Skip to toolbar

RAZED – FATE OF A GALAXY: Feedback and discussion thread

Home Forums Game Developers Discussions RAZED – FATE OF A GALAXY: Feedback and discussion thread

Supported by (Turn Off)

This topic contains 18 replies, has 7 voices, and was last updated by  warzan 1 month, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1768378

    avernos
    Keymaster
    30906xp

    This is a thread to collate feedback and discussion on RAZED – FATE OF A GALAXY by Grin Skull Games. Let us know what you think and how the mechanics are working for you.

    #1768395

    templar007
    52284xp
    Cult of Games Member

    I just had a very quick read-through.

    I’ll be setting some time aside to give this a run-through as well.

    Good or not, I feel compelled to Congratulate the team of ‘Grin Skull Games’ on birthing this game!  Well DONE!  Not many can say that they have done this much at all.  We all have an idea at some time in our gaming ‘careers’ but not many of us get this far with it.

     

    #1768402

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    I’ll place updates and links to new versions here.

    At the moment I’m mostly tightening up the tasks aspect of things. For me tasks gives me that dungeon crawler feel where its not all about combat – which is somthing id like to reinforce in this game – combat should feel like an extreme option. 🙂

    But tasks are  basically falling into two types 1 unopposed  (you pay the cost and they happen) 2 opposed (you pay the cost, random draw sets a target, you try to beat that target from your hand or a random draw)

    🙂

    #1768414

    blinky465
    16840xp
    Cult of Games Member

    I love pretty much everything I’ve seen about this game.

    And not just taking a card-based mechanic and saying “well, it’s better than dice because it has memory” (which is basically my main point for pushing cards over dice) but the amount of thought and consideration – and card-game playing experience – in here is incredible.

    Those of us of a certain age well remember, as kids, playing “pontoon” (21-or-bust) with elderly relatives during a Sunday afternoon visit with “the family”. What a lovely mechanic for “pushing-your-luck”. Who hasn’t had their pocket-money eaked out of them by an uncle or a grandfather, teaching you to pay better attention to probability during a game of 3-card-brag (Texas Hold’em Poker wasn’t such a big thing in the 80s). Just me? I doubt it.

    These throwbacks to popular card games, mixed in with the nostalgia-fest of Star Wars, really resonated with me.

    And then, just when I thought it was all about making card games into tabletop games, you hit us with the whole resource management thing too. Card games, strategy, resource management AND miniatures? I reckon if I’d have put a list of my favourite things into AI and asked it to come up with a set of game rules, it would look very much like this one! (except maybe your final saving throw would be to play a Peter-Green-style blues lick on guitar, in a random key – AI doesn’t always get it just right).

    I’ve been writing a few game apps in recent months and am always looking for game rules that could be used in a digital settings. But this is one game that’s absolutely analogue. There’s nothing here that introducing anything else would improve upon. It’s a card-based tabletop game, and your focus is on playing cards and pushing miniatures around.

    I’m so excited about this game. I really, really hope to see it come to something….

    #1768479

    darkdanegan
    21368xp
    Cult of Games Member

    I’m definitely up for giving this a play test. Probably next weekend so I’ll use whatever version is latest at that point!

    #1768487

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    Thats awesome and very much appreciated ill take over the top post if I can and always keep the latest version and a change log in there.

    #1768501

    Even in its very early state this is very appealing and intriguing as it does feel very much like its own thing with a fresh approach to the basic mechanics. At least from what I know. For me even at this stage it captures more of my interest and imagination than Stargrave ever did.

    So naturally I jumped straight in without reading the opening pages and thought, ‘this looks very much like Star Wars’ ;). It is, at the same time the grittiness of the pictures gives it a very different atmosphere. I get the desire to capture that feel, but this has already more to it and can stand on its own legs. Trying to make it fit might bring its own issues like balancing out ‘Force’ users.

    All the imagery in the rulebook immediately creates immersion which in part certainly sells this. Even if this is supposed to be miniature agnostic and clutter free hence streamlined part of me would like to have its own miniatures based on the images, card decks and poker chips as kismet tokens. Sure, Legion miniatures work perfectly, but where to get a variety of appropriate dogs?

    At the same time all the pages and placeholder images/texts make it a bit harder to follow the basics than probably intended. The game overview at the outset is good and immediately sets up the framework, wish others would do this more. For Beta testing it would be good though to have a rules summary/the tables on a few pages to print off. The core mechanics take a moment to understand, but should be pretty intuitive from then on.

    Card mechanic – I get the options this brings in principle but have never particularly liked using it in practice. The only game I semi-regularly play with it is Too the Strongest where it is so intrinsic to the game. Perhaps my general prejudice is just based on the aesthetics of having cards in play – maybe if the cards used for sets of different themed symbols, I’d not even think about it. Here though using the suits for different types of actions as well as the ability to use cards in a universal manner for some things, albeit at greater cost, sounds really good so far. Has the potential for very tactical gameplay and in a PvP context brings uncertainty into play too.

    In the absence of a few full profiles, it’s hard to the relative strengths, problems etc. so can’t comment much on that yet. It’s also a bit difficult to imagine how large the teams are supposed to be.

    The only element that had me wondering was the question of movement – I get the using the two card sides as a streamlined measure (though with those distances what is the gaming area supposed to be?). That perhaps puts too much of a limit on the ability of a wide range of unit types to move. Maybe that is intentional. Maybe using different activation values provides some variance or maybe there could be modifiers using multiple card lengths.

    Look forward to more.

    #1768534

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    Some excellent points mate. Somebim still working through in my mind.

    I’ll draft up a more complete response in a day or so once I’ve let them all digest! 🙂

    Thanks very much!

    #1768599

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    but this has already more to it and can stand on its own legs. Trying to make it fit might bring its own issues like balancing out ‘Force’ users.

    Thanks yes having it stand on its own is important to me too. My hope for the project has always been here is a cool fun way to enjoy a night of SciFi Spagetti Western – although I’ll need a netter description for it than that lol. The Star Wars galaxy is huge though so I’m not too concerned with it threading through that at the moment, but time will tell.

    All the imagery in the rulebook immediately creates immersion which in part certainly sells this. Even if this is supposed to be miniature agnostic and clutter free hence streamlined part of me would like to have its own miniatures based on the images, card decks and poker chips as kismet tokens. Sure, Legion miniatures work perfectly, but where to get a variety of appropriate dogs?

    I have already ordered some stuff to vary up the cards and kismet lol – a couple of friends from the US are sending me Sabacc shaped playing cards so I will have a play with those, and I found 30mm Chinese luck coins (the ones with the square hole) that im going to use for the Kismet tokens. – On the miniatures front, I’m almost certainly going to try and encourage a use what you have and what you like approach and build the flexibility into the profiles etc … somehow.

    At the same time all the pages and placeholder images/texts make it a bit harder to follow the basics than probably intended.

    Yes this is something I’ve been very aware of too, although I’ve been saying to my self wait a bit longer until you get most stuff out of your head and onto paper and the game itself tested and tighter – THEN I can do a few rounds of structure and editing to see if I can make it more logical. (I would have the benefit of page numbers and more experience of its gameplay etc by then)

    The game overview at the outset is good and immediately sets up the framework, wish others would do this more. For Beta testing it would be good though to have a rules summary/the tables on a few pages to print off. The core mechanics take a moment to understand, but should be pretty intuitive from then on.

    The game overview was a must have for me – I like simple bullet point lists that can just give me a flavor of what to expect without a lot of drama – I’m glad you noticed that part as I wish more games would do it as well! I actually have a ‘PRINT PACK’ here which I use to print stuff out for testing so its got all the tables and profiles and blanks etc in it – That will form part of the package soon as I’m trying to set this us as a ‘only print what you need’ type thing.

    Card mechanic – I get the options this brings in principle but have never particularly liked using it in practice. The only game I semi-regularly play with it is Too the Strongest where it is so intrinsic to the game. Perhaps my general prejudice is just based on the aesthetics of having cards in play – maybe if the cards used for sets of different themed symbols, I’d not even think about it. Here though using the suits for different types of actions as well as the ability to use cards in a universal manner for some things, albeit at greater cost, sounds really good so far. Has the potential for very tactical gameplay and in a PvP context brings uncertainty into play too.

    Yeah I think the cards will make for some really nice game play – but time will tell.

    In the absence of a few full profiles, it’s hard to the relative strengths, problems etc. so can’t comment much on that yet. It’s also a bit difficult to imagine how large the teams are supposed to be.

    That will have to be discovered though playing.

    The only element that had me wondering was the question of movement – I get the using the two card sides as a streamlined measure (though with those distances what is the gaming area supposed to be?). That perhaps puts too much of a limit on the ability of a wide range of unit types to move. Maybe that is intentional. Maybe using different activation values provides some variance or maybe there could be modifiers using multiple card lengths.

    Movement is very much up for grabs at the moment – what’s in there is my starting baseline, but there is no reason it can’t include ‘2 card lengths etc’ to help differentiate speeds etc. Again I’m starting with a baseline and then will tweak it during and after playing it to see how to get a nice balance of movement – personally I don’t want things to drag out so my hunch is movement will increase across the board.

    🙂

    #1768616

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    Screenshot 2022-08-08 082125

    The area I’m focusing on just now is the TASKS as they are crucial to smooth gameplay as they can potentially be carried out by characters and companions so the process of having tasks activate either directly or via a command is important.

    The areas I’m looking at currently are.

    • Opposed vs Unopposed tasks (how to model that some tasks have a test for success)
    • Commands and the interplay between the character and the companions. (most recent version has the TASK cost listed with the companion rather than a cost for both issuing the command and performing the task (that’s redundant) this is a little more streamlined.
    • Standardization of TASKS – I like the idea of not having to constantly flick through a book wondering what can I do, so I’m standardizing a fixed set of tasks that can be performed, and then use the Mission packs to eek the most creative play options out of those.
    #1768690

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    And for a bit of fun let me introduce GROO who joins HOUND and MUTT in the companions section. GROO is an all terrain assassin K9 – heavily cybernetic but still adorable lol

     

    groo

    #1768715

    athelstane
    Participant
    688xp

    Warren,

    Have you tried ‘toying’ with not using measuring devices?   Divide the board into 6″ by 6″ squares, by using terrain, no need to put a grid on the board.  Measuring distances and line of sight shenningans are two parts of wargaming that cause the most arguments and slow down games.

    #1768768

    warzan
    Keymaster
    27848xp

    A deadzone style movement system does appeal to me and I’ll certainly mull that over. However it does place a bit more thinking on the part of the setup, and perhaps influences the layout a little too much. (But ill run through some versions of it in my head to see what sticks) 🙂

    #1768808

    darkdanegan
    21368xp
    Cult of Games Member

    I really like the card-as-a-measuring-stick idea.  It’s just such an elegant solution

    #1768906

    blinky465
    16840xp
    Cult of Games Member

    you tried ‘toying’ with not using measuring devices?   Divide the board into 6″ by 6″ squares, by using terrain, no need to put a grid on the board

    Did the Blacklist Games Myth and Goal ever get released? I was really intrigued by their approach to movement – the playing field was split into large grids, and from memory you could move your characters into anywhere in an adjacent grid square. I attended on of Needy Cat Games online seminars for game design and thought it was a really interesting way to deal with movement.

    Similarly, there was a freebie on the front of one of the gaming magazines a little while back which used a similar approach – it was called something like Blam! and an entire 6×4 table was split into something like 12″ grid squares. Movement was simply within a grid, or into an adjacent grid. They used terrain to indicate where “gridlines” would have met, so there wasn’t even any markings on the table. It seemed quite elegant.

    (then again, a simple “one card long edge” or “one long and one short edge” or “two long edges” is easy enough to understand for measuring distances – I’d keep it as you originally designed!)

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 19 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Supported by (Turn Off)