One thing you've probably noticed from even a cursory examination of this blog and the various dev journals it is composed of is that I change my mind a lot and dither back and forth. This is, I think, a normal part of the game development process-- at least for me-- and since my dev journals and blog posts are created in the very thick of the process and not after the game has been completed, you the reader get a glimpse into this.
All this is to say that, a handful of hours later, I've decided that allowing an entire team to win Wedge when a member of the opposing team has no legal moves left is a terrible idea that waters down the central concept-- that is, a game played in teams that can only be won by a single player. In the span of those few hours, I could see in my mind's eye the possibility of the two teams simply playing the game as teams, with no incentive to play selfishly, and thus no tension, dynamic or otherwise, between the co-operative and competitive impulses. And that being the whole point of the game...
And so, while I'm sticking with the revised board design, I've changed the win-by-making-the-other-guy-lose condition to award victory to the player responsible-- i.e., the last player to make a legal move wins the game all by herself, and does not share the win with her teammate. This might make the game a little more cut-throat, and emphasizes solo winning and strategy for all four players. Well, at least in theory. I still have to get some people together to play the damn thing more than once.
Showing posts with label wedge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label wedge. Show all posts
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Wedge Update.
Shortly after posting my recap of the first Wedge play-test, I got to thinking about how I might add a little more balance, how I might increase the chances of winning for a team that's lagging behind. They might never be able to get rid of their stones quick enough to match a player with a commanding lead, but they can-- through canny maneuvering-- deny him and his teammate spaces in which to make legal moves. The mechanic is there; how do I make it more feasible?
The simple answer is, I shrunk the board. What was once an 8 x 15 grid-- 120 squares, one for every stone-- is now 7 x 15. With 15 more stones than squares, it will likely requires more skill for a player to use up all thirty of his personal supply. (This might, I hope, add a bit more tension to the game.) I've also added three black squares-- one at the center of the board, one at the left-most border and one at the right-- in which no stones can be placed. This brings the total number of available squares down to 102, and should-- should!-- affect the ways players approach building their chains and fighting for territory. It's a simple little wrinkle to the formula that I'm hoping will result in a deeper and more nuanced experience.
I've also revised the winning conditions slightly; before, if a player had no legal moves, victory went to the opposing team player with the smallest number of stones. Now, while a player who uses up all his stones still achieves lone victory, a victory won when someone has no moves left is shared by both members of the opposing team. This might-- might!-- help motivate a player lagging behind his own teammate to step up his game so that he can share the victory.
I say should and might and likely because we have to try the damn thing out before we can start proclaiming what it does and doesn't do. But I've got my fingers crossed.
The simple answer is, I shrunk the board. What was once an 8 x 15 grid-- 120 squares, one for every stone-- is now 7 x 15. With 15 more stones than squares, it will likely requires more skill for a player to use up all thirty of his personal supply. (This might, I hope, add a bit more tension to the game.) I've also added three black squares-- one at the center of the board, one at the left-most border and one at the right-- in which no stones can be placed. This brings the total number of available squares down to 102, and should-- should!-- affect the ways players approach building their chains and fighting for territory. It's a simple little wrinkle to the formula that I'm hoping will result in a deeper and more nuanced experience.
I've also revised the winning conditions slightly; before, if a player had no legal moves, victory went to the opposing team player with the smallest number of stones. Now, while a player who uses up all his stones still achieves lone victory, a victory won when someone has no moves left is shared by both members of the opposing team. This might-- might!-- help motivate a player lagging behind his own teammate to step up his game so that he can share the victory.
I say should and might and likely because we have to try the damn thing out before we can start proclaiming what it does and doesn't do. But I've got my fingers crossed.
Wedge playtest.
Tonight, we had the first play-test for Wedge, my second board game. I was a little worried going in, because I wasn't quite sure if it was going to be fun or terrible. To make a long story short, I'm leaning towards the former.
Wedge started as a political simulation but quickly (and wisely) became about strategic spatial domination of the board. The game is for four players, divided into two teams, but only one player wins the game. On each turn, you decide whether to "work together" with your teammate, enabling each to also place one of their stones next to yours on your turn, or whether you want to "work apart"-- only you get to place a stone (sometimes two stones). The first player to get rid of all their stones win the game.
It's a little more complicated than that-- the teams build chains of stones to grant themselves bonuses and try to prevent the other team from getting a longer chain. And a "team loss" mechanic-- if you cannot make any legal moves, both you and your partner have lost the game and the player on the opposing team with the least number of stones wins by default-- allows players that've fallen behind to win the game with some cunning maneuvering. (At least in theory, anyway.)
With its hybrid of co-op and competitive game styles, I was, as I said before, really unsure if it was going to "work". I'm more sure of it now, but it's also been confirmed that it has a smaller appeal than something like Hextok. That game's points system allows for some speedy recoveries and reversals, and the head-on one-on-one competitive tactics play on a relatively small map has, thus far, proven to be pretty fast-paced and accessible.
Whereas Wedge-- at least from this single play session-- seems to be slower, knottier, nerdier, and much more unforgiving of mistakes and blunders. That's not necessarily a bad thing-- I'm sure there's an audience for it, just less of an audience than Hextok.
Speaking of the latter, the play-testing seems to be going quite well. (If anyone else wants to get in on the testing, be sure to e-mail me at joltcity at gmail dot com.) I might be organizing a tournament locally that will help promote Hextok (and get it some more testing, sneaky-sneaky!) and I'll try to document it in some way if it does come to pass. As for Wedge, I'm looking forward to seeing if it has legs, as soon as I can get four people in a room together again.
Wedge started as a political simulation but quickly (and wisely) became about strategic spatial domination of the board. The game is for four players, divided into two teams, but only one player wins the game. On each turn, you decide whether to "work together" with your teammate, enabling each to also place one of their stones next to yours on your turn, or whether you want to "work apart"-- only you get to place a stone (sometimes two stones). The first player to get rid of all their stones win the game.
It's a little more complicated than that-- the teams build chains of stones to grant themselves bonuses and try to prevent the other team from getting a longer chain. And a "team loss" mechanic-- if you cannot make any legal moves, both you and your partner have lost the game and the player on the opposing team with the least number of stones wins by default-- allows players that've fallen behind to win the game with some cunning maneuvering. (At least in theory, anyway.)
With its hybrid of co-op and competitive game styles, I was, as I said before, really unsure if it was going to "work". I'm more sure of it now, but it's also been confirmed that it has a smaller appeal than something like Hextok. That game's points system allows for some speedy recoveries and reversals, and the head-on one-on-one competitive tactics play on a relatively small map has, thus far, proven to be pretty fast-paced and accessible.
Whereas Wedge-- at least from this single play session-- seems to be slower, knottier, nerdier, and much more unforgiving of mistakes and blunders. That's not necessarily a bad thing-- I'm sure there's an audience for it, just less of an audience than Hextok.
Speaking of the latter, the play-testing seems to be going quite well. (If anyone else wants to get in on the testing, be sure to e-mail me at joltcity at gmail dot com.) I might be organizing a tournament locally that will help promote Hextok (and get it some more testing, sneaky-sneaky!) and I'll try to document it in some way if it does come to pass. As for Wedge, I'm looking forward to seeing if it has legs, as soon as I can get four people in a room together again.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
"Wedge".
I came up with a new board game yesterday while I was recovering from my surgery. So far, it's pretty terrible.
Most games-in-the-works are terrible because they're too complicated, with layers and layers of rules and systems obscuring the Bright Shiny Fun at the center. But in this case, it's just the opposite: it's all center, and right now it's not particularly Bright, Shiny, or Fun.
I think it can be, though. The idea at the center is that you, and the other players, are trying to win voters by shifting your position on unnamed wedge issues or by forging alliances with your competition. It's a wonky, geeky, nerdy kind of idea, but I think it's one that can result in some interesting inter-player dynamics. But right now, it's boring as hell. It's lacking That Special Something-- that mechanic or compelling goals dichotomy or flow-of-play-- that makes it worth playing.
I found that special something with Hextok, I think-- I'm really happy with the game, happier perhaps than I've been with anything I've created (book, movie, video game, you name it). We'll see if I can't get lightning to strike twice here.
Most games-in-the-works are terrible because they're too complicated, with layers and layers of rules and systems obscuring the Bright Shiny Fun at the center. But in this case, it's just the opposite: it's all center, and right now it's not particularly Bright, Shiny, or Fun.
I think it can be, though. The idea at the center is that you, and the other players, are trying to win voters by shifting your position on unnamed wedge issues or by forging alliances with your competition. It's a wonky, geeky, nerdy kind of idea, but I think it's one that can result in some interesting inter-player dynamics. But right now, it's boring as hell. It's lacking That Special Something-- that mechanic or compelling goals dichotomy or flow-of-play-- that makes it worth playing.
I found that special something with Hextok, I think-- I'm really happy with the game, happier perhaps than I've been with anything I've created (book, movie, video game, you name it). We'll see if I can't get lightning to strike twice here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
