I was speaking via list with Capes Designer Tony B about prize support for an up comming convention. The Idea was for an RPG, non related to our current work that we could give away for free.

I am a huge Fan of Tarrantino and Woo and have always wanted to create a game that the players are all part of a mexican stand off. A game to recreate scenes like that at the end of Reservoir Dogs.

There is only two ways out this game, talk your way out or death
The game would consist of rounds where each player would add to the dialog and bring the story forward or end it with a single bullet.
The play would have to delevlop on keywords and possibly even a bid system like Heroquest.
The Idea is now born, now to just start to flesh out.

I though I would toss it aound on the Forge if anything to just see if anyone liked the idea or think is has merit.

Well, I like the idea. (Hey, you've seen "Way of the Gun," yes?) If nothing else, it's a cool concept for a game with a very tightly focused premise.

I guess I always like the idea of a Mexican standoff because it's such a great (game theory) distillation of all kinds of other tension situations... modern geopolitical strife, interpersonal politics, etc. So I think the key is to have a system that really builds tension between the players with each accumulated turn. Sort of like a Jenga RPG.

I'm also thinking about the old Chris Crawford computer game "Balance of Power." It was basically a Cold War simulation, USA vs. USSR. Either player could move troops around, support insurgencies, the expected mucking about in the third world. But the key to the game was that either player could attempt to veto the other's actions by initiating a diplomatic confrontation. This could be escalated all the way up to DEFCON 2. (If you pushed into DEFCON 1, of course, you lose because you trigger nuclear war.) With the escalation the stakes increased in terms of global prestige, with the player who backed down from the confrontation losing the prestige and the other gaining. A really slick model of the brinksmanship that occurred in the geopolitics of the era.

Applied to the Mexican standoff... Some kind of bidding/stakes system. You need to convince the other players they should be pointing their gun an the other guy. These attempts, however, risk a loss of cool on the part of the convincee. First guy that loses his cool pulls the trigger, wherever his gun is pointing. Winner is the guy that doesn't have a gun pointing his way when this happens.

I agree with the Jenga or House of cards model for the base structure of the Mechanics. What the game cannot use in my opinion is a randomizer. No cards or dice could even simulate the stress and fear that the situation would generate. The system would have to rely heavily on Idioms and Tropes to enforce the player’s position in the situation.
By being clever and manipulative to get the other player to stand down is going to be a key factor, anything else is going to get the player killed within the game.
So words, body language and dialog are all going to be important.
But how to actually make this work.

The game Dread uses a Jenga set to simulate the tensions of the players reaction to the situation, but does there even need to be a physical component?

I dig props, like poker chips or whatever, so the players can easily assess the stakes as they stand. I don't know that I'm enthusiastic about it being a dexterity contest. How might you come up with a mathematical model for this sort of thing, though?

So there's this hypothetical core mechanic based on building up to the breaking point, which could feasibly stand alone as an excercise in game theory. But if we're going for a role-playing game, it needs to be more than that. So I figure you hang a narrative system over it that encourages the spontaneous creation of all kinds of crazy backstory for how it got to this point. I figure half the fun will be coming up with weaselly lies and establishing credibility for alibis.

Things I'm assuming here, based on my understanding of the, uh, "genre":
There's no simulationist gun mechanic. If you have a gun pointed at you when the shit goes down, you die.
Somebody has realized that he is getting fucked over.
Two things trigger "the shit goes down:" someone loses his cool (accumulates too many pressure tokens?), or somebody simply makes a foolish tactical mistake in the chain of who's targeting who. (There's not a gun pointed at me anymore, time to wax this turkey.)

Think you could break down an example standoff from a movie to see how it might translate into game-type actions?

I'll second a vote for a system involving chips. It would actually be kind of cool to make the characters invest in their "bluffs," to see how far they would go to avoid being shot.

I also agree that breaking down a scene in a movie would help your cause - or have some friends try to act one out using nerf guns or something, and take notes.

Why not combine the two? A chip system that bids for who pulls a brick. Only you bid for another guy to pull. Okay, maybe that doesn't work so well...

Heya,

Let me add my voice in favor of a diminishing resource pool for this game. Once all your dice, chips, tokens, whatever are out, the PC is faced with a choice: Shoot my wait out or wait to be taken and see what happens. Once he runs out of resources, he's effectively out of ideas (system-wise).

Things that might cost chips/resources would be: finding cover from an explosive tossed in the room, avoiding a spray of bullets into the room, misdirecting the antagonists outside, making a phone call for help, etc. Resources should be spent keeping the character alive with all options open. Once he's out of resources, he's got nothing left but 16 in the clip. ;)

Peace,

-Troy

I really like this idea.

Some thoughts:

I'm going to disagree with Troy about the use of resources. In order to work, I feel the game needs to be played on an entirely psychological level for the characters. There is no backup coming, you don't have any extra resources to draw upon. All you've got is a gun, and so does everyone else. If one of them is point at you when the shit goes down, you're a dead man.

I like the idea of a Jenga based game. Among other things, I really like the mental image of using it as the mechanism for declaring the shoot out. You don't say `I shoot', or anything like that. You just sweep away the blocks. It has a nice symbolism, and when the tower is big and the tensions are high, damn will it make people jump. :-)

Can I suggest the following variant:

You either don't start with a full Jenga setup, or you have two sets of Jenga pieces. You start with the base tower, and everyone has a collection of blocks in reserve. This then allows two moves:

1) A normal jenga move, where you take a block out and put it on top. This is trying to deal with the situation as it is.
2) The ability to take a block from your reserve and place it on the tower. You're bringing something new in.

The second option gives you more room to maneuver and is somewhat safer: You're not likely to accidentally knock the tower over. But in the long run it makes the whole thing that much bigger and less stable.

This then sortof fits with part of Troy's suggestion (albeit with `resources' meaning something slightly different). The blocks then correspond to your `mental resources' - what you have up your sleeve to help you get through the situation. Once you're out, you're left desperately trying to balance what's there, which gets harder and harder.

As resources, you can also use them as a sortof medium of mechanical exchange - trying to persuade people to point their gun elsewhere by offering them blocks.

That leads to another suggestion I wanted to make:

If someone points there gun elsewhere, this means that the balance of power has shifted and everyone must react in an instant. If someone shifts then *everyone* must immediately declare who their gun is now pointing at. (I don't know if it should *have* to change to someone else, but it's not a bad idea. It certainly makes it more interesting. :-) )

Just some random thoughts,
David

Troy_Costisick wrote: Heya,

Let me add my voice in favor of a diminishing resource pool for this game. Once all your dice, chips, tokens, whatever are out, the PC is faced with a choice: Shoot my wait out or wait to be taken and see what happens. Once he runs out of resources, he's effectively out of ideas (system-wise).

Things that might cost chips/resources would be: finding cover from an explosive tossed in the room, avoiding a spray of bullets into the room, misdirecting the antagonists outside, making a phone call for help, etc. Resources should be spent keeping the character alive with all options open. Once he's out of resources, he's got nothing left but 16 in the clip. ;)

Peace,

-Troy

Hi Kit
I would want to stray away from Jenga, just because 1. it is the core mechanic of another RPG, and two it would not fit into how I envisioned the game to run.
I agree with you it is very much psychological in nature, and yes once the trigger is pulled you are dead! Period!
To answer the infamous Jared A. Sorensen question of "How is your game played" 6 players standing around a table trying to keep the player next to him from pulling the trigger.

I am almost seeing something like "are you a werewolf" in nature with the game honestly lasting about 5 or 6 rounds.

It is not a convetional RPG, in most cases characters are not going to bringing thier characters into the Temple of Elemental Evil to kill orc the next game.
I think of it like Mountain Witch, where you play it once. No Campigning, just a heavy roleplaying experience.

Thank you for the suggestions though =)

Heya,

Can't wait to see the beta, Dregg! Good luck with it :)

Peace,

-Troy

Ok here is the work in progress

Mexican Standoff
(Beta)
Players 4-8 plus one moderator
Needed
Beads or Counters (about 20 per player)
Deck of Standard Playing Cards
Deck of Plot Twist Cards (concept still Work in Progress)

Rules
Each Player is part of a Mexican Standoff
It is assumed that each player has one pistol (although this can change with a plot twist card)

Basic Idea
Players will bid counters (Stress Points?) on their turn to signify their stake in the exchange. The Amount of the bid will depend on the actions or wording used during their turn in the round. Also an increasing minimum bid will have to be made regardless each round to simulate the building tension between all involved.
Minimum bids
Round 1 = 2
Round 2 = 4
Round 3 = 6
Round 4 = 8
Round 5 = etc.

Initiative or order of exchange
The order of exchange will be based on the suit of a deck of cards
Diamonds act 1st
Clubs 2nd
Hearts 3rd
Spades 4th
An Idea is to add a mood to each of the suits so it gives a base emotion. This will be a bit of a helper for the player to figure out his or her reaction.

Bids are made on the players turn
After the player makes the initial bid he at that point may play a special card.

Plot Twist Cards
At the beginning of the game each player is given one “Plot Twist” card
The Ideas behind the cards are still WIP, but the ones that come to mind are
Two Pistols:
Change Focus: (person pointing pistol at you now points it in the other direction)
Narc: exposes other player as a cop forcing him to loose double his minimum bid on his turn.
Well placed Save: Brings a player up to a positive amount of counters so he will not pull the trigger
Rounds end
After all players act on their suit, play plot twists, and bids are made the moderator flips over a final card and all who had cards that match the suit win the bid and get to share the counters, all others loose the counters.
Winners start with another plot twist card.

Any player who has 0 counters at the end of the turn pulls the trigger at whom he was pointing at.

Dead players are removed and circle get smaller

Last Ditch Defense
A player can choose to Sell out or Bluff to keep another player in the game and not pulling the trigger. At the beginning of his turn he can call “Last Ditch Defense” and give half of his counters to another player to keep them in the contest. (and themselves alive)

Rules Challenges
The Role-playing aspect. I want to add the Role Play aspect to the bidding process, but this is where it gets difficult. I was thinking making a list of verbal challenges and basing the bid structure on that.
Like I said still work in progress

Heya,

Frist glance, this is one thing I'd like you to discuss:

Any player who has 0 counters at the end of the turn pulls the trigger at whom he was pointing at.

What are the possible outcomes?

I'm missing something. It seems that the original setup is that the reason you don't shoot is because if you do, you will be shot. Let's say, for simplicity, you're dealing with two players. If, in fact, you can get away with shooting the other player, you'll just do it. So one of two things must be true: either shooting the other player will get you killed, or there's another reason, as yet unexamined, why the characters are not shooting each other.

So which is it? Can you survive if you shoot? Or can't you? If you can, how do we know? If you can't, then what does it matter how many pistols you have? Or is that only for games with more than two players? In a game with more than two players, if A shoots B, then C wins because he shoots A and is not shot by B? If that's the case, then basically you're trying to get the person you're aimed at to shoot, right?

What happens in a four player game, however? A shoots B, but can C shoot A without being shot by D? If not, does the game then move to being a three player game? If so, then why not simply shoot the fourth player right off? That is, everyone will simply try to do so as soon as possible.

It seems to me that with the system you have set up that there will be an easily determinable optimal strategy in bidding each round. Isn't that problematic? And how is this all really linked to the in-game color? At the moment, it sounds like you could simply play this as a card game without the in-game descriptions of the character's speaking, by simply declaring a level of bid. Yes, the moderator can make a difference, but that seems to me like you're really putting the GM in the middle of a very competitive game, and making his biases quite telling in terms of who wins. That seems problematic, too.

I like the concept, but I think it's got some problems yet.

Mike

Can you get more stress points after you hit 0? Or do you just keep pulling the trigger on one more person until someone goes for a last ditch effort to give you some of theirs?

I agree with Troy and Mike in that something more is needed to the game as it stands. It has more of a cold manipulating feel of getting other guy to snap then a when the shit hits the fan will I be left standing that I think a Mexican stand off should have. Perhaps some kind of downward spiral/endgame mechanic?

How about adding some special conditions that allow you to pull the trigger? Perhaps if the guy pointing at you pulls you can make a bid to fire as well? Or something that leads up to players pulling the trigger if they are at a small number of Stress Points when someone else does? That would lead up to a Jenga like fell as one bad move destabilizes everything.

One other thought I had is that Stress Points just keep going around the table with the total between players remaining the same. How about some things that cause the lose of stress points from the game?
Perhaps when someone dies everyone just forfeits 2 SP for the first, then 4 for the 2nd and so on.
The Plot Twist cards seem like another good way to remove Stress points. Give each card an activation cost in SP that needs to be payed before you can activate it.

Edit: Order of shooting! I think that when the shooting starts those with SP left should be in a higher shooting pass or be able to buy their way into one.
Perhaps shoot from highest to lowest SP remaining with the option to spend SP equal to the guy shooting you +2 to shoot first?

Hmm - coupla tossouts.

One is that I'd side with the camp that says that it'd work better without a mechanical representation of the stress. Do it, instead, by upping the mechanical incentive for a player to talk faster and harder - you have to get more convincing (perhaps recognized by mechanically acknowledged 'nods' of the head from the other players - Baron Munchausen at the barrel of a gun?) with no upper limit, and if you can't come up with something on your 'turn', it's talk or shoot.

The other tossout for this is just one word. Flashbacks.

- Eric

Mike, you rock. I'd been banging my head on that stuff and trying to break it down to constructive terms.

So which is it? Can you survive if you shoot? Or can't you? If you can, how do we know?

Harlequin aka Eric wrote: Baron Munchausen at the barrel of a gun....Flashbacks.

Baron Munchausen at the barrel of a gun...

Dammit, I'd just typed up the idea I'd had, and then I realised it was virtually the same as Tim's!

One additional suggestion: if someone yells "Bang!", they don't get to write down who they shoot on a piece of paper, they must shoot the person who the gun is pointing at (otherwise pointing your gun is meaningless.)

However, anyone who shouts "Bang!" also gets initiative. The person they shoot doesn't get to do anything, they're dead already. So there's an incentive to crack.

I'd also give each player a secret marker (say, a die under a cup) so that they can determine in advance who they are going to shoot (including "noone") if someone cracks. Give regular opportunities for each player to change their orders. This means the aim is to guess when no-one is aiming at you and then start the firefight.

Cool idea, yelling Bang and all, scribbling frantically (there should be a five second time limit)... but what happens when there are only two people left?

xenopulse wrote: Cool idea, yelling Bang and all, scribbling frantically (there should be a five second time limit)... but what happens when there are only two people left?

Classic PD, single game, rational players will always choose to defect (i.e., shoot). I guess that works out with the gritty feel of the game. :)

And yeah, it might turn out that, e.g., when three people are left, two of them die in one round.

Doug Ruff wrote: One additional suggestion: if someone yells "Bang!", they don't get to write down who they shoot on a piece of paper, they must shoot the person who the gun is pointing at (otherwise pointing your gun is meaningless.)

However, anyone who shouts "Bang!" also gets initiative. The person they shoot doesn't get to do anything, they're dead already. So there's an incentive to crack.

xenopulse wrote: Classic PD, single game, rational players will always choose to defect (i.e., shoot). I guess that works out with the gritty feel of the game. :)

timfire wrote: If I may add to the "token" rules I put forth earlier, I was thinking that if you use a token to block a "Bang/Stand-down", that token gets removed from play. That way, there would be diminishing resources as the game progressives. Eventually you would hit a point where it was impossible to stop a "Bang/Stand-down."

Heya,

I'd also like to ask what is the moderator's role at this point? Just to make sure things run smoothly? Why not have him introduce the "plot twists" or whatever each round. Things like:

-A hungry pitbull enters the room
-Sirens are heard outside
-Someone tosses a grenade in the room from outdoors
-A janitor shows up
-It begins to rain
-The lights go out
-A car pulls up
-A watch beeps and keeps beeping

And so on. This way, the situation evolves and challenges the players to evolve their strategy as well. This very much captures the ideas of movies like The Way of the Gun, Resvoir Dogs, and various Shield episodes.

Peace,

-Troy

Does the game need a moderator?

I like the "bang" idea. What I'd say is that when Bang happens, you can choose to shoot the person that you're aiming at, or do one other thing like change aim. If you're still standing after all of the declared actions of the first round (duck, aim, shoot, whatever), then you can shoot the new person that you're now aiming at. Often the player will figure that they don't have time to change aim, but it all depends on the circumstances.

I take it that the game starts with everyone pointing a gun at somebody else, right? So how is it established as to who is aiming at whom to start? Everyone aims at the character of the player to the left? Roll randomly? Secretly write it down?

As for "Standing down" I think that players should be allowed to voluntarily stand down on their turn, or ask all to stand down (and then write as proposed). It might make sense strategically to stand down voluntarily at some point.

I agree that there needs to be some mechanism to establish why each character is aiming at the others. But this is a very gamism based game right now it seems to me. That is, the only real player goal is to be alive at the end of the game. As such, no in-game rationale will beat the metagame tactics as to what players will do. Meaning that you have to have the metagame match the in-game somehow in a very tight fashion.

"Just talking" won't work, IMO.

In any case, I think that the "stress" should be introduced by simply having a randomly increasing pool of points or something that represents the police on their way or the like. That is, if the pool gets to 100 or something, then all the players lose. So they have to figure out some way out of the situation before that time comes, or their characters go to jail or are shot by police.

This is the mechanism in the game "Republic of Rome" BTW. One can persue becoming emperor and forget about Rome if they want. But then the game is likely to win and all the players lose. So the game forces some level of co-operation. Part of play is figuring out how much effort to put into staving off the fall of Rome, all while also allocating resources towards promoting yourself as the winner.

I think this is a great mechanism for producing the sort of stress sought. "We have to do something now, or we're all going to jail!" BTW, it's the incorporation of this last criteria that does make it a prisoner's dilemma. But the level of rewards for the different results make it more like the "chicken" version. For the Game Theory followers out there.

Mike

Heya,

Miskatonic wrote: Does the game need a moderator?

Your idea inspired me, and I had to delurk. I apologize in advance if this is too in-depth, or takes your idea in a different direction than you want. But I think this idea is fairly complete in itself, or you could modify it a few ways.

Here's the game:

This game is somewhat similar to the game Mafia. Players are robbers trying to stay alive and out of jail after a heist gone bad. Everyone plays a robber, like in Reservoir Dogs, but most players will be assigned a more specific role. You know someone is probably The Rat, and you need them dead, or you're going to jail. But maybe there is no rat, and you all just bungled the job. But you've got to decide what to do quickly before the cops show up and nab you all.

At the beginning of the game, players are dealt roles. You can use a standard deck of cards to do this. Players will end up with roles like The Rat, The Friend, or Psycho. More on specific roles later. In most cases, they will keep their role secret. There will usually be a The Rat, but not always. Put one face card representing each role in the deck. Then put enough extra non-face cards in the deck so that there are three more cards than players, unless there are already three fewer players than roles. Each player draws a card. Some roles require a player to draw a secondary role from the remaining cards. Some require the draw of a timeing card from a fresh deck. More on timing cards and specific roles later.

Once everyone has a role, and performs any setup associated with their role, the game begins. The game will last at most 10 minutes and 1 second. At that point, the cops come and everyone gets arrested. The game can end before that in everyone dies, all but one person dies, or everybody decides to walk away peacfully.

At every point in the game, you will either have your gun pointed at someone, or holstered. Use toy guns and actually point them at people. If everyone holsters, then everyone walks away peacefully. If you point your gun at someone, you are prepared to shoot them if it comes to a showdown. Everyone may talk as much as they want to convinve the others they are in the clear. There are no rules concerning talking. You can interrupt freely. Just keep in mind it may not be the best idea to interrupt someone pointing a gun at your head. At any point, anyone can initiate a showdown by saying "Bang".

When a showdown begins, everyone is dealt a card from a fresh deck of cards. All guns are frozen; you can't change targets in the fraction of a second the showdown takes. If anyone was changing targets in the second before the showdown, their gun isn't pointed at anyone. That's the price you pay to change targets.

Players fire shots in a showdown. When you fire a shot, whoever your gun points at is dead. But they might get their shot off while they die. Reveal both player's cards. If the target's card is at least as high, or the same suit as the killer, then the target MUST fire. Resolve the target's shot in the same way.

Whoever initiated the showdown gets the first shot and MUST fire.

After the first chain of shots, some players will likely still be alive and have cards. Any of them may choose to fire by saying "Bang". That starts a new chain of firing, but no one gets to change their target.

If two players say "Bang", whoever started first gets the first shot off. If no one can tell who was first, they both fire. It doesn't matter what order you resolve their shots.

After the showdown, the game continues. Everyone who lives may point their guns at new targets. Someone may say "Bang" again to start a new showdown if they wish. Everyone who is dead is dead. The dead don't speak or fire guns. They also take the secret of their role to the grave.

Several of the roles cause something special to happen at various minute marks. In some cases, this is fixed. In other cases, you draw a card to determine at which minute mark the event happens. If it is a number, the event happens at that minute. If it is a face card or an ace, the event doesn't happen. These events serve to give different players vested interests in stalling or getting things over with. They also drive up the tension. You can't start a showdown in the middle of resolving a minute event.

At the end of the game, some players win and some don't. You give each player a score to represent how well they did, and you can total them if you want to play more than one game. If you die, you get 0 points. If you get arrested, you get 1 point. If you're The Rat, you get 1 point for every player arrested (either at 10 minutes or who walks away while you live), plus 1 for yourself, but only if you live. If you're not The Rat, you walk away, and The Rat is dead or nonexistent, you get 2 points. Plus, if The Dog With The Loot lives, you get a 3rd point. The Dying Dog gets 1 extra point just for living.

Here are the roles:
The Rat:
You want to stay alive, and keep as many crooks alive as possible so that you can arrest them. You may not initiate a showdown.

Psycho:
Reveal this card. Everyone saw you perform on the job, and they know you're not the rat. Draw a timing card, but don't reveal it. You must point your gun at someone at that minute mark and say "Bang".

The Dog With The Loot:
You stashed the loot. As long as you live and aren't arrested, the robbers get to divvy it up. The problem is, you can't prove you have the loot, and you can't reveal this card.

The Dying Dog:
You're dying. The blood is pretty obvious, so reveal the card. If everybody doesn't walk away and take you to a hospital, you might bleed to death. The player on your left draws a timing card to find out if and when you're going to die. They can't show it to you, but they can offer you their amature opinion on how long you have to live. Draw a secondary role. This role only applies if it is The Rat. Otherwise, ignore it.

The Friend:
Pick a player to be your friend. Use the honor system, or write it down when no one is looking. You may not point your gun at your friend. If anyone is pointing a gun at your friend, you must point your gun at one of them. If anyone shoots your friend you must shoot him at the earlies possibility, starting a new showdown immediately after the first one is resolved if necessary. At the 8 minute mark, reveal your role and your friend. Your friend is overcome with emotion and reveals his true role to you. You (and only you) may look at his role. At that point, all friend rules are off. If your friend turns out to be The Rat (or even if he doesn't), feel free to execute the dirty traitor.

The Boss:
Everybody knows you're in charge. Reveal this card. But you still might be The Rat. Draw a secondary role, but ignore it unless it is The Rat. At the seven minute mark, your instinct kicks in, you MUST pick three other players, and look at their roles. Unless there are fewer than four other players left, that is. In that case look at all but one of their roles. You MUST announce that one of those players is The Rat, even if none actually is (and you can lie if you want even if you do spot The Rat.) You must point your gun at the alleged rat, and may not point it away unless he dies.

A Dog:
Anyone who draws an extra numbered card is just a regular robber.

Hopefully that is similar to what you want. (And even if it isn't, I think I want to try it out this weekend.) Of course, it's only a suggestion, so feel free to modify it on your own or work with me if part of it appeals to you. I think there are a lot of things to vary to keep the game fresh.

You could always change the role deck around, maybe playing with more than one The Rat one game. Or you could add roles. Mute Dog can't speak, and isn't The Rat, but maybe The Rat is just pretending to be Mute. The possibilities are endless.

You could also add a gamemaster to throw in random (or unrandom) events, since I know that is an idea that appealed to you. Construct an event deck similar to the role deck. Using the same timing rules (or just using your arbitrary decision making power) throw out events throughout the stand off. Maybe at 3 minutes two of the Dogs flashback to their amazing getaway, and you give them a hint into each other's role. But maybe sometimes that hint is false. At 5 minutes, Mr. Puce pulls out his second gun, and can point at two people. At 6 minutes, Mr. Lavender decides Mr. Teal must be innocent, because he saw him kill a cop during the getaway, and Mr. Lavender becomes a Friend to Mr. Teal. At 7 minutes, Mr. Clear decides to hide under the stairs, and can't fire or be fired upon for the next minute. Personally, I wouldn't find the GM position as much fun, but it might work.

My biggest concern is that the game doesn't necessarily encourage people to discuss the robbery and get in the robber role. They could just play to win and only talk about strategy and gambits. I think it would still be a fun game, but it would be best if their were some way to get them into character.

Note that when someone is shot, they are more likely to get to fire than not. If someone is pointing a gun at you, you'll probably die if you shoot them, so you have to wonder if it's worth the risk. The moment they point their gun away, on the other hand...

I like the idea of everyone having an open target, and a concealed target. Open targets indicate who you are pointing your gun at (possibly nobody). Concealed targets indicate who you are going to shoot when the shit hits the fan. You can elect to make your concealed target 'Dive for cover'. When the shootout occurs, people whose open target matched their concealed target fire first, and kill their target. People who's open target doesn't match their concealed target fire second, and kill their target. (In both cases simultaneous kills are not only legal, they are encouraged). If you have 'Dive for Cover' as your concealed target, you will live, unless someone else who had you as their concealed target gets their shot off without being shot in return (i.e. if nobody was shooting at them, or the only people shooting at them weren't pointing a gun at them when the shit hit the fan.)

Heya,

My biggest concern is that the game doesn't necessarily encourage people to discuss the robbery and get in the robber role. They could just play to win and only talk about strategy and gambits. I think it would still be a fun game, but it would be best if their were some way to get them into character.

The thing with the chips, Troy, is that you could use them, too, without narration. Now, if you put the GM in the role of determining how well a narration matches a chip amount, again you have the problem of the GM's subjectivity affecting the strategy.

Or did I miss something about how the chips work that make them work to include narration?

Mike

Ok, so we want a mechanism that requires players to create backstory through flashbacks. We ideally also want a moderator. And we'd like a chip resource.

I'm also going to assume it's better if the player's usually have control over whether to fire. The game is more powerful if the player is motivated to snap on their own. It doesn't mean much emotionally if you snap because the rules tell you to snap. That's why I like the rat. It gives people motivation to snap. Plus, it's very Reservoir Dogs-esque.


Try this on for size:

The game is basically similar to the one I proposed earlier.
Rather than being dealt a role, you are dealt predispositions. You might have something like rat 2, loot 3, psycho 1 to start. That can be done with cards, dice, moderator's fiat, doesn't really matter. Only you and the moderator know.

You start with some number of chips.

Narration passes in turn. When it is your turn, describe a flashback from the job. In that flashback, you can tell about things the other players did that make them look like the rat, boss, etc. It costs you one chip per person to do this. If you describe someone as the rat, you give them that chip, otherwise it goes to the moderator. Everytime you describe someone ELSE, they get a point in that role. Once they get to 6, they are truly that role. Any more points in that attribute don't matter for anyone. You can't end up with muliple roles either unless one is the Dying Dog or the Boss, and those and the Psycho are still revealed. Otherwise, only the moderator knows for sure.

You can steal narration out of turn for one chip, even during someone else's. After every round of narration, deal everyone one chip.

If you don't like the way someone is narrating you, shoot them. That's the only real defense you have. If you think someone is the rat, or some other role you don't like, shoot them. You can shoot at any time, even during narration. But remember that starting a showdown can still get you killed, likely as not.

The moderator's job is to keep track of points and who has what role. You might also want to add in the random events for them to handle to give them more to do.

Timing cards would probably come into play after rounds, rather than after minute marks.

I've been a lurker on these boards for some time, but this thread is cool enough that I feel the need to de-lurk.

With that said:

I love the premise of the game -- three or more guys with guns in each other's faces playing a game of nerves that will very likely end in a bloodbath.

However, I don't feel that Tarantino's "bank robbers looking for the rat who sold them out" scenario is the only scenario that can be played out with this game, especially given the other big standoff that comes to mind when I think of the premise: the standoff and shootout at the church in the John Woo movie, Face/Off.

It's a classic hero and villain movie, but the hero and villain have swapped faces, the hero to get inside the villain's organization and stop his evil plan, the villain to insinuate himself into the hero's job and private life and basically mess with the hero's mind. Also in the standoff are several FBI agents and several of the villain's allies, who don't have a clue which one of the two main players is which.

Heya,

Wonderllama, I'm guessing you are Dregg, correct?

Rather than being dealt a role, you are dealt predispositions. You might have something like rat 2, loot 3, psycho 1 to start. That can be done with cards, dice, moderator's fiat, doesn't really matter. Only you and the moderator know.

Narration passes in turn. When it is your turn, describe a flashback from the job. In that flashback, you can tell about things the other players did that make them look like the rat, boss, etc. It costs you one chip per person to do this. If you describe someone as the rat, you give them that chip, otherwise it goes to the moderator. Everytime you describe someone ELSE, they get a point in that role. Once they get to 6, they are truly that role. Any more points in that attribute don't matter for anyone. You can't end up with muliple roles either unless one is the Dying Dog or the Boss, and those and the Psycho are still revealed. Otherwise, only the moderator knows for sure.

You can steal narration out of turn for one chip, even during someone else's. After every round of narration, deal everyone one chip.

Timing cards would probably come into play after rounds, rather than after minute marks.

I agree that it can theoretically pertain to a large number of theoretical plots. But I also think that, perhaps, working through how it would work for the resivoir dogs plot first might be best. Figure out how to make that one work, and then find a way to generalize the mechanics to make up new situations. Otherwise, if you start looking at the general picture first, I think it might quagmire the design before it really gets going. I mean, at the moment, I think it's still pretty conceptual. Until somebody comes up with a set of rules that meets the design criteria at all, I think it's good to keep the concept as easy to design as possible.

Mike

Heya,

Mike Holmes wrote: I agree that it can theoretically pertain to a large number of theoretical plots. But I also think that, perhaps, working through how it would work for the resivoir dogs plot first might be best. Figure out how to make that one work, and then find a way to generalize the mechanics to make up new situations. Otherwise, if you start looking at the general picture first, I think it might quagmire the design before it really gets going. I mean, at the moment, I think it's still pretty conceptual. Until somebody comes up with a set of rules that meets the design criteria at all, I think it's good to keep the concept as easy to design as possible.

Mike

No, I am not Dregg. I was just so inspired by the idea that I had to say something. My biggest hesitation was that I was afraid I might end up stealing the focus from Dregg. Which I guess has happened a little. Sorry. I wanted to throw my ideas out there in case Dregg wanted to use any of them. But I'm probably willing to push on with the game if he doesn't.

I don't think this game needs to be limited to the scenario in Reservoir Dogs. In fact, when I was initially jotting it down, it wasn't going to. But I think the concept of roles is very important to it, and it just happened that most of the good roles I thought of fit Reservoir Dogs. (I didn't mention the possible Mute role.) I was very much hoping that part of the replayability of the game would be in using different sets of roles. A wildly different set of roles could match a situation very different from Reservoir Dogs. Plus, I was kinda hoping to nudge Dregg or whomever into thinking up other roles, so I didn't want to throw out too many.

The roles or role-tendancies don't necessarily need to be random. They do need to be secret. It is very important that players do not know at least some of the roles of other people. And even more important that you don't know if other people know your role. The Rat should be sweating bullets wondering if he has been made. Anybody else with a role that the other players won't like should either be a secret, or have a secret component, like the psycho. If the psycho points his gun at you, it's very tense because you don't know when he might snap. I suppose with the role-tendancy system, players could pick their own tendancies. But this is a very quick game that ideally should be played more than once, probably in the same day. It would be best if players didn't tend to pick the same roles repeatedly.

This game has a lot of gamist leaning, by necessity. The players are supposed to be under stress. That's a big part of the stand-off atmosphere. I think that only works if the players are trying to stay alive. If your concern is trying to tell a good story, you might not worry as much, or even welcome being shot. But if players are trying to win, they might pick their roles as part of trying to win, and I think that takes away from valuable variety. I'm not married to the gamist nature in itself; if I could think of another way to induce the same tension I would consider it. But so far, I can't.

Up until now, all I've been doing is brainstorming. Throwing ideas out there. It hadn't crossed my mind that I might be the one creating this game. I wanted to get the idea of establising role through narrating flashbacks out there. And show that it could be done while still preseving role-secrecy, which is vital. I'll think on the numbers of chips that everything would actually take. My preliminary feelings are:

1 chip per player is way more than stealing narration is worth if you're trying to win. Unless the cost of narration is much higher.
My initial thought was that I wanted players to have no narrative control over their own character. Their only control would be from the threat of their gun. But honestly, I'm not sure why I ever thought that would be a good idea.
With the current roles, The Rat is the most significant. I want to make sure the other roles come into play as well. My hope was the likelyhood that someone will shoot you if you start calling them a rat was enough deterrant. But I'll have to look at that.
When someone is out of chips, they have no narrative power (or maybe very limited power). Just gunpower. That's one of the reasons I envisioned a replenishing supply. One thing I very much don't want is for the chips to directly interact with the shooting. If someone decides to shoot you, you are dead. No resource is going to save you. I feel that's an important principle. Fear of the other players and caution against pushing them too far should be center stage.

I haven't abandoned the idea of random events. I'm almost certain the game is better with them. It's mostly a matter of thinking of a sufficiently large and interesting pool. (And a system for representing hommade ones is probably good too.) Those could very much interact with chips as well as changing the rules.

I did get a chance to playtest version 1 (the non-narrative first post version) over the weekend. A brief summary of what I learned will follow in the next post.

And again, Dregg, if you're listening, I very much do not want to steal your idea. If you want to use any of this, or feel uncomfortable with my being inspired by your idea, let me know.

I realize playtest logs don't belong here. I post a longer version in the appropriate place. The basics:

Two five player games, with one player switching between. The first game ended with everybody shot dead. The second, two of us walked off with the loot, with the rat dead. Virtually no narration in the first, some in the second, but mostly lead by me.

One, my brother, didn't want to play at all and really just wanted to drink. He hated it. Another had never role-played before. He didn't give me much feedback, but I don't think he liked it much. The player who co-won with me seemed to like it. The first player to die both times liked it a lot, but he loves all the games I've written. Another thought it showed promise, but that we needed more players.

So I take away the following:
There needs to be impetus to start roleplaying. Either a narrative system, or at least some introduction to give people an idea of what they might say, and especially what they can say that might keep them alive.
This is not a game to use to introduce someone to roleplaying. They probably won't get it.
You really do want more players. I think you really want to aim for seven.
You really want toy guns. Squirt guns or dart guns would be better. I'm not taking my brother's advise to use beebee guns though.
Even version 1, which had what I though were simple rules, is more complicated to learn than I thought. It plays simply enough, but you really need people to understand the rules before you start playing.

Good enough to show promise, not good enough to accept it as is. I think the game can work real-time without a structured narrative system. I want to throw in random events and tweak, and try again. I want to also run the more-structured narrative system version of the game to compare. It could very well be there is more than one good game to be written here.

I hope I'm not too late to begin posting ideas.

I really like the idea of hidden roles. I also really like the idea of pressure building (a la Pulp Fiction where Butch and Vincent were staring each other down, Butch had a machine gun and there were pop tarts in the toaster).

I think it would be cool if everyone had a number of points at the beginning (say 10). People bid these for the right to choose one of the hidden roles; only spend if you win the bid. Any points you have left become your Stress Level. Keep this secret from the rest of the players.

In the backstory, there was a caper that went wrong. Each player takes turns introducing themselves by name along with their role in the caper (driver, triggerman, lookout, safecracker, etc.) and what they actually did -- note that this is not your hidden role, if you have one. After everyone has done that, they then go around the table again, taking turns describing how the caper went wrong. Every time someone gets blamed, they gain one Pressure Point.

Every time you have a gun pointed at you, you gain one Pressure Point.

People can, at any time after introducing themselves, draw their gun and point it at someone, but whenever a character's Pressure Points are greater than (not equal to) their Stress Level, they draw their gun.

Whenever a stress event occurs, everyone gains one Pressure Point. Stress events can include someone drawing a gun, someone shooting, a car backfiring, the toaster popping, microwave timer goes off, the phone rings, someone interrupts someone else, bad news comes in, someone talking out of turn, etc. When in doubt, it's a stress event. (Option: Include real world events as well as in-game ones; if the microwave goes off in real life, then one can go off in the game as well.)

If someone accuses you of screwing up the caper, gain one Pressure Point. If someone accuses you of being the rat, gain one Pressure Point. If you really are the rat, gain two Pressure Points.

Keep both your Stress Level and your Pressure Points secret, until you have either one or two (you choose) more Pressure Points than Stress Level, at which time you reveal them. You never have to reveal them until this time, but you have to stay honest.

If, at the beginning of your turn, you have more Pressure Points than your Stress Level, every time you gain a Pressure Point, roll 1d6 per point over. On a 6, you shoot. If multiple people shoot at the same time, they roll simultaneously, but their shots go off in order of the most Pressure Points over Stress Level to the least. (I like the idea of this being random, because you never know when the shoe is going to drop.)

Chris Goodwin wrote:
I also really like the idea of pressure building (a la Pulp Fiction where Butch and Vincent were staring each other down, Butch had a machine gun and there were pop tarts in the toaster).

This might work:

The game is played with a moderator, but is still real time.

Players are dealt role cards at the beginning. That represents your initial role. Some of the roles are fixed. But most of them are just role leanings. You start with that role, and a score in that role as indicate on your card. For the most part, players will start with a score of 3 in a role.

But most of the roles can change. You can increase or decrease player's values in roles through narration. Some roles are limited to one player. If you start with 3 in The Guy with the Loot, but someone gets narrated up to 4, they have the loot and you don't. Others can be shared. If you are already a friend, and someone else gets narrated up to a score of 3 in friend, then they are a friend as well. The moderator will generally let players know when their role has changed in the secret message phase. There may be some roles where you won't know if you have the role or not yourself, but I haven't thought of any yet.

Each player also recieves 5 chips to start.

The rules are generally hierarchical. Higher rules preempt lower rules:

If you are dead, you do absolutely nothing unless an event card specifically tells you to. All your unbid chips are out of the game.

If you have any roles, obey the rules on your role card. They override all the following rules.

You may point your gun at another player, or holster it, at absolutely any time. After you do, count to 5, out loud. If you do this during another player's narration, do this quitely enough not to drown them out. You may not initiate a showdown until the count of 5. If a showdown gets started before your count of 2, you got caught in transition, and you shoot no one.

You may fire at any time, including during narration, except as prevented above. You also may not fire during the first minute.

The showdown works basically as before. If the narrator dies, narration is over. Otherwise, it may continue, but may not have much time left.

The first 30 seconds of each minute are the bid phase. Players may discuss the situation, strategize, threaten each other, whatever. Also, they may throw chips into the pot, announcing their total. The central pot is for control of narration. Whoever has the most chips in the pot gets narration. On ties, the player who got their chips in first wins, so only bid to win, not to tie. Also, players may place chips in front of themselves to bid on control of the next random event.

At 30 seconds, we move to narration. The moderator announces the narrator. The other players may not speak except to adjust aim or fire. Narration lasts for 20 seconds. The narrator should tell a brief flashback episode. For each player he is implicating in a role, he should toss one chip into the pile. The moderator should note any increses or decreases in role scores that are narrated and paid for. Players can continue to bid on random event control during narration.

At 50 secconds, narration is over. Bidding on random event control is done. The player with the most chips in front of them wins. On ties, the player closer to the narrator's left wins the tiebreak. The narrator should now pass out secret messages to each player indicating any change in their role or secret information they have learned, and also any minute event instructions. Also, unles that turn's random event card is secret, it should be revealed. Not all the random event cards care who won random event control, but if this one does, it generally should be passed to the player who won. Also, chips are redistibuted. All the bid chips are put in a pile, and the moderator should deal them back out, starting on the narrator's left.

At 60 seconds, all minute events happen. These will be based on roles and events.

Then the next round starts. Players begin bidding and arguing again, but this time while contemplating their secret messages and newfound roles.


The moderator needs to plan ahead. He should look at the next random event card as soon as possible. He should begin jotting down player's secret notes as early as possible. He is also responsible for dealing showdown cards and chips, resolving rule disputes, and annoucing time to move to each phase.

The game is designed to be very hectic. Hopefully not so hectic that players can't think of anything to narrate in time. If that turns out to be the case, the game might need to be stretched out a bit. Players should be thinking about what they would like to narrate during the bid phase. Also, hopefully showdowns can be resolved fairly quickly. If not, the moderator may need to run the game with a stopwatch, and freeze time during showdowns.

Let me know what you think. Also, tell me if there is any part of those rules of which you don't understand the purpose.

I'm really not liking all the moves to metagame. A player should know who his own character is - that shouldn't change. Does having narration mean that you get to narrate facts into existence? Or does it just mean that your character can talk? I'd prefer it if the events that upped the pressure weren't measured artificially. I'd rather the mechanics remain unknown such that the pressure is on the player estimating the reality of the situation.

See where I'm going?

Basically I'm seeing two games here. A little card game, and an interestingly limited RPG. I'd prefer the latter, though I'd take the former. What I think you can't have is a game that is both a beer and pretzels card game, and a full-fledged shortform RPG.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm really not liking all the moves to metagame. A player should know who his own character is - that shouldn't change. Does having narration mean that you get to narrate facts into existence? Or does it just mean that your character can talk? I'd prefer it if the events that upped the pressure weren't measured artificially. I'd rather the mechanics remain unknown such that the pressure is on the player estimating the reality of the situation.

Mike Holmes wrote: Basically I'm seeing two games here. A little card game, and an interestingly limited RPG. I'd prefer the latter, though I'd take the former. What I think you can't have is a game that is both a beer and pretzels card game, and a full-fledged shortform RPG.

WonderLlama wrote: I like the concept of pressure building. I'd like that there were some mechanic to represent it. But what I don't want to do is often force players to shoot. A player should usually shoot either because they think they have an advantage, or because the pressure gets to them, the player. I think with your proposed mechanic, most of the shots would be involuntary.

Another result of pressure would be nice, but I can't think of one. Or at least I can't think of one that wouldn't be far too complicated.

Chris, I'm not getting it. There already is a pressure point on the players, the ten minute limit. They will shoot before that point. I mean, if they know that they lose if they don't, then why not guess and shoot? Assuming that they don't resolve the entire scenario peacefully at some point prior? It seems to me that there are more interesting ways to cause the pressure to shift around internal to the game than to simply have a mechanism that forces the character to feel something that the player doesn't.

I'd personally prefer if the pressure to snap was just as much player as character. I wouldn't do anything to dissociate those. The character knows the cops are on the way at ten minutes (or whatever). So the character and player motives match perfectly there.

BTW, thought - I'd have the time build randomly as I've mentioned. If there's a hard 10 minute timeframe, then the deadline is rather sudden. What's more tense, is if the players don't know when the police are going to arrive. What I'd do is to have the moderator (assuming one) keep track of a building pool. Once the pool gets to 100 or whatever, the cops arrive (or they hear the sirens or something). So the players don't know when the cops will be there, only that, the longer they go, the more likely it is for everyone to lose. So that adds some brinksmanship to the mix as well. Who breaks first burning time waiting for the cops (of course, a Rat will play to delay...).

This can even be done without a moderator by, say, rolling each minute, with the odds going up on each. Something like after 8 minutes roll a d10 under the minute each minute thereafter. With the moderator it's better, however, because he can be doing something like totalling numbers on discarded cards, or somesuch, meaing that it could happen at any time.

Actually at that point I'd have the moderator call "Sirens" or something, and anyone can start shooting at that point, with survivors having a chance to get away. Or at least survive which could be claimed a victory in some ways. If the rat is dead he can't testify (or anyone dead for that matter). Etc.

I'd look at MLWM for some ideas on ways to calculate endgame. It could be quite complicated.

WonderLlama wrote: The idea was for the narrator to be able to tell backstory, flashbacks, how everybody got to this showdown. But nothing about what is happening now. Whatever is happening now is happening now.

The ability to influence roles is mostly a bribe to get people to want to narrate.

But I very much see your point about knowing your own role.

Or there could be another bribe for narration entirely. But right now, roles are the only mechanic out there worthy of being bribes. I just don't see people making up history without bribes. And without history, players don't have anything to talk about besides strategy.

Yeah, I'm seeing at least two games here myself. But from your earlier comments, it sounded like you preferred the little card game. Since you don't like the mechanic pushing people to roleplay. Can you explain to me what part of the game you like that moves towards roleplaying?

Heya,

Here's what I'm thinking. The player can make up any fact about anything that was not seen by another character. Whether or not it's true is a matter of whether he notes to the moderator that it is true. What I'd do is have cards that say "fact" on them, and the player hands the GM a fact card before he narrates something true. If he hands him another card (makes for a good discard method), then it's just something he said. Something like that.

Troy, because the narration that's happening has to have some mechanical effect. If it's all color then it doesn't matter to the outcome, and probably won't happen at all. If it's not just color, then only true facts can alter the mechanisms.

For example, if I narrate that X killed a cop, then perhaps that means that the character is dead if the cops arrive, and not just arrested. Which might mean a lower end score. That's just a bad example, but do you see what I mean? Sans any impact mechanically of what people say, then why say anything?

Mike

Heya :)

Troy, because the narration that's happening has to have some mechanical effect. If it's all color then it doesn't matter to the outcome, and probably won't happen at all. If it's not just color, then only true facts can alter the mechanisms.

For example, if I narrate that X killed a cop, then perhaps that means that the character is dead if the cops arrive, and not just arrested. Which might mean a lower end score. That's just a bad example, but do you see what I mean? Sans any impact mechanically of what people say, then why say anything?

Troy, pay a coin, play a card, I don't see how we're disagreeing. We're just putting in different methods of the same thing. We're only debating timing.

I think my method is superior, because I think it's important for the player who has lied, to know that he has lied. If you allow him to say anything, but then make it true or not only when he knows that it's important, then the player is free to say whatever they want. With my method, they have to think about their lies more carefully and worry that they might come up.

I mean, a proven lie is a good reason to shoot somebody, no? Yeah, they don't trust each other, but they're looking for reasons to shoot each other that won't get them shot. Right? I think the whole truth/lie factor is huge.

Mike

Greetings all. I've been a lurker here on the Forge for a while, but this game idea got me interested enough to register so I could contribute some thoughts.

While I understand the desire to have some sort of objective truth behind player statements, I'm not sure it is needed for this kind of game. Think about a game like Mafia, or the western card game Bang! In both of these, the majority of "play" is in the persuasive power of the players. All I have to do is convince enough other players that what I am saying is true, and they will act is if it so. It's all about group dynamics, which I think this sort of game captures perfectly. As long as nobody makes falsifiable statements, it comes down to a case of bluffing and lies. Now, in both Bang! and Mafia, players do still need to know where they each, individually, really stand, and I think *that* is what we are really looking for here.

I propose the following for an ease-of-use variant. I expect others will have plenty of ways to improve upon it. It has the advantage of not needing a game master, though it does need honest players.

The backstory is that the robbery went bad, each player grabbed a sack and went off in a different direction, with a plan to meet back up at the location where our game will start to split the loot. Some folks *think* there is a rat in their midst and that's why the robbery went bad, but it could have just been bad luck. Anyone who doesn't show up and wasn't captured escaping was obviously the rat, or trying to get away with more than their fair share, and a contract would put out on them to insure everyone shows up at the meet. To further entice folks, the bags of loot had widely different values, so those with the least want the meet to get their fair share, while those with the most either don't know they have more than others, or are afraid of the hit that will be put out on them if they don't show up. Each person has a suspiscion on who they *think* the rat might be, and who might have gotten the fat sack of loot.

All players have the primary goal of staying alive themselves. All non-rat players (crooks) have the secondary goal of making all the rats dead, and all the rat players have the secondary goal of keeping all the rats alive. All players have the tertiary goal of keeping alive the player they think got the biggest part of the haul.


Assume we have 5 players, A, B, C, D, and E, and cards/coins/tokens designating each person. Each player in turn (and without shoiwng to the other players) draws two tokens (without replacing in between), looks at them, then shuffles them back into the pile. Repeat for each player.

The first token drawn is who the drawing player *suspects* is the rat in the group. If they draw their own token, they really *are* the rat. If they draw anybody else's, it's just a suspicion. The second token they draw is who they think got away with the biggest share of the loot. If a player draws their own tile, then they *did* get away with the largest share, but they won't know that until the meet-up. Note, it's impossible for a rat, or suspected rat to also be suspected of getting the largest share. No matter who they are (rat, or crook) the player wants this person to survive as well so they can find out where the large loot chunk is hidden. Call both of these a player's "suspicions." After player A has made their selections, they shuffle the tokens in, and all the other players do likewise. Note, there may be multiple rats, or big-share loot holders. After everyone has their suspicions, all players close their eyes and count out loud slowly from one to ten. At a count of three, any and all "rats" open their eyes to identify each other, then close them again so the other players don't know who the rats are. There may be none, one, or many. Note: this step isn't strictly neccessary. Different agencies might have rats in the group without knowing it. Try it either way.

The game begins with everyone in the room, nobody with guns drawn *yet*. Somebody has just suggested that there must have been a rat and that rat needs to be rooted out before they each reveal where they all hid their part of the heist. Begin the free-form accusations.

Players may make any statements they want about each other "I did time with him. I saw him kill a cop. I saw a badge in his wallet" etc... Each player only knows if they *personally* are a rat or crook, and they each have a suspicion of who the rat is, and who the guy with the loot is. The truth or falsity of the statements *makes no difference* because nobody can check them out right now. All they can do is confirm or deny what each other says. At some point, sombody will implicate an other player as being the rat. As soon as anybody points a gun, everybody gets a chance to immediately point a gun, or stay holstered. From that point on, everyone can keep talking or take an action. Any new action allows everyone else a *single* simultaneous response action, with a few caveats. For example, if I change my target, everyone else can change their target or shoot at whomever they were aiming at, or holster in response to me. These choices are simultaneous, so everybody should be responding to my move, and not each other's responses. If they want to do that, they'll have to wait until all the responses to my action are resolved.


Actions:

Draw and point your weapon at someone
- initiates action of the game
- usable only to start the action-response sequence or usable if you are currently holsterd

Holster your weapon
- usable only if currently pointing your gun at someone
- after the stand-off has started, if everyone holsters at the same time, the game is over - score

Change target
- usable only if you are all ready pointing at someone. Point at someone else (but you don't get to fire. That's a seperate action!)

Pull the trigger
- say "bang!" and the person you are pointing at curently is dead (though they can fire at whomever they were aiming at when they were shot)
- if everyone dead, game over, nobody wins
- if some still alive, continue

Keep the 10 minute timer, or something semi-random so the players don't know exactly when the police will show up. If the police show up, the game is over. Proceede to scoring.

Final scoring:

If you are dead at game end, score 0.

If you are alive, and a rat: score +(# of crooks (alive or dead) - # of dead rats)

If you are alive and a crook and
- any rats left alive : score 0
- you run out of time and the police show up: score 0
- neither of the above: score +(#of survivng crooks)

If you have a non-zero score, *and* the person you thought had the loot survives: score +1

If you have a non-zero score, *and* any player who actualy had a large share of the loot survived, anyone with a non-zero score gets an additional +1

Phew. That took longer to explain than I meant. Sorry about that. The main point is, in such a stand-off, it doesn't matter what is "true," but rather what is believed. The random assignment of beliefs in the beginning should be enough to seed the pot with tension. If B wants A to survive because he thinks A has the loot, but then A points a gun at B, B is going to point right back, but try to convince A that C really is the rat.

Thoughts?

Thespian wrote: While I understand the desire to have some sort of objective truth behind player statements, I'm not sure it is needed for this kind of game. Think about a game like Mafia, or the western card game Bang! In both of these, the majority of "play" is in the persuasive power of the players. All I have to do is convince enough other players that what I am saying is true, and they will act is if it so. It's all about group dynamics, which I think this sort of game captures perfectly. As long as nobody makes falsifiable statements, it comes down to a case of bluffing and lies. Now, in both Bang! and Mafia, players do still need to know where they each, individually, really stand, and I think *that* is what we are really looking for here.

Thespian wrote: I propose the following for an ease-of-use variant. I expect others will have plenty of ways to improve upon it. It has the advantage of not needing a game master, though it does need honest players.

Thespian wrote: All players have the primary goal of staying alive themselves. All non-rat players (crooks) have the secondary goal of making all the rats dead, and all the rat players have the secondary goal of keeping all the rats alive. All players have the tertiary goal of keeping alive the player they think got the biggest part of the haul.

Thespian wrote: The first token drawn is who the drawing player *suspects* is the rat in the group. If they draw their own token, they really *are* the rat. If they draw anybody else's, it's just a suspicion. The second token they draw is who they think got away with the biggest share of the loot. If a player draws their own tile, then they *did* get away with the largest share, but they won't know that until the meet-up. Note, it's impossible for a rat, or suspected rat to also be suspected of getting the largest share.

Thespian wrote: Change target
- usable only if you are all ready pointing at someone. Point at someone else (but you don't get to fire. That's a seperate action!)

Thespian wrote: Pull the trigger
- say "bang!" and the person you are pointing at curently is dead (though they can fire at whomever they were aiming at when they were shot)
- if everyone dead, game over, nobody wins
- if some still alive, continue

Thespian wrote: Phew. That took longer to explain than I meant. Sorry about that. The main point is, in such a stand-off, it doesn't matter what is "true," but rather what is believed. The random assignment of beliefs in the beginning should be enough to seed the pot with tension. If B wants A to survive because he thinks A has the loot, but then A points a gun at B, B is going to point right back, but try to convince A that C really is the rat.

Random thoughts, hastily banged out while on break at work. Feel free to ignore if this is ground that's already covered:

Pulling the trigger should be akin to calling in poker; ie: once someone shoots, everyone shoots, and everything's over. The idea is to not have a gun pointed at you when that first trigger gets pulled.

Here's an old brainteaser for you:

Three pigeons are sitting on a telephone wire. You take aim with a BB gun and peg one of them right in the head (Bang!). How many pigeons are left?

The answer is None.

-- Ben

Heya,

Troy, pay a coin, play a card, I don't see how we're disagreeing. We're just putting in different methods of the same thing. We're only debating timing.

I think my method is superior, because I think it's important for the player who has lied, to know that he has lied. If you allow him to say anything, but then make it true or not only when he knows that it's important, then the player is free to say whatever they want. With my method, they have to think about their lies more carefully and worry that they might come up.

Well, the idea is that the information you transfer is strategic. If you can, for example, convince somebody that player C refuled to shoot a cop when he should have, then somebody may turn their gun on him assuming that the's the rat. Good tactic if you're the rat. So I think there's plenty of incentive to lie. The only disincentive is the chance that you'll be proven a liar, which then puts the suspicion on you.

This is all predicated on how the rest of play is designed, of course. My hope was that having such rules about narration would spark it happening. But I think that what might end up happening is that the talk will still all be metagame. "He's the rat!" is shorthand as good as a narration saying, "He didn't shoot the cop!" If there are limited strategies, then I think that the narrations will be limited to statements that are, basically, that you're employing that strategy.

Mike

I still find myself writing two games.

The first is not an RPG. It's a quick strategy game similar to mafia. Players will discuss strategy. They may find themselves in character if they can use it to intimidate one another, but that's about it. And the more I think about it, I'm fine with that. I really think this is more the game I want to play. Mafia isn't an RPG either, the strategy is even more simple, and yet is is a true classic of a game.

Really, the only major thing I am thinking of adding to this game is random events. Since I'd rather the game be unmoderated, there will need to be some way of matching up the events that apply to a specific player to a player. I'm still thinking I like the chip bidding system for that. Chips can also interact directly with some events. I would like to find something else to do with chips as well in this version. Perhaps for a fixed large cost, if you can save enough chips, you can do something significant. Like bring in the cops to end the game for 20, or reveal someone's role, or something like that. Just to make the chip strategy a little more complex. I have several ideas for more roles and random events. Really, I think this version is very close to completion, barring post-test tweaking.



The second game is an RPG. Really, the only reason I find myself writing this at the same time is that a lot of the same mechanics can apply. If there are custom role and event decks to be made, they could probably be shared between the games. People could simply choose between the two sets of rules provided on taste. Perhaps playing the lighter version when they don't have as much time to prepare.

There are bigger blocks to this version. Here are a few lemmas that I think are true:
The player should feel pressure. Not just the character.
The game will be strategic. You can win or lose.
You should try to win. (This will be the main source of pressure. This isn't one of those games where your own death can be a victory if it is cool enough.)
The players should usually have free choice. You can choose to fire, or not fire, at all times. There will be exceptions, but that is the general rule. Firing will primarily be player choice, rather than required by the game. (This creates the feel that your life is truly in the hands of a fundamentally unpredictable other person.)
The players need some incentive to roleplay, or they won't.

There are currently three potential types of currency in this game:
Information is the main one. Players will still mostly be exchanging information, true and false, to manipulate each other.
Role is a potential currency. I agree that changing roles mid-game can be very counterproductive. So if we are to use it as a currency, it needs to be very limited.
Metagame currency. Currently in the form of chips. These are valuable because they give you control over random events, and possibly other things.

I have ruled out control over firing guns as a currency. I know a lot of people like the pressure mechanic that forces you to fire at some point. Apologies, but I don't. I think the ideal that firing a gun is voluntary is just too valuable. I like the feeling that somebody pointing a gun can choose to fire or not fire at me, and I don't have any real control over that. So I'm just not considering that as an option anymore.

Also, arguably the results of random events could be considered a currency, but I don't really see it that way. If you get a second gun out of an event, that does change the game. But I view that as just the result of the metagame currency. I don't want to just hand it out directly out of roleplaying.

If you have any ideas for other forms of currency, please, let me know.


The primary problem I see is how to bribe people into roleplaying. And ideally, into creating backstory, which seems to be tied to the genre. So my objective is to find a mechanic for this. I am still interested in other added mechanics if they are cool enough, but this is really the only one that seems absolutely necessary.

Here's the basic idea of the potential solution I have. Pay players for creating backstory with information. Or more accurately, the right to reveal certain information as true. Normally, you can't truly reveal your role, but through flashback, you can reveal a few carefully selected details that might narrow down what your role is not.

Players create their flashback ahead of time, but after they discover their own roles. Players may include one other player in their flashback, but they may not reveal anything about that player's role in the flashback (because they don't actually have that information to give.) Players may reveal the written flashback to the other player featured in it, which confers information, and also allows them to tweak the flashbacks for consistency.

You will be allowed to reveal certain things in your flashback. You might be able to say that you killed a cop, and therefore aren't the rat. Or you dramatically went back risking death to grab the loot. There will be a list of things you can reveal, and a point cost associate with each one, corresponding to how valuable revealing that thing is. Only the information has a cost, you can choose the actual manner it is revealed however you lie. There will be a second, significantly higher cost, to lying about that thing. If you lie in your flashback, you must either do it solo, or your co-flashback member automatically knows it is a lie.

If you save up enough chips to match the cost of your flashback, you can pay all of your chips to present it. Act it out, along with your partner, if any. As a reward, you have proven some information to everyone. Or not really proven, since you could be lying, but I believe lying is set up to be risky enough that it should be rare. It's just there to preserve a little doubt.

Of course, there's nothing in the rules requiring good roleplaying. And withought establishing a judge you gets to arbitrarily rate your roleplaying, I don't think such rules are possible. Hopefully, the mob will prove the best incentive. Do a good, entertaining job, or they might shoot ya.


So what do you think? Can that idea work? Any suggestions on how to tweak it?

WonderLlama wrote: I still find myself writing two games.

Role is a potential currency. I agree that changing roles mid-game can be very counterproductive. So if we are to use it as a currency, it needs to be very limited.

I have ruled out control over firing guns as a currency. I know a lot of people like the pressure mechanic that forces you to fire at some point. Apologies, but I don't.

Also, arguably the results of random events could be considered a currency, but I don't really see it that way. If you get a second gun out of an event, that does change the game. But I view that as just the result of the metagame currency. I don't want to just hand it out directly out of roleplaying.

If you have any ideas for other forms of currency, please, let me know.

The primary problem I see is how to bribe people into roleplaying.

Here's the basic idea of the potential solution I have. Pay players for creating backstory with information. Or more accurately, the right to reveal certain information as true. Normally, you can't truly reveal your role, but through flashback, you can reveal a few carefully selected details that might narrow down what your role is not.

Players may include one other player in their flashback, but they may not reveal anything about that player's role in the flashback (because they don't actually have that information to give.)

You will be allowed to reveal certain things in your flashback. You might be able to say that you killed a cop, and therefore aren't the rat. Or you dramatically went back risking death to grab the loot. There will be a list of things you can reveal, and a point cost associate with each one, corresponding to how valuable revealing that thing is.

Only the information has a cost, you can choose the actual manner it is revealed however you lie. There will be a second, significantly higher cost, to lying about that thing. If you lie in your flashback, you must either do it solo, or your co-flashback member automatically knows it is a lie.

If you save up enough chips to match the cost of your flashback, you can pay all of your chips to present it.

Of course, there's nothing in the rules requiring good roleplaying. And withought establishing a judge you gets to arbitrarily rate your roleplaying, I don't think such rules are possible.

I wrote a very detail response to Mike's post over the course of a couple hours. My browser ate it when I pressed the back button to correct something. One of these days, I will learn not to type posts in my browser. I don't have the heart to retype the whole thing, so I'll sum up.

I was using currency wrong. I do things like that. I was really trying to refer to things that are bribeworthy.

Role can be a currency proper if it is allowed to change in game. That is entirely separate from information about role. But I'm not intending to go in that direction anymore.

I hadn't heard of SOAP that I recall. I'll try to find those mechanics to look at if I can.

The second PC could be included for both strategic and flavorful reasons. You get to give the PC the information for free, even before you present your flashback. Also, he can vouch for you. Also, if at least some of the flashbacks have two people in them, I think it would be more fun.

The list was the only way I could think of to prevent players from giving away all the information they want. If you can do that, everyone with a benign role will prove that they have a safe role. Everyone who doesn't will then get shot.

My solution to the chip count was that you have to pay all your chips to flashback, even if it's more than the cost. And it usually will be. I do suspect this will be insufficient, but it's the best I thought of so far.



The major issue is getting this to play like a roleplaying game. Now when I designed the game, I was intending for roleplaying to be spontaneous, just coming from the theme and characters. As I usually do when designing games, I used some method acting. I put myself in the role of one of the guys in a warehouse in a standoff. I noted what my concerns and goals were. And I put in mechanics that catered to those. All of the original pieces of the game are aimed at those concerns and goals. That's how I was able to come up with the game in about 2 hours. The only thing I really wasn't satisfied with my ability to flush out was character history. But I figured that was fair sacrifice for making the game quick, which I think is one of its main strengths.

I was dissapointed that it didn't work out that way, but not entirely surprised. First, since people really had no idea what they were doing, it had to be tough. Quick, do some improv acting, oh and by the way, here are some semi-complex competitive rules to try out while you're doing it. On top of that, most people I know need bribes to do any roleplaying. Maybe that's just my limited experience, and I do know exceptions, but most people I play with mostly roleplay to get bonus experience or some mechanical advantage. (Can't push it too far though; some of them refuse to play Feng Shui because they feel there is too much pressure to be on all the time to get mechanical advantage.)

So that's why my thoughts turn to bribes. The organic design didn't seem to entirely work, bribes are about all I can think of to nudge it over. Making more detailed characters to give people more idea what to do seems at odds with the goal of making a very quick party-style game. If this line doesn't work, I think I may be tapped. I don't even know what other direction to look.

Ah yes, I had read the review for SOAP. However, the link in the review section for it is broken. I did find the current home of SOAP, but it appears there is no longer a free older version. I'm sure I can afford $1, so I suppose I'll take a look later.

In my first post I compared this stand-off idea to Bang! and Mafia. With the recent focus on lies and truth-telling and revelation of "fact" let me suggest we look for inspiration to that venerable old board game, Clue.

First, role cards are dealt out secretly and randomly. There should be more role cards than players such that it is possible to get zero, one, or more "rats" in the group.

A set of cards with factual "events" on them could be semi-randomly distributed. These are things that (if played) "really happened" and each character knows only about the ones they start with. These would have statements on them like "Player of this card shot a cop" or "Target player was seen making a suspicious phone call."

If there are N players, I'd suggest dealing out N piles of N cards each. Once each player knows their role, they get to look at one stack of those cards, pick one for themselves, then pass the stack to the person on their left. Everyone then picks one card from the smaller stack they just received, but this time passes the remainder *two* players to their left. Following this drafting process, each player will have N cards (presumably as best suited as they can be to their role) with no player having any knowledge of what others have chosen.

Play begins:

The idea is that I can narrate *anything* I want to about myself that nobody else saw. That's relatively safe, unless somebody else decides to say something like "Aha, I was hiding in the bushes and *saw* you, and you did something else completely!" Or, I can narrate *anything* I want to about any other player. In either case, when sombody's narration overlaps events between two characters, those two players show each other a single card. Call the first player A, and the second player B. If A's card supports what he said, B is lying *even if he had a card to support his version of events* On the other hand, if A was fibbing and B has a supporting card, the situation is obviously reversed. Or, they could both be blowing smoke, and not have a card to support their stories. In any case, only those two players now know who is telling the truth and who is lying. All the other players have just heard a claim, and a counter claim.

Anyone speaking may try to insert themselves into a flashback, and declaring common events with others is the only way to learn what cards they have, and what has been declared "true."

If A says something flattering or supportive of B, B will agree publicly, even if it is a lie, unless he really wants to take A down. The trick here is that in the case of conflicting cards, the first speaker's assertion trumps the interrupter's.

This gives us two importnat things. First, anybody can lie at any time about themselves or an other player, and if called on it, only those two players know the truth of the claims. Second, if they have a card for it, the initial declarer has priority in nailing down objective Truth, which should encourage role-playing.

Note also that you don't get to show your cards to anybody unless they explicitly role-play themselves into your flash back, to refute it *or* support it. In either case, they must then show a card to all the others invovled *and* they get to see the cards those players showed each other.

Essentially, you'll get piles of played, face-down cards for each narrated, joined event which determine the truth and flasehood of the statements made by the participating players. As this conscensous reality builds in the minds of the players who *know* what happened, and the onlookers who only suspect, *somebody* will pull the trigger.

The hard part would be coming up with a set of suitably broad cards that could support or refute arbitrary claims made during role-playing. I'd much prefer the role-playing to determine who lives and who dies ala Mafia than the mechanical distribution of fact cards. The cards need to be fairly generic, and some should be ambiguous as to what they imply. Clever role-players will make use of those. On the other hand, they need to be specific enough to give weaker role-players some ideas.

Does this mean that the rat could have shot a cop, and not know it at the start of the game? Yup. A feels like helping bolster B's cred (for whatever reason - B is actually a rat) and says "I saw B kill a cop, he can't be the rat." At that moment, B will agree with the statement (in his mind, lie) to increase his survival chances. A shows B a card that says "I saw you kill a cop" and B shows A any card (it doesn't matter which, since A's card was true). A and B now know A was telling the truth. Others merely know that A and B are in agreement about a statement. Maybe B had to kill a cop or be exposed and feels really guilty about it, or maybe it was part of a sting for A's benefit and the gun was loaded with blanks. The card only said "I *saw* you kill a cop."

This still feels like it needs work, but thoughts?

Yeah, I think Thespian is headed in the right sort of direction. Wonderllama, if you're designing the game for your friends, then I think I sorta see your problem - but that's hardly endemic to players at large. I mean, not play Feng Shui because you have to be "on" all the time? That's an alien concept to me. In fact the people that I play with often consider the rules to be "on" in Feng Shui to be unneccessary, because they just always are on.

In any case, the key is to make the design produce the play that you want to see. And no, that doesn't require bribes, even for your players. It just requires the right rules.

Thespian beat me to it somewhat, but I had a similar idea reading your post, Llama (alright, damnit, what are your real names you two?!?) I was thinking that the rules could be about trying to get other players to agree with your account of things. And yet trying to slant the accounts such that you could then trap them with their own agreements. That is, are you trying to form an alliance with the other player for joint protection, or trying to trap him in agreeing to something?

This has the interesting advantage that you can basically narrate an unlimited range of things - as opposed to most of the proposed mechanics that only ask you to narrate limited mechanical options. This is key, I think, to getting players to narrate.

Half formed at this point, but the idea is there. Still has the problem that there seems to be a very limited number of things to talk about as pertains to the situation. But it's the sort of idea that I think is headed in the right direction.

Mike

Thespian wrote: Essentially, you'll get piles of played, face-down cards for each narrated, joined event which determine the truth and flasehood of the statements made by the participating players. As this conscensous reality builds in the minds of the players who *know* what happened, and the onlookers who only suspect, *somebody* will pull the trigger.

This still feels like it needs work, but thoughts?

Mike Holmes wrote: Wonderllama, if you're designing the game for your friends, then I think I sorta see your problem - but that's hardly endemic to players at large. I mean, not play Feng Shui because you have to be "on" all the time? That's an alien concept to me. In fact the people that I play with often consider the rules to be "on" in Feng Shui to be unneccessary, because they just always are on.

Mike Holmes wrote: Thespian beat me to it somewhat, but I had a similar idea reading your post, Llama (alright, damnit, what are your real names you two?!?) I was thinking that the rules could be about trying to get other players to agree with your account of things. And yet trying to slant the accounts such that you could then trap them with their own agreements. That is, are you trying to form an alliance with the other player for joint protection, or trying to trap him in agreeing to something?

WonderLlama wrote:

Thespian wrote: Essentially, you'll get piles of played, face-down cards for each narrated, joined event which determine the truth and flasehood of the statements made by the participating players. As this conscensous reality builds in the minds of the players who *know* what happened, and the onlookers who only suspect, *somebody* will pull the trigger.

This still feels like it needs work, but thoughts?

I think it's fantastically brilliant.

Mike Holmes wrote: Thespian beat me to it somewhat, but I had a similar idea reading your post, Llama (alright, damnit, what are your real names you two?!?)

Mike Holmes wrote:
I was thinking that the rules could be about trying to get other players to agree with your account of things. And yet trying to slant the accounts such that you could then trap them with their own agreements. That is, are you trying to form an alliance with the other player for joint protection, or trying to trap him in agreeing to something?

Heya,

First, role cards are dealt out secretly and randomly. There should be more role cards than players such that it is possible to get zero, one, or more "rats" in the group.

Just a little brainstorm: What about a mechanic based on Texas Hold 'Em?

There's a pool of cards in the middle, face up. This represents the facts that everyone can agree on.

Everyone has a small number of cards. This represents things they know about themselves. Whoever has the best hand is the rat.

Does it really matter that the player who is the rat know that he is the rat? Everyone's goal is the same: to prove that they aren't the rat. This is done by betting chips representing certain statements. The players attempt to discern the motives of the other players by reading their betting. Perhaps then one could tie in Thespian's idea about showing cards to other players. Maybe defending another player by betting chips allows you to see one of their cards, while attacking another player forces you to show them one of your cards. Assign friends randomly that must survive in order for the player to win, and things get complicated.

I'm not very good at game design, but I just wanted to point out an existing mechanic that might be modified/built upon to create the dynamics of the game. Hope it helps.

I did a little more thinking last night and fleshed out my Texas Hold 'em idea. Here are some rough rules

Deal each player a face card from one suit face up. Deal a second set of matching cards from another suit face down. Each player looks at their second card - whoever it matches is their Friend. A player can only win if their Friend survives to the end of the game, unless their Friend is also the Rat. If a player receives their own card, they are the Professional. They win only if no one but the Rat is killed, or everyone but themselves is killed. Shuffle the cards back in.

Deal five cards face up to the center of the table. Deal two cards face down to each player; they may look at the cards. Whoever has the best five-card poker hand made of at least one of their hidden cards and some of the common cards is the Rat.

Each player selects one other player and may look at one of their hidden cards.

When everyone is ready, start the hidden ten-minute timer. When the timer runs out, the Rat wins. The players can end the game before the timer runs out by all holstering their weapons and agreeing to Split. If the Rat is still alive at the end of the game, the Rat wins.

Each player should have a toy gun (ideally) and a supply of poker chips. A player may spend poker chips to Accuse another player. Make up something that happened during the robbery that makes you think this player is the Rat. This player must then Defend himself by spending an equivalent number of poker chips or showing the Accuser one of his cards. He then gives a reason why he cannot be the Rat. One player may Defend another player by spending the chips and giving a reason why this person could not be the Rat. He may then look at one of the Accusee's hidden cards. A player with no chips may not Accuse or Defend another player, and can only defend themselves by showing a card.

Any time a player makes an Accusation, they may also draw their gun and point it at the Accusee. If the gun is already drawn, the Accuser has the option to move his gun to point at the new Accusee. The only other time a player may draw or move his gun is in response to someone else moving or drawing their gun. This must be done before anyone defends the Acusee. A player may holster their gun at any time.

A player may shoot at any time by yelling "Bang!" If someone fires their gun, everyone has the option to fire their own, but only at whomever their gun is already pointing at. In the game world, the shots happen simultaneously, so if two people are pointing their gun at each other, or multiple people are in a mutually destructive pattern, they all die. If you are shot, you die.

The game ends when:
1) Everyone is dead. No one wins.
2) Everyone but one person is dead. If this person is the Professional, they win, otherwise they lose.
3) Everyone alive agrees to Split. If the Rat is alive, the Rat wins. If the Rat is dead, everyone whose Friend is still alive wins (unless their friend was the Rat). If everyone but the Rat is alive, everyone but the Rat wins.
4) The timer runs out. The cops arrive and the Rat wins.

Heya,

There's a pool of cards in the middle, face up. This represents the facts that everyone can agree on.

Everyone has a small number of cards. This represents things they know about themselves.

Each player should have a toy gun (ideally) and a supply of poker chips.

When everyone is ready, start the hidden ten-minute timer.

What I was trying to do with the poker rules was create a situation similar enough to what is happening in the standoff that the player's goals would line up with their character's goals. I agree that it would probably be more interesting if the Rat knew he was the Rat, so he could play delay tactics, but as it is, all the player's goals are identical: to prove that they are not the Rat; to show that their hand is lower than someone elses.

I dislike the defined events cards; perhaps just a personal preference, but I'd rather make up my own events. It doesn't really matter what's true or false; you're just trying to convince people, backed up by your knowledge of your opponent's cards, and communicated by your betting of chips, that you are not the Rat. One weakness I see now is that there's no actual reason to roleplay my game - you may as well say "I accuse ____" and nothing else. Perhaps a mechanic for rewarding interesting arguments? Chip rewards would be nice, but also as simple as: if you can't come up with a defense fast enough, you lose extra chips. That might encourage players to be quick-witted and creative.

I also feel the timer is required for my design. It's essentially an argument game, and the time limit would add pressure.

I wish I had a game group around here so I could test this. Anyone who wants to give it a try is welcome.