$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 128.81

7,611 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
48% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
4 
 Thumb up
 Hide
5 Posts

This War of Mine: The Board Game» Forums » General

Subject: Alternative co-op mechanism with app rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
João Guisado
Portugal
flag msg tools
mb
As I understand there's gonna be a companion app for the game. This app will have some features that may or not be used during the game as they are only optional.

This idea of an alternative co-op mechanism I'm suggesting uses at least one of those features, namely the timer.

The timer limits the time (duh) the leader has to discuss with the group and to make choices. But what if there was no leader?

What if the group had to come to an unanimous agreement within the 180 seconds on what to do? And then if they didn't they would either lose the chance to do actions (for example building something they could have built on that turn) or in a case of a moral dilemma, etc, there would be some kind of a penalty or something else bad caused by the indecision of the group.

Yes, with some groups this wouldn't work because of alpha gamers, but with those where that's not a problem I think this alternative would be great!

It would simplify the game because there wouldn't be the need to pass leadership around, and would add immersion to the game, since there would be group pressure to make a decision, even if it's not the best one.

People would have to negotiate. Sometimes they would have to agree with something they don't like for the sake of the group, but then they can always use the fact they accepted earlier something they rather not have done to try to use as leverage on the next discussion.

This would mimic the real world group decision process and the tension between people on stress situations.

It's just an idea. I am open to constructive criticism. And since this would need the app, it would also be just an optional rule/mechanism for the game.

If for some reason the game designers find this idea worthy of being implemented as an official optional rule for the game, please do it!

I will probably use it anyway as an house rule

That said, I apologize for any bad writing. English is not my native language, so...
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Adrian Schmidt
Sweden
Malmö
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Interesting idea. Another idea, that I think Rahdo came up with, is to not allow any discussion before the decision is taken. So the current "leader" will have to decide alone, and then, after the decision is made, the group can discuss, and perhaps the leader will have to explain themselves and others might disagree, but the decision is made.

I think that also plays into the reality of group mechanics, although in a different way than your suggestion. Not only would it lessen the impact of alpha gamers (which I like, because I think there's a strong risk I could start acting like one in a coop where I'm the one who owns the game or knows most about it, and I really really don't want to be that person). It would also mean that in order to get a cohesive group, pulling in the same direction, you wouldn't just have to agree on each decision, but you would have to agree on an overall strategy, and on how to best play that strategy out.

And of course such agreement will never be 100 %, so another player might have a different idea than you on how to best reach your goals, or perhaps, a different player might even have a slightly different agenda than you. You might have different characters that are your favourite in the game for example, and might act differently because of that.

I'm really looking forward to this game, and will certainly try some different ideas for the decision making mechanics!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
João Guisado
Portugal
flag msg tools
mb
Sure, Rahdo's idea might be a solution to groups where alpha gamers are a problem. But it comes with a price.

Preventing players to discuss their actions before taking them solves one problem but removes from the game something I find is one of the the best features of this game as a co-op game.

Using Rahdo's idea makes the game just a solo game played by many players that talk later on about what they did and why. There's no group tension while making the decision. At least there's no arguments between people, which I think can be an amazing part of the game.

So, I think Rahdo's idea might bad for the experience unless you really have to use it to prevent alpha gamers.

That said, my suggestion wasn't to prevent alpha gamers. It was to be used when alpha gamers are not a problem. And if that's the case then there's no need to be passing around the leadership. On the contrary, the lack of a leader can enhance the experience, with the timer and the need to come to a solution quickly, even if that means sometimes you have to agree with something you don't really like.

Imagine a situation where you are playing with the timer and with the noise limit (another feature of the app) and right now you're scavenging. Then you have to decide something (whatever that might be) but the group is divided and not everyone is agreeing on what to do.

You have to discuss. You have to do it fast because time is running low. You have to do it silently, or else the noise lvl rises. And when/if you don't come to an unanimous agreement then you lose the opportunity to do something and/or something bad happens because you didn't choose one of two options (when it's a dilemma). That kind of group tension, I think, is brilliant and something you want to experience.

If there was a leader, no matter if the group discusses before or after the choice is made, you wouldn't have that experience because in the end the leader would always choose to do something..
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Koolin
Netherlands
Veghel
Noord-Brabant
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that it is a nice way of playing under the assumption there is no alpha-player.

Rahdos idea is nice when there is an alpha-player, but also when some people are easily influenced or are not daring to take their own decisions directly and focus more on the group. IN this situation it is nice that you need to make up your mind without others influencing you.

Both things have their up- and downsides. Interesting to play both things and see what works.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
João Guisado
Portugal
flag msg tools
mb
Exactly. I think people should play one way or another, based on their situation. I know there's people who don't like to play board games with apps, and that's ok. In that case just play with the official rules or with Rahdo's suggestion. If there's no alpha players and the app is ok then try my suggestion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.