Thank You For Your Patience

But I’m going to impose a little longer.

I’ve dealt with a bunch of the DZ FAQ, though there is still more to go through. I was hoping to get all of it done (bar the answers that need time-consuming diagrams or videos). However, it’s all taking much longer than I’d like. As I said before, I don’t really want to put out a new FAQ now and then another in a couple of days as that’ll only confuse people. I do want it finished though.

To give you an idea of the task, I’ve got four different Word docs full of comments, questions and emails collected and sent to me from different sources, much of which is duplicates. There were also 520 comments left on the DZ FAQ thread here. Now many of them have either been answered already or are discussions around a topic, so there aren’t anything like that number of actual questions. Even so, with this amount of info to cross-check (never mind the several rulebooks, card decks, etc) you can see why it takes a while to get through.

To give you something interesting and DZ to read while I’m trawling through a little more of this, I’ll write up a core piece of the overwatch discussion for my next post. I’ll continue with the FAQ for the rest of today and post wherever I’ve got to when I stop this evening. This will give you a wodge of new things to read in time for any weekend games you may have planned 🙂

Apologies for the delay.

Posted in Deadzone, FAQ | 4 Comments

Spy Vs Spy

Nothing to do with Deadzone.

Can anyone recommend any good board (or card) games about spies, espionage, counter-intelligence, and similar cloak and dagger skullduggery?

I can’t think of any really good ones off the top of my head. I’m sure there must be something though. Doesn’t have to be in print.

Any thoughts?

Posted in Board Gaming, Random Thoughts | 30 Comments

Flavours Of News

It’s a classic good news, bad news situation. Which do you want first? The bad news? OK.

The bad news is that I’m going to delay posting up the new DZ FAQ for 24 hours 😦

The good news is that the reason I’m doing that is that I’ll be spending twice as much time working on it 🙂

So probably good news overall 😀

I was in the middle of sorting through a bunch of different threads and thought it might be sensible to finish off a bit more while I was in the zone, as it were. Flitting between systems always entails a bit of lost time remembering how things work. I’m also working on a follow up post or two when I’ve made some props to photograph. All in the name of clarity.

Posted in Deadzone, FAQ | 10 Comments

A Design Theory Question

Over the last couple of years I’ve expounded on the theme of game design theory a number of times. Several people have been kind enough to say that these posts have been helpful to them in their own design work, which is very good to hear. I wrote them with the intention that they form a sort of reference for people who were interested, and always intended to return to write more. As always, these will be my own opinion rather than any granite carved gospel – the aim is to inspire and kickstart some thinking rather than to preach. Mostly 😉

What topics though?

Well, you tell me.

There are some obvious topics yet to cover, such as playtesting. However, what I think you may want to know isn’t necessarily the same as what you actually find tricky. It’s clearly better to cover topics that are genuinely helpful rather than being simply whatever happens to have flitted across my brain that morning…

So what elements of design theory intrigue you, or would help in your own designs? Let me know and I’ll see what I can do 🙂

Posted in Game Design Theory | 14 Comments

A Little Dungeon Sagas Progress

dungeon-saga-boxSince the Kickstarter I’ve been pushing ahead with various pieces of the large puzzle that makes up Dungeon Sagas. Now that we’ve got a final list of things to include, I’ve got a map of what I need to get done and the order it needs to be done in. At least roughly.

Last friday I had a very helpful meeting with Ronnie and the Mantic crew about this roadmap and we agreed on the best way forward. So, with everyone singing from the same song sheet, it’s just about getting on with it 🙂

There are, of course, details to be nailed down regarding exactly how the retail products are done. This won’t change what Kickstart backers get, just what happens after that’s been delivered. This difference between retail and backers is an interesting part of running a Kickstarter. With some products these two elements will be identical, with others they may be completely different. It all depends on exactly what you’re making. Just how much effort sorting all that out requires is something I’d not even thought about till I saw it done. There’s a lot that goes on behind the scenes you guys never see. In fact, when I talk to people who’ve just run their first KS they nearly always tell me the same thing: they didn’t realise quite how much work there was behind the scenes. Luckily for me I don’t have to do most of that logistical malarkey: I just do the game design 😀

Anyway, back to DS.

Much of this development will happen among my usual testers and the Mantic crew. However, some of it will be public so you guys can both see where we are and join in the fun 🙂

Exactly what and when this will be are things I haven’t yet nailed down entirely, and the first stuff is likely to be at the end of the month after an internal milestone has been ticked off. Until then, you should be getting your hero and monster models ready (if you haven’t already). Whatever else happens you can be sure you’ll need them!

Posted in Dungeon Sagas | 8 Comments

The Day’s Plunder

Back from the show, and bearing bags of swag 🙂

I’ve not been to the Derby show at this venue before, and it’s a big change from the last couple of places they held it at. Instead of a series of different rooms and levels, it’s now in a single large exhibition hall. Perhaps a third of the space was filled with various tournaments with the remainder being demo games and trade stands. Quite a big event all told.

Gates of Antares logoSo, with lots to see and do I strode purposefully into the venue and got a grand total of perhaps 4 paces before spotting Rick P with his Gates of Antares demo, and there I stood for the next half hour. Currently this seems to be using the core concepts of the popular Bolt Action rules, though the dice have morphed into D10s to allow more variety in game values. They are currently in Beta testing, and I think you can sign up to take part on the Warlord site.

Though it was nice to chat, I eventually had to make some effort to explore the rest of the hall. Even at a steady walk, and stopping only infrequently, it took a fair while to wander round the whole place (and I ignored the tournaments entirely).

As is common for me these days, much of my time ended up in discussion with people I know. This was partly why I’d thought about what I wanted to pick up in advance. And as it happened, I did pretty well at following my shopping list; thanks to a great deal at Caliver I was able to pick up what I needed in one place. First on my list, was some Agema plastics.

agemaAgema are relatively new boys to the gaming world, and have so far brought out a small range of Republican Roman models. Carthaginians are in the pipeline. There are also a few metal figures to complement these plastics and I’ll be picking these up too (probably from the web store). I didn’t see them today.

Republican Rome is currently blessed by not only these plastics, but also some new Victrix ones. I was tempted by these as well, though they are quite different and I’m not convinced they would mix all that well. The main difference isn’t one of detail or height, but of bulk. The Victrix offerings are much more in the GW-inspired “heroic” style that has been popular for some time. Agema, on the other hand, have gone for a much more realistic anatomy, and personally I like it a lot. It’s just a matter of taste. The Victrix models are also less varied in pose, with all of them standing straight. This will probably make them very good for ranking up in mass armies, which is fine. However, I was initially thinking of skirmishes for my Romans, so the added variety and movement in the poses of the Agema offering was another plus for my devious purposes.

perryPerrys next, and as there was a show deal on 4 boxes I went for that. Can’t have too many Perry models. I’ve got a small mountain of WOTRish Perry models and the Foot Knights are their latest addition to the range. It would have been rude to leave them out. WWII because they look lovely, even though North Africa wouldn’t have been my first choice of theatre. By mixing in a few of the metals I should be able to stretch this to Tunisia or Italy. Zouaves? Well I didn’t have any and I needed a fourth box. And they’re lovely 🙂

relicsLast, but by no means least, I was given a copy of the Relics rulebook by the very nice chaps on their stand. The quick and rather bloody demo I had gave me an idea of the overall shape of the game rules, and they’re an interesting change of pace from the norm. The models too are a different sort of theme from the usual fare, and I applaud them for both brave choices. I always enjoy seeing people trying something different. As a note on the image, I’ve left this somewhat bleached out so you can read the title. The real appearance is much more dark, menacing, and difficult to read 🙂

So a good day: games played, chins wagged, and shiny toys acquired. What more could one ask of an event?

Posted in Events | 10 Comments

Derby Show

Just off to the Wargames Show at Derby. Taking a mental list of things to look at, though we all know what happens to plans…

There are some good pics of what to expect from the Terrain Tutor. That’s especially nice as it means I don’t feel any need to cart a camera about myself 🙂

I’ll post up any spoils I may acquire later…

Posted in Events | 2 Comments

DreadBall Experimental Jacks

As regular readers will know, I’ve put up a couple of experimental rules for Deadzone, and these have generated some very useful feedback. So, this having proved entertaining all round, I’ve got a couple of ideas you might like to try out for DreadBall.

Both of these ideas are to address Jacks. They don’t quite work as I’d like them to and are often seen as the poor relation of the player roles. These rules should bring them closer to parity.

Before I explain the rules though, please note that these are called experimental rules precisely because they are just that: experimental. These rules aren’t official updates, FAQ, errata or anything like that. It’s just that I quite like talking about games and one of the things I’ve been tinkering with is the way Jacks work so I’m sharing that here.

So, without further ado, two rules tweaks: one small and one large.

The small change is to allow Jacks to use any Special Move card. So, if a card says Striker, read that as Striker or Jack. If it says Guard, read that as Guard or Jack.

The second change is to do with the role(s) that get a bonus for certain actions. The idea is to move some from Strikers to Jacks. So Dash and Evade becomes +1 if the player is a Jack (not a Striker), and Stand Up becomes +1 if the player was either a Jack or a Striker.

Now these changes alter the relative usefulness of the players and therefore the points costs. This, in turn, changes the team compositions and so the knock-on effect continues. As I said, these are experimental.

Don’t worry about all the ancillary effects just yet. What I’m interested in hearing about is how you think works out on the pitch, in play. Clearly, as some teams don’t have all player roles, this will depend a lot on which team you favour. It may also take a while to adapt to the different options and new levels of risk for different actions. That’s to be expected. All of which obviously just means that you need to play a lot more games 🙂

So what are you waiting for? Game on!

Posted in DreadBall - The Futuristic Sports Game | 189 Comments

Drowning By Numbers

Lots of interesting notions posted in the last few days, and not much from me. I’m afraid I’ve been caught up with sorting out my accounts, which is beyond dull 😦

Still, it has to be done, and it almost is. Back to posting interesting stuff soon 😀

Posted in Random Thoughts | 5 Comments

DZ Experimental Thoughts

Lots of very useful comments on my DZ Experimental rules. Thanks for that. What is obvious is that not everyone has the same experience of them. Some find the Deadzone rules perfectly balanced as they stand without the changes, others think the experimental rules cap things off nicely, whilst a further few think they cause more issues. This sort of variety is normal, and a good illustration of why balancing games is so complex. Whatever you do it is unlikely to suit everyone 🙂

I’ve got some specific points to address which I will do in reply to the comments there. Here I just wanted to round up my current thinking on these rules in general.

Firstly, I don’t think that they’re quite right yet. I do like the intent of both of them and think they add to the game. I don’t think either of them are currently balanced properly.

Changing the activation sequence can cause one or two issues with regards specifically to the relative power of Indirect weapons. Good point from Pika. I think the overall benefit outweighs this problem, though it is still going to need addressing.

A few people think that Excessive Force takes away too much from Tough/Really Tough beasties, and they may be right. As Peter B says, it is currently a little blunt in its execution, though the rule is necessary in some guise. Personally I think it works fine for some combinations of forces and not for others, depending on the actual AP levels of the weapons they have to hand. Of course, it needs to work for everyone…

Jack Trowell’s suggestion of a variant for Excessive Force warrants exploring. That’s one option. There are some others I wanted to look at too.

I do think that some folk have failed to understand the value in rating a model’s resilience by both Tough and Armour. This allows for a much greater degree of variation than simply making anything that looks hard Armour 3 or 4. That approach would effectively make many things identical in terms of resilience, which I think is less interesting. By using a combination of Tough and Armour models can not only have different levels of overall resilience, but also that resilience can degrade differently against different weapons, which I think adds far more interest to the tactical environment.

Posted in Deadzone | 35 Comments