There's a big portion of the economy that's simply ignored in this revision of the rules. It's assumed that if you have a presence in a city, you can therefore build a cable to another one. While this may be true at the very highest level, it leaves out the need to secure raw materials, produce the actual cabling, get the cable out to the ship that lays it, etc. Adding in a need to create this support structure before laying a cable might help reduce the pace at which the game starts, and mitigate the advantage of going first.
About controlling the flow of information: You simply use a combination of passing post-it -notes and ordering non-involved players leave the room temporarily. (Yes, a Paranoia session definitely requires two rooms with a closed door between them. With two GM's, you usually can play in both rooms instead of the other room simply waiting.)
In Paranoia the players try to solve the adventure in some vague form of a co-operation, but they also have secret agendas to hurt each other. Those agendas often cause some players to do things in secret, and since the players play to some extent against each other, hearing things you're not supposed to hear is more harmful than in more co-operation spirited RPG's.
Having never played it, what is it about Paranoia that lends itself to splitting the party or soloing? Do you find there are problems controlling the flow of information, where people overhear things they're not supposed to? I know we're all supposed to play as if we didn't hear what the other players heard, but it's hard to not let that influence your actions.
This is intriguing. I wonder though, won't people just be encouraged to make their clues so cryptic as to be nearly unintelligible? Maybe you should be randomly assigned another player, and you get bonus points if you can guarantee that THEY are the one who guesses your identity, while keeping it hidden from everyone else?
I know they're out there somewhere! It's got to be the oldest game mechanic there is, I think. Well, apart from just chasing each other. It's interesting to me just how hard it is to convince people to share half-formed ideas. Even through paying them!
I don't know what to say. I like Tricky well enough over the whole range of players, and it even works with six (even if it takes a bit longer to play). But I really expected more people to submit dice games. I know there are a lot of good ones out there!
After all, a tabletop RPG is really just a system for storytelling. What we'd have here would be a structure that allows each player to be both a character and story creator. Maybe there are cards or something that allow players to change the board, fling an impediment to their opponents, or pull the narratives together. Perhaps involving oneself in story elements allows a player to accumulate "story points" which can be spent to influence the other players' storylines.
I will not miss this one, the dice game is already done, just need to get the rules completed - the other one I will have to look. Thanks for this great contest, I am looking forward to joining this one and will make sure I get my game in early!
There is the risk of turning someone off if they're not as fast as you are. The game mechanic is so simple though, that I don't think it'll hold up if played slowly. Since so many dominos match, a turn based game gets to easy, I fear - you'd have plenty of time to work out the correct next move, and the game runs forever (well, until you run out if dominos). Besides, pushing your opponent's line onton the floor just as they're about to complete it is a special thrill.
The dry season is upon us soon I think you mean, I guess with all the rain here it has gotten really really chilly at night - you know like down to 80 and man I have to put on a long sleeve shirt and loast night I turned off the fan in the middle of the night, I can not wait for it to warm up some in teh dry season :)!
sounds like kids would love this one, the more noise from dropping tiles the better. I am not sure if I think going as fast as you can or taking turns is better? I like the idea of going really fast but then it may turn people off if they are slower then you?
I was sick the last 2 days and was not up for computer work, I will get my game in early next time since it cost me my chance at just being in the contest this time. Although I have a feeling I would have lost anyways :)!
You appear to have figured this out yourself, but you can attach more types of file using the "File Attachments" section of the game editor. It's not quite as nice in some ways as the "Images" tab, since previews won't be generated for your file, but it does allow some file types that aren't exclusively image files. I'll look into unifying the two mechanisms to make things more clear.
Maybe each player gets a character that goes from "once upon a time" to "and they lived happily ever after" (I'm envisioning a candyland-style board here). That way the progress is controlled (i.e. turn-based) and our more aggressive friends don't get to keep more subdued people from participating, but each player can try to involve the other players in plot elements earlier on the board to drag them back. So, each square is either a woodland path or a castle moat or a tower or something and the player needs to weave a coherent narrative with everything that has come before and the locale and their own character, but could also include other players' characters. And whoever gets to happily ever after first wins. Kind of exactly unlike real life.
from a time-based perspective, I mean. Plus it introduces a whole defensive strategy of bluffing other players into going somewhere in one time to get multiple turns in another time. I don't think the version I'm envisioning would have random tiles, though. I know I need to actually work out a rule set to make it make sense, but the only constant I'm actually interested in is the geography, and the interplay of individual efforts and development changes over time. And the geography I'm most familiar with that has any obvious past issues to build a game around is the area around Ford's Theater. Will post rule set soon!
Earlier, I had thrown out the idea of having a two phases in the game, where players played out the past, then we shift the board forward to the future and finish off the scenario. Your comment about causality-based strategy makes me wonder what would happen if we reversed the whole thing? Play out the future, where players attempt to collect things as if they had been placed in the past. Then, we do a sort of flashback, where we shift to the past and everyone tries to cause the future to happen? This might provide an interesting strategy where we place constraints on our opponents' results in the future, thus forcing them to take certain actions later in the game (in the past).
I like the idea of having a limited number of locations, and of marking the locations as visited or free or required. So if you went to a location 144 years ago, you would not be able to go back there again, unless you saw another instance of yourself, but if you did see that, then you would be required to go back there.
That would create a strategic level of the game where you could find yourself behind of wall of causality where you could not enter certain areas because you know that you are already there and you didn't see another you the first time around, or you might let your opponent got for three turns in a row because your temporal debts come due all at the same time.
I loved WaterWorks as a kid! I don't see anything wrong with new rules using the pieces of an existing game, but please keep in mind that we can't make the cards from the original game or any part of its instructions public here. Parker Brothers still owns the copyright on what they published, even if the game's out of print.
I asked this over at the BGG, but will ask again here. So could I enter a remake of an old game that really needs an over haul? The Parker borthers 1971 game Water Works is a Ok game, but the rules don´t cover all that can happen in the game and you are limited on plays by not being able to overlap pipes, so I was thinking of doing a complete overhaul and adding some stuff to it?
My other idea is a new game with Domino´s I think this might be the better entry for this contest.
Thanks, I will get a few friends to check your site out, and hopefully vote on my game
There should be a "create new game" link on the left. Use that to add your game, and once you've posted it, there should be a link on your game's page, right above the comments to submit it.
The contest system I've written only allows each user to nominate one entry per contest, but there's nothing to keep others from nominating several games you've authored. So, if you get some friends involved, you can get more than one entry. (Yes, there's something if a membership-drive ploy here. It's hard to start a community from scratch.)
The right side of the front page should have a list of contests that are accepting submissions. Clicking on the title of one will show all the current entries (I don't think there are any yet). The whole mechanism is getting its first real exercise now, so of something doesn't seem to work, please let me know and I'll figure it out.
Good luck, I look forward to seeing what you've got!
I pulled a number of the concepts above into something, which I have to get organized enough to actually post. Hopefully I can get my mind around enough to put it up this weekend. One problem we had in test playing was that (if we base the strength of a card on its numberic value), players could easily hoard the cards that could be used against them in their hand, effectively driving the game to stalemate. I'm not sure what sorts of mechanisms are commonly employed in card games to prevent this sort of behavior, while still allowing the level of choice made available by having several cards in your hand.
I think what makes the game in its current form work at all is that there's too much to keep track of. You have to simultaneously track what's on your side of the table, and on your opponent's. If you can divide this labor up, it seems like it would get too easy. Maybe if I actually got four or five people together, some multiplayer strategies would evolve. Maybe there would need to be some regulation on which players can build, like you can only place on a row that has been extended by your teammate?
There's a big portion of the economy that's simply ignored in this revision of the rules. It's assumed that if you have a presence in a city, you can therefore build a cable to another one. While this may be true at the very highest level, it leaves out the need to secure raw materials, produce the actual cabling, get the cable out to the ship that lays it, etc. Adding in a need to create this support structure before laying a cable might help reduce the pace at which the game starts, and mitigate the advantage of going first.
I also agree that this game sounds interesting.
I would be a bit worried about how "the guesser gets a number of points equal to the number of rounds the identity was maintained."
Wouldn't this just encourage players to not guess someones identity correctly for a few rounds in order to build up a large set of points later on?
About controlling the flow of information: You simply use a combination of passing post-it -notes and ordering non-involved players leave the room temporarily. (Yes, a Paranoia session definitely requires two rooms with a closed door between them. With two GM's, you usually can play in both rooms instead of the other room simply waiting.)
In Paranoia the players try to solve the adventure in some vague form of a co-operation, but they also have secret agendas to hurt each other. Those agendas often cause some players to do things in secret, and since the players play to some extent against each other, hearing things you're not supposed to hear is more harmful than in more co-operation spirited RPG's.
Having never played it, what is it about Paranoia that lends itself to splitting the party or soloing? Do you find there are problems controlling the flow of information, where people overhear things they're not supposed to? I know we're all supposed to play as if we didn't hear what the other players heard, but it's hard to not let that influence your actions.
This is intriguing. I wonder though, won't people just be encouraged to make their clues so cryptic as to be nearly unintelligible? Maybe you should be randomly assigned another player, and you get bonus points if you can guarantee that THEY are the one who guesses your identity, while keeping it hidden from everyone else?
I know they're out there somewhere! It's got to be the oldest game mechanic there is, I think. Well, apart from just chasing each other. It's interesting to me just how hard it is to convince people to share half-formed ideas. Even through paying them!
I don't know what to say. I like Tricky well enough over the whole range of players, and it even works with six (even if it takes a bit longer to play). But I really expected more people to submit dice games. I know there are a lot of good ones out there!
After all, a tabletop RPG is really just a system for storytelling. What we'd have here would be a structure that allows each player to be both a character and story creator. Maybe there are cards or something that allow players to change the board, fling an impediment to their opponents, or pull the narratives together. Perhaps involving oneself in story elements allows a player to accumulate "story points" which can be spent to influence the other players' storylines.
I will not miss this one, the dice game is already done, just need to get the rules completed - the other one I will have to look. Thanks for this great contest, I am looking forward to joining this one and will make sure I get my game in early!
Hendal
There is the risk of turning someone off if they're not as fast as you are. The game mechanic is so simple though, that I don't think it'll hold up if played slowly. Since so many dominos match, a turn based game gets to easy, I fear - you'd have plenty of time to work out the correct next move, and the game runs forever (well, until you run out if dominos). Besides, pushing your opponent's line onton the floor just as they're about to complete it is a special thrill.
The dry season is upon us soon I think you mean, I guess with all the rain here it has gotten really really chilly at night - you know like down to 80 and man I have to put on a long sleeve shirt and loast night I turned off the fan in the middle of the night, I can not wait for it to warm up some in teh dry season :)!
sounds like kids would love this one, the more noise from dropping tiles the better. I am not sure if I think going as fast as you can or taking turns is better? I like the idea of going really fast but then it may turn people off if they are slower then you?
I was sick the last 2 days and was not up for computer work, I will get my game in early next time since it cost me my chance at just being in the contest this time. Although I have a feeling I would have lost anyways :)!
Congrats on your Win punnort!
You appear to have figured this out yourself, but you can attach more types of file using the "File Attachments" section of the game editor. It's not quite as nice in some ways as the "Images" tab, since previews won't be generated for your file, but it does allow some file types that aren't exclusively image files. I'll look into unifying the two mechanisms to make things more clear.
Maybe each player gets a character that goes from "once upon a time" to "and they lived happily ever after" (I'm envisioning a candyland-style board here). That way the progress is controlled (i.e. turn-based) and our more aggressive friends don't get to keep more subdued people from participating, but each player can try to involve the other players in plot elements earlier on the board to drag them back. So, each square is either a woodland path or a castle moat or a tower or something and the player needs to weave a coherent narrative with everything that has come before and the locale and their own character, but could also include other players' characters. And whoever gets to happily ever after first wins. Kind of exactly unlike real life.
from a time-based perspective, I mean. Plus it introduces a whole defensive strategy of bluffing other players into going somewhere in one time to get multiple turns in another time. I don't think the version I'm envisioning would have random tiles, though. I know I need to actually work out a rule set to make it make sense, but the only constant I'm actually interested in is the geography, and the interplay of individual efforts and development changes over time. And the geography I'm most familiar with that has any obvious past issues to build a game around is the area around Ford's Theater. Will post rule set soon!
Earlier, I had thrown out the idea of having a two phases in the game, where players played out the past, then we shift the board forward to the future and finish off the scenario. Your comment about causality-based strategy makes me wonder what would happen if we reversed the whole thing? Play out the future, where players attempt to collect things as if they had been placed in the past. Then, we do a sort of flashback, where we shift to the past and everyone tries to cause the future to happen? This might provide an interesting strategy where we place constraints on our opponents' results in the future, thus forcing them to take certain actions later in the game (in the past).
I like the idea of having a limited number of locations, and of marking the locations as visited or free or required. So if you went to a location 144 years ago, you would not be able to go back there again, unless you saw another instance of yourself, but if you did see that, then you would be required to go back there.
That would create a strategic level of the game where you could find yourself behind of wall of causality where you could not enter certain areas because you know that you are already there and you didn't see another you the first time around, or you might let your opponent got for three turns in a row because your temporal debts come due all at the same time.
I loved WaterWorks as a kid! I don't see anything wrong with new rules using the pieces of an existing game, but please keep in mind that we can't make the cards from the original game or any part of its instructions public here. Parker Brothers still owns the copyright on what they published, even if the game's out of print.
I asked this over at the BGG, but will ask again here. So could I enter a remake of an old game that really needs an over haul? The Parker borthers 1971 game Water Works is a Ok game, but the rules don´t cover all that can happen in the game and you are limited on plays by not being able to overlap pipes, so I was thinking of doing a complete overhaul and adding some stuff to it?
My other idea is a new game with Domino´s I think this might be the better entry for this contest.
Thanks, I will get a few friends to check your site out, and hopefully vote on my game
There should be a "create new game" link on the left. Use that to add your game, and once you've posted it, there should be a link on your game's page, right above the comments to submit it.
The contest system I've written only allows each user to nominate one entry per contest, but there's nothing to keep others from nominating several games you've authored. So, if you get some friends involved, you can get more than one entry. (Yes, there's something if a membership-drive ploy here. It's hard to start a community from scratch.)
The right side of the front page should have a list of contests that are accepting submissions. Clicking on the title of one will show all the current entries (I don't think there are any yet). The whole mechanism is getting its first real exercise now, so of something doesn't seem to work, please let me know and I'll figure it out.
Good luck, I look forward to seeing what you've got!
Do I just put a game up on your front page and let you know it is in teh contest?
Will games that are in the competition be posted somewhere? Are there any entrees yet?
Can I make more then one entree for this?
Thanks, looking forward to posting 1 or 2 games here and seeing what comes of it!
I pulled a number of the concepts above into something, which I have to get organized enough to actually post. Hopefully I can get my mind around enough to put it up this weekend. One problem we had in test playing was that (if we base the strength of a card on its numberic value), players could easily hoard the cards that could be used against them in their hand, effectively driving the game to stalemate. I'm not sure what sorts of mechanisms are commonly employed in card games to prevent this sort of behavior, while still allowing the level of choice made available by having several cards in your hand.
I think what makes the game in its current form work at all is that there's too much to keep track of. You have to simultaneously track what's on your side of the table, and on your opponent's. If you can divide this labor up, it seems like it would get too easy. Maybe if I actually got four or five people together, some multiplayer strategies would evolve. Maybe there would need to be some regulation on which players can build, like you can only place on a row that has been extended by your teammate?