Skip to Content
 

Meta game mechanics

6 replies [Last post]
Mon, 06/15/2015 - 20:41
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011

One suggestion with my current Work-In-Progress (WIP) was to drop the "Chancellor" role and ultimately remove the "meta game" aspect this role gives you during a game.

Now I know, I have been reading up on this and some games have had mixed reactions in their attempts of adding "meta game" to their games.

For example, in one card game (if the card was played) all the other players had to call one play "His Excellency". And everyone HATED that Fncken card so badly, they wanted to sh!t on it and the player who played it...

My appeal in this topic is to see if people have "more" ideas about how/what kind of "meta game" can come from my "Chancellor" card. The rules of the role are simple: if you AGREE with what is being propose by the Chancellor you DRAW +1 card, if you DISAGREE you DISCARD 1 card (from your hand).

Some of my ideas of "meta game":

  • I am the Chancellor, let us all draw +1 card: simple enough, just a way of introducing the "meta game" to the game itself...
  • Non-agression Pact: the allies will stick together and destroy the first player who goes on the offensive.
  • Mission treaties: on a per mission basis make deals to barter up help to defend a tradeship.
  • Formal Alliances: join forces to combat a common threat or play 2 versus 2 (in a 4 player game).

This is what I have thought up of... Of course maybe other designers may have other "meta game" ideas. If so, please share...

Thank you!

Top
Mon, 06/15/2015 - 21:24
#1
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Enforcing meta during a game

The other important point I wanted to make is that IF there is "meta gaming" going on, players need to agree to uphold the rules of the "meta gaming"...

Like if you propose a "Non-aggression Pact", well you know that the first player who becomes hostile is the one the opponents will rally against. Or if you propose to share a mission reward in return for some protection... Both players must hold their end of the bargain.

This is important because players can choose to ignore the "meta game" rules and this sort of sucks. It's like having one player who pouts because he can't get his way... The only way to resolve this is to inform players that "meta game" treaties MUST be respected.

Top
Tue, 06/16/2015 - 08:38
#2
Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
I love the idea.

My group thought that the "your excellency" rule was funny. Since we are quite competitive and were all focused enough not to make a mistake, playing the card meant an opportunity cost to the one playing it. (That is, he wasn't playing a card that helped him.)

Also, I love your idea. I think it would work great in a game like Puerto Rico, where each turn everyone chooses a role for that turn. However, to make it work, the voting needs to be simultaneous, by revealing a token or card. That way, people could propose selfish things, and there would be a game of chicken with the other people: Do they count on all the others to vote no, so they vote yes to get the extra card? If too many people take that approach, then the horribly selfish thing that the chancellor proposed actually happens.

From the chancellors point of view, you want to propose something that's a little selfish, but not so much that people unanimously vote no out of fear it's an instant win for you. Maybe, "The chancellor gets three extra cards this round." You do have to make cards cheap enough that it's not too painful to vote no, or you'll have an escalation problem. Also, the other roles need to be pretty powerful, too.

Keep us updated if you go anywhere with this.

Top
Tue, 06/16/2015 - 12:40
#3
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Finesse of the mechanic

While thinking more about the "voting" system, if a treaty is between two (2) specific players, the other players can opt to vote "For" the treaty and benefit from an extra card in their hand.

It may not always be perfect - but there is a certain amount of finesse that can be applied to "soften the rough edges" so to speak... It's a "meta game" mechanic and therefore because it is very flexible, it cannot be perfect all the time.

I thought about voting "by committee" but I decided against it because of too many "negative"/"blocking" factors. For example if you need a Mission Treaty to protect a Tradeship, it must be because the other players will be attacking it. So any treaty you propose to bolster your defenses will always be "shot down" by your opponents.

Top
Tue, 06/16/2015 - 16:16
#4
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
More clarifications

Zag24 wrote:
...However, to make it work, the voting needs to be simultaneous, by revealing a token or card. That way, people could propose selfish things, and there would be a game of chicken with the other people: Do they count on all the others to vote no, so they vote yes to get the extra card? If too many people take that approach, then the horribly selfish thing that the chancellor proposed actually happens...

The question of "committee" voting occurs when you have, like you suggest, "selfish actions" such as "I propose that I will draw +2 cards." Do you RISK losing one (1) card to vote against the action or do you accept and allow it to occur simply because this is only +2 extra cards?

And then the question is does the action require a MAJORITY of voters or is 50% sufficient? So do you need 3 out of 4 people or is 2 enough??? These are little subtleties that maybe need more clarification on my part...

Update: The interesting thing about this discussion is that it brings to light an interesting paradigm. What do you do if a Player uses the Chancellor role to "Draw +2 cards"? Do you REJECT and LOSE 1 card (from your hand) or do you ACCEPT and WIN +1 card (but the player will draw +2 cards...) To me this is really INTELLIGENT strategy.

There is a way to prevent this from happening each turn and it is a rule that forces players to choose a different role each turn.

But again it brings up the "committee" vote versus "unanimity"... Having a majority should be sufficient for such an action.

I'd really like to hear more ideas of "meta gaming" in this specific context...! :)

Top
Tue, 06/16/2015 - 19:37
#5
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Trade Embargoes

Another diplomatic action could be "Trade Embargoes".

What this means is players decide that another player may NOT play any Mission cards (obviously frustrating and impeding that player's style).

This is yet another dynamic "meta game" action that could occur.

Note: The interesting aspect is HOW a player goes about "resolving" this embargo. Does he need to offer up some quickSilver or does he have to wait a couple turns before players agree to let him conduct more Missions?!?

This has proved to be a very fruitful thread...

Please share your ideas and comments!

Top
Thu, 06/18/2015 - 14:46
#6
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Diplomacy in the Expansion

Zag24 wrote:
...Keep us updated if you go anywhere with this.

Although my BGDF Blog talks about what is going on with the game (and many more or less confidential information is available), I think I will wait until the game's Expansion before talking about HOW to use diplomacy and the "meta game" to enhance your game experience...

I want players to get familiar with the original game and then add the Planetary Expansion which will hopefully have an additional Solitary scenario and hopefully three (3) other scenarios. To the rulebook (of the expansion), I plan to further document "Diplomacy" as a topic in itself...

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut