Welcome as we progress through the process of creating Only the Strong Survive; a game of dinosaur
combat. In previous posts we have
discussed how to flesh out the conceptof your game, build design goals, and use these to flesh out your 4Ms to create a skeleton of a game. At this stage you have a very good concept of
what you are trying to accomplish and how you intend to do it. You could start doing some rudimentary
play tests of the game system to see how it hangs together.
We have not discussed a key element. This element is possibly the most important component to creating tactical game play. If the 4Ms are the skeleton of your game,
this element is the muscle and sinew. It
holds the component pieces together as a whole.
It is the last element needed to create a playable game. I also find it to be the most compelling
feature of many game systems. What is
this sacred ingredient? It is the Turn
Sequence. How and when models can act in
relationship to each other.
 |
| $10 at Wal-mart got me these and many more for testing |
There are as many ways to handle activation as there are
games to play. Below are some basic
ideas to get you started on the path of thinking about this mechanic:
1.
I-GO-U-GO- Basically, both players take turns and
do all actions with their entire force.
One player does all their actions, and then the other player does all of
their actions. There are many famous
games with this structure. Contrary to
popular belief, this method is not inherently wrong. Like all mechanics there are
advantages and disadvantages to this method.
a. Advantages-
Easy to understand, simplicity
b. Disadvantages-
Can have down time, Opponent has few counters
c. Examples:
Warhammer 40K and Warhammer Fantasy Battle
2.
Alternating Activations- In this method, a
model/unit is activated by a player, it completes its action, and then the
opponent gets to do the same with their model/unit. Play alternates back and forth until all
models have been activated.
a. Advantages-
Players exchange play frequently to stay in the game
b. Disadvantages-
Forces act disjointedly, react “in the moment”
c. Examples:
Dystopian Wars
3.
Activations by Phase- One player has all of
their units/models perform one of their available actions such as move. Once complete, the opposing player can then
have all of his models/units complete the same action. Once complete, the first player can then have
all of his models/units perform the next action.
a. Advantages-
Play goes back and forth, Units can coordinate actions
b. Disadvantages-
Can have downtime, Opponent can have limited response
4.
Activation Order- At some point, an order of who
can activate when is established and then followed in a linear way. For example, all units of a certain type can
activate, then of another type can activate, and then a third type, until all
units have performed an activation. The
order can be set in advance or fluid and changing, but there is a clear order
of activation.
a. Advantages-
Used to differentiate unit/models, Play typically moves between players
b. Disadvantages-
Establishing or recalling proper order
5.
Act/React- A player can choose to activate or
use a model/unit. However, if certain
criteria are met then the opponent player can try to activate or use one of
their own models/units as a ‘reaction’ to what the acting player is doing.
a. Advantages-
Leads to dynamic game play
b. Disadvantages-
Complex, mechanic heavy, not intuitive
6.
Push-Your-Luck- A model/unit that is active can
continue to do stuff until they fail.
Then activation moves to a different model/unit OR the opponent can
start activating their models/units.
a. Advantages-
Forces player decision, Create friction
b. Disadvantages-
Artificial outcomes
The above is just a flavor of the general styles out
there. In addition, there can be
multiple small variations to the specific mechanic or combinations. For example, the main mechanic maybe
I-GO-U-GO with an Overwatch mechanic that allows an Act/React system to come
into play, or a resource that is spent in order to interrupt. Again, this is where research and being
familiar with a wide variety of game systems and mechanics comes in handy. You can see exactly how other designers have
tackled similar challenges to the ones you are facing.
As you consider the activation method or turn sequence
for your game, it is a good idea to refer back to your Design Goals. In the case of our dinosaur fighting game, Only the Strong Survive; they were:
1.
Interesting
battles between Dinosaurs 1-on-1 or in very small groups.
2.
Gameplay
that flows quickly and easily between players
3.
Lots
of decision making for the player
4.
Clear
differentiators between Dino types
5.
Scale
and model agnostic
6.
Combat
that flows freely, not locking you in
7.
Positioning
is key
Reading the design
goals, I can immediately eliminate some of the options from our list. Activation by Phase and I-GO-U-GO do not seem
to be a good fit. However, I-Go-U-Go
could work with small model count games; I am going to steer away from it for
now. Those typically have some longer
wait times as players complete their phases.
My design goals specifically call out quickly flowing game play and free
flowing combat.
Alternating Activation and Activation Order seem like they could work
fine. However, I also want to force
decisions on the player. The key
decision in these activation methods is simply who to activate when. If it is a 1-on-1 fight, there will be no
decision making using these methods. On
the other hand, how they fit into an activation method is a good way to
distinguish between dino types. However,
I am going to eliminate those from our final list as well. The positives do not outweigh the negatives
right now.
This leaves us with Act/React and Push-Your-Luck. I have successfully used Push-Your-Luck
mechanics before in Combat! Starring Vic Murrow. It allows for models to differentiate
themselves and potentially “chain” there efforts together, but a successful
chain could disenfranchise an opponent’s ability to act. I have also seen Push-Your-Luck mechanics
lead to some bizarre outcomes in games like Black
Powder, Hail Ceasar, and Lion Rampant that have been off-putting to some reviewers and players.
When I take a closer look at Act/React in games like Arena Rex it seems like a strong
fit. Arena
Rex is also a model-vs-model (or small group) melee fight. There, certain actions allow clearly defined
reactions, and different fighters can have unique reactions for
differentiation. This seems to fit what
I am trying to accomplish pretty closely.
On the other hand, in games like Infinity
or Rogue Stars I have seen it lead
to one model doing all the heavy lifting while the rest of the team just sits
and cheers the biggest, baddest model on.
After reviewing my design goals and the skeleton of the game I have put
together so far, I have decided on trying to build some sort of Act/React
system. Obviously, I will need to build
in some sort of limiting factors so players will need to “manage” their
dinosaurs and their ability to react.
The exact nature of this mechanic is not clear yet, but it could simply
be a dice pool that reduces as they use it, and a success indicates they can
react and no successes indicate they can not.
Then the number of successes could dictate the list of available
reactions. The more successes the more
aggressive the reaction? These
reactions could also vary by dinosaur with more nimble and reactive dinos able
to do more aggressive reactions, while bigger, slower dinos might need more
successes to do something less aggressive.
No comments:
Post a Comment