Skip to Content
 

Making turn based strategy video games feel like board games

17 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

Ok, this might look like a weird post, but I want to write an article about this subject and I want to know if I am missing something.

I intend in the near future to focus more on turn based strategy video games it order to get less restrictions than board games. But that comes at the cost of possibly less elegant design or getting common issues TBS VG has.

Considering I want an hybrid between both style, I want to setup a list of rules or guide lines to follow to make sure that the game retains a board game feel while being capable of breaking the laws of reality (like space and time restrictions)

I came up with a list of guide lines and I want to know If I am missing anything. It's basically a list of stuff to check out to avoid common issues found in TBS VG.


1. Keep the number of turns low: Many games have long diluted times, it could take like 20 turns to make a building (Imagine Puerto Rico like that). The goal is to keep the number of turns small, allow players to do a lot in a turn. Execute stuff immediately which prevent remembering what you intended to do 10 turns ago.

2. Replace most variables with constants: Games has many variables that changes for various reason and it sometimes hard to remember and analyze. Board games use mostly constant data, since printed information remains as it is on the components. This could be simulated by using more constants.

3. Reduced data: One of the advantage of a video game is to hold more data. But sometimes too much is like not enough. Avoiding duplicate data, combining data, abstracting data could make the game more elegant which is sometimes more fun than realism.

4. Reduced value ranges: Use smaller value ranges and make them meaningful. Instead of giving a movement of 32 points to a unit, give it a movement of 6 points. Percentages are acceptable, as long as the maximum remains 100% (Not like a game I saw where 100000% was common, so it defies the concept of percentage). Lower values also makes it more convenient for comparing with dice rolls.

5. Mechanic visibility: See how the mechanics behave behind the game to allow the player to anticipate the results of dice rolls, or make other computations by himself when planning strategy. Showing rolled dice on the screen is an example. Showing the current steps of the game rules beign executed is another.

6. Actions instead of adjustments: Allow players to take actions that modifies the game once and for all instead of adjusting sliders and other values. The goal is to place the player in a dilemma of decision making with positive and negative consequences instead of just finding the point of balance on a slider.

7. Avoid micro modifiers: Make modifiers and special abilities do something meaningful. Not like you gain +5% on damage in that specific situation. Forcing you to stack tons of modifiers which end up in micromanagement with the impact of each mod to be meaningless by itself.

8. Avoid Modifiers multiplication: Like getting the 20% of the 10% of the 30 % of the 10 damage points. Stack bonus if you want, but don't multiply them.

9. Faster games: It's Ok for video games to take more time than board games, since it's easier to devote more time when playing solo with a VG. But it should not take 100 hours to finish a game, since most of the time, you want the game to be replayable.


That's all I have so far, if you have anything else, let me know.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Multiplayer vs. solo play

larienna wrote:
...But it should not take 100 hours to finish a game, since most of the time, you want the game to be replayable.

On this last point... I have never "replayed" a game unless it had multiple "races/parties" to play (think Starcraft). But pure adventure games like "King's Quest" or racing games like "Need for Speed" or 3D games like "GTA" or "Quake 3"... I only played them to finish them and did not replay those game again.

Sure if the game is Multiplayer - well then that ADDS to replayability and then the odds are that I played the game many, many times (think Quake 3 and Starcraft).

But NOT solo games. 100 hours of solo gaming with a good story is cool! And if it is not Multiplayer - forget replayability and have a good story to keep the player immersed in the game. Think Fallout 1 & 2, Turn-Based Strategy.

The other aspect is diversity of "roles" or multiple paths to victory.

If your game features a character and the type of character varies how you play the game... Well that ADDS replayability - because you may want to TRY one of the other roles and see how the story is different using another character class (for example).

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Love "Final Fantasy"

larienna wrote:
7. Avoid micro modifiers: Make modifiers and special abilities do something meaningful. Not like you gain +5% on damage in that specific situation. Forcing you to stack tons of modifiers which end up in micromanagement with the impact of each mod to be meaningless by itself.

Actually if the game is like "Final Fantasy" where you collect crystals to boost your attack power and enemies leave these as treasures but they only give a small amount of modifier...

Well ...

I'm all-in!!! So what if they're small... It amazing to play a game that has such a broad way of deciding Turn-Based Combat with all kinds of crazy modifiers that all stack together - to make you more powerful that just your basic self.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
X-COM (2)

But I suppose you want smaller more meaningful numbers.
It is the one video game that I think is like a board game. But needs the video environment.

+5% damage is indeed weird. It should be something along the lines of +5% accuracy. Accuracy has much more meaning when it comes to either miss or hit.
But 5% is indeed very low. My minimum "differences" are always 10%. And I only allow it 1 or 2 times.

I think, that using only numbers in the single digits would fit it all.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Check out Fire Emblem

Watch this video, it shows you Tactical RPG "Turn-Based" with separate Combat view (again Turn-based):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvupmEk1peE

This is an awesome Franchise...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:100 hours of solo

Quote:
100 hours of solo gaming with a good story is cool!

That is what I want to avoid, I want to have sorter game play, but repeatable. Rather that 1 huge gameplay session. More suitable for the "Play and forget" play style, and similar to board games.

I also don't want story based games, I want story machines games, which means games that creates unique stories through gameplay.

Quote:
But 5% is indeed very low. My minimum "differences" are always 10%. And I only allow it 1 or 2 times.

Sometimes in XCOM, the modifiers only applies in specific situation.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
SUB-STORIES

larienna wrote:
...I also don't want story based games, I want story machines games, which means games that creates unique stories through gameplay.

So what you are trying to do is World-Of-Warcraft?! Where there are mini-quests and you have to fight bosses. Finding items can help you defeat the bosses, getting better equipment (armor, weapons, etc.) can make you harder to defeat...

Even XCOM had a STORY.

No story = ATARI GAMES. Yeah they were FUN - but not anymore.

Maybe you can have SUB-STORIES: like smaller missions that allow you to do mini-quests - but some of them are for the mission...

That might be a good compromise! Cheers.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
"story based"

I believe she is not referring to theme or backstory or setting - she is referring to gameplay developing what happens rather than traipsing through a predetermined story.

For an RPG the WOW analogy might apply - but you would have to remove the realtime element. But an RPG is open-ended where a boardgame exists within a closed universe with some sort of end point. An RPG module is very much a predetermined storyline with players having only a small effect on the course of the overall storyline.

I think she refers to "boardgames" that require components or capability computer generated or handled but except for that play as a boardgame. Same player mindset. Turn based. Rules you can understand and all clearly explained. No secret game mechanics.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
gxnpt wrote:For an RPG the

gxnpt wrote:
For an RPG the WOW analogy might apply - but you would have to remove the realtime element. But an RPG is open-ended where a boardgame exists within a closed universe with some sort of end point. An RPG module is very much a predetermined storyline with players having only a small effect on the course of the overall story.

@Eric is talking about video game development. He has already stated that he wants the game to be turn-based. I'm just referring to WOW, because his want for mini quests... Is like in many games...

I mentioned Final Fantasy because the combat is turn-based. XCOM is also turn-based. But Final Fantasy is much simpler because there is no movement...

So I think you can have epic battles with a simpler engine.

Daggaz
Daggaz's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2016
All very sound design

All very sound design concepts that people making board games should keep in mind, especially if they have more experience playing video games in the first place, which is more and more likely with each generation.

As to making actual video games look like board games, then yes this will definitely go a long way towards that goal. I like playing board games on the computer, but I have to admit that knowing you have a mercedes engine idling under the hood of your go-cart often leaves me feeling like they should take maybe a little more advantage of that power.

One very key aspect to keep in mind, however, is that the decision-action-reward concept is significantly different between a table-top game and on a computer. On the table-top, everything takes a lot longer, but you have the immediate social interaction which fills in the gaps. On the computer, you may or may not have sound/chat interaction, but even with this activated there is still a large human separation, and the player is left interacting primarily with the digital display, which responds in microseconds. If you want to avoid the player feeling like they are the one lagging behind, then the interface needs to have delays coded into it which are directly experienced by the player as they happen.

Player lag: Click a button, change is instantaneous onscreen. Player often feels like they are not to speed, even if they can actually keep up with the overall game.

Machine lag: Click a button, game delays the response but the delay is not conveyed to the player visually, so the change just suddenly occurs after the delay.

Optimal: A) Click a button, change occurs gradually on-screen until the delay is fullfilled, at which point actual effects come into play.
B) Hold a button, player 'charges a meter' until the delay is fullfilled, releasing the button causes instant change including effects.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Maybe the story machine part

Maybe the story machine part could be summarised with an example.

In an old game of PTO, My friend asked me to take control of the japanese fleet to give him a challenge since he was winning the game.

So When I took the command of the Imperial Navy, the whole navy was composed of a single submarine (Laugh!)

So I said, "Ok, let's bring back that submarine to base before something bad happends to it".

The next day the submarine hit a mine and sink. The americans wins the war (Laugh!)

If you analyse those events, which are somewhat funny, none of those events has been scripted. They all depends on the results of AI action and dice rolls which ends up placing the player in a unique funny situation.

This is the kind of story I am looking for most but not all my game. Have the game create a unique story players can tell forever. The game does not have to have story text like in Arkham Horror for example.

Else I intend to use minimal story like "Dr Willy is evil and made 8 robots to destroy the city, go stop him". That's all you need to know to play the game.

I made a more detailed story telling article on VGG called "stories from the pacific" (or something similar). It could give you an idea of how a game with little story elements can generate stories.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Needs a story

larienna wrote:
...Else I intend to use minimal story like "Dr Willy is evil and made 8 robots to destroy the city, go stop him". That's all you need to know to play the game...

I think you are "under-estimating" the importance of STORY. If you have "quests" to find objects, that's pretty "rince & repeat". Yeah you'll need to create a HUGE amount of variance in order to keep the engine interesting.

This reminds me of "Might & Magic" (Not Heroes - the original game). It was "quest-ish" you have to travel to different cities or lands, etc. I remember visiting a friend's home to PLAY "Might & Magic 4: Clouds of Xeen".

Anyhow that game is comprised of a bunch of mini-quests and the goal is to defeat Xeen in the end. I don't think we ever finished the game - but I loved it.

Now if you talk about the SUCCESS of a Franchise like "Might & Magic", well there is something to say about STORY: it's all story-based.

Otherwise it's a game engine without anything to tie it together:

Q1. Why am I playing this game?
A1. To complete mini-quests.

Q2. Why do I complete mini-quests?
A2. To earn experience and gain treasures.

Q3. Why do I want to earn experience?
A3. So I can battle monsters with less difficulty.

Q4. Why would I want treasures?
A4. Because I can defeat stronger monsters.

But as you can see it's like an RPG engine - without any story. Why do all this for NOTHING?!?!

You need to have some kind of SUPER-MISSION... Or the game will seem to repetitive. Like: "DEFEAT DR. WILLY". Your ultimate goal is to find and defeat him... Even that has a STORY (sort of).

IMO you need some kind of story to connect everything together - otherwise it becomes a repetitive game...

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Perhaps "story arc" might be

Perhaps "story arc" might be a better term than Super Mission.

Are quests stories? Not as they're done in MMOs and typical computer RPGs, they're just reasons (or excuses) to do something that may otherwise be a little tedious.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
I don't see how +5% is weird.

I don't see how +5% is weird. It corresponds exactly with a +1 when you use a D20, as in many RPGs. The whole modifier thin derives in considerable part from minis/D&D.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Semantics

Much confusion in discussions comes from semantics.

Some use "story" as synonymous with "plot". A professional story is a lot more than a plot.

Some use "story" to mean an overall objective that makes some sense. I prefer "story arc".

I do like the term "story machine" and will adopt it. I've always said, I want players to write their own stories, and try to arrange the game to let that happen.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Some type of games,

Some type of games, especially RPG, requires a story because that's part of the design of an RPG which is follow a story. In Mega Man, the core of the game, is not about story telling, but it's about dexterity skill, analyzing patterns, etc.

Now with the arrival of 3D engines and rise of FPS, there has been a huge amount of story based games, which almost converted video games as interactive movies. I don't mind having some story based games like "Tell Tale games" does so well, but putting all video games as story games actually made me drop out of video games once.

This is not the kind of games I wish to design, I want them more focused on mechanics. Still, I might have a game or two with a deeper story, but it's not a necessity. One idea I have is to have a game play similar to Sunrider, where you alternate story with tactical battles. In my case, I'll focus more on tactical battles.

Quote:
I do like the term "story machine" and will adopt it. I've always said, I want players to write their own stories, and try to arrange the game to let that happen.

From what I discovered, it seems to coincide with the fact that strong theme games, which are games that allows a lot of various actions and interactions with the environment, are more prone to allow having story machines.

For example, in PTO, I managed to make a fleet of 14 new type of subs with rockets that could attack grounds. The game allowed the player to do this, but the game designer did not expect the players to do this.

The problem with board game design and story machines is that having many possible interaction with the environment or many possible things the player can do simply makes the rule book grow larger and larger making it harder to remember the rules. Or even remember what are the possible things you can do.

I think the old Battletech Tactical System falls half way into this category due to the large amount of rules and mech configuration possibilities.

gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
parallel discussions

also see https://boardgamegeek.com/article/24913884#24913884
Subject: Making turn based strategy video games feel like board games

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I think that if you really

I think that if you really want the players to make a story of their own. You need to make your game a bit sand-box like.

It helps to supply them with a random map, and random items. Let them find their own way. And if there are multiple ways, they will find their own story.

Would it hurt to push them slightly in a certain direction?

Edit: I just realised that this is far off topic already. Sorry for that.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut