Skip to Content
 

random first vs random later

8 replies [Last post]
Thu, 03/16/2006 - 22:01
JackDarwid
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

Hello all

Recently I read about Magic Realm and The Lonely Mountain fantasy adventure board games (both are old games, using chits). Both games uses setup at the beginning of the game that arrange randomly all the things (monsters,treasures,items,etc). In the game, the player will discover/encounter those things as the game progress.

Another approach is as if in Talisman and Runebound. There's no setup for monster,treasures, etc,but the players will (usually) move then draw (or roll a die) to encounter monster,treasures, etc.

Which one do you prefer ? I found that using setup (the first one above)is better than randomly encounter the monster in the middle of a game. The drawback is that using setup will take more time at the beginning of the game, and the components will be scattered around in each location (vs all in a deck or two for Talisman/Runebound, which is 'cleaner').
The best part is that the feel that there is a world (or dungeon) to explore, and it's not random anymore(okay, it's random at the beginning of the game, but it feels different, it's already there for us to discover !!).

I hope the reader of this post know what I mean.

So, what do you think ?

Thanks

Top
Thu, 03/16/2006 - 22:59
#1
Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
random first vs random later

Not sure but what would be the possible differences to both approaches? Are there mechanic, theme or other types of advantages that makes one *better* than the other?

I personally enjoy the first option of setup over draw/roll. To me I think the setup method allows me, as a player, to feel more immersed in the exploration of the game. I guess it feels more fluid, versus having to move into an empty space and then draw a card to see what is going to happen.

I would love to hear other peoples input, since I am honestly trying to figure out how to what the pros and cons of each of these methods offer.

Top
Fri, 03/17/2006 - 01:22
#2
rellekmr
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
random first vs random later

I hate game setups. Axis and Allies makes me shiver.

Top
Fri, 03/17/2006 - 02:25
#3
sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
random first vs random later

So if you randomly populate the game ahead of time, then you can see ahead of time what's around, and you can plan. If you randomly encounter stuff as you go then it's like you don't know what you're getting into when you, say, enter the cave.

The latter seems better in many cases such as exploring, that is you don't know what you'll find. In non-exploration cases then it makes more sense to setup ahead of time.

In Runebound, it's still random as you go even though you set some stuff up ahead of time. I'm not sure what you were referring to.

Top
Fri, 03/17/2006 - 04:23
#4
JackDarwid
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
random first vs random later

For example : the set up of monsters.
1)The set up for monsters are done at the beginning of the game (you make the map then put the monsters in a sistematical and random way according to the rules). Note : the monsters are still unknown (face down chits).
So when you move to site A, you will encounter monster M1 and M2 which are already there. After you move to the site, then the chits are revealed.

versus

2)you move to site A, then roll a die (or draw an encounter card) then you will encounter the monster written on the card.

Both methods are almost the same (I think), maybe these are the difference :
1)
Disadvantage : a) setup is longer at the beginning of the game (must find a way to reduce the length of time used for setup)
b) the chits are scattered all over the board (is this a disadvantage?)
Advantage : a) the feel that the world is already there, ready to be discovered and explored.
b) some abilities/magic can be used to see what is on a site, so a plan can be made to move there or don't move there.

Maybe I just too excited with advantage a). I feel that the excitement will be different with exploring what's already there than we go there and roll a die/draw a card.

PS : In Runebound, imagine what if all the red cards are put in their places (rather than you go to hex with red counter then draw one of the red cards). What if the Big Guy is at the bottom of the deck ? If all red cards are placed to replace the red tokens, the chance for encountering the Big Guy is equal (plus maybe some abilities/magic can 'see' a red card secretly).

PS : I haven't tried Magic Realm or the Lonely Mountain, which uses methods 1. I just got excited by reading the rules only. That's why I ask you guys, what you think :)

Top
Fri, 03/17/2006 - 08:19
#5
seo
seo's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
random first vs random later

In general, I would say I prefer the "random first" option, but I'm not radical about it.

Besides my personal preferences, there is one difference among both methods that has not been mentioned: Topology.

In a random first method, the topology of the board and the events placement, although unknown to the players, is already fixed. Think of treasures in Tikal: it's not the same to decide where to place the treasure tiles (even though you don't know what treasures it has) than to have the tiles placed by your rivals.

With a random-on-setup game, you might have partial info that affects how you explore. Depending on how you implement your seting up the events, you can have a similar or a very different scenario than with random-as-you-go. Not just the feeling. You can give hints to the players, specially if you have different classes of chits, with different backs. Players would then be able to explore in some area of the board with the previous knowledge of how densely the area is populated with encounters (good or bad might be the hidden factor) treasures (again, you can have real and fake treasure chits), etc.

With a setup like this, different areas of the board will have different value for players to explore. With a random-as-you-go mechanic that would be harder to implement.

Seo

Top
Fri, 03/17/2006 - 15:28
#6
Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
random first vs random later

The random-first setup leaves players with (an illusion of) free will.

In Talisman, you can roll a 6 and be faced with the choice of "draw a card" or "draw a card" -- and whichever way you go, it's the same card. You don't feel like you're making a difference.

But in Magic Realm, you can say, "do I want to turn over that chit or that chit" and if you pick wrong, then you can bemoan your terrible judgement, poor ESP skills, etc. You had the chance to do better, even if there was no way you could have known...

Yogurt

Top
Sun, 03/19/2006 - 11:50
#7
JackDarwid
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
random first vs random later

Ah, at least I can make my self clear :)

Thanks a lot for the inputs.

In my conclusion, yes, there is a significant diference between both methods.
Hmmm... I should use this method (random first) somewhere in my new game ....

(any other comments are welcome)

Thanks !

Top
Sun, 03/19/2006 - 12:09
#8
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
random first vs random later

JackDarwid wrote:

In my conclusion, yes, there is a significant diference between both methods.

I don't think there's actually any difference built into the methods themselves other than the players' somewhat false belief (as yogurt notes) that they're actually "exploring" something rather than just parsing the deck.

In either case, if you don't go any further than this, the game will likely feel very repetitive and random. So for either case, you will need to add some substance that gives the players' movement some meaning. And how you do that can be handled differently depending on which method you choose.

With the "initial setup" approach, some other posts have suggested ways to do this -- if the backprinting on the cards give some indicator of what players might expect, then they have some reason to want to go one place over another. With a "draw as you go" approach, you could give each encounter a strength or reward depending on your location. For example, you draw a "troll" card, and then depending on what kind of terrain you're in (village, mountain, dungeon, forest), defeating the troll is tougher (eg, harder to beat in his "home turf") and/or more lucrative (eg, villagers will reward you for clearing out the menace from their village)

Another option is that the encounters are randomly revealed (by either method) but the characters' growth and progress during the game give different meaning to the challenges experienced.

I think that it's certainly a tough challenge to feel that there's a world to explore and in which your movement decisions matter, but yet to have the game randomly generate this at the game setup. Of course, another option is to not have the world be randomly generated, but rather to have it set up according to some algorithm that creates bounds on what might end up where.

This must be a challenge you encountered when creating "Island of D" -- how did you handle it there? How did your solution work? (I haven't had a chance to play the game yet)

-Jeff

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut