[RPG Idea] Mexican Stand Off

[WonderLlama]

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.

The idea was for the narrator to be able to tell backstory, flashbacks, how everybody got to this showdown.  But nothing about what is happening now.  Whatever is happening now is happening now.  The ability to influence roles is mostly a bribe to get people to want to narrate.

But I very much see your point about knowing your own role.  If I'm an undercover cop, I know I'm an undercover cop.  I shouldn't suddenly realize I'm an undercover cop because someone narrated a flashback.  Most roles really need to be fixed.  Either I need to scrap that idea, or I need to add more roles that make sense to change.  It makes sense to me to pick up the friend role part way through the game.  Maybe there are other roles that could work.  

Or there could be another bribe for narration entirely.  But right now, roles are the only mechanic out there worthy of being bribes.  I just don't see people making up history without bribes.  And without history, players don't have anything to talk about besides strategy.  

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.

Yeah, I'm seeing at least two games here myself.  But from your earlier comments, it sounded like you preferred the little card game.  Since you don't like the mechanic pushing people to roleplay.  Can you explain to me what part of the game you like that moves towards roleplaying?

Mostly, I think I need to playtest to weed out whichever of these ideas don't work.

[Chris Goodwin]

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.

I don't see a reason why players couldn't choose to shoot at any time.  But if that 6 comes up, the pressure has gotten to you.  You've cracked, gone around the bend.  If you have a gun in your hand, the likely outcome is BANG.

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of being a game about characters and having a mechanic to emulate psychological pressure on them.  If it's intense for the players that's an added bonus, but I'm not sure how enjoyable a game that relies on that as a mechanic would be, nor how easy it is to generate consistently.  

That aside, I keep wanting to complicate it.  I like the idea of roles, but I keep wanting to add things like events, special abilities, and the like ("Joe can't be the rat!  We did hard time together!"), and turn it into a Clue(do)-like "Guess the rat!  Find the loot!" kind of game.  I don't know that I like that idea, but that's where my tinkering instincts want to go.

[Mike Holmes]

Chris, I'm not getting it. There already is a pressure point on the players, the ten minute limit. They will shoot before that point. I mean, if they know that they lose if they don't, then why not guess and shoot? Assuming that they don't resolve the entire scenario peacefully at some point prior? It seems to me that there are more interesting ways to cause the pressure to shift around internal to the game than to simply have a mechanism that forces the character to feel something that the player doesn't.

I'd personally prefer if the pressure to snap was just as much player as character. I wouldn't do anything to dissociate those. The character knows the cops are on the way at ten minutes (or whatever). So the character and player motives match perfectly there.

BTW, thought - I'd have the time build randomly as I've mentioned. If there's a hard 10 minute timeframe, then the deadline is rather sudden. What's more tense, is if the players don't know when the police are going to arrive. What I'd do is to have the moderator (assuming one) keep track of a building pool. Once the pool gets to 100 or whatever, the cops arrive (or they hear the sirens or something). So the players don't know when the cops will be there, only that, the longer they go, the more likely it is for everyone to lose. So that adds some brinksmanship to the mix as well. Who breaks first burning time waiting for the cops (of course, a Rat will play to delay...).

This can even be done without a moderator by, say, rolling each minute, with the odds going up on each. Something like after 8 minutes roll a d10 under the minute each minute thereafter. With the moderator it's better, however, because he can be doing something like totalling numbers on discarded cards, or somesuch, meaing that it could happen at any time.

Actually at that point I'd have the moderator call "Sirens" or something, and anyone can start shooting at that point, with survivors having a chance to get away. Or at least survive which could be claimed a victory in some ways. If the rat is dead he can't testify (or anyone dead for that matter). Etc.

I'd look at MLWM for some ideas on ways to calculate endgame. It could be quite complicated.

The idea was for the narrator to be able to tell backstory, flashbacks, how everybody got to this showdown.  But nothing about what is happening now.  Whatever is happening now is happening now.

I get that. But that's is creating facts. Which can cause the same problems of cognition. Let's say that I create a fact that you shot a police officer. But you're the rat. How can that be? What I'm getting at is that it would be cool if the characters knew the details of how it went down. That way they can lie.

See if they can make up the truth, then how do we know if it was a lie or not?

Here's what I'm thinking. The player can make up any fact about anything that was not seen by another character. Whether or not it's true is a matter of whether he notes to the moderator that it is true. What I'd do is have cards that say "fact" on them, and the player hands the GM a fact card before he narrates something true. If he hands him another card (makes for a good discard method), then it's just something he said. Something like that.

If you're narrating facts, or events that another players's character would have witnessed, then you hand that player a card that may say fact or not. The player can't show it, but places it down. He then listens to the fact stated by the other player, and may veto it. Thus, if the character is the rat, and the narration is that he shot somebody, then he must veto it. But if it's a lie, he's free to corroborate the lie. He's also free to veto a lie, however.

Now, this would normally give the rat away, unless there's a reason to veto such narration anyway. Perhaps the player might have a veto card in his hand. If that's the case, then he has to play it when somebody narrates something that he could veto. The rat simply has to discard a card of his choice to veto a narration that's a fact about him killing anyone. All the positions would have such automatic vetoes. Friends doing things to harm their friend, for instance.

I don't like the veto thing, but it's the only way I can think of to maintain the essential facts and still allow people to make things up. With a moderator, you could have the player whisper the narration to him first, have the mod roll to see if it's an auto veto, and then tell the player if he can narrate this.

Another way around all of this is to have the deck be all sorts of events that just mechanically work themselves out. That is, what cards the players actually have in their hands indicated what events they actually encountered. So then they can't make up any contradictory facts.

Then narration is simply description of the events. Eh. With all of these it's coming back to where just card play could suffice without narration...

The ability to influence roles is mostly a bribe to get people to want to narrate.

But I very much see your point about knowing your own role.

Yeah, I always hated playing Colonel Mustard (I was always the Col.) and finding out that I'd done it. Well, if I'd done it, wouldn't I have known? :-)

But we agree, generally, now.

Or there could be another bribe for narration entirely.  But right now, roles are the only mechanic out there worthy of being bribes.  I just don't see people making up history without bribes.  And without history, players don't have anything to talk about besides strategy.  

Well, I'm thinking less bribes, and again, linking up mechanisms to narration. That is you cause other changes in the situation via narration. But I really don't have a solution, either. The problem is that there's very little current situation that's not indicated by who's pointing a gun at whom. It's just that and what people are saying.

Hey, can somebody just claim that they're walking at some point? I mean, it's likely to get them shot, but what if they say they don't want a share of the loot, and leave just before the cops come? They might end up with the highest score, if the others let him go. Of course if he walks with the loot, he's the big winner.

Yeah, I'm seeing at least two games here myself.  But from your earlier comments, it sounded like you preferred the little card game.  Since you don't like the mechanic pushing people to roleplay.  Can you explain to me what part of the game you like that moves towards roleplaying?

Well, I'd prefer an RPG. But if the cardgame can be made to work and narration is unneccessary, I think that's probably fine. In fact, it'd probably sell better that way.

At the moment, I'm not seeing how to make the RPG version work, so...

But I haven't given up hope. :-)

Mike

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Here's what I'm thinking. The player can make up any fact about anything that was not seen by another character. Whether or not it's true is a matter of whether he notes to the moderator that it is true. What I'd do is have cards that say "fact" on them, and the player hands the GM a fact card before he narrates something true. If he hands him another card (makes for a good discard method), then it's just something he said. Something like that.

-Im not sure why it's important if the facts are true or not.  We're focussing on what comes out of the characters' mouths.  Unless the designer is contemplating a "Call your bluff" mechanic, then there doesn't need to be any slipping of notes to the Moderator.

-I do believe that moderator serves an important function in the game.  He can give the Set Up for the story, describe the immediate scene, introduce new Player Characters and non-Player Characters at various points to add presure, throw in plot twists, etc.  

-This game has a very narrow focus and killer premise.  I really like the way it's shaping up.

Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

Troy, because the narration that's happening has to have some mechanical effect. If it's all color then it doesn't matter to the outcome, and probably won't happen at all. If it's not just color, then only true facts can alter the mechanisms.

For example, if I narrate that X killed a cop, then perhaps that means that the character is dead if the cops arrive, and not just arrested. Which might mean a lower end score. That's just a bad example, but do you see what I mean? Sans any impact mechanically of what people say, then why say anything?

Mike

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya :)

Troy, because the narration that's happening has to have some mechanical effect. If it's all color then it doesn't matter to the outcome, and probably won't happen at all. If it's not just color, then only true facts can alter the mechanisms.

For example, if I narrate that X killed a cop, then perhaps that means that the character is dead if the cops arrive, and not just arrested. Which might mean a lower end score. That's just a bad example, but do you see what I mean? Sans any impact mechanically of what people say, then why say anything?

-I totally agree that what is narrated must have a mechanical effect.  I'm disputing the notion that there is a difference between a true fact and a false fact.  If PC X says he killed a cop and no other PC's can verify that, then it doesn't matter if it's true or false.  That bit of text has been added to the SIS.  The other players have the option of believing or not believing.  The PCs aren't at a Mexican standoff because the trust each other.

-Later, if the cop he killed shows up (a plot twist entered by the GM or another player), then the truth of the statement is important.  BUT if the player wants to keep the police officer entering out of the SIS, then he should be able to spend the chips to do so.  Or he can spend chips to modify the police officer by having him wounded or sporting a BP vest with a slugg in it.  That's part of running out of resources while allowing all the players freedom to narrate and modify the SIS.

-What I see is that trading notes back and forth about what is true and what isn't will bog down play and require a lot of book keeping.  It will also hamstring the players and the GM from entering their own narration for significant and meaningful plot twists.  Let the game evolve as it goes.

-Dont let this thread get bogged down with this point, though.  If you feel I am have failed to grasp what you are saying, then let's work it out quickly so we can return to helping Wonderllama and Dregg further develop their creations.

Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

Troy, pay a coin, play a card, I don't see how we're disagreeing. We're just putting in different methods of the same thing. We're only debating timing.

I think my method is superior, because I think it's important for the player who has lied, to know that he has lied. If you allow him to say anything, but then make it true or not only when he knows that it's important, then the player is free to say whatever they want. With my method, they have to think about their lies more carefully and worry that they might come up.

I mean, a proven lie is a good reason to shoot somebody, no? Yeah, they don't trust each other, but they're looking for reasons to shoot each other that won't get them shot. Right? I think the whole truth/lie factor is huge.

Mike

[Thespian]

Greetings all.  I've been a lurker here on the Forge for a while, but this game idea got me interested enough to register so I could contribute some thoughts.

While I understand the desire to have some sort of objective truth behind player statements, I'm not sure it is needed for this kind of game.  Think about a game like Mafia, or the western card game Bang!  In both of these, the majority of "play" is in the persuasive power of the players.  All I have to do is convince enough other players that what I am saying is true, and they will act is if it so.  It's all about group dynamics, which I think this sort of game captures perfectly.  As long as nobody makes falsifiable statements, it comes down to a case of bluffing and lies.  Now, in both Bang! and Mafia, players do still need to know where they each, individually, really stand, and I think *that* is what we are really looking for here.

I propose the following for an ease-of-use variant.  I expect others will have plenty of ways to improve upon it.  It has the advantage of not needing a game master, though it does need honest players.

The backstory is that the robbery went bad, each player grabbed a sack and went off in a different direction, with a plan to meet back up at the location where our game will start to split the loot.  Some folks *think* there is a rat in their midst and that's why the robbery went bad, but it could have just been bad luck.  Anyone who doesn't show up and wasn't captured escaping was obviously the rat, or trying to get away with more than their fair share, and a contract would put out on them to insure everyone shows up at the meet.  To further entice folks, the bags of loot had widely different values, so those with the least want the meet to get their fair share, while those with the most either don't know they have more than others, or are afraid of the hit that will be put out on them if they don't show up.  Each person has a suspiscion on who they *think* the rat might be, and who might have gotten the fat sack of loot.

All players have the primary goal of staying alive themselves.  All non-rat players (crooks) have the secondary goal of making all the rats dead, and all the rat players have the secondary goal of keeping all the rats alive.  All players have the tertiary goal of keeping alive the player they think got the biggest part of the haul.


Assume we have 5 players, A, B, C, D, and E, and cards/coins/tokens  designating each person.  Each player in turn (and without shoiwng to the other players) draws two tokens (without replacing in between), looks at them, then shuffles them back into the pile.  Repeat for each player.

The first token drawn is who the drawing player *suspects* is the rat in the group.  If they draw their own token, they really *are* the rat.  If they draw anybody else's, it's just a suspicion.  The second token they draw is who they think got away with the biggest share of the loot.  If a player draws their own tile, then they *did* get away with the largest share, but they won't know that until the meet-up.  Note, it's impossible for a rat, or suspected rat to also be suspected of getting the largest share.  No matter who they are (rat, or crook) the player wants this person to survive as well so they can find out where the large loot chunk is hidden.  Call both of these a player's "suspicions."  After player A has made their selections, they shuffle the tokens in, and all the other players do likewise.  Note, there may be multiple rats, or big-share loot holders.  After everyone has their suspicions, all players close their eyes and count out loud slowly from one to ten.  At a count of three, any and all "rats" open their eyes to identify each other, then close them again so the other players don't know who the rats are.  There may be none, one, or many.  Note: this step isn't strictly neccessary.  Different agencies might have rats in the group without knowing it.  Try it either way.

The game begins with everyone in the room, nobody with guns drawn *yet*.  Somebody has just suggested that there must have been a rat and that rat needs to be rooted out before they each reveal where they all hid their part of the heist.  Begin the free-form accusations.

Players may make any statements they want about each other "I did time with him.  I saw him kill a cop.  I saw a badge in his wallet" etc...  Each player only knows if they *personally* are a rat or crook, and they each have a suspicion of who the rat is, and who the guy with the loot is.  The truth or falsity of the statements *makes no difference* because nobody can check them out right now.  All they can do is confirm or deny what each other says.  At some point, sombody will implicate an other player as being the rat.  As soon as anybody points a gun, everybody gets a chance to immediately point a gun, or stay holstered.  From that point on, everyone can keep talking or take an action.  Any new action allows everyone else a *single* simultaneous response action, with a few caveats.  For example, if I change my target, everyone else can change their target or shoot at whomever they were aiming at, or holster in response to me.  These choices are simultaneous, so everybody should be responding to my move, and not each other's responses.  If they want to do that, they'll have to wait until all the responses to my action are resolved.


Actions:

Draw and point your weapon at someone
  - initiates action of the game
  - usable only to start the action-response sequence or usable if you are currently holsterd

Holster your weapon
  - usable only if currently pointing your gun at someone
  - after the stand-off has started, if everyone holsters at the same time, the game is over - score

Change target
  - usable only if you are all ready pointing at someone.  Point at someone else (but you don't get to fire.  That's a seperate action!)

Pull the trigger
  - say "bang!" and the person you are pointing at curently is dead (though they can fire at whomever they were aiming at when they were shot)
  - if everyone dead, game over, nobody wins
  - if some still alive, continue

Keep the 10 minute timer, or something semi-random so the players don't know exactly when the police will show up.  If the police show up, the game is over.  Proceede to scoring.

Final scoring:

If you are dead at game end, score 0.

If you are alive, and a rat: score +(# of crooks (alive or dead) - # of dead rats)

If you are alive and a crook and
 - any rats left alive : score 0
 - you run out of time and the police show up: score 0
 - neither of the above: score +(#of survivng crooks)

If you have a non-zero score, *and* the person you thought had the loot survives: score +1

If you have a non-zero score, *and* any player who actualy had a large share of the loot survived, anyone with a non-zero score gets an additional +1

Phew.  That took longer to explain than I meant.  Sorry about that.  The main point is, in such a stand-off, it doesn't matter what is "true," but rather what is believed.  The random assignment of beliefs in the beginning should be enough to seed the pot with tension.  If B wants A to survive because he thinks A has the loot, but then A points a gun at B, B is going to point right back, but try to convince A that C really is the rat.

Thoughts?

[WonderLlama]

While I understand the desire to have some sort of objective truth behind player statements, I'm not sure it is needed for this kind of game.  Think about a game like Mafia, or the western card game Bang!  In both of these, the majority of "play" is in the persuasive power of the players.  All I have to do is convince enough other players that what I am saying is true, and they will act is if it so.  It's all about group dynamics, which I think this sort of game captures perfectly.  As long as nobody makes falsifiable statements, it comes down to a case of bluffing and lies.  Now, in both Bang! and Mafia, players do still need to know where they each, individually, really stand, and I think *that* is what we are really looking for here.

Aha!  I think you have a lot of the same feelings I do about what could make this game cool.

I propose the following for an ease-of-use variant.  I expect others will have plenty of ways to improve upon it.  It has the advantage of not needing a game master, though it does need honest players.

Ease of use is good.  So is interactivity.  If you make the game too complicated, people won't want to learn it.  If you make it too simple, players won't actually do anything most of the game.  My guess (drawing from my playtest) is that your version is a little bit too easy.  But absolutely try it out if you can.   And you can also use it as a starting point and add to it.

All players have the primary goal of staying alive themselves.  All non-rat players (crooks) have the secondary goal of making all the rats dead, and all the rat players have the secondary goal of keeping all the rats alive.  All players have the tertiary goal of keeping alive the player they think got the biggest part of the haul.

Jumping ahead, but your scoring system doesn't match this.  If you get the same score whether you die or get arrested, they are equally important goals.  That's exactly the reason I proposed giving one point for getting captured.  To make staying alive the most important goal.

The first token drawn is who the drawing player *suspects* is the rat in the group.  If they draw their own token, they really *are* the rat.  If they draw anybody else's, it's just a suspicion.  The second token they draw is who they think got away with the biggest share of the loot.  If a player draws their own tile, then they *did* get away with the largest share, but they won't know that until the meet-up.  Note, it's impossible for a rat, or suspected rat to also be suspected of getting the largest share.

I don't see the effect of suspicions.  As far as I can tell, your suspicion doesn't really tell you anything, and you are better off ignoring it.  Unless it is a roleplaying sugestion.  Also, I don't see why it is impossible for a rat to be suspected of getting the largest share.  I could have drawn that token for my suspicion, same as anyone else's.

I also don't see any way to get a real clue to go on, either to find rats or loot-holders.  In mafia there are ways to find out.  In the game you propose, I think the optimal strategy is probably just to kill as many players as you can if you can get away with it.  You have know way of knowing, so you're better off improving your odds as much as you can.  I think that should be a valid strategy, but I don't think it should be the only strategy.  That's the reason I incorporated several ways to get clues.  You certainly don't need to use my way, but I really think you need some way to get clues.

Change target
  - usable only if you are all ready pointing at someone.  Point at someone else (but you don't get to fire.  That's a seperate action!)

I like this.  If you're already pointing a gun at someone, they really have to think about it before changing aim and losing the right to fire.

Pull the trigger
  - say "bang!" and the person you are pointing at curently is dead (though they can fire at whomever they were aiming at when they were shot)
  - if everyone dead, game over, nobody wins
  - if some still alive, continue

I started out planning to do it this way.  But I decided to introduce chance.  If everything is guaranteed, players have no incentive to fire if anyone is pointing a gun at them.  If two players point guns at each other, if one fires, they both do.  So neither of them ever will (unless one of them isn't trying to win).  I used the rules I did to tempt players.  If we're both pointing at each other, maybe I should fire.  Sure, I'll probably die, but maybe not.  And if you fires first, I certainly die.

Phew.  That took longer to explain than I meant.  Sorry about that.  The main point is, in such a stand-off, it doesn't matter what is "true," but rather what is believed.  The random assignment of beliefs in the beginning should be enough to seed the pot with tension.  If B wants A to survive because he thinks A has the loot, but then A points a gun at B, B is going to point right back, but try to convince A that C really is the rat.

I think either suspicions need to be required (i.e. You must try to convince other people of your suspicions) or worked into the mechanics, so they have a decent chance of being true.  As it stands they have no teeth.

I tell you what I was thinking mostly because we have very similar ideas about this game, and I want you to know how I made the decisions I did.  Maybe that will help.  I don't think your draft will quite work as is (unless I misunderstand something), but it might be close.  Please try it out if you can.

[Ben Morgan]

Random thoughts, hastily banged out while on break at work. Feel free to ignore if this is ground that's already covered:

Pulling the trigger should be akin to calling in poker; ie: once someone shoots, everyone shoots, and everything's over. The idea is to not have a gun pointed at you when that first trigger gets pulled.

Here's an old brainteaser for you:

Three pigeons are sitting on a telephone wire. You take aim with a BB gun and peg one of them right in the head (Bang!). How many pigeons are left?

The answer is None.

-- Ben

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

Troy, pay a coin, play a card, I don't see how we're disagreeing. We're just putting in different methods of the same thing. We're only debating timing.

I think my method is superior, because I think it's important for the player who has lied, to know that he has lied. If you allow him to say anything, but then make it true or not only when he knows that it's important, then the player is free to say whatever they want. With my method, they have to think about their lies more carefully and worry that they might come up.

Okay, I see you're point there.  There should be some kind of incentive to lie then (other than preserving your character's life).  Otherwise, the game wouldn't be as nerve wracking in my oppinion b/c the players would only have incentive to tell the truth.  Stress, both at the player level and the character level should be built up in this game.

-Peace,

-Troy

[Mike Holmes]

Well, the idea is that the information you transfer is strategic. If you can, for example, convince somebody that player C refuled to shoot a cop when he should have, then somebody may turn their gun on him assuming that the's the rat. Good tactic if you're the rat. So I think there's plenty of incentive to lie. The only disincentive is the chance that you'll be proven a liar, which then puts the suspicion on you.

This is all predicated on how the rest of play is designed, of course. My hope was that having such rules about narration would spark it happening. But I think that what might end up happening is that the talk will still all be metagame. "He's the rat!" is shorthand as good as a narration saying, "He didn't shoot the cop!" If there are limited strategies, then I think that the narrations will be limited to statements that are, basically, that you're employing that strategy.

Mike

[WonderLlama]

I still find myself writing two games.

The first is not an RPG.  It's a quick strategy game similar to mafia.  Players will discuss strategy.  They may find themselves in character if they can use it to intimidate one another, but that's about it.  And the more I think about it, I'm fine with that.  I really think this is more the game I want to play.  Mafia isn't an RPG either, the strategy is even more simple, and yet is is a true classic of a game.

Really, the only major thing I am thinking of adding to this game is random events.  Since I'd rather the game be unmoderated, there will need to be some way of matching up the events that apply to a specific player to a player.  I'm still thinking I like the chip bidding system for that.  Chips can also interact directly with some events.  I would like to find something else to do with chips as well in this version.  Perhaps for a fixed large cost, if you can save enough chips, you can do something significant.  Like bring in the cops to end the game for 20, or reveal someone's role, or something like that.  Just to make the chip strategy a little more complex.  I have several ideas for more roles and random events.  Really, I think this version is very close to completion, barring post-test tweaking.



The second game is an RPG.  Really, the only reason I find myself writing this at the same time is that a lot of the same mechanics can apply.  If there are custom role and event decks to be made, they could probably be shared between the games.  People could simply choose between the two sets of rules provided on taste.  Perhaps playing the lighter version when they don't have as much time to prepare.

There are bigger blocks to this version.  Here are a few lemmas that I think are true:
The player should feel pressure.  Not just the character.
The game will be strategic.  You can win or lose.
You should try to win.  (This will be the main source of pressure. This isn't one of those games where your own death can be a victory if it is cool enough.)
The players should usually have free choice.  You can choose to fire, or not fire, at all times.  There will be exceptions, but that is the general rule.  Firing will primarily be player choice, rather than required by the game.  (This creates the feel that your life is truly in the hands of a fundamentally unpredictable other person.)
The players need some incentive to roleplay, or they won't.

There are currently three potential types of currency in this game:
Information is the main one.  Players will still mostly be exchanging information, true and false, to manipulate each other.
Role is a potential currency.  I agree that changing roles mid-game can be very counterproductive.  So if we are to use it as a currency, it needs to be very limited.
Metagame currency.  Currently in the form of chips.  These are valuable because they give you control over random events, and possibly other things.

I have ruled out control over firing guns as a currency.  I know a lot of people like the pressure mechanic that forces you to fire at some point.  Apologies, but I don't.  I think the ideal that firing a gun is voluntary is just too valuable.  I like the feeling that somebody pointing a gun can choose to fire or not fire at me, and I don't have any real control over that.  So I'm just not considering that as an option anymore.

Also, arguably the results of random events could be considered a currency, but I don't really see it that way.  If you get a second gun out of an event, that does change the game.  But I view that as just the result of the metagame currency.  I don't want to just hand it out directly out of roleplaying.

If you have any ideas for other forms of currency, please, let me know.


The primary problem I see is how to bribe people into roleplaying.  And ideally, into creating backstory, which seems to be tied to the genre.  So my objective is to find a mechanic for this.  I am still interested in other added mechanics if they are cool enough, but this is really the only one that seems absolutely necessary.

Here's the basic idea of the potential solution I have.  Pay players for creating backstory with information.  Or more accurately, the right to reveal certain information as true.  Normally, you can't truly reveal your role, but through flashback, you can reveal a few carefully selected details that might narrow down what your role is not.

Players create their flashback ahead of time, but after they discover their own roles.  Players may include one other player in their flashback, but they may not reveal anything about that player's role in the flashback (because they don't actually have that information to give.)  Players may reveal the written flashback to the other player featured in it, which confers information, and also allows them to tweak the flashbacks for consistency.

You will be allowed to reveal certain things in your flashback.  You might be able to say that you killed a cop, and therefore aren't the rat.  Or you dramatically went back risking death to grab the loot.  There will be a list of things you can reveal, and a point cost associate with each one, corresponding to how valuable revealing that thing is.  Only the information has a cost, you can choose the actual manner it is revealed however you lie.  There will be a second, significantly higher cost, to lying about that thing.  If you lie in your flashback, you must either do it solo, or your co-flashback member automatically knows it is a lie.

If you save up enough chips to match the cost of your flashback, you can pay all of your chips to present it.  Act it out, along with your partner, if any.  As a reward, you have proven some information to everyone.  Or not really proven, since you could be lying, but I believe lying is set up to be risky enough that it should be rare.  It's just there to preserve a little doubt.

Of course, there's nothing in the rules requiring good roleplaying.  And withought establishing a judge you gets to arbitrarily rate your roleplaying, I don't think such rules are possible.  Hopefully, the mob will prove the best incentive.  Do a good, entertaining job, or they might shoot ya.


So what do you think?  Can that idea work?  Any suggestions on how to tweak it?

[Mike Holmes]

I still find myself writing two games.

Yep, seems like it really drives that way.

Role is a potential currency.  I agree that changing roles mid-game can be very counterproductive.  So if we are to use it as a currency, it needs to be very limited.

Well, I think that information about role is the currency here. In fact, I'm not seeing much information that's important outside of this info. I think that might be what has to change to make it more open. There needs to be other things to need information about.

I have ruled out control over firing guns as a currency.  I know a lot of people like the pressure mechanic that forces you to fire at some point.  Apologies, but I don't.

I've very with you. The pressures should be from the results of firing or not firing.

Also, arguably the results of random events could be considered a currency, but I don't really see it that way.  If you get a second gun out of an event, that does change the game.  But I view that as just the result of the metagame currency.  I don't want to just hand it out directly out of roleplaying.

Well, it's character set up currency. One player has an extra gun. Another player has a bulletproof vest. It's currency because one player can give his extra gun to another, for instance.

If it's not tradeable or otherwise fungable in some way, it's not a resource, it's effectiveness.

If you have any ideas for other forms of currency, please, let me know.

Again, it's not all about currency. There's effectiveness, situation (roles) etc. These things can all be part of interactions in varying ways.

The primary problem I see is how to bribe people into roleplaying.

I know what you're saying here, but try to think of it less as bribery, and more as just how the game is played. If you're overlaying a mechanic to incentivize roleplaying over a game that otherwise is not an RPG, I think that's the wrong way to go about it.

I mean, for a moment, think about playing the game using GURPS. It would work just fine in some ways. Now, discover the system that's better than GURPs for the game. See what I'm getting at? Don't force a card game to become a RPG. Make the RPG more like the card game.

Here's the basic idea of the potential solution I have.  Pay players for creating backstory with information.  Or more accurately, the right to reveal certain information as true.  Normally, you can't truly reveal your role, but through flashback, you can reveal a few carefully selected details that might narrow down what your role is not.

Have you seen the secrets mechanics for the game SOAP?

Players may include one other player in their flashback, but they may not reveal anything about that player's role in the flashback (because they don't actually have that information to give.)

Then what's the point of having the other PC with them in the flashback? To verify?  Also, for written flashbacks to be coherent, doesn't there have to be some sort of scenario briefing? So that you don't get one person robbing a bank, and another stealing computer chips from a high tech company?

You will be allowed to reveal certain things in your flashback.  You might be able to say that you killed a cop, and therefore aren't the rat.  Or you dramatically went back risking death to grab the loot.  There will be a list of things you can reveal, and a point cost associate with each one, corresponding to how valuable revealing that thing is.  

See, I knew there'd be a list associated with this. Once you do this, you've made the "narrations" mechanical choices. Why write anything more than "I shot a cop" ?

I think it has to be more freeform than this to make it so that a player has to be creative. Perhaps it can be about looking for and rectifying inconsistencies in the player's stories as they might conflict with others? Just brainstorming.

Only the information has a cost, you can choose the actual manner it is revealed however you lie.  There will be a second, significantly higher cost, to lying about that thing.  If you lie in your flashback, you must either do it solo, or your co-flashback member automatically knows it is a lie.

Eh. What's different about lying and shooting a gun? I mean if you can shoot at any time, you can lie at any time. It should cost the player metagame resources to enable them to make up facts. Basically telling the truth should be the costly thing. Lies are cheap, and risky, because you could get caught in them.

I still think that's where to find the game.

If you save up enough chips to match the cost of your flashback, you can pay all of your chips to present it.

If you do go this way, here's a problem - payment and collection of chips would have to be secret. Otherwise a player watching the payment would know if what was presented was truth or not. If payments are made secretly, then you need a moderator to ensure that the correct amount is paid (or players would have to record their payments for post-game audit).

Of course, there's nothing in the rules requiring good roleplaying.  And withought establishing a judge you gets to arbitrarily rate your roleplaying, I don't think such rules are possible.

Oh, I think it's still possible. I don't think we've examined the outside of the box that we're creating here yet.

Mike

[WonderLlama]

I wrote a very detail response to Mike's post over the course of a couple hours.  My browser ate it when I pressed the back button to correct something.  One of these days, I will learn not to type posts in my browser.  I don't have the heart to retype the whole thing, so I'll sum up.

I was using currency wrong.  I do things like that.  I was really trying to refer to things that are bribeworthy.

Role can be a currency proper if it is allowed to change in game.  That is entirely separate from information about role.  But I'm not intending to go in that direction anymore.

I hadn't heard of SOAP that I recall.  I'll try to find those mechanics to look at if I can.

The second PC could be included for both strategic and flavorful reasons.  You get to give the PC the information for free, even before you present your flashback.  Also, he can vouch for you.  Also, if at least some of the flashbacks have two people in them, I think it would be more fun.

The list was the only way I could think of to prevent players from giving away all the information they want.  If you can do that, everyone with a benign role will prove that they have a safe role.  Everyone who doesn't will then get shot.

My solution to the chip count was that you have to pay all your chips to flashback, even if it's more than the cost.  And it usually will be.  I do suspect this will be insufficient, but it's the best I thought of so far.



The major issue is getting this to play like a roleplaying game.  Now when I designed the game, I was intending for roleplaying to be spontaneous, just coming from the theme and characters.  As I usually do when designing games, I used some method acting.  I put myself in the role of one of the guys in a warehouse in a standoff.  I noted what my concerns and goals were.  And I put in mechanics that catered to those.  All of the original pieces of the game are aimed at those concerns and goals.  That's how I was able to come up with the game in about 2 hours.  The only thing I really wasn't satisfied with my ability to flush out was character history.  But I figured that was fair sacrifice for making the game quick, which I think is one of its main strengths.

I was dissapointed that it didn't work out that way, but not entirely surprised.  First, since people really had no idea what they were doing, it had to be tough.  Quick, do some improv acting, oh and by the way, here are some semi-complex competitive rules to try out while you're doing it.  On top of that, most people I know need bribes to do any roleplaying.  Maybe that's just my limited experience, and I do know exceptions, but most people I play with mostly roleplay to get bonus experience or some mechanical advantage.  (Can't push it too far though; some of them refuse to play Feng Shui because they feel there is too much pressure to be on all the time to get mechanical advantage.)

So that's why my thoughts turn to bribes.  The organic design didn't seem to entirely work, bribes are about all I can think of to nudge it over.  Making more detailed characters to give people more idea what to do seems at odds with the goal of making a very quick party-style game.  If this line doesn't work, I think I may be tapped.  I don't even know what other direction to look.