Skip to Content

Asking for feedback on Rage

8 replies [Last post]
Drion22
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2019

Hey guys, Drion here!

I've made rules for a simple fighting game that's a twist on Dan Felder's rock-paper-scissors improvement.

The rules are:
-Both players start with 5 health, first to make the other run out wins
-On a count of 3, both players pick one of three actions:
1. Attack deals 1 damage to the opponent
2. RAGE deals damage equal to your missing health (but min. 1) and makes you immune to all damage
3. Counter reflects the opponents damage if they used Rage, ignores immunity

I would love to hear if you guys think this is an interesting concept or a prototype to scrap. I think it's very extendable with different characters adding slight changes in gameplay, but it somehow needs more information about the decisionmaking process

Have a great day and thanks for reading!

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
As a minor point, there are

As a minor point, there are already a few games called Rage.

Jay103
Jay103's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/23/2018
The beauty of that is it's

The beauty of that is it's pretty easy to playtest :). Was it fun to play?

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
my guess would be that

my guess would be that counter and rage dont get used for the first 3 or so turns. i would think both players attack ( both losing 1 hp?) until one or both risks rage and instantly wins or dies. there is no point in risking it if your hp loss is less than three.
it could be a good game of chicken.

Drion22
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2019
Great eye, that stagnation

Great eye, that stagnation was actually a problem. That's why the rules include that rage grants immunity and deals a minimum 1 damage, so it outclasses Attack from the get go. Playtesting found people actually throwing in rages early on, but counters usually show up later. Chickening out is the most humiliating way to get defeated though!

Drion22
Offline
Joined: 04/20/2019
So far it's been mentioned as

So far it's been mentioned as "More fun than Rock-Paper-Scissors", but "a bit hard to get used to it initially". But you're right that it needs more testing, especially in the area of how quickly it might get boring/unfun.

apeloverage
Offline
Joined: 08/01/2008
This looks fun, but because

This looks fun, but because it's so simple it's probably solvable. That is, there's probably a strategy (a semi-random one that gives a percentage chance of choosing each strategy) such that no other strategy will tend to do better against it.

So you might want to (for example) have players take a random character, and put a time limit on each round, so that it's difficult to find this best strategy.

mindspike
mindspike's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
Powers will make the difference

You mentioned that you were going to add characters with powers to change up the game. I think that will be the deciding factor in if this is viable as a game. The game is solvable in the same way as tic-tax-toe. Both players attack for the first three rounds then try to either bluff the opponent into throwing Rage against Counter or throwing Counter against Attack until someone makes a mistake. This means that only the last two damage rounds matter.

For a fighting game with a rage theme I would skip the RPS element and go right to a fast and furious game of chicken. The trick is finding a way to extend the game so that it feels like it is worth the play time.

wob
Offline
Joined: 06/09/2017
perhaps lean into rps more.

perhaps lean into rps more. if the basic attack was rps then the first few rounds would be less predictable.
counter always beats rage. rage always beats basic attack. basic attack always beats counter. +
counter draws deal no damage. rage draws deal damage to both. +
basic attack (with less chance of a draw) draws "roll over" to the next turn ie the next player to take damage also takes 1 damage from this attack.

this was just a quick thought on how to make the game less solvable (if that is , indeed, a problem). this may make things too complex or random though.

as a way to limit randomness, or increase predictability, if each player has a limited number of each action (on cards?) the more you play the more you will know what your opponent can do.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut