Big Bad Effects and Possible End Game Scoring Effects

Thank you for the ideas. I think I prefer to have effects that happen during the normal game play rather than at the end. The latter situation gives some uncertainty and hopefully some suspense to the outcome. However, figuring out the end game results could detract from the satisfaction of the game, in addition to any effects that simply detract or subtract from what has been accomplished (II agree with Frank M's "loathe" comment). I think having something more immediate would be more thematic.

I know I haven't given lots of details, but bear with me for the moment. What if the Big Bad hangs out (sleeps, haunts, etc.) in a random room. If an intruder is scared into that room, that triggers the effect. Then the Big Bad moves to another room. However, this situation does not necessarily drive the game to the end like I mentioned previously. Rather, it simply changes up the game state a little bit, including some scoring impact (or other game state impact).

In this idea above, I think I would need to have "unequal results" ... because setting everyone back the same amount doesn't really move the game in any direction. It would be a non sequitur. Rather, the Big Bad would take its anger out on the player that or has the most/least Right now, the only resource that's really in play is ectoplasm, which is deposited each time a player scares an intruder. Could the Big Bad scare the intruder one additional space, but end the player's scaring (still scoring points).

Do you think that this would work best if the location of the Big Bad was known or unknown? What would be the best way to hide/reveal the Big Bad's location? Or is this simply known by the players at all times?

Mark

So, my gut tells me that keeping the Big Bad's location hidden makes for some suspense. If known, the player's will most likely avoid the room with the Big Bad in it, which make him present but as an impediment (which could be fine as it means the board state is changing occasionally). That could still have some interesting gameplay, but the suspense of not knowing should help keep tension high...assuming the "surprise" is sufficiently impactful without being "loathsome," as you put it. Is there as simple way to do this? One way I can see using this mechanism is to place tokens in unoccupied rooms, one token having "Big Bad is here!" on it. A simple effect could be that the intruder is scared one more room (according to its movement AI/preferences), and your turn ends (but it's not a bust, and you can score). My only reservation is that it's another piece on the board, and the board is fairly busy with pieces, and I am afraid that adding this to the rules will complicate the game and add to player downtime. I could be wrong on that, as the complete experience may be more enjoyable despite downtime. Only way is to playtest. Thoughts on that?

In contrast...

End game effects have the benefit of not knowing exactly how scores will finish (unless someone is far ahead in points) and they wouldn't interrupt "during-the-game" gameplay. On the downside, my effects could be very "swingy" point-wise. My last playtest indicated that players actually didn't pay attention to the end game effects. There were 7 effects, all of which were positive (i.e., bonuses). If a certain condition was met, the Big Bad would advance and flip the effect to the "mean/angry side" which were negative effects (i.e., penalties). Only 3 or 4 of them got flipped during game play (but if all 7 got flipped, the game would end immediately), so we had a mix of bonuses and penalties. The scaring (the primary action) was the players' priority, which makes sense. We (I was one of the players) or less ignored the end game effects, good or bad...me included. That makes me think that these end games scoring effects are generally not effective, or at least interesting.

Thematically, the Big Bad wants to sleep and gets annoyed, angry, etc. when these intruders intrude. The Big Bad's effects should be "punishing" or at least to the players' detriment in some way. Currently, the effects happen when an intruder is killed off or when the intruders collect enough evidence to end the wave.

Thanks for this conversation. Thinking through the responses is helping me think through this game design.

After playtesting my game at UNPUB 2023 last weekend, I got some great feedback and several ideas about how to possibly integrate my big bad into the game better. So, right now, per the narrative, the big bad is "sleeping" and when non-player intruders wander into the big bad's room, he scares them and then moves to another room (determined randomly by rolling dice). The intruders wander per programmed movement that the players can control to a certain degree. However, the players simply played such that avoided the room he was in and he never really moved.

So, now the new idea is a little simpler...you trigger the movement of the big bad in some way on your turn rather than the automatic trigger for the intruders after each player. Rather, let the big bad trigger the intruder's movement...but the intruders still move per their program/AI.

As a result of whatever change I make, I want the players to have more agency and give a little more interaction. However, it could go a couple different ways. So, here is the question, what should the big bad and intruders do now to affect gameplay/scoring?

Previously, I had the intruders collecting stuff the players placed in the rooms, with the rule that they would collect from whomever left the most stuff there. This would lead to VP deduction for that player. I am wondering if the big bad should collect it instead? Maybe this is irrelevant as it is more of a narrative question.

For example, let's say 3 players left stuff in the room (let's say blue left 1, yellow left 2, and red left 3). With the current rules, if the intruder steps into the room, it would collect 1 from red. If there was a tie for most, it would collect one from each of those tied for most. But what if you move the big bad, and he collects the stuff instead (ignore narrative). He could collect:

- From the most only
- From the active player only
- From all the other players (i.e., except the active player)
- Activate some scoring for the least only
- other ideas?

Then depending on which scenario, should the active player gets VP rather than deducting VP from another player(s)? Or are penalties okay? This is probably more of a player feeling question rather than a rule-balancing question. Narratively speaking, it makes more sense thematically that the big bad would hurt players rather than reward players. That said, there is debate on whether it's better to always reward rather than penalize. Thoughts?

Lots to unpack there. Thanks in advance for the comments.

Mark