Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
7 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Board Game Design » Board Game Design

Subject: Negotiation action token ideas rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Eric Pietrocupo
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Context: In my ratscraft board game, players negotiate in each room how they are going to share the resources and victory point. If negotiation fails, then it's war.

In the early design, I was thinking that rooms are resolved 1 at a time with open negotiation. The problem is that it might disturb the pacing of game to constantly switch from war to negotation mode. Second, since my game is a parody of the starcraft board game, I was thinking of trying to find a way to use action tokens but in a more simple and elegant way. I think I found something and this is what I'll explain below.

The mechanic is inspired on game of throne action tokens and Cosmic Encounter negotiation cards. There will be a open negotiation phase where players can negotiate all their rooms outcome. Players during this phase will progressively place one of the 3 action token type in each room.

Share: Indicates that the player is willing to share resources openly.

Intimidation: Indicates that the player want to distribute resources in priority order, the player with most rats first.

War: It's war.

When all the tokens are placed, we reveal and resolve 1 room at a time. In the situation where all players placed the same token, the results happens like indicated by the description above.

If some players wanted to "share", while others are "intimidating", then only the players that intimidated will gain resources. So a weak player who intimidate could win if other players intended to share.

If 1 player ask for war, then everybody go in to war, but the players that placed a war token are better prepared and get some bonus.


The number of each type of token might also be limited according to the number of players preventing you from sharing everywhere or waging war everywhere.

Do you like the idea?

I know that the whole point is to have negotiation. When I played game of thrones, I don't remember having any negotiation even if the game suggest to do so. I think with a system like the above, it could make the game playable with different groups of people who likes to negotiate or not.

What do you think?

Mirror Threads

http://www.bgdf.com/node/7837
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
B C Z
United States
Reston
Virginia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
See also Ideology: The War of Ideas
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kai Mölleken
Germany
45147 Essen
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What would be the point in sharing? As soon as somebody places an intimidation token you will be left out anyways. So it would always be better to choose intimidation instead of share since otherwise you are likely to get nothing at all.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I certainly like the idea of it being an outthinking thing, but as pointed out, there's no reason to choose Share right now.
Perhaps if, like Cosmic Encounter, Share gives you the edge if others choose War?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Pietrocupo
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The way it would work if done in priority is that the players takes resources one at a time. It varies according to the room size. In total, the resources a player get is either

Small
1st: 3
2nd: 2

Large
1st: 4
2nd: 3
3rd: 2

Since resources are acquired one at a time, you could have a better selection if you share. I first thought of making sharers go last instead of not taking anything, but I thought it was not enough. Maybe I could send in an extra benefit for sharing.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Eric Pietrocupo
Canada
Montreal
Quebec
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
After revising my rules, I thought that "Share" could actually be replaced by "Trade". Not only it will allow players to decide how the resource are going to be split, but it will also allow players to exchange resources they do not need.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Benj Davis
Australia
Summer Hill
NSW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
larienna wrote:
After revising my rules, I thought that "Share" could actually be replaced by "Trade". Not only it will allow players to decide how the resource are going to be split, but it will also allow players to exchange resources they do not need.



Aha! No we're talking! I like it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.