Skip to Content
 

Murder on the Dancefloor

13 replies [Last post]
ConMan
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2012

"Murder on the Dancefloor" (working title) will be a game about no holds barred, full body contact, ballroom dancing.

I aim to design a game that plays in a relatively short time (probably aiming for 30 minutes, give or take), and it will probably have player elimination. I'd appreciate your thoughts both on whether the game is interesting, and on any aspects of the design that might have escaped me.

Brief description:

There is a game board representing the dance floor, where players put their pieces. Players play "step" cards from a deck to dictate how their pieces move, score and interact. There are three positions in front of a player for the step cards. Players put a new card face down in the rightmost position as they prepare their next move, before revealing the middle card as their current move, which needs to connect properly with the left card which is their previous move. Then the moves are resolved, the left card is discarded, and the two remaining cards are moved once space to the left.

There are four judges located around the dance floor. Performing a step while the judge is paying attention to you (based on how close you are to the judge, and how your step resolves) will earn you points with the judge, while mis-steps (such as performing a move that doesn't connect with your last step, or colliding with another dancer) will earn you either a fault or physical damage, or possibly both.

A player's final score is based on the points earned across all four judges, with deductions for faults. A player may also be eliminated if they collect too many faults or too much damage.

Things I've already considered:

The "step" deck will contain a bunch of "Standard" and "Advanced" steps that are common to all players, and there will be a small number of "Shine" steps (names definitely not finalised) that are somehow unique to each player - I'll probably start by distributing them randomly, then I'll look at other options like drafting or character-specific moves.

I want the board to be tight, as in there is strong incentive for players to be fighting over the same spaces. I've attached a mock-up board to show one possibility. The idea would be that the spaces directly in front of each judge are where you're guaranteed to be noticed, but other spaces might let you catch multiple judges' attentions at once. The moves will tend more towards movement than staying in place, to make it harder to just stand in front of one judge and continually impress them, and I'm wondering whether to do a good old Knizia-style "your actual score is the lowest score you have with any judge" to really encourage players to cover all their bases, but otherwise it will probably just be a "total score with all judges" or similar.

I don't know how I want the game to end. Probably a fixed number of turns, maybe slightly random but with a hint about when the music will end - maybe even giving a bonus if you do a particular move on the very last turn.

I realised, after a while, that this particular kind of "programmed action" mechanism is pretty similar to that used in Killer Bunnies, which I've heard about but never played. I wanted to have the feel of getting into position for your next dance move, and needing to plan what you're doing next before you know exactly what your opponents are doing, to introduce an element of risk.

I don't have a strong idea for how I want combat/hurting other players to work. I want the game to feel like you're constantly jostling with other dancers, interfering with them, and definitely have a chance to collide or mess up. I could see some of the steps being sort-of attacks, but that's probably something I'll play with including and excluding to see how I feel.

let-off studios
let-off studios's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/07/2011
Feedback

This looks like a fun game. Here's a bit of feedback, based on what I've read and seen here.

- I'm not clear on how you determine turn structure, but it seems to me like your game could benefit from a 'simultaneous turns' style. Each player plays their next card face-down, and when all players have done so, they reveal their cards at the same time. I noticed the "priority" segment on the upper-right corner of the cards, so perhaps you've developed the game with this in mind already. But if you've not considered this, I'd recommend you have a look at Robo Rally - a notable example of simultaneous reveal and movement. Priority rankings are a fundamental aspect to the game:
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/18/robo-rally

- With a game like "Murder on the Dancefloor," I'd expect combat to be a significant part of the game. However, the way you describe it makes it sound like players are attempting to avoid one another. I can think of a couple ways to marry the two and still keep your main mechanics.
- Include cards that cause damage but avoid detection by the judges
- Allow judges to award points for offensive maneuvers
- Increase the randomness/risk of judges detecting offensive maneuvers, but balance this with valuable payoff

- If you are considering player elimination (which totally fits the theme), I'd recommend you keep the game time short. 30 minutes seems about right, and I imagine you'll prevent player elimination in like the first 5 minutes or so anyway.

- Although it may take away from the theme somewhat, I can imagine this game being played without a board. You should be able to combine the dance moves with linking locations (using colors, numbers, or letters to determine coordinates, for example) that maintains the linking of dance moves together along with locations - and potential for collisions, faults, etc. Just something else to consider.

- Allow players to choose different combinations of dance teams as well as the "lead" and "follow" roles in dancing. This increases replayability and strategic choices, provided the roles and characters are distinct enough.

- The fact you cited "Knizia-style" in your description leads me to believe there's a lot more complexity you're willing to explore. Go for it! :D

Best of success on your design, ConMan...! :)

gilamonster
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2015
Do you intend to have one

Do you intend to have one pawn representing each dancing couple, one pawn to represent each dancer, or one pawn to represent one foot of each dancer?

From what little I know of dancing, the partners usually maintain some sort of contact for most of the time, except perhaps for certain moves/techniques, right? So, if you used two pawns/meeples/figurines which were somehow linked (perhaps with a clearly defined "front" and detachable left/right "hand" linkages - some cards could let you swap left/right), then you could control how they moved across a gridded board by playing cards to allow certain moves or steps.
Taking it further, you could even have articulated figures where each foot occupies a square on the board - then you would have to play cards to control the four feet of each couple, and obviously a dancer's two feet can only be so far apart.

Just an idea. I'm tempted to try to make a historical fencing simulation game along these lines myself, using articulated figures on a gridded board, and cards for techniques and guards.

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
I like the idea (and the

I like the idea (and the name!) if you include some of the mods from let-off studios. Specifically, have some cards that allow for some real offense, where you intentionally cause a collision. However, the victims should have an opportunity for response, by making a last minute change to their move, with a penalty of some sort.

This could make for more strategy: I'll play this card, even though it scores a point less, because I have two different cards that could follow it. If I am attacked next turn, I'll be able to swap out one for the other to avoid the attack without a "non-following" penalty.

Rather than going all the way to "your actual score is the lowest score you have with any judge," you could modify that a bit. Perhaps your lowest score is tripled and your second lowest score is doubled, so your low scores carry more weight but the high scores are not completely thrown out.

I like the simultaneous reveal idea, as well.

ConMan
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2012
Replies, Pt 1

I am genuinely impressed by the feedback already. Fast replies, but also incredibly useful ones. Thank you! Let's respond to a few bits.

let-off studios wrote:
- I'm not clear on how you determine turn structure, but it seems to me like your game could benefit from a 'simultaneous turns' style.

Yes! I didn't state it, but the plan is for this to be simultaneous turns. It works thematically, and it keeps all players involved for more of the game.

let-off studios wrote:
- With a game like "Murder on the Dancefloor," I'd expect combat to be a significant part of the game. However, the way you describe it makes it sound like players are attempting to avoid one another. I can think of a couple ways to marry the two and still keep your main mechanics.
- Include cards that cause damage but avoid detection by the judges
- Allow judges to award points for offensive maneuvers
- Increase the randomness/risk of judges detecting offensive maneuvers, but balance this with valuable payoff

Guilty. Like I said, I haven't worked out the exact plan for dealing damage. And I want there to be a tension involved in dancing close to someone else. In fact, that raises another point that I hadn't mentioned, which is that I'm worried about scaling.

I want the game to play with 2-4 players, but even on the board I attached an image of, you can see how easy it will be for two people to avoid each other. I might introduce neutral dancers so that there's always someone you have to avoid, but that will probably come after I've got the basic concept working.[/quote]

let-off studios wrote:
- If you are considering player elimination (which totally fits the theme), I'd recommend you keep the game time short. 30 minutes seems about right, and I imagine you'll prevent player elimination in like the first 5 minutes or so anyway.

Yes. Absolutely. My thought at the moment is that you will have to accumulate enough faults and/or damage, and I will tweak that so that it's unlikely to happen too early.

let-off studios wrote:
- Although it may take away from the theme somewhat, I can imagine this game being played without a board. You should be able to combine the dance moves with linking locations (using colors, numbers, or letters to determine coordinates, for example) that maintains the linking of dance moves together along with locations - and potential for collisions, faults, etc. Just something else to consider.

Interesting. I think the board feels "right" to me, but I completely understand where you're coming from and I will squirrel that idea away.

let-off studios wrote:
- Allow players to choose different combinations of dance teams as well as the "lead" and "follow" roles in dancing. This increases replayability and strategic choices, provided the roles and characters are distinct enough.

I have a few ideas for ways to increase replayability, and player-specific abilities was one of them. Making those abilities a combination of two characters was not something I'd thought of, but I think it's a great idea and I'm adding that to my notes.

I had also thought about having different dances available, which creates a particular board effect each game. So maybe the foxtrot boosts movement, or a quickstep means you play two cards in advance.

These are ideas I will look into more once I have the basic game more bedded down.

let-off studios wrote:
- The fact you cited "Knizia-style" in your description leads me to believe there's a lot more complexity you're willing to explore. Go for it! :D

Haha, thanks! I am aiming for a game that is mechanically fairly simple and understandable, but that has a good amount of emergent complexity. I'll probably experiment with a few different scoring systems, but I know that Knizia likes his "your score is the lowest of X, Y and Z" systems and I can see where that may open up some interesting strategic landscapes if I pursue it.

ConMan
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2012
Replies, Pt 2

gilamonster wrote:
Do you intend to have one pawn representing each dancing couple, one pawn to represent each dancer, or one pawn to represent one foot of each dancer?

From what little I know of dancing, the partners usually maintain some sort of contact for most of the time, except perhaps for certain moves/techniques, right? So, if you used two pawns/meeples/figurines which were somehow linked (perhaps with a clearly defined "front" and detachable left/right "hand" linkages - some cards could let you swap left/right), then you could control how they moved across a gridded board by playing cards to allow certain moves or steps.
Taking it further, you could even have articulated figures where each foot occupies a square on the board - then you would have to play cards to control the four feet of each couple, and obviously a dancer's two feet can only be so far apart.

Just an idea. I'm tempted to try to make a historical fencing simulation game along these lines myself, using articulated figures on a gridded board, and cards for techniques and guards.


Ooh, sounds interesting. I'm aiming for simplicity, so I probably won't go quite so far. Instead, I plan to abstract all of that stuff into the "position" idea. So there will be, I dunno, three or four different dance positions you can be in. Each step has a position that it ends in - that's the symbol on the right-hand side of the card; each step also requires that you are in one of a few positions to begin with - that's the set of symbols on the left. So maybe for a simple turn, you start in either Open or Closed dance position, and always end in Open. Then your next step needs to be one that can start in Open position, or else you fumble the step and take a fault.

For this, I only really need one player piece per dance couple. I think the idea of having separate pieces for each dancer is an interesting idea, and it would open up some cool design space - like having moves where the lead throws the follow to the next space and then chases after them - but at this stage, that's a more complicated game than I want.

Zag24 wrote:
I like the idea (and the name!) if you include some of the mods from let-off studios. Specifically, have some cards that allow for some real offense, where you intentionally cause a collision. However, the victims should have an opportunity for response, by making a last minute change to their move, with a penalty of some sort.

Not a bad idea. I was already thinking that maybe playing a lower-priority step (which will usually be the more basic moves) gives you less (or even no) reward, but leaves you more steady-footed so in a collision you come out better than the person trying to pull off their super-shiny move. And the idea that some moves will be specifically designed for combat is a pretty obvious direction to go as well. Having reaction moves, or maybe defensive moves, or moves that let you pull some kind of turnabout, is also a good idea.

Zag24 wrote:
This could make for more strategy: I'll play this card, even though it scores a point less, because I have two different cards that could follow it. If I am attacked next turn, I'll be able to swap out one for the other to avoid the attack without a "non-following" penalty.

I'm stealing this idea in some form, definitely. Even just in the simple form of one of the basic moves being "get no bonus now, but you can immediately change your next move".

Zag24 wrote:
Rather than going all the way to "your actual score is the lowest score you have with any judge," you could modify that a bit. Perhaps your lowest score is tripled and your second lowest score is doubled, so your low scores carry more weight but the high scores are not completely thrown out.

Yep. Like I said, I want to experiment with different scoring options. Another alternative is to have your final score be the sum of all your scores, but with some rule about each judge's score being capped, or making it harder to score extra with a judge you've already impressed, so that it's in your best interest to grab a few points with every judge rather than just standing in front of one judge and continually pulling off your best moves.

Zap24 wrote:
I like the simultaneous reveal idea, as well.

Waaaaay ahead of you ;)

gilamonster
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2015
ConMan wrote: Instead, I plan

ConMan wrote:
Instead, I plan to abstract all of that stuff into the "position" idea.

After re-reading, I understand better how you do this with the card-sequences - very elegant! Of course, you could always make an add-on or sequel with separate partner pawns...

And that also suggests a method for the combat to me: in historical fencing, like dancing, your and your opponent's position (guard and footwork) determine to a large degree which attacks are going to work best. A lot of renaissance fencing and wrestling
is about trying to "break your opponent's structure" - simplified that means using his current stance/guard against him and catch him off balance. So, if you apply a similar principle to your game, regarding a couple as one "fencer", you could have cards for moves that follow on from your current position and do damage, but are only fully effective if the opponent's couple is in a vulnerable position (noted on the attack move card).

Finally, you said it would be a 2-4 player game, but I'd suggest increasing it to 2-6 players. This would somewhat simulate the sort of crowded dancefloor where I could imagine nasty sneaky attacks being used to take out rival couples, and it will increase player conflict (unless, of course your board won't accomodate this many without gridlock) Also, I just like games that can handle up to 6 players - I come from a big family where nobody wanted to get left out while others played.

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
I think that the idea to have

I think that the idea to have NPC dancers could work. But if it doesn't, you can always make your board two-sided -- one side for 2-3 players and the other for 4-6.

For the moves that start or end with the dancers separated with some distance, you could have the token placed on the line between two spaces, with the understanding that the dancers are one in each space. Moves that start and end in this position would be big points, but the dancers are incredibly vulnerable to all attack moves when in this position.

ConMan
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2012
gilamonster wrote:And that

gilamonster wrote:
And that also suggests a method for the combat to me: in historical fencing, like dancing, your and your opponent's position (guard and footwork) determine to a large degree which attacks are going to work best. A lot of renaissance fencing and wrestling
is about trying to "break your opponent's structure" - simplified that means using his current stance/guard against him and catch him off balance. So, if you apply a similar principle to your game, regarding a couple as one "fencer", you could have cards for moves that follow on from your current position and do damage, but are only fully effective if the opponent's couple is in a vulnerable position (noted on the attack move card).

I like this! As a broad idea, I would potentially skew it so that the fancier moves tend to favour a particular position, but also have moves that will damage people who take that position. Alternatively, I could make it more of a rock-paper-scissors setup and let each position be better at damaging another.

gilamonster wrote:
Finally, you said it would be a 2-4 player game, but I'd suggest increasing it to 2-6 players. This would somewhat simulate the sort of crowded dancefloor where I could imagine nasty sneaky attacks being used to take out rival couples, and it will increase player conflict (unless, of course your board won't accomodate this many without gridlock) Also, I just like games that can handle up to 6 players - I come from a big family where nobody wanted to get left out while others played.

If I can make it work all the way up to 6 players, I will happily consider it. Zap24's idea of one board for fewer couples and one for more is one possibility, or just having scaling numbers of NPC dancers is another.

gilamonster
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2015
Great! Making the

Great! Making the higher-scoring moves more vulnerable sounds like a good idea, so does a rock-paper-scissors scheme. You could even combine them somehow (maybe the "shine" moves could be vulnerable to more than one position, as opposed to just one for the others. Perhaps justifyable because flashy dance moves might require dancers to move through more vulnerable, less stable positions?

And I also like the idea of adding NPC dancing couples - that could give the "packed dancefloor" feeling even better than adding two extra humans. Again, the two aren't necessarily muturally exclusive I think - especially with two different sized boards.

Zag24
Offline
Joined: 03/02/2014
The problem with the NPC

The problem with the NPC dancers is the bookkeeping. If your game is set for 6 players, then with 2 players there are 4 NPC couples. Even if you just turn up random moves for all the NPC couples, the players will spend as much time figuring out the positions of all the NPC's as they do on their own turn. Hint: That part isn't fun.

Also, purely random opponents are just annoying, because you can't plan anything around them. They make moves that are stupid, that a real player would never make, because they are so random.

ConMan
Offline
Joined: 03/22/2012
If I go down the NPC route, I

If I go down the NPC route, I will almost certainly make them "amateur" couples. They probably won't do much more than circle the board in a very basic fashion. If I can get away with zero bookkeeping for them, you bet I will do that.

gilamonster
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2015
Yes, I agree: avoid

Yes, I agree: avoid book-keeping. I find it rather irritating and distracting in boardgames. Amateur couples moving in predictable loops is much better. I could imagine that they can either be cannon-fodder or moving obstacles, either indestructible or with a penalty to players who damage them.("its not polite to pick on the amateurs, the judges frown on it")

By the way, out of curiosity: do players get a point reward for eliminating other couples, or is it just a way of eliminating the competition?

gilamonster
Offline
Joined: 08/21/2015
Sorry! Double post

Sorry! Double post

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut