Skip to Content

My idea for a game: Twelve

3 replies [Last post]
Anonymous

Here is my rough concept:

You play on a grid which for now has 168 spaces in which to move.

Each person will select a character card (each will have bonuses and specialize in certain areas of fighting, magic, ect.) and i think i will have 12 action cards each.

Also I think each move will have a specific ammount of energy/mana needed to be performed and so far i dont' think there will be any way to recover energy or mana so each move should be used wisely.

It's designed for 2 players but it is very easy to make it up to 4 players i would guess especially with the way the grids are used.

Game Play:

Each character has a set ammount of HP and your goal is to take that HP down to 0. In order to do that however you will pick a character and must use his options well. Some attacks do better from far away and some close up and you must utilize your character's strenghts in order to win.

At the beginning of the game you both start in the middle of the map/grid (as per official rules however there will probably be more play styles)

Story wise you are turning your backs to each other and take 10 steps backwards turn around and begin the duel with a initial movement.

Game Play wise both players move each of their pieces one grid square at a time and each move a total of 3 squares away from each other then they make what is called "Initial Movement"

Intial movement is basically both players do a intial move to start off the duel both of them can perform a action or none at all but any actions are considered active at the same time. In addition, they also have the option of moving one square in any direction right afterwards. The movement does not have any effect on the trajectory of the intial attack however.

I really want a non turn based type game, right now i have 2 options other than turn based fighting:

1) Have traveling time of projectiles, moves ect. be determined by how far away you are from your opponent and for example:

Mage throws a fireball at warrior who is 2 squares away.

He gets 2 seconds (not sure if this is the actual value yet) to respond for each square it needs to travel.

2) Action and response. No turns but whoever puts down a action first must wait for a response from his opponent. If they both put a card down at the same time I have two options, i hope you guys will help me decide which is best

1)Flip a coin, the person not flipping it calls it in the air and if he calls it right the losing player gets his action ignored and the winning player gets to do his action as if he went first.

2) They both respond to each other's attack.

Whether the response is timed or not i'm not sure. Do you guys think this would work?

Alot of things come to mind:

1) What if while Player A is busy trying to come up with a response for Player's B action , Player B uses this time to plan and readies his next card to be put down and thus continously attacks Player A.

This could easily be nullified however by making a rule stating that: Player B (the player who played the action card and forced his opponent to respond) will have his following action ignored in the event that both players put their cards down at the same time simultaneously after Player A has responded. This rule would only about 2 seconds afterwards and any later than 2 seconds will make them decide a draw as normal.

There is also the fact that mana/energy costs on moves will wear down overly aggressive players.

The Grid:

I think of it as a battle field, i think you should be able to customize your grids and add rocks to hide behind, barriers and interactive scenery.

I think it might be possible to create your own battle fields and even combine many grids to have a battle royale.

That's my idea so far

Any suggestions?

Feed back?

Thank you

zobmie
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
My idea for a game: Twelve

you could have both players put whatever card they are using face down in front of them, then flip them over and compare the results... the winner of this little showdown would get first action.

And if you are going to do the "take 10 paces, turn and fire" thing, I think it would be awsome if you did a more western setting.

Anonymous
My idea for a game: Twelve

I've decided i'm going to make original fighters instead of using the age old mage, warrior, knights.

I already have 2 that i'm sure will be spectacular and to my knowledge have never been done before.

I hope you guys will reply more as i add more information.

Anonymous
Re: My idea for a game: Twelve

Some comments:

Higher-Jin wrote:

You play on a grid which for now has 168 spaces in which to move.

That's a LOT of spaces to move around in, probably way too many, especially if there are only two pieces on the board at a time. If you only move backward and forward those 10 spaces, and from side to side a tad, then all you really need is something like a 20x5 board.

Higher-Jin wrote:

It's designed for 2 players but it is very easy to make it up to 4 players i would guess especially with the way the grids are used.

Be careful when just assuming that adding players will still leave it balanced. What if two people side together to take out the third? Is that going to be very fun for the third player? Probably not.

Higher-Jin wrote:

At the beginning of the game you both start in the middle of the map/grid (as per official rules however there will probably be more play styles)

Story wise you are turning your backs to each other and take 10 steps backwards turn around and begin the duel with a initial movement.

Game Play wise both players move each of their pieces one grid square at a time and each move a total of 3 squares away from each other then they make what is called "Initial Movement"

Intial movement is basically both players do a intial move to start off the duel both of them can perform a action or none at all but any actions are considered active at the same time. In addition, they also have the option of moving one square in any direction right afterwards. The movement does not have any effect on the trajectory of the intial attack however.

This is really confusing. Are players moving 10 spaces before an Initial Movement, or only 3? Is it that each space on the board represents 1 1/3 paces? If that's the case, then it is needlessly complicated-- just say that they take 3 steps, turn, and fire. There's nothing sacrosanct about walking exactly 10 paces.

Higher-Jin wrote:

I really want a non turn based type game, right now i have 2 options other than turn based fighting:

1) Have traveling time of projectiles, moves ect. be determined by how far away you are from your opponent and for example:

Mage throws a fireball at warrior who is 2 squares away.

He gets 2 seconds (not sure if this is the actual value yet) to respond for each square it needs to travel.

Having a time limit like this makes sense in a video game, but it is not realistic to ask human players to track this time. They will either forget, or try to skew it in their favor, and you'll end up with disputes about what should be purely mechanical. Read on:

Higher-Jin wrote:

2) Action and response. No turns but whoever puts down a action first must wait for a response from his opponent. If they both put a card down at the same time I have two options, i hope you guys will help me decide which is best

1)Flip a coin, the person not flipping it calls it in the air and if he calls it right the losing player gets his action ignored and the winning player gets to do his action as if he went first.

2) They both respond to each other's attack.

Whether the response is timed or not i'm not sure. Do you guys think this would work?

Timing your players' responses arbitrarily, like I said before, will not work very well. Here's a suggestion that might help: maybe you could have players both play an action card, then ring a bell (like one of those counter-top ring-for-service bells), and the player who hits the bell first gets the move. Or his move goes first, or he gets to play another card for free, or gets some other type of advantage. This will help to make the game more intense, since you want to know what card is best to play fast enough so that you can hit the bell before your opponent does.

Higher-Jin wrote:

1) What if while Player A is busy trying to come up with a response for Player's B action , Player B uses this time to plan and readies his next card to be put down and thus continously attacks Player A.

This could easily be nullified however by making a rule stating that: Player B (the player who played the action card and forced his opponent to respond) will have his following action ignored in the event that both players put their cards down at the same time simultaneously after Player A has responded. This rule would only about 2 seconds afterwards and any later than 2 seconds will make them decide a draw as normal.

That is really, really complicated, and for no reason. There are many simpler ways to resolve the problem, like simply figuring out how to resolve multiple actions simultaneously, or the bell system like I was mentioning earlier.

Higher-Jin wrote:

The Grid:

I think of it as a battle field, i think you should be able to customize your grids and add rocks to hide behind, barriers and interactive scenery.

I think it might be possible to create your own battle fields and even combine many grids to have a battle royale.

You have a lot of fun ideas in here, but you lack refinement. Try thinking about how to make the game fun for everyone who is playing, not just someone who knows what he or she is doing. A game should be fun to play, even if you're losing, otherwise no one will want to play with you. Also, it should be pretty easy to learn how to play the game (unless you're going for a massively complex epic saga type game, but it sounds like you want something that will fit into a Clue box), so that people will want to try it in the first place. If there are too many complicated or hard to understand rules, again no one will want to play.

Keep thinking about it, tho! And I like your idea of trying some creative characters.

-Peter

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut