Thoughts on a mechanic where the players take turns being the bad guys in a cooperative game.

Hello there,

there are some decent co-op games out there, that's for sure. The question is, whether you want your players experience something that draws them together OR lets them compete against each other. In most games the players act against each other, thus presenting different levels of "threats". The "drawn-together"-experience has to simulate the feeling of a desperate struggle against impossible odds, and it has do so stronger than in other games. Otherwise, the players are not challenged enough as a group. I guess that the supervillain formula from superhero comic books can be applied here as well: the weaker good guys have to band together against a stronger foe in order to make it exciting. Finally, it depends on the game and its theme. While a band of brave firemen or space marines would surely work together, in a game of space pirates, prohibition-era-gangsters or modern age bounty hunters the co-op idea seems not so well-fitted - these guys would only work together as an exception. Whether you play the "good guys" (knights and paladins looting a monster dungeon) or the "bad guys" (orcs and trolls waiting in the dungeon for victims like knights and paladins) depends on your choice of theme.

From more recent games, Space Hulk:Death Angel comes to my mind. It has great artwork, plays quickly and gives players that intense feeling that if they make one mistake their band of brothers will be torn apart immediately. The gameplay feels cool for a while, but, in my eyes, becomes repetitive afterwards - you get used to where the aliens come from and how to regroup and arm your men accordingly. In this game, there are no scenarios and I believe that it becomes toneless after 5-6 plays - you just get used to everything the game throws at you.

Balancing such a game seems a little difficult. If the game cannot manage its opposition to make things warm for the players, then the co-op play becomes a boring cakewalk. On the other hand, if it progresses too relentless, it will turn away more players than it will be able to attract. For me, there is very little fun in being smashed by the game in the face, time after time.

You could also make it a personal motivation. The turn's bad guy has a sliding scale of personal rewards depending how bad he makes it for the rest of the team. So he might get some sort of spectacular special ability to use in the future if he chooses the worst scenario for the rest of the team.

If it doesn't disrupt game play too much, you may also want to consider putting in anti-collusion rules, like they do in Betrayal on the House on the Hill where the antagonist leaves the room while the protagonists discuss what they do.

Maybe the turn's bad guy must choose the bad thing to do without any prompting from the other players and then the players can work together to react to it.

Rune is an RPG with a rotating GM. The GM earns XP based on his performance in the scenario, which he can spend on his character in the same way as the rest of the players who earned XP. This avoids the issue where your PC falls behind in XP/skills/power just because it was your turn to be GM.

Space Crusade is an old Games Workshop game where there is a GM and up to 4 players. In each scenario the space marines fight cooperatively against the orks, etc to reach the objective. The scenarios were balanced so that the players almost always achieve the objective, but the GM earns XP for each space marine killed. The GM can then spend his XP in future scenarios to use special abilities, so if the GM earns too much XP in the early missions he might be able to wipe out the players in the later missions.

Regards,
kos