created: 2022-09-28T12:02:27-03:00 modified: 2022-09-28T12:04:35-03:00
Phase two consists of offer counter offer and some card plays. The choices we make in this part of the design process will affect the quality of role playing. But how? Well if the cards are too big a factor, the game will become more tactical, possibly at the expense of immersion and imaginative play. So I should keep the cards focussed on flavour and have them impact role-play but reduce the ammount they interact with eachother. On the other hand, instead of flavour, the cards could be purely symbolic in the abstract and represent only comparative strength. Let me flesh out the two options: flavour cards vs. scoring cards:
A flavour card describes an emergent event that is added to the shared imaginitive space or narrative. It says nothing determinative about the balance of power between the player factions but it is up to the players to account for the event in their negotiations. For example a card might read: "Extremists on your side carry out a high-profile attack on the other side resulting in casualties. Public sympathy shifts in response. --> name the extremist group and declare their agenda. Ask the other player how this affects mainstream public opinion on their side."
A card like that could have drastic impact on peace talks between the players. However its up to the players to decide how drastic. The example card asked both players to fill in the event with new creative content. There could also be direction to leave cards like this on the table to indicate they are still in play perhaps. In this way it might have slight tactical implications. Maybe another card/event or even negotiated concession could permit the removal of a card like that.
But in its simplest form. Cards are merely narrative prompts to be incorporated into a story game. The prompts in The Quiet Year are an excellent example of similar cards.
In a game where cards are used for scoring or measuring power they can be used to reveal the balance between the player factions as well as the extremist. Let me try describing one way to do this with a simple deck of English-pattern, French-suited playing cards.
Each player faction is represented by a suit. The suit of the same colour is the extremist faction. Play begins with player one cutting the deck into two stacks, player two cutting one of those stacks leaving three stacks. Player one, may then choose any two stacks. This sequence will typically result in player one have a substantially larger deck. Cards can be valued at 1-10, with A=1 and all faces=10. I need to play test some of the following ideas to see what they ammount to. * In negotiation, making a consession is represented by discarding an own faction card from your deck. * Accepting a concession lets you place an own factio card into the accord. * Playing an extremist card results in it staying on the table. * At the end of play, an accord can only be reached if the value of own faction cards in it exceed the value of the extremist cards on the table. * rejecting any accord reveals and activates all unplayed extremist cards. * An accord is successful if the accord cards from both factions balance within an acceptable range of eachother and outnumber the extremist cards in play. * An unsuccessful accord yeilds results as described by the agreed setup or something
Between these two versions of the game, I envision using cards for flavour mostly but also having some kind of point value.
Generally describing game play again. * p1 makes an offer, this can be detailed. It can be represented by cards or other counting mechanism. * p2 can accept. Phase 2 ends. * p2 can counter-offer * p1 can accept. * If no one accepts, then draw cards. * Resolve cards; * back to offer/counter offer * Cards may either change the order of who offers first. * Other wise it can always be p1 or it could alternate.
Phase three is reached either when an offer is accepted, a party withdraw from talks, or extremist events sabotage talks. The method of evaluating the ending varies depending on how it was reached.
Reaching an accord is the idea outcome as it implies a more peaceful resolution. However each accord must be tested: (1) it must be facially valid, based on the cards on the table. It is up to the players to ensure that they only accept a valid accord based on the state of play at the time it is accepted. If it is not valid, then the ending is determined as though by en extreme event. One could say that an invalid accord triggers an extreme event.
If the accord is facially valid, then it can be assessed for value. How well will it hold up? The answer to this results in the final score for a given game.
This occurs when either side, at any time declares that negotiations are over. The outcome for the factions is decided by comparing the scores of cards still held back. Faction and extremist cards of the same colour are counted together.
Somethin along the lines of a zero sum deadly contest between the extremist cards on oppossite sides, With the winner of that then acheiveing dominance over the moderates of both sides. Or something to that effect.