Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
52 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BGG» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Would this concept be too "edgey" for mainstream games? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
mark dark
msg tools
I'm coming up with unit designs for my card game, namely the human faction atm. So the human faction will have it's own design theme and unique playstyle. I would say that they are slow starters, but once they get established, they dominate.

Their natural weakness would be aggro. To combat this to a degree, I was thinking of a unit that would basically be a meatshield for early aggression. The player could put into their deck "Women and children" that deals no dmg, but only serves to defend against early damage, to buy time. However, playing this card would have penalties to it that could come back to bite the player in the butt later in the game.

I guess I'm mainly wondering if the use of "women and children" to be nothing more than fodder is too touchy? To put it into context there's also a "Meek and the Old" card which serves as anti-aggro, but is a little better (has a small attack), but still imposes penalties.

Thoughts?

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Perry Fergin
United States
Baltimore
MD
flag msg tools
Homer Simpson
badge
"Trying is the first step towards failure."
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Definitely sounds offensive. Very not politically correct. Is your theme fantasy or sci-fi? If so, you can always invent something to use instead, like maybe androids or something. Still a moral decision, but doesn't touch a nerve as much as women and children. Another idea: have a "hero's sacrifice" card, like a soldier giving up his life for other's. A guy who throws himself on a grenade doesn't attack at all, and gives a disadvantage later since you have lost a soldier.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
marc lecours
Canada
ottawa
ontario
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Why don't the women deal out damage is my question? (or even why not children?) Why should women play a role of cannon fodder more than men?

I don't know the context of your game but if it is going to be commercial then don't get too controversial. If the theme needs the controversy (for example a historical war were women and children were actually used that way) then maybe.
8 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
perrygf wrote:
Definitely sounds offensive. Very not politically correct. Is your theme fantasy or sci-fi?
It's a fantasy setting, and it follows the lines of traditional ideas. Humans vs orcs (lotr style). Every man able holds a sword and fights; protect the women and children.

In that sense I don't care about the "politically correct" notion that's pervasive today.



rubberchicken wrote:
Why don't the women deal out damage is my question? (or even why not children?) Why should women play a role of cannon fodder more than men?

I don't know the context of your game but if it is going to be commercial then don't get too controversial. If the theme needs the controversy (for example a historical war were women and children were actually used that way) then maybe.
The idea is because they are untrained, peasant folk. They don't do damage because they are the lowest costing unit, though with the highest penalties. In this timeline, men are still the providers/fighters and are naturally physically stronger than women even if untrained, that's why the Meek and the Old has 1 damage vs 0.

I may add something along the lines of "Shield Maidens" though to add competent women fighters, and possibly a hero unit. Maybe the hero unit's power turns the "Women and Children" card into an upgraded version of fighters. Something to think about.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bert McCloud
United Kingdom
Berkshire
flag msg tools
Avatar
Microbadge: Sushi Go! fanMicrobadge: Android fanMicrobadge: Descent fanMicrobadge: Legendary fanMicrobadge: Eldritch Horror fan
rubberchicken wrote:
Why don't the women deal out damage is my question? (or even why not children?) Why should women play a role of cannon fodder more than men?
My main question would be; how are "the meek and the old" more capable of dealing damage than "women and children"? I know a lot of women and children that I would not want to get on the bad side of; I know very few meek or old people that I would worry about doing my any harm.

If anything you could use children as "cannon fodder" so long as they have some kind of attack but they are portrayed in the right way. Like the could be teens that have lied about their age to get into the army, or angry teens that have just rushed the frontline and ended up facing more than they realised (it all depends on your exact theme).

But the implication of just sending women and children out to get killed seems a little too far.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
BertMcCloud wrote:
rubberchicken wrote:
Why don't the women deal out damage is my question? (or even why not children?) Why should women play a role of cannon fodder more than men?
My main question would be; how are "the meek and the old" more capable of dealing damage than "women and children"? I know a lot of women and children that I would not want to get on the bad side of; I know very few meek or old people that I would worry about doing my any harm.
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.

The idea of the card is that the Human empire would never hand swords to untrained women or children because it would bring dishonor. They wouldn't even in the face of annihilation (they are a very proud faction).

The Meek and the Old is the Empire "conscripting" these individuals (the unworthy of battle types) as a last ditch effort, therefore they are a little more equipped (swords) and because of this, do a modicum of damage. Though it's still beneath the Faction to enlist these types, and would impose a penalty, but not nearly as harsh as "Women and children"

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The Amazons (dahomy and other wise).

But I suspect this will end up in RSP, so I wait.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Goblin Princess
United Kingdom
Norfolk
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Microbadge: I play the healer!Microbadge: Diogenes fanMicrobadge: FeminismMicrobadge: PansexualMicrobadge: Anita Sarkeesian fan
It comes across as trying to be edgy and controversial.

Something like expendable peasant levy or sacrificial village would do exactly the same job, have historical precedent, and not look like a designer trying to being deliberately (and childishly) provocative.

As it stands, your concept doesn't really make sense. Non-combatants are the thing your troops are fighting to defend. If you're going to deliberately let them get killed, it would be more beneficial to do it to whip your troops up into a jingoistic frenzy. (See conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour or modern terror attacks for example)
23 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ruud
Netherlands
Amsterdam
Noord - Holland
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ForestDingo wrote:
It's a fantasy setting, and it follows the lines of traditional ideas. Humans vs orcs (lotr style). Every man able holds a sword and fights; protect the women and children.

In that sense I don't care about the "politically correct" notion that's pervasive today.
In LotR they locked the women and children deep in the fortress. I think "historical" civilizations also valued women highly, instead of tossing them into combat. Mainly because women are far more important and less replacable than men in terms of reproducing.

I mean, it's a kind of sad victory for humanity vs. Orks if in 60 years you have no females to keep the cycle of human life going, no? Why would you even have the option to toss women in combat as a dmg buffer? Seems weird.

In any case, even if you'd do something like this I'd rename them to peasants versus warriors or something. Fresh recruits.. reservists.. or what have you.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matt Kruczek
United Kingdom
Colchester
Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Arya Stark and Eowyn would beg to disagree on your literary analysis.

Question: If you're using the women as meat shields, who's going to do all the cooking and cleaning after the battle?

There are SO many different alternatives you could uses: Prisoners, Animals, Fanatics, Zombies, Ghosts. Why women and children?

It's not "edgy", it's adolescent.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
PandoraCaitiff wrote:
It comes across as trying to be edgy and controversial.

Something like expendable peasant levy or sacrificial village would do exactly the same job, have historical precedent, and not look like a designer trying to being deliberately (and childishly) provocative.

As it stands, your concept doesn't really make sense. Non-combatants are the thing your troops are fighting to defend. If you're going to deliberately let them get killed, it would be more beneficial to do it to whip your troops up into a jingoistic frenzy. (See conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour or modern terror attacks for example)
When I came up with the idea, I honestly thought it was cool. Funny, albeit a tad hipster. With your "childish" remark at me, I assume you took offense?

The idea behind it is that the Empire is deliberately not sending in units to protect the women and children out in the fields/villages, instead biding their time to meet the enemy. Thus them getting killed, and bringing dishonor to to the faction.

I think it's pretty clever myself.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James Wahl
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
ForestDingo wrote:
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.
"Women and children first" is an old-timey cliche about the order that people should be put into lifeboats, not a description of human shields. You yourself are the one transposing the concepts, because you like the sound of the phrase, and its parallel structure to (possibly your original) "meek and old."

If you're asking if the concept of human shields in a wargame or war-themed boardgame is problematic, even though you're punishing the side that attacks human shields - I'd say definitely for some people, but probably not for most, and that there's probably some wargame that does it already. If you're hung up on labelling human shields as "women and children", that's a different question.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
matt_k wrote:
Arya Stark and Eowyn would beg to disagree on your literary analysis.

Question: If you're using the women as meat shields, who's going to do all the cooking and cleaning after the battle?

There are SO many different alternatives you could uses: Prisoners, Animals, Fanatics, Zombies, Ghosts. Why women and children?

It's not "edgy", it's adolescent.
Again, I already mentioned I would add female warriors...

"It's not edgy, it's adolescent"

No, what's really adolescent is the pushing of the idea that women and men are exactly 1 to 1 biologically. We aren't.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
pharmakon wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.
"Women and children first" is an old-timey cliche about the order that people should be put into lifeboats, not a description of human shields. You yourself are the one transposing the concepts, because you like the sound of the phrase, and its parallel structure to (possibly your original) "meek and old."


Really? The idea that women should be protected is because of their value as child-bearers and the concept of the "lady" itself. And that has deeper implications than what you are giving it credit.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ForestDingo wrote:
PandoraCaitiff wrote:
It comes across as trying to be edgy and controversial.

Something like expendable peasant levy or sacrificial village would do exactly the same job, have historical precedent, and not look like a designer trying to being deliberately (and childishly) provocative.

As it stands, your concept doesn't really make sense. Non-combatants are the thing your troops are fighting to defend. If you're going to deliberately let them get killed, it would be more beneficial to do it to whip your troops up into a jingoistic frenzy. (See conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour or modern terror attacks for example)
When I came up with the idea, I honestly thought it was cool. Funny, albeit a tad hipster. With your "childish" remark at me, I assume you took offense?

The idea behind it is that the Empire is deliberately not sending in units to protect the women and children out in the fields/villages, instead biding their time to meet the enemy. Thus them getting killed, and bringing dishonor to to the faction.

I think it's pretty clever myself.


Is this a joke?
15 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
PandoraCaitiff wrote:
It comes across as trying to be edgy and controversial.

Something like expendable peasant levy or sacrificial village would do exactly the same job, have historical precedent, and not look like a designer trying to being deliberately (and childishly) provocative.

As it stands, your concept doesn't really make sense. Non-combatants are the thing your troops are fighting to defend. If you're going to deliberately let them get killed, it would be more beneficial to do it to whip your troops up into a jingoistic frenzy. (See conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour or modern terror attacks for example)
When I came up with the idea, I honestly thought it was cool. Funny, albeit a tad hipster. With your "childish" remark at me, I assume you took offense?

The idea behind it is that the Empire is deliberately not sending in units to protect the women and children out in the fields/villages, instead biding their time to meet the enemy. Thus them getting killed, and bringing dishonor to to the faction.

I think it's pretty clever myself.


Is this a joke?
Maybe you need the explanation broken down for you better? The concept is pretty clear.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ForestDingo wrote:
pharmakon wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.
"Women and children first" is an old-timey cliche about the order that people should be put into lifeboats, not a description of human shields. You yourself are the one transposing the concepts, because you like the sound of the phrase, and its parallel structure to (possibly your original) "meek and old."


Really? The idea that women should be protected is because of their value as child-bearers and the concept of the "lady" itself. And that has deeper implications than what you are giving it credit.
Actually Women and children first is a recent invention. In fact it is not even 200 years old, and first appears in a work of fiction. The first appearance of the concept (if not the phrase) occurs only 10 years before that.

Ironically your idea of having women and children as targets to try and force the men to defend them does have historical precedent, it was a tactic used by the US army in the plains wars. But generally women and children were often left to fend for themselves in war.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ForestDingo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
PandoraCaitiff wrote:
It comes across as trying to be edgy and controversial.

Something like expendable peasant levy or sacrificial village would do exactly the same job, have historical precedent, and not look like a designer trying to being deliberately (and childishly) provocative.

As it stands, your concept doesn't really make sense. Non-combatants are the thing your troops are fighting to defend. If you're going to deliberately let them get killed, it would be more beneficial to do it to whip your troops up into a jingoistic frenzy. (See conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour or modern terror attacks for example)
When I came up with the idea, I honestly thought it was cool. Funny, albeit a tad hipster. With your "childish" remark at me, I assume you took offense?

The idea behind it is that the Empire is deliberately not sending in units to protect the women and children out in the fields/villages, instead biding their time to meet the enemy. Thus them getting killed, and bringing dishonor to to the faction.

I think it's pretty clever myself.


Is this a joke?
Maybe you need the explanation broken down for you better? The concept is pretty clear.
It's not funny or cool, that is why I was asking if this was a joke (and I utterly fail to see how it is "hipster").
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
pharmakon wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.
"Women and children first" is an old-timey cliche about the order that people should be put into lifeboats, not a description of human shields. You yourself are the one transposing the concepts, because you like the sound of the phrase, and its parallel structure to (possibly your original) "meek and old."


Really? The idea that women should be protected is because of their value as child-bearers and the concept of the "lady" itself. And that has deeper implications than what you are giving it credit.
Actually Women and children first is a recent invention. In fact it is not even 200 years old, and first appears in a work of fiction. The first appearance of the concept (if not the phrase) occurs only 10 years before that.

Ironically your idea of having women and children as targets to try and force the men to defend them does have historical precedent, it was a tactic used by the US army in the plains wars. But generally women and children were often left to fend for themselves in war.

Chivalry is the concept I'm going for here, friend, or lack thereof, if the player is using such tactics.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
PandoraCaitiff wrote:
It comes across as trying to be edgy and controversial.

Something like expendable peasant levy or sacrificial village would do exactly the same job, have historical precedent, and not look like a designer trying to being deliberately (and childishly) provocative.

As it stands, your concept doesn't really make sense. Non-combatants are the thing your troops are fighting to defend. If you're going to deliberately let them get killed, it would be more beneficial to do it to whip your troops up into a jingoistic frenzy. (See conspiracy theories about Pearl Harbour or modern terror attacks for example)
When I came up with the idea, I honestly thought it was cool. Funny, albeit a tad hipster. With your "childish" remark at me, I assume you took offense?

The idea behind it is that the Empire is deliberately not sending in units to protect the women and children out in the fields/villages, instead biding their time to meet the enemy. Thus them getting killed, and bringing dishonor to to the faction.

I think it's pretty clever myself.


Is this a joke?
Maybe you need the explanation broken down for you better? The concept is pretty clear.
It's not funny or cool, that is why I was asking if this was a joke (and I utterly fail to see how it is "hipster").
You got a real bad case of the PC, I see, and so do alot of people on this forum, I'm guessing.

That's ok, no harm no foul. I'll be changing it then since it's causing such ruffled feathers.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian Grab
Poland
GdaƄsk
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the idea of an sacrafical card like this, but I also agree that it doesn't really make sanse to just call it Women and children. I mean, a man without a weapon and training would still be useless against an army. If you literally call it Meat Shields and put a picture of a whole peasent family, I'm ok with that, it's your decision to make such a card, even if some people get oofended. I just don't see any reason to separate women and children form other civilians that would be usless in a fight.

The other card, with more attack, could be like militia, where you show people with like basic weapons and more organised, but still would stand no chance in a real fight and everyone knows it.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ForestDingo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
pharmakon wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.
"Women and children first" is an old-timey cliche about the order that people should be put into lifeboats, not a description of human shields. You yourself are the one transposing the concepts, because you like the sound of the phrase, and its parallel structure to (possibly your original) "meek and old."


Really? The idea that women should be protected is because of their value as child-bearers and the concept of the "lady" itself. And that has deeper implications than what you are giving it credit.
Actually Women and children first is a recent invention. In fact it is not even 200 years old, and first appears in a work of fiction. The first appearance of the concept (if not the phrase) occurs only 10 years before that.

Ironically your idea of having women and children as targets to try and force the men to defend them does have historical precedent, it was a tactic used by the US army in the plains wars. But generally women and children were often left to fend for themselves in war.

Chivalry is the concept I'm going for here, friend, or lack thereof, if the player is using such tactics.
Except in cultures that protect women and children they tended to be moved to safe places, not left in the fields to be killed. This is the problem, your rule seems to make no logical sense, a society that values women but does not move them to safety. It in fact encourages their sacrifice to achieve victory, it rewards lack of chivalrous behavior.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ludvig Stigsson
Sweden
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I have some thoughts. I think this sound stupid. By Reasons already listed. And it seems that OP is't really intrested in other ppls "Thoughts" other than thouse who support his idea. Sound like a crapy game.
10 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gona bail out before I RSP it,

I can think of some pretty hip cool and funny stuff, but lets not godwin the thread.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
mark dark
msg tools
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
pharmakon wrote:
ForestDingo wrote:
You guys ask these questions, but it is out of obligation. You already know what I mean, and where I'm coming from with this. It's a concept that is not new, in media such as films/tv shows (Game of thrones/Lord of the Rings, etc) or even historically. Way back when, very few women were as capable of defending themselves as men were. The 'Hunter and gatherer' mentality was pretty much still in effect.
"Women and children first" is an old-timey cliche about the order that people should be put into lifeboats, not a description of human shields. You yourself are the one transposing the concepts, because you like the sound of the phrase, and its parallel structure to (possibly your original) "meek and old."


Really? The idea that women should be protected is because of their value as child-bearers and the concept of the "lady" itself. And that has deeper implications than what you are giving it credit.
Actually Women and children first is a recent invention. In fact it is not even 200 years old, and first appears in a work of fiction. The first appearance of the concept (if not the phrase) occurs only 10 years before that.

Ironically your idea of having women and children as targets to try and force the men to defend them does have historical precedent, it was a tactic used by the US army in the plains wars. But generally women and children were often left to fend for themselves in war.

Chivalry is the concept I'm going for here, friend, or lack thereof, if the player is using such tactics.

Except in cultures that protect women and children they tended to be moved to safe places, not left in the fields to be killed. This is the problem, your rule seems to make no logical sense, a society that values women but does not move them to safety. It in fact encourages their sacrifice to achieve victory, it rewards lack of chivalrous behavior.
War isn't always neat, prim and proper. Your idea of it seems like it's based off the Revolutionary War, where both sides walked up to each other, aimed and fired in orderly fashion.

Also, if you want to get technical about it, kingdoms are huge and can't be defended properly at all times. I'm giving the player the choice to either defend when he may just be better off "cutting his losses", but that still doesn't feel good, ya know, thus the penalty of letting your stuff be "overrun" still is applied.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   |