Hello all,
I have created a board game that is fantasy based, with resources, economical management, etc. I have had several friends take the game and play it. All of them seem to come to the same conclusion. Exploration in the game is a little "ilogical". Each player starts on a small island continent and wherever they land on this monopoly type board is the next region they can conquer. But sometimes this region is on the other end of the map. Meaning they go "regionize" that area before fully being able to develop their island. A problem I can't seem to change without modifying the game too much. Maybe a break is in order, for fresh thoughts. Just thought I'd drop this because all of you are always tons of help.
How "logical" should a board game be?
Sat, 03/11/2006 - 12:14
Sat, 03/11/2006 - 13:34
#1
How "logical" should a board game be?
Well, you are in a fantasy structure, so something fantastical could be used to explain this "traveling irregularity" to the players.
Storywise, perhaps movement to new regions is accomplished not overland or by ship directly, but by a magical force that is difficult to control and deposits your explorers at the locations the dice indicate (I am assuming that you use the same roll-and-move mechanic from Monopoly to have your players get around the board)
By the way, this is a very unusual approach - combining the abstract circuit path of Monopoly with an exploration game - the mechanic seems certain to draw all strategy from any type of organized settlement-expansion plan, a.k.a. you end up where you end up. I suppose the choices the player must deal with in the game are not "where do I settle" but rather "how do I take best advantage of my settlement wherever they may arise."
~Josh
Sat, 03/11/2006 - 23:15
#3
How "logical" should a board game be?
Bushbee wrote:
Yep, you're right on the money! As exploration/management/military games go, there isn't alot left undone. I just wanted to try a different approach to exploration, but the issues seem to be too deep. I also thought of having the whole map already explored, so whenever the player lands on a space for a region, that regions' government has dissolved and the people need help and leadership.Other than these issues discussed, the resource system, economics and combat work VERY well. I have also attained a balance that thwarts any mega-military conquests or the "speed build" army games.
This slightly reminds me of the Sci Fi show Sliders which involved random alternate realities. Wouldn't be too much of stretch to explain this in a similar way with a fantasy theme, perhaps with some sort of magical artifact.
Good luck!
-Darke
Sun, 03/12/2006 - 09:47
#4
How "logical" should a board game be?
A game does not necesarily need to be logical since your goal is not to simulate perfectly reality. For example, in monopoly, you must have all land of a color to start building, which is illogical because in real life, you would have been able to build a house as soon you have a land. Consider that the theme is only there to support the game.
Sun, 03/12/2006 - 21:06
#5
How "logical" should a board game be?
The answer might be quite simple:
If something illogical makes players confused about the rules, then you adjust.
If it does not confuse the rules, you explain your illogicallity in a fantasy-way, as suggested.
Cheese!
Mon, 03/13/2006 - 01:25
#6
How "logical" should a board game be?
Consider the idea of "suspending disbelief" that fiction writers employ. Sure, people generally know that elves and orcs don't exist, but, given the presentation of "The Lord of the Rings", readers would be very surprised if, as the very end, Sauron's place in Mordor turned out to be pretty nice, and the whole thing was one big misunderstanding. We'd been led to believe one thing, and it turned out completely different in an unbelievable way. Sauron's disembodied soul, fueled on rage and hate, we believe. Sauron being lonely and misunderstood, we don't
Themes work in the same way, but in your case I think a little backstory is all that's needed. The players are expecting to move around and discover lands in some organized fashion because you've used an exploration analogy. The "magical travel" idea would do the trick, and could be all you need, but your other idea (of having the "location" on the track actually be the geographic location of a governmental collapse) is far more interesting, and gives the players a sort of "Four Horsemen" role. Clearly, they are drawn to the places where chaos is immenent, and once past, the inhabitants of the spaces they've skipped over breathe a sigh of relief.
In either case, the players would stop being concerned that they weren't exploring in the usual sense. It's not so much theme as "story chrome".
![Syndicate content](/misc/feed.png "Comments for \"How "logical" should a board game be?\""){kind=small}
Yep, you're right on the money! As exploration/management/military games go, there isn't alot left undone. I just wanted to try a different approach to exploration, but the issues seem to be too deep. I also thought of having the whole map already explored, so whenever the player lands on a space for a region, that regions' government has dissolved and the people need help and leadership.Other than these issues discussed, the resource system, economics and combat work VERY well. I have also attained a balance that thwarts any mega-military conquests or the "speed build" army games.