Bitch (verb) is a very short (rules on one sheet of paper) pick-up-and-play RPG for up to eight players. In this, it is quite original: an interesting roleplaying set-up, intended for a single, quick session of play, with minimal rules. It comes out of the indie RPG scene, but reminds me strongly of "acting games," the improv scenarios used by actors to hone their skills.
Released at a convention by Danielle Lewon, it sold out its thirty copy print run, but Lewon seems willing to produce more on request. In addition to the rules themselves, it comes with a button -- mine says "Damn What a Bitch" -- which goes to the game's "winner." The price is a buck, and given the shortness of the rules, you're paying for the button, really.
It is, in essence, a game of competitive complaining. One player is selected as the initial "center of attention," while others draw cards to determine what sort of bitch they are (e.g., whiny bitch, slutty bitch, etc.). The Center of Attention makes a statement of some kind (e.g., "They totally messed up my order at Starbucks this morning") to which the others respond, in character. After a few back-and-forths, another player becomes the Center of Attention, until all have had an opportunity to be such. At game end, the players agree on which was the "best bitch;" she gets the button.
Needless to say, the implication is that all characters are women, or perhaps gay men, which is in itself also a fairly original idea for an RPG.
My one design concern is the win condition; the players are evidently expected to come to some kind of consensus as to who is the "best bitch." But given that they are all bitches, I suspect this process can become fraught.
Still, it's an entertaining little thing, and unlike most RPGs could easily become part of a game night without crowding out play of everything else.
Or...
"the implication is that all characters are women, or perhaps gay men," or Democrats. Can I get a high five?
Ok, ok, or gold bug, gun toting republicans. Goddmn´d gov´t tryng ta take ma gold!
I'll have a bit of an
I'll have a bit of an eyeroll at the word 'competitive'. How many sports are there where who won is determined by a little commitee? Further, with a commitee who were also the participants?
If you took that card idea and the player kept his/her card secret then the other players, after the performance, try and call which bitch he/she was playing out (without knowing what's on the card), that'd be more competative as you really have to nail the portrayal of that beyotch.
Rules Lawyering
Too bad the rules aren't more complex and ambiguous... then rules lawyering would be a valid, all-inclusive playstyle. =p
That actually would be an interesting game. Imagine a byzantine and ambiguous ruleset that includes only one sole concrete rule: anytime two people contend a rule they roll 1d6, and the winner of that dieroll determines that rule for the game. I'd play that wargame, at least once. Asshole: The Game anybody?
Expansion sets?
I can't wait for the Yiddish expansion. Or, for that matter, the Andy Rooney sourcebook.
Needless to say
"Needless to say, the implication is that all characters are women, or perhaps gay men, which is in itself also a fairly original idea for an RPG."
Rhetorical point: If it is needless to say, why say it?
Serious point: How is this implied? Nothing in the concept suggests to me that all the characters should be female / gay / effeminate, so is it something in the rules themselves (which, by the by, renders it worth saying as not all of us have seen or will see the rules)? If it stems from use of the word "Bitch" and a suggestion that this is a term of abuse generally used for women, remember that we are using the verb, not the noun, which is genderless.
Side point: I am so going to play TheDustin's game idea with my fellow PARANOIA players...
the win condition
Hey Greg,
"My one design concern is the win condition; the players are evidently expected to come to some kind of consensus as to who is the 'best bitch.'"
I've played it. The consensus decision on who gets the button works for social reasons that are hard to see until you play. What happens is that when you play, the game is hard. It's much harder than you think it'll be going into it; bitching seems like such a fluid and natural thing, but good, creative bitching is unexpectedly difficult. And so in play you run up against its challenges and doubt your own performance, and you see others performing well, and there's laughing. And then it's not difficult for the group to pick the winner at the end. The button isn't so much the trophy of a judged victor, but rather, the gift of a group who've had a difficult experience together to the one who helped make it fun.
As game designers we doubt "consensus victory" because we rarely see it engineered well at the social and creative level. Bitch does it right.
The open question for me about Bitch is about the importance of the handcrafted aspect of the button. If the buttons were mass produced 1" round buttons, would the absence of the designer's direct craftsmanship of a unique "gift" compromise the social dynamics that make awarding it easy at the end of play? Is there something about the game as a creative and social challenge delivered by the designer to the players, along with the promise of a gift, that makes the consensus mandate easy?
Paul
Thedustin: I could imagine a
Thedustin: I could imagine a game with byzantine and ambiguous ruleset, but I could only imagine some other player not seeing them as byzantine and ambiguous and instead concrete and very clear. And no doubt this concrete rule takes precedence over that 1d6 roll.
Something I've suggested elsewhere is the idea of a game who's ruleset is generated by a randomiser, then handing it to a gamer group AS IF it were a regular game (they don't know a randomiser was used to make up it's rules). I'm willing to bet money that a gamer group would start acting as if certain rules in it make complete and utter sense and obviously must be followed (I'm also willing to bet money if you handed it to a bunch of non gamers they'd probably give up on it in about two minutes).
Oh, and along with rules lawyers, don't forget spirit lawyers [nasal]"That's not within the spirit of the rules!"[/nasal]
Re: Rules Lawyering
Unless it's part of an intended joke that I failed to get, I'll point out that various Warhammer wargames incarnations satisfied your criteria--rules or their interpretations tended to be largely ambiguous (i.e. immovable object vs. irresistible force in the rules or determination of which parts of a mini count for determining line of sight, or figuring out exact distances for range and unit cohesion purposes), and there was indeed a rule that in case of a dispute a d6 roll determines the correct interpretation. I don't know how much these have changed in the recent editions (I last played Warhammer some 15 years ago, I'm afraid)
The Hand of Fate Rule?
@access.denied:
I haven't really played for a long while myself, but the last rulebook of theirs I read (Epic: Armaggedon) can only be about five years old and I am all but certain that rule was included. I believe they call it the "Hand of Fate" rule.
As for ambiguity, I played back in the days of Wargear Cards (each containing very unique rules), which one would have expected to add a substantial number of conflicts. But in all honesty I can only recall having perhaps four unresolved rules disputes over countless years of playing. Then again, none of us were power-gamers... ;)