When we ran out of games to play on Monday, I mentioned that I had a half-formed game concept. And from there we had to figure out the rest of the game on the fly. We argued over rules, and then argued over the rules. Afterwords, we played for about 5 minutes, and then argued over the rules. It's pretty obvious that this isn't a very good way to develop a game. Devin is right. Bring up a concept, test it out, and try again. Testing and revision is a better idea than talking conceptual rules. Even if we don't like the new rule, maybe it makes the game play better.
The concept I wanted for my game was a more life-themed sort of Risk-like game. I took away the map because this sort of nation-based complexity wouldn't work per country on a Risk board. Some countries within this game will clearly be at a disadvantage if they get the wrong cards at the start. That's how things work in real life sometimes and some players will inevitably be doomed. I think that's an important element of the game.
Rules:
Setup:
Each player draws 2 random economic and 2 random war trait cards. Players get 4 riches and 4 armies at the beginning and their total modifiers are added or subtracted from those beginning 4 armies or riches.
Traits:
Countries have traits that modify war and riches gain. Every single turn, aside from the first turn, you gain or lose that many riches or armies per turn. Players can not have negative armies, but they must go in debt and take out loans to stay solvent when they are losing cash.
Riches:
Riches can be spent on armies. 2 riches for 1 army. If a player is out of money, they may take out loans. If a nation hits 11 loans, they lose the game. Loans function as normal money, but must be kept aside even from normal cash to show debt. Riches can be used with any negotiation with other players. There are no restrictions on how cash can be exchanged.
Armies:
Armies can be stationed within a country for defense or used to invade other nations. Combat within the game works like Risk's combat: The attacking nation can attack with as many armies as they would like, but may only roll 3 dice for attack. The defender may roll 2. Ties are in favor of the country owner.
Taking over a nation:
When a defending nation runs out of armies, they are an occupied. An occupied nation is still technically owned by the initial owner. The next turn the occupied nation owner gets a turn, they get the total bonus of their cards in free armies for one turn and have a chance to retake their country for one turn. Even if they are negative bonuses, they still are given as armies. Players also are allowed to trade remaining cash with players to buy armies to save their country.
Deals and agreements:
Allied nations get one extra army and one extra riches card every time their turn begins. This number does not increase with extra allies. There must be a return for any alliances and the bonus can not be shared without additional benefits. Any stated terms for alliances must be agreed upon. Loopholes are allowed.
Repairing bad traits:
When a nation has a negative economic card, they are permitted to spend 2.5 the total positive value of the card to make it a positive trait. The positive, fixed card gives a ½ the positive number of the card instead.
Winning:
Players win when all the involved players are finally stable and not at war. This can involve stabilizing all players or eliminating the rest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This was an interesting game to develop on the fly. There was a lot to be learned about development and everyone having their way... and arguing 30 minutes about how taking over a country should go.
ReplyDeleteStill, it was very amusing, and a fun collaboration. I'd like to see this game revisited perhaps. I feel it has potential.
Karl,
ReplyDeleteGreat start on this game. I think it has a lot of potential, and your player-designers got very involved in it. It is indeed beneficial to simply create a manditory rule and see how it works out than to consider how the rule might work and then argue about it - it is much cheaper to playtest than to think about the results, and ultimately the only way you can observe them. You might want to consider in the future that whoever is the 'lead designer' (i.e. the person who owns the game) make the arbitrary rule and continue from there while recording other suggestions.
The numbers with 2.5 and 1/2 might be a little bit confusing for your players. You might want to just indicate a 'fixed card' value below the current one. You could probably indicate the repair value on the card as well.
I like your observation that some countries are kind of screwed in real life based on their resources. This is similar to Jared Diamond's observations on how geography affects the success of a country, as in his book Guns, Germs and Steel. However, there should still be an option for this country to remain sovereign, even if it has no possible way of controlling the entire board. This can come through diplomacy or through play mechanics. This way, a player does not feel cheated, but must merely change strategies.
I also had an interesting observation with Kate's response to losing her country. She was very protective of it, and I got the sense that maybe she felt like her country had been occupied. Perhaps the rules might be altered such that a player who is inside an occupied country remains an active player, but is now under the control of another player and must do what that player says. That might give players a sense of what it is like to be inside an occupied country.
You should continue working on this game and playtest it again in class.
-Devin Monnens
A game that needed work, even though we were prototyping during class and making the rules on the fly. The whole taking over a country is still a confusing aspect for me, and I have no suggestions as to how to fix that. Was definitely fun to play though!
ReplyDelete