|
jmzero posted:Conversely, for a less intelligent being, Tic-Tac-Toe could be very skill-based and interesting. They could slowly climb the learning curve as they recognized two-in-a-rows that could be completed, then started noticing those possibilities for their opponents, then maybe memorizing opening moves. The very dim players see a learning curve here, but for humans the curve is again pretty much invisible.
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 12:29
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Something I struggle with is rapid prototyping. I have a lot of ideas that get to the stage where I have a ruleset and most of the card concepts and then I am too lazy to actually make the cards. There were a couple of tools which got posted in the board game design competition thread which I forget now but might good for the OP if anyone can find them. And then, on that note, does anyone have any tips for ways to make this part of the process easier/faster?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 22, 2012 17:07
|
|
|
I had a game concept like this where the layout and postitioning of the cards determined whether you could add more modules. You had to chosoe between racing to build a small but complete robot, or leaving space for more stuff but maybe not finishing it, resulting in a flawed beast. Choices like wheels vs. legs would give different stats for the fighting section, but if you ended up with a one-legged robot then it would be somewhat crippled. I never got very far with it, it's brewing somewhere in the back of my head for future use. My thought behind it was that I'd like to see a game where the physical aspect of placing cards is significant, as that's not a very common mechanic. Sort of like a complex version of dominoes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2012 18:15
|
|
|
muuphish posted:I'm more top-down as a designer and player. I love games with good themes and mechanics that seem representative. I think the BSG or Game of Thrones board games are great examples--they have a really strong theme that has obviously influenced the mechanics, but that doesn't mean the mechanics are weak by any means. I love Dominion and Carcassonne, but my most memorable gaming memories are usually games with stronger themes.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2012 16:48
|
|
|
There's a game called Aye, Dark Overlord! which has some similarities to the game you're discussing, you might like to check it out. It's a fun game but it's rather unstructured and requires people who are prepared to get into the mood of the game. The basic rules have a couple of odd restrictions that we didn't like so we ended up pretty much making up our game with the same concept and cards. There is a more structured ruleset included as well, which just sucks and shouldn't be played. \/ \/ \/ Oops, I am dumb  .
Tunga fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Dec 19, 2012 |
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2012 15:35
|
|
|
Colon V posted:1) Come up with a new fourth category. Here's a thought that might help. You could approach this from a different angle and say that instead of having types of obstacles, you group them by the way that they can be solved. Here's one way to group the skills that can used to overcome an obstacle (it looks a bit like a D&D character sheet):
Group these together into twos (the order above works, but it's not the only way) and you have four categories. Alternatively, you could use these as Types on the cards instead of having four fixed suits. That would let you have easier (three categories) and harder (one category) obstacles. And Magic could be a "Super" Type as you described before, applicable to any type of obstacle (note that although applying magic presumably requires Mental and Knowledge skills, overcoming it could require any one of these skills depending on what the magic was and what it was applied to, so there's no reason for it to be specifically tied to those types of obstacles). Tunga fucked around with this message at 10:08 on Jan 17, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
If you're making an RPG there's an RPG Design Thread here which might get you better answers.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2013 10:34
|
|
|
There's a D6 in the left photo so I guess that gives you a rough idea.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
Mostly just posting to say that WoW Arenas: The Board Game sounds pretty fun  .What about if you had four characters and the fourth one was allowed to enter when the first dies? That way it stays balanced for a little longer, and you have the additional strategy of deciding which three to take first. The fourth could be a healer, perhaps.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2013 14:54
|
|
|
Takenoko is a gardening themed board game and it's pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2014 09:57
|
|
|
Why would any non-traitor player ever produce more than the number of parts required by the quota?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 02:38
|
|
|
Perhaps the person who produces the most becomes the next First Equal, and First Equal has some personal benefit (maybe they can't be "accused", whatever that mechanic ends up being).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 5, 2014 02:42
|
|
|
Yeah, it's probably best to just info dump everything you have right now.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2014 21:53
|
|
|
I admit that I didn't properly read through the system being proposed here but could you just have a player miss a go when they go backwards over the start line or whatever?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 18, 2014 20:28
|
|
|
Transitive dice is like that, except the top "tier" is also beaten by the bottom "tier", such that there is no "best" choice unless you know what your opponent picked.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 10:15
|
|
|
I think I caught your post pre-edit. But yeah, ignore me, I had the names the wrong way around anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 10, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
I'm thinking about putting together a simple turn-based game as an Android dev project, mostly because I want to play with Google's multiplayer library and we don't get to use it at work (for some reason banks do not want me to make games). Even though it's actually a mobile game, it'll effectively be a board game. My idea was to combine a couple of classic simple board games which I used to enjoy: Isolation and Blockade. We'll need a couple of new mechanics to make each game different and because neither of these games have very interesting goals. Here's quick rundown of what I am thinking about : Players start with one pawn at opposite sides of a 9x9 square grid. In the centre tile of the board is a treasure. Each turn, a player can either move two tiles (orthogonally) or cast a spell: Wall: Conjure a single solid Wall two tiles wide along a tile boundary. Players cannot move through Walls. Fire: Conjure a Fire to cover a single tile. Players can't move into (or through) Fire, but Fire can be cast on a tile with a player on it. Upon reaching the treasure, a player claims that treasure and a new treasure appears (randomly placed, probably at some minimum distance from either player. Players can stash all treasure that they have claimed by returning to their start square. If a player starts their turn in a Fire tile (i.e. if they are unable to move and the other player has cast a Fire on them), they lose all treasure that they are carrying and return to their stash. I'm unsure if they will then take a turn immediately or not. First player to have five treasures (stashed or not) wins. So the idea is that you can either play it safe and take your treasure back to your stash each time or you can risk what you already have trying to get the next one as well. I have some thoughts about potential pitfalls but I'd love to hear any first impressions of this idea from others before I delve into my own thoughts. Tunga fucked around with this message at 11:25 on Jul 10, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2014 11:22
|
|
|
That game can teach us at least one important lesson: decide whether your game name has an apostrophe in it before you print the board.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2014 22:10
|
|
|
Sort of related, I have a concept for a game based around MMO raid bosses which I tentatively called Loot Drama, I never really filled it out but my idea was that everyone had to work together to kill the boss but then fight it out over the loot. One player would control what the boss does each turn so you can try to have it kill someone else who might get your loot but you don't want everyone to die because then you'll fail and get nothing. I planned for the boss to have a deck of ability cards and each turn the active player would draw three (or so) and then pick one to play. There'd be some bluffing involved with claims that "it was the best one, honest!" because nobody else would see which cards you had to pick from. Then the players would all make a move or do a thing to respond to that, and then you'd resolve the damage. I didn't really get to the fine details but this was my way of avoiding the problem of creating an interesting AI.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 14, 2014 16:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 26, 2024 16:59 |
|
|
Countblanc posted: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 10:30
|
|