Skip to Content
 

Build your own [insert game genre here]

12 replies [Last post]
larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008

I was thinking of designing a monopoly type game for fun. But there are many valid design choices for this kind of game, and there is not a particular flavor or objective that I was looking for.

So I was thinking, what if I could make a kind of "Build your own monopoly game" (or a similar title). So it would work a bit like a piece pack designed for a specific type of game, in this case, managing properties. You could change the board layout, you can change the rules. The tile information and the card content is generic enough to allow modifications. There will be for example, no special text on the cards.

The game would come with a rule set that works. Maybe some alternate rule set. But if you want to change anything, suggestions will be made in the rule book. But you are still allowed to design your own.

That concept could be applied to other game genre like Space Opera, civilization, etc. Especially genre which have multiple games.

What are the benefits to design such game:

  • The balance does not have to be top notch.
  • Components has to be generic, so easier to design.
  • Could give a game design experience to the players.
  • The players could come up with very clever way to use the game.

Problems:

  • The designs that comes with the game could be too weak.
  • too many choices of rules is like not enough.
  • Many people who do not like variants would not modify the game
  • Card effects would only hold a name and an artwork. The rules of the cards will be in the rules or on a reference card. The cross-referencing could be annoying.
lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Unfortunately, the average

Unfortunately, the average board game players nowadays lacks the initiative to play the same game different ways. They're used to playing it exactly how the publisher tells them to - until there's an expansion, then they play that way. A "build your own" game might be regarded as confusing.

There was a Euroish game, designed by a well-known designer of that genre (cannot recall the name) that enabled several hundred different games (the title was a number, the number of possibilities, again do not recall).

I thought about doing this kind of thing in a very limited way for wargames, but too much effort (esp playtesting) for what it amounted to, so I gave up early on.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
I attempted such game with a

I attempted such game with a wargame where players could combine a set of cards. A body and weapon. But the balance should really not be considered. And you need to assume that players don't know how to do things.

Nowadays, it seems to be all about visuals.
So, while a lot of Risk and Monopoly versions are out there. There are not much games out there with slightly or moderate, different rules.

PS. I dislike the fact that people nowadays are strict with the rules. 1 mistake, and you got a fight instead.
People should consider a change of heart. Restart a game. And decide on an agreement on how a rule is supposed to be implemented.

Might I suggest a flip of a coin for a choice, after explaining the rule as how one interpreteded it?
And the next run, go with how the other player sees it.

Then everyone gets the opportunity to be happy.
Opportunity, since it seems to me that some refuse to take that option.

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
The game you are talking

The game you are talking about is "504". I never played but know about it. I really doubt the designer have played all 504 combination. Not sure if it could actually be a game for me. Players say some combinations are better than others. "Kingdoms" is actually a game that plays differently according to a different card setup. I have played this one, at least 1 version of it.

Yes, people are very strict, I am proposing variants for 1846 and receive a lot of backlash. My motto is that if I can have multiple train game with the same components, it's a good thing. But they do not see it this way.

I think my monopoly game could work in a digital environment. Making the game works like a toy. People design their board, select rules, run thousands of simulations and look at the results. A bit like a physics simulation game. The idea would be to make people experiment game design without necessarily playing the game.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I tried this with a Pokémon-variant

I had this GLORIOUS idea of having a Pokémon-like game which would have a combination of cards that would allow a player to combine multiple cards into a single "Attacking" Unit. Some of the ideas were that you have a MAIN CARD and to each SIDE (Left & Right) you could "equip" another card which could be a Weapon or some kind of Missile System or a Cooling System, etc.

But I got frustrated that I would NOT be able to AI Generate the "Weapons" and Items ... Sure the MAIN CARDS I could get a bunch of Robots... But the reality was that the other cards would prove to be DIFFICULT if not IMPOSSIBLE...

So I said F-it and re-designed the game to work differently.

It was for "Battle Botz" in one or two of the earlier iterations. I since have designed TEAM PLAY now which works with a Stack of cards (Depth) and creates a more powerful Robot if you have multiple units supporting the MAIN CARD. Similar but at the same time DIFFERENT.

There are always reasons why we make the decisions that we make, in my case it was a question of ART and the production of ART assets for the game. Couldn't know anyone who would be able to draw the items and still keep them sufficiently realistic to match the MAIN CARDS.

Always needing to make compromises...

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Take a look at the Hecatomb

Take a look at the Hecatomb card game, you create abominations by combining monsters together. It's similar to your idea.

I guess for CCG, you could allow player to design their cards and see for themselves the impact on the game. Still, you will need some AI algorithm to try making decks out of the cards designed by the player. I think it could be done with game simulations and hill climbing algorithm. Not sure it would yield efficient results.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Augmented Reality

larienna wrote:
Take a look at the Hecatomb card game, you create abominations by combining monsters together. It's similar to your idea.

I looked at a Zee Garcia Video about Hecatomb ... And while the idea in that game is to STACK cards one on top of the other to form stronger abominations, in "Battle Botz" you have a "Stack" which is like a queue (from Left to Right) and the maximum size is six (6) Robots. It may(!) change each Round. It depends on your Leader and its Followers. Some Robots rely on "Dice Rolling" which can affect the end-result of the "Stack".

Getting back to the earlier iteration... It was VERY specific:

questccg wrote:
You play your Robot and ATTACH up to two (2) cards to its sides. This is more like @X3M's idea of have a Body + Weapon. And like I said, I TRIED to do this but found that the concept would be too hard to implement so I changed the way the game plays (in the more recent versions of the prototype).

TBH I have not seen a CCG or TCG where you could COMBINE cards to either side of the main card and that's how you can have more variations on the concept than in the case of something like Hecatomb. It was VERY different compared to what I've seen in Zee's Video. Nothing like Magic: the Gathering and closer to Pokémon than anything else.

Now the game is dramatically different. All you need is to buy ONE (1) Booster Pack and you get six (6) Cards and that is enough for ONE (1) "Stack". You only need six (6) Cards to play the game. Obviously you might want to buy like 5 or 6 Booster Packs to optimize the "Stack" of six (6) Cards you REALLY WANT!

larienna wrote:
I guess for CCG, you could allow player to design their cards and see for themselves the impact on the game. Still, you will need some AI algorithm to try making decks out of the cards designed by the player

Well I believe in Augmented Reality, a concept that allows you to VIEW a Card and see a 3D Version of the card. See this AD for an example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTcI6f92qfs

I was thinking that based on whatever you WRITE or COMBINE, you could get a 3D version of that "Monster" or Abomination and its entirely based on what you COMBINE.

Of course in MY version, all you needed was 3 Cards: 1 "core" + 2 "Options".

larienna wrote:
I think it could be done with game simulations and hill climbing algorithm. Not sure it would yield efficient results.

I'm more of the mindset allow "customization" or "personalization" than actually make things that are SO DIFFERENT you need to figure out HOW(?) they can work together or against one another.

Like having a TEAM in "Battle Botz" makes for a STRONGER "Attacking Unit" and this MAY vary from one turn to the next. I say "MAY" because you can use Cards which are STATIC in value and don't rely on RNG (Random Number Generation: eg. Dice) and then you have a more STABLE type of Team of Units to battle with.

So whereas in MOST games you start with the WEAKEST "Monster" and build to the "Strongest" one (and as Zee says: "Usually once you have a strong abomination, you usually win the game..." Battle Botz goes the OPPOSITE direction:

questccg wrote:
You can START with a "Stack" of six (6) Cards and a "Depth = 6" and therefore your team is as STRONG as it will ever get. Gradually over time, your start to lose Cards and your "Stack" diminishes ... All the way down to one (1) Card. The winner is the first player to destroy his/her opponent's entire "Stack" of six (6) Cards.

This too is DIFFERENT. Most games WORK the OTHER way around: Weakest to Strongest. In my case it is the OPPOSITE. And that too I find to be an ORIGINAL concept. I'm not saying it's not the most AMAZING concept out there... But it is pretty original TBH.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
If you DON'T rely on RNG (eg. Dice)...

The results are more predictable in terms of overall "COMBINED" Power. In those specific cases, the results are more STABLE and usually makes for the initial ROUNDS to be more TENSE ... Because two (2) TEAMS are battling each other and that extra bit of complexity yields a very DRAMATIC result.

Quote:
Your first few ROUNDS are probably the most significant because you have pre-established an ORDER for your Cards.

While this is TRUE ... You may need to worry about Cards in the Middle of the "Stack" which are like 3 or 4 ... As opposed to extremes of (5-6) or (1-2) which may be super strong or super weak.

I find it an INTERESTING "paradigm" that you go from STRONGEST to WEAKEST as opposed to ALMOST ALL other games where it's the OTHER way around. I am working with "Robots" eg. "Battle Botz" (BB) but this could also work for a Super Heroes Theme too...

Maybe I can do like in Pokémon: Have a Coin Toss to determine the Starting Player. This could MAYBE(?) have a significant impact on the match-up. Why? Because if your Team is SO POWERFUL they can DEFEAT an opponent in 1-Turn, well then it's a downward spiral from 6 to 5 to 4 to 3 to 2 to 1... As is a very predictable loss... I'm just saying. TBD.

IDK... There may be a need for more rules to enforce some kind of throttling.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Better depth of STRATEGY TBH...

You can PLAN for a "Depth = 3" and only reveal 3 Cards to your opponent. Those 3 Cards could be "Average to Strong" and then when defeated, you have a 2nd Batch of 3 more Cards that are "Average to Strong". You can mix things up to make it seem like you are WEAKER but in truth, you have a 2nd Pick-Up which is way more powerful than your opponent's 3 or 4 Cards in their "Stack".

That could be another way to play too... Not sure what will be possible, I will need to do some more playtesting once the Cards are designed. ATM all I have is IDEAS which as we all know are "worthless" and rely on execution to see how effective the ideas really are.

So I need to wait until playtesting gets done to affirm if this direction is solid or not.

Note #1: And I have ONE (1) VERY STRICT RULE: "No Healing". You cannot in any way shape of form HEAL a "Robot". Once you lose Armor Points it is what it is and you need to do the best you can with whatever you are left remaining with. This is the ONLY RULE that I plan to enforce in the game's design!

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
If it's 1 robot vs 1 robot

If it's 1 robot vs 1 robot that you thinker to make better or different, it could be interesting. It's a one on one battle like pokemon, but more complexity is involved.

What is tricky with such system is to have a reason to replace robot components. If they only get stronger and stronger, eventually, you will peak.

So either combat makes you lose body parts justifying the play of new body parts. Or, There some sort of RPS or opening of attacks or defense mechanism. So if you build your robot more toward a direction, the opponent, can change direction forcing you to do the same.

I think replacing damaged parts is the easiest solution. So it could be similar to hecatomb, but only 1 abominations. You could have a stack of cards, but since it's a robot, you could position your cards in front of you in in shape of your robot. This would allow you to have hit location if this is something you want.

Else like hecatomb, damage is taken from the top of the stack, or somewhere in the middle if you have the reaper ability. That could work too. If you use a stack, it's a first in last out mechanism. So card played later will be destroyed first, which is not really interesting, as you want new stuff to remain longer. Maybe a queue is more appropriate.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Yes you are correct! But there is one key difference...

larienna wrote:
If it's 1 robot vs 1 robot that you thinker to make better or different, it could be interesting. It's a one on one battle like pokemon, but more complexity is involved.

Exactly it is 1 robot vs. 1 robot.

larienna wrote:
What is tricky with such system is to have a reason to replace robot components. If they only get stronger and stronger, eventually, you will peak.

Actually it works in REVERSE... Let me explain.

larienna wrote:
So either combat makes you lose body parts justifying the play of new body parts. Or, There some sort of RPS or opening of attacks or defense mechanism. So if you build your robot more toward a direction, the opponent, can change direction forcing you to do the same.

What you are effectively doing is playing 1 vs. 1 with a TEAM of ROBOTS. So when you START the game you have 1 Robot revealed and then you have FIVE (5) other robots to the RIGHT of your Leader. So initially the TEAM is comprised of up to SIX (6) Robots.

But in truth this varies according to the "Depth" STAT of the Leader Robot. And it could be a 1D6 dice roll to figure out how big is your "STACK". So IF I roll a "3", it means that there are "3" ROBOTS part of the TEAM attacking on that specific TURN.

However with Dice (RNG) it can VARY. There are other more Deterministic solutions with FIXED STATS that will ensure that the "Depth" is always 2 or 3, and that Stack (other Robots in the TEAM) can modify that value positive OR negative.

larienna wrote:
I think replacing damaged parts is the easiest solution...

So you are battling with your Leader and his Team given the circumstances of HOW you build and design your Stack. It's not parts, it's physically combating and trying to destroy the Leader such that the NEXT Robot in the Stack becomes the Leader but now the Stack is -1 Robot (and the Team can now be a max of 5 Robots), etc.

Anyhow... Yeah I understand some (if not all) your ideas. Just the explanation is that in "Battle Botz" you go from up to six (6) Robots as a TEAM and slowly you chip away at the Stack until the last Robot is defeated. The winner is the player with Robot(s) undefeated.

Sincerely.

questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I think ...

That for most gamers ... They want the experience to be "interesting" and filled with "Ah-hah" moments where they feel "clever" in that they understood something in the game which meant that they not only understood the rules but figured out how they can get something out of the game.

Others enjoy the "tension" when it comes to beating a superior opponent. That happens a lot in Pokémon where you realize you're playing Blue (Water) and just your luck the opponent is playing Yellow (Electric) and you get F- every time the opponent even does a basic attack which deals +20 DMG for each attack.

From what I gathered from "TradeWorlds" is that MOST Gamers don't like rules which can be interpreted in different ways. Or a game which can have multiple sets of how to play a Turn.

And so I think... From my experience thus far... Most Gamers want strict rules they can follow and enjoy with moments of "cleverness" and "tension" that make REMEMBER a game and not forget the playthru making them wanting to try again with new knowledge or a different perspective or route to follow, etc.

But always governed by a strict set of rules which make the experience FUN and engaging.

Sincerely.

lewpuls
lewpuls's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
The modern attitude of people

The modern attitude of people who hero-worship the game rules, in effect, and refuse to consider any possible change, is ridiculous. Because sometimes designers come to a point where there are two possible ways to do something and they are judged to be equally good. Yet the designer must choose one or the other to be the rules for the game.

The hero worshiping attitude also makes little sense because designers are people and people inevitably make mistakes. Then the publishers get hold of the game and with some frequency alter it for the worse whether accidentally or deliberately.

Yet it IS true that an alteration (or misunderstanding) of any rule in a published game is more likely to make it worse rather than better.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut