Skip to Content
 

Discussion: Obstacles/Discoveries on tiles or on cards?

7 replies [Last post]
phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013

Ok, one more thing to discuss. We need to decide how we are going to present obstacles and discoveries. So far I see two camps:

1) Obstacles and Discoveries occur on cards only when you search a cave section. When searching, you draw a card from the deck. Results could be an obstacle, a discovery, an encounter (bats, rats, etc), or nothing. Different decks (easy, medium, difficult) could be used where severity of the obstacle or event was balanced with the value of the discovery. Players could choose which deck to pick from or a system could be setup where the cave tile dictated which deck the players drew from when they searched in that tile.

-or-

2) Obstacles and Discoveries are tied to the specifically to tiles. Discoveries might have one point value for the person who first discovered it, and another lesser pt value for other explorers who also 'document' the find. Obstacles could be found in a cavern that prevented explorers from crossing the cavern without first overcoming the obstacle. Some obstacles might be a one time shot (I.E. Cave ins) while others might need to be overcome everytime they are traversed (steep wall, underground lake, etc).

Ok sink your teeth into that please.
-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Discussion: Obstacles/Discoveries on tiles or on cards?

I really think the cards is the way to go. You search a cavern section, passage section, or completed cavern (via some rules still to be determined- the Action Point system is sounding decent to me, but that's another thread) and you draw a card from the appropriate deck. If it's an Obstacle or an Encounter than you'll have to deal with it. If it is a Finding or Equipment then you keep it in front of you. If it's a Null card, then you discard it.

Note: I envision that scoring would not be ONLY from these findings... somewhere in the discussion I suggested we also award points for certain placements... like for finishing a cavern or a 'rock formation' (rock completely surrounded by cavern) or maybe connecting two caverns by completing a passageway. This scoring would be something like Carcassone. Something like this could work as well, to give some value to where you place the tiles. This ties in to weather we place tiles wherever they can connect, or only where our pawn is.

The question becomes- do we want our character to be exploring the cave (and uncovering it as he goes)? Or de we as PLAYERS want to discover/create the cave, and our CHARACTERS would then explore that cave themselves? Note, I don't mean a staged thing, just a seperation between player and character- the two tiers of exploring the cave would be simultaneous.

Thoughts?

- Seth

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Discussion: Obstacles/Discoveries on tiles or on cards?

I think it has to be cards. This also permits the separation of the two types of game, since you can remove the "Exciting Events/Artifacts" cards if you just want the Spelunking game.

sedjtroll wrote:
The question becomes- do we want our character to be exploring the cave (and uncovering it as he goes)? Or de we as PLAYERS want to discover/create the cave, and our CHARACTERS would then explore that cave themselves? Note, I don't mean a staged thing, just a seperation between player and character- the two tiers of exploring the cave would be simultaneous.

This is a very good point. I think I tend towards the players being the explorers (which is why the tile laying needs to be done in line of sight or upon entering, not in an abstract way a la Carcassonne).

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
My thoughts

Scurra wrote:
I think it has to be cards. This also permits the separation of the two types of game, since you can remove the "Exciting Events/Artifacts" cards if you just want the Spelunking game.

Scurra, we voted that there would be one game with one theme, hence no seperation in the games.

Let me say why I would like to propose tiles by OPPOSING the use of cards. Here's why: If everything is in the cards, then other than physical layout, everyone is playing in a DIFFERENT cave system. For example, if I explore a specific cavern, I may find a wonderfully ancient old cave painting that I had to use a rope to climb up to to discover it. You may go to the same cavern and find some broken potsherds and a swarm of angry bats. Hello!?!?!? Are we in alternate realities? Shouldn't I find and have to deal with exactly the same stuff as you? Otherwise it's too luck driven.

If we insist on using cards, perhaps we could implement a system with which the obstacle/discovery on a room is 'remembered' by placing the card(s) on a gridded board off to the site that represents the game board. I believe this to be too fiddly personally.

My other idea if we insist on using cards instead of tiles is to use TILE SIZED cards.. That way when the obstacle and/or discovery was determined for that specific tile, it could be placed face down on the tile. These tile cards could be placed on a tile immediately when they are placed (perhaps further clouding the details of the tile from the other players, like which exits lead out of the room). This might work very well if during tile placement we are only legally able to place new tiles next to explored tiles. For example, if I have a tile that is unexplored to the north, east and west, I could play one tile for each unexplored direction with the obstacle/discovery card face down on top of the cave tile. With this method only I would know about the exits of the face down tiles since I placed them. However, no one would know which discoveries/obstacles existed in the room since I would play the D/O tile face down before I even looked at it.

Of course, the other, more simple option is just place the obstacles and discoveries on the cavern tiles themselves. Of course, this isn't realistic in game terms, but it is a game, and some details HAVE to be abstracted out in order for it to work.

Comments please?
-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: My thoughts

Darkehorse wrote:
Scurra, we voted that there would be one game with one theme, hence no seperation in the games.

No we didn't - we voted that we would try to find a balance between the two games. All I was doing was suggesting a way towards that balance by including a "sub-set" of cards that would change the premise of the game if it were needed. But if we can come up with a better way of integrating the themes then I'm all for it!

As for the difficulty of "remembering" things - I'm not sure that's a huge issue. For instance, if a cave is marked with a counter to indicate which explorer discovered it, it's not hard to include different results on cards depending upon whether the cave is newly-discovered or merely on the tourist trail. I don't find it unreasonable that a later player might find potsherds in the same cave as the painting, but they wouldn't find the painting (IYSWIM). This would also allow things like "bonus points" for everytime a later explorer passed through "your" cave - especially if they were running away from something! It would also allow for a strategy of following other players rather than breaking new ground all the time, which might add a little depth to the game.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: My thoughts

Scurra wrote:
Darkehorse wrote:
Scurra, we voted that there would be one game with one theme, hence no seperation in the games.

No we didn't - we voted that we would try to find a balance between the two games.

I'm not trying to do the "I told ya so" thing, but we actually did vote for one game with one theme. What I'm trying to do is make sure we move forward instead of backwards.

http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=419

Yes we did decide on a balance between relic rush and spielunker, but that was for one game. Not two. Are you saying the same thing? (Sometimes it's hard to tell).

It looks like we're going to 'switch gears' yet again. Sedj and I discussed some things and it looks like we need to go a different route because we can't seem to agree on anything right now.

-Darke

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Re: My thoughts

Darkehorse wrote:

Yes we did decide on a balance between relic rush and spielunker, but that was for one game. Not two. Are you saying the same thing? (Sometimes it's hard to tell).

:)

At the moment we still seem to be arguing about whether we're going to have cards at all, so arguing about what goes on them (if we have them!) seems premature.

Essentially I am arguing for one game. All I am suggesting is that it may be possible to have the same game serve two different purposes without causing excess trauma for the design process. As there is enough trauma involved already, I am happy to stop banging on about this until we're ready to move on to the next stage.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: My thoughts

Darkehorse wrote:

Let me say why I would like to propose tiles by OPPOSING the use of cards. Here's why: If everything is in the cards, then other than physical layout, everyone is playing in a DIFFERENT cave system. For example, if I explore a specific cavern, I may find a wonderfully ancient old cave painting that I had to use a rope to climb up to to discover it. You may go to the same cavern and find some broken potsherds and a swarm of angry bats. Hello!?!?!? Are we in alternate realities? Shouldn't I find and have to deal with exactly the same stuff as you? Otherwise it's too luck driven.

If we insist on using cards, perhaps we could implement a system with which the obstacle/discovery on a room is 'remembered' by placing the card(s) on a gridded board off to the site that represents the game board. I believe this to be too fiddly personally.

I agree that would be too fiddly. I also agree that the more permanent obstacles (and maybe Features) should be "remembered" by the game. I offer the following for that very case:

Include some tokens or smaller tiles representing particular obstacles which would be permanent... like "Cave In", or "Cliff." When one of these comes up on a card, put the corresponding token/chit/whatever on the tile where it occurs. This obstacle would have to be dealt with by anyone moving into that space.

The features is a little wierd- when it was treasures you could simply take them with you, but if it's an underground river that's not really possible. Perhaps a permenant Finding (wouldn't they all be permenant?) coul have similar treatment.

My recommendation is to make permanent the important obstacles, but not the findings. In a vast cave system, perhaps people don't catch everything... If I found a cave painting in a recess in a cavern, and you enter the cavern from the other end, it's not unreasonable to assume you don't see the Cave Painting. If you 'search' you might find something else though that I missed. however, no matter how you slice the monkey, a cave-in is a cave-in.

Quote:
My other idea if we insist on using cards instead of tiles is to use TILE SIZED cards.. That way when the obstacle and/or discovery was determined for that specific tile, it could be placed face down on the tile. These tile cards could be placed on a tile immediately when they are placed (perhaps further clouding the details of the tile from the other players, like which exits lead out of the room). This might work very well if during tile placement we are only legally able to place new tiles next to explored tiles. For example, if I have a tile that is unexplored to the north, east and west, I could play one tile for each unexplored direction with the obstacle/discovery card face down on top of the cave tile. With this method only I would know about the exits of the face down tiles since I placed them. However, no one would know which discoveries/obstacles existed in the room since I would play the D/O tile face down before I even looked at it.

This is an interesting idea. I'll admit that I had dismissed this idea for two reasons- one: they'd have to be damn small cards, or damn big tiles (not all that unreasonable I suppose)... and two: I don't like the idea of covering tiles with tiles- seems like it defeats the purpose of tile laying. Also, it's harder to tell if you accidentally placed a piece illegally.

Quote:
Of course, the other, more simple option is just place the obstacles and discoveries on the cavern tiles themselves. Of course, this isn't realistic in game terms, but it is a game, and some details HAVE to be abstracted out in order for it to work.

As you know I am anti-this. I also think it leads directly to the 'luck of the draw' aspect you were trying to keep away from. With the cards everyone has the same chance for both the good and the bad, doesn't matter who placed which tile where.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut