|
So this isn't exactly a board game design question, but I think that it fits under the umbrella of this thread. I'm looking for advice on how to implement the passage of time as a mechanic for a discord role playing game I'm designing. The game is based on the Danganronpa series of video games. Tldr: a group of talented high school students (the players in the game I'm designing) are trapped in a location they can't escape, usually a school that's locked up tight. In order to escape, they need to murder one another and get away with it. Students can murder each other whenever they want, but when a corpse is found there's a period of time where the students can investigate the crime scene, and then a trial is held. If the students incorrectly vote for the murderer, the murderer gets to escape the school and all other students are killed. If the students DO correctly vote on the murderer, then the murderer is executed and the rest of the students go back to being trapped. This repeats until only a few students are left, at which point they all get to leave together. The goal of the discord game is to emulate this as closely as possible, where players can plan and carry out murders, and then others can investigate the crime scenes and hold a group trial. In order to avoid the role playing game problem of meeting up twice and then the game dies when people miss meet up times, the game is designed to be fairly play by post, where people can come in and post what they want to do at any given time. The problem is, I need some mechanics to track the passage of time in-game. If I don't, players can spend as much time as they like cleaning up after or investigating a murder. I also can't directly use time irl in order to track it, as then if one player can't make it one day or another just had way more free time than another, it gets unfair really quickly. However, I don't want to tie it PURELY to mechanics, as then lots of players may wait around for one player to return and take their actions or whatever before everyone else can continue playing. So I'm looking for some hybrid of the two, but not exactly sure how to implement it and am looking for ideas.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:So I'm looking for some hybrid of the two, but not exactly sure how to implement it and am looking for ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 00:59
|
|
|
PMush Perfect posted:Create an action-point system, everyone has so many days to decide how to use their action points (publicly or privately?), and then at the end of that time period, the game moves forward an hour/a day/whatever. This also lets them set up "I knew you knew I knew" plans. I hadn't considered queueing up actions, but it's a clever idea! Working from there, I think I came up with a system that works. Each in-game day is divided into three sections - morning, afternoon, and night. Players decide on an activity they want to do during each phase ahead of time, then when that phase arrives they carry out those activities. Generally activities are fairly loose and unrestricted - if a player wants to search a gym equipment room, for example, they can do multiple thing therein. Looking into lockers, looking for specific items, trying on gym outfits, etc. Once all players have completed their activities, or 48 hours pass irl, the in-game day moves to the next phase. However, when players are doing an activity related to MURDER, then they are limited to 8 actions per time of day. These actions are much more strict and much more limited. It'll be case-by-case of course, but for example moving a body into a broom closet is an action, closing and locking the door could be another action, then covering up bloodstain with a carpet could be a third. So if a player wants to set up for a murder, commit one, and then try to cover it up over the course of a single morning or afternoon or night, they only have 8 actions to do so. But if they murder someone at night, then cover it up in the morning, they have 16 actions. This will force players to choose between quickly but sloppily getting the job done, or more thoroughly getting it done but taking much longer to do so, thus risking being spotted by someone else or having a bigger gap in their alibi. Investigating a murder is also limited to 8 actions, but is limited to only a single time of day - you can't stretch it out over multiple time periods. This means player will have to investigate multiple areas of a crime individually, meaning no one player will (hopefully) have perfect information. 8 actions may be too much, I might limit it to 4, but we'll see how it goes over in testing. I chose 8 because each time chunk would be divided up into 8 hours.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
Frozen Peach posted:I took the plunge and made the decision to attempt to self publish using The Game Crafter. It started as an experiment to see if I could put together a good prototype for pitching and demoing, but now I've pretty much decided to just run with it. I used them to get the prototype made for my card game and they seemed to work out pretty well - though mine was just cards and not any other components so I can't say for sure what kind of quality they have for things like boards and pieces. Congratulations on pushing on with your project though - putting together a full prototype is a LOT of work if you're doing it by yourself. I'm still trying to get the beta version of my card game finished since the entire team is just me with my wife doing the art when she has time/feels like it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 05:11
|
|
|
This seems to be the best place to ask though if I'm wrong my apologies. My brother-in-law is a game programmer with a strong interest in game design. He's got a couple of self made digital games under his belt but he has shown a recent interest in traditional game design: deck building games and the like. I'd like to get him a book on the subject for the holiday. I don't know if there's a consensus favorite but any suggestion is appreciated. English or even French books can be used. TLDR: Any suggestions on good reading material on game design?
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 13:29
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:This seems to be the best place to ask though if I'm wrong my apologies. I like Characteristics of games a lot as an abstract, unifying book.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
Osmosisch posted:I like Characteristics of games a lot as an abstract, unifying book. Cool, this looks good but is it as academic as it seems? MIT Press doesn't look like accessible reading.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:14
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:This seems to be the best place to ask though if I'm wrong my apologies. I read The Art of Game Design: A Book of Lenses as a student and it was really easy to get through and was very enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2018 23:17
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Cool, this looks good but is it as academic as it seems? MIT Press doesn't look like accessible reading. I found it quite approachable but I do have an academic background. The book of Lenses is also quite good, as is the Kobold's guide to board game design.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 15:51
|
|
|
100YrsofAttitude posted:Cool, this looks good but is it as academic as it seems? MIT Press doesn't look like accessible reading. It's very straightforward, and lots of it is very basic material. The only exception is some appendix material about Sprague-Grundy/combinatorial games; he gives a weird, brief dip that I don't think many people are going to find terribly helpful (nor do I think SG theory is all that important for most game design). Still, understanding the core Garfield definitions of "politics", "luck", and "skill" is worth the price of admission.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 16:52
|
|
|
I read Characteristics of Games and consider it a typical undergrad-level textbook. I got a lot out of it. There are definitely parts that'll go over most anyone's head but it's not meant to be read word-for-word like a novel.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
No sign of my first production copy yet... but these came in the mail today!   I feel so official!
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:31
|
|
|
That's adorable. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Mortley posted:I read Characteristics of Games and consider it a typical undergrad-level textbook. I got a lot out of it. There are definitely parts that'll go over most anyone's head but it's not meant to be read word-for-word like a novel. Thanks everyone for the advice. I'll most likely pick-up one of these two books.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2018 11:02
|
|
|
My first copy came in today and it's so beautiful! It's everything I hoped it'd be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2018 05:58
|
|
|
That's striking! Awesome!
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2018 14:46
|
|
|
I've been getting back into game design working on an old project, a customizable deck game (CCG/TCG I guess) with a dexterity mechanic. It's basically a martial arts/fight club themed game with an "Egyptian war" style slap dexterity mechanic. I'm in fairly early stages, starting mostly over since I don't have much of the old rules/cards. One of the main inspirations is the old N64 game "fighter's destiny" where you had multiple ways of scoring through knockouts, throw downs or ring outs. You play moves with their own patterns of cards symbols that need to be drawn (For now this is a separate "action deck", but I might make these symbols a part of the cards on the main deck, though I'm afraid of the cards being overloaded with information). When you declare an attack you draw cards from the deck one at a time, and if the pattern of cards (usually only a pattern of two symbols) you and your opponent slap. If the attacker slaps first it's a hit. If not, it's a miss. The pad you slap is on a grid in the center, and you can raise or lower your speed through effects, or the attacks, moving the pad closer or further from you. One thing I'm trying to figure out is how the energy system works. Right now I'm going to use a hearthstone style energy system since I don't really like energy cards like in a lot of TCGs. I'm not sure how that balances out since energy is used to both attack and defend, if the second player gets an advantage, since any energy you use you won't have to depend on your opponent's turn. Another aspect I'm trying to figure out is comboing. I have symbols on the cards that link them together (one on the left and one of the right) if you link the same symbol from two moves, the next move gets a speed bonus. But I'm having trouble figuring out how I want moves I want to link together. I guess I could just symbol them by left punch, right punch, left punch, etc. and it'll make sense, and I can tweak it from there. It seems overly simple though. I like the idea of different combat styles, like using Capoeira and making them feel different, though I'm not sure how to get across the sense of rhythm, always moving as a mechanic One of my biggest problems is I'm not sure how feinting would work. I'd like it to be a mechanical (player skill) thing rather than just "I play a feint card"). I feel like this is a must-have aspect to the game. (Sorry if this was a bit rambly. Advice/feedback is welcome)
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2018 22:53
|
|
|
Foolster41 posted:One of my biggest problems is I'm not sure how feinting would work. I'd like it to be a mechanical (player skill) thing rather than just "I play a feint card"). I feel like this is a must-have aspect to the game. Put lots of symbols on the left/right sides of the cards. Symbols ideally are jumbled, generally, no particular order per card. Require that a real attack have say two or three matches, and anything else is a feint. Slapping a real attack is a hit, slapping a feint scores a hit for the opponent (or just a speed bonus to the next attack, either way it's a counterattack). If you tie the number of matches to the strength of the attack you can more finely grain effects and potentially lead to some interesting decisions. I'm assuming the timer is short enough that it's hard to see at a glance more than one match here, though now that I think about it you'll be necessarily limited by your opponent's physical and mental speed. I'm envisioning here "see a one-match set, and physically fake a slap to draw the opponent's slap before they can recognize that there's only one match" A four-match set would be easier to identify as a real attack, presumably, but do more damage or carry additional effects. I'm thinking the symbols would be superficially similar and the actual nature of them would contribute to your game's balance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 14:03
|
|
|
Oh, I didn't think about putting multiple symbols on the action cards. That's a neat idea. I'll toy around with that. Thanks!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2018 18:43
|
|
|
I just had an interesting idea for a deckbuilder basically cribbing the spirit of the old Decipher LotR game. Playing cards has the cost of letting your opponent thin their deck. So you have to balance getting a benefit now with basically paying your opponent a benefit in interest. Problem being that right now, I can't think of much in the way of other mechanics or themes that would fit something like that, with the possible exception of a small deck dudebasher where your deck is also your life total (or at least a primary resource). Edit: Huh. That's interesting. If you can pick which cards you lose, then you might even have the options of playing a sort of game of chicken, where you're trying to get your deck as small as possible so you can combo off, without being so low that one big swing from your opponent ends you. Edit 2: My first thought is the old DBZ card game, where you and your opponent have energy levels, which partially powers your actions and gets diminished by being hit, but shooting them in the face with a laser can also knock cards off the top of their deck. If I tweak that to "make them choose permanent removal discards OR blind permanent removal milling", that could be a game mechanic right there. "I use one stamina and play Boot To The Head for three damage." "I'll discard Roll With It to negate one point of that damage, then burn two cards from my hand to block the other two." girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 20:53 on Dec 12, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2018 20:39
|
|
|
Anyone have much experience designing worker placement games? I have an idea for one, where the “workers” are cards that have various effects. However, I’m having difficulty settling on what resources to have and how many places there should be to place workers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Anyone have much experience designing worker placement games? I have an idea for one, where the “workers” are cards that have various effects. However, I’m having difficulty settling on what resources to have and how many places there should be to place workers. 'experience' in that I've spun my wheels on a couple, yeah! Interesting idea about the workers themselves having effects, in addition to what they do by being placed, can really make you think about how you play your workers. Have you considered trading in the Mediterranean as a theme so you can decide on resources?  Dunno why but I was thinking of something with robots and mechs as part of a theme. Especially if you are able to gather more workers as the game goes on. Worker spaces kinda depend on how big a game you want to have. The River has like 8 worker placement spaces total whereas something like feast for Odin has...a lot
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 18:47
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:'experience' in that I've spun my wheels on a couple, yeah! Interesting idea about the workers themselves having effects, in addition to what they do by being placed, can really make you think about how you play your workers. I do like giant robots! I definitely am planning on having the theming be some kind of one that allows combat, I’m not sure what though. While following the line of thinking “what if workers were cards” I decided it’d be a good idea to allow them to fight - place a worker on a space with an enemy worker to make them fight, so you can bully enemy workers off of valuable spots. I actually don’t think I’ll have the “clear the board” phase most worker placement games have, instead opting for players bullying open other locations. I’m also planning to promote “retreating” your workers, removing them from the board to clear up space and gain other benefits. My current ideas for themes are ancient Egypt or Aztec, working slaves and sacrificing them to gods.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Different specialist agents being placed on a map to perform certain missions for a spy agency Edit: to expand on that, a space might be "military encampment". Placing Infiltrator there will generate Intel, placing Demolitions Expert will generate Chaos, and Operator (shootman) will generate Casualties. You spend the resources on poo poo, like spending Chaos tokens to disrupt whatever negative thing the game is doing, or if it is asymmetrical pvp, interrupt an opponent's turn or something. Intel let's you peek at hands or something, and casualties let's you cancel moves due to their guys being dead. If its pvp, placing conflicting workers on the same space will make things happen too Sandwich Anarchist fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 19:24
|
|
|
How do you plan on handling combat? I've been working on a pirate themed worker placement game for a bit that is pretty solid when you're on land and competing for resource spots or recruiting new pirates, as well as assigning your pirates to work on the ships and moving them around as needed, but struggles out on the open ocean. Out on the water the key components are finding treasure and attacking other boats for treasure and resources but I don't know how best to handle combat in that space. I was thinking different workers bring different numbers of various color dice with them so they would each bring different things to the table on the boat, but then I worry I'm getting super close to just retheming Champions of Midgard
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 20:59
|
|
|
Why not tie land based resource allocation into it somehow? For worker placement, I would think deterministic combat would work better than randomized elements. Utilize land based resources in some way to spend on sea combat, giving the players a balancing act of risking dependable worker placement resource acquisition for chances at great seaborne treasure. Like, you can focus on building up your land based holdings and bank on dependable, stable development, but risk falling behind players that go big on the high seas, or you can go for broke out on the water and either win big by outbidding your opponents, or get outbid yourself and be even worse off than if you stayed on land. Lots of risk/reward and bluffing potential, which is pirate af imo Sandwich Anarchist fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:03
|
|
|
Sandwich Anarchist posted:Why not tie land based resource allocation into it somehow? For worker placement, I would think deterministic combat would work better than randomized elements. Utilize land based resources in some way to spend on sea combat, giving the players a balancing act of risking dependable worker placement resource acquisition for chances at great seaborne treasure. That's a great idea! I had been kinda toying with the idea of "you have so much space on the boat for both people and stuff" originally but was wondering if that made it too obvious who would win and lose in a fight. Although there could also be something to be said for fighting a battle you can't win but leaving the enemy stranded at sea. I could possibly have it set up in such a way that players have an idea how much space on a boat is taken up by resources but not what resources those are, maybe making the ships a private player board in a sense
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:07
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:How do you plan on handling combat? I've been working on a pirate themed worker placement game for a bit that is pretty solid when you're on land and competing for resource spots or recruiting new pirates, as well as assigning your pirates to work on the ships and moving them around as needed, but struggles out on the open ocean. Out on the water the key components are finding treasure and attacking other boats for treasure and resources but I don't know how best to handle combat in that space. I was thinking different workers bring different numbers of various color dice with them so they would each bring different things to the table on the boat, but then I worry I'm getting super close to just retheming Champions of Midgard I came to the same conclusion as Sandwich Anarchist, where combat is fully deterministic. I haven’t nailed down the specifics yet, but it’ll probably just be a fairly simple MtG/Keyforge-esque sort of system. Workers have a power(and toughness?) value, if you try to play a worker on top of another then they fight, dealing damage to each other. If the defender dies then the attack is placed onto the location. If the attacker dies, the defender takes damage. If both die, then the spot is open. Damage would persist so you could slowly whittle away at a key location if needed. Also since I’m not planning to have a “clear the board” phase, on your turn you can choose to “activate” a location where you already have a worker to gain its benefit, but doing so damages the worker.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:That's a great idea! I had been kinda toying with the idea of "you have so much space on the boat for both people and stuff" originally but was wondering if that made it too obvious who would win and lose in a fight. Although there could also be something to be said for fighting a battle you can't win but leaving the enemy stranded at sea. I could possibly have it set up in such a way that players have an idea how much space on a boat is taken up by resources but not what resources those are, maybe making the ships a private player board in a sense Abstract the seaborne meeples into "fleets" where the cards/tokens or whatever are the ships and equipment, the composition (but NOT the amount) of which are kept hidden from other players until they commit. You know I sent 5 ships out to that island, but have no idea if they were speedy sloops or heavy frigates, and have to consider many elements, such as my play style, my recent resource allocation on land, any bonuses you know I have, etc. Make ship based combat a deterministic bluffing game of counters and trumps. Sandwich Anarchist fucked around with this message at 21:14 on Dec 17, 2018 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:11
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I came to the same conclusion as Sandwich Anarchist, where combat is fully deterministic. I haven’t nailed down the specifics yet, but it’ll probably just be a fairly simple MtG/Keyforge-esque sort of system. Workers have a power(and toughness?) value, if you try to play a worker on top of another then they fight, dealing damage to each other. If the defender dies then the attack is placed onto the location. If the attacker dies, the defender takes damage. If both die, then the spot is open. I love the idea of blocking a space but not getting to be the benefits of them unless you are willing to hurt your own worker. That really plays well into the risk/reward idea. Get the benefit but weaken your worker and open them up for a counter attack. Really cool
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:14
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:I love the idea of blocking a space but not getting to be the benefits of them unless you are willing to hurt your own worker. That really plays well into the risk/reward idea. Get the benefit but weaken your worker and open them up for a counter attack. Really cool Especially if you think of "damage" in a certain way. You sent out a group of ships to prowl a shipping lane, and every time you want to collect their plunder, they have to send a ship back to port, weakening their numbers. This would play into the idea of "retreating" meeples when they are too weak to hold a spot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:19
|
|
|
Something I'm not sure how to address: if workers are cards, how will players know what workers are theirs? Possible solutions I've thought up: 1) When placing a card, you also place a player-colored meeple on it to show its yours. 2) player-colored sleeves are included, and used to denote ownership. 3) limit the game to two players, and card orientation indicates who controls what Each of these has its problems though, so I'm not sure what to go for. If anyone has new ideas, I'd love to hear them!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:32
|
|
|
Make workers colored cubes, and there are large cards that show worker abilities that are on the board as a guide, one per color. Cooks are red, cannoneers green, navigators blue etc. Every space on the board has multiple boxes for each player, and you place workers in your designated box. i.e. a space being a square divided into 4 smaller squares, one quadrant for each player, and you put your colored cubes in your quadrant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 21:36
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Something I'm not sure how to address: if workers are cards, how will players know what workers are theirs? Possible solutions I've thought up: The best course of action I think is to use a player colored cube or something. If there will be a large variety of workers and a good amount of spaces, you need something quick and easy to keep track of. If the number of workers you have in 'hand' is more than your current cube count it also helps you keep track of just how much you have left to do
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:11
|
|
|
Kashuno posted:The best course of action I think is to use a player colored cube or something. If there will be a large variety of workers and a good amount of spaces, you need something quick and easy to keep track of. If the number of workers you have in 'hand' is more than your current cube count it also helps you keep track of just how much you have left to do Yeah, I think player cubes works fine. Could theme them as “supplies” in order to use them as a mechanic. Maybe stronger units would require 2 or even 3 supplies instead of just 1, and you can work to gain more supplies, you could buy/sell them with other resources, etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Had new ideas for Dig Too Deep/something similar after realizing that I want something that frantic to be less... self-focused? The new idea is a combination real-time trading/econ game AND press your luck game. Everyone is, in real time, trading different colors of dice (different types of or with each other to fund building their own personal projects, which will give victory points if they succeed. The catch here is that some projects need certain dice to be above a specific value (purity), and you don't roll the dice until the trading round is over. So, do you go for the basic plans, which don't really need high numbers, and you can fairly reliably do with only the minimum number of dice, or do you trade for more dice than necessary, so you can more reliably work the big projects that require greater ore purity, but are worth more points. Everybody starts with a fairly generous number of one specific color of dice, and a small number of card projects, cherry-picked from a larger number. (Not drafted, I've decided, that's too many layers of complexity.) And NO project can be done with only one color of dice. So you HAVE to start trading, and figuring out how much your dice are worth to other people, and how much their dice are worth to you. That's the core of the idea, kind of a mix of Sidereal Confluence, Yahtzee, and Fuse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
I sold the first copy of my game to a rando last night! Godspeed rando, I hope you love it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Frozen Peach posted:I sold the first copy of my game to a rando last night! Congratulations! That's really awesome
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
Frozen Peach posted:I sold the first copy of my game to a rando last night! That’s so freakin cool congrats
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 22:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 22:31 |
|
|
Holy poo poo, grats!
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2018 22:28
|
|