What would make the "Ultimate Board Game"?

That from your OP and its title, you will want a "Board". As such I am less inclined to participate, because I enjoy designing "Card Games". Sure at some point in time, we may introduce a "Tactics Board" for "Tradewars - Homeworld" (and miniatures), but for now it remains only a card game.

I have struggle with this question in the "Card Game" space.

To me, I picture "Quest Adventure Cards(tm)" becoming an instant hit. But since it is only a card game, it has to standout from the crowd. It cannot be similar to other duel games such as Yu-Gi-Oh!, Pokemon, Magic: The Gathering and many other card games focused on COMBAT.

And the original game - which was my first design and only scored a 3/10... Well had some of the "spirit" in that it was not about "battling" but more about completing quests.

Fast-forward a few years and "Quest AC v2" is still very much an idea.

I've got some good ideas like "Telling a Story", "Fragments", a unique layout to how the EPIC Journey will be told. But still I'm not getting the EPIC "vibe" yet. I really wanted this to be a game filled with "adventure" just like the name suggests: "Quest Adventure Cards(tm)"

So while I'm not hijacking this thread - I just wanted to say I have thought about this a lot for this game concept. But it's been in the context of "Card Games" without any board (for the moment)...

One of the difficulties in designing games, be it card games or board games, is to include SUFFICIENT player interaction. IMHO Euro Games in which each player is focused only on his "workers" or "resources" is sort of boring...

Yes I know Euros can still affect how the other players can play on their turn but "occupying" or "taking" a resource, etc. An example is Ticket To Ride: you can't directly affect what your opponent can do, but you can use up some of the railways that an opponent might want to use.

Typically player interaction consists of "COMBAT". It seems like the END-ALL to most games. Or "trading" between players and some kind of semi-cooperative type of game, where players compete against each other but they can also make "trade deals" with other players to help each other out.

So one "aspect" we can debate/discuss is "Player Interaction". You need this if you want to have an interesting game. A gamer told me that in "Scythe" you are always trying to make the most optimal move ... and that combat usually occurs near the end of the game.

If there is some form of "COMBAT", I would recommend it be a useful tactic during the entire game. Also having alternate ways of "resolving conflicts" such as "Trade Treaties" and "Peace Negotiations" would also be beneficial as an alternate to combat.

This is what I got so far: Combat or Conflict Resolution = Good player interaction.

Well, I would like to think some of my board game ideas fit into the running for this, but...

The one game idea that stands out from the rest in my mind is:

--- EDIT: Don't bother reading this post (unless board)... I am not going to delete it (unless Mokheshur wants me to) but as it turns out I did not read the OP title and just ran with the "quote" above... for a split second I forgot where I was... BGDF! lol---

Quest Giver!

A "video" game "Persistent Openworld storytelling quest RPG sandbox"... with so many dynamic (background) systems that everything that the players do, mean something and can affect change on the world around them in subtle ways. A game where players are both the heroes (third/first person) & villains (RTS style overloads controlling minions and dens of evil).

--- don't bother reading lower if not already interested ---

This is a mind dump of part of the idea as a stream of consciousness

This game would bridge the gap between Minecraft/No Mans Sky style freedom and "The Lord of the Rings books" level story telling and LoTR movies level of graphics. but an new fantasy world not the LoTRs setting...

Players would just go out into the world and start playing. no leveling up, just all able to do the same types of things... but the more you do some things the better you get at doing things and the more things you can do in that "area of life"... use sword, become a sword master "someday"... you craft, become the head of a crafting guild someday. everything that a normal RPG has in the way of NPCs... Players could do instead. (farmville players will play for the planting and farming and selling, diablo players will play to raid dungeons, RTS players will play as the monsters of the world, something for every type of gameplay building a dynamic world)

Give the players a custom "AI" builder for their characters (like in dragon age) with drop down menus to select actions and choices and focuses, for their character to be doing when they are not online. (chracter would not be able to die when you are not online.. but would instead become NPCs that continue to act in away that fits how you set them up)... in fact there would not be many true "NPCs" in the game. "you are the quest giver".

Each player would have a "instance" or "safe free build zone" to customize while being part of an ever-changing larger world. (the entrance to this safe zone might be the door to your house in the overworld?)

A game where players are both the heroes (third/first person) & villains (RTS style overloads controlling minions and dens of evil) PvP "regulated instances" with checks and balances to ensure "fun" for everyone. The players shape the worlds around them and "craft" the parts and pieces from the ground up.

villain players would earn "skills and abilities and loot for their custom "instance" style dungeons (that they build). Based on how many heroes played their "instance". The loot would be from the dead players dynamically generation "loot recovery" and "revenge" quests based on the "level" of the dead characters gear. these player created instances would show up in the overwold dynamically based on the type of dungeon the player created. the "level" cap for the dungeon would be based on the creators level (as the types of things they can put in the dungeons, like monsters and traps would be based on their level)... these players might start with just one "pack of rats" that they have very little true control over... but in an overloard way they would be able to "infest" a building in the overworld. this would cause the NPC or player who lives there to "give" a quest for the rat extermination. or they could just spawn the rats into the world and hunt players. (the spawned creatures would be just like normal game fodder to the players, but be guided by real players!)

Your next character after death is your "relative" and their first main quest "hinges" around the death of your last character. If "someone else" completes that quest before you do... "A recorded version" of that players character will approach your new avatar in the game (as an NPC) and give you the recovered item, just as if your family had been the quest giver!". All dynamic and not directly controlled by you "the player" and not all the same for every character. you will have the advantage of having the quest available only after you are next online for a time... so if you don't make it a priority... someone else in the area might hear an "NPC" say something like "did you hear about..." and they will be able to start a quest line too!" you might even meet in the middle!!!

The idea is so large it goes far far beyond what I said here. It might be years before there are servers that will be able to handle the background things I would make it think about!

oh... and families to carry on the family line (with rogue-like elements to each generation)... and permanent character death. and no character "classes"... and every human fits into the same range of physical abilities.

I can see that this type of game is starting to be envisioned by others out their as well... but as it stands "trust me" there are no games out there like the one in my head!

If I ever make such a game it will be many many years from now...

-Eamon

When I was talking earlier in my post about "interaction between players" assuming that it was in a "Card Game" context, the idea of having 3D Terrain, meaning that it's some form of "Wargame" instead - is a conflict of vision with regards to the game.

That's why I agree with @Jay: you need to define the GENRE for the Ultimate Board Game:

-Card Games
-Beer and Pretzels
-Party Games
-German-style strategy games
-Wargames
-Mass Market Games
-Tabletop Miniatures
-Abstracts
-RPGs
-CCGs/TCGs

All these genres are clearly different from one another. We all know what an Abstract game is and we know it's different from an RPG or CCG/TCG!

My personal genre that I enjoy designing is Card Games. Not all need to be CCGs/TGCs - but I have dabbled a bit in that genre too.

I actually got the genres from BGDF: http://www.bgdf.com/node/276

Cheers.

According to a post I made on BGG

https://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/1693931/cost-games-according-their-...

The games that proves to give the best experience are actually middle weight and cost games. Most large and epic games are not more enjoyful than middle games, most of the time, they are less than middle games.

This is why I tried to stop making epic board games because it's simply not worth the effort. For me, it's not even worth buying and playing them.

See the thread for more details.

Yeah, I really think a game where combat is sometimes effective is quite superior to a game where it is effective through the whole game. Even in a combat heavy game, I like it when you really have to be careful about when you make those attacks.

I also don't agree that there is no player interaction in an economic euro. It's a different kind of player interaction, and in some ways, is more interesting to me. Figuring out how to block someone and pull ahead is a lot trickier than always simply resorting to attacking their weakest units. The player who thinks of where the other players are going and blocks their routes in TTR is going to have a large point lead on those players who think its a solo game with no player interaction. But it is a very different feel.

On this line, one type of perfect game I could imagine, is one that supports both styles of gameplay well. I am not sure if it is possible, as if both paths are present, you will be forced by the other players to respond to them, and potentially forced into the type of gameplay you are not a fan of. But a game where one player can be doing a lot of combat or other direct interaction, without irritating the player who wants to build a cool thing, would be something special I think. Yeah, I'm dreaming. This is a dream thread :P