Skip to Content
 

Junkyard Robots or Wizard Battle Royale?

22 replies [Last post]
WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014

Hi everyone, this is my first post outside of the introduction page. Been lurking and reading the forums before joining; seems like a really creative, insightful, and helpful community. I'm in. :)

Game I'm working on: Junker 'Bots
(Working title; could easily reskin the game as a wizard battle game!)

The world ended around 100 years ago, or so they say. Things are still goin' on, just not like they used to. Gotta keep up on radiation meds, sure, but otherwise life ain't so bad. No big governments or corp'rations in these parts to hassle with. Only a few mutants. Some mangy rats. Water tastes okay. Worst bit is the boredom. We got all this scrap lyin' about, and we got creative. Built us some robots; now it's a sensational sort of thing. Folks come from all over, competin' in the scrap yard arenas. You got what it takes?

Summary: The game is optionally a cooperative or competitive game (depending on scenario) based on the concepts in turn-based strategy tactics video games and tabletop RPGs. 2-6 players, variable playing field size (4"x4" square tiles with four 2" square grid on each), emergent complexity (a number of basic rules, with strategy & cards modifying play from there), and a more fluid initiative order based on an Endurance/Fatigue/Exhaustion mechanic (similar to Star Wars Saga Edition RPG's "condition track"). Victory conditions would vary based on the type of game played (capture the flag, king of the scrap heap, mutual annihilation, mutant mayhem, scavenger hunt, gain X Victory Points, etc., etc.).

*Currently, players can choose from 3 types of combatants: Junkers (human mechanics), Raiders (human fighter types), and 'Bots (large robots). Each base "class" will have 3-4 abilities in 3 tiers. Each tier costs a few more points for team construction, but unlocks the color-coded abilities of that tier. Sort of like a level 1 warrior vs a level 2 warrior. Anyway.

Still with me? Cool.

So, the game is set in a near-future, semi-post-apocalyptic landscape where people have gladiatorial fights in a junkyard with robots and skirmishing combatants. PvP play is 2-6 players. Cooperative play is about the same (players team up to battle waves of mutants, controlled by either another player or a simple horde mechanic).

Players can upgrade their combatants and robots with cards (new weapons, skills, abilities, gear, etc.), alter combat with event and luck cards, manipulate terrain (set piles of tires on fire, build barricades, knock over junk to create rubble terrain, etc.), and operate a 3D crane that can be used for attacking, grabbing and moving robots, etc.

There will be multiple decks of cards (all 3.5 x 3.5 square cards, or 4x4 if I can manage it). Each player chooses a Faction, and uses the corresponding deck in play. Communal decks include the Shop deck (divided into 3 piles) and the Survival pile. Decks all have different backs to tell cards apart at end of game, for sorting. There is a communal discard pile for ALL cards, called the junk pile. This pile can be drawn from in a number of situations.

Some cards are equipped to combatants' stat cards (robot upgrades, character skills and gear, etc.), some are events that happen instantaneously or remain on the table until X happens, some cards are terrain tiles, that can be laid over a tile on the board, some cards are instant effects (boosting action points, hindering a foe, whatever), and some cards have other effects (traps and triggered effects, for instance).

The play area will be modular, but the default size will be 6 tiles by 6 tiles (24" by 24"), which creates a 12 square x 12 square play area. Each square can accommodate up to 2 small creatures (humans) or 1 large creature (robots). Creatures occupying the same square are "engaging" or "engaged." Movement, effects, range, etc. will be based on squares.

Etc. Etc.

Thoughts?

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
no longer applicable. :)

no longer applicable. :)

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
If this is more appropriate

If this is more appropriate to another forum, and not "New Game Ideas," please let me know.

RGaffney
RGaffney's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
randomness good, or randomness bad

It sounds like the core philosophy of what you are asking is "randomness good, or randomness bad"

Obviously it depends. Some great games are very random, some have almost no randomness to them. But in my opinion, because dice tend to be associated with casual games, and because you have a lot of computations to handle already (thanks to the Video Game inspiration) that less randomness is better. Design the game to work entirley without dice or random draw cards if you can.

Your second question about fatigue is really subordinate to that. If you are going to use dice some of the time, and there will be things that do or don't happen because of the dice and you have to calculate the degree of so and so... then I say don't make the player track fatigue also. things can only be so complicated before they stop being fun and start being homework.

Since I am recommending you randomize the game, you should have room, of your rules and trees are intuative and clear enough, to add more color with dials for fatigue etc

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Maybe not "good/bad" in

Maybe not "good/bad" in regard to randomness, but I'm definitely looking to strike the right balance. It's not much fun for good player strategy to be thwarted by bad luck. The gambit creates tension, and can be fun, but the odds should be skewed in favor of a good strategy, in my opinion.

The video game inspiration is just that, inspiration. I'm not trying to clone, or even strongly emulate a video game experience. I am trying to evoke the strategic combat elements.

There are no quests, walk-away-from-the-game rewards (like in an RPG), no quests or story lines, no loot drops, very few "status effects," etc. The emphasis of gameplay is on strategic combat decisions.

The fatigue bit was more an idea to get rid of status effects that a lot of games seem to have. I don't want wound tokens AND poison tokens AND blinded tokens AND stunned tokens AND a way to denote -1 DEF, -2 ATK, +2 DEF, etc., etc., ad nauseum. A simple meter bar with associated penalties/effects would suffice to replace most of that, and a single token could be slid up and down the meter on the stat card. Thoughts?

RGaffney
RGaffney's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
I know when I post on this

I know when I post on this board that I have much more in my head than I could ever get across, and if even if I could I doubt people would be interested. So I ask the types of questions that get people to suggest things which don't work but give me ideas that will.

It sounds to me like you know what you need in term of a compromise for randomness and a simple status counter. Is there anything else I can help you with? (and by help, I mean make suggestions that miss the mark)

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Random and Tracking stats

Maybe you get some idea's from this. Or idea's on how not to do things :)

Random is fun. Even in tactical combat.
However, you want to create situations where the player is comforted with certainty.
This still can be done with randomness.
When the number of dice increases, the randomness becomes more a certainty.

For example, if a hit would be a 50-50 chance.
And you need 5 hits for defeating an opponent. Then you need to create 10 chances. If the force you are fighting with is big enough for that. Players know there is a certain chance now in defeating an opponent. And then they take the "gamble".
By increasing the force in numbers over time, the randomness slowly disappears.

For tracking stuff like health, upgrades, XP, and carrying resources (my game as example).
I use little "whiteboard" plastic pieces. And simply use a whiteboard marker on it.
I have made the rules in such a way, that players will hardly be using these. Maybe 2 or 3 are used with each action. And they might as well disappear just as quickly.
In most fights, there is only 1 unit that will be taking damage. No need to have the full health bars on other units. They are simply just not damaged.
XP can be placed on any unit that has been fighting. Even though it didn't make the kills. And there for upgrades can be bought on that same unit.
Resources are loaded and stay loaded for a long time. I have automated routes as well where the workers don't even move.

Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
From the description given,

From the description given, this is how I'm imagining your game.

Each player controls one character. Characters move on squares on a grid and fight the other players. Players level up, garnering new abilities and stats (which sounds like it could create a nasty positive feedback loop).

From this understanding, here are my thoughts/concerns/questions:

• How engaging is this game if players are controlling only one piece? If you added more pieces for players to control, do you think the game has become to complex?
• How do player's gain EXP? How necessary is this aspect?
• What is the turn-structure like?
• If defensive abilities are deterministic, how are player's engaged when it's not their turn?
• With all of this information for players assess and no randomness (BTW, I'm never in favor of dice. I think they're lazy.), action paralysis seems inevitable.
• How does range work? Is it based on where the players are facing or by spaces away?

I hope some of this helps, and let me know if I'm not understanding anything.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Thanks for the feedback

Thanks for the feedback everyone, especially the part on dice/success probabilities. I am still unsure about dice pools (if I use them, they would be opposed rolls, not rolls against a set number, to increase success rates).

To clarify, the game will work like this:

There are pregenerated stat cards for 3-4 character types. Each token/miniature represents 1 creature. Players control multiple creatures, based on a point-buy (allowing customizability).

In essence, a game can be played between as few as 1-2 miniatures against each other, or as many as 10+. The assumption would be that each side controls around 6 creatures. Small war band units.

Each creature has a stat card. Each stat card has a base warband-building point cost. Each stat card has 4 abilities. Those 4 abilities are grouped into 2 groups of 2 abilities. Group A is accessible at the lowest warband-building cost. Group B costs a few points more.

There will be chances, in game play, for a player to say increase a single unit by one category (thus unlocking the next tier of abilities, but not breaking the game's power curve). Cool, the commando had a movement-based ability and a good melee attack, and now he has a short range attack and a grappling attack. More options, but limited by Action Points spent per round.

Once players have their teams, they can agree on the board layout and size, or alternate picking tiles to create a terrain advantage, etc.

Initiative: Right now I'm using an alternating-turn initiative. Player 1 activates 1 creature, then player 2 activates 1 creature, etc.
--> I am considering a more fluid initiative system, where players alternate activations, and Fatigue/previous activations reflect how often a creature can be activated in succession before becoming staggered and essentially useless. Not sure on this yet.

Each character has a Speed rating, an Action Point total, and a few combat stats (HP, ranged/melee attacks as applicable, Defense). There is a Fatigue Meter that functions in tandem with HP.

Characters can move up to their Speed in squares, in any combination before/after taking actions.

All creatures currently have 3 Action Points (AP). Actions, including moving up to a creature's Speed in squares, costs 1 AP (some actions cost more AP).

Cards: I am still working on the mechanics, as this element of the game keeps evolving the most. Cards, right now, act as a basic tactical resource, like Team Action Points. But, instead of trading them for a hard numerical benefit, a player can play them on a creature's activation, granting the effect on the card. Some require AP to play their effects, some do not. Some confer lasting bonuses to a character (equipping armor, a new skill, or a new weapon, for example), others are instantaneous. Some can only be played on the turn of a creature you control, some can be played any time, etc. This is a versatility mechanic. It is meant to simultaneously simulate the "fog of war" element of combat (unknown factors), as well as simulate requisitioning/scavenging resources, looting bodies, gaining experience, etc.

The battlefield is a 2-inch grid, and is modular. The rules will be designed such that players who own other 1-inch grids from other sources (tabletop roleplaying games, similar board games, drawing their own) could inter-mix them (will be listed under optional rules/expanding your game section).

Range is based on # of squares. A ranged attack may have a range of 1-4, or it may have a long range attack of 5-10 (cannot attack closer than 5 squares). Burst effects are square-radiuses.

Combat Mechanics:
I'm currently using opposed dice pools. Each player rolls a number of dice equal to their relevant attack and defense scores and tallies the total "successes." A success is currently a 4, 5, or 6 on a d6 (50% per die). Successes cancel each other out. If the attack succeeds with at least 1 net success, the effect of the attack occurs.

etc.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
X3M: With cards that can be

X3M: With cards that can be equipped (say armor, a new weapon attack, or a new ability), cards will be tucked under the stat card (showing the relevant stats). A given character stat card will only have 3-4 equipable slots, denoted by card-width colored border markers on the sides of the larger stat card. Some characters can carry more than others. Some can carry more if they 'level up' to the next tier (say, a basic cost commando would have 2 item slots, whereas a tier 2 cost commando would have another item slot, color-coded the same as his tier-2 abilities).

Switching between attacks/items/whatever does not require any extra effort. If you have access to an attack/ability, and you meet the conditions to use it (usually enough AP to use), then you can use it.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
RGaffney: Your feedback was

RGaffney: Your feedback was helpful, thank you. I did not mean to come across as dismissive. My tone is rarely conveyed effectively online, I'm sorry. In a game that tracks degrees of damage/hinderance, do you feel that tried-and-true, simpler HP mechanic is the way to go, or a slightly more complex but fluid mechanic that tracks the same degree of damage, but also encompasses other rules subsets into it would be better?

I'm still torn between easy and innovative.

It is easy for me to just use HP. Attack, damage HP, reach 0 HP = removed from play.

But it feels innovative to instead, Attack, Damage Fatigue/HP meter; when meter reaches certain Threshold, certain penalties apply, until eventually being KO'd at 0 HP. Effects that restore HP/cure status effects would now apply to this meter.

Or having *both* HP and a Fatigue Meter, thus having 2 ways to potentially eliminate an enemy.

I just don't know if it will be too much hassle in play yet. Not do I know if others think it is appealing, or if it is just a novel idea that I like. I want to do what is good for the game. :)

Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
"If I use opposed dice pools,

"If I use opposed dice pools, each player rolls a number of dice equal to their relevant attack and defense scores and tallies the total "successes." A success would likely be a 4, 5, or 6 on a d6 (50% per die). Successes cancel each other out. If the attack succeeds with at least 1 net success, the effect of the attack occurs."

I'm sure there are a good amount of players who would enjoy a system like this, but it'd drive me away from repeated sessions. Ever play Mage Wars? In that game, you roll d6's equal to the monster's attack number. Each side: 1, 1 critical, 2, 2 critical, and two blank sides. Critical hits ignore the armor value of the targeted monster. Imagine then playing an aggressive strategy. You're shooting to end the game as quickly as possible, but if a few early attacks rolls come up short, the strategy falls apart and you have a tough, or impossible, time regaining proper footing.

Having a strategy fall short not due to execution but due to whiffed die rolls feels cheap. It's better to at least give players the illusion of control rather than have important plays susceptible to chance.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Squinshee: Thanks, I

Squinshee: Thanks, I wholeheartedly agree about bad luck ruining a game. Even if I use a dice roll mechanic, it would be for the more risky abilities. Some abilities would still happen automatically. Like a basic attack, if you will. As long as conditions are met. Like, a melee attack could not target a foe 5 squares away, and a ranged attack may miss if the target has cover.

I'll look into Mage Wars, thanks.

RGaffney
RGaffney's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/26/2011
No be sorry

No sorry. you are doing what you should. Go comment on 4 Goddesses or Rawr and watch me do the same thing.

As to HP. again you really know best. but I would say you should either have multiple stats, or HP. Don;t have HP and other things also. So if you want an innovative mechanic, think of a way to make Attack/ Fatigue/ Something else (defense?) such that being beaten down low enough on any stat removes it from conbat. Essentially 3 HPs.

...Or maybe not. Maybe with this few pieces, nothing is ever removed, the stats are just irreperable, and you have a sitting duck with no defense, or a piece that cannot move, or cannot attack...

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
I'm totally with you,

I'm totally with you, actually, on having multiple ways to "disable" a character unit.

For example, some characters rely on reducing the Action Points and/or Speed of other characters, thus limiting or negating their next turn (since they cannot spend AP to take actions).

Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
WCanepa: Have fun reading the

WCanepa: Have fun reading the 45-page rulebook.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Squinshee wrote:WCanepa: Have

Squinshee wrote:
WCanepa: Have fun reading the 45-page rulebook.

Ha. I've skimmed a few reviews, and am getting the gist of it. I like the innovation (spell books for cards? cool!), but I don't think it's what I'm looking for. Still need to better understand the dice.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Okay, for my first draft, I'm

Okay, for this draft, I'm settling on an opposed dice roll system. Some abilities automatically happen, without rolls, if conditions are met. When a melee/ranged attack is made, the attacking unit rolls a number of d6s equal to their STR or AIM, and their target rolls a number of d6s equal to their DEF. If the attacker has more net successes than the defender, the net successes are the base damage. Other effects (including bonus damage, knocking targets back, poison, etc.) may occur too.

Further, I'm using HP and a simple Fatigue Meter. All abilities have a linear progression, based on initial point-buy.

I hope to have a working draft of this version in a week or two.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
HP and Fatigue Meter got

HP and Fatigue Meter got rolled into one mechanic.

The Health Meter has 4 categories (Alert / Staggered / Exhausted / Helpless), and each unit will have different numbers of boxes along each category (hit points). Some attacks/effects deal hit point damage, corresponding to a number of boxes on the meter, and some deal Fatigue levels (corresponding to a level of the Health Meter).

The meter will be color-coded, Green (Alert), Yellow (Staggered), Exhausted (Orange), and Red (Helpless).

Each category will have a variable number of boxes, depending on the unit. For example, if a unit has 12 Health, it would have 12 boxes along the meter. Say, 3 in each category. A weak unit with 7 health may have 2 boxes in 3 categories, and 1 box in one category.

Different categories impose different effects (Alert is no penalty, Staggered is mild penalty, Exhausted is big penalty, Helpless is just that).

A player would move an indicator token up and down the meter to denote status.

This would remove the need for wound/damage counters or tokens, remove the need for dry erase markers, etc.

Do you all think this is a valid mechanic for an HP system that also tracks degree of fighting ability?

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
It sounds good. And your game

It sounds good. And your game allows it in an easy way.
Have you play tested it?

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
I've been sending files every

I've been sending files every few days to some dedicated gamer friends. They do not sugar coat their critiques. :) I'm going to keep doing that until I feel I have a playable game, then I'll test it blindly with different groups for further feedback.

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Updates!

I just updated the original post to reflect new design changes.

Thoughts?

WCanepa
WCanepa's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/31/2014
Wizards or Robots?

Okay, so Junkyard Robots is a relatively unexplored game niche... and Battling Wizards is way over done (but still always fun).

Which, as gamers and designers, do you all feel is a better/more fun/more marketable theme?

I can skin this game either way. Should I do both as prototypes to see which has more appeal?

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut