Jack Carr
Australia
flag msg tools
Hi all,
In the game I am currently working on there is a 'crisis' system where players can play a card for a short term gain. If this crisis card is not resolved however it has a negative effect on all the players. Each crisis has a risk level which influences the bonus given for playing it, along with how serious the consequences are.
For example a player may gain six power for playing a crisis with a risk level of three,but if it is not resolved then every player might have to discard three cards.
Currently I am tossed up between two systems of resolution for the crises.
System 1: Crises are resolved through player contributions, a certain crisis might require a certain amount of wealth to be paid for instance, and then is instantly resolved.
System 2: Crises are resolved through a doce roll that takes into account the risk level vs the contributions. If the dice roll result is higher than the crisis risk level then it is successfully resolved, you can raise the die result by contributing to the crisis. For example, take a card with a risk of 4 to which a contribution of five wealth gives a +1 chance of resolution. So if ten wealth was contributed and a roll of 3 was thrown the result of 5 (3 + 2 for wealth) would outweigh the risk of 4 - the crisis would be resolved.
Which one of these is preferable in your opinion?
Thanks for your help.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Definitely the second. I would even be tempted to leave an outside chance that the crisis hits regardless of the mitigations.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Carr
Australia
flag msg tools
How do you think I could do that?
I personally prefer the second one as well but wasn't sure if I was over complicating things.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Brettell
Australia
South Turramurra
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I prefer the second option as well. In terms of it being more complicated, you're right it is, but it depends on how much of your game it is. If it is one of the core mechanics, then I'd say it won't be burdensome. If it is a minor mechanic along with many others, then yes it might become burdensome. Have to play-test to check it out.

It sounds like you've already got the mechanic sorted out. You could set an always outside chance, by limiting the maximum or minimum dice roll, e.g. no matter how many resources get contributed, a roll of 12 (or 2?) is always a failure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

A specific, unmodified number (say 1) could always result in the crisis unfolding. Depending on how frequently you want this to occur, you may need to go with a larger die (d10 or d20), which would mean adjusting all your other values to match.
Or keep your other values as they are and add the d20 in to the roll, so you're rolling 2 dice. But the d20 is only to see if you need to ignore the other one and play out the crisis.
Something like that.

edit: or something like Micheal mentioned before I finished.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Carr
Australia
flag msg tools
brettellmd wrote:
I prefer the second option as well. In terms of it being more complicated, you're right it is, but it depends on how much of your game it is. If it is one of the core mechanics, then I'd say it won't be burdensome. If it is a minor mechanic along with many others, then yes it might become burdensome. Have to play-test to check it out.

It sounds like you've already got the mechanic sorted out. You could set an always outside chance, by limiting the maximum or minimum dice roll, e.g. no matter how many resources get contributed, a roll of 12 (or 2?) is always a failure.

That's true, I'm hoping to get the prototype finished soon.
I was thinking that maybe on rolls equal with the crisis risk then it is an autofail and the contributions are discarded? So for example if the risk is three and the players roll a three, no matter how much they contributed they fail.
tanik wrote:

A specific, unmodified number (say 1) could always result in the crisis unfolding. Depending on how frequently you want this to occur, you may need to go with a larger die (d10 or d20), which would mean adjusting all your other values to match.
Or keep your other values as they are and add the d20 in to the roll, so you're rolling 2 dice. But the d20 is only to see if you need to ignore the other one and play out the crisis.
Something like that.

edit: or something like Micheal mentioned before I finished.


What do you think of my solution as above?

Side note: do you prefer an all card game of a game with tiles and components. My game uses regions that are developed with things like roads and colonies, I could represent these with a board and little tokens or more cards. Thoughts?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Yup, that works, too.

edit: Should have added...what size die are you rolling? If it's a d6, your chances of the automatic crisis are pretty high. I'm thinking you may want a lower probability for it than that, and therefore a bigger die.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all-card games and prefer something with a board or tiles. But that's me. Lots of people do like them.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Brettell
Australia
South Turramurra
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
SecondSons wrote:

I was thinking that maybe on rolls equal with the crisis risk then it is an autofail and the contributions are discarded? So for example if the risk is three and the players roll a three, no matter how much they contributed they fail.


So presumably you're just rolling one die? Otherwise the odds would change as the number changes. To me, making the 'autofail' number vary seems less intuitive than it being always 1 or whatever. Does it change the chances / make the decision about how much to contribute more interesting?

SecondSons wrote:

Side note: do you prefer an all card game of a game with tiles and components. My game uses regions that are developed with things like roads and colonies, I could represent these with a board and little tokens or more cards. Thoughts?


I prefer a bit more variety in my games also, so generally prefer adding tokens, but obviously it depends on your game. If you lay the cards out in a single line, then that works, but if you start using them as tokens and laying them on top of each other, I think that gets clunky.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Johnathan Morton
United States
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I also agree with the second system, especially if it is going to effect all the players on the field. would the players have to give up resources to increase the dice before or after the roll?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Carr
Australia
flag msg tools
tanik wrote:

Yup, that works, too.

edit: Should have added...what size die are you rolling? If it's a d6, your chances of the automatic crisis are pretty high. I'm thinking you may want a lower probability for it than that, and therefore a bigger die.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all-card games and prefer something with a board or tiles. But that's me. Lots of people do like them.


I was a thinking a d6 but you are right it would be high... What size die do you reccomend. Not sure if I said before but once a certain number of crises are failed the game is over - however once a player achieved their agenda/objective their aim is to end the game before another player can achieve theirs.

brettellmd wrote:
So presumably you're just rolling one die? Otherwise the odds would change as the number changes. To me, making the 'autofail' number vary seems less intuitive than it being always 1 or whatever. Does it change the chances / make the decision about how much to contribute more interesting?

I'm not sure to what extent it would change the chances, however your solution of a one or set number makes more sense as a simple solution.
Also thanks for your advice on the cards thing, I'm still trying to model how the board will work, its set in Republican Rome and the players are governors of provinces vying to become the emperor. ARight now I'm using tiles with buildings slots and little house tokens to represent colonies and others for roads\armies.

Saltlizard wrote:
I also agree with the second system, especially if it is going to effect all the players on the field. would the players have to give up resources to increase the dice before or after the roll?

Yeah it would be before the roll so as to make the result more unpredictable/make people prone to contribute more/debate over how much of a contribution is needed.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

SecondSons wrote:
tanik wrote:

Yup, that works, too.

edit: Should have added...what size die are you rolling? If it's a d6, your chances of the automatic crisis are pretty high. I'm thinking you may want a lower probability for it than that, and therefore a bigger die.

Personally, I'm not a fan of all-card games and prefer something with a board or tiles. But that's me. Lots of people do like them.


I was a thinking a d6 but you are right it would be high... What size die do you reccomend. Not sure if I said before but once a certain number of crises are failed the game is over - however once a player achieved their agenda/objective their aim is to end the game before another player can achieve theirs.


It's hard to recommend a size/probability without knowing how the rest of the game is structured, but of course, as the size of the die increases so must your threshold numbers and support levels, in order to keep pace with the change in probability given by the new die size. (However, I would think you wouldn't want the automatic fail to happen more often than 1 in 10--so a 10, 12 or 20 might be what you're after.)

SecondSons wrote:

brettellmd wrote:
So presumably you're just rolling one die? Otherwise the odds would change as the number changes. To me, making the 'autofail' number vary seems less intuitive than it being always 1 or whatever. Does it change the chances / make the decision about how much to contribute more interesting?

I'm not sure to what extent it would change the chances, however your solution of a one or set number makes more sense as a simple solution.


If I may speak for Michael here, he is talking about two dice, for example, creating a bell curve of probabilities, so that changing a fail number means ending up at a different probability for it.


 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Carr
Australia
flag msg tools
tanik wrote:

It's hard to recommend a size/probability without knowing how the rest of the game is structured, but of course, as the size of the die increases so must your threshold numbers and support levels, in order to keep pace with the change in probability given by the new die size. (However, I would think you wouldn't want the automatic fail to happen more often than 1 in 10--so a 10, 12 or 20 might be what you're after.)

I think a d10 is a good idea, like you said, and the idea of a 10% autofail is good as it would keep the game progressing. I was looking at ten failed crises being the condition for the games end.
So with two dice it would be better to have a set number? How would this work? I'm not good with the maths side of things as you can probably tell.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Dauphin
Canada
Belleville
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar

Two dice give a rising and falling change in probability (otherwise known as a bell curve, because of the shape of the graph).

Two 6-sided dice, for example give the following probabilities;
rolling a | probability
2 - 1 in 36 or about 3%
3 - 2 in 36 (6%)
4 - 3 in 36 (8%)
5 - 4 in 36 (11%)
6 - 5 in 36 (14%)
7 - 6 in 36 (17%)
8 - 5 in 36 (14%)
9 - 4 in 36 (11%)
10 - 3 in 36 (8%)
11 - 2 in 36 (6%)
12 - 1 in 36 or about 3%

So, you can see if the number changes, so does the probability associated with it.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Brettell
Australia
South Turramurra
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
tanik wrote:

If I may speak for Michael here, he is talking about two dice, for example, creating a bell curve of probabilities, so that changing a fail number means ending up at a different probability for it.

You speak correctly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jack Carr
Australia
flag msg tools
tanik wrote:

Two dice give a rising and falling change in probability (otherwise known as a bell curve, because of the shape of the graph).

Two 6-sided dice, for example give the following probabilities;
rolling a | probability
2 - 1 in 36 or about 3%
3 - 2 in 36 (6%)
4 - 3 in 36 (8%)
5 - 4 in 36 (11%)
6 - 5 in 36 (14%)
7 - 6 in 36 (17%)
8 - 5 in 36 (14%)
9 - 4 in 36 (11%)
10 - 3 in 36 (8%)
11 - 2 in 36 (6%)
12 - 1 in 36 or about 3%

So, you can see if the number changes, so does the probability associated with it.



Thanks,I see what you mean now. I never thought about/understood that -it would allow better control over the autofail chance too.
I love design but I need to get a better handle on the technical stuff like you guys.
I'm not sure but right now I'm still leaning towards a d10 with a roll of one being an autofaul - I think that would keep the game moving along quite nicely.
 
 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.