PDA

View Full Version : Suggestions and Feedback required! (Tabletop game venture)



Kharrak
03-07-2011, 05:13 PM
Okay, so, some conceptual design assistance required!

I'm busy drawing up notes on a game I've been stewing in my head. This is a tabletop game. It incorporates aspects of all three table-top genres: Boardgaming, Wargaming, Roleplaying. Something slightly akin to Descent, or the game that inspired it, Warhammer Quest. Other examples are Space Hulk, City of Thieves, and the upcoming Gears of War boardgame.

The basic concept is small-team tactical combat. Squads of 5 men, no larger. Cover, weapon types, rolling to hit, and wound, and emphasis on tactical play.

I've come up with many ideas, as one does, but right now I'd like advice on a crossroads decision that will lay the foundation on which the rest of the conceptualization will be based on, and will adhere to:

Option (a): Each player controls one squad.


Easy testbed for competitive play (PvP)
Larger scale
Easier to product replayability due to competitive construction
Larger unit count equates to simplifications to what each individual unit can do, and in turn allows for development and fleshing out of broader mechanics.
Player's turn executes relatively slower.
Easier potential for "racial" diversity, with different factions.


Option (b): Each player controls a single member of the same squad.


Easy testbed for co-operative play (PvE)
Smaller unit count allows for greater depth in individual character options, effects, and capabilities.
Potential difficulty in creating high replayability potential.
Greater depth allows for team-based loadout decisions, rather than a single player deciding loadout.
Greater attatchment to player's own character.
Player's turn executes relatively fast.


Naturally, these two concepts can be combined - but ultimately one needs to take precedence over the other. While I'm not opposed to melding the two as is and creating a very complex and broad game with a ton of rules (I've been exposed to enough games with 100+ page rulebooks to know it doesn't create that much of a barrier, as long as it's still enjoyable at the learning stages), the biggest issue is time management. If each player controls an entire squad, and each squad member has in depth and intricate mechanics, gameplay will just take too long. So, the more units there are on the table, the more simplistic their rules must be, while the reverse allows for more in depth mechanics. Ultimately, good gameplay flow.

If it helps, the game is based on a d10 dice system. Aspects such as flanking, cover, cover fire, and knowing how to hold a location are intended to be crucial. Players will utilize wargaming-esque charts to attach equipment to their squads/characters, while points to their character's statistics, such as roleplaying. An example of more indepth combat is a deeper damage system, which dictates where the character is hit, and what damage they take from that, which in turn has its lasting effects. In other words, characters can be blinded, crippled, have limbs shot off, and so on. Conversely, the competitive persona of this idea allows for multiple players to use their squads tactically over the squads of their opponents.

I suppose one way to summarize it: Option A = Gears of War multiplayer, but each player controls a whole squad of 5 members, against other players' squads (just pretend you would have super brain powers to play each member of your squad as a normal player would play them). Option B = Gears of War multiplayer, but each player has much greater customiation and equipment options, and you fight against scenarios and AI rather than other players.

One of these two options appeals to me more than the other, but I'm more interested to see what the community has to say.

And here's hoping you guys aren't shied away by the fact that this is a table top venture, rather than a programmer's brew :P

dislekcia
04-07-2011, 05:42 PM
I tend not to play these sorts of boardgames that often, but I suggest a player being in charge of an entire squad. The main reason being the simpler mechanics and the multiple points of locational decision making. Then again, I'm mildly worried that you would be asking this sort of question so early: It sort of points to you not having a burningly urgent gameplay concept that you want to base the play experience around.

I mean, it's perfectly fine to have a setting in mind first, but I design in the other direction, so it feels odd to me to not know what your minute-by-minute play experience is going to be like.

Kharrak
05-07-2011, 12:51 PM
I tend not to play these sorts of boardgames that often...
I honestly have no issue if people have played these types of games or not - I value all input, and I'm interested to see what people say. I'm just as interested to see what someone who has not played these types of games may say, as one who has played a lot of them. Different perspectives are important, valuable, and all that jazz.


...but I suggest a player being in charge of an entire squad. The main reason being the simpler mechanics and the multiple points of locational decision making.
These are pretty much two of the larger points drawing me to this option. Of course, the entire reason I made this thread, was because there are very attractive points ontop of the other option as well :P


Then again, I'm mildly worried that you would be asking this sort of question so early: It sort of points to you not having a burningly urgent gameplay concept that you want to base the play experience around.
Well, what the gameplay I'd really like to make, in the perfect world, is the gameplay that the two were originally part of. But seeing that having both was simply two much, I recognized that they couldn't co-exist in their entirety, and keep the game playable in a fun and timely manner. Specifically, I really like the idea of a small squad, the player(s) controlling it making tactical decisions, and an in depth damage system (not the pillar feature, but the thing I'm interested/excited to flesh out) that has damage effecting squad capability, decisions, and survivability.

The dream product is a game where each player has their squad, each fleshed and kitted out prior game with depth akin to roleplaying character building, combating squads controlled by one or more opponents, in a playfield of tactical combat and control, with the intricate damage system built in. I just worry that that much depth will result in player turns being too long - or to put it another way, that player out-time is far too long.

I may re-knit the two concepts back together, but until then I'm interested to what people would say regarding the two concepts as seperate builds.

Not sure what you mean by "having a setting in mind" - I have absolutely no stories, factions, background, weapons, characters or anything of the like even scribbled down. I would prefer to build mechanics, then create a simplistic test bed, then adjust the mechanics, and then build fiction from that and on top of that.

dislekcia
05-07-2011, 04:21 PM
Oh ok, so you're splitting an existing idea. That makes sense then... I mention having a setting in mind because designing from the narrative side first tends to create these sorts of gameplay bridging decisions.

It almost sounds like you want to be building a PC game instead: Boardgames are always going to be limited by the processing time of their complexity. It's damn good that you're thinking about that sort of thing at the moment though. A trick that I find helps sometimes is thinking about what sorts of decisions the player will be making and how you can create similar sets of decisions with either less options or less information requirements. Then the game still feels like you want it to, but it's faster to play.

Chippit
08-07-2011, 10:04 PM
I'm with dislekcia on this. Given nothing but the information you provided, I'd lean towards the group control, which gives the player a broader variety of potential interesting choices without making the choices themselves more complicated. The concern is that while more involved dynamics that you want to include on a per-unit basis may add superficial depth or complexity to the system, it doesn't make the choices the players will be making at turn-level more interesting.

Consider Chaos in the Old World (or even Citadels) as an example of gameplay that's involved and complex, but with very simple player choices. In Chaos, all you ever choose between doing is placing a unit or playing a spell, and then where to do so. A simple decision, but so important. Citadels is similar in that your action pool is very narrow but the implications of your choice very broad. One might argue that most games described as 'elegantly designed' share this trait.