This is my thinking process as I start to work on a new project for a game contest posted over on the BGG.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/thread/644090/solitaire-print-and-play-contest
"...This thread is to discuss a Solitaire Print and Play Contest. This contest has been scheduled for July 1st - August 31st (beginning after the Synergy Design Contest). The goal of this contest would be to design solitaire-driven games that are fairly easy to build and with easy to moderately-complex rules..."
With my work schedule (nights and weekends) it’s hard to find other gamers to get together with. As a result, I’ve drifted towards games that are designed for solitary play, or can be adapted. Along with that, I like games that are simple enough to be played on a lunch-hour and are compact enough to be played at a table while waiting for my food at a restaurant or the seat of my work truck. Usually, the games that I’ve found out there that meet those criteria, leave me wanting for more. Whether it’s the theme, the mechanics, the components needed, etc. Some are awesome, but most aren't. So, over the last few years I've been thinking on how to fix that. I know I'm not the only one with these thoughts; but, I'm a bad procrastinator and have been putting my efforts on the backburner for years. Until now...this contest is right up my alley.
Picking the theme is actually the hardest part for me. I love sci-fi, horror, fantasy, modern, etc.....so I feel pigeon-holed in designing rules for one type and leaving the rest out. My lastest attempt at making a game was about 2 wizards fighting one another, using my figures left over from Heroscape. Then I started thinking it would be nice to also find a way to incorporate my 40K/AT-43/VOR/Zombies!!!/Battlefield Evo/Traveller/etc figures. As I started jotting down ideas, things started to evolve into just making something that could bridge all the genres. But how? Not all themes have magic, or psionics, or firearms....but they all have good ol'fashioned butt kicking. A fist to the face, or kick to the groin will always be fashionable. So, what about a game of good ol'close combat and then latter add on rules for magic, or psionics, or hand weapons. Perfect. Even wizards sometimes have to serve up a knuckle sandwhich. Pow! Eat that!
So, a game small enough to play on a clipboard sized surface, fast enough to play within an hour, and simple enough for 1 player against a basic die rolled AI, and adaptable to be made into a two player game latter.
That's a good start. Now, what types of actions/defenses are available. How does the turn go. How do the figures (yes, I want mini's to give a nice visual boost) move and interact with the physical environment...and on that note, are their blockages to hide behind or use. So many things to think of. It's like...to pardon the pun...a game. :)
Comments
Interesting Concept - Application?
A game meant to be played alone is an interested idea, as long as you retain the vision of a compact (rules and space) close-combat game.
As a person firmly on the sculptor side of the artist/sculptor BGD Scale, I enjoy the idea of an encompassing game, but your summary leaves me with a few questions.
1.) How simple / complex do you want the game to be?
Since your stated goal is to have a game "compact enough to be played on a clipboard" and fast enough that you can play it while waiting for food, it seems that you're already trying too hard to make the game more complicated... "actions/defenses" is fine, but terrain? Miniatures? Okay, miniatures might be understandable as HeroClix and its various iterations have proven you can keep stats without requiring enormous space. But a die-rolled AI?
My point is that the rules and stats you'd have to incorporate to cover these basises, at which point your ruleset is passing the line of "simple". The second aspect of my question is the question of how easy / difficult the game is to win in the context of the various rules you're going to create. This is NOT to ask how difficult it is to win, but to ask what your GOAL is for the difficulty of this game.
2.) What is the replayability level you want for your game?
If it's low, then a higher difficulty is warranted. However, if you want your game to have high replayability, I would like to know how you're going to achieve that within the confines of your stated objective of a compact game. Certainly varying scenarios, different miniatures, and adjustable difficulties for the scenarios are doable. I'm interested in which, if any, of those you are implementing, how you otherwise plan to keep the game compact if you do desire high replayability, and how you will keep the game interesting for yourself.
As the game's designer, it is possible you will hit a point along the road where you will have played the game so often that it is no longer difficult for you to win. Although he created computer games, Daniel Remar of Iji / Hero Core fame stated many times that he often added an extra difficulty or otherwise special challenge, not necessarily for the players but for himself. He went on to say that he also knew that those changes benefitted the players of his games, who might eventually also reach that point.
3.) Since you are a self-proclaimed procrastinator, does it help you to have people on your tail about your projects?
I ask because I too am a procrastinator and I know that if I have people that depend on me or I believe depend on me, I will progress more quickly. Would that be helpful to you?
My final comment for this blog is a simple "thank you" for posting this. Please continue!
reid_testers2 wrote:A game
As a person firmly on the sculptor side of the artist/sculptor BGD Scale, I enjoy the idea of an encompassing game, but your summary leaves me with a few questions.
Well, as I put more in the blog I think things will become more clear.
1.) How simple / complex do you want the game to be?
Since your stated goal is to have a game "compact enough to be played on a clipboard" and fast enough that you can play it while waiting for food, it seems that you're already trying too hard to make the game more complicated... "actions/defenses" is fine, but terrain? Miniatures?
Sure. The mini's are just for visual appeal, but one could just as well use a 2d token. The battlefield, fighting pit, or arena, is of a size to fit on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper (clipboard) size so it's not alot of area they have to cover. Terrain is just as easy, whether it's a 2d pic of a rock or column or wall, or a stack of heroscape tiles. About the same as has been used back in the day of games with "chits". At least in my mind. :)
Yeah....more like a CRT type of table, but kinda not.
My point is that the rules and stats you'd have to incorporate to cover these basises, at which point your ruleset is passing the line of "simple".
Well, it's not an RPG so it's not stat heavy. This is a slugging match between two opponents. What do you really need for that? You could say strength, agility, move, hardiness, etc.....then evolve into weapons stat.
No way. That's a bit much for me. I'm thinking 2 maybe 3 stats, along with a name.
2.) What is the replayability level you want for your game?
Don't really know yet. :) Still designing the rules. Playtesting is further on down the road. I think the basic combinations of choices will keep it fresh for awhile, but eventually it will need to be expanded.
As the game's designer, it is possible you will hit a point along the road where you will have played the game so often that it is no longer difficult for you to win.
I'm glad you said that. We ran into a similiar thought yesterday as we were working on the styles of attack and defense and how one could easily manipulate that, and we are working on something to address that.
3.) Since you are a self-proclaimed procrastinator, does it help you to have people on your tail about your projects?
Yep. That's why I'm posting. Sometimes others will see something you may not, or have an alternate take on a mechanic. I plan to post my notes eventually so others can see how that's going and maybe see something or contribute something to make things better. If so, they'll be credited for it.
Also, by posting, I'm putting myself out there knowing that there's the pressure to produce....walk the walk.
My final comment for this blog is a simple "thank you" for posting this. Please continue!
Thanks for giving some thoughts. Stay tunned for more. :)
Close Combat Training Pt2
One of the earliest games inspiring me for this current project is “War of the Wizards” from back in 1975 by M.A.R. Barker and put out by TSR.
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/6217/war-of-wizards
It was cursed and blessed with having pages and pages and pages of offensive and defensive spells. A nice bit of variety; however, a bit cumbersome. Originally, I wanted a wizardly type game that had a fair bit of spells to choose from, but manageable for my criteria in the previous post. So, I knew I’d have to cut the spell list down from 20 pages worth to a handful, just to keep the game fast and since I wanted to use a d6 with the die AI; but, as I started add the physical combat skills and psionic skills, it began to get unwieldy again. So, I and my trusty assistant brainstormed and decided to focus on the physical combat and put magic and psionics on the backburner. At that point it became a bit easier. Deciding what types of physical attacks and defenses led me to think back on the boxing and martial arts I took years earlier.
Jabs, punches, upper cuts, pushes, slams, cover ups, bob & weave, hops, leg lefts, sweeps, and on and on. Literally, there were dozens, and dozens of choices when you combined the various styles together. Too many; needed to narrow it down to 6. Why 6? For the die roll. I decided that the die for the game will be the universal six sider that we all know, love, and have oodles of. Sure, the player could have more combinations to pick from than the AI, but that seemed a bit unfair. Maybe in later versions, but not for now.
I decided to start with the offensive attacks. I wanted 6 basic universal ones that could transcend the eras and not be to specific to any given style of fighting:
Straight jab
Cross punch
Uppercut
High kick
Low kick
Sweep
The defensives were picked in the same fashion.
Upper arm block
Lower arm block
Side step/slip
Cover up/shield
Hop/jump
Leg lift/block
Once I had that figured out, I scratched my head and said “Now what?” What makes one attack more powerful than another, and one defense more durable than the others? So, “self” figure out what the weakest attack is, assign it a damage factor, do the same for the other attacks and then figure out the weakest to strongest defense and assign a damage block factor. Sounds easy, sure, but not so much when trying to make a balance.
Straight jab 1 point of damage
Cross punch 2 points of damage
Uppercut 3 points of damage
High kick 2 points of damage
Low kick 1 point of damage
Sweep 3 points of damage
Next, we'll address the offensive side.
And that’s it for now….need to take a brain drain break.
Close Combat Training Pt3
We came up with a basic group of defensive moves, some for upper body, some for lower body:
Upper arm block
Lower arm block
Side step/slip
Cover up/shield
Hop/jump
Leg lift/block
Thinking that we could assign a value to each that would show how much damage it reduces or blocks. Something like a Lower arm block would block high kicks, or a cover would block all damage, or just 1. Still working on that.
Of course, we realized that someone might go with high damage attack after attack and try to overpower a weaker opponent. To counter that, we're thinking of going with a fatigue type system. So while you could power attack after power attack, you'll tire much more quickly. Haven't gotten that completely worked out yet, but so far it looks like it'll work. Perhaps a damage 3 attack would use 3 fatigue
To go along with that, I think we'll go with a reward system for the players that take a defensive tac....the type of defense you use will generate various amounts of energy back. Picture a cheesy kung-fu movie where the fighters go like crazy and then back off, circling or posturing as they catch their breath, or size up their opponents. The defensive move will block/reduce damage and allow for a breather. So, a block of 1 damage might recover the character 1 energy. Possibly.
Need to hammer out how this will work as a strategy and how the AI would handle this.