Game #12: Speedracer

Zaiga,

Nice game! It sounds like you've got some interesting things at work here. It has a lot of overt similarities to Formula De, but the removal of die rolling for movement is a big difference.

A couple of cosmetic observations -- I don't like "rotate the mat to show which car you've moved". With only 2 cars, it shouldn't be a big deal to figure out which one moved, or just give the player a "movement" token to place on the mat after the car moved. Also, I'm not sure about the specialized dice. Are they really necessary? Is there some mathematically equivalent way of using standard dice or something?

Unfortunately, I can't find too much to be critical of here, so I'm not sure how much I can help. It seems like you have a simple and clean set of rules that should give some interesting gameplay. I'm a little concerned that it might be very hard to win if you start in 5th place and are playing with 5 good players. But maybe not. It would take some testing for me to see whether it's possible, through skillful play, to beat a good player who starts out in the pole position. And if you do, but it just comes down to lucky rolls here and there, obviously that's unsatisfying. What is your feeling about this issue?

I'm also a bit concerned about the replay value. But since you can create a new track every time, that probably provides a ton of replay value right there.

I have played Formula De once, and while I enjoyed it, I didn't find it to be something I'd be interested in playing again -- it's way too long for what it actually is. It seems like your game could be a nice substitute. It seems like it should be much shorter, yet also with more player control.
I do think it's probably similar enough to Formula De that it might be tough to sell, but maybe not. And anyway, if you're just trying to design a great game, sales won't be a concern yet!

Kudos on a nice clean and elegant design!

-Jeff

Um... yeah. Roll d6's, 1 = &, 6 = @.

Rene: Nice sounding game. I like the 2-cars per playerr aspect. I supopse that's more or less standard in racing games? I guess I hadn't thought of it, and having never played a racing board game I never would have!

For an attempt at a less elegant version of the kind of thing you have, see my Game Journal for the "RC Pro Am style board game"... I had tried to accomplish some of the same things you have, only I think you did a better job with them. There are still things I think I was doing which have merit, and it's somewhat dissimilar in that my game is also about attacking each other, but really that's just an add-on to the kind of thing you have done so well.

Would you mind terribly if I borrow some from your game, in the unlikely event that I ever get around to working on mine again?

- Seth

Nice game,

Concerns, 60 - 90 minutes sounds somewhat long for a game of this type. What I like is that you can freely adjust the time it takes to play when constructing the track.

(40 roadpieces * ~2 space on pieces) * 3 laps * 2 cars * 6 players = 2880 spaces to cover including all the players. Just an observation.

The yellow and red spaces are only in curves right? It could be interesting to have a few on non-curves too, to spice things up.

Hitpoints, that sounds very lame for a car. What about Power, resistance, endurance, overdrive, chassis? (that doesn't make sense but still better than hitpoints. I'm not driving a dragon :lol: )

The mats are nifty and I could see some nice graphics on them for immersion. I don't see the problem in turning the mats.

The decisions are reasonable, not too much but I guess that's what you were shooting for. The overshifting mechanic is interesting but is it going to be that useful that it should cost one hit? Maybe at the beginning but after that you can see ahead...

If the luck of the dice balance out, all players will finish with 7 points and thus the first player will win. That's assuming no cars will crash. But then I guess if everyone plays careful, the dude who will play like a maniac will win if he doesn't crash.

All in all, looks very fun. Might have some other comments later on.

... if I can only remember it now...
Regarding changing lanes- why not allow s much lane changing as you want, with each change adding a "danger die" to your mat? Of course, if you have the max number of "Danger dice" then you cannot make a play that adds one... and maybe you don't clear them all off every turn. I don't know if you currently clear ANY of them off, but if so, consider losing 1 die per turn... so some "safe" driving could get you back out of the danger zone, but the ramifications of a tricky maneuver are more lasting than just 1 die roll.

Remember my point from that big Die Rolling discussion... probablilities come into play more accurately with more die rolls. So if you're going to have die rolling and you want to control the probabilities of it, use a LOT of die rolls :)

- Seth

First, I agree with the rest of the group, it looks really neat.
Now to my comments...
1) I don't like the Mat-tapping either, but for a different reason. From your pictures each mat will have two markers on a pair of tracks on the mat. If you are constantly (twice a turn) moving the mat, it seems like there could be a problem with the markers moving, especially if the boxes for Gear/HP are small. Then you get a few checkerflags and some dice and that mat will get wieldy to rotate all the time.

2) I agree with the ability to change lanes at lower gears seems good. It is a good trade-off for going slower. It seems like it would be easy to add a Lane column to your gear track on the mat.
2a)Oh, and find another name for HitPoints. If only because players can voluntarily take damage for actions, which is more like Engine Wear than actual damage. Or Stability maybe.

3) Question.. when I'm changing lanes does that count as a movement point. Basically do I announce that I am changing lanes and move left/right one without paying, or something like move forward one and left/right one... or whatever. Just not clear on the exact mechanics there.

4) I know you mentioned Formula 1, but here is a bit I know about stock car racing that might help. First off, I don't know how dangerous a game it is. During playtesting you will certainly figure out how often cars crash. If it looks like alot, you could think about giving some points for the checkerflags. Atleast in stockcars (I don't know alot just what I heard Sunday mornings from my roommate's TV), it seems points are awarded big for winning but also for completing laps in first.

5) What happens to the wreckage of a crashed car. Maybe having a special chit to put on the spots for crashed cars, maybe that makes yellow spots red or grey spots yellow. Bits and pieces of car to avoid in the track.

6) I assume there are pitstop road pieces?

All in all it looks really neat. Another game you might look at is Crazy Rally. It is a new one for 2003 I think, by an Italian co. called Red Omega. It has the gear and speed thing, but is really a card game and has memory formost in its mechanics.

Andy

OK, having had the chance to read it now, I have to join Jeff in saying that this sounds like FD without the movement dice and therefore without those moments of horrible tension when you need to roll above or below a number to avoid certain doom, whereas the rolling for damage idea doesn't seem as strong to me. OTOH it does have some good track positioning tactics to compensate for this.

I'd agree with the guy who said that perhaps you should get points on each lap too - that would encourage a little more risk taking as the cars neared the end of a lap, especially if they were only awarded for 1st and 2nd.

Otherwise, the game sounds fine. I'm not sure I'd be leaping up and down in a desire to play it - playing FD a couple of times a year and perhaps a cycling game or two is usually enough to sate my racing needs... :)

That would be pretty cool... racing Dragons- which would be difficult to control, could have some attacking potential (I once played Circus Maximus, a chariot racing game that was as much about combat as about winning the race), and could suffer from fatigue or injury if pushed too hard.

So coaxing the dragon into a new "lane" could add "danger dice" (here the danger dice are equivalent to the Dragon tiring, or possibly slipping too far over, etc). Prodding your Dragon forward extra spaces could add Danger dice (Circus Maximus had something similar, you could press forward, but if you do the beast might rage out of control- could be good but mostly bad). And of course, going around turns in "too high a gear" (too fast) would add danger dice.

Things that could happen with certain combinations of Danger Dice roll results could be:
1. Fatigue: Dragon slows down and can't speed back up until [X]
2. Skid out: If on a curve or "changing lanes", dragon moves out an additional lane.
[those 2 could be the same result on dice, one if on a curve/changing lanes, the other if pressing forward]
3. Thrown off dragon: Either equivalent to crashing (out of the race), or the less morbid "dragon swoops after master and catches him, but this costs position in the race- lose 1 turn"
4. Dragon pushed too hard, goes into a mad rage! Cannot slow down, must attack any dragon it comes across...

1 and 2 could be if you get any 1 on xd6 danger dice, while 3 and 4 would need, say, 3 1's on xd6. So the more dangerous stuff you do, the worse the consequences could be (in addition to the more likely they will occur)

What do you think?

- Seth

Yeah, I agree with that sentiment, and I thought of that after my post. To alleviate the possible problem caused by any similarity of that sort, I'd make it more like Mario-Kart than Road Warriors... your attacks don't necessarily do damage, but maybe they add a danger die or somehow indirectly result in a minor advantage.

And attacking would probably have some sort of trade-off, like less movement that turn or something. Thus, when in a frenzy, a raging dragon's attack on the next dragon would be a hinderance... but it could end up with some positive effects as well (i.e. forcing your dragon into a frenzy is a dangerous proposition). I think I stole that whole frenzy bit right out of Circus Maximus, which was fun as hell if I remember correctly.

Also, I don't recall if I mentioned... the danger dice would only clear out 1 die per turn or something, so if you push it one turn, you don't get free reign the next to do dangerous stuff.

I'm curious to know if any of these ideas appeal to Zaiga, as it's his game we're talking about. I sorta went stream of conciousness on it, and took on one of the possible re-themes that someone mentioned. Of course my offerings would work just as well if the theme were chariot racing, dog racing, horse racing, rollerblade racing, car racing, hampster racing.... even snail racing (that might be a hoot!).

- Seth

I'm a sucker for racing games. I don't know what it is about them, but I'm just drawn to them.

1) The first thing I worry about with race designs is a runaway leader problem. Racing designs are quite prone to them. Since your game's movement isn't very dynamic, I don't think it will be a big deal.

2) How will you handle collisions? Will it just be a rule of "no car can enter another car's space?"

This brings up an interesting point: are you modeling open-wheel racing (Formula 1, Indy Car/CART), or stock car racing (NASCAR)? Open-wheel racing is all about positioning, and daring other cars to make that dangerous pass. But making contact with another car usually brings an end to both racers' days. On the other hand, NASCAR drivers are fond of saying, "if you ain't rubbin', you ain't racin'." :)

To wit, in Formula De, if your car winds up in a square adjacent to that of another car, both of you have to roll a 20-sided die. On a 1-4, you (or the other racer) have to take body damage.

If you will model open-wheel racing, then there must be ramifications for being too close to other cars. But if you're looking to capture the feeling of stock-car racing, then you might even be able to introduce rules that involve bumping and "intimidation."

Of course, if you will end up modeling dragon racing after all, then neither example applies. :)

3) I think any effort you make to keep this game as short as possible will be well-rewarded. The longer the race runs, the more likely a clear leader will emerge, and the more difficult it will be to beat him.

I don't know how the damage rules will play out; but the more unforgiving the damage rules, the more you force the race leader to slow down, giving everyone a chance to catch up. Of course, those way in the back will probably wipe themselves out trying to catch up. This is another good argument for keeping the game time short; if player elimination turns out to be a factor, either tone down the damage or cut the game length down.

Having two cars for each player will help even things out, but you may still want to keep an eye on this; how close will races wind up in the end?

4) I echo Jeff's suggestion to play Formula De. It's similar enough that you should know it.

One point that many people who haven't played the game miss is that the gear-dice don't have the regular sequential numbers on each face of the die, but only a small range, weighted towards certain outcomes. So even though one of the dice is 6-sided, you're only getting a range of a few numbers out. This keeps a bit of uncertainty in the game, while giving players a feeling of control through their gear selection. Your game goes about it the other way; movement through gear selection is fixed, but dice rolls on curves determine your overall movement.

Hope this helps! Oops, I have a meeting at work. No time to proofread. I'd better not have written anything stupid! :)

I assume by chaotic you mean less of a strategic game. I don't know that that's true- just adding player interaction...

You still have the 2 vehicles per player, the set movement (based on player decision), the track elements to deal with, and with a simple attack system you'd have to be more aware of other players and their actions.

I figure this "simple attack" system would be along the lines of "if you are in a space adjacent/behind or directly behind an opponent (remember Zaiga's spaces were staggered, so if you are "next to" someone, you are really either "next to and behind" or "next to and ahead of" them), you may [breath fire/bite/swerve/bump/glare menacingly/make faces/stick tounge out] at them. Add 1 danger die to their mat. You may choose to add an additional danger die to their mat, if you do, add one to yours as well."

Making this attack should cost some movement, maybe you forfeit the rest of your movement for the turn (minimum 1), or maybe it just costs 1 movement per attack, but every attack past the first gets you a danger die as well...

I dunno, but those are the lines along which I was thinking.

- Seth

P.S. Frenzied Dragons (if that's the vehicle being used) should attack ANY dragon they come across, even their teammate (!)

The thing that always gets me about racing games is the sheer absurdity of the movement concept - they almost always involve the players controlling more than one vehicle and choosing which one to move, so you get the spectacle of moving vehicles sitting in a space sometimes for several turns! And then there is the tactical business of putting your "car" in the way of other players to go around...

I know it's supposed to be a game and all that, but I think the reason I like things like "Ave Ceaser!" is that you are only driving one chariot so the suspension of disbelief is somewhat lessened since you do get to move it every turn (usually!)

It makes me wonder if there ought to be a way of keeping all the cars moving all the time without making it a "real-time" game. Not that I have any ideas how a mechanic like that would work, or even if it is possible (let alone appropriate), but it's just an observation.

However, it does also make me think that retheming this game to be "animal racing" (for various definitions of "animal" :)) does make it slightly more plausible to have your pieces stopping and starting all round the track...

Allow me to be the voice of dissent here -- I think track positioning, and the attendant risk of incurring damage (on getting too close) or engine wear (in having to brake to avoid hitting) is plenty of interaction. I personally think Seth's idea is the more interesting one -- to have the "vehicles" have a "personality" such that they are difficult to manage and can do unpredictable things if you ask too much of them. I think that going instead of the direction of "cars with guns", ie, while we're racing, we're also fighting each other, is really pretty played out, and it would be tougher to break new or interesting ground. It would also change the nature of the game you have now. I don't at all object to introducing some elements of chaos, but I don't really think that "drivin' and fightin'" is the direction you should go in.

Also, you might consider some kind of slightly randomized "turn selection" mechanic rather than just "around the table" or "the player in first place moves first". Something like this can add "lucky" events (like getting to go twice in a row compared to my close competitor) yet will even out over the course of the game. And it may contribute to a more "dynamic" feel that Scurra is looking for.

-Jeff

Yeah, maybe a dog racing game with a mechanical rabbit running around the track... the closer you are to the rabbit, the faster you run but the less control you have over movement (you are focused on the rabbit)...

*shrug* I guess that sounds dumb, but maybe it could be worked out.

Personally the mental image I get from Dragons flying full tilt around a track, high in the air, with riders harnessed to their back far outweighs other possibilities- despite the trite, common, fantasy theme. In fact, maybe BECAUSE of the trite, common, fantasy theme. I like it even better than the Velociraptor idea (which was a good one btw).

- Seth

I don't think it would be a stretch to sort of shrug off the 3-d movement aspect, assuming that either they stay within a particular band of space, and/or use that to explain away the possibility of passing through the same space as another player w/o crashing into them (though that could be a risky move, earning you a danger die...)

- Seth