Comments on: Joining an Eventful Discussion

By: jonathanstrange

jonathanstrange — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 21:57:47 +0000

Armageddon Empires’ randomness is a major part of it’s attractiveness to me; this is a short, sharp tactical skirmish game and the bolt-from-the-blue adds to the flavor – and it doesn’t eliminate strategizing. If the cards go against you this game, the next game is not so far off; it isn’t as though you’d carefully crafted a superb strategy over dozens of hours of gameplay only to see some deus ex machina rescue your opponent. In AE, you hit the ground running and sometimes you run into the wrong enemy army or mutant town and you’re toast. It’ s freaky but it happens.

By: Michael A.

Michael A. — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 16:07:33 +0000

A discussion between Vic and I would probably be short, as our positions are not really that far apart. If it wasn’t clear from my piece – I’m not disagreeing with having randomness in games – but rather the fetish for random events that I occasionally run into in this field.

Card-driven board games rarely have random events, as the player usually decides whether to play a card as an event or to use it in some other way. Decisions again…

The closest board game mechanism to what I’m talking about is the “roll a dice and see what happens this turn” tables popular in many old (and a few new) board games. Ironically, one of my favorite board games – Republic of Rome – has this mechanic.

By: Dave Long

Dave Long — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:39:25 +0000

I dunno, I like random stuff in my strategy games when they’re turn-based. If you’re running a tight ship, you can respond to them and weather the storms they create.

I mean, it’s kinda like running a government. You do the best you can for your people with what you have and try to prepare for the worst (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, etc.) knowing that maybe one of those will land a crippling blow.

I mean, as long as you’re not putting Potions of Instant Death into NetHack, you’re probably going to be ok having some random stuff coming up. A lot of people do like surprises. Maybe part of doing it right is presenting these events with some humor and well-written text that make people either chuckle or become more interested in your game.

By: Scott R. Krol

Scott R. Krol — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 04:51:37 +0000

Originally I was with Alan, agreeing with all your points (although in regards of #1 randomness is a part of moststrategy games, not all. Two examples: chess and Z-Man’s “Duel In The Dark”), and so I wasn’t going to comment but now that folks have started discussing board games you guys have sucked me in. :)

I don’t think you can really lump CDGs into the argument because unlike the computer games cited events in a CDG are the primary driving mechanic, and not merely flavor or added chaos.

Vic mentioned card driven timers. Three other games that do the timer thing well are “Arkham Horror”, “Combat Commander”, and “Attack!”.

AH’s mechanic is fairly standard, without delving into the game the players are racing against a clock, with event cards triggering another “tick” of the clock if you will. CC and Attack!’s timers are a little more interesting.

In CC game time does not advance until the card deck is exhausted. The faster the cards are played, the faster time advances. Obviously then if you’re playing a scenario in which time is on your side you want to pass time as quickly as possible, while your opponent is looking to minimize that.

In Attack! there are event cards which are primarily action cards. About 15 of these have a symbol at the bottom. When cards bearing 13 of these are played the game ends and victory is assessed. So when the count gets up to around card 11 folks start realizing that at any moment the game could end. Who is going to play the last two cards? It’s a great mechanic because while Attack! is a game of conquest, it never drags on forever and never involves player elimination.

By: Alan Au

Alan Au — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 00:08:58 +0000

On the subject of using events as a game timer, this is pretty common for German-style boardgames. Often times, the events themselves are “randomly” distributed, but the player has some notion of when the events are more or less likely to occur. The key is that events are expected and anticipated. Many players will specifically alter their board positions in response to when they think certain events might occur. I’m not entirely sure where I’m going with this, except to say that events should have some level of predictiability, or else give the player some opportunity to respond.

By: Natus

Natus — Mon, 05 Nov 2007 23:55:49 +0000

Damn! Vic beat me to boardgames in this discussion (like him I want to play StarCraft, but not pay for it until I *finish* playing.) I’m not too sure I’m knowledgeable about events in strategy computer games (other than Civ, of course), but I think the debate Troy cited could just as well be slated towards strategy board gamers. Events are tricky; I liked the ones in Warrior Knights and loathed the ones in A Game of Thrones. In card-driven strategy games, such as my beloved Here I Stand, players play events on each other, which I like a lot.