Quirkworthy

Of all the facets of Deadzone, probably the most challenging in design terms is the solo rules. Actually I should be a bit more specific. There are going to be two versions of solo Deadzone, and what I’m referring to here is the “full” version. The solo zombie thing is lots of fun, but also lots easier to design.

The “full” solo rules are what you need when you want to play a classic 2-player game and only have one player to hand. They are a set of rules that attempt to replicate the decisions your normal opponent would make. Except we all know that you can’t reduce the skill, cunning and silliness of real humans to a simple set of rules in a book. No, we needs cards too.

The solo rules will use a set of cards (we’re calling them an AI deck) as a quick and simple mechanism to generate tactical choices by your imaginary opponent. A card deck allows me to include a lot of sophisticated numerical shenanigans without a lot of rules in your face. Flipping a card for a decision is also a very simple and familiar kind of mechanic that won’t intrude too much into the rest of the game. What the cards have on them is the nifty part.

Challenges

The rules need to differentiate between a number of mutable things. Firstly, different models need to behave differently. No point in having snipers running into melee. Secondly, different factions need to behave differently. Real players wouldn’t play Plague and Enforcers the same way so neither should the AI. Thirdly, the AI should respond to differing threats with appropriate responses.

Now I’ve seen all of these elements done badly, sometimes all in one game though the usual problem is ignoring one or more of them. I don’t think I’ve ever seen them all done well in one place.

One of the biggest challenges is predictability. The fewer of these elements you include, the more predictable the AI becomes, and the more the game becomes a case of playing the AI rather than the actual battle. Even with all these elements in place it would be good to have a random seed somewhere in the equation to make the opponent a bit less predictable. What we’re after is an enemy that behaves in character, but not always in exactly the same way. That also allows us to replay the game as many times as we like without it repeating itself.

Video games are an interesting place to look for AI ideas as they frequently use AI systems for single player games. Most of them are surprisingly unsophisticated. A lot of the time you’ve got so much else happening (images, sounds, movement) on screen that you don’t notice the lack of smarts in the AI. On the tabletop it’s another story: you can’t hide behind the shiny special effects. If I want the solo game to be good then it needs clever AI.

Possible Solutions

The AI deck and rules are, in effect, a decision engine. They are there to replace the human opponent with as close a facsimile as possible. That’s a complex process and could easily be a faff to work out in game, so my aim is to pre-calculate as much of this thinking as possible. When it comes to an in-game decision all you should do is turn over a card or two.

To go back to the challenges, the first and second can be dealt with by categorising the models. We already have the idea of leaders, specialists and troopers for building the force. The solo rules just need this broken down one step further into preference for shooting, fighting or support. A shooting specialist can therefore be made to behave differently from a shooting trooper, and that level of subtlety is a good thing. Faction can also be taken into account in a similar way.

The ability to assess threat comes down to a set of rules and priorities which I’m working on now. Streamlining these will be key. However, streamlining them too far makes them fairly pointless and I’ve seen it taken way too far way too often. Often it’s a rigid rule as well, which again makes it predictable, and predictable is both dull and easily defeated. Easily defeated tends to mean “not played again”, and it’s pointless working on rules that are unlikely to be used. Dealing with perceived threats need not be baroque, but it does need to be variable.

Random seeds can be included in the breakdown of responses by each of the model types. The nice thing about a deck of cards is that you can build this sort of complex variation into it whilst having no impact at all on the slickness of the rules in play – one of the reasons I like cards.

Of course, once the AI has made the decision you need a set of rules about how this is implemented, though here you have an ally: yourself. I think it’s safe to assume that you’re going to win a solo game, so the reason of playing is a pure attempt to have fun rather than polish your ego with resounding victories. For this reason we can actually enlist the player as an aid to help us with some of the options if not the decisions themselves.

Playing With Myself

The best part of developing solo rules is that they are a doddle to test. Any time you need to try something out you’ve got a ready group, just waiting to go. Compare that with trying to road test 6 player DreadBall and you’ll see what I mean. How easy is it to arrange a 6 player (not 5 or 7) game of anything. By that measure, solo rules should be the most refined ones going.

Naturally I will still get other folk to play them as well, and already have a number of volunteers lined up. It’s funny how many solo gamers creep out of the woodwork as soon as you mention there are rules to be had. As a group it appears that solo gamers have long been starved of attention and it’s obvious why when you look at the problem of designing the rules. Getting solo rules right is not easy to do and often avoided because of that. I’m just banking on me being more stubborn than it is difficult 😉

Ever since we announced that we were working on Deadzone people have been asking whether they could play on a bigger battlefield. Sure you can, we said, why not?

Deadzone is designed around a single battle mat that is 2 foot square. It’s a claustrophobic combat arena with no room to hide and no time to mess about. However, as I said the other day, there are many modes in which you can play the game and the classic game is just one of them. Each format has its devotees and no one size fits all (which is why DZ comes in several sizes).

Some people will be quite happy playing the classic 2-player game on a single mat and that’s great. Others will find that too small and want the wider expanses of several times that area. Still others will only ever play solo, or as a multi-player club game. All of these options are equally valid and all allow you to tailor Deadzone to the gaming experience that best suits you and your friends.

So, what’s the difference with larger games (apart from the obvious)? Well mostly it’s the implications of that extra space and larger forces which makes the game different. To recap on the modes I mentioned before, there were two specifically for larger games:

• 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.

One thing that a few of you have asked is whether you can combine X and Y modes. Well, yes. That’s why I included the final paragraph on that post which says you can do just that. As far as possible all of these models will be compatible with each other. Some will require more thinking than others to fit together neatly, but when it comes to things like multi player games on multiple mats it should be easy.

Anyway, let’s have a think about each of these in a bit more detail.

Multi-Mat Games

The deep battlefield is the key feature here. It adds several turns of approach movement that allows forces to disperse into a more considered defensive perimeter or offensive pattern. This includes using the third dimension as well, so snipers can climb up to vantage points and so on.

This extra time removes some of the urgency and pressure on the player that is typical in a classic game where the enemy is pretty much in your face from round 1. Whether this is a good idea or not is a matter of taste, but it’s an interesting change of pace. Rest assured though, things still get hectic once the forces close in…

The other thing that deep battlefields do is allow longer ranged weaponry to shine a bit more. So mortars and heavy machine guns will come into play as may light vehicles. Things that take time to position and deploy correctly such as sentry guns are easier to use here too, and can be integrated more easily into an overall plan. Overall the extra time shifts the balance slightly towards the heavier weapons.

Talking about coherence, the depth can also be a bit of a trap for the unwary. It is tempting to get your assault troops out in front and leave lines of supporting troops far behind. Indeed, this may be a good plan. Remember though that success in Deadzone relies heavily on your ability to use your forces as a team rather than as a collection of individuals. No matter how well trained an individual model is there are something s they can’t do alone. Some elements of the game are designed specifically to encourage teamwork and, in fact, to be hard to do at all well without it.

Other things such as missions remain as normal. However, you’ll be surprised how different the whole thing feels with just the simple addition of some more space to move through.

Multi-Player Games

As well as giving two players a deeper battlefield to fight over, a larger game can involve more than two players. The dynamic for this is independent of the number of mats used, though obviously the more players you have the more mats and models you’ll probably want.

The intention here is to provide a way of playing games with all your mates at once rather than just one. Whilst you could play a free-for-all the two sided game makes more sense in terms of background. Even if there are three or more forces vying for an objective, it’s likely that one will allow the other two to maul each other first before weighing in to claim the prize. At least, that makes military sense to me. A true three-way meeting engagement is a rare thing indeed! So, two sides with several players per side seems to be the way forward.

Having decided that sharing sides between players was the thing to do, we then have to find a way to make that (a) fun and (b) slick to play.

Fun often comes from choice and conflict – having to pick between many options with limited resources. It’s balancing the risk and accepting the challenge of outthinking or outguessing your opponents. This requires there to be choices, and a common issue with co-operative play is a diminishment of hard choices. In other words, when you’re playing on the same side and are entirely trustworthy and reliable there’s a lot less challenge. So let’s make people less reliable 🙂

A simple way to do that is to retain a secret mission for every player and make that a big part of winning the game. Having a public mission for the players on a single side to share between them is another good idea as this gives them a reason to work together to an extent. What we’re after is a tension between working together and working on their own as this is more fun than either end of the spectrum.

The bit I haven’t finalised yet is how to balance the points from the combined and individual mission and exactly when is bets to end a game. That’ll be obvious when I’ve played some more games.

Mix It All Together…

And what have you got?

Like most of the different modes these two can be combined quite successfully. In this case you end up with increasingly large battlefields and games with anything up to 6 or more players involved. I’ve not played a game this large yet, though I see no reason it wouldn’t work. It will take a bit longer to play because you’re adding so many more models and players, but that’s to be expected and in some ways is part of the fun. Once you’ve gone to all the trouble to get everyone in the same place at the same time you want to make the most of it!

This is the first and most straightforward of the multi-player and multi-mat options I’ve been working on. In due course I’ll get to more free-for-alls and other more complex narrative multi-player battles. Rare they may be, but not unheard of, and in the context of a good story and an exciting campaign I think they could really shine.

I defined Classic Campaigns in yesterday’s post about Modes of Play. Today I thought I’d talk some more about the details of what I have in mind.

The central (but not only) feature of campaigns is that a player’s force of men and aliens develops over the course of several games instead of starting afresh each time. 

Experience

Experience is the key. Individual troopers that survive a battle can gain new skills and boost their stats as a result of their combat experience. This tells a great story, generates characters that are special to you, and gives you another layer of reasons for tactical decisions. Do you send forward the rookie trooper or the veteran? The vet might be better at getting the job done, but he’s an old comrade and you wouldn’t want to see him get hurt…

Deadzone feels like it could do with a tiny bit more detail in the experience system than usual. For this reason I’m experimenting with experience tickboxes per stat so that a model who uses mostly shooting gets experience in shooting stats/skills rather than melee ones. It’s a little more work to track, but in this case I think the system is easy enough to make the results worthwhile. 

When a model has earned enough experience to get a bonus they roll on a stat-specific table to get something appropriate. At least a few of the factions will need specific tables for themselves, and it might be worth doing them for all of them. However, the important thing is to allow a difference when it is needed (Plague, for example) rather than to do it by rote. A human rebel and a marauder getting better in shooting are probably not a great deal different.

New Toys

As a player’s force gets more experienced they will get access to a wider variety of equipment.  This is another way of rewarding an experienced force and giving players something extra to look forward to. New kit can be issued to existing models in replacement for their original weapons and gear. 

New Troops

Units that fight will take losses, and unlike a DreadBall team which would have to buy them, the military units in Deadzone will have replacements issued automatically by their parent formations. This avoids the need for dealing with money per se, though a unit will have other resources to manage instead.

This military background can be used as a mechanical means to avoid some of the disparity between winners and losers and mitigate some of the normal campaign problems of what happens when a player loses badly and has filled a lot of body bags. How do you allow them to compete next time? The fact that you usually have to buy replacements means that games can be quite lopsided, and so some sort of handicap system is required. I doubt that Deadzone will be able to avoid this entirely, though the automatic replacement system will make it less of an issue. Needing something less extreme will make it easier to balance the handicap system too.

Campaigns Overall

This form of classic campaign is a fun way to play Deadzone in a club environment or among a group of friends. What I’m focussing on in the rules is ways to enhance the individuality of the troopers as they get better and to allow the units to behave a little more like military formations, focussing on the mission, their training and equipment rather than managing cash. The fact that this quickly starts to generate real characters within the factions just adds to the fun and the storytelling among the players afterwards. 

I’m still working on the metagame mechanic for this style of campaign, and how you win overall. Using the DreadBall structure would work but is very abstract and rather artificial for a military operation. I’m currently thinking of a system that is tied in with the handicap system so that beating a force that is much weaker than you is worth less than one that is your equal or better. This would mean that you would have to beat a lower ranked force much more completely to get the same benefit. Still, it’s not right yet. More to tinker with there…

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.