The game that grew out of the Roulette thread is now in its complete alpha stage, and has the working title of "Fastlane." It is very unpolished, as befits an alpha-stage product. You can download and peruse it by going to:

www.twistedconfessions.com

Direct links to files are unavailable on my site at this time for some reason (I've put out a message to my hosting provider, rpgshelf, but they haven't answered yet). The link on the front page should work - it's worked on every test I've subjected it to, which honestly isn't very much.

If that doesn't work, there's also a copy in the "Lxndr" folder in the the indie-netgaming files area, which you can get to here.

Right now, I'm looking for any comments people are willing to make. Is there anything that seems unclear, and could be explained better? Is there anything that doesn't make sense at all? Did I manage to contradict myself? Are there mechanics that you think will interfere with each other in play? Should there be more examples of play?

I haven't started writing them yet, but the final product is planned to include write-ups of several sample settings using the Fastlane rules. What I've posted is just naked rules, with a tiny "how to run the game" afterthought that I plan on expanding after the game's been playtested a few times and I'm no longer riding high on NyQuil.

Anyway, I've rambled enough. Any input that you can give, I'd appreciate at this point. If it is a comprehensible product, I plan on playtesting it on the indie-netgaming IRC channel soon.

The file has been updated slightly, mostly a new font, but also some minor rules clarifications that were pointed out to me. It's still technically the same version, I guess, it's just been patched.

Anyway, just a little update. Thanks again for everyone who's encouraged me in this.

Last night in the indie-netgaming room, I offered a brief playtest, definitely one of those "let's just play through a few scenes and try the game out" sort of thing. Two individuals actually took me up on it - Paganini and anonymouse. We briefly discussed a setting (in retrospect, not enough - the "real" playtest will have more) and they set about making characters.

We didn't wind up actually playing (mouse had a horrible internet connection problem, and wound up getting booted for two hours, after which point both Nate and I were ready for bed) but the character creation process and the questions that came up were helpful. Thank you, both Paganini and anonymouse.

I'm now adding clarifications to the playtest document. This includes an existing rule that I realized I neglected to include in the earlier version, and a new rule that was inspired by last night's conversations about favors and what they can do in the game. It'll be converted from Word to PDF when I go home for lunch.

Anyway, the two characters that were made were surprisingly different from one another. This seems, to me, to be a feature, not a bug, but it was still surprising. Very Tortoise vs. Hare. I'm recounting both characters from memory, so bear with me.

Mouse's character's highest facet was a 3, and he had several ones, but his bank held an astonishing 20 chips. In addition, he had three Lifes, one valued at two, one at one, and one at zero. Meanwhile, Pag created a character whose facets were high (the highest was an Assets value of eight, I believe), and with a bank of only 7. He chose only one Life, though it was at two.

Both characters didn't choose much in the way of favors, though as Pag said to me later, that was in part because he didn't have enough setting to grasp, which I sympathize with. When I finally run a "real playtest" campaign, I'll have at least a brief setting written up. Either way, I found this interesting, and thought this little lonely thread could use the freshening up.

My mind also rolled back to an old rule that I tossed out in previous incarnations, and that I'm still sort of torn on, so I'd like to ask a specific question about that. The rule in question would say:

"When burning, players may not burn the facet used in the contest - everything else is fair game."

I can see arguments both for and against adding a rule like this, and I'd be interested to know what any of you think (as well as anything else y'all might say about the playtest document).

I'll be posting again when the new copy is uploaded.

The new copy has been uploaded.

That is all.

For anyone interested, a new (new) copy is uploaded, AND Tuesday night I'll be running a brief one-shot on the indie-netgaming irc channel. Show up!

"When burning, players may not burn the facet used in the contest - everything else is fair game."

I can see arguments both for and against adding a rule like this, and I'd be interested to know what any of you think (as well as anything else y'all might say about the playtest document).

Yes, the "for" is that it's more tactically interesting (and encourages the use of different facets, I would hope). But the "against" is that, well, it doesn't make much sense, in-game or thematically.

For my playtest tomorrow, I'm going to run without it. If the game seems interesting enough (and I'd like to think it is) I'll just continue to allow people to burn everything.

Setting up stakes would, I think, overcomplicate the game. We'll see how complicated the game ALREADY is shortly.

BTW: Thank you, Mike, for finally adding a non-Lxndr post to this thread! :)

EDIT: Hit "Submit" instead of "Preview" and wanted to finish a thought.

I've already thought of an interesting use for this system. Well, two.

One would be as an alternate system for a Rhialto-level Dying Earth campaign, with modifications. Characters are arch-magicians near the end of history on a far, far future Earth. Earth has regressed to a decadent, neo-feudalistic system which the characters, being some of the most powerful sorcerers still on the planet, are largely exempt from. They are treated as royalty by the nobility, and with respect and fear by the populace at large, with the exception of the various religions, who see them as heretical. They don't care, playing cutthroat games of favor-trading and interpersonal politics with each other, as well as expanding their passions. (Overuse of magic, in this setting, is seen as dangerous, as well as vulgar and gauche. Peer pressure keep most mages in line.) Still, fate is cruel and capricious, and they are often involved in mad scenarios, either by unusual circumstances, or by their own impulses and stupidity.

Another use, similar to above, would be the same scenario, only modern day and with the power turned down. Characters are basically toxic wastrels with some knowledge of black arts, using them to ride high and have fun.

Magic would be based off the PANGS attributes, but declared magic use would allow the characters to color their actions with magical actions. Nerve would be healing and/or physical attribute amplification, People would be the wizard calling favors from outer forces, Guile would be mind manipulation, etc. This has the benefit of being able to create a John Constantine-type character, albeit one a touch more decadent. Just some stuff I thought I'd throw out.

My general idea for what magic would be like was similar. After all, magic is basically special effects, and not the focus of any Fastlane game. As such, I've theorized that, in a lot of games, magic would be a Life of sorts, if you did something with it at all.

In other words, you don't need to worry about spliting magic up like that. If magic is a part of your character, then whee, he gets to do magic for "free." He still has to win the narration, though, and doesn't get any benefit for it (unless it's a Life, as above).

I love your setting ideas, though. Both I've at least toyed with.

Hmmm. I now wonder - unusual circumstances and Favors. I imagine Fate itself collecting favors from people, and "calling them in". That's neat. I'm going to have to use that in an example in one of my sample settings.

Lxndr wrote: My general idea for what magic would be like was similar. After all, magic is basically special effects, and not the focus of any Fastlane game. As such, I've theorized that, in a lot of games, magic would be a Life of sorts, if you did something with it at all.

In other words, you don't need to worry about spliting magic up like that. If magic is a part of your character, then whee, he gets to do magic for "free." He still has to win the narration, though, and doesn't get any benefit for it (unless it's a Life, as above).

Lxndr wrote: I love your setting ideas, though. Both I've at least toyed with.

Hmmm. I now wonder - unusual circumstances and Favors. I imagine Fate itself collecting favors from people, and "calling them in". That's neat. I'm going to have to use that in an example in one of my sample settings.

Well, if it's a Life, then you find answers to those questions. Magic is important, because when they use it, they get to bet more (and if they fail, their Life goes down, which is BAD). When they want to increase their Life, they have to invest a LOT of themselves (reducing each facet by one) OR they have to find themselves in adversity when their Life is threatened.

And how is magic threatened? Well, that depends on the setting.

In general, I'd be tempted to require it to be a Life of the character, even if it's zero point to start with. Unless the setting is meant to be super-high-magick. Thus, magic is in some way important to the character (it's a Life!) It answers, at least mechanically, the questions being asked.

While I have only had time to give the current draft a quick read-through, what I have seen is fairly decent. The mechanics seem innovative, and I imagine someone out there has developed a roulette game for desktop or palmtop use. God/dess only knows there are dice utilities galore available... :)

The first playtest (which was going to be Tuesday but moved to tonight, Thursday night) is going to playtest my alternative-dice mechanic, since honestly it's easier to implement on IRC (and I'd like to take it for a spin, so to speak).

I've found it difficult, honestly, to find computer programs for roulette spinning that aren't connected to a casino agency of some sort or another. I'll hopefully have found one to offer for download on my site around the same time I start selling physical roulette wheels (which is part of my plan).

Anyway, I'll post here after the playtest with results.

Well, the first Fastlane playtest was last night on the indie-netgaming IRC channel. A relatively short game, only two hours and change, an hour and a half of it deciding setting, who the players were actually going to be, who the CHARACTERS were going to be, a discussion of the rules, et cetera. I don't think this was extensive enough, or play-related enough, to be put in Actual Play, so I'm going to add to this thread. The next step, a more thorough multi-session "campaign", will have its own thread.

The three people who ended up playing were Bob McNamee, Trevis Martin, and my girlfriend (who doesn't have an account on here). Anonymouse was supposed to play, but he wound up being put off by my excessive lack of setting prep. (I don't fault him for that, by the way. My gf was sick, Bob had had a bad day at work, I was kind of off-kilter all night, and Trevis had barely read the rules, so I'm happy we were able to do what we DID do.)

Anyway, the setting was eventually decided to be modern day Aspen, Colorado (I don't have to mention that it's a fictionalized, hollywood-ized version that has nothing to do with the real Aspen, right?). Our three characters were:

Darryl Striplin - A location scout for a movie, he's the 2nd unit director, and is scouting out Aspen for locations for filming. Bob played this guy, and I think he really took to the character creation system well. Darryl is a nervy, clear-headed sort of guy who's somewhat greasy. His Lifes were:

Movie Making! (1), Speed! (1), Great Stuntwork! (0) and Blackmail! (0)

It was also decided that Steven Segal owed him a favor, because Darryl managed to find him a stunt double at the last minute. Also, Ronnie Cash, the owner of "the Lodge" owed him for saying he'd use the lodge for location shots.

In return for these, Bob decided Darryl owed Cindy, a limo driver whose father got her the director's job in the first place, and Claude Rivera, a photographer who took revealing photographs of a local politician for him. My assumption is that this blackmail has been resolved, since the politician doesn't owe Darryl any favors.

Heather Fairlane was played by my girlfriend. A jewel thief, "she has, on occasion ripped off necklaces that people were wearing at the time. Although she mostly works with safes." Heather is nervy and sneaky, as befits a thief, and makes a pretty good living out of it. She's got a pretty clear head, and only average people skills.

She only had two Lifes: Obtaining Wealth! (1) and Flashy Cars! (1)

Favors for her were simpler. She owed her fence for some unspecified dealing, and the mayor owed her because she's keeping quiet about her catching him in a hot tub with some ski bunny while she was casing a joint. I later operated under the assumption that she has some sort of proof.

Luc turned out to be Heather's fence, which I thought was cool, but we didn't get to go into it much in actual play - his day job is a ski instructor. Through process of elimination, we can see he was played by Trevis. Luc's nervy, but he "tends to impetuousness, hot temper, and ridiculous stunts." Trevis reflected this by giving him a Sobriety of only one, which I thought was cool.

Luc's Lifes were:

Dangerous Women! (2) and Dangerous Stunts! (1)

He owed Ronnie Cash a lot for giving him the job when he had no prospects. This is a rather big debt (5 points) so I think as we reveal more of Luc's backstory we might see that he's a wanted man, or an illegal immigrant, or something. Anyway, the only favor someone owed him was Heather, because of the fence thing. Clearly, Luc's not a stranger to the criminal underworld.

So, that's the three characters.

It took me a bit to come up with a good opening. I'm normally better at thinking on my feet, but last night I was off-kilter, and nobody else seemed to have any scene ideas. Anyway, I finally started with Ronnie Cash calling in Luc and saying "you know, it's a good thing, me keeping you here, under cover... I think it's time you did something for me."

I decided that the mayor was Ronnie's brother in law, and that he'd asked Ronnie to do him a favor. The mayor, as we all know, is looking for the bitch who caught him with the snowbunny, and has asked Ronnie to look into it. Ronnie is, in turn, asking Luc to look into it for him, but all he knows is a name. As we the audience know, Luc is Heather's fence, so he knows where to go. Then we cut scene.

(A mechanical aside, Ronnie's only calling in 2 points of a 5 point favor, so Luc will still be beholden to him, somewhat, when this is over).


The next scene was, imho, a bit more inspired on my part. I was getting my GM legs by then. Darryl and Heather had run into each other on a twisty mountain road, and had decided to race. Heather loves cars (she's got a black Porsche 911, he's got a midnight blue 2003 jaguar) and Darryl loves speed, so it seemed quite the perfect match.

Too bad Bob had to go before we narrated how it turned out, but we managed to get the mechanical part done. Here's how it went:

In both cases, at least one Life of each character applied, but not more than one. Heather decided she was going to use Assets (relying on the superiority of her car) and Darryl decided he was going to use Nerve (basically relying on his hardheadedness). This turned out to give Darryl a cap of 7 chips, and Heather a cap of six chips. It was also decided that the curvy mountain road on which they were also deserved to be a participant.

As croupier, I revealed that the mountain road was worth 4 chips. This meant that, in addition to racing each other, each player had to allocate at least 4 chips from their winnings to avoid complications in the environment, or 5 to be completely safe.

Heather bid 1 on red, 1 on black, and 4 on the 2nd 12.
Darryl bid 1 on square-32, 2 on the 2nd 12, two on line-4, and two on line-10

I admit Darryl's bid somewhat surprised me, since he didn't have a single chip on any of the even money bets, to cover his back (which bit him in the ass when the roll happened). Heather's was also risky, perhaps riskier than I would have tried in the same situation, but it worked out for her in the end.

I was using the European Dice option, since it's easier than spinning an actual roulette wheel online. Heather was handicap 1, Darryl was handicap 2, but it didn't matter - I rolled a 1 and a 3, not doubles.

Darryl rolled 1d36, and got a 9. Heather rolled 1d36, and got a 21.

Darryl won nothing. The nine sits right between his line bet on 4(5,6) and his line bet on the 10(11,12). He'd have been better off doing a double line bet, which I liked to call a "sixianne" 'cause it sounds cooler. Anyway, the nine also didn't sit in the 2nd 12, or on the square-32(33,35,36). It also wasn't his lucky number.

Meanwhile, Heather did good. She didn't get her lucky number or her bid on red, but she got 2 (1*2) chips for her bid on black, and 12 (4*3) chips because 21 is in the 2nd 12, for a total of 14.

She spent 5 points on the road, leaving her with nine and a clear victory, and decided to spend another five points helping Darryl stay on the road, leaving her with 4. Spending more than five on either instance would have done her no extra good, so she spent the other 4 on the competition with Darryl.

The gap was too wide for Darryl to be able to cross it with burning. Zero chips is basically the "hi, I'm a doormat" result. Ouch. His bank went from ten to three.

Anyway, Heather could "humble" Darryl for up to nine points if she chose, four for the competition and five for the saving. She chose to take a 5 point favor from him for saving his life, but didn't decide anything for the other competition. Note that she could have spent those 5 points to help run him off the road, instead, and cause him "damage."

She also had full and complete rights to narrate anything she wanted within reason. But the players of both Heather and Darryl had to go right then, so that narration never happened. Still, I think we had a good tiny little playtest. Things I noticed about the rules and gameplay:

Good:
* Fastlane really works well at being fast-paced and lively, at least once you know the roulette rules. Luckily, you can bounce back from a few bad bets, and honestly the learning curve for roulette isn't very strong.

* Lifes and Favors both worked exactly as I hoped and expected them to work.

* The dice system seemed to work very, very well (though obviously in person you can't roll a 1d36, so I'm going to need to come up with a table).

Bad:
* More explanation of roulette bets and a discussion of strategy were needed. Heather was lucky with her bet, but at least had a minor fall-back with the red/black, and Darryl had no fallback position with his bets. Then again, I'm still not sure what the best betting strategies are in this game, but my gut says that at least some sort of fall-back position is good, if you can afford it (and both Heather and Bob could).

* I need to include some examples of actual character creation - people weren't sure what sort of banks to have, or what their facets should be. Granted, play was supposed to help determine those values, so it's probably premature to put in my instinctual biases.

Miscellany:

* It occurred to me as I was setting up the Luc story that I still haven't come up with a good way to handle "favor chains" as I'm thinking of them. In other words, I need rules so that Luc could, for instance, use the five-point favor Heather owed him to get her to forgive the five-point favor the mayor owed her.

* The croupier has too many chips, and too few things to do with them. There are two solutions I can think of to this. The one I'm favoring right now is: the croupier buys appraisal values for supporting characters (instead of just declaring them, as he does now). The other solution is just to reduce the number of chips he gets, and allow him to declare appraisal values as the rules currently allow.

Thoughts?

Lxndr wrote:

snip

As croupier, I revealed that the mountain road was worth 4 chips. This meant that, in addition to racing each other, each player had to allocate at least 4 chips from their winnings to avoid complications in the environment, or 5 to be completely safe.

Heather bid 1 on red, 1 on black, and 4 on the 2nd 12.
Darryl bid 1 on square-32, 2 on the 2nd 12, two on line-4, and two on line-10

I admit Darryl's bid somewhat surprised me, since he didn't have a single chip on any of the even money bets, to cover his back (which bit him in the ass when the roll happened). Heather's was also risky, perhaps riskier than I would have tried in the same situation, but it worked out for her in the end.

I was using the European Dice option, since it's easier than spinning an actual roulette wheel online. Heather was handicap 1, Darryl was handicap 2, but it didn't matter - I rolled a 1 and a 3, not doubles.

Darryl rolled 1d36, and got a 9. Heather rolled 1d36, and got a 21.

Darryl won nothing. The nine sits right between his line bet on 4(5,6) and his line bet on the 10(11,12). He'd have been better off doing a double line bet, which I liked to call a "sixianne" 'cause it sounds cooler. Anyway, the nine also didn't sit in the 2nd 12, or on the square-32(33,35,36). It also wasn't his lucky number.

Lxndr wrote:

Meanwhile, Heather did good. She didn't get her lucky number or her bid on red, but she got 2 (1*2) chips for her bid on black, and 12 (4*3) chips because 21 is in the 2nd 12, for a total of 14.

She spent 5 points on the road, leaving her with nine and a clear victory, and decided to spend another five points helping Darryl stay on the road, leaving her with 4. Spending more than five on either instance would have done her no extra good, so she spent the other 4 on the competition with Darryl.

The gap was too wide for Darryl to be able to cross it with burning. Zero chips is basically the "hi, I'm a doormat" result. Ouch. His bank went from ten to three.

Anyway, Heather could "humble" Darryl for up to nine points if she chose, four for the competition and five for the saving. She chose to take a 5 point favor from him for saving his life, but didn't decide anything for the other competition. Note that she could have spent those 5 points to help run him off the road, instead, and cause him "damage."

She also had full and complete rights to narrate anything she wanted within reason. But the players of both Heather and Darryl had to go right then, so that narration never happened. Still, I think we had a good tiny little playtest. Things I noticed about the rules and gameplay:

Lxndr wrote:

Good:
* Fastlane really works well at being fast-paced and lively, at least once you know the roulette rules. Luckily, you can bounce back from a few bad bets, and honestly the learning curve for roulette isn't very strong.

* Lifes and Favors both worked exactly as I hoped and expected them to work.

* The dice system seemed to work very, very well (though obviously in person you can't roll a 1d36, so I'm going to need to come up with a table).

Lxndr wrote:

Bad:
* More explanation of roulette bets and a discussion of strategy were needed. Heather was lucky with her bet, but at least had a minor fall-back with the red/black, and Darryl had no fallback position with his bets. Then again, I'm still not sure what the best betting strategies are in this game, but my gut says that at least some sort of fall-back position is good, if you can afford it (and both Heather and Bob could).

* I need to include some examples of actual character creation - people weren't sure what sort of banks to have, or what their facets should be. Granted, play was supposed to help determine those values, so it's probably premature to put in my instinctual biases.

Lxndr wrote:

Miscellany:

* It occurred to me as I was setting up the Luc story that I still haven't come up with a good way to handle "favor chains" as I'm thinking of them. In other words, I need rules so that Luc could, for instance, use the five-point favor Heather owed him to get her to forgive the five-point favor the mayor owed her.

* The croupier has too many chips, and too few things to do with them. There are two solutions I can think of to this. The one I'm favoring right now is: the croupier buys appraisal values for supporting characters (instead of just declaring them, as he does now). The other solution is just to reduce the number of chips he gets, and allow him to declare appraisal values as the rules currently allow.

Thoughts?

Bob McNamee wrote: Heh, :>, well I have to admit I really didn't do much thinking about the actual roulette odds when I placed my bets, nor what that would do to my chance of getting enough chips for victory. Just hoping to get lucky really... probably should have put about half my bets in really safe areas, then went risky with the other half.

Bob McNamee wrote: As I bet it... Darryl was betting on a winner take all, high risk, blow her doors off racing style... and failed... "Hello Dead Man's Curve"... which wasn't actually how I would have had him do this, at least at the start of the contest.

Bob McNamee wrote: Even if I had, the need to gain chips against the road should have been my priority. Trying to ensure a minimum at least...then using the excess to race Heather.

Thats a high recommedation for a good base of high probability stuff like Red and Black or whatever...you need some source of base to work from..

Bob McNamee wrote: I was afraid that the whole bidding, placing bets, and rolling would be time consuming, but it really didn't take long, especially considering it was the first use for most of us.

Using real chips on a real roullette betting table would be so cool...and even faster to play... :>

Bob McNamee wrote: Character creation I thought went very well.
As in most games it really helps that the character were created at the same time as a group, with the opportunity to interlink Favors and even Lifes.

I would stress that in the game.

It would seem very hard to run the game if all the character's were created in isolation and dropped in the GM's lap.

Bob McNamee wrote: I don't really see the need for the Handicap roll...since both players are rolling their own wheel who really cares if they both bet the same or get the same number? Maybe I missed something?

Bob McNamee wrote: I had fun, even though I was really tired...

I really like the Lifes and Favors for impacting the setting and tone by "who I am"

I look forward to doing some more testing!

Fastlane version 0.3 alpha has been uploaded at my website, including a number of changes based on this playtest. Any input is much welcomed, and I'd like to thank those who have posted already. :)

My next step is, hopefully, a multisession playtest on IRC, and if possible maybe I can rope some gamers into doing something locally in person, too, so I can actually try out the feel of the WHEEL.