card-based mechanic for cowboy genre

[etothepowerofx]

Ex, you most certainly should NOT have shown me the Decktet game. The possibilities with that deck are numerous, but now I've started thinking about making my own deck to fit the game, instead of a game to fit the deck. Dangerous stuff. Not particularly practical, though-- my first inclination was to design a battle system that could facilitate an im-promptu game session when no one remembered the dice; just pull out an old poker deck.

I understand better now the difference between task and conflict resolution-- what stefoid said helps a lot with deciding how I'm going to do skills-- Rather than making skills very specific (which he pointed out will lead to numerous, pointless how you say... granular... checks), I suppose a good system would be to have skills be more general, and if parts of a skill might be useful for a task, then the player can use that skill instead of a more appropriate one at a penalty.

Making skills more general in this way will make checks more meaningful. Does it then become necessary to make the mechanic lean even more away from task resolution? I kinda like the idea, if I were playing the game, of micromanaging how a character does something. If It becomes less important HOW a character performs and action, then also the things that make the character special, the whole point of creating a unique character, become less important.

solving a conflict piecemeal vs factoring everything into a single check is a slippery slope either way.

the poker system described does create a delicious escalation mechanic that I can't perceive trying synthesize in a task-resolution system. The problem with any such system is that I really can't see how it can be used with more than two opposing individuals. Poker is an every-man-for-himself kinda game. It's hard to adapt for team play. Extremely hard to adapt for large-scale conflict. I don't see how it can be done if there are three or more conflicting goals occurring simultaneously.

I do like the idea of players contributing their cards to the greater good... But this means the GM will have to play the same way from the NPC side-- that could be tedious.

Hm, every time I come across a problem with my way of thinking, my inclination is to abandon everything i have so far and start over with something completely different... my mind keeps wandering back to the idea "you know, if you would make your OWN deck..."

[stefoid]

I understand better now the difference between task and conflict resolution-- what stefoid said helps a lot with deciding how I'm going to do skills-- Rather than making skills very specific (which he pointed out will lead to numerous, pointless how you say... granular... checks), I suppose a good system would be to have skills be more general, and if parts of a skill might be useful for a task, then the player can use that skill instead of a more appropriate one at a penalty.

Making skills more general in this way will make checks more meaningful. Does it then become necessary to make the mechanic lean even more away from task resolution? I kinda like the idea, if I were playing the game, of micromanaging how a character does something. If It becomes less important HOW a character performs and action, then also the things that make the character special, the whole point of creating a unique character, become less important.

What you want is gamist game where a large component of that is tactical combat, yeah?  (This is what someone mentioned earlier in the thread).

If thats where you see this game, then yes, character design and combat tactics are a major part of the fun.  Basically you are building a combat machine from a toolkit of spare parts to behave how you want it to behave, then your testing your design (and tactical skills) in combat.  The player is part mad scientist and part armchair general. 

In that case, I think what I said about pointless rolling still applies -- in general you dont want a system that encourages tests where the outcome isnt changing the situation.  It may be that you can still get away with abstract skills as well.  But you need to give the mad scientist something to play with and the armchair general too.  They need lots of options in character design and general play.  Those options dont necessarily have to be a laundry list of skill and stats to choose from.

One particularly bad design mistake is to give the player a whole lot of options during design that dont make much difference during play.   Character design decisions have to matter during play.  that is the payoff. 

Related to this is I think its a mistake to obsess over 'realism' because it can lead the designer to make mechanics that do exactly that - diminish the payoff for character creation decisions.  Thats why players min-max, and I dont get why min-maxing is generally looked down on.  All the players are trying to do is make character design decisions that matter, and if they are forced to min-max in order to do that, its the game design that is in the wrong, not the player.

i.e.  a player will go into character design with some kind of template in mind, which they then try to adapt to the character design process the game offers, and also there is a feedback loop where the game offers something unexpected that they then incorporate into their original template, and round and round.  But they might initially start off with an idea like :"I want this massively strong barbarian who can take and deal out oodles of punishment, but is also fast as tiger, lithe as a cat, and dumb as dogshit.".   If they have to min-max or scratch around to defeat 'realistic' character design rules that mistakenly try to enforce some 'balanced character' rules...  well, phht to that.  they are playing the wrong game.

Personally for this type of game, Ive been thinking myself about doing away with all but a basic couple of stats, very much like FATE  (i.e. character is 3 parts soldier, one part drifter, one part impoverished nobleman), and having everything else about the character defined in terms of tactical abilities which I originally called something like Signature Moves but in D&D they would be called FEATS.  Lets call them 'feats' here because its a short word.  They arent confined to combat skills - they define everything specific about the character, but yeah, combat is where its at for this type of game.

but basically instead of having something like I try to attack with my attack skill, he tries to defend with his defend skill, and some generic damage and armor system etc...  you have a tactical thing that the character can do which has a predefined outcome if it is successful, so each time the feat is attempted and resolved, its like a granular conflict-resolution instead of task resolution.

example:  feat called  'suppressive fire'    You attempt this when you want the enemy to not be able to shoot back, like if you are covering an ally who is moving out of cover.  If you are successful, by definition of the feat, you have accomplished this.  So the reason why you are shooting is resolved (on a granular tactical scale) and not the individual task of firing your gun, which if it hits or misses still doesnt resolve whether the enemy is able to fire back (unless of course you happen to shoot him dead).

So character creation becomes then a process of assembling a toolkit of tactics that your character can apply.  There is no need or possibility to minmax - everything you choose is guaranteed to have a significant effect on how your character functions.  the game can offer a laundry list to choose from as an example, or the player can of course create their own with GM permission.

Lastly you would let the player improvise new tactics to try on the fly. (This kind of mechanic actively encourages framing scope as conflict resolution)  Lets say that a tactic you select lets you perform that feat using your most appropriate stat - say 'soldier' with no penalty.  Improvising a new tactic on the fly for a specific situation means you have to take some kind of penalty to your soldier stat, so it is less likely to come off.

Ongoing character growth comes from improving both basic stats and learning new tactics and more powerful tactics.

[PeterBB]

If It becomes less important HOW a character performs and action, then also the things that make the character special, the whole point of creating a unique character, become less important.

solving a conflict piecemeal vs factoring everything into a single check is a slippery slope either way.

I'm not sure I agree. If anything, a conflict resolution system allows a great deal more creative freedom to express exactly how the character would do something. Imagine the following bit of narration:

"I sweep my coat off the table, using it to distract the enemy as I break my beer bottle and stab him with the broken shards."

If you have a task resolution system, then you have to hope that there are distraction rules and improvised weapons rules somewhere, otherwise this is impossible. And is sweeping a coat a simple or complex action? How about breaking a bottle, do you have time to do that and also stab him? Do we need to use the barrier rules to determine how badly it shatters? Do you take any damage from shattering a bottle you're holding?

If you have a conflict resolution system, then you just do it, and roll to see if it works. Or even better, you roll first, so that you can narrate something that is appropriate given the level of success you know you have.

I'm currently playing a Shadowrun game where I'm a stealthy assassin type with knives. This essentially means I suck at combat, because it's not really possible to be a legitimately powerful melee character given the RAW. My vision for the character is impeded by the fact that he can't actually do anything with all of the skills I envisioned him having. (This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a powergamer friend of mine helped me create him, but I was unwilling to take skills or equipment that was completely out of character, so only somewhat.) In contrast, in a conflict resolution system you don't have to worry about min-maxing your character, so you can actually just create him the way you wanted to all along.

[Excalibur]

Ex, you most certainly should NOT have shown me the Decktet game. The possibilities with that deck are numerous, but now I've started thinking about making my own deck to fit the game, instead of a game to fit the deck. Dangerous stuff. Not particularly practical, though-- my first inclination was to design a battle system that could facilitate an im-promptu game session when no one remembered the dice; just pull out an old poker deck.

I'm glad it provided inspiration. Actually, I kept thinking to myself, "why not just make an alternate reality wild west?" Not in the sense that the cowboys are really cows with guns (that's another game) but who is to say that a different form of card game didn't develop there?

Anyway, one of the other things I was thinking was that if you had other numbers that meant different things on the cards, in addition to the standard deck, you could do different types of resolutions from initiative to high/low to stat-based bonuses to resource management (like in RISK). So you have a standard deck of cards with clubs, diamonds, hearts, and spades numbered from A-K plus 2 jokers. You could add stickers of different colors to the cards to represent strength tests or aim bonuses or skill use or something else. You could print out your own cards (http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/490643/making-cards-youll-never-use-your-old-method-again) with the stuff *you* want on them.

the poker system described does create a delicious escalation mechanic that I can't perceive trying synthesize in a task-resolution system. The problem with any such system is that I really can't see how it can be used with more than two opposing individuals. Poker is an every-man-for-himself kinda game. It's hard to adapt for team play. Extremely hard to adapt for large-scale conflict. I don't see how it can be done if there are three or more conflicting goals occurring simultaneously.

Well, you could always allow the players to work together and share their hands, but yeah, team-based poker isn't an easy thing to wrap your head around. I'm having a hard time of doing it without thinking about community cards and allowing players to use their stats (if you have them draw cards for their stats that is) to make their hands. They may get a hand of 5 cards but only allow them to use 1 or 2 from that hand to combine with their stats and the community/environment cards dealt by the GM. This way the players can see generally how everyone might do and the extra cards represent luck or a special insight into the situation.

I do like the idea of players contributing their cards to the greater good... But this means the GM will have to play the same way from the NPC side-- that could be tedious.

Nah, the GM could assign 1 or 2 cards to each NPC taking part in the combat, use the environment cards, and his own hand of cards. Though I'd say 1-2 cards per NPC is the GM's hand.

Hm, every time I come across a problem with my way of thinking, my inclination is to abandon everything i have so far and start over with something completely different... my mind keeps wandering back to the idea "you know, if you would make your OWN deck..."[/quote]

If you want to experiment with your own deck, by all means do so. This link gives a pretty darned good tutorial on how to create nice cards with professional look and feel about them, all done by you. Your first deck doesn't have to have color (but can if you want) so you can test it out.

Actually, that's what I'm doing with my game: printing out all the cards in black & white on normal stock and putting it in clear card sleeves so that I can test the game. Still have to get a group to playtest, but I have the materials. In my game, players write stuff on the cards (they can build their own techniques and junk...from a set of rules) and they do combat resolution through a system of sacrificing cards and tactical play. For instance, during the initiative phase, players drop two cards from their hands (optional, if they don't, they go dead last) to the table. The cards are face down. One represents initiative, the other maneuver. If you win initiative, you get to go first. If you win maneuver you can either play an attack card after you see the opponent's defense card or you can play a defense card after seeing an opponents attack card. If maneuver is tied, both players play their attack and defense cards simultaneously, face down, then turn them over and resolve combat.

I've even got the character records reduced to the size of a magic card. I can't wait to test it and get feedback.

Anyway, some of the fun, I think, will be in designing your own cards if that's the route you decide to take. Decktet and the card creation tutorial have really got my juices flowing.

[stefoid]

I *think* ruben is talking about sucking the options out of character design and possibly also general play of his gamist game by abstracting too much. 

If It becomes less important HOW a character performs and action, then also the things that make the character special, the whole point of creating a unique character, become less important.

solving a conflict piecemeal vs factoring everything into a single check is a slippery slope either way.

I'm not sure I agree. If anything, a conflict resolution system allows a great deal more creative freedom to express exactly how the character would do something. Imagine the following bit of narration:

"I sweep my coat off the table, using it to distract the enemy as I break my beer bottle and stab him with the broken shards."

If you have a task resolution system, then you have to hope that there are distraction rules and improvised weapons rules somewhere, otherwise this is impossible. And is sweeping a coat a simple or complex action? How about breaking a bottle, do you have time to do that and also stab him? Do we need to use the barrier rules to determine how badly it shatters? Do you take any damage from shattering a bottle you're holding?

If you have a conflict resolution system, then you just do it, and roll to see if it works. Or even better, you roll first, so that you can narrate something that is appropriate given the level of success you know you have.

I'm currently playing a Shadowrun game where I'm a stealthy assassin type with knives. This essentially means I suck at combat, because it's not really possible to be a legitimately powerful melee character given the RAW. My vision for the character is impeded by the fact that he can't actually do anything with all of the skills I envisioned him having. (This is somewhat mitigated by the fact that a powergamer friend of mine helped me create him, but I was unwilling to take skills or equipment that was completely out of character, so only somewhat.) In contrast, in a conflict resolution system you don't have to worry about min-maxing your character, so you can actually just create him the way you wanted to all along.

[stefoid]

the poker system described does create a delicious escalation mechanic that I can't perceive trying synthesize in a task-resolution system. The problem with any such system is that I really can't see how it can be used with more than two opposing individuals. Poker is an every-man-for-himself kinda game. It's hard to adapt for team play. Extremely hard to adapt for large-scale conflict. I don't see how it can be done if there are three or more conflicting goals occurring simultaneously.

Well, you could always allow the players to work together and share their hands, but yeah, team-based poker isn't an easy thing to wrap your head around. I'm having a hard time of doing it without thinking about community cards and allowing players to use their stats (if you have them draw cards for their stats that is) to make their hands. They may get a hand of 5 cards but only allow them to use 1 or 2 from that hand to combine with their stats and the community/environment cards dealt by the GM. This way the players can see generally how everyone might do and the extra cards represent luck or a special insight into the situation.

If you wanted to go with the poker theme (which you would only want to use for 1 game = conflict resolved situations) then you could simply have the GM have a separate hand of poker for each PC involved in a conflict.  Basically its not going to work well for granular combat, but who says you cant have two resolution mechanics in the same game, one for granular mass combat and the poker game for other 1:1 combats and other types of conflict.  A faceoff and/or duel for instance would be the poker method, but the party surrounding the ravine where the outlaws are hiding out would be the mass combat system.

[Excalibur]

the poker system described does create a delicious escalation mechanic that I can't perceive trying synthesize in a task-resolution system. The problem with any such system is that I really can't see how it can be used with more than two opposing individuals. Poker is an every-man-for-himself kinda game. It's hard to adapt for team play. Extremely hard to adapt for large-scale conflict. I don't see how it can be done if there are three or more conflicting goals occurring simultaneously.

Well, you could always allow the players to work together and share their hands, but yeah, team-based poker isn't an easy thing to wrap your head around. I'm having a hard time of doing it without thinking about community cards and allowing players to use their stats (if you have them draw cards for their stats that is) to make their hands. They may get a hand of 5 cards but only allow them to use 1 or 2 from that hand to combine with their stats and the community/environment cards dealt by the GM. This way the players can see generally how everyone might do and the extra cards represent luck or a special insight into the situation.

If you wanted to go with the poker theme (which you would only want to use for 1 game = conflict resolved situations) then you could simply have the GM have a separate hand of poker for each PC involved in a conflict.  Basically its not going to work well for granular combat, but who says you cant have two resolution mechanics in the same game, one for granular mass combat and the poker game for other 1:1 combats and other types of conflict.  A faceoff and/or duel for instance would be the poker method, but the party surrounding the ravine where the outlaws are hiding out would be the mass combat system.

True enough. The wonderful thing about all this is it's up to you. Just don't make it too complex that it sucks the fun out of everything *cough*starfleetbattles*cough* Again, you could consider a bunch of different card games: blackjack, spades, hearts, bridge, cribbage, war, old maid, crazy 8's...Or your own system.

That's why I liked Decktet, not for it's game, but for realizing that I could make my own cards so that I could have different types of resolution other than the standard 4x13 + 2 of a standard deck of cards. Even a tarot deck has some interesting options.

[etothepowerofx]

Peter's shadowrun story is the exact type of thing I'm trying to avoid-- Like so many others I have a vision of crafting a universal system where anything is possible and common sense rulings by the dealer solve all dilemma, where the player is in charge of creating a character to his specifications, and the rules are relaxed enough that his specifications can be meaningfully incorporated into the system, but scrupulous enough to prevent the players from disputing the lack of objectivity. I want it to be detailed enough to accommodate any type of situation, yet terse enough for quick resolution.

blah blah blah.

Like stefoid said, the poker theme is perfect for a 1v1 conflict resolution mechanic, but a supplemental mechanic might be called for if the situation becomes more complex. A single system for dealing with all conflict is more what I'm looking for, but it has to result in meaningful conclusions, cannot be boring or tedious. If I'm using cards, I want a good reason for using them, besides novelty. I don't want one of the players to get frustrated and say "why don't we just use dice?"

In my original post I proposed a simple system of comparing highest card or highest set of cards to determine victory. What would make the system different from a simple dice roll comparison is that instead of discarding all unused cards at the end of a play, a player can retain some of them for use in the next hand (provided the action is fluid). This allows the player the option of risk. He can choose to play his best card, or save it for later. If he stores up all his good cards and something happens to interrupt fluidity, he may be forced to discard his hand.

To simplify playing NPCs for the dealer, npcs cannot store cards; instead they receive fresh cards for every action they perform.

Anyway, that was my rationale for using cards in the first place-- it allows a new dynamic that can't be replicated with dice. Plus, having cards that no one else knows about gives the player a sense of control, which i think is missing from dice mechanics.

That and using cards in this way creates a tactical situation. You need to know what's going on in order analyze the potential risks.  Also, cool things can happen, like if you saved a pair of aces, but ended up killing your target without them, you can use them to help your teammate.

The first idea I had was just sort of thrown together from a bunch of different thoughts, but now I'm starting to get a better picture of how to bare down to the essentials and not waste time on checks that don't solve anything conclusively.

With Peter's example, sweeping your coat off the table to distract someone while you break a bottle and stab them with the shards, well, that's par for the course for a bar brawl. I would check to see what skills are related to bar brawling, if they have a bar-brawling skill, then I would let them use that level to determine success. If they have something similar, like boxing, I would let them use that at a penalty. (boxing involves complex movements including distractions, timing, footwork, and attacking and defending simultaneously).

This might work similar to stefoid's feat system, but perhaps a little more towards conflict resolution than task. I would have them check if they were able to pull off the move. If they did so with great success, then they can describe the situation vividly as they imagine it. If it was done with marginal success, then they succeeded in the action, but the result would be determined by a second check, in this case to check how badly he was damaged by the stab, instead of assuming that it was fatal. If it was a marginal failure, than the action may have been successful up until the point where the actual attack was made; at that point, the action fails. And if the action was a catastrophic failure, then he completely bungles the whole operation.

Would this be a good compromise for granular vs nongranular gameplay?

[Excalibur]

Well, you mention an important word: Risk (I think it's been said before, but you just reinforced it for me).

Would you agree that this game is about Risk first, Control second, and speed overall?

Do you care if you use dice or cards or a combination of both?

Here is a suggestion that might speed things up a bit. I will present it using cards and using dice.

The mechanic is about risk. How much are you willing to risk in order to win?

Using cards, play blackjack. The GM has his hand(s) and the players have theirs. The goal is to get to 21 using their cards or as close as possible without going over. The players can hit, stand, or split as per normal blackjack rules.

After all the players have made their risks, the GM can risk more and attempt the same thing with the NPCs if this is a situation such as combat or contests. If it is something along the lines of lock picking, then players just try to get as close to 21 as they can without going over.

In any case, in order to succeed, a player must get a 21, a blackjack (natural 21 of 10, j, q, k + ace), or a score of 17, 18, 19, or 20. If they go over (bust) they have failed. The amount over determines just how badly they failed. Under 17 is a failure though not a catastrophic one.

What's the risk? The risk the character critically failing (over 21). This could be a gun jam, tripping over a stump, falling into a ravine due to gun recoil, being bucked from their horse, etc.

If you use the character creation that I suggested before, you could use the stats as a means to do better. For instance, if the player has a King for gunplay and he has an ace in his hand, he could use that as his hand. If he has a 2 in stealth and he's at 16 in his hand, he could declare the 2 is part of his hand for a total of 18 (though the NPC could get a 19, 20, 21, or blackjack).

That's just a quick idea using blackjack as the resolution system.

For dice, look at a 6d6 dice game called Farkle. This is a game all about risk. In brief: Scoring is easy: 1 = 100, 5 = 50. These are the basic scoring dice. Everything else is junk unless it comes in patterns. 1-1-1 = 1000, 3 of a kind of anything else = 100 x the face, 4 of a kind = 200 x face, 5 of a kind = 300 x face, 6 of a kind = 400 x face, a straight (1-6) = 1,500 points, 3 pair = 750. Anything else is a Farkle. Normal gameplay is to 10,000 points and takes a bit to get there. A player rolls all 6 dice to start. If there are any scoring combinations, the player may choose 1 or more of those combinations in order to start his score. If he uses up all 6 dice, he may throw them again and add any further scoring to his score total. If at any time during the rolling process he rolls a Farkle (no scoring dice or combination at all) he loses the current score. Once the player passes (before Farkling) the score is added to his total.

Now, how does this relate to your game? Thinking about the scoring mechanism is key. The GM sets a difficulty number and the player must roll to beat that difficulty number by following the rolls above. He can push it as far as he wants but if he Farkles, he fails. Allow all the players to contribute if it's a group-based resolution.

In return, for opposed checks, the GM rolls to beat the player's score. This would mean that if a player got 3,000 points in an attack on a NPC, the GM would have to beat that 3,000 in order to avoid being hit. It's Visa Versa for the players as well. If someone attacks a character and scores 3,000 points, the player must roll to avoid that damage.

If either stop before reaching the target number, reduce damage by the remaining. So if a player was attacked for 3,000 and they stopped at 1500, they would take half damage. (You may need a calculator handy for this though).

With this variant, players roll until they reach their risk limit where they're too afraid of failure to continue.

Of course, you can create variants of Farkle using different dice (d10s, poker dice, etc.) or even using cards. It's just an interesting way to handle combat and resolution mechanics. You could also have stats and perks/talents that help with the risk by allowing them to "undo" a farkle with a reroll for a Fate point, double their current tally or their overall score, reroll all 6 dice, what have you.

[stefoid]

Q: Why did the chicken cross the road?
A: It didnt -- it rolled a fumble.

[etothepowerofx]

The blackjack idea of getting as close to perfection as you can without screwing up is a really good concept that most systems sorely lack. I would probably mod it so a fumble, like stefoid was probably trying to say, isn't so common.

There are many situations where that isn't an issue though, or where it isn't logically equivalent.

For instance, if I were trying to find my car keys, I don't think it's possible that i wouldn't be able to find them because I looked too carefully.

I think the blackjack idea, whether with cards or dice, has it's place in many situations, but certainly not all.
as a matter of fact, poker would be the same way.

Reading your (excalbur) post made me wonder if it were possible to incorporate each of the classic games into the system, using each one for a specific kind of circumstance. Blackjack would be used for situations like the ones you described, where putting too much emphasis on doing something can cause disastrous results-- an attack with an axe, for instance, if done with too much deliberation, can be dodged easily, and then puts you in a vulnerable position trying to  recover your balance. Poker would be useful if you are going against a group, each with their own motives, trying to have the upper hand over every other person. Bridge is the only team based card game I know, where you let your partner know what you have in your hand by your bids, but it's a little complicated to adapt. Plus, as a game it wasn't played  until the 1900s i think.

If I want to use classic games, I think the best way is to try a few different ones, although I have no idea how to do team affairs. Maybe teams can work together and swap cards.

I think blackjack would be a perfect engine for marksmanship checks. You take steady aim, and hit your target. Wait too long, and you miss your chance. It's a beautiful mechanism for that specific type of task. If only I could match every type of task with a corresponding mechanic!

Euchre and Cribbage could be candidates, if I knew how to play 'em.

Anyway I sense this topic winding down, I'd like to earnestly thank everyone for making my first thread such a helpful experience. If I ever get this to the playtesting phase, I'll show you what I have.

If anyone has any suggestions of card games or variations that can be used for specific checks in a western-themed game, I am all ears. Specifically, how would I do something like team vs team combat?

[Excalibur]

Because of Decktet, I decided to look around to see what other suits are available for cards. It turns out that Germany has stuff like Leaf, Acorn, Clubs, and Bell of all things. Then there's the 5-suit deck with Stars. Not to mention the suits of historical cards...

Due to this, I think I'm going to work on a special deck of cards that has multiple suits per card to see what I can come up with in terms of a resolution mechanic and/or a game.

We'll see I might even use it in my current game.