Junkyard Robots or Wizard Battle Royale?

If this is more appropriate to another forum, and not "New Game Ideas," please let me know.

Maybe not "good/bad" in regard to randomness, but I'm definitely looking to strike the right balance. It's not much fun for good player strategy to be thwarted by bad luck. The gambit creates tension, and can be fun, but the odds should be skewed in favor of a good strategy, in my opinion.

The video game inspiration is just that, inspiration. I'm not trying to clone, or even strongly emulate a video game experience. I am trying to evoke the strategic combat elements.

There are no quests, walk-away-from-the-game rewards (like in an RPG), no quests or story lines, no loot drops, very few "status effects," etc. The emphasis of gameplay is on strategic combat decisions.

The fatigue bit was more an idea to get rid of status effects that a lot of games seem to have. I don't want wound tokens AND poison tokens AND blinded tokens AND stunned tokens AND a way to denote -1 DEF, -2 ATK, +2 DEF, etc., etc., ad nauseum. A simple meter bar with associated penalties/effects would suffice to replace most of that, and a single token could be slid up and down the meter on the stat card. Thoughts?

Thanks for the feedback everyone, especially the part on dice/success probabilities. I am still unsure about dice pools (if I use them, they would be opposed rolls, not rolls against a set number, to increase success rates).

To clarify, the game will work like this:

There are pregenerated stat cards for 3-4 character types. Each token/miniature represents 1 creature. Players control multiple creatures, based on a point-buy (allowing customizability).

In essence, a game can be played between as few as 1-2 miniatures against each other, or as many as 10+. The assumption would be that each side controls around 6 creatures. Small war band units.

Each creature has a stat card. Each stat card has a base warband-building point cost. Each stat card has 4 abilities. Those 4 abilities are grouped into 2 groups of 2 abilities. Group A is accessible at the lowest warband-building cost. Group B costs a few points more.

There will be chances, in game play, for a player to say increase a single unit by one category (thus unlocking the next tier of abilities, but not breaking the game's power curve). Cool, the commando had a movement-based ability and a good melee attack, and now he has a short range attack and a grappling attack. More options, but limited by Action Points spent per round.

Once players have their teams, they can agree on the board layout and size, or alternate picking tiles to create a terrain advantage, etc.

Initiative: Right now I'm using an alternating-turn initiative. Player 1 activates 1 creature, then player 2 activates 1 creature, etc.
--> I am considering a more fluid initiative system, where players alternate activations, and Fatigue/previous activations reflect how often a creature can be activated in succession before becoming staggered and essentially useless. Not sure on this yet.

Each character has a Speed rating, an Action Point total, and a few combat stats (HP, ranged/melee attacks as applicable, Defense). There is a Fatigue Meter that functions in tandem with HP.

Characters can move up to their Speed in squares, in any combination before/after taking actions.

All creatures currently have 3 Action Points (AP). Actions, including moving up to a creature's Speed in squares, costs 1 AP (some actions cost more AP).

Cards: I am still working on the mechanics, as this element of the game keeps evolving the most. Cards, right now, act as a basic tactical resource, like Team Action Points. But, instead of trading them for a hard numerical benefit, a player can play them on a creature's activation, granting the effect on the card. Some require AP to play their effects, some do not. Some confer lasting bonuses to a character (equipping armor, a new skill, or a new weapon, for example), others are instantaneous. Some can only be played on the turn of a creature you control, some can be played any time, etc. This is a versatility mechanic. It is meant to simultaneously simulate the "fog of war" element of combat (unknown factors), as well as simulate requisitioning/scavenging resources, looting bodies, gaining experience, etc.

The battlefield is a 2-inch grid, and is modular. The rules will be designed such that players who own other 1-inch grids from other sources (tabletop roleplaying games, similar board games, drawing their own) could inter-mix them (will be listed under optional rules/expanding your game section).

Range is based on # of squares. A ranged attack may have a range of 1-4, or it may have a long range attack of 5-10 (cannot attack closer than 5 squares). Burst effects are square-radiuses.

Combat Mechanics:
I'm currently using opposed dice pools. Each player rolls a number of dice equal to their relevant attack and defense scores and tallies the total "successes." A success is currently a 4, 5, or 6 on a d6 (50% per die). Successes cancel each other out. If the attack succeeds with at least 1 net success, the effect of the attack occurs.

etc.

RGaffney: Your feedback was helpful, thank you. I did not mean to come across as dismissive. My tone is rarely conveyed effectively online, I'm sorry. In a game that tracks degrees of damage/hinderance, do you feel that tried-and-true, simpler HP mechanic is the way to go, or a slightly more complex but fluid mechanic that tracks the same degree of damage, but also encompasses other rules subsets into it would be better?

I'm still torn between easy and innovative.

It is easy for me to just use HP. Attack, damage HP, reach 0 HP = removed from play.

But it feels innovative to instead, Attack, Damage Fatigue/HP meter; when meter reaches certain Threshold, certain penalties apply, until eventually being KO'd at 0 HP. Effects that restore HP/cure status effects would now apply to this meter.

Or having *both* HP and a Fatigue Meter, thus having 2 ways to potentially eliminate an enemy.

I just don't know if it will be too much hassle in play yet. Not do I know if others think it is appealing, or if it is just a novel idea that I like. I want to do what is good for the game. :)

Squinshee: Thanks, I wholeheartedly agree about bad luck ruining a game. Even if I use a dice roll mechanic, it would be for the more risky abilities. Some abilities would still happen automatically. Like a basic attack, if you will. As long as conditions are met. Like, a melee attack could not target a foe 5 squares away, and a ranged attack may miss if the target has cover.

I'll look into Mage Wars, thanks.

I'm totally with you, actually, on having multiple ways to "disable" a character unit.

For example, some characters rely on reducing the Action Points and/or Speed of other characters, thus limiting or negating their next turn (since they cannot spend AP to take actions).

Ha. I've skimmed a few reviews, and am getting the gist of it. I like the innovation (spell books for cards? cool!), but I don't think it's what I'm looking for. Still need to better understand the dice.

HP and Fatigue Meter got rolled into one mechanic.

The Health Meter has 4 categories (Alert / Staggered / Exhausted / Helpless), and each unit will have different numbers of boxes along each category (hit points). Some attacks/effects deal hit point damage, corresponding to a number of boxes on the meter, and some deal Fatigue levels (corresponding to a level of the Health Meter).

The meter will be color-coded, Green (Alert), Yellow (Staggered), Exhausted (Orange), and Red (Helpless).

Each category will have a variable number of boxes, depending on the unit. For example, if a unit has 12 Health, it would have 12 boxes along the meter. Say, 3 in each category. A weak unit with 7 health may have 2 boxes in 3 categories, and 1 box in one category.

Different categories impose different effects (Alert is no penalty, Staggered is mild penalty, Exhausted is big penalty, Helpless is just that).

A player would move an indicator token up and down the meter to denote status.

This would remove the need for wound/damage counters or tokens, remove the need for dry erase markers, etc.

Do you all think this is a valid mechanic for an HP system that also tracks degree of fighting ability?

I've been sending files every few days to some dedicated gamer friends. They do not sugar coat their critiques. :) I'm going to keep doing that until I feel I have a playable game, then I'll test it blindly with different groups for further feedback.

Okay, so Junkyard Robots is a relatively unexplored game niche... and Battling Wizards is way over done (but still always fun).

Which, as gamers and designers, do you all feel is a better/more fun/more marketable theme?

I can skin this game either way. Should I do both as prototypes to see which has more appeal?