24 November, 2008
This week, let’s shift back to talking about gameplay. Two weeks ago, I asked about this topic and it veered off into the realm of themes. Last week we discussed some themes, so this week I want to go back to gameplay and think about what types of gameplay we could have for a board game.
Some thoughts after the jump.
Take, for example, Mrop’s comment about an Ancient Rome setting with a political element. For inspiration, we could look at the classic game Diplomacy, where the direct mechanics are actually pretty simple: you write down movement commands for your units, some of which may depend on sea units to transport them. Attacks can also be made upon enemies. But, the real focus of the game is on the negotiations: who will allow other people to move, who will provide transports to move units, who will betray others? The interactions are only loosely bound by the rules, but they are the more important aspect of the game.
So, based on that setting, could you create a game that focuses mostly on negotiations? What type of game mechanics would you have at the base of the game? Would you want something simple, or some added complexity to mirror the reality of the situation? Perhaps adding a “tragedy of the commons” element as discussed might be interesting.
So, continue some discussion on gameplay mechanics. What is the core gameplay? If you need some structure, pick a theme discussed last week and describe some possible game mechanics. I look forward to some more discussion!