Skip to Content

Searching mechanic

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

Quote:

I think it would be better if at least 1 person had to arrive at the location before the particular discovery or obstacle is known.

- Seth

I totally agree with this.. If it's done at placement, perhaps just play the chit face down until a person enters the cavern.

Also on a different note. I thought of something I had said earlier that I think is worth resaying.

For completed passageways, caverns: We could say that only completed caverns could be searched... and perhaps when you searched, you actually searched the entire cavern.... Sooooo it wouldn't matter what cavern tile you searched it, theoretically you'd be searching the entire completed cavern. Then if we had some sort of book keeping mechanic to make progress searches harder (or impossible, whatever), it would apply to the entire completed cavern? I'm not sure if this will fly with everyone else but I thought it might be an interesting twist.

Also again, I'd like to throw out that it would be nice to be able to spend 1 AP to traverse a completed passageway. And by that I don't mean that every passage tile in the passage system would have to be enclosed, but rather closed on your starting and destination tiles. For example, suppose I start out in a southern cavern, and there is a passage way leading north two tiles, which then comes to a four way intersection, then goes another two tiles north and comes to another cavern. Now with this method, I could spend 1 AP to traverse the entire 5 tiles north to get to that cavern. Any thoughts on this?

-Darke

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

Darkehorse wrote:

Also again, I'd like to throw out that it would be nice to be able to spend 1 AP to traverse a completed passageway. And by that I don't mean that every passage tile in the passage system would have to be enclosed, but rather closed on your starting and destination tiles. For example, suppose I start out in a southern cavern, and there is a passage way leading north two tiles, which then comes to a four way intersection, then goes another two tiles north and comes to another cavern. Now with this method, I could spend 1 AP to traverse the entire 5 tiles north to get to that cavern. Any thoughts on this?

Yeah, here's what I think about the movement in completed portions of the cave:

Rather than think about it as moving from "tile to tile," think about it as moving from "cave part to cave part". Thus, if a passage is complete, it would only count as 1 "space" on the board. Same with completed caverns.

Now, we could treat incomplete parts either the same way, or we could call them "1 space per tile" thereby making completed sections a little better.

An example: As in your example, you start out in a southern cavern, and there is a passage way leading north two tiles, which then comes to a four way intersection, then goes another two tiles north and comes to another cavern. Also the West part of the 4-way intersection continues 2 tiles and runs off the tile (an incomplete passage).
Option 1: We could treat each completed leg of the passage as a space... moving from inside the south room to inside the norh room would be 3 spaces. Moving to the incomplete West section of the passage would be 2 spaces.
Option 2: Complete passages count as 1 space, Incomplete count as 1 space per tile.... moving from inside the south room to inside the North room is still 3 spaces, but moving to the end of the wes passage is now 3 spaces. (I'm thinking the 4-way intersection would have to count as breaking up the passages, otherwise they're part of both complete and incomplete passages)

What do you think?

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Searching mechanic

(now that I can post again - thanks, Darke! - even if I am back to flipping a coin :))

I'm for option 1 on movement. A passage intersection should count as a cave for purposes of movement. That makes it easy to keep track of - if intersections have marks on them too, then the players are moving from mark to mark for the cost of 1AP.

As for the searching and discovery things, it was at the chat that Darke, Hpox and I were at, and Sedj came in and out of. It was when we were discussing chits versus cards and came up with the "off-the-board" recording mechanism. But I don't think anyone got around to formally writing it up!

I like the idea that an event should affect everyone in the same cave a lot.

And obstacles and discoveries were supposed to be in the same set of chits - when an explorer reached a cave (whether fully explored or not), if it didn't have a chit you drew one, and it might be a discovery or an obstacle. The chit would be placed in the cave (over an icon?). The discovery would always be there but an obstacle would be turned over when passed (and the passing player would score the points for the passing.) That way every "cave" would have something in it, but you wouldn't know what until an explorer actually went inside.
An unpassed obstacle would mean than the explorer could only leave through the passage they entered by (regardless of which one it was!)

Meanwhile, if there was a chit in the cave already, that's when you can search. Even if it is an unpassed obstacle (since that only stops the explorer moving onwards.)

That's my take on the mechanism anyway. It seems to reduce the complexity by a considerable degree.

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

Quote:

And obstacles and discoveries were supposed to be in the same set of chits - when an explorer reached a cave (whether fully explored or not), if it didn't have a chit you drew one, and it might be a discovery or an obstacle. The chit would be placed in the cave (over an icon?). The discovery would always be there but an obstacle would be turned over when passed (and the passing player would score the points for the passing.) That way every "cave" would have something in it, but you wouldn't know what until an explorer actually went inside.
An unpassed obstacle would mean than the explorer could only leave through the passage they entered by (regardless of which one it was!)

Well yes originally we had thought that obstacles and discoveries were in the same set of chits, but that presents this problem: Wouldn't you want some tiles to have both and obstacle and discovery? If so, how would you implement this if both types were in the same chit pool? If you say draw two chits, there's a chance of getting two obstacles or two discoveries. If we keep them seperate and use the icon method, it allows us to as the designers more control over the distribution of obstacles and discoveries. The other option is to combine the two into one chit, which I don't really care for.

As for scoring for overcoming obstacles, I really think this is a bad idea... The whole point of the obstacles was to deter players. If you get points for overcoming then, then they will eventually turn into mini discoveries, and I don't believe that is a good idea..

Still trying to figure out movement in my head right now..

-Darke

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

Darkehorse wrote:

As for scoring for overcoming obstacles, I really think this is a bad idea... The whole point of the obstacles was to deter players. If you get points for overcoming then, then they will eventually turn into mini discoveries, and I don't believe that is a good idea..

I totally agree here. I mentioned it as a possible thing to get points for because we hadn't really said what we were and weren't allotting points for.

- Seth

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

Darkehorse wrote:

Well yes originally we had thought that obstacles and discoveries were in the same set of chits, but that presents this problem: Wouldn't you want some tiles to have both and obstacle and discovery?

No - there would be one chit per cave, and it would either be a discovery or an obstacle. This also allows for the interesting possibility of having an event card which a player can keep and use to ensure that a particular draw is one or the other (make someone keep drawing until they get an obstacle etc.)

The point about scoring for overcoming obstacles was to make it worthwhile passing them. But this isn't a big deal.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Just curious...

Quote:

No - there would be one chit per cave, and it would either be a discovery or an obstacle. This also allows for the interesting possibility of having an event card which a player can keep and use to ensure that a particular draw is one or the other (make someone keep drawing until they get an obstacle etc.)

What reason do you have for not having both on a single tile? Also I think using event cards like you mentioned would shift the game from being more of a strategy game to a screw-the-other-players beer & pretzels type game. I had thought we wanted more of a strategy game. Is this not the case?

-Darke

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

Darkehorse wrote:

What reason do you have for not having both on a single tile? Also I think using event cards like you mentioned would shift the game from being more of a strategy game to a screw-the-other-players beer & pretzels type game. I had thought we wanted more of a strategy game. Is this not the case?

Well I'm still on my "remove certain Event cards to change the feel of the game" kick which is the only reason I mentioned it :)

As for them not being on a single tile, it's that I don't think it works. A Discovery brings initial points plus later points as people visit (or don't, depending upon which version we decide upon!) whereas an Obstacle is a once-only thing. If you say that the first explorer in a cave finds an obstacle and clears it (thus leaving an empty cave) then the next explorer might come along and find a discovery or another obstacle, which seems to undermine the principle, even if it makes for a more interesting game. By building a system where a cave has only one chit on it, then different strategies open up (do you go for an equipment approach and try and pass the obstacles, or do you just look for another route etc.) whereas if a second obstacle could appear in a cave after the first one had been cleared then it comes down to luck of the draw.
At least that's my take on it, anyway.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
... (RPG for hmmmm)

Quote:

Well I'm still on my "remove certain Event cards to change the feel of the game" kick which is the only reason I mentioned it

Ahhh.... Now that would be neat.... Could this really be accomplished just by changing out event cards? It would require some real creativity...

Quote:

As for them not being on a single tile, it's that I don't think it works. A Discovery brings initial points plus later points as people visit (or don't, depending upon which version we decide upon!) whereas an Obstacle is a once-only thing. If you say that the first explorer in a cave finds an obstacle and clears it (thus leaving an empty cave) then the next explorer might come along and find a discovery or another obstacle, which seems to undermine the principle, even if it makes for a more interesting game. By building a system where a cave has only one chit on it, then different strategies open up (do you go for an equipment approach and try and pass the obstacles, or do you just look for another route etc.) whereas if a second obstacle could appear in a cave after the first one had been cleared then it comes down to luck of the draw.

The way I had pictured it is that MOST obstacles were permanent. I think the temporary ones like the cave-in were the exception (being temporary as opposed to permanent) to the rule. As an example, suppose a room had an obstacle of a crevasse that had to be jumped over to get across. Does it make sense that after the first person jumps over the crevasse, that it closes itself up? NO! Everyone who crosses that cave tile needs to jump over that crevasse. Realistically, we could remove the cave-in obstacle and just make it an event. I think that would be really cool. It could add a lot of atmosphere too. =)

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: ... (RPG for hmmmm)

Darkehorse wrote:
The way I had pictured it is that MOST obstacles were permanent. I think the temporary ones like the cave-in were the exception (being temporary as opposed to permanent) to the rule. As an example, suppose a room had an obstacle of a crevasse that had to be jumped over to get across. Does it make sense that after the first person jumps over the crevasse, that it closes itself up? NO! Everyone who crosses that cave tile needs to jump over that crevasse. Realistically, we could remove the cave-in obstacle and just make it an event. I think that would be really cool. It could add a lot of atmosphere too. =)

Well yes, then the Crevasse would be a discovery, not an obstacle!
I don't see any contradiction between discoveries that still block explorers from travelling owards and discoveries that are nice to see.
I suppose we're really talking about the same thing here: all the chits in the bag are "discoveries": it's just that some of them, like a crevasse or a river, would cost APs to move past (as well as scoring VPs for visiting.)

doho123
doho123's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Searching mechanic

Actually, I think in "real-life", the first person to encounter a crevasse would spend his time rigging up way to get across the crevasse easier for people that followed him (leaving footholds, ropes, etc). So, it wouldn't be completely unexpected.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut