Skip to Content
 

How Uncool are Reference Charts?

11 replies [Last post]
Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008

Hello Peoples,

Ok, for my Main Big Game I have a lot of special effects type things. A big part of playing the game is staunching up your forces with stuff (Creatures, Artifacts, Abilities...) that basically give you bonuses or let you do certain things.

Each player will have their own unique range of Creatures, Artifacts and Abilities they will have access to as well as 'Neutrals' they will be able to gain in the game.

The tricky thing that I have at the moment is deciding where the information for all these special effects should be.

The best answer I have for this at the moment is to provide each player with a reference chart. Preferably a doubled sided A4 size card that lists every ability they will have access to during the game. The thing is, there will are nearly 200 Effects in the game, and each player will need to be able to reference over 100 of them (Each player has access to their own unique Effects).

My question then, is that considering this is a 'Big Game' and that a big part of the fun of the game will be customising your forces with a wide range of different 'Stuff', how cool would it be to have to reference this A4 sheet every time you wanted to check what something does?

Each Effect will be named and so be partly obvious what it does, and experienced players will be able to remember things etc, but especially when learning the game, there will be a lot of looking up to do.

Also consider that this is not a light game, and players going into it would know that.

Anybody have any thoughts? Or should I give more info?

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

I have during several years worked on three really big projects (expandable epic/adventure fantasy/steam punk board game where you can do everything (nearly)). So fair I have solved one game but failed with the others. I'm still working on all projects because I get a lot of new ides from them.

Among the things I have learned from these projects are:
Think big but start small: Draw the whole picture from start and then only do the basics. That is the only way to be able to complete the game (nobody wants to test a half done big game).
Streamline: Always streamline the ability's and presentation (example: claws is always the same thing as a weapon).
KISS: Keep it stupid simple.
Naming: The ability should have a naming that tells you what it the ability is for.
Adds on: The changes for a creature/event/building/action are always be an add on to the basic rules. Example: All creatures get half movement rate over difficult going. Swamp monsters get the ability Swamp walk that allows them to move with normal movement rate.
And to your specific question: Flexibility: A double sided A4 for each race will be inflexible. You can not add new things later on. There are other solutions as cards (one for each creature type) or the player has to do a list. A inflexible game would not be fun in the long run.

// Johan

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

Cheers Johan!

Thanks for your comments. The trickiest thing about Big Games is the playtesting factor - you really need to get the theoretics in a good state before investing in a prototype to start playtesting with...

With regards to your areas of interest -

Think big but start small: Yeah I have the whole rules down and theoretically tested. I have have kept them simplified and work outside the 'Effects' of the various Abilities and things that will give the flavour to the game. There is a strong structure that should be easy to follow.

Streamline: All the Effects will be tied to specific things, i.e. An Artifact will have a particular Effect, or a Creature will have a particular Effect relate to it. So in that organised in that way. All Effects also have a specific way they are used, which is either Combat, Useable or Passive. Combat Effects are used in combats, Useable Effects can only be used when a player uses an Action to play them, and Passive Effects always affects the particular Vampire Lieutenant (Vampre game y'see...) they are attributed to. As for presentation, thata part of the reason for having all the Effects listed together...

KISS: Definately, everything needs to be easily accesible and make logical sense. P.S. It should be - Keep It Simple Stupid.

Naming: Yeah thats a fun one. Most of the Effects will have interesting names to keep the flavour of the game, but do need to be recogniseable. This is an interesting topic...

Adds on: The Effects of things work off the rules in that the ruleset has to be interestig enough to be able to provide a variety of options for when designing Effects which add to or twist certain aspects of the rules. This is quite a fun balancing act - I want to keep the structure and basic rules as straight forward as possible, at the same time as providing a strong and flexible framework fromwhich I can extrude an interesting range of Effects (especially when I have 100+ Unique Effects!)

Flexibility: Expansion isn't too much of a worry for me in this one, as the whole game should be self contained. Its not a collectible game, and shouldn't need any types of expansions. But the way it has been designed easily lend itself to new map tiles and creatures/abilities etc.

Can you expand upon your comment that an inflexible game would not be fun in the long run?

Cheers!

Nestalawe'

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

I have had this problem when designing computer games, and I think you will run into the same problem with a board style "Big Game". Essentially, it is the 80-20 rule, wherein 80% of the players will use only 20% of the feature set.

If you agree with that, then consider creating tiers for your game. As an example, consider TAMSK: it has three tiers!
http://www.gipf.com/tamsk/rules/rules.html
An example in sports is youth baseball, which starts with T-ball, which leads to a pitching machine, which leads to real pitchers (albeit awful ones), which leads, finally to really good pitchers. At each level past T-ball, new concepts are introduced, while the fundamentals are reinforced. By the time kids reach that fourth level, they all have the fundamentals down. What makes it a game at this level is the determination, drive and athleticism of the players.

Find the most fun parts of your game and include them in your "basic" game.
Find the most advanced parts of your game and include them in your "ultimate" game. Create tiers between these two extremes.

Mitch

Hedge-o-Matic
Hedge-o-Matic's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

I think that charts for a core rules set that is complex enough are very helpful. If the bare bones of the system can fit on a two-sided sheet, why not? Beats flipping through a book any day.

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

Challengers wrote:
Find the most fun parts of your game and include them in your "basic" game.
Find the most advanced parts of your game and include them in your "ultimate" game. Create tiers between these two extremes.

Its an interesting thing having Basic and Advanced games - which could and probably should, have a topic of its own. There are all sorts of games that have basic and advanced sets of rules, some rightly so, some don't need them. Then there are the games that add sets of rules, or introduce rules bit by bit, like the old Monster games 'Freedom In The Galaxy' or 'Magic Realm'.

When playing a game I would always (if possible...) dive right in and play the Full Game as it doesn't feel like I am getting everything out of it that I could if only playing the Basic game. But at the same time, if I know I am going to get a lot of plays out of the game, and it is complex, then I would start with the basic version, and continue from there, which I am doing with Divine Right at the moment...

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

Hedge-o-Matic wrote:
I think that charts for a core rules set that is complex enough are very helpful. If the bare bones of the system can fit on a two-sided sheet, why not? Beats flipping through a book any day.

Yeah, totally agree. I think where I am now is compromising on how much information I can actually get onto the 'Bits' of the game and how mcuh should be supplied as reference, and how to get this all as clean, clear and styllised as possible.

The other tricky thing I have found, is that when making a prototype you (or at least I have had to so far...) need to compromise on how things are shaped and look like. For example, in my final design I want to have coloured dots on my Creature Tokens to show how many Hit and Defense beads they will add to a combat, but for my prototype I have found it easier to just have numbers, as I can use spreadsheets to make my tokens with - using Word and mail-merging can make some nice quick tokens, useful if you are making 500+ at once ;)

Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

Nestalawe wrote:

Flexibility: Expansion isn't too much of a worry for me in this one, as the whole game should be self contained. Its not a collectible game, and shouldn't need any types of expansions. But the way it has been designed easily lend itself to new map tiles and creatures/abilities etc.

Can you expand upon your comment that an inflexible game would not be fun in the long run?

First I don’t agree with you. What you described is a game that is doomed to have expansions (not a CCG) (and if it is published and it is a hit, then you want to add expansions). You don’t have to plan the expansions, but do not close the doors for them either (make it hard to add new things on the basic rules). (Games like Ticket to Ride and Carcassone was not planed to have expansions, but yet they did get them).

In the long run, people will learn the game. If you make the game inflexible, then some races will be considered better or could only work with one strategy.
Another example is the players that wants to change the game to there style or wants to represent something in the game: Example: To represent a battle in LOTR where you have humans, dwarfs and some elf's on one side, you should not need 3-5 A4 sheets to represent the force.

// Johan

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

Johan wrote:
First I don’t agree with you. What you described is a game that is doomed to have expansions (not a CCG) (and if it is published and it is a hit, then you want to add expansions). You don’t have to plan the expansions, but do not close the doors for them either (make it hard to add new things on the basic rules). (Games like Ticket to Ride and Carcassone was not planed to have expansions, but yet they did get them).

In the long run, people will learn the game. If you make the game inflexible, then some races will be considered better or could only work with one strategy.
Another example is the players that wants to change the game to there style or wants to represent something in the game: Example: To represent a battle in LOTR where you have humans, dwarfs and some elf's on one side, you should not need 3-5 A4 sheets to represent the force.

Hmm, ok I see what you mean now, and I think the way I have worked it should lend itself to expandability. The reference sheets will list all the Effects native to the Vampire Type, plus the neutrals they will interact with in the game. Add a new Vampire Type in an expansion and they will have their own reference sheet.

I have designed the game so that there are a 'Core' set of rules and structure. On top of that comes all the 'stuff' a player has which they use within the framework of the core rules to grow, develop and win the game.

As for player tweaking things, adding bits etc, they can easily choose to not include certain aspcts of the game, or to make up there own...

Hmm, so yes, now I get what you mean re:expandability/tweaking. I agree, in reflection on this, that it may be wise to have the information on each different Vampire Type to be in a format that is flexible...

Gah, hard enough getting a game up and running without having to worry about expansions ;)

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

I don't like the idea of checking through a big chart each time to make an action. Maybe there could be a more convenient way to organise information.

- On another thread, a member suggested an information wheel. You rotate the wheel to point on the right info and then the space on the wheel show all the important information. It is slower to view, but takes less space.

- If all players don't need all the information on the chart during the game, they can have only a part of the chart. Much smaller but only part of the information is available.

- According to how your information is made, maybe you can combine information table on cards to give various pattern. For example, you take 3 cartd with charts and tables on it and you place them all side by side. Each line (split on 3 cards) would be an ability. If you change 1 cards all the abilities will be changed. It could allow you to make many combinations, but it might not fit to your game mechanics.

sfictre
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

I agree with Larienna.

I think that looking on a chart every time could be annoying but there may not be a better way to do it. (or more pratical)

What you could try, is having the rarer items and abilitys on cards. So that they won't clog up the chart. I dunno.

It may even be worth a try having them all on cards and seeing how that works.

There is something nice about having your abilites/specials on cards. It almost feels like you have the power in your hands.

Testing could be the key to succes. If the key is rusty.....try another one!

Cheers...

~sfictre

thought is the essence of games.......

Nestalawe
Nestalawe's picture
Offline
Joined: 08/07/2008
How Uncool are Reference Charts?

Cheers guys. Yeah, it is a tricky one. I will playtest with a chart, then if I get a chance I will see if I can mock up cards, could get two thing son each card... All a matter of practicality and cost as well.

The general Actions and game mechanics are fine - no one should need to look anything up to actually play the game and do what they want to do. Its just when players have special abilities that affect things and they need to be able to refer to them effectively.

Tricky, once I do some playetsting I will report back and let ya'll know what seems to work best...

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut