I would like to bring people's attention to an interesting and insightful geeklist on BGG entitled 'Artificially Close Ending Mechanics' -
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listid=10555
While it discusses the different ways games have scoring or winning conditions that try to keep the game 'close' right up to the end, it is also an interesting insight into the different ways games are scored, how winners are determined and how this impacts on the game itself.
A useful read methinks.
Relevant for me anyways as I am having problems trying to work out the winning conditions the the main 'Wargame' I am working on. One solution I did come up with added a whole new series of mechanics tacked onto the game. Took me a while to realise it was balls before I took it out. Anyway, I am not so worried now, as the game lends itself to scenarios very well, and once I get the mechanics and gameplay sorted, I tend to think the flow of the game will help determine what should be considered worthy of a player 'winning' the game.
This works for me, as the nature of the game (strategic fantasy wargame) in that it is fairly open and centered around conflict, lets there be a variety of variables that can be considered for victory. Other, tighter more specific games would need much more defined winning conditions, which would have to be considered from the very beginning of the game design. i.e. a simple game lke snakes and ladders, where the winning condition is extremely basic, but intregal to the game design.
I'd like to hear from people about their thoughts on 'Winning Conditions' and how these affect the design of their game, and thoughts on the geeklist above...
