|
jmzero posted:I've been bouncing around an idea for a "card-building" game. There's a TCG out there called Redakai which uses a card overlay system which sounds similar to this; you might take a look at how it works for some inspiration. Essentially the cards are all pastic with their art/text/numbers/etc. shown and then the rest being transparancy, so after setting a starting card in front of you, you can augment it with new overlayed cards that change what it does, etc. If I remember right that game has a little plastic card-sized valley to stack your cards in as you play them; something similar might work for your idea?
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
quote:Sounds like a lot of complexity in the components. Would be really hard to manufacture. I think you may be imagining something different than I am. The cards would be normal (and all the same size) - they'd just be printed on transparent plastic, and have a couple holes at the top so the sections of the cards line up. I don't expect my prototype to take long to make. quote:Is there something you're doing with the cards that you couldn't do with e.g. little boards with space to put 1-4 smaller cards or tokens on top of them? Each card would replace some random subset of stuff across the whole card. If it only replaced part (or if you had this kind of control over what it affected) you'd lose some design flexibility and you'd add order to the build phase (and you'd likely be able to sort your cards somehow). The idea is that one card might replace the second "cost" box with a lower number but also blanks out a multiplier on HP (which is what you wanted from that other card), or doesn't cover up another negative you wanted to get rid of. And because these things are so messed up and disorganized, you just kind of have to pile stuff up and see how it goes. quote:The only thing remotely similar I can think of is one of Richard Garfield's stranger games, Filthy Rich, I just had a quick look to see, and it turns out there was a game that's quite similar (using transparent cards and combining their effects to build monsters) called Hecatomb (published by WotC). I wasn't super smug about my little idea or something, but I'll admit there's enough similarities that I can feel my ambition draining. quote:If I remember right that game has a little plastic card-sized valley to stack your cards in as you play them; something similar might work for your idea? Edit: Yeah, that's a better idea - simpler and probably work better. I'm obviously not up on what the cool kids are playing, as that game is apparently very popular (though, I suppose, not exactly in my demographic). My ambition is totally gone now that I see the space is already well explored, but I'm glad I asked. jmzero fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Dec 31, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:12
|
|
|
I wouldn't say the space is "well explored" if there are, like, two games out there. Don't get too hung up on being super-original. We didn't end up with the modern automobile by insisting the wheel be reinvented at every turn. I've always dreamed of making a computer RPG (probably a roguelike) in which you're a Dr. Frankenstein-style necromancer/mad scientist and instead of (or in addition to) loot in the form of equipment, you collect body parts from the monsters you fight, and assemble them into allies. Like, maybe you get a centaur torso, which has slots for one medium head, two medium arms, four large legs and a small tail... so you give it, say, a gargoyle head, octopus "arms", lion's legs and a rattlesnake tail. With whatever stats those provide. Sounds like you might be able to make a boardgame along those lines with the sort of mechanic you're toying with.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
quote:I wouldn't say the space is "well explored" if there are, like, two games out there. Don't get too hung up on being super-original. Yeah, I suppose what I was thinking was more like "the low-hanging fruit has been picked here". I really need some kind of hook to sell myself on working through a game idea these days, and originality was the only real hook this idea had for me (my MS Paint Booze Dragon was looking pretty good too, I guess).
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 20:45
|
|
|
I'm going to try to come up with at least one "finished" game every couple of months. I'm currently trying to figure out how I'm going to work the scoring system for my entry in the November contest, as it's the only thing holding the game back from being done. Not sure what I'll do after that, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2012 22:37
|
|
|
I have a ton of extra blank dice (100, to be exact) from making this Roman-themed "dice-building game," so I decided to make a little dice game for my wife's birthday. She's a gamer but also horseback rider and trainer. Horses can be jerks sometimes, and the interaction between a horse and rider when the horse is acting up can be very much like a brinksmanship game. If the horse is being a jerk, the rider can't just capitulate or else the horse will learn that it can get away with whatever it is doing wrong. That leaves the rider to find a way to make a 900 pound animal do what the tiny human asks. If the horse realizes "hey, I'm bigger than you and you literally can't push me around," the game, so to speak, is over. The longer this goes on, the worse the consequences of failure for the rider will be. I thought of this to be about risk-taking and brinksmanship, not unlike Farkle. Farkle is a dice game essentially about gambling with winnings you already have for the turn. Each roll could ruin all that you've gained, but then again if you keep rolling your winnings pile up faster than if you just took it easy every turn. This "horses are jerks" game has a similar dynamic, but uses custom dice for the theme (and is frankly less completely about luck than Farkle). I've been designing it to be light-hearted and comical, but thematic. By the way, I went with stickers and puzzle sealer to make the dice. I'm just using stickers for now until I can finalize playtesting the Roman game, but I have experimented with some of the suggestions to seal the dice and they all work well. 8 1/2 x 11 sheets of uncut sticker paper were on sale at Staples a week ago, so I got 30 sheets for $8. I'm able to make 100 dice worth with only 5 sheets, so it's more than enough. The Roman game is going to end up costing me about $25 worth of materials, which isn't too shabby considering it is 100 dice and a few token components.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2013 01:47
|
|
|
xopods posted:Thread's been quiet over the holidays, presumably because I've been busy scrambling to meet my deadline, and everyone else has been busy stuffing themselves with turkey/latkes and playing with Christmas/Hanukkah gifts. I definitely have a resolution to get my mechanics hammered out and settled for 12 Angry Dice and then start working on the themeing the cards and getting at least some clipart/stock photos to use as art for the cards to spice it up a bit. I definitely have a goal to get it into publishers hands by June at the very latest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2013 04:49
|
|
|
Railing Kill posted:Horsegame To provide a bit more content to my post, I've been toying with the idea of a tile-based xooperative Zombie board game. To repost and rephrase what I've said elsewhere, I'm looking to hear common pitfalls, so I can come up with solutions to those problems, and then have people tear into those solutions, as well. Basically, I'm trying to create a brainstorming crucible. What I've got so far (special thanks to PaybackJack) Luck-of-the-draw on tile placement -In addition to stealing borrowing the "mix [objective tile] and three tiles, and put them X from the top" concept, I'm also going to do that with some kind of 'rest point' for certain objective. IE "Helicopter pad is somewhere between 9 and 12 tiles down, and there's a safehouse either 5 or 6 tiles down'. Obviously, it's gonna need some testing to get it just right, but that's the concept. Simplistic zombie 'AI' -Either embrace this, or put in some level of basic randomization? (Perhaps some combination of the two.) Difficulty issues -On a zombie-frequency scale of "Walking Dead" to "Dead Rising 2", I'm aiming somewhere around the neighborhood of "2-3 per tile", with each tile being 4x4. (Downside? I'm gonna need like 30-40 zombie figurines per game.) On dealing with 'run away', if you can avoid the challenges completely until you win, then it's just a poorly-designed game. Also, I might be considering having a day-night cycle of some kind that causes Zombie activity to wax and wane, and/or an optional 'food' mechanic. jmzero actually suggested I try to come up with a way to 'seed' the game, so if someone wants a specific game set-up, they get that. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 09:13 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
I've been thinking of a possible solution to the randomness-unfairness issue and zombie AI. What first came to mind was Left 4 Dead's much-vaunted 'Director', who intelligently assigns zombies based on how the players are playing. Which led to a 'director' ruleset idea. But then, probably better, would be to play it like Descent: with n-1 human players, and one 'all zombies' player. The director could draw abilities etc based on what the humans did, to keep it all in balance. For example: 1) For each item the humans loot, the director gets some amount of resource toward more zombies or an ability. 2) For each zombie the humans kill, similar. 3) For each turn where nothing significant is done by the players, director gets to move one position up a track towards getting a horde. (Hurries the players up.) 4) 'Loot' tokens with the same fronts, but with different backs, so either the map rules or the director can choose what kinds of loot are in which location (including traps and suprise zombies). 5) 'Special' zombies which are tougher and with other abilities but which the director can play like lieutenants.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
Super Robot Fighter had its first playtest this weekend. It kinda sucked. Doesn't have the right feel or anything. Everyone had a good laugh, but theres a lot of work to be done.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 15:33
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:Super Robot Fighter had its first playtest this weekend. My advice would be, unless there are immediately obvious changes you could make to remedy the issues, to go all the way back to the drawing board. I've wasted huge portions of my life iterating endlessly on ideas I thought had a lot of potential, but were way off the mark on the first try. Although they become okay games in the end, the rules end up littered with the "artifacts" of previous iterations and aren't really of publishable quality - instead of Part A and Part B linking up seamlessly, their mismatched connections are patched together with Part C, which in turn needs Part D to hold it up. By comparison, everything I've done that has been or is likely to be published worked pretty well from the first try. I'd liken it to photo adjustment. If you've got a good exposure, you can make it great in Photoshop, but the further off the original image was from being right, the more overprocessed and Photoshoppy the final result is going to look on account of all the work you've done on it. If you get home and find you underexposed your shot by four stops, better to just take your camera back out and get a new shot. Not saying you shouldn't make another game with a similar theme and basic idea... just saying you should throw out all the specific mechanics and cards you came up with and start from the ground up again. xopods fucked around with this message at 17:45 on Jan 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 15:46
|
|
|
xopods posted:My advice would be, unless there are immediately obvious changes you could make to remedy the issues, to go all the way back to the drawing board. I've wasted huge portions of my life iterating endlessly on ideas I thought had a lot of potential, but were way off the mark on the first try. Although they become okay games in the end, the rules end up littered with the "artifacts" of previous iterations and aren't really of publishable quality - instead of Part A and Part B linking up seamlessly, their mismatched connections are patched together with Part C, which in turn needs Part D to hold it up. By comparison, everything I've done that has been or is likely to be published worked pretty well from the first try. Yeah. I've had to do this quite a few times, sometimes a few times for one game. It's not a bad thing when it happens, too. I see it as a natural part of the process. It's also what makes designing a game with a strong thematic core a bit easier: when you blow it all up, the theme remains the same and you at least have that to start anew. I suppose you could do the same if you were building a game up from a core mechanic, as long as that core mechanic isn't what is so fouled up. As long as you have a clear core of an idea, it's not the end of the world to blow it all up and start from scratch.
|
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Discussion topic: Do you design most of your games top-down (theme first, find mechanics), or bottom-up (mechanics first, find good theme)? Which do you prefer, and why?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
Colon V posted:Discussion topic: Some of my games have no theme (Insidious Sevens) or one that's entirely pasted on (the upcoming Cash or Crash), so those are clearly bottom up, starting from an idea like "I want to make the perfect trick-taking game" or "what if Liar's Dice used cards instead of dice, what improvements or elaborations could we make?" Sometimes a game arises when a theme I've been toying with (e.g. monkeys climbing and jumping through a bamboo grove, as I observed in Costa Rica) bumps into some minor mechanics I've been toying with (e.g. some backgammon related dice mechanics I'd wanted to work into something) and the two stick together and inspire the major mechanics. Other times, like with Sultans of Karaya or the upcoming Creatures of Dark Manor, I start with a major mechanic but without any of the details worked out ("Mafia/Werewolf but with players able to exchange roles, and with powers dependent on seating position," or "a memory game where the objective is not to turn up two matching cards in the same row or column"), then find a general theme, then refine both the theme and the mechanics as details from each inspire details in the other. For instance, Sultans started out as a more European serfs-vs.-nobility theme, but the Assassins and Vizier role inspired a switch to a pseudo-Arabian theme, which in turn inspired the remainder of the neutral roles. Creatures of Dark Manor, meanwhile, started as a "haunted woods" theme, but the grid-like layout of the cards felt like a better fit for rooms in a haunted house, and the change in theme in turn inspired some of the bonus card mechanics, like unused entrance cards being flipped face down and used as "secret passages."
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2013 15:47
|
|
|
I'm currently working on my submission for the January TGD contest, Panty Raid. I'm a little stuck, mechanics-wise, and I could use some help. Here's the link to what I have so far. I'm trying to figure out how to work some form of "trap" mechanic into the game. Instead of "Bro Cards", I'm thinking of "Trope Cards": Whenever someone is attempting to escape from their room, they have to describe how they are going to leave. Before they describe it, the other players lay "Trope Cards", which offer details that could be included in the Active Player's story. Under the "Trope Cards", players would place a "Level Up" or "d4" token under the card. When the Active Player tells his story, he has to use one of the "Trope Cards" in front of him, and deal with the token under the card afterward. Each room has a difficulty rating (like d6, or d8), and the Active Player has to at least get a 2 or higher to succeed in leaving. Getting a 4 or higher gets them 1 point, and get another point for every "raise" you roll (every multiple of 4 after 4: think Savage Worlds). Getting a 1, however, causes them to fail the room instead. If the Active Player reveals a "Level Up" token, they roll one die level higher than the card says (instead of rolling a d6, you'd roll a d8 instead), and if the Active Player rolls a 4 or greater, the person who played the "Trope Card" gets a point. If the Active Player reveals a "d4" token, they roll a d4 along with the die that the room indicates. If either die comes up a 1, the room is failed. The person who played the "d4" token gains two points for causing the Active Player to fail. This is what I've been able to come up with, but I would be open to any sort of suggestions you guys might have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
You have a contradiction in your rules, or at least in your example. In your example, you state that a player's motivation for playing a + valued card is the hope that the opponent will repay him later. This is flawed for two reasons - one for reasons intrinsic to the game, the other for reasons more general to game theory. Firstly, the cards are played face down and shuffled prior to being revealed. Obviously, if there are any + valued cards present, everyone will attempt to claim credit for them in the hopes of being rewarded later. Since the active player doesn't have any way of knowing who played what, no one should ever play a + valued card simply in the hopes of being repaid*. Secondly, cooperation is impossible among rational players in a finite game when players cannot make promises which are binding within the rules of the game. This is a principle of game theory known as the "chain store paradox" (why "chain store"? It has to do with extending a one-shot game of competition between individual stores into a game of repeated decisions between stores in competing chains). Here's how it applies to your game (assuming player B is after player A in the turn order):
---- That's not to say there's no strategy to your game at all. If players always play only negative cards, eventually they will run out and be left with only positives, so the actual strategy of the game revolves around determining when you can most likely dump your positive cards (and avoid wasting your negative ones) without accidentally helping someone too much. In that sense, it's a bit like Kill Doctor Lucky, except with simultaneous moves and where the consequences for failing to thwart someone are only giving them points, rather than an immediate and outright win. You might want to have a look at that game and see what does and doesn't work about it. xopods fucked around with this message at 17:58 on Jan 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 17:54
|
|
|
First of all, let me thank you all, especially xopods, for both creating this interesting thread and keeping it alive and going. Inspired by your posts, my brain has began brewing a vague idea for a direct conflict two-player card game. The idea is really abstract and barebones currently, so please bear with me. While designing it I've wanted to combine two main mechanics: 1) Both players draw a hand of cards from a shared deck for each turn. Then they simultaneously choose a card they want to play that turn and the cards are then revealed. Then players place those cards on the playing field so that they're always physically connected to either your or your opponents previously played cards. Possibly there's a pre-existing "anchor card" before any other card is played for each player, so that both players begin building their card formation from equal positions. The way cards are relatively oriented gives rise to accumulating positive or negative effects (e.g. when two red sides of the cards match you get a damage/victory point bonus etc.), they cancel each other's effects out and so on. The turn order switches every turn so that the player who placed his card first on the previous turn places it last the next turn and so on. 2) On any turn after the first, a player can play a "resolve card" which always stays in the players hand. When someone plays the card, the other player (if he didn't play the resolve card too) places his current card and then the played cards on the table and their cumulative effects are, surprise, surprise, resolved. I've not yet decided if the game would be about scoring points or eliminating the opposing player. Either way, the played cards would then lead to throwing dice where smartly placed interconnected cards would either increase your probability of success or decrease your opponent's. After the resolve phase, the played cards would then be turned over on the board and the game would continue the same way until the victory condition (whatever that is) was reached. Also, I think it would be a fun mechanic if the over-turned cards left some sort of small effects on the board after their initial resolve. Basically you'd be building card formations that would increase your chances of scoring points, null the existing formations when it would be most advantageous to you and most disadvantageous to your opponent. I know this is almost as vague as it can be, but what do you guys think? What existing games have similar mechanics? I'm not even sure if I have the mathematical and logical faculties to create a game, but it still feels fun to toss ideas around! 
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 19:31
|
|
|
quote:"chain store paradox" Having a random game length/end condition can help a lot in cooperate/defect games. quote:(e.g. when two red sides of the cards match you get a damage/victory point bonus etc.) Perhaps have a look at Carcasonne. Lots of stuff works different in Carcasonne than what you've described, but it might give you some good ideas. I think you might get more joy having a shared board. I'm also not sure about the "resolve now" mechanic. Maybe have a set condition for a round ending, then do some kind of "doubling cube" mechanic? It seems like it hampers potential strategy if you can call for points to be counted any time you're ahead by a card or more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
TheSoundNinja posted:I'm currently working on my submission for the January TGD contest, Panty Raid. I'm a little stuck, mechanics-wise, and I could use some help. The token underneath the card idea is pretty good -- but the problem is that, as written, I think that the 'd4' option is markedly better than the 'Level Up' and still doesn't really encourage the gameplay that I think you want. With the d4 option, as an opposing player, I have a 25% chance of both gaining TWO points AND setting back a potential opponent at no real cost to myself. The 'Level Up' option gives me a variable chance (->d6 25%, ->d8 50%, ->d10 60%) of getting one point while also helping my opponent. At worst, everyone always picks the 'd4' option -- at best, the decision process becomes = will the 'level up' option give me a 50% chance of a point (if yes, then) is player behind me in points (if yes) then play 'level up'. This holds unless each player has a finite number of tokens, which results in the type of gameplay xopods outlines (ie. on whom can I safely ditch my positive tokens). Partially, it depends on what the 'Trope Cards' do. If the trope cards either aid or hinder the player (possibly going into the player's hand for the future) in some way and are limited, then that also makes the guessing game slightly more interesting -- especially with limited tokens. For instance, do I think that my opponent would waste a positive trope card so that they could hide one of their last remaining negative tokens underneath, etc. Regardless, I think you need some mechanism to actually encourage cooperation though (right now, the game outline seems directly competitive to me) -- if you want to allow backstabbing. Maybe if there are too many failed rooms then the game ends in failure FOR EVERYBODY (maybe each time a room is failed roll a d10, if the dice is lower than the number of failed rooms, then game over for everyone). Or, possibly (again with some sort of shared failure state, like a time limit) everyone is trapped in the same room and there is a modicum of cooperation necessary to get the whole group out... but the active player gets the most panties for success. The strategy then is when is it worth the risk of screwing over everyone to hold back the leader... Another alternative is to do something like what Cosmic Encounter does and have each room be a direct competition between two random players (one is the aggressor, the other the defender) and each player is able to call in aid (the actual result of this aid could be resolved using the token system you describe). Helping the aggressor means gaining panties yourself... helping the defender means keeping the aggressor from progressing. This works best with a resolution mechanic that is not pure luck though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2013 23:00
|
|
|
jmzero posted:I've been bouncing around an idea for a "card-building" game. Idea: Instead of cards, you have little plastic cylinders with attached lids. Think of an M&M minis tube but MUCH shorter, only short enough to hold three cardboard counters. You put pogs in them to customize them. They start with blank pieces inside so that when you change them, the weights do not change. Instead of a deck, you fish around for Pogs make the container do different things, they can have art on one side and rules on back. Or maybe instead of a cyllinder, you could have a cardholder-sized thing that opens like above, has a grid in it, you put things in the grid, the lid keeps things in the grid when closed. Basically same thing as the above only with a grid, probably more versatile.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 01:29
|
|
|
These Loving Eyes posted:I know this is almost as vague as it can be, but what do you guys think? What existing games have similar mechanics? I'm not even sure if I have the mathematical and logical faculties to create a game, but it still feels fun to toss ideas around! As you say, it's far too vague to give much feedback, but I think it sounds like a promising general idea. What if the tiles are not resolved collectively, but in series, with players taking turns moving a pawn from one tile to an adjacent one until either all tiles have been resolved or the pawn reaches a dead end? Then when one player plays the resolve card, the opponent gets to choose where the pawn starts, so even if the overall layout is favorable to you, you have to make sure he doesn't have a place to start the pawn off where only his good tiles would be resolved and not yours. Maybe the resolved tiles are removed from the grid and the others stay behind, so if one person has a particularly good round, that's compensated for by the other player having lots of ones that are good for him remaining. jmzero posted:Having a random game length/end condition can help a lot in cooperate/defect games. Yeah, when I said "finite" I really meant "of fixed length." I should have been more specific. But I think if the probability of the game ending on any given move increases as time goes on, there's a point beyond which the potential future returns from cooperating drop below the immediate reward of defecting, and if the players can guess at which point that's likely to occur, I think you probably get the chain store paradox again, assuming infinite rationality. In practice, it's probably enough to confuse people into cooperating for a while.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
So, I've spent the past day thinking about the mechanics problems I was having with Panty Raid, and I think I might have gotten a solution thought up. Instead of Trope cards, or Bro cards, the game revolves around only four components: 1) A deck of Room cards, each with a difficulty level ranging from d4-d8. 2) Counters to represent Panties. 3) A set of Solid Tokens for each player (a set probably being 3, with each being marked to show who they are from). 4) A set of dice for each player (each set involving a d4, d6, and d8). Players start the game with three Panties each (since the players have wound up in the middle of the sorority house, they get to start out with some). The first Active Player leads group into the first room by flipping over the top card of the Room deck. This is where we get into the stuff I'm thinking of changing: Any other player can wager one of their Panties to raise the difficulty of the room (forcing the Active Player to use a die with fewer sides). If the Active Player doesn't succeed (rolls a 1, 2, or 3), you get your wagered Panty back and gain a Panty. If the Active Player succeeds (rolls a 4 or more), they not only get the rewards for success that the Room offers, they get the wagered Panty as well. This is called Hazing, and it can only be done once per player in a turn (though every player may Haze the Active Player). Obviously, it can't bump up the difficulty past d4. The Active Player can seek help from other players - in return for either ignoring once instance of Hazing, or getting the difficulty of the room lowered (so the Active Player rolls a die with a larger number of sides), they can offer another player a Solid. If accepted, the Active Player gives the helper one of their Solid Tokens. A Solid Token can either be redeemed for a favor at any point in the game (for literally any reason, even convincing some one else not to Haze you), or kept till the end of the game (where they are worth one Panty a piece). After the difficulty is either raised or lowered, the Active Player rolls. On a 1, the room is failed, and the failure effect is activated. On a 2 or 3, nothing of matter happens, so you simply leave the room. On a 4 or more, the Active Player activates the room's success effect. If the dice shows the biggest side on the die, the die explodes: roll it again and add both results together (repeating as necessary). Like in Savage Worlds, for every multiple of 4 past 4, repeat the success effect. Once the Panties are totaled, the Active Player distributes the gained Panties to the group as they see fit. The Solid Tokens serve another purpose - you cannot Haze whoever you owe the most Solids, as that would make you a Tool. If someone is being a loving Tool, you can call a vote. If 3/4ths of the players agree, then the player has to give one Panty to every other player at the table to make up for it. The game is over once someone has successfully guided the group through 10 rooms (activated the success effect on 10 Room Cards) or someone has failed to lead the group through 5 rooms in a row (activated the failure effect on 5 Room Cards in a row). Whoever has the most Panties wins!
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
TheSoundNinja posted:The Solid Tokens serve another purpose - you cannot Haze whoever you owe the most Solids, as that would make you a Tool. If someone owes you a Solid, can you redeem it to force them to vote Nay when you've been a Tool? Otherwise, there's no point to this mechanic, as everyone is obviously going to vote Yea if they can, even if they promised they wouldn't because they wanted the Tool to do the Hazing.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 16:10
|
|
|
xopods posted:If someone owes you a Solid, can you redeem it to force them to vote Nay when you've been a Tool? Yes. You can also use it to force people to get you a drink, give you Panties, and to force others to Haze people for you.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 17:44
|
|
|
I really suggest that you get a new theme. I imagine that most people aren't going to want to play a game called "Panty Raid." I mean, it's pretty obvious you're going for a Revenge of the Nerds vibe, but still. I'd be embarrassed to be seen playing that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 19:18
|
|
|
Achmed Jones posted:I really suggest that you get a new theme. I imagine that most people aren't going to want to play a game called "Panty Raid." I mean, it's pretty obvious you're going for a Revenge of the Nerds vibe, but still. I'd be embarrassed to be seen playing that. It's a little late for that, as I'm submitting this for the January TGD contest. I'm also trying to keep it very light-hearted. Most of the jokes I'll be making will be just how weird the rooms become as the game continues. Also, I'm starting to find the word "Panty" annoying to write.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 20:23
|
|
|
So, combat in a board game that I'm working on. Right now, you have 4 options for troops. A level 1, level 2, level 3, and a hero. When you attack another tile, you get to choose up to 6 single units of any level and 1 hero. Level 1 - 1d6 Level 2 - 1d6 +2 Level 3 - 1d6 +4 Hero - 1d8 +2 per other unit attacking, not counting the hero. The defender may also choose up to 6 single units and 1 hero, as well as getting some extra dice to represent civilians and militias taking up arms to defend themselves. I haven't decided if this will be an extra 1d6, 2d6, or something else. Both sides roll up their dice and add any bonuses, and whoever rolls highest wins. The loser reduces their attacking/defending force by half rounded up, and the attacker has the option of continuing. This is more complicated than Risk (I hate that combat is basically entirely random and that a defender with 5 guys can hold off 20 guys forever through decent luck alone) but I'm worried that it's TOO complicated and mathy. Would you really want to add up all those bonuses (not even counting bonuses from buildings and cards that I haven't fleshed out yet) and keep doing it til someone wins or stops attacking you? Would you feel better about that much math (6d6 + 1d8 + 24 + 12?) if military units were limited for each player, perhaps by an arbitrary unit limit number, or requiring a per-tern investment of resources to keep the army around, thus limiting how much they can keep? Initially I had the different levels contributing more dice but that makes it even more mathy and random, I fear. I also considered speciality dice that, instead of rolling 1d6 + 2, you would roll a dice that has 3-8 on it. Would that be too...strange?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 00:38
|
|
|
quote:I also considered speciality dice that, instead of rolling 1d6 + 2, you would roll a dice that has 3-8 on it. Would that be too...strange? I'd suggest maybe even going further and having a variety of dice customized for different units. And maybe not just numbers. Instead of totalling all your dice and doing 37 damage, maybe allocate dice showing appropriate faces to kill individual units (eg. you need 5 attack symbols to kill a skeleton, but "bow and arrow" symbols don't count). Maybe upgrades let your heroes swap one of their dice for a magic die with wildcard spots, or give you (more?) rerolls or something. I like dice, and I like rerolling subsets of them - I think it's a good mechanic theory wise, and its tactile fun too (but it's a bit lame if you're just rerolling your low numbers). I think it was xopods a while ago was talking about using non-transitive dice to represent combat between different kinds of units (or I may be making that up). I think there's some really fun ideas there too. Summary: I think custom dice are awesome and you should go hog wild with them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I think numerical Grime Dice are more of a mathematical curiosity than a useful tool for game design... the fact that the result is counter-intuitive is what makes them cool, but that also makes them a bad idea for a game. RPS relationships between symbolic dice are good though. That's what I did for my Roll with the Punches dice game for the design contest... power > defense > speed > power, and there were three types of dice with varying ratios, so red > blue > green > red. Not that RwtP is the most intuitive game ever, not by a long shot, but at least the relationship between the results is easier to grasp than why one Grime die beats another.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
modig posted:Video about dice:  I'm still working on my tile-based Zombie game, but it's kind of at least partially on the backburner, as I slowly collect good ideas to funnel into it. In the mean-time, I'm working on something that was inspired by equal parts Dark Souls, Legend of Zelda, and Dungeon Keeper. It's also, in the broadest sense, a trading game, as well as a bluffing game. The game's working title is "Lairs", and it works something like this. (Keep in mind, it's still a very fledgling idea, so nothing is set in stone yet.) It's a card game for three to six (?) players, where every player is an evil Overlord of some kind, seeking to overcome the others. Each of them has somehow convinced an immortal Hero to side with them against the other Overlords. The Heroes aren't very bright, and were all convinced to side with the Overlord by some temporary or overcome-able reason (this is important) like Deception, or Bribery, or convincing the hero that they shared Ideology, or by granting the Hero Knowledge, or a plain old show of Force. It is each player's goal to have their Hero explore the lair of other Overlords, overcome them, and steal some important MacGuffin. Each player stops their opponent from doing this by building a dungeon full of Obstacles from cards in their hand, such as traps, monsters, puzzles, etc. But here's where it gets interesting. First, each Overlord can only have a maximum of three Obstacles at once. (Possibly increased to 4 in larger games? Might need some balancing.) This is not nearly enough to cover all bases, and protect all heroes. If you fill your dungeon with deadly traps, a Rogue hero could easily get through. Full of monsters? A Warrior hero would make mincemeat of them. Mix it up? You're not as focused, and someone trying to get through doesn't need as large of a concentration of resources to get through. Second, while everyone's Overlord and Hero are always face-up, revealing their corresponding abilities to everyone, you play your Obstacles face-down, so no one else knows what they are until they encounter them. (More on that later.) Third, the landscape is ever-changing. You can replace old obstacles with new ones. Not only that, but if the obstacle is overcome, the controller of the Hero who did has the option of making you discard it. And remember how I said that all heroes were kind of conned into working for you was important? Normally, if the Obstacles defeat the Hero, the Hero returns, beaten and battered, but alive. However, the player who defeated the Hero can discard so many cards that match the way the Hero has been 'persuaded', they can reveal the deception, or outpay the other overlord, or what-have-you, and the Hero leaves that Overlord's service, forcing them to draw another one. This is called Releasing. Fourth, you're not just left with your own cards, in a vacuum broken by the occasional adventurer. While you're getting some cards on your own, if you want any control over what you're getting, you have to negotiate with others. Lemme go over my imagining for how the game goes so far: At the start of each round, each player discards or draws from a communal deck until they have five cards. Then begins what I'm calling the Barter Phase. Some number of cards (thinking 2 per player) are played face-up in the center of the table. These cards are all obstacles, but they're also used as currency to get past obstacles, and return Heroes. By default, each player picks two cards to put into their hand. However, before anyone picks, people can barter for certain cards, either with cards in their hand, or on the open, or what-have-you. ("I'll let you grab the Skeletal Dragon if you let me have the Swinging Blades." "Throw in a card from your hand, and we have a deal.") What information you relinquish for the trade is completely up to you. Negotiations continue until everyone is satisfied, and cards are taken. (This is also an opportunity to just trade cards in your hand, but then you're also volunteering information that might be used against you later.) If agreements cannot be made on who gets certain cards, then the Prisoner's Dilemma kicks everyone involved in the teeth, and those cards are Contested. They're discarded, and that number of new cards are drawn and spread evenly among everyone involved (starting with those with the fewest cards in their hand) Next up is the Construction Phase, and it's the simplest of the three by far. Each player replaces 0-3 of their old Obstacles with new ones, until they have three, in any combination of face-up (previously encountered), or face-down (unencountered, or freshly played). This leaves players, usually, with some number between four and seven cards in their hand going into the next phase. This last phase is called the Hero Phase (or possibly the Invasion Phase). See, while the Overlords are manipulating the Heroes, they mostly act on their own agendas, and automatically attempt to explore the dungeon to that player's [left/right/across], changing between rounds and repeating. (Not unlike Hearts, or what-have-you). The player with the least cards gets to choose who invades first, and whether it goes clockwise or counterclockwise from there. (If there's a tie, the tier with the least MacGuffins chooses. If it's still a tie, it's determined randomly.) The Hero encounters the Obstacles from closest to farthest, assuming they were all laid out in a horizontal line. So, invading to the left, they encounter the right, then the middle, then the left. Invading across, it's middle, then invader's choice of left or right. Each Obstacle has a Name, a Type, possibly a Subtype, and perhaps an Effect. To bypass a certain type of Obstacle, assuming no other effects happen, the Overlord 'controlling' that hero must discard a card of the same type. So, to bypass a Skeletal Dragon Monster, the Hero's player could discard a Minotaur Monster, but not a Swinging Blades Trap. If all three obstacles are overcome, the hero has succeeded, and steals a MacGuffin. If he fails, the defeating Overlord has the opportunity to Release the Hero, as describe above, or let him limp back home. Every player does this, in turn, until everyone has invaded once. The first player to collect three(?) MacGuffins wins. girl dick energy fucked around with this message at 19:48 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
Sounds interesting, albeit a lot of the core theme is very, very similar to recent successful Kickstarter campaign for "Boss Monster". That said, I like the idea of actually having control over your own hero for the purpose of exploring/invading opposing dungeons as opposed to how Boss Monster handles the similar concept. PS, Colon V posted:I'm working on something that was inspired by equal parts Dark Souls, 
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
I just watched the Grime Dice video. They're admittedly cool from a probabilities perspective, but I don't like them. They're either a way to cheat your friends out of beers or just mathematical wankery. Neither of those applications are games. I see it more as a magic trick, but using math in lieu of sleight of hand. That said, the core idea of the rock-paper-scissors trump mechanic is a good core for a simple game (and has been used many times). I just don't think Grime Dice are worth the trouble of trying to use them in a larger game. I'm not sure why, but I have a dozen ideas buzzing around in my head about a drafting-based deck-building game. I always loved draft tournaments best in Magic the Gathering and VTES, and I like how it's used in things like 7 Wonders. I'm scheming on a way to make it the core of a deck building game, rather than the buying system that all of them use. Right now I'm just trying to organize the chaos of the idea (and finish up a few older projects that I really ought to finish first).
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 20:14
|
|
|
Colon V posted:
Have you played Dungeon Lords? If not, you should, because it's a great game, and because it may give you some ideas. The main difference I see in your game, aside from its relative minimalism, is that the players control both dungeon lords and heroes, which is a neat idea. In DL, no one profits from the heroes' actions, except in as far as they hurt other people. My main concern is the Barter Phase. In any competitive game, a phase which requires consensus to be completed has the possibility of going on forever, either because two players can't come to an agreement but likewise refuse to accept that no agreement can be reached, or because one guy is being contrarian and contesting every card simply because it would help someone else, or because two people are in nearly identical situations and want exactly the same things, so will contest over and over and over again. I think you'd be better off with some more formal auction or negotiation system, perhaps similar to the one used for choosing mutations in Evo, except with payment in cards, and with the payment going to the player who was outbid. For instance, we flip up 5 Obstacles (or however many) and place them on the bidding board, next to tracks with spaces numbered (say) 0, 1, 2, 4 and 6. I want the Swinging Blades, so I put my pawn on the space 0 next to them. You want the Minotaur, so you put your pawn on the space 0 next to it. Next guy wants the Swinging Blades, so he gives me one card from his hand, removes my pawn, and places his on the 1 space. I really want the Swinging Blades, so I give him 2 cards back, remove him again, and put my pawn on the 2. He doesn't want to give me 4 cards to keep trying for the Blades, so instead he just puts his pawn on the 0 for a Trap Door, content with having made a profit of one card off me. Last guy could now take one of the remaining two cards for free, or pay me 4 cards to bid on the Swinging Blades, or pay one of you guys 1 card to fight for the Minotaur or Trap Door. ------ The other thing that puzzles me is that you said that the different heroes are good against different obstacles (rogues vs. traps, warriors vs. monsters, etc.), but you never mention a mechanism by which this works... from what you describe, obstacles are bypassed by discarding similar cards from your hand, and the Hero himself never enters into it? xopods fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Jan 14, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 20:53
|
|
about a game
|
xopods posted:
quote:The other thing that puzzles me is that you said that the different heroes are good against different obstacles (rogues vs. traps, warriors vs. monsters, etc.), but you never mention a mechanism by which this works... from what you describe, obstacles are bypassed by discarding similar cards from your hand, and the Hero himself never enters into it? Obstacles come in four basic types. Monster, Mechanism, Terrain, and Puzzle. Each of them has subtypes, like a Bear would be 'Monster - Natural'. There's also a fifth meta-type, that shows up in exactly 1/4th of each of the other types: Magic. To bypass an obstacle, you must discard a card matching its type. Alternatively, if it's Magic, you can bypass it by discarding another Magic card, regardless of type. Other than that, subtypes are just for flavor, and for certain Hero and Overlord effects. Heroes have effects which allow easier bypassing of certain types of obstacles. For example, the Warrior and Barbarian heroes allow you to, once per invasion, discard any type of card like it was a Monster, representing the ease with which they triumph in combat. The Mathemagician can defeat Puzzles like they were Magic, and vice-versa, and so on. Overlords have opposite effects, ones that make your own obstacles more formidable, and almost always trump Hero effects. For example, the Necrolord Overlord has an effect that states that no matter what, to defeat his Undead or Demons, you must discard a Monster card. Is this making sense?
|
|
#
?
Jan 14, 2013 21:30
|
|
|
Yep. Obviously the bidding mechanic was suggested without full understanding of your game so the details would certainly have to be adapted to the specifics of your game... the point was just to give an example of how you could formalize the negotiation step so it doesn't degenerate into a battle of wills or cycling through cards until you get two identical ones so there can be no disagreement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Quick question - I'm looking to get a new printer (probably laser) at home, and I want one that can print on cardstock. I want to use it for general printing, prototypes, and my girlfriend's art needs. I've been burned over and over again by printers, they're usually cheap crap and/or run out of ink insanely fast. Can anyone recommend one that is reasonable, or at least reliable?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2013 18:58
|
|
|
Crap. When I got to designing cards, I realized there was far too much overlap between types of Obstacles, and basically have to redo that from the ground up. Of what I've got that I can hold onto, it's this. Four main types of Obstacles: Monsters, Mechanisms, Environments, and a fourth. (Previously, it was Puzzles, but that's been folded into Mechanisms.) There's also a fifth meta-type, Magic, that is in 1/4th of each of the other types, that can be used for a match as well. So, normally, you'd need to match a Monster to a Monster, but if it was a Magic Monster, you could match it with a Magic Environment instead. The best way I could explain it is that, instead of having to match card suit, you could also match card rank, a-la Crazy 8s. I've been playing around a bit with the system, removing the fluff, and with less than four "suits", it's just too easy to get matches. At this point, I have three options, that I can see, listed in order of preference. 1) Come up with a new fourth category. This is preferred, but I can't think of any. Traps and Puzzles had to be folded together into Mechanisms, things like Trickery or Challenge are too vague and difficult to conceptualize. "Monster" is simple, easy to grasp. "Mechanism" and "Environment" are, too, once they're defined. There's no question about whether something would be a Monster or an Environment, except in a few very specific corner-cases. I can't think of a fourth obvious type, aside from copping out and just making Magic a "type", and I'd rather not do that. 2) Keep at three 'suits' and balance for that some other way. As this no longer allows me to easily 'demo' basic mechanics with a normal deck of cards, I'd really rather not unless I have to. 3) Come up with different fluff entirely, or just build it as an abstract game. Conceptually sound, but a lot of the mechanics have already been built around that 'why', and so I'd need to pull a lot of groundwork up. Basically, I'd be making a new game with similar concepts. Assistance in brainstorming for any of the three would be greatly appreciated.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 05:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 18:48 |
|
|
Colon V posted:1) Come up with a new fourth category. Well, why not a "Meta" or "Cliché" type? It sounds like a medieval themed game, so why not make a suite that refers to classical tales from the time period?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2013 18:53
|
|