Deadzone Designer’s Notes – Modes Of Play

Posted on May 26, 2013 by

As Deadzone has evolved it has become more of a family of games than a single thing. Or, perhaps a better way to describe it, Deadzone is a game that can be played in a number of different modes, several of which spin it off into what could have been separate games in their own right. Some of these have been explained in detail, others only mentioned in passing. I thought it might be interesting to look at why we’ve taken this approach and where it might be going.

Why?

Designing a game that suits a wide variety of different gaming groups and styles is rather more complex than designing a game that focusses solely on one. However, it’s obvious from the feedback from you guys that there is an interest in a variety of gaming styles. I’m also keen to design games that offer a lot of play value for their cost because that’s what I want when I’m buying. Squashing as much fun as possible into a game seems like a good idea to me :)

It is, as I keep being reminded, not the easiest way of going about things, but as long as I’ve got the opportunity I reckon it’s worth putting in the effort to make my games as good and as versatile as they can be. Hats off to Ronnie and the Mantic crew for backing me up in this and having faith. More nervous souls might have blinked…

Even so, boldness alone cannot do it all. Sometimes it’s simply not practical to fit everything into one package as my vision for what it could be is bigger than that. This is what happened with Dwarf King’s Hold. Deadzone too looks likely to spread well beyond its original spec as a simple 2 player game, and that’s fine by me. If someone is happy just playing that original version then none of the additions cause any problems – it’s still a solid core. I just think it can go into so many other interesting places at the same time.

What?

So what are these different modes?

  • The Classic Game. Two-player, single mat, one-off battle. Two players play the game and then pack the armies back into the box. The game takes an hour or so. You might play a couple of games in a session, but there is no link between the battles and no experience gained by individual troopers. Things like different missions, variable terrain set ups, zombies, random items and so on all add to the replayability of this mode as no two games ever need to be the same.
  • Classic Campaigns. These are made up of a series of classic games. The history of a force carries over between games with individual troopers gaining new skills and equipment, or being injured or killed. Typically these campaigns would involve many more players than would take part in a single battle, with opponents swapping around  and fighting in different combinations over a period of weeks. Individual battles are often the same as a classic game and it is the rules that govern the developing history of the forces which give this mode its character.
  • Narrative Campaigns. These are similar to classic campaigns in that a force will develop and retain a history. However, they differ because the individual games are scenario based and tell a more developed story. This story dictates and often limits the options for reinforcements, equipment and so on, as well as including a number of campaign specific scenarios and missions. The results of one battle will dictate the next scenario, and in this way a single narrative campaign can be played through more than once with different results. Typically this would be played through by a small number of players, often only two, and sometimes in a single session or long weekend.
  • Solo Zombie Hunts. The zombie rules can also be used as a full enemy to give a solo game against a massed horde. I’m developing a small solo campaign for this mode which will be playable through in an afternoon. Fun and a bit lighter in some ways as nobody really takes zombie games too seriously ;)
  • Multi-mat Games. Two-player games with more than one mat as a battlefield. Playing lengthways down a two-mat battlefield gives a different type of game as there is a longer approach/position phase, plus long ranged weapons play more of a role. It’s possible to use light vehicles as there is enough space and ground to cover.
  • Multi-player Games. Usually on more than one mat, but possible to play on a single one. These games pit teams of players against other teams of players – in effect taking a large two-player game and breaking each side down into sub-commands. Introduces an element of co-op play into Deadzone. Naturally I’ve slightly spun this by saying that even though each side shares a common goal they also retain separate missions for the sub-commands.
  • Solo Games. Probably the most difficult to do well. An AI system plays your opponent so that you are, in effect, playing a normal two-player game against an invisible friend. At least, that’s the aim. Of course, it won’t be exactly the same as playing against a real person, but at least you always have an opponent!

I’ve described these as separate modes, but you can actually combine several of them very successfully. For example, a classic campaign could include multi-mat and multi-player games as part of it.

Posted in Deadzone, Game Design Theory | 5 Comments

Deadzone – Zombie Infestation!

Posted on May 25, 2013 by

argh-zombies-sml

The zombies are coming.

As if Deadzone wasn’t a dangerous enough place already, it looks like there’s a zombie infestation too. That’s really going to drop the property values.

Don’t worry though, they’re not at all smart and can easily be killed by ranged weapons. Assuming, of course, that you have enough time to get them all before they arrive at your position and start eating you. Still, it could be worse. There could be dozens of them. Oh, wait…

 

Dead in Deadzone

Zombies in Deadzone aren’t your traditional animated corpses. Really they should be called “zombies” because that’s just a nickname. However, they behave so similarly to the monsters from the old fashioned horror vids that most Corporation citizens wouldn’t argue about the niceties of the details. They shamble about in the tattered remains of their clothing, drooling, raving and attacking people (then eating them). Zombies seems pretty fair.

What they really are is the in-betweenies of the Plague infections. When Stage 2 Plague beasts fail to kill their victims outright then the survivors are usually infected anyway. Many more of them will die from this mutagen – the transformation is not kind. The “lucky” ones will survive the change to become Stage 3 Plague creatures and will romp off to join the merry band of mutants, ransacking the burning remnants of the civilisation they helped to build. Those that do not die, but fail to entirely survive the transformation, are left with pain, fury and mush for brains. These are the “zombies”.

They are far too stupid to be commanded in battle in any normal fashion and will merrily attack anyone from any faction. For this reason they are just as much trouble for the Plague that spawned them as for the Enforcers or Forge Fathers.

I’ve not finalised the rules yet, but the general idea is to have them bimble about the battlefield in large numbers, causing trouble for both sides. It’s an AI system, but given that the zombies have only the barest minimum of “I” in the first place the simplified version in the game won’t be terribly smart. And that suits them just perfectly :)

 

Dead Good

What is particularly good news about these zombies (apart from the cool rules and campaign) is the new models being planned. The concepts at the top of this page are what Mantic are aiming for, and I think they look pretty good. They will be moulded in hard plastic rather than resin-plastic, which is also good (it’s my favourite modelling medium), and the plan is to make them so that they are interchangeable with the existing Mantic zombies and ghouls from the Kings of War range. By mixing and matching between these sprues you’ll be able to build a great mix of poses and gear for a really shambolic and random zombie horde.

Posted in Deadzone | 14 Comments

Deadzone Beta – New Turn Sequence

Posted on May 24, 2013 by

Part of the job of the Beta is to draw out the elements of the rules which cause the most confusion so that we can clarify the relevant parts. Whilst it would be nice to have examples and tactical hints and tips for every single section it’s not really practical (it would triple the size of the book). So, the Beta focusses on the rules bit of the rules and when folks find something tricky I know to expand on that in the final version.

So, the first candidate for expanded explanations seems to be the new turn sequence. I’ll not worry about exactly what the models can do when they get a chance to act – we can look at that later. For now I’ll just focus on the sequence of play as a whole.

I’ll assume that you’ve looked briefly at the Beta and find it less than clear. See if this helps.

 

Rounds & Turns

Deadzone is played in Rounds. During a Round all the models on both sides get to move, shoot and generally do stuff.

Within a Round, players take Turns doing some stuff with some of their models until all of the models have had their chance to act.

For example, if I have models A, B , C and D in my force, and you have models 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in yours, then a Round might go like this. 

  • Turn 1: I do stuff with A and B.
  • Turn 2: You do stuff with 1, 2 and 3. 
  • Turn 3: I do stuff with C.
  • Turn 4: You do stuff with 4.
  • Turn 5: I do stuff with D.
  • Turn 6: You do stuff with 5 and 6. 

At this point all the models on both sides have had a chance to do something and the Round ends. 

Note that the number of Turns within a Round is not fixed and doesn’t really matter. It’s as many as it needs to be and could vary from one Round to another if the players changed their tactics.

 

A Single Turn

When it comes to your Turn you must normally do stuff with some of your models. You must use at least one model and can choose to use more. The maximum you can use in a single Turn is equal to the Command Total of your Leader model. The Command Total is the two numbers of your Leader’s Command Value added together.

For example, an Enforcer Sergeant has a Command value of 2/2 and therefore has a Command Total of 4 (2 + 2).

 

Passing Your Turn

As it says above, when it comes to your Turn you must normally do stuff with some of your models. However, sometimes you can Pass the Turn right back to your opponent without doing anything.

Count the number of models on both sides that have not done anything yet this Round.

If you have fewer models than your opponent left to do stuff with this Round then you may choose to Pass.

If you have the same number or more models than your opponent left to do stuff with this Round then you may not Pass.

In the first example above, the red Turn 5 shows a point at which the army of letters could choose to Pass because when it comes to their Turn the only model they have left to do stuff with is D while the army of numbers has two models (5 and 6) left. 

 

And…

That’s it. What is really interesting is the implications.

Firstly, it allows your models to work as teams and support each other when you want them to. However, when you just want to bide your time you can hold back and just take Turns with a single model at a time.

Secondly, it gives more control to better commanders. By more control I mean that they can do stuff with more models at a time if they want to and can therefore do more to control the ebb and flow of the Round. Given the number of models you usually have relative to your Command Total you can choose when to surge forward only a few times in a Round before you run out. When you choose to do so, or if you choose to move as small teams or individuals for the whole time, is all part of the tactics.

Thirdly, because the ability to act within a Round is based on the Command Value of the current Leader it reacts to the changing situation on the battlefield. If a Leader is killed then their loss is immediately reflected in a reduced ability to control the ebb and flow of the battle.

Fourthly, it helps to give character to individual factions as the command structure of each is different. Some have Leaders who are well armoured and dangerous fighters who are happy leading from the front. Others have less combat-oriented models who are happier leading from the safety of an armoured bunker.

Fifthly, it adds another consideration to army building. Now you have to decide which type of leader you want. Adding a captain rather than a sergeant isn’t just about their fighting skill any more – it’s actually about their command ability too.

Posted in Deadzone | 21 Comments

Deadzone Beta Rules

Posted on May 23, 2013 by

The Beta rules for Deadzone will be available in a few hours so I’m putting this post up to collect any feedback and comments you may have.

There are a number of changes from the Alpha and a distance yet to go till we’re finished. However, this is a significant step forwards, with many small refinements to the core system, a new Command system and an altered turn mechanic that integrates with it.

I’ll be attempting to get some of the remaining goodies up before the Kickstarter ends with more missions and expanded army lists high on the agenda. As ever, subscribe to Quirkworthy or check back regularly for the latest info :)

 

Posted in Deadzone | 156 Comments

Deadzone Beta Rules Nearly There

Posted on May 22, 2013 by

Well we’re almost done with the first iteration of the Beta rules. It’s currently being laid out and the cards redone with a lot more info on them. I’ll check through tomorrow first thing when I’ve got less tired eyes and we can make any final tweaks before they go out to you guys.

We’d been hoping to get them up today, but the best laid plans and all that…

So what can you look forward to?

I’ve made a number of small changes that have biggish impacts – I’ll not spoil the fun by telling you them all, but many were suggested on these forums.

The major differences are a revised turn sequence and the addition of Command Values (which drive the card system and also part of the turn sequence). I’ll talk a bit about their game impacts when you have the rules to refer to over the next few days.

The reason this is a Beta rather than an Alpha is because I think the core systems are all sufficiently robust now. They’ve been played a great deal by us and kicked about by you guys too. There are, as always, alternative ways to do every aspect and I’ve tried out the various suggestions that have been made here and elsewhere. Some have been adopted, others ransacked for details and a few abandoned in favour of other methods. Your feedback has been very useful and has helped move us along this far. What it tells me is that the core of the game is sound.

What is not yet in the Beta is a final expanded wording for all the rules. Many could do with additional explanations and diagrams and these will be added in due course, but at present I think it would be better shorter. I’m very conscious that I want people to  read and (even better) play them and get the feel of the game as a whole without worrying too much about every last detail. Changing the turn sequence and adding the CV makes far more difference in play than you might expect, and is an integral part of the way the factions fight and control the battlefield.

I was hoping to get the points values and full army selection into this version, but that’s going to have to wait a few more days. That’ll give you a few more stats and some examples at least from each of the different armies :)

Posted in Deadzone | 4 Comments

Quirkworthy’s Ramblings: New & Shiny

Posted on May 20, 2013 by

This article reprinted by kind permission of Ravage magazine.

Whether you play board games or miniature games, if the system you are using has a battlefield or board to fight over then it shares a common set of stages of learning. In broad terms there are three steps, though their edges are blurry and they blend into one another.

Step 1 – the Novice

When you first play a new game it is all you can do to follow the rules. You make mistakes and forget things, and work out afterwards what they were when you re-read the rulebook or talk with your friends. You need to work out the odds of each step carefully, and you worry more about getting the rules right than planning several moves ahead. Depending on the learning curve of the game this period may be one game or a dozen.

Step 2 – the Gamer

Assuming that you continue to play the same game then you will gradually learn the subtleties. After a while you won’t need to calculate the odds, you’ll just have a feeling for the balance of power in an area of the board. In reality, I think you are still calculating, it’s just that you’re now leaving it to your subconscious to do the maths. Of course, you will now be able to work out the rules very quickly if you want to, but what interests me is the feeling or intuition you have gained.

Step 3 – the Veteran

When you play a game for a long time you learn to read the battlefield/board instinctively. You can tell at a glance the balance of power in an area, and trust your sense of what is likely to happen to be right most of the time. You may count the hexes or squares and calculate the odds carefully when it is a close call, but a large part of your strategy is likely to be based on a feeling for where you are weak and where you are strong. This frees you up to think several moves ahead and to construct elaborate plans. You are now so familiar with the rules that you don’t really think about them as rules any more than you think about gravity when you throw a ball.

 

Use the Force

Oddly, I’ve found over the years that one simple trick can really help understand the game situation, but almost nobody does it. People go through these 3 steps and get really good at their chosen game(s), but then they stop. And for all its skill, it seems that for everyone I have met and discussed this with, there is one thing that the subconscious is rubbish at: turning things upside-down and seeing things from your opponent’s point of view.

For some reason, when you glance at the board, your instinctive judgement is based solely on what you see from where you sit. I suspect this is due to the fact that you spend the whole game sitting on one side, and your subconscious has learned this as the only viewpoint. But there is another.

Stand up, walk around the table and look at the game from the other player’s perspective. Imagine that their force belongs to you. How does your side look now? Again, it is a case of degrees, but far more often than not you will find that a position that you thought was weak may look impregnable (so you can stop worrying), and another that seemed strong may look sievelike and frail (so you can start worrying). Whatever the case it’s unlikely to seem the same.

Sceptical? I’m sure you are. Try it though, and see what happens. After all, it only takes a few moments and it can’t hurt. I’ve suggested this to many people over the years, and whether they were new to gaming or a seasoned veteran of the tournament circuit they almost invariably said they saw things about the game that they never noticed from their own side of the table.

Personally, I find this fascinating, and because it is a subconscious thing, it is somewhat magical to suddenly get a reappraisal of the game from someone (yourself) whose instinct you trust.

So your homework assignment today is to give this a try for yourself. Any tabletop figure game or board game with a positional or “battlefield” type of play area will work, eg Chess, 40K, Dust, Dwarf King’s Hold, Flames of War, etc. It will work better sometimes and worse in others, but it will work.

I look forward to hearing how you get on.

 

By the way…

Have you ever swapped sides in the middle of a game, just for fun? How did that feel? Was it strange playing against a side whose secret plans you already knew?

Do you listen to your subconscious (your intuition) when you play? Is it more often right or wrong?

Posted in Ravage | 6 Comments

Deadzone Interview

Posted on May 19, 2013 by

This afternoon I spent a couple of hours on an online interview/chat with a jolly group of Spanish gamers. It’s quite odd hearing my answers translated into fluent anything ;)

This was recorded for posterity and is available on YouTube as you might expect.

On the one hand it’s better live as you could have asked questions. On the other hand the recorded version allows you to fast forward through whichever language you don’t speak…

Posted in Deadzone | 4 Comments