Western Game: Trying to Take the Next Step

[typo]

I can understand your objection, Callan, but I don't think I'll be shooting myself in the foot quite so badly (to use another cliche!).

My intention isn't really to use one cliche to simulate a host of other cliches.  The real intention is to use a fun, well-known game as the mechanical center of a system.  I think the western poker cliche makes it a good fit, thematically.  Whereas most systems use straightforward, abstract mechanical systems, I hope to employ a system that, while still abstract, is a thematic enhancement that will help the players feel "western-y" while playing.  It's somewhat like the Zodiac char sheets for Mountain Witch or the candle in Polaris -- it's a little thing that makes the mechanical part of the game evoke the in-game reality.

In other words, I like westerns, I like playing poker, and I like roleplaying -- and I want to roll 'em all up.

One of my friends suggested that the poker-based mechanics be used to resolve all in-game conflicts EXCEPT in-game card-playing, which would be resolved with a die roll.

[Vulpinoid]

One of my friends suggested that the poker-based mechanics be used to resolve all in-game conflicts EXCEPT in-game card-playing, which would be resolved with a die roll.

I like that. It's the kind of irony that is missing in many of the indy games that seem to take themselves too seriously.

V

[Callan S.]

Hi Scott,

I don't think you should present a case to me on how it will definately work. Rather, you should decide to either find some way of measuring whether it meets your goals in playtest, or decide you don't need to measure that because your absolutely certain it will work. Playtest is the thing that will show how it works out, no matter how much we agreement we have in this thread on whether it works or not.

[typo]

I'm not saying whether it'll work or not, I'm just trying to make my intentions a bit clearer for you.

[typo]

Alright, here's an update with where my thinking is leading me:

There's two basic models I can follow:

1.  fully symmetric poker in which all participants are competing for the same stakes.  In such a situation, chips would serve as a sort of narrative currency that players and GM are competing for.  This is the most obvious model, and the one that first occurred to me when I started considering this game.  I do not think it would serve the game I hope to create.  It would, however, potentially be an excellent system for a narrativist storytelling game.

2.  An asymetric system in which the players all compete against the GM.  I believe this is the route I'll be pursuing more.  As I envision it, each player will be competing against the GM on each hand.  The GM takes a mechanically adversarial role to the players, presenting obstacles and villains that the heroic (or antiheroic) PCs will be opposing. 

Each "hand" will probably represent a protracted "scene" in the game -- one discreet goal that the PCs will be attempting to pursue.  A hand will always be in play; as soon as one hand's outcome is resolved, the next hand will be dealt.  Players will always be holding cards unless they've folded (folding represents simply that that PC won't be the one effecting the outcome, not necessarily that they're entirely out of the scene -- hopefully I can work in some mechanics to still give folded-out players something to do so long hands don't get too dull). 

I'm increasingly confident this type of division will fit the game -- Westerns DO often consist of very "goal-oriented" scenes:  catch the bad guy, get out of the burning building, find the lost mine, get across the desert, etc.  And these scenes often DON'T end with everything working out for the good guys; quite often they fail at their immediate goal without necessarily losing the "big picture" goals.  In the above, non-fatal failures would, say, letting the bad guy get away THIS time, getting caught in the building (and being wounded and weakened, but rescued), failing to find the mine but eventually finding the bandits who were hiding there anyways, or collapsing in the desert (but being found and captured by another group passing through).  In these cases, the "failure" is really a loss of face and an impediment to the overall goal.  I think this could very well be represented in a system in which a GM victory grants the GM the ability to create setbacks and embarassments for the PCs, without being game-wreckingly antagonistic.  It also serves to give the PCs and the GM meaningful competition, unlike many systems in which the competition is largely one-sided or illusory.

So now I have a very basic idea of what the game's center will look like.  Now I have to figure out:

A.  What the game's parts represent (ie how exactly the in-game events relate to the gameplay).
B.  How exactly the game will be played.
C.  What the specific roles for the GM and PCs will be.

Should be simple, right?