[Mexican Standoff] A Party Game for You, Your Friends, & a Pile of Money

<< < (2/4) > >>

TonyLB:
Oh, okay.  That makes sense.  Thanks!

GreatWolf:
I'm a little confused by the "Some Live/Some Die" rules.  Why would the players who die get the money?  I'm certain that I'm missing something, but this is the only part of the game that made me cock my head sideways and say, "Huh?"

All the rest made sense, and, personally, I'd love to give this one a whirl.

Josh Roby:
Oh, also: if you realize that you don't have a gun pointed at you, that is not necessarily the time to say Bang! -- if you and one other person have no guns on you and you say Bang!, you'll end up with the two of you, and greatly increase the chances that the people who die in this first round will get the pot when the two of you axe eachother later.

GreatWolf, this is why there's the Some Live / Some Die rule -- it's an incentive not to wipe out half the players if you're not sure that you can seize the win with the remaining players.

I need to see this game played.

timfire:
"Stand Down" + "Some Live/ Some Die": Both of these were included to create a "Prisoner's Gamble" effect. The point to "Some Live/ Some Die" is like Joshua said, if you kill some people off, you need to make sure you can take the prize in the end. I don't think it would be too hard to take people out one by one, until you only have two or three people left.

At that point, you essentially have the "Prisoners Gamble". If you work together and "Stand Down", you each can take a small prize. If one of you betrays, that person takes a big prize. But if everyone betrays and shoots, you lose. In that situation, if you all shoot and all the money is returned, then you lose nothing. By giving the money to the players who died previously, the living players risk real loss... I hope that makes sense, I probably need to word it better.

The "Stand Down" rules were largely added to cope with one-on-one play, but I can see it being used with more players. I think this has more potential with the "timer" option, as if you think the police are on their way, you might be more inclined to "Stand Down" and take a small prize rather than risk being arrested.

I really need to see this in action, too, as I have yet to successfully make it through an entire game. (Without a turn structure, the games devolved into a screaming match.) The thing I really need to test out is tokens. I'm not sure what the optimal number of tokens players should have is.

Also, I think significant part of the game, at least at first, is monitoring who is holding tokens and who doesn't, and trying to manuever the situation so that certain people spend their tokens.

Oh!!! I forgot to say something in the rules---if someone dies, any tokens they might be holding disapears.

xenopulse:
As a quick thought, given that you pointed out that the end game is a prisoners' dilemma ("PD"):

It seems to me people will always end up shooting each other if there are 2 of them left. After all, in a singular game of PD, the rational action is always to defect, in this case, to shoot.  See, I don't know what you picked.  But in either case, shooting is better.  If you decide not to shoot, I get either half the money (don't shoot) or all of it (shoot).  If you decide to shoot, I don't get any money either way.  As a rational self-interest maximizer, I am always going to shoot.

It might turn out that people in your playtest don't do that, that they get somehow swayed by the narrative of the game instead of the Gamist goal of getting as much money as possible.  But since you play for real money, that's a small chance.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page