Skip to Content
 

Generic board games development

9 replies [Last post]
Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008

I have experimented with a generic fantasy game for several of years. Still no prototype is made for the complete set, but a lot of new games have been created around this. This is the work so far and my ideas around it. I have tested several new mechanisms just to reach the goal to create the game.

What I wanted to do was to create a set of games where you can expand and build the game in the style that you want. The game could be a board game, a war game, an economic game, a card game, a table top or something in between. When you include a new component into the game, it would give you something new in the game. This would be a game that developed during the time.
In the market today we have 3 games (or type of games) that fit this description to develop during the time, and you could customize the games:
- Magic/ Warhammer: (and other Collectible games). The games develop during the time, but each player bring there forces to the battle. These games could be classed as dynamic, but only within fixed frames. You still want to kill you opponent and you will only win in one way.
- ASL: Massive battle games with expansions. You can not customize ASL but you can customize the scenarios. ASL as a game is more dynamic then Magic ever will be, but the components are more static.
- D&D: WotC again. The open source idea works, but only because it is a famous product as a base and it is a RPG (The game masters need to adjust the game for the group anyway).

For several of years I have worked on a design for the ultimate mega (all included) fantasy board game world game, but it always fails in the size of the project.
To take down the size I have divided the game into several modules. Each module adds something new. Still the game become too big and in the end there were thousands of components and possibilities for one board game.
I have a cardgame that works exactly in this way and with the 8th generation of the game, the 3 first modules works fine together. I have managed to get that game to work but not the board game.
The next step where to make the game driven by scenarios. The game become more interesting but the setup time was too much.
This game have some scenarios written and some early rules, but no component has ever been build and all game tests has been done in the design and via reviews.

The next set of games where table top game. I have tried to use the same base mechanism for:
- A skirmish game.
- A major battle game (like DBM)
- A tabletop card game (the cards are more like units and not treated like cards.
All 3 types have been tested (and a new test will be done this weekend). The problem is that I always try to include things like unit-strength, Armor and skills as the major concept. After some experiment (they has been in the loop for at least 5 years), I discovered that the base mechanism should be based around discipline and leadership. When that was done, the same base rules could be used for all 3 types of games.

"The dungeon crawlers should be easier." I believed that this was the same game seen from different angles. How wrong I was.
In this set of games there were: an ordinary dungeon crawler game, a dungeon crawler where each player play a group of adventures and dungeon masters for the others, a game where the players shall cooperate(and backstab), and the last game where all players where dungeon masters for one group.
The problem was not the actual components (a skill, a monster, a trap and things like that could be reused in all set of games). Instead was the problem the players and how they use the components (Yes the players were the problem).
I solved it with different set of cards. Depending on your role in the game, you got access to one or several cards. I also had to develop a method when and how the players could play there cards (you don’t want all players to add dragons for the adventures in the first room they enter). I'm still working on this problem. Some of the ideas will also be tested this weekend.

The last set of games where the civ like game. On those games I have failed. The games are more alike then other types of games but the problem is more the basics (currency, world, and so on). To be able to add components from a civilization game into an economic game where you build up your own industry are a challenge.

As I see it: Dungeon crawlers and skirmish tabletop games could be combined with the same basic rules. Different tabletop games could also be combined. Ideas from tabletop could be added to civ/economic/epic games. With all combination and possibility to move components between the games I will have my ultimate mega (all included) fantasy board game world game.

My next steps are:
- To create a base for a world and how it should be handled. This world will also be a time line included (I like fantasy steam punk). Everything will be easier if the same base currency, the same way to handle troops (and so on) is introduced. (This is not a new Middle-earth project. More like a check list).
- Set up a base mechanism for haw to handle cards, random factors and so on.
- Create some unique games based on the basics (probably convert some of my old games).
- Add modules that could be used by all or several of the games.

This will probably take another year or so. Then I will do a follow up, save the games worth saving and then start all over again (this time for real).

I would like to play 2 games at the same time (with the same time scale) where the outcome of one game will have impact on the other game. For example both play a game on politics in a world and at the same time play the same time frame for a city in that word.

// Johan

jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Generic board games development

Another example of what you're describing would be the Gipf project, which consists of six abstract games that can be used interchangably. I don't know if it's a perfect match; I'm pretty sure that the integration between some of the games is "When playing game X, to find out if your move is successful, you go play a side-game of game Y", which is kind of like the old C64 game "Archon".

It sounds like you're looking to do something similar in a board game context, and it sounds like a great idea! I think a possible difficulty is that if you have things happening at dramatically different spatial or temporal scales, that the game will amount to the "sub-game" approach mentioned above, and I don't think that's exactly satisfying. I think you want players to be playing the same game the entire time, rather than having to pause the action to go play some sub-game.

It seems then that what you're advocating is a game with different "layers" that can be used in any combination and still give a playable game. I think the difficulty with this is that to really work, a game's systems all need to be well-integrated, so it would be hard to imagine not designing a game holistically. The challenge is that you're adding additional design constraints: in addition to all the modules working together as one "mega" game, they have to each work in any permutation. Obviously, this leads to much more work from a design and playtest standpoint, since you have more versions to test. And the question becomes whether the end result is something players actually desire. Ie, will the players view the mega-version of the game as the "real" game and everything else is a variant that feels like it loses something?

I've certainly never attempted what you're aiming for, but I do think in terms of expansions to my games from time to time. If I have a system that I feel potentially adds something interesting to the game, but doesn't feel like the rest of the game demands it, I may think about leaving it out of the "base" game but keeping it in my back pocket as an expansion. A good example is the Caravan system in Sands of Time. I think it's a good way to enable inter-player trading, but the game can be played just fine without this system. As a result, I've dropped it from the core game but feel it could seamlessly be added to the game for folks who want more trading.

I'm interested in hearing how your idea progresses!

-Jeff

Ska_baron
Ska_baron's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/02/2008
Generic board games development

Very cool topic that REALLY got me thinking (always a good thing). I don't know if I completely grasp *all* of what you're envisioning, but it lead me to think of this:

How about a dungeon crawler/fantasy game that's kinda modeled after the Diablo 2 computer game where there is a large world view board (cities, forests, maybe even continents) where the band of heroes trapses. Then they can go down into a dungeon on this map and that is a completely different board (using the same ruleset, and also probably modular so it's somewhat different every time) to explore and find X item in the storyline or gain XP.

I could see these even being detailed enough to warrent splitting the action up into different gaming sessions so it's not too much at once (almost like RPG sessions). So Tuesday night your heroes journey across the landscape - with various enounters - and finally reach their destination. Then Wednesday night you break out the dungeon board and find your way to the damsel in distress. So the whole thing would have to be mission/story driven which might not do much for replay value... (kinda like Heroquest wasnt quite the same the 2nd time around)

Anyway, lots of words, lots of thoughts... also, if this game already exists please feel free to mention that so I can check it out.

Jon

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Generic board games development

First of course, there was the old 20-50 games in one games where the concept was to share components between games.

But I have also tought about this for the duel master cards game. When browsing the net, I realised that there was a duel master board game and a stratego duel master board game ( which unfortunately are not available here (~_~) Snif! ).

My first tought was, can I manage to use the real duel master cards with these 2 games. The answer was partially yes. I won't go in the details, but from what I understand, I have raised the folowing rules :

Do not make detailed, specific rules or stats, allow the information to be reinterpreted. For example, in DM, some abilities can tap cards. But in a game like stratego, you cannot tap unit. But you could say that in this game, all taping effect will instead be replaced by a reveal unit effect. Another example, the double breaker ability will make the unit attack 2 opponent unit with 1 move.

Do not make too much stats. In duel master you only have the casting cost, strength and creature type. If you have too much stats, you might end up with useless stats for your game. In the duel master board game, the strength of the creature represent the movement factor. The games also include dices, I think fighting with dices instead of a determinist aproach could bring the game to a new level.

The problems experience so far is all related to outside the battle zone : The shield zone, mana zone. This mean that if I do not reinterpret these, I will need to have a shield zone and a mana zone somewhere.

I also tought of using the DM creature to make some sort of barcode battler game. But I never player Barcode battler, so I don't know the rules.

Another example of game polymorfication is in yu-gi-oh. Most of all the video games are variant of the original card games. In the recent yu-gi-oh game on PS2, you place your creature on the battle map and the summoning system is totally different. A yu gi-oh monster has the following information : Level, att/def strength, type, element. For example, in the PS2 game, the level determine the number of points required to to summon the creature, there is no tribute anymore.

So you see, you must make sure your game elements can polymorph themself to the new game you want to play.

A recent example, some people at my game club wanted to make Blood bowl D20. Of course D20 was too complex to be played as blood bowl but I suggested to use the "D20 Miniature" system instead which is much more simple than d20.

A final example is my fairy card game. The idea would be to be able make a deck of card representing your fairy and being able to play different kind of games with the same deck of cards. So in this game, I cannot create unique rules on each card. The solution found so far is that each card has suite and number like a regular deck of cards and when the player makes his move, he play a card. But other players maybe can play the some cards to lower you value, or you can play additional cards to boost yourself. Of you could make combos with suite and series. But the important thing is that everything is converted down to a number which can be interpreted in different ways.

Personally I really like games that can polymorph themselves, but you have to make the game a little bit more abstract.

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Generic board games development

jwarrend wrote:
It sounds like you're looking to do something similar in a board game context, and it sounds like a great idea! I think a possible difficulty is that if you have things happening at dramatically different spatial or temporal scales, that the game will amount to the "sub-game" approach mentioned above, and I don't think that's exactly satisfying. I think you want players to be playing the same game the entire time, rather than having to pause the action to go play some sub-game.

I don’t think that will be a hit either, but say that you have the possibility. You can play the games separated from each other or put them together in a huge campaign.
If you expand your "main game" you could also use the same expansion in the other game (it is not the same game, and it does not have the same mechanism or theme).

Quote:
It seems then that what you're advocating is a game with different "layers" that can be used in any combination and still give a playable game. I think the difficulty with this is that to really work, a game's systems all need to be well-integrated, so it would be hard to imagine not designing a game holistically.

Or you can do it the other way around. Create a frame where the game shall fit in and then create separated games with the frame as base. When you then make "add-on" to the game it will add something new and it could fit into several of games.
I can give you an example from the computer world. I have a word program and Illustrator in my computer. If I add a printer, both Word and Illustrator is prepared to handle printers, and the printer does not care where from the printings order arrive. The printer can also be moved to another computer without Word and Illustrator and I can get another printer for special printouts (photos or similar). Everything here is interchangeable and I can add or remove components without changing the basics.
What I need to do is specify the interfaces to components and not the actual games.

Quote:
The challenge is that you're adding additional design constraints: in addition to all the modules working together as one "mega" game, they have to each work in any permutation. Obviously, this leads to much more work from a design and play test standpoint, since you have more versions to test. And the question becomes whether the end result is something players actually desire. Ie, will the players view the mega-version of the game as the "real" game and everything else is a variant that feels like it loses something?

Deep inside, I know that the mega game will never be done, but I still working on it because it always gives me new angles and new games are spawned when I test new mechanism and special ideas.
Otherwise I totally agree with you that this could be a major problem.

Ska_baron wrote:
Very cool topic that REALLY got me thinking (always a good thing). I don't know if I completely grasp *all* of what you're envisioning, but it lead me to think of this:

How about a dungeon crawler/fantasy game that's kinda modeled after the Diablo 2 computer game where there is a large world view board (cities, forests, maybe even continents) where the band of heroes trapses. Then they can go down into a dungeon on this map and that is a completely different board (using the same ruleset, and also probably modular so it's somewhat different every time) to explore and find X item in the storyline or gain XP.

I could see these even being detailed enough to warrent splitting the action up into different gaming sessions so it's not too much at once (almost like RPG sessions). So Tuesday night your heroes journey across the landscape - with various enounters - and finally reach their destination. Then Wednesday night you break out the dungeon board and find your way to the damsel in distress. So the whole thing would have to be mission/story driven which might not do much for replay value... (kinda like Heroquest wasnt quite the same the 2nd time around)
Here is the problem: My ideas are divided into 2 different groups. One group is what you describes (have several games that could be combined with different layers). That could be real interesting as version of RPG (since the games are not static). I like these ideas and have tried to implement these in some war-games.
The other group is to use the same components for several games. Example:
I have a dungeon crawler game for children of the age of 6+. It’s a fixed game board, all monster are defeated if you have the right tools. Its an easy game that have some strategy and some luck. The only goal is to get out from the cave in time with treasures (avoid interacting with the trolls and dragons). You get an extra module tat will add spiders to your dungeon.
When the child turns 10 he/she get a new game (within the same dungeon crawler theme). The base game is changed and there is a complete new game with new rules (hack and slash). Still the spider module could be moved to the new game.
The same Spider module could ten be used as add on in a war-game, in a civ game (don’t ask me how), in a RPG and so on.

Larienna wrote:

But I have also tought about this for the duel master cards game. When browsing the net, I realised that there was a duel master board game and a stratego duel master board game ( which unfortunately are not available here (~_~) Snif! ).

My first tought was, can I manage to use the real duel master cards with these 2 games. The answer was partially yes. I won't go in the details, but from what I understand, I have raised the folowing rules :

Do not make detailed, specific rules or stats, allow the information to be reinterpreted. For example, in DM, some abilities can tap cards. But in a game like stratego, you cannot tap unit. But you could say that in this game, all taping effect will instead be replaced by a reveal unit effect. Another example, the double breaker ability will make the unit attack 2 opponent unit with 1 move.

Do not make too much stats. In duel master you only have the casting cost, strength and creature type. If you have too much stats, you might end up with useless stats for your game. In the duel master board game, the strength of the creature represent the movement factor. The games also include dices, I think fighting with dices instead of a determinist aproach could bring the game to a new level.
I think that Do not make too much stats. is the keyword. It should be possible to do a game with no numeric stats at all. It should be possible to add texts that in some games are flavor texts and in other games it is a stat:
Simple example: The Empire Spiders is a huge, fast creature that will attack you when you least expect. Look up for the poison gad.

// Johan

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Generic board games development

A decade or so ago, an unusual RPG game came out called "Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth". What they had tried to do was to create a game in which players created an entire world through the role-playing process. What's interesting is how many of the central mechanics are pretty familiar from Civilization-style board games - the key difference being in the inevitably more free-form nature of RPGs.
Your initial game outline reminded me very strongly of this concept: creating a framework within which hugely different scales of games could take place, each influencing the others, as well as simultaneous games at the same scale.
(As an aside, I have used the Carcassonne tiles to generate a random country layout in a hurry for an RPG before now!)

On an entirely tangential note, I currently have a trilogy of games in development which all use exactly the same basic board but play entirely differently. It's been great fun seeing how ideas developed for one game have impacted the others - changing the board is a nightmare! - but also how a simple idea can end up unifying different approaches to the same goal over the different games.

MPT
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Generic board games development

Some computer wargames have this multi-layered approach. You move your units around the map (Game 1). When enemies are in the same area either the computer calculates the result of the combat - or you run the battle yourself, usually in real time (Game 2).

Quote:
A decade or so ago, an unusual RPG game came out called "Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth".

I know of this - it was totally unplayable as you almost needed a database to keep track of things.

zircher
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Generic board games development

While not fantasy, I'm attempting a similar thing with a sci-fi game where you can play at the strategic level, and scale it down to the starship level, and then can scale that down to the RPG level. The goal is not to devolve every battle into man-to-man combat, but to allow the players to choose the level of involvement within the game system. So, the strategic game becomes the campaign generator for tactical battles and specific heros and leaders can affect the outcome of those engagements.
--
TAZ

TheReluctantGeneral
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Generic board games development

MPT wrote:
I know of this - it was totally unplayable as you almost needed a database to keep track of things.

In this day and age, that need not be a show stopper. Whilst we are all here to design, play and enjoy face to face board games, there is no reason a PC can't be roped in to help with the technical issue of game state management.

The aforementioned RPG might have been playable if a piece of software keeps track of the metagame, and 'generates' the setup for each tactical battle or whatever, that the players then fight out using whatever game components and rules are appropriate.

The secret (and drawback) with such a hybrid approach is solving the tedious manual job of data entry required after a human moderated session such that the outcome of it is faithfully re-entered in the database. This could be tackled by careful design of the interface between the various levels of detail of the metagame 'stack', so as to minimise data passed across.

Such a game would never be mainstream, and it could be argued that such a game is best kept as a pure computer game. However, if the key advantages of boardgames can be kept crucial to gameplay, then it might work. For example, if player-player diplomacy or bluffing/bidding is a key mechanic during the human moderated sessions.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Generic board games development

MPT wrote:
Quote:
A decade or so ago, an unusual RPG game came out called "Aria: Canticle of the Monomyth".
I know of this - it was totally unplayable as you almost needed a database to keep track of things.
Yes, that was the conclusion we came too as well, which is why we used one, albeit as a card-index file :-) But any evolving world needs an awful lot of data support; what made Aria so special was that the evolution was driven by the actions of the players as much as by the GM. (This links interestingly to the discussion on narrative vs replayability elsewhere - the question of "who is driving the story?" Is it the game system/GM or is it the actions of the players?)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut