Skip to Content
 

Quest Adventure Cards v2.0: Building your storyline

I have been thinking "on" and "off" about "Quest AC2". I know that I have narrowed the game's layout and it can be seen here:

This is just an "example" layout. But it generally follows that the game will have four (4) Tracks, the topmost controlled by the opponent and then other three (3) Tracks controlled by the player.

Each player chooses one "Heroism" card and plays it into Track #2.

What happens NEXT is my problem. Let me explain some more and maybe we can find an answer together...

For each "Heroism" you play, the opposite end of the card (180 degrees) has another "Symbol". So if the "Heroism" symbol is a 2 "Hearts", this means that the opposite symbol can be 3 "Dark Virtue".

A "Challenge" could have 2 "Light Virtue", and offer the opponent 1 "Gold".

So far all of this works... Even "Boons" work too.


Now I will explain the problem with the game.

At the beginning you only have one "Heroism" in play. And although your opponent MAY play "Terrors" into your storyline, he doesn't have to...

That's PART #1 of the problem: no "Terror" to counter.

The second part of the problem is IF the opponent only plays ONE (1) "Terror" and what if he wanted to have three (3) cards to make the challenge more difficult.

HOW do I make the player "pace himself" instead of trying to conquer the one (1) and only "Terror" in that part of the storyline...?

PART #2 of the problem is: less than desired "Terrors" to conquer.

These are so far the TWO (2) major issues with the design and it's FLOW.

Comments/questions/ideas/suggestions all welcome!

Comments

Pacing issues...

I realize that when the opponent PLAYs the FIRST "Terror", he might only have enough "Dark Virtue" to play a SINGLE card into the "Terror Track".

Combined with a "Heroism", he can probably play ONE (1) Terror. Or he may wait a few turns until he has several "Terrors" in-hand.

Since it turns out, he might not be able to play MORE "Terrors" because of a lack of "Dark Virtue", he will have to wait to see what kind of "Challenges" and "Boons" are played.

So playing the game NORMALLY, I think this is okay!

But what if the opponent is a "DOUCHE BAG" and refuses to play "Terrors", the game is STALLED.

So the question is: "How do I encourage the opponent to PLAY Terrors???"

I mostly understand

I mostly understand the situations you are describing, but you don't actually tell us what the problems are with those situations... what I am missing is the; "why it is a problem".

Let me put it this way:

Why is it a problem if there is no "Terrors" to counter?

Why is it #2 a problem?

Who has a less than desired "Terrors" to conquer?

The second "problem" you listed just makes no sense to me (and my thick head). Are not all Terrors "less than desirable"?

Also, don't all players, who play card games "want" to have "more and better" cards in their hands to play? So why is this more of a problem in your game?


The two I can answer are:

questccg wrote: HOW do I make the player "pace himself" instead of trying to conquer the one (1) and only "Terror" in that part of the storyline...?

and

questccg wrote: "How do I encourage the opponent to PLAY Terrors???"

You must influence the player's motivations. The two easiest ways are positive and negative reinforcement of the behaviors you want to encourage and discourage.

Rules like:

  • (positive) - "Only at the start of the game, you may play your first Terror card for free."
  • (negative) - "Until you have an active Terror card in-play, you may not play any Boon cards."

  • (wildcard) - "Before you can (do this thing I don't want you to do) you must discard a card from your hand."

I hope this helps somehow,

-Eamon

Early ideas ... but not 100% certain

Perhaps if for each "Terror" you played, you could SCORE +? VPs for an alternate way of winning the game.

So say each "Terror" produces VPs that may be used to WIN the game because the Player has not resolved ENOUGH of the "Terrors" in play.

Could be something like 10 Terror VPs = "The land is corrupted and tainted by Terrors abounding..."

This could be a good mechanic to ENCOURAGE playing of "Terrors"... But still the opponent could decide to NOT play any Terrors. Yes the VPs are an incentive but it doesn't mean that he WILL play Terror cards... Again we are dealing with a player who wants to "break" the game.

Anyone have any ideas how I can FIX this from happening???

Could maybe be that simple ... IDK yet.

eamon wrote:
+ (negative) - "Until you have an active Terror card in-play, you may not play any Boon cards."

This could be a good simple rule: unless you play a Terror into your opponent's Storyline, you cannot play any Boons into YOUR Storyline...

It could be that simple!!! AMAZING! Thank you, negative rule might be the way to go!

Gives me something to think about

eamon wrote:
Why is it a problem if there is no "Terrors" to counter?

Because the Boons you play are there to help you CONQUER the "Terrors". No Terrors and you don't know what Boons you should play to help complete the Quest.

eamon wrote:
Why is it #2 a problem?

Who has a less than desired "Terrors" to conquer?

Because it means that the Terror are too simple and EASY to conquer. But if instead of only having ONE (1) Terror card, your timeline has THREE (3) Terror cards, it will mean you will need more Challenges and Boons to conquer the Quest.

eamon wrote:
The second "problem" you listed just makes no sense to me (and my thick head). Are not all Terrors "less than desirable"?

Well see it's a balance between both:

  • More Terrors = a chance to win by "Terror".
  • More Terrors = harder to conquer them and may require more Boons and even Heroisms.

eamon wrote:
Also, don't all players, who play card games "want" to have "more and better" cards in their hands to play? So why is this more of a problem in your game?

Having the card in your hand is one thing. But playing them on the table is another. You could STALL the game if you wait to have THREE (3) Terrors before playing them. But at the same time, if you have a negative rule that you CANNOT proceed further UNLESS you play "at least one Terror", then maybe the problem is solved...

Not sure... Will sleep on it! Thanks!

Thanks to Eamon!

I considered @Eamon's ideas and ... I think I have come up with what seems to be an interesting solution.

Each Heroism card will state how many Terror cards must be part of the Track before being able to resolve it. What this means is IF you play a "Heroism" with a "2" Dark Virtue, it will mean that your opponent MUST play two (2) Terrors before you can conquer the Quest.

This means that the "Black Dragon" will require one (1) other Terror in order to be able to attempt to complete the Quest.

This is a solution for PART #2: "less than desired Terrors to conquer."

I'm still pondering about PART #1 ... where the solution was to "disallow the Player from playing any Boons into HIS Storyline..." Unless his Terror Track was populated by at least ONE (1) Terror Card.

These are some good ideas - I just want to see what other solutions may arise. I have some faint "ideas" about more depth and seamless strategy as opposed to too many rules. I want the mechanics to feel natural rather than force rules upon the players.

Keep you all posted!

I am so glad

I am so glad you were helped by my ramblings! I also think I understand the problems more now. You are right that, just making rules to "push" the players in the right direction is not always best... I just said it was an easy way to do it, lol

There are many subtle ways to influence player motivation. I am going to need to write an article on that before to long :)

-Eamon

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Syndicate content


blog | by Dr. Radut