|
Role drafting is a fairly common element now, but I want to see/try something with role giving. I especially enjoy the Citadels version where there is some deduction and guesswork involved. So instead of taking your own role, you give a role to someone else. I tried to start by coming up with a theme rather than just writing down mechanics, because I really don't have much to go on aside from that one idea. So far I've come up with the idea of a hippie commune where everybody shares work, but all they really want to do is get high. That leads me to having some element of either doing a good job at your role, or doing a crappy job and getting high instead. But thats about as far as I've gotten so far.
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Guildencrantz posted:A hippie commune doesn't strike me as a very competitive environment, is there a victory condition other than chilling out? Because so far I'm envisioning a meta-boardgame where you draw a few cards, then get high, forget about the game and say everybody wins. And I think we've all played that one a few times. The victory condition would probably be like smoke X amount of pot... it could work but its not super compelling.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 20:24
|
|
|
Rudy Riot posted:A cheap and easy method for making cards for testing that was mentioned earlier in the thread is to sleeve some cheap Magic or regular playing cards, then slip your printed out/ hand written custom card in front of it. You can use regular paper and go nuts changing stuff as often as needed. Much cheaper than blank playing cards I'd imagine. We bought some card sleeves with art on the back, I think they are a bit stiffer than just straight clear plastic. With those we find just printing paper and sleeving them is enough, no need to even pad them with magic cards. Like these: http://www.miniaturemarket.com/max7050hgw.html
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 03:57
|
|
|
Speaking of roll and move, check out this online board game simulator that came out of gently caress this jam. The computer doesn't enforce any rules, it just provides a 3d model of the board and components. The game they implemented is described as "chutes and ladders plus diablo". http://www.wolfire.com/desperate-gods They definitely went somewhere that my brain wouldn't have gotten to. I found it by following some links in the comments on Escape, which looks pretty fun. I guess this is the design thread, so maybe fun isn't what I should say. I like that it has a different take on how to make a co-op game not be single player, a bit like space alert.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2012 17:02
|
|
|
wins32767 posted:A game set in a civil war might work pretty well if we tweak the premise a bit to where the linked games are competing with each other. This hits on two ideas I've been thinking about for a while, linked games (I always push to try Bannanagrams Dominion, nobody takes me up on it) and motivation to compete for a place other than 1st. Many games with scoring have a natural ranking of players beyond first, but I've never seem it actually motivate a player to be happier with 2nd place than 4th place particularly well. Risk Legacy has a system of repeated players that could be used to motivate 2nd place finishes, but isn't. The winner receives a big permanent win bonus and writes their name on the board, all other players receive an equal but lesser bonus. If instead bonuses were gradually stepped down, it seems like that could motivate for 2nd and 3rd fairly well. Motivation to compete for places other than 1st seems like a good way to deal minimize King Breaking, where one player has no real options left to win, but can hurt other players enough to decide which wins. Could the linked game idea work in some other format more like Chaos in the Old World or Twilight Imperium? Twilight already has the idea of secret objectives, but what if instead you one of two secret win conditions? That would determine which of the two games you are in... Something like get 10 points to win, or get 6 points and control two enemy home systems? Or maybe it's like two parallel universes... so I'm either from universe A or B (probably need cool thematic names) and I can only fight people from my same universe. So I can happily share a space or a planet or whatever from someone from the other universe. And there is some sort of interaction, maybe trading, or a resource or something that I can do when I share a space with someone from another universe? We're on the same map, but mostly we're playing different games. Seems like it would limit you to 4 or 6 players without serious asymmetry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 16:56
|
|
|
Separate question... how finished should a game be before you submit it to a publisher? I assume they want input on component size/shape/quality for manufacturing reasons at the least. I would guess they'd help layout the rulebook, will some/all have artists to touch up your art, or do art from scratch? Rules finalized 100%? Rulebook written, typeset with art, available as pdf ready to print? Art finalized 100%? Art basically not started? Component size/shape/feel?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 17:00
|
|
|
xopods posted:Well, there's a self-balancing thing there. If no one thinks it's worth loving with someone else, then there's equally no point in paying two tokens to protect yourself from being hosed with, right? If instead of just placing a card over another players card you swapped cards with them, screwing people over would be a natural side effect of helping yourself. In terms of the earlier time traveling criminal theme, it could be that you go back in time and make it so you pull off whatever heist they had done that era, and they did the heist you had previously done.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2012 19:20
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Explicitly not allow leading questions? Have someone yell "Objection!" and whoever is the "judge" for the round decides to sustain or overrule it. This makes me think you could have a competitive version of the game. One player is the prosector, one is the witness. The prosecutor describes the crime scene with their evidence (word cards, probably from a limited suset) and their version of what happened. The witness describes the same crime scene (possibly with more words) in a way that explains it all with no crime, or someone else doing the crime. Then of course the judge fits in well. It may be best as a theme card like cowboy.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 16:07
|
|
|
xopods posted:The only question is whether the advantage of custom dice is worth the manufacturing cost. If it's just to represent a linear modifier like +2 I wouldn't bother... custom (numbered) dice are more interesting when you're changing the distribution of numbers, e.g. over the years I've done various designs with six-siders numbered 1,1,1,2,2,3 or 1,2,2,3,3,4 for instance. I bought a set of Grime Dice and I've been trying to come up with a game that would make sense with them. They come in a set of 5, and each die is better one on one vs two other dice, and worse one on one vs two dice. If you get two sets then each die 2v2 has opposite weaknesses to its 1v1 self. I'm not sure how they do with mixed colors. So far I've thought of using them for a puzzle in an RPG setting, that would basically be a one off based on the fact that the players don't already know about the dice. Otherwise I feel like a game with a battle resolution involving dice, but then you also have the option to trade dice with another player. So you'd always be strong against some players, and weak against others. Haven't gotten much farther than that yet. Video about dice: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4XNL-uo520
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
Came up with a cool idea, who wants to collaborate? I'm all about ideas yo, and just need someone to put on the finishing touches. I think just like 80 pieces of original art, a set of rules, and find a publisher. Shouldn't be much more to it than that. Split the profits 80/20. kidding On a slightly more serious note, I have been avoiding Space Alert because I don't like the resolution phase, it just takes too long for my preferences without me doing anything. It seems like if the board were arranged in a fairly rigid way, you could take a picture of it, do some image processing, and have the state of the game. So your phone or iPad or whatever could do the resolution phase for you. If a game were designed with this in mind, I think adding QR codes to all the relevant pieces would make the image processing much easier. I think you would lose something, because its to really understand exactly why a given move was a mistake if you don't take the time to do everything step by step. But it would make it faster. Just thought I'd throw it out there since it seems like it might be a viable path to an augmented board game. Has anybody seen or thought about designing an augmented board game?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 07:27
|
|
|
I disagree about the technical feasibility. A 21x21 (smallest on wikipedia) QR code with the highest level or errror correction can store at least a 4 digit number, which can identify 10000 different cards and orientations. Assuming you need 3 linear camera pixels per QR pixel, that means you need abou 4000 pixels per QR code, so in a 5MP camera you could have 100 QR codes in 10% of the field of view. Space Alert already has rigidly placed tracks for player actions per player, and threats displayed with timing information nearby. Simply add QR codes to the existing Space Alert layout, without significantly changing the layout, and it should work fine. You don't need to insult me just because I have differing opinions on a game you like. I feel like there is room to find a fun use for something like this, but I don't think I've come up with the killer app. Here are a few more ideas. - AI -- Replace dropped player to allow finishing of a game if one player needs to leave in the middle -- Allow more complicated AI, something like "the Director" for L4D2 that tries to design the enemy to create dramatic experiences - Sharing game states online -- Enable play by post with actual game pieces -- Convert game to iPad version to continue playing on iPad -- Post game state to forum for strategy or other discussion - Archive game states -- Time travel mechanic? - Saving time inputting stuff into a computer program to manage a long resolution phase Most of these don't really seem worth it to me, but there are probably better ideas. I'd say the director like AI is probably the most fun idea I've come up with.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
homullus posted:I can't think of an example of opposed rolls that I like. I think that if a player being attacked isn't engaged when he's being attacked, the problem is the game, not that the player didn't have to double the amount of time somebody else's turn is taking with an opposing roll. I agree, and further, I think that you can get the same statistics (or near enough to not matter) with just one sided rolls, which means it is mechanically useless.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2013 16:01
|
|
|
Maybe drop the dice, make all cards face up, play one card per turn. That way you can scheme based on what other players have, try to trick them into playing something that will set you up for one of your card to kick rear end?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
Trynant posted:Some stuff. My first impression is that I hate ruler based movements because you get situations like "I can totally move here and attack that guy" and someone else is like "no you totally can't, see". And its hard to objectively answer close calls, so I feel like it adds something to disagree about and be pissed about. But obviously lots of people don't mind so much. Second, it seems like declaring an objective every turn is going to get complicated. Am I going to have 5 objectives (times 4 players) to think about by the 5th turn? That just seems like a lot of information to process. Also, I don't know much about game design, but I have read what xopods wrote in this thread and I see a few red flags. First, this is your first game, and it's pretty complicated. It think it might be better to focus on a smaller game. Also, xopods says that if it doesn't work pretty well the first try, you should start from scratch. I kind of like the idea of a battle game where stuff is going to die pretty quickly, but its easy to replace on your next turn. So the focus becomes using what I have this turn to achieve something that will get me points, rather than long term planning. I'm not sure if that is what you had in mind, but thats what I thought of when I was reading your post.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:So I'm basically abusing this thread a bit to toot my own horn, but I won Quantuum Magic's prototype contest today! Booya! Nice job.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 31, 2013 03:14
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I'm working on a game. Character cards need two stats: Aptitude and Tenacity. Skills and Teamwork. Grit and Fire. Sneaking and Brawling. Talent and Might. Ability and Reserve. Daring and Guts. Skill and Nerve.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2013 05:30
|
|
|
I'm working on some rule changes to deal with some problems in Archipelago. If anybody has played it, I'd like to hear some feedback. I'll start with the problems (perceived or real) that seem to happen when we play
Distributing Objectives When trend and objective cards would normally be distributed, do this instead. Separate the objective cards into 3 shuffled piles, Secret only, Public only and all else. Take one all else card for each player, and add the secret only objectives. Shuffle these and give one to each player. Set the rest aside without looking at them. (Tune so that more than half of games have one of Pacifist and Separatist) Take the rest of the all else cards and shuffle in the public only cards. Set out one for each player face up. Place three end game condition cards face up as well. (Could draw more during game, or pass some/all our as secret end game conditions) Scoring Objectives Public objectives are worth 3 points for first, 2 points for second, 1 point for third, zero points otherwise. Secret objectives that could also be public objectives are worth 2 points for the player holding them if and only if they are first in that condition. No other player scores points for a secret objective. Deciding turn order When bidding for turn order, players who lose the bid (including those who lose ties) get half of their money back, rounded in their favor. Exploration Phyrric Exploration - When you would fail an exploration action, instead continue drawing tiles one at at a time until you find a playable tile. If both sides are playable, you must play the first revealed side. You gain one less (or no?) resources from this exploration. Possibly limited to once per game? Not included here, but I'm planning to rewrite all the objectives and end conditions to make them easier to use separately. Mostly they will consist of the same things as the base game, like having the most of a resource. modig fucked around with this message at 20:33 on Oct 14, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Thanks for the thoughts. I'm glad to hear (or maybe not glad, but at least it means I'm not crazy) that you've seen similar problems. A group can get stuck playing a game a certain way, either missing a rule or a key strategy, and just not see it right, so it sounds like I wasn't doing that. I did realize that we haven't been using the ability of the exploration tokens to act as any resource. So early you should never have to have all your guys rebel during a domestic crisis, because you start with an exploration token. With the exploration, I was trying to come up with the right punishment. I listed getting fewer resources, which I think is a pretty good choice, since one of the main reasons I explore early is to get resources. You pointed out that the exploration tokens are tied up in victory and scoring conditions. Also they match the number of tiles, so I didn't want to mess with them. Actually you could remove the exploration token from the pile and not give it to the player. This would still let someone bumrush an exploration end game condition, which is something I just thought of, which makes once per game seem like a good idea still. Also maybe it could engage the unit that explores? Any ideas on how to limit it to once a game or similar using existing mechanics? With the secret objectives I went with only scoring for yourself because I didn't want people studying the possible objectives. However, my plan was also to simplify the objectives (so there are no building X with resource Y) once, so it should be easy to guess if something could be an objective. If some player seems to be hoarding fish, maybe their objective is fish and I should hoard some too. If some playtests show this to be a problem I could go back to 3/2/1 or 2/1. I actually kind of liked the fact that Archipelago felt aimless for a while, so I could have the public objectives be revealed over the first few turns. For bidding... I can see where you are coming from. This is definitely the smallest of the problems I listed. We actually did play a few rounds with the modified bidding rule, and it went fine. I think typical bids were a bit closer, and the winning bid may have been a bit lower than it would have been. It is also totally separate, so it could be an optional rule. I think the secret objectives is the main problem to fix, as in I don't think I can get people to play it without fixing this. The other two are just sort of trying to make the game a bit less harsh, and I think aren't necessary. I also feel, especially after reading your post and replying, that that are a ridiculous number of choices I can make, and I just sort of need to pick something and try it. edit: This is what I'm going to playtest, packaged as a nice print and play pdf. modig fucked around with this message at 01:41 on Oct 15, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2013 20:55
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Thanks for the recommendations. T&E and Kemet both sound like they're close to what I'm going for, so I'll definitely check out both of them. Kemet in particular sounds like the kind of experience I'm looking for - relatively fast-paced with very fleeting control over the board with extraordinarily expendable units. Motivating attacks in multiplayer games is tough from a mathematical point of view. If I can gain 2 points in a 4 player game, I move up by 2 points relative to each other player. If I can hurt another player by 4 points, I move up by 4 points relative to one player. Unless I'm sure that one player was in the lead, that is probably worse for me than gaining two vs everybody. Generally, I can help myself, which helps me regardless of how everybody else is doing. Or I can hurt someone else, which helps me only if I pick the right person, but also makes me a target for retaliation. I'm not sure I've ever really seen that solved, although Citadels has a method where you attack a role not a player that at least makes retaliation harder. And choosing the attack roles is actually a very defensive move, since noone else can attack you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 26, 2013 18:51
|
|
|
I'll play-test it, but I may not get you any feedback till early Jan. If thats ok, I'm in.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
xopods posted:Can anyone think of some super-sweet theme for this other than just running a country, which could give me inspiration for the mechanical details? Or just some feature that they'd really like to see in such a game? Or just general feedback on the concept? I feel like it's something that could be really amazing, but at the moment it's still just a blob of goo waiting for a catalyst to help it crystalize. I've been working on tight, minimalist little games so long that figuring out where to even start on something bigger is intimidating me. Hippie commune, or a religious cult. Some group with a general shared goal like "world peace" but who don't really share a thinking process.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
I feel like both your odds and the obviousness will be increased if everybody can make every part. That way you have 4x the odds (roughly) of being able to make a part. And just because part A is over, doesn't mean player A is the bad guy. Also if there were some hidden information, like each player gets a card that tells them how overflows on a certain part will be treated. Part A actually can be reused in trains, so overflows are ok. Part C took steel away from Stalin's vacation house, and overflows will be severely punished. Then those cards are shuffled and revealed. Although with those changes I feel like maybe it's really hard to deduce anything.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
It seems like you'll need someway of specifying where you move, unless all the units are just on rails.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 30, 2024 05:58 |
|
|
Foolster41 posted:I'm working on too many games right now. Currently my two big projects are: Sounds like Marrying Mr. Darcy. A lot like it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2014 23:50
|
|