Board Games: "SmallWorld" and "Tobago"
Just got back from a fun board gaming session at a shop in Lancaster, PA. (I'm in town for Thanksgiving.) We played two games. It was fun to revisit the shop and hang out with other gamers, too.
"Tobago" is about treasure-hunting on a tropical island. There are various terrain hexes. Each turn you either move, or place a clue that narrows down the possible location of one of four treasures. So you define the treasure spots with your cards, eg. "Not on a mountain, within 2 hexes of a statue, on a beach". Once there's only one possible spot, you try to get to it. This game was fun, but flawed. The treasure rewards are based on how many clues you contributed, plus first loot-card to the person who actually digs it up. So you can spend several whole turns trying to reach the treasure, or you can just sit there revealing clues and knowing that you'll get a share no matter who reaches it.
"SmallWorld" is better. For this conquest game, you get random combinations of races and powers, so I played as Commando Halflings, Bivouacing Ghouls, and Seafaring Ratmen in that order. In one game. See, the rules tend to make you expand but weaken, so at some point you can "retire" a race and have it "go into decline". It stays on the board to some extent and can be conquered (even by you), but still is worth points for you. So you play as a series of invaders for one too-small region. The strategy is in using each race's strengths to rapidly expand, and figuring out when it's worth skipping a turn to cycle races and come back with a fresh army.
In thinking about game design, I keep going in circles about AI, procedural generation, and unusual forms of in-depth gameplay. (Ie. a fantasy RPG where you do something more than kill stuff.) What would it mean to make your actions feel meaningful in a game? One thing I particularly like from "SmallWorld" is the idea of each conquest staying behind for a while and influencing the game world's future.
"Tobago" is about treasure-hunting on a tropical island. There are various terrain hexes. Each turn you either move, or place a clue that narrows down the possible location of one of four treasures. So you define the treasure spots with your cards, eg. "Not on a mountain, within 2 hexes of a statue, on a beach". Once there's only one possible spot, you try to get to it. This game was fun, but flawed. The treasure rewards are based on how many clues you contributed, plus first loot-card to the person who actually digs it up. So you can spend several whole turns trying to reach the treasure, or you can just sit there revealing clues and knowing that you'll get a share no matter who reaches it.
"SmallWorld" is better. For this conquest game, you get random combinations of races and powers, so I played as Commando Halflings, Bivouacing Ghouls, and Seafaring Ratmen in that order. In one game. See, the rules tend to make you expand but weaken, so at some point you can "retire" a race and have it "go into decline". It stays on the board to some extent and can be conquered (even by you), but still is worth points for you. So you play as a series of invaders for one too-small region. The strategy is in using each race's strengths to rapidly expand, and figuring out when it's worth skipping a turn to cycle races and come back with a fresh army.
In thinking about game design, I keep going in circles about AI, procedural generation, and unusual forms of in-depth gameplay. (Ie. a fantasy RPG where you do something more than kill stuff.) What would it mean to make your actions feel meaningful in a game? One thing I particularly like from "SmallWorld" is the idea of each conquest staying behind for a while and influencing the game world's future.