Skip to Content

Victory Points, Game Objectives and ???

5 replies [Last post]
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

Well I've recently gotten some new "inspiration" for Quest Adventure Cards(tm) — Second Edition... But I've also had a "challenge" too... Something that I'm not sure HOW to deal with:

1. The primary goal was to be the FIRST player to "complete" (Set Collection) three (3) QUESTS.

2. Cards were assigned Point Values (VPs maybe) to keep score of the game.

So WHY am I doing BOTH?!?!

Well I DISLIKE that the game is NOT "strictly" about Victory Points (VPs). But then the problem becomes how do you manage the game in terms of advancement.

In a four (4) player game, there are TEN (10) Quests and if each player has COMPLETED two (2) Quests, that's EIGHT (8) Quests in total... Leaving one for victory and one extra.

It MAKES SENSE. Believe me... I've been thinking about it.

The question I am faced with is HOW to use BOTH (Victory Points and Completed Quests TOGETHER)???

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Something inspired by Scythe

Well I believe (correct me if I am wrong), Scythe has CATEGORIES for the most of a specific aspects of the game.

And so I was thinking about it... MAYBE if I had "categories" too:

1. The Quest with the most cards gains +5 VPs.

2. The Quest with each card type earns +2 VPs.

3. The Quest which has all the optional cards earns +3 VPs.

4... That's what I got! (LOL) But you can see that I WANT the game to be about Victory Points. And somehow the number of Quest completed are also used too... (Again not sure how).

I've definitely started (I know it's not much) ... But I've got some kind of scoring bonuses for a few cases.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Variables and Thoughts

questccg wrote:
That's what I got! (LOL) But you can see that I WANT the game to be about Victory Points. And somehow the number of Quest completed are also used too...
I think you're on the right track.

  • Completed quests can indicate the end of the game, but the value of the quests can be different. You mention that some quests require more cards, and that seems like a reasonable way to indicate that a certain quest is more valuable.
  • Different players can complete the same quest, but the first player to complete it earns more victory points for it.
  • Bonuses or signifiers are determined at the start of each game, making different quests worth different values in each game. This is similar to the first point above, but it's likely that this "most valuable quest" will be different from one game to the next.
  • Players can earn more victory points by investing more resources (heroes, gold, cards, etc.) into certain quests.

There are a lot of ways to go about this. It does depend heavily on what you're trying to accomplish with your game, how you want players to interact, how you want the game to end, and of course playtesting.

Best of success on your revitalized design. :)

ceethreepio
ceethreepio's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/01/2019
Sounds like you are splitting ...

Sounds like you are splitting the Game End trigger from the Game Win condition.

So, I understand this to mean, you have different types of quests, and they take a different amount of time/resources to complete, and but the game end condition is to simply complete three. So, the obvious logical condition is to take the 3 shortest quests to win ... so you are trying to increase the value of the quests to compensate.

Why not get rid of the 3 quest game-end trigger, and simply assign VP to the quests? Winner is the one who gets the most VP?

Perhaps the 'set' completion adds or removes VPs from the subsequent quests? E.g. In quest 2 might require some item from the first quest, which, if you have, means that part of quest 2 is easier? Or the opposite, that the ramifications of the first quest, make the second one in the set harder?

If the quests' VP count is hidden from the players when they start a quest they will have no way to know which is the shortest or the most useful. And then if you can make the quests variable in nature, and thus variable in VP, then its a purely VP game which no players is clear on who is winning, and thus king-making is out.

It's very late here. I'm not sure if anything I said was helpful ...

Nick

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Difference between 1st and 2nd Edition

What I am trying to do is simplify the "building" process of the Quests. I really DON'T want "Quest cards". Quest cards would talk about the quest and tell you what cards you MUST play and which ones are optional for more points.

Now while this is COOL. It's NOT the direction that I want for the 2nd Edition.

I want something a bit more "abstract". Like if you have a "Heroism" card and it specifies that it "requires" a "Lair" card and by playing THIS "Heroism" you earn "+4 Red" resource points which you can connect a "Lair" card with 4 or less points! And then in turn, that "Lair" card has a "+5 Black" resource points which allows you to connect a "Terror" card with 5 or less points!

I've also been thinking to "re-design" the concept of "Completed Quests". I am not too sure yet TBH. Still need more time to "reflect". But the basic idea that I have is "POOLS" of resources (8 to be precise).

And like you start play with a certain number of resources... I think I'd like to make it a bit RPG-ish (The whole "Adventure Cards") and that each player had a player's card with pre-determined quantities of each "resource"...

Definitely on-to "something", just got to take some time to reflect about it to see what other ideas I can get to advance the design some more...

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
And TBH ...

Quest Adventure Cards(tm) - First Edition ... Was purely a "Set Collection" game with some "Take That". It was my FIRST Game Design and was rather simple. Purple Pawn gave me a 3/10 score. Which was a bit low... But I do understand why.

I should have emphasized that it was a game for 8+ year olds not adults. And as something not overly complicated, this game could be FUN for younger children.

But having learned so much about "Game Design" and the various game ideas, I have come to the conclusion that I'd like to design something more "challenging" that could involve parents and their children. Or an older brother who is a Teenager, etc.

I'm working on the 2nd Edition because "Monster Keep" is currently in the "art development" phase ... and while I wait for samples, colors, sketches, etc. I can ponder about ANOTHER "Design" too. So this got me thinking about the "2nd Edition" of Quest.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut