Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

PMush Perfect posted:

Edit2: Just using a generic "magic and wizards" theme sounds incredibly dull, honestly. It needs to be something at least a little more interesting than that, I want this to have draw besides just "nah man the rules are actually really good".

If you wanted to stick very close to the inspiration material, we're working on a collection of open source monsters called Tuxemon that you'd be very welcome to use (although most are Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licensed, meaning you'd have to release your work under the same licence - might not be for you).

Otherwise I really like the idea of Vampire WITH LOBSTER CLAWS! Cow WITH LASERBEAM EYES! etc

# ¿ Jul 3, 2018 09:35

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 15:12

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

Kashuno posted:

My first design ever was around 2 years ago. It was a gladiator pvp game where players would place workers in the first phase to train their warrior or forge new equipment for them, then would battle it out in the second phase in simple pvp combat. Losing in combat got you additional workers at the cost of VP. It was ultimately a really clunky design.

I've often thought about designing a game like this as well! Inspired I think by Spartacus: Blood & Treachery.

I think the appeal for me is moving all the collecting and list building of a miniatures game into the gameplay itself, instead of that being "lonely fun" that happens independently and separately to the battle. Kind of like how Millennium Blades is described as a "CCG simulator", I'd like a "collectible wargame simulator".

# ¿ Sep 22, 2018 22:18

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

Anniversary posted:

Okay, coming back to a game I haven't touched in years because I can actually make PnP files that aren't a headache. But how would you expand on this rules overview? I've never been a great rules writer, sadly.

A few questions that I had from reading the rules which might point to places to expand:

What does it mean to Exhaust a card?

Once the player with the highest Speed/Initiative/not Undead goes, does it go to the player with the next highest? Or some other order - e.g. clockwise?

Do you draw cards from a deck or are they all always in your hand? (If Health and Energy are known, maybe they could be placed in front of you).

Is it obvious that a card's Cost is always in Energy? (Is it always in Energy?)

---

Would you be able to post some examples of the cards? That might help understand the game and where the rules fit in to it.

# ¿ Sep 28, 2018 23:21

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

Adding a dynamic element to rock-paper-scissors?

I'm working on an accessible/simple monster battling game where players choose one of the monster's three attacks. The attacks have a rock-paper-scissors relationship; if there's a tie, some elements beat other elements.

The attacks are already asymmetrical, in the sense that a monster might be Rock attack Damage 2, Scissors attack Damage 1, Paper attack Damage 3.

I thought this would be enough to create meaningful strategic choices, but what I've found is that players figure out which attack is best at the start, and they don't change their strategy throughout (except as you would normally expect in a rock-paper-scissors game, i.e. the psychological side).

Now, I do have in mind some attack riders that would change things for individual attacks belonging to individual monsters (e.g. poisoned: lose 1 Damage per round until you choose a Rock attack).

But I've been wondering if there are game-wide ways of making people have to re-evaluate each turn.

For example:

Each time you use a Rock attack, its Damage increases by 1
Each time you use a Scissors attack, its Damage decreases by 1
If you use a Papers attack 10 times over the combat, you win automatically

Or having a playing field that you can move around by making different attacks, with different positions on that field giving different bonuses or penalties.

Does anyone have any suggestions for making a rock-paper-scissors style game dynamic? Thank you for your thoughts!

# ¿ Aug 19, 2019 08:24

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

Does anyone know of a resource breaking down the basic structure of several miniatures games?

I was thinking it would be useful to have a record for each miniatures game, with the rules for a "basic human soldier" in that system, and a summary of how activation, movement, morale and combat work.

It would be interesting to see if there are patterns in how accuracy and damage are treated, if there's a default for how quickly a miniature can cross the game board, how quickly one soldier dies in head-to-head combat with an identical soldier, etc.

# ¿ Jan 29, 2020 23:12

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

Frozen Peach posted:

Maybe I'm missing something, and math certainly isn't my strong suit, but what's the point in adding 3 to each player's card?

Just to avoid negative numbers and get close to a 1d6 distribution, I would guess. This way the lowest result is 0 (highest is 6).

# ¿ May 28, 2020 14:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 17, 2024 15:12

Sanglorian: Apr 13, 2013; Games, games, games

Hi folks,

I wanted to share a tabletop skirmish game (miniatures agnostic) that I've been working on. I've worked hard to make it as simple as possible, while still being challenging and rewarding clever gameplay.

The main game is available in DOCX or PDF, and there are separate print-out card sheets for Magic Items, Paths to Victory (win conditions) and Deployments.

Features I'm excited about are:

A secret bidding mechanism for number of activations per round means players have to trade off number of activations vs control over which player goes first, and anticipate how the other player will make those trade offs.
Magic item allocations are secret until used, adding a hidden information element to the game. Does that hero charging into a monster have the White Tabard - or are you just meant to think that she does?
Activating by group means that morale and command can be modelled in part just by having figures separate from each other if they are disarrayed or demoralised.
All figure costs divide into 60 (or 60 divides into them) meaning that you can very quickly cost out an army by buying soldiers in 60-point blocks.
Weapons have the same rules regardless of whose hands they are in. number of attacks and likelihood of attack hitting changes with the person wielding the weapon, which is how a 60-point hero and a 10-point Levy can be balanced.

When I've played the game, however, there's been things that feel flat:

Facing. A skirmish game really feels too small-scale for facing, and it's fiddly to keep track of ... but it's currently essential for modelling ambushes and flanking attacks, and useful for rewarding mobility.
The Kill dice/Shock dice element. At their best, having some weapons/attack approaches focused on putting the enemy on the backfoot and others on eliminating them altogether creates interesting gameplay - but I'm not sure if I've delivered it in practice.
Rolling for whether an attack hits adds an extra step that slows the game, plus it feels swingy and underwhelming when a barrage of four or five attacks fails to deliver any hits ... or it delivers a single hit that's immediately resisted.

I'd love it if anyone had a chance to take a look and share your thoughts - especially on the things I'm struggling with. Or if you don't have a chance to read it, I'd like to hear about anyone's experiences with the FireCore games (Five Men in Normandy, etc.) on which I've based the Kill/Shock dice mechanic and your thoughts on why it works there.

# ¿ Oct 1, 2020 10:41

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Traditional Games > Board Game Design Laboratory: Igor, get the meeples