[Red Rain] Oct. Ronnies Boxing RPG

[Matt Snyder]

Get in the ring, folks. I wrote a 24-hour game for the Oct. Ronnies called Red Rain. It's a boxing game, and I'm really proud of this sucker. Of course, the proof will be in the actual play pudding.

You can view the game on a Web page on my LiveJournal entry.

Or, you can download the PDF: Red Rain

One thing I wasn't happy with are the mechanics for deciding who is on offense and who is on defense in each round. I'm going to revise in the next go-round of the game. I'm happy to hear suggestions. One idea I had was simply to make players draw a card for "initiative." That's simpler, but I'd like it not to be a fortune-based trick. Still thinking on it.

Oh yeah, thanks to Keith Senkowski for awesome art work. I believe that's ok with the Ronnies contest, but the 24-Hour RPG site rules don't like me for it! I can live with that; Keith's art knocked me out. Heh.

[Keith Senkowski]

Matt,

Question about Escalation.  Why did  you choose to only allow the fighter to escalate a conflict?

My art is all kinds of sexy...

Keith

[Matt Snyder]

Only the fighter escalates because the other participants in the scene are supporting characters. They really have no attributes besides a Relationship with the fighter. So, they risk nothing.

Basically, it's a focus on the figher (and in the next scene, the OTHER fighter gets his turn).. The fighters are protagonists here; no one else really can be.

[Eric J. Boyd]

This looks really nice, Matt. I particularly like how you integrate the suits into various boxing moves. The subject matter really interests me, so I'll give it close read this weekend.

[Eric J. Boyd]

Matt, true to my word I read the game this evening and have some observations. A lot of these are merely clarifications you could include in your next draft, but I hope they're useful anyway.

• It's not clear how the other player chooses the card that is added to the Repertoire of the controlling player. The example mentions two different methods--looking only at the hand the other player holds and looking at all the cards everyone holds. I think you mean to have the latter be the rule, but the rules text on page 5 doesn't make it clear.


• The text on page 5 mentions that "he returns the card to the other player's hand" if the controlling player chooses to escalate. Which card do you mean--the card the other player played to resolve the conflict or the one he is adding to the controlling player's Repertoire? If the latter, then where does the card go if it came from the Referee or controlling player's hand (I assume it returns to the hand it came from)?


• It sounds like the controlling player chooses whether to escalate after seeing the card to be added to his Repertoire. Why not make this decision before the Repertoire card is chosen so the preceding point is no longer an issue and the narrative, not the card, is the determining factor?


• During escalation, can the controlling player jeopardize Relationships with supporting characters not in the current scene? Page 5 seems to say no, but page 6 says escalation can continue so long as the character has Relationships remaining.


• The example mentions playing another card in the case of a tie, but the rules text on page 5 does not mention this. What about allowing suit to break ties instead?


• In order to let each fighter have a chance at a three-punch combination, at least 6 scenes per fighter should be played. Otherwise the fighter that starts on defense is at a big disadvantage.


• I don't see how fighters can end up with an unequal number of cards. The only way to sacrifice a card (to increase Pain) presupposes that the fighter already has more cards.


• Having a set Repertoire for each fighter that both players know (since they saw each get chosen) runs the risk of a fight that has a foregone conclusion before it begins. Adding a mechanic that allows some new cards (maybe 1-3 at most to preserve the value of the lead-up scenes) to enter the Repertoire would liven things up.


• When do knockdowns happen? Do they interrupt a fighter's combination immediately or let it finish? After a knockdown what happens next if the round isn't over?


• As for determining who starts out on offense, why not have the fighters play a card from their Repertoire--high card takes it. An interesting tactical decision emerges--go first with weaker cards or keep my best card for a later punch.

I really like what you've got here and look forward to trying it out and seeing further development.

[Joe J Prince]

Heh cool

I did a boxing rpg too for the ronnies!

I guess it comes naturally from fight and pain.

Didn't have such nice artwork for Contenders though :(

I'm a big fan of Dust Devils so I'm looking forward to reading Red Rain properly and seeing how our games compare - both use cards too.

http://www.1km1kt.net/rpg/Contenders.php

All the best
Joe

[Matt Snyder]

Hi, Smithy! It's Eric, right? Great questions. Thanks very much for checking out Red Rain. I'll answer your questions here. Also, by pure chance, before I submitted Red Rain (but after I had written it) I read two of the several entries. I read Contenders for obvious reasons. I also read Today. That's yours, right? I liked what I saw, and I'll post a comment I have about the game in this forum. (EDIT: Actually, I did that already.)

It's not clear how the other player chooses the card that is added to the Repertoire of the controlling player. The example mentions two different methods--looking only at the hand the other player holds and looking at all the cards everyone holds. I think you mean to have the latter be the rule, but the rules text on page 5 doesn't make it clear.

Ugh. Probably a factor of not enough time to edit carefully. You're right. It should work such that the player choosing the card for the fighter examines everyone's hand and picks a card.

The text on page 5 mentions that "he returns the card to the other player's hand" if the controlling player chooses to escalate. Which card do you mean--the card the other player played to resolve the conflict or the one he is adding to the controlling player's Repertoire? If the latter, then where does the card go if it came from the Referee or controlling player's hand (I assume it returns to the hand it came from)?

I mean the card the opponent has chosen for the fighter (presumably a lower card the fighter probably doesn't want). I'd rather give the fighter's player the option to see how ugly the consequences are for him. That is, I want him to see the bad card he has to take, and let that factor into his strategy for the fight. He's making an informed choice: Will he risk that his life falls to ruin somewhat in hopes that he'll be better in the ring, or will he take his licks here and now. I think that's central to the premise of the game.

Now, the premise is still there whether the player sees the card or not. But, I like the player strategy and choice involved.

It sounds like the controlling player chooses whether to escalate after seeing the card to be added to his Repertoire. Why not make this decision before the Repertoire card is chosen so the preceding point is no longer an issue and the narrative, not the card, is the determining factor?

Again, I want the player at the table to know what his choices are. My philosophy in role-playing design generally is that keeping information from real-life players is a bad idea.

During escalation, can the controlling player jeopardize Relationships with supporting characters not in the current scene? Page 5 seems to say no, but page 6 says escalation can continue so long as the character has Relationships remaining.

Excellent point. I waffled on this one, too. At first, I was going to let the player jeopardize ANY relationship, then (foolishly) I decided the character had to be present in the scene. In retrospect that was, um, stupid!

The example mentions playing another card in the case of a tie, but the rules text on page 5 does not mention this. What about allowing suit to break ties instead?

It could. But, I don't want to make one suit automatically superior to another. I want there to be a cycle. So, Clubs beats Diamonds, but Hearts beats Clubs or something like that. I may go that route. Saves some handling time, perhaps.

In order to let each fighter have a chance at a three-punch combination, at least 6 scenes per fighter should be played. Otherwise the fighter that starts on defense is at a big disadvantage.

That sounds about right. What did I recommend in the text, something like 4-5 scenes per fighter minimum? You're probably right – 6 should be about right for a good fight.

I don't see how fighters can end up with an unequal number of cards. The only way to sacrifice a card (to increase Pain) presupposes that the fighter already has more cards.

Hmm, let's see. I'm losing my memory now of what's in the game and what I had to delete. I remember writing a section that a controlling player can accept a scenes outcome without earning a card. But, now I can't recall how that worked! Perils of the 24-hour alpha edition. I'll have to look at that closely as I revise.

Having a set Repertoire for each fighter that both players know (since they saw each get chosen) runs the risk of a fight that has a foregone conclusion before it begins. Adding a mechanic that allows some new cards (maybe 1-3 at most to preserve the value of the lead-up scenes) to enter the Repertoire would liven things up.

Yes, this is true, and intentional. I really wanted part of the strategy of the game to be knowing at least part of what the other fighter has "in him." The fighters understand each other and know what the other's style is.

However, when I began the game, it was to incorporate other players taking on the roles of supporting characters (wives, trainers, family, pals, etc.). My idea was that they would boost the fighter during the fight somehow, earning him a few extra cards. But, I couldn't make it work well in time.

Even if the game remains a 3-player, "one-shot" style game, it would be cool to have some moves give more cards while other moves give more POitns. Something like that, possibly. (I did want each move to have a special property like that, which worked especially well against one opposite move. For example, an uppercut devastates a clinch, and the fighter gets more benefit as a result.)

When do knockdowns happen? Do they interrupt a fighter's combination immediately or let it finish? After a knockdown what happens next if the round isn't over?

Aha! Good question. This is one I had not explained well – someone knocking an opponent down in, say, the first or second exchange. The question is, does the subsequent second third exchange get to continue, or does the exchange start "anew"? The answer, I think, is that it should continue. This should not stop a fighter's momentum. Worth watching specifically in playtesting.

As for determining who starts out on offense, why not have the fighters play a card from their Repertoire--high card takes it. An interesting tactical decision emerges--go first with weaker cards or keep my best card for a later punch.

I had written something very close to this, then changed it. But, I think your suggestion is sound. I may do exactly this. The reason I changed it was that I didn't want players with, say, only 5-6 cards "wasting" one on initiative. I wanted to use the limited cards for punches and combos.