The Showdown

[Michael Pfaff]

I kind of like that idea of making quick a little broader and also giving gunfighting it's own move to emphasize it. If you do draw in some of the "weird" flavor that the alive meaning of quick, I'd like the bleed over of making gunfighting based on your vitality and such like.

Yeah. One of the things I'm trying to nail down before finalizing stats and basic moves is how to handle the classic showdown.

Especially with two PCs vs. each other, it seems like it'd be an opposed roll. How to handle this? There's no opposed rolls, and generally they are acting at the same time, albeit with one acting "quicker".

Hmmmm... So, is the showdown acting under fire? Waiting for your enemy to make a move? Or, is it seizing by force? Making sure your opponent can't make a move? It's a toughy.

[Jeff Russell]

Ohhh, good point. I sometimes forget that opposed rolls just don't happen in AW. Against an NPC, no problem, 10+ is drawing faster and shooting the guy, 7-9 probably makes you make some tough choices about speed/accuracy/taking harm, and a miss is whatever bad news the MC (Marshall?) feels like.

Now, between PCs, I can see a couple of options:

1) Have each player make a +quick roll, and possibly allow interfering with each other. This seems clunky
2) Come up with a brand spanking new subsystem for duels. This might get too far away from the 'core' rules, but I'm envisioning something where players make some choices about their approach, which are revealed simultaneously and have differing interactions. I dunno, something like "try to draw first and accept the potential legal consequences" vs "wait until I know it's legally self-defense" for the classic stare-down type duel rather than the "clock strikes whatever" or other signal duel.
This would be distinctive, but possibly too much a different game
3) Perhaps a compromise, where the +quick roll determines how many distinct choices about the duel you can make, and those are then compared somehow. Real specific ideas here, no?

[Michael Pfaff]

Yeah. I mean, I've even thought about just saying "if two PCs face off, the character with the highest Quick gets to make a move first..." But, then it's still problematic because what happens when there is a tie? Eh.

I'd like something not convoluted, but also represent the fiction as well.

I'd like to be able to play out that scene in Deadwood where Seth Bullock and Wild Bill Hickok are facing down the bushwhacker in the streets. They both wait for him to pull his gun (that whole self-defense thing you were talking about) and then immediately they both draw down on him. Which one got him? Don't know. Bullock gives it to Hickok. Now, if we apply mechanics to it, how does that work?

But, that intensity about waiting for your opponent to draw... You can't draw too soon, you can't draw too late...

That's what I need to capture.

[Jeff Russell]

I dunno, maybe you can make a +quick roll to generate hold, and then you bid it or something? Like, whoever 'spends' more hold shoots first, but the amount you hold onto is added to your harm? That still doesn't have the "building tension" thing of cutting the camera from one steely eyed gaze to the other, then down to twitching fingers and out to a wide shot where one guy goes down, so I dunno.

[Michael Pfaff]

I dunno, maybe you can make a +quick roll to generate hold, and then you bid it or something? Like, whoever 'spends' more hold shoots first, but the amount you hold onto is added to your harm? That still doesn't have the "building tension" thing of cutting the camera from one steely eyed gaze to the other, then down to twitching fingers and out to a wide shot where one guy goes down, so I dunno.

The "hold" mechanic is an interesting option though. I like it.

I'm thinking, there might be some options as far as "Sizing Someone Up" (basically, reading a person) that give additional advantages (maybe even taking +1 or something like reading a situation, but specifically against your enemy in a showdown) and that could mimic the staredown before they draw. Twitching fingers. Good. Need something.

[Jeff Russell]

Good call on the read a person moves.

Hey, an idea! It seems to me that staring at someone meaning to murder you instead of trying to murder him first is something of an "untenable position". Could that move have some pointers on what to do? Maybe a special 'showdown' countdown clock kind of like the battle clock (hell, maybe a lot like the battle clock, but with staring and finger waggling instead of incidental fire).

[Michael Pfaff]

Good call on the read a person moves.

Hey, an idea! It seems to me that staring at someone meaning to murder you instead of trying to murder him first is something of an "untenable position". Could that move have some pointers on what to do? Maybe a special 'showdown' countdown clock kind of like the battle clock (hell, maybe a lot like the battle clock, but with staring and finger waggling instead of incidental fire).

Ah!

You just stunned me with that brilliance. Countdown clocks are a perfect fit and even fits fictionally for those "showdown at high noon" moments...

Oh man. Good call. Lemme go read that section a couple times over.

Edit: Yeah, even on first glance it seems to fit the bill. I'm going to write something up for this.

[Jeff Russell]

Hah, thanks. Yeah, I haven't played with those rules yet, so I kind of forgot about them without the book/pdf open in front of me, but the more I thought about them, the more I was like "this could work". I think the trick would be coming up with what moves fit into the clock that can affect it descriptively.

[Michael Pfaff]

Hah, thanks. Yeah, I haven't played with those rules yet, so I kind of forgot about them without the book/pdf open in front of me, but the more I thought about them, the more I was like "this could work". I think the trick would be coming up with what moves fit into the clock that can affect it descriptively.

Exactly. And, which moves you can do when.

[deleted213516]

During "incidental fire" you could read a person to see what his body language is saying, act under fire to keep your cool (digging in to endure fire), you could read the situation to gain advantages (position of the sun, dust, enemy's location, etc), and all of these could grant or remove bonuses to you or you opponent.

Then when it comes time to shoot, if it's PC v. PC, couldn't you have them both roll +quick and whoever rolls the highest makes his shot? On a tie, you both get shot.

If it's a simple duel to first blood, you're done. If not, you keep fighting using the normal rules.

Also, Vx suggests that PCs be allowed to make independent, say, Seize by Force rolls, and then both roll+Hx to interfere with each other. So the 'clunky' route seems to be the 'official' way to go, if you're interested in that.

Hopefully you get something useful from all this text!

[dmgallo]

I really like this.

Read a Sitch/Person can only be used once unless the situation changes. I could see reading the situation before instigating the showdown (is that a Go Aggro or are you thinking make a custom move for Showdown?) and then maybe you read it again (under fire, of course) to help you tactically?

I think whether you get to acting under fire might be impacted on the showdown rolls - if you do 1 harm to the NPC, odds are showdown is over.

[Per Fischer]

I like it a lot as well - and really want to play this!

Per

[Michael Pfaff]

I'm hoping to have a playable playtest in the next couple weeks. Thanks for the feedback!

[Per Fischer]

And after watching Coen's True Grit this afternoon, I want to play it even more.

[Chris]

Which one got him? Don't know.

Oh I'm geeky enough to frame by frame it and Hickok beat Bullock on the draw by a mile, but still, you don't know who hit.