[GDS] APRIL 2015 "Losers' Lounge" Comments and Questions

Just yesterday I was playing some games and found that there are already a number of games that essentially play solo, together. Resource gathering games for instance. Some have little if any player interaction, and dropping a player out takes no effort since you can play without really interacting with them anyway. Some of these games even go so far as to have arbitrary end points built in - stop at a certain score, stop after X rounds, etc.

The problem I personally had with these games (which will go nameless to avoid losing focus on the point), is that they were dull. Players could drop out because it didn't even matter that they were there, ever. The games didn't really evolve except for building our own engines, and adding players in meant they were "behind" on the engine build.

So for this challenge I suggest - although by no means a rule - avoiding a game concept that can plug players in and out because they never need to talk to each other or interact in any way. It's kind of boring.

Game that might already do this well:

Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective

Others?

And it accidentally deleted when I removed a double-post. Here is the original text in full:

I think that the multiplayer solitaire dynamic is a good point to bring up in the design equation. A lot of games rely upon this, to the detriment of their overall enjoyment potential for the players. It’s certainly not a game design fault per se, since the games that employ it usually work very well, from a mechanical stand point, but its inclusion does sometimes make a mockery of the “group game” idea.

A step upwards from this is when such games employ a group resource generator. The games still revolve around the creation of independent engines, but the group engagement is increased when the resources each player receives are dependent on what a single player does on their turn.

In games like Machi Koro and Qwixx the players are primarily working independently. However, the interest in an individuals turn is shared by the group as a whole, because the actions taken by a single player have repercussions for the other players as well.

After looking at the challenge these thoughts occurred to me

One

The winning objective needs to be simple and the potential for completing it must be available to all the players at any time.

A simple win condition will ensure that everyone is actively engaged from the moment they sit down to play, because they have an equal chance of completing it.

If the game winning objective requires a significant time investment, like complex engine building or resource gathering, the players that enter at a later stage will be disadvantaged.

Of equal importance is the fact that working towards a developed win state, by collecting items of cumulative value, will provide an unfair advantage to those who have already accumulated a significant amount.

The win condition should therefore be simple and variable. This could also involve a changing state that is dependent on the cards (or whatever game pieces are being used) that are currently in play - or even the number of players in the game.

An example would be something like Fluxx and its changing game actions, but altered to reflect changing winning objectives.

The players would have to collect a pair of cards that match the current win condition, while playing other cards to change the current win condition. Win conditions could be to collect 2 blue cards with a total value of 7, or a red and yellow card of equal value, or a red and green card with a numerical difference of 5.

In this case it wouldn’t matter when a player joined the game, because the objective would be constantly changing.

Two

The components each player uses during the game should be few in number.

If the players need a lot of components to play this will stifle the game flow as new players take time to set up or leaving players take time to put back their components.

Three

It matters less if the game finished early than if it finishes late.

If the game has the potential to finish in a short amount of time it makes very little difference, because the current players can immediately start a new game. However, if the game has the potential to last a long time it will conflict with the ebb and flow of old and new players.

Four

The game could simulate the presence of other players in its solitaire mode.

If cards are dealt to fake hands, which are visible to everyone, a game could revolve around acquiring the cards an individual player needs from these fake hands.

If the fake hands are obscured a single player will still need to collect cards from “other hands” but they will also need to determine what is in those hands. The process of determining the cards in a hidden hand should require some form of sacrifice that decreases the chance of success. For example, cards being removed from the game.

In this case a person could play against the game, attempting to win before their sacrifices make loosing inevitable. However, the arrival of new players would restore cards to the game, prolonging its length and restoring the possibility of winning for all the players.

Employing fake hands would also make it easier for new players to enter, because they would simply pick up a hand that wasn't actively being used by another player.

Get your entry in today (since we generally go by east coast US time)! If you're already on the 10th of April like I am, you probably already submitted your entry. That goes for all our Aussie BGDF'ers.

Get your votes in by the end of the 19th! Remember, you can vote even if you didn't send in an entry!