Stand Off! by Troy Costisick gets rated in the "Great non-RPG" category. Feedback time!

But first, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the supreme Ronnies champion of 2005, Troy Costisick. This man's publishing history prior to encountering the Forge needs to be described in Publishing, and his participation at the site, via the Ronnies and otherwise, is stellar. Newcomers! You want to learn what the Forge is all about? Click on Troy's profile and review his posting history here. You'll see.

All right onto the game. Basically, it's Reservoir Dogs with Soviet black-ops agents (or to use the KGB term, "active measures"). It starts with all the characters pointing guns at one another after a failed op; talk about not fucking around. Basically, this is a Token-based game to establish the back-story of what-went-wrong and who's-at-fault. It is not so much about what the characters do now, which is more-or-less an Endgame although it is dramatic (who gets shot) and there might be more than one.

I think it would be best suited to a non-role-playing context: a more nuanced, not-the-same-each-time version of Werewolf and its derivatives. In fact, I think it ought to be wholly a card game, including the characters (i.e. no options in making them up, you just get them).

In keeping with that point, all the "immersion text" in the current draft (appears three times) is total bullshit. This is just designer fear trying to force "It's an RPG" into what is patently not, and also the poisonous notion that "gee maybe people won't like it, so to make sure they do, I'll say they have to be it." Only a damaged gamer thinks you need to inject tension into a valid & fun competitive situation via "being there, feeling it." That's like looking at poker, and "fixing" it by saying the dealer should enforce "feeling like a cowboy" while playing.

Here are some of the more detailed comments from my notes, most of which are merely playtest & fix points.

1. I'm not at all sure the fact/lies distinction works. I recommend that all initial input is a lie, or perceived as such, and then has to be spent up (by anyone) to make it a fact, or to refute it. 

2. The Moderator role is totally unnecessary. Have a Complications deck, period, and give it tons & tons more cards.

3. Endgame seems remote - why not, upon hitting 0 or getting very close, switch the gun's target and buy more? Because you think you're right? OK, maybe. This works especially well (or I think it will) because maybe no one was at fault.

4. Consistent with the importance of that very issue, that maybe no one was at fault, I think that the At Fault card should be even rarer in fault-deal. As it stands, if you have five players, you deal five out from six cards (five no-faults, one at-fault). I suggest a few more no-faults, so it really is a toss-up whether the thing is even in there.

5. I don't like the Bleeder or the Adrenaline Addict cards; respectively, they reduce effectiveness too much and reduce crucial choices too much.

6. Most importantly for my own desire to playtest, I'm not at all sure I understand how Spy Cards are covered/revealed during play. Help!

Again, Troy, take a bow.

Best,
Ron

My main worry about this one was that there didn't seem to be much connection between what happened during play and whether or not you were actually guilty of anything. You could just never look at your fault card and generally speaking it wouldn't make any difference. As a game, that kind of put me off trying it out. In Werewolf, you can catch the guy moving, but here there's no actual movement to catch.

There needs to be some sort of mechanism where the secrets of other players can be revealed, maybe by gambling tokens that a certain player is/is not some sort of spy? I can't quite figure out how that would work with the fault cards though. There has to some sort of hidden sign that the guy you're going to shoot is in fact actually guilty - otherwise what's the point of the cards?

Hi Tony,

My understanding is that it comes down to the decisions at the end, when guns have been fired and fault is revealed. If you shoot an innocent person, you get denounced ("lose"). And it is at least possible that everyone is innocent.

What I think you're objecting to is that you don't see the point of shooting anyone unless you're sure. ... Well, maybe that tells us that we need clearer Win conditions.

OK, here's are the tree basic Win conditions as it seems to me.

1. If you're not at fault, and somebody is, then the way to win is for anyone (possibly everyone) who's not at fault to shoot the at-fault guy. Whoever shot him all win, he loses. [Most extreme version is all the innocent ones shooting the guilty one all at once]

2. If you're at fault, then the way to win is for you to provoke everyone else except one to shoot the same innocent guy(s) ... he or they are dead, but not a hero; the shooters are all branded traitors; and you are the sole survivor - You win.

3. If no one's at fault, then the game ends when everyone agrees as much and "puts up the gun."

Can all these be reached equally effectively, with maximum fun? That's the next question.

Best,
Ron

It's not that I want or need to be sure - but there needs to be some sort of information hinting at the others' fault or lack of it. Otherwise it's the purest of no information gambles, the equivalent of betting on roulette. The process of the game has no impact on victory. The only meaningful goal as I see it is the second one you outline - but even there it's washed out by the lack of any pressure on your story from outside events.

I think something more like poker is appropriate, where there is a variety of information about the hands of the other players available, and some mechanism that can be used either to improve your position or send false signals to the other players.

One way around this would be to put certain types of vague instructions on the Fault and No Fault cards. They would take the form of a few Lies you are instructed to put into play. They should be made so that a given lie might fall into several categories, both at fault ones and no fault. Lies that successfully became facts would add perhaps three points, unchallenged lies would add one. Shooting a guilty party would net a lot of points, as would being shot when you were innocent.

That would add a fourth victory path - the goat, the person who was shot when they were not at fault. If he put enough of his lies on the table before going down, he could beat out the guilty party who just tried to go under the radar without ever sticking his neck out.

Finally, perhaps some of the Complications could refute certain types of lies that at fault players were instructed to put into play, or even reveal some of the unused Fault cards so that the players could try to figure out what the pattern of lies hinted at.

Heya,

Ron Wrote:

But first, ladies and gentlemen, I give you the supreme Ronnies champion of 2005, Troy Costisick. This man's publishing history prior to encountering the Forge needs to be described in Publishing, and his participation at the site, via the Ronnies and otherwise, is stellar. Newcomers! You want to learn what the Forge is all about? Click on Troy's profile and review his posting history here. You'll see.

Again, Troy, take a bow.

In fact, I think it ought to be wholly a card game, including the characters (i.e. no options in making them up, you just get them).

In keeping with that point, all the "immersion text" in the current draft (appears three times) is total bullshit. This is just designer fear trying to force "It's an RPG" into what is patently not, and also the poisonous notion that "gee maybe people won't like it, so to make sure they do, I'll say they have to be it." Only a damaged gamer thinks you need to inject tension into a valid & fun competitive situation via "being there, feeling it." That's like looking at poker, and "fixing" it by saying the dealer should enforce "feeling like a cowboy" while playing.

1. I'm not at all sure the fact/lies distinction works. I recommend that all initial input is a lie, or perceived as such, and then has to be spent up (by anyone) to make it a fact, or to refute it.

2. The Moderator role is totally unnecessary. Have a Complications deck, period, and give it tons & tons more cards.

3. Endgame seems remote - why not, upon hitting 0 or getting very close, switch the gun's target and buy more? Because you think you're right? OK, maybe. This works especially well (or I think it will) because maybe no one was at fault.

6. Most importantly for my own desire to playtest, I'm not at all sure I understand how Spy Cards are covered/revealed during play. Help!

1. If you're not at fault, and somebody is, then the way to win is for anyone (possibly everyone) who's not at fault to shoot the at-fault guy. Whoever shot him all win, he loses. [Most extreme version is all the innocent ones shooting the guilty one all at once]

2. If you're at fault, then the way to win is for you to provoke everyone else except one to shoot the same innocent guy(s) ... he or they are dead, but not a hero; the shooters are all branded traitors; and you are the sole survivor - You win.

3. If no one's at fault, then the game ends when everyone agrees as much and "puts up the gun."

It's not that I want or need to be sure - but there needs to be some sort of information hinting at the others' fault or lack of it. Otherwise it's the purest of no information gambles, the equivalent of betting on roulette. The process of the game has no impact on victory.

That would add a fourth victory path - the goat, the person who was shot when they were not at fault. If he put enough of his lies on the table before going down, he could beat out the guilty party who just tried to go under the radar without ever sticking his neck out.

Finally, perhaps some of the Complications could refute certain types of lies that at fault players were instructed to put into play, or even reveal some of the unused Fault cards so that the players could try to figure out what the pattern of lies hinted at.

Hiya,

Looks like it's coming along well!

You asked,

does that mean the person who initially submitted the Lie may also buy it up to be a Truth?

Heya,

I gotchya, Ron.  Thanks.  I think this game is going to end up really rocking.

Peace,

-Troy