Skip to Content

Need feedback for changing a rule in my game

9 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

It's for my game fallen kingdoms which is already available in print and play. While I am revising the rules to update the files, I came across a minor complication that I could change with a new rule, but that would mean changing a not-so-thin portion of the game.

The rules work currently like this.

During a combat roll, the player roll 2D6, for each die of value 4+, one enemy unit is destroyed.

Now, each player has an intimidation level which is expressed by a value. If a player has an higher level than his opponent and scores at least 1 hit, an extra unit must retreat to a adjacent friendly territory. In other words you scared them.

Now the problem is that in the game, there are technologies that boost intimidation efficiency and Combat efficiency in different ways. For example, "Philosophy force player to have a 6 in his roll to be intimidated".

The problem is that intimidation depends on combat, so indirectly, tech that boost combat also boost intimidation. So I added an exception where you do not consider combat tech effects for determining if intimidation work. But that exception could be eventually complicated to manage or easily forgotten.

So I was thinking of finding a way for intimidation to be dependent on the rolls without being influenced by combat technologies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
New rule idea.

One of the die the player rolls would be of a different color. If that die has a value of 3+, intimidation succeed. Results, the odds are slightly changed (see below) and you can end up in a situation where you intimidate without hitting your enemy, or you could hit and do not intimidate at all.

There can be 1 combat tech conflict with "strategy: you may re-roll once, any die roll of 1,2,3". In that case, the intimidation would be influenced. Philosophy would be changed for "need 5+ to intimidate". Here is the odds changes:

Original - with Philo. - Variant - with Philo.
Intimidation Succeed: 75% - 30% - 66% - 33%
Intimidation Failed: 25% - 70% - 33% - 66%

Variant Rule
Intimidation Succeed and 1+ hit: 59%
Intimidation Succeed and no hit: 9%
Intimidation fail and 1 hit: 16%
Intimidation fail and no hit: 16%

If the formatting above sucks, looks at the bottom of this page

http://bgd.lariennalibrary.com/games/fallen_kingdoms/index.php?n=Main.Va...

I want to know what do you think?
Which method do you prefer?
Which method does look more clear or easier to remember?
Do you find it odd to be able to intimidate without any hit & vice versa?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Note: For those who where interested in my game, after revising the rules, I might release the rules to the public to attract more players and since I intend to make a printed copy. I'll make an announcement when it happens.

bonsaigames
bonsaigames's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/20/2010
PnP adjustments

Since this is a Print n Play game, why couldn't you simply revise the cards effected by the die changes?
Revise them for future downloaders / purchasers of the game and provide a set of revised (re: second edition) cards for people who've already downloaded / bought the game to DL (for free) so they have the most current cards.
Hope that helps,
Levi Mote
Bonsai Entertainment
www.bonsaigames.net

Horatio252
Horatio252's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/13/2011
Separate Rolls

I admit I don't know Fallen Kingdoms beyond what you have said here, but I think having a separate intimidation die is a very good idea. It is much simpler than your "ignore combat tech effects" rule. I don't find it odd to be able to intimidate without inflicting damage. It seems very possible thematically that a unit might run away just at the thought of fighting or that a unit would break and run without taking serious damage.

Another thought, that you might like better, is rolling the intimidation die AFTER the combat dice are resolved and only if damage is inflicted. You preserve your idea of intimidation only occurring as an effect of victory in combat, while allowing tech to affect combat separately from intimidation. You can keep the same basic rules as you proposed above (3+ is a successful intimidation, etc) and you would not need a separate die.

Those are my thoughts, I hope they help.

AsgerSG
Offline
Joined: 10/04/2011
bonsaigames wrote:Since this

bonsaigames wrote:
Since this is a Print n Play game, why couldn't you simply revise the cards effected by the die changes?

Apologies for the seemingly dumb question, but what exactly does a "Print n Play" game mean? That it is free for download to print and play, or..?

Asger

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Another thought, that

Quote:
Another thought, that you might like better, is rolling the intimidation die AFTER the combat dice are resolved and only if damage is inflicted.

But that is the problem, if you require units to hit before using the intimidation die, then increasing the chances to hit increase the probabilities to intimidate, which is what I want to avoid.

One of the reason why I decided to reuse 1 die twice is that a roll of 4+ on the intimidation will mean a hit. So most of the time, intimidation will generate a hit. The only situation is if a 3 is rolled, in that case, it's possible not to hit (depends on the 2nd die). I had to keep the 3+ rules to have odds similar to 75% (66% with new rules) 2+ would be too much ( 84%)

The cards has already been design to avoid conflict between each other, I cannot upgrade them more. For example, Masonry makes enemy hit you on 5+, so I changed strategy to re-roll 1-2-3 instead of re-roll a miss. Because it would be masonry would give more chances to player with strategy to re-roll. So all these kind of considerations has already been taken into account except for the fact that improved combat rolls improve intimidation too.

I even added the rule where you intimidate on a 4+ instead of intimidate on a hit. To make sure that masonry does not reduce the odds to intimidate. But that kind of rule could be very subtle and players could assume when they play that if you hit, you intimidate too.

So I was trying to see if there could be another method of triggering intimidation without generating ambiguity or conflicts.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another not so elegant idea is that if 1 of the die has an even value(2-4-6), you intimidate. The odd to intimidate will start at 75%, but there is 18% change to intimidate without hit, and I think if the philosophy rules stay the same, the odds will drop the same way.

What is is interesting about this rule is that for example, combat technology will not directly increase the odd to intimidate. With strategy, if you re-roll, a 2, you could end up with a 5, which will remove intimidation success. Masonry still makes 4 valid for intimidation, so it reduce hit potential but keep intimidation the same. Also, strategy force players to re-roll a 1-2-3, so players cannot decide to keep a roll of 2 for example.

From what I can see, it seems to make combat technology almost ineffective, it keeps the same 75% odds and I don't have to change any technology cards. It seems like the best of all worlds.

So the only question left: does looking or even numbers, after a combat roll, is an elegant thing to do?

Else, does anybody see any abuse I did not see with using even numbers?

I might make some test to see if there could be a conflict when intimidation occurs without any kills, but besides that, the even number rule seems awesome.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I checked the impact with

I checked the impact with other rules to use intimidation on even rolls, and there are 2 other rules it might impact. First here is the new probability tables:

Intimidation Succeed and 1+ hit: 61%

Intimidation Succeed and no hit: 14%

Intimidation fail and 1 hit: 14%

Intimidation fail and no hit: 11%

This means that in general, the odds that something happens on every roll is increased from 75% to 89% for the player with the most intimidation. This create problems with the 2 following rules

Battle Exhaustion: If the attacker and the defender scores no hit, the battle ends. Since players had 25% of failing, then 25%x25% = 6%chance that it occurs. Now players could confuse hit with intimidation, if that happens, then probability drop 11%x25% = 2% making this rule very unlikely to be used. So one idea would be to remove this rule or make intensive clarification, or check intimidation afterward. I still like this rule because it can put an end to an attack that would have succeeded, but removing it just simplify the rules.

It could be redesigned so that for example, if you roll a double 1 the combat ends. But the odds for that to happen are around 2%. So it does not makes the odds better.

Rampage: If a player win the battle on his first combat roll (slightly more odds to rampage with new rules) he can make a 1 round attack on a road adjacent city. If players scores no hit, they lose 1 unit. Again players could confuse hit with intimidation reducing from 25% to 11% the probability to lose a unit while rampaging. The solution so far would be to exclude intimidation from rampages. So they will be slight less powerful but they will have slightly more chance to get triggered.

What do you think?

kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Even rolls

From the description you give, I think players should be able to tell the difference between "hits" and "intimidation" as long as the rules are clear and use the terms unambiguously. You could include a game-play example that involves intimidation and battle exhaustion to make it abundantly clear (i.e. I force the opponent to flee, but I'm too exhausted to continue the battle).
Regards,
kos

Cogentesque
Cogentesque's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/17/2011
Hey Larienna, Game sounds

Hey Larienna,

Game sounds good so far, if the intimidation side of things is important in the mechanics of you game then cool, if it's as an addition - bin it - keep it simple.

Is "intimidate" on dice-rolled evens elegant? Yes, very - it uses the same components for an intersting addition to the game, keeping it simple, effective and .... well ... elegant.

You could also have custom dice, 1 to 6 and on certain numbers a simple little exclamation mark or something - meaning that the combat roll and the intimidate roll are seperate entities - keeping with the "increasing combat effectiveness does not help increase intimidateing effectiveness" If you wanted to fine tune it further, I would simply include a totally sperate "intim" dice.
You could play with some negative conswequence ideas with this: if you only attack with 1 unit on low health, subtract 1 from the intim. dice - something like that.

hope i've helped :)

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Quote:Is "intimidate" on

Quote:
Is "intimidate" on dice-rolled evens elegant? Yes, very - it uses the same components for an interesting addition to the game, keeping it simple, effective and .... well ... elegant.

I tried many other mechanics, like cards, for intimidation and it never worked as well as reusing the dice for a 2nd purpose. It's much faster to resolve.

Intimidating on even rolls does seem elegant and seems playable. Only difference is tat I have to be more clear in the rules for exhaustion and probably remove them for rampage, and there is a possibility to intimidate without hit and vice versa which should not be so bad (need to test). I think these exceptions are easier to manage than the original rules.

Quote:
You could also have custom dice, 1 to 6 and on certain numbers a simple little exclamation mark or something - meaning that the combat roll and the intimidate roll are separate entities - keeping with the "increasing combat effectiveness does not help increase intimidating effectiveness"

Of course, if I could custom design dice, I could put an asterisk in the corner of the 2-4-6 face to remind players that they intimidate if they roll that face. If I could do it, I will do it (if I manage to print the game, still working on that).

bonsaigames
bonsaigames's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/20/2010
Question

Not a dumb question. some Print and Play games are free, but they all involve downloading the components & rules and printing them yourself.

AsgerSG wrote:
bonsaigames wrote:
Since this is a Print n Play game, why couldn't you simply revise the cards effected by the die changes?

Apologies for the seemingly dumb question, but what exactly does a "Print n Play" game mean? That it is free for download to print and play, or..?

Asger

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut