For one of my designs, I have always intended to design a "sequel" game that would exist in a similar thematic setting and that could be combined with the original game to make a bigger "campaign" game. I have since had some thoughts about how to split the sequel off into two separate games, thereby enabling the possibility of a trilogy. I believe the way the "campaign game" will work is that the end state of each game will provide some of the setup conditions for the game that succeeds it. The goal is to have continuity between the games beyond simply "add up your score from each of the three games and highest total wins", although there is an element of this as well (and there's nothing wrong with this in general, anyway).
I'm wondering whether others have tried a similar approach of making sequel games, either that are or are not intended to be played in tandem with a different game.
One question that has emerged for me is whether the mechanics of each game should be relatively similar or relatively different. For example, imagine you're going to make a trilogy out of Tikal; maybe the second game is about reporting on findings from Tikal at conferences, and the third game is about protecting the discoveries in the jungle from the encroachment of tourists and businesses and decay, (or whatever). Would it be better if the games were all "action point allowance" games like Tikal, or would it be better if the second game was an auction game, the third game was a negotiation game (or whatever)?
I'm working from the assumption that to play the games all in one sitting, you'd want there to be some continuity between the games, or else it will just feel that you're playing three separate, unrelated games. But should that similarity come in the form of mechanical continuity, or is it better that the games feel different so you don't feel like you're playing a very long version of the base game? Does the answer change if the sequel games (keeping with the Tikal example) still used action points but implemented them in a different way than Tikal does?
I'm interested in your thoughts on this, whether you've worked on a game series like this or not!
-Jeff
Good thoughts guys, thanks.
I agree, length is probably the biggest consideration. Each of the component games in my trilogy would be 60-75 minute games, and the audience for games of that length is not necessarily the same as the audience for a 3-hour game, so the composite game might not be aimed at the game's core audience. It might be necessary to cut down the length of each of the sub-games when playing in composite game mode.
Point taken that if the games are all different in their core mechanics, then fans of the base game may end up not liking one of the sequel games because it's not a game type that appeals to them.
In my game, what I meant by the outputs of each game provide inputs for the sequel games doesn't really pertain to the player positions or holdings; rather, it's that in the third game, when playing in standalone mode, certain cards and tokens are selected and placed randomly. But when all three games are played in tandem, the selection and position of those elements occurs as a result of the action in the first and second games.
As of now, my vision isn't that players will control the positioning of those elements as part of a coherent, multi-game "strategy", necessarily; it simply provides thematic continuity -- that all of the games mesh together as part of one coherent "story".