Skip to Content
 

Four (4) Player only game

6 replies [Last post]
Tue, 12/26/2017 - 19:50
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

A while back - I had introduced "Game Tiles" that were produced for a Prototype for another game. Well actually the "Game Tiles" were real - but the game seemed to be a big "question mark".

As I am re-designing "Monster Keep" I have found an interesting way to combine both the "Game Tiles" and the "Champion Cards" that are another component to the game...

Ok, so what's my question? Would you design a four (4) player ONLY game.

What I mean to say, is that each player brings ten (10) "Game Tiles" and a micro deck of ten (10) "Champions". BUT for this to work - you MUST have four (4) Players... Not three (3) or two (2) or five (5)... ONLY four (4)!

Ironically the game is somewhat of an "abstract" game due to the "Game Tiles". And with it's micro decks of ten (10) "Champions" per player... It makes for an interesting collectible aspect.

So back to my question: Is it acceptable to ONLY allow four (4) players to play the game?

Top
Tue, 12/26/2017 - 23:03
#1
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
No

I personally would not. I think four players only is too restrictive. I would also avoid purchasing it for the same reasons.

I think the only exception is if I had a long-standing game group that was dedicated to showing up the same day/time for game sessions like each week or at least once a month. That's not as common an audience as one might assume, and it's doubtful they would pick up a four-player-only game just for sessions when one person in their group calls in sick or whatever.

Top
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 00:07
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I hear you!

let-off studios wrote:
I personally would not. I think four players only is too restrictive. I would also avoid purchasing it for the same reasons.

Yeah I understand. I'll think (or let my mind wander) about seeing what can be done to "lower" the number of players to less than four (permissible).

let-off studios wrote:
I think the only exception is if I had a long-standing game group...

I don't picture this being a mass-appeal game. Don't get me wrong, I like to design interesting games - but at the same time I want them to be "out-there" in the market. So some cliques, here and there, are not at all the audience that I want to "target" with this game.

I was looking for more "broader" appeal...

No worries - this is the 9th iteration of the game. No surprise all the others have been duds... This version with the "Game Tile" adds character and depth. But like you said it's "too restrictive"...

(And you make a good point about BUYING too... People want more versatile games. The more restrictions, the less inclusive and therefore less interest.)

Top
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 01:24
#3
gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
only 4?

Would the game also work if a player played 2 champions? (Is teamwork possible?)

If so, the number of players would be 2 or 4 and maybe even 2 playing single vs one playing double.

Top
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 11:18
#4
let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Team Play

gxnpt wrote:
Would the game also work if a player played 2 champions? (Is teamwork possible?)
Nice suggestion! I'm also a fan of asymmetrical teams, but that might require considerable balancing beyond what's been done already. The only way I don't see something like this working is if there's an intended "intense competition" between the individual decks/heroes where only one may win. Like the singular Crown of Command in Talisman.

I don't know enough about Monster Keep to determine this. But requiring players to compete with themselves would promote artificial competition or "mock players" for a typical audience (instead of just play testers) and that's just silly, eventually encouraging someone to blurt out, "From now on I'm only playing this game when I have four people. That's it." You end up with the same problem the OP started with.

Top
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 13:16
#5
gxnpt
Offline
Joined: 12/22/2015
team vs asymmetry

I was thinking along the lines of what I use in Quest for Helium where a 3 player game uses the 6 player cardset and each player has dual colors - wins if either color wins and not hostile to self - and the 2 player game uses either the 4 player cardset with dual colors or the 6 player set with triple colors.

A 2 or 3 player game could be played as 2 or 3 teams with no effect on the game in Helium's case, which brought it to mind with teams of champions.

Top
Wed, 12/27/2017 - 15:52
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
The actual restriction

The restriction comes from the "Game Tiles". Forty (40) make for a DIAMOND with 41 "Game Tiles". I was thinking the starting could be "neutral" and then there are forty (40) tiles divided by four (4) players gives TEN (10) "Game Tiles" per player which corresponds to the number of "Champions" I wanted per "Micro Deck" (10 Champions per player).

All that works out. Where I'm not sure is three (3) or two (2) players. I know that the TOPS, four (4) players can be the limit (maximum number of players)... But ideally it would be good if less than four players could play too.

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut