Skip to Content

Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

30 replies [Last post]
phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013

Does anyone have any problems with the following assumptions about the game system thus far?

1) An robust action point system will be used as the central mechanic for determining what a player can do on their turn. APs will be used for movement, overcoming obstacles, searching, paying penalties and possibly placing tiles.
2) An equipment system will be implemented to help alleviate the AP cost in overcoming obstacles. Whether this will be an automatic 'overcoming' of the obstacle, a reduction of the AP cost to overcome an obstacle, or the requirement (I.E. a lock and key mechanism) of a particular piece of equipment to overcome the obstacle, has yet to be determined.
3) Discoveries (the major scoring portion of the game) and Obstacles will be chits permanently placed on the tile (or completed cave, to be determined) that they reside in. The jury is still out on on distribution of these chits and whether they will be seperate or combined into one chit.
4) Searching will be done by paying a certain (yet to be determined) # of Action Points, after which a card or cards will be drawn. Basically, results of searches will be represented via a deck of cards.

OK I assume everyone agrees on the above for the most part (aside from the things I noted that we need to decide upon). If anyone disagrees with anything above please let me know.

Ok these are the issues that we currently need to work on as I see it:

1) Decide how the tiles will look and interconnect so that we may have a better understanding of how any new mechanisms will work.
2) Decide upon the starting mechanism.
3) Decide how tile placement will be implemented.
4) Decide upon an exit mechanism (if needed).
5) Decide upon the end game trigger.
6) Decide how/if passage or cave completion will affect the game.
7) Decide how movement will work including things like passage/cave occupacy limits (blocking) and 'sliding' (moving through multiple passage tiles quickly).
8 ) Decide how obstacles / discoveries will work. I.E. On what tiles are they placed, when are they placed, when are they revealed, how / when they are scored, and when/if obstacles are removed.
9) Decide how equipment works. I.E. How they will affect obstacles. Also decide how players are able to obtain equipment.
10) Decide how searching will work including how/if cave completion affects it, how much AP it will cost, whether or not to include the 'staged deck' mechanic, and a system to keep track of multiple searches within a single tile or cave.

After that it will be just a matter of filling in the details and refinement.

Shew, we've got a lot of work to do!

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Darkehorse wrote:

Shew, we've got a lot of work to do!

Hey, it's not that bad really!

But as long as we don't try and do too many of them at once, we should be ok...

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Instead of trying to do all points of the hit list at once, I think it would be best to start with one thing at a time, and then add the other layers. In this case, start with the basic movement/tile placement (if this doesn't work, it makes no sense to worry about gathering equipment). So, here's what I propose as a starting point:

Start with the 3X3 'base camp'. And assume everyone starts with 3 AP (just an arbitrary number).

You can use an AP to do one of the following:
1. 1AP-Place a tile into your hand. you can hold a maximum of five. Tiles can be playedd to the "board" or to the discard pile.
2. 1AP-Move on a path segment or cave segment.
3. 2AP-investigate a search chit in a cave that is connected to the path you are currently on.

Rules for moving:
A single move consists of "transfering' from a path to a cave, or vice versa. So a path segment that is 5 tiles long is simply, 1 move.

If a cave is not complete, you may not enter that cave.

When a cave is complete, a Search chit is placed face down on that cave. If the Search chit is an award, you may show it the the other players, and collect it. All players may now enter the cave. If the Discovery chit is an obstacle, you may not enter the cave until you 'defeat' the obstacle (whatever menas that maybe, equipment, AP, etc.)

Defeating the obstacle awards you cards drawn from the Discovery card stack, the number of cards you draw equals how many tiles the cave is composed of. These are hidden face down in your hand, and can be anything, points, zeros, special action cards, equipment, cool discoveries that only matter in sets, etc. The Search chit is discarded from the cave and now anyone can move into that cave.

Possible end game conditions:
No more discovery cards.
No more Search chits.
Drawing an earthquake card: everyone back to home base as soon as possible, however, the last person out automatically loses (how's that for risk/reward).

Other interesting plays:
I think players should be able to share spaces: this could allow them to trade things with each other, which would be a fun component, especially if you are trying to complete sets of things.

Maybe equipment can be bought at the base camp with "gold" or some other counter that you find (maybe that's what the award Search chits are, while the Discovery cards are purely Win points) that isn't associated with Win Points.

As far as I can tell, this seems to simply capture a lot of the ideas that have been floating around. Any opinions?

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Darke: Thanks, that all makes sense and now I think I'm actually up to speed. And of course since I've been out of it for so long, it all looks right to me. :)

Doho: That all sounds good to me. Things I have thoughts about:

Cave size should mean something. Larger caves should have more options for discovery or something. This will make the board more interesting and attractive, and will add additional tactical/strategic choices. Darke doesn't like this one because of the math (which I can understand), but the first thing that comes to mind for me is one search chit per two full tiles the cave consists of (odd tiles out don't add chits), also known as number of tiles divided by two, rounded down. This way you'd be encouraged to make slightly bigger caves instead of having tons of one- and two-tile caves.

Stored Action Points: I like mechanisms that allow you to store a couple of APs (but no more than a couple) if you can't use all of your APs right now. Commonly this is respresented by a marker you can take for each AP you save. A good amount (imo) is 1/2 of the total APs allowed per turn. If we use the last-out-loses mechanism, however, everyone will be forced to store a couple of APs in order to be competitive which isn't so great.

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Right about cave size. In what I outlined above, you get XXXX Discovery cards for caves that are XXXX tiles big. YOu must've missed it.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Sorry, yeah, I must have missed it.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Let's get this clear from the start: there are Discovery/Obstacle chits and Search/Event cards!

I certainly don't see any problems with multiple chits depending upon the size of the cave, although I reckon that a "minimum:1, maximum: 3" rule would probably be advisable.
I'm not convinced that drawing cards depending upon the size of the cave is appropriate though - I think the "pay 1 AP: draw one card, pay 2 APs: draw 2 cards, pay 4 APs: draw 3 cards; then choose one" is still a better option.
Storing APs is a great idea if it can be implemented without fiddly bookkeeping - adding more markers to the game seems like a bad idea to me. I think I'd rather have a "bonus APs from turning in discoveries" option (which adds a nice choice moment - do you cash your card in now for APs, or save it for the end for VPs, which are, after all, what matter?)

One note I would make about movement, which is that a junction (but not just a bend) on a passageway tile should count as a "stop" point, as well as caves. That will make for some more subtle movement options, since it's clear that we want to allow explorers to "block" passageways (and there are ways of making Event cards use this too.) I must admit that I like the idea that a cave is full if there are explorers equal to the number of tiles in the cave.
I like "pay an AP to draw a tile then play a tile from your 'hand'".

Hmmm. I think it's time to revisit some formal rule-set proposals...

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Do you really want to use your explorer to block passageways? It would make more sense to if you had more than one explorer, I guess. I'd prefer to let the explorers run around without that much interference from the player's tokens as I think there will be enough interference from Discovery chits and "creative" placement of tiles.

Plus, I think I'd rather see players who share a path or cave be able to trade with each other. Or maybe, cooperatively help each other to get past an obstacle, in which they would get to share the spoils! That would be fun, and pretty different froom the typical everyone-against-the-world approach.

However, having not actually played the game yet, maybe blocking would work. It's jsut my initial feeling that blocking will slow things down.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

doho123 wrote:

However, having not actually played the game yet, maybe blocking would work. It's jsut my initial feeling that blocking will slow things down.

Um, yes it will. Especially when you only have one explorer - at the moment, anyway, although I think we've really rejected the multiple explorers option at present.

But it's useful to be able to offer the option in the rules, even if 99.9% of the time it will be an entirely redundant one :) Again, the more flexible the ruleset, the more room you have for designing event cards that may reward players for e.g. standing around in passageways... Likewise, the rules we are working with at the moment don't seem to me to rule out multiple explorer variants even though we aren't specifically offering that yet.

I want to stress that I like the idea of trading items (although it would slow the game down far more than players standing in strategic corridors!) and was merely suggesting that there should be a "capacity" for passages of 1 and for caves of #tiles. That way, everyone could theoretically get into a large cave, but only one or two in a small one.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Scurra wrote:
Let's get this clear from the start: there are Discovery/Obstacle chits and Search/Event cards!

Hmm, I see.
Quote:
I certainly don't see any problems with multiple chits depending upon the size of the cave, although I reckon that a "minimum:1, maximum: 3" rule would probably be advisable.
I'm not convinced that drawing cards depending upon the size of the cave is appropriate though - I think the "pay 1 AP: draw one card, pay 2 APs: draw 2 cards, pay 4 APs: draw 3 cards; then choose one" is still a better option.

By that do you mean "pay 1 AP and choose one of the one card you drew, pay 2 APs and choose one of two cards, pay 4 APs and choose 1 of three cards"? If you're going to have a "choose 1 of x" mechanic it should apply to all draws, as having different rules for different numbers of cards is just going to be confusing and doesn't really add anything (and while "draw 1 and choose 1" is obviously the same as "draw 1" and so you can just describe it as "draw 1," it's interally consistent and will make the rules easier to remember).
Quote:
Storing APs is a great idea if it can be implemented without fiddly bookkeeping - adding more markers to the game seems like a bad idea to me. I think I'd rather have a "bonus APs from turning in discoveries" option (which adds a nice choice moment - do you cash your card in now for APs, or save it for the end for VPs, which are, after all, what matter?)

That's fine.
Quote:
One note I would make about movement, which is that a junction (but not just a bend) on a passageway tile should count as a "stop" point, as well as caves. That will make for some more subtle movement options, since it's clear that we want to allow explorers to "block" passageways (and there are ways of making Event cards use this too.) I must admit that I like the idea that a cave is full if there are explorers equal to the number of tiles in the cave.

Hmm. I'm not sure blocking is worthwhile. More below.
Quote:
I like "pay an AP to draw a tile then play a tile from your 'hand'".

I prefer "You may play one tile from your hand each turn as a free action" and "pay 1 AP to draw a tile into your hand, maximum hand size x". This will allow you to grow the cave system on your turn without paying an AP if you wish, at the expense of reducing your future tile options.

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Scurra wrote:
But it's useful to be able to offer the option in the rules, even if 99.9% of the time it will be an entirely redundant one :) Again, the more flexible the ruleset, the more room you have for designing event cards that may reward players for e.g. standing around in passageways...

This I completely disagree with. I understand that the game is to be flexible but it's a mistake to add a rule that will virtually never be used and won't be missed if it's not in the rules.
Quote:
Likewise, the rules we are working with at the moment don't seem to me to rule out multiple explorer variants even though we aren't specifically offering that yet.

I'm all for flexible but I think it's also a mistake to make the game too flexible. The deck modification thing is great (and probably would work along with a chit modification thing as well), but I think it would be bad to go too far in the flexibility direction. In my opinion the fewer rules that change between versions the better.
Quote:
I want to stress that I like the idea of trading items (although it would slow the game down far more than players standing in strategic corridors!) and was merely suggesting that there should be a "capacity" for passages of 1 and for caves of #tiles. That way, everyone could theoretically get into a large cave, but only one or two in a small one.

Seems to me that the same feature could be handled by adding, say, 1 AP for passing through a tile with another explorer in it, and you can't land on another explorer. If you want to slow someone down then just stand in the entrance of the cave. Cave maximums are handled without adding another rule by the sheer fact that no one can land in a place where there's another explorer, so max explorers = # of tiles is automatic.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

I don't understand why you should be so opposed to including a rule that most players won't even register is there.
I'm in favour:
a) because when the situation does occur, it's always good to have a rule to cover it to save precious arguing time ;) and
b) as I said, I can see Red Sabotage cards that would penalise players for hanging around in caves. I'm not suggesting that any cards like that are going to be produced (although I can think of a couple!) but that having the option would be nice.

Likewise I don't advocate a game system that's so open the bottom is missing. But I do think that this particular design offers a lot of potential for variety, which should encourage exploration of ideas. And tbh this isn't a hugely deep thinking strategic game we're building here :)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
A few things...

Quote:

Hey, it's not that bad really!

But as long as we don't try and do too many of them at once, we should be ok...

Exactly, I actually tried to put them in the order I felt we needed to tackle them. We obviously don't have to stick to that but a lot of the things down on the list depend on the things above them.

Quote:

You can use an AP to do one of the following:
1. 1AP-Place a tile into your hand. you can hold a maximum of five. Tiles can be playedd to the "board" or to the discard pile.
2. 1AP-Move on a path segment or cave segment.
3. 2AP-investigate a search chit in a cave that is connected to the path you are currently on.

Let's not worry about specific values for the time being because I think they will change; probably a lot. I think once we get the ruleset framework down, then we can fill in specifics like VP values, AP costs, etc.

Quote:

Stored Action Points: I like mechanisms that allow you to store a couple of APs (but no more than a couple) if you can't use all of your APs right now. Commonly this is respresented by a marker you can take for each AP you save. A good amount (imo) is 1/2 of the total APs allowed per turn. If we use the last-out-loses mechanism, however, everyone will be forced to store a couple of APs in order to be competitive which isn't so great.

I'm not against this, but I'm not sure why it's necessary either. Perhaps if you only replenished a certain APs per turn this might come in handy. For example, suppose an explorer has a max of 10 APs, but only replenishes 3 or 4 per turn. We could incorporate a rest mechanism, where instead of taking their actions a player could rest and regain their max APs... I guess what you are proposing FL might be neat too... Like if an explorer doesn't completely exert himself every turn he may have a lot of energy (or APs) when it comes time to overcome that massive obstacle...

Quote:

Cave size should mean something. Larger caves should have more options for discovery or something. This will make the board more interesting and attractive, and will add additional tactical/strategic choices. Darke doesn't like this one because of the math (which I can understand), but the first thing that comes to mind for me is one search chit per two full tiles the cave consists of (odd tiles out don't add chits), also known as number of tiles divided by two, rounded down. This way you'd be encouraged to make slightly bigger caves instead of having tons of one- and two-tile caves.

Hmmm. I too think the larger the cave, the more stuff you're likely to find. I also believe that it should be harder to find stuff the more a cave is searched.... We could say that it cost 1 AP for the first search, 2 AP for the 2nd, 3 AP for the 3rd, etc MINUS the total # of tiles. So if I search a 3 tile cave , the first through third searches it would cost 1 AP, then for the fourth it would cost 2, 3 for the fifth, etc. I think the base cost needs to be a little more though, perhaps 1 for the first, 2 for the second, 4 for the third, etc. Otherwise if you create a big cave you could technically burn through the deck very quickly without spending a lot of AP. The whole point is to have progressively costlier APs to search so it eventually becomes impossible to search there anymore and the person is forced to move on.

As for spending extra APs and drawing extra cards to pick one, I am totally against this. This presents a problem as to where do the unpicked cards go? On the bottom of the deck? back on top? Either way you are going to end up with either A) A lot of crap at the top of the deck or B) A lot of crap at the bottom of the deck. People will be forced to search for the crap just to get them over with and this is something I think we should avoid.

Regarding allowing players to block passageways and maximum occupancy for caves; I think this isn't even anything we have to decide now. I think we can playtest it both ways and see how much it adds or takes away from the game. Since none of the other game mechanics really hinge on whether we decide or not, let's decide upon it later. I do think it might be a good way to increase player interaction a bit, which I forsee might be a problem.

Quote:

prefer "You may play one tile from your hand each turn as a free action" and "pay 1 AP to draw a tile into your hand, maximum hand size x". This will allow you to grow the cave system on your turn without paying an AP if you wish, at the expense of reducing your future tile options.

It's not clear whether you can also spend APs to place more tiles other than the free action. Otherwise is there a point in building up your hand rather than having more tiles to choose from when you get your free placement?

All for now.
-Darke

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Scurra wrote:
I don't understand why you should be so opposed to including a rule that most players won't even register is there.

Because extra rules make the game harder to learn and to play.
Quote:
I'm in favour:
a) because when the situation does occur, it's always good to have a rule to cover it to save precious arguing time ;) and

Aye, but a simpler, more common sense rule covers the same thing (imo).
Quote:
b) as I said, I can see Red Sabotage cards that would penalise players for hanging around in caves. I'm not suggesting that any cards like that are going to be produced (although I can think of a couple!) but that having the option would be nice.

How do those cards not work just as well without the rule?

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Well since I don't know what we're arguing about, it's not easy to see what the problem is :)

I said that a passageway junction should count as a "stop" for movement - i.e. a player wishing to move from cave A to cave B but via a junction should have to pay 2 APs, not 1. And I'm keen on this because it means that alternate routes would often be available but probably more expensive to use.
I also observed that this allows players to stop in the middle of passageways which, if there is a rule about obstruction, makes for a tactical decision if there are good reasons for it. One reason I suggested was an Event card. Another would be if the players had more than one explorer. Neither of these conditions are likely to apply to what I should call the "standard" version of the game.
However, if there is going to be a rule about junctions costing an extra AP then the rules need to include a clause which specifically states that a player may stop their explorer moving at a junction (thus blocking all connecting passages.) As I said, in a "standard" game, this situation may never arise, but I can see it being a standard question, that's all.

Does that make it any clearer?

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Scurra wrote:
I said that a passageway junction should count as a "stop" for movement - i.e. a player wishing to move from cave A to cave B but via a junction should have to pay 2 APs, not 1. And I'm keen on this because it means that alternate routes would often be available but probably more expensive to use.

I'm with you 100% here.
Quote:
I also observed that this allows players to stop in the middle of passageways which, if there is a rule about obstruction, makes for a tactical decision if there are good reasons for it. One reason I suggested was an Event card. Another would be if the players had more than one explorer. Neither of these conditions are likely to apply to what I should call the "standard" version of the game.
However, if there is going to be a rule about junctions costing an extra AP then the rules need to include a clause which specifically states that a player may stop their explorer moving at a junction (thus blocking all connecting passages.) As I said, in a "standard" game, this situation may never arise, but I can see it being a standard question, that's all.

Here's where we're not in synch. I was trying to say that with only one explorer per person that blocking isn't going to be a meaningful part of the game and that adding a rule about blocking would complicate the game unnecessarily since players will nearly never be in a situation where blocking will be useful.

My suggestion is if we want an obstruction system (and I'm certain I've not be clear) is that we simply note that you can't end your movement on the same tile as someone else but that you can pass through them as long as you pay the normal movement as though you did land on that spot.

Which is no fewer rules. :)

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

FastLearner wrote:

My suggestion is if we want an obstruction system (and I'm certain I've not been clear) is that we simply note that you can't end your movement on the same tile as someone else but that you can pass through them as long as you pay the normal movement as though you did land on that spot.

We're approaching this from different sides. A "move past an explorer standing at a junction as long as you've paid enough" rule is appropriate in an exploring game since you don't want "blocking" to be an issue. But a "you can't move past an explorer blocking a junction" rule is needed for a game that may have tactical implications. For instance, if we went with the scoring system that scored a player more if fewer other people saw their discovery, then I could see passage blocking being a viable tactic. I don't think it would help the blocking player much (unless the scoring potential was large) but it should be an option.
And finally, for verisimillitude, I prefer not allowing players to "pass through" other explorers as it makes them sound like ghosts or something :)

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

My stance is that, right now, blocking is not allowed, and players can share a tile (or path or cave). This clears up a lot of things.
A) one less rule to worry about -- and whatever other side rules that need to be made to cover various other possibilties (like two players forever trapping another player between their tokens, which then requires another rule, etc)
B) It will take a lot of contention out of the game in terms of the classic "I need to do this to better my score, but instead I have to block to prevent the leader from winning."
C) Sharing tiles with other players allows a clean way to do trading with other players, and cooperating between players to defeat obstacles. I REALLY feel that this is a very unique aspect of this game that could be played up.
D) Blocking is generally unrealistic (for those worried about players being ghosts). I've never read a report of cavers actively tackling other cavers from getting to another part of a cave.

I would not throw out the concept, but at this juncture, I think it is a somewhat needless rule to worry about.

So I am proprosing that the movement rules simply be:
XX AP to move on to a completed path, or to move into a completed cave with no Discovery chit.
Discovery chits are removed by spending AP, playing equipment or other cards, etc. from a neighboring path. Other players on the same path may give the current player AP or cards to help overcome the obstacle on the Discovery chit. Once overcome, the current player then draws XXX amount of Search cards (wher XXX is the amouont of tiles used to make the cave), and then may hand out the Search cards any way he wishes (or agreed to) with the players who offered help.

This would require AP to be handled as poker chips, I guess, and storing them for later use (or trying to conquer an obstacle on your own) would be completely doable.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Blocking, etc.

Quote:

D) Blocking is generally unrealistic (for those worried about players being ghosts). I've never read a report of cavers actively tackling other cavers from getting to another part of a cave.

Doho, it's not so much that explorers are being belligerent. I always imagined that it was a matter of room or safety. For example, the passageways could be so narrow as to not allow more than one person to pass through at one time. This is indeed very realistic if you've ever gone caving. As for the caves, the same thing... It could be just a matter of safe places to stand or whatever. Remember too that the game doesn't have to be realistic in every sense. Also, I always imagined the explorers as being famous rivals. Although they are too civilized to fight, they might do something like stand in a passageway if it means they could slow down or hinder one of their rivials.

Scurra, although I agree blocking would be cool, I really don't think we need to worry about it right now. As I said before, I don't believe any of the other mechanics currently hinge upon whether blocking is implemented or not. We can vote on this issue later when it becomes necessary to decide. Heck one of the great things about this project is that you can customize the game to your tastes later on, especially with this issue of blocking. However foor the sake of moving on, can I respectfully request that we drop it for the time being?

Quote:

C) Sharing tiles with other players allows a clean way to do trading with other players, and cooperating between players to defeat obstacles. I REALLY feel that this is a very unique aspect of this game that could be played up.

Discovery chits are removed by spending AP, playing equipment or other cards, etc. from a neighboring path. Other players on the same path may give the current player AP or cards to help overcome the obstacle on the Discovery chit. Once overcome, the current player then draws XXX amount of Search cards (wher XXX is the amouont of tiles used to make the cave), and then may hand out the Search cards any way he wishes (or agreed to) with the players who offered help.

Whoah, cooperation? I had never considered this and I have to admit I am initially against it. As I said above, I always considered the explorers to be famous rivals, probably unwilling to help each other out. Also I don't like the handing out of search cards. I could see this leading to political / table talk AND what's to stop the person who hands out the search cards from giving all the bad stuff to the other players? No I don't think cooperation is a good idea.

-Darke

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Quote:
what's to stop the person who hands out the search cards from giving all the bad stuff to the other players?

Quite a bit, actually. If a player DOES give out bad stuff, then noone will ever cooperate with that player again (much like the trading rule in Civilization, where you can lie about 1 of your 3 cards you are trading). Anyway, the player could simply divvy out the cards face-down to everyone involved as equally as possible, and then decide on who gets the leftovers if it hasn't been agreed upon earlier.

What cooperation does give you, however, is that every player can be involved a lot more, as opposed to having a lot of down time in between turns. And it gives you a fairly novel mechanic in this type of game which would be something new and different.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Well

I know I'm only one person and I only have one vote, but I have to say I am against collaboration, at least in the form you're proposing. I really don't know how often the opportunity will present itself for players to take advantage of collaboration. Now I have to admit, the trading idea is/could be pretty slick, especially if, like you said, we had sets of artifacts that would be worth more if you completed the set or had more of a certain type of artifact. I think this would especially be cool if we kept the artifacts face down and use kind of like a settlers trading mechanic. I.E. I need 15th century urns, do you have any? That way the other players could get somewhat of a feel for what the other players have discovered through searching.

How does everyone else feel about collaboration / trading?

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

I really like the trading idea - but I think it has to be concealed and accurate. IOW no saying you are offering a 15th century pot but giving a dinosaur bone instead.
However, my only concern is the extra time that gets added to the game - even if you only limit trading to when players are in the same cave, any negotiation element is often very dull to everyone else, and can drag out badly.
In which case I think you may have to limit it to one card exchange maximum.
But in principle I like the idea a lot.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Yep

I agree if we did do this it would have to be an honest trade and I also agree that it might drag the game out for those parties not involved. Let's shelve this idea along with blocking until later until we can get a better 'feel' for how the game will work. I'm all about the layered approach to game design where you start basic and build on to the basic framework.

-Darke

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Ok

Ok folks I can't do this on my own.... Someone get on board and get motivated...

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

What do you want, Darke? Blood? :)

AFAICS, the current status is:

A starting 3x3 tile. A round of placements (to start the cave off).
During a turn, a player gets a free placement (and draw). They may pay an AP to place (and draw) a second tile but no more.

The tile set is going to roughly conform to FastLearner's sample set, although quantities are unclear at the moment.

Now on to the controversial stuff ;) - this is not agreed, but simply thrown out at random.

When a cave is entered, a "discovery/obstacle" chit is drawn and placed on the tile.
If a cave is larger than 2 tiles, then When the cave is completed another discovery chit is drawn.
(this is a compromise to prevent silly caves being full of stuff, but still encouraging people to finish them off.)

Junctions in passages are marked.
A tile may only be occupied by one explorer at a time. This means that a cave has a maximum capacity of a number of explorers equal to the size of the cave.

A single AP move will take an explorer from a junction or a cave along a passageway to the next junction or cave encountered. An explorer cannot stop in an occupied space (see rule above!)

Thus, if an explorer was in a cave and there was a single passage to the next cave with a junction in the middle, it would cost 1AP to travel from the cave to the junction or 2APs to travel from the cave to the cave. If, however, there was an explorer at the junction, the player would be forced to pay 2APs to go from cave to cave since they couldn't stop at the junction (and, likewise, if the destination cave was full, they may have to pay additional APs to continue on to the next available junction or cave.)
[Phew - sounds complex but is pretty simple really.]

Does that sound right?

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Works for me. The only thing that I'm thinking might be a bit of a problem is the 3x3 tile at the beginning -- such a design only allows for 4 players if they want to have a full space to each side of them at the start. How many players is this game designed for? (FWIW it would take a 3 x 5 tile to allow for 6 players to each have their own full non-shared blank space on each side of their start.)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Perhaps....

FastLearner wrote:
Works for me. The only thing that I'm thinking might be a bit of a problem is the 3x3 tile at the beginning -- such a design only allows for 4 players if they want to have a full space to each side of them at the start. How many players is this game designed for? (FWIW it would take a 3 x 5 tile to allow for 6 players to each have their own full non-shared blank space on each side of their start.)

FL, I think we can do 2-8 in reality..... See the drawings below. I really don't think it is NECESSARY to have a space seperating each player as long as their direction is different. Also obviously with the higher # of players different directions is even impossible. With the examples i've listed, I think up to 6 players it works really well. The system probably breaks down at 7-8 so perhaps we can limit the game to six?

-Darke

FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

That works ok, I agree. My only concern is that in the odd-numbered games the players without someone close to them will either have an advantage (less tiles in their way) or a disadvantage (harder to reach others). But there may not be anything we can do about that.

Good diagrams and thoughts!

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Yes, they are great diagrams - pretty much exactly what I was envisioning. I think you may be missing one point however, which is that players do not have to go down different passages!

i.e. there is nothing to stop a player going down "someone else's" passageway on their first turn. Obviously they are likely to have to pay extra APs for the privilege (since it's reasonable to expect some passages to have explorers standing in them, or caves being full!) but it still has to be an option. For instance, player A has placed a half-cave and moved into it. Player B then places the other half of that cave and decides to move into it themselves, regardless of where "their" passage/cave leads.

Again, this is something that doesn't have to be spelled out in the rules as such, but you also don't want to explicitly forbid it.

I think the "start tile" has to be considered a cave for purposes of movement, so that you have to spend an AP to move to it and them another one to move from it later in the game. But it also has to be considered a 9-tile cave so that there is effectively no capacity limit on it.
I know this seems self-evident, but it may need to be stated explicitly.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
No.....

Quote:

Yes, they are great diagrams - pretty much exactly what I was envisioning. I think you may be missing one point however, which is that players do not have to go down different passages!

i.e. there is nothing to stop a player going down "someone else's" passageway on their first turn. Obviously they are likely to have to pay extra APs for the privilege (since it's reasonable to expect some passages to have explorers standing in them, or caves being full!) but it still has to be an option. For instance, player A has placed a half-cave and moved into it. Player B then places the other half of that cave and decides to move into it themselves, regardless of where "their" passage/cave leads.

Again, this is something that doesn't have to be spelled out in the rules as such, but you also don't want to explicitly forbid it.

Well given what you are implying... Why not just say there are no starting player squares and players just built directly off of the starting 3 x 3 square, on any square they want and in any direction they want? That would make more sense if we go in that direction.

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Assumptions & Issues : Take 1

Well that's why I wasn't bothered about how many players could fit - I really don't think you need anything that specifies where players must place their first tile, beyond a rule that says it must be adjacent to an existing tile (which therefore includes the starting tile) and cannot block the cave system. I suspect, however, that you will have to specify that tiles must continue the system - i.e. no Carc style placing of a tile that can't be reached immediately. (I know I thought this might be possible in an earlier version, but it now seems much more logical to forbid this; otherwise players will be reluctant to place tiles that will help their opponents.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut