tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-63741685181331144052024-03-12T19:25:34.302-07:00Illeria Design BlogThis is a design blog for the game Illeria. Illeria is a skirmish-style wargame, in a dark fantasy setting. Characters control small parties of wizards and warriors, battling for resources in outlands of Illeria. What makes this game unique is that it takes place on not one board, but two, the parallel but interconnected spirit and physical worlds. Each world is meant to have a different feel, but the impacts of one resonate through both. Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-91992077359356885872022-07-27T06:49:00.004-07:002022-08-13T09:45:30.019-07:00It is finished!!!<p style="font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The game is finally finished and for sale!!!</span></p>
<p style="font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 23px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></p>
<p style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The demo can be downloaded for free at:</span></p>
<p style="color: #0000e9; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration: underline;">https://www.wargamevault.com/product/396995/Illeria-demo-game</span></p>
<p style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 23px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></p>
<p style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The pdf of game can be purchased at:</span></p>
<p style="color: #0000e9; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration: underline;">https://www.wargamevault.com/product/395081/Illeria</span></p>
<p style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 23px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></p>
<p style="color: #0c0c0c; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">The hard copy of the game can be purchased at:</span></p>
<p style="color: #0000e9; font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none; text-decoration: underline;">https://www.lulu.com/shop/simon-stump-and-tag-/illeria/paperback/product-67nrmq.html?q=illeria&page=1&pageSize=4</span></p>
<p style="font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 23px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></p>
<p style="font-family: Times; font-size: 18px; font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-kerning: none;">Moving it over the finish line has been a weird process. I think I had what I first thought of as the final pdf done a couple of months ago, but there has been a lot of back-and-forth getting the final product to look right (I'm still working things out to do a hard-cover copy on wargamevault). But, it's done. It's been kind of a relief to have it finally be out there, and I've stated thinking about what game might be next.</span></p>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-80677296544640545092021-12-31T21:23:00.003-07:002021-12-31T21:23:21.646-07:00Happy end of 2021<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Happy New Years!!!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So, I wanted to give you all quick updates for the year.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I got Illeria to a point that I'm calling it "finished." There was a quote I heard George Lucas say once (I can't remember if he was quoting someone) about how movies are never finished, just abandoned; I think that totally applies here. I could probably keep going on forever, but at some point it is time to say "Done!" and leave any further changes for the second edition.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The final game has 43 abilities (among 6 classes), 11 spells (among 3 schools), 10 types of additional creatures, 9 missions, and 5 scenarios to determine how characters become linked. The rulebook is 5 chapters and 55 pages, and contains 14 drawings and 13 figures.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This feels like something to celebrate.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I order a copy printed from Lulu, and I'm super excited to see it. I think it should get here Tuesday.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I pitched the game to Osprey and Mantic Games, both have said no. I'm going to try Warlord Games, but if that doesn't work, I might just send it to Wargame Vault. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Anyways, cheers!</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-36464412791458387142021-11-05T20:59:00.008-07:002021-11-05T21:00:00.038-07:00Finalizing the campaign mode<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My update, I have 5 playtests to go. I have an ordered list of abilities I want to test (I won't get to all of them, but that's okay). I'm happy with my missions, and might try to squeeze one more in. The rulebook just went through a major edit, and Sarah is going to look at it. And, I have a campaign mode I'm happy with.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">On that, the campaign mode...</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I've always had a few goals in my campaign:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">1) Battlefield deaths feel heavy (e.g. if a party is losing, they don't keep fighting to earn extra experience)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">2) Games are varied (e.g. if I play four games against my brother, they feel distinct, rather than like one game with three rematches)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">3) There is an end condition.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">For (3), I've decided to stay with the Illeria as a former prison colony backstory. I've gone through different ideas, and what I finally came to was that the characters know of a way to escape (e.g. crafting a magic flying boat or building a teleporter), but doing so is resource-intensive. So, they battle over alchemical resources to craft their items from, and escape when they collect enough.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">For (2), a given game has 5 characters, but groups 12 that they can pick from. Because of this, you will field a different party every game.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">For (1), if a character dies in battle, there is a decent chance they die permanently. This links with the 12 characters thing, because it builds in a buffer: if a character dies, you still have 11 left.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So, then comes the nitty-gritty of how to do a campaign. To test my ideas, I created a campaign simulator. I made a party of 12 characters, and named them after PS1-era Final Fantasy characters (I figured I'd care more if I saw "Tifa dies" instead of "Character 3 dies"). Then, I made a simulation that did everything except the game:</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">1) I picked 5 characters to fight.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">2) The simulator randomly determined if I won (50/50 chance), and picked who died in battle (based on death rates in playtests).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">3) It determined whether a character that died in battle if they died permanently, gained permanent injuries, or was fine.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">4) It randomly assigned me whatever spoils I got from the battle.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">5) It gave me the choice of how to assign experience points, and if someone levels up, gives them pre-made abilities.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">6) It determines how many resources I consumed, and if needed, what would happen with foraging.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">7) It determined if the party persisted; if so, repeat. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I ran this for a number of campaigns, and then decided how I liked the results. I would then tweak how steps #3-7 worked. I made a few interested discoveries.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I wanted parties to consume some kind of resource (step 6), to put a timer on things. This was meant to be like the ante in poker: a reason to not sit out most games. I tried versions where I tracked this on a broad and a minute level, and I found that I liked using the broadest level possible. What I came up with was that 1 unit of "rations" feeds the entire party after a game. If you win a game you get a perishable ration, if you lose you need to eat one of your dry rations. If you run out of dry resources, then you need to forage, and foraging often results in misfortune. I like this because it is simple, and it puts a clock on the number of games that you can lose. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Spoils (step 4) took a good bit of adjusting. I elected to have the win condition be collect X alchemical resources, and so I needed to tweak what X was, and how many you could get in a game. For a while, it was 1 if you won, and 0 if you lost. I eventually decided to make it 2 if you won, 1 if you had a minor loss, and 0 if you had a major loss. I did this to keep people in battle, so that even if they knew they would lose, they would still fight for that one bit of resource. It also felt better to get 1, and much more interesting if the number of resources was not just the number of wins. I also tweaked how many rewards parties got (besides the resources). After a few tests, I settled on the winning party got 2, and the losing party got 1. For the winner, 3 was too many and 1 was not enough. For the loser, it really felt bad get nothing.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I haven't changed my leveling-up system (step 5), and I've always really liked it. Basically, after each game you get a certain number of training dice, which you assign amongst your characters, and if you roll high enough, they gain a level.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Death took some tweaking, to get it moderately punishing. I ended on characters die on a dice roll of 4+, or 5+ if they are level 3, or 6 if they are level 5. Each time they die in battle but not permanently, it usually increases their chance of dying permanently. I debated whether to have the chance of dying always increase, or just usually (i.e. on the roll of a 1, nothing happens). Usually felt so much better psychologically, however, it had little impact on the long-term probability of survival (i.e. how many times a level 1, 3, or 5 character could die in battle before dying permanently); so, I kept it.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Okay, almost 1000 words. Almost there. This is exciting!!!</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-30830538342259614862021-09-05T16:52:00.004-07:002021-09-05T21:43:34.875-07:00 10 playtests to go...<div><span style="font-size: medium;">This will be an all-update day.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />As I mentioned in my last post, maybe a month ago I set a deadline for myself: I would play 20 more test games, and then call Illeria done (at least for now). I recently played game #10, so it's time to check in and see how it is going.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />I'm trying to keep in mind <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXTOUnzNo64" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a great GDC talk I saw by Tom Francis</a> on efficiency in game design. I recently rewatched it. One of his main pieces of advice was to consider things it add in terms of value divided by work. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />So, here is what I have done and need to do, divided into groups.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><u><b>Main rules<br /></b></u>I feel really good about the main rule set. I've made few changes in the past 10 games, and feel good about those I have (e.g. making spells harder to cast if the target is in cover). I've also been tightening things by removing rules or making things consistent. I doubt I will have many more changes in the next 10 games.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><b><u>Characters<br /></u></b>I've finally started testing with high-level characters. I think it has gone well, as a character with a two-point ability or a couple of ability boosts is good, but not overwhelmingly good. <br />I currently have 5 fighter abilities (mostly well tested), 7 archer abilities (all but one well tested), 12 mystic abilities (not all of them tested), 6 spellcaster abilities (some well tested, others less so), 4 animator abilities (all well tested) + 2 I'm debating, and 5 summoner abilities (most well tested). I think at this point I can stop testing archery abilities, and I either need to start culling mystic abilities or testing them thoroughly. I keep feeling like I need one more animator ability, but have been struggling. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><u><b>Missions & scenarios<br /></b></u>I've divided my game types into "missions" (which define how one wins), and "scenarios" (which define how magic is transferred to the real world). I currently have 9 missions that have been tested decently to well, and a few I'm so-so on. I'm debating between whether it is worth spending my last 10 games tightening up current missions, or developing new ones. I think it would be irresponsible to try to develop more than one new mission (two at most). I have three very solid scenarios, and two that are so-so. I'm definitely going to test the two so-so scenarios, that will be a main focus. The scenarios have honestly been lacking in part because they are harder to design. I'd like to have a 6th one, but might not come up with an idea. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><u><b>Campaign<br /></b></u>I have a decent campaign mode at this point. I think I have a decent method for having strong parties fight weak ones. I think I really like my death and experience systems, though I wonder if they could use minor tweaking. I've tracked the number of survivors per game in the past 7 games, and have found that on average 40% of a party dies if the party wins, and 60% dies if the lose (that said, these are both +/- about 18%, so I can't be super confident yet); I can use this to project how long a party will survive. One thing I've struggled with slightly is the resource system (more in a future post). I've been thinking testing with this in simulated campaigns, where I do the pre-game stuff, then flip a coin to see who wins, and calculate the aftermath. I'll do computer simulations understand long-term behavior, but also do it by hand to see how crappy I feel after a bad game. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />The campaign is one where I debate the value/effort. If I look in that term, I'm not sure if it is worth it, but it is something I really fundamentally wanted from when I first created this game. I guess that is like what Tom said, that it is important because it is the value I want to put into this game.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><u><b>Rulebook<br /></b></u>I just gave the rulebook an on-paper edit. It is still rough, but other than the missions and scenarios, I have everything on paper. My time as a scientist taught me it's often easier to edit than write from scratch, and I have a good basic structure. Sarah promised that she'll read it when I'm near done.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />I have several diagrams, which I'm happy with, and many hand-made pictures. I have a few more diagrams I want to make, and a couple more drawings I want to hand-draw. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /><u><b>Backstory<br /></b></u>This is one I keep going back and forth on. I'm starting to lean towards the story of mercenary prospectors in a magical outlands, rather than a story of escapees fighting to survive on a prison island. The outlands story works better with the campaign mode, and honestly makes more sense with some of the missions. I'm debating if it is an interesting story, or one that is over-done (I worry it sounds too much like Frostrgave and Mordheim). I think the prison island story is much more unique. I also have to take into account that I have flavor text written for the prison island story, and I worry that would take too much time to re-do (failing the value/effort ratio).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Ok, so the current to-do list (in rough order of importance):<br />-Make rulebook clear.<br />-Make rulebook pretty.<br />-Polish abilities I am so-so on.<br />-Add an animator ability.<br />-Get campaign mode working.<br />-Polish scenarios I am so-so on.<br />-Polish missions I am so-so on.<br />-Get at least 1 more scenario.<br />-</span><span style="font-size: medium;">Make at least 1 more mission.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Ok, T minus 10 games and counting...</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-56982072918498449822021-08-29T21:27:00.003-07:002021-09-02T06:46:22.681-07:00I'm back, and a SUPER exciting topic<div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I took a hiatus from Illeria after starting my new job. I needed it. I'm back though. I set a deadline to playtest Illeria 20 more times, and then contact my first publisher (<a href="https://ospreypublishing.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Osprey</a>). I'm at 9. I told myself I'd do a check-in at 10, so that will be my next post.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">For today, I wanted to talk about grammar in rulebooks. I know, why did I take so long to talk about something so exciting? :p </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Seriously though, as I was writing my rulebook, I noticed I was being inconsistent about what I capitalized. For example, do I write, "If a Spellcaster is Linked, they gain +2 Soul when casting Berserk," or "If a spellcaster is linked, they gain +2 soul when casting berserk"? Previously I had been just doing what felt right, without putting much thought into it (this in a book that I've edited and rewritten for the past decade). My recent full edit made me think I should be more intentional in my choices. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I talked to Sarah (a former English teacher) for advice. She said that game rulebooks are such a niche that there probably aren't standard conventions, and to just be consistent. She also suggested looking at other games, and seeing if I found a pattern.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">So, I did this, and here's what I found (some of these in old-edition rulebooks):</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Dungeons & Dragons capitalizes stats (Wisdom), skills, table names, abilities, and various quantities that they abbreviate (Armor Class as AC). They use lower case for race (dwarf), class (barbarian), and condition (paralyzed). They italicize spell names.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Warhammer 40K and Necromunda capitalize stats (Leadership), races (Ork), titles (Champion), terms like Combat Score or Break Test, psychic power names, skills, and mission names. They also capitalize weapon names when they are in a table, but not in text. The use lower case for statuses, phases of the turn (shooting phase), and the terms short and longe range.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Infinity capitalizes stats, attributes of weapons, troop types, skill names, statuses, mission names, and attributes like Short Skill or Range. I couldn't find anything significant that was lower-case.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Frostrgave capitalizes stats, class (Elementalist), magic schools, spell names, and the words "Line of Sight" and "Wizard Sheet." They use lower case on creature names and mercenary classes. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Savage Worlds capitalizes stats, skills, action names, status, and the term "Unit Card." It uses lower-case for the term "cover". </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">King of War capitalizes stats, move types, missions, statuses, troop type, movement types, and the terms Line of Sight and Enemies. I couldn't find anything significant in lower-case. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Going through this made me feel better about how indecisive I've been, it seems a little all over the map, and some games seem to just capitalize everything. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I found <a href="https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1029435/rules-writing-and-capitalization" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">one discussion of it on BGG</a>, which seemed to suggest that there is no standard convention, that "only capitalize proper nouns" is a good rule of thumb. I also like the idea of using italics for highlighting certain things.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Here is my working idea. I will capitalize:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-Stats (Armor)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-Terms like Energy Points, Residual Magic, and Training Dice</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-Mission names (Scoria Hunt)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-Phase names (Action Phase)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-Action names (Melee Attack action)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I will italicize:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-spell names</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-ability names</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I will use lower-case for:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-statuses (linked)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-terms like summoned creatures and damage</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-class names (mystic)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-terrain types (heavy cover)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-names of creatures (eidolons)</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I'll see how this looks, and edit it as needed.</span></div></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-57306679640905635022021-05-16T08:35:00.000-07:002021-05-16T08:35:00.523-07:00Quick update<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"> Hi all, I haven't posted in a while. Between a lot of life stuff (starting a new job at Carvana, trying to buy a house) and a feeling of burnout with Illeria, I haven't worked on it for a while. So, I decided I needed a break. I pushed my goal of finishing it back to the end of June, and decided that I'd spend May not working on it (except for painting figures for it, and maybe making terrain). I'll tell you more about it when I get back.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-13668750350102583122021-04-14T10:59:00.000-07:002021-04-14T10:59:34.706-07:00 Simplicity vs. interesting(?) decision in turn order<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Weekly updates:<br />I keep playing games and coming up with abilities. I want to have 5 abilities per character type (i.e. melee, archery, spellcaster, etc), and I'm almost there. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />For today, I want to talk about the initiative system.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Illeria has an I-go-you-go system, where each round, players take turns acting with one character at a time (until all characters have acted). To determine who goes first in a round, I have had players roll a dice, and whoever rolls highest gets to pick whether go first or second. If there are ties, then you reroll until someone wins.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I had a funny moment when I was playtesting by myself. For a long time, I did this faithfully, rolling two dice, picking the highest, and then deciding when the team that won would want to go. However, at one point I realized that because this is a zero-sum game, and I had all the information, I there wound never be a situation where one player wanted to go first and the other second. So, since it came down to an even split to decide, I made it easier on myself, and rolled one dice, with each side having a 50% chance of going first. This meant I didn't need to think, and that I never had to reroll ties, and gave the same outcome.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This got me thinking, should I bother making whether to go first or second a choice at all? The main pro is that the player who rolls higher gets to make an interesting decision. It is also more what players expect. The main con is that it is one more step in the game.</span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Thinking about it, if you just flipped a coin each round to determine turn order, that would take 10-ish seconds. If both players roll a dice, that also takes 10-ish seconds. However, there is also a 1 in 6 chance that they need to reroll the dice (making it 20 seconds), a 1 in 36 chance they need to reroll at least twice (30 seconds) and so on. This should take an average of 12 seconds (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geometric_series#Sum" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">see here</a>). Plus, there is the time a player needs to think (another 5-10 seconds), and the more squishy impact of cognitive load, perhaps on something other than what the game should be about. Is this decision worth doubling the amount of time it takes?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I was leaning towards "no", that I should just make it random, but then had another realization, which is that I don't need to make the odds 50-50. When I initially designed Illeria, parties had a leader, and if the leader died, their party suffered a penalty to dice rolls. I don't know if I want to bring the leader back, but I have had some other ideas of how to tinker with the roll.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />First, players could get +1 to their roll for each character who is knocked out. I'm really liking this, because it would produce negative feedback. Wargames are notorious for having positive feedback loops: you win by killing characters, and killing your opponent's characters makes your opponent less able to kill your characters. I've often struggled with this, and it might be a way to do it. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Second, each player could spend Energy Points to boost their roll. This would add an interesting decision. Additionally, near the end of the game, parties sometimes get to a point where they gain Energy Points faster than they can spend them. This could potentially remove that, by giving an infinite pit that you could throw points down.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I really like #1, and am on the fence about #2. They will slow things down, especially #2, though I also have ideas for eliminating ties (the player who lost last time wins ties). I think I really need to just playtest this with others. But, if these extra rules feel like one extra rule, I think I'll just go full simple and make it a 50-50 chance that each player goes first (no decision required).</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-85834516661712693582021-04-05T07:39:00.003-07:002021-04-05T07:39:20.343-07:00 Summoned creatures<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Weekly updates:</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I played a couple more games. I'm finding that doing a campaign mode by itself isn't quite a good idea yet, and that I'd rather just test lots of individual abilities (perhaps more on that later). I have printed out a list of all of the abilities and missions, and it is really telling to be able to visually see how many abilities I've okayed in each group. I had the idea that many games will include "major victory" and "minor victory" conditions. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I also had a conversation with my brother Nick yesterday, which has given me second (third? fourth?) thoughts about the story. Perhaps more of that later.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Ok, for today, summoned creatures.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">In Illeria, one possible ability is for the character to summon creatures. The role I wanted this to fill is for player who'd rather have a swarm of weaklings, rather than a few powerful characters. I also wanted summoned creatures to feel wild, so that they are a high-risk-high-reward strategy. Like, if you are not constantly controlling them, they could turn on your or go berserk.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I have tried to implement the "wild" feeling a number of ways. Typically, there was a small chance that the creatures went out of control each turn, and if they did, you needed to spend actions trying to regain control. However, maybe a year ago I invented a novel system that I've loved. When the creatures are summoned, they begin with 5 control points. Every turn, you roll one dice for each control point, and each roll that is below a certain value means losing one control point. For example, the turn you summon the creatures, you'd roll 5 dice, and every 1 or 2 means a lost control point. The target number can change, based on things in the game. Once the creatures have 0 control points, they go berserk, and will never recover. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I liked this new system because each turn becomes a question of how much risk you are willing to take. For example, if your three creatures have 4 control points, do you risk not trying to control them (and therefore needing a 4+ to keep control points), or do you skip your turn to control them (and need just a 2+)? I also like that feeling of deciding to take a risk, only to have it implode on you.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">The hard part, however, has been tweaking this system. There are actually a ton of details that I feel like I need to get right.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">First, when I initially made this, characters could not reroll the dice to see if they lose control point. One play tester said this was unintuitive, since there is a way that characters can reroll most other dice rolls. But, I tried making rerolls possible, and it felt like it lost something. It went from, "Well, I think I can take a small risk... (rolls dice)... &@%#!!!" to "Well, I think I can take a small risk... (rolls dice)... Oh well, I guess I need to reroll that." So, I'm making rerolls impossible. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Second, initially creatures could act on the turn they were summoned. This created a problem where a character could get close to their enemy, and then have a massive attack which the opponent couldn't respond to. I changed this so that the summoned creatures don't act their first turn. This gave the enemy time to respond, and also increased the push-your-luck system (i.e. Do you summon them early, and have them go crazy sooner, or wait, and potentially not have them when you need them?).</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Last, I've needed to play around with modifiers to the dice roll. As a baseline, you can keep each dice on the d6 roll of a 4+. There are several modifiers, however. For example, characters can give up their action to improve this, and I've played around with whether this should grant +1 or +2. This is something I'm still tweaking. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Sarah keeps teasing me that I should get rid of summoned creatures, in part because I need to keep tweaking their rules, and in part because summoned creatures are at the heart of many problems I've had. But, I like them too much though, and I feel like I'm almost there. I don't know, if I'm still struggling, maybe I drop them, but I think I can keep them.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-61116560786643132532021-03-24T08:16:00.000-07:002021-03-24T08:16:00.618-07:00Campaign mode<div style="text-align: left;"><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Hi all. It has been more than a week. Some personal things happened a couple weeks ago that took my focus away from the game. I don't mind talking about it, but don't want to put it on the internet. But, I'm back, so...</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><u><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Weekly(?) Updates:</span></u></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I've made new backgrounds and figures for my rulebook. As a preview:</span></p>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sa64ia1HVwo/YFtVHTaKEjI/AAAAAAAAAIs/wyiCaJbjXCAN-QrrkHZpHHT9nrUF70yUwCLcBGAsYHQ/s1020/page.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><img border="0" data-original-height="931" data-original-width="1020" height="362" src="https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Sa64ia1HVwo/YFtVHTaKEjI/AAAAAAAAAIs/wyiCaJbjXCAN-QrrkHZpHHT9nrUF70yUwCLcBGAsYHQ/w397-h362/page.png" width="397" /></span></a></div><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm hoping that this looks stylistic, rather than cheap.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I currently have 12 abilities that I feel are balanced, two still undergoing testing, and seven written that I need to start testing. I've started testing multi-ability parties (previously, everyone would have the same ability); this is handy, because I can now test support characters.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I still need to do the following:</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-More abilities</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Test characters with multiple abilities</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Test the campaign mode</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Write flavor text for the book</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Edit the book for clarity, formatting, etc.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm nervous about making my May 31st deadline. I can do the first three by making a campaign mode and testing it. This will involve giving characters multiple abilities and playing with lots of different abilities. I did this a previous ruleset (one I've replaced with a better one), and it worked well.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">On that note, today I thought I'd talk about my campaign mode.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The campaign mode's story is that each player controls a group of mercenary-prospectors, who search Illeria for materials used to create magic back home (e.g. fool's copper, phlogiston, energized scoria, etc). They are under a strict contract, and cannot return until they have gathered enough materials. Battles involve fighting other mercenary-prospector groups for materials. I'll put notes in that players are free to make up more story-based campaign modes too.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm planning on starting with the campaign mode I used for the previous ruleset. Each party begins with something like 15 characters. Most battles have like four to six characters, so only a subset of the party will fight in each battle. Before each game, players randomly determine the spoils of battle; these can be magic materials, or things that make the party stronger. Then, the battle happens. If a character's real-world doppleganger is incapacitated, then after the game you roll on a table to determine their injury. Parties then gain a certain amount of materials from scavenging. Then, surviving characters level up. Finally, there are phantom attacks. A party "wins" the campaign if they can gather enough materials to fulfill their contract, and they lose if too many members die off first (thus there can be multiple winners). My goal is that most parties don't win, so it is an accomplishment they do. </span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My goal is for the injury table to be fairly deadly. Previously, character's had a 33% chance of fully recovering, a 33% chance of dying, and a 33% chance of being weakened (which made them more likely to die in later battles). For comparison, in Necromunda (and most GW games), characters had about a 33% chance of recovering fully, a 16% chance of being better off, a 16% chance of dying, a 33% chance of being weakened. In Frostrgave, soldiers had a 50% chance of dying and 50% chance of full recovery, and wizards had a 60% chance of full recovery, a 10% chance of dying, a 20% chance of being temporarily weakened, and a 10% chance of being permanently weakened. It always bothered me how likely characters were to survive in these games, it made battles feel consequence-free. Like, in Game of Thrones, if a character fell in battle, they almost always died; if 85% of the time they survived to fight another day, the show would have lost something. The effect that this has, however, is that you expect your party to dwindle over time (making it different from Frostgrave or Necromunda). </span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I had a neat leveling system. Parties gain "training dice" from every battle just for fighting, and can gain more as spoils or from scavenging. You assign those dice to your characters after the fight. You then roll the training dice for each character, and if any dice is higher than their current level, they gain one level. This ends up being less bookkeeping than most other games (e.g. in Necromunda or Frostgrave, you need to keep track of every kill, every spell cast, etc). It also allows you some control over how your party levels, but also introduces some randomness. However, it requires that characters can obtain up to 6 levels, and I don't know if this will change. </span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm not sure if I want to keep the phantom attacks element. Previously, the story went that there were phantoms that roamed Illeria, which could be warded off using powdered crystals. Each party started the campaign with a certain number of crystals, and could find more. After each battle, they spent crystals to ward off the phantoms. If they didn't spend enough, then some characters might be attacked (and could be injured or die). This was meant to give characters a reason to fight, as I feared that otherwise players would retreat too fast: a player that retreated before anyone died would have no consequences for losing a battle. With phantom attacks, a character that retreated too many times would start losing characters post-battle, so they'd need to balance in-game vs. post-game losses. I liked the system, but I'm not sure if it fits the theme. I'm debating replacing it with something to represent water and other resources (which will be scarce, now that I've made Illeria a desert). </span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So, to testing! Hopefully there won't be too many diversions this time.</span></p></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-81213260867521564102021-02-20T16:12:00.001-07:002021-02-20T16:12:07.880-07:00Whether or not to limit player choice in party design<div><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Weekly updates:<br /></u>This week I played a game with an old friend Devin. His feedback was really positive, and he seemed to get the rules quickly. He especially liked the new animated creatures (which I put back in). I don't know whether this result is good or bad at this point, since I'm not sure if I should be improving Illeria or verifying it works. Maybe it just is. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I've also worked on summoned creatures. In my game last week, Nick thought they were too powerful, because they could pop out and kill an enemy out of the blue. His suggested weakening the creatures. I have been toying with solutions, and I think I'll make it that the creatures can't act when first summoned. That way, they can remain strong, but enemies have a turn to respond.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />For this week, I wanted to discuss whether and how to limit choices in creating a party. In Illeria, you'll field a party of 5-ish characters. I've debated whether players should be allowed to choose any characters, or if there should be limits. This post is inspired by a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFdBZ-PwSe8" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">great roundtable at Guerrilla Miniatures Gaming</a>. This is the third roundtables they've done, and they've all been pretty inspiring. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />When I started playing Warhammer 40K, you could spend at most 50% of your points on vehicles, and needed to spend at least 25% of your points on infantry. In later editions, an army needed two to six units of troops, zero to three units of elites, etc. I found this obnoxious. I understood why you'd want to prevent players from bringing just tanks, but I wished this could come about more organically; like, that an army would fare poorly without a few units of infantry. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />There are games that have done organic limits well, such as Magic the Gathering. There are no rules preventing you from playing a five-color deck, its just that such a deck would be terrible. The way Magic accomplishes this is that you need land cards to generate mana, and different spells require different kinds of mana. So, if you are playing a one-color deck, every land generates the mana you need; if you are playing a five-color deck, you often find yourself having the wrong kinds of mana. The other way I have seen organic limits involves synergies. For example, in Slay the Spire, the benefit of every card depends on the deck. For example, a card that triples an enemy's poison is amazing in a deck of poison cards, and useless in a deck without poison cards. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />40K also had another limit: each player could only take units from one army. This made sense both thematically and from a gameplay perspective. Thematically, each species was fighting for survival against other species; thus, it wouldn't make sense to have Orks fighting alongside Eldar. From a gameplay perspective, choosing one meant accepting the army's pros and cons. For example, the Imperial Guard had lots of tanks and guns, but the few psychers (space wizards) or melee units; if they could bring a couple Eldar psycher and units of Chaos berserkers, they'd be the best at everything, and this would rob the game of something.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />So how to these apply to Illeria? Should there be parties of summoners and parties of spellcasters, or should parties be able to have one of everything?</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">-Thematically, it is not clear why spellcasters and summoners wouldn't work together. Every character is a mercenary in a party that is prospecting Illeria. If anything, a party would want to have different kinds of characters to deal with different situations (the same way you'd never have a D&D party of all wizards). <br />-At times I've played around with limited and varied resources. In earlier editions I put limits on the number of characters that could act each turn (so that some characters would get skipped every turn). I had rules that allowed you to activate extra characters if they were similar, e.g. multiple characters could make an archery attack with one action. However, I eventually decided that I wanted every character to be able to act each turn, which eliminated this resource. <br />-I have played around with synergies. For example, the ability Aura of Magic that gave allies bonuses to spellcasting. There are two problems with this, however. First, while some synergies will arise naturally, most require a character to have an ability that boosts other characters (e.g. Aura of Magic gives <i>allies</i> a bonus; an ability that gave the character with the ability a boost wouldn't affect the other characters in the party). I wanted most abilities to affect individuals, rather than be ``All characters in the party gain X." Second, if I make synergies really powerful, then I feared battles will be won by the party that comes to the game with the best synergies, rather than by the person who plays the best (which, <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2020/12/why-3-player-chess-is-impossible-and.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">as I've said previously</a>, I'm trying to avoid).<br />-I've never been a fan of arbitrary rules about who a player can bring, so I want to avoid that.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">That said, I worry this will lead to a game where every party is a generalist party. My brother-in-law Dave once had this commentary about a Star Wars RPG without limits. He said that characters could take any power, so really every character should be a medic with particular powers, which made the game uninteresting.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I'm nearing 1,000 words, so I'll be brief. I'm playing around with a thematic idea. In Illeria, there are multiple artificer guilds that send prospectors into Illeria. I'm thinking of dividing abilities into six archetypes, and saying that each guild specializes in two. I might make it that in the campaign mode, parties occasionally find items allowing them to take something outside of the two, but that will make the spellcaster in a melee/archery party really special. I'll also probably make that optional for pick-up games.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-28001282832779811272021-02-14T18:00:00.001-07:002021-02-14T18:00:16.709-07:00How to make Illeria end<div><span style="font-size: medium;"><u>Weekly updates:</u><br />This was another productive week. At this point I have 7 abilities that I'm putting near done (maybe 6?), and 3 in the "to do" category. I had another playlets with my brother Nick. He had some good insights. He also seemed to do much better with the game this time around, leaving me to think that the problem could be fixed by explaining the game better, rather than fixing it more. I've also made some progress on writing the book.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />For this week, I want to talk about what makes an interesting mission and end-game condition.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />A thing I've struggled with in Illeria is how to trigger the end of the game, and how to decide who wins. It wasn't quite an afterthought, but really, most of my initial focus was on how combat worked, rather than how it ended.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />Most of my initial conditions were taken from more classic wargames, where you fought until one team was totally dead (like in Heroscape or X-wing). I also played games that had some kind of morale system (like Necromunda), but that lead to a similar outcome where you won by killing enemies. The problem that I had with these missions was that they never felt interesting.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />I eventually stumbled onto a system where parties that controlled certain landmarks gained a tactical advantage in the game. This was eventually co-opted into also leading to victory conditions. I also eventually changed it so that the tower's don't give you a tactical advantage, you just need them to win. This made the games feel so much more interesting. I think what I liked about them is that you had to cover different parts of the table at once. Without that, it really felt like both parties just smashed into each other. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />On that note, I made a realization in this last week: For missions to be interesting, there needs to be a reason for characters to go to multiple parts of the board. Thus, I've had a few missions where there is just one objective, such as take something that is in the middle of the board. This ends up not changing the result all that much: characters smoosh into each other, it's just that now they battle over a single thing, rather than just trying to kill each other.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br />One of the things I am struggling with now is how to put a theme on things. There was <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f83MAzV9NBw&t=4019s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a great interview I listened to about game design with Joseph McCullough</a> (the guy who made Frostgrave). He said it is really important to ask yourself what keeps your characters on the table. And I guess that much of the fighting in Illeria is about characters trying to secure resources that they can bring back to Avon to sell (on that note, I changed my mind about which story I want to <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2020/12/deciding-between-two-possible-stories.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Illeria as a resource-rich outland</a>, partly because of the above interview). But, some missions don't fit that super well. For example, a mission I've played that felt really fun is one where each player selects a leader, and their team wins if they kill their enemy's leader, or if they move their leader off the enemy's boar edge. It's fun, but it doesn't fit the theme, at least not in an obvious way. I don't know, I think I just need to come up with a story that can explain it.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-71110301282991071352021-02-07T10:02:00.001-07:002021-02-07T10:02:41.282-07:00A level system to a point system and back again<div><span style="font-size: medium;">Weekly updates:<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">This week was a really productive week. I did several more playtests, and feel confident enough in four of the <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-i-automated-calculating-point-values.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">initial five abilities</a> that I'm adding a three more. I also did my outside playtest this week with my brother Nick, and it went decently. Nick basically liked the game, though stumbled on a number of rules. It has left me wondering whether I need to simplify the rules, or just make them clearer. I'm going to spend time this week making a quick reference sheet, and seeing if that helps.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">For this week, I'll start with a question: How do you decide the relative value of two characters?<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Ideally, if the game lets you take either character X or character Y, then they should be approximately equally good (<a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-i-automated-calculating-point-values.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">with caveats described in a previous post</a>). If Y was better, then why would you ever take X? Many games deal with this by having a point system with high levels of granularity. For example, in Necromunda, a plasma pistol is 25 points, a bolt pistol is 20 points, a sword is 10 points, etc. This gives you the ability to make things differently powerful; otherwise, all weapons cost the same, then why would anyone ever pick the sword over the plasma pistol? <br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">That said, not every game does this. For example, in Team Fortress II each person plays a character, so all of the characters need to be similar-ish (again, <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2021/01/how-i-automated-calculating-point-values.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">with previous caveats</a>). Similarly, in D&D, the granularity is based on levels, so going up a level should be equally good for everyone (at least approximately). Perhaps what makes these games different is that you get one of a thing, rather than a variable number of things.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">In old versions of Illeria, I assumed characters could have up to three levels, each of which granted an ability (with a few strong abilities costing two levels). Each character was then worth 2 points plus their number of levels, making two level 3 characters of similar value to two level 1 characters plus a level 2 character. The reason for this was somewhat historical. When I started Illeria, I simplified playtesting by giving each character an ability. I had eventually planned to turn everything into point values, but the more I playtested, the more the level system stuck. And, making every ability worth one or two levels simplified balancing the abilities. For example, at one time I had an ability called "Deep Wound;" I struggled with it and eventually removed it because it was never as good as having a bow, summoning demons, etc. It was also easier to balance using the simulations I used at the time.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">There was a great <a href="https://youtu.be/bh5oqH1Dv8g" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">GDC short-talk on legacy effects in games</a>. Soren's thesis was that games inherit rules from older editions, prototypes, or games in the genre, and those historical accidents don't always serve a purpose. For example, rolling dice to move is fundamental to classic games like Backgammon, Monopoly, or Parcheesi. Hero's Quest and Clue also used this mechanic, even though it would arguably make more sense and work better if characters moved 6 spaces per turn. It seems like the only reason for this mechanic is that its what boardgames did at the time (which is probably why it is so rare these days). Soren's whole point was that one should occasionally step back and ask, "Why is this mechanism here? Is it still serving a purpose, or making the game more complicated?" and that it is better to remove dumb rules that patch them.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">Thinking about this, I realized that my level system might be such an inheritance, and that the game might be better if I had a point system. That way, I could have a 3 point ability called "Deep Wound" and a 7 point ability called "Bow;" rather than having to eliminate "Deep Wound." I updated my simulations to give points values, and started to plan out how to update the campaign mode to (so that characters advance by gaining +5 points, rather than 1 level). <br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I have since decided that greater granularity may not be better for Illeria. One reason is the limits of playtesting. It would take a ton of games to determine if a bow is 5 vs. 6 vs. 7 points, and I don't have an army of employees to playtest Illeria. But, I can playtest enough say that a bow is good enough to be a 1 point ability, but too weak to be a 2 point ability. I think part of this is just that granularity suggests accuracy in a way that levels don't: I think players will be more forgiving if 1st level character with a bow and a 1st level character with Soul Touch are not quite the same; if a character with a bow costs 10 points and a character with Soul Touch costs 9 points, then you really expect the bow to be about 10% better. <br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">I think it will also simplify things for the player. In my experience, it is so much easier to design a party of 4 level 1 characters and a level 3 character, as opposed to five characters with 120 points worth of abilities. It also makes the campaign mode easier: a character that learned something gains 1 level (which they can always spend on an ability), as opposed to +4 points (which would be worthless if they want a 5 point ability).<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;">So, I guess no change, but now I understand why I'm doing something better. </span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-50488987658715287772021-02-01T13:51:00.007-07:002021-02-02T07:40:10.862-07:00A way to track information for dozens of models<div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="font-family: times;"><u>Weekly updates</u>: </span><span style="font-family: times;">I think I've decided to put animated creatures back in. I've figured out a simpler way of using them. I didn't get enough playtesting in this week, but have asked friends if they are interested. I have two takers so far, and am going to playtest the first game on Wednesday. Wish me luck! I didn't get much time to work on a post because I have been editing the rules for the upcoming playtest.</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">This will be a short one this week.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Illeria, like many wargames, has this problem where you need to keep track of a lot of information. Each character can take a certain amount of damage before dying, and occasionally there are status effects to track (e.g. needs to reload, has 3 residual magic, is cursed for 2 turns). This is easy to do in a game like D&D, because you only have one character. But in Illeria each team has something in the ballpark of a dozen models, which can get quite complicated.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">How have other games solved this problem? Warhammer and Necromunda have relatively little information about each model. For example, most of the models have only 1 health, so they are either at full health or dead (and removed from the board). This simplifies things a lot. I've thought about doing something like this for Illeria, but I think the game would loose too much if every character was one attack from death. Warmachines and MechWarrior have specialized cards for each character that you write on. I tried this for a time, and I found it to be a pain to use, because I needed to create a new set every time I played. Also, those games have an advantage that Illeria won't, which is that they have their own models, so it is easier to put a picture of the model on the card (in my case, my playtesters often lost track of which card corresponded to each character). In Frostgrave, you keep track of everything on a sheet of paper. That works decently, but I kept being annoyed with needing to create a new sheet for every playtest. Also, the opposing player needs to ask if they want information about your characters. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One idea I tried was using dice as counters. This had a couple problems. It was easy to track one thing (like health), but if you wanted to track multiple factors, it meant putting several dice next to a character, which got complicated. I also would regularly forget which dice was meant to be a counter, and roll it. This was actually part of the impetus for switching to only six-sided dice. Finally, it clutters up the table, something Sarah complained about a lot. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So, based on one of Sarah's suggestion, I came up with a new idea. I cut out a bunch of semicircles on white card stock, and covered them in clear tape. I then used ticky-tack to attach these on the bottom of the miniatures. Then, whenever I need to track something, I write it on the semicircle with a dry-erase marker. This works super well. The information follows the miniature everywhere it goes. It is easily reusable. Everyone can see it. I can put any information I want on it. And it doesn't clutter up the table. I can't believe I didn't think of this earlier (thank you Sarah!). My only criticism is that they can make the models a little hard to place on terrain. I'm thinking in the future I'll make them out of paper, rather than card stock.</span></div></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-28242452049089689322021-01-24T15:21:00.010-07:002021-01-26T18:42:56.049-07:00Illeria's core gameplay loop, and does combat need to be more interesting?<div><span><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Weekly updates:</span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>This was a busy week for personal reasons, though I did get 3 playtests in. I'm also rethinking removing animated creatures.</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><br /></span><span><span>Today's post is more thinking out-loud than usual.</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>Last week I said:<br /></span></span><span>"Honestly, part of [wanting to keep summoned creatures] is that the rules are just so interesting, and I worry that a game with just melee combat, archery, and magic would be too boring (which, as I write this makes me worry that the game might not be interesting enough)."<br /></span><span><span>This stuck for me. I wondered if Illeria could be an interesting enough game if there were just melee fighters and archery, or if that would be too dull; if it was the later, I wondered if Illeria was a bad game. Right then I watched <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sk-nbAtIUko" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a video explaining the concept of a core gameplay loop</a>, which helped spur on my thinking. </span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>A core gameplay loop is the basic thing a player does repeatedly. In board games, I think it is basically the turn. For example, in Slay the Spire, you draw cards, and then decide how to allocate your energy to playing those cards (balancing hurting monsters, defending yourself, and empowering yourself for future turns). For The Resistance, you send teammates on missions, and use the results of those missions to figure out who the spies are.</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>What is the core gameplay loop of Illeria? You pick a character, move it around a board, and perform an action (typically roll dice to attack enemies, though perhaps pick up loot or use a power). This is the same as D&D, Frostrgrave, and most wargames (except that in most wargames, you move and attack with several creatures at once). </span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>What worried me is that the "perform an action" part of the gameplay loop might not be interesting enough on its own. I personally find that rolling dice to attack enemies is usually the least interesting part of any wargame. For example, I sometimes watch Let's Play videos of Warhammer Fantasy, and I often skip through large fights, because they are just so tedious ("I have 10 characters fighting, so I roll 21 dice to hit, and I reroll my misses, then I roll 16 to wound, then you make 10 armor saves; next, my character goes... then my other character... now my horses..."). And I find games that are little more than rolling dice to be really boring. For example, Guerrilla Miniature Games does Let's Play videos on lesser known games (e.g. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z02xh3SPwfQ&t=179s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Dracula's America</a>, or <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0CuItop7iA&list=PLzrPO7KIAtwXn5-BnzgFbVcMNxxyYJLOg" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Wild in the Streets</a>), and many seem like they are just rolling dice (which is sad, since the theme of the games is often fascinating).</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>I've tried to make the melee and archery in Illeria fast and simple, rather than interesting, because I don't want them to be what Illeria is about. I use a pretty standard system, like in Hero's Quest - the attacker rolls dice to determine how many times they hit, then the defender rolls dice to block hits, and unblocked hits deal damage. </span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>Some games do have really interesting "do action" parts. I like opposed rolls in Infinity, where attacking an opponent often triggers a counterattack. I like how in Blood Bowl your turn ends once you fail a roll, which forces you to prioritize the order you do things. Spellcasting in Warhammer Fantasy is interesting, because both players have a limited number of dice, and using them often carries risk, so there is strategizing about every roll.</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>And I did try to have interesting subsystems in my game. I think my spellcasting system is innovative: to cast a spell you need to roll above a certain number, and if you fail, the spell blow ups in your face. But, each time you cast a spell, future spells are harder to cast. This creates an interesting dynamic where spells are a limited resource, but in a softer way than most: in most games, you have a discrete amount of magic resource (e.g. spell slots in D&D, MP in Final Fantasy) which you can use freely until it is gone; in Illeria, you never really use it all, but you also don't know if casting a spell will prevent you from casting your next spell. Controlling summoned creatures is also meant to be interesting. Creatures begin with a certain number of control points, and every turn they lose some (randomly determined); once they are gone, your creatures are lost. So, there are important decisions for how many resources you spend preserving your control points.</span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>Then again, many games have boring combat systems, but succeed because the most important part of the game is not about rolling dice. X-Wing is perhaps the best example of this - the combat system is plain, but the fascinating point of the game is about moving ships. And I could say something similar about Kings of War and Necromunda. I guess I just like games about movement. </span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>I wonder if adding too many interesting subsystems could ruin a game? Like, King of War's magic system is pretty plain (basically just another form of archery); I wonder if it would be better or worse if it had Warhammer's magic system. I think maybe worse, because it would add to the complexity, and adding that might make the core fun part of the game less prominent. </span></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span><span><br /></span></span><span><span>This is one where I'm still at a loss. I guess that deep down, I think I should aim to have Illeria be interesting enough to be fun with melee fighters. But, I do like flavor that comes from interesting subsystems, and I think they add, rather than take away from Illeria. This is something I'll need to ponder more...</span></span></span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-39817753414123626002021-01-17T15:10:00.006-07:002021-01-17T15:10:40.219-07:00Ending animated creatures<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><u>Weekly updates:<br /></u>I finished making the first draft of the main section of my rulebook. I set up a game in roll20 to play with friends (I still need to contact people about playing). I played one game with Sarah, though none on my own. The game went okay, though it has me rethinking Soul Touch (I think I'll still keep it, but maybe not make it a demo-game ability). I'm going to try to play today. I'm also getting itchy to add new abilities, which will hopefully motivate me to playtest. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Ok, for today...</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Illeria is a skirmish-level game, meaning that you bring a party that has four to seven characters. There are a lot of great things about this, particularly the low bar to entry. However, it means is that you can't bring a horde of weak characters, which is a play style that I really like. To fix this, I wanted characters to be able to have minions. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I originally envisioned two types of minions: summoned creatures and animated creatures. I wanted them to feel different to play. Summoned creatures were meant to feel like wild creatures that they could lose their mind at any minute and attack their owner. This made them a high-risk-high-reward strategy: they are strong, but if you lose them they may come after you. Animated creatures were meant to be 100% loyal, but a little clunky. In earlier versions of Illeria, you had to choose particular attack modes for them (such as targeting one character, or going after the nearest enemy). Eventually I decided that was too many rules, and just made them act like other characters. Either way though, these were meant to be a lower risk strategy: animated creatures would not be as strong as summoned creatures, but they would never turn on you.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />A drawback I've noticed for either type of minion is that beginners to wargaming struggle to play them. Basically, most new players can handle a team of five characters (which is 10 when you consider both worlds), but if each character controls three minions, then that becomes 20 miniatures (40 in both worlds), which ends up being overwhelming. Sarah has been one of these people, and she's often suggested I remove them. I've also wondered if the reason I don't have trouble is because I made this game, and I've wondered if more experienced players would struggle too.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Both kinds of creatures have always made the game harder to make. First, they require their own set of rules to control. Second, they become harder to balance; for example, explosive attacks are much more damaging, but four weak minions can bog a strong character for a long time. It has become a running joke between Sarah and I that her advice when I have a problem is to get rid of summoned and animated creatures. I've often been given the advice, "Kill your darlings;" i.e. that one needs to be open to eliminating one's favorite parts of the game if it will make the game better. But it has been really hard. Honestly, part of it is that the rules are just so interesting, and I worry that a game with just melee combat, archery, and magic would be too boring (which, as I write this makes me worry that the game might not be interesting enough).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />That said, a couple weeks ago I decided to get rid of animated creatures.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />What finally did them in was the new way I'm implementing differences between the two worlds. In earlier versions of the game, both worlds worked about the same, so it made sense that you could have magical creatures in both worlds from turn one. However, in the more recent version, the physical world is devoid of magic until you take actions to link it to the spirit realm. I've struggled a lot with how to make animated creatures work in this setting. One idea was that the animated creatures would start in the spirit world, and the player would need to send them back and forth. Another idea was that the player would start with deactivated animated creatures in the physical, and would need to activate them. Both of these created problems, and I found myself needing to make up new rules to fix them. Eventually I just said, "enough is enough," and entertained the idea of taking them out. I found that this simplified my game significantly. Part of what spurred this on is my goal to be done by May. Maybe if I'm way ahead of schedule, or if I release expansion rules, I can put them back in. But for now, they're gone.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I do plan on keeping summoned creatures in, because I think I figured out a way to make them work in a really neat way. (and as I write this, I've almost wondered if it would be better to eliminate summoned creatures, and give one more chance to having animated creatures jump between worlds)</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I think one nail in the coffin as well was that when I told Sarah this, she told me that despite years of hearing about this, she had only just realized that there was a difference between summoned and animated creatures. So, maybe they didn't really fill in different niches the way I thought.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-45437318236853599072021-01-10T14:02:00.003-07:002021-01-10T14:04:40.595-07:00 How I automated calculating point values<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Quick update, I picked my initial abilities:<br />(1) Head Scramble- The character can cause a target to become "shaken" (a condition that makes them unable to use most abilities, and may paralyze them).<br />(2) Soul Touch- If the character damages their target in melee, they can deal extra magical damage.<br />(3) Red Magic- The character can cast direct-damage spells.<br />(4) Shot- The character can make a basic ranged attack.<br />(5) Call Animals- The character can summon four weak creatures.<br />I'm also trying to price different stat boosts (e.g. what is it worth for a character to have +1 Armor?). </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Okay, on to today's topic...<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">In <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2020/12/computer-simulations-in-designing.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a previous post</a>, I described how I could automate the initial stages of playtesting using computer simulations. In these simulations, I'd have each ability fight each other ability 1000's of times, to estimate the odds that each wins. However, let's say my simulations find that Head Scramble beats Soul Touch in 55% of battles, it beats Red Magic in 60% of games, it beats +1 Armor in 40% of games, etc.; what do I do with that?</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Probably <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=miu3ldl-nY4" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">my all time favorite GDC talk</a> covered this question in talking about balancing fighting games (it was by Alex Jaffe, the same guy who talked about <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uE6-vIi1rQ&t=2543s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">cursed problems</a>). He talks about the important thing being meta-game balance, i.e. that every fighter (or in my case, every ability) does not need to be evenly matched against every other fighter/ability, but that there are strategies one can play to win at least 50% of the time. For example, in rock-paper-scissors, the meta-game strategy is to play each strategy 33% of the time. So, my goal becomes for there to be some meta-game strategy (i.e. one should play Head Scramble X% of the time, Soul Touch Y% of the time, etc.), where every strategy should be played some amount of the time, and no strategy should be played almost all the time. This idea really jives with <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K3n-Sy2Ko4I" target="_blank">another great commentary I saw recently</a>, which said that character's don't have to be evenly matched, but that you need to remove any "Gods" (i.e. characters that always beat non-God characters) or "Garbage" (i.e. characters that always lose to non-Garbage characters). </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />How do we calculate the meta-game strategy? Well, if you have an odds matrix (i.e. the chance each ability beats each other ability), you can do this with linear programming. As a basic example, let's change rock-paper-scissors so that rock beat paper 20% of the time (rather than 0%). The best strategy is that you should play rock and paper each about 38.5% of the time, and scissors 23% of the time.* We can use similar math for fight outcomes, getting the frequency that each ability should be selected. The unfortunate thing is that the best meta-game strategy pretty much always excludes several abilities.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />*The intuition here is that you should play rock more, because it is a numerically better strategy (having no loss), and because you think your opponent will play rock more, you should also play paper more (because it usually beats rock). Scissors thus gets left out and chosen less. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Alex's brilliant idea was that you should see if a character could still be used in a less-than-optimal meta-game strategy. For example, you could ask something like, "If I only needed to win 45% of games, then how often could I play Head Scramble?" and he'd get a range of between 5% and 60%. Then, abilities would be "balanced" if the upper limit for each character was at least 5% (otherwise it is never a good idea to play a character, making it Garbage), and the lower limit was no more than 50% (otherwise you should always play a character, making it a God).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />A difference in Alex's game is each player had one character, so Gods and Garbage are a problem; in my game, a player can bring one God or multiple Garbage characters. So, I go a step beyond Alex, to calculate point values of each ability. For each ability, I alter the odds matrix to increase their chances against each other ability by 5%, and then calculate the new meta-game strategy. If I find that the boosted ability should be used 0% of the time, then I give it a one-point advantage in the future. I've used a few different ideas for what a "one-point advantage" should be. Currently, if a character has an X-point advantage, and its opponent has a Y-point advantage (where X>Y), then at the start of the battle the character rolls X-Y dice, and for every 6, its opponent takes 1 damage (repeated in each world). I then recalculate the meta-game strategy, reassess advantages, and repeat this process 30 or 50 times (until it approaches an equilibrium). I then calculate the average advantage of a character with no abilities, and subtract the advantage for each ability. For example, if "No Ability" typically has a 4-point advantage, and Head Scramble has a 2.5-point advantage, then Head Shot is worth 1.5 points. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Once I have the points, it gives me an estimate of the relative values of abilities. For example, my initial simulations were:<br />+1 hit point => 4.8 points<br />+1 attack => 5.73 points<br />+1 armor = 6.07 points<br />shot => 7.33 points<br />soul touch => 7.0 points<br />head scramble => 4.2 points<br />red magic => 5.8 points<br />call animals => 6.93 points</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Thus, this suggests that the abilities are decently well balanced, though Head Scramble is a little weak. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Like I said previously, I then use my intuition on these. For example, I think I'm under-valuing Head Scramble, as it's probably a good assist ability. But, this gives me a first chance to estimate if any abilities are too weak or too strong, and make quick adjustments (before my one-hour playtest sessions). </span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-60715069424221572682021-01-03T06:45:00.000-07:002021-01-03T06:45:06.564-07:00 Illeria Resolution 2021<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">If you're reading this, you survived 2020. Congratulations!!!</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I've been working on Illeria for what feels like forever. For 2021, I'm making a resolution to finish it by the end of May. By "finished," I want to have a copy that I could send to a publisher (ideally Osprey games).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />So far I have:<br />-A decent set of base rules for the turn, linking, etc.<br />-Base rules for melee combat, archery, magic, and summoned creatures.<br />-Code for simulating combat between two characters.<br />-Flavor text for the "Illeria as a prison island" scenario.<br />-Drafts of the rules (for previous editions).<br />-A basic campaign mode (written for a previous edition).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Here is what I still need to do:<br />-Final tweaking for the base rules, and playtesting with a wider group.<br />-Create a couple dozen well-balanced abilities.<br />-Write an updated draft of the rules, which needs to be finalized in many ways.<br />-Finalize the campaign mode (if I do it).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I think this is doable in five months. It is at least something to shoot for.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I decided I wanted to go with the "Illeria as a prison island" backstory, rather than "Illeria as a resource-rich outland". I was torn about it, but after hearing <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DWdnoLosZ8" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">an interesting GDC talk</a>, realized I was torn because both options were good. I went with the prison island for two basic reasons. First, it is more unique - the other one was basically another game about fighting over resource in a harsh landscape, similar to Frostgrave and several other games by Osprey. Second, I have more finished than the other backstory - I currently have a campaign mode and flavor text tailored to that story.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />There are a couple tweaks I want to test for the basic rules. For example, armor saves are currently done by rolling X dice, and preventing 1 damage per roll of 4+; I'd like to see what it feel like if armor checks need a 5+. I can test these final tweaks either myself or with Sarah. However, Illeria is almost at a point where I should ask friends for help playtesting.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />The abilities are probably the hardest thing on the above list. My plan is to start with a small list of abilities, maybe five. I'll test those - first with code, then with games - until they seem reasonably balanced. Then, I'll add a few more abilities, and test those. I'll continue this for as long as I can, until my deadline. This will be a good natural limit for how many abilities to have, and also force me to prioritize the most interesting ones.<br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">On that note, <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2020/12/computer-simulations-in-designing.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">as I wrote about previously</a>, my code is for one character fighting against another (i.e. in one world). The problem with this is that abilities have different impacts in the spirit world vs. the physical world. For example, attacks that ignore armor are stronger in the physical world, because all physical-world characters wear armor. I want to update the code so that the fight takes place in both worlds.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I need to work more on updating the draft of the rules. I'll need to make a ritual of it, like when I write scientific papers. I also need to get some advice from my sister (<a href="http://www.mollystump.com" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">a graphic designer</a>). She saw the previous edition of the rules, and had commented how back the background art on the pages was. She's right; and it's weird, because it looks good on the computer, but when printed out, it looks like something a child drew.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />The campaign will be a stretch goal, but I think doable. Worst case scenario, I can cut it. </span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-9598571341726048282020-12-23T19:54:00.002-07:002020-12-23T19:54:32.066-07:00Playtest result: Trials in linking characters<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I just finished what is probably my last playtest of the year. It had been a while, I've been bad about this lately. I went into this playtest with two specific questions, one of which I'll talk about today. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />As mentioned previously, Illeria takes place in two worlds - the physical and spirit world. Characters have a body in each world (which I call their dopplegangers). Real world dopplegangers don't have powers on their own; however, if they become "linked," they gain the powers of their spirit world counterpart. I have Illeria laid out so that the real world is where game-winning events occur, and the spirit world is where characters become linked. Thus, the spirit world plays a supporting role.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />How do characters become linked? The main way is that there are locations that spirit world dopplegangers can capture or stand near to become linked. I also have this limited resource in the game called "energy points," which the characters can spend to become linked. I've also considered a third method, which was one of the goals of the playtest: at the start of the turn, the spirit world doppleganger can begin to meditate, and they fall unconscious in the spirit world but become linked. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I have playtested the meditation rule twice now. I've noticed that when a character begins to meditate, it means they are not moving into a good position where they can become linked, so they kind of stay stuck meditating. I like this as a possible strategic trade-off. That said, meditation seems like it can also create a situation where the player abandons the spirit world, meditates with every character, and focuses on the real world. I'm actually okay with this, as long as it is like bunting in baseball or fake field goals in football - a surprise strategy that rarely happens. However, if ignoring the spirit world becomes too common, this would go against the spirit of Illeria. Worse, if both players decide to ignore the spirit world, well, then Illeria will just collapse into a one-world game. <br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Both playtests had a party of spellcasters battling against a party of animators (i.e. characters with animated creatures). I had been concerned about the impact that animated creatures could have on meditating. Basically, a character with animated creatures will have several creatures act during their action (e.g. the character and their two zombies, or their three mechanical beasts). Because of this, I worried that the animator could fall unconscious, but their creatures could fight on, effectively removing the penalty to being unconscious. This was a real problem the first game, and the animators dominated big time. In the second game, I weakened animated creatures, limiting how far they could safely go from their character; this seemed to help, and the spellcasters won a narrow victory. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />As I'm writing this, I'm starting to realize what the problem might be: the penalty for meditating should be that the character is non-functional in the spirit world. So, maybe I should make it that if an animator meditates, then there is a chance that their creatures become non-functional. That seems like the most reasonable strategy, and one I could try next time. I think that this will make ignoring the spirit world as a minor strategy. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I'm going to be offline for the next week and a half, so I'm counting this as my post for next week. Merry Festivus, and see you all in 2021!</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-65156691615316865432020-12-21T10:43:00.001-07:002020-12-21T10:44:58.557-07:00 Learning to live with Illeria's curse<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">A couple of weeks ago I wrote a post about <a href="https://stumpsfirstgame.blogspot.com/2020/12/why-3-player-chess-is-impossible-and.html" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">cursed problems in game design</a>. It was based on <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uE6-vIi1rQ&t=2543s" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">an amazing talk by Alex Jaffe</a>. His thesis was that some games are impossible to make, because they have contradictory goals. I realized that Illeria had a curse, as my goals are:<br />1) the characters should have interesting and diverse abilities,<br />2) games should be evenly matched, such that in-game strategy and luck determine the winner. <br />These goals are contradictory, because the more interesting the abilities are, the more likely I am to create rock-paper-scissors type scenario (i.e. no ability is universally the best, but each ability is at a great disadvantage against certain others). When this happens, games will not be evenly matched. Instead, the winner will be determined by the characters each player brought - a party of rock-characters will almost always beat a party of scissors-characters. However, thinking about it more, I suspect the curse is not as bad as I initially thought. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />My current hypothesis is that the strength of this curse (i.e. the winner being determined mainly by the characters one uses, rather than in-game effects) is proportional to how much abilities synergize with one another, and how much abilities have hard counters. By "hard counter" I mean that that an ability X is a hard counter to ability Y if X always beats Y, as opposed to a "soft counter," where X has an advantage against Y, but X can still lose (hard vs. soft counters are really on a spectrum).</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />By my definition, Magic the Gathering is perhaps the most cursed game I've ever played - that is okay, since making a deck is the funnest part of the game. The curse is so strong because cards alter the rules in crazy ways, so much so that you can build entire decks around them. For example, I once made a deck based around the card <a href="https://gatherer.wizards.com/Pages/Card/Details.aspx?name=humility" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">"Humility"</a> (which makes every creature on the battlefield super weak) and creature enchantments (which makes my characters stronger); this deck would shut down decks based around strong creatures, but almost always lost to decks that dealt direct damage or destroyed enchantments. I think hard counters are probably required when you have strong synergies: if there is a combination of green cards that is super strong, and there aren't hard counters, then everyone will play green; however, if there are hard counters, then players can win by playing an anti-green deck.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />This curse is weaker in Warhammer 40k (at least it was when I used to play). There were a few synergies, though nothing as strong as Magic, definitely nothing you'd build an army around. This was partly because no abilities had global effects (as opposed to a "Humility" card), nor can I remember effects that would double a character's power. I think most counters are medium to soft. For example, a large squad of infantry had the advantage against a small squad with tank-busting guns, but the smaller squad could win with enough lucky shots. Most of the counters occurred because there can be vast differences in the strength of characters. For example, if I was battling an army of tanks, I'd bring a few infantry with big guns, but if I was battling weak infantry, I'd want a lot of weak explosions - the weak explosions would do little against tanks, and the tank-busting guns would be wasted on weak infantry.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />In Frostgrave, the curse is hardly an issue (at least I think, I haven't played a ton). You really only get two interesting characters - your wizard and apprentice - which limits the possibilities for synergy. Henchmen characters differ mainly in how strong they are, so rock-paper-scissors dynamics don't seem possible. For example, a barbarian will usually beat and infantryman, but there isn't a character who beats a barbarian but loses to an infantryman. Additionally, there is a cap on the henchmen's power, and a limit to how many characters a party can have, so that you can't have a horde of weaklings or three giants.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Where does Illeria fall on this spectrum? This is something I need to monitor, but I think it is somewhere between Warhammer 40K and Frostrgave. My characters will have different stats (e.g. health, armory, attack), but I don't think a strong character will be more than two or three times as strong as a weak one. Thus, it is unlikely that a strong attack would feel wasted on a weak character. That said, some characters can summon a swarm of weak creatures - I'll need to keep an eye on this, and if it causes problems, I'll make summoners create fewer but stronger creatures. I have a few abilities that might count as hard-counters, such as anti-magic or anti-archery auras - I'll also need to keep an eye on these, and ask myself if they are necessary. The characters have two ways of protecting themselves: armor (their defense against most attacks) and spirit (their magic defense). This could also create a medium- to hard-counter system, as heavily armored characters are weak against attacks that ignore armor. I'll need to keep an eye on this too; I suspect that the armor/spirit protection system will inevitably create a curse, but the curse's strength will be proportional to how protected characters can be. I don't think that the abilities will create huge synergies, though I will keep an eye on character buffs, as they could create problems. And, the win conditions usually involve capturing territory, which should make combat slightly less important.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />All in all though, I don't think I'll ever make matches 100% even, and I don't think I should aim for that. Mostly I want to avoid games that are so lopsided that it obvious who will win on turn one. If Illeria's curse ends up between Warhammer's and Frostgrave's, I'll be quite happy.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-14470805258409028302020-12-14T07:57:00.000-07:002020-12-14T07:57:01.316-07:00 How to build a two-world wargame<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The main hook of Illeria is that the battle takes place in two worlds - the physical and spirit world. Each character has two bodies, one in each world (I use the term "dopplegangers" to mean the body in each individual world, and "character" to mean the entity that is made up of both dopplegangers). I've always had two goals:<br />1) The worlds should feel linked;<br />2) The worlds should feel different.<br />Actually implementing these goals has probably been the hardest part of making this game.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I have had many failed ideas for how to implement the two-world system, including:<br />-Each character can only act with one dopplegangers per turn. This didn't work because it led to players abandoning one world entirely so they could have all of their characters focus exclusively on the other.<br />-The rules of each world were basically the same, but the abilities would seem more mystical and surreal in the spirit world; for example, a physical-world summoner would summon animals, and a spirit-world summoner would summon demons or elementals. This didn't work because the underlying rules were so similar, so the differences in abilities felt like a different shades of the same thing, rather than different things.<br />-There is one board, and physical- and spirit-world dopplegangers were both there, though they mostly only interacted with dopplegangers of the same the same world; for example, spirit-world dopplegangers cannot attack physical-world dopplegangers unless they have a special attack. I didn't like this one because it felt too much like there was just one world. <br />-Characters who had a power in one world gave their doppleganger in the other world a bonus; for example, if a character's physical-world doppleganger was a melee fighter, then their spirit-world doppleganger would get a bonus to its aim. This was okay, but my playtesters often complained the worlds didn't feel connected enough.<br />-There were several abilities which affected both worlds, such as a melee attack that damaged both the character's physical-world and spirit-world dopplegangers. This might have worked if most of the abilities were like this, but these kinds of abilities are weird and hard to come up with. As a result, the majority of abilities didn't have direct between-world effects, so the link felt too weak. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />Here is what I've landed on, at least for now. My underlying concept is that the physical world in the source of life that everything is anchored to, but the spirit world is the source of magic and power. So, I have the following:<br />1) Dopplegangers in the spirit world have all of the magical powers (e.g. spells, summoned creatures, exploding archery attacks, melee attacks with status effects). Dopplegangers those in the physical world have few powers at all, and they aren't super interesting (e.g. simple archery attacks, stat boosts).<br />2) Characters can become "linked" by having their spirit-world doppleganger capture some part of the battlefield. If a character is linked, its physical-world doppleganger gains the abilities of the spirit-world doppleganger (e.g. if the spirit-world doppleganger can throw lightning, then the physical-world doppleganger can too if the character is linked; otherwise the physical-world doppleganger has no special powers).<br />3) The physical-world and spirit-world dopplegangers have different baseline stats. The physical-world dopplegangers are slower, have less health, and are more susceptible to magic attacks, but are better armored.<br />4) If a spirit-world doppleganger dies, then the character's physical-world doppleganger becomes weakened, and becomes highly susceptible to magic attacks.<br />5) If a physical-world doppleganger dies, then the character's spirit-world doppleganger takes damage every turn until they die too.<br />6) If a character is linked, a physical-world doppleganger can use its action to heal its spirit-world doppleganger. <br />7) If a spirit-world doppleganger dies, but the character's physical-world doppleganger is still alive, then there are ways to revive the spirit-world doppleganger.<br />8) The game winning conditions always occur in the physical world.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br />I think when I tried #1 and #2 for the first time, it gave me this real sensation of, "This is it, this is what I've been looking for!" All together, I think that these produce a distinct purpose and feel for each world. The spirit world feels weird and fantastic (see #1). The goal of the spirit world is not too win per-se (see #8), but rather to empower your characters in the physical world (see #2). The physical world feels much less mystical (see #1), and like the source of power is really coming from elsewhere (see #2). However, actions on the physical world feel more impactful (compare #5 vs. #4), both because they are permanent (see #6 and #7), and because this is ultimately where the game is won and lost (see #8). And, the differences in baseline stats (see #3) seem to cause abilities to function slightly differently in each world (e.g. I found that a swarm of weak monsters were more damaging in the spirit world, because the characters are generally unarmored). So, like I said, I'm really happy with what I currently have.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-21411417965300213692020-12-07T13:26:00.005-07:002020-12-14T07:57:15.265-07:00 Computer simulations in designing Illeria<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-family: times; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;">lleria has often benefitted from computer simulations as a way to balance abilities. As mentioned in my last post, two goals of Illeria are (1) to have characters with different abilities, and (2) to have skill play a role in winning (and not just skill in designing a good party). Thus, I need some way to estimate the relative strength of different abilities, so I can say if two characters are of (approximately) equal power (or how much stronger one character is). Determining the strength of abilities is hard, however, because Illeria is a complex game. For example, consider a character with a bow. That character can damage a warrior several times before that warrior can attack back, though the damage will depend on the warrior's armor and movement, if they are in cover, etc. Archers are less effective when they move, which could make a character with a bow less useful at capturing objectives. However, archers can effectively screen areas, potentially scaring opponents away. How could I possibly begin to think about pricing this?</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;">The short answer is that I use skills I learned as a mathematical biologist (</span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://simonmaccrackenstump.wordpress.com" target="_blank">my day job</a></span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;">): I start with a very simple model, and build from there. Illeria is, at its core, a wargame. Therefore, a good place to start would be to figure out who would win if two characters fight. The rules of melee combat are fairly straightforward, so they are not too difficult to code: character 1 attacks character 2 by rolling some dice and seeing how much damage it deals; if character 2 survives, they attack back; then character 1 attacks again; and so on. If you run this 1000 times, you can determine approximately how often character 1 beats character 2. This can help you determine the relative benefits of melee abilities and other simple abilities. For example, you could determine how much of a benefit a character would receive by gaining +1 Health (i.e. being able to take more damage before dying) or +1 Armor (i.e. being able to avoid taking damage).</span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 19px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-family: times; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;">Once I have the baseline simulation, I can add things to it. For example, to do archery or ranged spells, I assume that the character gets a certain number of attacks against their opponent (based on the assumption that the characters run at each other and are not obstructed); then they fight in melee. Thus, archery and spells are essentially a source of free damage. If a character has animated or summoned creatures, I assume that those creatures will arrive a round or two before their animator/summoner (since if I controlled the animator/summoner, I'd send the creatures in first), but that once the enemy can reach the animator/summoner, then the animator/summoner becomes the target (again, because this is what I would do). </span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-family: times; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-family: times; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;">These simulations are great as a thought experiment, as a way for me to think about my game more rigorously. For example, I originally had an ability called "Drain life," where a character heals when they hurt their opponent. At first I thought this would be really strong, but when I ran simulations, it lost against most other abilities. Why? Well, characters have 3 health, and attacks deal 0 to 2 damage. Drain life would give no benefit to a character who struck first (because they could not heal if they have not been injured), or if they died before striking their enemy. Thus, Drain life can be summarized as: The character gains 1 (or 2 on rare occations) health if they strike their opponent in that window of time between when they are injured but not dead, and they gain nothing otherwise. Drain life was certainly better than nothing, but far worse than having 1 extra health to begin with. The simulation forced me to see this.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-family: times; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;">I'll use future posts to explain how I turn these simulations into a point score for each character.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;">That said, there is only so much one can get out of these simulations. There was a </span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none;"><a href="https://timharford.com/2019/12/cautionary-tales-ep-8-you-have-reached-your-desination/" target="_blank">great podcast I heard about the dangers of following a model blindly</a></span><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;">; its basic lesson was that simulations need to be used as a tool to make you think more, not less. So, what do I do once the computer gives me its estimate of how many points an ability is worth? First, I do some mental adjusting to price-in effects the model does not consider. For example, if an ability makes a character less mobile (e.g. heavy armor), then I figure it is worth fewer points than the computer says. If it grants a benefit outside of one-on-one combat (e.g. regeneration, which helps a character after the first combat ends), then I figure it is worth a few more points than the computer says. Second, I playtest everything. </span></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-kerning: none;"></span><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="-webkit-font-kerning: none; font-family: times; font-kerning: none; font-size: medium;">In the end though, while the simulations are far from perfect, they give me a starting point in which to match abilities. If I didn't have them, then I'd start just using my gut to estimate the relative value of abilities. Thus, simulations don't remove the need for playtesting, but they probably save me a couple of rounds of it, which really helps.</span></p>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-12098685063077659452020-12-02T16:17:00.002-07:002020-12-14T07:57:54.024-07:00Why 3-player chess is impossible, and what this taught me about Illeria<div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">One of the best talks I've ever heard about game design was titled <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8uE6-vIi1rQ">"Cursed problems in game design."</a> It is about why some are impossible to make. This occurs when you want two elements in a game that are contradictory. As an example (similar to the main one in Alex's talk), let's say you love games like Go or Chess for their high skill and battle-of-wits feel. Let's say you also like multiplayer games. Surely it must be possible to make a game that feels like multiplayer Chess or Go, right? Well, probably not. Why? Because as soon as you introduce a third player, winning becomes less about skill and more about politics. The most skilled player can lose if they are attacked by the weaker two players, and the least skilled player can win by hiding and letting their opponents kill each other. Thus, the contradiction is that you cannot have pure skill in a game with multiplayer politics. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">To defeat cursed problems, Alex proposed four methods (which to me seemed more like a strong and weak version of two strategies*). The first two methods are that you make cause of the contradiction difficult or impossible. You can do this in a multiplayer game of skill by reducing or eliminating player interactions; this is what is done in Yatzee, Dominion (and I think most deck-building games), and Puerto Rico (and many Euro games). Here, politicking stops because player's can't gang up on each other. The other two methods* are that you can downplay one of the goals or highlight the contradiction. In multiplayer skill games, you could do this by making politicking a major piece of skill; this was done in Settlers of Catan (where trading is key) and Diplomacy (a game that is about politicking). In either case, though, you have to give something up - you lose either the richness that comes from player interactions, or the game ceases to be a pure test of skill.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I realized after seeing that talk that wargames like Illeria suffer from a cursed problem. I want my game to do two things: 1) the characters should have interesting and diverse abilities; and 2) games should be evenly matched, such that the player with the best strategy and luck will win. The contradiction comes because characters with interesting abilities are likely to counter one another. For example, a strong warrior would be overpowered by a swarm of weak zombies (since there are so many); however, the zombie swarm could be killed by a wizard with explosive attacks (since it kills them all at once); but the wizard would be defeated by the warrior (since blast attacks give no advantage against one enemy). This creates a rock-paper-scissors system, where the wizard will always beat zombies and lose to warriors, regardless of strategy or luck. If this scales to armies, then games are won not by skill or luck, but by bringing a better army. And, maybe I'm wrong, but it seems like the more interesting and varied the characters become, the stronger and more likely these rock-paper-scissors relationship are to occur.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">So, how have other games dealt with this contradiction? </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Magic the Gathering embraces the contradiction - the game is about using your creativity to invent a good deck, rather than being good at playing the cards. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-I think Warhammer does the same as Magic, just to a lesser extent - part of the skill of Warhammer is putting together a good army. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Keyforge takes the preventive stategy - you cannot craft a deck, and so the game becomes more about the best player. I've also heard the gaming culture of Keyforge is more about discovering how good a deck is, so finding a super-powered deck is a feature, rather than a bug. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-I've never played Kings of War, but based on what I've seen and read, it doesn't look like the character are all that differentiated - the flavor elements that make the armies feel different are small (like Elves rerolling 1s to hit, or undead being unable to run). Every unit has the same weakness, which is being attacked in the flank or rear. As a result, good maneuvering is more powerful than having a better army. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Netrunner is somewhat similar to Kings of War- having a good deck matters, but there is so much hidden information that bluffing becomes critical. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Frostrgave abandons the promise of evenly matched games, and instead, it is more about creating a wizard, playing a campaign with that wizard, and telling a story. Because of this, weak wizards will be willing to play strong ones, knowing they will probably "lose," because they will still gain treasure and experience. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Keyforge, Netrunner, and Frostgrave do something else too: these games are not about fighting (even though it happens), they are about gathering resources. I don't know if that fixes the problem, since I feel like there must be some sort of rock-paper-scissors interaction involving gathering resources, but perhaps those interactions are more subtle than direct combat.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I don't know what I want to do in Illeria, because I do so want the players to win with strategy, but I want interesting powers too. Maybe this game is destined to be Warhammer, where having a good party can be more important than being a good strategist. I'm hoping that having varied win conditions will make strategy more important. I'd also like to use the Kings of War method, where a character's advantage can be nullified by in-game strategies more than by other characters. I'm not sure how to accomplish that, though. I guess the way to do that is make in-game events that are super strong, so that a well played rock can beat a poorly played paper.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'll try to post more as I think more through this topic.</span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">*Edit: I rewatched the talk after posting this, and realized I misremembered the four methods to battle curses. Method #3 was to reward players for good behavior. His example was that in Settlers of Catan tournaments, players get points in the tournament for earning points in the game, rather than winning games. Thus, if an opponent is about to win, this method encourages you to get as many points as you can quickly, rather make self-sacrifices to stop your opponent. I'm not 100% sure how wargames would do this, but I think tournaments and campaigns could accomplish this - if you use the same army/party/deck for multiple games, it might encourage more generalized armies/parties/decks, rather than armies/parties/decks that always win some games and always lose others. Hmmm... Anyway, this edit puts me over 1000 words, so I'll keep thinking and write more later.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-15678206781391385702020-12-01T11:15:00.002-07:002020-12-14T07:58:08.558-07:00Deciding between two possible stories<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Wargames almost always have a complicated backstory that explains why people are fighting. It is something I've always liked, and want to put in Illeria. For a long time I had one idea of a story, but about a year or two ago I got a different one, and I'm debating which idea is better.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">What do I want in my story? I want Illeria to work as a campaign game, so that a player could use the same party of characters over multiple games, with them gathering resources for some goal. The backstory should support this. I'd love it if the game had a fantasy cyberpunk feel to it (a dark and grungy world, but magic in place of technology). I want the characters to feel like amateurs, still figuring out magic, able to grow, and uncertain when spells will backfire. And I really want there to be a feeling that the characters are all alone, and trying to complete the quest. </span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">My inspiration for that last idea (and some of the others) was the spire hunters in the game <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necromunda">Necromunda</a>. Necromunda is a wargame (and major inspiration for Illeria). It is set in a cyberpunk future, where gangs fight in the underground of huge cities. The spire hunters are rich kids who go down to fight as some kind of initiation. With each group, you start with a goal (such as survive 2 battles per character). But, the characters are basically abandoned down there, forced to fend for themselves, with no reinforcements or resupplies coming. If someone dies, they are gone, and there is no way to replace them or re-fill the role that they filled. I want campaigns in Illeria to produce that feeling of alone-ness, of having one's back against the wall, with the options being complete the quest or die.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Here are the backstories I've been debating between:</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">1) Illeria was a former prison island and magic research station (inspired by the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharashka">rocket science done in soviet Gulags</a>). The wizards - who didn't like being locked up - allied with the prisoners to overthrow the guards. But after escaping, chaos broke out. Most people knew they could not live long term on Illeria. So, parties of characters formed, and they battle for resources that they can use to survive and escape back to the mainland. </span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">2) The city-state of Avon is undergoing a magical industrial revolution. This revolution is powered by materials from Illeria. Illeria is a strange outlands area, one that is teeming with magic, and could not be colonized. The magic guilds contract out teams of mercenaries to travel Illeria and gather resources (I'm picturing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_man">mountain men of the early American west</a>). They are not allowed to return until they have collected what they were contracted to bring. Parties often battle trying to secure the resources.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Here are what I see as the pros and cons:</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-#2 (Illeria the resource-rich outland) gives what feels like an arguably clearer reason for gathering resources, and a better explanation of what the resources are. #1 is okay at this, but it would be harder to explain why they'd need a set number of resources, rather than specific things.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-#1 (Illeria the former prison island) gives a better explanation for why the characters are such amateurs. #2 is okay at this, but it is harder to explain why elite mercenaries don't go back over and over and become super powerful.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-#2 gives a more cyberpunk feel.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-Both backstories give the sense of back-against-the-wall I'm looking for, I'm not sure which one does it better.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-#1 gives a much more narrow and detailed world. This will make it easier for me to write about it, and perhaps give it a more specific feel.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-#2 gives a bigger world. This will make it easier for players to make their own campaigns, and there are possibilities of stories beyond the basic one I am creating. It may also be easier to expand on later.</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">(That said, for the previous two, I'm not sure if I generally prefer the world representing a specific place and time, or a broad area)</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">-#2 might be better if I want the real-world land to be a desert (my preference).</span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">Maybe there is more, this is what I have for now. </span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px; min-height: 14px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p>
<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm on the fence about how to decide. I do have some text written for story #1, maybe I need to try to write something for #2 and see if it is as good. That, or maybe I need to poll my playtesters as to what they think.</span></p>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-3991948888230196682020-11-27T15:17:00.001-07:002020-12-14T07:58:23.927-07:00Taking a playtester's advice seriously but not literally<p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">As my first post-blogging-break post, I wanted to talk about a lesson learned during playtesting. Before COVID hit, I was part of a playtesting group at Elm City Games in New Haven, CT. I learned a lot from them, which I will probably blog more about later. When I played, I was pretty consistently getting told that Illeria didn't have enough of a link between the worlds (this was a problem, as the real hook of Illeria is that you play on two boards simultaneously, which are linked). I was also sometimes told the game was boring. I know that when I played on my own, it didn't seem this way- I keep doing more and more to make the worlds linked. I was left asking, am I seeing something that isn't there? Is this game only fun for me?</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">However, it later hit me that a big part of the problem wasn't the game, but was how I was playtesting it.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The playtest group met in the evening of a weeknight. Illeria could easily go 2 to 3 hours for a first time player. I often didn't start early in the night, so often players only got to play 2 or 3 turns before the shop closed. The early turns in Illeria often involved a lot of movement, rather than action. So, of course the game was boring, and there was little linkage between the worlds. I solved this by trying to start Illeria earlier, and practicing how to explain the rules, so that we would have more time to play (and could play until the interesting parts). </span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I also eventually realized that I had been choosing conditions that didn't really highlight what Illeria was all about. I think one of the clearest examples of this was a pair of playtests I did over two weeks (with the same people). In the first week, the players complained that the two boards felt super disconnected, and suggested a lot of fundamental changes. In the intervening week, I realized that the armies in the playtest game had abilities that didn't directly interact between the two boards, and the game hadn't gone long enough for deeper interactions to occur. So, instead of making fundamental changes, I switched the armies so that they were full of characters whose abilities lead to direct interactions (such as a character who, when they attacked, would hit enemies on both boards). Suddenly, the players really liked it. So, the solution was already part of the game, I just needed to show it off.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">The lesson I learned from all this is how important it is to put your best foot forward when showing the game. Illeria will be a game with lots of characters and lots of different abilities, and a random person playing the game for the first time will only see a small subset of those characters. So, it is really important to chose characters that will really show off what is neat about Illeria. I will keep this in mind, both for future playtesting and for demo-ing the game.</span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">As I write this, it almost makes me wonder why I have any abilities that don't highlight everything Illeria has to offer? I mean, in many was its because I want some abilities that are just neat, or tactical. But, I don't know, this is making me think that perhaps the game would be better if instead of the players having many options for a party, they had only the most interesting ones. I need to think further. </span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="font-stretch: normal; line-height: normal; margin: 0px;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It also left me to realize that while it is super critical to take feedback seriously, that I shouldn't always take it literally. I need to try to get into the person's head, and ask, "Is this game really broken, or is there something about the context of this playtest game that made the game feel broken?"</span></p>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6374168518133114405.post-11862856941124798232020-11-27T15:15:00.003-07:002020-12-14T07:58:44.167-07:00I'm back after a long break<span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">It has been a long time since I posted here. Since my last post, I finished my PhD, got married, and moved 3 times. I'm back in my home town in Tempe, AZ, and looking into a major career change (and taking a bit of a break). Illeria was always a game I'd work on for about a month and then put down for six months, though lately, I've been working on it continuously for about the last two years. I'm getting more determined to finish it. </span><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;">I'm resolving to try to write more on this blog. Right now I'm hoping to put one 500-1000 word post every week.</span></div>Simon Stumphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14117709249562860205noreply@blogger.com0