Skip to Content
 

Point System in a game

5 replies [Last post]
Thu, 03/09/2017 - 19:37
Xuper
Offline
Joined: 03/08/2017

Hi Everyone,

I'm quite new to the Board gaming world as I have recently started playing different kind of board games. This has motivated me to try to create a board game as well.

I'm in the middle of making a board game and am torn as to how the point system should work. Basically the objective of the game is to rack up the most points to win. In order to obtain points, I split them up into different point categories such as Combat, Territory, Construction, and two other categories that I'm still working on. So if the top two players scores the most for Combat points, they'll get 10 Victory points for first and 6 Victory points for second at the end. Same goes for the other categories as well.

Would it be too much for players to keep track of? Or should I take the route of Victory Points and eventually have all the categories be converted into VP instead to make it easier? Hopefully I am making sense here and if anyone has ever tried to experiment with this, do share your experiences with me as well.

Thanks in advance!

Top
Thu, 03/09/2017 - 20:13
#1
Adam Leamey
Offline
Joined: 02/23/2017
This sounds like a Euro game

This sounds like a Euro game we're you have different avenues to acquire points with the highest at the end winng. As for keeping track as long as you make it clear what scores what points it will be fine.

Top
Thu, 03/09/2017 - 20:14
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
What some games do...

Is have a "track" around the board. When you collect VPs, you immediately ADD them to your position on the track. This is the simplest form of VP tracking that I have seen.

And it works and is pretty easy. No need to tally at the END of the game, everyone knows their relative position in the game at all times. Much more simple and effective in coercing a player in Fourth (4th) place to be more "cut-throat" with his fellow players.

The issue of "moving forwards" vs. "backwards" is identical. SO +4 Forwards is virtually the SAME as "-4 Backwards": in both situations you are affected by 4 VPs in relation to all the other players.

Like I said the NICE part about the track is everyone knows where they stand. There are other version such as Munchkin which show you at what level you are too. Again everyone knows who is the leader and who is playing catch-up. I think this would be the most OBVIOUS method of tracking VPs since you know everyone's score!

Cheers.

NOTE: Try to think about "function" not only mechanics.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2017 - 03:28
#3
ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
questccg wrote: Like I said

questccg wrote:

Like I said the NICE part about the track is everyone knows where they stand. There are other version such as Munchkin which show you at what level you are too. Again everyone knows who is the leader and who is playing catch-up. I think this would be the most OBVIOUS method of tracking VPs since you know everyone's score!

There's a number of problems which can arise from this.

If disparity in scores becomes sufficient enough, some players may feel discouraged to continue before the game is finished.

Ideally you want players to know who is ahead, but not exactly by how much.

Many games which use the around the board track also use some sort of end game scoring to accompany it for that exact reason. For example Lord of Waterdeep.

Top
Fri, 03/10/2017 - 09:32
#4
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
A Snowball's Chance

ElKobold wrote:
Ideally you want players to know who is ahead, but not exactly by how much.

Many games which use the around the board track also use some sort of end game scoring to accompany it for that exact reason. For example Lord of Waterdeep.

I totally agree. Two things to append to this.

- I seem to recall that Raph Koster mentions in his book -A Theory of Fun- that a game can more easily stay fun if every player still feels like they have a chance at winning up until the very end. This is why I always try to have some sort of secret/private information in games. As long as a player has a chance to think, "Well maybe I can win it if I go with this choice NOW!" I would be pleased. Player engagement can remain to the end a little easier.

- If it weren't for either hidden points or end-of-round scoring mechanics, I doubt I would ever want to play Lords of Waterdeep (end of round scoring) or Smallworld (hidden scores).

The nice thing about Waterdeep is that the hidden roles/end-of-game scoring is thematically-linked as well as mechanically-linked. For Smallworld, I would imagine that players would simply want to drop out if they saw that the available roles wouldn't work well enough for them to catch up.

In Monopoly, the game typically stops being fun for everybody as soon as one player has to make a big payout and/or goes bankrupt by landing on another player's property. Not only does the unfortunate renter have - at very most - very little chance of catching up, but it's also fairly clear to everyone who the winner will be as soon as that happens. It's like you hit a light switch, and all the other players "check out."

Top
Sat, 03/11/2017 - 08:34
#5
Willem Verheij
Willem Verheij's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/08/2016
How about this. You could

How about this.

You could have the standard points which could be tallied by a track around the board.

And in addition to that, there could be "hidden" points for other categories that are sorted out at the end of the game.

Some of it could be seen on the board but a part of it could be hidden.
For example, when a player wins a battle he could receive a combat token.
This could be worth some points but is only cashed in at the endgame scoring, and during the game these tokens could be kept hidden.

The player who has the most of those combat tokens at the endgame scoring could also get some additional points.

And it could be done in a similar way for each points category thats hidden and scored only at the end.
But most points could still be scored directly and put on the track to give a good idea of what other players their score is, to keep it competitive.

Like, from that combat earlier mentioned, the player could get points for each unit they defeat. But winning the battle would be the only way of getting the battle points.

Just like how all construction could gain points, but only construction of important things could gain construction points in the form of tokens.
Like if building a library, castle or such but not for a farm.
Or maybe when constructing five farms or such, depending on the gameplay.

And of course, everything on the board could also count towards those specific scores at the endgame. But in the end, it would all be a single score.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut