Adventure Board Games

Games
21

I’ve seen the flash demo now and read a bit - I think you’ve got a great mechanic here. And I love the board games aspects! I wonder if the combat mechanic plays out quickly? Does it boil down to a large number wins over a small number? I can’t quite get the details of this. I have to play to see!

This reminds me of Cosmic Encounter a bit - at least in the sense of the character trait actually allowing one to break the rules. You might study that game (make sure you consider the old version as the new one kinda waters this aspect down) for ideas. And Twilight Imperium 3 does this too although not to the same amount (nor as fun) as Cosmic Encounter.

For me, I like the idea of combing character abilities to form a combination that fits the quest. That’s what we’re doing in Delvers anyhow. I hope it does feel somewhat different with each group of Delvers. I think a design challenge is making it clear to the player what is a good decision on character traits vs a bad decision. We try to describe the quest with symbols and ratings to the player knows (for example) you need a good thief on this quest. It probably carries over to your idea too. I mean - you don’t want the player to feel left out or at a disadvantage when choosing the ‘wrong’ character.

Action point systems tend to be slower games in my opinion, but are a nice way to restrict decisions and promote strategy. War games work well with this, for example. Descent has an action point system. Heck, Fallout did too. Then there’s Conquest of the Empire for a grand scale that has action limits. Another way to restrict actions is to use cards - like Memoir '44. Maybe translate that to an adventure game? Cards strike me as cleaner because the ‘rules’ are right there in front of you. But balancing is really tricky I’d guess.

The new Marvel Heroes game is supposed to do this with their headlines and investigation in the game. I’ll have a better idea how well that works out after GenCon.

But I think a game that truly rules at conveying a narrative is Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective. The flaw in that game is it was really hard to be smarter than the game. But… with an adventure game, you could have story lines appear - different story lines per character? - as the game unfolds. Write some adventures like a D&D module, but each turn, each player learns some bit of the overall plot, all leading them to some climatic area or item or such. Tales of the Arabian Nights had a pargraph game aspect too. Really great feel, but almost zero as a board game. But maybe there’s something there for fantasy board games.

I too would like to see that mechanic played out in an adventure game setting. I think it’d have to be a game where it was PvP I think since you’re really stealing one special ability from everyone for a turn.

22

I’ve been thinking a lot about how to take some of the Indie RPG mechanics and make them into more of a board game. I think the Role Selection that we’re talking about here would work really well for that.

Basically taking the card would force you to play out a certain role or attitude in the scene, but would gain you an advantage for doing so.

23

There’s no real thematic rationale, I’m just thinking of ways to break up the block of time where a player isn’t doing anything. If I wanted to force a theme onto it, I’d say something like “Heroes get lucky breaks, but not all at once. Each turn, a player may choose something good to happen to their hero. Everyone else has to do it the hard way.”

Another way to bring in off-turn players is to have them all be actively involved with the event/fighting/whatever. Something like Cosmic Encounter, where everyone can have a stake in the outcome.

I’m suddenly interested in a turn phase where everyone resolves their fights at the same time, putting resources into either overcoming their own challenge or into screwing over the other players. I think that might be moving even more into abstract-game territory, though.

24

Those are good precedents, and I have a real soft spot for Tales of the Arabian Nights because of the amount of stuff it tried to incoporate. I’d like to get away from the programmed nature of that or the Sherlock Holmes game, though – I’m looking for ways to create a modular narrative system that can change from game to game.

The idea I’m working on now is a globe-trotting pulp adventure hero game. The board is a map of the world divided into regions (“Europe,” “Asia,” etc.), with a point-to-point movement overlay (each point or “Place” being a major city or special location like the Sahara or Amazon). Each player has a Hero with specific stats and special abilities, for instance:

BLAKE DIAMOND, Jungle Adventurer
MIGHT 3, SPEED 2, WIT 1
TRAITS: Arrogant, Charming
SKILLS: Firearms, Survival
ABILITY: “Entourage:” May have up to 4 Allies at one time.

The currency in the game is Plot Points (PPs), an abstract “narrative currency” that you spend to move, equip items, play certain cards, etc. Every player has a hand of Plot cards, drawn from one or more common decks. Each Plot card is multi-purpose, containing a numeric value for purposes of resolving Challenges, a Place name indicating a particular point on the board, and a Plot Element. The Plot Elements are all of the things you’d find in an old pulp stury (a hidden valley, rare jewels, a gang of mobsters, a cloud of poison gas, etc.), and you can arrange them into linked sets of 3 to 5 cards.

Once you have a Plot set, you can play it face-down to a particular Region. You get PPs every time you play a set to the table. You can’t play a Plot set to your Hero’s current Region, and if you play it on a Place occupied by another player’s Hero, that Hero becomes caught up in the Plot whether they want to be or not. The players move their Heroes around the world to Regions containing Plot sets, and try to uncover and resolve them. The idea is to try and set up high-reward Plots for your hero to play through, and challenging Plots for the other Heroes to confront. Each Plot set is like a chapter in an adventure serial, revealed one card at a time by the investigating Hero, with opportunites for other players to add Plot cards to it as it unfolds (for instance, a Cliffhanger card that stalls the action until the acting Hero’s next turn). As the game continues, scheming Villains are revealed, and ultimately the players discover which of several Arch-Villains is pulling all of the strings.

What I’m going for is something that feels structured and paced, with the capacity to vary wildly in content from game to game. Crazy idea, I know. I’m shooting for some of the sense of unfolding mystery you get from Sid Meier’s Covert Action, without the cookie-cutter feeling that that game acquires over many replays. Making it card-driven in the way I envision is really challenging, but I’m curious to see how far I can take the idea before I hit a wall.

Also, character progression in the traditional sense will be minimal. Your Heroes will be able to acquire helpful items and allies, but stats will remain unchanged with very rare exceptions.

25

That sounds pretty damn slick, Jason.

Not only does the theme sounds cool, as do the mechanics you outlined, but I like the idea of game mechanics revolving around trying to create a real story, and I think that simply putting info like:

… on the cards (whether they have any in-game effect or not) can make a group of gamers really get into roleplaying of it, and could even help make the game feel more accessible/engaging for more casual players who tend to be alienated by games that are just rules and strategy.

This sounds like it has potential to really take ‘theme’ to the next level – and make it more of an ‘experience.’

I have no idea what kind of finished product you have in mind, but I could totally see this idea as an $80 big box game, and the first one that geeks like us could play with their non-geek friends.

The masses should definitely be spending their time on that kind of stuff, rather than wasting too-many hours per session on Monopoly or Risk.

26

Yeah, Jason, it sounds nifty. The adventure theme would really come out with that set up - and I have a few friends who like that genre as much as many enjoy D&D flavored stuff. Like you, the aforementioned Marvel Heroes has the concept of a ‘master villian’ behind all their plot bits. But I don’t know of any game that plays out plot pieces the way you describe. Sounds interesting.

You might check out the Spycraft card game which, although missing any board game and plot, does have a boat load of characters, items and the like. I thought the game rules were a bit much - too heavy, too many combinations. But then again, I’ve never really gotten into any CCG - including MtG.

27

Damn it Jason, you’re making it really hard to “get away” at the beach this weekend! Great idea, and it would really fill the disatisfying void in the adventure game genre which I’ve always found lacking.

I’ve actually had a similar idea (albiet not as fleshed out as yours), but with the secret adventures setup by players only playable by others (in teams) as the arranger would play GM for the “plot”. Adventures would have hooks at their end that uncover further set pieces in the plot(s).

This would perhaps fit better with parties of fantasy style adventurers than the pulp genre, but has the advantage of allowing each adventure to last a bit without other players sitting around doing nothing. I also was considering a tactical feel to it, with adventure laid out on a minimalist mini-map. A more abstract plot based mechanic might be better though, allowing things to move along faster and players to do their own thing as well as joining up, as well as plots involving things other than just fighting.

This would also make a great mechanic for quests in a Pirates! or 4x style game, which are the ways I’ve mostly been considering using it. Perhaps even multiplayer, with competing plot chains…

28

I recently played a game called Arkham Horror which was pretty fun. It’s based on the Cthulu Mythos and apparently was originally released back in 1987, and has finally be revised and re-released last year.

It’s a coop game for up to 8 players. A lot of rules, but once you get the hang of it it moves along pretty well.

29

My favorite thing about Arkham Horror was Bruce Geryk telling me that it’s “just Chutes & Ladders with a Lovecraft wrapper”.

Which is pretty much true. It’s a ride, which is why I dig it. But it’s really not much of a board game. And it’s actually not very Lovecraft either. I don’t recall any of H.P.'s stories ending with four dudes taking on Cthulhu Hisself with Tommy Guns, magic swords, and pet dogs that give them extra hit points. :)

BTW, there’s a fairly ‘meh’ expansion – Something Something of the Pharaoh – that adds a handful of new cards and another expansion – The Dunwich Horror – due out in September, I believe.

-Tom

30

Yeah, being a Lovecraft fan, that’s my biggest problem with AH – it just feels wrong. It would work better if it was re-themed to fit Stephen King’s books or something.

31

Something which works the conflict mechanic from Dogs in the Vineyard into a board game would kick ass. In particular, the way escalation and fallout work.

32

Arkham Horror is probably the best model for Adventure Game that I’ve played. The co-op nature works perfectly for this type of game, as you really feel like you are playing together. But it’s really hard to pull that off; to create a game where you can play “against the board”, and have some sort of balanced, interesting game, is very tricky.

In fact, Arkham Horror fails in it’s goals in a number of ways; the balance varies wildly depending on number of players, the game “decelerates” (you’re usually locked into winning or losing half way through the game, but still have to play the thing out), the FAQ of corrections and addendums is probably longer than the rules at this point, etc. But, as least for me, it’s really fun.

So, port AH over to a fantasy theme, fix the balance and deceleration issues (while mantaining the wide open feel and variety!), and you’re golden.

Geoff

33

How do these “escalation” and “fallout” mechanics work?

34

I believe the Dunwich Horror expansion is intended to consolidate all of the various rules errata and changes and address many of the issues surrounding the original game.

I actually really dug Arkham Horror and would play it again. If Dunwich Horror kicks ass I think I’ll be forced to pick both of them up.

35

Hmm. It’s probably easiest if I describe how the conflict resolution works.

You start by defining the stakes of the combat, where it’s taking place, and who is involved.

The participants then roll dice. Characters have four stats (acuity, heart, body, will). At the start of a conflict, two of these stats will apply; which stats apply depends on how the conflict is playing out. (Talking: body+heart; physical: body+heart; hand-to-hand fighting: body+will; gunplay: acuity+will.) Each person adds the applicable stats together for his character and rolls that many d6s.

Participants then engage in a bidding war, using the dice they just rolled.

The person starting the fight starts by raising. A raise consists of two dice. When you raise, you state what action your character is taking that this raise represents–essentially anything is fair game, so long as it’s something the opponent can’t ignore and doesn’t assume the stakes of the fights. (So if the stakes are “do I find where the bandits are hiding?”, you can raise with “I search the site of the ambush and find their tracks”, but not "I a

36

Hmm. It’s probably easiest if I describe how the conflict resolution works.

You start by defining the stakes of the combat, where it’s taking place, and who is involved.

The participants then roll dice. Characters have four stats (acuity, heart, body, will). At the start of a conflict, two of these stats will apply; which stats apply depends on how the conflict is playing out. (Talking: body+heart; physical: body+heart; hand-to-hand fighting: body+will; gunplay: acuity+will.) Each person adds the applicable stats together for his character and rolls that many d6s.

Participants then engage in a bidding war, using the dice they just rolled.

The person starting the fight starts by raising. A raise consists of two dice. When you raise, you state what action your character is taking that this raise represents–essentially anything is fair game, so long as it’s something the opponent can’t ignore and doesn’t assume the stakes of the fights. (So if the stakes are “do I find where the bandits are hiding?”, you can raise with “I search the site of the ambush and find their tracks”, but not "I a

37

Hmm. It’s probably easiest if I describe how the conflict resolution works.

You start by defining the stakes of the combat, where it’s taking place, and who is involved.

The participants then roll dice. Characters have four stats (acuity, heart, body, will). At the start of a conflict, two of these stats will apply; which stats apply depends on how the conflict is playing out. (Talking: acuity+heart; physical: body+heart; hand-to-hand fighting: body+will; gunplay: acuity+will.) Each person adds the applicable stats together for his character and rolls that many d6s.

You then engage in a bidding war of sorts to determine who wins.

The person opening the conflict starts with a raise. A raise consists of two dice. (Dice are used up when you play them.)

The other person tries to see the raise by putting forward dice that are equal to or greater than the value of the raise.

If you see with one die, you “reverse the blow”. You get to keep the die you used to see and use it as one of the two dice in your next raise. This is obviously good for you, since you get to reuse one die twice.

If you see with two dice, you block the attack.

If you see with three or more, you “take the blow”. When you take a blow, you take a number of “fallout dice” equal to the number of dice you used to see. The size of the fallout dice depend on the nature of the blow–d4s for non-physical, d6s for non-weapon physical, d8s for weapons, d10s for bullets. Fallout dice aren’t rolled yet; you hang on to them until the end of the conflict.

Rather than seeing, a person may always “give”, ending the conflict. If they don’t have enough dice to see, they must give.

After successfully seeing, the player then raises with two dice in turn.

When raising, a person may choose to “escalate”. Escalation changes the arena the battle is taking place in. When you escalate, you roll in the dice for the stats that apply to the new arena. So if you were talking with someone (acuity+heart dice), and then decide to draw your gun and shoot him (gunplay, acuity+will), you roll dice for your will stat and add them in.

There are also rules for getting more dice by using traits or items belonging to your character.

All of the moves in the above are narrated. So one person might raise with “I draw my knife and throw it at him”. His opponent sees with one die, reversing the blow: “I catch the knife…”, and raises back: “…and throw it right back.” The first person sees with four dice, taking the blow: “The knife takes me in the arm.” (And he now has 4d8 of fallout.)

Once the conflict is over, you resolve fallout. Any person with fallout dice rolls them. He takes the two highest ones and adds them together to find out the results. Fallout less than 8 is temporary, 12 or higher is the potential of injury, 16 or higher is a serious injury (possibly leading to death), and 20 or higher is death.

Since the size of your fallout dice is determined by the arena of conflict, you can limit the amount of fallout by limiting escalation. You can’t kill someone by talking to them, since fallout is dealt in d4s–at most 8. Guns (d10 fallout) are the only thing that can deal an instant kill with no hope of survival.

The interesting bits of these conflict mechanics which I think would translate well to a board game are the sense of escalating conflict tempered by fear of consequences. You may be losing a debate, but you can always choose to escalate to fighting or gunplay–but the potential fallout will be worse. Players need to decide how much risk they’re willing to take on. (To make things more interesting in Dogs, you’re often as worried about the fallout you might deal out to the other party in the conflict as you are about what you might receive–when I GM games, I often play self-destructive NPCs as deliberately trying to take as much fallout as possible. This once led to a great scene where the PCs nearly accidentally killed a 13-year-old girl by trying a bit too hard to ask her about something.)

38

Yeah, I’m looking forward to the expansion too. It’s really the kind of game where more == goodness, even if the expansion doesn’t “fix” anything.

Geoff

39

Interesting blog post about adventure games here:

Geoff

40

Well, we playtested my pulp adventure boardgame this past weekend, and it went a lot better than I expected. There’s still a lot of stuff to be ironed out and streamlined, but I was happy with the way the basic mechanics worked, and in particular the “storytelling” aspect of the game was popular with the players.

The way it works is you have a hand of cards that look like this:

[EDIT: Hmm, the img link’s not working…]

The type of card is identified by the icon in the upper left. In this case, the flag makes this card a “Destination.” The column of icons along the lower left indicate which types of cards this card can be linked to (in this case, from top to bottom, Wild Location, Wild Minion, Wild Villain, and City Villain). As you play, you add cards to your “working plotlines,” which are linked stacks of cards with a beginning, middle, and end. When you complete a plotline by attaching a conclusion card, you play the completed plotline to a city on the board and the other players can send their heroes to tackle the adventure you’ve created. The twist here is that once a plotline is played to the board, it starts a timer that ticks down every turn, and if the heroes don’t complete the adventure before the timer runs out, you score Villainy points. When you score enough Villainy points, your Arch-Villain comes into play and the other players have to cooperate to defeat you before you corner the global opium market or build your death ray or what have you.

There are other aspects to the gameplay, but this plot-building mechanic is the core of he game, and the part that was successful enough with the group to make me want to keep refining the game as a whole. The bummer about making a card-based boardgame is that revisions can be really tedious, since they often entail re-editing all of the cards! The third draft is currently in the hopper.