Bandecko,
Thanks again for getting your game up for discussion in the GDW; just as a reminder to all, if you ever need to abdicate your slot, just let me know; it won't necessarily mean you will get kicked to the back of the queue.
Next on the agenda is hpox -- great_undoing had to pass this time around, so hpox, tell us how to access your game!
Thanks!
-Jeff
Alright, here's a game I've been wanting to write the rules for quite some time. I don't have a name yet. It was stored in a directory called "Sport". I'm thinking about an ultra fast futuristic sport where enhanced people must use a very heavy sphere to destroy the other team's columns to score points. It's supposed to be funny and hectic!
The rules are presented in a pretty crude form (ASCII) because I just upgraded the computer and I have a whole lot of stuff to re-install. My timing was quite off. Fortunately, I still had an old snapshot of the prototype board! I showed it in the chat a while ago...
The rules
The "playing field" board
Thank you for taking a look.
I just noticed, the last section on Actions is awfully unfinished and unpolished. Also, I don't talk about the columns and how much points they are worth because I don't know how to sort this out yet.
My initial reactions as I read...
1. Why does the "Greatest Player" (which is a fancy name for a randomly dertermined Starting Player" get an extra Stamina token? This mightnot matter, I don't know exactly what they're for... I guess I'll keep reading.
2. Interesting mechanic for the initial draw of cards. Is this to try and minimize the "luck of the draw" effect? I would think it would take some of the suprise out of it... but then again knowing what your opponent might do could add some strategy... but with 4 players and 10 cards it would be tough to remember who picked what. If you want it to add strategy then I recommend fewer cards in hand. If you don't care about that, then I recommend just dealing cards to each player. It's faster and if the cards are reasonably balanced then it should be plenty fair.
3. Another note on that... some of he actions could be static- as in always available- as opposed to on the cards, if you're worried about people not being able to do what they want.
4. A note on the cards. So that there's no question s to who goes first, the speed could be printed on one side of the back of the card... that section could read like this:
Each round, each player chooses a card in their hand to play. Put your chosen card face down in front of you, covering the speed value with your hand. When all but one player has a card in front of them, the last player has 5 seconds to play his card or he forfeits his turn (and must discard a card). Until that 5-count begins players are free to pick their card back up and play a different one, but once the count has begun the chosen card is locked in.
Once ever player has played (or discarded) a card, reveal the speed values of the cards (without revealing the front of the card). Turn Order is determined by the Speed Value of the cards played. Whoever played the card with the highest speed value will play first. In the case of a tie, the tied player with the most stamina counters will play first. If the tied players have equal stamina counters, the player closest to the Greatest Player will play first.
5. Rewarding doubles. I don't think that's really necessary. If you want to reward it though, rather than an additional (free!) action, why not give the player a Stamina counter? This could represent that he did that particular action "perfectly" or "effortlessly"... you know how some athelets make things look so easy?
I like the "spend a stamina point to get an extra die, use best of the two dice" mechanic. Very much. Can you spend 2 stamina points to roll a third die and takle the best of the three? I would recommend not.
6. Passing the title of "Greatest Player around is interesting. I don't know ifit has significant impact on the game though. It almost seems like it should just be there as an indicator for reference, giving a very marginal advantage to a player only when absolutely necessary (like the second tiebreaker for example). Further, in "match play" the player who won the last game could be made the Greatest Player in the next game... of course with teams of two that might not work out.
7. Greatest Player getting extra Stamina all the time: I think that's suspect. Is it really necessary? It gives people an additional reason to be successful in an action, but they should already want to succeed in their actions, shouldn't they? Also, it gives incentive to go last (play a slow card to do an action after everyone else has gone and thereby become the Greatest Player). That might be good or it might be bad.
8. You say turn order is Clockwise... but everyone has these Speed Values on theior cards- why not have turn order be in Speed order? Fastest first, then second fastest, then third...
9. For the SHOOT/PASS action, do the 2 spaces have to be in a straight line?
10. Details of actions... I know you said you are still working on this. I wonder what the cost is to do these, and what the cards might look like. Which are "difficult actions" requiring a roll? What does it cost you to attack an opponent and strip 2 Stamina counters from him?
11. Actions as Static Actions. You might want to consider making a "menu" of actions that are simply available each turn (in addition to card actions). I like that the cards determine play order, but it seeems like no matter what you want to do, you should be able to move at least 1 space, and almost anything you do should cost at least 1 Stamina. Perhaps you could use the Stamina as an "action point" commodity, which replenishes as you describe (a little bit each turn). So moving 1 space costs 1 Stamina. Moving another space would cost another. Or if you want to make it tough to move around the board, you could say the 1st move costs 1, second costs 2, etc. so that moving 3 spaces in one turn would cost a total of 6 stamina- something only the Greatest Player could accomplish, and then only if he does nothing else.
Cards could then either offer special actions, or perhaps modifiers on actions. I am using a similar thing in my Flatball game where the actions are the same every turn, but Ation Cards offer either actions that wouldn't normally be allowed, or bonuses to actions you can always do. In my game I'm thinking only 3 cards in hand at a time, drawn randomly such that the opponent doesn't know what you'll do. I might take a que from you tho and incorporate the speed/stamina thing in my game. Take a look at my Flatball game journal to see if any of it gives you any ideas for your game.
- Seth
I
Nice fast paced concept, ludicrous theme and a couple of original mechanics. What more could you ask for? :)
I like Seth's suggestion for the Speed on the back of the card but would cause trouble if cards were dealt at random. However, it might add a nice twist if the "drafting" stage were done face-down too - so that you could see only the Speed value of the card you were taking, rather than the whole card.
Another alternative is to have a large cardpool and let people build their own decks with a maximum Speed point total allowed. For instance, allow people a deck of 30 cards which has to last the entire game (including overtime).
Can I also suggest that since it is a four-player game, the teams should change at the end of each tier (I assume this means something like "round" or "period".) Since there are three tiers, that lets everyone be paired with everyone else:
Tier 1 : A+B vs C+D
Tier 2 : A+C vs B+D
Tier 3 : A+D vs B+C
I think that this will also help reduce the likelihood of ties. And if overtime is needed, then it'll be every man for himself... (which may require special rules but hey, it's overtime!) But it would also introduce a little level of strategy as you would have to watch what options your future potential teammates are showing they have available, as well as what your current teammates (and future opponents!) may have. And think of the fun during the discussion phase as you lie about what you've got... ;)
For a one-off game I agree- switching teamates and playing for the highest individual score is a good idea. The question becomes, how do you get individual points? Completing a pass? Makeing a successful "shot"?
Regarding die rolls... I understand why people on this board think lowly of them. What I don't fully understand is the accross-the-board full-on hatred of them in every game, ever. Why does every game need to be germanized? Don't Germans have Dice? In particular in a sports game there are actions that you want to do which should only be successful sometimes, and by that I don't mean "they should only succeed if you budgeted enough action points," but rather "You made the best decision you could, and tried what you wanted to try, and this time it just didn't work out." That's what sports are all about- otherwise why challenge the best tennis player alive, you'd never, ever beat them.
So I think the die roll is called for, and it seems unanimous (well, 2 out of 2 people who mentioned it) that spending Stamina to "try harder" is brilliant. Like I said before, I'd limit that to 1 additional die per try, maybe even per turn (like if you do that on your Pass roll, you can't also do that on your um... some other roll). After all, you can only try so hard.
Here's an idea I had, inspired by your thoughts, for Flatball. Maybe it could be useful here... although it's really for controlling more than 1 dude at a time so maybe it won't help your game as is.
Players have a card for each of their characters (so in Flatball there'd be teams of 5, so 5 cards). Each round they secretly put the cards in an order, then during play the top car is revealed- that's the player who will act. The quicker player goes first (determined via character stat, Stamina, or whatever... maybe have the Character card as well as an Action card? I dont like that too much, but it could work). Then the opposing player. Then you flip the next card and do it again.
A related idea would be to instead do an Initiative system, like D&D, where you have players' actions going at a certain initiative, start y calling Initiative 1, and increment until everyone has gone. So if you go on 4 and I go on 5 then you will act before me.
- Seth
Hi hpox...
I'm rushing to work, so I'm afraid I have to keep my initial comments relatively short...
1) I love the idea of futuristic sports, and I have a couple of game ideas in development in that theme. So to me, the theme is a winner.
2) I don't think you need the real-time element of card playing. Simply have players put the card they are playing face-down; when all four have put their card down, flip them over. The highest speed can then go first.
3) If you don't mind, I'd like to propose a couple of minor nomenclature changes. I'm afraid these will have an American slant to them, so if you're European or aiming for that market, this might not be that much of a help. Anyway...
Tier = Period. Games of ice hockey are composed of three periods, with a fourth overtime period in case of a tie.
Greatest Player = MVP. Or SuperStar.
4) Be sure to distinguish the fictional players on the board from the real players of the game. Perhaps you can call the latter "coaches."
5) I'm not sure about the proposal to have coaches switch sides every period. It would put an interesting twist to partnerships, but I don't think it fits the theme. Then again, in TransAmerica, the United States railway system is built six or seven times, so what do I know? :)
That's all I have time for now... hope this helps...
As, as usual, we all think the same really - we don't have a hatred of dice, per se, merely a questioning of when they are appropriate and when not. In a fast-paced game, taking time out for lots of dice rolling seems out of place, but a little rolling would be perfect.
Thank you for reading and the comments.
My initial reactions as I read...
1. Why does the "Greatest Player" (which is a fancy name for a randomly dertermined Starting Player" get an extra Stamina token? This mightnot matter, I don't know exactly what they're for... I guess I'll keep reading.
The greatest player mechanic is intended as an easy tie-breaker and also a way to spice up the game. Players will get the greatest player status by being the last to perform a successful difficult action. It's just an edge thing. Also, the name is supposed to be funny, tongue in cheek :)
2. Interesting mechanic for the initial draw of cards. Is this to try and minimize the "luck of the draw" effect? I would think it would take some of the suprise out of it... but then again knowing what your opponent might do could add some strategy... but with 4 players and 10 cards it would be tough to remember who picked what. If you want it to add strategy then I recommend fewer cards in hand. If you don't care about that, then I recommend just dealing cards to each player. It's faster and if the cards are reasonably balanced then it should be plenty fair.
Yes, it is to eliminate the "luck of the draw" effect because the cards will not be balanced. There will be cards that are clearly superior. Also, some cards will be better for a certain person or in a certain situation (if you or maybe your partner have the right cards to go with it).
I thought a game with unbalanced cards could be fun if you get to "draft" at the beginning. Obviously the 3 random cards are to re-insert some "luck of the draw" effect. I want it to be a light but engaging (exciting) game.
3. Another note on that... some of he actions could be static- as in always available- as opposed to on the cards, if you're worried about people not being able to do what they want.
That is a good suggestion and I had considered having 1 free MOVE action each turn. But doesn't it add one more thing to think about ? Whereas, if it's on the card, you can do it. I'll have to think about it.
4. A note on the cards. So that there's no question s to who goes first, the speed could be printed on one side of the back of the card... that section could read like this:
Each round, each player chooses a card in their hand to play. Put your chosen card face down in front of you, covering the speed value with your hand. When all but one player has a card in front of them, the last player has 5 seconds to play his card or he forfeits his turn (and must discard a card). Until that 5-count begins players are free to pick their card back up and play a different one, but once the count has begun the chosen card is locked in.
What I wanted to do with the five seconds thing was to push the gameplay as fast as possible. The players don't have a lot of time to think about what they are going to do. (like in a real-life situation) I would like the players to be focusing on quick play and just go with their instincts. They don't know what the others will play (they do have an idea though).
They all go : 1,2,3!,4!! 5!!!.
Player A, C & D put their cards down : 3/5/1
Player B put his card late : Errh Two. Awww crap!
I want it to be chaotic like that (everyone shooting at the same time is fine in my book) because it will add (hopefully) to the "atmosphere". The players can then clarify what they said if they didn't hear.
Once ever player has played (or discarded) a card, reveal the speed values of the cards (without revealing the front of the card). Turn Order is determined by the Speed Value of the cards played. Whoever played the card with the highest speed value will play first. In the case of a tie, the tied player with the most stamina counters will play first. If the tied players have equal stamina counters, the player closest to the Greatest Player will play first.
In the case of a second tie, it is not the player closest to the Greatest player, but the Greatest player himself. He is that great! :) That's one of the edge I was talking about. My reasoning was, if you know your partner will play his very powerful slow card and he is the Greatest player, you will try to play a high speed and hope that it gets tied to give him the start.
5. Rewarding doubles. I don't think that's really necessary. If you want to reward it though, rather than an additional (free!) action, why not give the player a Stamina counter? This could represent that he did that particular action "perfectly" or "effortlessly"... you know how some athelets make things look so easy?
Wow, that's perfect! The free action was flimsy. At first it was "do that action again" but I thought what if he SHOOT? He can't shoot the ball again, he just shot it!
So the player get the stamina token he just spent back. Great! It's not as powerful as a free action, it's just right.
I like the "spend a stamina point to get an extra die, use best of the two dice" mechanic. Very much. Can you spend 2 stamina points to roll a third die and takle the best of the three? I would recommend not.
Thank you, I like it too because it's easy and straightfoward. You can't spend 2 tokens, just one.
6. Passing the title of "Greatest Player around is interesting. I don't know ifit has significant impact on the game though. It almost seems like it should just be there as an indicator for reference, giving a very marginal advantage to a player only when absolutely necessary (like the second tiebreaker for example). Further, in "match play" the player who won the last game could be made the Greatest Player in the next game... of course with teams of two that might not work out.
Again, it's just an edge. Everyone will want to be the greatest player at the end of the 10 rounds because he will get 1 stamina token more for the next Tier/Period. But maybe, someone will actually want to go first instead of last to score or block someone.
7. Greatest Player getting extra Stamina all the time: I think that's suspect. Is it really necessary? It gives people an additional reason to be successful in an action, but they should already want to succeed in their actions, shouldn't they? Also, it gives incentive to go last (play a slow card to do an action after everyone else has gone and thereby become the Greatest Player). That might be good or it might be bad.
Oops, kind of explained that above. But your intuitions were good.
8. You say turn order is Clockwise... but everyone has these Speed Values on theior cards- why not have turn order be in Speed order? Fastest first, then second fastest, then third...
I want the play to go like this : TEAM A - TEAM B - TEAM A - TEAM B. Players of the same team will never play one after another. I don't know if it is necessary though.
9. For the SHOOT/PASS action, do the 2 spaces have to be in a straight line?
No, I didn't spot any quirky places where it would seem unnatural to shoot from "here" to "there". 3 spaces doesn't work though unless the ball can be controlled like a frisbee...!
10. Details of actions... I know you said you are still working on this. I wonder what the cost is to do these, and what the cards might look like. Which are "difficult actions" requiring a roll? What does it cost you to attack an opponent and strip 2 Stamina counters from him?
It's a shame I wasn't able to finish it on time because that's the most interesting part. First of all there is never any cost to do an action. It only cost you a stamina if you want to make sure (not 100%) you succeed that action. That's where the "budgeting" take place.
The number beside the action is the difficulty. Let's whip up some imaginary cards. Let's say the speed rating will be 1 to 7.
Cheap fast card that doesn't let you do much but you are pretty much guaranteed to do it first.
MOVE
JUMP (1)
7
Exceptional card. Use that to move when you have the ball. Because it's slow, be extra careful not to get the ball stolen before it's your turn.
MOVE
MOVE
MOVE
MOVE (3)
2
Normal/Good attack card
MOVE
MOVE
KICK (3)
4
Very nice card, pretty fast. Most cards won't have 2 difficulty rolls. Usually none or 1.
MOVE
JUMP (2)
SHOOT (4)
5
Would this be a good card? You are pretty sure to score if you are within 3 zones of the columns. But it is very slow...
MOVE
SHOOT
1
Something I had not yet noticed is how many different possibilities there are. It's endless. I think coupled with the draft phase (to self-balance the cards, hehe less work :roll: ), this opens up a lot of customization options. :D
11. Actions as Static Actions. You might want to consider making a "menu" of actions that are simply available each turn (in addition to card actions). I like that the cards determine play order, but it seeems like no matter what you want to do, you should be able to move at least 1 space, and almost anything you do should cost at least 1 Stamina. Perhaps you could use the Stamina as an "action point" commodity, which replenishes as you describe (a little bit each turn). So moving 1 space costs 1 Stamina. Moving another space would cost another. Or if you want to make it tough to move around the board, you could say the 1st move costs 1, second costs 2, etc. so that moving 3 spaces in one turn would cost a total of 6 stamina- something only the Greatest Player could accomplish, and then only if he does nothing else.
Good suggestions, but sincerely the aim of this game is to be more fast and light than strategic. I want to avoid the analysis paralysis as much as possible and get on with the ball tossing and kicking in the head.
My rules are not very clear on this point and wrongly formatted which is what cause the confusion. You do not replenish stamina after each round. You will have to play 10 times using only your 5 tokens. In effect, you replenish 2 tokens after a Tier(Period), and only two times per Match(Game). After Tier 1 and 2. Maybe Tier 3 if there is overtime.
Cards could then either offer special actions, or perhaps modifiers on actions. I am using a similar thing in my Flatball game where the actions are the same every turn, but Ation Cards offer either actions that wouldn't normally be allowed, or bonuses to actions you can always do. In my game I'm thinking only 3 cards in hand at a time, drawn randomly such that the opponent doesn't know what you'll do. I might take a que from you tho and incorporate the speed/stamina thing in my game. Take a look at my Flatball game journal to see if any of it gives you any ideas for your game.
Will do once I catch up with all the replies here. Special actions could spice up the game, I'll have to see.
- Seth
Thank you Seth!
As, as usual, we all think the same really - we don't have a hatred of dice, per se, merely a questioning of when they are appropriate and when not. In a fast-paced game, taking time out for lots of dice rolling seems out of place, but a little rolling would be perfect.
I will reply to everyone, but this small post catched my eyes.
Yes this is what I was going for. Very little rolling. Never have to roll more than twice during a turn. Nearly all of the time it will be no roll or one! With just one die.
Oops, took more time off my lunch hour than I thought. I'll check back tonight. Thank you everyone for reading and giving out your comments!
But the crux of the matter here, to me, is that you have a fast-paced game that you're trying to simulate. If you have a card in front of you that allows you to take 4 actions, and you have to roll a die for each one, that could potentially bog the game down.
As I read it in hpox' rules, not all actions require a roll. Also, part of having the roll is that it makes a decision for you. "I would like to do X, and I have a decent chance to succeed. I'll try it *roll*" can be faster than "Gee I dunno, I'd like to do X, but then if I DO then I won't have the resources left to do Y. And if I don't then I can do Y, but later Z will not be available... Let me balance the relative value of the option to do Z later, with the importance of doing Y now... and I have to figure in how X really advances my strategy enough to do it..."
And the important effect here must be identified -- is it "some actions are harder than others" or "some actions will succeed, some won't, and it's a crap shoot which is which?" Die rolling can produce the latter effect, but there are other ways that die rolling to produce the former, and maybe there's a different way to do it.
Die rolling != Crap Shoot. It's not that some actions are harder than others... it's that some actions are hard. If you shoot 6 free throws, and you make 5 of them. And you do that a bunch of times, makeing all 6 sometimes and only 4 sometimes, would you say you have a 5 in 6 chance to make a free throw? If you had to guess how many you would average over the next ten sets of 6 free throws, would you guess that you would make 50? Wouldn't rolling a d6 and calling a 1 a miss and anything else a success model this particular event rather well? Or is that a crap shoot? Was it a crap shoot a second ago when the round, orange ball was in your hand one second and then either going into or bouncing off of the hoop the next second?
That's not intended to be an attack or anything, I just wanted to point out how the mechanic tends to work in a sports game. A lot of real sports are nothing but a collection of statistics anyway- like Baseball. Dice are a perfect way to implement sports dynamics in a board game- there are a lot of variables and you play the numbers. Ask any coach.
Maybe, for example, each player has a set of "exception" cards, such that if I try to steal the ball from you, maybe you drop a "Deft Maneuver" card that lets you escape the steal. It's the same result as if you missed a die roll, but now it cost you something, thus forcing a decision.
Forcing a decision for the guy who's turn it isn't. Not that this is bad- you are trying to steal the ball from me, do I care to try and stop you? Presumably the answer is a categorical "yes," though maybe strategically (or due to "luck of the draw") I cannot or am not interested in stopping you. I'll just let you have the ball because I don't have or don't want to spend my "Deft maneuver" card...
So, I guess my main objection to dice is that when used well, they can be very nice, but often, they are a cop out when a cleaner, more elegant way of producing an effect is available.
I'm not convinced that adding a class of cards is more elegant than rolling dice. I am also not convinced that using dice is a cop out. you're not really a Magic player, but would playing Necro during Black Summer have been a cop out? Is playing Blue in general (up until recently) for countermagic a cop out? In Basketball, is having the tallest guy on the court stand under the basket and passing him the ball a cop out?
And in practice, I think a d6 is a horrible instrument, because there is so much variability. Better, I think, is a 2d6 where you can start to talk about a probability curve, and make decisions accordingly.
If you're betting on the number that will come up, or investing somehow in a number or range of numbers (like you do in settlers) then I agree. For a single die roll representing a 1-in-3 chance of success, a d6 is fine.
So, I don't have an across the board hatred of die rolling, but I do think it's a crutch that a good designer need not lean on; however, when used well, they can really reproduce certain effects nicely.
So which is it? A crutch, or an effective tool? I suppose when you get down to it, a crutch IS an effective tool. I have used crutches when injury has kept me from walking and they worked out all right.
- Seth
So to sum up the points regarding the game- I still think a die roll is appropriate for this kind of game, depending of course on the action. I don't think you need to roll a die to see if you successfully navigate the board to the next square for example, but to throw a check, or take a shot, the die roll is fine, and considering your mechanic for 'trying harder' I think it's perfect.
Also, I think playing cards to thwart other people's plans would not fit into the game as hpox has it. There's already a set number of cards, 1 per round, and it would be cumbersome to add a whole new set or re-vamp this set to accomodate playing cards on other players turns.
Nice fast paced concept, ludicrous theme and a couple of original mechanics. What more could you ask for? :)
Thanks for reading and the kind words :)
Another alternative is to have a large cardpool and let people build their own decks with a maximum Speed point total allowed. For instance, allow people a deck of 30 cards which has to last the entire game (including overtime).
That's a great idea. A deck building element could add a lot to the game to experienced players. It would not be based on speed value though because higher doesn't always mean better. Balance points could be assigned to the cards (a small print) once playtested enough.
Can I also suggest that since it is a four-player game, the teams should change at the end of each tier (I assume this means something like "round" or "period".) Since there are three tiers, that lets everyone be paired with everyone else:
Tier 1 : A+B vs C+D
Tier 2 : A+C vs B+D
Tier 3 : A+D vs B+C
I agree this is a cool concept and it fits well with the 3 periods and 4 players. I'm not sure it fit with the theme or the flow of the game though. It is supposed to be TEAM versus TEAM for the entire match (3 periods). The players are supposed to cooperate to score points as a team, I'm having a hard time figuring how could the points be distributed to individual players. Players will never pass the ball because that would give points to another player. I'll think about it.
I think that this will also help reduce the likelihood of ties. And if overtime is needed, then it'll be every man for himself... (which may require special rules but hey, it's overtime!) But it would also introduce a little level of strategy as you would have to watch what options your future potential teammates are showing they have available, as well as what your current teammates (and future opponents!) may have. And think of the fun during the discussion phase as you lie about what you've got... ;)
Again, I like this without a doubt but i'm not sure it fits. Thanks for the ideas though.
The game sounds fun, although a bit light, clearly your intent.
Yes indeed, I want it to be light but not random. I want it to be fast. Thanks for taking the time.
I think the "greatest player" thing is unclear; is there something to this role other than that the player is the "start player"? If not, why not just call him the "start player"? That eliminates confusion...
It is unclear in the rules because of the way it is introduced. The greatest player is supposed to be a temporary edge, it's also an (simple/elegant?) tie-breaker.
Your rulebook could benefit from an overview. I'm still rather confused what the objective of the game is. I understand that it's a sport, and I got that there's a turn action where you "shoot", but I don't see anywhere that says how many points you can get for shooting, or what you're shooting at, etc. I don't have a clear sense for what this sport is all about. I don't think you need a silly "backstory" like "The year is 2035 AD. A new sport has emerged....blah blah blah".
Agreed. It badly need an introduction.
... when you're modeling a sport with a board game, it's easiest if people can envision how the sport "looks" or "plays" in real life. Football board games abstract all sorts of elements of football, yet because people know football, they can make the connection. In your game, you're inventing both the sport and the model of abstraction; if you spelled out the sport more, it might help.
This is a good way to introduce the people to the game and I will try to put the concept in practice for the rewrite.
At one point you said, when describing a "match", "at the end of the match, the team with the most points wins!" This kind of language is useless, because everyone knows that every game is won this way. What you need to provide is some glimpse of how points are going to be obtained, what the object of the sport is. Obviously the object of the game is to score points, but you never make it clear how we do that.
You do a very good job of pointing out where are the weakness in the rules. I'm taking notes, thanks.
However, I don't agree that the winning conditions should be implicit.
I like the card play, comparing speed to determine action order.
Good, I like it too :wink:
I don't like the "threshold roll" effect, although I did like the "pay stamina to increase your chances". What I think would make the game faster and more interesting is an effect where all the actions are balanced, but maybe the die-rolling makes that easier to pull off.
I want to add an uncertainty element for an action on certain cards. Usually the best cards (most actions, fastest and the very good actions) will have a higher element of uncertainty to them. But that element can be controlled by the use of the precious stamina tokens. But one thing is sure is that I want to keep the occasional controlled luck element.
Maybe you could also do it by just having a "pay to act" mechanic, so "move" is free, but "steal" costs 2 stamina, etc. So instead of a "will I make the lucky die roll?" effect, you have a "I must budget my strength wisely" effect. Would save a lot of die rolls and "Germanize" the game a bit without costing any flavor or fun.
The very first iteration of this game (done a while ago) was somewhat like that. You played a Force/Speed card face down and could use thoses virtual points to play other action cards or basic actions (like MOVE). I didn't keep much documentation unfortunately. Here's a compilation of the prototype components : early prototype
All in all, I think the game sounds good, although it's hard to evaluate without knowing the full card mix (and even that would be hard to evaluate without actually playtesting with them).
Totally agree! The playtesting of this one will be very important.
Thank you for your input.
Thank you for reading and the comments.
The greatest player mechanic is intended as an easy tie-breaker and also a way to spice up the game. Players will get the greatest player status by being the last to perform a successful difficult action. It's just an edge thing.
I think this is a roblem area for your game. Perhaps the mechanic- giving someone the edge, and allowing that to hange hands is ok, though I see it as a bit inequitable. I really think the "Superstar" title should only confer a very minimal bonus, and if it changes hands at all it could either be at thebeginning of each "tier" (like a true start player title), or triggered on something other than what it is. (for reasons I mentioned before).
I thought a game with unbalanced cards could be fun if you get to "draft" at the beginning.
I'm with the guy who said 'construct decks from stock of cards.' You'd probably have pre-constructed decks for each team (giving the teams flavor... like Fightball or Brawl has... or maybe like Magic PreConstructed Decks), or like Fight City as well. Then the cards could be combined into a pool to choose from and decks could be built (for slightly more advanced play).
That is a good suggestion and I had considered having 1 free MOVE action each turn. But doesn't it add one more thing to think about ? Whereas, if it's on the card, you can do it. I'll have to think about it.
You could lways just put "MOVE" on each and every card... The static abilities may be decent, but I think you have a point with the "if it's on the card, you can do it. If not, then you can't" thing. One question... MUST you do ALL the actions on the card? What if youhave a card that has MOVE JUMP SHOOT (3) and you want to move and jump, but you don't really feel like shooting or passing the ball... can you use this card and skip the SHOOT action? If so do you need to roll? (I assume the Roll is just for the SHOOT action)
What I wanted to do with the five seconds thing was to push the gameplay as fast as possible. The players don't have a lot of time to think about what they are going to do. (like in a real-life situation) I would like the players to be focusing on quick play and just go with their instincts. They don't know what the others will play (they do have an idea though).
I understand where you're going with that, but I think it can be problematic, and can cause rules arguements. Having more of a structure makes it more enforcable. The suggestion I made was simply a structured version of your idea, only I tried to make it so the players had incentive to play quick. Allowing people to change their card should probably not be allowed after all. Also, I just relised than my suggestion is flawed as well- one team will just sit until they're both ready... so maybe as soon as the FIRST player sets down their card they start counting... and everyone else has to be ready by 5 or miss their turn. How's that sound? It's only a tiny bit more time than five seconds total.
This is a mechanic that I've used for Robo Rally to speed the game along. Since sometimes in that game programming is a pain, the first player ready to go sets the timer and everyone else is then on the clock.
Also, I'd like to re-iterate the Showing of the speed rather than the Telling, especially everyone saying it at the same time And also the turn sequence being speed order instead of clockwise from the fastest- it just makes more sense.
In the case of a second tie, it is not the player closest to the Greatest player, but the Greatest player himself. He is that great! :) That's one of the edge I was talking about. My reasoning was, if you know your partner will play his very powerful slow card and he is the Greatest player, you will try to play a high speed and hope that it gets tied to give him the start.
Personally, I don't like this much at all. I think this is not the kind of planning you want to be doing in your game.
Wow, that's perfect! The free action was flimsy. At first it was "do that action again" but I thought what if he SHOOT? He can't shoot the ball again, he just shot it!
So the player get the stamina token he just spent back. Great! It's not as powerful as a free action, it's just right.
I'm glad you like it. It certainly seems like a better way to reward a roll of doubles. One might argue that doubles shouldnt be rewarded at all, but at least the only way to GET doubles is to spend Stamina, so it's not totally free...
Again, it's just an edge. Everyone will want to be the greatest player at the end of the 10 rounds because he will get 1 stamina token more for the next Tier/Period. But maybe, someone will actually want to go first instead of last to score or block someone.
I want the play to go like this : TEAM A - TEAM B - TEAM A - TEAM B. Players of the same team will never play one after another. I don't know if it is necessary though.
Do you have a specific reason for wanting that turn order? If not, then likely it doesn't matter. I STILL think the speed order makes more sense.
Good suggestions, but sincerely the aim of this game is to be more fast and light than strategic. I want to avoid the analysis paralysis as much as possible and get on with the ball tossing and kicking in the head.
I am with you on this I think. Putting all the actions on the card means the RULES themselves need not concern themselves with what happens in a turn. That's probably good.
My rules are not very clear on this point and wrongly formatted which is what cause the confusion. You do not replenish stamina after each round. You will have to play 10 times using only your 5 tokens. In effect, you replenish 2 tokens after a Tier(Period), and only two times per Match(Game). After Tier 1 and 2. Maybe Tier 3 if there is overtime.
Just a thought... maybe implement a "Time Out" action (maybeo n a card, or as a general rule- 1 per player per tier) where everyone regains 1 or 2 stamina... what do you think?
Thank you Seth!
Again, no problem! :)
Nice concept so far. Sounds like a pretty fun game.
After reading it and the posts, I also have something to say about the Greatest Player. Nice idea, but it seems to get passed around way to often. Perhaps, if it's so important to the game that there be one, have a randomly determined player be the greatest at the beginning. Then at the beginning of the tiers thereafter, the player to get the most points is considered the greatest. He's got all the fans cheering for him, he's got the adrenaline rushing, he's got the most to prove right now.
Right now GP seems to be a momentum thing. Whoever pulled off the last risky maneuver is going strong after it. This is how I view it at least. Does it actually represent anything in the game's world, or is it merely a game mechanic?
Last thing picking on the GP, I promise. The GP gets to hold onto the dice, right? I don't think this works well for a fast paced game. Having the GP dish out dice as needed just slows thing down. The old fashion passing the dice, or slamming them down in front of the next player for intimidation move seems to hurry things along. My turn, my dice philosophy.
The next concern comes with the playing of cards and speed. White Wolf did an RPG/Tabletop fighting game for Street Fighter. You made up cards for your moves, and in theory, were supposed to decide and play one at the same time as your opponent. Never quite worked... However the speed on the back of the card idea sounds like a good way to work it.
One last thing I was thinking about is the time it takes to play. It should be relatively short. Maybe 10 minutes for a game if all goes smoothly. Perhaps rules for seasons or tournaments are in order? For when you want a longer series of games, or there are more than 4 players.
So those are just a few thoughts I hope you might ponder and find useful.
-Z
One of the hazards of having lots of people posting is that replies sometimes come a long way after the original comment :)
However...
Quote:
Can I also suggest that since it is a four-player game, the teams should change at the end of each tier (I assume this means something like "round" or "period".) Since there are three tiers, that lets everyone be paired with everyone else:
Tier 1 : A+B vs C+D
Tier 2 : A+C vs B+D
Tier 3 : A+D vs B+C
I agree this is a cool concept and it fits well with the 3 periods and 4 players. I'm not sure it fit with the theme or the flow of the game though. It is supposed to be TEAM versus TEAM for the entire match (3 periods). The players are supposed to cooperate to score points as a team, I'm having a hard time figuring how could the points be distributed to individual players. Players will never pass the ball because that would give points to another player. I'll think about it.
I quite agree that it doesn't really fit the theme, but then this is a fantasy sport, isn't it? :)
As for the points dilemma - the way around that (assuming individual scoring, rather than team scoring) is to give points to both members of the team (although prehaps split in a skewed fashion) Alternatively, you give points for passing successfully as well as for scoring. The thing is that by rotating the partnerships you ensure that the game isn't just the same for three periods. I realise that part of the intent is to have a learning curve so that the teams get better at predicting what the others can do, but by rotating you still get to keep that element but switching it in a different direction.
I'd also defend it because experience has taught me that most people just
like to have an individual winner - that team-based games struggle when one player claims all the credit for the victory, no matter how misguided that claim might be. Whereas by splitting the scoring and rotating the partnerships you get an individual result.
Quick reply ^
I'm having a hard time figuring how could the points be distributed to individual players. Players will never pass the ball because that would give points to another player. I'll think about it.
I quite agree that it doesn't really fit the theme, but then this is a fantasy sport, isn't it? :)
As for the points dilemma - the way around that (assuming individual scoring, rather than team scoring) is to give points to both members of the team (although prehaps split in a skewed fashion)`
You know what? I had not even thought of that! I like it very much, thanks!
The thing is that by rotating the partnerships you ensure that the game isn't just the same for three periods. I realise that part of the intent is to have a learning curve so that the teams get better at predicting what the others can do, but by rotating you still get to keep that element but switching it in a different direction.
Agreed.
I'd also defend it because experience has taught me that most people just
like to have an individual winner - that team-based games struggle when one player claims all the credit for the victory, no matter how misguided that claim might be. Whereas by splitting the scoring and rotating the partnerships you get an individual result.
I'm sold.
Here's an idea I had, inspired by your thoughts, for Flatball. Maybe it could be useful here... although it's really for controlling more than 1 dude at a time so maybe it won't help your game as is.
Players have a card for each of their characters (so in Flatball there'd be teams of 5, so 5 cards). Each round they secretly put the cards in an order, then during play the top car is revealed- that's the player who will act. The quicker player goes first (determined via character stat, Stamina, or whatever... maybe have the Character card as well as an Action card? I dont like that too much, but it could work). Then the opposing player. Then you flip the next card and do it again.
I think it's a good idea. I read your Flatball journal but was a bit confused since I never played BB and you kept referencing it. I don't know if it could work for Flatball but just as a stand alone mechanic it has its merit. Having the control over the order of WHO instead of the usual "WHAT EACH DO THEN RESOLVE" we see in "hidden commands"/simultaneous games.
Is there a game based on the secret choice of The WHY? That could be fun! Oh, I'm derailing my own discussion :roll:
A related idea would be to instead do an Initiative system, like D&D, where you have players' actions going at a certain initiative, start y calling Initiative 1, and increment until everyone has gone. So if you go on 4 and I go on 5 then you will act before me.
Do you mean each individual action having different time to act ? I like it, one problem would be that all players have to reveal their card and because of the revealed informations it could turn into analysis-paralysis (we really need another name for that!)
I'm rushing to work, so I'm afraid I have to keep my initial comments relatively short...^
That's cool. Thanks for taking a look.
1) I love the idea of futuristic sports, and I have a couple of game ideas in development in that theme. So to me, the theme is a winner.
Alright! Yeah there seems to be something quite fascinating about the evolution of sports in the far future.
2) I don't think you need the real-time element of card playing. Simply have players put the card they are playing face-down; when all four have put their card down, flip them over. The highest speed can then go first.
I'm starting to think you are right, there's no real need for a real-time element. One thing though, is if you flip all the cards over, then players know exactly the order and what each player can do. I don't want that.
3) If you don't mind, I'd like to propose a couple of minor nomenclature changes. I'm afraid these will have an American slant to them, so if you're European or aiming for that market, this might not be that much of a help. Anyway...
Tier = Period. Games of ice hockey are composed of three periods, with a fourth overtime period in case of a tie.
Thanks. Period is much better than tier, maybe you noticed I started using it as soon as I read your post but had not replied yet. :)
4) Be sure to distinguish the fictional players on the board from the real players of the game. Perhaps you can call the latter "coaches."
That's something I must do. I see the huge flaws in the rules with my current way of interchanging the terms. Coaches wouldn't work though because the players are really the players. :D Maybe a made-up term for the player on the field could work since it's a invented future sport.
That's all I have time for now... hope this helps...
Yes it does. Thanks for your time.
Nice concept so far. Sounds like a pretty fun game.
Thanks!
After reading it and the posts, I also have something to say about the Greatest Player. Nice idea, but it seems to get passed around way to often. Perhaps, if it's so important to the game that there be one, have a randomly determined player be the greatest at the beginning. Then at the beginning of the tiers thereafter, the player to get the most points is considered the greatest. He's got all the fans cheering for him, he's got the adrenaline rushing, he's got the most to prove right now.
That makes sense thematically and logically. I'm leaning toward the exclusion of the Greatest Player more and more.
Right now GP seems to be a momentum thing. Whoever pulled off the last risky maneuver is going strong after it. This is how I view it at least. Does it actually represent anything in the game's world, or is it merely a game mechanic?
Sadly, a game mechanic. But you got it exactly right. That's how I was envisionning the GP.
Last thing picking on the GP, I promise. The GP gets to hold onto the dice, right? I don't think this works well for a fast paced game. Having the GP dish out dice as needed just slows thing down. The old fashion passing the dice, or slamming them down in front of the next player for intimidation move seems to hurry things along. My turn, my dice philosophy.
You are right with the holding of the dice and I must say I like this intimidation thing. I'll tell you an idea I had when I first made the draft of this game : (There was no dice) You had to play your turn in 10 seconds because the player to your right (an opponnent) was counting down from 10. If you didn't play in time you lost your turn. How does that sounds as far as intimidation? :) Don't count so fast you dumbass! *PUNCH*
The next concern comes with the playing of cards and speed. White Wolf did an RPG/Tabletop fighting game for Street Fighter. You made up cards for your moves, and in theory, were supposed to decide and play one at the same time as your opponent. Never quite worked... However the speed on the back of the card idea sounds like a good way to work it.
Yes, I hate ambigous games like that. It must always be clear.
One last thing I was thinking about is the time it takes to play. It should be relatively short. Maybe 10 minutes for a game if all goes smoothly. Perhaps rules for seasons or tournaments are in order? For when you want a longer series of games, or there are more than 4 players.
I think 10 minutes is a little short. I was estimating 10 minutes per period (wishful thinking). Since there's 10 rounds, that means 15 seconds per turn without counting the choosing cards time. Less rounds maybe?
So those are just a few thoughts I hope you might ponder and find useful.
-Z
Very useful, much thanks.
You had to play your turn in 10 seconds because the player to your right (an opponnent) was counting down from 10. If you didn't play in time you lost your turn. How does that sounds as far as intimidation?
In Ultimate, the stall count is sorta like that. If I'm marking you and you have the disc, then I count out loud to ten. If I say "ten" before you throw, it's a turnover.
Yes, I hate ambigous games like that. It must always be clear.
I think 10 minutes is a little short. I was estimating 10 minutes per period (wishful thinking). Since there's 10 rounds, that means 15 seconds per turn without counting the choosing cards time. Less rounds maybe?
I don't think 15 seconds is unreasonable for a fast paced game, but maybe the stock rule should be more like 30 seconds (even a minute?) per turn. If you have 5 cards and 30 seconds per turn, then you're at 10 minutes per period. Players can adjust game length by altering the number of cards per period, or he number of periods in the game, or simply the allowed time per turn.
Finally, you could try not imposing a time limit on turns and just assume an average turn length (based on playtesting) and adjust the amount of cards per turn to make the game take the 1/2 hr or whatever you want.
Fuck it- roll a die each period and have that be the number of "turns" for that period.
- Seth
P.S. That last bit was a joke. ;)
In Ultimate, the stall count is sorta like that. If I'm marking you and you have the disc, then I count out loud to ten. If I say "ten" before you throw, it's a turnover.
Cool. Do you think that would work well in a game? Based on that(below) which is something I said myself : Nope. :(
Yes, I hate ambigous games like that. It must always be clear.
I very much agree... this means you have to do away with one or two of your original rules... like the "five seconds to play" thing, and the calling out the speed thing.
Well.. yes, I'm beginning to like the Speed on the back of the card idea. Players must show their hands? So everyone knows what the speed on the cards players are holding are?
Finally, you could try not imposing a time limit on turns and just assume an average turn length (based on playtesting) and adjust the amount of cards per turn to make the game take the 1/2 hr or whatever you want.
We'll see that in the playtesting.
Thank you.
 | Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (7) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (11) by larienna |
 | Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
| Toy play: Creating a log while playing (15) by questccg |
| New Contest at The Game Crafter - "That Cool Stock Part Challenge" (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Will....this die roll work? (11) by X3M |
Hpox,
A few general remarks...
First, thank you for producing a simple, text-only rulebook. I think you're showing all of us that expending a lot of effort to make our rulebooks "pretty" is really not necessary; a simple html ruleset that is organized and written well is just as good, and in some cases, better than the "chrome-heavy" version.
The game sounds fun, although a bit light, clearly your intent.
I think the "greatest player" thing is unclear; is there something to this role other than that the player is the "start player"? If not, why not just call him the "start player"? That eliminates confusion...
Your rulebook could benefit from an overview. I'm still rather confused what the objective of the game is. I understand that it's a sport, and I got that there's a turn action where you "shoot", but I don't see anywhere that says how many points you can get for shooting, or what you're shooting at, etc. I don't have a clear sense for what this sport is all about. I don't think you need a silly "backstory" like "The year is 2035 AD. A new sport has emerged....blah blah blah". Don't waste everyone's time with that, but when you're modeling a sport with a board game, it's easiest if people can envision how the sport "looks" or "plays" in real life. Football board games abstract all sorts of elements of football, yet because people know football, they can make the connection. In your game, you're inventing both the sport and the model of abstraction; if you spelled out the sport more, it might help.
At one point you said, when describing a "match", "at the end of the match, the team with the most points wins!" This kind of language is useless, because everyone knows that every game is won this way. What you need to provide is some glimpse of how points are going to be obtained, what the object of the sport is. Obviously the object of the game is to score points, but you never make it clear how we do that.
I like the card play, comparing speed to determine action order. I don't like the "threshold roll" effect, although I did like the "pay stamina to increase your chances". What I think would make the game faster and more interesting is an effect where all the actions are balanced, but maybe the die-rolling makes that easier to pull off. Maybe you could also do it by just having a "pay to act" mechanic, so "move" is free, but "steal" costs 2 stamina, etc. So instead of a "will I make the lucky die roll?" effect, you have a "I must budget my strength wisely" effect. Would save a lot of die rolls and "Germanize" the game a bit without costing any flavor or fun.
I liked Scurra's idea; if the game is for exactly four players and there are exactly 3 tiers, each of which is exactly the same, it's a terrific idea to have players switch teams each tier and play for maximal individual score. It removes some of the "tournament" potential of the game, but from a self-contained, single play game standpoint, I think it's a unique idea that would set your game apart.
All in all, I think the game sounds good, although it's hard to evaluate without knowing the full card mix (and even that would be hard to evaluate without actually playtesting with them).
Good show!
-Jeff