Team-based gaming

I don't think partnership games could really constitute a trend.

An everyone-for-themselves game requires different possible victory outcomes, one for each player. Losing just means someone else getting the victory. A cooperative game has to be fundamentally different, because everybody wins together. So losing has to be redefined.

Partnership games are more like everyone-for-themselves games. There has to be a distinct victory outcome for each partnership. Losing usually just means some other partnership winning. This means that you can change almost any everyone-for-themselves game into a partnership game by letting two players win if one of them does, or by adding together their scores. So, naturally, there are lots of games that can be played either with partners or everyone-for-themselves. Many of them actually play better with partners, even though you don't think of them as partner games. (To take one mass market example: Star Wars Epic Duels.)

Partnership only becomes an ineliminable part of games that are about communication. In Bridge, this happens in the bidding. In games like Password and Pictionary, one partner has to guess what the other already knows. It might be cool to make a board game that involves communication some integral way, but I can't see it being a trend. For most games, they can be played with or without partners-- and so it makes marketing sense to sell them as such.

...I'd hardly call the bidding in bridge to be covert communication. The various bidding systems are practically formal languages about a specific domain (bridge hands).

For example: (Assume passes for the opposition) [Might be slightly inaccurate, it's been years since I played, and will vary in some of the specifics (The point distribution of the initial 1NT bid being a major one where different partnerships differ)]

1NT "I have 12-14 points and a balanced suit distribution."
2C "What's you're major?"
2H "I have four or more hearts, but might have the same amount of spades."
2S "I have four spades, how many do you have?"
3NT "I don't have four spades, and am at the upper end of the points I stated."
Pass "Game in no trumps it is, then."

And there is nothing at all subtle or covert about a 2C opening bid.

The covert communication occurs in the card play of the defenders. For example, discarding low is "don't lead this suit", while discarding high is "lead this suit", etc.

Generally, I think the ability for the partners to communicate but in a pre-defined way, not necessarily codified by the game itself (Bridge's isn't, but there are only a few bidding systems that are in use), but developable by the players. This would have to not be forced by the game, but present in the game itself, so as to be natural ("Uhh. What? I'm only allowed to communicate in this game with the numbers 1-7 and the words Tree, Woof, Meow and Alpacatacalaca?")

Remember, the use of the bidding in bridge to communicate about the contents of your hand came about because of the need to communicate about the hands beyond "I'd like to play in spades, and can make about 7 tricks." the fact that talking isn't allowed, and the fact that the a limited vocabulary was already present, just undefined in meaning. To enable that sort of communication to occur in a partnership board-game, you'd need something that needs talking about, to ban table-talk, and something independent but connected which can be used to communicate about it. Then, if the game gets popular, a formalised communication system will develop over time, and in the meantime people will communicate with the equivalent of broad pictures ("I bid 3 Woof 2 Tree, which mechanically means that me and my partner need to win three dogs and two apples this round to get anything, but between me and my partner it means that I want her to send one of her dogs to the orchard.")

I have a tennis card game that works both as a 2-player game or 4-players game, just like real tennis. There's not much to talk between teammates, though, you basically cover your partner when he can't return a ball in his turn.

I think the main problem with designing (or rather, selling) a teams game might be that you are (likely) going to need a specific number of players, instead of a full range. But that happens with other non-team games too, and there's always the chance to design a game that has a team variant but can also be played with individual players, or a game where teams can have variable member amounts (IIRC Redcap was working on a Fantasy Soccer game with two teams of variable size).

I think Gizensha's point was that bridge bidding is not covert, not that it isn't communication. In traditional bridge tournaments, players were required to submit a card explaining what conventions they were using. This meant that their opponents could learn just as much from their bidding as their partner could. (I don't know if they still do that.)

I thought I would point out that both have these have been used, but, in a much smaller role, never as the main mechanic to a game. Are there any other mechanics that could actually be taken out of games and used as the main mechanic rather than a small one?
Like Clearclaw suggested, you could use a no talking rule so that the game truly does the talking. But, this option isn't everyone's cup of tea . I think communication builds interaction and allows players to solidify partnerships. A similar idea (one that comes from Shadows over Camelot) would be to implement a rule to talk in "game terms". For instance, players could give out information that they've gained but couldn't tell players/partners that they have a 7 card in their hand.

If I may ask Mark, don't you think Memoir '44 or Battlelore could be called a partnership game? What do you think of those two games? How are they different from what you are trying to accomplish Those are two examples, that I can think of, that include the option for multiple players to split into teams and play against each other.

Hope I brought a bit of insight, I haven't posted about games in awhile :)
Justin

Having only played Memoir '44 I couldn't tell you how similar Battlelore plays. Reading the rules though leads me to believe the two games are quite similar in their mechanics.

In Memoir '44 (no expansions) team play allows for up to three players per team. With two players per team, partners share order cards while one player controls (commands/orders) the central battlefield and the second player controls the two flanks. In six players games (3 players per team) one players controls a part of the battlefield (center, left, or right). The rulebook also explains that the players choosing to play the center (in either the two or three player option) is the Commander in Chief and is the only player allowed to play tactic cards.

The idea works quite well in my opinion, but it also merely the option of team play described by Fecundity: a two player game converted into a team game when you have more available players.

Having said that, I think that a purely team game could work well. I'm having trouble thinking of a theme that would benefit from the use of teams however. Sports like dodgeball or tennis (Seo has this one set) come to mind. Spacebattles and zombies are also alternatives.

What if, however, you had players taking the role of running nations. Each nation (like real life) would have different departments (department of defense, department of education, etc...) and players would be team up, take control of a department, and work together in their nation to defeat another. Money would be a common/shared item used by all departments in the nation, that way, communication would be key between the nations on issues like attacking, schooling, and possibly even religion. A Cold War theme would fit well, with one team playing as the United States and the other as Russia.

Things to think about!
Justin