|
Mister Sinewave posted:Dang, it's hard. It's tough just missing opening a chest when you know it is (or could be) your one chance to get help.
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 06:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
That sounds like an elegant way to up the average successful chest results, if that's what your game needs. It's rough to miss out on chests because of bad rolls because you know they're your only shot at upgrades. But that's life in a random dungeon!
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 16:43
|
|
|
The Labyrinth of S'xsyde, Version 1.02! I went ahead and changed the chest tables somewhat significantly, as well as a few other minor tweaks I'd been considering. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Jan 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
I'm in rapid prototyping mode, trying to get ready for Tomarrow night. I met a fellow game designer at my FLGS and now I need to put together tiles with 1/2" grid and the remaining units and cards I need. Excited and nervous because this will be my first real play-test.
|
|
#
?
Jan 21, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:The Labyrinth of S'xsyde Your posts about making a small dungeon crawler inspired me. I decided to try for a card-based angle, with each card representing a room. I think it feels, psychologically, more thematic that the dungeon is entirely pre-placed and you're just discovering it, rather than generating it on the go. I also decided to use regular playing cards so that anyone can play it (sort of a similar idea to using graph paper). From there it was just a matter of coming up with card-based mechanics for everything. I ended up writing a bunch more rules than 2 pages, but it should be simple enough to understand. I also ended up making the game modular, with each dungeon and each hero having unique rules, mostly because I couldn't decide on a "one-rule-fits-all" for many cases. Try it out and tell me what you think. You need a standard deck of playing cards and two coins. Dungeons of Dex, v1 Alternate link Morholt fucked around with this message at 23:36 on Jan 22, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 22, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:The Labyrinth of S'xsyde, Version 1.02! I tried the new version with an Explorer, again difficulty 1. Went OK but I still got creamed  Used my torch at the beginning to help find a Chest where I got a rad sword. Rolled snake eyes on a second chest that should have been a cakewalk near the end of level 1, so I took an exploring detour using up the rest of the torch to find a second chest (fireball scroll). Made short work of the boss (Giant Rat) with my sword. Second level highlights: found another torch and used it up, found a bow (useless to me as it was better to use my sword anyway), and another Fireball scroll. Got hurt bad by a trap. Made it to the boss (Pyromancer). Used both fireball scrolls then laid into him. Took damage but still just managed to kill him... but his 2 damage death blast killed me. We joined each other in death  Might make a fun app in the style of e.g. Totally Random Hero
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Mister Sinewave posted:I tried the new version with an Explorer, again difficulty 1. Went OK but I still got creamed  I'll have to give this a look! Labyrinth of S'xsyde v1.03! With exciting new features like "intuitive table layout", "competent formatting" and "different opening image". I did a pretty massive overhaul of the Monster, Trap, and Obstacle tables so they're more consistent now, and simplified the HP-gaining rules. The game is a bit easier, but that's what the difficulty slider is for. I think this is going to be the last "main" update unless something major jumps out that needs fixing. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 19:05 on Jan 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Also I tried this out and I have to agree that it's really hard. Some people might like that, I found it frustrating. One thing that stood out to me is that getting lucky with room rolls is probably the largest factor in how successful you are. Perhaps pre-placing a few rooms (two or so chests even) in each floor might be a good idea? It would give the player some incentive to do something else than beeline for the guardian as well. Just roll 2D6 and use one for the row and the other for the column where the room appears.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 10:19
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Also I tried this out and I have to agree that it's really hard. Some people might like that, I found it frustrating. One thing that stood out to me is that getting lucky with room rolls is probably the largest factor in how successful you are. Perhaps pre-placing a few rooms (two or so chests even) in each floor might be a good idea? It would give the player some incentive to do something else than beeline for the guardian as well. Just roll 2D6 and use one for the row and the other for the column where the room appears. Edit ...and I saved the doc in the wrong format (2007 docx, I think), so now all the formatting is busted when I load it. God dammit, LibreOffice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Perhaps stating the obvious, but with Manhattan distance (orthogonal movement only) traveling along the edge of the map is the same distance as diagonally through. So a single chest in a corner is not a detour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
Morholt posted:Perhaps stating the obvious, but with Manhattan distance (orthogonal movement only) traveling along the edge of the map is the same distance as diagonally through. So a single chest in a corner is not a detour.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 17:48
|
|
|
Just finished up the rough draft of a new game. Dragon, Griffon, Troll, a two player abstract strategy/deduction game inspired by what I felt where some flaws in Battleship's design. It could also seriously use some playtesting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
Huh. That's actually really cool looking. I'd playtest it. Do you wanna open up a thread or something to play it on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
ActingPower posted:Huh. That's actually really cool looking. I'd playtest it. Do you wanna open up a thread or something to play it on?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
The rules seem pretty straightforward. I'm willing to play against you. I'll just log my moves somewhere that I can't change them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I'd be up for giving a shot. Quick question re Dragons - do they always point up, or can you pick a facing when you summon them (e.g. making their attack area 2 squares to the left and one to the right)?
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:I'd be up for giving a shot. I'm pretty sure they have to be facing the same way. Otherwise the opposing player wouldn't be able to predict it as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
I guess it could be an advanced variant or something. Should be easy enough to represent by drawing the triangle differently. Also I made a thing which may help with playing the game: 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:...that is a brilliant idea. It doesn't give guaranteed items, but it does give a guaranteed CHANCE of items. I think I prefer it being in the top-left corner, though, as opposed to randomly placed. Simpler to explain, and kind of subtly hints at the "explore more of the dungeon to find more chests" strategy. I used the Explorer twice for the ability to use the torch to increase my chance (a little) of finding Chests because the earlier the better for gear. I was considering starting my last game as a "Rich Explorer" who got went "shopping" and got two chest rolls for free before starting but that's just cheating 
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Zark the Damned posted:I guess it could be an advanced variant or something. Should be easy enough to represent by drawing the triangle differently. Oh, hey! Those pictures are cool! I have a piece of paper in front of me, so I was just going to use that.  I've created a thread over here to play it. I'll play against anybody who's up for it, so drop by if you're interested!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
The first playest went pretty well, I think the game has legs!
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Broken Loose posted:Master List of Characters The worst submarine fucked around with this message at 05:16 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
So, in Lost in the Woods I feel like the risk management aspect is bland. As I said, you set aside one random card of 6(Might want more) total, half of which are "good" and the other half "bad" (This check is represents things like if the stranger offering help wants to help or harm you.). Players look at half of the cards minus one to judge whether the risk is worth continuing., But this just doesn't seem an interesting way for players to make an informed guesses of which to choose and feels just kind of random and uninteresting. Any thoughts on this? I want this game to be about two things, cleverly using items to overcome obstacles, and judging risk/rewards of resources during "scenarios" (cards in the deck). The primary resources for the player besides items are their morale (which is constantly ticking down) and health. Edit: Another idea in the game I'm thinking of is the idea of temptation. The narrator player offers things like more items, or a chance to heal at a cost, but I'm not sure that works. it feels like a player would never make a deal with their direct opponent (i.e there's only two teams in this game). I feel like maybe there was hidden info each player had this might increase the chance of this working and rules about sharing info), but I think this game is maybe too complex already for a story game as it is. Foolster41 fucked around with this message at 18:52 on Jan 25, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
My board game is ready for playtesting. It's only about the first third of the game, but I felt it's a good idea to test the foundation. I have some friends coming over to test it this weekend and I planned on giving them some playtesting sheets. For those of you who have experience, what do you ask of your testers? I'm thinking of breaking it down piece by piece and asking for their opinions on everything from the card size, clarity of the rules, and overall flow to costs, balance, and art style.
|
|
#
?
Jan 25, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
I'll paraphrase something that might come in useful if you're asking people for their feedback on a game. When people tell you they didn't like something, or that something didn't work for them, take it to heart because they're almost guaranteed to be right. When they proceed to tell you how they think it should be fixed, they are almost guaranteed to be totally wrong. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
Get specifics and reasons. In this case more than any other in discussing boardgames, 'I had fun/didn't have fun' is really not remotely useful feedback.
|
|
#
?
Jan 26, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
The worst submarine posted:Some of these roles are 100% better if you don't take into account revenge. For example, mafia and judge are both worse than assassin. Was this intentional? I can see the 'worse' versions can be used to soften the blow while bluffing, but it would be nice if they were buffed to make them match up to their equivalents. The point is that you only pick one from each category, so in a game where the Mafia is used that will be the only action capable of making players lose influence, which has a strong effect on the overall flow of the game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 27, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
So, I’m trying to design a rhythm tabletop game. I have no idea if this is even something that can be reliably done? But my vague idea is a simple card game that is done in real time, with a song of the players’ choice used as a timer. The length of the song would determine how many cards players use, so it’ll be appropriately difficult. Players would have to play cards in beat with the music, with the group of players policing the timing. If a player is too slow on the beat, then they’re skipped and the next player goes instead. If they’re too fast, they’re skipped and need to take a penalty of some kind. Not entirely sure how the actual card game itself would play, to be honest - I'm thinking it'd be based on trying to combo cards together to earn points - you'd have your string of cards in front of you that you could play cards onto, and maybe be able to play onto others' as well to try and mess them up. Whoever has the most points at the end of the song wins. I’m not entirely sure how well this would work towards keeping the beat, but it might do well enough to encourage players to go along with the beat. Anyone know of any really simple real-time card games I might look to for inspiration? Along with card games that take maybe 3-5 minutes to play.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
This might turn on some ideas in your head, but have you played Falling? It's kind of a speed game but the pace and tempo is set by one player who is the dealer. They deal cards one at a time faceup around the table, one to each player. If card resolution requires it they pause to resolve stuff, then move on. Sort of like a conductor, they control the tempo. Perhaps the idea and flow might help your thought process.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Huh, I’ve never played that! I recognized the name, but didn’t really know anything about how it plays. After looking up a quick gameplay explanation on youtube, it does sound fairly similar to what I was thinking - not exactly the same, but enough to give me some stuff to think about. My vague idea was having each card have a colored border or a symbol, and you’d need to make chains of cards to get more points. Not really any decisions being made in that situation aside form which card to chain into to keep the chain going, so was thinking maybe you could slap cards onto another player’s chain in order to mess them up - like if you place a card in a chain that doesn’t match colors, it’s worth negative points instead of positive. Dunno, I'll try out some different ideas. Thanks for bringing Falling to my attention, though!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
No prob. One other thing that comes to mind when you mention chains is Markov Chains. They are useful as the basis for making - among other things - "random" melodies. You can't just randomly go from one note to another because not all note transitions are melodious. So you set up a Markov Chain which says things like "note C can lead to D (30%) or E (20%) or F (50%) because those sound okay, but never to F sharp because C directly to F# sounds like poo poo." (Note: may or may not sound like poo poo, just an example.) Set up enough of that - permissible transitions are ones that sound melodious, non-melodious ones are forbidden - and you have a random music generator where you can play with the tempo, pitch, rhythm, weightings within the chain, or whatever and it might sound weird but never dischordant. And despite being random it's not random in the sense that "any note can lead to any other unpredictably". OK that's less applicable to you maybe but Markov Chain state weighting sounds oddly like not only how melodies are structured, but also sounds like the basis for a scoring or matching system, doesn't it? But I have a soft spot for that poo poo so maybe I just like stories 
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Can anyone share any words/thoughts/articles as to the worker placement (if that’s the right term) allocation within game design. For fun rather than production, I’ve been making a game that’s more like Dungeon Petz crossed with some other mechanics, and while I’ve had fun designing and soon to be testing those mechanics, I’m not sure how to spread the actions performed. There are many actions you can do to build up your ‘base’, but I’m not sure whether to make them exclusive, or use an auction system, or how many ‘worker’s per turn to have and all that. I’ll probably just have to copy something and develop it as I go along, but if anyone has anything to consider while I focus on this aspect of the game, it would be appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 12:48
|
|
|
bobvonunheil posted:The point is that you only pick one from each category, so in a game where the Mafia is used that will be the only action capable of making players lose influence, which has a strong effect on the overall flow of the game. Bureau Chief was a pretty fun way to bluff. No one wanted to call someone out over one extra money, and it didn't have a lot of problems the other cards tended to have (mass money). CEO has some issues. Say you CEO turn 1, everyone else (5 other players) can claim CEO and take your poo poo. It's a better than half chance to call someone out, but it's not a good chance. Most of the other CEOs won't call others out either because 1) it's funny and 2) they can save that information for themselves. Basically, CEO was a bad action to use most of the time until the game has <= 3 people left, then its really really good. It might work fine with 5 people but not with 6. Journalist was the only ambassador-like we played with because it worked so well (and people had doubts about the others). In 6 player games ambassador is one of the stronger moves because of the information and the potential to swap, so trading some of that information for a money worked well. Revolutionary was a funny card, but also extremely frustrating. It's more annoying than captain to deal with and it can pump the entire table up to ridiculous sums of money. Then if everyone has dumb amounts of cash no one wants to pull the trigger because they can get shot right back. Confidence Man is fundamentally broken with a few other cards. The ability to completely negate most of the Duke-likes was stupid good, and often confusing to boot. It left a lot of sour feelings even after we ruled it to steal half of the money (rounded up). Mafia some people liked (including myself) but we were confused by the wording. In the end we ruled that if someone blocks your assassination, you keep the money used ($5) and take their paid money ($2) for a total of $7 if they don't lose a card. It worked well and it felt like an interesting choice to make sometimes, especially with some of the Contessa replacements. Judge we played with briefly, but I kind of enjoyed it. It might be worse than assassin, but if someone's dead it doesn't matter that much. And it does a good job of stopping revenge kills! Missionary is completely ridiculous in 6 player games. If someone has a missionary, then they get access to one of the remaining three cards in the deck, so they have that information and a new card. In addition, when the pile runs out (3 missionaries and 3 extra cards), then the ambassador-likes are mostly useless. Did not like. Scholar, conversely, was really fun (especially with mafia or judge). It made the game swingy, but also made you feel Cool&Smart when you racked up 5+ money when it's not even your turn. It's also a hilarious bluff because it keeps hidden information hidden. I would almost replace the Contessa with Scholar in regular games if the assassin wasn't so good. Basically we really liked scholar and journalist but there were some really bad ones (confidence man, missionary).
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
I couldn't sleep, and I was tossing and turning came up with this idea. I decided to write it down: Engarde is a game of dueling among swashbucklers. Each player holds a rapier in each hand, and is facing off against an opponent on either side. For 3 to 6 players. Players arrange themselves in a circle. Each player gets a rapier deck for each hand, representing the moves they can make with that hand. Each turn players look through their rapier deck and choose one of the following, Thrust Feint Parry Riposte One player is "on point" and has a button indicating this. They are first to act. They choose which hand goes first, and flip over the card they've chosen for that hand. The player next to the hand then flips over their matching card. The cards resolve in the following way Thrust: TO thrust, it is a tie. Instead of discarding the thrust cards, they are put back into the deck. TO feint, the thrusting player kills the feinting player. They are out of the game after resolving any other unplayed card. TO parry, the thrusting player is disarmed. They get rid of the deck in that hand, and now face off against their opponents on either side with their remaining deck. The player who successfully parried gets to add the thrust card to the deck of the hand that successfully parried. If a player has both decks parried away, then they are defenseless until killed by a thrust. If they survive one round like this, they may reclaim one of their decks. TO riposte, the thrusting player is killed. They are out of the game after resolving any other unplayed card. Every other combination provides a null result. Each player gets a single "fate" token. They may use this once per game to immediately turn their back to the table, effectively making the left hand result into the right hand result and vice versa. However, they must play with their back to the table for the rest of the game. Play is resolved going in whatever direction the player on point decided to start in (if they started to their left move clockwise, if they started to their right move counter clockwise). All played cards, once everything has been resolved, move to a space in front of the player. The cards may be placed ANYWHERE still touching the last played card placed, and players may place cards in an effort to confuse their opponents as to what hand has played what, but the symbol on the card must always be visible. So, play proceeds as follows: Each player chooses a card for any hand's deck that remains. When they are ready they say "Salut" After each player has confirmed "Salut" the player on point says "En Garde!" and reveals whichever card they'd like to begin. Play proceeds around in the corresponding direction, resolving duels between hands. After play has resumed players place their played cards in front of them and when they are finished they say, "Salut" Once every player has said "Salut" the on point button moves to the left, and a new round begins. Special conditions. If a player is facing off against two opponents with a single deck and they are killed by the first match-up, then they resolve the remaining attack with the same card before they leave the game. If they were both parries, the first player to have parried gets the thrust card and the other player to have parried gets nothing. If players are left who lack thrust cards to make killing blows, then they must show their remaining cards, and then may pick up a thrust card in front of them and put it back into the deck. Any time a player is out of cards in a deck they must play the next round as if they had feinted, and if they survive they may take any three cards from the pile in front of them to reconstitute their deck. The last player alive is the winner. If it gets down to two players, then they play player 1's left hand to player 2's right hand and vice versa. STUFF I'M NOT SURE ABOUT: Not sure about how to balance the TFPR cards. I'm thinking 2 each. Do you have a set deck for each hand, or do you have a general pool of cards that you can split evenly between the two and once you do you can't swap between decks?
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
I would like to note Reiner Knizia has a game named En Garde if that's any concern (it's what Flash Duel Also turning your back to a board sounds exhausting. In regards to what you're not sure about :
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Look at how BANG! works as well. It's a (usually) very quick game with similar-sounding mechanics and purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Trynant posted:I would like to note Reiner Knizia has a game named En Garde if that's any concern (it's what Flash Duel En Garde was just the first (sort of lazy) thing that popped into my head, but that's good to know. I think I'm going to leave turning your back in, because it also makes it harder to see what cards have been played. I agree about timing, especially since the first round is the most luck based and it would be easy to get eliminated early. I was thinking 2 of each card makes sense. Without playtesting my ideas is that there's a pretty clear hierarchy of cards in power: Feint: not good at all. You want to play these strategically, ideally when you think your opponent isn't going to thrust. You want them out of your deck so that you're down to the wire with your power cards. Thrust: the major way to kill people, but also incredibly risky. Parry: No real risk in playing this, other than wasting it. You may also gain another offensive card and seriously disable an opponent. Riposte: Easily the best card in the game since it's defensive, no risk, and can kill. So maybe F1 T2 P2 R1? Yeah, I have to playtest to see how long it takes and what gameplay is like in practice.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 21:56
|
|
|
I don't know how much you know about fencing, but I've taken a class on it, so I thought I would clarify your terms. I'm having a bit of trouble following how you're using them. Look at it this way: If I thrust and hit you, I get a point. If you try to thrust after me, I'll still hit first and get the point. But if you parry, my thrust will go off-center and miss. That's when you riposte and hit me while I'm off-balance. However, if I feint, that means I pretend to thrust instead of actually thrust. When you parry my feint, you won't deflect my sword (since it, you know, isn't there), meaning you're the one who's off-balance, not me. Now I can get around your parry, no problem. But if you realize I'm feinting, you can just thrust, since I'm too busy not hitting you to parry. So to review: Thrust beats feint, Parry-riposte beats thrust, feint beats parry-riposte. ActingPower fucked around with this message at 22:18 on Jan 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
ActingPower posted:I don't know how much you know about fencing, but I've taken a class on it, so I thought I would clarify your terms. I'm having a bit of trouble following how you're using them. Look at it this way: If I thrust and hit you, I get a point. If you try to thrust after me, I'll still hit first and get the point. But if you parry, my thrust will go off-center and miss. That's when you riposte and hit me while I'm off-balance. However, if I feint, that means I pretend to thrust instead of actually thrust. When you parry my feint, you won't deflect my sword (since it, you know, isn't there), meaning you're the one who's off-balance, not me. Now I can get around your parry, no problem. But if you realize I'm feinting, you can just thrust, since I'm too busy not hitting you to parry. Yeah, I knew I was using the terms improperly. I'm interested in Feint being a worthless card that you have to play strategically to improve your deck. Having a straight up rock-paper-scissors mechanic might work better though...
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 14:12 |
|
|
This isn't what you're asking, but: I took fencing for a while in a previous life  and one thing that might work into your game and be a thematic match is that .. well, if we were in person this would make 100% sense 100x more easily but I'll try to explain. You can have multiple parries in the same "thrust" and at high levels it is as much a mind game as anything else, because it's happening too fast to actually see and react to.When I thrust and you parry, the parry is actually a very small movement but it is the difference between the tip going into your chest (hit) and the tip sliding past your body (miss). This is how it works: your blade is crossing mine on its way to me and and I can parry by rolling my wrist and pushing your blade to the side just enough to make it miss. But the thruster can counteract this by a tiny movement - if I dip the tip of my blade UNDER your parrying blade to the other side, then you're now pushing thin air (in the wrong direction) and I'm back on the way to your chest unopposed. The correct parry direction started out one side but is now the other side. This is a two-way street. If there is still time, the small parry movement can reverse to put the parry back on track. Which the thruster can counteract with another little dip. And so on. At high levels this can happen multiple times during a single thrust. So I've been told, anyway. The point is that in the game, the actual thrust and parry might be abstracted away but there might still be an opportunity -- if you want to add something -- for the attacker to react to defeat the parry and for the defender to recover if the attacker is trying that. It could be used to add an element of what are you going to do, what do you THINK I'm going to do, what do you think I think you're going to do, etc. In game terms, players could each have - number of each depending on the fencer's "Skill" or handicap - "Switch Direction" tokens and "No Change" tokens. You always play one to go with your play, revealing it along with your play. A plain Parry defeats a plain Thrust. But a Thrust + Switch Direction defeats Parry + No Change. A Parry + Switch Direction FAILS against plain Thrust BUT defeats Thrust + Switch Direction. And so on. This may of course have no place in your game design but if it does there might be a way to make it work.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 03:34
|
|