Skip to Content
 

Stealth Game Idea (Metal Gear?!?!)

28 replies [Last post]
Tue, 02/22/2011 - 20:46
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008

This is a long post. I take some pains to explain the core mechanic, before getting to the broader idea. I really appreciate those who bear with me and read the whole thing and give me some feed-back. I give you Karma Points which you can cash in for like favors, play-tests, and the like.

The core mechanic:
The original germ of the idea was inspired by a diagram about college. It showed an equilateral triangle with the word college in the center. At each of the points was a concept. Good Grades, A Social Life, and Enough Sleep. Underneath the triangle were the words Pick Two. This was the inspiration. There are 3 choices, you want them all, but you only get to pick a certain number (also see the indie RPG Apocalypse World).

So a rough idea began to emerge. There are 3 categories, each category has 2 choices. These choices are weighted: good (+1) bad (+0). When you make a decision you get to pick among the options, but you only get to pick a limited number of good options. That is the total “weight” of your choice must be a certain number. As the design progressed, that number has fluctuated, but at this point in the design, it can either be 1 or 2. Usually, it’s 1. But one of the choices you have is to take “Control.” Control allows a player’s total choice-weight to be 2. Control would be represented by some sort of totem at the table. For your imagination, and because I won’t be able to fit one in the box when the game get’s published (and I, of course, make piles and piles of money), I offer a Koala Bear.

So our sample choice might look like this:

Effect
+1: Gain 1 Victory Point
+0: Gain 0 Victory Point

Cost:
+1: Pay 0
+0: Pay 1

Control
+1: Take control
+0: Relinquish control

A simple exchange happens between 2 players to determine who gets to make the choices. To date, Rock Paper Scissors has functioned as a place holder, though frankly any game might work; A game of chess, a 100 yard dash, a round of Street Fighter would all work to determine who gets to make the choice.

Cost is paid in the form of pennies. Each player starts with 3 pennies. Whenever the winner pays the cost, it is paid to the loser. If the cost cannot be paid the winner does not gain any benefit.

So to illustrate what I’m sure is gibberish. You and I are playing this game. As the designer, I arbitrarily declare I start “in control.” I win the exchange so I get to pick, and my choice weight must add up to 2. I pick 1 VP (+1), and 0 cost (+1). I gain one point, and I don’t have to pay you a penny. But for my last choice, I must pick the bad option (+0), relinquish control. You now have control.

Current Game state:
Me: 3 pennies, 1 VP, No Control
You: 3 pennies, 1 VP, Control

We play again, and again, I win. I get to pick first, but since you have the control I only get to pick one good option (total choice-weight must be 1). I think hard, and I take control (+1). The remaining options have to be bad: Pay 1 penny (+0) and gain 0 VP (+0).

Current Game state:
Me: 2 pennies, 1 VP, Control
You: 4 pennies, 0 VP, no control

We play again, you win this exchange, and you choose 1 VP and to take control as your good options. The remaining (bad) option is pay 1 penny.

Current Game state:
Me: 3 pennies, 1 VP, No Control
You: 3 pennies, 1 VP, Control

We play again, I lose. You pick 1 VP and Control. You pay me a penny.

Current Game state:
Me: 4 pennies, 1 VP, No Control
You: 2 pennies, 2 VP, Control

We play again, I lose. You pick 1 VP and Control. You pay me a penny.

Current Game state:
Me: 5 pennies, 1 VP, No Control
You: 1 penny, 3 VP, Control

We play again, I lose. You pick 1 VP. You don’t want to run out of pennies, so you pick the 0 cost. I take control.

Current Game state:
Me: 5 pennies, 1 VP, Control
You: 1 penny, 4 VP, No Control

Make sense? Probably not, but it was worth a shot. This is the core mechanic. This is not the complete game, (though it could be, it wouldn’t achieve anything my last game doesn’t). Instead I plan to use this idea in my long back-burnered stealth game (which was the topic of my original post over 2 years ago)! And so, now that I’ve brought you this far (You are still reading right?) I can bring things to the title.

The Stealth Game idea:
The inspiration for this game is the video game Metal Gear. One player is the Spy, the other player plays the guards that are hunting for this spy as he tries to move past them.
Imagine a grid (let's say 10x10) with coordinates in the center of the table. This represents the play field. On it are tokens that represent the guards. There are also certain tiles that represent terrain that can’t be crossed, just to make things interesting. Finally there are a number of tiles that are “goals.” There are many more of these than there are guards.
Behind a screen is another version of the same grid. It is identical to the first grid, right down to the guard positions, except that it also has a token that represents the spy. The spy will move secretly through the grid, trying to make it through as many of the “goal” tiles as they can before a certain number of turns are up, or the guards catch them, or whatever. Guards would have a line of sight of a few tiles in front of them. If their line of sight ever touches the spy’s position, the spy must reveal their position (place a corresponding spy token on the public board).

Off to the side of the board are a series of cards, each representing some concept in the game (Guards, hostages, the Spy, elements of the environment, cameras, alarm systems, weapons, etc) Each card has a series of these menus on it. Like this:

Guard:
Stalk
Effect
+1) Move up to 3 spaces and rotate facing
+0) Move 1 space and do not rotate facing
Cost
+1) 1 Penny per guard
+0) 3 Pennies per guard
Control
+1) Take Control
+0) Relinquish Control

Guard:
I FEEL ASLEEP!
Effect
+1) place 3 “snooze” tokens on X guards
+0) place 2 “snooze” tokens on X guards
Cost
+1) 2 Pennies per guard
+0) 3 Pennies per guard
Control
+1) Take Control
+0) Relinquish Control

Spy
Sneak
Effect
+1) Move up to 3 spaces. Do not announce you have chosen this action.
+0) Move up to 3 spaces. Announce you have chosen this action.
Cost
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
Control
+1) Take Control
+0) Relinquish Control

Spy
Dart
Effect
+1) Move directly to a space 2 spaces away. You are no considered to have crossed the intervening space for the purposes of Line of Sight. Do not announce you have chosen this action.
+0) Move directly to a space 2 spaces away. You are no considered to have crossed the intervening space for the purposes of Line of Sight. Announce you have chosen this action.
Cost
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
Control
+1) Take Control
+0) Relinquish Control

Spy
neck snap
Effect
+1) Place a "killed" marker on a guard behind your screen. Target guard must be adjacent to you. If the other player activates that guard on future turns, tell them it's dead. Do not announce you have chosen this action.
+0) Place a "killed" marker on a guard behind your screen. Target guard must be adjacent to you. If the other player activates that guard on future turns, tell them it's dead. Anncounce you have chosen this action.
Cost
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
Control
+1) Take Control
+0) Relinquish Control

Questions for you:
What might be some more interesting goals for the Spy rather than get to X goal tiles?
What might be an interesting mechanic to determine who gets to pick the choice instead of Rock Paper Scissors?
What might be some interesting ways to tie the penny-economy into the rest of the game?
What might be some more “menus” of options that you think would be fun?
What are some other fun themes you think could work for this game?
How might I include more than 2 players?

Themes I'm currently considering:
Near-future-sci-fi-military-special-ops (Metal Gear)
Hunting a man-eating tiger through the jungle in Victorian colonial India.
A Victorian colonial India in which a master thief calling herself The Tiger works against the colonial government.
Ninjas.
Retro 70’s bank heist.
Tron style computer world where the “spy” is a hacker
Spaghetti Western+fantasy (Native hero equiped with magical revolver sneaks into frontier forces forts)

Edited: to add one more question of the reader

Top
Wed, 02/23/2011 - 21:53
#1
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Nice Mechanic

What you have developed here is a very simple way to create variance in a larger system. As it currently stands, there seems to be no significant way to escape the iron triangle and do better than your opponent. Because you are either giving up control or giving up resources, you can only always temporarily get a head, or at best continue to maintain your position. But, eventually, over enough time, the two players will even out. Because of the rules against defaulting, the system will inevitably only produce an increase in VP for both players and it will always be roughly even.

As a game by itself, this is tautological and boring. But, when VPs are turned into other things like movement, then what you have developed here is an interesting non-linear algorithm for movement. At any point in time, you might be able to exploit your position (even for a couple of turns in a row), but over the entirety of the game/program, each side will have an equal opportunity to move. So, you maintain balance but also allow for inequality. The key in making this an interesting game is to introduce a mechanism by which a temporary advantage in movement gives you a disproportional share of the spoils. So... I think you have it right by making it a hunting type of game. At least, insofar as movement is central to the game, this system could very well be implemented on a computer to create some interesting patterns over time.

However, it would be nice to have additional elements besides movement in the game that require more than simply out performing someone at RPS. Even with a more sophisticated mechanism for deciding who goes first, you're going to run into what amounts to an optimization problem... and one that is rather flat. I don't see very much room for outwitting people or significant strategic depth in the game that would make people want to return to the game to work on a new strategy. So... there's something missing on the goal.

As far as the more sophisticated alternative to RPS... you could deal out a hand of 10 initiative cards to each player with values between 1 and 10. Each player choose a card, places it face down and once they are both selected, you turn them over. If there is a tie, then both players redraw. Otherwise, the player with the higher number gets to act. Since you set aside any cards that have already been played, each subsequent face off will result in less range of choices. Once both of you have used your last cards, reshuffle and start again with the full hand. This is something similar to mechanic in El Grande, A Game of Thrones Board Game and some other card games through the years.

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 00:28
#2
kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Pick any 2

The "Pick Any 2" made me smile, because it reminded me of the standard project management dilemma: "You can have it on time, on budget, or done right. Pick any two."

With regards the RPS mechanism, I think that if you come up with a more complex version of RPS that is all it will be, and nothing more. Instead, consider whether you can integrate the penny economy and solve the "who gets to pick" dilemma simultaneously.

For example, if pennies represent "initiative", then the person with the highest initiative continues taking turns until he loses control (or runs out of pennies). So you can choose to take a burst of turns in a row (but at a cost, because now your opponent will get a burst of turns too) or choose to tread cautiously and save your resources (i.e. pennies) for when you really need them.

This would also allow a multi-player game, where when you lose control it goes to the player with the highest initiative, who then starts burning pennies until they lose control, and so on.

A completely different suggestion for the penny economy is to make it represent the "stealthiness" of the spy vs the "alertness" of the guards. Thus, if the spy rushes (by not choosing the "stealthy" option for his action), he loses stealthiness -- representing the little clues that get left behind that might raise suspicion: doors ajar, objects moved, sounds, footprints, etc. Meanwhile, the alertness of the guards can go up and down too based on the actions they chose. If the guards alertness is higher than the spy's stealthiness, the spy must reveal his position on the board.

With regards to the actions, it looks like there is scope to simplify the action list nicely. Taking the Spy actions as examples, the "3 options" are actually the same every time:
1) Secret vs announced
2) High cost vs low cost
3) Control vs not
So instead of writing these on every card, just make these choices apply to every action the spy takes.
Similarly for the guards, come up with a set of choices that apply to every action, so that the only thing which needs to be on the card is the description of the action itself.

With regards to missions, most missions in these sort of games boil down to a combination of the following:
1) Move to location X (e.g. escape through the exit, plant the bomb, recon the area, hack the computer, etc)
2) Move to person X (e.g. contact the informant, transfer vital info, conduct negotiations, etc)
3) Get item X (e.g. steal the widget, find the key, uncover the top secret plans, etc -- note that in practice this is almost the same as (1) except that you might not know where it is)
4) Eliminate person X (e.g. assassinate, convert, drug, etc)
5) Prevent the opposition from doing one of the above

Hope that helps,
kos

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 01:54
#3
ilta
ilta's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2008
love it!

Neat idea.

I really like the idea of the "pick 2" running a secretive game.

I would point out, though, that for the spy, it will always be obvious which of the "secretive" actions is being taken, because the guard player will know what the spy just paid him, and whether the control status of the card has changed. So if the spy pays 3 pennies and returns the card, saying nothing, then we know that he moved secretly, or killed secretly, or whatever.

So I think you'll need to differentiate the secret vs. non-secret into something more like "move 3 spaces" vs "move 2 spaces" or "move 3 spaces and say nothing about location" or "move 3 spaces but declare the room you just left."

I like the idea that some scenarios would contain different mixes of cards. Possibly cards can be "purchased" before the game, like planning a weapons load-out in SWAT-style video games. Or perhaps they are drawn and either used or kept in the hand (this solves the "I know you just moved" problem of having all the cards visible).

I would add that there are other mission types, too, usually made by combining the five choices kos listed. There's escort, which is a combination of (1: move to X) and prevent (4: assassinate X). There is capture the flag, where both sides are trying to achieve (3: get item X) and (1: move to X), where (X) is their side of the board. There is collect, which is a series of (1:move to X) and (3:get item X), possibly you only have to get 3 out of 4 macguffins to win, for instance. I would encourage you to check out some of the recent Splinter Cell games, which have asymmetric multiplayer where two spies go up against three mercenaries, with different powers available to each.

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 15:52
#4
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
Wall o text

Quote:
rcjames14 said: What you have developed here is a very simple way to create variance in a larger system. As it currently stands, there seems to be no significant way to escape the iron triangle and do better than your opponent. ... At any point in time, you might be able to exploit your position (even for a couple of turns in a row), but over the entirety of the game/program, each side will have an equal opportunity to move. So, you maintain balance but also allow for inequality.

Yes I think the system works well to prevent “run-away-winner” while still offering the players compelling and interesting decisions. As you say:
Quote:
The key in making this an interesting game is to introduce a mechanism by which a temporary advantage in movement gives you a disproportional share of the spoils.

This is the part I’m struggling with and (I think) it’s tied to the mission goal. Defining how a “temporary advantage in movement gives you a disproportional share of the spoils” really requires us to define what “the spoils” are in the first place. These are different for the different sides.
For the spy: secrecy of action choice, secrecy of position, movement across the board, control over the penny economy (paying for more pricey options), etc.
For the guards: controlling space through line of sight avenues, “running down the clock” (if there is a turn limit that the spy must operate in), control over the penny economy (paying for more pricey options), etc.
These spoils are defined by the scenario parameters. Yes, though I hadn’t mentioned this, many seemed to have picked up on the implication that I’d like this game to have different scenarios.
Right now I can only visualize a couple scenarios. One of these is “the spy must get to x-y-z” locations. This really could be anything, data servers, hostages, crystals filled with dreams, it makes no difference. If all they are are spaces the spy must touch than it doesn’t matter how you dress them up, the game will play the same. Variety could be added by giving them thematic sets of option-menus like this:

Server [Spy]
Effect
+1) Remove 3 data tokens from target server. You must be within 2 spaces of the server. Announce you have chosen this action. Do not announce which server you are hacking.
+0) Remove 1 data token from target server. You must be within 2 spaces of the server. Announce you have chosen this action. Do not announce which server you are hacking.
Cost
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
Control:
+1) Take Control
+0) Relinquish Control
(Presumably the spy must get X data tokens and leave)
Perhaps they are hostages that need to be escorted out once freed, or bombs that need to be planted and once the first one is down there is a timer that starts ticking. Okay... I’m starting to feel this now... Any other fun scenarios that leap to mind?
The other scenario is the guards must escort someone from A-B. But I’m afraid this will involve lots of waiting on the part of the spy.
As far as the concept of what will be the deciding mini-game (the criteria that determines who gets to pick which move) it needs to be quick and engaging. Rock paper scissors, blind bidding, even push your luck or trick taking all might work. I’m leaning towards blind bidding personally, since my last game was glorified RPS.
That being said:

Quote:
Kos said: With regards the RPS mechanism, I think that if you come up with a more complex version of RPS that is all it will be, and nothing more. Instead, consider whether you can integrate the penny economy and solve the "who gets to pick" dilemma simultaneously.
For example, if pennies represent "initiative", then the person with the highest initiative continues taking turns until he loses control (or runs out of pennies). So you can choose to take a burst of turns in a row (but at a cost, because now your opponent will get a burst of turns too) or choose to tread cautiously and save your resources (i.e. pennies) for when you really need them.
This would also allow a multi-player game, where when you lose control it goes to the player with the highest initiative, who then starts burning pennies until they lose control, and so on.

This is really quite elegant and bloody attractive as an option. I would totally go with this in a heartbeat, except that I have this lingering attachment to some sort of mini-game/mind-game that allows a player to get ahead because of clever tactical decisions as opposed to simply rewarding strategic planning. Still it’s just so elegant...
I’m having trouble understanding how this part would work though:
Quote:
Kos said: A completely different suggestion for the penny economy is to make it represent the "stealthiness" of the spy vs the "alertness" of the guards. Thus, if the spy rushes (by not choosing the "stealthy" option for his action), he loses stealthiness -- representing the little clues that get left behind that might raise suspicion: doors ajar, objects moved, sounds, footprints, etc. Meanwhile, the alertness of the guards can go up and down too based on the actions they chose. If the guards alertness is higher than the spy's stealthiness, the spy must reveal his position on the board.

Can I ask you to try again?
Quote:
Ilta said: I like the idea that some scenarios would contain different mixes of cards. Possibly cards can be "purchased" before the game, like planning a weapons load-out in SWAT-style video games. Or perhaps they are drawn and either used or kept in the hand (this solves the "I know you just moved" problem of having all the cards visible).

I’ve definitely considered the concept of equipping your spy with a “load-out.” I also have some ideas for different types of guards. But before I can get into that stuff I need to make sure the core game functions.
Quote:
Ilta said: I would point out, though, that for the spy, it will always be obvious which of the "secretive" actions is being taken, because the guard player will know what the spy just paid him, and whether the control status of the card has changed. So if the spy pays 3 pennies and returns the card, saying nothing, then we know that he moved secretly, or killed secretly, or whatever.

Actually I don’t think this will be a problem. The card’s are not picked up, and played. There is no hand of them. I envision them as cards because I’d like them to be about that size, and because there will be different ones (with different menu’s of options) on them depending on the scenario. That is, they need to be mobile pieces of information. When the spy take’s a “secret” option they will simply pay the cost and take/give control. The only sort of soft information about what choice they made comes in the form of the price they pay in pennies. As long as those prices are the same, there should be no way to tell what the spy chose (that is, the spy always pays either 1 or 3, no matter what move they make). That being said, in the final game there will be some variety among the spies options. The spy might have 6 or 8 moves he could make and their might be 2 or thee relative costs (Options A, B,C, & D all cost 1 or 3. Options E & F cost 2 or 3. Options G & H cost 2 or 4).
Questions:
Does anyone have a favorite theme they think I should go with?
Someone talked about the spy leaving a trail of cubes behind them with the implication that these could be spotted as well. Does anyone think this is too fiddly?
Thanks so very much for your input!

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 16:42
#5
kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Stealthiness vs Alertness

Jackhalfaprayer wrote:
I’m having trouble understanding how this part would work though:
Quote:
Kos said: A completely different suggestion for the penny economy is to make it represent the "stealthiness" of the spy vs the "alertness" of the guards. Thus, if the spy rushes (by not choosing the "stealthy" option for his action), he loses stealthiness -- representing the little clues that get left behind that might raise suspicion: doors ajar, objects moved, sounds, footprints, etc. Meanwhile, the alertness of the guards can go up and down too based on the actions they chose. If the guards alertness is higher than the spy's stealthiness, the spy must reveal his position on the board.

Can I ask you to try again?

You're right; one of the key assumptions for this idea didn't make it from my brain to the keyboard. It was:
- Spy starts with 10 pennies (representing "really stealthy").
- Guards start with 0 pennies (representing "not alert").
- If the Guards have more pennies than the Spy, the Spy must reveal his current location.

Thus, the more actions the spy takes (and in particular, the more expensive actions he takes) the quicker he blows his cover. The spy may be forced to blow his cover in order to escape from a tricky situation, and then hopes to be able to store up pennies to go "invisible" again when he gets to a safer position.

Regards,
kos

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 16:55
#6
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
That is... really damn

That is... really damn clever... I'm going to just have to try that out!

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 18:23
#7
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Hidden Information

kos wrote:
- If the Guards have more pennies than the Spy, the Spy must reveal his current location.

Perhaps you can explain how you plan to implement secret movement. Is this kriegspiel? Or will this to be run on a computer? Or is the spy writing down his coordinates on a piece of paper? Or is this a very abstract concept, like you are 'hidden' even in LOS if you have stealth? Because a game will quickly run into trouble if you do not have a way to verify that a move was a valid move. Even disregarding the desire to cheat, mistaken moves need to be able to be corrected. And, I'm not sure how you would be able to do this if the position is not known to both players.

Top
Thu, 02/24/2011 - 18:35
#8
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
There are two boards: a

There are two boards: a Public board, wich contains all of the public informaiton (Guard positions, hostage positions, terain, cameras, turrets, etc) and a private board behind a screen which contains all that and the secret information (the spy's position and move history).

Current position will be tracked with a pawn on the board. Perhaps the last 3 moves will be kept track of with numbered tokens as well?
This is a little fiddly, but I'm not sure how else to do it. Any other ideas?
I'm not terribly concerned about cheating. People who will cheat are going to do so if it's easy or not. You can't work around it. I'm more concerned with designing a good game for people who want to play it.

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 01:11
#9
ilta
ilta's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2008
You don't need two boards; a

You don't need two boards; a pencil will work better anyway for the spy.

Check out Clue: The Great Museum Caper and Scotland Yard / NY Chase for examples of one player moving secretly through the board and tracking his movies with a pencil and pad.

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 12:54
#10
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
I actually picked up a copy

I actually picked up a copy of Clue: the museum caper at the thrift store the other day. It was what inspired my to go back to my stealth game idea. I know that it uses the paper and pencil system, but I'm afraid that it might get complicated with things like escorting hostages, hacking servers, disappearing into parallel dimensions, etc. In terms of the fears of avoiding mistakes and making book-keeping easy I had hoped that by setting up two boards (both small. As of now they are each a single 8.5X11 pieces of paper with .7 inch hexagons) I might be able to avoid mistakes while still keeping the game pretty low on fiddlyness.

Other options:
Point-to-Point movement with position kept track of with a deck of cards (Fury of Dracula)
Pencil and pad/grid: Clue Museum Caper
Pencil and pad/ point-to-point
Point-to-Point with types of movement (Scotland Yard)

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 13:39
#11
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Abstraction

Do you need movement to be literal?

It is much more fashionable these days to abstract movement. If a board has different locations, then players may pay a (flat) cost to move between them... but there isn't a series of steps in the middle. They simply appear there. If you notice, clue the board game does not sell as much as clue the card game these days. Roll and move isn't particularly popular (especially with video games around).

But, regardless of its popularity, it may not be necessary. The reason that guards guard particular area and police patrol certain beats is to protect them against intrusion. But, the problem for policing/patrolling/guarding is often not what they can or cannot see as often as whether they are in the right place or not at the right time. So... it is fundamentally a game of deduction, not a game of camping (a la Medal of Honor). Can you figure out where they are or not? Can you get there or are you too late? Are you ahead of the criminal or in his tracks? My feeling is that in a strategic tabletop board game, this deductive investigation is the core mechanic.

So, rather than have players move, perhaps you can have players take actions which put them at certain locations. If there is a rule such as that the spy must use all locations at least once before we goes back, or some other abstract mechanism with hidden information, then the guards could be trying to construct the spy's movement from where he has been (and which guards have been killed) and try to ambush him before he reaches his goal.

Insofar as how this idea relates to your existing mechanic, it seems to me that your iron triangle can be adapted to other things besides movement. Either placing or claiming counters or cards would substitute for the VP system... so you need not rely upon physical movement.

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 13:50
#12
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
woah woah WOAH... You're

woah woah WOAH... You're blowing my mind man.

If I'm getting what you're saying I should use an abstract representation of space rather than a literal space. I love it! But I’m having trouble visualizing how it would work. I’m so caught up in things like line of sight, and movement points, that I can’t think my way out of it.

Let’s imagine a set of tiles, large 3 inch hexes with cool artwork and snappy names (the hangar, the shogun’s sleeping chamber, the alchemy laboratory). Instead of a map where each tile corresponds to a unit of real space we zoom the camera out and make these more general zones. These are connected by…

Nope I’m just doing point-to-point…

Can you help me imagine how this might work?

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 15:23
#13
Pastor_Mora
Pastor_Mora's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/05/2010
This is very interesting

I started reading this post with little interesting. But this has really spawned a lot of quick thoughts and (impossible) game ideas in my mind. Even if I don't contribute to it. I wanted you to know your discussion is very interesting so far and I'm following it eagerly. Good work. Thanks

Keep thinking!

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 18:38
#14
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Impossible Games

Ok... first... let me say that I don't have a best solution. A fun deduction game about espionage has been on my bucket list for a while. However, using games like Scotland Yard, The Fury of Dracula, Clue: The Great Museum Caper, a post about a month ago that I wrote about a Frankenstein themed game and my failed attempts so far at a spy game as the inspiration, I'll take a shot.

Cloak & Dagger


Components

  • 1 Gameboard
  • 48 tiles
  • 1 Stealth Marker
  • 9 Gold Tokens

Description of Components

The board consists of 24 installations controlled by the host country's military. On the back side of each tile, the tiles look the identical. On the front side of each tile, each tile has one of four different identities:

  1. Spy's Cloak (12)
  2. Secret Plans (6)
  3. Guards (18)
  4. Special Items (12) - for TBD rules breaking

Setup

  • Give the spy 6 of the 12 spy cloak tiles.
  • Give the host country 6 guard tiles.
  • Place the remaining 12 guard tiles aside.
  • Shuffle the remainder 24 tiles together.
  • Place one tile on each installation at random face down.
  • Give the spy all the gold tokens and the stealth marker.
  • The spy goes first.

Goal of the Game

If you are the spy, you win if you obtain the 6 secret plans tiles If you are the host country, you win if you obtain 6 of the 12 spy cloak tiles.

Gameplay

Each turn, only the player with the most gold tokens may act. The type of actions you can take on your turn depend upon whether you have stealth or not.

Options
(1) Give your opponent X gold tokens. Pick up X number of tiles and replace them with an equal number of tiles from your hand.
(2) Give your opponent X gold tokens and the stealth marker. Pick up two times X number of tiles and replace them with an equal number of tiles from your hand.

Note: you may not give what you do not have... so, option number two is only available to you if you have the stealth marker and you may not give up more gold tokens than you currently possess.

Secrecy of Tiles

The spy and only the spy may keep his tiles face down throughout the entire game. The host country may only hide his tiles while it is his turn. While the host country's tiles are face up, the host country's collection of tiles may not contain a secret plans tile. So, if its controller picks up one or more secret plans tiles during an action, they must all be returned to the board during that action.

Special Item Tiles

If either player discovers a special item token during his action, he may use it to perform the special action described on the tile. After the special action has been performed, place it off the board and take one of the remaining guard tokens into your hand to replace it.

End of Game

Keep taking turns until one player collects the six tiles they need to win.

Special Item Spoiler List

TBD

How This Game Works (a synopsis)

Each player is trying to accumulate a separate set of tokens. The spy is trying to find the secret plans. The host country is trying to capture the spy. Although the host country cannot keep the secret plans away from the spy, the spy has to find all of the plans to win and the host country only needs to find enough clues about the spy to capture him. So... the goals are slightly assymetric. But it is still a race between the two sides to discover the tiles on the board that they need to win. Unfortunately, this race is complicated by the efforts of each side to cover its tracks. As the tiles are searched, it is possible to replace them with other tiles. So, whenever the spy looks at a tile, he may replace it with one from his hand or keep it without the host country knowing. And, either side may swap the location of tiles whenever they examine more than one at a time. As a result, the location of key tiles is constantly changing as both sides try to hide what they have from the other. The special tiles exist as an incentive to search unsearched spots, making this game not only a matter of deduction, but also memory and strategy.

Top
Fri, 02/25/2011 - 20:37
#15
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
I think that the “choose 2

I think that the “choose 2 engine” (as I’m sorta starting to refer to it) could be used for all kinds of games. I plan on making at least a couple of games based on this framework. I think you’ve shown that you can use the basic idea for all kinds of things.
I think one of the most interesting elements of what you did was that instead of a menu of options, all with different effects and different costs, you offered players 1 choice, but made the cost analogue. You sorta combined cost and effect, pay X gold, get X tiles, but allowed the players to determine how bad they wanted the information. So instead of choosing the action which benefits you right now from a plethora of options you are instead weighing the pros/cons of giving away your next few turns in exchange for a bunch of information and navigating the calculus of how much of an exchange you are willing to make.
I like this idea. I think it sounds like a great game! But in reading it I realized something, I really do want Metal Gear the board game. I want a base to sneak through and I want guards to sneak past. I want space and I want to move through it. I do not want a game that is just an interesting information economy (though I do want that to be part of the larger equation!). I guess I really do want a tactical special game, wedded to a game of economy, bolted onto a game about information. I think I will go with a map. There will guards that move around that map and must be avoided. But, I think that map will become a series of zones connected with paths; instead of a minis game style simulation it will be more of a point-to-point abstraction (with maybe 10-20 zones).
Thank you for helping me explore this and I sincerely hope that you don’t feel like I did a bait and switch on you there.

Top
Sat, 02/26/2011 - 13:04
#16
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
No Sweat

Jackhalfaprayer wrote:
Thank you for helping me explore this and I sincerely hope that you don’t feel like I did a bait and switch on you there.

Ultimately it is up to you to decide what kind of game you would like to make. And with any form of abstraction you are bound to lose some personality. Generalizing reality is always difficult to do without losing something.

In this case, by eliminating the movement aspect, I have turned it into an information game. At the beginning, the board has more information than either player (equivalent to 0VP in your original 'choose two' abstract formulation). But quickly that asymmetry shifts in favor of the players. Unfortunately, as the game proceeds, a different assymetry emerges as information is split between the players. Eventually, either player will acquire enough information that he can probably win in one turn. But since the information on the board is changing as a consequence of his opponents actions, both players could end up foiling each other for a while.

Although your metal gear simulation also involves interactive deduction, I hope that this design at least demonstrates that you can create a secret 'movement' game without needing someone to literally move their pieces in secret. Although cheating is also an issue in a blind game, legitimately mistaken movement through confusion or misrecording can equally lead to a breakdown on a game when the other player(s) cannot verify that a move has been made.

As I indicated before, the style of gaming has shifted away from literal movement systems towards more 'teleport' versions of movement. So... Just be aware that a grid map movement system like Clue is going to be a hard sell.

As for my own feeling on the issue, I enjoyed writing up the design. It didn't take too long and so it might be considered a good thought exercise. However, as I said, I've been looking for a way to do a spy game for a while and thematically it could probably be adapted to other settings, so the design is not lost. I should actually thank you.

Top
Mon, 02/28/2011 - 18:28
#17
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
rcjames14: I'm glad you

rcjames14: I'm glad you enjoyed it and I really do apreciate your input. You've helped me immensly.

PLAYTEST REPORT:
Well a brief playtest with my dear fiancé this weekend shows that the basic game works. I used a map of 15 interconnected zones. These were lettered, to make them unique, and connected with arrows.
Of these 15 zones 5 were given stacks of tokens (5 tokens per stack). These zones were always at least 1 zone apart from one another. The Tiger’s goal was to collect 10 tokens. Each player started with 6 “pennies” for the penny economy.
For the rough theme we used a tiger hunting in a village in colonial India. This was the original theme for the game when I pitched it to her long ago. She really likes this theme and I’m sorta fond of it myself. The inspiration was William Blake’s poem The Tyger.
http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~keith/poems/tyger.html
To help emphasize the theme I put on some Ravi Shankar music and we drank a big pot of chai tea.
The Tiger kept track of her position with a little spiral bound book of note cards. My fiancé simply wrote down the letter of her current position, and crossed off the previous one, every turn. Each of the hunters was numbered so if she killed a hunter she would simply scratch off his number from the list of active hunters that she wrote off to the side of her little note card.
Finally, on the other margin, she kept track of how many tokens were in each of the stacks. She wrote down the letters of the zones with tokens and every time she captured a token from these stacks she put a tally mark next to the appropriate letter.
The tiger’s actions were:
Move:
+1) Move to an adjacent zone. Do not announce the action you have chosen.
+0) Move to an adjacent zone. You must announce the action you have chosen.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
Capture:
+1) Remove 1 token from a stack in the same zone as yourself. Do not announce the action you have chosen.
+0) Remove 1 token from a stack in the same zone as yourself. You must announce the action you have chosen.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(How many tokens were REALLY in any space was kept track of on the Spy’s notes. If a hunter searched a zone with tokens, they were given updated information (if there was a change) and the tokens on the board were updated accordingly)
Kill:
+1) Kill one hunter in the same zone as yourself. Do not announce the action you have chosen.
+0) Kill one hunter in the same zone as yourself. You must announce the action you have chosen.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(All hunters were numbered. When my fiancé killed one she simply noted the hunter’s number and crossed it off on her sheet. If that hunter was activated on future turns, she would say “nope he’s dead…”)
Snooze:
+1) Snooze any 3 hunters on the board.
+0) Snooze any 1 hunter on the board.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(A hunter that had been “snoozed” was turned face down. If he were activated on future turns he would “wake up” which would be his whole action.)

We played with an open game system, which meant both of us could pitch ideas for new “moves” as the game went by. Only one was introduced, and it was quite unique.
Run like the Wind
+1) Move directly to a zone occupied by a hunter.
+1) Move directly to a zone with tokens.
+1) 2 Penny
+0) 4 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(This effectively replaced “dart” allowing the Tiger to jump around the board. This had two +1 in game effects, to keep the Hunters from knowing what the Tiger was up to.)

The hunter’s goals were to survive a number of turns before the Tiger achieved her goal. Alternately the hunters could win by finding the tiger 5 times.

The hunters had the following moves:
Stalk
+1) Activate 3 hunters.
+0) Activate 1 hunter.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(When a hunter was activated it could move to an adjacent zone or remain stationary. It would then search its current zone. If the tiger was there the tiger lost a hit point, of which it had 5. If the number of tokens in the space had changed (that is, the tiger had captured some) then they were updated on the board.

Help
+1) Create 2 hunters at Location J.
+0) Create 1 hunter at Location J.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(J was a zone marked with a star. It was just a place where more hunters could be created.)

Time Passes
+1) Remove 2 points from the turn timer.
+0) Remove 1 point from the turn timer.
+1) 1 Penny
+0) 3 Pennies
+1) Take Control
+0) Give Control
(the turn timer was just a game clock of turns. If it reached 0 the hunters won. It started at 25.)

We used a hand of cards ranked 1-5 with blind bidding to determine who got to pick the move. Each turn we would choose a card from our hand, lay it face down, and reveal. The higher card won the bid and got to pick a move. When all five cards had been played, the player’s hand was refreshed. Ties are discarded and still remove a point from the turn timer (that is, ties benefit the hunters)

The game went amazingly well. You had to keep your brain working on multiple fronts: Penny economy, winning bids, positioning, information. It was awesome! My lovely girl scooted away with victory with only 8 turns left on the clock. Fun was had by both of us. I felt like I almost had her and that I had almost enough information to catch her. She felt super sneaky and tricky and had lots of fun keeping me guessing.
Questions:
I’m concerned about balance. I have no idea if the numbers balance out for players. Any math wizards out there have any input on the cost of moves, penny economy, and the turn timer? Also I’d welcome thought on how to add variety to any of the above.

After I get the core game working, I’d like to add some variety. I’d love to hear some ideas for fun “moves” for either side.

On the topic of variety. More scenario ideas? The move around the board option is sorta done. I need some crazy thoughts from left field.

I’m still up in the air about theme. Any votes?

Top
Mon, 02/28/2011 - 22:52
#18
rcjames14
rcjames14's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/17/2010
Hunters and Tigers Rocks!

Jackhalfaprayer wrote:
I’m still up in the air about theme. Any votes?

Much more interesting and accessible than spies. Especially if you want to go down the line of paper tracking, I think you're going to want to appeal to a less gamey crowd. We gamers have been spoiled by victory tracks, so we tend to prefer more 'elegant' systems where all information is tracked by the components. A casual audience on the other hand has no reservation to pull out a pen and pencil.

Top
Tue, 03/01/2011 - 18:23
#19
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
Alright that's 2 (yourself

Alright that's 2 (yourself and my girl) for keeping the current theme.

Anyone else? Any input on any front?

Top
Wed, 03/02/2011 - 14:31
#20
le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Tiger, Tiger...

I love this theme... keep it !

Top
Wed, 03/02/2011 - 16:14
#21
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
That's three votes for

That's three votes for Tigers.

Any thoughts on anything from any of you lurkers?

Top
Thu, 03/03/2011 - 17:58
#22
cottonwoodhead
cottonwoodhead's picture
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2011
I think the tiger theme works

I think the tiger theme works great. I didn't really like the spy theme and I think it's a definate improvement.

Top
Thu, 03/03/2011 - 23:19
#23
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
Awwww why'd you guys have to

Awwww why'd you guys have to side with her. Well give the people what they want...

With the general game engine up and running it's time to get down to nitty-gritty.

I'd like the game to have variable set up. Any ideas for how to make the zones unique?

Any thoughts on what the Hunters might have besides move troops, make more troops, and take time off the clock?

Any thoughts on what the Tiger might have besides move, teleport, kill guard, and get vp?

Top
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 13:37
#24
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
ilta wrote:I would point out,

ilta wrote:
I would point out, though, that for the spy, it will always be obvious which of the "secretive" actions is being taken, because the guard player will know what the spy just paid him, and whether the control status of the card has changed. So if the spy pays 3 pennies and returns the card, saying nothing, then we know that he moved secretly, or killed secretly, or whatever.

Not necessarily, if all the actions are available, and I pay you 3 and maintain control then you know that whatever I did was a secret (obv because I didn't announce it) - but you don't know if that was moving 3, or killing a guard, or whatever else is available.

I liked Kos' comment that you could simply list the actions available, and the spy can always either pay extra, relinquish Control, or announce their move.

As for multiplayer - I could see this type of mechanism working in a multiplayer game of a different type, say Area Control. On your turn you get some number of actions who's 'weight' totals 1 (2 if you are currently "in control") - where actions add cubes to the board, move them around, draw cards, play cards, etc. Being "in control" could be the effect of having the most guys in a particular location (the effect of that location is "be in control") so people could fight over that like they do over the larger point values in El Grande or the abilities of provinces in In the Shadow of the Emperor for example.

I also liked Kos' comment about the number of pennies simply being the 'in control' descriptor. You could take 'gain control' out of the option list, and have the player with the most pennies automatically be on-turn and in control. Or at least be on-turn, and still have some other 'in control' mechanism - either way. That's sort of similar to an area control mechanism (the area being the number of pennies) but I think it would feel more like Thebes or Glen More where you are on turn when you are last on the turn track, and so if you take a small enough action, you might be on turn again, while if you take a big, powerful action you might not go again for a while. I always thought that was a cool mechanism.

Top
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 15:01
#25
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
Quote:Not necessarily, if all

Quote:
Not necessarily, if all the actions are available, and I pay you 3 and maintain control then you know that whatever I did was a secret (obv because I didn't announce it) - but you don't know if that was moving 3, or killing a guard, or whatever else is available.

Thanks for re-iterating this. My explanation was a little lumpy. You've elegantly explained my reasoning.

Quote:
I liked Kos' comment that you could simply list the actions available, and the spy can always either pay extra, relinquish Control, or announce their move.

I really don't know how the information on the menus of options will be handled. [beg+plead] Any graphic designers out there have any suggestions on readability. [/beg+plead]

As far as multi-player goes there would have to be more than two parties with more than two goals. "Sharing" the Hunters would just get boring. Two Tigers, with out any sort of way’s to interact, would just be multi-player solitaire. That is, both the Tigers would interact with the Hunters, but not really each other.
There are two possible solutions, as I see it.
1: introduce a third party with its own goals and options. Any ideas?
2: allow ways for more than 1 Tiger to interact (options that help/hurt the other tigers)

Little brag here, but multiple players shouldn’t un-balance the game. Because each player will bring a unit of action points into the game, and those points move from player to player every action you take just enables your opponents that much more. More Tigers? That just means a higher number of more cable Hunters.

For the first play-test I decided to forgo the “he with the most pennies gets to choose” mechanic because I just like the blind bidding so much! I want to try it in my next play test but I have to say that I really like mechanics that require players to predict and out maneuver opponents. I think this brings a lot player interaction to games. It totally falls apart with more than 3 players though. Right now the blind bidding is completely divorced from the rest of the mechanics and this bothers me. I like unified mechanics…

I’m so torn!
Current questions on the table:
I'd like the game to have variable set up. Any ideas for how to make the zones unique?
Any thoughts on what the Hunters might have besides move troops, make more troops, and take time off the clock?
Any thoughts on what the Tiger might have besides move, teleport, kill guard, and get vp?

Top
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 18:54
#26
le_renard
le_renard's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/08/2010
Your game makes me think of

Your game makes me think of the colonial period...
Let's imagine the hunter is a white colon, or a native...
Are their goals the same ? do they want to kill the tiger for the same reasons ?
I know it's just thematic thinking, but that just crossed my mind.

Top
Fri, 03/04/2011 - 19:46
#27
Jackhalfaprayer
Offline
Joined: 09/29/2008
I had envisioned the hunters

I had envisioned the hunters as a combined force of Indian and British Colonial forces. Red jackets and pith helmets (rifles loaded and bayonet's gleaming) teamed up with turban wearing Sikhs armed with swords and chakram and clad in shades blue. Frankly I don't know much about colonial India. TO THE LIBRARY!

Anyone have any good colonial India movies I could watch? Books I could read?

I don't know what types of troop offerings the Hunters might have besides the basic guards. Any suggestions?

As for who might be hunting the tiger and why...
I don't even know what the Tiger is up to! I sort of picture it as this semi-mystical entity. The game should play out a little like the original Predator movie and I want the tiger to be this same sort of almost otherworldly force. But what is it doing? When my girl and I playtested and I said that the tokens are what the Tiger is trying to get, but I don't know what they are, you know what she offered...?

Children

Top
Sat, 03/05/2011 - 05:11
#28
kos
Offline
Joined: 01/17/2011
Tiger ideas

Jackhalfaprayer wrote:
Anyone have any good colonial India movies I could watch? Books I could read?

Ghost and the Darkness
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ghost_and_the_Darkness

Jackhalfaprayer wrote:
I don't know what types of troop offerings the Hunters might have besides the basic guards. Any suggestions?

I don't think that the game would need a large variety of different types of hunters. I'd stick with British Soldiers and Natives as the two basic types, perhaps with a unique Game Hunter character. Soldiers can fight, while Natives can track. The Game Hunter can do both.

Jackhalfaprayer wrote:
As for who might be hunting the tiger and why...
I don't even know what the Tiger is up to! I sort of picture it as this semi-mystical entity. The game should play out a little like the original Predator movie and I want the tiger to be this same sort of almost otherworldly force. But what is it doing? When my girl and I playtested and I said that the tokens are what the Tiger is trying to get, but I don't know what they are, you know what she offered...?
Children

Idea 1: The hunters have captured the tiger's cubs and put them on display in 3 different villages. The tiger wants them back, and no amount of scared little men with loud sticks are going to stop her.

Idea 2: The colonials are building a railroad through the tiger's territory. To do so they need to keep all their native workers on the job while the soldiers protect them. But the natives are the only ones who can track the tiger, so the soldiers may need to pull them off the work gang to flush it out. The colonials win if they complete the railroad, while the tiger wins if it can disrupt operations long enough until the monsoon hits.

Idea 3: The hunters seek a vast reward if they capture the semi-mythical Tiger, but if they don't succeed by the time the monsoon hits they will have to call off the hunt. The maharajah's daughter is sympathetic to the tiger, and if the tiger can just manage to get to her she will call off the hunt, but the colonials keep moving her around between the towns to make sure she is "safe" from the tiger.

Regards,
kos

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut