Skip to Content
 

Game #25: Escape or die!

28 replies [Last post]
hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I didn't realize it was my turn! :(

I won't be presenting Conduco as planned because I got caught up in creating prototypes for 2 other games this last month and playtesting them.

Nevertheless, I've got a nice game here that I think will be perfect for a GDW session. It's one of my first designs so there's a lot of bad stuff but some good stuff too. To boot, this is one game I'd really like to work on and finish because the general concept I think is great despite the fact that the mechanics are lacking.

Escape or die!

Basically, the game is made of 5 Spaceships. Players do not own a spaceship each. They are used by everyone. The squares are seats where players will seat their people on. These are "mats" representing the ships that will be on the board. An incomplete sketch of the board ( http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Board-Sketch.png )

http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Ship-A.png
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Ship-B.png
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Ship-C.png

Each ship has a little something distinct. The image Ship-C shows the 5th ship and the cut-out/assemble cardboard ships, damage tokens and fold-up air meters (an arrow pointing down).

I'll show only 2 of the 5 pages of Players bits because they're pratically all the same. VOTE cards represent each opponent's faction, because you vote against them. I was printing each Player sheet on a different color stock and gluing the opponent logo on the cards. So that's why there's a "glue logo here". Pretty nice result.

The little square token are the people (men, women and children.) There's an aid card and a two-fold mini screen to show which faction you are.

http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/PlayerA-Bits.png
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/PlayerB-Bits.png

Here are the 5 factions:
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Logos.png

The actions cards: (Teleport will be the most common card. Note that you can teleport your own people or opponent's people. This is a big part of the game actually, not sure it's that good though)
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Action-Cards.png

One sheet of collision cards:
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Collision-Cards.png

And finally, the Rules:
http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Escape-or-die.pdf (PDF).

--- Clarifications / Ideas ---

The rules do not mention action cards but what I have in mind is an innovative mechanic (I think) of giving any player the ability to play a card at any time without confusion. It involve a special token that one player possess and let him play one action card. Any player can ask for this token at any time. Before receiving it, the player who currently own it still have the ability to play a card if he wish, then he pass it to his left until it reaches the player who asked for it. Each player who gets passed the token also have the ability to play a card. Once you use the token ability to play a card, you immediately pass it to your left. So if you wanted to play two cards, the token would have to go around the table for the second card. I don't think I've seen this mechanic anywhere but correct me if I'm wrong. ;) (I did not test it either but it sounds like it would work)

Now to get action cards. This isn't mentionned in the rules either. I was thinking something simple like starting with a couple of cards and a leader could choose that instead of moving the ship this turn they will draw cards: "Players with at least one people on that ship draw one card, Leader draw 2 cards".

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

Here's an alternative board that was used when first playtesting. It was pretty fiddly what with the move actions and turning and collision between ships were resolved with dice. But it was fun. I wasn't playing, just watching. I'm not sure it was a good idea to remove the openess this board offered.

http://neutralbox.com/public/bgdf/gdw/Board-Alternative.png

Anonymous
Game #25: Escape or die!

This sounds just too silly! "Need air!" I love it!

Some thoughts:

"Hyper-ventilate" could also be called "hull breach", but I'm not sure it would connote the same comedic effect, so maybe it's good as it is.

It might enhance the "panic" of escaping if there are more people counters than there are seats in spaceships. A "6" can still be wild (or any result that corresponds to a ship not in play), but a result on a ship that's already full means you have to wait until your next turn! This makes the fight for those last remaining seats all the more nerve-wracking!

I like how, while men have a bigger voice (I suppose we can shout louder?), women count as more victory points. So, what do you want, control, or victory? The children not counting unless they have a full set of parents is unique. I'm guessing you're not too fond of single-parent households? :wink: Maybe a child with just one parent counts as 1 VP?

(I'll leave the discussion about whether men or women are the loudest to others...)

Is Pandora really a Saturnian moon?

Getting back to the action cards, if you're going for comedic effect, maybe "sabotage" could be "Oops!".

This sounds like a very silly, fun game, but I'm a little afraid that there's already a game very similar to it. Rette Sich wer Kann ("Every Man For Himself") pits a bunch of shipwreck survivors trying to reach the most lush of 3 islands via lifeboat. Each turn, players kick someone off each lifeboat, and they have to swim to another lifeboat or drown. Meanwhile, all the lifeboats are taking on water. Gameplay of Rette Sich wer Kann is very similar to what Escape or Die sounds like, although the former doesn't have action cards whereas yours does. I dunno, it might be worth taking a look just to make sure you don't duplicate too much.

And regarding the map, I think the more restrictive one fits better for this type of game. I generally dislike area-movement maps, but I think for this type of game it works better than a hex-grid map.

Well, dems my thoughts! Hope they help!

"Can't........breathe.........."

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Game #25: Escape or die!

MikeDew wrote:

Is Pandora really a Saturnian moon?

At last count there were 31 moons of Saturn (I know this because I was doing some research for the Microgame contest :))
And yes, Pandora is one of them.

MikeDew wrote:

This sounds like a very silly, fun game, but I'm a little afraid that there's already a game very similar to it. Rette Sich wer Kann ("Every Man For Himself") pits a bunch of shipwreck survivors trying to reach the most lush of 3 islands via lifeboat.

Yes, that one came to my mind too. This one introduces some extra complexity to the scenario however, which could be good or bad (who can tell!)

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

Cool, thanks!

I like your proposal for having more people than place on the ships, that would indeed add to the panic. That's good! Someone could really get hosed though, for no fault of their own.

The people value is supposed to be sexist, it's "tongue-in-cheek" satirical but it work well in mechanic term and it's something Rette Sich wer Kann doesn't have (more on that later).

Quote:

Is Pandora really a Saturnian moon?

Yes. Saturn have a lot of [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_(planet)#Saturn's_moons]moons[/url].

I read about Rette Sich wer Kann on BGG and thought it sounded amazing but couldn't buy it anywhere. So I started designing my own but with more beer & pretzels. ;) On that point you're right, it's very similar. I don't think it's a problem however.

Quote:

And regarding the map, I think the more restrictive one fits better for this type of game. I generally dislike area-movement maps, but I think for this type of game it works better than a hex-grid map.

Interesting, but an hex map would steer it away from Rette Sich.

Thanks for your insights!

IngredientX
IngredientX's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Re: Game #25: Escape or die!

Hi hpox... This is the first GDW game I've commented on in awhile, which makes me feel guilty that I haven't done anything with the others... :(

Overall, it seems like a strong design. Like all the other GDW games, I wish I could playtest it!

First off, you say the game takes place in three phases: "The Big Rush," "In Space," and "Survival Probability Calculation." To me, "The Big Rush" is just setup, "Survival Probability Calculation" is just scoring, and "In Space" is the game itself. Renaming the phases would remove a bit of chrome, but would probably aid first-time players learning from the rulebook.

I love the idea that an escapee can be sacrificed in order to save air - it makes the game nice and bloodthirsty. :twisted: You may want to avoid the word "lynch" though, because it has racial connotations. "Sacrifice" might work a little better.

Here's a suggestion that might add complexity to the game, but may be helpful anyway: each person has a different "skill." Some people are good at computers, others are good at repair, others are good at leadership, others are good at healing. At some points in the game (maybe every turn, maybe at spots designated on the board), an event happens. Events can be rolled on a table, or drawn from a seperate card deck (though that might cause component overload). Some sample events...

- Virus! If the ship's passengers contain fewer than 2 people skilled at Healing, you lose one person.
- Radiation leak! If the ship's passengers contain fewer than 2 people skilled at Repair, you lose one person.
- Collision! If your leader doesn't have a Piloting skill, draw a Collision card.

There would be no corresponding Event cards for the Leadership skill; those people would have an extra Voice.

If you succeed at an Event, you could be immediately granted a random action from the action card deck; or a specific Action could be granted for each event. Perhaps the player can hang on to the Event card and use it as an Action card; it all depends on how rules-heavy you want the game to be.

The neat thing about giving people skills is that it adds a level of strategy to the vote. You may not want to vote against someone who controls people who have strong survival skills. On the other hand, you may want to get rid of those essential people to get at his annoying Leader.

Another thing you may want to consider is to weight the Collision deck so that certain seats are more dangerous than others, especially the Leader's chair.

I'm not sure about the "sexist" mechanic. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but you want women to play this game, right? :)

Seriously, I find it a bit of a distraction. It breaks my suspension of disbelief, because I start thinking of gender issues instead of the game. What you could do instead is to print voices and point values right on the people tiles. This wouldn't add a great deal of complexity to the game, and you could have strong women and weak men; which more closely matches what I see in real life.

Can you sacrifice children? Would that be a little "over-the-top?" If some people find the idea of killing children disturbing, you could either institute a no-killing-children rule, or arrange the artwork so that the people are all funny-looking aliens (a la Awful Green Things from Outer Space), and the "children" are all eggs. After all, you can't make an omlette...

Anonymous
Re: Game #25: Escape or die!

IngredientX wrote:
After all, you can't make an omlette...

...without consuming oxygen? Hmm....

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Game #25: Escape or die!

I agree with you, the 3 phases are really Setup/Game/End. Somehow I would like to make "The Big Rush" a little bit more involved. I like the idea of having a very quick mini-game before the game starts, to set the pace. I will probably change Survival Probability Calculation to just End Game.

Quote:
You may want to avoid the word "lynch" though, because it has racial connotations. "Sacrifice" might work a little better.

Noted. Didn't know about that, thanks.

Quote:

Here's a suggestion that might add complexity to the game, but may be helpful anyway: each person has a different "skill." Some people are good at computers, others are good at repair, others are good at leadership, others are good at healing. At some points in the game (maybe every turn, maybe at spots designated on the board), an event happens. Events can be rolled on a table.

Amazing ideas, I like them very much. That's where I want to direct the game. Maybe even completely replacing the action cards with each people token being special such as having a teleport action, a repair action, etc... I already have dice, an event table (or book?) sounds nice and could add a lot of chrome and replayability. 36 different events with 2 dice.

Instead of collision cards, it could be numbers on the seats and modules slots of the ships. 12 seats, so with two dice I could do the weight thing having the leader (or would "pilot" be better?) seat at 7. Another roll for the modules, 5,6,7,8,9,10 damaging a certain module the rest doing no damage.

Quote:
The neat thing about giving people skills is that it adds a level of strategy to the vote. You may not want to vote against someone who controls people who have strong survival skills. On the other hand, you may want to get rid of those essential people to get at his annoying Leader.

Yes. Yes. Totally agree. Great!

Quote:

I'm not sure about the "sexist" mechanic. I know it's tongue-in-cheek, but you want women to play this game, right? :)

Seriously, I find it a bit of a distraction. It breaks my suspension of disbelief, because I start thinking of gender issues instead of the game. What you could do instead is to print voices and point values right on the people tiles. This wouldn't add a great deal of complexity to the game, and you could have strong women and weak men; which more closely matches what I see in real life.

Interesting point. I kind of wanted to show how even (especially?) in critical situations, humans are very stupid. But I like your idea of having each people be different, smells of flavor! I would even go as far as having each nationality have its force and weakness in people. Maybe even stereotyping again...

Quote:
Can you sacrifice children? Would that be a little "over-the-top?"

Yes. Yes :twisted:

Thanks for your thoughts. I appreciate it and it's just what I needed to breathe new life into this game.

DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Looks like a very intersting game!

Hpox,

From your sketch of the game board, I notice that there are certain decisions for the leader as to whether to go through an asteroid or skirt around it and spend one extra square (thus loose more oxygen).

The problem I see with the sketch is that is appears to be more difficult to avoid collision with the first asteroid belts (I presume the numbers 1-5 at the bottom indicate the starting locations of the ships) as opposed to the latter ones. In order to make the end game more exciting, it seems to me you want to make it tougher at the end rather than at the beginning. I think it is better to create more tension as you get nearer the planets.

I don't see the planets labeled at the end of the board. I presume they are the last circles at the end of the board. Is this correct?

I don't think it is mentioned in the rules whether or not you can have multiple ships on a planet. I would make it so that you can only have one ship on one planet, so players may have to backtrack to get to a planet. This way it will also be a race to get to a planet so as to be guaranteed to get one without having to back track or take a longer route.

I don't see on the sketch the "set route represented by a small dot."

If you have the vote mechanic for oxygen, why not have a vote mechanism for the leader? No one would get killed, but a vote for the leader would be done in a similar fashion. Depending on the situation, a re-vote could be done for another leader. This is like a mutiny aboard a ship that can happen any time. I think it would add tension.

Right now with the point system of men, women or children, it appears to get more oxygen the child will always be sacrificed. Personally, it sounds horrible to kill kids. I understand you get a bonus for children for one man and one woman, but I still think the children would be sacrificed. Personally I would consider making the people sexless. There is no sex involved but simply crew members that may have different point values, or if you have one of this crew member and another crew member of a different type you can get bonuses. The value of the crew member can be the usefullness of the member.

I think the action cards would really spice up the game a bit. I would play test it without the action cards until things become more concrete and solid and then add the action cards. The teleport idea is great so as to go ahead and try to hijack a ship (if you keep my idea of having a mutiny on the ship). I would also have maybe cards where a crew member is actually a robot that can explode resulting in a couple of collisions cards being drawn.

Looks like a great fun idea.

All the best,

--DarkDream

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

I tried really hard to make a good board and it's where I failed miserably. The sketch is really incomplete and way too short right now it would take 3 turns (or less using boost cards) to reach the last circles. You're right about the asteroids and I agree about the tension, I don't know what I was thinking.

The one ship per planet was considered but let's say you land 2 childs and 1 man on a planet. Then you would try to push really hard for a woman to get to that planet. I don't know if it would work like that though..

Quote:
I don't see on the sketch the "set route represented by a small dot."

It's really tiny and on the line.

Quote:

If you have the vote mechanic for oxygen, why not have a vote mechanism for the leader? I think it would add tension.

That's a good point and I took think it would add to the game. However, I was thinking it would bog the game down. Could you vote for yourself? If you could, then its nearly the same as having it automatically chosen.

About the kids, I don't know how it would work out but I'll keep it in mind.

Quote:
I would also have maybe cards where a crew member is actually a robot that can explode resulting in a couple of collisions cards being drawn.

Bwhhahah. That's great! Definitively in.

Thank you very much for your comments and ideas.

Anonymous
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

hpox wrote:
Quote:

If you have the vote mechanic for oxygen, why not have a vote mechanism for the leader? I think it would add tension.

That's a good point and I took think it would add to the game. However, I was thinking it would bog the game down. Could you vote for yourself? If you could, then its nearly the same as having it automatically chosen.

This was actually my concern when I heard the suggestion of the people actually having specific skills. Holy moley! Talk about analysis paralysis! I think that would detract immensely from the silly-yet-frenetic feel of the game. Give that one some serious thought before implementing.

Now, if you want to create a game where deep thought and strategic planning are rewarded, by all means give it some consideration, but the general feel I got from the rules would seem to suggest that making the people any more complex than having gender would detract, not add.

And here's a thought if you want to avoid the possibility of infanticide in the game: put them in cryo-sleep instead. It's a game concept I use in Alpha Colony, which will be featured in the Game Designer's Workshop next week in fact! :D
[/shameless self-promotion]

nosissies
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Game #25: Escape or die!

I really like where this is going. I like the relatively quick voting and action card game which you propose.

I like the chaotic start idea, it really captures the theme. You may want to emphasize the "roll then pass then place" mechanic a little more in your rules so that it is more obvious that everyone is essentially placing their people at the same time. I'll second Mike's comment about having more people than seats, but I'm not sure I like the dice deciding that you can't get someone on a ship, I'd rather that the primary reason you didn't get someone on the ship be that you were just too slow. Perhaps there is another mechanistic tweak to ensure this, I just can't think of one right now.

I didn't see this explicitly in the rules, but are you allowed to use a cheat whenever voices are counted? can you use a cheat to acquire the leader's seat?

Folks have already talked about this, but I'll reiterate, the board is a little unclear, but I can understand that at this stage. If you could clarify which are the two moons the ships are headed to, and which lines actually have dots (I can see most of them). I do like the more restrictive board better than the less restrictive, and I agree with the earlier comments regarding the idea that the asteroid fields should be easy to dodge at the beginning and more difficult at the end. Perhaps the extra navigation system would let you re-roll? This might give the folks on a given ship some incentive to keep it in working order.

Clarification on the action cards would be helpful, but from what I'm reading it seems that you're still sorting this out. How about this... each player is dealt some number of action cards to start... 5? , then after each "round" that is after all 5 ships have moved, each player draws three more cards before going back to ship number one. This would force budgeting of cards, and of course you could have action cards allowing drawing/stealing of more cards. ooh how about this... you could even have folks draw one of their cards face up, and if it's something bad it happens to you. (perhaps stealing too much from munchkin here)

Another clarification request, I saw the navigation system, and torpedos on the ship cards, how do these effect play? I don't think I saw them in the rules.

And what about collisions with other ships? How are these handled?

As for the "sexist" part of the game, I think this is a great game element... where one type of person helps you control your destiny, but you have to "protect" the other type of person to guarentee more points at the end of the game. Perhaps you could just have small medium and large pawns? Also, to make it more frustrating of a decision of who to sacrifice (so it's not always the kids.. or small pawns) you might want to make them more valueble at the end.... of course then the mid sized might be more readily sacrificed. Anyhow, I think this is an important part of the game but it might take some time to balance it.

Addressing the suggestions of others to add skills and whatnot to the people, I think that could take the game in a very different direction with lots of things to track. Perhaps there is some simple way to capture this... perhaps even just saying that everyone represented on the ship could agree to discard action cards in order to repair something. ... or some other cooperation mechanism. Perhaps you could put symbols on the bottom of the action cards (like engine, navigation system etc) to indicate that it can be sacrificed to repair something - then require a certain number of cards to be sacrificed to make a repair.

Looks like a lot of fun, I look forward to seeing where it ends up going.

peace,
Tom

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

Thanks, I too think the start idea is good. :D In the last paragraph I mention that if the dice come back to you before you placed your people, they get "trampled" and can't place them. It's not very clear though suggesting it's an optional rule.

You can use the cheat cards only when a vote is going on. You can't use that cheat anymore, obviously. I can see why it would be very interesting to use the cheat to take the leader seat.

The navigation system was going to give you a bonus of +1 on your die. A re-roll is nice too. We'll see.

Quote:
Clarification on the action cards would be helpful, but from what I'm reading it seems that you're still sorting this out.

Which card do you want clarifications on? I'll give precisions.

I really like the idea of drawing a new set of cards after all 5 ships have "acted" and I'm pretty sure that's how I was going to do but forgot. The Holodeck is on the 3rd ship (middle one) and it's supposed to give one new card to every player that have someone on it.

The munchkin trap mechanic I'm not too fond of.

You're right, this wasn't in the rules:

Navigation System:
+1 bonus on the rolled die when going through an asteroid field.
In the open board, it was used to Rotate the ship once.

Torpedos:
There's two torpedos. The leader can decide to shoot another ship that's on the same zone or (a zone near it?). It does an automatic collision on that ship.

Holodeck:
Draw cards. Maybe something else?

Shield:
2 Shields. Automatic use when a collision occurs, it gets cancelled. Cancel torpedoes too.

Quote:
And what about collisions with other ships? How are these handled?

This is something that's really needed to make the game fun but I haven't really thought of anything yet. When the ship move on an already occupied zone maybe? Both draw a collision card.

I agree that I'll have to balance the values but I think I have a good enough base now.

All great opinions and suggestions. Thanks a bunch! It's really helpful.

nosissies
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Game #25: Escape or die!

hpox wrote:

Quote:
Clarification on the action cards would be helpful, but from what I'm reading it seems that you're still sorting this out.

Which card do you want clarifications on? I'll give precisions.

I really like the idea of drawing a new set of cards after all 5 ships have "acted" and I'm pretty sure that's how I was going to do but forgot. The Holodeck is on the 3rd ship (middle one) and it's supposed to give one new card to every player that have someone on it.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my question. I was more interested in how the action cards came into play which I didn't see mentioned in the rules.... except that they are to be shuffled and placed in a stack.

I think one of the things I like about re-drawing after all the ships have moved is that it may help to reduce analysis paralysis, so you aren't considering your new cards after every ship moves. This is difficult to gauge without a playtest, but intuitively it should have this effect. Also you could reduce the number of cards a person is allowed to hold prior to moving the first ship, so you may draw two cards after the 5th ship moves and then have to turn around and discard a card to get down to the limit. ... unless you happen to have the "really-big-carry-on-luggage" card. .. or a person on the ship with the biggest "trunk" (or "boot" for our UK friends).

Quote:

The munchkin trap mechanic I'm not too fond of.

Fair enough, my apologies for even suggesting it. Your game isn't really "light" enough to warrant this sort of mechanism.

Upon explaination I like the little twists added by the navigation system, torpedos, holodecks and shields.

I guess I was assuming that only one ship would be allowed on a space at a time. I naturally tend toward constraining things more rather than less. This of course complicates collisions between ships as well as the use of torpedos.

For torpedos I think it makes sense just to handle it as a collision, and it can be dodged the same way as an asteroid field. And if you can't occupy the same space then it would have to be fired on an adjacent space... or maybe you could use the ship movement modifiers to give the torpedo more range?

Ship collisions are a little more difficult to handle if you want to keep things fairly consistent. I think it makes sense to invoke a collision on both ships, but where would the ships end up?

Again, looks like a fun game, I think it has some potential for fun player interaction. Also, I'm sure there are some interesting dynamics which will only be visible once it's playtested. I look forward to hearing the first playtest report :-)

Quote:

All great opinions and suggestions. Thanks a bunch! It's really helpful.

No problem, it's a lot of fun. I just wish I had more time to invest in the heavier games people put up here from time to time.

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

Oops, I somehow missed your reply Mike

MikeDew wrote:
Talk about analysis paralysis! I think that would detract immensely from the silly-yet-frenetic feel of the game. Give that one some serious thought before implementing.

I will.

Quote:
And here's a thought if you want to avoid the possibility of infanticide in the game: put them in cryo-sleep instead.

What's the deal with killing children! Why is that not acceptable? :evil: The cryo-sleep idea is cool but won't it strain the already limited resources on the ship?

Anonymous
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

hpox wrote:
What's the deal with killing children! Why is that not acceptable? :evil:

We're wimps in the States?
hpox wrote:
The cryo-sleep idea is cool but won't it strain the already limited resources on the ship?

Nah...you got natural cooling: The Icy Blackness of Space! (tm - Bill Nye The Science Guy)

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

MikeDew wrote:
Nah...you got natural cooling: The Icy Blackness of Space! (tm - Bill Nye The Science Guy)

Ah! Now that, I like! Throwing children in space, leaving them to die of horrible asphyxiation. Isn't that even more cruel?

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

nosissies wrote:
Sorry, I wasn't very clear in my question. I was more interested in how the action cards came into play which I didn't see mentioned in the rules.... except that they are to be shuffled and placed in a stack.

How they are used/played, check my first post the last two paragraphs. As how to get them, it's still undecided but the draw cards at the end of a round is really good and simple.

Quote:
I guess I was assuming that only one ship would be allowed on a space at a time.

It depends on how you see the circles, do they represent a small portion of space or a bigger? Either way could work really...

Quote:
Ship collisions are a little more difficult to handle if you want to keep things fairly consistent. I think it makes sense to invoke a collision on both ships, but where would the ships end up?

Either they stay on the same space or the one getting bumped goes to the next space (using the dot line) so you could bump ships into asteroid field. :)

Anonymous
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

hpox wrote:
MikeDew wrote:
Nah...you got natural cooling: The Icy Blackness of Space! (tm - Bill Nye The Science Guy)

Ah! Now that, I like! Throwing children in space, leaving them to die of horrible asphyxiation. Isn't that even more cruel?
Err, not exactly what I meant. Don't get me wrong, I like kids...in a nice, white wine sauce with freshly glazed carrots on the side. But I think in more general terms, Americans think of their kids as the Holiest of Holy, They That Can Do No Wrong, and the concept of harming them in any way is loathesome. Sh@t, we can't even spank kids anymore without a visit from CPS. It's going to come back and bite us (Americans) in the ass one day, if it isn't already (watching the news and all the examples of bad behavior, perhaps it's already started).[/soapbox]

...But I digress. What I meant by the Icy Blackness of Space was that you have a natural heat sink, so there would be little resource expenditure to put/keep crew in cryo.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

hpox wrote:
Oops, I somehow missed your reply Mike

MikeDew wrote:
Talk about analysis paralysis! I think that would detract immensely from the silly-yet-frenetic feel of the game. Give that one some serious thought before implementing.

I will.

Quote:
And here's a thought if you want to avoid the possibility of infanticide in the game: put them in cryo-sleep instead.

What's the deal with killing children! Why is that not acceptable? :evil: The cryo-sleep idea is cool but won't it strain the already limited resources on the ship?

JF,

Finally got a chance to read it over fully. Great, great game!

As for killing children, I have a couple of thoughts:

Some folks mentioned that the children would be the first to go. This seems like it would be probably true because you (as the player voted out) don't want to sacrifice someone who has a voice. However, if you look at the bigger picture, this probably won't hold true. A player who has children *might* be selected first, but the other players won't gain anything from it in reality since your not immediately weakening the voice of that player (in reality, you may cause them to score less). More likely, people will vote against their nearest rivals in voice strength, everyone will try to gang up against the leader, or you'll pick on someone who doesn't have a 'child buffer'. Also, I'm not sure if you intended it, but this phase would be a GREAT table talk phase. I.E. People could discuss treaties, future promises, etc.. Of course, there would be no rule saying they had to actually stick to the treaty, so a lot of backstabbing could ensue, and of course retribution later. I think this would add tremendously to the feel of the game.

One thing you may want to do is to attach some sort of stigma to children being jettisoned from the ship. Such as for each child jettisoned, that ship gets a 'Barbarism marker'. At the end of the game, each player who has surviving people on a ship with such a marker suffers some sort of penalty. Again, this is just an idea, not even a suggestion really. Just something to think about. I think it will add another level to the game. It might further discourage people from 'voting out' a player who has children. If that person 'spikes' one of their children, then it may negatively affect the whole population of the ship later on in the scoring stage.

Just some thoughts. I love the idea. When you feel like it's in a play testable state, I'd love to try it out with my group. Just drop me a line.

-Michael

nosissies
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Game #25: Escape or die!

pointing out my poor short term memory hpox wrote:

How they are used/played, check my first post the last two paragraphs. As how to get them, it's still undecided but the draw cards at the end of a round is really good and simple.

That sounds like an interesting mechanism for governing the playing of action cards. It's a little difficult to imagine how that will effect game play. With this mechanism it would go slower than just allowing simultaneous play, and it would be more interesting than just going around the table for each ship. You would just have to decide how/when to move on to the next ship... would it just be when no one wants to play any more actions on the current ship? seems simple enough.

hpox wrote:

Either they stay on the same space or the one getting bumped goes to the next space (using the dot line) so you could bump ships into asteroid field. :)

This would definitely up the interaction scale, as you could set up a whole chain reaction of collisions. My initial reaction was "Fun!" , but I can also see that some folks might not care for this as it would add another element of chaos into the game and would make the end of the game even more treacherous if all of the default paths merge at the latter part of the board. - looks like another playtest point.

Darkehorse brilliantly wrote:

More likely, people will vote against their nearest rivals in voice strength, everyone will try to gang up against the leader, or you'll pick on someone who doesn't have a 'child buffer'.

Of course! Why didn't I think of that? I'm really liking the way the balance and tensions are shaping up in this game.

peace,
Tom

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Re: Looks like a very intersting game!

MikeDew, thanks for the explanation I understand what you mean now.

Darkehorse, Great analysis Michael! I hadn't thought of it that deeply but somehow mathematically it made sense. The diplomacy-alliance-backstabbing part will indeed provide a big chunk of enjoyement. In that sense, I guess the game will need the right players to enjoy. I might have to mention this in the rulebook to make sure the game isn't played plainly.

I'm against a no-children-killing rule but your Barbarism idea is fantastic. During the crisis, they don't care to kill the children to save their own skin but once settled on the moons they might have the reaction "What have we done?!!!.. Oh my...." If it works like in your example, giving hard decisions to players, some diplomacy or threats ("if you vote against me, I'm killing one of my child you bastards!!") and bluff.

One thing that wouldn't work is that someone could get teleport to a ship with barbarisms counters without having participated in them. But I think that might even be a feature.

Thanks for the comments and great ideas.

Anonymous
Game #25: Escape or die!

Yeah, I like the barbarism idea as well! "Don't go to that ship, they're savages! Do you know what they do with their young?!?"

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

nosissies wrote:
You would just have to decide how/when to move on to the next ship... would it just be when no one wants to play any more actions on the current ship? seems simple enough.

Yep, that's what I was thinking.

Quote:
This would definitely up the interaction scale, as you could set up a whole chain reaction of collisions.

Didn't think of that. That could be fun. I don't think too huge chain reaction could happen if the ship who collide with another ship does not advance, just the one who got hit. Yeah, playtest.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #25: Escape or die!

If people are placing and jettisoning people, children or otherwise, then is it the case that everyone starts with the same mix of people? Or do you somehow 'construct' your population? I could see stratgeies like picking 2 men, 2 women, and the rest children... let the others have all the voice, and try to score big points for example... vs choosing lots of Men, and a few Women and children so you get lots of Voice but may not score as much...

But I think it would be better to have the same mix for each player, and make sure there are more people than will get on the ships.

- Seth

nosissies
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Game #25: Escape or die!

hpox wrote:

One thing that wouldn't work is that someone could get teleport to a ship with barbarisms counters without having participated in them. But I think that might even be a feature.

MikeDew wrote:
Yeah, I like the barbarism idea as well! "Don't go to that ship, they're savages! Do you know what they do with their young?!?"

I'm liking this idea too, one dynamic this might add is that folks might have a tendency at the end of a game to jump ship and teleport off of a barbarous(?) ship to save some points.... or maliciously, (since you can teleport anyone) you might teleport someone else onto a barbarous ship which is about to finish... save some teleports for the endgame!

A couple of random thoughts below ... take them or leave them.

Another way to handle the infanticide issue, aside from the barbarism marker, might be to award points to players at the time the ship lands. Each player represented on the ship receiving a number of points equivalent to the number of people on the ship, so there is incentive not to kill anyone... sort of the way villages are scored in "Clans." Teleporting onto a nearly full ship would end up being a decision to attempt to solidify points at the end while losing a voice on the ship you are leaving.

Previously you stated that the largest number of the cards are the teleports. As we see here these will make for lots of player interaction. If, after playtests, it seems to be too chaotic, one way to reduce the total number of teleports, without neccesarily reducing the number of cards might be to limit the total number of teleports that can be initiated from a particular ship... sort of an energy counter on each ship which would be reduced on each teleport (like your oxygen counter). Then there could be some consequence for the energy counter getting too low.... ie the ship stalls, no more teleports allowed, other systems start to fail etc.

peace,
Tom

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

This sounds like the kind of game I would like. I can see it causing some 'interesting' and hilarious situations.

Keep up the good work.

Anonymous
Game #25: Escape or die!

Re: teleporting - I'm not sure it'll be as chaotic as you might think; after all, at the start of the game, ALL the ships are full of people. IOW, there's nowhere to teleport to, in the beginning. (This is, of course, assuming I interpreted the rules correctly, which is not always the case!) Only after people start offing each other will there be room on other ships to transport to. I don't know if it would be worth the complexity, but maybe there could be rules for overcrowding (costs an extra air, those without actual seats get no votes ["don't let the squatters have a vote, they're just lucky we let them stay!"], stuff like that...)?

hpox
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #25: Escape or die!

sedjtroll wrote:
If people are placing and jettisoning people, children or otherwise, then is it the case that everyone starts with the same mix of people?

But I think it would be better to have the same mix for each player, and make sure there are more people than will get on the ships.

Yeah. This is probably the best way to go about it. Everyone have the same mix but a little bit more than fits. So now the Rush phase will be more interesting as you will be able to decide which people you want, but decide quickly or else...

nosissies, what you propose is very interesting and make sense. More people = more chance of survival or is that not how it would go what with all the backstabbing. :lol: Anyways, I haven't played "Clans" but that mechanic look solid and full of decision-making.

On the other hand, adding a new teleport counter for each ship seem a bit over the top.. There's already a lot of stuff! But point taken, I'll closely watch the teleports and how it affect the game.

MikeDew, rules for overcrowding were in before. When a ship got one more person, -1 air, when you lose one person +1 air. So when teleporting it was +1 air at the source ship, -1 at the destination. You could effectively asphixiate an entire ship by teleporting people on it. I removed it because it was too complex but I'm not too sure about it now. It doesn't seem too complex now...

Thanks to all for the comments and ideas.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut