Comments on: everyone, part 1

By: baked tomato

baked tomato — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 05:48:30 +0000

This reminds me of an idea I had for a card game where certain cards would change the rules of the game. It was inspired by a puzzle in the Fool’s Errand where you didn’t know the scoring rules at first: http://www.mobygames.com/game/amiga/fools-errand/screenshots/gameShotId,87609/

By: Rynen10K

Rynen10K — Tue, 13 Dec 2011 04:52:33 +0000

Haha, i can see Australia going from the most wanted to the least-wanted area after a few games. That’s how my brother won every game. Or rather, made everyone else quit by taking hours to take down his atrocious wall of X’s and V’s

By: daphny

daphny — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 22:42:43 +0000

ACTUALLY THAT WAS ME ABOUT COLONEL MUSTARD, TARDO

i was like why does everyone keep inviting him to parties HE HAS A TRAIL OF BLOOD BEHIND HIM

which i think i heard somewhere else anyway oh whatever its not a unique idea anyway i just want to yell

By: shMerker

shMerker — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:18:46 +0000

More cards in the deck means that you are more likely to see them come up in someone’s hand, so in addition to being more likely to be the killer they also get better at making a believable alibi.

By: auntie

auntie — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 09:36:16 +0000

most people start by ditching the board. i think we should cover it in stickers instead. i like the idea of players leaving booby-traps for future players to fall into. anything to give the board a purpose, really.

my friend liz also suggested that characters could gain notoriety as they become repeat murderers. COLONEL MUSTARD’S KILLED TWICE BEFORE, I BET IT’S HIM AGAIN. maybe a serial killer gets extra cards in the deck, but only enough to slightly increase the chance that she’ll be the killer – more for the psychological effect on the players. maybe it IS colonel mustard this time!!

By: plvhx

plvhx — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 08:46:09 +0000

fixing cluedo would likely take drastic measures… can’t even imagine where to begin.

By: shMerker

shMerker — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 06:10:04 +0000

Not exactly persistence, but when I was a kid my brother and I used to play a version of Clue we devised where each player had three pawns, and when the murderer was revealed the player controling that pawn would hand over his other two to his opponent, then the “murderer” would try to escape before being caught by the others.

It helped speed up the investigations since we could each be in three places at once. It also added an element of strategy to when the investigation would start to wind down, as the player controlling the murderer pawn might realize who the killer was first, and attempt to discreetly give the killer a head start to escape before the deed was revealed.

Essentially the first game became a device for determining the starting conditions of the “real” game.

By: daphny

daphny — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 04:19:47 +0000

GODDAMNIT MIGUEL NO ONE KNOWS WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU ONLY SAY A FEW WORDS

YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOURE TALKING ABOUT

By: not terrible

not terrible — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:47:14 +0000

Haven’t played the legacy version yet, but if the strongest player stays in the lead in standard risk then you’re playing it wrong.

There is always a pivot point when the strongest player starts to gain as many resources per turn as all the other players combined and then the game is effectively over. Up to that point the outcome can always be changed. Also games with escalating card values remove the issue completely.

ugh… meant to post about persistent game states, not risk strategy.

The idea sounds really cool. The only other example I can think of where one game effects the next is the card game capitalism http://www.pagat.com/climbing/asshole.html which as a bonus has a mild D/s feel to it.

By: auntie

auntie — Mon, 12 Dec 2011 02:00:14 +0000

they sell sheets of sticker paper at like staples, right?