|
xopods posted:...down the road we're going to have shouting matches about what it is and isn't reasonable to expect to be obvious to a total beginner. It gets even worse than that. I've been trying to teach someone who is a world class Magic player how to play wargames on the high end of the complexity scale. Stuff that is obvious to other people that have played hex games (what are the key hexes for a given defensive line for example) is a challenge to someone who has mostly only played Magic. Even someone with excellent abstract reasoning capability is going to be at a disadvantage in their first game against another beginner that has played a game from the same family.
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2012 02:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 14:58 |
|
|
A game set in a civil war might work pretty well if we tweak the premise a bit to where the linked games are competing with each other. You could have regime loyalists who are trying to sock away resources in case they lose or political positioning if they win (which are of course mostly mutually exclusive actions) and rebels who are trying to position for the most amount of government power if they win or international fame (think Che or Trotsky) if they lose.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 03:18
|
|
|
xopods posted:Interesting idea. Two teams fighting against each other, but also against themselves internally... the overall winner is the winning player on the winning team, but second place goes to the winning player on the losing team. So if you're ahead on your team, but it looks like someone else is going to overtake you, you can try to sell your side out and bring the game to an early end while you're still ahead in order to take second. Politics might also be a good setting, especially a parliamentary system where the players are back benchers. You want to win the election overall, but you also want to get a cushy ministerial position or rank within the party itself. If your team loses but you end up moving up the ranks within your party while no one on the winning team does so, that's probably a bigger win then just the election from the point of view of a politician.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 03:51
|
|
|
xopods posted:Hmmmm, the problem is if you go with a scoring system and assign the win to whoever has the highest score at the end, that's not really linked games, that's just a single game with an asymmetric setup. The neat thing about the prototype I played on the weekend was that, although the landlords and merchants are in conflict because the landlords want to charge as much as possible and the merchants want to pay as little as possible, the landlords don't care at all which merchant is winning, and vice versa. Whereas if there's one overall winner determined by the highest score between the two teams, you do care what's going on in the other team... True enough.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2012 15:04
|
|
|
Admin, I've never been a fan of wasting rules space on non mechanical parts of games. You should make the infamy points useful for something. Perhaps if your infamy is high enough crew of a vessel you defeat will join yours and if it's even higher NPC ships will surrender their cargo without a fight. As for your fighting mechanic, wagering crew (which is the core resource of your game) means that there may well not be a general progression in power over the course of the game. A player may have much better capability halfway through than they do at the end (say, after a brutal fight with another player). That's not a bad thing per se, but I'm not sure how it feels with the rest of the design. If there were things like Navy ships that you couldn't outgun and were living a bit more on the ragged edge the whole game it'd fit better.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 03:04
|
|