I’ve diverted slightly from some of
my projects at the start of the new year to pursue a quick exercise
channeling some recent inspiration into a personal challenge. The
inspiration came from my recent admiration of the interesting “randomizers as pieces” element of CoinAge and an urge to explore the issue of whether mechanics
or theme came first in designing a game (a topic I’d like to
address in a future Game Design Journal entry). The result is a
quick, abstract game with a medieval theme called Six Pilgrims.
I apologize in advance...this is one of those posts where I ramble
through my creative process, so please bear with me.
One of the elements I liked about Coin
Age was how each player’s casting of the coins served both to
randomly determine what action they could take in a turn and also
define the available pieces to deploy on the map. Once placed the
pieced didn’t move, but played a role in the territory control
aspect of the game. Using randomizers as pieces appealed to me as a
concept, though I wasn’t quite sure where I’d go with that.
I wanted to experiment with an idea of
using six-sided dice as both randomizers and pieces in an abstract
game I could lightly overlay with some basic theme elements. I
decided to use a simple gridded playing surface like a chess board,
though I chose to narrow that down to six dice on a six-by-six square
grid; this would accommodate my intention to use a seventh die to
randomly affect dice during play. I also imposed upon myself the
condition that the game rules serve both a solitaire player as well
as two players head-to-head (each using six dice on the board and a
seventh one on the side). For my “randomizers as pieces” element
I determined that during set-up players would roll each playing-piece
die and deploy it on the resulting space within a column; for
instance, rolling a “4” would place that die in the fourth square
up from the player’s side of the board. In this way one die would
occupy each column at a variable “height.” I wanted to use a roll
of the seventh die at the beginning of each turn to randomly
determine one column whose die would “drop” one space, possibly
even moving it off the bottom edge of the board and out of play.
I played around with a game objective
motivating players to manipulate the dice on the board. Moving off
the top of the board seemed diametrically opposed to the “downward”
movement randomly determined at the beginning of each turn; so I
settled on lateral movement, making the random “drop” each turn a
nuisance and a means of eliminating pieces that might score at the
game’s end. I decided a die could move off the right edge of the
board only if all the dice lined up on the same row; for extra depth
I allowed other dice of the departing die’s value to leave as
well...so if a die valued at “5” departed the right edge of the
board, all the other dice in the line showing “5” leave, too.
This led to a short list of player actions each turn: move one die up
or down one space; move one die to the right one space into an
unoccupied column (possible only after dice start moving off the
board); change the value of one die by one pip (to increase scoring
or enable multiple, similar dice to move off the board). No action
could affect the single die “dropped” by the random roll at the
beginning of that turn. After outlining these rules in a far more
clearly organized manner – and determining how conflicting dice
would work with two opposing players – I ran a few solitaire games
for myself to iron out the kinks and adjust the rules to those
hastily explained above.
When creating games I generally tend to
focus on a theme first – one that engages a personal interest –
then develop mechanics based on a fulfilling game experience keyed to
that theme. This exercise in employing a “randomizers as pieces”
element proved quite the opposite of how I normally go about
conceiving of and developing a game. I now had a set of mechanics I
liked, but no theme to add some flavor (or even an interesting title)
to an abstract set of rules.
Two generalized themes became apparent
in the rules as I’d envisioned them: falling down and off the
bottom of the board; and bringing the dice into alignment to “escape”
off the right side of the board. I was immediately reminded of and
inspired by a review of the Titanic SOS game (which fired my
subsequent search for material about that game). I also thought about
other themes involving evacuation or escape in my general field of
interests such as history, science fiction, and fantasy, like
abandoning a damaged spacecraft or leaving a doomed planet. Meh.
Nothing really came together to excite me or provide some basic theme
elements (like a title) to enhance the rules. I looked at the dice
sitting on my chess board, thought about the medieval origins and
importance of chess, and thought what general medieval setting ideas
I had floating around. Then it dawned on me: it might fit the
Infinite Cathedral fantasy roleplaying setting I’ve had on
the back burner for a few years.
I envisioned the Infinite Cathedral
as an alternate plane of existence where people were magically and
inexplicably dumped from various other medieval realities, a vast
expanse of mostly ruined cathedral architecture, grids of columned
naves and transepts with cloisters in the spaces between them.
Inhabitants (and their trapped descendents) frequently face a choice
between accepting their fate and settling down in small enclaves or
continuing a seemingly hopeless quest for some means of returning to
their home worlds. With the religious overtones of the Infinite
Cathedral and a built-in escape motif I found a thematic means of
framing my abstract rules. The dice represent six pilgrims seeking to
escape or “ascend” from the infinite bounds of the cathedral,
with the downward mechanic symbolizing the pull of despair
threatening to deter them from their quest. For one to “ascend”
they must all align geographically and philosophically.
To complete this exercise I need to
revise my draft rules, include a few diagrams and examples, work up a
print-and-play board, and send it off to my usual keen playtesters;
but overall I’m pleased with this simple diversion.
As always, I encourage constructive
feedback and civilized discussion. Share a link to this blog entry on
Google+ and tag me (+Peter Schweighofer) to comment.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.