Trouble designing missions

i agree with the last post of yours. I don't think there should be any cards that straight out cause another player to lose. instead they should just only make it harder to win.

Also instead of just having a balance of assistance and hinder other player cards. You could have more of assistance type and less of the hinder. Just make the hinder a bit more powerful. So there are less of then in the deck, but they have a bit more negative affect. Perhaps causing the players to be a bit more trusting.

Are you also going to have more cards that are simply a goal a player can achieve on there own. Like "kill to monsters" and such like that.

Hey Stag,

I have an idea I want to put out there. Hopefully it helps in some way.

When I started reading your missions, it seemed like they were more like 'Achievements', which I thought was undesirable, but then you mentioned a VP mechanism. I think combining these would be one way to get you the story you are looking for.

Imagine you have different 'Mission' Decks (lets say 5 decks) each with a distinguishing identifier.
The 'first' deck contains achievements that are relatively easy to accomplish.
The 'second' deck contains achievements that are a little harder to accomplish.
etc. three through five.
Each card has a condition and associated victory points for completion.

Players could draw three from deck one at the beginning of the game. When they complete one of them, they reveal it, score it, discard their other level 1 missions, and draw three from the second deck. When they complete one from the second deck, the reveal it, score it, and draw 3 from the third deck.
etc. four through five.

The end game trigger could be when someone has scored five missions; however, because the mission cards in a given deck are worth different amounts, a player with 4 scored mission cards might win the game because they focused and succeeded in completing a hard, higher scoring level four mission (where the player who was first to get to 5 did low scoring relatively easier ones). For this to pan out, players would be given an extra turn or round to try and complete another mission, but the player who scored five is done.

Additionally, there could be 'themes' contained within each of the decks such that there is a mission card from deck one, one from deck two, one from deck three, etc through five that provide an additional bonus. For example, if you had a 'Slayer' theme of achievements, a player would get additional victory points at the end of the game for having more than 1 'Slayer' mission completed. A 'Slayer' level 1 mission could be worth one point in conjunction with other themed mission cards, but worth 2 points when combined with a completed mission card of the 'Slayer' type.

What do you think?

Not me. Sometimes I actively try to make everyone lose. Why you ask? Because then I win. How you ask? You lost too! Oh, but I didn't. How does one win a game? You win when you complete your objectives. Usually these are set by the game and most people follow them. But sometimes in games where someone can attack other players, they don't care if they lose, as long as they took player A out of the game. In Zombie Fluxx there is a way for everyone to lose. I actively tried to make it happen because I thought it would be fun to do so. It didn't work out but I would've "won" by my standards had I accomplished it.

Killer Bunnies is a game where I don't care who wins ever. The game comes down to so much luck it's laughable. In fact my mother-in-law will no longer play it because of that luck. For me though the game isn't about winning. The game is about killing as many bunnies as possible, and winning is a bonus prize. In fact we keep track of how many bunnies everyone kills. I think I'm still in the lead for murdered bunnies.

If you do put in a mechanic where it's possible for everyone to lose, there will exist someone out there that will try to make everyone lose.

Yeah, ususally I care about winning, but Killer Bunnies for some reason I've never really cared about. I've come to accept the luck of it all. One of the other things about that game (seeing as I am studying accounting) is that I always try to get the accounting carrot in the game. HE'S MINE I TELL YOU!!!! Ha ha ha ha ha!

Killer bunnies is very much in the "Beer and Pretzles" genre of games. No real theme, tons of luck, and jokes galore in the cards. In fact killer bunnies for me is less of a game and more of a social activity that mascarades as a game. It is funny though when you kill someone's super bunny with the kitchen wisk.

Back on topic though.

When you mentioned a munchkin mechanic, I laughed because when I read the OP's post, it was one of the first games I thought of. The funny thing is I hate playing Munchkin with "nice" players. It drives me up the wall. One player is level nine while the second highest player is level four. The lvl nine player walks into a level 20 monster he can't beat by himself. The other players swarm him offering to help him beat the monster for treasures. *facepalm*

I think that if you get rid of the win conditions on the cards, but still make the consequences really bad/really good, it will be a better balance. That way players aren't thinking, "Well if I agree to help him, he might win, or we might both win...hmmm." Literally one player's decision will decide the whole game." The game then becomes a 50/50 chance of you winning with him. A 100% chance of him winning, and a 100% chance of everyone else losing.

Instead what you do is make the sacrifice one "kill" the helping player which is bad, but he is brought back next turn with some penalties or something but with also a reward. That way there is some really bad things that happen, but it also helps him out in some manner. Lets get out of here could work in that you guys grab the stuff and go and share the benefits of doing so. This way it's easier to make that choice because the whole game's resolution doesn't hinge on one decision of one player.