Skip to Content
 

How to make a 2-Player game a 4-Player game instead???

19 replies [Last post]
Fri, 08/06/2021 - 00:24
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

Okay ... So following some of my OWN "wisdom", I have decided to not make a CCG/TCG out of the Second Edition (2nd Ed.) of "Quest Adventure Cards(tm)". But this means what CAN I do with this newer version???

One of the things that I am "Struggling" with is 4-Players versus 2-Players.

Although many games are 2-Players, like Pokemon TCG, Magic: the Gathering... Some of these games have "draft-modes" and allow for more than 2-Players.

I don't want to "restrict" myself to 2-Players ... At the same time, I think a 4-Player game would be better accepted by the gamers.

Of course, I want to focus on "Engine Building" but NOT "Deck Building". The primary difference is that Engine focuses on cards in play while Deck focuses on cards available in your Deck/Hand.

So I guess my PRIMARY question is this:

questccg wrote:
If I have 60 Card Decks for each Player, HOW do I managed the interaction of cards between players?

To explain, I'd like to know HOW can each player have his OWN cards and tableau (Area of Play) while allowing some form of "interaction" with the tableau of the other players???

And how can this be done using "Engine Building"? So the idea would be, you play cards into your tableau and the opponent(s) can play opposing cards to make your "Engine" less effective.

I dislike games that are about "Victory Points". I don't want "scoring" to be the primary mechanic... But I do want some kind of PLAYER INTERACTION to be part of the leading mechanics in the game.

Anyone with some thoughts or ideas???

Top
Fri, 08/06/2021 - 09:36
#1
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
There are many games that

There are many games that does that if you use it as a partnership game: 2 vs 2 players.

So there is a dual confrontation, but the responsibility is shared between both partners.

Starwars rebellions allows a 2 or 4 player mode by splitting the control of the army from the navy.

Magic the gathering has a 2 headed giant mode which is really fun to play as it patches up a many bugs in MTG.

Lumis also does that, it's a partnership game where each team must connect one side of the board to the other side by making card combos and exchanging cards without communication.

So if you do not want to have a 4 way confrontation, you can have a 2 way confrontation with the option of share the responsibility.

Top
Fri, 08/06/2021 - 12:14
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I understand what you mean...

But the problem is HOW do I manage the Tableau (Area of Play)??? Like if I am Player #1 and I play three (3) cards into my Tableau ... How does Player #2 and/or Player #3 play cards into MY Tableau to affect the scoring or the efficiency of my "Engine"...?

Like 2-Players it is EASY: The inverted cards can be played PARTIALLY into the opponent Tableau. Meaning they are inverted and played towards Player #2 side of the play area...

But in 4-Player games ... If you need to PLAY a CARD into the opponent's "Engine" (And Tableau)... Do you play the card side-ways???

I really think that's a TERRIBLE way of playing cards into the opponent's Tableau (or Area of Play) ... Because it's makes all kinds of cards in the timeline: left, right, upside down and normal. This to ME sound ridiculous.

However at the same time, I would LIKE to have a four (4) player game.

Any ideas as to how I could achieve this? (Without resorting to cards being placed differently)

Top
Fri, 08/06/2021 - 17:55
#3
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Optional Team Synergy, Etc.

questccg wrote:
But the problem is HOW do I manage the Tableau (Area of Play)??? Like if I am Player #1 and I play three (3) cards into my Tableau ... How does Player #2 and/or Player #3 play cards into MY Tableau to affect the scoring or the efficiency of my "Engine"...?

Any ideas as to how I could achieve this? (Without resorting to cards being placed differently)

In a 2vs2 match, could you play them into your own tableau, then your partner can request that they use it? This is one potential way to maximize teamwork and increase player interaction. Things might slow down a bit because there's more communication, there would likely need to be lots of balancing and an opportunity cost, etc. However it sounds like it would be an interesting team game.

In a 4-player competitive game, how would it impact things to play against only the player on your right or left and defend against the player only on the other side, a la 7 Wonders?

Top
Fri, 08/06/2021 - 21:09
#4
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Very clever!

let-off studios wrote:
...In a 4-player competitive game, how would it impact things to play against only the player on your right or left and defend against the player only on the other side, a la 7 Wonders?

Hmm... I wonder (Pun intended!) if I could simply have the players play opposing cards to the players LEFT of themselves.

There is no "Attacking" or "Defending". The game is about "Programming" and "Engine" Building. I'm not fully certain about all the "Actions" that will be available to players but my "assumption" would be that they can increase from the original set with newer "patches" (or expansions) allowing players an optional ways of making their "Engine" more efficient.

I also want some kind of "internal" scoring mechanic (like to complete a Quest you need OVER 12 points) and then some cards are more valuable than others. But because of "Programming" you need to figure out the OPTIMAL way of playing the cards in your HAND in a way that is quicker than your opponent(s) because your GOAL is to be the FIRST player to "complete" three (3) Quests.

These are all concepts that I had in the Original Game. So the "TO THE LEFT" works for 2-Players and 4-Players too. It's just a varying amount of players and only one player to mess with your own personal Tableau (Area of Play).

I think this is GOOD. Thanks for the suggestion "@let-off studios". This actually might work nicely.

I took a look at "Miami Dice" (with Sam & Tom) for 7 Wonders and it gave showed how the cards are "Drafted" from the cards of the Player to the RIGHT of you and then you choose one (1) card and pass the remaining cards to the LEFT. But the scoring options can affect Players to the "Right OR Left" too...

I'm trying to keep it "simple". So I would go with the "Play cards in the opposing player's Tableau to the LEFT of you..."

So far this is the BEST idea I have seen... It's SIMPLE (Easy to understand) and it WORKS with a variety of players (Number of Players).

If anyone else has another IDEA ... Please feel free to comment. Cheers!

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 13:25
#5
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
If you must keep ownership of

If you must keep ownership of the cards, in MTG 2 headed giant mode, we just drawn an imaginary line between both players. Each player plays cards on his side of the table.

Since in that game, players act at the same time, and I think are considered as a single player for targeting purpose, All permanents in play can be used to attack or perform abilities what ever the player ownership.

Still, it could be possible that both players does not play at the same time using a sideways Z pattern turn order. Or if you prefer a |\| shape turn order. In that case, the allied player could use cards from his ally according to certain conditions: card is untapped, card be be used by allies, etc.

Personally, I find versus cooperative games very interesting. Another game that does that is 1812 which is a 2 VS 3 player game.

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 15:09
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I'm more interested in multi-player in competitive mode

larienna wrote:
...Personally, I find versus cooperative games very interesting...

See here is the thing: it's a "Programming" and "Engine Builder". Not placing cards into the "Timeline" of the Active Quest makes it HARD to visualize the progress within the Active Quest.

But I guess for a 4-Player Cooperative mode, 2-Players can SHARE the timeline and have to complete maybe five (5) Quests(!?) This is just a thought and maybe each quest must have like 16 Points to complete it...

I think that would probably be SIMPLER than a free-for-all 4-Player game.

Anyways I'm still in a conceptual stage and have re-visited this design numerous times. And I have changed direction OFTEN. We'll see what I can make of the 2nd Ed.

To be continued...

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 16:17
#7
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I figured out ANOTHER method ... But...

It's not too obvious: using distinguishable Card Sleeves. Like Ultimate Guard sleeves which are COLORED on the "Backside". If EACH Player has his/her own COLOR, you can know which cards belong to which PLAYER in all cases.

Yes in some ways this is a BETTER solution. In OTHER ways it is worst.

First of all the problem is that it REQUIRES 8 Sets of Supreme Card Sleeves (they used to be 80 sleeves per pack, now they are only 50 sleeves). So IF the game requires a Deck of 60 cards, you will need 2 of each sleeve color.

Of course there is ANOTHER "alternative" is to make different COLOR "Cardbacks". But here there is a limitation to the format of the game. Basically I need to sell 4x 60 Cards in "one kit" as opposed to one (1) 60 Card Deck per player.

Obviously more to think about. Again just more ideas that I am sharing which can help differentiate the cards around a table.

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 17:34
#8
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I guess...

I could change the format for "expansion" cards. I'm not saying there will be... I'm just saying that there COULD BE. When I think about a Game Design, I like to see what is the minimum I can offer and then how to GROW this if people like the game.

Plus with things like "on-demand" printing from "The Game Crafter" (TCG), sometimes formats of boxes is good and sometimes not. For a 60 Card box there are a few options.

I also could consider one-box for all. And then maybe use some kind of "Card Auction/Drafting" mechanic. That might be another possibility that could be cool too. Again just some basic thoughts as I am not firmly decided on HOW the game should play.

But this is cool too. Thanks to members like @let-off studios and @larienna different ideas have emerged and yeah co-op could be a possibility (4-Players co-op, 2 vs. 2) or the choice player (left or right as a target), etc.

I'm having challenges with the design too... So I am not ready to commit to one option or the other ATM. But getting more feedback is always great! Cheers.

Note #1: Some of the programming is working GREAT since the beginning of the week where I re-hashed some OLD ideas into NEW ones. There is aside from the Programming aspect, an important but incomplete Worker Placement mechanic. It's 80% there. There are some decisions that need to be made when "completing" quests this is in terms of SCORING. I have two (2) "Actions" LOOT and TRADE which is sort like "re-purposing".

But it's not 100% yet. Maybe "de-commission" or something like that. I maybe want an "escalation" mechanic where completing quests gets easier but at the same time "harder" opposing cards can fowl your Programming and mess with your timeline (more aggressively) as you level up.

Again very much a WIP (Work-In-Progress). I've got some things to think about and that's good... Maybe some new ideas may come to light and solidify the design.

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 17:36
#9
Stormyknight1976
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2012
You probably missed it

The game crafter just put up a post about larger hook boxes in their inventory here on the website.

54 card hook box
72 card hook box

The game crafter also have larger hook boxes that go to 100+ from what I saw, so there is no need to change your color scheme or card sleeve option for your game.

In my game Dymino Monsters, the 4 player battle mat , the mat is drawn in hex pattern. The hex pattern is the exact same card width and length to attack or defend from any point of view / position.

Each unit in all of the factions has their own point system. Also, a unit can turn 1 point direction on its space to defend.

A unit can only attack if the top of the card is facing the direction of its target on the field.

Jesse

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 18:05
#10
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
4 player games...

-FFA, 1 victor
-2v2, 2 victors
-1v1v1v1v in a circular focus, can have alternate turns clock or counterclockwise. 1 victor
-1v3 with 1 taking turns in a circular focus, 1 victor
-1v2v1 for each, where each player can choose only a neighbour to attack, 1 victor
-FFA vs a common enemy, 1 victor
-2v2 vs a common enemy, 2 victors
-All 4 vs a common enemy, 4 victors
-2 vs a common enemy, where you alternate between allies. Can develop into a 2v2 vs a common enemy. 2 victors

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 18:11
#11
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
TGC has a lot of new options ... I agree!

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
The game crafter just put up a post about larger hook boxes in their inventory here on the website.

54 card hook box
72 card hook box

The game crafter also have larger hook boxes that go to 100+ from what I saw, so there is no need to change your color scheme or card sleeve option for your game.

My initial plan was 60 cards per player. I might revisit this to 50 cards such that I can use the Hook Box (54) or Poker Tuck Box (54)... Or maybe go in a different direction (IDK). The game is about QUESTS. How many quests to the 2nd Edition, again IDK - Yet.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
In my game Dymino Monsters, the 4 player battle mat , the mat is drawn in hex pattern. The hex pattern is the exact same card width and length to attack or defend from any point of view / position.

You must have some kind of "clever scheme" that I don't understand. In any event picture that EACH Player has an "Active Quest" (Timeline) and it is populated with "Quest Fragments". But you can MESS with an opponent's Timeline by playing Monsters & Traps ... And maybe some "cursed" Treasures that all cause attrition or require matching (Worker Placement).

So picture like 8 cards all lined-up IN FRONT of you (in a single line). Could be 6 or could be 10... Depends on the points and your strategy.

I don't see how I could "divide" the SINGLE LINE ... But I have worked-out how an opponent plays a card into YOUR "Active Quest" (Upside-down).

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
Each unit in all of the factions has their own point system. Also, a unit can turn 1 point direction on its space to defend.

A unit can only attack if the top of the card is facing the direction of its target on the field.

Yeah this sounds too complicated for my Tableau (Area of Play). I wanted to do a Playmat too (TGC has some real large ones too) ... But ATM the game is in too much flux ... I need some time to CEMENT the design and figure out the "missing parts".

But I do really appreciate your input and sharing with me your own "solution". Although it might be a bit too technical for me... And probably wouldn't work because of the timelines.

Again thanks for the comment and suggestions!

Note #1: That's why it works with 2 Players. There are two (2) timelines ("Active Quests") and the opponent can mess with your timeline by playing "upside-down" cards (which cause penalties or act as a block to finalize your quest).

Anyways in a 2 vs. 2 ... You'd still need a way to DISTINGUISH the cards from Player #1 and #2 (which are Team "A"). Because at the end of the game, the cards need to be separated.

Notice I am working on this "separation" aspect. Like I said in an earlier comment, maybe an "Auction or Card Drafting" mechanic MAY be possible... I say MAY... I'd need to figure out how to make this happen. Or more like: "Do I want the game to be more complex with those added mechanics???"

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 19:14
#12
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
4-Player options ... Only need clarification on 2 of them!

X3M wrote:
-1v3 with 1 taking turns in a circular focus, 1 victor

This is like a choice right? I can attack one or MORE of the three (3) opponents. Like maybe 1, 2 or all 3, right?

X3M wrote:
-1v2v1 for each, where each player can choose only a neighbor to attack, 1 victor

I get this is to signify neighbors only (Left & Right). But what is the EXTRA "2v1"... Its -1v2 in a circular focus, 1 victor NO???

Those are the only two (2) I was not 100% certain that I understood correctly. Sorry for asking you to clarify. I just wanted to be sure...!

Top
Sat, 08/07/2021 - 21:19
#13
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
Clarifications

I tried a lot during my attempt for a new card game.

With 1 v 3 i meant. All 3 opponents will be your enemy at the same time. Sure you can choose who to attack. But they will have the initiative. Of course this depends on how the game mechanics work.

With the circular focus, every player gets a turn to be the target by all the other players.

There are strategies possible. If you know one of the players is next. You could choose to soften that player up at the end of your own round. Where your cards will be avaiable again afterwards.

Knowing this, you might want to spare the one before you. Or in fact attack the middle guy. Trying to balance your victims out. Which would mean, a longer game with more planning ahead.

***

With 1v2v1 I meant. Each player has only 2 neighbours. You can't attack the one who isn't adjacent to your territory.

Strategies can be, picking a target constantly.
Even them out.
Plan ahead for the player who can't be attacked yet.

Once one player falls, the game should either end, or go much faster to end.
Either way, if 2 players pick the same victim. The third player can watch and build up. Teaming against this guy afterwards will be harder.

Top
Sun, 08/08/2021 - 00:17
#14
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Well I must admit...

That was VERY INFORMATIVE! And thanks for the clarifications... Obviously in my case there is NO "Player Elimination" ... The player to COMPLETE three (3) quests is the winner. To complete an "Active Quest", you need a minimum of points (right now I am thinking 12 points). It depends what cards are in your "Active Quest" because they have "Actions" that allow for "Programming" by sequencing "Quest Fragments" and using your "Workers" to complete the quest.

So everyone is IN IT until the FIRST Player scores the third (3rd) quest.

It's a little different than games with elimination and combat. There is a "Battle" Action for Monsters and Bosses. The rule is that it's at maximum one (1) Boss per "Active Quest" and you can have multiple Monsters to defeat in order to progress in the quest.

Like I said, it is VERY different. It's about "Programming", your Deck of 50 cards and how you construct it.

Obviously this is the CURRENT version without "Auctions or Drafting". I'm not quite sure what the game would look like with either of those mechanics ATM. I've suggested they might be possible... I need some more time to reflect on whether I need to make any changes.

TBH I'm leaning towards keeping the game as straight forward as possible. And I'm so far interested in your opponent being the player to the LEFT of you... 1v1v1v1 clockwise. I like that it can BOOST the amount of players like up to 5 or 6 and still be pretty much the SAME game. I think that's very COOL ATM. It would work for 2, 3, 4 and above... 5 or 6!

But I do appreciate your analysis and kind input @X3M! Shows me the options and what can be done. Anyhow nothing is final ... Just a bit of FOCUS on what is important: finalizing those 20% Actions! Hehehe.

Top
Sun, 08/08/2021 - 00:31
#15
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The other reason I like the LEFT opponent is...

Because the other players can "JUMP-ON" and just BASH the leading player. It's something in TradeWorlds that I did not include. In some games that I played with other opponents, they jointly as PLAYERS chose to eliminate ME first ... Because they felt like my advancement was better than their own.

So they figured it was best to team three (3) against one (1) and eliminated me FIRST. Of course that's the nature of a game where there is PLAYER ELIMINATION.

But "Quest AC" is different. As I explained in the previous comment.

Top
Sun, 08/08/2021 - 09:07
#16
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
questccg wrote:That was VERY

questccg wrote:
That was VERY INFORMATIVE! And thanks for the clarifications... Obviously in my case there is NO "Player Elimination" ... The player to COMPLETE three (3) quests is the winner. To complete an "Active Quest", you need a minimum of points (right now I am thinking 12 points). It depends what cards are in your "Active Quest" because they have "Actions" that allow for "Programming" by sequencing "Quest Fragments" and using your "Workers" to complete the quest.

So everyone is IN IT until the FIRST Player scores the third (3rd) quest.

Ah, so then to spice things up. What if a quest can only be completed with 2 players?
That way the third player to complete a quest with, might not work together. Unless it is its third quest as well. There can be 2 victors.
In order to increase the chance on just one victor. The quests need to be secretive.

questccg wrote:
Because the other players can "JUMP-ON" and just BASH the leading player. It's something in TradeWorlds that I did not include. In some games that I played with other opponents, they jointly as PLAYERS chose to eliminate ME first ... Because they felt like my advancement was better than their own.

So they figured it was best to team three (3) against one (1) and eliminated me FIRST. Of course that's the nature of a game where there is PLAYER ELIMINATION.

I experienced that too. But with 5 to 1, hahahaha.
After that, most games where team vs team.

Top
Sun, 08/08/2021 - 17:07
#17
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The quests can't be a secret and I'll explain why...

X3M wrote:
...The quests need to be secretive.

You can't have the quests secretive because how will you know WHAT cards to play??? Like if Player #2 has six (6) Warriors (let's say Barbarians), if you don't know this information from the "Active Quest", how do you know that it's best to play a Boss which requires three (3) Warriors and three (3) Wizards!? This means that Player #2 has to "re-purpose" three (3) of his Warriors and make them Wizards. And to do so, he would need to "Equip" (the Action) three (3) Warriors with a spell like "Fireball" which can convert one (1) classified unit to a Wizard per turn. This means that the programming of the "Active Quest" will take THREE (3) turns to defeat the Boss giving opponents more time to work on their quests.

X3M wrote:
I experienced that too. But with 5 to 1, hahahaha. After that, most games where team vs team.

Well I'm not a big fan of player elimination. That's why TradeWorlds has a Victory Point goal scenario (first to 100 credits). And there are three (3) such scenarios so far that are point-based.

So it's not all about Player Elimination depending on what scenario you choose... But then again in some of the point-based scenarios if one player is far ahead of the other players, the other players may choose to "gang-up" on him/her and eliminate them from the "race to the finish".

"Quest AC" is supposed to be a more "relaxing" game. It's also more for kids too (9+ years of age). But teens and adults can also play and have FUN because the game is supposed to be challenging for all ages. Programming, Engine Building and Worker Placement mechanics are very general and can be FUN to play by all. Again you don't need to have a "perfect Engine" to win ... Or maximize the use of your "Workers" to be optimal, etc.

Top
Mon, 08/09/2021 - 07:22
#18
X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I thought the players would ...

I thought the players would have individual quests.
But then again, i don't know all the detail of the game.

Top
Mon, 08/09/2021 - 15:18
#19
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
They do ... but the opponent needs to see the "Active Quest"

X3M wrote:
I thought the players would have individual quests.
But then again, i don't know all the detail of the game.

Yes, each Player has his/her own "Active Quest" and "Completed Quests" which become part a player's "Treasury". But you need to SEE the cards in-play in order to determine what cards you may want to play against your opponent! And since this game use a "Programming" mechanic, you need to see the cards to ensure that a player is NOT "cheating" too!

It would be too funny if players just played a card hidden and then declared that they recruit 5 Workers (Worker Placement) and nobody needs to prove that the card that he/she just played indeed gave them ANY workers! It would be horribly wrong.

"Programming" goes from one "Quest Fragment" to the next and you perform the actions for each card. As you do this, you build your "Engine". That will help you COMPLETE the "Active Quest" given a certain amount of points. That's another matter... POINTS, if they are hidden or secret you don't know how players are progressing with their "Active Quest" either!

So there are a LOT of reasons that the "Active Quests" cannot be secretive and most of them make a lot of sense. But thanks for sharing with us your idea (secret cards)! Cheers.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut