Hey everyone,
I playtested Illeria for the first time in forever last night, with my new roommate Matt. The game went decently well. I decided to use the new rules for orders (namely, that you don't need to decide what each character will do until the action phase), however I did not have group actions, and the spirit world characters were still weak. He seemed to like it, and had a number of good comments.
One of his biggest comments was that there was not enough of a link between the worlds. This is not the first time I've heard this, but he made some really good suggestions that I am hoping to try to run with. Basically, he said that there should be some way to send powers between characters, and that there needs to be some kind of reason to keep fighting in the spirit world (in that game, most of the spirit world fight occurred during the first 4 turns, then I realized that I had suffered too much damage and pulled back and hid, and the spirit world became kind of pointless).
Here are my thoughts:
Whenever a character's specter (their spirit world character) is incapacitated, they are not removed from the board, but just laid down. That character's vessel (their real world character) becomes shaken as normal. However, there is a new twist: every turn, the character's vessel makes a "shaken" check. On a 1-3, the vessel falls into a state of unconciousness for the turn. On a 4-5, they can act normally. On a 6, they immediately take d6 damage, but then their specter stands up, heals twice that many hit points, and begins fighting again. This will make it that the spirit world battle never really ends, but doing well sets you up to continue doing well. Also, it makes it that if a wizard's or general's specter is incapacitated, they are not permanently useless. I also might make it that the character can spend an action to reroll their shaken check.
I also might make a rule that at any time, a vessel may spend an action and lose d6 hit points to heal their specter d6 hit points. This would be less efficient than having them get knocked-out, but much faster.
Also, there should be a way for characters to send powers between the worlds. I think I'll create a new stat called "energy points." Basically, each turn, characters can spend an action and an energy point to perform a "Infuse Power" action (I'll come up with a better name eventually). This grants their doppelganger a temporary or small advantage, such as bonus hit points, a temporary luck point, or temporary stat bonuses. The exact bonus will depend on the character's class. And, I think I might make a way for characters to get more luck points. For example, I might make it that there are places in the spirit world that allow characters to gain more. Or, possibly that there are three of them, and the party that controls at least two gets the energy points.
Anyways, much to do. These are exciting times...
Simon
“Precision is not truth.” – Henri Matisse (impressionist painter)
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Triumphant return of group actions
Hey all,
Thinking back to changes since my first draft of Escape From Illeria (which was at the time called “Game X”), I have had three major rules which I came to realize were a bad idea, and proceeded to drop. The first was meditation (in which each character can only be awake in one world at a time, and must spend the rest of the time meditating), the second was group orders (in which several characters could be given the same action, and thus players could get extra actions each turn by having everyone do the same thing), and most recently, disobeying orders (in which characters could change their orders mid-term). However, after lots of developing, I brought meditation back, but in a much different form. Now, characters can be awake in both worlds, but characters can choose to meditate to draw upon new powers. Well, group orders might be making such a come-back as well.
I was talking to my head muse, Mike, recently. I can’t remember how it came up, but he gave a suggestion that perhaps generals could specialize in actions. Then, when it is a general’s turn to act, instead of acting, he may have two other characters perform that action. So, for example, let’s say my general’s main action is “Archery.” Let’s say it is her turn. Instead of moving, using a special power, or making an archery attack herself, she could order two nearby characters to make an archery attack. This would in a way encourage coordinated parties. However, I think this will avoid my previous problem with group orders becoming too powerful (since these will be harder to use, and you will only be able to get 1 extra action out of it).
This actually might have a major added benefit: with all of the recent changes to leadership, I kind of nerfed the role of the general. At this point, being a general by itself gives no special powers (besides an extra ability), and makes you a liability (since killing the general hurts your party). This will give the general a reason to be in the fight. Additionally, it hit me that now there is more of a reason to have second-in-commands. Previously, all that they did was take over if the general died. I was never really sure if they were worth buying. Now, the second in command could command group actions as well. Maybe anyways, this one actually might lead down the road of being overpowered again. I’ll need to try it out, and see how it works.
I wonder if this means that some day I’ll end up bringing back intelligence tests and disobeying orders...
Simon
"A man is what he thinks about all day long." - Emerson
Thinking back to changes since my first draft of Escape From Illeria (which was at the time called “Game X”), I have had three major rules which I came to realize were a bad idea, and proceeded to drop. The first was meditation (in which each character can only be awake in one world at a time, and must spend the rest of the time meditating), the second was group orders (in which several characters could be given the same action, and thus players could get extra actions each turn by having everyone do the same thing), and most recently, disobeying orders (in which characters could change their orders mid-term). However, after lots of developing, I brought meditation back, but in a much different form. Now, characters can be awake in both worlds, but characters can choose to meditate to draw upon new powers. Well, group orders might be making such a come-back as well.
I was talking to my head muse, Mike, recently. I can’t remember how it came up, but he gave a suggestion that perhaps generals could specialize in actions. Then, when it is a general’s turn to act, instead of acting, he may have two other characters perform that action. So, for example, let’s say my general’s main action is “Archery.” Let’s say it is her turn. Instead of moving, using a special power, or making an archery attack herself, she could order two nearby characters to make an archery attack. This would in a way encourage coordinated parties. However, I think this will avoid my previous problem with group orders becoming too powerful (since these will be harder to use, and you will only be able to get 1 extra action out of it).
This actually might have a major added benefit: with all of the recent changes to leadership, I kind of nerfed the role of the general. At this point, being a general by itself gives no special powers (besides an extra ability), and makes you a liability (since killing the general hurts your party). This will give the general a reason to be in the fight. Additionally, it hit me that now there is more of a reason to have second-in-commands. Previously, all that they did was take over if the general died. I was never really sure if they were worth buying. Now, the second in command could command group actions as well. Maybe anyways, this one actually might lead down the road of being overpowered again. I’ll need to try it out, and see how it works.
I wonder if this means that some day I’ll end up bringing back intelligence tests and disobeying orders...
Simon
"A man is what he thinks about all day long." - Emerson
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Spin-off game: Battle for Illeria
I recently posted my back-story to The Forge (www.indie-rpgs.com), for feedback and opinions on the world I have created. One person there had an interesting comment about "impending dangers," and it got me thinking about a possible spin-off game:
The game Escape From Illeria is about party level combat that breaks out after the guards in Illeria are overthrown. It happens in part because there is a lack of resources to go around. However, I have basically thus far not considered what Balthazar would be doing when he discovered that his magic lab revolted. Probably, once he figured out what was happening, and once he could muster an army, he would send that army to Illeria to try to reclaim it. However, when he sent a small army over, they probably would bring a lot of resources with them. Possibly enough to stave off starvation until the society on Illeria could get their feet under them. Between this, and the fact that now everyone on the island has a common enemy, this could cause the fallen society of prisoners on Illeria to reform.
Thus, "Battle for Illeria." This game would be more like a mass-combat game. One player would always control the armies of Balthazar. She would go to battle with a large army of ordinary troopers. They could range anywhere from basic men-at-arms (basically, villagers with swords) to elite cavalry. On the Illerian side would be a small group of independent characters. The characters would each be more powerful, and would strategically have a lot more flexibility (since the Illerians are not trying to organize an entire army), but would be vastly outnumbered. The game would cease to be played on two boards, but would have the innovation of being an asymmetric war. I have yet to see any wargames that were designed in this fashion.
Rules would be simplified for most types of abilities. Mainland armies would be squad-based, and limited by the number of actions they could perform. Illerian characters could be more complicated, since you control a smaller number of them. Lots of rules could be kept in tact, but I would need to add new rules in for things like mass-psychology. The game might also be point-based rather than level-based. I would also need to alter powers to represent the fact that everything is mass combat now. For example, in the old game, killing 1 person was worth more than doing a little damage to everyone within 3", this would have to change.
Okay, I think I'm going to need to keep this idea on the shelf for a little while, but it's been exciting to think about.
Simon
The game Escape From Illeria is about party level combat that breaks out after the guards in Illeria are overthrown. It happens in part because there is a lack of resources to go around. However, I have basically thus far not considered what Balthazar would be doing when he discovered that his magic lab revolted. Probably, once he figured out what was happening, and once he could muster an army, he would send that army to Illeria to try to reclaim it. However, when he sent a small army over, they probably would bring a lot of resources with them. Possibly enough to stave off starvation until the society on Illeria could get their feet under them. Between this, and the fact that now everyone on the island has a common enemy, this could cause the fallen society of prisoners on Illeria to reform.
Thus, "Battle for Illeria." This game would be more like a mass-combat game. One player would always control the armies of Balthazar. She would go to battle with a large army of ordinary troopers. They could range anywhere from basic men-at-arms (basically, villagers with swords) to elite cavalry. On the Illerian side would be a small group of independent characters. The characters would each be more powerful, and would strategically have a lot more flexibility (since the Illerians are not trying to organize an entire army), but would be vastly outnumbered. The game would cease to be played on two boards, but would have the innovation of being an asymmetric war. I have yet to see any wargames that were designed in this fashion.
Rules would be simplified for most types of abilities. Mainland armies would be squad-based, and limited by the number of actions they could perform. Illerian characters could be more complicated, since you control a smaller number of them. Lots of rules could be kept in tact, but I would need to add new rules in for things like mass-psychology. The game might also be point-based rather than level-based. I would also need to alter powers to represent the fact that everything is mass combat now. For example, in the old game, killing 1 person was worth more than doing a little damage to everyone within 3", this would have to change.
Okay, I think I'm going to need to keep this idea on the shelf for a little while, but it's been exciting to think about.
Simon
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
More thoughts on orders
So, in my last post, said I was thinking about changing the way orders worked. The more I think about it, the more I don't understand why I didn't do this earlier...
If I take it out, I lose the following situations-
a) (archer) "Shoot, I was going to shoot at your general, but then he ran into the bush. Rather than shoot someone new, I'm going just not going to shoot at all."
b) (witch) "Well, I was originally going to throw my magic arrow at that guy far away. Someone with a huge battleaxe just appeared in front of me, but I think I'm going to stick with my original choice."
c) (Player) "Wait, remind me again, if I want to cast Fast Attack, what do I need to declare? Do I need to pick a target? Let me find that entry in my 70 page rulebook..."
d) (Player) "Drat! I miswrote the order. Guess that voids my turn."
e) (archer) "Well, I was going to shoot you, but you charged me, and now I can't. However, because I was trying to, I will be penalized as if I had."
(a) and (b) would be appropriate for something like a WWI game, but not a game like this. (c) is just incredibly obnoxious. By cutting it out, I will speed up the game significantly. (d), well, it works for a game like Diplomacy, but not here. (e) is actually something I kind of regret losing, but I guess it's worth letting go.
The reason I originally made players choose actions was because I thought it would make the game more strategic. However, the more I think about it, I really don't think that much strategy is actually lost. You still need to choose who will act (as it stands, how you will divide 5 orders amongst 10 people), and when. I feel like if you're playing the game well, then 90% or 95% of the time you will already be pretty sure what your character will do when you decide whether or not to activate her.
So, the simple version sticks (at least until a playtester tells me it sucks), and I save obnoxious planning to mass-scale games.
Happy New Year!
Simon
“I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” – Eisenhower
If I take it out, I lose the following situations-
a) (archer) "Shoot, I was going to shoot at your general, but then he ran into the bush. Rather than shoot someone new, I'm going just not going to shoot at all."
b) (witch) "Well, I was originally going to throw my magic arrow at that guy far away. Someone with a huge battleaxe just appeared in front of me, but I think I'm going to stick with my original choice."
c) (Player) "Wait, remind me again, if I want to cast Fast Attack, what do I need to declare? Do I need to pick a target? Let me find that entry in my 70 page rulebook..."
d) (Player) "Drat! I miswrote the order. Guess that voids my turn."
e) (archer) "Well, I was going to shoot you, but you charged me, and now I can't. However, because I was trying to, I will be penalized as if I had."
(a) and (b) would be appropriate for something like a WWI game, but not a game like this. (c) is just incredibly obnoxious. By cutting it out, I will speed up the game significantly. (d), well, it works for a game like Diplomacy, but not here. (e) is actually something I kind of regret losing, but I guess it's worth letting go.
The reason I originally made players choose actions was because I thought it would make the game more strategic. However, the more I think about it, I really don't think that much strategy is actually lost. You still need to choose who will act (as it stands, how you will divide 5 orders amongst 10 people), and when. I feel like if you're playing the game well, then 90% or 95% of the time you will already be pretty sure what your character will do when you decide whether or not to activate her.
So, the simple version sticks (at least until a playtester tells me it sucks), and I save obnoxious planning to mass-scale games.
Happy New Year!
Simon
“I have always found that plans are useless, but planning is indispensable.” – Eisenhower
Monday, December 27, 2010
Two possible changes
Hey All,
Haven't updated this in forever. I've been getting side-tracked with a board game of mine, which I am calling "For Science!!!" I really need to playtest this. That said, I was thinking about it this morning, and had two new thoughts:
1) Orders: Currently, during the first phase of each turn is the "Orders Phase." You will have 5 actions, and during this phase must decide what you will do with them. For each action, you must write down who will act (i.e. "Balthazar"), what they will do (i.e. "cast Fireball"), and if applicable, a target (i.e. "at the enemy general"). In later phases, each player performs each of their actions one at a time, or decides to skip the action (i.e. "Oh no, Balthazar has moved out of sight; I can't cast Fireball now."). This mechanic has definitely added a really strong flavor to the game, but has also made things significantly more complicated. I think one of the biggest things I have had to monkey around with is figuring out who must declare orders, how much detail must be given, if and when characters can disobey orders. It has caused a lot of frustrations throughout playtesting, with players getting surprised, or writing down the wrong things. Worst off, I had a friend tell me that it actually wasn't very thematic. He said that though this mechanism would work great in a game built around, say, dueling armies of space-ships (where communication would pose problems), that it is not very realistic for a game about small gangs of characters.
Thus, I'm thinking I might just want to scrap everything. I think instead of what I have, I'll make it that during the Orders Phase, all that you need to decide is who acts, and you can decide on their actual actions later. I'll need to playtest this with people who have tried it the old way, just to see what they think. I worry that it will remove a major element from the game, but it might be worth it just to really streamline everything.
2) Health: In this game, battle is done in two worlds. Characters fight in the "real" world, and the "spirit" world. Originally, I made it that real world characters were tougher, but slower, while spirits were faster but weaker. The result of this was often that the bulk of combat would take place in the spirit world, with real world characters only reaching each other after all else was long done. I'm now debating one of two options: making the real world characters the weak ones, or making both characters have equal toughness. If I do the later, it might not solve the problem, as spirits will still likely get killed first. If I do the former, it might mean that even if real characters are slower to get into combat, they might die first. However, it might also make archery overpowered in the real world (something that has been really problematic in the past). I'll keep thinking, and keep working on it.
Simon
Haven't updated this in forever. I've been getting side-tracked with a board game of mine, which I am calling "For Science!!!" I really need to playtest this. That said, I was thinking about it this morning, and had two new thoughts:
1) Orders: Currently, during the first phase of each turn is the "Orders Phase." You will have 5 actions, and during this phase must decide what you will do with them. For each action, you must write down who will act (i.e. "Balthazar"), what they will do (i.e. "cast Fireball"), and if applicable, a target (i.e. "at the enemy general"). In later phases, each player performs each of their actions one at a time, or decides to skip the action (i.e. "Oh no, Balthazar has moved out of sight; I can't cast Fireball now."). This mechanic has definitely added a really strong flavor to the game, but has also made things significantly more complicated. I think one of the biggest things I have had to monkey around with is figuring out who must declare orders, how much detail must be given, if and when characters can disobey orders. It has caused a lot of frustrations throughout playtesting, with players getting surprised, or writing down the wrong things. Worst off, I had a friend tell me that it actually wasn't very thematic. He said that though this mechanism would work great in a game built around, say, dueling armies of space-ships (where communication would pose problems), that it is not very realistic for a game about small gangs of characters.
Thus, I'm thinking I might just want to scrap everything. I think instead of what I have, I'll make it that during the Orders Phase, all that you need to decide is who acts, and you can decide on their actual actions later. I'll need to playtest this with people who have tried it the old way, just to see what they think. I worry that it will remove a major element from the game, but it might be worth it just to really streamline everything.
2) Health: In this game, battle is done in two worlds. Characters fight in the "real" world, and the "spirit" world. Originally, I made it that real world characters were tougher, but slower, while spirits were faster but weaker. The result of this was often that the bulk of combat would take place in the spirit world, with real world characters only reaching each other after all else was long done. I'm now debating one of two options: making the real world characters the weak ones, or making both characters have equal toughness. If I do the later, it might not solve the problem, as spirits will still likely get killed first. If I do the former, it might mean that even if real characters are slower to get into combat, they might die first. However, it might also make archery overpowered in the real world (something that has been really problematic in the past). I'll keep thinking, and keep working on it.
Simon
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Weird Idea...
It hit me that it's been almost a year since the last time I've played Illeria. I really need to fix that. I need to find more wargamer friends in the area.
I had an idea a few days ago, that I'm not sure what I think about. The game has always been played on two boards. The thought hit me, what if you played on one board, but that spirits could only affect other spirits and vessels could only affect other vessels? This could have a few possible advantages. First, before you had to split the table, which always made the surface really narrow. Here you could fix that. Also, now you could have some kind of idea of how "close" a vessel was to her specter (and as such, you could have abilities that would only work if they were close enough together). The downside is that it might get really confusing. Also, it would mean that you were fighting on the exact same terrain in both worlds. I'm not sure if I do or don't like that. It would take a little flavor away from the spirit realm (where there is a lot of bizarre terrain), but might add some connectivity.
Perhaps I'll ask my next playtester about this.
I had an idea a few days ago, that I'm not sure what I think about. The game has always been played on two boards. The thought hit me, what if you played on one board, but that spirits could only affect other spirits and vessels could only affect other vessels? This could have a few possible advantages. First, before you had to split the table, which always made the surface really narrow. Here you could fix that. Also, now you could have some kind of idea of how "close" a vessel was to her specter (and as such, you could have abilities that would only work if they were close enough together). The downside is that it might get really confusing. Also, it would mean that you were fighting on the exact same terrain in both worlds. I'm not sure if I do or don't like that. It would take a little flavor away from the spirit realm (where there is a lot of bizarre terrain), but might add some connectivity.
Perhaps I'll ask my next playtester about this.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Pictures
Okay, I figured out how to upload the drawings. Here are some sketches of possible Specter characters...
Simon
Simon
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)