Texas: Drama And Narrative Resolution

Texas: Main Page --> Texas: Drama And Narrative Resolution

A Film of Three Acts

Central to the concept of Texas is that it is the game Spaghetti Western movies. Because of this, the laws of reality are secondary to the laws of cinema.

Broadly any movie is divided into three acts: The Set-Up, The Meat and The Showdown.

The Set-Up

This is the opening act. The protagonists are introduced and the setting of the movie is established.

The GM should use this act to give players a feel for who their characters are, and to enmesh them in the plot.

The classic opening is to have the protagonists riding into town, but this needn't be the case for all characters. An opening scene for a saloon gal, for example, would likely have her already as a local resident, with her trade set up.

The Set-Up ends when all the protagonists have met each other, and the films agenda is laid out. The players now know what it is they're meant to be doing in this movie. Optionally the set-up might also include some run-ins with the movies' big bad guy.

During The Set-Up protagonists all have absolute plot immunity. Their characters will not die in this act, and are unlikely to be badly set-back in any way.

The Meat

The Meat is Act II - the main part of the film. During this section the protagonists act and interact, they make schemes and try them out, and work towards whatever objectives they might have. This is where the bulk of the game session takes place.

If you're playing in the Hero's Journey mode, one or more protagonists may still be reluctant to take up arms during this Act. It may or may not be a major part of this Act to have the other player characters trying to convince or recruit them.

During The Meat, protagonists have partial plot immunity. Bad things can (and should) happen to them, but they can't be taken out of the movie altogether. A gunslinger might get shot, but by the time the Act ends he'll be patched up and ready to fight again. A Hustler might get thrown in prison, but by the end of the Act he'll either have escaped, or be let out (perhaps in exchange for agreeing to the part he plays in the next Act).

Also during The Meat, protagonists will generally have the edge over their opponents. A gunslinger might fight against thugs who aren't as skilled as him. A Saloon Gal might have to deal with dribbling imbeciles who are weak against her charms.

The Showdown

This is the final part of the movie. When we hit this segment, everybody knows that its time to win or lose, and that there's no more time to prepare. Perhaps the Mexican Bandidos attack the town, or perhaps the showdown is less literal.

Bear in mind that every protagonist should have an equal part to play in The Showdown. The Hustler might have to play in the card game that means the difference between bankruptcy or riches.

Regardless, in the Showdown it is normal for protagonists to face challenges that they only have a 50-50 or worse chance of beating.

Finally, in the Showdown, all plot immunity is lost. If you're shot, you're killed outright. If you fail to make the big hustle, you get thrown in jail. The showdown is all about high stakes and last chances.

Conflicts

The core mechanic of the Texas game is the Conflict, which is resolved through rounds of Texas Hold'Em Poker.

Setting the Stakes

The first thing a GM needs to establish is what the stakes are. What will happen if the protagonist wins, and what will happen if he loses?

These events should be of equal magnitude.

Sometimes its pretty easy to work out. In the classic gunslinger scenario, for example, the stake is shoot the other guy, or be shot yourself.

Sometimes its more complex. For example, if a protagonist sets out to seduce the bandit chieftan's daughter, success would allow him her affections and also give him a useful insider on the bandit's camp. Failure, of course, should have penalties of equal magnitude to the rewards of success. Perhaps the girl will not only spurn the advances, but tell her father who will then hold an especial grudge against the protagonist and announce that he will give mucho dollars to the man who kills this fool who dares to slight his honour.

Poker: Determining the Conflict Result

This is covered in detail in the next chapter: Texas:_Playing_Poker

Conflicts with the Environment

Its not always possible to put a face to the opposition in a conflict. Sometimes a protagonist will have no enemy save for the challenge itself. For example, a sawbones may be struggling to save a man's life after they take a shot to the gut, or a cowboy may be trying to get his herd into the barn before the storm hits.

In these circumstances the GM should take the place of the opposition in the conflict. The size of the task determines his pool of chips, and the difficulty of the task will determine how many cards he draws.

Throwing out the Rulebook

The Texas game is pretty simple at its heart, and assumes that in any conflict both sides have a pretty good chance of winning. It doesn't really account for superior preparation, or for one sided situations.

In these circumstances the GM is encouraged to throw out the rulebook and to go with gritty cinematic pseudo-realism. For example:

- The gunslinger pulls his gun on the unarmed schoolmarm and plugs her in the gut. No conflict is needed, as the schoolmarm doesn't stand a chance. Bang! She's dead!

- The hustler is cornered in an alley by two dozen hicks with whips who want to beat him up a little. He has no chance to escape, or to fight back. Consider him whipped.

- The soldier has prepared an intricate ambush, and shoots the gunslinger through the head from a sniping position on the church roof. The gunslinger has no chance - he's shot dead.

White Hats, Black Hats and Asshats

The problem here, of course, is that if such outcomes have no random factor then players know they can get away with certain things. If they can shoot down every unarmed man in the street, then why shouldn't they?

To forestall this remind them of two things:

First of all, they're the white hats, and the antagonists are the black hats. Sure, they could overpower the schoolmarm and rape her on the spot, but they shouldn't because this movie has them as good guys. The GM in a game like this has every right to say that certain actions don't serve the vision of the movie he is directing, and demand that the player picks another action. This is not a sandbox game, or GTA Old West.

Second, every player has a responsibility to the story. They're not really there to have their characters "win" - in fact if their characters are empathetic and heroic, but they make it to the finale only to lose, then you've got a great tragedy right there and the player should feel like he has still won. Yes, the players can run riot with the movie and turn it into Massacre On Main Street, but No, they shouldn't. If players need it spelt out any more than that they're playing the wrong game.

Its also worth remembering that the GM has the same responsibilities too. If the players struggle through two badly directed acts only to have their characters gunned down with no recourse to the Conflict mechanics at the start of the third act, they have every right to slap their GM silly and ask him what the hell he thinks he is doing.