• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
partner555

NP Wednesday Nov 1 2017

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, PrimordialSoul253 said:

Never endow a board game with magical sentience.

That would not be fun, really. Plus see first Goonmanji.

Right off the bat. Must be for immersive purposes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably about as default a starting position as one could get in the game. Would probably be too confusing if they players all looked and behaved exactly the same, so a base outfit would at least get the point across.

Also the pieces on the board looks like them as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, The Old Hack said:

I sense a "No, you cannot do this! I am your MASTER!" somewhere in the near future. :icon_eek:

I wonder if Hanma is genre savvy enough to know that uttering such a sentence typically leads to one's sudden demise at the hands of their creation.

9 hours ago, PrimordialSoul253 said:

Never endow a board game with magical sentience.  

 

Magical sentience can make for interesting NPC interaction in the game. Need to be careful with the values and ethics instilled into such a sentience, but if done properly it can enrich the game. Probably excessive on a game without NPCs though.

EDIT: I just realized that Hanma's game might need some form of sentience to reliably determine when a player wishes to leave the game, so it can undo the transformations and let the player go on their way. Otherwise you risk running into "You can't get ye flask"(Warning: Tvtropes link) type situations.

Edited by Drasvin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Drasvin said:

EDIT: I just realized that Hanma's game might need some form of sentience to reliably determine when a player wishes to leave the game, so it can undo the transformations and let the player go on their way. Otherwise you risk running into "You can't get ye flask"(Warning: Tvtropes link) type situations.

There is also question if you really can make game which is casting spells without it turning sentient on it's own. In some settings, magic tends to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hanma's game doesn't need to be sentient, it's could be enchanted with conditionals, each card probably has specific enchantments that activate when placed down, and considering the pieces look like the players, there might be a link between the piece and player in much the same manner as when Rhoda and Catalina had their enchantments linked. The pieces could also be linked to the board as well so that when the player(s) want to stop playing, they just remove their piece from the board and that undoes all the enchantments on them.

I should add that in the case of the current game, it appears that Hanma probably set up the board for the players, which would have linked them all simultaneously, but I would imagine that in other instances where Hanma wouldn't be around, each player would play their own piece in order to link themselves to the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scotty said:

Hanma's game doesn't need to be sentient, it's could be enchanted with conditionals, each card probably has specific enchantments that activate when placed down, and considering the pieces look like the players, there might be a link between the piece and player in much the same manner as when Rhoda and Catalina had their enchantments linked. The pieces could also be linked to the board as well so that when the player(s) want to stop playing, they just remove their piece from the board and that undoes all the enchantments on them.

I should add that in the case of the current game, it appears that Hanma probably set up the board for the players, which would have linked them all simultaneously, but I would imagine that in other instances where Hanma wouldn't be around, each player would play their own piece in order to link themselves to the game.

That could run into issues during play, with players picking up pieces to move them, the board or surface the board is sitting on getting knocked around by accident, dice knocking over pieces, pets jumping onto the board and knocking pieces about, someone getting angry enough to literally flip the table/board when the other players wish to continue playing, and probably more situations I can't think of at the moment. The game needs to be able to reliably determine when a player wishes to leave the game without mistaking other actions or accidents, and the way to leave needs to be simple, so that a player that has been pushed too far out of their comfort zone can leave the game quickly and easily. If the game mistakes another action as intent to leave the game, then that ruins fun by dropping out players for playing in a way that the game didn't expect. If the way to leave the game is too complex, then it would very likely run into the same issues as the game being unreliable at detecting intent to leave. Ideally, leaving the game should be as simple as getting up and walking away from the game board (or declare you don't want to play anymore), though if the game doesn't have some degree of sentience, then leaving to get a snack or use the restroom would count as dropping out (and if you could leave by stating intent, you could run into issues of the game having trouble parsing the statement correctly)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

That could run into issues during play, with players picking up pieces to move them, the board or surface the board is sitting on getting knocked around by accident, dice knocking over pieces, pets jumping onto the board and knocking pieces about, someone getting angry enough to literally flip the table/board when the other players wish to continue playing, and probably more situations I can't think of at the moment. The game needs to be able to reliably determine when a player wishes to leave the game without mistaking other actions or accidents, and the way to leave needs to be simple, so that a player that has been pushed too far out of their comfort zone can leave the game quickly and easily. If the game mistakes another action as intent to leave the game, then that ruins fun by dropping out players for playing in a way that the game didn't expect. If the way to leave the game is too complex, then it would very likely run into the same issues as the game being unreliable at detecting intent to leave. Ideally, leaving the game should be as simple as getting up and walking away from the game board (or declare you don't want to play anymore), though if the game doesn't have some degree of sentience, then leaving to get a snack or use the restroom would count as dropping out (and if you could leave by stating intent, you could run into issues of the game having trouble parsing the statement correctly)

There probably needs to be intent on leaving when removing a piece, so that accidental removal doesn't count, also it there could be a time limit for how long a piece if off the board, because contact between the piece and the board wouldn't be broken for long when moving the piece from space to space (players could also slide the pieces along to maintain contact). Also like I said before, it'd be conditional, like when leaving the game it's not just taking the piece off the board, but letting it go with the intent of not playing anymore, this would have the added bonus of if 1 person had to quit (for whatever reason), the other players could continue without having to restart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about if, at the beginning of your turn, your piece is in the box rather than on the board? Or if you personally put your piece in the box? And the game is necessarily over if the board is returned to the box?

(There isn't a box visible in any of the strips to date; I'm assuming it's there, just off camera or hidden behind someone. Or, perhaps, ANY box will do, as long as it's too small to contain the players.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mlooney said:

As a game designer, let me just say that sentient isn't something  you look for in a good game.

I would guess that sapient is even less desirable.

(Sentience is commonplace - one can argue that apple trees are sentient, and Venus fly-traps definitely are. So are some single-cell organisms. Sapience is rarer - there is only one definitely-sapient species on the planet, and that one gets to define "sapience" to include itself.  A relative handful of other species are suspected of possibly being sapient: some primates, some cetaceans, some cephalopods, the two species of elephant, some corvids, some parrots, prairie dogs, spotted hyenas...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scotty said:
2 hours ago, Drasvin said:

That could run into issues during play, with players picking up pieces to move them, the board or surface the board is sitting on getting knocked around by accident, dice knocking over pieces, pets jumping onto the board and knocking pieces about, someone getting angry enough to literally flip the table/board when the other players wish to continue playing, and probably more situations I can't think of at the moment. The game needs to be able to reliably determine when a player wishes to leave the game without mistaking other actions or accidents, and the way to leave needs to be simple, so that a player that has been pushed too far out of their comfort zone can leave the game quickly and easily. If the game mistakes another action as intent to leave the game, then that ruins fun by dropping out players for playing in a way that the game didn't expect. If the way to leave the game is too complex, then it would very likely run into the same issues as the game being unreliable at detecting intent to leave. Ideally, leaving the game should be as simple as getting up and walking away from the game board (or declare you don't want to play anymore), though if the game doesn't have some degree of sentience, then leaving to get a snack or use the restroom would count as dropping out (and if you could leave by stating intent, you could run into issues of the game having trouble parsing the statement correctly)

There probably needs to be intent on leaving when removing a piece, so that accidental removal doesn't count, also it there could be a time limit for how long a piece if off the board, because contact between the piece and the board wouldn't be broken for long when moving the piece from space to space (players could also slide the pieces along to maintain contact). Also like I said before, it'd be conditional, like when leaving the game it's not just taking the piece off the board, but letting it go with the intent of not playing anymore, this would have the added bonus of if 1 person had to quit (for whatever reason), the other players could continue without having to restart.

Reading intent could potentially run into parsing troubles as well, especially if the player needs to leave for a reason unrelated to the game itself, as the player's thoughts might not be clear enough on leaving the game, leading to parsing error. A time limit might work, but induces a delay on deciding to leave the game and the leaving taking affect (it also imposes a time limit on fixing mistakes if the board gets bumped or a cat decides to board looks like a good place for a nap). And while sliding the game pieces is a possible rule, it's simply a work around that doesn't add much depth to the game and can still result in unwanted mistakes if a player that typically picks up game pieces to move them forgets about the rule and tries to move their piece in a comfortable manner.  Ultimately it would depend on which is the simplest, least costly to implement, and best of the enjoyment of the players, a dense complicated set of conditionals to catch variation, or a sentience that is designed/trained to value player enjoyment and wellbeing. And since magic is a big part of this, I'm not sure which one would have the better balance of those traits.

1 hour ago, Don Edwards said:

How about if, at the beginning of your turn, your piece is in the box rather than on the board? Or if you personally put your piece in the box? And the game is necessarily over if the board is returned to the box?

(There isn't a box visible in any of the strips to date; I'm assuming it's there, just off camera or hidden behind someone. Or, perhaps, ANY box will do, as long as it's too small to contain the players.)

Hmm...maybe. My concern there is cases where the player needs to leave immediately and doesn't think to put their piece in the box. It might be an edge case, but in a game largely about pushing consenting adults out of their comfort zones in fun and enjoyable ways(it's a game about transformation that is inspired by anime, which typically uses such mechanics to push people out of comfort zones and foster character growth and/or set up some comedy), edge cases not being accounted for can lead to bad feelings.

1 hour ago, mlooney said:

As a game designer, let me just say that sentient isn't something  you look for in a good game.

 

Depending on how the sentience/sapience is designed/taught and what kind of game it is, I think it could make for a good game. In a game with large variable input, like games dependent on text parsers, it could help prevent frustrations (like the "you can't get ye flask" problem that I linked about earlier) and maybe even allow for deeper, richer gameplay. In games that are largely systematic with limited, concise inputs, a sentience/sapience would be rather excessive (maybe if one wanted the ultimate multiplayer bot AI?) Though the developer of a sentient/sapient game would need to make sure it's values aren't destructive (or counter enough to the player/people that it becomes destructive) and that it can't extend it's influence beyond the game.

Edited by Drasvin
Cleaning up some words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Drasvin said:

depending on how the sentience/sapience is designed/taught and what kind of game it is, I think it could make for a good game.

As a game designer for table top games that explicitly have a human referee / Game Master, I'm just going to say that have player rules lawyers is bad enough, much less with the game it self being in the loop.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, mlooney said:
1 hour ago, Drasvin said:

depending on how the sentience/sapience is designed/taught and what kind of game it is, I think it could make for a good game.

As a game designer for table top games that explicitly have a human referee / Game Master, I'm just going to say that have player rules lawyers is bad enough, much less with the game it self being in the loop.

True, though ideally a sentient table top game would function as it's own Game Master (or a Game Master's assistant if it's not advanced enough to run itself).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Drasvin said:

a cat decides to board looks like a good place for a nap

That happened to me on one memorable occasion. My old Burmese Catso once singlepawedly ended the war on the Eastern Front with one massive offensive leap that completely scattered von Rundstedt's advance on Rostov and the oilfields in the south of Russia. Mind you, Zhukov's defending forces weren't in much better shape. Subsequently the conflict petered out in a truce where we called out for pizza and Coke. This was later dubbed the 'Peacemaker Move.'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Drasvin said:
9 hours ago, Scotty said:

There probably needs to be intent on leaving when removing a piece, so that accidental removal doesn't count, also it there could be a time limit for how long a piece if off the board, because contact between the piece and the board wouldn't be broken for long when moving the piece from space to space (players could also slide the pieces along to maintain contact). Also like I said before, it'd be conditional, like when leaving the game it's not just taking the piece off the board, but letting it go with the intent of not playing anymore, this would have the added bonus of if 1 person had to quit (for whatever reason), the other players could continue without having to restart.

Reading intent could potentially run into parsing troubles as well, especially if the player needs to leave for a reason unrelated to the game itself, as the player's thoughts might not be clear enough on leaving the game, leading to parsing error. A time limit might work, but induces a delay on deciding to leave the game and the leaving taking affect (it also imposes a time limit on fixing mistakes if the board gets bumped or a cat decides to board looks like a good place for a nap). And while sliding the game pieces is a possible rule, it's simply a work around that doesn't add much depth to the game and can still result in unwanted mistakes if a player that typically picks up game pieces to move them forgets about the rule and tries to move their piece in a comfortable manner.  Ultimately it would depend on which is the simplest, least costly to implement, and best of the enjoyment of the players, a dense complicated set of conditionals to catch variation, or a sentience that is designed/trained to value player enjoyment and wellbeing. And since magic is a big part of this, I'm not sure which one would have the better balance of those traits.

I would say it even more strongly: we have no idea how hard anything with magic is. Maybe parse errors are impossible when reading mind. Maybe the game will FORCE you to formulate your intent - possibly without you even realizing it.

11 hours ago, Scotty said:

Hanma's game doesn't need to be sentient, it's could be enchanted with conditionals, each card probably has specific enchantments that activate when placed down, and considering the pieces look like the players, there might be a link between the piece and player in much the same manner as when Rhoda and Catalina had their enchantments linked. The pieces could also be linked to the board as well so that when the player(s) want to stop playing, they just remove their piece from the board and that undoes all the enchantments on them.

Such big amount of separate enchantments linked together could easily lead to more risks than sentient game. Like, what will happen if some of the enchantment breaks but other enchantments would still assume it works? In worst case, the pieces of game will lost the link and start working separately, so the undo on quitting the game will stop working.

8 hours ago, mlooney said:

As a game designer, let me just say that sentient isn't something  you look for in a good game.

Sentience, on the other hand, might be very important thing you look for in something which transforms you.

Sure, there is risk of it going evil, but evil is at least somewhat predictable. Something going buggy is worse.

5 hours ago, Drasvin said:
6 hours ago, mlooney said:
7 hours ago, Drasvin said:

depending on how the sentience/sapience is designed/taught and what kind of game it is, I think it could make for a good game.

As a game designer for table top games that explicitly have a human referee / Game Master, I'm just going to say that have player rules lawyers is bad enough, much less with the game it self being in the loop.

True, though ideally a sentient table top game would function as it's own Game Master (or a Game Master's assistant if it's not advanced enough to run itself).

Given the mechanics of game is done by game itself, it MUST work as it's own Game Master. No amount of lawyering would help you if the person you are trying it on can't influence the rule. You can try this yourself, on gravity for example ... or, if you look on something simpler, on a computer game: even if something is completely obvious bug and game creator knows about it, the computer will not change the rule unless you install update for the game.

Generally, it's preferable if game rules are so simple and clear there can be no double meaning. In reality, however, it's hard to implement, especially in open games. Personally, I consider better to simply not playing with players who are lawyers if it's not fun to you ... instead of making the game less fun for people who either enjoy the lawyering (D&D game between lawyer students might get interesting) or for people who don't but still needs to solve some situation they got into.

Also, in most games, the solution includes rule like "Game Master is always right, even if he isn't", which means that Game Master have both the power and responsibility to keep the game fun. The same must be true for the game - it must EXPLICITLY be set to objective like players having fun or something like that instead of playing AGAINST the players. Or ... maybe the objective would be to that the game WANTS to be finished, that would also stop most possible problems.

On a related note, http://www.semperbufo.com/media/sbseqart_three-wishes.html :)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Such big amount of separate enchantments linked together could easily lead to more risks than sentient game. Like, what will happen if some of the enchantment breaks but other enchantments would still assume it works? In worst case, the pieces of game will lost the link and start working separately, so the undo on quitting the game will stop working.

Each player wouldn't have more than 3 enchantments at a time on them though, and when a player plays more transformation cards to buy another spot or gets transformed by someone else, the new enchantments would just replace the old, not get stacked so I don't think there'd be any worry about enchantments breaking the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scotty said:
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Such big amount of separate enchantments linked together could easily lead to more risks than sentient game. Like, what will happen if some of the enchantment breaks but other enchantments would still assume it works? In worst case, the pieces of game will lost the link and start working separately, so the undo on quitting the game will stop working.

Each player wouldn't have more than 3 enchantments at a time on them though, and when a player plays more transformation cards to buy another spot or gets transformed by someone else, the new enchantments would just replace the old, not get stacked so I don't think there'd be any worry about enchantments breaking the game.

I was speaking about every card being separately enchanted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, hkmaly said:

I was speaking about every card being separately enchanted.

Even Dan said there were 813 possible combinations, the game needs to be able to keep track of it somehow right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this