|
Let's talk random elements in euros. I'm currently working on a 2v2 game (basically I realized I love team mechanics but hate them being tacked on at the last minute like most euros do), and I'm struggling with how much randomization the game should have. For the sake of simplifying vocabulary I'm going to be referring to the teams as [super]heroes and villains, since that's the very-tacked-on theme I'm going with. Each team selects two characters - one for each player, obviously - which determines things like how much health that player has, what starting Powers they have, and what Cells they can possess (more on these in a minute). The game is then divided into two parts, a worker placement phase and a battle phase, Dungeon Lords/Petz-style. During the first phase the heroes and villains are effectively battling over resources and other poo poo, which includes: 1) Powers. These determine what you can do in combat, and are currently the main source of frustration with regard to deciding how random the game should be. Every character starts with a resource-free power, one mediocre power that consumes Cells, and one Team Up power, but you can get more from the board not unlike how villains appear in Legendary; They start in an open slot and shift down the board, and once they hit the last spot they're removed. You snooze, you lose. These will, for the most part, be better (or at least more specialized) than your starting powers, and are pretty much the centerpiece for the rest of the game. 2) Cells. I hate this name right now so any suggestions would be welcome, basically the currency to pay for powers. These represent one of five attributes; Strength, Vitality, Quickness, Intellect, and Sorcery. There's a few spots on the board where you can just go to obtain them for free (and block others from doing the same in trademark euro dickery style), and one where you can spend cash to buy specific ones if you're blocked from the rest. Every character has two Specializations, which are the types of Cells they can use, and how many of each they can store at a time. To use a real comic example, Wolverine would probably be red (strength) and white (vitality). Powers require Cells to function, and Team Up powers require some number of Cells that your hero can't have, so you gotta, well, team up with your partner for those. 3) Gadgets. Gadgets are sort of the catch-all miscellaneous effects. Every hero can have one at a time unless otherwise noted, and if you buy a new one it replaces your old one. I haven't spent much time with these yet, but they'd mostly be passive buffs and stuff. Like Powers, there's a deck of them and a few are revealed at a time, letting you either buy them or block them until they've cycled off the table. 4) Money. It's money. You can get some for free in one space, or spend cells or sell gadgets in another for more. Used to buy Gadgets, Powers, and sometimes Cells. After the worker placement phase, which last some number of turns that I haven't actually decided on yet, everyone gets their fight on. Fights are where you get points for the most part (I'm considering putting some in the Gadget deck, or adding some other point system, not sure yet), and you currently get one point for every point of HP your characters have at the end of the fight. Fights take place over 4-5 turns, where you get some number of Solo actions and Team Up actions (again, not exactly sure how many yet, probably 3 and 2 respectively). Each turn the heroes and villains trade blows using powers, and this is where I'm not sure how much randomization there should be. Powers currently look something like [this is a completely fabricated example with made-up numbers, don't worry too much about that] quote:The Ol' One Two When you use a power, you roll a d6 and can choose any effect that is equal to or less than your roll. So a 6 isn't necessarily better than a 1, but it does provide more options. My question is, is this a satisfying amount of randomness? I'm putting the "main" secondary effects of powers in the 1-2 slot for the most part, so you can always use a power knowing you'll get something good out of it, but I'm worried that the rest of the effects are just fluff in that case. I wanted the game's depth to sit closer to Stone Age than Caylus, so some randomization is good and important, but I had trouble deciding where to put it. I suppose I can plop some more in the worker placement phase, but I wanted Cell gain to be a very controlled element. Any ideas? If not, how does the rest of the game sound? I know it's pretty vague right now, but I figure I've seen equally vague things brought up so there's no harm in seeing what sticks! e: after sending this to a friend it occurs to me that I never outlined the win condition, whoops! You win by having the most points, over two placement and fight phases(again, pretty blatantly borrowed from Dungeon Lords' "two worker phases, two dungeon phases" mechanic, so after you finish the first fight you go back to placing workers). After a fight you tally your remaining health and then start the second round. During "year two" the Power deck is subbed out for a more powerful deck, and the Gadget deck probably will be as well, and you can upgrade pre-existing powers in the way you can upgrade buildings in 7 Wonders by having some from previous ages. Then you fight again, and add your remaining health at the end to your points from the first year, and that's your team's score! Countblanc fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 10, 2013 |
#
¿
Mar 10, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Ok so this is a bit weird, but here me out. Two nights ago I had a dream about a board game which I had apparently designed. It was a worker placement, resource gathering game akin to Stone Age, except it also had rotating role cards like in Citadels. The trick was that the roles functioned both as a boon to the player taking them ("take the Banker to gain an extra two money this turn," or whatever), but also as a sort of meta-guessing game. Every/most space(s) on the board would correspond to a different role - the Bank and the Banker, the Smith and the Blacksmith, etc - and taking a specific role would give you ownership of that particular space for the turn. Now, ownership could mean a lot of things, and it doesn't have to be a universal mechanic. Maybe owning the Bank means every player who took that action this turn must give you one money, or owning the Smith means you get to choose what items are available for sale that turn (like a "draw 5 cards, pick 3" thing). Additionally, not every structure would be owned every turn, so there'd be times where you'd want to risk taking a spot which would pay off in spades if no one took it, but might be much riskier/not worth it if someone did. Mostly what I'm asking is, does this game exist anywhere? I'd hate to reinvent the wheel, and before I really sink my development teeth into the game past the general mechanics I want to make sure that isn't what I'd be doing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 19:35
|
|
|
xopods posted:stuff Yep, that's more or less the way turns would go down. Sorry for not being clear there; I need to stress the whole "from a literal dream" thing, haha. As for the rest, some of it I've thought about and others I haven't. I agree that playing on a space that isn't owned should be A Good Play, or at least, always better than if it is owned. I could imagine a scenario where this isn't the case - like a Castle structure where taking the King/Queen role means you get a HUGE boon but that it's reduced by some amount for every other player who takes the action, because those greedy peasants keep demanding your attention - but even then it'd be a good move to play there mostly to diminish the King's power, your reward might be exactly the same. Playing on a tile that you own, in my current mental version of the game, means it's treated as unowned to you (or in the case of the hypothetical Castle, that your bonus isn't reduced). This serves as both a way to make your strategy more coherent (the Roles and Structures will likely be heavily related in their purpose), and a secondary deduction/bluffing mechanic. If you see someone piling their workers into the Smithy, you might assume they think it'll be safe, potentially because they have it, or maybe if the drafting works identical to Citadels, because they know it got burned at the end/start. I'll have to see how this works in practice. I considered a Mascarade style bluff mechanic, but, truth be told, I just personally don't like playing them that much. I think it's cool, but I figure if I'm not big into a genre then I won't do my best work designing a game for it. The area control idea is interesting though, I'll have to think on that. Thanks! Nemesis Of Moles posted:Your dream stole my illuminati game idea Count Blanc I take no responsibility for my subconscious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 11, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
Yo, let me play test BL.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 16, 2013 04:27
|
|
|
I like "Poop in the Soup"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 3, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
jmzero posted:How about animals choosing the king of the jungle? It makes for some flavorful roles: it'd be fun to be a snake or a badger or a rhino or whatever. And there's a lot of fun design space for relationships between animals and maybe general alignments or something (predators and prey, or Lion Party vs. Hyena Party - each of which having some support animals or something). I really like this idea, and animals definitely lend themselves to unique personalities and abilities, without having to toe any political lines. You could even have some sort of food chain mechanic where different animals have power over others.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
PlaneGuy posted:A game could have a set number of turns to deliver the product (the bomb, I suppose). The commissar or overseer can give up submitting work on a turn to peek at part of the workflow. So instead of getting a "fail", you get information on if there is a traitor or not, but it counts against your clock of the game (which could be a form of sabotage in of itself). Since the Commissioner chooses who adds to the bomb, this reminds me of another issue I've been having with Resistance lately, and one I'd like to see solved in future traitor games - That the traitor, when discovered, just gets to play less. If you make yourself out to be an obvious Spy in Resistance (say, by being incapable of keeping a straight face when people accuse you with decent reason of being red) then you're pretty much out of the game; You probably don't get to go on any more missions and no one is going to listen to your advice. At best, you become a body to be thrown under the bus for the other spies to say "oh yeah, they're DEFINITELY bad." In the bomb-building game example, if the same scenario of loving up building and then giggling like a particularly-ticklish spy, you don't get to build the bomb anymore because no other "spy" Commissioner would be dumb enough to put you on the job and risk having people figure out the obvious. I'm really not sure how to solve this sort of problem in the genre - it's like the worst of both euro and ameritrash variations of player elimination, keeping them in the game but not even giving them the satisfaction of making their own last-place point engine - but I feel like there has to be a few creative solutions to minimize it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2014 19:19
|
|
|
That sounds like an excellent game - To play with people you never play games with (and don't play multiple times). I know my group well enough to know when people aren't trying, time limit or not. I imagine BL's fabled group of Space Alert Professionals would have a similar problem; Once you reach a certain level of competence you can't really hold back without looking pretty incriminating.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
I played One Night Ultimate Werewolf the other day; It was a lot of fun, and made me think about traitor games again. Specifically, the very start of them and what I perceive as a problem waiting to be fixed. In both Resistance and ONUW players have basically zero information to go on, barring a few scattered roles knowing bits and pieces - Merlin knows who is bad (but not what they are), the Seer knows concretely what one other player is or two things no one is, Percival knows who Merlin is, etc. The rub being, no one knows where to start. In ONUW's case, my group sorta awkwardly stood there for a second before either one player said "I'm the X" or asked "Ok, who is the X", and it all just felt sort of arbitrary and unguided. Reading someone's writeup for Two Rooms and a Boom in the main board game thread makes me think this might be an issue there too, where the game just assumes someone will be a loudmouth and tell the first lie to get things going (which, to be fair, isn't unlikely, but it's a party game and a lot of people I've played party games with don't really "get" why or when you'd lie or why you'd believe someone initially). Resistance is a bit better due to its structure, but the first round feels like a complete waste and often doesn't really offer any real information (unless someone fails it, which isn't terribly often in a <8 player game) - You're just picking people arbitrarily if you're a Knight, and if you're evil you probably are just putting yourself and another bad guy if you can sway it on the mission to maybe-sorta give you something to point at later and say "hey, we passed this, we're good!" (but everyone knows that so it generally only works against new players). My issue isn't with the strategies though, but the lack of having anything concrete to go on for many of the people at the table for the first few minutes of a game. I feel like there should be something known, maybe a character or two who isn't hidden but doesn't need to operate from the shadows to accomplish whatever their win condition is, be it an individual one or one to help a team. Maybe there already is a game like this, but I never hear anyone talking about it if so. Has anyone else experienced this and thought it was an issue? Obviously people who have 50+ games of Resistance under their belt can have crazy weird first round metas if they're playing with their friends, but I regularly play with people who have 0-3 games played, and so it isn't uncommon for me to hear "so uh, what do we DO?" in that first round/initial awkwardness.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 16, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
Sharpness feels... I dunno, unnecessary? I know it's a mechanic in MH, but is it currently adding a lot? Especially the "sometimes you deal extra damage" thing. Does the game not have enough decisions to make without it? Do the players like having to sharpen weapons? You might want to consider a "discard one, use one" system for the cards, like Kemet uses for combat. That way you'll cycle through your hand faster, and have fewer options available more often (which both speeds up the game and gives that feeling of dread and fear all good co-ops need).
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
A real time game absolutely sounds neat, and Jab needs more competition for real time battling game king. That said, if the design goal is "a JRPG battle system board game" then real time probably isn't in the cards (ha). I think the three color system is too simple, and not just because I like meatier games; There's only so much you can do with a 3-color hand that doesn't lend itself to quickly mathing out the Best Play. The exception to this is when you have a bunch of additional mechanics like "I played 3-red last turn, that means my hand is now capped at 1-red BUT I get an inherent +2 Damage this turn," and when you get to that point it feels like you're losing the simplicity that you were presumably shooting for with the customizable and intuitive color mix. Basically, it sounds cute, but it doesn't sound like it has a lot of meaningful decisions to make without adding in a lot of layers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
About a year ago I posted an idea I had for a then-unnamed 2v2 euro-style game about superheroes fighting supervillains. I shelved the idea for, well, basically a year, but over the last week I had an explosion of creativity and motivation, so I opened up my old Google Drive document and started writing whatever ideas popped into my head. I'm writing this post half to get advice and half to get my ideas in a more coherent, focused format instead of a ton of bullet points and underlined words. Anyway, I present to you, Capes: Weekend Warriors. Capes is a game about amateur heroes and villains who, between studying for college exams, working at their day job, or frequenting the gym, fight crime/crimefighters. The game is broken down into two phases, Weekdays and Weekends; During the week you'll be doing the daily grind while trying your best to increase your crime fighting/committing abilities, and on the weekend you'll square off against the other team in combat (hence the name). The main objective is, in typical euro-fashion, to accumulate points [note: I'd like a cuter name for points that could ideally be acronym'ed into VP, but obviously this is low priority right now]. Points are gained through combat, which currently happens either two or three times over the course of the game. Some basic terms: Cells - These are the game's primary currency. Cells are used to gain new powers and to pay for existing ones in combat. They currently come in 6 different colors and represent pretty basic stuff: White is vitality/inner strength, Black is sorcery, Red is physical strength, Yellow is speed/dexterity, Blue is intelligence, and Green is luck/bravado. I might trim this list to 5 or even 4, but currently 6 sounds good. There's a 7th type, Wild Cells, that are basically rainbow energies that also increase the damage of any power they're used in by one (this second part may change). Only one Wild Cell may be used per Power. Justice Bucks - The game's secondary currency, and the canonical currency of the game's metropolis. Primarily used to buy gadgets. I want to use this for something else, like a "feed your family" mechanic from Agricola/Stone Age to make it more appealing, but I don't have any immediate ideas. Nothing crippling though, ideally. Powers - Things used in combat. "Powers" specifically refers to activated effects, no powers are passive. Always have a base effect, Cells empower them in different ways. Your character starts with some of these, but most are generally gained during the week phase. There's a special type of power, "Team Up!"s, which use both teammate's turns in combat and tend to require more Cells for their effects. Gadgets - Primarily passive effects, bought with money during the week phase. At the start of the game, players choose a hero or villain (I'm just gonna say "heroes" from now on), each with a suite of unique abilities and stats. Currently heroes have Cell aptitudes which determine how good your character is at gaining each color of Cell, two (maybe 3) Powers, and a passive effect (possibly two, one for the week and one for the weekend. maybe not? who knows). Your character board also has a currently-unknown amount of numbered slots; When you obtain a power (gadgets might also occupy slots, currently they don't) it goes into one of these slots. You can swap your Powers out at any time during the week, but as soon as the weekend phase begins, they're locked. You also have a hand of numbered cards equal to your number of equipped powers, and you gain/lose cards as you equip or lose powers (you start with 2/3 since your character automatically has some powers, as well as a Team Up! card). Team Up! powers do not occupy a slot, but you may only have one between the two of you. After choosing heroes and teams, play begins in the first week phase. This is pretty typical worker-placement stuff, with each player getting a few workers that you place in various spots to do whatever the action is and block others from doing the same. Every spot has two openings, and everyone has three "workers". Board spaces that currently exist are: Gym - You go here to gain Red and Yellow cells. Library - You go here to gain Blue and Black cells. [unnamed] - You go here to gain White and Green cells. Office - You go here to gain Bucks. Research Facility - You can exchange Cells for Bucks here, faster than the Office but obviously a steeper cost. Lab - Where you buy Powers. Powers are a deck of cards where some number of them are revealed and whenever one is removed a new one takes it place. The card at the end of the queue is destroyed at the end of each weekday if no Powers have been bought. [Unnamed] - Purchase gadgets here. Works in the same way as the Lab. The Cell-gathering spots work like Stone Age (roll a die, gain the number of cells shown), but instead of piling workers on to roll more dice your character's Cell aptitude modifies it; A character's aptitude can either be Poor (1), Average (2), or Superior (3). A character with Poor aptitude will gain an extra Cell if they roll a 1, a character with Average will gain an extra Cell if they roll a 1-2, and a character with Superior with always gain an extra Cell. [NOTE: All dice are 6-sided and numbered 1-3, with each number represented twice. This may change to three 1's, two 2's, and one 3 if it seems weird). The Office is similar, but since characters don't have aptitudes for Bucks, you instead roll two dice and take the sum. I currently HATE this idea since gaining between 2-6 money is a huge swing, so any suggestions are appreciated. Maybe just make a Bucks aptitude and deal with it. The Research Facility is much the same, except you get one die and can pay cells to increase it by one per cell spent. I already explained the Power and Gadget spots, but feel free to ask for clarification as this is all very stream of consciousness since I get distracted waaaaay too easily. After each day is done (either when everyone passes in a row or runs out of workers, passing does NOT remove you from the round unless everyone does it in order), you collect your workers and rise/repeat for a total of 5 weekdays. Once it hits the weekend, combat begins. Before combat starts, you get one final chance to equip and arrange your Powers, and then you pick up your hand of numbered cards. Everyone chooses a card from their hand that corresponds to the power they want to use, places it face down, and reveals simultaneously once everyone has chosen. The character with highest Initiative then chooses which Cells they want to spend on their power, completes the effect, and passes to the next highest initiative. Once everyone has acted, the numbered card goes to that player's discard pile, and new cards are chosen. If your hand is ever reduced to two or less cards at the end of a round, you may shuffle up your discard pile and draw it again before choosing a card to play. To activate a Team Up! power, both players must play their Team Up! card. After a certain number of turns of combat (undecided), the fighting is over and points are tallied. Characters have health benchmarks, and if they're at or below that number the other team gets a point. All characters currently have the same amount of health and benchmarks, but this may change: 25 health, benchmarks are 22, 18, 13, 7, and 0, with 0 being worth an extra point. I may change how many points each benchmark is worth, but the idea is that I want players to have an incentive to do something other than just focus target one person, so the benchmarks are spread out a bit. This also gives me some design space with Powers. A character can never "die", being at 0 merely is simply a point benchmark (this may change). Combat statuses Dazed: Any damage the player deals while dazed will never trigger a point benchmark. For example, if the attack would deal 5 damage while the target is at 20 health, it would only deal 1 point of damage, stopping at 19. Dazed lasts until the player performs an attack. Does not apply to Team Up attacks. Afflicted: An afflicted player takes 1 damage at the start of their turn. Lasts until the end of combat. Bolstered: A bolstered player may treat any one cell as a Wild Cell on their next attack. Demoralized: A demoralized player cannot spend Wild Cells on their next attack. Once points are tallied, the next week begins. I haven't completely decided how the second week will be different, I'm considering different powers/gadget decks with more powerful effects that may be able to be upgraded 7 Wonders style (Having "Eldrich Blast" may reduce the cost of "Eldrich Eruption" by some amount). Maybe not? It seems like a fun thing for the player but obviously more difficult to create, and if the decks are too large it also means one player might just lucksack into getting cheap, strong powers while the others have to expend hella resources. And that's the game! Here's a few sample Powers, the numbers are in no way representative of what they'll be later but hopefully this gives you some idea of what I'm talking about. None of these have costs because, quite frankly, I don't really know where to begin with that so I'll just slap some arbitrary numbers on there later and see what happens. Also, if a card ever says something like "2 black, 2 white" it means BOTH 2 black and 2 white. If it says "2 black or 2 white", it means one or the other. quote:“Eldritch Surge” Thanks for reading all this garbage! I leave you with a few pointed questions about what to do with the game, but feel free to comment on anything. Because I don't want to get into my usual navel gazing, I'm going to try to whip together a prototype of sorts and bring it to my board game club tomorrow evening to get a play in, but any advice prior to then is welcomed! Things I need help with in general: - Ideas for how to handle Initiative. Should characters have innate Initiative (perhaps modified by a die roll)? Should Initiative be on Powers? What happens in the event of a tie (note: I can easily make ties a non-issue by simply not making powers/characters with conflicting Initiatives if I use a large enough scale, like 1-50). If characters have initiative, what determines when Team Up! powers trigger during a turn? - How different to make the characters. - Options for making money more appealing. - Should there be a board location for gathering Wild Cells (probably at a reduced rate)? - More power/gadget/character ideas. Holy crap, This. Things I need help with but will probably only learn through testing: - How many times weeks/combats there are in the game. - What are interesting/fun "stats" for the characters to have, and if aptitudes are too strong/weak. This is probably something I can math out but yeah. - How long combat should be. - If it's better to have a player choose how many Cells they spend on a power when it's their turn in the initiative order, or to do a closed fist auction-style thing where everyone chooses which Cells to use simultaneously after seeing which powers everyone picked. EDIT: I've made a few keywords to make Powers a bit more concise, and to provide some design direction (mostly for myself, ha). They are: Heal X - Heal that amount. Damage X - Instantly deal that much damage. If attacks have multiple "Damage" effects, they count as separate attacks. This is relevant for... Prevent X - Prevent that amount of damage from the next damage source. Lasts until you take damage, currently doesn't stack. Empower X - The next source of damage the target deals is increased by X. This is basically a way to buff yourself or others, but it also interacts with Prevent in obvious ways. If an attack both Damages and Empowers the attack itself is Empowered. That's all! I fixed the language in the sample Powers to match this. Countblanc fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2014 01:40
|
|
|
I just got back from my first incredibly slipshod playtest, hooray. Learned an absolute ton, and have discovered some of biggest problems (so far) with the game. The things that really jumped out are: 1) Character Powers being as good as purchased Powers means that there's [perhaps many] situations where you'll just elect to not bring all or even any of your purchased Powers into combat, so you can recycle your hand faster. This also meant there was little reason to buy powers that weren't absolutely amazing for you. - Current Solution: Have everyone start with two character powers, as they currently do, as well as 3 generic "Punch"-type powers that aren't as useful as the stuff you'd buy, and that you have to bring a full power loadout. That way you'd never have fewer than 5 Powers. 2) Money is kinda weird? Everyone liked that there was a secondary resource but wasn't really sure what to do with the extra, and there definitely was some. - Current Solution: Everyone must pay Rent at their lovely motel every weekday. If you don't make rent, your first worker placement of the following day doesn't do anything (so you can use it to block stuff, but not gain anything). We actually used this in our playtest game and it went very well, it's just that the numbers aren't where they need to be and Gadgets aren't properly priced yet. 3) It's too easy to do everything you want, to the point where Day 5 was basically gathering Cells just to kill actions. - Current Solution: Everyone has two workers during the first week instead of three. This makes the first week feel a lot more panicked and players aren't able to just dump their best powers and strongest effects over and over in combat. This was also sort of spurred by the current rate you get resources, which has slightly been slightly neutered. Considering locking out certain spaces (or vacancies in spaces) during week 1. 4) Healing feels boring. I didn't really post many (any?) healing powers, but basically I introduced healing because it interacts with health benchmarks in fun ways. It still does, but it was too common and too weak, so it didn't really feel like an interesting choice. I think just having more content will fix this since the percentage of cards that heal/prevent damage is waaaay too high since that's all I could brainstorm. - Current Solution: Probably just making heal effects more rare and more powerful. 5) Not enough content. Self-explanatory. DEFINITELY not enough controlled ways to generate Wild Cells, but I don't want too many? I don't know. Thank you everyone for your suggestions - There's a lot of stuff in there I really like, such as evolving powers (this also helps with encouraging players to buy stuff. I think I'm going to ditch Afflict for the time being because it's crazy messy, but things are definitely starting to make a lot more sense. We went with card-based initiative in combat and it was fine, but I think next time I'm going to test having every character (I only had two, so each team had one of each) have an initiative with powers offering modifiers, and tiebreakers being broken by whoever played the larger modifier. jmzero's idea to have "build-up" spaces is wonderful, I feel like a dope for not thinking about it. I might have to increase workers back to three since it'd obviously mean more spots, and increase some power costs, but that's not really a bad idea? I'll definitely test it to see how players like it. I'm not sure how much I want to mess with the number of weeks right now though. Any more than two is, at the current game's pace, going to take a long time with that many more turns and I really want something that plays within a tidy 45-60 minutes. I also COMPLETELY FORGOT to make any Team-Up powers, so those obviously didn't get testing. Still, a very productive evening, and thanks again for all the feedback! e: Here's a PasteBin with all the current powers/characters/gadgets. Hopefully this makes some things a bit more clear. Countblanc fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Mar 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Consider a shared health pool for the players, or having one die means a failed hunt. The latter probably makes more sense thematically, but you could really just handwave the former to mean whatever you want since health can as easily be an abstraction of "desire/ability to keep fighting" as much as it can mean "literal life force." This obviously doesn't fix every difficulty problem, but I think that coupled with some increase in monster health would do the trick.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:So after way way waaaaaaay too long, the rulebook for Behemoth (the Monster Hunter board game) is finally complete! Feel free to look through it and give me any and all feedback on the rulebook or the game in general. This is my first time writing a rulebook, so beware that it might be total poo poo. Lemme know if any parts are confusing, if any rules aren't explained clearly enough, if anything seems mentioned but then not elaborated on, if the flow of the rules and instructions makes sense, etc. Assuming it's all clear enough, any comments, questions, or suggestions on the game design itself would be greatly appreciated. If you can get a version up by Friday I'll bring it to my board game group and gather feedback. They've been my guinea pigs for my game for a few months now, I'm sure they'd appreciate seeing a game designed by someone not awful.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 07:03
|
|
|
Without having seen every single card, I feel you could put "damage" as its own unique box. This is less for readability and more for style, though (that said, I don't think it hurts clarity). Save the large, main text field for special effects. Maybe damage could be in the bottom corner of the box as just a big ol' number on top of a symbol that screams "THIS NUMBER MEANS DAMAGE", like a crossed spear and sword.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:I could probably reduce the text box and just slap the big damage number in the center of the card, I really like this idea, by the way. I think it'd be really satisfying to have a hand of huge numbers with big ol' weapons behind them.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2014 21:44
|
|
|
I wanted to apologize in advance, my group (being a campus-based one) is having a significantly shorter meeting than usual tonight since the building we meet at is closing several hours earlier, so we won't get to playtest. Next week for sure though, I mentioned it to people and there's a lot of brewing interest.
|
|
#
¿
May 23, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Oh dang, I'm super pumped to try this out, I loved the idea. Not sure when I'll get a chance, but I'll do my best to give it a shot and get back to you. I printed it out and brought it last week only to realize I forgot to bring my card sleeves for proxying stuff. I'll put it through its paces on Friday if people show up! As for Final Attack, I tried playing Space Alert with my new group last week and they absolutely crumbled under pressure, I'm not sure I could get much interest (or useful feedback) about making them playtest FA. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2014 04:45
|
|
|
Poison Mushroom posted:This is really starting to actually look like good mock-up art. I'm not sure if I like how de-emphasized the name is compared to the other two boxes, though. I think it'd help to make everything not a shade of brown. The only way to really separate things right now is with a thick black outline, which looks kinda bleh - Try using different blocks of color, or make the background of the card something else. Monster Hunter is a very vibrant series, full of greens, oranges, and blues, so don't feel limited to a more "gritty" color palate. Also maybe change "Gun lance" and "Switch Axe" to something more markedly different. I know you gave them different names, but if you're going to be offering it up for a competition you probably want to separate yourself from the source material a bit more, and the mechanics are abstract enough that I don't think it should be TOO difficult.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2014 23:02
|
|
|
Well I finally got to playtest Behemoth as I promised like two months ago. I won't unload all my initial thoughts since Codfish is pretty tied up right now apparently, but here's some general thoughts. Some of these are balance, and others are just ambiguous GamerFeels. 1) There's no anti-quarterbacking mechanic. None. Even in my first game it started to come out, telling someone "no, don't play that card, play one with this other delay instead so we can set up an attack easier/so you can evade/whatever" was common halfway through. Maybe this is acceptable or even desirable in your game, but at least in other games it doesn't feel great for either side - no one likes getting bossed around, and no one likes having to be the guy telling their friends they're playing wrong over and over. We tossed around the idea of an audio track that lasts [minutes] and changes every [1/4 of those minutes] to signify to the players that time is passing, and if the Hunt lasts too long they lose. 2) The Behemoth's deck seems kinda random. Thunderstone has this problem, where you might start off by encountering all the worst poo poo right off the bat or at the worst times, and it makes me hate that game. There's a couple things you could do here, and I'm sure plenty more that I haven't thought of. [1] Have a separate deck for Enrage cards, and have little/no overlap between which cards are in each deck. [2] Have the player put a few of the real poo poo-kicker cards in each quarter of the deck and shuffle those separately and then stack them up ala Pandemic. [3] Just have like three separate decks depending on how far into the hunt you are. 3) It kinda sucks getting down to red sharpness, because then you literally can't do anything other than use items. Considering some weapons burn through sharpness real quick (Sword and Shield, Dual Swords in particular) it isn't too improbable that a player will run their weapon down and just be worthless with certain team compositions. Maybe consider making it so you do -1 damage for every sharpness level below the requirement you are, and make it so you don't inflict durability damage when attacking this way. I dunno what you'd have to adjust numberwise to make this work though, but players generally won't want to swing for suboptimal damage anyway, it's more there to soften the blow if your teammate burns all the sharpening stones. 4) The weapons themselves seem a bit unbalanced, particularly Gun Lance (OP). Sword and Board seems a bit on the weak end, but maybe I just played wrong, but Gun Lance definitely seems kinda silly. The problem is, it's also incredibly cool and you feel good using it, so maybe the other weapons should be brought up to par instead of nerfing that if possible. Switch Axe and Dual Swords also fit into sort of an awkward "useful but maybe not super satisfying" category, where the numbers aren't bad (though maybe I'm wrong!), but the mechanics around them aren't the best. I think Switch Axe should encourage switching more often instead of just saving up for a nova turn (which isn't even that much of a nova, so even that isn't terribly satisfying to do), and Dual Blades' weapon power is an awkward blend of powerful and boring. 5) It's hard to plan for anything in any meaningful way, especially at the beginning of the game before anything is broken, mostly due to how the Behemoth deck currently functions in its randomness. Maybe you're just counting on people memorizing the card ratios in the deck and their respective delays, I don't know, but it feels really random. "Ok, Player 1 is really hurt, so have them move towards the Wing in relation to where it'll turn to face next turn. Oh it did an attack with both claws and the head, which still does 65 damage post-head break," or "The head is broken so it should be fairy safe oh whoops it Inferno'd for 60 damage anyway," or worst of all, "Player 3 is at full health, and the next attack and the one that'd trigger on Enrage will both target them, so we should position accordingly *neither card targets that person*". I'm really not sure how to handle this in the current game state, since telling players what is going to attack just makes it incredibly easy to avoid stuff, but it feels too random right now and moving feels like a waste of time more often than not (and sometimes you just get smacked despite moving in a way you assumed would avoid it). If you implemented a timer or some other sort of mechanic that rushed players then you could get away with providing a hint on the back of the card. e: Remembered two other things. 6) Revisit the instructions. There's a few things we struggled to find, specifically where the Behemoth begins at the start of the game (we ruled that it starts on the same space as the players and goes first, readying a card). I can't remember any more but I knew there were a few things. 7) Movement seems kinda dumb. This relates to #5, but I also think Movement should be more interesting in general. Nothing references it other than the Behemoth itself. Maybe one or more weapons should interact with positioning? That might be frustrating with the current unpredictability, but maybe not. I think it's worth looking at though! Countblanc fucked around with this message at 04:39 on Jun 29, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Holy dang, thanks for all that feedback. I'm on vacation and only have access to my phone so hopefully this write-up isn't awful! 1&2) That sounds solid. 3) In the manual I'm pretty sure you say that you must have the monster's color of sharpness to damage it, but you may have meant "damage" in terms of durability. Otherwise yeah we were playing that wrong. 4) I think Sword & Shield needs some work, it doesn't really do damage and the block isn't particularly good barring the attack that lets you keep it readied. Using items faster is cool, but when the vast majority of your item usage is "use a potion or sharpening stone" it's a bit bleh. I found myself using Monster Traps with it not because it helped a lot (though it was nice), but just so I could feel like I was taking advantage of the weapon's ability. Consider something to play up the weapon's versatility in MH, maybe something like the option when you ready attacks to do unique things, like the Bow's delay options. Like "Shield" attacks can gain +2 Delay to block another 10 damage and something else for "Slash" attacks. It's also a weapon that'd pair well with movement mechanics if you decide to flesh that out (Bow, Staff, or Light Bowgun too if you decide to change/make that). As for other weapons, I'd have to talk with my players, but I know the Transform Axe user felt underwhelmed with the needed amount of build up to make his points worth much (or at least feel worth it, I don't know what the best time to dump combo points is mathematically). For that I'd weaken Sword attacks and buff the point multipliers for Axe ones (or the other way around? I don't remember), but maybe there's other options. The guy who used the Dual Swords never really used his power, which obviously means little for balance, but it might mean it doesn't inspire people to care. The Hunting Horn user seemed happy, especially since having a HH in the group seems to shift the focus and that person is basically the star of the show. I didn't try the Bow or the Hammer. 5) Yeah I don't have an easy fix for that. I don't think it's the worst thing in the world to have attacks predictable, they were in MH, but you'd probably have to make HP lower since at that point you're relying on the timer/human error to cause the fail state. Though with a harsh enough timer or making dodging suboptimal (like make moving cause the players Delay?) helps that a bit. 6) The big one was that we had no idea where the boss was at the start of the game. I know there's a few other things, I think we missed that the monster hits with all listed body parts (ie "Head and both Claws") and not just the one that corresponds to that zone. It's definitely mentioned, but if you do an FAQ somewhere it might be worth putting there. 7) I don't have many suggestions aside from maybe making a few weapons key off movement (extra damage when you move? easier to dodge? modified delay opportunities?), or the things with the timer and delay. There might be something there though. None of the games I played were games where everyone knew the rules, so I wouldn't take my experiences as the status quo, but the first one took a bit over two hours due to NONE of us knowing, and the other about 30 minutes less since I knew everything. I think a well read group could finish a game in an hour, maybe less, especially if you had something in the rules for dividing up the bookkeeping and logistics (Party Leader handles monster health and keeps the game flowing, Tactician monitors the monster deck/enrages, etc.).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
CodfishCartographer posted:Maybe have it be able to use potions / sharpening stones on other players? Making an effective "alchemist" role is cute, but at that point the weapon's action cards are secondary to the ability. Also you then run the risk of a group always needing/thinking they need one, since it's a healer and everyone knows you gotta have a healer, and no one likes being the person who has to spend 60-80% of their turns using items on other players. If you want to emphasize items with it, I'd say make it so SnB attacks can "combo" into items for less delay, maybe a flat -2, since then you absolutely must play action cards as well. Or make it a flat -1 and toss in some other ability if you want.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 3, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
I played another game of Behemoth with a different group today. Most of the feedback was the same as what I said before, but since we tried other weapons I can comment on those, and have a few other remarks. Bow and Arrow: The person who played it basically said it was completely underwhelming. Not that it was bad, but that he felt he never got to make decisions (because the decision was just "which delay do I pick to sync up with the other players or sometimes the monster if I need to dodge," or at least it felt that way). He mentioned that the lack of abilities on the attacks themselves made his turns very boring since the only choice he got to make was which player he wanted to sync up his turn with. Also, the weapon's gimmick is HUGELY punishing and streaky - If a monster is pushed back too far on the delay board you can't really set up a dodge, so even if know see an Inferno coming at you you just have to cry and eat the 120 damage (or worse, literally get 1-shot if it does an early claw+claw+head attack, we actually ruled that the archer can't be killed from full health instantly). We had a proposed solution - assuming you don't change any mechanics - that would hopefully fix this randomness as well as offer a use for movement; Make it so the bow's power doesn't double damage received but instead adds a flat number (20-30 probably), and you get hit if you're either directly in front of the monster or in one of the two adjacent zones. Then make archer have some sort of "aimed shot" gimmick, either as an attack card or two, or as an innate ability. Like, an option to forsake your movement to add a bonus printed on the card (extra damage, less delay, etc.), and maybe make a few actions that get bonuses if you do move ("Skirmish Shot" or something). I'll write up some more later, I just wanted to get my thoughts out before I forgot them. E: more comments Sword and Shield: We had a completely new player using this one. I feel like I might have been leading him a bit by basically saying "it seemed like X was a problem, was it?", but basically the general issue was that he felt there weren't enough items that were worth spending your turn on for the item gimmick to work (if you stick with that). He suggested making the SnS user able to get one free use of each item since he was always concerned with the idea of "using everyone else's stuff", which sounds really dumb to me but maybe kick that around a bit. Unrelated to the player, I contest that SnS and other fast weapons are inherently problematic in the current design sphere because the user is taking more turns and making more decisions than all the other players, which can lead to boredom. There's many ways to confront this issue, but I think you need to look very closely at the game's shell a bit more regarding things like real time mechanics, "roles," and delay since it's impossible to get a final design idea in mind for the weapons without those. Hammer: This just felt really uninspired, frankly. Like, I don't see how the weapon evokes the feeling of using a huge hammer - It delays a bit but not a ton (probably because you figured that'd be broken) so the "concussion" element isn't really there, and the acceleration weapon ability just seems janky. Hammers in MH had attacks which charged up, you could probably do something with that. Maybe make it do extra stuff depending where it strikes the monster, which goes hand in hand with making movement more important - Hitting the head causes additional delay, hitting claws breaks them faster, etc. If you do decide to do stuff with positioning like this you need to make the monster's movement less random though. "Random" might be the wrong word, but I think it'd be frustrating as the hammer user to try to line up a strike on a specific part, only to have someone enrage it and turn it when it wasn't expected, and stuff like this would happen if people weren't playing perfectly (real-time, not sharing information/planning together, etc). Countblanc fucked around with this message at 10:03 on Jul 19, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2014 07:25
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:So I've been brainstorming a more nuanced version of the classic card game 'War'. In my revision you've still got the variable card power but you also have variable card value, with weaker cards being worth more points so you've got something of a bluffing aspect where you have to decide whether or not to play stronger or more valuable cards. I'm also working in abilities to certain cards to add variety. I'm also trying to work in cards with abilities to mix up gameplay. That sounds like a less complex version of Yomi, which is played with a 52 card deck and is entirely about giving a few cards unique powers and weighing risk/reward and reading the opponent. Your idea is definitely more simple, but seems pretty similar.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 29, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Just to expand a bit, Space Cadets is like, the quintessential dexterity co-op, so if you go that route make sure to look into it. Same with Catacombs, though that's also a 1 vs Many game.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 26, 2014 08:15
|
|
|
I think the first question you'd want to consider is, well, what is the stamina? Is your deck stamina? Is it a number you track? Some other thing? Deck-as-life is a neat mechanic, but it requires an actual deck of cards and that certainly isn't the only way to do it. I feel like just being a thing you deplete and then game over is fine but I think that starts blurring stamina-as-momentum and stamina-as-hitpoints, and it sounds like you're more interested in the former. Maybe some sort of meter that swung back and forth between the players? I've seen some video games use things like that, and the best ones always add modifiers that cause it to swing more heavily the longer the game goes on, so in a turn-based game something that moved the position 2 notches on turn one would move it 3 from turn three onwards, and so on. That's starting to get incredibly abstract and move away from actual fighting games and more towards the momentum of a fight though. Still, worth considering your options.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Anniversary posted:I can't remember if it was brought up here or somewhere else, but a while ago someone mentioned the idea of a deck trashing game; where throughout play you tried to whittle your deck down to a more efficient machine. I've wrestled with the puzzle of how to do that well, but have yet to come up with a great implementation. However, it tangentially did lead me to a somewhat related idea, a card game where damage causes you to mill (place cards from the top of your deck into your discard) out your deck which leads to the games one loss state: running out of cards. Though I'm currently doing it a little differently than that: damage does cause milling, and once you run out of cards in your deck you shuffle your discard pile and create a new deck, then remove the top X cards from the game. If you can't, then you lose. I like this system as it extends the games length and makes it more controllable than just straight loss on an empty deck would, and seeing as I want to keep decks small (30 cards is my current goal) I think it would keep games to a viable time frame. The DBZ TCG uses damage = mill and it's fine. It doesn't do the discard shuffle thing but it has something similar in how it handles dragon balls.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 06:04
|
|
|
Yeah don't let that stop you, but just don't make it, like, your game's selling point. In DBZ it's cool because you feel like you're really beating the snot out of your opponent since your attacks directly hit their deck and remove their options, it's a pretty thematically appropriate way to do damage.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 06:30
|
|
|
signalnoise posted:How would you go about a win condition design in a 2-player head to head card game with no location-based positioning that does not revolve around numeric damage accumulation? I'm trying to think of a way to make a game that only requires cards and nothing else, and the only thing I can think of is milling the enemy's deck or having specific win condition cards. I think with win condition cards the problem would be what if you never get the cards you need? I wouldn't want to base the whole game around luck. The DBZ tcg has 3 win conditions: 1) Survival. In DBZ your deck is also your life, and as soon as you run out of cards you lose. There's two types of damage, stage damage (generally physical) and life card damage (generally energy). Stages are things your character has and pays to use different card effects, losing them means you have fewer resources to spend and also any "overflow" stage damage becomes life card damage, making getting locked at 0 stages very scary. Life Card damage is basically mill (though there's also ACTUAL mill, called "destroying" cards off the top of your opponents deck). 2) Most Powerful Personality Victory. Each deck's main character ("Main Personality") has four levels with increasingly stronger effects tied to them, and you can access these by either playing cards that immediately level you up or by gaining 5 Anger. The former generally locks you out of the MPPV win condition, but decks which revolve on getting to level 4 and then getting another 5 anger - thus triggering MPPV - have been successful at different points in the game's life. Similarly there's effects which stop your opponent from gaining Anger, lower their Anger/Personality level, etc. 3) Dragon Ball Victory. If any player has all 7 Dragon Balls (special 1-per-deck cards with very strong effects and a handful of unique rules like "cards that search for cards can't search for DBs unless they specifically say so" and "DBs can't be destroyed through damage and instead are placed at the bottom of a player's deck") in play under their control they immediately win. Dragon Balls can be captured from the opponent by dealing enough damage in a single hit or several other specific card effects. Generally you build a deck to do 1-2 of these things, though "namekian triple vic" was a popular archetype for a while. A Garlic Jr. Perceptive Black deck is going to try to win by MPPV with a secondary focus on DB victory, an Android 20 Adaptive Orange deck will only care about Survival (though a slower, control-style Survival), and a bunch of others. MPPV is really the only one that's just tracking numbers, and even then it's much more dynamic than "reduce opponent's life to zero" because anger tech varies heavily by style. Maybe look into the game if you want ideas.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 6, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
I'd recommend Roll20 unless you have some sort of programming knowledge, in which case VASSAL might work for you. I don't know about programs like OCTGN but they might be worth looking into.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2016 01:42
|
|
|
Harvey Mantaco posted:Looked at the new Dark Souls boardgame video, and I'm a little unsure about the way it's looking:
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
dhamster posted:e) The games went a little longer than expected. Could have been due in part to the teaching, but part of it could also be that I reduced the damage of attacks without shrinking character health as well. I'll probably tweak that as time goes on. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
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. 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. Countblanc fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Nov 6, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Also you should have an Urien analogue
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
I agree, the wounded side shouldn't simply be "they took damage", it should change the puzzle in some way. Depending on how deterministic you want the game to be there could even be varying backsides for different monsters of the same type. So for instance, the game might come with four Goblin cards, and when you set up a scenario you choose/arrange them differently - Two of them might become "Cowardly" and get increased movement when wounded and try to disengage players or something, another might be "Frenzied" and deal more damage, and the last could be "Devious" and call for help from an adjacent big boy monster.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
silvergoose posted:Hmmm. Captain Sonar and I think Catacombs maybe!
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2017 21:56
|
|
|
One of my favorite auction mechanics is closed-fist auctions, where players take some amount of money from their supply in secret (under the table, behind a screen, whatever) and then reveal their bids simultaneously. I recommend tracking down a copy of Modern Art - I'd be shocked if there wasn't an online version available in some form, but the game itself is pretty cheap to buy a physical copy of anyway. It's one of the most distilled bidding experiences and has like 6 different types of bidding in it. You might find some inspiration there.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2017 18:32
|
|
|
To expand on that, combat should probably give the attackers something just so games don't turn into that annoying metagame of "someone needs to attack Player A because otherwise they're going to win, but doing it just wastes my turn so I'm going to pass the buck and tell someone else to do it". That will still happen sometimes but the less it does, the better, for me at least.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 20, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
I like the idea of all of them being present on every card (I'm a big fan of cohesive card templates), but instead of an arrow maybe try heavily fading out the ones which aren't relevant. Something like how Spirit Island displays its elements on the left side of cards.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 00:14
|
|