What made Castle Panic suck? How could that be improved?

From the images on google, castle panic seems to concentrate on keeping the monsters from reaching the tower or castle,
maybe we can make it so there is no castle or outside fortifications, maybe the goblins are trying to get to a portal or teleporter that is located in x room of the house and the crew needs to set traps to kill the incoming goblins.

Each trap could open a new way for the goblins to enter: rigging the wall or ceiling to collapse on a wave of goblins could open that path for them to go over or under the passage, or etc... So there would be a need to plan where to set traps and create a path of resistance... Maybe even have powerup cards where you could throw a box of legos on the floor and it would dissuade the goblins from walking through that hallway or room.


I'm just trying to think of a game by using the name NGA and strategy... Simplest would be that goblins are not allowed to enter somewhere or do something...

-no goblins allowed in the bar or nightclub and you gotta find ways to get them in...
-no goblins allowed in heaven, and you gotta build ladders or find ways to cheat them in..
-no goblins allowed in the pool, need to distract the lifeguards and the pesky kids..
-no goblins allowed in the airplane, need to check luggage and other hiding places to make sure they don't take off...

If the name chosen is not NGA, there could be other directions this could go...

V.

Maybe some players are goblins in disguise: it could explain the smell...


I agree that numbers would work better in forum, but if the game works well, cards could be added for a boardgame.



V.

So, after watching an interesting video by Hank Green on The Game (yes, that game (yes, I know I just lost it (so did you))) and how it actually has meaningful things to say about life and the fact that no matter what we do we're all playing losing games and that therefore it's not the winning that matters but the choice in what game to play, I remembered something Wil Wheaton said on his show Table Top about which game I don't remember: "I've had more fun losing this game than winning most others." Now, setting aside my short-comings of not actually remembering what game he was talking about, it made me want to ask the question: what games have you most enjoyed losing? And why?

Hanabi is the answer to everything.
Actually you can't really lose Hanabi, you just win less.

I enjoy losing in Dominion and Mottainai because it means I have a competent opponent.

i enjoy losing in go because it means i have a competent opponent. most of the runner ups involve the same answer.

Not a boardgame, but a loss in Smash Bros (especially the original and especially if you're an amateur) is always entertaining. Watching your character fly off the screen because you threw a box that happened to contain explosives just as something popped up in front of you is always hilarious. The random factor and the entertainment factor heal any bruising of the ego.

When I play games socially, I often find the joking and banter to be much more entertaining than the actual end result. My multiplayer Cube, for example, is designed specifically to enable drama and silliness. That way even if I lose, I get to feel good about holding the Lightning Bolt against three opponents with less than 3 life, or coming up with increasingly desperate reasons for a stronger opponent to keep me alive.

Yeah I'm not a good loser but when you're playing with friends and joking around it doesn't hurt as much.

I don't think that anyones goal is to actually lose a game. Generally speaking, your intent is to win, unless the goal of the game is to lose, in which case: you're still trying yo win by losing...

What hurts less when losing is the way you lose, maybe it happened in a really entertaining or interesting way. Maybe you have other goals you can achieve other than obvious victory. Sometimes when we play magic, a friend's goal is to do 20 damage combo in one turn, even if commiting suicide in the process.

If there are other achievements possible other than victory, more than one 'winner' can exist. Example in magic would be person with strongest creature of the match, person with most creatures, person with most artifacts... or totally opposite: person with least creatures or artifacts, etc...

In thr old age of empires, there would be achievements for most wonders or castles built, most troops trained, etc...

Other methods of not being hurt too badly when losing is when u can tilt the ending in favor of someone or make sure that the person that killed you doesn't win... Makes you feel as if you had the last word.


V.

I could elaborate further. I enjoy losing in competitive games when my loss gives me the impression that I have room for improvement. I like to be able to face the same opponent multiple times, try new things, and grow in an attempt to catch up with them. If I'm not sure why I'm losing or how I can improve at the game, then that may cause me frustration.

Lmao, that sounds exactly like me... I always try to convince the strongest person how others are more dangerous or have the potential to be dangerous based on the card they possibly have in their deck or how many lands they have and of which color...

My fav is saying that I know the other person has an Act of Treason, that I can smell it and that they want to steal your creature...

A good example. On the other end of the spectrum, Mario Party games will award stars (which act as victory points) to players for randomized reasons. Sometimes somebody wins just because they unintentionally landed on the most blue squares or something.

No one's goal is to lose a game?

Let me tell you a tale, of why I am no longer allowed to use the Obligatory Cthulu set in Smash Up. In fact, this set was officially banned from use in our playgroup because of this.

As the Party v. Strategy vote was tied, we'll just table that discussion until later. (Or ultimately make the game to do both.)

Step 3: Characters or Occupational?

Character based games (as I'm calling them) differentiate player goals at the beginning of the game by giving them different tasks/benefits. DC's Deckbuilding Game and Pandemic, for example, give players character cards at the start of the game, each with specific abilities that only they get to use. I'm also including games like Ticket to Ride in which each player is given a secret set of missions to complete before the game ends, even if those missions tend to be similar.

Occupational based games (I know, I'm great with names) are those where most facets of the game are even, save perhaps resources. Settlers of Catan, despite turn order having a huge impact, starts basically the same for everyone. I chose Settlers of Catan to illustrate what I mean: while your piece placements might dictate your goals, that is part of the game development more than the game preparation. Carcassonne, even though you each draw different tiles, starts you in an unknown position and asks you to develop as the game moves along.

Note: I'm choosing these steps without a ton of forethought. There are a lot of angles by which to approach game design. That said, if you wanna post suggestions for further votes, please do.

Asymmetric/Symmetric gameplay.

idk what I think about this approach, as an aside.

Asymmetric gameplay all the way: it exponentially increases the replayability of the game, and leads to all sorts of interesting interactions. Besides, characters means character designs, which are always fun.

I don't really understand what you're trying to differentiate here. So I picked Occupational.

characters probably make the game more novel and thus more fun but i think they detract from the competitiveness of a game. The best games for me will probably be occupational, although the rest of the game has to be very well designed to make up for it.

rush has bad naming conventions.

Symmetric games are games where players are playing with the same objective, with the same initial options available to them. Monopoly, Chess, Dominion, Hanabi and Go are all examples. You could debate whether "opening hand" disqualifies something from this genre or not.
Asymmetric games are games where players have different objectives, or something that otherwise makes them different from the other players, outside things like turn order. In Pandemic, players have different roles, which makes them better at something compared to the other players from the very beginning of the game. In Magic, players play with different decks, capable of wildly different action. In Lords of Waterdeep, players have a hidden Lord that determines what type of actions they will score bonus points on. In Werewolf and Resistance, the werewolves/spies have a different objective from the town/resistance.

Asymmetry often leads to more replayability as player can discover different roles, and it makes players feel unique. It can also help give players some direction in games with a lot of options. Symmetry is usually considered more "fair" for competitive play, and is easier to balance.

I completely forgot that symmetry was a word. I chose "character/occupational" because I'm making a Supernatural game and there was some initial question whether players should be hunters (occupation) or specific characters.