Designing from a personal pool of mechanism

https://boardgamegeek.com/browse/boardgamemechanic

That's a bunch of mechanics and is pretty exhaustive. It even links games that use a specific mechanic.

Best of luck with your Geeklist. I personally don't waste time on things like that in that when I make my games I have the IDEAS FIRST and then figure out what mechanics work for the game I am designing. I usually already HAVE the "core" pre-determined and I need to flesh-out a couple of extra mechanics that I may need to complete the design.

But I use this LIST ... For most projects. It has served me well.

Cheers!

Each GAME will probably have it's OWN CUSTOM "Combat" Mechanics... As most games are different. But if you have the elements to THREAD COMBAT together ... That will probably reveal if you CAN or CANNOT implement a Combat Mechanic.

What do I mean?

IF you have a routine that rolls a dice on the screen and shows the Winning Face. Well that means you need to conditionally roll "X" dice and each "6" is counted. Much like your AoM thread. That's easy to do ONCE you have the rolling dice mechanic.

Or If you need a coin toss... You need to flip a 3D Coin and land on Heads or Tails. Well then you just need to determine how many Coin Tosses are required and then voila that mechanic is resolved.

Making a CARD GAME (TCG or CCG, etc.) is probably the HARDEST because there are usually multiple actions that can occur with cards. Eg. Perform Action #1 or Perform Action #2 all conditionally based on the player's turn (for example).

I am just comparing with "DuelBotz" and the amount of information and choices available to the players is high ... But I guess you can convert this to a CASE statement with some effort and then take resources left over to account for what choices are still permissible, etc. HARD to implement but possible.

If you use OOP it may be easier to Categorize the Actions as classes. But like I said you can do it procedurally with a big CASE and a controller function which determines what "Actions" can be done when (Pre, During, Post, etc.)

Your AoM Combat Mechanic is pretty SIMPLE TBH: just roll dice and track winning rolls. Do that for both players in the battle. Not all that hard TBH.

Anyhow ... You probably understand that COMBAT MECHANICS will be SPECIFIC to EACH GAME you design & code and as such should not be "core" Game Mechanics that you select from a pool to make your game.

Cheers!

In video games ALL is possible. The only limitations are on the amount of time and code required to making the game a reality. That's why some Video Game Designers COPY known games and their mechanics to make their games feel more like something SOLID. Take Lava Potion's "Songs of Conquest" which re-implemented the Combat sequencing from another game. This was in the Designer Diaries before the game was released. I believe it was from HOMM2. Bottom line: the Combat mechanic was BORROWED.

Even IF you have the mechanic available, in a video game no doubt there will need to be customization. You'll probably NOT be able to just plug & play. So I don't see the purpose of such a list because it's not as "flexible" as the list I provided you (on BGG too) because it's simpler to customize TableTop Game Mechanics than it is say a "Video Game" mechanic.

Like I said before "Combat" mechanics cannot be universal. They are custom to each game you design and develop. As such they are NOT "core" mechanics behind most TableTop Games. Just because you have ONE (1) Combat Mechanic doesn't mean you CAN design a Wargame... It doesn't work like that and you should know better that to suggest something like that.

***

Also like @X3M says most "Wargames" focus on the Combat Mechanic as the PRIMARY mechanic of the game. And this is probably TRUE to their nature but are also connected to games which are "Combat-Oriented" Games like Gloomhaven and Frosthaven which are strongly focused on "campaign-style" simulations with miniatures and strict Combat Rules. They're not classified as Wargames per se. But the game's playstyle is very close to a wargame. Mostly what you do in those games is progress up a ladder of baddies until you defeat the Boss for a given "scenario".

Therefore those kinds of game RELY A LOT on the Game's Combat Mechanics and they are usually the FOCUS of the game.

So yes Wargames focus on Combat Mechanics HEAVILY and hide the mechanics of the combat system within the strategy of the game. For some it can be a RPS mechanic or a RTS mechanic, etc. Both viable ways to design a Wargame and can sometimes be even used TOGETHER too (Both RPS & RTS).

***

Having said that. Board & Card Games rely on more that their Combat Mechanics. Not all... My DuelBotz Card Game is heavily focused on Combat too. One of the OFFLINE activities is "Deck Construction" which is figuring out what cards you want to use for you TEAM (yes... It's 2-Player team combat). It is NOT a "Wargame", it is primarily a "Card Game" heavily focused on HOW(?) to defeat your opponent's Deck. In many other ways it is different but that's not my point.

My point is... With Video Games you need to TAILOR "everything". You have to personalize TableTop Game Mechanics TOO... But this is a question of HOW(?) the mechanic impacts the GAME and not what I need to CODE differently for the Mechanic to work. See the difference???

In any event "Wargames" focus on Combat as the MEAT of the game. "Card Games" focus on the interaction between the cards and a game system which introduces varying amounts of strategy. "Video Games" allow you to do anything you want with a LOT of EFFORT. Everything is CUSTOM.

***

If you don't believe me... I'll re-iterate my example from before.

#1: Rolling Dice = Board Game.

All you need is to defined what kind of dice, how many and the rules governing them. Flexible and not overly-complicated.

#2: Rolling Dice = Video Game.

If you can roll one (1) dice, you need to keep track of results if you want to roll several of that SAME dice. So you need a Dice Array with the results. You also need to program how the computer "understands" the roll: is it a "1" or is it a "3" or is it a "6"... You can do it CHEAP ASS... And use a Random Function. Or you can use a Complex 3D Dice Object and simulate the Rolling and end-result.

When you roll dice in a Video Game... I would expect to see the DICE ROLL on a surface. Otherwise the implementation is pure garbage and way too simple.

#3: Rolling Dice = Wargame.

This is the heart of your Combat Mechanic because you require some kind of Randomness for the Wargame's "Combat Engine" to work. But much closer to the "Card Game", you can flesh out the rules without requiring implementation with regards to ACTUAL ROLLING. You have to simply define the rules in the amount and type of dice to be rolled and how they vary in each situation.

***

What's my point??? It's something like this:

1: "Card Games" using dice are usually the simplest form of game. They don't require high precision or depend on tactical odds. They are mostly added to offer a certain amount of randomness to a deterministic style of strategy.

2: "Wargames" use dice are middle ground because of how the probabilities affect the outcome of the game. In many instances the "Combat" Mechanic relies heavily on dice in comparison with to-hit tables and other player aids that help players "Do Battle".

3: "Video Games" are the hardest implementation of dice if you want something REALISTIC looking. If you ROLL a dice... I actually WANT TO SEE IT ROLL. Not random number generation (RNG) which is simple. That's why people HATED "Golem Arcana" rolling system and preferred rolling physical dice and to then input the results of those dice rolls.

***

Bottom line: Those go from simplest dice system to most complicated. But also from least flexible to most flexible. Meaning you can do what you want with a Video Game. "Card Games" are VERY LIMITED and from experience you learn about things that BREAK a game. Take for example "Solforge", one of its downfalls was that there were too many "extra" pieces to divide and sort making tournaments harder to handle.

Why is that important??? Well it seems like most people enjoy Playing in Tournaments and people mostly play Card Games in that setting. Any game which has too many "extra" pieces is going to be harder to play. And have a much shorter lifespan ... If the Tournament experience is not FUN!

***

I don't want to discourage either of you (@larienna or @X3M). We each seem to be going in diverging paths. Or perhaps our interests are different in that we each seem to prefer different "genres" of games.

I (@questccg) prefer TableTop Games and have many designs around these games.

@larienna seems to want to design Video Games given that he enjoys programming and has experience in that domain. Kudos to you... It's challenging coding everything you need to bring together to make a good Video Game.

@X3M seems to solely focus on Wargames and has various version of his OWN "Wargame" which he plays with people who enjoy that type of game.

No worries ... We are all different. I don't privy anyone in particular ... You are all allowed to post on BGDF.com because it's ALL "Game Related". Well we don't have much people discussing "Video Games" because that's a bit of a stretch for a "TableTop" Gaming Forum. But still it is acceptable to discuss such matters in your BLOGs as these are your own efforts in "Game Design" the true nature of the process of making games.

Cheers all!

Note #1: And it's not as if we are DEBUGGING CODE in the forum. Or discussion implementation details regarding "software". So when the talk is sufficiently generic enough... Discussing Video Games and what some of you want to do ... Is 100% acceptable. As long as it borders on "Game Design" why not?!

I tend to "explore" Mechanics and create games with different "core" experiences. As such my games are all VERY "different" from one another. Changing the "core" Mechanics has a deep impact on how the game plays and how other Mechanics can be used together to make a cohesive unit.

So let me explain:

TradeWorlds

Focuses on Deck-Building but also includes Hand Management, Take-That, Dice Rolling, Action Pool, and Asymmetric Powers.

Quest Adventure Cards

Focuses on Set Collection but also includes Hand Management and Take-That.

Crystal Heroes

Focuses on Tile Laying and Area Control but also includes Dice Rolling, Push-Your-Luck, Action Points, Action Pool, and Tic-Tac-Toe.

DuelBotz

Focuses on Deck Construction but also includes STAT Management, Dice Rolling, Coin Tossing, Action Points, Card Abilities, and STAT Combinations.

These are four (4) examples of Mechanics sets which have produced very unique games that are different from one another. As such the gaming experience is very different with each game. None of them remotely feel like they have been designed by the SAME Game Designer because I actually make a conscientious effort to VARY my "core" Mechanics.

Granted there are a lot of CARDS in these games ... I have always been interested in Card Games and even thought these game are mostly Card-Oriented, they are still very distinct.

But that's just me... I like to come up with NEW concepts that are different from my other games. That's why I RETIRED "Monster Keep" (MK) because it was a Deck Construction game with AI Art. I said NO to this design because DuelBotz does a much better job at a similar "core" (even if the games are DIFFERENT) and I wanted to have something more unique when it comes to my games.

Lastly how does this compare and what does it have to do with your post???

Well take for example a secondary mechanic like "Hand Management". It is present in a few of my designs but it is not IDENTICAL in each Game. Yes you many have a HAND but the rules governing how that hand "operates" is different.

So even if you PLAN a "list" to re-use Mechanics ... It is HIGHLY probable that the Mechanics are different and TAILORED to each game meaning that you CANNOT use them "out-of-the-box" without the need to customize them for each game that you create. I've never seen a Mechanic you just PLUG-IN and voila... It works. Usually it takes some form of scheming and such...

Let me know what you think...!

Of course, in Word one could get back many results.
Perhaps building this in Excel would be better.

There are ways. Although, it costs a lot of work.
- The mechanic described.
- A list of words that get a score of 1, 2, 4, 8 etc.
- A list of the same words that get a same score, but these are tickboxes. Thus the search engine in the top if you will.
- If a search option aligns. Only these scores are counted.
- Each mechanic will have a unique score. As soon as you have 2 similar mechanics with 1 difference. Then this difference should be named.
- The sheet returns the location of the first described mechanic. Better yet, you can even have the sheet simply copy that described mechanic.

As for the 1, 2, 4, 8 etc.
If you take a sum of these. You always end up with an unique score. Because every new item will give a double score compared to the previous one.

na - Roll 3 dice
1 - Calculating the sum
na - Picking # dice
2 - Highest #(=1)
4 - Lowest #(=1)
8 - #=2

The 5 mechanics described so far have the scores:

Calculate the sum for result.
1

Calculate the sum of the 2 highest numbers for result.
1+2+8=11

Take the highest number for result.
2

Take the lowest number for result.
4

Calculate the sum of the 2 lowest numbers for result.
1+4+8=13

As you can see, there will be gaps too.
1+2 is not possible here.
Maybe the sum could be regarding to something else, once you build up your database.
And highest could also be regarding to something else.
For example:
Take the sum of the attack of a force. Subtract the highest of the defense of # dice roll.

Perhaps you need to find a new way for organizing mechanics?

What if you start with 1 object. For example, the cards and their information.

For every game that you own. You could see, which games use cards that provide information.

What kind of information?

What will the player do with the information?

Is the information known to 1 or more/all players?
At what time?

The same can be done for dice.

MtG: A d20 is used to track the players health.
Risk: 3 red d6 and 2 blue d6 are used for a combat roll.
Then describe every part of it.
Warhammer: ...?
Monopoly: 2 d6 are used for a roll for distance. If the player rolls double eyes, the player may roll again. If the player rolls double eyes, 3 times in a row. The player has to go to prison (on the board).

So, 2 keywords to begin with. Cards, Dice
But instead of a mechanic. You could have these in the level, objects.
Then the keywords that are linked to these can be:
A number of objects.
Perhaps per player.

IDK what else I could suggest. But I really think, you need to start somewhere. And build up.
Keywords are really only usefull if you want to track the differences.
Of course, also in relation to other mechanics/objects.
2d6 and 2d6 can be completely different in usage. Where the first 2d6 is for that Monopoly game. And the other 2d6 are the 2 blue dice for Risk.

Also...colour is a keyword.
Coloured dice are certainly different than just...dice.

Here is another idea. If you own Monopoly and Risk.
Start with those 2 games.
Pick an object that they share.
Then list all differences.
Every set of differences are 2 keywords.
And if one of the 2 games has extra mechanics, than these are keywords too, compared to the "nothing" of the other game.

For which, coloured dice versus .... normal dice?

Well maybe there should be another LAYER between the MECHANIC, VARIANTS and GAMES?!

TOO BROAD is GOOD. You don't want to limit yourself when looking for mechanics. However I agree that some are also a bit too abstract. But again this is LEVEL #1. How about LEVEL #2 is a TABLE with VARIANTS only no games. And then from each VARIANT a list of GAMES similar to the VARIANT.

You know this is a BAD idea. Trying to copy a GAME and how it operates is the opposite of the MECHANICS table or reference. Sure if you are creating a VARIANT for some game well you can use their mechanics and alter them a bit ... but in now way is that normally good for making normal games by designing.

So maybe all you need is a 3-LEVEL Reference:

• Level #1: List only the Mechanic by name (Table #1)
• Level #2: Describe the nature of the Mechanic (abstract or not) and list a table with VARIANTS (Table #2) with descriptions of each VARIANT explaining how it is different (not sure what columns you need...) But yeah something like that.
• Level #3: From a VARIANT describe the nature of the SPECIFIC Mechanic (concrete) and list a table with GAMES (Table #3) with the similar uses.

That may all that you need TBH IMHO. Another LEVEL that allows you to move from ABSTRACT Mechanic to VARIANTS to a list of SAMPLES (which are specific implementation of the SAME VARIANT).

That could be very useful actually. But I would never find the time to create such a LIST TBH. I guess a Geeklist could be possible. Not 100% sure because I am not aware of BGG and how their site works. I mean yeah I know they have forums and lists and games, etc. I'm not sure TECHINICALLY if you could chain 3 LEVELS together or not and what that might be in terms of effort.

Let me know what you think?! I hope all goes well and that you figure out what works best for YOU. Again this is only a suggestion, you can do with it as you like: ignore, use, adapt, etc. Whatever your heart desired.

Cheers!

It's also VERY TRUE too. I mean putting together mechanics is a tricky type of way of making games. I normally reserve the idea for going through the list of mechanics and seeing what "could" work. And then I playtest the "newer" version with the new mechanics and see how that goes.

I've never played your original game... But if you could introduce some AoM Combat RPS-3 Mechanics with your OWN units and used those NEAT Player Boards... That could definitely INJECT some new kind of style of play. I'm saying this because I thought those Player Boards came WITH the GAME! So you did a super good job with them.

Too much borrowing will result in a PLUG and PRAY situation. In this case, with more mechanics being borrowed may result in a broken game or a prototype that is non-functional. Be careful!

Yes Quest_AC was exactly the same for me.

***

But I'm running into the SAME problem: how to SELL that game. One of my tournament ideas is a no-go because it would mean that everyone would want to do the same thing and it is believed that in this case, NOBODY would be permitted.

Also the venue would force me to provide the Games for FREE. So even in a tournament setting, I cannot make ANY money back from the promotional copies. Which sucks sh!t because I want to get back some of my seed money (I've spent about $600 CAD in total) and I'm in the hole for that amount.

That's the REAL problem with Game Design: it's a waste of ones own money. A very expensive Hobby as some would say ... And all because people don't want other people to offer their game as a title that could be suited for children aged 10+.

Don't get me wrong... I could make the Tournament FREE. But then I stand to lose AGAIN. So the first Quest was a failure because nobody really bought the game and now AGAIN the Reboot stands to be a 2nd failure because nobody is going to buy.

That's exactly what I hate about Game Design. Most people say it's a Hobby of theirs. But what is the point of making games at a LOSS??? I'm already like $20,000 CAD in the hole from my first Quest Game ($5,000 ART, $5,000 Packaging and $10,000 for production). That was a complete loss for my Company as it was my first project. TradeWorlds broke even (I made $0.00 after 7 long years). And Quest_AC the Reboot has so far cost me about $600 CAD.

So even if I making better products with lower costs. I'm still in the hole about $20k CAD. So finding a way to make it in the Market is a BIG challenge. It's really what I dislike about the market TBH.

IDK anymore. There is little to no-way to get traction in this market!

With one of my games (Tentative DuelBotz) I am working on making a "Trading Card Game" (TCG) which means that there will be LIMITED "Card Pool" out-there and that the players can connect with each other to establish TRADES for the cards they want to have. Do I think ALL players will want the SAME "Cards"???

No in general I picture two (2) types of people:

#1> Collectors: who want to have ALL the cards in a set.

These Collectors will make favorable trades in return for the cards that they are missing for their collection. As such multi-card deals are possible for only one card especially when trading with a Gamer.

#2> Gamers: who want to collect the strongest possible set.

The Gamers have a different ANGLE in that they don't necessarily CARE about the having ALL of the cards in a set. Instead they focus on Decks of cards which are the strongest or most lethal forces available at a given point in time for a collection. Gamers can make multi-card deals too but usually they collect the cards RIGHT FOR THEM. And as such make TRADING more easy than a collector.

***

Having said this (that I will limit the supply of cards), I come to the conclusion that setting up a Discord Server to handle Trades is a POSSIBILITY but I'm not sure that I want to do this. Perhaps a specialized CHAT moderated by myself might be more in-tune with my aspirations for this Card Game... TBD!

A game.

Perhaps for mobile.

Who knows how much money you can rack in with a commercials for rewards system.

SALES related! Meaning that most of the four (4) or five (5) products are nearly done... Most missing a finalized "Rulebook". So the reality is that the products themselves are ALMOST all fully developed. Granted I have not done any Blind Playtesting but I have done some group play sessions with a couple products other don't need playtesting per se (like my Dice) they just need a "Rulebook" or "Guide" to understand what is possible with that specific Product.

I have two (2) Game Expansions that are nearly complete. One is done except the "Rulebook" has not been made but I've playtested that game expansion and it was cool (on a couple of occasions). The other one needs more development... Further playtesting and finalizing the box (Backside). But it's also in a very ADVANCED state.

So to LIST what is ALMOST ready to needs more development here is my list:

1: Quest Adventure Cards(tm) = 100% Done

2: Dual Dice = 90% Done missing Guidebook

3: Prospector (Expansion for Splendor) = 90% Done missing Rulebook

4: Crystal Heroes = 85% Done Rulebook needs editing and some more playtesting

5: Smugglers Run (Expansion for TW) = 75% Done missing Rulebook and needs more playtesting

That's all in various stages of DEVELOPMENT... So this SALES "thingy" is real and not some dream. I am learning more about SALES in gaming. But I can only come off as "not ignorant" and propose things that are NOT unreasonable. Still it is not done ... More effort to be put in and I'd be willing to make some kind of PARTNERSHIP with someone who KNOWS how to SELL.

Note #1: Just as a FYI, all the ART for these products is DONE and PAID FOR. I've invested heavily during the 10-Years in getting art done for these games. That is why there is very little $$$ left over. But all are real products meant to be marketed and SOLD.