Some of you might be be wondering why I keep changing the theme (background) of my blog…
Well…maybe I am ADHD and need a change of scenery – sometimes I feel that way. BUT…it is more a need to find something that is visual appealing and that represents my ideas. I liked the last one but it was a bit dark and grungy. This theme seems more design oriented. It seems like a notebook where I write down my ideas. It will do for now 🙂
If you have been reading my blog then you will know that I have formed a new group called G+ GameLab (thanks to David Short for the cool name, logo and work on geeklists and the Geek Guild). This group uses the Google+ hangout function as a forum to share game design ideas.
Yesterday was the first meeting. Four people participated including myself. The group were from British Columbia, Arizona and Colorado. I was the first to present. I presented my idea, the Tower of Doom. Things went well and I got positive feedback and some great ideas. Now I just have to do more playtesting. If you want to read the follow up on this meeting please go to the following link:
Tomorrow at 4pm PST the first G+ GameLab hangout will occur. In the hangout, several game designers will meet remotely, in real time, using the Google+ hangout. At these hangouts a designer will present one of the games he is working on. Tomorrow I am the guinea pig for the first hangout.
I am nervous for two reasons:
1. I am hoping that technically everything runs smoothly
and
2. I am presenting a design! What will they think? I am have my reservations about how well the game will go over with the other designers. It is a simple game with not too many choices at the moment. Choices are a good thing in games! However, this is supposed to be a fun and tense game that lasts 30 minutes or so… I am looking forward to the feedback but nervous…
I am looking forward to the experience. This is an exciting opportunity for game designers and for me.
The idea for Google+ Gamesmiths has been changed to G+ GameLab. A venue where we can ‘experiment’ and ‘test’ our game design ideas. Using Google+ hangouts the group can do the following:
This issue crops up in Pandemic, LOTR and Scotland Yard. When players have the same goal then there will always be an optimum path to victory. An experienced player will always – whether intentionally or unintentionally – lead the group. How do you solve this group solitaire issue. For me the only way is to have secret information. BUT how do you have secrets when everyone is working together.
This is my one minute resolution: COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN
Imagine a team of characters divided on an island, in and underground bunker, in a forest, or anywhere where they are not in sight or hearing range. Any other form of communication is down. The players of the game control a team of characters. These characters perform actions – could be worker placement or role selection. Each players simultaneously chooses the action they think the group must take to solve the issue and reach their goal. Players cannot communicate what they are going to do. If players try to do the same thing they could potentially cancel each other’s actions. For example, one person tries to fix the power the other player tries to fix the power from a different location and we get a result that is not optimal. There could possibly be a break in ‘radio silence’ now and again allowing for some transfer of information but this would be few and far between.
That was my brain on fixing the solitaire coop issue – I wonder if it will make sense when I read it in the morning.
Tried Google+ with David Short (Ground Floor) and David Gregg (Nightfall) this afternoon. We ended moving to Skype because my sounds was creating white noise on David and David’s end. It was great chatting with them and sharing some ideas. What needs to be done before the next meeting:
STORAGE WARS:
I have decided not to work on the Storage Wars game. It is now officially on the back burner. I am having designers block when it comes to this game. I think I need to re-read my thread on the GEEK and re-evaluate some of the ideas. When trying to come up with the tiles that would be uncovered as players bid on the lockers, I thought the game to be too random and too luck based.
COLD WAR GAME:
Still working on the number of cards and the balance of cards for the game. While deckbuilding games seem to be the ‘flavour of the moment’ in board game design and while my idea might not be perfect, I think it adds something to the genre.
TOWER OF DOOM:
I have decided that players do not need player boards. Each player will have a combat die and tokens representing health that are removed when damage is taken and returned if a health potion is found on their descent through the Tower. The dice images are complete and will be printed and adhered to the dice.
REDEMPTION CITY:
Working on innocent bystander cards right now! In fact, making the bystanders in very fiddly and not in a fiddly mood. Might have to leave it to David!
I am hoping to have a prototype buildfest this weekend. Projects I hope to work on are:
I thought about the starting hands for each faction – US, UK, Poland and USSR. The cards will obviously have similar effects but thematically will have to be different. Here are my initial thoughts:
United Kingdom:
I have another idea for a game based around spy trade and potentially the Cold War though the game could be themed around fictional spy locations and organizations. In this game players compete for cards in various locations around the board while trying to gain influence in the five geographical locations. The player with the best spy network (influence) wins the game. Plays 2 to 4 players.
General Overview:
Five decks are set up to represent five locations – USA, United Kingdom, USSR, Poland and Berlin.
Each player starts with a starter deck of 10 cards. These will be used to in a similar way to all other deck building games – draw 5, use cards, discard cards.
The five decks include four types of card which have a ‘purchase’ cost. The types are location (event), action, character, and equipment. The top card of each deck is turned over. These cards are bid/fought over during each mission action of a round. The winner of the bid wins the card and adds the card to the deck.
Each card has an influence value and a bid value.
There are three actions per round:
Bidding for cards: Each player takes their top 5 cards simultaneously and chooses a character and equipment to take on a mission. They simultaneously place their characters (spies) next to a location. The player with the greatest spy craft wins the card on top of the deck and adds the card to their discard pile.
Influence: A player may decide to discard cards and use them to place influence in a location. If playing on the UK or USA side the player must have influence in Berlin before they can play on the USSR or Poland – the same goes for the USSR and Poland before they can play influence on the USA or UK.
Special Actions: Players may have cards that effect influence or missions and may play these at any time during the round.
Notes:
Obtaining cards from the ‘enemy’ side of the board may be more difficult but potentially have greater powers.
Deck building allows for the gaining of cards that allow for the winning of missions, for discard for influence and for gaining special actions.
The balance between deck building and hand management is key.
Some cards have victory points. These victory points will be added to the influence/network a player has built during the game. The most victory points wins the game.
To win a mission on ‘home’ territory the player has to equal the value of the purchase cost of the card. In an opposing territory the player must exceed the purchase cost. If two players are competing for a resource then the highest bid wins.
My Board Game Ideas 