|
Railing Kill posted:So, how much or little do people think theme matters? I enjoy it when the theme helps me think about how to play. Like in a zombie game, I'll be more inclined to work towards getting a shotgun than a 2x4, because movies have taught me that the former is more useful. A well-applied theme can make a mediocre game more interesting - as other have said, the imagination can run wild when it has a touch of flavor to work with. At the same time, if a game slaps zombie-thematic elements all over itself just for the sake of "zombies are popular", I tend to be less interested. Nemesis Of Moles posted:Now that the November design contest is over, I'm hoping we get a bunch of new posters looking for help with their designs I discovered the november game design thread too late to enter. I'm glad I found this afterwards, though! Been catching up over the past couple days. Fake Edit: Oh God, here comes a wall of text. I hope nobody minds. Apologies especially to those who have to scroll through on the Awful app. Currently I'm working on a completely themeless game. Bright colors, easy mechanics. It still needs work, but I'm getting close to my goal: To make the “Uno of Deck Building games”. I'd like to spin mechanics from a somewhat complex genre, into something incredibly user-friendly*. I looked a lot at traditional playing card games for inspiration, as they use concepts even non-board gamey people are already familiar with. High card, user interaction/competition, social cues (bluffing), etc. *It will never be AS simple as uno, but I'd like to make it as inviting/unintimidating as uno. Objectives
Game title: Nope. The Gist: It's a competitive deck-building game for 3-4 players. Think Spades meets Dominion meets Kill Dr. Lucky. Each round has two phases. “Purchase” and “Play”. While the buying phase is actually first, it's easier to explain it second. The Competitive, Interactive Phase - “Play”: Example of cards in play The central mechanic is a twist on the “High Card” concept found in most traditional card games. Instead of having cards that represent a fixed number (in spades, you play a 6, and you’re beaten by a 7), all the cards are modifiers (ranging from +3 to -3). Each round, players start with a score of zero. They take turns playing cards to either raise or lower a score (their own, or someone elses), until all players either run out of cards or fold. To win a round, you have to end with the highest unique score. Being unique is the key to Nope. No matter how high your score is, if you tie? you lose. When you win, you get a Nope card. These are your victory points, and determine the winner in the end. Nope cards also go into your deck. When drawn, it can be played directly on any card to cancel it out (even another Nope Card). Which makes it a fairly powerful trump/wild-card, but playing it comes with a risk: whoever wins the round also wins all the nope cards played. Just another take on rubberbanding, really. Cautious players who don’t want to risk their nope cards have less of a hand to work with to win rounds, and ballsy players can gamble their victory points to net more wins, or lose it all. A nope card always negates points, so it always pushes players towards a tie. Which can lead to the ultimate “nope”: If all players tie, the nope cards played go back into the main deck, and have to be won all over again. I quickly realized players would be going OHGODFOURWAYMATH, so I designed a slider to keep track of your score. Like the cards, I mocked it up to be big, bright and colorful, so all players around the table can see where you're at. Ranges from +9 to -9, which will handle most circumstances. The Deck Building Phase - “Purchase”: Example of deck layout I wanted to avoid having currency-specific cards, so I made all cards work like currency. UPDATED You buy cards in pairs. +/-1, +/-2, or +/-3. To buy a pair, you must to reveal a number of cards equal to the pair's value. Every pair's value is based on how much it modifies. For example: the pair of threes has a value of 3. So to purchase it, you must reveal 3 cards of any kind. Cards revealed and bought during Purchase go to the bottom of your deck. Also, there is a "pass and draw" card. To counter the problem of the last person having the most control. Playing a "pass and draw" skips your turn, while maintaining your hand size. You effectively become the last person in the rotation. Costs 3 cards. Each player can only buy one card per round, but nobody has to buy anything. Players enter the “Play” phase with all cards remaining, if any. So while buying a three almost guarantees that you lose the upcoming "play" section, you are better equipped to win the rounds that follow. While not buying anything gives you a full hand, the next round, you may be facing cards you can't quite compete with (while still having a nope to counter). ------------ I'd love to hear any and all feedback. I have ready-to-print playtest materials too, if anyone wants to give it a go. nopegame /at/ gmail.com ZebraByNumbers fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Dec 16, 2012 |
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 5, 2024 04:42 |
|
|
Yeah, working on incentivizing that. Current solution is to let a hand full of negative cards outright buy a victory point, but I might need to raise the penalty range to -4/ lower the bonus to +2 Edit 2: changing buy rules. You get cards in pairs. +1/-1, 2/-2, and so on. Updated the rules post. Cost is the same, and mixes up the hands. ZebraByNumbers fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Dec 16, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 00:17
|
|
|
Generally only alcohol-based solutions and vinegar will easily remove/smudge a sharpie mark. I don't think mod podge is going to cause a problem, as long as the sharpie has been given time to fully dry. Still, probably best to test it first.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 21:54
|
|
|
xopods posted:
Sorry, I meant sharpie would be okay to use with the glue/puzzle saver, as mod podge is not an alcohol based substance. Giving the sharpie a little time to dry out, it shouldn't have any strange smudgey reactions. But again, test it.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2012 23:41
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:So, still hammering out details on the dice building game. I like the idea of gambling VP away. I used something similar in my own idea up thread. I think your "earn to spend to earn more" mechanic is almost there. I don't exactly know how many dice you roll at once in this game (or how dice building games work, frankly), but maybe to encourage bigger risks, players can put up a victory point if they roll at least X amount of dice? If they succeed on the action, they keep the victory point, and can also roll Y more dice (or reroll Z bad results). If they fail, they lose the victory point. Or give it to the other player. Whatever balances it out. (If I were to name this mechanic, I'd call it "Hubris".)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 23:32
|
|