[RPG Idea] Mexican Stand Off

[WonderLlama]

Hopefully that is similar to what you want.  (And even if it isn't, I think I want to try it out this weekend.)  Of course, it's only a suggestion, so feel free to modify it on your own or work with me if part of it appeals to you.  I think there are a lot of things to vary to keep the game fresh.

You could always change the role deck around,  maybe playing with more than one The Rat one game.  Or you could add roles.  Mute Dog can't speak, and isn't The Rat, but maybe The Rat is just pretending to be Mute.  The possibilities are endless.

You could also add a gamemaster to throw in random (or unrandom) events, since I know that is an idea that appealed to you.  Construct an event deck similar to the role deck.  Using the same timing rules (or just using your arbitrary decision making power) throw out events throughout the stand off.  Maybe at 3 minutes two of the Dogs flashback to their amazing getaway, and you give them a hint into each other's role.  But maybe sometimes that hint is false.  At 5 minutes, Mr. Puce pulls out his second gun, and can point at two people.  At 6 minutes, Mr. Lavender decides Mr. Teal must be innocent, because he saw him kill a cop during the getaway, and Mr. Lavender becomes a Friend to Mr. Teal.  At 7 minutes, Mr. Clear decides to hide under the stairs, and can't fire or be fired upon for the next minute.  Personally, I wouldn't find the GM position as much fun, but it might work.

My biggest concern is that the game doesn't necessarily encourage people to discuss the robbery and get in the robber role.  They could just play to win and only talk about strategy and gambits.  I think it would still be a fun game, but it would be best if their were some way to get them into character.

Note that when someone is shot, they are more likely to get to fire than not.  If someone is pointing a gun at you, you'll probably die if you shoot them, so you have to wonder if it's worth the risk.  The moment they point their gun away, on the other hand...

[Grover]

I like the idea of everyone having an open target, and a concealed target.  Open targets indicate who you are pointing your gun at (possibly nobody).  Concealed targets indicate who you are going to shoot when the shit hits the fan.  You can elect to make your concealed target 'Dive for cover'.  When the shootout occurs, people whose open target matched their concealed target fire first, and kill their target.  People who's open target doesn't match their concealed target fire second, and kill their target.  (In both cases simultaneous kills are not only legal, they are encouraged).  If you have 'Dive for Cover' as your concealed target, you will live, unless someone else who had you as their concealed target gets their shot off without being shot in return (i.e. if nobody was shooting at them, or the only people shooting at them weren't pointing a gun at them when the shit hit the fan.)

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

My biggest concern is that the game doesn't necessarily encourage people to discuss the robbery and get in the robber role. They could just play to win and only talk about strategy and gambits. I think it would still be a fun game, but it would be best if their were some way to get them into character.

This is why I think the chips/currency is SO important.  You can spend them to implicate another player as a rat or as an incompitent goof- thus talking about the robber/incident that took place.  You can also spend them to dodge the bullet.  You can spend them to introduce a plot twist (the hungry pitbull, cops outside, The Boss showing up, phone ringing, whatever).  This game, though extreemly limited in scope, would be almost limitless in fun.  There are so many things you could do to increase tension as each player whittles down their chips and hopes to survive.

Dregg, you *need* to make this game.  People will love it!

Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

The thing with the chips, Troy, is that you could use them, too, without narration. Now, if you put the GM in the role of determining how well a narration matches a chip amount, again you have the problem of the GM's subjectivity affecting the strategy.

Or did I miss something about how the chips work that make them work to include narration?

Mike

[WonderLlama]

Ok, so we want a mechanism that requires players to create backstory through flashbacks.  We ideally also want a moderator.  And we'd like a chip resource.

I'm also going to assume it's better if the player's usually have control over whether to fire.  The game is more powerful if the player is motivated to snap on their own.  It doesn't mean much emotionally if you snap because the rules tell you to snap.  That's why I like the rat.  It gives people motivation to snap.  Plus, it's very Reservoir Dogs-esque.


Try this on for size:

The game is basically similar to the one I proposed earlier.
Rather than being dealt a role, you are dealt predispositions.  You might have something like rat 2, loot 3, psycho 1 to start.  That can be done with cards, dice, moderator's fiat, doesn't really matter.  Only you and the moderator know.

You start with some number of chips.

Narration passes in turn.  When it is your turn, describe a flashback from the job.  In that flashback, you can tell about things the other players did that make them look like the rat, boss, etc.  It costs you one chip per person to do this.  If you describe someone as the rat, you give them that chip, otherwise it goes to the moderator.  Everytime you describe someone ELSE, they get a point in that role.  Once they get to 6, they are truly that role.  Any more points in that attribute don't matter for anyone.  You can't end up with muliple roles either unless one is the Dying Dog or the Boss, and those and the Psycho are still revealed.  Otherwise, only the moderator knows for sure.

You can steal narration out of turn for one chip, even during someone else's.  After every round of narration, deal everyone one chip.  

If you don't like the way someone is narrating you, shoot them.  That's the only real defense you have.  If you think someone is the rat, or some other role you don't like, shoot them.  You can shoot at any time, even during narration.  But remember that starting a showdown can still get you killed, likely as not.

The moderator's job is to keep track of points and who has what role.  You might also want to add in the random events for them to handle to give them more to do.

Timing cards would probably come into play after rounds, rather than after minute marks.

[rbingham2000]

I've been a lurker on these boards for some time, but this thread is cool enough that I feel the need to de-lurk.

With that said:

I love the premise of the game -- three or more guys with guns in each other's faces playing a game of nerves that will very likely end in a bloodbath.

However, I don't feel that Tarantino's "bank robbers looking for the rat who sold them out" scenario is the only scenario that can be played out with this game, especially given the other big standoff that comes to mind when I think of the premise: the standoff and shootout at the church in the John Woo movie, Face/Off.

It's a classic hero and villain movie, but the hero and villain have swapped faces, the hero to get inside the villain's organization and stop his evil plan, the villain to insinuate himself into the hero's job and private life and basically mess with the hero's mind. Also in the standoff are several FBI agents and several of the villain's allies, who don't have a clue which one of the two main players is which.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Wonderllama, I'm guessing you are Dregg, correct?

Rather than being dealt a role, you are dealt predispositions. You might have something like rat 2, loot 3, psycho 1 to start. That can be done with cards, dice, moderator's fiat, doesn't really matter. Only you and the moderator know.

Why do you feel random personality assignment will better facilitate play in your game?  I'm not saying it will or won't, I just want to hear your justification.

Narration passes in turn. When it is your turn, describe a flashback from the job. In that flashback, you can tell about things the other players did that make them look like the rat, boss, etc. It costs you one chip per person to do this. If you describe someone as the rat, you give them that chip, otherwise it goes to the moderator. Everytime you describe someone ELSE, they get a point in that role. Once they get to 6, they are truly that role. Any more points in that attribute don't matter for anyone. You can't end up with muliple roles either unless one is the Dying Dog or the Boss, and those and the Psycho are still revealed. Otherwise, only the moderator knows for sure.

Can players spend chips to get rid of points?  I would suggest, yes.

You can steal narration out of turn for one chip, even during someone else's. After every round of narration, deal everyone one chip.

This is good, but simplify it.  Just have the ability to steal narration cost the player 1 chip to each other player and the moderator.

Timing cards would probably come into play after rounds, rather than after minute marks.

So what happened to plot twists: a grenade tossed in the building, drive by shooting, sirens in the background, and so on?  Make the players spend chips to avoid being blown up, shot, and caught by the police.

And lastly, once a player is out of chips, then what?

BTW: This is shaping up to be a very good game.

Peace,

-Troy

PS: must this game be only about bank robbers?  I can see application to inner city gangs, old west shootouts, 1920's era speakeasies, and so on.  Might want to broaden your horizons, but include rules for many personality types (psycho, thug, rat, twitchy, etc.) and scenarios.

[Mike Holmes]

I agree that it can theoretically pertain to a large number of theoretical plots. But I also think that, perhaps, working through how it would work for the resivoir dogs plot first might be best. Figure out how to make that one work, and then find a way to generalize the mechanics to make up new situations. Otherwise, if you start looking at the general picture first, I think it might quagmire the design before it really gets going. I mean, at the moment, I think it's still pretty conceptual. Until somebody comes up with a set of rules that meets the design criteria at all, I think it's good to keep the concept as easy to design as possible.

Mike

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

I agree that it can theoretically pertain to a large number of theoretical plots. But I also think that, perhaps, working through how it would work for the resivoir dogs plot first might be best. Figure out how to make that one work, and then find a way to generalize the mechanics to make up new situations. Otherwise, if you start looking at the general picture first, I think it might quagmire the design before it really gets going. I mean, at the moment, I think it's still pretty conceptual. Until somebody comes up with a set of rules that meets the design criteria at all, I think it's good to keep the concept as easy to design as possible.

Mike

-Good point, Mike.  I just wanted to let Dregg (whoever) know that this design has a lot of potential and to not let a sing genre or trope dominate the design.

-Peace

-Troy

[WonderLlama]

No, I am not Dregg.  I was just so inspired by the idea that I had to say something.  My biggest hesitation was that I was afraid I might end up stealing the focus from Dregg.  Which I guess has happened a little.  Sorry.  I wanted to throw my ideas out there in case Dregg wanted to use any of them.  But I'm probably willing to push on with the game if he doesn't.

I don't think this game needs to be limited to the scenario in Reservoir Dogs.  In fact, when I was initially jotting it down, it wasn't going to.  But I think the concept of roles is very important to it, and it just happened that most of the good roles I thought of fit Reservoir Dogs.  (I didn't mention the possible Mute role.)  I was very much hoping that part of the replayability of the game would be in using different sets of roles.  A wildly different set of roles could match a situation very different from Reservoir Dogs.  Plus, I was kinda hoping to nudge Dregg or whomever into thinking up other roles, so I didn't want to throw out too many.

The roles or role-tendancies don't necessarily need to be random.  They do need to be secret.  It is very important that players do not know at least some of the roles of other people.  And even more important that you don't know if other people know your role.  The Rat should be sweating bullets wondering if he has been made.  Anybody else with a role that the other players won't like should either be a secret, or have a secret component, like the psycho.  If the psycho points his gun at you, it's very tense because you don't know when he might snap.  I suppose with the role-tendancy system, players could pick their own tendancies.  But this is a very quick game that ideally should be played more than once, probably in the same day.  It would be best if players didn't tend to pick the same roles repeatedly.

This game has a lot of gamist leaning, by necessity.  The players are supposed to be under stress.  That's a big part of the stand-off atmosphere.  I think that only works if the players are trying to stay alive.  If your concern is trying to tell a good story, you might not worry as much, or even welcome being shot.  But if players are trying to win, they might pick their roles as part of trying to win, and I think that takes away from valuable variety.  I'm not married to the gamist nature in itself; if I could think of another way to induce the same tension I would consider it.  But so far, I can't.

Up until now, all I've been doing is brainstorming.  Throwing ideas out there.  It hadn't crossed my mind that I might be the one creating this game.  I wanted to get the idea of establising role through narrating flashbacks out there.  And show that it could be done while still preseving role-secrecy, which is vital.  I'll think on the numbers of chips that everything would actually take.  My preliminary feelings are:

1 chip per player is way more than stealing narration is worth if you're trying to win.  Unless the cost of narration is much higher.
My initial thought was that I wanted players to have no narrative control over their own character.  Their only control would be from the threat of their gun.  But honestly, I'm not sure why I ever thought that would be a good idea.
With the current roles, The Rat is the most significant.  I want to make sure the other roles come into play as well.  My hope was the likelyhood that someone will shoot you if you start calling them a rat was enough deterrant.  But I'll have to look at that.
When someone is out of chips, they have no narrative power (or maybe very limited power).  Just gunpower.  That's one of the reasons I envisioned a replenishing supply.  One thing I very much don't want is for the chips to directly interact with the shooting.  If someone decides to shoot you, you are dead.  No resource is going to save you.  I feel that's an important principle.  Fear of the other players and caution against pushing them too far should be center stage.

I haven't abandoned the idea of random events.  I'm almost certain the game is better with them.  It's mostly a matter of thinking of a sufficiently large and interesting pool.  (And a system for representing hommade ones is probably good too.)  Those could very much interact with chips as well as changing the rules.

I did get a chance to playtest version 1 (the non-narrative first post version) over the weekend.  A brief summary of what I learned will follow in the next post.

And again, Dregg, if you're listening, I very much do not want to steal your idea.  If you want to use any of this, or feel uncomfortable with my being inspired by your idea, let me know.

[WonderLlama]

I realize playtest logs don't belong here.  I post a longer version in the appropriate place.  The basics:

Two five player games, with one player switching between.  The first game ended with everybody shot dead.  The second, two of us walked off with the loot, with the rat dead.  Virtually no narration in the first, some in the second, but mostly lead by me.

One, my brother, didn't want to play at all and really just wanted to drink.  He hated it.  Another had never role-played before.  He didn't give me much feedback, but I don't think he liked it much.  The player who co-won with me seemed to like it.  The first player to die both times liked it a lot, but he loves all the games I've written.  Another thought it showed promise, but that we needed more players.

So I take away the following:
There needs to be impetus to start roleplaying.  Either a narrative system, or at least some introduction to give people an idea of what they might say, and especially what they can say that might keep them alive.
This is not a game to use to introduce someone to roleplaying.  They probably won't get it.
You really do want more players.  I think you really want to aim for seven.
You really want toy guns.  Squirt guns or dart guns would be better.  I'm not taking my brother's advise to use beebee guns though.
Even version 1, which had what I though were simple rules, is more complicated to learn than I thought.  It plays simply enough, but you really need people to understand the rules before you start playing.

Good enough to show promise, not good enough to accept it as is.  I think the game can work real-time without a structured narrative system.  I want to throw in random events and tweak, and try again.  I want to also run the more-structured narrative system version of the game to compare.  It could very well be there is more than one good game to be written here.

[Chris Goodwin]

I hope I'm not too late to begin posting ideas.  

I really like the idea of hidden roles.  I also really like the idea of pressure building (a la Pulp Fiction where Butch and Vincent were staring each other down, Butch had a machine gun and there were pop tarts in the toaster).  

I think it would be cool if everyone had a number of points at the beginning (say 10).  People bid these for the right to choose one of the hidden roles; only spend if you win the bid.  Any points you have left become your Stress Level.  Keep this secret from the rest of the players.  

In the backstory, there was a caper that went wrong.  Each player takes turns introducing themselves by name along with their role in the caper (driver, triggerman, lookout, safecracker, etc.) and what they actually did -- note that this is not your hidden role, if you have one.  After everyone has done that, they then go around the table again, taking turns describing how the caper went wrong.  Every time someone gets blamed, they gain one Pressure Point.  

Every time you have a gun pointed at you, you gain one Pressure Point.  

People can, at any time after introducing themselves, draw their gun and point it at someone, but whenever a character's Pressure Points are greater than (not equal to) their Stress Level, they draw their gun.  

Whenever a stress event occurs, everyone gains one Pressure Point.  Stress events can include someone drawing a gun, someone shooting, a car backfiring, the toaster popping, microwave timer goes off, the phone rings, someone interrupts someone else, bad news comes in, someone talking out of turn, etc.  When in doubt, it's a stress event.  (Option:  Include real world events as well as in-game ones; if the microwave goes off in real life, then one can go off in the game as well.)  

If someone accuses you of screwing up the caper, gain one Pressure Point.  If someone accuses you of being the rat, gain one Pressure Point.  If you really are the rat, gain two Pressure Points.  

Keep both your Stress Level and your Pressure Points secret, until you have either one or two (you choose) more Pressure Points than Stress Level, at which time you reveal them.  You never have to reveal them until this time, but you have to stay honest.  

If, at the beginning of your turn, you have more Pressure Points than your Stress Level, every time you gain a Pressure Point, roll 1d6 per point over.  On a 6, you shoot.  If multiple people shoot at the same time, they roll simultaneously, but their shots go off in order of the most Pressure Points over Stress Level to the least.  (I like the idea of this being random, because you never know when the shoe is going to drop.)

[WonderLlama]

I also really like the idea of pressure building (a la Pulp Fiction where Butch and Vincent were staring each other down, Butch had a machine gun and there were pop tarts in the toaster).  

I like the concept of pressure building.  I'd like that there were some mechanic to represent it.  But what I don't want to do is often force players to shoot.  A player should usually shoot either because they think they have an advantage, or because the pressure gets to them, the player.  I think with your proposed mechanic, most of the shots would be involuntary.

Another result of pressure would be nice, but I can't think of one.  Or at least I can't think of one that wouldn't be far too complicated.

[WonderLlama]

This might work:

The game is played with a moderator, but is still real time.

Players are dealt role cards at the beginning.  That represents your initial role.  Some of the roles are fixed.  But most of them are just role leanings.  You start with that role, and a score in that role as indicate on your card.  For the most part, players will start with a score of 3 in a role.

But most of the roles can change.  You can increase or decrease player's values in roles through narration.  Some roles are limited to one player.  If you start with 3 in The Guy with the Loot, but someone gets narrated up to 4, they have the loot and you don't.  Others can be shared.  If you are already a friend, and someone else gets narrated up to a score of 3 in friend, then they are a friend as well.  The moderator will generally let players know when their role has changed in the secret message phase.  There may be some roles where you won't know if you have the role or not yourself, but I haven't thought of any yet.

Each player also recieves 5 chips to start.

The rules are generally hierarchical.  Higher rules preempt lower rules:

If you are dead, you do absolutely nothing unless an event card specifically tells you to.  All your unbid chips are out of the game.

If you have any roles, obey the rules on your role card.  They override all the following rules.

You may point your gun at another player, or holster it, at absolutely any time.  After you do, count to 5, out loud.  If you do this during another player's narration, do this quitely enough not to drown them out.  You may not initiate a showdown until the count of 5.  If a showdown gets started before your count of 2, you got caught in transition, and you shoot no one.

You may fire at any time, including during narration, except as prevented above.  You also may not fire during the first minute.

The showdown works basically as before.  If the narrator dies, narration is over.  Otherwise, it may continue, but may not have much time left.

The first 30 seconds of each minute are the bid phase.  Players may discuss the situation, strategize, threaten each other, whatever.  Also, they may throw chips into the pot, announcing their total.  The central pot is for control of narration.  Whoever has the most chips in the pot gets narration.  On ties, the player who got their chips in first wins, so only bid to win, not to tie.  Also, players may place chips in front of themselves to bid on control of the next random event.

At 30 seconds, we move to narration.  The moderator announces the narrator.  The other players may not speak except to adjust aim or fire.  Narration lasts for 20 seconds.  The narrator should tell a brief flashback episode.  For each player he is implicating in a role, he should toss one chip into the pile.  The moderator should note any increses or decreases in role scores that are narrated and paid for.  Players can continue to bid on random event control during narration.

At 50 secconds, narration is over.  Bidding on random event control is done.  The player with the most chips in front of them wins.  On ties,  the player closer to the narrator's left wins the tiebreak.  The narrator should now pass out secret messages to each player indicating any change in their role or secret information they have learned, and also any minute event instructions.  Also, unles that turn's random event card is secret, it should be revealed.  Not all the random event cards care who won random event control, but if this one does, it generally should be passed to the player who won.  Also, chips are redistibuted.  All the bid chips are put in a pile, and the moderator should deal them back out, starting on the narrator's left.

At 60 seconds, all minute events happen.  These will be based on roles and events.

Then the next round starts.  Players begin bidding and arguing again, but this time while contemplating their secret messages and newfound roles.


The moderator needs to plan ahead.  He should look at the next random event card as soon as possible.  He should begin jotting down player's secret notes as early as possible.  He is also responsible for dealing showdown cards and chips, resolving rule disputes, and annoucing time to move to each phase.

The game is designed to be very hectic.  Hopefully not so hectic that players can't think of anything to narrate in time.  If that turns out to be the case, the game might need to be stretched out a bit.  Players should be thinking about what they would like to narrate during the bid phase.  Also, hopefully showdowns can be resolved fairly quickly.  If not, the moderator may need to run the game with a stopwatch, and freeze time during showdowns.

Let me know what you think.  Also, tell me if there is any part of those rules of which you don't understand the purpose.

[Mike Holmes]

I'm really not liking all the moves to metagame. A player should know who his own character is - that shouldn't change. Does having narration mean that you get to narrate facts into existence? Or does it just mean that your character can talk? I'd prefer it if the events that upped the pressure weren't measured artificially. I'd rather the mechanics remain unknown such that the pressure is on the player estimating the reality of the situation.

See where I'm going?

Basically I'm seeing two games here. A little card game, and an interestingly limited RPG. I'd prefer the latter, though I'd take the former. What I think you can't have is a game that is both a beer and pretzels card game, and a full-fledged shortform RPG.

Mike