Skip to Content
 

Sharing the role of the vilain

15 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

In some games like hero quest the players must fight together against a common ennemy. In this case, there is a game master that takes the role of the villain.

But in some other games, the player are in competition which each other against a common ennemy but there are not any player who plays the role of the villain. In fact, each player somewhat share this role.

For example : In a game I have played called jurassic park, each player control a pawn and must make it reach a destination. The player can enter a shelter to protect itself from the evil dinosaurs which are passing by. All players are threathen by the dinosaurs . So the question is who is moving the dinosaurs?

The players! Each player on their turn can move their pawn and a dinosaur, of course, these dinosaurs will move away from your pawn and you will try to attack the opposing player. The other opposing players will do the same.

Same thing happen in a Magelon where the walls can move with cards played by the player in order to block other players. Each player move than play a card that change the wall configuration.

Or in Sin City, each player place a "Creep","Police",or "Dame" token where he wants according to the goal he want to accomplish. So he does not have control over where the other players are placing their tokens

So the idea is that the villain's role, which should normally have been played by an AI in a video game, is shared by all the players. So the player have a light infleunce over the villain's role.

In some games it create some bug. For example, in Magelon, the players create a huge wall that blocks the exit an prevent everybody from getting out. So the game stall indefinately. It can also create some stupid situation, like moving back and forth a dinosaur because you and an opponent player are disputing the dinausaur's movement.

So I am oppening the discussion with these question :

- Do you like the Idea of sharing the villains role?

- Do you think that sharing the role of the villain is a good solution in some sort of game?

- Can you Identify some common situations where bugs can happen or can never happen?

Rick-Holzgrafe
Rick-Holzgrafe's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Re: Sharing the role of the vilain

Larienna wrote:
- Do you like the Idea of sharing the villains role?

- Do you think that sharing the role of the villain is a good solution in some sort of game?

- Can you Identify some common situations where bugs can happen or can never happen?

Shadows Over Camelot is an excellent commercial game where all players are trying to defeat evil while being required, on every turn, to help advance evil's cause.

I'm working on a game of my own now (Agent in Place) where all players are working against a common enemy represented by the game itself. In my game, unlike SOC, players are competing with each other and are not required to advance the enemy, but may use the enemy to impede their opponents' progress.

I think Arkham Horror is similar, although I haven't played it: the game itself is the players' opponent, and the rules of the game dictate what moves the common enemy will make.

So yes, I see no reason why there can't be a common, non-player enemy in a game. The point of the game may be to defeat that enemy, as in SOC, or it may represent a set of obstacles for players to overcome and a set of resources to use against each other.

That said, it can be tricky. In my (very incomplete and problem-ridden) game, it's possible for all players to lose to the common enemy, and I'm a bit worried that Certain Kinds of Players may prefer to make everyone lose if they can't win themselves. I hope to adjust the rules so that that won't happen, but I don't have a definitive solution at this time.

jwalduck
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
Sharing the role of the vilain

Shadow over Camelot adds the wrinkle taht one of the palyers could be working directly for the enemy while tryin gto remain hidden.

In Monsters Menace America each player gets to control a monster and a branch of the armed forces fighting them. This is like your description of the Jurasic Park game but avoids the back and forth bug. Of course it is also not really an example of common control of a single enemy.

Some of the bugs you mentioned can be dealt with by ensuring there are more than two players in the game. With three or more players the influence of any one player on the activities of the enemy is only a minority of the total influence.

Another bug you would have to look out for in these scenarios is leader bashing. SoC avoids this by having the players work co-operatively against the game. If they were working competatively the leader would be targeted continually by the non-leaders when they had control of the of the enemy. Again I think this is where many of the bugs you mention arise.

I find this topic interesting because my Z-man monster game proposal was a compedative a commonly controlled enemy. What I think would allow this to work was:
- More than two players in the game.
- Hidden scoring to avoid leader bashing
- Players could take actions to end the game early (and gamble they had the most points)

But I have not had a chance to play test it so maybe it does not work.

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

You can also make rules for moving enemy pieces. Let's say that the enemy pieces number 1.5 times the player pieces, and that players first move themselves on the board and then one enemy piece. (They could be dinosaurs or walls or whatever...)

*-] You can not move a piece that's already been moved this round.
=> This makes the order of play an important aspect in the game, as the first player(s) in the round can have more options than the other players. ('Immobilising a threatening piece' or 'attacking another player'.) Player order is often handled with chosing characters, but I'd suggest the player with the lowest score going first to get this advantage.

*-] You can not move the enemy piece that is closest by (and most far off?).
=> This rule kind of eliminates the immobilise-the-most-threatening-piece-option, because only other players may move the closest piece. (It still does give you the oportunity to get attacked a little less...)

Well, these two rules just popped in my head when reading the first post, thought I'd tell you all...

Cheese.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Re: Sharing the role of the vilain

Quote:

- Do you like the Idea of sharing the villains role?

My personal answer to this is no. (although I don't mean to suggest that someone else couldn't or shouldn't answer yes). Personally, I feel that giving all players access to the bad guys is a design crutch that destroys the "representation" aspect of the theme. For a game to be well-themed, it must answer the question "who is the player supposed to represent". If he is able to move both his piece AND the bad guys, then the answer to this question becomes muddy and the theming is weakened.

I favor much more a well thought-out algorithm for how the bad guys are supposed to behave. A great example of this is Lord of the Rings by Knizia (which is a little different because there isn't movement on a board, but anyway). That game does an excellent job of pitting the players against a common foe (the game system) without giving players direct control of that foe.

That's not to say it can't or shouldn't be done, it's just not something I'd likely do unless I could come up with a good thematic justification for it.

-Jeff

koshianok
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2009
Sharing the role of the vilain

Quote:
Personally, I feel that giving all players access to the bad guys is a design crutch that destroys the "representation" aspect of the theme.

I agree with that statement. If a player is going to play the Protagonist and the Antagonist there should be a logical, thematic reason for this. Otherwise this mechanic destroys sense of consistency and blurs what the player role is. If however, players are playing the role of a large group that has many factions in it, he could logically play the good and the bad at the same time. This would mean that there would not be one common enemy, that each player would control a separate group of bad guys, and good guys at the same time. I am currently working on a game that uses this idea.

Jebbou
Jebbou's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

Hello,

In settlers of Catan, all players share the "Thief" control, which is a "shared evil entity" sent by players to annoy other players. The control is limited, and players may only activate the "Shared evil entity" on a roll of 7. The fact that it is seldom activated may prevent the game from stalling. Depending on who rolls the "7", the thief will not be placed in the same position, because it can hinder more than one player at the same time, and also because player will avoid blocking one of their own resources. Also, the effect of the "shared evil entity" is limited; it does not prevent a player from acting, but may slow down his resources gathering. Since the effect is not too harsh, it may prevent the game from stalling.

Furthermore, while having only one "thief" token in play, the board do not become overcrowded by "stuff" that prevents you from acting. This can also reduce the "King bashing effect", which I think, will often appear in games where players can agree to concentrate "vilain attacks" on a player which is heading for the top (The Munchkin card game is horrible at that).

Althoug it is possible to dictate arbitrary rules to prevent the vilains from moving back and forth, I would say that Settlers of Catan displays more elegant ways of preventing the "thief" from moving back and forth.

I would agree though, that with games where the objective is to "beat" the system, having the system being shared by players may feel awkward. I would feel more confortable with games where vilains are used as a commonly shared mechanism to slow down other players in their quest for victory (Assuming the goal has nothing to do with vilains), without becoming the goal of the game itself.

JEB

PS: Koshianok, your spider avatar is very elegant too :D

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

One thing I tought is a predefined set of villain actions written on cards that must be used by the players. Each card would have an action like "This event happen", "This thing attack player to your left", or "Attack strongest player", etc.

So the player would be limited by the action indicated on the card. But the player would be limited to 3 cards in hand and he MUST play one of these 3 cards each turn. Which mean that it is possible that all the cards in hand will disadvantage the player. So by using this method, yes the player has some light influence on the villain role, but he cannot easily target the actions or protect himself from them.

jwalduck
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
Sharing the role of the vilain

That is the exact mechanic in Shadow over Camelot. Each turn the active player has to choose one of several actions that "advance evil" and one of several actions that "advance good".

However the actions are not as direct as attacking another player. SoC is a game fought on many fronts at once. Each "advance evil" actions generally strengthens one of those fronts for the enemy.

koshianok
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2009
Sharing the role of the vilain

There could also be a "villain phase" where all players must draw one villain card and play it at the same time. The cards could also have attack, defense, and damage modifiers on them as well. The players are essentially simply assisting the AI of the game.

Also, influence points could be spent by players to play cards in order to take control of the Villain. If the villains were stone gargoyles, and the players were to collect magic stones. These magic stones could be used at anytime to bring the gargoyles to life for a turn and reek havoc. This would give some control of the villains, and give a reason as to why.

I‘m sure there are hundreds of other themes and mechanics that can be used to accomplish this. I like the idea of using Villain Action cards, but there still needs to be a reason as to why the players have control (even if the control is limited).

Rick-Holzgrafe
Rick-Holzgrafe's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

Koshianok wrote:
there still needs to be a reason as to why the players have control (even if the control is limited).

This view was also expressed by jwarrend. I understand it perfectly; I think theme is important, and my own games are usually strongly themed. But I'm going to disagree with the point anyway.

In the first place, a game doesn't have to be strongly themed to be a good game. Furthermore, I think that "strongly themed" and "role-playing" are two different things. Shadows Over Camelot (my favorite example!) is strongly themed in that it richly evokes the milieu of the Round Table; yet each player, while striving desperately to defeat evil, is required to advance evil on every turn. This makes no sense if the game is viewed as a role-playing exercise. Why would noble Sir Galahad erect a siege engine aimed at Camelot (and then try to destroy it in the very same turn)? Yet as a mechanism it works beautifully, often presenting players with that all-important feeling of the agonizing decision.

If you like to imagine that you are Sir Galahad as you play, then supporting evil may well strain your belief in your character and spoil your enjoyment. I used to play D&D and I know what it's like to be deeply into a role, and it's a ton of fun; but I don't necessarily approach tabletop games with that goal. When I'm playing Puerto Rico I'm not upset to be a ship's caption in one round and a prospector in the next round. In SOC it doesn't spoil my pleasure to have to draw and play a black card.

Now, don't get me wrong: I have nothing against role playing games, and nothing against designing games that support a role-playing approach. I just want to point out that role-playing is at or near one end of a "theme spectrum" that runs from completely abstract at one end to "I forgot who I really am for four hours" at the other. There's room all along that spectrum for good games.

koshianok
Offline
Joined: 01/28/2009
Sharing the role of the vilain

Quote:
In the first place, a game doesn't have to be strongly themed to be a good game.

You are right, you don’t need to have a strong theme to have a good game, or any theme at for that matter. However, games that include villains start out with a theme just by including the idea of a villain, and if you have villains that you are fighting, then you are playing the role of ether a hero, vigilante, or a psychotic panda bear. Whatever it is you are playing a role of some kind (unless it is an abstract game that is using these archetypes as symbolic representations of some kind). I think, that if this is the case then the theme needs to tight and logical or it loses something. However that is just my preference/opinion, certainly not a necessity. There are plenty of games that go completely against what I have stated that are very well designed and fun to play.

IngredientX
IngredientX's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

Rick-Holzgrafe wrote:
Now, don't get me wrong: I have nothing against role playing games, and nothing against designing games that support a role-playing approach. I just want to point out that role-playing is at or near one end of a "theme spectrum" that runs from completely abstract at one end to "I forgot who I really am for four hours" at the other. There's room all along that spectrum for good games.

I'm with Rick on this one. Then again, I've always personally tilted slightly further towards mechanics than theme, so you have been warned.

Also, there's another distinction that I think applies here: the shared villian who, thematically, isn't looking to defeat the players, but can be used to set other players back.

For instance, I really enjoy the game Survive!, the old, vicious, but fun Parker Brothers game in which players are trying to get secretly-valued pawns off a doomed island. Each player, after moving their pawns and sinking part of the island, gets to move one of the nasty sea creatures.

I find that the mechanic works very nicely, even though the sea creature pieces are shared. I think it's because players don't have complete control over what kind of creature they will move; it's based on a die roll. That shark's dorsal fin could be approaching... then it could turn away. You never really know. If players could move any creature they wanted during their turns, the game wouldn't be quite as much fun.

Also, in terms of theme, the sea creatures aren't looking to eat your pawns only; they just want to eat! So it's a little different than a villian like Sauron, whose specific, singleminded goal is the defeat of the players.

I suppose that argument could be made, as it was above, for the Robber Baron in Settlers of Catan. The Robber isn't looking to make one or all of the players to lose; he just wants to steal resources and block production. And again, a player can't move the Robber whenever he wishes; he needs a Soldier card or a roll of 7.

One of my current game designs involves the players on cooperative missions, but individual players can choose to sabotage a mission. Since there are a bunch of missions in the game, no one's stuck with the role of traitor (or non-traitor) for very long.

So I think there is a bit of wiggle room in terms of just how players can villianize other players. As Rick says, the spectrum is pretty wide.

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

Rick-Holzgrafe wrote:

In the first place, a game doesn't have to be strongly themed to be a good game.

Of course not; some of my favorite games are very thinly themed. But a game that sets out to be strongly themed, from my point of view, must uphold certain criteria. I laid out those criteria a while back in this thread.

One of the criteria was a consistent definition of who the players are supposed to represent. A game where players can play both the good and bad guys may be in danger of jarring this, but of course there are cases where it works just fine.

Quote:

Furthermore, I think that "strongly themed" and "role-playing" are two different things.

I agree; they're so different, from my point of view, that role playing has nothing to do with my analysis here.

Quote:

Shadows Over Camelot (my favorite example!) is strongly themed in that it richly evokes the milieu of the Round Table; yet each player, while striving desperately to defeat evil, is required to advance evil on every turn. This makes no sense if the game is viewed as a role-playing exercise.

It makes no sense in any case. I haven't played the game yet, but opinions of it have been very favorable, and I bet it's a really great game. That doesn't change the fact, however, that this mechanic is exactly the kind of design crutch I was talking about.

Incidentally, I wrestled with a very similar challenge when working on the traitor in my game, "Disciples". I was wondering how to include a way for the traitor to actively subvert the progress of the group, but in a secretive way. Everything I came up with felt incredibly clunky. I think that SoC found a decent solution to this by forcing everyone to take a "bad guy" action, but it's so athematic that I'd never have been able to consider it.

This isn't limited to good guy/bad guy stuff. One of the problems I have with the excellent game Tikal is the tile laying aspect -- on your turn, you draw and place a tile. The only problem is that it's an exploration game! What explorer can discover something and THEN decide where he'd like to have discovered it?

I recognize that sometimes you need to make these kinds of plausibility sacrifices for the sake of playability, and of course playability matters more. But it mars the perfection of a game's theming, and for this reason, I try to avoid it when possible, and my enjoyment of such games is diminished. (which isn't to say I can't enjoy the games anyway; Ticket to Ride is literally a thematic train wreck, but it's a very fun game).

Quote:

When I'm playing Puerto Rico I'm not upset to be a ship's caption in one round and a prospector in the next round.

This is easier to rationalize in PR -- you're "hiring" these different roles, not embodying them. Similarly, as I said, there may be many good/bad guy games where it makes perfect sense to be working both sides. It all hangs on whether there's a thematic motivation for a mechanic or not.

Quote:

Now, don't get me wrong: I have nothing against role playing games, and nothing against designing games that support a role-playing approach. I just want to point out that role-playing is at or near one end of a "theme spectrum" that runs from completely abstract at one end to "I forgot who I really am for four hours" at the other. There's room all along that spectrum for good games.

I don't disagree at all, but at the same time, I can't help but feel that if you think I'm talking about role-playing, you're missing what I'm saying. I'm talking more about theme specificity, and about internal consistency. Greg Aleknevicus wrote a nice article about this subject here: German games are fraudulent!, and I think it sums up my view nicely.

So, keep in mind, I'm not saying you shouldn't enjoy such games, merely expressing my preference. Given the choice, I'd probably prefer to design a weakly themed game to one that had mechanics that directly violated its theme.

-Jeff

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Sharing the role of the vilain

I believe that Jeff and I have disagreed on this subject before, most notably in discussions regarding my* game "All for One" (A41). My guess is that he would consider it a thematic train-wreck** when you try to consider aspects such as "who the player is meant to represent?" or "what is the thematic justification for X?" and yet most people have conceded that (for much of the game experience at least) it's pretty evident what the theme is and that the game evokes it fairly well, and there certainly aren't any real Tikal-style gross mechnical/thematic collisions.

What I think is essentially interesting with regards to this discussion is that there is no real "villain" in A41, but that because players are carrying out contradictory missions, everyone will be a villain to someone else at some point during the game, usually without realising it... I guess my argument is that there's no reason why this sort of thing shouldn't be encouraged in a game, as long as it doesn't end up adversely affecting the end result. For instance, making players choose between moving their own pieces and the "villain" pieces, rather than always allowing them to move both could lead to some good agonising choices.

--
David

(*well, this aspect of it is "my" game, certainly. Seth may have messed up lots of other bits, but not that one.)
(**inappropriate analogy. How about "thematic dropped-sword-in-middle-of-duel wreck" instead? ;-))

Anonymous
Re: Sharing the role of the vilain

Larienna wrote:

- Do you like the Idea of sharing the villains role?

- Do you think that sharing the role of the villain is a good solution in some sort of game?

- Can you Identify some common situations where bugs can happen or can never happen?

I think sharing the the villians role is a great aspect to a game. I like the idea so much that a handful of the games I'm working on incorporates that element to one degree or another. It gives players other stuff to do, and can make a game be a little less monotonous (and it is fun to be a little evil). But, I must admit, that in many of said games I seem to develop the "back and forth" bug you have mentioned. Still trying to solve that one. :)

So far, a couple solutions to the bug I've found have been:

++ Players have a total of two moves per turn so they either, move two of their piece, their piece and a villian, or two villians. This seems to help as a person may need to forgo moving an enemy in order to advance their own piece.

++Like ko in Go, a player is not allowed to make the board the same as it was before, to avoid constant "looping." So you can make a rule that a player cannot move the same piece that the former player moved, or at least not move the piece back in position it had just been in previous to the former player's turn. The can help allieviate constant loops. In fact, some incarnation of the ko rule is utilized in just about every game I make.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut