First post here, introducing a game concept I've been toying around with based on any number of cliched confrontation scenes in movies and literature.  It was originally conceived as an offbeat mechanic / structure for a possible d20 module (heh), but I soon abandoned that and decided it needed independant development.  Since I'm just introducing the game and concept here, I'll try to be succinct.

In a nutshell:  Various characters are confronting a dangerous Maniac in a climactic showdown.  Through flashbacks, it is determined why the characters are there, and how they intend to put an end to the Maniac's reign of madness.  It is intended to be a fairly short, finite game, probably one or two sessions long.

A game begins with the players all colloborating on the basic premise of who the "Maniac" is and when/where the game takes place.  It could be a serial killer in Victorian London, a vampire in Ye Olde Transylvania, or a raving killer at a 1980s summer camp.  Or, y'know, something original.  The main factors: the "maniac" must be dangerous in some way and able to make decisions, and the setting should be at least somewhat familiar to all players.  One player takes the role of the Maniac (not exactly a GM, but it's a step in that direction -- most often, I envision the Maniac being played by the player introducing the game to the group).  This player should come up with a Goal ("I want to kill all the campers," "I want to create an army of undead," "I want to summon a demon to help conquer the world," etc.) for the Maniac, and let the other players know it.

The other players then each create Heroes.  They should state out loud, before anything's committed to paper, the basic premise of the character, and the Reason they see themselves involved with the Maniac.  Character creation involves a name, a few basic stats, a few freeform "characteristics," a "motivation" (reason they're pursuing the Maniac) and a "goal" (what they hope to accomplish) for the character.  For instance, a Hero could be a cop whose motivation is "It's my job," and whose goal is "To see the Maniac in jail."  Another could be a vigilante whose motivation is "The Maniac killed my sister," and whose goal is "To see the Maniac dead."  Yet another could be, say, a PI whose motivation is "I'm getting a bundle of money to track this Maniac down," and whose goal is "To become the best-known PI in the city."

The final, and most important element of character creation, is that each player writes down four factors that they WANT to use to bring the Maniac down in the end.  Factors could be items, knowledge, special talents, personality traits or anything else the player can think of (and justify).  "I know the Maniac's secret lair," "I have the knife used to kill my sister," "I'm a better shot than the Maniac," "I won't back down," and "I've seen this sorta thing before," could all work.  The players then give their lists of desired factors to the Maniac, and the Maniac secretly ranks each player's items in terms of how relevant he feels they should be to foiling the Maniac.  The Maniac should also note which players have redundant factors, and make a note of that.  The Maniac also chooses one or two factors (based on group size) and flags them as "crucial factors" (the ones MOST valuable to stopping his goal).  The characters DO NOT automatically have these factors at the beginning of the game -- they must be brought into play during flashback scenes.

The game begins with a confrontation scene between the Heroes and the Maniac.  The Maniac sets the scene, and narrates a bit of an opening to the game.  Each Hero then gets a chance to get some dialogue and actions in, but they cannot actually thwart the Maniac yet.  The Maniac then chooses one of the characters to flash back, and states how that character first enters the story (the order should be logical -- the flashbacks should be roughly chronological, so if one character's Reason should make them the last to get involved, they should probably be the last to intially flashback).

The flashback opens with the Hero first getting introduced and having their "reason" brought into play.  They should then state which "factor" they want to try to bring into play first.  If the object is an item, they should explain how they want to get it.  If it's knowledge, they should say how they want to acquire it.  If it's a talent, they need to set a scene to demonstrate it.  The Maniac should have some way to oppose these attempts, and the inactive Heroes essentially GM a competition for each of the factors.  The Hero gets a chance to acquire all four factors before the Maniac can shift the game back to the present, but the Hero can do so at any time (presumably there's some risk to staying in the flashback -- I haven't really decided that one).

Another "present tense" sequence happens, but this time the Hero who has flashed back can now use his factors to "thwart" attempts by the Maniac to achieve his evil goal.  This can be done by "using" the factor to define setting elements, give the Maniac actions, or simply to try and kill off the Maniac.  I'll gloss over the mechanics here, but ranking of the factor is revealed by the Maniac only once the Hero tries to use it.  The Maniac can then counter by spending limited "Madness" points.  Each factor can only be used ONCE per game -- by ANY character (here's where that list of redundant factors comes in.  After an attempt is made, the Maniac can then shift to another flashback for another character.

The game continues in this fashion, except that now flashbacks may include multiple Heroes.  Only the "active" one may declare the factor they are pursuing, but now other Heros can use their factors to assist the completion (this is particularly useful when there's an obvious "Crucial" factor at stake).

After all characters have had a flashback, the game may remain in the present tense.  Alternately, characters who didn't contest a factor in their flashback may introduce another flashback in which to acquire it.  These secondary flashbacks are limited to a SINGLE factor contest (although a character MAY have more than one).  The game ends either when the Maniac has lost all his Madness points, or when the Heros have expended all their factors.    At that point, a roll of some sort is made to determine the ultimate outcome -- whether the Maniac achieves his goal, and which characters achieve theirs.

My own observations, reading this:
I realize all the resolution mechanics are very hazy.  They're actually somewhat fleshed out in my notebook, so I'll try to post the gist of where I'm going with 'em soon.
I realize the endgame seems a little weak.  I'm intending to work out something a little more dynamic.

Questions to you:
Is there anything overly "done before" about this?  There's plenty of games here that I know nothing about, so I don't want to be simply rehashing something, either thematically or mechanically.
The game is clearly meant to play off mystery and horror cliches -- is it TOO cliched?  Do you think the potential variation in the gameplay is too limited?
Would the game work better if the Minion was truly mechanically adversarial to the Heroes, or more like a GM in a traditional RPG (cooperative-yet-controlling-the-bad-guys)?  Any suggestions on accomplishing this?
Any ideas to keep the other Hero-players involved in the early flashbacks?  I've thought of giving them some sort of "points" to spend to get narration / GM privs, but it feels a bit too arbitrary.

Hey, Typo!
Welcome to The Forge. Do you have a real name we can call you by?

In a nutshell:  Various characters are confronting a dangerous Maniac in a climactic showdown.  Through flashbacks, it is determined why the characters are there, and how they intend to put an end to the Maniac's reign of madness.  It is intended to be a fairly short, finite game, probably one or two sessions long.

A game begins with the players all colloborating on the basic premise of who the "Maniac" is and when/where the game takes place.  It could be a serial killer in Victorian London, a vampire in Ye Olde Transylvania, or a raving killer at a 1980s summer camp.  Or, y'know, something original.  The main factors: the "maniac" must be dangerous in some way and able to make decisions, and the setting should be at least somewhat familiar to all players.  One player takes the role of the Maniac (not exactly a GM, but it's a step in that direction -- most often, I envision the Maniac being played by the player introducing the game to the group).  This player should come up with a Goal ("I want to kill all the campers," "I want to create an army of undead," "I want to summon a demon to help conquer the world," etc.) for the Maniac, and let the other players know it.

The Maniac also chooses one or two factors (based on group size) and flags them as "crucial factors" (the ones MOST valuable to stopping his goal).  The characters DO NOT automatically have these factors at the beginning of the game -- they must be brought into play during flashback scenes.

Another "present tense" sequence happens, but this time the Hero who has flashed back can now use his factors to "thwart" attempts by the Maniac to achieve his evil goal.  This can be done by "using" the factor to define setting elements, give the Maniac actions, or simply to try and kill off the Maniac.  I'll gloss over the mechanics here, but ranking of the factor is revealed by the Maniac only once the Hero tries to use it.  The Maniac can then counter by spending limited "Madness" points.  Each factor can only be used ONCE per game -- by ANY character (here's where that list of redundant factors comes in.  After an attempt is made, the Maniac can then shift to another flashback for another character.

I realize the endgame seems a little weak.  I'm intending to work out something a little more dynamic.

Is there anything overly "done before" about this?  There's plenty of games here that I know nothing about, so I don't want to be simply rehashing something, either thematically or mechanically.
The game is clearly meant to play off mystery and horror cliches -- is it TOO cliched?  Do you think the potential variation in the gameplay is too limited?

Would the game work better if the Minion was truly mechanically adversarial to the Heroes, or more like a GM in a traditional RPG (cooperative-yet-controlling-the-bad-guys)?

joepub wrote:
Hey, Typo!
Welcome to The Forge. Do you have a real name we can call you by?

Have you read My Life with Master?

The only thing is - why aren't the players able to have input in making up the goal?
I'm not saying they SHOULDN'T, I'm asking why they DON'T.

But... do you mean that there are one or two factors per character, or per party?
If I have a party of 3, does each one have one crucial factor hidden away?

Aha! "ranking of the factor is revealed by the Maniac". I don't like the idea that the GM tells you how much your factor is good for.
It's too arbitrary. It's out of the player's hands, but I as a player would WANT to be able to say "this is worth X".

Or... both! Each factor is established by players spending X, and countered by Maniac spending Y. (Y can be less than X, in which case it just reduces the amount.)

This is a great start.

It's Scott, but I actually prefer typo when I'm online -- I've been using it as a handle for, like, a decade now, so I'm used to it. :)

I bought a copy recently, though I haven't read it yet.  I can see some similarities in premise, but I definitely feel the differences (especially in format) are enough to keep going with this game.  And where MLWM seems to emphasize love and betrayal, TMEH! is more about anger and retribution.

The Maniac isn't really the GM -- they're playing the character first and foremost.  I want them to pick their own goal in order for them to really feel like it's THEIR character, and it also gives them a chance to define some of the directions the game can go.

Yeah, this is the hard selling point.  But it's also the mechanic I feel is really central, so I'll try and sell it. :)  The idea is that it SHOULDN'T be arbitrary -- the Maniac should genuinely rank the factors based on how he feels they will ACTUALLY thwart his plans.  A big part of the gameplay is that the players should be trying to deduce these rankings.  When other players USE their factors, they can see how the Maniac is thinking, and see what kinds of factors THEY should pursue.

...This is just made up off the top of my head, not knowing your mechanics... But suggests a way that you could ENCODE the rating, and how The Maniac isn't just arbitrarily creating rankings.
Because creating rankings that will hurt your character... seems biased. The Maniac's player is probably thinking, "Hm... I should make this a low rating to prolong the game."

This sounds like it has a lot of potential.

The one thing I found jarring was the juxtaposition of "Maniac" and "set goal and objectives".

Maniac to me says "raving" or "irrational", which does not then lead me to start thinking in terms of "goals and objectives".

Talk about "Cravings" or "Hungers" and I make the connection easier.

Valamir wrote:
This sounds like it has a lot of potential.

The one thing I found jarring was the juxtaposition of "Maniac" and "set goal and objectives".

Maniac to me says "raving" or "irrational", which does not then lead me to start thinking in terms of "goals and objectives".

Talk about "Cravings" or "Hungers" and I make the connection easier.

You totally have to read MlwM.
Note the Needs and Wants.

Talk about "Cravings" or "Hungers" and I make the connection easier.

I will say, though, that the "Maniac" doesn't need to be straight-up bonkers -- Hannibal Lecter would be a great calm, sedate, thoughtful Maniac, so I don't want to force players towards raging, primal, animalistic Maniacs.

The encoding concept is interesting, and I'll give it some thought, but I'm not sure it's neccessary.  I think it would be simple enough to simply declare that the Maniac has to assign specific rankings to each player (for example, one 1-point Factor, two 2-point Factors, and one 3-point Factor), without putting a layer of mechanical terminology in there.  Since it's meant to be a short, pick-up-and-play game, I'm partial to relying on natural language when possible.  But I'll definitely give it some thought -- the Factors are definitely the least fleshed-out area of the mechanics, so.