Skip to Content
 

Monstrous Advice Needed

13 replies [Last post]
Wed, 04/27/2016 - 23:20
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

To recap JewellGames shared with me an interesting "drafting" game. I liked it because I felt I could add a theme and make the game more appealing for players.

The game is called "Monster Keep" and you battle to "KEEP" monsters (pun intended)!

So my question is this:

Could HUMANS be a part of the game??? Or is it better if I stick to real BADIES ONLY???

Fundamentally I want to know should I include "Humans", "Elves", "Dwarves", "Gnomes", "Dark Elves" and "Wood Elves" as being potential residents of the KEEP.

Does it feel LESS like "Monster Keep" with these "good/neutral" races? But shouldn't the KEEP maybe ALLOW for nicer members too???

What's your opinion...?

Top
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 00:46
#1
Stormyknight1976
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2012
My opinion

Just keep Monsters and humans.

Similar ideas that come to mind:

1: King Kong : Modern movie

2: Monster Hunter : video game

3: Monster Rancher : video game

4: Far Cry : Primal

5: Planet of the Apes

These are just a few examples. Why these examples. Well these games and movies have monsters and humans. Someone is doing it right. Its all about familarity.

Adding the elves, dwarves, gnomes will over saturate your game.

Players can build unique traps from different materials or dig large hidden holes with pikes in them to use bait of one monster to capture another or an opponent off guard.

Top
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 02:14
#2
McTeddy
Offline
Joined: 11/19/2012
I'd say stick with monsters

I'd say stick with monsters only to match the name.

My first instinct about a "Monster Keep" is that it would be about things that would live inside a hostile environment. Why would friendly monsters be living aside the hostile ones?

Second, thematically, the "Keep" mechanic makes me think of "capturing" the creature or taking it prisoner in some way.

It'd just strike me as odd that you'd be keeping intelligent beings in the same way as the sinister creatures of evil.

That said, it's late and it could just be the lack of sleep talking.

Top
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 19:50
#3
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Re-using and re-tooling

Well I used some of my older "Monsters"/Baddies and removed the humanoid categories for new ones.

I can't say that the categories of Monsters (six of them) are as good as the original grouping of minions - but they'll have to do.

Each category has nine (9) Monsters, so a total of 54 monsters in all.

Top
Thu, 04/28/2016 - 20:22
#4
chris_mancini
chris_mancini's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/01/2015
I like the idea of keeping it

I like the idea of keeping it all monsters, as pretty much every other response has stated.

I had an image of a tall stone tower, with all sorts of monster bits - tentacles, eyeballs, furry claws, teeth - poking out of its windows, as though it was full to bursting. Plays on both definitions of "keep," especially if the goal is to hold as many monsters as you can!

I also think that by limiting the game to monsters, you'll end up with something much more original; adding dwarves and elves just makes it feel more generic fantasy. Find the right artist and your monsters could build a world all their own!

Top
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 22:32
#5
whiletruefork
Offline
Joined: 04/28/2016
Without knowing the game's

Without knowing the game's mechanics it's hard to say for sure, but if you wanted to flesh out the "world" of the game to include races like dwarves, humans, elves, gnomes, etc., one thing that might work is to make all of the core gameplay revolve around interactions with the monsters, but give each *player* one of the non-monster races as their faction. It could just be flavor or you could give each race a minor bonus to something or other. Dwarves had goblins so such and such. Human knights fight dragons so etc. That sort of thing.

I agree with the others though, that the monsters should take center stage. Humanoid races can still be an active audience.

Top
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 22:44
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Lord Of The Keep (LOTK)

Well each player already randomly (and secretly) choose one (1) "Lord Of The Keep" card. The Lord will grant victory points based on the type of Monsters you manage to collect.

Player duel on each turn like in War (The Card Game) with the exception that ties allow each player to keep their respective Monster.

The Normal Lords are as follows:

  • Lord Asinius: a bald fat Merchant [Red]
  • Lord Kane: a cut-throat master Thief [Yellow]
  • Lord Duncan: a forsaken Knight [Blue]

The Expert Lords are as follows:

  • Lord Rex: a draconian King [Orange]
  • Lord Sandor: a dark Warlock [Green]
  • Lord Taurin: a bullish Minotaur [Purple]

This gives flavor to the game and adds two levels of strategy. Expert Lords are tougher since they score Victory Points for TWO (2) Attributes.

The attributes are:

  • Hunger (Food)
  • Greed (Treasure)
  • Bloodlust (Battle)

Again very thematic - but there is no "story" - just some interesting theme ideas...

Top
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 22:51
#7
Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
Let me see if I'm picturing

Let me see if I'm picturing this right. Both players simultaneously reveal one card per turn and then they battle. Do they battle based solely on their attack values, and whichever is higher wins, thus you collect both and add victory points? How do Hunger, Greed, and Bloodlust play into this?

It's hard to say what does and doesn't fit your theme without a deeper understanding of the proposed mechanics.

Top
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 23:44
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Hidden information

Squinshee wrote:
Let me see if I'm picturing this right. Both players simultaneously reveal one card per turn and then they battle. Do they battle based solely on their attack values, and whichever is higher wins, thus you collect both and add victory points?

Yes like in War, each card has an "Attack" value and the one with the higher value (between both players) is the one that WINS both cards. As I said before, for ties, each player keeps his/her own Monster.

Squinshee wrote:
How do Hunger, Greed, and Bloodlust play into this?

Hidden information. Namely you do not know the opponent's Lord. Victory Points (VPs) are scored based on ONE (1) Attribute ONLY. So if my Lord is "Lord Asinius", each "Food" scores one VP. So you only score VPs for FOOD/Hunger.

So if I have a Goblin with (5 Food, 4 Treasure and 6 Battle), I would only score 5 VPs (if I have chosen Lord Asinius). If I chose Lord Kane, I would score 4 VPs and Lord Duncan would score 6 VPs.

That's for the NORMAL Lords. Expert Lords score on TWO (2) Attributes (combinations), like Food + Treasure, each 1 VP...

There could be some scoring bonuses (extra VPs) on the cards themselves also. Like Green Slime, score +1 VP for each Green Slime. This means that ONE (1) Green Slime scores +1 VP, two (2) Green Slime score +4 VPs and three (3) Green Slime score +9 VPs...

Something along those lines...

Top
Fri, 04/29/2016 - 23:55
#9
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Also remember...

That after each turn, players exchange hands with their opponent.

It's also a "Card Drafting" game - in that you need to "out-think" your opponent when "losing" battles - with cards unfavorable to his SCORE.

Like if he had a "Vampire" with (7 Food, 4 Treasure and 2 Battle), this would be perfect to play IF you believe the opponent has chosen "Lord Duncan"... Because of the LOW battle.

Obviously you want to WIN the battles - but it's not always possible and you want to lose by giving the smallest amount of extra VPs.

Top
Sat, 04/30/2016 - 13:54
#10
Squinshee
Squinshee's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2012
Okay, got it. I like the

Okay, got it. I like the idea. Very simple and accessible. I think you should stick with just monsters and see how much design space and interaction you can milk them for first.

Top
Sun, 05/01/2016 - 00:16
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Thanks for the advice

Squinshee wrote:
Okay, got it. I like the idea. Very simple and accessible. I think you should stick with just monsters and see how much design space and interaction you can milk them for first.

Hmm... You make a very good point. I can FOCUS on Monsters NOW - and at a later time introduce "HERO" Expansions!!! Maybe "Hero" cards could be like "screw-you-over" cards which REDUCE the amount of points you earn (like NEGATIVE!) That could be an "interesting" expansion: adding a *NEW* mechanic to the game...

Cheers!

Top
Mon, 05/02/2016 - 22:42
#12
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
"Hero" Cards

Having spawned the idea of maybe including "Heroes" at a later time, I have been thinking about how you could use these cards.

There are two (2) scenarios:

A> You use a "Hero" to DEFEAT your opponent's MONSTER and collect only the MONSTER and discard the "Hero" (His job is done!)

B> You use a "Hero" as a PENALTY card when your opponent WINS a battle. In this scenario, the "Hero" can only penalize ONE (1) Attribute according to his card. Obviously if you choose wrongly - no penalty... But this still has a SLOWING effect on your opponent.

In either scenario, the "Hero" cards are real "screw-you-over" cards in either of the two (2) forms.

Still needs more thinking - about how to introduce these cards. But I generally like the direction they are going in.

Top
Mon, 05/02/2016 - 23:18
#13
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Reconsidering the Mechanic

In this wanting to have a "screw-you-over" card, it makes sense that IF you choose a "Hero" to defeat a MONSTER, you should be able to do so...

If you DEFEAT the opposing monster, you collect the monster card and discard the Hero card - his job is done!

But if you FAIL to defeat the MONSTER, you collect the "Hero" card and place it in your KEEP as a PENALTY - because quite frankly he doesn't want to be alone in a dingy old keep filled with Monsters looking to EAT Heroes! ;)

This is a variant without penalizing the opponent too much and adding a touch of RISK in playing the "Hero" card: if you fail, you get the penalty!

This, to me, sound more viable than the two (2) previous rules...

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut