Skip to Content
 

CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

79 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

As was mentioned in the Chat tonight, here's an idea for a movement mechanic. This goes more with the Relic Rush idea where the tile laying merely creates the board, and players interact with that board by moving a pawn around on it. The Tourist Trap idea does not really lend itself to pawn movement of any kind- I see that one as something closer to Carcassone where you lay tiles and score points.

So here's the suggestion. I'm not sure if I like it or not- you be the judge:

Players start with a 'hand' of tiles- say 7. The first phase of the game consists of players in turn placing one tile at a time (note, it would be possibly to make the opening hand identical by coloring the backs of the tiles). After players place their 6th tile (leaving one) [or their 7th, or whatever], then the pawns come into play. They could all start at a common center space, or they could start at any edge perhaps, or on one end of the board. Probably common center is the way to go. The the turn goes "draw a tile, place a tile [note you might have a hand of 1 or more tiles the whole time], move pawn" where the rules governing movement are to be determined.

One way could be just move 1 space. That's not too exciting. another coud be move down a passage to the next room (or the end of a passage if there's no room there- the 'end of passages' could be one of the cards- the deck with almost no treasure in it). If there's a 'treasure card' symbol there you may "search for treasure" by drawing a card from the appropriate deck and following any directions on the card. If you begin your turn in a room with a treasure card symbol, you may choose to forego movement in order to search for treasure (draw appropriate card)

Each symbol is intended to be used only once- maybe a 'blank' chip could be placed over the symbol to show it's been used up. Also there could be a rule about searching while another player is present- like you can't do it, or if you try to search while there's another player in the same room, they get a chance to steal an item from you.

What do you guys think of this stuff?

- Seth

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
My opinions thus far

I apologize for not inputing sooner but here is where I stand:

Although the Tourist Trap idea is good, it wouldn't be what I would envision for the game, because, as others have said, it's not really about cave exploration.

I like the idea for cave exploration where you score points for certain 'discoveries'. The general opinion seems to be for finding treasure, however I'd like to reiterate my request to not limit it to simply treasure. Including things like cave paintings, unusual rock formations (as stated rock bridges, underground lakes/ rivers, etc), fossils, etc would be an nice interesting addition to the tried and true treasure items.

As for a bidding system, why is that really needed? I know bidding systems are very popular these days, but let's not have a bidding system just to have one.

I agree about 8 exits being way too many... Let's stick to one per edge please..

I think Sedg's idea about being able to move down the entire corridor is awesome! It will add a lot of strategic play to the game, and I think it will make movement less tedious.. Let's face it, everyone hates games where you have to go through the motions of moving your pawn to the desired location. I think corridors that you can span in one 'turn' will help alleviate this.

Regarding some things CC said, is this going to be primarily a player vs game system (where there is very little chance to screw people) or is this going to be a player vs player system, or a little bit of both? I vote for a little bit of both, which will probably result in more of a lighthearted game than some of you envisioned. I think rolling boulders, poison darts, slippery floors, bats, and cave-ins are all great things to include, not to mention nasty little traps that players can lay for other players.

As for the cave system layout, I personally think all players should play in the same cave and I think that it's a must if you want good player interaction. I don't really like the headache involved with laying the entire cave out beforehand and turning over pieces as you get to them. I could foresee this being somewhat hard to implement as the graphical planning of the tiles would be complex (or extremely simple if done correctly). One way to get around caves 'not matching up' would be to allow the use of a tool to dig from one tunnel to the next.

My personal preference would be to allow players to build as they go. Have a stock pile of tiles mostly face down, with a number face up equal to the number of players. A player might have the option of playing one of the face up tiles or grabbing a tile at random (obviously replacing the face up tile he took with another face up tile from the draw pool). The player could then take the tile he choose and place it legally next to any tile that he could legally move to. I don't necessarily like the idea of being able to play on other people's 'caves' because it may make it extremely difficult to get anything done (E.G. people keep playing tiles on their opponents path to screw them over). Now once two players caves connected, it would be open season for screwing people over. Also I think this built in delaying process would help players get a little head start before the ensuing chaos of player interaction errupted.

Well those are basically my thoughts, I look forward to the 'reigning in' process.

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

The 'inner beauty' of the cave (scoring for finding cave features) doesn't seem to fit with the Relic Rush plan, however it fits nicely with the Tourist Trap (which is off in theme- maybe we could re-theme it a bit to be more of an exploration thing where you score for finding cave features and completing caverns, but rather than trying to get people to come look at it maybe you're photographing for National Geographic or something and need to find more good features than the other guys- the 'special tiles' rather than concession stands could just be something else.)

As far as straight Treasures are concerned, for Relic Rush I think that's fine. For "Tourist Trap" obviously it's pointless. So it depends on what we do with it.

For some other game that is different from either of those two it could go either way, again depending on what the theme is.

Oracle
Offline
Joined: 06/22/2010
Re: My opinions thus far

Darkehorse wrote:
As for a bidding system, why is that really needed? I know bidding systems are very popular these days, but let's not have a bidding system just to have one.

The mechanic of trading off VP's to improve your position in the game can work quite well in this game. It seems like the alternative is just wandering around the cave hoarding cash. I was pushing for the bidding system because it seems like a good way to do that.

Dralius
Dralius's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

Ok I am a little behind on this forum but have browsed the last dozen post so I think I am up to date on the ideas. So here are my opinions.

The players should be in the same cave system and be able to interact. If you don't interact with the other players even if it's just a little then it really a solo game.

One possible tunnel to each side of the tile is fine. Not every tunnel should lead some ware. We need some dead-ends.

As for any bidding system I am going to need convincing before I would vote for that so those interested in it should start making their case now.

Any scoring should remain simple so the winner can be determined quickly.

Lastly the treasure/trap cards seem to be a simple and fair way to determine what is placed where.

That's my two cents and I waiting for change.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: My opinions thus far

Oracle wrote:

The mechanic of trading off VP's to improve your position in the game can work quite well in this game. It seems like the alternative is just wandering around the cave hoarding cash. I was pushing for the bidding system because it seems like a good way to do that.

I was liking CC's idea of using money you have to purchase equipment to overcome certain obstacles. This is an alternate method to bidding. I honestly don't see how bidding fits into the theme of this game. I mean sure it would be fun, but I just don't think we need one just for the sake of itself.

Also I think you should get VPs and money for discoveries, but VPs are what win you the game. I think it would also be neat if you could get a loan from the bank and use VPs as collateral. Any VPs you had a loan against at the end of the game (or more interestingly, at the end of a scoring round) wouldn't count towards scoring.

That brings up another thing I have been kicking around. Is this going to be a one time exploration? I.E. Does each player take on the role of an explorer going into a cave and exploring as much as he can for that one time, -or- does the explorer have the option to go out and gather/buy supplies and then return later? This decision might greatly affect how the flow of the design goes and it's something we should probably think about now.

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

I still don't see why we can't get both the Relic Rush and the Tourist Trap games to work with the same set of components.

Functionally, if we are using a common board (however we decide to lay the tiles!) then all that needs to happen is for things to happen in the various caves. The only difference would be that you would buy different sorts of equipment at the outset (and even then I'm not sure it would be so different.)

I love Darke's idea of using VPs to take out loans - wonderful concept.

I can think of several ways to implement "events" but I think I'd like to know if we are going to have them first :)

Anonymous
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

...I'd do the "return after buying new equipment"... and discoveries of a scientific nature could also earn "money"... at least in the form of grants. "Money" per se, in a game, is always just a means of keeping score. When you force a player to choose between sacrificing some of their victory points in order to gain power in the game, or to hang on to their VPs in hopes of winning more quickly, it adds another dimension to the game.

...and I still think that the "players create the board within parameters" coupled with, "exploring equals winning" aspects of the two-tier game allows for archeological, fantasy treasure hunt, or simply explorer modules to all exist within the game. Let the players choose which 'game they want to play' each time they open the box. The rules need not change to accomodate this.
XXOOCC

Oracle
Offline
Joined: 06/22/2010
Re: My opinions thus far

Darkehorse wrote:
Oracle wrote:

The mechanic of trading off VP's to improve your position in the game can work quite well in this game. It seems like the alternative is just wandering around the cave hoarding cash. I was pushing for the bidding system because it seems like a good way to do that.

Also I think you should get VPs and money for discoveries, but VPs are what win you the game. I think it would also be neat if you could get a loan from the bank and use VPs as collateral. Any VPs you had a loan against at the end of the game (or more interestingly, at the end of a scoring round) wouldn't count towards scoring.

In this game, what is the advantage of this over just having cash=VP? If it's done well (like in PR), separating them can work, but it's hard to do well. Age of Steam is a good example of doing it badly. You can trade 3VP for 5 units of cash, but then it's a permanent trade; you can't repay the loan. The economy is set up so early in the game everyone is low on cash and then later has an income many times larger than they can possibly spend, but all the excess cash is useless because it's VPs that count. It's made even worse because you bid for play order each turn and since everyone has so much more cash than they can use late in the game, they just bid every cent they have beyond what they can spend in a turn.

Even if having separate VPs and Cash works well, you have to ask if it's worth the extra book keeping of making the players keep track of an extra asset.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: My opinions thus far

Oracle wrote:

In this game, what is the advantage of this over just having cash=VP?
Even if having separate VPs and Cash works well, you have to ask if it's worth the extra book keeping of making the players keep track of an extra asset.

Well the way I was thinking is that when you made a discovery, you got a certain amount of cash and a number of victory points. This may seem confusing as to why you would need both but let me illustrate it in an example.

Suppose I discover a cave painting that I get 3 victory points and 1 unit of currency. Now I use my currency to buy a shovel. Later on in the game I encounter a cave in. I need to use a pick axe to get through the cave in, but I spent my money on the shovel. So I turn in two of my victory points for 2 units of currency to buy the pick axe. Now by doing this I hope to find something on the other side of the cave in that will get me some money to 'buy back' my 'pawned' victory points.

It seems pretty balanced to me and I think it adds another level of decision making to the process.

-Darke

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
uhh?

XXOOCC wrote:

...and I still think that the "players create the board within parameters" coupled with, "exploring equals winning" aspects of the two-tier game allows for archeological, fantasy treasure hunt, or simply explorer modules to all exist within the game. Let the players choose which 'game they want to play' each time they open the box. The rules need not change to accomodate this.
XXOOCC

CC, I'm not really sure where you're going with this. Can you explain it a bit more? Do you mean each player can play a different kind of game or that all the players beforehand decide which game they are all going to play?
-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

Well he's sort of going the same way I am, although I clearly want to go somewhat further.

For instance, I would like Event cards to play a part in the game (because I want a fantasy treasure hunt game, dammit!) However, they would be totally unnecessary if the players wanted a more strategic exploring game.

Alternatively, there are several ways to handle Event cards - from random drawing each turn, to "buying" them for use at later points, to collecting them for use on other players. Depending upon which sort of game you wanted to play, you could use any (or all!) of these methods.

Same with equipment - you could make the players buy everything at the start, or allow them to purchase it as they proceed. Neither of these requires a radically different set of rules, but allowing for both would build an extra aspect of replayability into the game.

Anonymous
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

...and Scurra should have his fantasy treasure hunt game darn it!

Here's the idea of "cross- genre"...

Each tile placed is equal to a given chart (no cards) but with differing charts based on whether its exploring Mammoth Caves, a 'fantasy treasure hunt', or an archeological dig... so the short answer is thatthe players decide which set of charts to use before beginning play.

...and the money vs. VPs thing...

Imagine that you discover the cave painting... and you now are faced with the choice of:

1) carefully removing it to sell on the black market for the equivalent of 2 shovels, a flashlight and a canteen (we'll assume that these are all vital exploration tools) OR

2) claiming the discovery publically and gaining "X" number of VPs...

...the beauty of it is this... you make it ALL money... but you only win based on the cash-value of discoveries that you have maintained... those that you 'cash-in' only serve to improve your abilities to explore in the game... those you preserve go towards your winning score.

So you could have an explorer party with bookoodles of equipment lose to the guy that barely makes it out alive but is loaded down with ancient Egyptian artifacts.

XXOOCC

Anonymous
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

Hoody-freakin'-hoo!
I'm an 8-sider now!
XXOOCC

Oracle
Offline
Joined: 06/22/2010
Re: My opinions thus far

Darkehorse wrote:
Suppose I discover a cave painting that I get 3 victory points and 1 unit of currency. Now I use my currency to buy a shovel. Later on in the game I encounter a cave in. I need to use a pick axe to get through the cave in, but I spent my money on the shovel. So I turn in two of my victory points for 2 units of currency to buy the pick axe. Now by doing this I hope to find something on the other side of the cave in that will get me some money to 'buy back' my 'pawned' victory points.

What I'm suggesting would mean you get 4 victory points for discovering the cave painting. Then you spend 1 VP on the shovel, and later 2 more VP's on the pick axe. You hope to find something better on the other side that will get you more victory points.

You way involves extra rules complexity, bits for 2 kinds of points (currency and vp), extra book keeping as players have to keep track of how many VPs they've pawned, and just doesn't seem to make that much difference to the game.

When we tie it back to the theme, my VP's *are* currency. If you already have currency, where do the VP's fit in the theme?

Anonymous
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

First off, I want to apologize for not replying sooner. I've been extremely busy with real life matters that I've only had to time to browse the forum a tad, and not much time to sink my teeth into this thread (something that I've been very much regretting not having time for).

Second, wow. There is a LOT of really good discussion going on here. Although I do have to agree that cost concerns shouldn't be an issue with this project, and the game should come first. Why stiffle creativity because of the evil dollar?

Here are my thoughts.

Why do the players have to purchase new equipment? I like the idea of moving the length of the corridor a lot. Possibly moving until you reach an intersection or whatnot. That makes moving around the caves a lot less tedious. What if players had to go back to their base camps to get the equipment they need to make it past a particular obstacle?

Let's say there are 10 equipment cards per player. (not a solid number of course), and each player can only carry 3 equipment cards at a time. Certain types of cave tiles require certain types of equipment (or maybe even combinations of equipment, such as a hook and a rope). So players will be delayed if they reach an obstacle that they can't pass by having to go back to their base camp.

However, if the players could some how reestablish their base camp someplace inside the cave, then they wouldn't have to go as far back to trade in equipment, but they'd be vulnerable to other players.

See, I figure the equipment cards would be hidden, so the other players don't know what your'e carrying until you show them the equipment you're using to bypass an obstacle. But if you moved your base camp into the cave, and a player moved to it while you're out spelunking, then they could not only see what equipment you're carrying (by seeing what cards are NOT in your pile) but maybe they could use your camp to trade equipment (thus forcing you to seek out someone elses camp).

Just a thought about the equipment thing. I realize that it might not fit quite right into the grand scheme of things, and this really only become effective if each player is placing a new tile on their turn, that way they can kind of "block" players by placing tiles in spots they know will force a trip back to camp to an opponent.

I like the vps for cave landmarks found, I don't really like the idea of treasure (for this particular game), mainly because I've gotten the word spelunking in my head, and thus it's focused as an exploration game in my mind.

If it was Plunder or something like that, then yeah, treasure all the way. I just don't feel money has to be involved in any way.

With the base camps, that adds a certain level of things to think about (although it certinaly does feel a bit random) unless each player is purposely putting tiles in front of each other knowing they'll get screwed.

Those are just some of my thoughts. Apologies if it isn't very coherant. I'm at work, and answering calls while I'm doing this, and today has been pretty busy. I'll try to clarify later if there are any ?'s floating around. And of course, these are only suggestions.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Equipment, Economy, Extra complexity

For the record, I think for this first CGD project we should keep it simple. I don't think we need to introduce Equipment, Actions, or a whole Economy. I think between Relic Rush and Tourist Trap we've got plenty to work with in the right complexity range.

On that note, I really liked the suggestion that we could use the same tiles for both of those (very different) games. What I think we ought to do is fine tune the mechanics for those and re-theme Tourist Trap to make it more appropriate.

- Seth

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

This is my new proposal of a basic game engine for Spelunkers!!! IN this current form, it requires a chess board (with 1-8, A-H row column format), one pawn for each player, a set of counters for each player, and a score pad. Also, it requires a built Cave-U-Lator slide card mech and a pre-made cave card. This can bee downloaded below:

http://home.comcast.net/~doho123/games/spelunker/caveulator.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~doho123/games/spelunker/cavedemo1.jpg

I would probably suggest pasting the files into word, or phtoshop, or something to make sure they are printed out proportionally correct to each other. Cut out the black areas on the Cave-U-Lator, fold and cut both elements, and place the Cave Le Demo #1 card in the Cave-U-Lator such that the cave card of WHERE is on the same side as the Cave-U-Lator WHERE!, and you can see a number in the circle, and reference letters/numbers in the rectangle below.

Players start at any edge around the board. The basic turn is move one space on the board, and look up the Row/Column reference using the Cave-U-Lator WHERE! side. This will give you an I-R/1-8 reference, to look on the Cave-U-Lator WHAT! side. FLip over the Cave-U-Lator, and using this new reference, will indicate what you have found in that cave space. XX indicates nothing, +X indicates points. record the points, and place a counter of that player's on the space. If the player arrives at a space with his color counter, his has already been there, and has alreeady scored points for that space; so he does not score again.

That's the very basic mechanic of it. Other rules can be placed on to this, such as each player having Prestige Points (they are vying for the most Prestige at the OShaughnessey Splelunkers Adventurers club), and players can lie about what they have found, but other players can risk their Prestige Points to call their bluff. Also spaces might be indicated on the Cave card as +4/3/2/1, which would indicate that the first person at that space wins 4 points, the second 3, etc. Also, other special symbols might denote finding a full set of things throughout the cave, so if you visit four special spaces, you get bonus points. Etc.

Anonymous
CGD1 Theme: Spelunking

Just checking in. I wanted to comment on this real quick. I really like where Oracle was going with VP. Do you want to use them, in hopes to find something of value? Or do you want to save the little that you have and continue hunting for easier targets? However, since the VP and Currency can be interchanged at will, why add that extra complexity? Simply have one point value. Call it currency or VP, whatever. Whoever has the most at the end of the game, wins. It is, conversely, also used to purchase equipment. Possibly the equipment is chosen, or picked blindly off the top of a "Gear" card deck.

Anyway, I hope to be checking in a bit more soon. I really like where this is all going.

Just my .02

Take care.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut