So I failed.....

 ....to start bloging again.  But something has got me thinking about "the Bishop of Games" again.

This seems to be as good a place as any to start gathering things together - be that stuff I've actually written or just ideas/concepts..  Including the house warming blessing I did for Dr Geof and Dr Nd a couple of years ago that I could not remember the actual words for......

Name of the religion - The Church of the Meeple or Meepleism.

My titles - The Bishop of Games; The Dice Pope.

General blessing - Meeple bless this house.

House Warming - "May the Meeple Bless This House. May it be filled with fun and companionship. May you remember to be kind to one another.  Except when gaming because it's ok to be a dick then."

The Prime Commandment - "If you can dick, you must dick, but don't be a dick about it."

Quotes -  For where two or more are gathered together and someone asks "whose go is it?" I will be there.

"Ask not whose go it is, for it is proberbly your go."

"What we have welcomed is companionship.  In a world in which people find themselves increasingly isolated from those around them, Meepleism offers a way to reconnect to people through a shared love of games.  When we gather in the houses and gaming cafe throughout the land The simple act of sitting down around a table, sharing food and drink, and allowing yourself to spend time interacting with."

"why gaming is a religuion" also I run the Alpha course for gaming. Come over, play something light, have a snack.

No True Gamer Plays Monolopy.

If I am.....

.....going to start blogging again I should try and ensure the preview picture that comes up makes more sense then an Odyssey Photo (much as I love that Odyssey photo).


Fortunately I do have drawing of me as the Bishop of Games, the Dice Pope so lets use that.

Action Limitation

I got thinking about action limitation and all the different ways board games limit what you can do because having to choose what to do is what drives making decisions (and good game play involves making informed decisions).

Turn is not quite the right term because sometimes a turn is a subpart of a larger game cycle.  For example, worker placement your turn is placing a worker and taking a single action.  But that is contained within some sort of larger action limitation because at some point the action spaces clear, workers come home, and stuff goes back onto the board.

The term I’m going for is “game cycle” it'll do for now.

Limited Actions: you can do N actions from a list of available actions (where N can be 1) and you will have the same number of actions next game cycle.

Resource Spend – there is a cost in doing something be that spending resources, money, cards, or even exhausting a card.  But if you can pay the cost you can keep doing stuff.

Common actions – picking from a pool of common actions that only one person can do within that game cycle.

Random available actions – what you can do in a turn changes based on some random factor could be rolling dice, drawing out of a bag, and having some cards available.



Push your luck – do stuff until some turn ending event you’d rather avoid happens.

Real time passing – do an action that will take a certain amount of real time and you can’t do something until that time has passed, generally controlled by a sand timer.

 

These seem like major mechanics, but they are often combined together.   But there are also other twists and modifiers that designers use which I don't think quite make it to a major mechanic.

 

For example

 

Sub Turns - for example do a thing(s), and then do another thing(s) a bit later on.  For example Terraforming mars. 

Not all players have the same number of actions – for example Caverna when you get an extra dwarf.

Picking an action does something for other people as well – for example race for the galaxy.

Actions have a sequence – for example Antikes roundel

Drafting your actions – for example Innis.

Making a choice on a card – pick a or b for your self which then gives the other to somebody else – for example fire on the lake.

Limited Repeatability – there is some sort of limited repeatability.

 

To me this covers a lot but I’m sure I’ve missed lots of possible options. 

 

So lets play a game – either suggest a mechanic I’ve missed and I’ll see if I think it’s already covered by the above or suggest a game you don’t think goes into the above structure and I’ll try and work out what I think it would be.......

 

Wingspan: thoughts on design and theme

I played Wingspan the weekend and in addition to being a good game I think it provides some really good examples of game play and an interesting perspective on theme.

 

Wingspan is a competitive, medium-weight, card-driven, engine-building board game. You are bird enthusiasts—researchers, bird watchers, ornithologists, and collectors—seeking to discover and attract the best birds to your network of wildlife preserves.

 

You have a pile of action cubes which you use to do one of 4 actions.  Play a card (a bird) into one of your environments by paying some food (and maybe some eggs) or you activate one of three environments.  Each environment gives you one of the three main resources of the game- food, eggs, or cards.  The more birds in an environment the better the action is, and sometimes you can trade food, eggs, or cards for another type of resource.  If a bird has a brown action you get to do that brown action when you use that environment.  Once all your action cubes are done the round ends, you get scored on some end of round scoring thing, mark how well you did with an action cube and then do another turn.  4 turns in total and it’s all over and you score game end card(s).  Most points win. That is basically it.

 

The first thing to talk about is just how much this game delivers with a simple rules set.  3 main resources (cards, eggs, food – of which there are 5 sub types), and 4 actions (one of which is play a card) and the other three work the same way they just deliver different stuff.    That’s not a lot but it delivers lots of choices, with the value of a card being very much determined by what you’ve already got down, your resources, the bonus scoring for that round, what other people have down.  Lovely.

 

Each individual card is simple and the language clear, and even when combined with other cards abilities they never get complicated or unclear but they do get interesting and effective – finding a sweet combo is *kisses air*.

 

Let us take the moment to appreciate the design that went into the decision that you start off with lots of simple actions – but as the game goes down you lose actions but each action increase in effectiveness.  Brilliant. 

Another nice touch is that your abilities fire in an order right to left – so no trying to work out if you can eek out a better result with a different order.  Make that decision when you play the card.  Or how the action is kept moving because you can draw blind or you can draw from 3 face up cards but those face up cards don’t replenish until after your turn.  So the amount you have to consider on your turn lower, and things keep moving no matter how many cards you are drawing. 

 

If Innsmouth Escape got me into board game design by making me go “I can do betterthen that”, Wingspan makes me go “I should give up – I will never be that good”.

 

Now I want to talk about theme and this gets supper nerdy.

This is a game that drips with theme.  It is about birds, and the cards are covered in bird related details.  Wingspan, max egg numbers, nest type, what they eat, where they can live.  I have absolutely no doubt that these details are informed by the real world and not by what the designer wanted.  So nothing is pasted on about this theme.

 

So why did I sit there playing it, enjoying it and think “you know this system would work really well for an economic engine builder?”

 

I think the answer was because I was experiencing Ludo Narrative Dissonance – which is a term normally used for video games but in this case means the decisions and the theme were not in accord. 

 

It’s what I tend to think of as “how evocative is it”?  Do I feel like the person, thing, or entity the game is telling me I am?  On that account Wingspan sort of falls down because honestly I don’t feel like a bird enthusiast – I feel like somebody looking for efficiencies, eeking out synergies to get ahead of the competition.  Just how and why do "bird enthusiasts—researchers, bird watchers, ornithologists, and collectors" - "build engines"?  I mean the dissonance is right in the description at the top.  With a lot of consideration I did come to the conclusion 'by creating an eco system' was the answer to what sort of engine do twitchers create.  But personally it never felt like an eco system.   

For me this is far from a deal breaker.  I want a copy and will happily play your copy until I get my own.  Heck I played it 3 times over the weekend because I enjoyed it so much.  But it felt a really interesting example of why the term “theme” in board games is a lot more complicated then people seem to think it is.

 

As a side note I did start sketching out what a reskin into an economic game would look like (food = resources, eggs = population, cards = research) but I very quickly found my self going so what sort of building could be built in all three of the areas?  How do you produce the sheer range of different buildings/cards all with there subtle little differences?  Which is an indication to me just how much birds really did drive elements of the game design. 

Been a while....

....but expect a lot more as I've had an idea.....

So last weekend I went down to Stabcon South (It's called that because it's in Southampton and it's run by people who really like Stabcon. Which is in Manchester and if you want to know why that's called Stabcon you'll need to ask the people that make it happen) and played a bunch of games.

One the Sunday we played a game called Forge War which made me think about 'theme' and games.

In Forge War you play a blacksmith, mining metals, to equip hero's with weapons, to send them out to defeat quests and gain victory points.  Which to do well involves a lot of timing and finesse as quests are multi stage and increase in difficulty as each stage falls.

Two of the players (including myself) felt that it had rather had a theme fail - because we'd been expecting a game about being a blacksmith making and selling weapons to hero's.  Where as from my perspective it would have taken but a tiny twist of the game to make us wizards directing a team of hero's.  Theme wise this would have fitted my head fine - that's a thing that wizards do, it's not a thing blacksmiths do (in a fantasy land, with dragons).

However one of the other players was fine with the theme - they saw nothing odd about a blacksmith equipping there own team of adventurers and sending them out.

So based on this I thought I'd share some of my thoughts about theme (which are not all linked to the above - this just seems like a good time to write them down).

Theme is a pretty important concept in board games - with people attacking or defending games based on theme.  A common complaint about a game is that the Theme is just pasted on.

Theme is evocative.  It seeks to invoke in you a particular feeling above and beyond the mechanics.

Mechanics invoke theme.  If you are taking actions in the game which seem counter to your expectations - then no matter how mechanically good it is - it won't invoke theme.

Words, and art invoke theme.  In Lord of Waterdeep you get cubes which represent warriors, wizards, clerics, and thieves - if you called them something else (like Ninja's) you'd be invoking a different sort of theme.

Expectations define theme. If the game matches what you think should happen that sets the boundries of how a game does or does not invoke theme.  If the game has a world war II tiger tank on the front cover and I get a stock mechanic then my expectations will not be met.

For me the mechanics are the most important bit - so much so that I originally called Mechanics Major Theme, and Words and art , if they match then I feel a game is themed. Take Caverna it's a game about dwarves developing there home.  So the classic worker placement mechanic fits really well for me, I go get stuff, I make stuff, things grow and develop.  The dwarf stuff on the other hand - some what skin deep.  Stuff is named sort of dwarvish but you spend half your time growing pumpkins and raising sheep....

Heck I like Battle Line a game allegedly about the battles of Alexander and Darius - which is so little about the battles of Alexander and Darius it was originally released as game about battling Scottish Clans.  But it's game play of slowly trying to build up strong formation (groups) of cards in key places, trying to scupper your opponents plans (even at the cost of some parts of your plans) for me invokes feelings of being a classical general.

I originally called mechanics the major theme, and words and art the minor theme because that's how it works for me.  But I've avoided that here simply because there might well be other people out there.  People who think that Ra is a game with a good well developed theme - because the art is really Egyptian......

So most of this conversation about the theme of War Forge took place as part of a drive; and as part of that we talked over what a game would look like that was the game we thought we were going to play.  You are a blacksmith - sell weapons to hero's to profit.

This rather enthused me and for the first time in a long time I appear to have a game design on the go.  In fact I was so enthused that last night we did a play test of the crafting and selling system which did not utterly suck but in fact seemed to be broadly what we wanted.  I need to rework the entire deck and the card mix - but that's frankly as expected......

Orleans and bag building

Odyssey, the arena and why I want more of it.......

Sometimes I write loads for an update – and then realise I need to summarise - and sometimes that summary gets really long as well......


Case in point this hit four pages with a lot of background and explanation and asides before I realised – lord that is long and not finished.


So short version. The larp Odyssey is based around arena combat – it has stands – and I genuinely enjoy sitting in the stands with wine and sausage watching as people beat each other up with foam rubber swords for my amusement.


Sadly Odyssey is coming up towards the end of it's designed life (4 more events and it's done), it's not been a commercial success and so it seem unlikely that another company will choose to make something else based around an arena.   Which means no more arena fights for my entertainment because as far as I know Odyssey arena focused combat is as far as I now unique (do tell me if I'm wrong I might well break my “PD only” rule.


Since a picture speaks a 1,000 words I'll use this photo to show you why I want there to be more arena based larp.

Because from the looks on there faces something amazingly cool has happened – and they all got to see it. Apparently at the last Empire one of members had an awesome drag out fight with the opposing general – I know this because the person playing the general came by to thank him for it. I was on that field – I had no idea........

So following a couple of long conversations with some fellow Odyssey people my brain starting ticking over what you might do – game design wise to try and keep the arena combat but sort out some of the problems.


Problematically the bit of Odyssey I do – the god game – works (and works well enough to be moved into Empire as the Eternal game). So I have very little direct experience of the arena – this is based on conversations with people – so it's possible I've got the wrong end of the stick. I should also say that I've nothing but the highest respect for the people that designed Odyssey – that it works at all is a tribute to there vision. So it's very possible that more skilled game design minds have already look at this problem – but hey it's been rattling around my head so I best get it out so I can think about other things.


First step to solving a problem is working out what you think that problems actually are.


Firstly as a warrior the number of fights you can take part in is pretty limited. Basically you get to take part in one attack and one defence a day. Those fights are intense – but short – the great battle for Athens took 5 minutes for example. So you get twenty minutes of action over a weekend – which is a pretty low action to time ratio. There are quests as well but it’s an issue.


Secondly – at game release – the amount of stuff that warriors could do that was not arena based was limited – which meant people spent some time distracted. Profound decisions have worked hard on that area of the game to their credit – and I think somebody turning up who used to play but stopped would find a very different game. Some of this is that there are just more quests per player now (and they sorted out the issue where we once sent the whole of Persia to deal with some bandits – there were about ten of them – they very sensibly put down there weapons when the 80 or so players appeared and scowled at them).


Thirdly - while the arena seeks to give you epic combat where skill matters – it does not guarantee it. So you can turn up to a fight to discover your opponents have given up so they can concentrate on another fight or on the flip side you are the other fight and superior numbers are about to roll you into the ground.


Problem number 3 is especially bad when combined with problem number 1 – because only have four fight sucks when two of those are terrible. This then gets worse when you realise that number of people is a key factor in a fight, so of course you are going to do everything in your power to outnumber your opponents to win. The game does have a feedback mechanism for this – the Gods want entertainment – but that feedback mechanism is a confused channel compared to winning which is clear (made less clear because the Gods are also very keen on you winning as well….).


Fourthly – every epic moment requires that some other player fails. Some people are much better than others in a fight so some people are just going to keep getting those epic moments. One of the great things about Odyssey is that the truly great warriors stand out – there names are shouted across the arena but one of the bad things is that some people are just never going to get that moment and be an also ran.


Problem four might be solvable – magic/buffs/general shinies can be a great leveller. But there are two reasons that does not quite work – the in game reward cycle and rational choice. The reward cycle means that the really good people tend to get the shinies - the person that just dropped 4 opponents with a dramatic flourish is the one going to get noticed, is the one going to get the shinie toy (and lets me clear they deserve that reward). But the net effect of that is that the winner gets stronger while the loser has even less chance next time around. The second time is rational choice- magic only makes so much of a difference compared to skill. I’m not a brilliant fighter - bit of a flapper who hides behind a shield if I’m honest. You could magic me up the wazoo and I know I’d still get torn apart by anybody half way decent – so why bother magicing me up the wazzo in the first place? Save that for more useful people.


So what do you need to do.


There are two things you need to sort out more then anything else– the first is you need to get people more fights. The second is those fights have to be more balanced at least in numbers – because it's numbers that really determine if a fight is going to be a walk in the park or not. Fortunately I think the solution to both of those is the same – control the numbers going in. Have fixed numbers on each side.


They don't have to be the same number – because imbalanced fights can create epic moments – but they need to be 9 vs 6 not 20 vs 1 – and the people signing up to that fight have to know what they are getting into.


Background wise – you stop using the arena as a proxy from battles and treat it like an actual arena – with preset limits solely intended to ensure amusement to the crowd.


That removes some of the dead space that can exist in Odyssey – the sacrifice attack to force the opponent to burn resources – that takes 30 seconds but has a half hour slot because it was not clear what exactly was going to happen. If you've got a 9 vs 9 battle scheduled you can call that 15 minutes - and away you go. On the other hand if you've got a 30 vs 30 grudge match then give them the full 30 minutes slot.  You can also drive action by having a timer - attacker wins by the end or the defender does.  Means the attacker has to do just that - attack.


If you are controlling how many people then the cunning and manipulation has to be who is fighting each battle. Which means rather then the Odyssey 'War leader says we go here' each player needs to be involved in arranging where they personally are fighting. Which is good as it gives you something to do. You can make groups - I fight with my brothers only - but there smaller, informal and flexible.


That means you need to limit the number of fights people can have – otherwise you'll just send El Tasty the finest swordsman into every single fight (also you need to give everybody a go). But rather then a hard limit – use increasing resources – it costs more and more each fight you go into. So at some point you have to ask your self 'do I want El Tasty or do I want to save my money for another day?'


Finally giving people the chance to shine. Well the obvious solution is leaguing – split the player base up into skill ranks. Trouble with that is – what if El Pretty Good manipulates things so they stay in the bottom league and slaughter people? I think a better solution is to have sets of weapons – and then have some fights limit the sets of weapons that are allowed in that fight. So this character fights ambidextrous, this character fights sword and shield, this character fights with a two hander. This battle is only for two handers – that gives you a better chance to shine in your chosen field the one you are best at. It's not perfect but then neither is leaguing.....


The devil is in the detail – but a game based around an arena with those rules – provided you managed to make the stakes high enough (and one things Odyssey does do is make you care about those fights) might well solve some of the issues. Oh don't get me wrong the devil is in the detail – how much does each extra fight cost – how to do you manage the paperwork and ensure that somebody does not get missed out and end up with no fights at all?


But this is 'short version' is long enough I think......



Background wise – for some reason I think decadent empire with a gilded class (relatives of the Emperor perhaps) kept from the true power by utterly Machiavellian civil service but given this one route to struggle amongst themselves for privilege and status. Perhaps with the Byzantium fervour about chariot teams thrown in – a faction you support for the joy of supporting that crosses religious, economic, and social boundaries.

Edit - changed something about Odyssey life cycle because I'd got the wrong end of the stick somewhere.

Stabcon

Being one in a series of six monthly reviews of my favourite friendly games con.

Before the event somebody asked what our plans for the event was - so I thought I'd compare my answer to reality.

"Drink port, stay up to late, demand to know why they have not brought me prince charmings head on a plate, mock the bacon forge, buy a new game from Dave, reduce the size of my unplayed shelves, deliver 2 bundles of Essen joy, and start 2015 as I mean to go on......"

I definitely drank port.  Saturday morning was not a good morning.

I went to bed at 4.30 and 4 - and while I was never the last one up I figure that counts as late.

I totally failed to play Aye Dark Overlord and so never asked for prince charming head.....  I got sucked into a supper late night game of Kanban which might have been a mistake - see later......

There was some bacon forge mocking - but if I'm honest not that much - and it was better then I expected it to be.  This might indicate just how hung over/still drunk I was on Saturday morning.

I did buy one game from Dave - and while tempted by a 2nd I said no.

I played two unplayed games - my own Antike conversation pack, and Dice Vs Cards.  Which makes me down one over all.  Which is fine......

So I delivered two set of Antike update conversation packs from Essen.

All of which sounds like I managed most of my plan.

In addition I went out to a restaurant and eat a very tasty and frankly excessive quantity of meat.  Still not sure about the meal out - it's always fun but takes a chunk of the con out.  Not just leaving at 8 and back at 11 - but the fact you don't start anything in order to be able to do that.

Introduced some new people to aquasphere - and more evidence that it's not a supper complicated game it's just a really unforgiving game.  The fact that your actions need to be pre-programmed, are often mutually exclusive, and exploiting opportunities requires you to spend time to do so - makes for a very harsh game environment where you can spend a lot of turns achieving very little which feels crappy.

While slightly drunk and unable to choose between Dalmuti and Perudo (two stabcon late night favourites) decided to fire up the large games collider and invent Dalrudo, or maybe Permuti.  We never really decided.  Turned out this worked quite well - with senior roles looking at more dice then lower roles, with the merchants dropping there dice into a shared trade pot and only the highest merchant getting to see all of them.  Did lead to interesting situations - where people were playing while unable to see any dice at all......

Maybe we should try mashing Coyotte and Dalmuti together next time.....  :-)

Anyway - onto new games....

Antike 2 - an old favourite got a new version at Essen. I debated picking it up - a debate that ended when I learned there was an upgrade pack to go from version 1 to version 2. The improvements are minor, some improvements in balance and smoothness of play but it is a better version of the game which is a euro style war game. Got two games of that in and it was well received.  War is in nobody interests......

Arkwright - an epic game of industrialisation that basically eat all of Saturday day. Maths heavy - prone for causing analysis paralysis but it's system of quality, price and appeal is as smooth an implementation of a complicated system as you'll find.  I also like the use of shares and share price to provide a score system that allows different styles of play.  Not one I'm going to own not because of quality but because my opportunities to play would be very limited.

Cards against Dice this is a very quick little filler game with one cards worth of rules.  It's actually a game that could easily be played just using a few dice and a deck of standard playing cards and it is almost a classic pub game but a good and fun classic pub game.  Only one change I'd make to the rules is to reduce the amount of 'lucky' tokens need to win as I think otherwise it might drag a little.

Progress the evolution of technology -  beat described as 'civilisation without the armies and maps' just an epic technology tree to explore.  There is a distinct lack of interaction between players might well be an issue, and it might well be quite random with luck of the draw being the deciding factor but I want to play it again.  It looked like I was storming a head because I was playing tons of cards - but in the end it was much closer then it looked.

Kanban - the game of automotive design is sadly one that left me rather cold.  The idea amused me - it's based in an office designing cars - and you do lots of things but it ends with a scoring round which is you trying to talk about what you've achieved.  As a euro worker placement game with a good reputation I was very keen to play it. I found it baffling - I was unable to plan and every choice seemed worthless.  I described it as not being able to find a rhythm or routine for the game. Buy the end of it i was almost getting the hang of it so it's worth a second attempt.

Another play test.....

So Monday nights play test of Upon a Throne of Bone went well.  We only had 5 of us – so I played a two headed overlord who had no idea what is right hand and left hand were doing......

Although simple the minions seemed to enjoy the whole spying, bidding for units, fighting, resolving cycle – despite the very simple nature of the combat system and rewards.

As the Overlord I also felt I had a set of tools with which to try and drive my minions behaviour – and even deliberately set out to run two different management styles (one carrot, and one stick) to see if I could.  The rest of the overlord game did not get tested so there is nothing to say about that.

That is what is going to appear at stabcon if anybody wants to poke me to see what we've got so far.

The real challenge is going to be working out where additional complexity can be added without losing what works – and there I need to keep in mind the mantra – Keep It Simple, Stupid.

Ideas under consideration for now…..

I think the main place to poke is the rewards coming back.  We need a bit more complexity for the overlord game – and in particular we need different sorts of tokens flowing in order to support the mastermind style game.  So I think making doing very well brings back not just fear but all victories.

That in turns effects the bidding sequence, as you are now bidding two things.  I suspect it will be a perudo style bid – so many victories and so much fear.  With victories being more important than fear – so 1 victory and 1 fear is greater bid then 10 fear.  Here the overlord will be able to influence things by indicating what sort of victories they would like – you can fulfil your expectation by delivering any number of   victories but deliver a different sort and the overlord will have the option to slap you down (if they choose).

I might also make giving the 1st and 2nd legions come with some automatic favour – after all the overlord is clearly pleased with you.  But those legions also come with much bigger ways of being punished.  Whereas the 3rd legion will be able to achieve a lot less – but have a lot less risk of punishment and have a chance to be rewarded if they do well.

At the moment all of the information is hidden, and you get to look at some of it.   Whereas I think it might well work better if some of the information is public – and you get to peak at a little less.

Which seems like enough change for now.  What is not being changed – yet – is the combat system.  There are two competing version – the first is based around strength but the strength is a but lumpy – some of your cards have 0 strength, some have 1 strength and some 2 or 3 strength.  So people might see somebody has gone there – but there no sure how much.  The second version is based on the bidding system of Revolution – where you have tiers of resource – with a higher tier beating any amount of a lower tier.  In revolution the tiers are gold, blackmail and force.  No amount of gold will convince somebody to do something against a threat of blackmail, and no amount of blackmail will triumph over the threat of death.    What I like about the second one is that it would allow us to have a sense of progression -starting with corruption, that gets replaced with Legions of orcs and eventually foul beasts like Dragons and Nazguls arrive.

Once it was just me and the Brazen Duke - we rambled about the difference between a larp and a mega game.  This is in part because my friend the Brazen Duke really likes mega games and indeed throws in a lot of roleplaying while doing it– but had a bad experience larping and refuses to consider doing that again…..

The conclusion reached seemed to be that in a mega game there is a very solid game structure and so the larping is optional, while in a larp the roleplaying is mandatory and the gamist elements are very secondary.  If I've remembered that wrong – it was very late.  In the cold light of day the bit about the Mega game still seems to be true – I'm not however so sure about the bit about larping.  In particular his description of the second mega game seemed very much life a free form larp or at least some sort of crisis management game.

We also chatted about interactive theatre – me having been along to ‘A Wood Under the World’ under Leeds town hall quite recently.  One particular thing - I’d got slightly confused as to how to react to the Wood Under The World – because they kept talking to me in character, as if it was all real, where as I had no character.  If I was really me then I wanted to say ‘it’s a play dear’ where as if I was me who discovered an unearthly wood under Leeds town hall and I believed it was real – then I suspect I’d just do a runner (well slow jog)…….  Which meant I was confused as to how to react……  

Playtest 2 - Version 0.03

So last weekend I headed over to Manchester to play test version 2.  Slightly odd thing as we were a couple of people lower then intended s we ended up doing one overlord and 3 minions test which did not work very well but then it was missing any sort of opposition which is pretty key.

But it was still enough to show up a bunch of things.  The combat system mainly worked but I don't think is correct for this game.  It might well work if you had a semi-cooperative board game with one overlord and there minions....

I also got to be an overlord and I realised there was a bit of game play I really wanted – the minions bidding up what they were offering to the overlord to try and take control of the important army.  That was sort of there but the location set up and the complexity of the resources people were either offering very little or everything under the sun.  Also since all of the information was available to the minions it was both overwhelming and anything one could offer all of the rest could offer as well.

Over coffee before hand people had been talking about software design methodology (it's how we roll). And we'd talked over the concepts of horizontal slice and vertical slice. Horizontal being where you give the barest bones version of everything you want the final version to have as opposed to vertical where you give a complete version of a single part of it.

Chatting in the car on the way back it was clear that I’d been very much trying to do a vertical slice of the minion game but I probably needed to do a horizontal slice to check out the really core game play mechanics. The drive back gave us a long time to talk and so was born an almost total reworking of the game.

It’s important to note that you are seeing the basic structure but each individual part might get replaced by a more detailed component once we've got our heads around the idea. For example players will get a random set of tokens to play the master mind game with rather then it being tied into the result of what the minions do. Why? Because it lets me see how that works with some made up numbers and then once we've seen that then we tie the two systems together.

Upon A Throne of Bone version 0.03 – the simplification.

Set up

4 overlord teams, each consisting of one overlord and 3 minions. The overlord wishes to be the best overlord and wants Terror. The Minions wants to be the most loved minion of their overlord and so they want Favour. The general currency of the game is Fear that the minions get from locations and give to the overlord.  I should say all names open to change.

The overlord will have 3 legions consisting of 7, 5, and 3 1 strength orcs.

There will be three races – human, dwarf and elf – each race made up of 3 locations that hold 4, 3, 2 loot cards.  For play testing the number of cards at locations can easily be reduced which is good as it lets you check how it plays with less people.

Loot cards will yield between 1 and 7 fear – with 4 fear being the most common result.

 There will be five dark gods/demons – each of which will be dealt 3 face up terror cards of value 1 to 5 with 3 being the most common value.

Each minion will be given a human scout token, a dwarf scout token, a elf scout token and three wild scout tokens. They will also be given a 1 strength minion token.

The minion turn 

The minion turn has the following phases.

Scouting – look at loot cards on locations. Each card looked at costs one scout token which is left on the card to indicate it has been looked at.

Bidding – the minions will make increasing bids as to how much fear they will bring back this turn to the overlord if given control of the 1st legion (the biggest). The biggest bid is given the legion and that number is there ‘expectation’. There is then a set of bidding for the 2nd legion. The remaining minion states how many Fear they will be bringing back.

Deployment – the minions place their forces at the location they choose and once placed they cannot be picked back up. Forces are placed into a box/bowl so what is there is unclear.

Any minion who does not wish to use counters may tick off one box from their whimsy seat for each strength that is not used at a location. See later for more details on costs and benefits.

Resolution – each location resolves. With the person with the most strength at a location takes the top prize, in the event of a draw the strongest minion present breaks ties, if still no resolution then both players get the next level of reward down. No single player may take more than one loot card from a location – however multiple minions from a single overlord can each take one loot card. A minion may claim multiple loot cards from multiple locations.

Return – each minion brings their Fear back to the table and compares it with the expectation. The overlord can issue rewards and punishments if the conditions are met and they wish to. See later for more details.

The overlord turn

The overlord has the following phases.

Dark blessing phase use fear generated in previous turn to pay for the offerings you made last turn.  They have to pay the highest bids first – if a bid is not completely paid then the fear is still paid but the bid is discarded.  Take a reward in terms of terror.  In case of draw both get the next level down.  If a dark god is not given at least one fear then the overlord lose one terror.

Bid Phase – the overlord keeps track of the deals made, records the expectations, and takes as many offering counters as the total expectation of all the minions.

Deployment - the overlord places their offerings at the Altar.  They do not need to use all of their expectation – but any unused expectation is lost.  They can not bid more then the expectation they have been given.

Alignment – The overlords take 6 random colour cards and plays mastermind against a set of 4 mastermind games simultaneously.

 Report back – the overlord gets the fear generated, and delivers rewards/punishments to there minions.

Rewards and punishment.

If a minion delivers exactly what they promised then they automatically gain one favour.

In addition the overlord can give out certain rewards and punishments if certain conditions are met – however it is always the overlord choice if they choose to administer the punishment or reward even if the conditions are met.

Each punishment or reward can be administered only once per turn no matter how many minions meet that condition – but a minion can have receive multiple punishments and/or rewards in a turn.

Punishments

Name: You failed me
Condition: Deliver less fear then promised
Effect: -1 favour

Name:  My trusted right hand
Condition: The controller of the 1st legion delivers less fear then promised
Effect: -1 Favour

Name: Nothing!
Condition: You deliver no fear at all
Effect: -1 Favour

Name: You promised much......
Condition:  You deliver 3 less fear then promised
Effect: -2 Favour

Name: The lash....
Condition: Because the overlord wants to
Effect: -1 Favour

Name: Under promising is under performing
Condition:  Deliver 3 more fear then promised
Effect: -1 Favour

Rewards

Name: Less is more
Condition: Deliver more fear then a stronger legion
Effect: +1 Favour

Name: Nothing succeeds like success
Condition: Deliver the most fear
Effect: +1 Favour

Name: Over achiever
Condition:  Deliver more then fear then expected
Effect: +1 Favour

Name: You have pleased me
Condition:  Because the overlord wants to
Effect: +1 Favour

Whimsy Sheet

Each minion will have a whimsy sheet.  Instead of using there strength in locations they may tick off one box for each strength not used in a turn.  When the cost is fully paid then the minion receives the listed advantage.

Bonus Favour

1 Strength  = 1 favour

2 Strength = 1 favour

3 Strength = 1 favour

4 Strength = 1 favour

5 Strength = 1 favour

Spy Network

1 Strength = choose one human/elf/dwarf spy

2 Strength = choose one human/elf/dwarf spy

3 Strength = choose one human/elf/dwarf spy

4 Strength = choose one human/elf/dwarf spy

2 Strength = one wild spy

3 Strength = one wild spy

4 Strength = one wild spy

Minion Token

3 Strength = minion token is 2 strength

4 Strength = minion token is 3 strength

5 Strength = minion token is 4 strength


6 Strength = minion token is 5 strength

Thus endeth version 0.03 - which I think is a full version.  Not the intentions, not the direction of travel - but the everything you'd need to play test it written down.....  Which is nice.  I'll do my best to get this done and taken to Stabcon where we can do a micro test if nothing else.

While working on this I had a few ideas of things that might work - and rather then add them in - I've just written them down here so I don't forget them.

•  Overlords can go into debt with the dark gods, paying more fear then they have.  Best pay that back before the end of the game....
• In addition to claiming fear - minions also claim victories (high results).  Minions bid so much fear and so many victories.  Very perudo but hey - I like perudo.   

Top ten board games

So I got asked for my top ten board games something I’d never really considered – seems a bit of an omission if you ask me…..

Things is a top ten implies a strict progression – 10 being better than 1. But my enjoyment of a board is very much linked to the people, the time and the mood. If it’s 11 o'clock at night, and I'm slightly drunk, then maybe now is not the time to start an epic (for those people muttering Midnight Britannia under their breath I said maybe.....); conversely if there are 4 of use, it’s ten in the morning and we've no plans then cracking out the vile combo generator is not right either.

So there is no numerical order in these games – instead it’s goes party games, gateway games, and gamer games.

Party Games 

Cards Against Humanity – which I like to describe as a vile game for vile people and which I've brought for my as a sixteenth birthday present because she so enjoyed getting her mother to say the most deeply unpleasant things she could.

I've seen it argued that it’s not a well-designed game – and it’s a fair point – but it’s still a fun game which manages to make everybody feel like there group has the most twisted imaginations ever.

The Great Dalmuti - is a game I've played so often and so drunk that it’s been proved I can explain the rules clearly and coherently while a bottle of port (and more) to the wind.  It’s a simply trick taking game that is elevated into a storming amount of fun due to the fact that it is unfair and allows the people doing well to order the other people around ‘do fetch me a drink….’

Aye Dark Overlord – one of you is the evil overlord, the rest of you are there minions, you were given one job, and you have failed.  That’s the start of the game – as you try and fast talk your way out of trouble and somebody else into it.   A story telling game of brilliance where we throw more and more of the rules away each time that has left me closer to passing out more than once.  Word of warning – it is very dependent on the group you play with and as it’s about the journey rather the destination you are not really able to skip over other people.

Gateway Games

Lover Letter – this one could just as easily have been put in the party games section but it’s a little more involved and deduction based then the party games.  That’s not to say it’s complicated – far from it – there are 16 cards in the game and they all say what they do on them.  But as you try and make sure your love letter gets to the princess and your opponents letter is goes nowhere then it's got a little more focus on   winning or losing then the pure party games.

Settlers of Catan – an absolute classic of game design for a reason.  The game most likely to end up replacing monopoly as the game every family has a copy off.  Roll dice, get stuff, build your settlements and maybe steal a little bit of stuff of people.  I'm a bit of a purist and tend to play with just the basic set – I know there are expansion but the basic set is so well designed and balance why change it?  Introduced a whole generation of gamers to the idea that compelling game play could come from indirect competition for resources and trading.

King of Tokyo – you are a giant monster, you want to destroy Tokyo, other giant monsters want to stop you, crush them!  Often described as gamer yahtzee it’s basic mechanic of ‘throw and reroll and reroll to see what you get’ is easy to grasp while the power cards add an element of replayability and depth as you try and work out which broken combo of cards you want to unleash on your foes.  All while trying t push your luck as to how long can you stay as the king of Tokyo.  I will say I don’t own this game – but I've come damn close a number of times.

Heavy weight games

Most of these take an evening to play, require a reasonable amount of rules explanation and generally involve a certain amount of thinking.

Britannia – Yes I know it’s 8 hours long, yes I know it plays with exactly 4 people which is annoying , and yes I know it very luck based and involves throwing tons of dice often to no damn effect; but it gives you the whole scope of British history from the Romans through to the Normans.  It’s great to win, and it’s great to see some really messed up history ‘We call this Pictland’ or ‘Well that’s the last Saxon dead – murdered by the Welsh’ or ‘What do you mean William the conqueror died under Jutish axes on the southern coast – who the hell are the Jutes?’.

Caverna – you are dwarves, you need to make the best dwarfish home you can.  So send your dwarves out to mine, farm, adventure, and furnish in this fabulous and smooth worker placement game.  I know I said I preferred Glass Road before and that is still brilliant – but Caverna is winning me over……  Tiny little wooden sheep after tiny little wooden sheep……

Trajan – there’s a bit playing Trajan where your brain breaks and you think you can see through time and space, see through to the underlying code of the universe and manipulate it to your will.  Don’t worry that’s perfectly normal; it’s also utterly false as you’ll discover in 4 turns time when you realise you've fucked up.   It’s paper thing Roman theme puts some people off but for me it’s unique mancala (move token between pots) based action sequence makes it shine – and when you pull off a clever turn spanning combo to really grand effect it makes you feel like the king of the world.  I don't own Trajan but I want to.  I so want to.

Brass - the industrial revolution, spin, ship, mine, and railway your way to the top as the best and most efficient capitalist oppressor you can be; all set in in sunny Lancashire.  Use of a deck of cards manages to give you almost unlimited freedom but restrict you just enough or to put it another way you wander why the cards were ever included right up until the point they block your awesome move.....  I did almost pick Tinner Trail by Martin Wallace but I've played Brass more and it's definitely the more famous of his games.

So there you go - my top 10.  Tell me why I'm wrong and what I missed off that has to be on this list or I am a no nothing

Conflict Resolution.... 2nd pass

So conflict resolution.....


Recap.


Firstly there will be an expansion in the number of locations, a reduction in the strength of the locations, and an increase in the value of locations.


The issue arising out of the play test were (for me at least)..


- Clumping of minions – 'lets all go over here'.

- Lack of value in guile/magic/swords against locations – 'my 10 magic makes you one weaker'.
- Lack of value in guile/magic/swords defending locations – 'I've lost 1 orc – shrug – I've got lots more'.
-The ease of attacking a kingdom heart on the first turn.

So lets start by asking what behaviour we'd like to see....


Generally we want to see stacks – from time to time – it's ok if an overlord concentrates there resources occasionally. But we need to make sure that concentration makes game for the minions.


We definitely need to make sure that the minions all need to convince the overlord that they should get the monsters this turn. Which turns out provides a really good answer about the question of 'should we empower the minions directly' so we are not doing that.


So lets remove an overlords ability to directly create one massive stack by giving each minion a 'command rating' which is the maximum number of monsters they can control. So an overlord has to do at least some splitting of there forces.


But we won't stop a Minion from dropping there forces onto a location where one of your fellow minions is – handing over control to them – but then it's an minions choice. It's there choice even if the overlord demands it..... Which is a good dynamic.....


I've actually realised something – a minion main opponent is the minion working for them same boss. So we just enforce the same rules about 'only one minion' otherwise they fight. So yes – you can totally end up fighting amongst yourselves......


That's clumping.


Well – value of guile/magic/swords against locations is a hero thing....


As for the value of guile/magic/sword in defending a location – I think just putting slightly more requirements to assault on location based on those will solve it. So a place with 4 guile might also have a 2 guile requirement – and yes that 4 quile is not defending it very well but you still need guile to attack it so it sort of is...... It also makes spoiler attacks easier – go in with what you need and lose one of your attackers to guile and your whole attack grind to a halt.


One final thing – monsters don't give strength. Strength comes from orcs – hordes and hordes of plastic orcs without a stat card. Monsters however are all about the bonus stats.... Hopefully that might make things easier on people. Things like an ogre will now give swords reflecting there ability to inflict harm rather make you generally stronger.....



Next – hero manipulation and room acquiring.

Upon a throne of bone - Playtest Number 1

Play testing upon a throne of bone was always going to be hard - the logistics of getting 20 people together for a play test or at the very least replicating 20 people is going to be an epic challenge. On Friday I was surprised how hard it was to get 4 people together to test the conflict resolution system due to a series of random problems and interruptions but we managed it in the end.

The first thing we did was talk through the overall intent and structure of the game to give everybody some context because without it some of the design decision would just be odd. That went down well - and I've recruited at least a couple more players for when it actually happens. Which is nice.

For the conflict resolution system test each player was both overlord and minions.  Running around - dropping piles of stuff of at the locations scattered around my living room.  We had three kingdoms - each with four locations; the heart of the kingdom and 3 others places. We played about 4/5 turns with a reasonable pace despite no central timing.

We were also missing Heros. So targets were a pretty fixed thing - and one source of interference in the plans of others had been removed.

Raiding as a separate activity had been rolled into the single main mechanic via 'single stat' challenges is only a single stat counts toward victory in this location.  These were pretty limited in number but seemed to be ok.

It worked pretty well - specifically for a first play test it went really well. Which is not to say we don't have a lot of feedback.

One big bit of feedback is that there needs to be more locations - that are weaker - with much larger rewards.  So next conflict play test will need to be at least 6 locations a kingdom - many of them very weak to give players suitable targets in the first few turns.

A behaviour we saw a lot off and would be terrible for the main game was clumping. Dropping everything - including all three minions in one place. It's possible that the first set of changes would do something about this - as would the minions being separate people.  But the overlords need a damn good mechanistic reason not to simply create one mega stack to hand to a single player.

Based in this play test -  guile and magic and swords are seasoning on the combat broth. Strength wins fights and so is what really matters. Locations are defended by hordes of 1 stat mobs - so a big pile of guile (or magic) does very little vs a location as it only sends home one person. Equally swords only make things easier for the next person - who might well not be you. Even in pvp winning guile and magic were nice to do but as people did not have a large monsters the impact was limited.  That was changing even in the 4 rounds we had - I had some nasty wraiths and launched a spoiler attack which not only sent some stuff home but through the use of a spell killed a couple of monsters as well scuppering that players efforts. Thatt was done against a players giant stack - left enough strength to do something else useful.  But overall - it's not working quite as intended.

Or maybe it is - maybe a point of guile is just worth a lot less when costing the monsters? The test game was missing Heroes and they are one of the intended targets of guile and magic which might well reduce it's effective value as well.

Winning guile by a single point of guile was pretty pointless - unless the opponent was magic heavy.

I saw (and did) both commit stuff to claim a location and also wait to snipe (both to claim things without interferance and to spoil).

Spell cards are fun - and need to flow in. Even the weakest effect should be powered by mana so playing it reduces your later options. With one overlord being all the minions- a spell card a turn was ok - but would that would have been to little for the proper game.

Defending a location (as a location) with guile or magic generally did not work. The attacker would take a hit mainly a 1 strength ork but plough through.

Having a handful of Orc cards each of which are 1 strength was a pain and less clear then it could have been.

It was slightly fiddly but having locations impact on the kingdom heart worked well thematically. What did not was one player going for (and wining) a victory against a kingdom heart on the first turn.   So hearts need to start off even stronger and get pulled apart from fights around them. Starting Heros on the heart would mitigate that.  As would the the points from a heart being destruction not victory based - and victories elsewhere reducing the hit points of the heart.

That also introduced timing issue - what to resolve first?

That's what happened. Now what to do about it.....

So more, weaker, richer locations is a clear improvement. I'm thinking the start should be about 18 locations across 3 kingdoms. A kingdom does not have to the same number of locations - so one kingdom can be big and thus stronger while another can be much smaller and so easier to destroy.

 I'm a little worried about the impact of the 'richer' on the economy.  I think a good plan is 'loot cards' with victories taking there choice of the cards assigned to a location.  This allows loot to be a really wide range of things putting some variety into victory and giving the minion a choice 'what does the boss actually want. He said 'bring me a hobbit skull - but it's that's for 4 gold and an elf skull.....'  Also being the 'first attacker' has more value since you get first pick. This was an idea I'd been considering but I just ran out of time to put it into effect for the playtest.

One rather dramatic idea was 'the flattening the monsters'. This would make the monsters all 1 stat one point - while making the minion something you empower.  So you rock up with a horde of orc miniatures (feels thematic) and a minion that does a lot of additional stuff. A minion is either leading - or following and only a leading minions pile of funky stuff counts towards the battle. The follower does add - but not much.  That gives you a real reason not to clump.... How magic and guile work here is not clear and sending a minion home seems too big a reward...... It's a really major change following from a pretty successful play test so I've been thinking about that.

A less extreme version would be to drop the 'strength' monsters and just make strength come from the weight of orcs.  Leave guile, magic, and swords as things to come from monsters - but again that requires a rewrite of how guile and magic work.  One possible consideration would be to let Strength decide the winner - and let magic and guile and swords decide the consequences.  So winning on strength alone would only net you one victory- while winning on guile and magic as well would net you a total of 3.

Lots to think off.

More! I demand More!

So we've got a problem. Not a giant problem – just a bit of a gap.

Most of the focus has been on the minion game - so I thought I’d look at the Overlord game. From playing ‘of Gods and Men’ this is an area I'm worried about because you could end up with an overlord chained to his desk doing nothing fun while there minions do everything.

From an earlier blog post we've got the following turn structure.

•Scouting - 10 minutes. Minions run round talking to people and finding out what is available. But no decisions are made -nothing can be deployed to anywhere.

•Decisions - 5 minutes. decisions get taken and stuff get sent to places. Once placed it cannot move so there is an element of brinkmanship

•Resolution - 10 minutes. Resolving the stuff that's been placed down.

•Explanation - 5 minutes. Minions taking stuff back and explaining what happened to there overlord.

But that’s a minion centric perspective of the turn sequence– looking at it from an overlord perspective it’s very different.

•Scouting - 10 minutes. Overlord sits at table – minions tell them stuff .

•Decisions - 5 minutes. Overlords sit at table – overlord makes decisions (spends gold etc) hands stuff to minions.

•Resolutions – 10 minutes. Overlord sits at table – resolves attacks on their base (if any).

•Explanation – 5 minutes. Overlord sits at table. Minions come back and explains what’s happened – overlord gives out favour depending on their whim.

Right now - I'm designing the game and I think being a minion is more fun….. Don’t get me wrong– the explanation phase (or mini game of aye dark overlord as I like to think of it) has the potential to be hilarious as your minions suck up to you, arse cover and generally blame each other….. It’s just the other three don’t seem brilliant……

This is a problem that got spotted a while back and two things have been suggested – the first is ‘scrying’ which allows an overlord to get up and go look at things. That’s nice but looking is the cousin for actually doing. Something to do when you want to see what’s happening, for when you want to know why your minion is over there rather than where you told them to go.  I do hope an overlord manages to sneak up behind their minion and just watch them for a while – if it ends with the minion going ‘he’s behind he isn't he?’ Then we have achieved the gold standard.

The second is a sub game played by the overlord during the resolution phase – the celestial puzzle – in which solving mastermind like puzzles provides big rewards. I'm currently thinking that awakens particularly giant and impressive creatures – the dragon, the Lich King, Coyote the trickster – that sort of thing.

The intent was that your options to guess would be powered by the actions your minions took in previous turns. In effect you need green tokens for guesses –so you send them to burn down the great forest no matter if it’s tactically sound or not. The goal was a driver which effects overlord thinking which is not clear to the minions “why has the master demanded I do that?” All part of the drive towards a dynamic of confused discord between minion and master which I think is a key goal.

That is currently a bit vague – but sounds cool.

The gap however is ‘the resolution phase’. Overlords literally have nothing to do in that – and we cannot start the celestial puzzle early because they need to head back to there table to resolve an attack at the start of the resolution phase (if one happens).

It’s also good if Overlord are being pulled in more than one direction – if there are demands then they must choose where to be.  Which in turn drives game play.  So lets create an overlord centric time table…..

5 minutes – sitting at the table while your minions run round looking at what is available.

5 minutes – listening to your minions tales of the outside world, ordering your imps to mine gold and mana, spawning foul beats to do your will, dispatching minion in charge of terrible armies to do your will.

5 minutes – sitting at the table while your minions run around miss-using your dark forces and generally failing to achieve your dark goals.

10 minutes – crushing those that dare confront you, scrying upon the actions of your pathetic minions, solving the unspeakable dark riddles of the universe to awaken the great dark forces.

5 minutes – basking in the tales of destruction your minions have delivered in your name, smiling at a chosen minion, frowning at the ones who failed you.  Maybe blasting one of them out of existence…..

Looking at that – there are actually two 5 minutes gaps.  The first bit where minions are looking for things, sure they might appear and say stuff but you've got another 5 minutes after that to actually spend  your money.  So while it might be good if you are at your table counting your gold and working out what to build but it’s not essential.  Then the second bit while things are being decided upon.

Now having overlords mess up the actions of their own minions (and themselves) has the potential for comic brilliance…..

So how about we remove control of hero’s from the minions and move that to the control of the overlord? Who by dint of being one step removed from where the rubber meets the road might well order things that get in the way of there own plans.

So that first five minute bit – that’s some sort of influence phase in which the overlords try to manipulate the hero's.  Using the same resource as the conjunction game seems reasonable since 'victory tokens' represent acts out in the wider game world - raiding, destroying, not leaving the toilet seat down etc.

To mix things up I want this to be a negative bidding - where you are bidding against somebody taking control of the hero's.  Thematically it's about spreading rumours about who 'the real threat' is.  Now I want hero's to be a sort of catch up mechanism - the player doing the worst will by default take control of the most hero's so those at the top will need to spend more resource - which in turn they will hopefully use against there closest competition not the person doing worse.  That said catch up mechanisms need to be subtle - and not sledge hammer.  So simply giving the hero's to the person at the bottom seems bad.  Lets have a simple system - the person who the least victory point tokens bid against them (any sort) takes control of the most hero's with ties being broken in favour of the lowest terror.  Obviously this sort of system needs a chance to co-ordinate and haggle so lets have this bit the time where overlords can get together and talk - before they have any idea what sort of opportunities are out there.

Haggling, deciding, and posting victory point tokens is a good 5 minutes activity.  Then back to there table they go - giving control 5 minutes to work out the winner.  Off there minions go to place resources somewhere - and back the overlords comes to assign there hero's.  Which is where I run into a blank - there's a logistics problem.  How to let the overlords have some control over hero's without just letting them walk up to the various kingdoms and do something.

For this I have no answer - but lets sleep on it and see what happens.  But overall - I'm happy with the shape and structure of this.  The overlord game just got a lot fuller.

All a bit Gilgamesh and Enkidu.

So there is often a bit of back and forth between myself and the brazen duke kicking ideas around about ‘Upon a Throne of Bone’ – actually that’s not quite right – I regularly mail bomb the poor swine back to the stone age; that might be a better way of describing it.

He has charitably described this behaviour as productive rather than flighty (while writing this I had an idea about flipping the order of skill resolution but I ended up kicking it to the curb) but however you describe it - I've certainly cause some confusion.  I don't think my tendency to spam ideas and concepts rather than clear proposals.

This led him to write up an example prose version of a “Upon a throne of bone” conflict between two players around a system he thought was no longer the flavour of the month.  Thing is – it’s pretty spot on with how I was hoping it would work.

You can read it here and it's worth a read.  It’s not spot on – for example the magic card strikes me as overly fiddly for actual use but its all minor niggles.  In tone and feel – it’s pretty spot on and even better its thrown light on some dark areas I’d not really considered.

This is me trying to get the conflict resolution system down clearly and unambiguously.

I'm doing my best to be guided by the simple principle – think about the consequence you want and design towards those.

I'm going to sheer some flavour text off for now – because I'm hoping that will make things clearer as I write up a slightly more formal version of the conflict system for me, him and anybody still clinging on to this barrage of posts.

A unit has 4 stats (A, B, C and D) and working backwards what they do is….

D determines casualties.

C determines victory of the conflict.

B is strong against C (so if you have two forces that are close in ‘value’ but one that has more B and the other more C - that the first one will weaken the opposition and despite them having more C win).

A is strong against B (so if you have two forces that are close in ‘value’ but one that has more A and the other more B - that the first one will weaken the opposition and despite them being even in C).

However while a force that is strong in A will weaken a force that is strong in C – it won’t weaken it enough to win the conflict.

This gives us something close to A beats B – B beats C – C beats A.  However it’s not as simple as rock/paper/shotgun because you need some C to win the conflict, and because if I have 1 a and you have 5 B you will still win.

For version 1 of the rules – I want to consider that all statistics are equally strong (this might change following play test  but being able to make that assumption makes throwing numbers down on paper easier if I assume there all equal).  Statistic D only determines casualties – so if there is another way of killing something (ie by winning the combat) then it reduces the value of D.  So to keep D’s value it will be the only way of killing something.

A key component of the system I want is that ‘spoiler attacks’ sending in units that will not win but may reduce opponent’s strength such that they cannot achieve their objective should be a valid tactic.  So a force of A’s, & B’s would weaken an opponent’s force and even if they don’t win can prevent their opponent winning their actual objective.  Reduced casualties rates makes that a more viable tactic.

Given that A and B need to effect later combats (to have a spoiler effect) and given that killing units is ruled out by the need for D to maintain its value – then giving both of these skills the ability to ‘remove a unit(s) from combat’ seems to be a suitable power.  There should be a difference in how A and B achieve this result – they should be distinct even if they are fulfilling broadly the same game function.

For now I'm going to use the terms Guile, Magic, Strength and Violence for A, B, C, D.

So how does this actually look…..

Conflict resolution order and alliances

Before any conflict against a location defending strength is decided Overlord forces will fight amongst themselves.

A minion may choose to join their force with another overlord – however they are utterly under the control of the overlord and all benefits are given to that overlord.

A minion may choose to withdraw their forces from a location rather than resolve a conflict - in doing so they all go home and cannot be used in another location.

Conflicts among overlords will be resolved in terror order – with the two highest terrors resolving there conflict first.

Minions and decisions.

The presence of a minion allows a player to make a choice - if there is no minion present then it falls to control to decide following certain default rules.

Resolution and skills

Skills resolve in a set order.

Guile resolves first – the winning guile side may send one unit home with strength less than the amount by which they have won the conflict.  By default (no minion present to choose) the strongest that can be effected is chosen, tie breaking is based off Magic, and then by random choice.

This will be strong against magic because units with magic will tend to have lower strength because they will have used their value in obtaining magic.  If will be weak against strength because 4 units of guile will at best send home 3 units of strength.

Magic resolves second – the winning magic side may end one unit home with a magic less than amount by which they have won the conflict.  By default (no minion present to choose) the strongest that can be effected is chosen, tie breaking is based off swords, and then by random choice.

This will be strong against strength because those units with a high strength will tend to have a low/no magic.  It is weak against guile because it’s used after guile and so cannot affect that.

Strength resolves third – the winning side wins the conflict.  Between two overlords that means the loser’s entire force cannot carry out any more conflicts this turn.   Between an overlord and a location that means the location has suffered a defeat (what that means to be decided later).

This makes strength a very all or nothing stat – you win or you lose.  Losing by a bit is the same game effect as losing by a lot.  I’m ok with that – it’s one less bit of maths to do which is nice.  Where people might feel a failure of theme is that winning a conflict should inflict casualties on the loser.

Violence resolve fourth and final – the winner of the violence conflict kills one creature with a strength less than the amount they won by. By default (no minion present to choose) the strongest that can be affected is chosen tie breaking is by random choice.

Consequences, Options and opinions

One consequence of this system is that it requires creatures with 0 strength/magic so that creatures can be affected by somebody winning a guile or magic or sword contest by a single point.

Where this system falls down is that Guile and Magic do not feel very different.  I’d be tempted to give guile more flexibility by allowing it to affect multiple opponents – but I'm not sure how to word that such that they cannot just send home infinite numbers of 0 strength opponents.  If I win by 1 I want to be able to send home at most 0 strength of creature, and at most 1 creature; if I win by 2 I want to be able to send home at most 1 strengths worth of creature(s) and at most 2 creatures etc.   But not sure how to phrase that…..

Overlord vs Overlord violence

That details overlord vs overlord conflict – which needs to be the most interesting and detailed sort of conflict since it involves two players (which is basically PvP).  However it will not be the most common conflict – that will be the overlord vs a location conflict and if the Brazen Duke post demonstrated anything it was that I've not given that much thought to player vs location conflict (which is basically PvE).

The brazen duke (good old BD as we like to call him) talks about how a location does not resist in the same way as a player – it’s a passive speed bump.  To quote him…

“Once the battle is done, I'll assault the Castle. Guile and Magic do not have Rounds at locations, but rather meet pre-requisites.”

Which I have to admit is not what I was thinking – I was thinking that a location would resist in exactly the same way as a PC with a full range of skills.  Obviously sending home would matter a lot less as it would be the last fight at that location – but it could still happen and still have value.  Now BD’s plan has one major advantage – it’s quick and it’s simple.   So in a game of 20 players with a 10 minute window to resolve conflicts in should not be underestimated as an advantage.  So let’s consider what impacts it has.

Well it makes the stat required up to a certain point – and after a certain point makes it pointless.  If the threshold of guile is 3 – then 2 is worthless and 4 no advantage at all other then as insurance.  This does make spoiler attacks much easier to work out – it needs 3 guile, you go in with 4 guile I just need to drive two guile away and boom.  Your options for getting around my spoiler – are heavily reduced if your spell does not grant guile then it’s no use.  Under a full conflict you could get round a weak guile by increasing your strength to compensate.

The other issue is a little nebulous but having two systems (one for PvE and one for PvP) means that the players and refs will have less experience in resolving the conflicts which will slow things down and complicate things when it comes to PvP actually happening.

But we are left with a bunch of questions - what does guile, magic, or sword do against a location?  Does a location have its own set of defenders – with their own stats that can be knocked out?  Seems a bit awkward and tricky if you ask me – I’d rather assumed that the defenders were a characterless amorphous blob of 1 stat pieces.  So then what good does having two more guile then the defender actually do if all I can do is send home a 1 strength defender?

I think the answer to that is Hero’s.  So your standard defender of a location is worth 1 of whatever stat they are providing and nothing else.  Hero’s are more significant – and rated much like a monster.  Rouges bring guile, mages bring magic, and warriors bring strength – but like a monster they can have more then one stat.  They are always at least 2 in something – setting them apart from the common defenders.  They provide bigger targets that make having a surfeit of guile or magic worth having.

Swords and hero’s present an interesting challenge – can you kill a hero?  Thematically I’d say not – just drive them back to the heart of the nearest kingdom…..  If they are there then sorry - swords are a bit useless.

So let’s stick with – the PvE and PvP systems being the same for now.  Unless play test screams ‘what a terrible idea!’

That’s not to say that a location won’t also have requirements – guile 2 or the keyword flying – or even bonus for meeting certain conditions – have siege and get +3 strength against the really big wall.  Also a location might exclude certain sorts of conflict – no guile contest here.  All in the name of making the locations different from each other – not just the same thing with different numbers.

BD did however manage to solve one of my design issues for you – lives for locations.  Or to quote him once more…..

“The Castle has a Location Value of 3, but has been defeated twice, so once more will finish it.”

Which makes perfect sense – and is now clearly part of the game.  So defeating a location does not automatically destroy it and we know that the person destroying it gets the terror.  So what do you get out of making the early attacks?  How about first pick of the loot?  Each location gets dealt as many loot cards it has lives/location strength/resilience (insert your own word here).  When you win you get one of the loot cards – your pick.  So who ever goes first gets to choose and also gets to see what else is there.  Give the loot cards a bit of a range – and you are driving behaviour.  A nice little reward…..

Still to discuss – Raiding, and other actions.

Thus endeth the Epic - well done for getting to the bottom.  If you in fact did.......