craps conflict resolution

[Marshall Burns]

After using poker as the basis for the conflict resolution of Witch Trails (the structure and the betting work perfectly; the role of cards still needs some hammering out) I was anxious to try applying other games to conflict resolution.  My first idea was to figure out a way to use a cardplaying trick-taking mechanic in a thematically significant way, but The Blazing Rose beat me to it.

So, what about craps?

Here's the way that craps normally works:
One player ("the shooter") has the dice.  He makes a bet ("shoots for" an amount).  The other players then match ("fade") his bet.  They don't have to contribute equal amounts; they can divide it up however they want.  The House can also fade.  If there's a portion of the original bet that is not faded, that portion must be retracted by the shooter; however, the faders cannot exceed the shooter's bet (so the shooter sets the upper limit of the risk, but the faders set the lower limit).

Next, the shooter rolls the dice (2d6).  If their total is 7 or 11 (a "natural"), he wins the pot.  If their total is 2 ("snake eyes"), 3 ("tres"), or 12 ("boxcars") (collectively, these are "craps"), he loses the pot, and the players who faded win double their own bets (that is, if I faded $3, and the shooter lost, I win $6).  If he rolls anything else, he has to "make a point."  This means that he re-rolls the dice as many times as necessary until he rolls the same total as initially (win), or he rolls a 7 (lose).

If the shooter wins, he retains the dice and may make another bet or pass them on to the next player.  If he loses, they pass to the next player by default.

There are usually also several side bets among the other players, as to whether the shooter will make his point, or will roll a natural or craps on his next throw (termed "right, coming out" or "wrong, coming out," respectively).  Note that while the shooter is attempting to make a point that craps and 11 mean nothing; only 7 and the point he is trying to make mean anything.

Now, to transform this into conflict resolution:
It's pretty clear that the shooter is the guy with the initiative, in whatever sense (which implies that this system uses initiative, unlike some others).  Clearly, the bets are over "what's at stake."  A simple way to do this is to have the shooter say, "I'm shooting to sneak up on this guy and knock him out with my blackjack," and then the house would fade with something like "He might hear you coming and punch your lights out," and then the win/loss of the dice determines which happens.

But here's a better idea:  what if everyone's got a Resource, indicated by real-world chips, and one chip equals one effect?  So, "sneak up on him" is one chip, and "knock him out" is another, making it a two-chip bet. This could be faded by two chips, meaning that there's two effects (probably of a inconvenient variety) that he might suffer if he loses.  Or it might be faded by only 1 chip, and the shooter would have to decide which effect he's going to sacrifice at the moment.  I mean, he could still shoot to sneak up on the guy, and if he wins he retains the dice, so then he can shoot to hit the guy in the head.

Now, when it comes to making the point, sometimes those re-rolls can go on for a while.  It occurs to me to either:

1.  Limit the re-rolls, based on Effectiveness stats of some sort.
2.  Make the re-rolls mean something.  I'm not sure how to implement that, though, other than provide more opportunity for the use of side-bets below.

Concurrent actions during the same round of resolution could be handled by side-bets, using the same effect currency as normal.

Note that when the shooter is making an action unopposed by a character, or opposed by an NPC, the house (GM) would probably take care of all the fading, but if the action was against a PC, then that player would probably have to do the fading.  But someone else could always fade on your behalf, if they wanted to impose negative effects on the shooter--or if they wanted to make sure that the shooter got the full stakes he wanted.

Now, all of that above, I like it.  But what about thematic significance?  Poker is so great for Witch Trails because that game's based on spaghetti Westerns; what would this be good for?

The first thing that comes to mind is a game about hoboes, reminiscent of the film Emperor of the North Pole.  Something about sailors would probably be good too.

Does anybody have any other ideas as to what sort of game would benefit from a system like this?  Also, any thoughts on the system itself:  do you foresee breakpoints, are there gaps somewhere, etc?

-Marshall

[imago]

Craps is a game where House has the upper hand and the shooter clearly doesn't. Shooter's best chance is getting a natural (around 19%); after that, best chance (depending on what number is the point to make) is 14% (8 or 10), worst is 8% (4 or 10), while losing is always around 17% - that's a huge chance on having to roll again. It seems counter-intuitive that re-rolls are tied to an Efficiency trait.

So, I'd say, without modifying the resolution system itself, that it's better suited for horror games, where re-rolls might mean more stress for characters... or the chance to pass the dice to the next player.

Besides, fading implies a competitive gameplay and, depending on how and if you gain more resources other than betting, that leads to a survival horror game - think of a zombie movie, where only the last remaining character gets to leave.

So, it comes to an economy issue and what to do with a mechanics where odds are against players.

[Marshall Burns]

I'm inclined to think that the predicament of poor, itinerant workers during the Great Depression is just as horrifying, if not moreso, than zombies.  A game about hobos would, by definition, be a survival horror game.

That, and nobody plays craps in horror movies.

It seems counter-intuitive that re-rolls are tied to an Efficiency trait.

I meant Effectiveness, as per the Forge Glossary:

Effectiveness
A Character Component: quantities or terms which are directly used to determine the success or extent of a character's actions during play.

But I've cooked up a better way to handle Effectiveness: 
Everyone starts with a certain number of chips.  These are "free" chips that can be applied to any goal.  You can "invest" some on Traits, whereupon they become chips that are never lost, but are not always applicable to the situation you currently face.

There's more stuff coming to mind with regard to setting;  the film Hard Times seems appropriate, as do the various songs about Stagger Lee.  The least common denominator here would seem to be the Great Depression--where of course the odds are against the shooter.

[Robert Bohl]

Marshall,

My game, Misspent Youth, uses a craps-like mechanic. If you take a look at this page you can see some of my earliest attempts at it, as well as how I wound up pulling it off.

[Marshall Burns]

Robert,

That game looks very cool.  It's got some similarities to my game The Rustbelt, in that it asks you what you're willing to give up to deal with the situation you're in, by giving you the ability to succeed automatically by paying a price (a concept that is, of course, wicked cool).  Although The Rustbelt is a bit more bleak

I definitely want to incorporate the betting with an explicit currency, though.   I'm finding the whole concept of one chip = one effect really attractive.