there's an incentive to crack.

I had to think about this one. At first I was against, but then thought maybe it was good idea. It definitely adds an incentive to shoot.

If I may add to the "token" rules I put forth earlier, I was thinking that if you use a token to block a "Bang/Stand-down", that token gets removed from play. That way, there would be diminishing resources as the game progressives. Eventually you would hit a point where it was impossible to stop a "Bang/Stand-down."

[Doug Ruff]

Classic PD, single game, rational players will always choose to defect (i.e., shoot). I guess that works out with the gritty feel of the game. :)

I realised that I made a mistake when I labelled this "classic" PD, as in the usual scenario there isn't any communication between the prisoners. In this game, communication is happening, so I would expect the decision to follow a different logic. In fact, as there is no real loss to the player if their character dies, I would expect the decision to be based on other factors.

If I may add to the "token" rules I put forth earlier, I was thinking that if you use a token to block a "Bang/Stand-down", that token gets removed from play. That way, there would be diminishing resources as the game progressives. Eventually you would hit a point where it was impossible to stop a "Bang/Stand-down."

I have a slight problem with the token rules as written; having someone able to interrupt a "Bang!" feels a bit anti-climatic to me. And what happens if three people shout "Bang!" at the same time?

However, I was wondering whether a single token could be used as an indicator of suspicion. If I'm holding a token, I'm the suspect (I stole the loot, or snitched to the police, or killed the boss). To take the attention off of me, I have to accuse someone else, which means that I can pass the token to them but I also have to point my gun towards them (otherwise I'm going to look like a bad liar.) Exception: if someone is pointing a gun at me, I can point one at them instead of towards the suspect.

Other players can choose to point their guns where they choose; all players (including me as the accuser) can reassign their hidden orders.

This adds a definite turn structure to the game and adds pressure to the narration: I'd also like the token to indicate actual guilt, but I think that this would encourage people to shoot too early. Any ideas, anyone?

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I'd also like to ask what is the moderator's role at this point?  Just to make sure things run smoothly?  Why not have him introduce the "plot twists" or whatever each round.  Things like:

-A hungry pitbull enters the room
-Sirens are heard outside
-Someone tosses a grenade in the room from outdoors
-A janitor shows up
-It begins to rain
-The lights go out
-A car pulls up
-A watch beeps and keeps beeping

And so on.  This way, the situation evolves and challenges the players to evolve their strategy as well.  This very much captures the ideas of movies like The Way of the Gun, Resvoir Dogs, and various Shield episodes.

Peace,

-Troy

[Larry L.]

Does the game need a moderator?

[Mike Holmes]

I like the "bang" idea. What I'd say is that when Bang happens, you can choose to shoot the person that you're aiming at, or do one other thing like change aim. If you're still standing after all of the declared actions of the first round (duck, aim, shoot, whatever), then you can shoot the new person that you're now aiming at. Often the player will figure that they don't have time to change aim, but it all depends on the circumstances.

I take it that the game starts with everyone pointing a gun at somebody else, right? So how is it established as to who is aiming at whom to start? Everyone aims at  the character of the player to the left? Roll randomly? Secretly write it down?

As for "Standing down" I think that players should be allowed to voluntarily stand down on their turn, or ask all to stand down (and then write as proposed). It might make sense strategically to stand down voluntarily at some point.

I agree that there needs to be some mechanism to establish why each character is aiming at the others. But this is a very gamism based game right now it seems to me. That is, the only real player goal is to be alive at the end of the game. As such, no in-game rationale will beat the metagame tactics as to what players will do. Meaning that you have to have the metagame match the in-game somehow in a very tight fashion.

"Just talking" won't work, IMO.

In any case, I think that the "stress" should be introduced by simply having a randomly increasing pool of points or something that represents the police on their way or the like. That is, if the pool gets to 100 or something, then all the players lose. So they have to figure out some way out of the situation before that time comes, or their characters go to jail or are shot by police.

This is the mechanism in the game "Republic of Rome" BTW. One can persue becoming emperor and forget about Rome if they want. But then the game is likely to win and all the players lose. So the game forces some level of co-operation. Part of play is figuring out how much effort to put into staving off the fall of Rome, all while also allocating resources towards promoting yourself as the winner.

I think this is a great mechanism for producing the sort of stress sought. "We have to do something now, or we're all going to jail!" BTW, it's the incorporation of this last criteria that does make it a prisoner's dilemma. But the level of rewards for the different results make it more like the "chicken" version. For the Game Theory followers out there.

Mike

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Does the game need a moderator?

He mentioned that he wanted one, so I was just making a suggestion to facilitate that.  And I do believe that an impartial moderator can add a lot of fun by throwing kinks in the situation for the players.

Peace,

-Troy

[WonderLlama]

Your idea inspired me, and I had to delurk.  I apologize in advance if this is too in-depth, or takes your idea in a different direction than you want.  But I think this idea is fairly complete in itself, or you could modify it a few ways.

Here's the game:

This game is somewhat similar to the game Mafia.  Players are robbers trying to stay alive and out of jail after a heist gone bad. Everyone plays a robber, like in Reservoir Dogs, but most players will be assigned a more specific role.  You know someone is probably The Rat, and you need them dead, or you're going to jail.  But maybe there is no rat, and you all just bungled the job.  But you've got to decide what to do quickly before the cops show up and nab you all.

At the beginning of the game, players are dealt roles.  You can use a standard deck of cards to do this.  Players will end up with roles like The Rat, The Friend, or Psycho.  More on specific roles later.  In most cases, they will keep their role secret.  There will usually be a The Rat, but not always.   Put one face card representing each role in the deck.   Then put enough extra non-face cards in the deck so that there are three more cards than players, unless there are already three fewer players than roles.  Each player draws a card.  Some roles require a player to draw a secondary role from the remaining cards.  Some require the draw of a timeing card from a fresh deck.  More on timing cards and specific roles later.

Once everyone has a role, and performs any setup associated with their role, the game begins.  The game will last at most 10 minutes and 1 second.  At that point, the cops come and everyone gets arrested.  The game can end before that in everyone dies, all but one person dies, or everybody decides to walk away peacfully.

At every point in the game, you will either have your gun pointed at someone, or holstered.  Use toy guns and actually point them at people.  If everyone holsters, then everyone walks away peacefully.  If you point your gun at someone, you are prepared to shoot them if it comes to a showdown.  Everyone may talk as much as they want to convinve the others they are in the clear.  There are no rules concerning talking.  You can interrupt freely.  Just keep in mind it may not be the best idea to interrupt someone pointing a gun at your head.  At any point, anyone can initiate a showdown by saying "Bang".

When a showdown begins, everyone is dealt a card from a fresh deck of cards.  All guns are frozen; you can't change targets in the fraction of a second the showdown takes.  If anyone was changing targets in the second before the showdown, their gun isn't pointed at anyone.  That's the price you pay to change targets.

Players fire shots in a showdown.  When you fire a shot, whoever your gun points at is dead.  But they might get their shot off while they die.  Reveal both player's cards.  If the target's card is at least as high, or the same suit as the killer, then the target MUST fire.  Resolve the target's shot in the same way.

Whoever initiated the showdown gets the first shot and MUST fire.

After the first chain of shots, some players will likely still be alive and have cards.  Any of them may choose to fire by saying "Bang".  That starts a new chain of firing, but no one gets to change their target.

If two players say "Bang", whoever started first gets the first shot off.  If no one can tell who was first, they both fire.  It doesn't matter what order you resolve their shots.

After the showdown, the game continues.  Everyone who lives may point their guns at new targets.  Someone may say "Bang" again to start a new showdown if they wish.  Everyone who is dead is dead.  The dead don't speak or fire guns.  They also take the secret of their role to the grave.

Several of the roles cause something special to happen at various minute marks.  In some cases, this is fixed.  In other cases, you draw a card to determine at which minute mark the event happens.  If it is a number, the event happens at that minute.  If it is a face card or an ace, the event doesn't happen.  These events serve to give different players vested interests in stalling or getting things over with.  They also drive up the tension.  You can't start a showdown in the middle of resolving a minute event.

At the end of the game, some players win and some don't.  You give each player a score to represent how well they did, and you can total them if you want to play more than one game.  If you die, you get 0 points.  If you get arrested, you get 1 point.  If you're The Rat, you get 1 point for every player arrested (either at 10 minutes or who walks away while you live), plus 1 for yourself, but only if you live.  If you're not The Rat, you walk away, and The Rat is dead or nonexistent, you get 2 points.  Plus, if The Dog With The Loot lives, you get a 3rd point.  The Dying Dog gets 1 extra point just for living.

Here are the roles:
The Rat:
You want to stay alive, and keep as many crooks alive as possible so that you can arrest them.  You may not initiate a showdown.

Psycho:
Reveal this card.  Everyone saw you perform on the job, and they know you're not the rat.  Draw a timing card, but don't reveal it.  You must point your gun at someone at that minute mark and say "Bang".

The Dog With The Loot:
You stashed the loot.  As long as you live and aren't arrested, the robbers get to divvy it up.  The problem is, you can't prove you have the loot, and you can't reveal this card.

The Dying Dog:
You're dying.  The blood is pretty obvious, so reveal the card.  If everybody doesn't walk away and take you to a hospital, you might bleed to death.  The player on your left draws a timing card to find out if and when you're going to die.  They can't show it to you, but they can offer you their amature opinion on how long you have to live.  Draw a secondary role.  This role only applies if it is The Rat.  Otherwise, ignore it.

The Friend:
Pick a player to be your friend.  Use the honor system, or write it down when no one is looking.  You may not point your gun at your friend.  If anyone is pointing a gun at your friend, you must point your gun at one of them.  If anyone shoots your friend you must shoot him at the earlies possibility, starting a new showdown immediately after the first one is resolved if necessary.  At the 8 minute mark, reveal your role and your friend.  Your friend is overcome with emotion and reveals his true role to you.  You (and only you) may look at his role.  At that point, all friend rules are off.  If your friend turns out to be The Rat (or even if he doesn't), feel free to execute the dirty traitor.

The Boss:
Everybody knows you're in charge.  Reveal this card.  But you still might be The Rat.  Draw a secondary role, but ignore it unless it is The Rat.  At the seven minute mark, your instinct kicks in, you MUST pick three other players, and look at their roles.  Unless there are fewer than four other players left, that is.  In that case look at all but one of their roles.  You MUST announce that one of those players is The Rat, even if none actually is (and you can lie if you want even if you do spot The Rat.)  You must point your gun at the alleged rat, and may not point it away unless he dies.

A Dog:
Anyone who draws an extra numbered card is just a regular robber.