Archive for ErikPeter Walker
1 , 2 , 3 Next »
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
Monster Evolutions are the primary mechanic used to force Terror Mission's difficulty to gradually increase. Each turn, an evolution card is drawn, directing the progression of the game in some way, usually by beefing up monsters.
Before I go over some ideas for specific evolutions, I should explain how combat works in more detail (in the current rules draft, anyway).
Each turn, the player faces one challenge (i.e. the terror mission). A challenge is a handful of encounters determined by location and random monster draw. An encounter is usually just one monster by itself, but may include other factors (cover, civilians, additional monsters), especially as the game progresses.
Before each combat round, the player chooses how he wants to group his squads, and which encounter each squad will face.
Then, generally, the player rolls a single die for each squad, adding or subtracting Combat Value modifiers hoping to meet or exceed the monster's Defense.
If there are any surviving monsters, they deal damage to squads or civilians at that encounter (I haven't determined these rules yet) and then another combat round begins. And that's the gist of it.
So now let me talk about monster evolutions. Each monster type has a color associated with it, and the monsters you face are determined by colored tokens or cubes pulled randomly from a bag. The color distribution isn't static, however, representing the growing and evolving strength of the Ancient Evil, and ensuring that no two games will play out the same.
Each turn, the player draws one evolution card, which adds monsters of a certain color to the bag, and, if that monster type hasn't gained any special abilities yet, grants one. That is, for each monster type/color, only the first evolution drawn is used for that game. Additional cards increase the likelihood of pulling that monster from the bag during challenge generation.
The evolutions available for each monster type are linked thematically, e.g., drones are weak but dangerous in numbers, brutes are hard to kill, and so on. Here are some ideas for monster types and possible evolutions.
White (drones) - the basic monster. Easy to kill, even for poorly equipped rookie squads. They will do a lot of damage if left unchecked.
Potential Evolutions:
Insectoid - Significantly higher armor value.
Horde - The first time a White token is drawn at an encounter, immediately draw another token at that encounter.
Terrible - Double Terror increases when civilians are killed by White monsters.
Yellow (harvesters) - the grunt workforce of the monsters. Slightly higher defense than drones to start. There are many tokens available, potentially saturating the bag. Evolutions generally increase the danger of their encounters.
Potential Evolutions:
Flying: Ignore cover (a mixed blessing) and use ranged attacks, causing damage to different encounters.
Even More Tentacles: Deal additional damage to nearby officers.
Corrupter: When civilians or officers are killed, place a White monster at the same encounter.
Blue (brutes) - fiendishly tough monsters. Can only be killed on a roll of 6. Otherwise if a brute would be killed it is stunned instead (does not attack that round). Evolutions keep them around longer, and suggest multiple squads to take them down fast. Each evolution drawn after the first adds another Blue token to the bag.
Potential Evolutions:
Brutal - Damages all squads at its encounter.
Unkillable - Even higher defense (e.g., roll a 7 on a six-sider)
Unstoppable - Take an additional hit before being killed
Green (boss) - an especially hard monster. Has all of the abilities of both Yellow and Blue monsters. Only 1 available to be put in the bag.
Purple (psychic) - terrifying, powerful monsters. Only a few in the deck / bag. Evolutions involve fear and mind control powers. Potentially deal damage to squads before and after the combat roll.
Potential Evolutions:
Mind Control - One officer at the same encounter is immediately killed and replaced by a White monster.
Horrific - Officers at the same encounter cannot use technology upgrades.
Other Evolution Cards
Not every evolution card will buff/add monsters to the bag. Some might just make the game generally harder in other ways. Some possibilities:
- Adding another encounter to each Challenge
- removing all White drones from the bag, then automatically adding drones to each Challenge depending on how many drone evolutions have been drawn
- Unpreventable Terror increase.
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
I recently posted a few basic concepts from my foray into solo design, specifically for my entry to the 2012 Solitaire PnP contest: Terror Mission: SWAT Team Manager
There are different types of game currency in Terror Mission:
Squads are made up of Officers. In a round of combat, one or more squads rolls against one monster. Bonuses and penalties to the roll (the Combat Value) are determined by the quantity and quality of Officers in that squad.
XP is earned for killing monsters (and possibly surviving terrible odds). XP can be spent in combat to boost the Combat Value of a die that has been rolled, or invested in Officers, providing permanent benefits.
Salvage is clues, samples, or combat analysis recovered after an encounter. Also, one type of salvage represents bonus cash (special funding) earned for exceptional success. Particular combinations of salvage are traded in to buy Upgrades.
Upgrades provide permanent boosts to all of your Squads, and represent technological advances like better weapons or specialized training.
From the beginning I figured round structure would be pretty simple: The player would upgrade their abilities and recruit fresh squad members, then an event would happen (a monster attack) and they would have to deal with that.
But exactly how are events determined? It would be reasonable to have an event deck with cards containing unique challenges to face in a pre-determined layout. Cards would be useful to determine rewards for victory as well. For a small, streamlined design, however, I'm not sure another deck of cards is the way to go.
When an event happens, the challenge/encounter is essentially a group of different monsters which each threaten an abstracted "region of the city". While that abstraction could appear on a card, it will be simpler and more variable to use some kind of scenario generator.
One of the things I'm still pondering is whether to use "locations" at all; I'm rather fond of the idea since I'm interested in implementing a small "cover" mechanic that could make dice allocation more interesting, and it would be thematic and easy to tie cover to location. Currently I think there will be a handful of locations, each with a small static effect that flavors the encounter in some way: Maybe one part of the city is small but over-populated, with more civilians to get in the way. Another region could have lots of cover, or room for an additional monster. Simple changes that would open up more possibilities in combat.
Last night while trying to get to sleep I had idea for encounter generation that sounds pretty solid. Basically, to start an encounter, a handful of cubes or poker chips (tokens) are pulled from an opaque bag, and the colors of those tokens represent different monsters. Each round you'd pull an "evolution" card from the deck which would either grant powers, forever, to one of the colors of tokens, or change the distribution of tokens in the bag/game difficulty.
Here's an example. At the start of the game, the bag might contain five white tokens which represent the weakest monster unit, Drones, and no other cubes. At the start of a challenge, maybe you draw four tokens to determine what monsters there are. So the first challenge is always going to be four drones. But then you start drawing evolution cards, which say things like "Harvester (evolution): Add the 3 yellow tokens to the bag. All yellow tokens are Flying: Ignore Cover. If a yellow evolution has already been drawn, discard this and draw another."
The powers of each color of token would link to each other thematically. So green would always be Brutes, purple would always be Psychic, etc. As the game continued, more types would be represented, and more powers would come into play, determining the overall feel for the game.
For example, psychic monsters might be very powerful, but rare. With only two options for Psychic monsters in the deck, the first one drawn will dictate the special power that monster has, and put a scary purple token into the bag, and the next Psychic card drawn would simply double the number of purple tokens in the bag (ignoring the second card's ability for that game).
If that's the first evolution drawn in a game, your early weak squads will have quite a challenge ahead of them. However, in the "random setup" rules, rewards could be based on the type of monsters defeated, which means you might gain access to interesting Upgrades right away.
Also, some evolutions wouldn't change the monster make up but might increase the difficulty in another way, by saying things like "draw another token every encounter", or "treat all white tokens as yellow tokens".
I think it sounds pretty cool so far. I know it sounds a bit muddled, but most of the complexity should come from rules exceptions right on the cards, so it should be pretty simple to jump in and start playing. I hope.
Please forgive the stream of consciousness I'm spewing here. Once I've hammered out more details, I'll post another update.
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
After mulling over the earlier ideas I had for the 2012 Solitaire Print and Play Contest, I decided to shelve them and pull out an older idea that needed some work.
In particular, over the past few years a specific, epic game idea has been crystallizing in my head (and google docs folder). The design is modular, so that the core game is rather simple and streamlined but easy to expand upon in game-changing, exception-based ways, like in Alhambra, Carcassonne, or the brilliant expansions to the Lord of the Rings cooperative game, which are really what I'd like to emulate.
That project is a futuristic global paramilitary simulation, inspired by a popular and regularly adapted video game.
Glancing at that project, I realized that one module in particular, the squad management portion, was essentially a solitaire exercise. Wouldn't it be rewarding, then, to flesh out how that module might work (because if it's not fun, why bother with it) and build it as a standalone game?
And so, Terror Mission: SWAT Team Manager was born. I've always loved the idea of a game where SWAT team guys get to fight lovecraftian monsters, and I haven't seen that theme, despite it being kind of awesome.
Right now, the game is in its preliminary idea phase; I'm mulling over different ideas for how it will come together, but essentially it will be a risk management game. You'll face a handful of deadly monsters at a time, allocate your squads however you think they will be most effective, and roll a few dice to see what happens.
Besides combat, other choices will revolve about how you'll develop your force. Do you hire a lot of cannon fodder and win through attrition? Train a few super-soldiers who can handle mobs of monsters on their own? Discover and exploit the enemy's weaknesses?
There should be plenty of paths to victory (which vary in effectiveness based on how the game plays out). Additionally, the difficulty must increase in a variety of ways, ensuring each game has new challenges to consider.
For example, a certain monster could have a more powerful close-range attack, or a terrifying psychic wail that scatters your squads. As the game progresses, maybe it would gain both of those abilities. Or it could gain two completely different ones.
Ideally, every game will play out differently (and not just based on whether your soldiers die!), and require a smart strategy (as well as luck) to succeed. I'm aiming for a length of about 10-20 minutes.
The contest entry thread for Terror Mission can be found here: WIP (2012 PnP Solitaire Contest) Terror Mission: SWAT Team Manager (idea phase)
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
When it comes to brainstorming game ideas, I haven't thought much about solo gaming, except for cooperative games that could support one player. So, when I read about the 2012 Solitaire Print and Play Contest, I was intrigued.
I don't get to play with friends as often as I'd like, so solo gaming is an obvious choice that I have mostly avoided (for no good reason). I'd love to submit a design to the contest, but before I do, I need a solid idea to work with!
I find it hard to come up with ideas without at least a little inspiration; working within constraints (like using a specific theme or mechanic) turns the design process itself into an exciting meta-game. Since most video games are for one player only, especially classic ones, they offer a good source of inspiration.
In the past few days I've had a couple ideas that could pan out, but I'm sure I'll be tossing around others. I'm not 100% decided on using video games as a starting point, but trying to adapt concepts from the computer screen to the table top could be fun.
First I thought it might be fun to create a boardgame adaptation of side-scrolling adventure games, like Metroid. My take on this genre would still be about exploration and finding special items, but exchange the emphasis on lighting reflexes for planning and resource management, with a dash of calculated risk.
The player would construct the game world out of cards (seach showing a 2x3 grid of various walls and platforms) as they explore, and the core strategy would be to create a navigable network of caverns.
Most cards would depict monsters and hazards that the player must expend their very limited resources to overcome; others provide a selection of upgrades that each help overcome different obstacles--for example, boots that allow you to jump higher, to avoid enemies or reach otherwise inaccessible areas. Occasionally boss monsters would show up, requiring heavy investment but rewarding players with more upgrades.
The game would end when a player runs out of energy, or successfully defeats the last boss.
Another idea I had is to appropriate and streamline the theme and some mechanics from roguelikes, since they share a lot of basic ideas with solitaire games. In both genres, the end goal is difficult and requires patience and luck, and usually you'll get stuck/killed and have to start over, making victory that much more sweet.
I wouldn't try to physically model a two-dimensional dungeon layout. Instead I would "abstractify" the exploration into a series of encounters (rooms), populated by a handful of cards (monsters/items) which the player can either deal with immediately or try to avoid. It'd also be important to keep the game short, and without any fidgety rules, if possible.
The hardest part of realizing this idea would be to create a battle puzzle (i.e. an abstract combat system) that feels fresh and really focuses on player choice and tactics, not just a lot of lucky die rolls. Combat in roguelikes often feels like a dance around slow, dim-witted foes, and so I'm pondering ideas that could abstract that into a press-the-attack or tactical-retreat style numbers game. Dice should certainly factor in, but I'd like a smart player--who knows when to cut and run--to succeed despite mediocre luck. Bad luck should still kill you though 
Additionally, character growth and customization is a big part of roguelikes, and it might be tough to create a streamlined system that is still compelling. In my roguelike of choice, Angband, the flow of the game moves from basic survival, to stat-maxing, to resist-maxing, and finally to finishing off the unique monsters before taking on the final boss. I wonder if I couldn't create a similar depth of experience in a solo card/board game.
Let me know what you think! Any input--or suggestions!--would be most welcome.
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
A couple years ago I designed a Print & Play game called Cogsburg. I'll admit the game isn't great: I was designing under a deadline and it could (and should) have been tested a lot more.
At the time, I felt a little guilty submitting a hardly-complete game to the database, wondering if I was abusing the system to claim my (tarnished?) Game Designer badge. Still, I needed to prove to myself that I could finish a project instead of leaving it in prototype limbo, and because of that, I'm unapologetic.
In many ways, the process was as important as the end result. Like my RFTG expansion, it was essentially an experiment to see if I could actually finish something. Unlike my expansion, however, which holds up pretty well (I still play it with friends regularly), Cogsburg needs some work if it is ever going to be something I am truly proud of.
Cogsburg began as a pseudo-sandbox game, a kind of boardgame physics engine to play around with. I started with the (rather whimsical) theme and created a simple turn-based strategy game system around it, leaving plenty of room for potential modification and improvement. As it stands, though, the idea feels half-realized: too much sandbox and not enough game.
In Cogsburg, each player controls a handful of Cogmen, which race around on a grid to collect things using a variable action point system. To mix up the formula a bit, Cogmen can wind up/transfer energy (action points) to each other, allowing for some interesting bucket-brigade-style cooperation between pieces. I'm pleased with the core action point system, despite a few clunky parts. The other mechanics seem hastily cobbled together by comparison. (Which they were.)
To keep the game from being predeterminate, Cogmen gain a random amount of energy each turn based on a card draw. The cards also occasionally cause rain showers, forcing Cogmen to find shelter or risk becoming broken. I know why I chose to implement these features, but overall it feels like the Winding Cards add a lot of rules complexity without adding much play complexity. I could have created nearly the same effect simply by rolling a die to determine energy gain at the start of each round.
The board, while serviceable, isn't great. The layout is rather free-form (usually a drawback for abstracts) and honestly, I didn't put much thought into it (always a drawback for everything).
All of Cogsburg's weaknesses stem from a lack of real iterative design; I simply did not play or tweak it enough before deciding the game was "done". And so, here I am, finally considering how I might improve it.
To me, fun is about good tense choices. Right now, some of the choices are diminished by the overpowering framework of the game (another sandbox problem).
At the start of each turn, Cogmen need to be adjacent to a Winder to gain energy, which really puts pressure on the players and restricts tactical options. It's rarely wise for a Cogman to end its turn in the open, since even if it can be revived by a nearby ally, it gives up free energy by doing so. I'd rather there were less of a scramble to reach Winders and more direct player interaction--currently limited to blocking and stealing. Part of the excitement depends on how aggressive the players are, but even so, there is lots of room for improvement. Perhaps I could could add dynamic board elements like Turners actually turning, or pumping pistons, but I think it will take more than that to boost the tension of every turn.
I'm not sure how much the Winders really add to the experience; maybe instead of being crucial, the benefit they provide could be optional. If isolated Cogmen receive a random amount of energy at the start of the round, while those adjacent to a Winder receive the maximum instead, sticking close to the Winders would be a good strategy but not a necessity. In addition, leaving a Cogman alone would be a calculated risk, which is better than the simple unpredictability of the winding cards.
Another element that squashes player choice is the severely punishing effect of rain and puddles. If becoming wet meant simply losing a turn instead of potentially losing a Cogman, players wouldn't need to avoid it all costs, hopefully opening up tactical options.
Additionally, the board is too roomy, often letting players act out their prescribed plans without much thought or tension (something I've seen in many "pick up and deliver" games). A smaller, more aggressive board accompanied by a streamlined list of Cogman actions (with more opportunities for interference between players) could boost tension and improve the tactical aspect of the game as well.
Accessibility is another concern; I'd love it if BGGers could simply print an 8 1/2" x 11" sheet (or use a chessboard), grab some dice and try it out. At 16x16 squares, the current board is too cramped for a single sheet of paper.
One thing I intended to include which never made it into the rules was a Cooperative scenario. I have come up with some potential co-op rules, but they haven't been tested, and I think it's more important to streamline the core of the game (e.g. get rid of winding cards, for starters) before developing a new system for the current rules. The original theme lends itself well, with the players cooperating to rebuild the cogtower before rusting away in the rain.
There are many possible courses of action, but first and foremost, I need to test, test, test. I'll be sure to update this weblog after I make some progress.
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
The great thing about Race for the Galaxy is that every game tells a different story: The variety of narratives that play out during the game, and the combo/scoring possibilities within, makes every game fun and unique. Simply put, the cards create a universe full of strategic options.
For the same reason, the system is incredibly fun to tinker with. Below are some of my next expansion ideas.
My working theme is Prosperity. I'm focusing on adding options that tend toward the slightly longer, higher-scoring game I prefer as a player.
I'm aiming for 54 cards, to make it accessible to Artscow users. Mechanics-wise, I hope to pull out all the stops, adding focus to a trade/produce strategy, as well as exploring new ideas for terraforming and the Imperium.
A couple mechanics I have been toying with:
Action Points are a very limited resource--you can only have one at a time, and they require effort to replenish. Thematically they represent the potential for societal change, and will be spent in powerful ways.
Great Works represent a completely new path to victory: The first player to complete three great works immediately wins. A few general great works are accessible for all players, first come first serve: In addition, players can qualify for others by meeting conditions on special cards from the deck.
Another scoring mechanic I am considering is Achievements, which are a kind of super-goals; if you can meet the requirements by game end, you'll earn lots of points. Right now it looks like they wouldn't offer as much interaction as regular goals, so I doubt I will go forward with these, but tuck them in the file for later use (co-op scenario, perhaps?).
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
I'm quite proud of how my RFTG expansion turned out. I don't think it's 100% polished but right now it works pretty well for what it is. To really "fix" the flaws I mentioned in my last entry, I would probably need to overhaul the rules and revise many of the cards.
As I've stated many times before, designing this set has been an incredible learning experience. As a designer whose ideas rarely move beyond the conception stage, I encountered many challenges I never expected--even though they were pretty obvious in hindsight. I hope to take these lessons to heart the next time I design something (starting with RFTG expansion #2!) Lessions like the following:
Major mechanics first: This seems like a no-brainer, but if you're adding a major rule system to the game, figure out what it is and how it's going to work before anything else.
When I started designing my expansion I had a general idea of what Agendas would be, but that idea changed as I tested it and it didn't work like I thought I would. Meanwhile I was designing a ton of cards and very few of them had any connection with the Agendas system at all. In the end, it felt like I was trying to fit the Agendas to the cards I'd created, instead of the other way around.
At one point I thought cards might provide multiple tokens based on their properties. So, for example, if a +Military agenda was in play, Expedition Force would earn one token but Drop Ships would earn three. But in the system I had at the time, tokens were worth about one card/vp each, so earning multiple tokens for one card would be too good. Since I had already created some cards that provided a one-token benefit (which would be very weak if a player could earn 6 in one turn otherwise), I abandoned that idea before I could explore it fully.
Next time I will be sure to have a working system in place before I start cranking out cards.
Focus on playability: As a designer, and a player, I appreciate simplicity in a design. If a system requires a ton of rules but rarely comes up in play, it's not worth it. But sometimes an idea that seems simple actually isn't when you sit down to play it.
Again, look at my first set of Agenda rules. Play an appropriate card, draw a token. Easy peasy, right? But then there was the pool of tokens to worry about, which fluctuated and had to be dealt with immediately after each phase (and never worked as thematically as I wanted it to). A lot of times players would forget once, then try to retroactively gain tokens only to find that the other player had spent some which they might not have had otherwise. A huge, fidgety mess.
Streamline the Graphics: My techniques advanced undeniably throughout the design process, and over the course of my project I established a pretty hefty library of card graphics and icons. But even after fifty-six cards, I was assembling each one a piece at a time in the GIMP, starting with a blank card template, covering unused phases with a mask, adding power icons, arranging text, and drawing graphics. I could have saved hours by simply designing a template with a bunch of layers set up and ready to go. That'll be graphics step #1 if I decide to go through this again.
Ditch the chaff! My expansion has a bunch of cheap cards that don't do much in order to keep the deck balance pretty close to that of the base game. They're pretty much boring cards that only get played in some situations, which leads me to ask myself, why bother? With a little creativity I could have come up with analogues to Pan-Galactic Security Council or Trading Outpost; cards that are desirable more often than not.
I was trying to avoid power creep, but when testing a set, I think it's better (and easier) to scale back a card that is overpowered instead of tweaking it to make it better. Next time, anything goes.
As BGG user scwont brought up in a response to my last entry, the interplay between new start worlds and new 6-costs is a meaty part of any expansion. I feel like the start worlds in my set worked well, thanks in part to feedback here on BGG. I wonder: if I had gone through the same proposal/discussion process with my 6-costs, would they have turned out a bit better?
More General, less Specific: On the topic of 6-costs, most of mine score high for a very narrow strategy, like Uplift Code from RvI. The hidden problem was that the strategies my 6-costs fit weren't especially great for card flow (unlike cheap gene windfalls). Terraforming Monopoly and Core Intelligence rarely get played, and lead to victory even less often. In trying to create cards that wouldn't be worth too many points for the lucky player who drew them, I made cards that were basically never worth points. Whoops. BGG User smestorp pegged these problems immediately upon seeing them in an update--but at the time I just tried to justify them instead of really absorbing his incredibly precise feedback.
Next time: What's next?
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
About two months ago I put the finishing touches on my homebrew Race for the Galaxy expansion. It wasn't officially "done", of course, because there were (and are) still potential adjustments to improve fun and balance, but the "Alpha" stage of rapid testing and redesign was complete.
Since then I have been playing it with geek buddies and listening to feedback from users here on BGG, especially pompom2309 who kindly printed out a set and played it with friends.
After many games, I have been able to identify weaknesses in the design; now is the time when I need to decide what to do about them.
- The biggest complaint/comment I've gotten is that players aren't encouraged to place Intel powers. However useful they may (or may not) be, it just isn't fun to play a card you only might get a benefit from.
One solution I have considered is to simplify them so that they always apply (and stack with the player's choices). Otherwise, I could put them on better cards. (more on that later)
- Agendas still aren't quite right. The system works, but the special abilities are a little stiff to work with and could be improved to encourage players to use them.
The obvious solution is to loosen the requirements for activation by removing the "last card you played must match" restriction. I'm not sure if this would make some of the agendas over-powered. Probably not.
It also has been suggested that the special abilities be improved, but limited to one use per phase. I wouldn't like to do that, because I enjoy the possibility of using a bunch of Destiny to settle a Military (or peaceful) world that you otherwise wouldn't have access to. It's something to keep in mind, however.
- It feels like the average card value is a bit low. Late-game Explore +5's seem to happen more often with my set, and they (seemingly) tend to be less successful. This may be due to intentional but misguided distribution balancing from the very beginning, or intentional but misguided power balancing to prevent power creep.
Either way, my set feels finished, with uniquely defined strategy pathways, but many games feel disjointed when strategies fail to pan out.
With those issues in mind, the general, over-arching flaw in my set is that the cards/agendas aren't cool enough. Sure, they work well enough and occasionally exciting plans come together (placing Alien Nemesis using Peaceful Alien Emissary with Path of Peace in play is a notable example), but they could work better.
- I could continue by making minor edits to individual cards, starting by adding better powers to Intel cards and other undesirables, then going through every card one by one to decide if it is priced properly. Eventually I might reach an equilibrium of "high desirability."
- I could also just throw out what doesn't work, possibly replacing it with fresh ideas that follow a similar theme but use different mechanics. It could cause a major shift in the game, however. The biggest target for excision would obviously be the Intel powers, which would require creating a bunch of new developments as replacements.
- Finally, I could just declare the expansion "done enough" and move on to new, more exciting ideas, possibly creating a streamlined "good parts" version of this expansion. In many ways, this option is the most appealing, but also a big cop out since I know that while what I currently have is pretty fun, it could be improved with further polishing. I feel like the Agendas in particular would be great with just a bit more tweaking.
What do you think?
It is likely that my eventual solution might be a bit of all three. Thanks to help from friends and the BGG community I have been able to examine my ideas from a wider perspective; while the eventual goal has always been to make an expansion that is fun and unique, the simple process of designing and redesigning has been quite fulfilling.
In my next update I hope to revisit some of the lessons I have learned and how I will apply them to future expansion plans--whether refining this expansion or hammering out an "Expansion #2", only time will tell!
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
In my RFTG expansion, mysterious organizations vie for control of the galaxy. Any civilization that helps promote the agendas of the overlords will be rewarded.
As a core mechanic meant to replace Goals and Prestige, Agendas have been hard to design to meet my expectations. My original Agenda system, detailed a few months ago in this very dev log, was interesting but fidgety; further revisions made it easier to use, but it still never felt quite as integral as I wanted it to be.
After many iterations, I finally put together a nice mechanic that is somewhat derivative of the systems it's designed to replace, but will work on its own (I hope) and, thanks to the Destiny mechanic, tie directly into some of the cards in the set.
Note: These rules haven't been tested yet and are likely to be refined.
At the beginning of the game, two Agendas are selected at random. Put two Destiny tokens per player on each Agenda. An Agenda is considered active until there are no more tokens on it; once they have all been claimed, the Agenda is complete.
All Agendas have a key (one or two symbols on the top half) and a special ability (on the bottom half). Players claim tokens from active Agendas by playing cards that match the key. For example, if Established Power and Galactic Vigilance were in play, a player who placed ALIEN Rosetta Stone World would take a Destiny token off each of the Agendas.
Sometimes there might not be enough tokens left when multiple players earn tokens during the same phase. Just draw additional tokens from the supply as needed so everyone who earned a token got one.
Once an Agenda is complete, its special ability can be used as long as the last card you placed matches the key. Each special ability lists the phase that it can be used in; any number of Destiny tokens can be spent, gaining the bonus pictured per token spent.
Arms of the Imperium - Gain a Destiny token after placing a Rebel world or Imperium card. Once complete, if the last card you played was a Rebel world or an Imperium card, in phase IV you may spend any number of Destiny tokens as if they were Rare goods. You still need consume powers in order to consume them.
Established Power - Gain a Destiny token after placing a development that provides Military or a grey non-military world. Once complete, if the last card you placed is either of those, in phase III you may spend as many Destiny tokens as you like, gaining -2 settle cost and -2 Military per token spent, until the end of the phase. You can use the reduced Military to settle Peaceful worlds you normally wouldn't be able to place.
Galactic Enrichment - Gain a Destiny token after placing a windfall world. Once complete, if the last card you placed is a windfall world, you may spend Destiny tokens in phase IV to gain 1 VP and 1 card apiece.
Galactic Vigilance - Gain a Destiny token after placing an Alien card. Once complete, if the last card you placed is an Alien card, you may spend any number of Destiny tokens in phase III to gain +2 Military per token spent, until the end of the phase.
Uplift Prophecy - Gain a Destiny token after placing a card with an "Intel" power or an Uplift card. Once complete, if the last card you placed is either of the matching types, you may spend Destiny tokens in phase I to look at an additional 5 cards for each token spent.
You can use this ability in the middle of resolving your Explore action; That is, after you see what you've drawn, you many choose to spend a Destiny token to draw additional cards before you discard. You can continue to spend tokens in this way, one at a time, as long as you have tokens left to spend.
-
ErikPeter Walker
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
Uplifting
-
A recent thread about Dungeon Keeper-style dungeon building/management games got me pumped to try another quick-and-dirty design project like Cogsburg.
I've thought about it a bit over the years so I wasn't starting from scratch. More recently I've been brainstorming for an RFTG-inspired castle game, emphasizing card placement for bonus points (instead of simply card combos); It's a little RFTG, a bit Carcassonne, a smidge of Dungeon Lords.
My brainstorms had been getting more and more complex and unreadable and so for this project I wanted to get back to the basics. Simple mechanisms for engine building/unbuilding, with cards only slightly more complex than Galaxy Trucker tiles.
It's a great place to start...
...But wasn't I working on another project? Oh yes, my RFTG Expansion, which I'm almost finished with after completing all of the cards. Agenda rules should be up soon, if I can stop playing Dungeons of Dredmor for a couple hours.
...And now that I'm thinking about RFTG, another thread from a few months ago brought up some thoughtful, but shallow insights about information control that I felt shoe-horned co-op game design.
I figured, in order to make a fun co-op, just take a fun competitive game, then make it cooperative. And so I've been chipping away at a co-op scenario for Race for the Galaxy, of all things.
...which gets me thinking about powers that didn't fit well with my first expansion, which I might want to fit into the second. I've got some really fun ideas. But with such a variety of design going through my mind, it's hard to keep them separate ("Wait, was that a card for expansion #2 or the co-op?", and even harder to focus on following through to completion.
Ah, Game Design. It's a fun process, isn't it?
1 , 2 , 3 Next »
|
|
