|
CodfishCartographer posted:Holy dang, thanks for all that feedback. I'm on vacation and only have access to my phone so hopefully this write-up isn't awful! 1&2) That sounds solid. 3) In the manual I'm pretty sure you say that you must have the monster's color of sharpness to damage it, but you may have meant "damage" in terms of durability. Otherwise yeah we were playing that wrong. 4) I think Sword & Shield needs some work, it doesn't really do damage and the block isn't particularly good barring the attack that lets you keep it readied. Using items faster is cool, but when the vast majority of your item usage is "use a potion or sharpening stone" it's a bit bleh. I found myself using Monster Traps with it not because it helped a lot (though it was nice), but just so I could feel like I was taking advantage of the weapon's ability. Consider something to play up the weapon's versatility in MH, maybe something like the option when you ready attacks to do unique things, like the Bow's delay options. Like "Shield" attacks can gain +2 Delay to block another 10 damage and something else for "Slash" attacks. It's also a weapon that'd pair well with movement mechanics if you decide to flesh that out (Bow, Staff, or Light Bowgun too if you decide to change/make that). As for other weapons, I'd have to talk with my players, but I know the Transform Axe user felt underwhelmed with the needed amount of build up to make his points worth much (or at least feel worth it, I don't know what the best time to dump combo points is mathematically). For that I'd weaken Sword attacks and buff the point multipliers for Axe ones (or the other way around? I don't remember), but maybe there's other options. The guy who used the Dual Swords never really used his power, which obviously means little for balance, but it might mean it doesn't inspire people to care. The Hunting Horn user seemed happy, especially since having a HH in the group seems to shift the focus and that person is basically the star of the show. I didn't try the Bow or the Hammer. 5) Yeah I don't have an easy fix for that. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to have attacks predictable, they were in MH, but you'd probably have to make HP lower since at that point you're relying on the timer/human error to cause the fail state. Though with a harsh enough timer or making dodging suboptimal (like make moving cause the players Delay?) helps that a bit. 6) The big one was that we had no idea where the boss was at the start of the game. I know there's a few other things, I think we missed that the monster hits with all listed body parts (ie "Head and both Claws") and not just the one that corresponds to that zone. It's definitely mentioned, but if you do an FAQ somewhere it might be worth putting there. 7) I don't have many suggestions aside from maybe making a few weapons key off movement (extra damage when you move? easier to dodge? modified delay opportunities?), or the things with the timer and delay. There might be something there though. None of the games I played were games where everyone knew the rules, so I wouldn't take my experiences as the status quo, but the first one took a bit over two hours due to NONE of us knowing, and the other about 30 minutes less since I knew everything. I think a well read group could finish a game in an hour, maybe less, especially if you had something in the rules for dividing up the bookkeeping and logistics (Party Leader handles monster health and keeps the game flowing, Tactician monitors the monster deck/enrages, etc.).
|
# ? Jul 3, 2014 02:25 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:56 |
|
Casnorf posted:I'm working on a little project, sort of a challenge that I've set for myself. I wanted to see how well I could divorce game mechanics from theme, and let the mechanics of the result evoke a theme. To that end, I wanted to see what the folks of this thread thought what themes, if any, are suggested by what mechanics. Hmm. Just off the top of my head...
EDIT: I just realized this has nothing to do with what you were asking. I thought you were trying to use mechanics with themes they wouldn't normally be paired with, but what you're actually doing is starting with mechanics and seeing what themes spring up naturally. In any case, maybe this list will be helpful anyway. I do like the idea of playing with the conventions, but just like any other similar goal, I'd caution that those conventions exist for a reason. Too off-the-wall, and the game will feel clunky, not innovative. But if you're really going for it, here are some ideas:
ActingPower fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jul 3, 2014 |
# ? Jul 3, 2014 02:59 |
|
Countblanc posted:Words My initial timer idea for the game was around 40-60 minutes, and I think that may sound about right for your time-frame. It might be a bit tight but that's not really a bad thing. The group roles is a good idea, I was thinking of suggesting something like that in the rules but may as well include it as an actual game mechanic to streamline it. As for the behemoth card descriptions, I think I'll make a version with those and try it out to see how things go - I'd rather not lower player health and make it more about player error, because that could easily mean one or two mistakes and then someone does and everyone loses, and I'm not sure I want THAT small of a margin of error. I think right now the damage/health ratio is close enough where players feel pressured but still have wiggle room to make mistakes. Although with segmented behemoth decks I could make it so the margin of error gets tighter and tighter, so early mistakes won't gently caress things up but later on could cost you the game. Right now my plan for Dual Swords is to make it so that you get a continuously building bonus damage each time you move (add a counter each time you move, increase damage dealt by one for each counter) but have it reset when you take damage (or don't move?) so you get a good feeling of building up damage and keeping it if you're good enough - then maybe also allow it to recover sharpness on a successful evade. That's the general idea anyways, I'll probably end up tweaking it. As for switch axe, my plan is something similar but it builds up when switching between the two modes, and maybe is depleted a little at a time rather than all at once. Still brainstorming ideas! As for sword and shield, I think I could definitely up the damage on it and then try to add in some more useful items. I had many more items originally, but in basically all of my play tests with them players very rarely used them - the ones I included in the print and play were pretty much the only items anyone used. My current idea is to add in a couple more offensive items and then have SnS double(?) item values along with the reduced delay. Maybe have it be able to use potions / sharpening stones on other players? Theme and Mechanics (not behemoth chat) ActingPower definitely touched on this some, but one of the most interesting ways I've heard of for designing games is to ask yourself what's expected of a game/genre, and then pose a theoretical game mechanic that goes against that expectation. For example, in a deck builder you expect to add cards to your own deck. What if there was a game where you only add cards to OTHER players' decks? Or in a resource management game, you expect to buy supplies with resources. What if there was a game where you buy resources by selling an initial, ever-dwindling stock of supplies? This can often lead to dumb ideas that aren't good: remember, there's a reason some of these expectations and tropes exist. However, it can sometimes lead to really interesting and innovative ideas. As for theme with mechanics, you can really tie any theme to any mechanics with enough creativity. Last night I was playing around with a push-your-luck semi-coop game where players would need to manage three sand timers simultaneously, ensuring that not all of them ran out at the same time. My initial thought for the theme was air or fuel being used in a spaceship, but man is space generic so I thought it could work well as the water supply for a group of explorers in a desert. That got me thinking of what else it could represent - players are game developers trying to push back an ever-looming deadline; players are bullies beating up nerds before getting caught; players run stores trying to lure in customers, etc. Game mechanics are often so abstract you can stretch the players' imaginations pretty far. CodfishCartographer fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Jul 3, 2014 |
# ? Jul 3, 2014 07:23 |
Casnorf posted:I'm working on a little project, sort of a challenge that I've set for myself. I wanted to see how well I could divorce game mechanics from theme, and let the mechanics of the result evoke a theme. To that end, I wanted to see what the folks of this thread thought what themes, if any, are suggested by what mechanics. Are you thinking in the vein of Tekopo's "Tigris and Euphrates is one of the most thematic games I know"?
|
|
# ? Jul 3, 2014 12:03 |
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Maybe have it be able to use potions / sharpening stones on other players? Making an effective "alchemist" role is cute, but at that point the weapon's action cards are secondary to the ability. Also you then run the risk of a group always needing/thinking they need one, since it's a healer and everyone knows you gotta have a healer, and no one likes being the person who has to spend 60-80% of their turns using items on other players. If you want to emphasize items with it, I'd say make it so SnB attacks can "combo" into items for less delay, maybe a flat -2, since then you absolutely must play action cards as well. Or make it a flat -1 and toss in some other ability if you want.
|
# ? Jul 3, 2014 18:54 |
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Game mechanics are often so abstract you can stretch the players' imaginations pretty far. If you want your player to feel a certain omnipotence then you allow them to affect the game state directly. Wouldn't mechanics that encourage that suggest god-games and other games where your societal position is high? One of my favorites is the extremely limited communication in Close Action. A few words per turn, even without the theme, evokes semaphore or ELF transmission and in either case suggests a naval theme.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 00:28 |
|
I think that's where my post comes in. See, it's not just the mechanic that creates a certain theme, but the way it's implemented. I mean, as a stark example, your example of "drawing from a deck is like finding treasure" can be turned into a harrowing, suspenseful experience if the stuff in the deck is bad instead of good. Same mechanic, totally different feel. Worker placements can make you a business manager, a patriarch, an army leader, an octopus, whatever. Tile placement can be exploration, control, trap revelation, modification, modulation, resource production, etc. See what I mean? It's not enough to say, "Tile placement makes you feel like an explorer" because that doesn't have to be true. It's true in a lot of cases, in fact it's probably true in most cases, but bereft of theme, it doesn't have to be. EDIT: The thought occurred to me re:limited communication. Aren't you just a tad biased in that regard? "I was playing a boat game, and there was limited communication. I bet any game with limited communication will feel naval." Off the top of my head, you could have, say, a game set in a monastery; a horror game where speaking draws the monster closer; a caveman game where communication is primitive and rough (this exists); a game with two societies with differing languages (also exists); or a wizard game where every word you speak is a WORD OF POWER, to be used wisely and with discretion. ActingPower fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Jul 4, 2014 |
# ? Jul 4, 2014 01:35 |
As my example was trying to say, you're sure not exploring in T&E! You're helping construct a story of how civilizations built, warred, and were torn apart.
|
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 01:38 |
|
That's true. Tigris and Euphrates is quite an interesting game in that regard. In fact, short of a downright clone game, I bet you can find some intriguing uniqueness to any game you look at.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 01:59 |
|
ActingPower posted:I think that's where my post comes in. See, it's not just the mechanic that creates a certain theme, but the way it's implemented. I haven't played Tigris and Euphrates nor read the article so I'm sorry but that one escapes me.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 02:46 |
|
ActingPower posted:...say, a game set in a monastery; a horror game where speaking draws the monster closer... ...Pardon me. I'm just going to, um, put these ideas somewhere safe. Yeah, that's it.
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 03:11 |
|
Gutter Owl posted:...Pardon me. I'm just going to, um, put these ideas somewhere safe. Yeah, that's it. Lol, go for it. They certainly sound like they could make for good ideas. I've got a million of 'em. Now if only I could get paid to come up with ideas that other people have to do all the hard work expanding... ActingPower fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Jul 4, 2014 |
# ? Jul 4, 2014 03:19 |
|
ActingPower posted:Lol, go for it. They certainly sound like they could make for good ideas. I've got a million of 'em. Now if only I could get paid to come up with ideas that other people have to do all the hard work expanding...
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 03:54 |
|
Casnorf posted:Wanna have a board game jam? See what we can do with one of your rad ideas. I rather liked the Word Of Power one. Of all my ideas, you pick the one I added in a rush just to have a decently-long list. But sure, if you've got some ideas for it, I'd love to hear them. Maybe it'd be about some wizards with a cauldron full of magical material, and whatever you say out loud changes its composition. So you can't even say things like, "I want to make..." because that would cause DESIRE and CREATION to strengthen. (Partially inspired by Symmetria or whatever it's called.)
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 04:08 |
|
Casnorf posted:Wanna have a board game jam? See what we can do with one of your rad ideas. I rather liked the Word Of Power one. I think a board game design contest thread with the theme of "games involving talking" would be pretty dang cool to see what comes up, you should make a thread for it. The July contest thread did just pop up, but it's more RPG-oriented so maybe it'd be fine to host another, shorter contest?
|
# ? Jul 4, 2014 07:56 |
|
ActingPower posted:Of all my ideas, you pick the one I added in a rush just to have a decently-long list. But sure, if you've got some ideas for it, I'd love to hear them. Codfish Cartographer posted:maybe it'd be fine to host another, shorter contest?
|
# ? Jul 5, 2014 04:09 |
|
What do you guys think of this idea? Basically it's a drafting game where you're trying to set up chains of cards based on colors that connect them to either the left or the right side. I'm taking a bit from Bohnanza, where your hand order is relatively set and not easily changeable. The specifics at the end probably aren't balanced, but are included to give an example of what's possible. ----------- Voudon is a drafting game where players are competing occultists trying to summon their respective dark lord. The core mechanic is drafting. Packs of 10 cards are drawn from a randomized deck of 200 cards. Each card has two chain inputs on it, left and right. As the pack is passed, players take one card from it and add it to their hand. Players cannot shuffle cards around, but must instead keep them in the order that they are received. However they may add it at either the beginning or the end of the chain. Play proceeds as follows: Each player gets a pack of 10 cards. They look through them, and take one card, then passing the cards to their left. Cards have the following elements: Right channel: One of four colors of wax, Red, Blue, Green or White. White is a wild card. Left channel: As above. Component: One of five different ritual elements, Pentacle, Sword, Cup, Wand and Blood A turn starts with drafting, adding the drafted card to the current chain, and then players activating parts of their chain as they desire. At the start of the game players get an Idol card, which represents the entity they are trying to summon. Each entity has two different actions, and one goal. Actions are represented by a series of three different ritual elements. For example, activating a chain containing a Pentacle, a Cup and Blood will produce the effect "Deep Knowledge" allows the player activating it to take two cards from the pack in front of them and instantly add it to their chain. When they are assembled, after the effect has taken place, they are put into a discard pile. The first player to take an action is denoted by a token which switches possession to the left at the end of each turn. Goals are what each player is working towards. They represent three different chains of five, which are typically more difficult to produce. When they are assembled the cards aren't discarded as with actions, but rather placed in front of the player. When assembling chains players start at their first card of their choosing and advance to the next card where the left channel color matches the right channel color of the first. For example, player 3 has the following cards in their hand, with the lowercase left and right letters representing the left and right channel, and the uppercase letter representing the symbol... r(ed) b(blue) g(reen) w(white) p(entacle) s(word) c(up) w(and) b(blood) rSb gBr bPg rCb wCg The first card, the sword, needs a blue left channel to chain, and the next legal card is the pentacle. The pentacle needs a green left channel to chain, and the next legal card is the cup (which has a wildcard left channel and matches anything). Since this corresponds with their entity's "Possess Follower" ability, they may remove a card at random from another player's chain. The other cards in this chain fizzle (the blood and the first cup) and are discarded along with everything else. If players start a chain somewhere in the middle, then the cards on either side collapse to take up the space of where the selected chain had been. When a pack is exhausted whichever player would receive the exhausted pack next draws a fresh ten cards from the draw deck. When the deck is exhausted, the discard pile is reshuffled into the draw deck. There are five possible entities which may be drawn on... Baron La Croix (focuses on searching the discard pile and forcing an opponent to swap cards in their chain with those in the discard) Old Scratch (focuses on discarding cards in your hand to draw extra cards and swapping 2 for 1 with an opponent) Thoth (focuses on overdrawing and then discarding and searching the packs of other players for specific cards) Morrigan (focuses on drawing specific named cards directly from the draw pile and destroying random single cards in your opponents' chains) Baal (focuses on allowing the player reorder cards in their chain and forcing all players to pass one card of their choosing to their left except for you)
|
# ? Jul 7, 2014 22:06 |
|
sector_corrector posted:What do you guys think of this idea? Basically it's a drafting game where you're trying to set up chains of cards based on colors that connect them to either the left or the right side. I'm taking a bit from Bohnanza, where your hand order is relatively set and not easily changeable. The specifics at the end probably aren't balanced, but are included to give an example of what's possible. I think this is an amazingly clever and well thought out design. My one concern is the Dark Lords powers seem unequally potent but I suppose you can always balance that by having them require chains of different lengths to trigger there powers. Also have you considered having players play cards as they draft them? Though I could see that making the game much, much harder. Have you prototyped it yet?
|
# ? Jul 7, 2014 23:16 |
|
I haven't prototyped it yet. It sort of came to me while I was checking out some other drafting games, and fit with a few other concepts I'd been working on in other projects. I do agree about balancing the dark lords being the hardest part... I was also thinking about it last night, and one major problem would be a "gently caress the leader" mentality where once you had 2 goals achieved, it would become much harder to do anything else after that.
|
# ? Jul 8, 2014 20:04 |
|
sector_corrector posted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but Morrigan and La Croix are extremely good at that, right? They can just screw up your perfect chains and make you start over. The game sounds interesting, but also super hard...
|
# ? Jul 8, 2014 20:13 |
|
Hello everyone. I am also a published game designer; unfortunately I only just found out about this thread but since the OP's second post hasn't been edited since 2/2013 I'd like to share my opinion on a few things with just my personal advice-- your mileage may vary. Disclaimer: I am not an industry veteran. I am a person who a couple years ago was just a guy with a neat idea for a game. I have one game published already that is in transit right now to KS backers and retailers with a two more that are in development- one of which was a commission from a publisher who liked what he saw me working on at a convention. I didn't come here to talk about me, but if you want to know I won't hide from you. 1) Play more games - a writer that doesn't read much probably produces literature that you wouldn't enjoy. Same goes for game design. Get on google and find the nearest game store to you and find out if they have a board game night. If they don't, try to start one. This is where your market lives. It is an ideal place to find playtesters (and to just make some friends who have similar interests) most of the friends I remain close with today I met as strangers in my FLGS who really liked what I was doing and now we get together once a month and break out whatever it is I'm working on. (They love to see their names in the playtesters credit section too). Play games that you've never heard of. Play games that you hate with people that love them. Play games that make you say "what the hell" when you look at the package- or the components- or the art. I have gotten more inspiration from seeing things that 2) The Game Crafter - https://www.thegamecrafter.com - I can understand why xopods might not recommend them given the time of the post, but I met with the team there several times to take a look at the products and services they offer since they launched their site around 2009. They have made dramatic improvements to their product line, pricing, and the quality of products they offer. Once upon a time, the only custom printed product they used to offer was poker-sized poker cards. Now they do boxes, boards, tuckboxes, tiles, chits, dice, player screens, dials, and I'm forgetting a dozen other things I'm sure. Primarily though I want to remark on their pricing and how they have shifted their focus to accommodate those wanting a part of the kickstarter craze. They now offer bulk pricing and fulfillment services and the kickstarter projects I have gotten that were produced by them have been of more-than-acceptable quality. It is worth comparing prices if you plan to run a project of your own; for what I like to call "small large-runs" under 1000, it is possible that you will get a better margin than having a product produced overseas and shipped to you/a warehouse. You would also be able to say that it was produced in the USA, which matters to a lot of people on kickstarter. 3) Go to conventions. Yes, even those conventions. There are a lot of conventions that don't have much to do with gaming officially, but have really a large gaming presence. Phoenix Comicon especially has a massive amount of gaming vendors and programming. Comic conventions, Author/Writing conventions, videogame conventions...check out their websites and send an email to ask if you're in doubt, cons are a great place to get playtesters you don't know to try your game and get feedback--and a lot of them will give you your pass for free if you agree to run X hours of games (which can be your very own). Even if you don't have a finished project to "sell", I met most of the industry contacts I have by just going to different conventions and chatting with people, ask people how they got started in the business. Ask them if they are working on any projects currently that they are allowed to speak on (as a developer or a designer) you might get lucky and receive an offer to play their game, or maybe just have a beer; which might be a good opportunity to show them what you currently have and see if they have any advice for you. Find the closest gaming convention (within driving distance if neccessary) and try to go if you're serious about this. My first trip to GenCon was invaluable to my endeavors. GenCon, Origins, BGGcon, Pax...all outstanding. The only one I have been disappointed in so far (in terms of gaming representation) was San Diego Comic Con. Their boardgaming zone last year was about a dozen people in a meeting room. 4) There are two more good resources I recommend for prototyping: http://opengameart.org/ - Great resource for placeholder art that won't get you in trouble with anybody. Pay attention to the licenses though if you want to use any of this stuff on a project you want to sell--not all of it is OK for that but a lot of it is. and http://game-icons.net/ - Simple, clean, and aesthetically consistent symbols and icons such as these can make prototypes feel much nicer. 5) Consider the colorblind - Accessibility is becoming a bigger blip on the radar for a lot of publishers, and taking this into consideration when you design can only be a benefit to you later on. 6) Keep it simple - The "hot thing" right now is small- and micro-games. And by that I mean games in small boxes that still offer real strategy and meaningful decisions. (Tiny Epic Kingdoms is a great example of this and how successful it can be) Especially if you are a first-time designer, it's much easier to convince a publisher to take a risk on a game that would retail for $20 and can fit in a pocket (which people are buying now like crazy to boot) versus a $99 game that would have to come in a Fantasy Flight big box and probably only appeals to a niche market. I have a couple giant-box designs too that I keep picking at, but I had to accept very early on that I need to let it wait until I have a stronger reputation behind my name. 7) Playtest for others, large and small. One of the best and most helpful design exercises I ever had was a stroke of luck in making a contact and Fantasy Flight games who needed playtesters for a couple of games they had coming up. I worked on Death Angel and a Battles of Westeros expansion as I guess what you might call a "compensated" playtester, which was credited in the rulebook and was given some store credit at the end of the project (typically enough to buy the game I helped with). My responsibilities were basically to print, play, and write a report. It doesn't sound like much but it gave me a taste of what kinds of questions and experiences I would have to handle when the roles were reversed, when I would be the designer and developers are giving me feedback based on their experiences and what they believe needs to change in the game. It helped me learn to quantify what I was thinking and feeling when I just didn't like what I was playing; because they never want to hear "It isn't fun" you need to be able to tell them why and suggest how to fix it. Doing this for someone else (and on a specific schedule) will help you do it for yourself. Email a handful of different game companies and ask them if they need testers or how their playtest process works. (Pro-tip: if you test and write reports on a few games for a company, and then ask them about their submission process, your foot is already further in the door than someone who walks up to the booth at a con as asks for a pitch session) 8) If you are in Arizona and you're interested in game design, I have additional more specific resources and advice I can offer if you'd want to hear it. Apparently this state is a huge game design hotspot with a lot of designers and publishing companies in close proximity with a lot of gaming conventions at different times of the year.
|
# ? Jul 8, 2014 22:33 |
|
So I've been working on a drafting game for a while that I've temporarily named Mythmaker. The flavor of the game is that each player is a Hero from antiquity working on crafting their legacy by performing heroic feats. I've playtested it a bit and it seems to work, with most of the criticism I've received was that the way I was teaching it didn't properly convey a goal, something I believe I've managed to fix. Here's a link to the rules. A typical card looks like this, for reference. The Attributes referenced are [C]unning, [S]trength, and [W]isdom. With tertiary attributes of Renown (which is similar to colorless mana in Magic in that any other attribute can pay for it) and Dual Attributes (which function like hybrid mana in Magic.) Any thoughts on this? I'd appreciate any and all criticism and/or advice. And if anyone wants to help playtest it please shoot me a PM! Anniversary fucked around with this message at 08:35 on Jul 9, 2014 |
# ? Jul 9, 2014 08:31 |
|
From the rules, it wasn't clear that the cards were two-sided. I figured it had to be that way, but in the rules it was kinda hard to catch. The other thing I found weird was the point system at the end. So, wait, your Hero only gets Renown from Legacies with certain traits? So if I were, say, Odysseus, and Cunning was the trait I was shooting for, that example card full of Wisdom would be worthless? Or is the 4 like a Magic colorless 4, and I'd have to play my Cunning that way in order to get any points off of that card? That seems kind of unfair, especially if my Solomon opponent had gotten that card instead and loaded up all eight slots with Wisdom. But despite me complaining, I actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Are you intending to name each of the Feat cards? (Say, your example being "The Trojan Horse" or something like that.) That might help make the theme a little more obvious.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 15:29 |
|
ActingPower posted:From the rules, it wasn't clear that the cards were two-sided. I figured it had to be that way, but in the rules it was kinda hard to catch. quote:The other thing I found weird was the point system at the end. So, wait, your Hero only gets Renown from Legacies with certain traits? quote:So if I were, say, Odysseus, and Cunning was the trait I was shooting for, that example card full of Wisdom would be worthless? quote:Or is the 4 like a Magic colorless 4, and I'd have to play my Cunning that way in order to get any points off of that card? That seems kind of unfair, especially if my Solomon opponent had gotten that card instead and loaded up all eight slots with Wisdom. quote:But despite me complaining, I actually think it's a pretty cool idea. Are you intending to name each of the Feat cards? (Say, your example being "The Trojan Horse" or something like that.) That might help make the theme a little more obvious. Thanks for going over everything. I really appreciate a fresh set of eyes on this and it sounds like you've pointed out some places where I could straighten up the rules.
|
# ? Jul 9, 2014 15:51 |
|
I'm thinking about putting together a simple turn-based game as an Android dev project, mostly because I want to play with Google's multiplayer library and we don't get to use it at work (for some reason banks do not want me to make games). Even though it's actually a mobile game, it'll effectively be a board game. My idea was to combine a couple of classic simple board games which I used to enjoy: Isolation and Blockade. We'll need a couple of new mechanics to make each game different and because neither of these games have very interesting goals. Here's quick rundown of what I am thinking about : Players start with one pawn at opposite sides of a 9x9 square grid. In the centre tile of the board is a treasure. Each turn, a player can either move two tiles (orthogonally) or cast a spell: Wall: Conjure a single solid Wall two tiles wide along a tile boundary. Players cannot move through Walls. Fire: Conjure a Fire to cover a single tile. Players can't move into (or through) Fire, but Fire can be cast on a tile with a player on it. Upon reaching the treasure, a player claims that treasure and a new treasure appears (randomly placed, probably at some minimum distance from either player. Players can stash all treasure that they have claimed by returning to their start square. If a player starts their turn in a Fire tile (i.e. if they are unable to move and the other player has cast a Fire on them), they lose all treasure that they are carrying and return to their stash. I'm unsure if they will then take a turn immediately or not. First player to have five treasures (stashed or not) wins. So the idea is that you can either play it safe and take your treasure back to your stash each time or you can risk what you already have trying to get the next one as well. I have some thoughts about potential pitfalls but I'd love to hear any first impressions of this idea from others before I delve into my own thoughts. Tunga fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jul 10, 2014 |
# ? Jul 10, 2014 11:22 |
|
Tunga posted:I have some thoughts about potential pitfalls but I'd love to hear any first impressions of this idea from others before I delve into my own thoughts.
|
# ? Jul 10, 2014 11:41 |
|
I played another game of Behemoth with a different group today. Most of the feedback was the same as what I said before, but since we tried other weapons I can comment on those, and have a few other remarks. Bow and Arrow: The person who played it basically said it was completely underwhelming. Not that it was bad, but that he felt he never got to make decisions (because the decision was just "which delay do I pick to sync up with the other players or sometimes the monster if I need to dodge," or at least it felt that way). He mentioned that the lack of abilities on the attacks themselves made his turns very boring since the only choice he got to make was which player he wanted to sync up his turn with. Also, the weapon's gimmick is HUGELY punishing and streaky - If a monster is pushed back too far on the delay board you can't really set up a dodge, so even if know see an Inferno coming at you you just have to cry and eat the 120 damage (or worse, literally get 1-shot if it does an early claw+claw+head attack, we actually ruled that the archer can't be killed from full health instantly). We had a proposed solution - assuming you don't change any mechanics - that would hopefully fix this randomness as well as offer a use for movement; Make it so the bow's power doesn't double damage received but instead adds a flat number (20-30 probably), and you get hit if you're either directly in front of the monster or in one of the two adjacent zones. Then make archer have some sort of "aimed shot" gimmick, either as an attack card or two, or as an innate ability. Like, an option to forsake your movement to add a bonus printed on the card (extra damage, less delay, etc.), and maybe make a few actions that get bonuses if you do move ("Skirmish Shot" or something). I'll write up some more later, I just wanted to get my thoughts out before I forgot them. E: more comments Sword and Shield: We had a completely new player using this one. I feel like I might have been leading him a bit by basically saying "it seemed like X was a problem, was it?", but basically the general issue was that he felt there weren't enough items that were worth spending your turn on for the item gimmick to work (if you stick with that). He suggested making the SnS user able to get one free use of each item since he was always concerned with the idea of "using everyone else's stuff", which sounds really dumb to me but maybe kick that around a bit. Unrelated to the player, I contest that SnS and other fast weapons are inherently problematic in the current design sphere because the user is taking more turns and making more decisions than all the other players, which can lead to boredom. There's many ways to confront this issue, but I think you need to look very closely at the game's shell a bit more regarding things like real time mechanics, "roles," and delay since it's impossible to get a final design idea in mind for the weapons without those. Hammer: This just felt really uninspired, frankly. Like, I don't see how the weapon evokes the feeling of using a huge hammer - It delays a bit but not a ton (probably because you figured that'd be broken) so the "concussion" element isn't really there, and the acceleration weapon ability just seems janky. Hammers in MH had attacks which charged up, you could probably do something with that. Maybe make it do extra stuff depending where it strikes the monster, which goes hand in hand with making movement more important - Hitting the head causes additional delay, hitting claws breaks them faster, etc. If you do decide to do stuff with positioning like this you need to make the monster's movement less random though. "Random" might be the wrong word, but I think it'd be frustrating as the hammer user to try to line up a strike on a specific part, only to have someone enrage it and turn it when it wasn't expected, and stuff like this would happen if people weren't playing perfectly (real-time, not sharing information/planning together, etc). Countblanc fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jul 19, 2014 |
# ? Jul 19, 2014 07:25 |
|
I have been tooling around with an idea for an Agricola variant. Nothing I would want to sell or anything, just a new board and round spaces that could be used with an existing set of Agricola pieces/cards. It's called Collective: The Soviet Farming Game. The mechanics would be very similar but with a few major differences that I wouldn't mind some feedback on. The multiplay cards on the left hand side of the board would start face down and must be earned. How you ask? As rewards for providing a food surplus to feed the glorious soviet industrial cities. During the feeding phase instead of taking care of your own people each person secretly places whatever food they are contributing into a cup. Then beginning with the player with the staring play token each person is allowed to take out 2 food and pass the cup anti-clockwise (the opposite of normal turn order) to feed their people. The cup goes around until every person is fed or until the food runs out. If everyone is not fed then there is a famine and the most recent left hand optional improvement is turned face down again; in addition to begging cards everyone is punished collectively. If there is a surplus then for each 2 food remaining one of the optional spaces is turned face up; Stalin rewards team work. Rutibex fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Jul 19, 2014 |
# ? Jul 19, 2014 11:15 |
|
Trip report: Of 2 interested publishers, 1 has sent a response wherein they stated that they loved the game while also completely missing the point. Given the option of trying to get to Gen*Con somehow (which I can't really afford to do) to reach a bunch more publishers or just sending out prototypes, I'm just about ready to roll back the last 6 months ago and prepare to self-publish, again. Exhausting.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2014 06:32 |
|
Broken Loose posted:Trip report: Of 2 interested publishers, 1 has sent a response wherein they stated that they loved the game while also completely missing the point. Given the option of trying to get to Gen*Con somehow (which I can't really afford to do) to reach a bunch more publishers or just sending out prototypes, I'm just about ready to roll back the last 6 months ago and prepare to self-publish, again. Exhausting.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2014 07:36 |
|
Poison Mushroom posted:Which game, Jac-Oopsie? Final Attack! There's no way I'd try to run Jac-Oopsie! through a publisher before any of my other games except maybe for Special Olympics.
|
# ? Jul 20, 2014 23:55 |
|
Everything I've read is your experience is pretty common. Most publishers are going to want to tweak/retheme a game that's presented to them. If you're in love with it as-is, you better kickstarter it.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2014 01:16 |
|
Crackbone posted:Everything I've read is your experience is pretty common. Most publishers are going to want to tweak/retheme a game that's presented to them. If you're in love with it as-is, you better kickstarter it. It really looks like they just want to change things for change's sake. Cost reasons I can understand, but they literally wanted to remove the real-time, social, and puzzle-solving elements from the game. Their replacement suggestions were pretty awful, too.
|
# ? Jul 21, 2014 03:45 |
|
This isn't a game I made myself, but it is a game I like a lot that has some rough patches. It's called Technopoly by Kevan Davis, and it's quite a lot of fun. However, I'd like to see what you guys would do to improve it. So, here's the main gist of the game. You are colonists on a strange new planet with all sorts of weird resources. You have a team of robots, and your goal is to discover, produce, and trade the resources on the planet. The player with the most resources at the end wins! I don't want to go too in-depth into the rules, since you can just go look at them up there, so let me summarize the basics:
Now, I like the concept in general. But here are my complaints with it:
Like I said, I think this is a really cool game with some fun ideas, but it's got some bugs that really need ironing out. I've got an idea revolving around planets with predetermined Attributes and Fuels, space travel, and storage, but I'd like to see what ideas anybody else has. Thoughts?
|
# ? Jul 24, 2014 23:23 |
|
So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay. Does anything like this already exist? It seems too simple to not already have been attempted but I've never seen anything quite like it.
|
# ? Jul 29, 2014 10:46 |
|
Anniversary posted:Does anything like this already exist? It seems too simple to not already have been attempted but I've never seen anything quite like it.
|
# ? Jul 29, 2014 11:22 |
Poison Mushroom posted:The closest thing you've got to a parallel right now is actually Stratego. Which, while definitely showing its age, is still a decent game for what it is, which is a fog of war tactical game.
|
|
# ? Jul 29, 2014 15:54 |
|
Anniversary posted:So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay. I wrote a thing that gives the suits special powers.
|
# ? Jul 29, 2014 21:00 |
|
Anniversary posted:So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay. That sounds like a less complex version of Yomi, which is played with a 52 card deck and is entirely about giving a few cards unique powers and weighing risk/reward and reading the opponent. Your idea is definitely more simple, but seems pretty similar.
|
# ? Jul 29, 2014 21:58 |
|
|
# ? May 28, 2024 15:56 |
|
Countblanc posted:That sounds like a less complex version of Yomi, which is played with a 52 card deck and is entirely about giving a few cards unique powers and weighing risk/reward and reading the opponent. Your idea is definitely more simple, but seems pretty similar. And lacking the rock paper scissors elements too? Hmm. I wonder if maybe my game is a little too shallow. I'll see what I can do. Thanks for all the responses! I've got a version mocked up and will likely get to test it in a few hours. I'll let everyone know if it seems like something worth exploring. e: Tested very, very briefly. It feels very shallow. I think with a lot of work on the rules it may work as something but first I'll have to brainstorm just how to make that work. On another note I've been playing around with a dungeon crawler type game that came from the inspiration to make a game in the genre 'like Munchkin, but with less terrible design'. And it seems to be working. The classes feel distinct ('Everything I do as the Mage feels like Overkill / it feels very Harry Dresden') which is a huge plus imo. But working on cutting the game length down to be very quick. I like to design games that can be knocked out in 15 minutes but that have replayability and complexity that merits multiple plays per sitting and I think I'm going to have to work on this one to get it into a place where its length feels just right. But other than that and some easy fixes I think the games on a very good track. Anniversary fucked around with this message at 14:04 on Jul 30, 2014 |
# ? Jul 30, 2014 10:30 |