Skirmish Game Design - An Ongoing, Open Discussion - 3-12-24 AI for Enemy Abilities & Powers

[Punktaku]

You could get really crazy with this! Especially if both players have their own decks of standard cards! BUT I’ll reign that in (although it could be obvious where I was going with that).

Single Deck used by both players: ties are like above, minor things but maybe face cards are more interesting? Ties with same suit color (both red cards, both black cards) would be a larger result. Maybe something environmental? Tied face cards could also be persistent effects that last for the rest of the game unless another similar pair is drawn?

 

[Mad Robot]

Well both players DO have their own standard deck of cards...Where were you going with it?

Using a single deck for both players would make ties a lot less probable I think. I'd have to check the math.

 

[Punktaku]

Ah, in that case I’d add an extra tier for matches. If they both draw the same number in the same suit, that would be the most interesting effects. So match faces would be minor, faces and colors would be medium, and exact matches would be major. But considering how many possibilities that could lead to, maybe keeping it to tables based on the matches instead of unique results per match would be better. For example, two tables per types of match. Minor table (numbers) minor table (faces), medium table (numbers) medium table (faces), major table (numbers) major table (faces). Jokers would have either their own table or listings on the other tables as there are only a couple of them.

 

[Mad Robot]

I like the logic of what you’re saying. It offers an incredible amount of randomness and possibilities.

To put that into perspective for the discussion on the thread here, that level of complexity might overwhelm the rest of a rule set.

That leads to a valuable lesson that I’ve learned over the last few years of writing my own rules. I always have to take my initial ideas, which are about as complex as what you just laid out, and simplify them to match the “fast and easy“ nature of my design.

There’s a “crunchy numbers“ part of my brain that really likes the complexity of those kinds of systems. But I also think about a game like 5 parsecs, where the massive number of tables and steps almost seems like a hurdle to trying the game at all, at least for me.

 

[Punktaku]

Well, I have to confess that my favorite RPG of all time is Iron Crown’s Rolemaster series (up to companion 3. Parts or companion 4 and afterwards were just too much.).

The tables in 5 Parsecs don’t bother me at all. But I can see what you mean about the idea.

How about this: one table, with effects going low to high. So the bottom of the table would be Matching Numbers (one entry, doesn’t matter if it’s matched 2s or matched 10s). Then matched faces (one entry again; jacks or kings doesn’t matter). Then an entry for colors/numbers, one for colors/faces, suits/numbers, suits/faces, then the top two lines would be jokers, then color/jokers. So that would be eight entries. If that’s too few, maybe breaking up the faces into their own (jacks, queens, kings, aces) for 17 entries, or even pairs (Jack/queen, king/ace) for 11 entries. Or if you need more entries, the tables could even split it up to odd numbers, even numbers. So odd numbers, even numbers, faces, odd colored numbers, even colored numbers, colored faces, odd suit numbers, even suit numbers, suit faces (11 entries). Odds/evens and individual faces (20), or odds/evens and pairs (14).

Wow, it can get pretty versatile when you think about it…

 

[Mad Robot]

Oh yeah, as I said, a standard deck of cards is a great "random generator".

But balance is the name of the game I think. I mentioned 5 Parsecs; that whole game is a very crunchy game so it all feels cohesive. However, if I'm just after an interesting way to add some randomness to activations, a simple system of drawing playing cards can work without overwhelming the rest of the mechanics.

As much as I dislike saying it...cards are OK I guess

 

[spafe]

See, I dont know why, but I dislike cards in this use. like, I play malifaux in spite of the cards mechanics they use (incidentally both players have a deck, draw off for initative mechanicsm) not because of it.

But if its built into the game... it wouldnt be a deal breaker jsut a meh point for me

 

[Mad Robot]

See, I dont know why, but I dislike cards in this use. like, I play malifaux in spite of the cards mechanics they use (incidentally both players have a deck, draw off for initative mechanicsm) not because of it.

But if its built into the game... it wouldnt be a deal breaker jsut a meh point for me

There's such a desire to please everyone in these situations that it can overwhelm you when you're trying to make something people will want to play.

 

[cronevald]

There's such a desire to please everyone in these situations that it can overwhelm you when you're trying to make something people will want to play.

I would suggest a simple but sometimes difficult shift in perspective. This is general advice from other creative endeavors but I think it applies to game design just as well. Make the thing you want to make. Make it as good as you can and make it your own. Take the feedback you get from this thing and make a new thing, or remake the first thing. You can never really anticipate what people will respond to but you can learn to judge that better with the feedback on what you've already done.

 

[Mad Robot]

Make the thing you want to make. Make it as good as you can and make it your own.

Truth…thanks @cronevald !

 

[Punktaku]

Yeah, there’s no point in trying to please a herd of cats. We’d all like our creations to be popular, or gather praise, or get us one of those little Place badges by our name, but if it makes you miserable in the process? Why bother.

 

[spafe]

There's such a desire to please everyone in these situations that it can overwhelm you when you're trying to make something people will want to play.

Ah yeah dude, sorry, I don't want you to be overwhelmed or owt! I was more amazed so many people liked the card idea, I've never seen the appeal so was just surprised at how jnto them everyone seemed to be.

Like, if you make a good game, cards or no I don't think it'll be a deal breaker at all man

 

[Mad Robot]

My bad, I didn't mean to imply I was upset about anything, far from it. This thread is inspiring, if anything.

Opinions are what we're after here so there is no apologizing for giving your input I was just commenting about the challenge of creating a game. I mean let's face it, like @Punktaku said, we all want our little creations to be well received. I think it's better for the designer to make what they envision and go for it to see what happens.

Still lots more to discuss...

 

[Ardavion]

@Ardavion So it sounds like they draw cards and then assign them to each mini? Not sure if I'm understanding that part or not. My system is just to determine which player is activating next and not necessarily which mini. I would still leave that up to the players. Let me know if I've misunderstood

You're pretty much right; less picking a card and assigning it, more picking a mini, saying "the next card is for that one", drawing a card for it (or more if that mini has any Edges that allow it) and repeating (back and forth between opponents) until all minis have a card.

If you're doing a squad level game, it would be a card a squad or equivalent.

 

[Punktaku]

I was just running with the card idea and brainstorming some ideas on the direction I thought @Mad Robot was leaning. I’d prefer something with dice since the game uses them already.

BUT if a deck is to be included as was being discussed, I think it should go all the way and be unique in design that you can also use for traditional card games.

As I’m not a designer, these are just opinions and I won’t feel bad if they’re all dismissed.

 

[Mad Robot]

Ok friends…we’re going for a big one this time…Factions.

That’s right! In most skirmish games today, factions are an integral part of what people expect. They help define the world and they can help give players a way to explore different playing styles. But are they blasé? Overused? Worn out?

What about the wonderful world of skills? Can’t you more easily define a character or a group of characters with skills of different kinds? Would it be easier to use skills so that you can really customize your own group as opposed to having a faction?

Factions can serve an important role in head to head play I think, but again, are they the only way to go? Are they the best way to go?

Let’s see what you guys think.

 

[cronevald]

What about the wonderful world of skills? Can’t you more easily define a character or a group of characters with skills of different kinds? Would it be easier to use skills so that you can really customize your own group as opposed to having a faction?

I'm just going to point out that skill access was pretty much the defining feature of factions in original Necromunda. Each of the six house gangs had a short bit of background and distinct minis, but none of this affected gameplay. Skill access did, and for me at least it went a long way towards how I thought of each faction.

 

[Punktaku]

If I remember right, you’re doing an Earth-based post-apocalyptic setting? All humans?

 

[Mad Robot]

If I remember right, you’re doing an Earth-based post-apocalyptic setting? All humans?

I am yes but the question is more about skirmish games in general not necessarily about my game

 

[cronevald]

Oh, now I do have an actual applicable thought about factions, one that probably comes from playing too many Bethesda games or my occasional passing interest to make a Necromunda comic book about a group of misfit gangers from different houses. In most tabletop and skirmish games I've played faction defines your team. But what if it instead defined the individuals that make up your team? Could this even work in a skirmish game? Maybe it's too much Fallout talking, but this seems like it could be a good twist for a post-apoc game.