[RPG Idea] Mexican Stand Off

[WonderLlama]

Ah yes, I had read the review for SOAP.  However, the link in the review section for it is broken.  I did find the current home of SOAP, but it appears there is no longer a free older version.  I'm sure I can afford $1, so I suppose I'll take a look later.

[Thespian]

In my first post I compared this stand-off idea to Bang! and Mafia.  With the recent focus on lies and truth-telling and revelation of "fact" let me suggest we look for inspiration to that venerable old board game, Clue.

First, role cards are dealt out secretly and randomly.  There should be more role cards than players such that it is possible to get zero, one, or more "rats" in the group.

A set of cards with factual "events" on them could be semi-randomly distributed.  These are things that (if played) "really happened" and each character knows only about the ones they start with.  These would have statements on them like "Player of this card shot a cop" or "Target player was seen making a suspicious phone call."

If there are N players, I'd suggest dealing out N piles of N cards each.  Once each player knows their role, they get to look at one stack of those cards, pick one for themselves, then pass the stack to the person on their left.  Everyone then picks one card from the smaller stack they just received, but this time passes the remainder *two* players to their left.  Following this drafting process, each player will have N cards (presumably as best suited as they can be to their role) with no player having any knowledge of what others have chosen.

Play begins:

The idea is that I can narrate *anything* I want to about myself that nobody else saw.  That's relatively safe, unless somebody else decides to say something like "Aha, I was hiding in the bushes and *saw* you, and you did something else completely!"  Or, I can narrate *anything* I want to about any other player.  In either case, when sombody's narration overlaps events between two characters, those two players show each other a single card.  Call the first player A, and the second player B.  If A's card supports what he said, B is lying *even if he had a card to support his version of events*  On the other hand, if A was fibbing and B has a supporting card, the situation is obviously reversed.  Or, they could both be blowing smoke, and not have a card to support their stories.  In any case, only those two players now know who is telling the truth and who is lying.  All the other players have just heard a claim, and a counter claim.

Anyone speaking may try to insert themselves into a flashback, and declaring common events with others is the only way to learn what cards they have, and what has been declared "true."

If A says something flattering or supportive of B, B will agree publicly, even if it is a lie, unless he really wants to take A down.  The trick here is that in the case of conflicting cards, the first speaker's assertion trumps the interrupter's.

This gives us two importnat things.  First, anybody can lie at any time about themselves or an other player, and if called on it, only those two players know the truth of the claims.  Second, if they have a card for it, the initial declarer has priority in nailing down objective Truth, which should encourage role-playing.

Note also that you don't get to show your cards to anybody unless they explicitly role-play themselves into your flash back, to refute it *or* support it.  In either case, they must then show a card to all the others invovled *and* they get to see the cards those players showed each other.

Essentially, you'll get piles of played, face-down cards for each narrated, joined event which determine the truth and flasehood of the statements made by the participating players.  As this conscensous reality builds in the minds of the players who *know* what happened, and the onlookers who only suspect, *somebody* will pull the trigger.

The hard part would be coming up with a set of suitably broad cards that could support or refute arbitrary claims made during role-playing.  I'd much prefer the role-playing to determine who lives and who dies ala Mafia than the mechanical distribution of fact cards.  The cards need to be fairly generic, and some should be ambiguous as to what they imply.  Clever role-players will make use of those.  On the other hand, they need to be specific enough to give weaker role-players some ideas.

Does this mean that the rat could have shot a cop, and not know it at the start of the game?  Yup.  A feels like helping bolster B's cred (for whatever reason - B is actually a rat) and says "I saw B kill a cop, he can't be the rat."  At that moment, B will agree with the statement (in his mind, lie) to increase his survival chances.  A shows B a card that says "I saw you kill a cop" and B shows A any card (it doesn't matter which, since A's card was true).  A and B now know A was telling the truth.  Others merely know that A and B are in agreement about a statement.  Maybe B had to kill a cop or be exposed and feels really guilty about it, or maybe it was part of a sting for A's benefit and the gun was loaded with blanks.  The card only said "I *saw* you kill a cop."

This still feels like it needs work, but thoughts?

[Mike Holmes]

Yeah, I think Thespian is headed in the right sort of direction. Wonderllama, if you're designing the game for your friends, then I think I sorta see your problem - but that's hardly endemic to players at large. I mean, not play Feng Shui because you have to be "on" all the time? That's an alien concept to me. In fact the people that I play with often consider the rules to be "on" in Feng Shui to be unneccessary, because they just always are on.

In any case, the key is to make the design produce the play that you want to see. And no, that doesn't require bribes, even for your players. It just requires the right rules.

Thespian beat me to it somewhat, but I had a similar idea reading your post, Llama (alright, damnit, what are your real names you two?!?) I was thinking that the rules could be about trying to get other players to agree with your account of things. And yet trying to slant the accounts such that you could then trap them with their own agreements. That is, are you trying to form an alliance with the other player for joint protection, or trying to trap him in agreeing to something?

This has the interesting advantage that you can basically narrate an unlimited range of things - as opposed to most of the proposed mechanics that only ask you to narrate limited mechanical options. This is key, I think, to getting players to narrate.

Half formed at this point, but the idea is there. Still has the problem that there seems to be a very limited number of things to talk about as pertains to the situation. But it's the sort of idea that I think is headed in the right direction.

Mike

[WonderLlama]

Essentially, you'll get piles of played, face-down cards for each narrated, joined event which determine the truth and flasehood of the statements made by the participating players. As this conscensous reality builds in the minds of the players who *know* what happened, and the onlookers who only suspect, *somebody* will pull the trigger.

This still feels like it needs work, but thoughts?

I think it's fantastically brilliant.  It's quick to set up, can establish fact ahead of time so that people don't feel their story is changing, gets lots of interesting thematically appropriate events out there for people to work with, and can contribute to the strategy so that people care about them.  Everything I think the idea needs to work.

Here's how I plan to connect them back to role.  Most cards have more than one fact on them.  A main fact, and an exception fact to use instead for less appropriate roles.  To use the quickly-becoming-cliched example, the "shot a cop" card:  One "shot a cop" card might have "shot a cop" on one edge, and "stole a car" on the other.  The middle would explain the card and anything secret on it.  When you hold up the card, cover up all but the edge with your hand.  But there is another, less common fact card that is just "shot a cop".  Maybe in the subtext it mentions that the shot was with a blank for the rat, or maybe not.  But the basic idea is that the card communicates useful information without actually giving things away.  Also using this approach, less roles could be revealed at the start, but be hinted at strongly by having large numbers of role-exceptioned cards (like violent cards for the psycho).

I don't think I want to outright establish facts about other people.  I don't like the idea of just saying to someone that I saw them kill a cop, and suddenly it's true.  But if each person had a decent sized pile of cards, I could make that statement, forcing them to reveal that card even if they didn't want to.  And if they don't have it, someone else can (must?) step in and say that it was actually them, the original accuser was mistaken.  "That wasn't Brown, dude, that was me.  Do you need glasses?"

And I agree that many of the cards should be ambiguous, and they should rarely if ever do anything mechanically.  I'm not sure if I should work in all your mechanics, but I at least like the idea behind about all of them.  Lying is a tricky one.  If I can, I might just accuse everyone of lying all the time to get to see their cards.  Maybe there could be "I was with you the whole time" cards to help catch lies and evidence cards to prove truths.  Or maybe that sort of thing could work in with the chip mechanic if we blend this with random events.

Also, I'd want to give every player a blank card.  If you make something up out of the blue, and someone calls you on it, show them the blank card.  They know you are making stuff up (or at least that the event wasn't significant), but unless they have a way to prove it, you don't have to reveal that fact to anyone else.  And they may well go along with you anyway.

Wonderllama, if you're designing the game for your friends, then I think I sorta see your problem - but that's hardly endemic to players at large. I mean, not play Feng Shui because you have to be "on" all the time? That's an alien concept to me. In fact the people that I play with often consider the rules to be "on" in Feng Shui to be unneccessary, because they just always are on.

Ok, that is an extreme example.  But I'm not really designing this game for my friends, because it's extremely rare we get enough people together to play this game anyway.  Mostly trying to give you context to help interpret my playtest results.  I do think this game looks like it should be light enough to be playable by people without great talent for roleplaying though, people not unlike a few of my friends.

Thespian beat me to it somewhat, but I had a similar idea reading your post, Llama (alright, damnit, what are your real names you two?!?) I was thinking that the rules could be about trying to get other players to agree with your account of things. And yet trying to slant the accounts such that you could then trap them with their own agreements. That is, are you trying to form an alliance with the other player for joint protection, or trying to trap him in agreeing to something?

My name is Justin.  Hi.

I guess this roleplaying thing is beginning to look possible.  The trouble with the ability to narrate absolutely anything is that it usually ends up being meaningless.  But if you can narrate anything, but only prove or disprove certain things, and at least some of the cards are generic enough that together they could potentially apply to a large range of things, I think you could get meaningful, yet pretty nearly free creativity.

[Thespian]

Essentially, you'll get piles of played, face-down cards for each narrated, joined event which determine the truth and flasehood of the statements made by the participating players. As this conscensous reality builds in the minds of the players who *know* what happened, and the onlookers who only suspect, *somebody* will pull the trigger.

This still feels like it needs work, but thoughts?

I think it's fantastically brilliant.  

Why, thank you.

Thespian beat me to it somewhat, but I had a similar idea reading your post, Llama (alright, damnit, what are your real names you two?!?)

Jesse M.  Nice to meet you.

I was thinking that the rules could be about trying to get other players to agree with your account of things. And yet trying to slant the accounts such that you could then trap them with their own agreements. That is, are you trying to form an alliance with the other player for joint protection, or trying to trap him in agreeing to something?

That's sort of what I was thinking.

I think we've got something workable here.  I'm not quite sure I understood exactly how the different parts of cards displayed would work out, but I do like the idea of combining hidden and semi-public shared info on cards.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

First, role cards are dealt out secretly and randomly. There should be more role cards than players such that it is possible to get zero, one, or more "rats" in the group.

-I like this idea.  Especially since there can be none or several rats in the group.  I just want to ask real quick what the end game or victory conditions will be?  Will it be survival?  Will it be shooting your rival?  Will it be holding them off until the police/FBI come?

-I might suggest that each personality type have its own victory condition that the players have to meet.  In which case, I would think that during Char-gen (whatever that might be in this game), players, including the moderator, could decide wether to assign Personalities randomly or let everyone choose.  This way, more power is put in the players' hands.

Peace,

-Troy

[Dick Page]

Just a little brainstorm: What about a mechanic based on Texas Hold 'Em?

There's a pool of cards in the middle, face up.  This represents the facts that everyone can agree on.

Everyone has a small number of cards.  This represents things they know about themselves.  Whoever has the best hand is the rat.

Does it really matter that the player who is the rat know that he is the rat?  Everyone's goal is the same: to prove that they aren't the rat.  This is done by betting chips representing certain statements.  The players attempt to discern the motives of the other players by reading their betting.  Perhaps then one could tie in Thespian's idea about showing cards to other players.  Maybe defending another player by betting chips allows you to see one of their cards, while attacking another player forces you to show them one of your cards.  Assign friends randomly that must survive in order for the player to win, and things get complicated.

I'm not very good at game design, but I just wanted to point out an existing mechanic that might be modified/built upon to create the dynamics of the game.  Hope it helps.

[Dick Page]

I did a little more thinking last night and fleshed out my Texas Hold 'em idea.  Here are some rough rules

Deal each player a face card from one suit face up.  Deal a second set of matching cards from another suit face down.  Each player looks at their second card - whoever it matches is their Friend.  A player can only win if their Friend survives to the end of the game, unless their Friend is also the Rat.  If a player receives their own card, they are the Professional.  They win only if no one but the Rat is killed, or everyone but themselves is killed.  Shuffle the cards back in.

Deal five cards face up to the center of the table.  Deal two cards face down to each player; they may look at the cards.  Whoever has the best five-card poker hand made of at least one of their hidden cards and some of the common cards is the Rat.

Each player selects one other player and may look at one of their hidden cards.

When everyone is ready, start the hidden ten-minute timer.  When the timer runs out, the Rat wins.  The players can end the game before the timer runs out by all holstering their weapons and agreeing to Split.  If the Rat is still alive at the end of the game, the Rat wins.

Each player should have a toy gun (ideally) and a supply of poker chips.  A player may spend poker chips to Accuse another player.  Make up something that happened during the robbery that makes you think this player is the Rat.  This player must then Defend himself by spending an equivalent number of poker chips or showing the Accuser one of his cards.  He then gives a reason why he cannot be the Rat.  One player may Defend another player by spending the chips and giving a reason why this person could not be the Rat.  He may then look at one of the Accusee's hidden cards.  A player with no chips may not Accuse or Defend another player, and can only defend themselves by showing a card.

Any time a player makes an Accusation, they may also draw their gun and point it at the Accusee.  If the gun is already drawn, the Accuser has the option to move his gun to point at the new Accusee.  The only other time a player may draw or move his gun is in response to someone else moving or drawing their gun.  This must be done before anyone defends the Acusee.  A player may holster their gun at any time.

A player may shoot at any time by yelling "Bang!"  If someone fires their gun, everyone has the option to fire their own, but only at whomever their gun is already pointing at.  In the game world, the shots happen simultaneously, so if two people are pointing their gun at each other, or multiple people are in a mutually destructive pattern, they all die.  If you are shot, you die.

The game ends when:
1) Everyone is dead.  No one wins.
2) Everyone but one person is dead.  If this person is the Professional, they win, otherwise they lose.
3) Everyone alive agrees to Split.  If the Rat is alive, the Rat wins.  If the Rat is dead, everyone whose Friend is still alive wins (unless their friend was the Rat).  If everyone but the Rat is alive, everyone but the Rat wins.
4) The timer runs out.  The cops arrive and the Rat wins.

[Troy_Costisick]

Heya,

There's a pool of cards in the middle, face up. This represents the facts that everyone can agree on.

Everyone has a small number of cards. This represents things they know about themselves.

This I like, but it needs modification.  The "best hand is the rat" thing I don't personally care for, but you feel free to go on and design you're own game based on that.

The modification I'd like to see for what Wonderllama and Dregg are working on is rather than playing cards, they create Plot Cards with rather broad plot points on them.  For instance, a card might depict a cop being shot, a knife in the back of a robber/ganster, an alarm going off, a flat tire, and so on.  It will be up to either the Morderator or the Players to come to an agreement on what the face up cards mean.  This is one place where defering to the Moderator might save time and disagreement, so that would be my suggestion for who has authority over that section of the game.

After 4 face up cards are dealt, then each player is dealt two Plot Cards face down.  These are facts they know, that no one else does.  They can use them to help themselves out later on.  Cards cost chips to play.

After the any player has played both is plot cards, the Moderator turns over a 5th face up card.  This represents a new fact that has entered the game.  This fact is something that happens right then!  So the Moderator narrates the fact and then the players deal with it accordingly.  At that point the "stakes" are raised and the chip costs for narration, card playing, and whatever else are doubled.

I can see this working out better for a Western or Bootlegger style game, since it is poker-like, but I still think the origonal setting/situation is supported by these mechanics.

Each player should have a toy gun (ideally) and a supply of poker chips.

Heh, that's funny.  I really think that having a toy gun would go great with a Wild West theme.  I can even see players taking it upon themselves to dress in costume while they play and have The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly playing in the background.

When everyone is ready, start the hidden ten-minute timer.

The thing I don't like about this is I can see one person taking ten minutes to narrate their scene.  The timer should be more like an hour to 90 minutes.

Peace,

-Troy[/code]

[Dick Page]

What I was trying to do with the poker rules was create a situation similar enough to what is happening in the standoff that the player's goals would line up with their character's goals.  I agree that it would probably be more interesting if the Rat knew he was the Rat, so he could play delay tactics, but as it is, all the player's goals are identical: to prove that they are not the Rat; to show that their hand is lower than someone elses.

I dislike the defined events cards; perhaps just a personal preference, but I'd rather make up my own events.  It doesn't really matter what's true or false; you're just trying to convince people, backed up by your knowledge of your opponent's cards, and communicated by your betting of chips, that you are not the Rat.  One weakness I see now is that there's no actual reason to roleplay my game - you may as well say "I accuse ____" and nothing else.  Perhaps a mechanic for rewarding interesting arguments?  Chip rewards would be nice, but also as simple as: if you can't come up with a defense fast enough, you lose extra chips.  That might encourage players to be quick-witted and creative.

I also feel the timer is required for my design.  It's essentially an argument game, and the time limit would add pressure.

I wish I had a game group around here so I could test this.  Anyone who wants to give it a try is welcome.