I've been slowly outlining a second game as I run into hurdles with my first game as a means to fight Writer's Block.
Outline
World has been devastated by chaos. Players each play a camp of survivors that must hunt and gather every day in a demolished city. Players have a central camp they must return to before nightfall. Every day, the players must discard a food and water token. Too long without discarding and the players must lose a survivor (they die of hunger/dehydration). Players search the city ruins for canned food, bottled water, fuel, and supplies to make gear. NPC survivors either join your camp, or demand something from you.
If two "search parties" are in one location with an item, a conflict occurs.
Conflict Resolution:
Conversation: Both parties agree to a compromise/trade
Threaten: If conversation breaks down, both parties start preparing to fight; brandish weapons, commit survivors to fight.
Conviction: If no side backs down, a fight breaks out; larger force wins. Possible injuries if deadly force was used (knives, guns). If parties are equal in force, noting happens; contested item remains contested.
During the nighttime hours, any survivors not at camp are lost unless they have a light source.
Any survivors with a light source can attempt to raid another camp for supplies
A player is out of the game when they lose their last survivor. Winner is the last man standing.
That's what I have so far. Survivors can be represented by cubes, but I'm think of having cards made with pictures/drawing of people to make the "loss" more personal. Food and Water is finite, so players will eventually HAVE to raid/fight other camps to survive. I'm looking for building tension in the way people threaten each other.
On a side note, it sounds like there could be balancing issues where if a player starts to lose survivors, they can be put at a significant disadvantage and be knocked out easier. If I know I have more survivors then you and can defeat you easily, I might go all-out on the offensive to knock you out as early as possible, and you may not have a way to get back in the game. If the game required 3 or more people, then two of them could join forces to take on the stronger third.
The way I envisioned it was that if the parties were equal, they could negotiate ("Let me have that X and I'll give you Y."). The greater party could negotiate for more items ("I'll let you have that X if you give me Y and Z."). It could even be, "Just walk away." If everyone is just bloodthirsty, then people should act accordingly, skipping this step.
Weapons will be hidden until they're brandished, so having a larger party doesn't necessarily mean victory.
Right now, I'm treating a weapon as equal force to a person, so two people vs one person with a club ends in a draw. Deadly weapons have the added effect of killing someone, even if you're the losing party. I thought about having to discard the weapon first, but I want to see how the threat of losing someone affects player's decisions.
As for balance, until I watch enough plays, I won't know what to balance. I'm keeping search parties to four max, so initially my balance is increasing the number of people in your camp the less players there are.