Skip to Content

Pressing on towards the goal

46 replies [Last post]
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Pressing on towards the goal

I'm a little torn on this issue of seperate decks vs a single deck. I could see it working either way.

Here's an idea that just now popped into my head:

Say there are X types of obstacles- for arguement's sake we'll say 3 types- Geographic (Cliff, chasm), Biologic (Bats, maneating plant, Dinosaur or something), and Catastrophic (cave-in, pitfall). These are just examples, and bad ones at that.

Ok, now say for each of these there are maybe 4 levels, and for each level there is a tile labelled 1 through 4. Thus there are 12 tiles for obstacles.

Now, when an Obstacle card is drawn, weather taken or not, the next numbered Obstacle tile of the apropriate type (indicated on the card) is placed in the cave.
An alternative: Whenever a cave entry tile is placed, put an obstacle tile on it.

Noone may search that cave (or maybe even enter it) until the obstacle is dealt with. On the back of that tile (or simply on another tile underneath it) is the reward for overcoming the obstacle.

The intent is to be able to mix and match specific rewards (which might end up having types so as not to be so generic) and obstacles. The tile mechanism allows the obstacle to be put on the board. It even effectvely 'covers up' any symbol in case we decide to use some symbols for anything. It's somewhat thematic in that the obstacle is in fact in the cave. And finally, depending on the discovery, the discovery tile could be picked up by the discoverer for later scoring.

Any thoughts on that?

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Ok

Rather than reply to each reply, which I think tends to make my thought process disjunct, I'm going to summarize how I envision it might work.

I picture the obstacles and discoveries being on tiles. These tiles could fall into four distinct types; obstacles tiles, discovery tiles, combo tiles (have both an obstacle and a discovery) or blank tiles.

I think that once a cave gets completed, one of these tiles is drawn and placed on the completed cave. This tile would be revealed once the first player reaches that cavern (or it could be placed and revealed once the first player reaches the cavern, not sure if it matters).

To spice it up and run with Seth's icon ideas, I think we could put a number of icons on the back of each tile. At setup, we place them all face down and mix them up, then seperate them based upon the # of icons on the tile back. Then when a cave is completed and the discovery/obstacle tile is placed, you would randomly grab a tile from the pile corresponding to the # of icons in the completed cave... Any thoughts?

I'm going to reply to the previous two replies seperately in just a bit.
-Darke

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Reply

Scurra wrote:
Well of course your argument is the perfect counter to mine :)
However, I am concerned that any system like this is going to lead to multiple card piles (Discoveries, Obstacles, Searches etc.) which can be confusing: one card pile with multiple types seems simpler to me.
I certainly don't see an issue with a Discovery card having some sort of Obstacle requirement on it though - it could stay face-up until the AP cost was met before a player could claim it for the points?

As for avoiding an Obstacle/Discovery just by discarding it, I think I wanted a Discovery to be forced if there was one in the cards the player drew, hence my desire for a discard pile, letting others see that there wasn't one, and the business about setting your hand aside to draw these cards so that Discoveries couldn't be kept in hand for a better moment...

Well I really think the discovery/obstacles should be tiles and not cards. Realistically they will stay on the cave permanently. I think this simple component difference will help alleviate the confusing multi deck problem.

The only other cards that I might forsee we will need will be for the equipment (which again can be tiles/chits), and possibly an event deck (which I am currently/temporarily leaning against implementing).

Sedjtroll wrote:

I'm a little torn on this issue of seperate decks vs a single deck. I could see it working either way.

Here's an idea that just now popped into my head:

Say there are X types of obstacles- for arguement's sake we'll say 3 types- Geographic (Cliff, chasm), Biologic (Bats, maneating plant, Dinosaur or something), and Catastrophic (cave-in, pitfall). These are just examples, and bad ones at that.

Ok, now say for each of these there are maybe 4 levels, and for each level there is a tile labelled 1 through 4. Thus there are 12 tiles for obstacles.

Now, when an Obstacle card is drawn, weather taken or not, the next numbered Obstacle tile of the apropriate type (indicated on the card) is placed in the cave.
An alternative: Whenever a cave entry tile is placed, put an obstacle tile on it.

Noone may search that cave (or maybe even enter it) until the obstacle is dealt with. On the back of that tile (or simply on another tile underneath it) is the reward for overcoming the obstacle.

The intent is to be able to mix and match specific rewards (which might end up having types so as not to be so generic) and obstacles. The tile mechanism allows the obstacle to be put on the board. It even effectvely 'covers up' any symbol in case we decide to use some symbols for anything. It's somewhat thematic in that the obstacle is in fact in the cave. And finally, depending on the discovery, the discovery tile could be picked up by the discoverer for later scoring.

This is not a bad system and I think it is very similar to what I proposed. My only complaint would be that the sequential placement nature of the different obstacle types might lead to a little stagnancy (is this really a word?) in the game. I.E. You will always know specifically which obstacle will show up depending upon its type.

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: Reply

Darkehorse wrote:
My only complaint would be that the sequential placement nature of the different obstacle types might lead to a little stagnancy (is this really a word?) in the game. I.E. You will always know specifically which obstacle will show up depending upon its type.

Well the intention was to somehow keep the 'stagnancy' from occurring, I just didn't know how. What you described is basically what I was trying to think of but wasn't getting to.

- Seth

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: Reply

Darkehorse wrote:

The only other cards that I might forsee we will need will be for the equipment (which again can be tiles/chits), and possibly an event deck (which I am currently/temporarily leaning against implementing).

As I said, I was keen on the cards device because I felt that it offers much more flexibility in terms of the type of game that could be played.
We are actually probably not going to be able to agree on this one, since I think we're still seeing two different games (albeit with the same basic tile-laying mechanic) - yours is certainly "cleaner" in terms of theme (and components, tbf :)), but it may not offer very much variety in terms of options.

I do like your tiles idea: I've got a game with a similar "symbols on the back" method, that allows a player to choose a stack knowing that certain piles are more likely to have the tile they are looking for. I just think this is the "different piles of cards" issue expressed in a different way ;)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: Reply

Scurra wrote:

As I said, I was keen on the cards device because I felt that it offers much more flexibility in terms of the type of game that could be played.

Well, I think modularity would be cool also, but I guess I just can't get my mind around how your method would work well. If you could explain it better (pictures or diagrams maybe?) perhaps I could get a better understanding of how you mean to implement it. I'm sure it's just brilliant if my feeble mind could understand it.

Scurra wrote:

We are actually probably not going to be able to agree on this one, since I think we're still seeing two different games...

Perhaps if you explained how you envision would work then I might have a better idea of what you're aiming for. It might be better in the long run. Just start from the beginning and fill everything you can think of. I think it would help me more if I could get the big picture which I don't think I can ascertain from the various comments/replies you've posted in the past.

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Pressing on towards the goal

The main posting I made was under the heading
"Events card proposal" (the link should be here)

Essentially, I was trying to evolve the "what happens when someone draws a card" mechanic, keeping separate from the tile-laying mechanic (this is assuming that there were cards!)

I am very happy with the tile-laying mechanic you have proposed for caves, passages and entrances; it's very crisp and easy to understand and doesn't require complicated "how many tiles with a left-hand bend do we need?" sort of thing.

Where we are differing is in what happens if a player enters a completed cave and searches it (either for free the first time or by paying APs.) I was proposing a card-based system because I feel that the range of things that could happen was wider than a simple chit-marker system.

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

Scurra wrote:
The main posting I made was under the heading
"Events card proposal" (the link should be here)

Essentially, I was trying to evolve the "what happens when someone draws a card" mechanic, keeping separate from the tile-laying mechanic (this is assuming that there were cards!)

I am very happy with the tile-laying mechanic you have proposed for caves, passages and entrances; it's very crisp and easy to understand and doesn't require complicated "how many tiles with a left-hand bend do we need?" sort of thing.

Where we are differing is in what happens if a player enters a completed cave and searches it (either for free the first time or by paying APs.) I was proposing a card-based system because I feel that the range of things that could happen was wider than a simple chit-marker system.

Ok I went back and read your old post. Some great stuff in there and it really got the creative juices flowing. I understand your point about keeping everything in one deck. I think the game would feel A LOT lighter if were to implement such a system (which wouldn't necessarily be bad). I guess we need to decide how we want the direction of the game to go. Do we want a lighter feeling game that such a deck system would create or do we want something more deep strategy wise with the system I'm proposing? In my heart of hearts, I prefer lighter games so I'm torn.

Perhaps we could propose a compromise? Why couldn't we seperate (i.e. color code) the discovery/obstacle tiles the same way in which you proposed we seperate the search deck? It wouldn't be too difficult to decide which stuff should only happen at 'cave level' and which stuff should happen at 'tile level' (i.e. searching).

Another possible compromise would be to ditch the discovery/obstacle tiles and put that information on the main deck. I.E. the main deck would be dual purpose. If you were drawing for a completed cave, you would draw the card and look at the bottom portion for the obstacle/discovery information. If you were doing a search, you would look at the top portion of the card for that information. I like this compromise? What do you think? My main concern was how to denote what obstacles/discoveries were actually in the caves. We still might need chits or tiles to denote what was in the caves and to give to players to show what they've scored.

On a side note, I just thought of an idea regarding draw X tiles, keep 1. Some of them might be mandatory. I.E. Perhaps, you drew 3 tiles, one of them happened to be a cave in. If the cave in was mandatory, the player would immediately show it ot the other players and discard the other two.

I just realized that this is what you might have been refering to all along?

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: OK...

Darkehorse wrote:
I guess we need to decide how we want the direction of the game to go. Do we want a lighter feeling game that such a deck system would create or do we want something more deep strategy wise with the system I'm proposing? In my heart of hearts, I prefer lighter games so I'm torn.

Indeed. It may just be that I simply don't seem able to design "deep" games? ;)

Darkehorse wrote:

Another possible compromise would be to ditch the discovery/obstacle tiles and put that information on the main deck.

Dual-purpose cards can work, but they can get fiddly really quickly (ask Seth about the All for One Mission cards which are dual-purpose!)

Darkehorse wrote:

On a side note, I just thought of an idea regarding draw X tiles, keep 1. Some of them might be mandatory. [snip]
I just realized that this is what you might have been refering to all along?

Um, yes :) What I was concerned about was how to ensure that players didn't try to keep "mandatory" cards in their hand for a more opportune moment, not that there wouldn't be "mandatory" cards.

(I still like my colour-coded cards system; I'm slightly surprised I haven't put together three other designs using the mechanic already :))

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
No response

David,

What did you think about the color coding of discovery/obstacle tiles?

How do you mean the dual purpose cards can get fiddly? I can't really envision how it would be a problem since in reality it's like having two seperate decks. (A neat little 'feature' might be to design the card backs half and half also, so depending on which thing you were drawing for, you'd rotate the card back to the appropriate orientation and then draw and read the card as normal, neat eh?)

I just realized a problem with the draw X and keep 1 card mechanic; this totally defeats any card staging mechanism we might want to use (if we still intend to use it. I remember the staging mechanic from reading your thread about the colored decks).

Thoughts?
-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: No response (no, not really!)

Darkehorse wrote:

What did you think about the color coding of discovery/obstacle tiles?

I'm not sure I understood how it would work so it's hard to comment! The reason I didn't comment was also because you also discussed the card deck...

Here's a counter-proposal: when a cave is completed, all the tiles are covered with "obstacle/discovery" tiles, which are placed face-down. When a player enters, they get to "search" one for free (turn it up.) Later players would have to pay to "search" a tile. Some would be empty and just removed, some would have obstacles (which would prevent further searching until they were removed), some would trigger discovery cards draws before removal, etc. The drawback with this system is that you could get things discovered that would have been really obvious to earlier players. OTOH it would control the amount of searching that could be done in a cave (since there would be a maximum number of tiles to reveal and remove) and perhaps help to control the length of the game (since when you run out of tiles to place in a new cave, the game could enter a game-end phase? (It also occurs to me that this would be a neat method to avoid needing chits all over the board as well...)

Quote:

How do you mean the dual purpose cards can get fiddly?

You end up with lots of text on a card, with little room for any illustrative flourishes, which makes them tough to design. I like the reversed split-card idea though.

Quote:

I just realized a problem with the draw X and keep 1 card mechanic; this totally defeats any card staging mechanism we might want to use

Ah well, the end-game is a whole different ball-game... Can we defer that one for the moment? :)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
My thoughts.

Scurra wrote:
Darkehorse wrote:

What did you think about the color coding of discovery/obstacle tiles?

I'm not sure I understood how it would work so it's hard to comment! The reason I didn't comment was also because you also discussed the card deck...

Well in the same way that, depending upon the type of game you were playing (tourist trap, spelunker, relic rush, etc), the search deck would be color coded, so could the obstacle/discovery tiles. So basically you take your 'single deck theory' and you break it up by deciding which of the cards relate to the game on a permanent cave level (obstacles/discoveries) vs a temporary tile level (searching). So if you were playing the spelunker game, you would use the blue search deck and the blue discovery/obstacle tiles. If you were playing relic rush, you'd use the yellow search deck and the yellow discovery/obstacle tiles. Understand what I mean now?

Scurra wrote:

Here's a counter-proposal: when a cave is completed, all the tiles are covered with "obstacle/discovery" tiles, which are placed face-down. When a player enters, they get to "search" one for free (turn it up.) Later players would have to pay to "search" a tile. Some would be empty and just removed, some would have obstacles (which would prevent further searching until they were removed), some would trigger discovery cards draws before removal, etc. The drawback with this system is that you could get things discovered that would have been really obvious to earlier players. OTOH it would control the amount of searching that could be done in a cave (since there would be a maximum number of tiles to reveal and remove) and perhaps help to control the length of the game (since when you run out of tiles to place in a new cave, the game could enter a game-end phase? (It also occurs to me that this would be a neat method to avoid needing chits all over the board as well...)

Not a bad system.... But your point above players missing obvious discoveries is an obvious shortcoming. Perhaps we could have some of these 'search tiles' contain a special symbol on the tile back. This tile could be the 'major' obstacle/discovery for caves. When a cave was completed, one of these tiles (if any are left) must be placed in the cave along with regular search tiles covering the rest of the cave tiles. When a player enters the cave, the special tile is flipped over for free and dealt with. I really like the idea about certain tiles 'freezing' the cave until they are dealt with. Good show.

As for reducing the chits, wouldn't you just be trading them for tiles?

Quote:

How do you mean the dual purpose cards can get fiddly?

Scurra wrote:

You end up with lots of text on a card, with little room for any illustrative flourishes, which makes them tough to design. I like the reversed split-card idea though.

Good use of symbols could help alleviate this problem. Most game system related information could be resolved with symbols with the rest of the 'white space' could be pictures/flavor text.

Quote:

I just realized a problem with the draw X and keep 1 card mechanic; this totally defeats any card staging mechanism we might want to use

Ah well, the end-game is a whole different ball-game... Can we defer that one for the moment? :)

Sure, consider it defered. It might come back to bite us in the but though. I am confident we can find an elegant work around if need be.

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: My thoughts.

Darkehorse wrote:
So if you were playing the spelunker game, you would use the blue search deck and the blue discovery/obstacle tiles. If you were playing relic rush, you'd use the yellow search deck and the yellow discovery/obstacle tiles. Understand what I mean now?

I get you. My feeling is still that tiles are the wrong way to resolve this.
Having said that...

Quote:

Perhaps we could have some of these 'search tiles' contain a special symbol on the tile back. This tile could be the 'major' obstacle/discovery for caves. When a cave was completed, one of these tiles (if any are left) must be placed in the cave along with regular search tiles covering the rest of the cave tiles. When a player enters the cave, the special tile is flipped over for free and dealt with.

...this is an excellent solution.
Indeed, it offers a neat game-length modifier, since the number of "major" tiles can be controlled, sio the game could end when there were no more "major" tiles to place. It also lets you have a rule that small caves (e.g. only one or two tiles in size) might not have a "major" discovery in them...

Quote:

As for reducing the chits, wouldn't you just be trading them for tiles?

Yes, but chunky tiles are probably easier to deal with than fiddly chits. I dunno, it was just an idea...

Quote:
Scurra wrote:

Ah well, the end-game is a whole different ball-game... Can we defer that one for the moment? :)

Sure, consider it defered. It might come back to bite us in the but though. I am confident we can find an elegant work around if need be.

Oh sure, but I think we may have to decide if we want a specifically forced end-game (e.g. by drawing cards and needing to find an "exit"), or just one that ends (e.g. by running out of tiles to place in finished caves.)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: My thoughts.

Scurra wrote:

I get you. My feeling is still that tiles are the wrong way to resolve this.
Having said that...
Quote:

Perhaps we could have some of these 'search tiles' contain a special symbol on the tile back. This tile could be the 'major' obstacle/discovery for caves. When a cave was completed, one of these tiles (if any are left) must be placed in the cave along with regular search tiles covering the rest of the cave tiles. When a player enters the cave, the special tile is flipped over for free and dealt with.

...this is an excellent solution.
Indeed, it offers a neat game-length modifier, since the number of "major" tiles can be controlled, sio the game could end when there were no more "major" tiles to place. It also lets you have a rule that small caves (e.g. only one or two tiles in size) might not have a "major" discovery in them...

Ok, this sounds like a good way to go. Let's run with it. Now do we want to combine this method with Seth's cave tile symbol system? To clarify, some of the cave tiles will have symbols on them. Once the cave is completed, each cave tile with a symbol gets a search tile placed upon it. One of these search tiles MUST be a major search tile. Also we could add a rule that states that a cave can not be completed unless it has at least one tile with a search icon on it (therefore all caves will be sure to get a major search tile placed in them).

Quote:
....chunky tiles are probably easier to deal with than fiddly chits

Taken out of context, this is a hilarious statement =D

Scurra wrote:

Oh sure, but I think we may have to decide if we want a specifically forced end-game (e.g. by drawing cards and needing to find an "exit"), or just one that ends (e.g. by running out of tiles to place in finished caves.)

I think I like the finding an exit method, but I think using your idea about the different kinds of games, that we could do either, both, or neither (let the cards decide). However, for the 'base' game, I'd really like to give the players a impending doom counter (like Evo) and an exit mechanic. However, I'm not so keen on 'killing off' players that don't make it out in time. Perhaps we could explain it away and say that the cave was no longer safe and that the explorers had to exit from the way in which they came in.

Thoughts? Seth, chime in anytime my friend.

-Michael

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: My thoughts.

Darkehorse wrote:

Also we could add a rule that states that a cave can not be completed unless it has at least one tile with a search icon on it (therefore all caves will be sure to get a major search tile placed in them).

I don't think I'm in favour of this. If we use this system, then it should be possible to have even a large cave have no marked tiles in them and for a small cave to be nothing but...
(I do like the symbols as a control mechanic though. It's probably "cleaner" than having all the tiles covered.)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: My thoughts.

Scurra wrote:
Darkehorse wrote:

Also we could add a rule that states that a cave can not be completed unless it has at least one tile with a search icon on it (therefore all caves will be sure to get a major search tile placed in them).

I don't think I'm in favour of this. If we use this system, then it should be possible to have even a large cave have no marked tiles in them and for a small cave to be nothing but...
(I do like the symbols as a control mechanic though. It's probably "cleaner" than having all the tiles covered.)

Fair enough...I think we've made quite a bit of progress. I'm going to start a new thread to tackle some more issues.

-Darke

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut