This is a little idea that's been bubbling in my head. Inspiration comes from talk about (C)CGs, Relationship maps, equal player power, etc., and the 'bag without redraw' concept once mentioned for YGAD (which is being stripped down to its roots and re-examine for the kind of play I want). As well, it should be a game where you can play a complete 'game' in 2 hours - buy highly serialisable.

Here we go. There's no GM, but there are 5 players, sitting around a table. All players 'are' Gladiators (in classical Rome, but easily adaptable to anything similar) who are scheduled to fight each other in an upcoming fight. (I'm not getting into the semantics of separation of player and character in this post). The rules are simple - last man standing wins - with a twist.

Now, the Gladiators may have all kinds of different backgrounds (pro, former soldier, captured christian, whatever), but they're assumed to have managed to live a year in the arena - this is the big end-of-year-blowout.

1. So the start of the game is a round of description, just in words, from every player, what their character is like (background, attitude, experiences in the arena, looks). Short & sweet - a couple of minutes a person, until everyone's done.

2. Then, based on these descriptions, each Gladiator picks another Gladiator which they hate. They make up a reason (for themselves), which they may, or may not, share with the group after everyone's done. It is possible for multiple players to hate 1 other player, or for players to remain unhated.

3. After this is done, the arena's evil overlord consults Fate. This is the 'twist' mentioned in the introduction. All players roll dice to determine a ranking from low to high. Players take new seats around the table, starting low and sitting down clockwise with increasing numbers. To each player's left is the person who is superior to them. If, for some reason, at the end of the fight it's just you and the person to your left (at the original seating for step 3) that are left, the person to your left wins (but, at least, you get to live).

3b. The players now write down their 'stats' - the game only has 4: Tactics (increases the range of options in a round of fighting), Strategy (allows you to keep some options back to make later combo's or hold on to defensive stuff when you need it), Speed (amount of maneuvers/strikes in a round of combat) and Hits.

4. The fight itself is resolved by players drawing from a 45-card deck in which are several special maneuvers, several offensive hits and some defense and a few fun combo's. The composition is slated so that it's a downward spiral - there's more damage in there than restoration, so people are going to go down. The mechanics are also set up to make sure the 45 cards are all in player's hands at the start of a round (so all of Fate is in the balance, nothing is left out). In a round, each player plays a number of agressive (maneuver/strike/combo) cards equal to his speed. After a round, all the cards are shuffled and distributed randomly for the next round. There are also 5 weapons which the players may start with, with slightly different mechanical effects. (I'm considering adding a few other items or 'divine favor' effects, or effects that will enhance serial play, see #6).

5. At the end of the fight, as well as during, there is a bonus if you managed to strike/kill the gladiator you hate. (haven't figured out how this works yet). There will be a simple talley of the # of killing blows you have landed + a champion bonus (who is always #1) to determine ranking.

6. For the serialisation of play, the next round (whenever it is played) carries over a little bit of the information from the earlier game. The champion is allowed to play his character again (or can retire him), so is the other survivor. They are also allowed first pick out of the 5 weapons for the next round. Every character is assumed to have had a chance to train some rudimentory skills to protege(s) - so players whose character died may start with a character with a bit of skill derived from any dead gladiator. (I'm thinking this should be something a bit more colorful than just an increase of a stat).

I'm happy with the card-play (or at least, there will be little problem fleshing that out and debugging it), but I'm looking for tips on possible other relationships that might be fun to add to the mix, and tips on how to make the 'pre-fight' part at least as interesting as the fight itself. I wouldn't mind if the pre-fight period of the game strongly influenced how the fight itself was going to turn out.

(Example: if there was a rule of 'double damage on the gladiator you hate', this would be a strong fight result-shaping effect from the pre-fight period).

References to similar games welcome. Comments on stuff where I'm shooting myself in the head - also welcome.

Thanks for looking, as always.

It'd be interesting if in addition to "I hate X" there was also the capacity for alliances - I was thinking about the trust mechanic in The Mountain Witch, maybe something like that.

If you were looking for a competitive, horse-trading vibe, why not let the players choose from the available cards in sequence, in order of fate ranking, rather than distribute them randomly? Or let them partially choose and distribute the rest randomly.

Thanks for the feedback!

Hehe. Alliance is definately the one relationship that I wanted to build in. I'm finding it hard to do, in a 'last man standing' version, though, but it's good that there's at least the same desire to incorporate it.

As the card game is written now, it would be a huge advantage if there was some ability to choose cards up front. Maybe a 'redraw' instead, where you can dump useless cards from your hand and draw back up to handsize once each round?

(note that there isn't really an advantage or disadvantage associated with Fate score at this point, which is deliberate. It's just a method of seating 5 people at the table randomly.)

I think even in a last man standing context, trust/alliances would work - they'd just be early, and temporary, and everyone would know that in the end, even boon companions would be forced to turn on each other. Pretty fun and dramatic, in my opinion!

yeah, that's about the result I came out with as well... and it might even occasionally not lead to bloodshed, if two neighbouring players had pre-defined trust in each other...

Right now I'm thinking something along the lines of: pre-define 1 other player you have trust in (or who you want to ally with - trust workst better, though, as it can be one-way).

Anyone may give away cards they draw during each round to anyone during the maneuver phase (face down) - he may choose to accept them.

If he accepts them, he sets himself up to betrayal (cannot defend against the donating player's strikes) unless the donating player 'trusts' the accepting player. The donating player is also defenseless against the accepting player, if the acceptor accepts, but will gain a hit/lifepoint if he's not attacked by the accepting player.

You cannot trust and hate the same player - but someone you hate might trust you, or vice versa. Or someone you hate or trust could be your right- or lefthand neighbour, causing all kinds of different wackyness.

Now to make the pre-fight play a bit more interesting than just setting hate or trust at will, I guess.

Oh, another point of note: there are two heavy strike cards (out of 45 total cards and 14 strike cards) that require you to use them, that round, against the player you hate. If you invoke/reveal your hate at any point to the player you hate, all your strikes are at +1 against that player, and if you hit him for 5+, you gain a hit/lifepoint (the thrill and morale boost of succeeding at killing what you hate). You might even gain more life for killing the one you hate.

Watch any number of Reality TV shows to see Temporary Alliances in action ^_^

Actually, from what I've seen of Tim's Trust, that may work.
Might I suggest another step, a pre-match "moment", where the players are waiting to go "on stage"? , where by they can approach someone else and say "Listen, if you help me take Bob out in the first round, I'll watch your back against the others."
This could also be intersting- a character who does that, approaches the person who hates him but hasn't revealed it. "You want some help? Alright!" *grins evilly. Guts him in the Arena when the other guys back is turned thinking he's safe*

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to Trust/Hate betrayal. And that perfectly illustrates why the whole pre-match setting of Hate and Trust should not be solitary choices, but created through some interaction. Otherwise it's just a card game with a few personal options decided on your lonesome (which is not what I want).

edit: this just gave me an idea... what if I model the whole 'year prior to the fight' (as well as 'pre-fight deals') stage by just letting the players roam through my house, free to talk at will (in-character), and only after some of that roaming, setting their hate and trust? (Maybe trust needn't be an explicit stat/designator, then. It all depends on whether the players/characters have gotten to trust each other through interaction. The 'donate card' mechanic is already open to anyone.)

Oh, and I should probably, in addition to being the champion, throw in a benefit for the one who lands the killing blow against the old champion.... ;)

As impressed as I've been with The Mountain Witch and other recent game designs that include relationship mechanics, I'm having trouble seeing the utility in this one. Perhaps it's my German Boardgame Enthusiast side getting in the way, but deciding whom to trust -- that is, what players I as a player choose to trust -- seems to be the whole point of playing out the tactics of the battle.

If I know that (for example) my character is not attacking the character who it would be in his best interest to attack (i.e. the ones whose players are to my left), due to the current state of the trust statistics, then what's the point of making tactical decisions about card play (what weapons to use, what attacks to make, defensive postures and so forth)?

I might change my mind when I see some details on the trust system, but at present either of two other possibilities makes more sense to me: (1) leave players free to decide whom to trust moment by moment in the combat, based on the current strategic situation; or (2) make the game a relationsip-building game instead of a combat game. That is, as you suggested in your latest post, focus the play on the time leading up to the battle when the characters' trust and hate networks are being built -- but then play out the melee mechanically, as a finale, based on those networks with little or no tactical decision-making involved.

In most combat systems I've ever seen representing roughly evenly matched opponents, rarely does a player who gets into the short end of a four-on-one, three-on-one, or two-on-one fight have much of a chance. Therefore, unless your combat system is really unusual, the trust issue (whether it's mechanically regulated or just whom the players freely decide to team up with/against round by round) is guaranteed to overshadow the combat tactics.

- Walt

Good points.

Walt Freitag wrote:
I might change my mind when I see some details on the trust system, but at present either of two other possibilities makes more sense to me: (1) leave players free to decide whom to trust moment by moment in the combat, based on the current strategic situation; or (2) make the game a relationsip-building game instead of a combat game.

VERY interesting- pure improv, no mechanics involved for the first, what, 45 minutes?
Love to see how this folds out ^_^

3. After this is done, the arena's evil overlord consults Fate. This is the 'twist' mentioned in the introduction. All players roll dice to determine a ranking from low to high. Players take new seats around the table, starting low and sitting down clockwise with increasing numbers. To each player's left is the person who is superior to them. If, for some reason, at the end of the fight it's just you and the person to your left (at the original seating for step 3) that are left, the person to your left wins (but, at least, you get to live).

3b. The players now write down their 'stats' - the game only has 4: Tactics (increases the range of options in a round of fighting), Strategy (allows you to keep some options back to make later combo's or hold on to defensive stuff when you need it), Speed (amount of maneuvers/strikes in a round of combat) and Hits.

Thanks for the comments. :)

I like the 'pure improv' section. I wonder if it will 'take', though - it's combining two rather different playstyles. As I commented to someone - this game's not for everyone('s tastes).

The 'ranking step' is just to determine seating order (and thus, relative superiority). All cards are played in a somewhat chaotic fashion of 'slap em down simultaneously'.

I know gladiators are too expensive to be wasted (thanks for that catch!), which is why I have the game styled for an end-of-the-year-blowout. I did have my gladiators armed with appropriate weapons (net+trident, spear, sword/shield, etc. - and poisoned armspikes/strap-on claws, for a bit of tongue-in-cheek-Hollywood).

Thanks for those links and the terminology, though - I'm sure the game will benefit from some flavor!