Skip to Content

Can someone review my game?

6 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

War Lord is the name of my game. In War Lord players that the role of warriors. They must move their figures around the board using mesauring sticks to plot the distance. Players have to get through the playing field while battaling amongst themselves and other creatures. Alliances can be made with players and strong enemies will be made with others. Weapons and spells can be gathered by the players to boost up their attack and defense skills. The point of the game is to get to be the last warrior standing, or to be the last alliance of warriors standing.

This is a simple rough-draft of the rules. I will write a revise of them once I decide how the battle system will work, ect. I am wondering if I should have a Game Master like in an RPG or just have another player fight as the monster when players battle. I am also wondering if I should make each starting players' abilities the same or to change them around. (Meaning have all of the stats the same for all players or to balance them out but have different stats) Please post your suggestions.[/u]

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Can someone review my game?

Personally, I think the game as you outline it is a bit to vague and rough to really comment on yet. With most games, the best tweaking occurs with regard to the detailed way that ideas are implemented.

From what you wrote, I personally like the idea of using measuring sticks to move the warriors around ... this gives thought to having very interesting maps/surfaces to play on. No need for hexes, squares, or regions with this system. In fact, you could actually use your miniatures on non-traditional "combat surfaces" -- like an entire livingroom. ;)

The other stuff you mention is pretty generic, seen-it-before kinda stuff ... *how* you make it work in your game will be more important.

-Bryk

Anonymous
Can someone review my game?

Okay.. After about an hour of writing and rewriting the battle rules, I think I have it!

When you are in a battle with another player, you check each players' speed to decide who goes first, highest goes first. In the case of a tie, roll the dice. The high dice goes first. When you attack your opponent roll one six-sided die. Add the die to your attack and then add the bonus you get for weapons to your attack. Subtract the bonus your opponent gets for shields/armor and if your attack is higher then their defense, roll a six-sided die. If you roll a one, it is considered a miss, but anything else is considered a hit. This is to add a little bit of randomness into the game instead of a 'best item wins' sort of a thing. (I have also played around with giving the player with the shield/armor the bonus in it's defense and letting the attacked player a roll and on a 5 or 6 it dodges the attack. What do you think?)

Those are the basic combat rules. To make a 'close ranged attack' the figures must be within a half in of each other and the attacker must be facing towards the enemy to attack it. To make 'far ranged attack' it must be within the player's range (equal to the player's speed -2). A player can only make a ranged attack if it has a ranged weapon.

I am still wondering how items should be used. I have thought about have them as tokens and having the place them on 'equipment cards' with boxes for right weapon, left weapon, helment, shield, and body armor. If anyone has another idea, please tell me.

I also am thinking about how the items should be aquired. Should they have to be bought? Or should they have to be found? If they have to be bought, then how do they make their money? Please give me some feedback and I will post more rules once I write them.

Reddjackk
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
I'm all in favour of simplicity, my man...

A couple things of note:

-I don't understand how the range determination thing has any basis in reality. I would think it should be based on weapons, not speed.

-I think you might consider some sort of very unique mechanic, even it's simply "simplicity" itself, or else you risk doing what's been done a LOT!

-How big is the play area?

-Is there terrain? What does it do?

Anonymous
Can someone review my game?

Yeah, your right. But I couldn't think of another way of deciding how far a player's range was. I guess I could tweak.

Well, as of right now, I don't have any great (or even good) ideas for another mechanic. This is just kinda of a twist on the way WizKids does it.

The normal play area would be about 4foot4, maybe a little bigger. But it could be as big as you want.

Yes, there be terrain. There would be water, plains, elevated land, and blocking land (trees, houses, ect.) Water would be for ships and water units to get through, but normal units wouldn't be able to go over it (unless it was a flying unit... still playing with the idea). Plains would be flat land that everyone could go over. Elevated land would be hills and mountains that everyone could go over. I am playing with idea of having land units have reduced speed going up the mountain and additional speed going up the mountain. Blocking land would be just what it says. Only flying units would be able to go over it, if I used flying units, and you could not shoot through it.

Please give feedback and some suggestions if you have any. Feel free to ask questions, as well. Contrutive critism will be appreciated.

IngredientX
IngredientX's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Can someone review my game?

DragonKid wrote:
When you are in a battle with another player, you check each players' speed to decide who goes first, highest goes first. In the case of a tie, roll the dice. The high dice goes first. When you attack your opponent roll one six-sided die. Add the die to your attack and then add the bonus you get for weapons to your attack. Subtract the bonus your opponent gets for shields/armor and if your attack is higher then their defense, roll a six-sided die. If you roll a one, it is considered a miss, but anything else is considered a hit. This is to add a little bit of randomness into the game instead of a 'best item wins' sort of a thing. (I have also played around with giving the player with the shield/armor the bonus in it's defense and letting the attacked player a roll and on a 5 or 6 it dodges the attack. What do you think?)

It's certainly a starting point. :)

There's two ways to make a game. You can start with the theme and work your way into the mechanic, or you can start with the mechanic and wrap a theme around it. Neither way is intrinsically better than the other; both methods have resulted in games both great and lousy.

It seems that you are starting with a theme (battling warriors). Theme-based games can become overburdened by too many complex systems; therefore, I suggest that you try and make your mechanics as simple as possible to start with. Then, as you find twists to introduce into your designs, you can start developing the mechanics to fit them.

For example, you have a combat system that seems to want to pay a lot of attention to the skills of the fighter, but only be moderately influenced by luck. Yet there's two seperate die rolls involved; one for initiative, and one for hitting.

I'd get rid of as many die rolls as possible; either by consolidating them, or by determining results another way. You can probably come up with a better initiative system than a raw die roll. One way designers get around this is through an action point system. In your case, players have a set number of action points to allocate into initiative, movement, hitting, and damage. Players can secretly allocate these points at the beginning of a round, and then reveal them simultaneously. Players with the highest initiative go first. They can move a number of hexes equal to the points they put into movement. Their hit roll is affected by the points they allocated into hitting, and they score damage equal to the number of action points they put into damage. Perhaps one character is fast, and gets a bonus to movement; another has a big axe, and has a bonus to damage; another is a skilled swordsman, and has a bonus to hitting.

It's not a great system, but it eliminates the initiative die roll, and it gives players the feeling that they are in control of the game. From the few wargames I've played, I've found that wargamers enjoy luck in their games when it creates a small element of uncertainty, and it adds to the game's replayability. But wargamers tend to detest games with too much dice-rolling, feeling that the random factor should never be more important than good strategy and tactics.

Once you come up with a ruleset you're happy with, the most important thing is to go ahead and playtest the game by yourself. Miniatures and wargames are usually easier to solo playtest, especially if they lack hidden information (though if this is the game that has fog-of-war, solo playtesting may be trickier).

Here are a few guidelines:

- Don't be afraid to change anything and everything in your game. You may not know that a rule is unneccessary until you remove it. You may not know that a rule is crucial until you try it. If there's a possibility, give it a shot. This applies to your theme, too. Don't be too married to it; if it wants to turn from a fantasy (I assume) wargame into another kind of game, try it. You can always create another game with your original theme, but different mechanics, later on. Just keep experimenting until you find that A-HA! twist that makes your game stand out.

- If this is your first game, it might not be very good. This isn't meant as an insult; it's just my experience, and what I've noticed other designers come up with. There are some people who create good games on their first try, but it's usually more luck than anything else. For your first game, aim for a playable game with a functional ruleset.

- Playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, playtest, and playtest. Do it alone, and then try to rope other people into doing it.

- Be honest with yourself. If it doesn't work, it's not an insult to your game. Look for things that don't work and try messing with them.

- When others are honest with your game, they can be brutal. Yet their opinion is much more valuable to you than people who just smile and say, "it's okay." Keep your skin thick and accept their criticism. Better for them to dislike a playtest prototype, than for you to get to manufacturing, and find out people don't like your game then.

- If you can, try to work on a second game. Again, nothing wrong with your first game. But people who are working on their very first game often try to jam everything they can into it ("I've added an auction phase! It comes after the movement, combat, bartering, and evolution phases..."). Keep your games simple; if you find you have extra mechanics that bog down this game, they might work brilliantly by themselves in a different game.

- Keep a notebook. Write down ideas as they come; it's frustrating when they vanish.

- You spent an hour hammering out these rules, but be prepared to spend a lot of time on the manual. Once you've come up with a solid, playtested design, test the manual out by blind-testing. Give the game to a game group, and let them figure it out from the manual. Remember, your manual is your game, just as much as the components are. If it doesn't make sense, neither will your game.

- The other advantage of blind-testing: You won't be around to coach players, and tell them what to do. They can come up with an ingenius way of breaking your game. If they do, thank them and fix the problem.

- If the game doesn't seem to work and you've done everything you can, don't be afraid to ditch it. The time you spent on it has not been wasted; you can take the lessons you learned and apply them to another game.

I hope this helps...

~Gil

Anonymous
Can someone review my game?

IngredientX wrote:

For example, you have a combat system that seems to want to pay a lot of attention to the skills of the fighter, but only be moderately influenced by luck. Yet there's two seperate die rolls involved; one for initiative....

First off, this isn't excatly what I said. I said to roll the dice ONLY on a tie in speed.

And I think I might have thought up a better battaling system. Instead of having the range be speed-2 have each player have a 'range' or 'throw' stat. Then, when using and item you must throw (like a throwing dagger) you use the throw stat for how far it can throw (must be in a straight line). And when using a ranged weapon (like a bow or crossbow) add the range of the weapon to the player's throw and that's the range it can fire from. And I am trying to think of another possible way to settle a tie between the speeds of creatures and players when fighting. I was orginally using dice roll, but maybe somebody can think of something else. I don't really like the idea of having action points. I want the stats to stay the same through out the whole game, unless they use items to temporaraly change them.

I already know most of the mechanics. I am going to use a fog of war system that I already have planned out. I am going to have tokens with symbols on them (stars, boxes, triangles, ect.) that can mean different units. The players will choose the color that they want their tokens to be. Then, players pick which unit that that symbol will be representing before the game, but doesn't tell anyone. The player places an extra token with same symbol as the unit is representing and places it on a card that tells it's stats. Then, when the unit gets within seeing range of another players unit (seeing range ethier being a seprate stat or speed range or alteration of speed range (like speed-2 or something)) it tells the player what the unit is. If all players learn what the unit is, you take away the token and place the miniature on the board.

This seems like a complex system with room to cheat, I know. I may alter it or take away the fog of war completely. Please give feedback.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut