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
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