Countblanc posted:

I'm a big fan of two things in 1v1 video/board games, high damage (and the scary situations that come with it) and best-of-X sets. especially since you said playtesters weren't able to bust things open yet, I'm worried that it means your game may be too safe right now. players being able to do absurd, unfair poo poo is cool, especially during early playtesting, and I think you might want to try cranking up some of the damage again. not necessarily across the board - choose which moves it makes sense to do a shitload of damage for each character and give some characters more of those than others.

obviously this leads to situations where someone is going to die quickly sometimes, but that's what sets are for. it's ok for a player to lose a game because they guessed wrong on knockdown twice, and sets give someone a chance to get back to a neutral start and try again. nothing feels worse in a game than doing something cool or bold and not getting a big payoff.

Anniversary posted:

Sounds awesome!

Congrats on getting out there and getting some playtesting/feedback.

I'm still really curious to see more of your system.

dhamster posted:

Yeah, I agree with this. There were some cool moments in the playtest involving a player guessing wrong on knockdown two or three times in a row, but at the same time the rounds could have been shorter. I had basically nudged the baseline damage down a bit to give myself some room to give characters more powerful attacks. Previously the baseline character could do about 3-6 damage for winning combat (baseline health is 18), I bumped it down to about 2-4 damage. Though I wasn't using them in the playtest, there are characters that should be able to hit harder than that. I think I might still adjust the baseline health down to about 15-16 just so winning combat is more impactful.

Countblanc posted:

Are you still having issues making Blocking useful/interesting? I looked over your previous notes and, if you aren't worried about it over-complicating the game, you may want to consider tweaking the "momentum" mechanic to something spacing-based. I don't think any of the existing fighting-game-board-games have done this, but stuff like blocking a sweep right next to you is different from blocking a sweep at max range. Like a sweep from 2 spaces away might be safe, 1 space might be mildly unsafe, and adjacent would obviously be hugely punishable. Same with fireballs. This also gives the game some more weighed options which are important in read-based games; if some things aren't risky then it becomes difficult for reads to be anything but arbitrary since you can't "eliminate" certain options as unviable.

Another idea for blocking could be having it grant free, immediate punishes in the event that you block something particularly unsafe like a DP, like Yomi's "dodge" cards. Either as a universal mechanic for blocking moves that would bestow &x_amount of Momentum ("If you block an attack which grants you 5 or more Momentum you may immediately play an attack with speed 3 or less") or print it on specific cards ("Shoryu-Punch: Invincible, 5 damage. If blocked your opponent may immediately play an attack with speed 3 or less.").

In your original post you mentioned the game being "joystick motion + button" but now it sounds more like "movement direction + ability". The first one really excited me since it opened up space for Charge characters, something I really haven't seen emulated particularly well in other fighter card games - Geiger's blocked Time Spirals are the only thing remotely close. Like my first thought was that each character had a move list like you'd see on the side of an old arcade cabinet, and you had to actually do the inputs to make certain things happen. Like your "movement" card could be "walk backward" or "quarter circle forward" (or even "stand still" or "hold down-back"), and your button card would just be A, B, C, D which would have printed Normal values if you just stood still or walked, but if you did a proper motion it'd preform a special move. Charge characters could have "if you moved/held [direction] last turn and move/held [opposite direction] this turn you do a special". This is probably more complex than your current game but I don't necessarily think that's bad.

e: also I wanted to say that I like your decision to make throws powerful, both because I like ST throws and because I think it gives the game a good "default" option, which is sorta what Blocking is in Yomi in the vast majority of matchups except it brings the game closer to conclusion instead of just powering up characters. It helps new players have a "wait, I can just do this and probably be okay" safety net and establishes the floor for the mind games in higher level play.

Monty Hall: Fight posted:

One player starts with Momentum.
The other player starts with a Blue token.

Each turn both players choose a card in secret and put their chosen card on the table facedown.
Then the player who doesn’t have Momentum chooses whether to attack with their card or not.
Then the player with Momentum chooses whether to attack with their card or not.
Then the player without Momentum can spend a Blue token to change from Attack to Block or vice-versa, if they do so then the player with Momentum may do the same, this process repeats until any player refuses to do so.
Then players who chose attack reveal their card, if they did not attack, their card is kept facedown as a Block.
Jab beats Grab, Grab beats Block, Block beats Jab.
Winner gains Momentum.
If Jab or Grab was the winner they gain a Red token and the loser gains a Blue token.
If there was a tie, trade Momentum.
Regardless the card chosen is discarded (face up if it was an attack, face down if it was set as a block.)

Jen - 2 Jabs, 1 Grab - starts with Momentum
Ren - 1 Jab, 2 Grabs - starts with a Blue token

Player with the most red tokens at the end wins. If there is a tie, player with the most facedown cards in discard wins. If there is still a tie, the player who had Momentum on the last turn loses.

sector_corrector posted:

I had an idea for a game recently, and I was wondering if anyone knows of something similar before I start:

The idea would be that instead of a board, gameplay happens from a hardbound book. The book is a grimoire, and each page is its own board that has slight variations on the rules. Players are trying to flip through the pages of the book to get to a page that is most advantageous for their goals (probably earning VP in some way), and a large part of the gameplay is getting the book to the page you desire, or making the best of the page that the book is on.

sector_corrector posted:

I had an idea for a game recently, and I was wondering if anyone knows of something similar before I start:

The idea would be that instead of a board, gameplay happens from a hardbound book. The book is a grimoire, and each page is its own board that has slight variations on the rules. Players are trying to flip through the pages of the book to get to a page that is most advantageous for their goals (probably earning VP in some way), and a large part of the gameplay is getting the book to the page you desire, or making the best of the page that the book is on.

sector_corrector posted:

I had an idea for a game recently, and I was wondering if anyone knows of something similar before I start:

The idea would be that instead of a board, gameplay happens from a hardbound book. The book is a grimoire, and each page is its own board that has slight variations on the rules. Players are trying to flip through the pages of the book to get to a page that is most advantageous for their goals (probably earning VP in some way), and a large part of the gameplay is getting the book to the page you desire, or making the best of the page that the book is on.

sector_corrector posted:

I had an idea for a game recently, and I was wondering if anyone knows of something similar before I start:

The idea would be that instead of a board, gameplay happens from a hardbound book. The book is a grimoire, and each page is its own board that has slight variations on the rules. Players are trying to flip through the pages of the book to get to a page that is most advantageous for their goals (probably earning VP in some way), and a large part of the gameplay is getting the book to the page you desire, or making the best of the page that the book is on.

dhamster posted:

Kashuno posted:

Hi all, just found out this thread exists. I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it! I was directed from the main board game thread since I am currently working on a game. It is a pirate themed worker placement that has both an individual player board you can assign workers to, as well as a larger main game board that you can assign workers to. I think this is a good way to touch on the players who enjoy the solitaire aspect of some worker placement games but also has the option for a lot of player interaction if the players choose that aspect to focus on. I realize that's a real rough idea, but does that sound really bizarre/complicated having two action boards or does it sound workable?

The worst submarine posted:

That doesn't sound complicated, but how would the playerboard actions be different from a normal-board action that any number of players can take?

CodfishCartographer posted:

The part I’m worried that might be confusing isn’t that there’s a shared deck of cards everyone buys from, each person would have their own personal deck that they buy from. So let’s say I use Dual Swords, I have a Dual Swords deck that I can buy cards from and nobody else can. You use Hammer, so you have a Hammer deck that only you buy cards from. I guess this loses some of the interesting bits of deckbuilding (aka figuring out what other people are building and accounting for that), but i’m mostly trying to figure out a way to add in customization without bogging things down a ton or losing out on theme.

And that’s true, I was thinking in my head that the choices would instead be about trying to make combos of cards using what’s already in your deck, but maybe it’d too often just be “this is the best choice”

For reference, i’m trying to work this system into a game I’ve been working on. The main problems are:
-I want something with customization
-I want to keep the themes of various weapons fairly strong and constrained
-I don’t currently have any type of resource systems, aside from energy used to play the cards themselves

So that was the solution I’ve come up with. I suppose I could try to work in a new resource system, but I feel at that point it’s just adding in complication to bandaid design problems instead of actually fixing those problems.

Straight White Shark posted:

What if there was a shared deck that everyone was buying from, but not every weapon can use every card? Give each card a row of symbols or whatnot showing which weapons can use it, with different weapons overlapping parts of their shared deck with other weapons. e.g., you have a staff. Staves have various properties: they're blunt weapons, they're long, they're good for blocking. So you can specialize in different things with your staff fighting style, which are shared with other weapons. You're competing with the mace wielder for "bash guy over head" cards and you're competing with the spear wielder for "poke guy from a distance" cards, but the mace and spear guy aren't really competing with each other--they have other parts of their decks that they're competing with other weapons with.

The main problem with this approach is that it becomes vastly harder to balance the draws/offer from the main deck when you can't guarantee that every card available to a player is relevant to them. There are workarounds, but it complicates things. It does have some ancillary benefits, though, like potentially cutting down on the total number of cards (e.g. you don't need print as many near-identical cards across different decks, because you can use a smaller shared pool of identical cards.)

Monster Harvester posted:

You have 2 key resources: Meat and Bone.
Bone is used to create gear for the Hunt from your developed Innovations.
Meat is used to fuel the Harvesting -> to fight, to explore, etc.
Inspiration is used to create new innovations at the end of the hunt.

Basic Set Up

Village Farm | Innovation
At the start of your turn gain 2 Meat and 1 Bone.

Broken Bones | Innovation
BONE DAGGER
COST - 1 Bone.
EFFECT - This Hunt once per combat you may spend 2 Meat for 3 Attack.
EAT MARROW
COST - 1 Bone. Use this ability once per Hunt.
EFFECT - Gain 1 Meat.

Struggle | Innovation
BARE HANDS
COST - 1 Meat.
EFFECT - This combat, gain 1 Attack.
FEAST
COST - 2 Meat.
EFFECT - Gain 1 Innovation.

Monster Hunter | Innovation
DESPERATION
COST - Use this ability once per Hunt.
EFFECT - Encounter 1 Monster.
HUNT
COST - 1 Meat.
EFFECT - Encounter 1 Monster.

The Hunt
The player who has most recently hunted goes first. They may encounter one monster, then the next player may encounter one monster, etc. This continues until all players have declined to encounter a monster. Then the turn ends. The game ends once a turn goes by without any encounters. Then the player with the most inspiration worth of Innovations wins.

Monsters
Monsters can be encountered once per Hunt phase. If a monster is encountered a second time it is Overharvested and can no longer be Encountered. It is replaced by the next tier of Monster of that type.

Tier 1
Zombie | Undead
Health 2
Reward - 1 Bone and 1 Inspiration.

Goblin | Vermin
Health 3
Reward - 1 Meat and 1 Inspiration.

Orc | Predator
Health 4
Reward - 1 Meat, 1 Bone, and 1 Innovation.

Tier 2
Ghoul | Undead
Health 4
Reward - 3 Meat and 1 Bone.

Kobold | Vermin
Health 5
Reward - 3 Inspiration.

Ogre | Predator
Health 6
Reward - 2 Meat, 2 Bone, and 1 Innovation.

Tier 3
Vampire | Undead
Health 6
Reward - 2 Bone and 2 Innovation.

Boggart | Vermin
Health 7
Reward - 2 Meat, 1 Bone, and 2 Inspiration.

Giant | Predator
Health 8
Reward - 4 Meat and 2 Bone.

Innovations
At the end of each turn you may spend any accumulated Inspiration on Innovations. You may buy multiple of the same Innovation, but there is no reason to do so for anything other than the Graveyard and Farm.

Graveyard | Cost 2
At the start of your turn, gain 1 Bone.

Farm | Cost 3
At the start of your turn, gain 1 Meat.

Bone Worker | Cost 2
BONE SWORD
COST - 2 Bone.
EFFECT - Once per combat this Hunt you may spend 2 Meat for 4 Attack.
BONE SPEAR
COST - 3 Bone.
EFFECT - This combat, gain 4 Attack.

BONE SMITH | Cost 4
BONE BLADE
COST - 3 Bone.
EFFECT - Once per combat this Hunt you may spend 2 Meat for 5 Attack.
BONE FEAST
COST - 3 Bone.
EFFECT - Gain 2 Meat.

CodfishCartographer posted:

Hmm, that could definitely work! I already have some guidelines in mind for each weapon that would line up with that sort of thing nicely. I will say that the game is cooperative, and so competing over cards isn’t something that necessarily encouraged - although, players trying to work together to figure out how best to distribute cards is in the right ballpark. The fact that it’s cooperative could also put a bit of a damper on a situation where players have no cards available to them to draw, because another player getting the cards is still helping the team.

Anniversary posted:

So I'm gonna do that thing where I dump a game idea in here. Any feedback would be appreciated, just keep in mind its completely untested so numbers might be hilariously broken. So without further ado, I give you Monster Harvester:

Anniversary posted:

Interesting. When you first started talking about this I envisioned each weapon having an individual market for advanced actions that they could buy with 'Glory' earned from attacking the monster.

CodfishCartographer posted:

Interesting! I like the theming of meat and bone for your resources, that’s super flavorful and immediately paints a really cool mental picture. I’m not totally sure I get the gameplay flow, though. The point is that as rounds go by, everyone fights some monsters, then spends Inspiration to get upgrades (which let them kill stronger monsters for better rewards)? With the ultimate goal being to get the most total Inspiration spent? It feels a little weird that the goal is to get the most inspiration “worth” of innovations. I would expect there to be some kind of VP system or something, to make the decision of what upgrade to purchase more difficult and engaging - do you progress towards victory, or upgrade yourself so you can progress faster later on? That kinda thing.

quote:

This was my initial idea, yeah. Each player gets a weapon, each wepaon has a unique market, so each player has their own personal market that only they purchase from.

thinking about glory / resources has gotten me some ideas for some options.

Idea 1: Each limb on the monster has a pool of health counters, and when you damage you remove those, taking them as glory which you can spend on cards.

Idea 2: Since players would use energy to play cards, maybe when you buy a card you need to refill a small amount of stamina - if you can’t refill enough stamina for that card, you can’t buy it. So upgrading your deck gives double duty - refilling your energy and giving you new options. More powerful cards would thus be more expensive to both buy and to play, since their energy cost would be the same. But then playing expensive cards would allow you to buy more expensive cards, or maybe multiple cheaper ones if you want.

Anniversary posted:

I like the idea of having VP be a thing so you actually have to make choices to that end - I mostly threw in the Innovation win condition because I didn't have anything better and wanted to have a win condition for what I had.

And the gameplay flow is still rough, yeah. Its essentially a resource management problem which is slightly complicated by having to worry about your opponents making the only thing you could fight successfully extinct.

One thing I like that's really dark thematically is to fight harder monsters you have to make weaker monsters go extinct. And you can force extinctions to mess with your opponents / etc.

There's definitely a ton of room to put some meat on the metaphorical bones of the design (I'm... I'm sorry for that one), but I'll have to give it a play to see where would be best to do that.

Anniversary posted:

So in idea 2, the more exhausted you are the more you can upgrade to regain energy?

I don't know if this is your goal off of this, but I could see this being a really neat hidden timer of sorts. You have to manage your energy, and your energy regeneration is based on an nonrenewable resource that makes you more powerful, but upgrading removes the ability to regenerate energy in the future.

Actually, and this may be going to far afield, but what if cards you hadn't yet added to your deck represented your passive energy regeneration - gaining them to your deck would give you a large one time boost in energy, but they would stop providing passive generation, so you had to manage your energy, energy regeneration, and power level during gameplay by timing your upgrades for long term and short term gains.

CodfishCartographer posted:

Oh, I hadn’t really read it as making the monsters go “extinct”, merely that when a monster dies, a more powerful one replaces it. Thinking about it, would it be possible for a player to be in a situation where all the monsters are so strong, they couldn’t possibly beat any of them? Speaking of which, what happens when a player can’t beat a monster, are they just unable to fight it?

I like that your monster types seem to be dedicated around specific resources, to give players more motivation to fight specific ones, but I think you might want to try and make resources have more obvious value. I know what they’re used for, but you want to be sure that there’s the motivation and opportunity to deny resources. Sure, I might know that Player A wants Bone so I can beat him to the punch, but why do that if I can get Meat which helps me instead?

Maybe this is moving a bit far away from your intention, but I get the impression that killing a monster, while a common enough event, is kind of a Big Deal and thus should have more big impressions. If someone kills the Zombie, it should be something that effects everyone at the table. Maybe it already does? It’s a little hard to tell just looking at numbers, though.

quote:

I do already have more of a hard timer in the game though, which behaves similarly. Monsters have various limbs that you can attack, which have their own health. Each round that goes by where a limb isn’t broken (reaches 0 health), a rage timer increases. When it maxes out, the hunters lose. When a limb is broken, the rage timer resets down to 0. If you attack a broken limb, you instead deal damage to the monster itself, and reducing its health all the way down to 0 is the win state. So players need to juggle breaking limbs with damaging the monster. If you just burst down all the limbs super fast, you’ll have no way of resetting the timer. Conversely, if you spread out too thin to try and whittle down all the limbs at once, you won’t be able to kill them all before the rate timer maxes out.

Anniversary posted:

Is that a new damage system? It's been a while since I read the rules to Behemoth (if this is that?) but it sounds like that's a pretty significant change that sounds really interesting.