Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Devling]

Hello Bay12ers:

For this discussion you must enjoy tabletop War games (Warhammer and the like)  and Roguelikes (Dwarf fortress adventure mode, Nethack etc). If you don't then you won't have anything to add.

Basically, I want to create a game (or the rule set for a game) that is a table top miniature wargame, but with a healthy dose of screw you roguelike brutality. This rule set would be adaptable to any setting, be it science fiction or stone age. It would also be built around simple materials, that could be easily translated to a computer, and thus a forum.

Why I am posting this here is because I want to see if anybody would be interested in this.
The reason I put this in this section of the forum is because its a "creative project" and I wanted to see if other people are interested in this project of creativity.

Kthxbye

[LordBucket]

I want to create a game
that is a table top miniature wargame
with a healthy dose of screw you roguelike brutality

Would you clarify a bit what you're trying to accomplish?

Roguelikes are harsh because you have only one character and when he dies, it's game over. Miniatures wargames generally work the same, except you have multiple units. A single bad roll perma-killing a unit is already standard practice. What from roguelikes are you planning to incorporate into your game that it wouldn't already have?

[Devling]

Maybe a campaign kind of game? So most units are just single hit meat shields that you could mass produce, while you have a few heroes which start out as girl/boy scouts which can't kill a badger, and end up being Demigods.
But then a mass produced meat shield would take out your super strong hero. Which would screw up your plans.
So my idea would work best in a type of game where you have a consistent army, and you move your army around and try to take territory.
'Course this could be a stupid idea, with no potential. 

[Urist McScoopbeard]

Well, lets look first at tabletop gaming, generally you get to keep your armies even after they play and die on the field unless the stakes are insane. Anyways, mechanics could be transferred to a roguelike, but you should get to name your units, customize them, and definately rank them up. Maybe during the campaign, your units are permadead, but once it ends you get them back. In my experience, you can get quite attached to units, i know with roguelikes its either a kick in the pants or a punch in the face, but if you have a magnificent warlord who gets ganked by some nub, well thats just insulting not being able to get him back.

[Biag]

Different angle: change what the wargame is about. I'll use stone-age tribal combat as an example, but this can be tweaked to your taste. I'll also be giving the example in terms of a PC game, because that's the language I speak, but it could also be translated onto a table (PC to tabletop is an easier port, IMHO).

Spoiler: rough idea (click to show/hide)

The map is procedurally generated and set up like a classic RTS: there are little areas where every player starts, and in the center or scattered throughout the map are pockets of resources (food). Each side starts with an equal number of units, like chess. All units need food to survive. Food does not grow back. Food can be dragged around by units for stockpiling. The map is obscured by fog-of-war, but food is visible to all players at all times. The object is not necessarily to kill your opponents, but to survive the longest.

Already you can see there is both a built-in conflict and a built-in time limit. This is probably enough for a decent strategy game, but here are some possible rules that could deepen the gameplay a little:

1. Different types of units require different amounts of food. Possible strategy: kill off all but one quick unit and run around eating as you can, although remember that you are vulnerable and your opponents will see food disappearing on the map as you eat.

2. Extra units can be produced by spending food, but they will still then require food. Possible strategy: find a cache of food, build up your army to outnumber your opponents and rush them.

3. A building can be built by spending food which takes one piece of food and outputs two, although the food must be dragged there.

4. Computer-controlled nomads wander the map who will join the first player to find them.

Change "food" to "batteries" or "oil" or "demonic energy" and you can fit this into most genres. I'm a little iffy about the more RTS-type additions I mentioned, because the core idea is more dynamic and fast-paced than most RTS's. You'll also notice that I didn't include any numbers, or specify whether the game is turn-based or real-time; that's because I don't want to spend energy balancing an idea I have no real intention of working on.

[Devling]

I defiantly like your idea Urist, and I think that's what I'll go with.
Biag, I think maybe your idea for resources could be broadened.
The campaign map is the one with the resources, and each battle would be over a certain tile, which could or could not contain a resource. Some resources would be nonrenewable (food in the stone age, oil, minerals), while some resources would grow every turn (food after stone age, slaves/population, lumber), while some resources would be restored by certain actions (slaves from warring, demonic powers, gold).
Does that sound interesting or should I/we rethink this?

[Biag]

It certainly could be, but I don't see any compelling reason for it. Like I said, it's intended to be more frantic than most strategy games, because every action directly impacts your survival, and also more simple, because when it comes down to it all you want is to have access to all the food on the map.

I wasn't paying any mind to a metagame or campaign map, though, that idea only described individual matches.