Positive Player Interactions (Sunday Sitdown) 

Another Waterdeep positive interaction mechanism is how you build buildings that anyone can use and whenever someone else uses your building you get a bonus from it.

LOVE this! Positive player interaction is great, I tend to dislike negative. Thanks for putting focus on this Jamey!! :)

I really enjoy the trading aspect in TI4. Getting commodities that do nothing for you, but trading them to another player converts them into resources. But you can only exchange them, when you are adjacent to a system with your trading partner. An elegant way to introduce positive player interactions as well as reward negotiation.

Great topic! I have to put forward Keyflower for this, where you can use an opponents tiles for their powers/resources and the opponent gets the worker to use in the next round. I think it’s great that this action doesn’t block the tile for further use, just makes it more expensive (ie more workers to activate) making workers a valuable resource in themselves.

The Gallerist has a few positive player interactions. The worker bumping which gives the bumped player more actions at that location. The other is increasing the fame of an artist that another player discovered, because you also own a piece of art from that artist.

I love positive player interaction too! I really hope more designers implement it! Thank you so much for this video, Jamey! 👍👍👍

Waterdeep also have some intrigue cards which give the person playing it the best effect, but the other players may jump in and still get something good. Like gain one reason, where the person playing it gets 2, or score 3 points for discarding a quest whereas the person playing it gets 6 for the same thing. And some cards have the player choose one opponent to give a bonus to. And then there are cards and buildings that have you put bonus resources or money onto worker placement spots, which can be taken by any player. And I also like in Suburbia, how what your opponents build can positively impact your own income and population growth. For instance with airports, where the effect is the total amount of airports overall times the effect on the specific airport, so you are incentiviced to get more, even though it will positively impact an opponent, because it will impact you even more.

I'm so late! Positive player interaction is something I'm starting to love more because of Jamey. At first, I thought a game needs to have consequences or negative interactions as well, but because of Jamey, I learned that it can still have consequences while still having positivity! I love that!

Trade routes could be a source of positive player interaction if distance/time was a part of them -- either "must be within 10 to count as connected" or something more complicated -- and then have uncontrolled areas take longer to traverse. So maybe wilds are 3, foreign controlled are 2, and controlled are 1, then you add up the distance.

Scythe with the recruits mechanism is one of my favorite positive interaction

I always thought a civilization game with the milestones of Food Chain Magnate would be good. Where you’re racing to make major accomplishments like “first to make fire”, “first to build weapons”, “first to publish a book” etc. each of which would give you a permanent power for the rest of the game. “Since you made the first weapon it’s cheaper for you to make weapons for the rest of the game.”

Although the ancient nations didn't often interact directly with each other, there were merchants who moved between them - the silk road for example. (I'm not suggesting you add a particular mechanism - I don't know the game, I was just thinking of thematic excuses for the interactions) Also, on a similar note; There aren't enough team games out there!

A little late to this one Jamey, but I have been very much enjoying Via Nebula. Almost every aspect of the game has positive player interaction. Discovering new material opens up resources for others while giving you victory points, opening paths provides better options for moving goods while giving you victory points, and finally using goods gives other players their explorers back to use again. I for what it is worth these all are super fun I think could be incorporated into a civilization game. Also, euphoria is super positive in interaction!

I think one of my favourite uses of positive player interaction also comes in the form of action denial in Everdell or lords of waterdeep. While building your town sometimes you create spots in which an action can be performed, in creating a spot, other players may also use said spot and you gain a benefit for them using it. I like it a lot more in Everdell because you only have the four seasons, so if someone uses your spot and you wanted it, you feel that tension a lot more than in lords of waterdeep, where you can simply use it in what feels like minutes. Its a good balance of negative and positive player interaction.

He starts talking about the actual games at 4:48 ;)

One thought about these positive player interactions is that they lose their feel in two player games. If I'm playing Carcassonne with 5 players, I love sharing a few cities with one or two other players each, because every time they add onto our city, it helps me more than my "average" opponent. But when I'm playing one on one, every time we share a city, it's a wash. I think the only way for this kind of interaction to still feel interesting in two player games is when the benefits are asymmetric. So maybe I get points, but boost their engine, or vice versa.

I don't know if it could make sense in your game, but a way to make owning part of a complete trade route better than owning the whole thing, is if there's a cost to owning each part of the route, but each (or some) parts can have multiple counterpart bonus territories. So a country might have cabbage, radish, and uranium counterparts, and it's a powerhouse if all the other matches are occupied, but not worth trying to control all myself if the other matches aren't being used.

Great video as always! I've enjoyed the Follow mechanic where others can use a lesser version of whatever you just did, such as in Eminent Domain or TI4. Also I agree on Euphoria, I love the uneasy relationships that come about when people are on the same allegiance track or building a construction site . Also getting bumped when you have zero workers left is one of the best feelings in board games!

Fantastic video Jamey. With regards to your CIV game: If you need war, Rahdo really likes how war is handled in Nations and 7 Wonders (not duel). You might also be able to modify Orleans Invasion for war (an outside threat or even a superstitious imagined global threat). The disasters in Peloponnes might also inspire you for disasters or threats from outside (players can see them coming and mitigate for them). Doing it a similar way might help with 2 player and solo modes if you need some kind of war, or semi-co-op for more interaction.

I was playing Hanamikoji with my friend and it felt like positive player interaction every time my friend would do the 4 card split in to two and two. He would always laugh and say do you want what is good for you or good for me. We went 6 rounds laughing til he won.

🤔 Time for an updated video on this subject!...??? 🤗

Although I have not had a full play through as yet, I get the impression that Founders of Gloomhaven may have several positive interaction mechanisms - your character may need resources that only other players can create, you also have a voting system regarding the building of certain reources.

I think you started this Sunday Sitdown in the middle. It occurs to me that if you are getting feedback that playtesters want more player interaction, the first question to ask is: "What do playtesters mean when they say this?" What made me think of this is when you mentioned Euphoria - you see that game as having a ton of player interaction, whereas one of your playtesters didn't. Likewise, I sometimes see complaints about Scythe that there isn't enough player interaction, when I feel that game has quite a bit (race for the factory, area control, recruit mechanism, combat, stealing resources from opponent workers, fight for structure bonus territories...). My best guess is that people have different ideas what player interaction means. And maybe to some people it means one thing: combat. I'm not sure it's true that there was no interaction between civs until 1400. True, the interactions weren't global, and maybe your game has starting locations all separated by ocean. But even before 1400 you had long overland trade routes or more local sea routes (the Phoenecians and then Greeks in the Mediterranean). Not sure if you are using earth or a fantastical map of a world (can't wait to find out!). What about the idea of envoys? Or perhaps when one player achieves some milestone first, they get the choice of boasting about it or keeping it quiet. A boast would give them prestige and speed the opponents to the same objective, whereas keeping it quiet keeps the game state as is. Thematically rumors of some achievement (some technology breakthrough) could stimulate research elsewhere. Envoys might permit the exchange of knowledge between players, speeding different technologies. Just some ideas - knowing nothing about your game!

@jamey You should check out 'Way of the Panda' by CMON. It is basically a euro'esc game with minis and zero combat. Area control, worker placement and action selection. You get more points by building around areas that have been cleared by other players. Positive yet competitive.

7 Wonders Babel has cool, positive player interaction in the Great Projects module. A lot of fun!

Something else that could work in a Concordia like system to encourage players to activate the thing that gives players in that regions their resources would be rolling a die each turn that says what resource types would generate extra bonuses if activated that turn. So if I roll wheat (I don't know Concordia's resources), and I have two wheat generating cities in a region, then I won't want to wait for someone else to activate it, because it likely won't give me that bonus on their turn.

A topic I'd like to hear you cover (or point me to where you already have) is how negative and positive player interactions drastically change when a multi-player game is played by two players. For instance, in 5 player Carcassonne, working with another player on one city and another on a farm benefits me most relative to other players, but in 2 player, any time I join my small city to my opponent's large city, it's just bad for them. In fact, the only reason to complete a city we're tied on is to prevent them from taking it over, or because I have fewer free workers than they do. Some games rely are all about balancing how much you decide to work with others that they don't even work for 2 players, like Settlers.

Neta-Tanka (not released yet) has this idea to get a victory point when you give a resource to another player. Also Dice Forge will allow you to have an extra reroll when your token is moved from a location to buy a card.

I really want to incorporate more positive interaction into my designs. That's hard to do. Probably the best example I can think of that does this is Sidereal Confluence. And it does it in spades. The economy is such that the various resources in the game are produced by various factions, while other factions who can't produce certain resources or have more limited production of certain resources really need them... and the core game is an open trading system with the only game I've ever seen to have binding deals. You also get points for researching technologies and all factions get that tech (the player who researched it gets points, but all players benefit). Also, Chimera Station, if you have a certain thing added to your worker, can bump other workers (and those workers go to a space with the owner getting a free resource). There was another worker placement game where you could always bump other workers and the owner of that worker would get a free resource, but I can't recall what it was. Having never played Euphoria, I am now intrigued to do so after getting a glance at it in today's video. I haven't had the opportunity before, but now want to!

In Islebound when someone does the tournaments, first that person receives points for organizing it and then all the players that meet the requirements marked by the card receive points.

Great video Mr. Stegmaier, I'm very excited for your new game! My favorite games with player interaction are ones where you can choose to do positive or negative interactions, the best example I can think of is Palace of Mad King Ludwig. I've been introducing more and more people to board gaming over the last four years and games that offer you the choice to play negatively or positively are always fun to me because you quickly learn what kind of player these new players are. My roommate and I play what we now call "Gentleman's Palace" we play Palace of Mad King Ludwig doing our best not to block each other with moats, and we connect swans with each other so we both gain swans. However, a couple of guys in my game group love the ability to attack and negatively effect others, so when they play Palace they are quick to cut you off with moats or other buildings, they try to never give you swans, and it becomes a bit more competitive. I always play nice until someone shows that they are going to attack me, then once they do they become my "rival" for the game, and I enjoy getting my revenge if you will. I don't know if you count the bidding in Isle of Skye as a positive player interaction, but if so that's another thing I really enjoy. I bought it solely based on your recommendation and my game group loves it, definitely in my top ten games so thank you for that as well!

I'd love to see something like this in a game. A turn begins with a roll of dice (like Backgammon or Settlers). Everyone else has ten seconds to secretly choose a card or token or whatever, based on what they think the player will do. Then the player whose turn it is makes their choice, and players benefit if they correctly predicted what that player would choose. This would keep players engaged; reward that ability to "know what move someone else should make" so many gamers have (and annoys many others when their insights are shared); and make otherwise obvious moves more interesting, because if it's that obvious, you know others will likely predict it, so you have to decide if it's worth taking anyway.

I dont have a game for this, but an idea - When a player completes a major objective, like building “the grand cathedral” to gain something it both prevents the opponents from achieving that objective, but also adjusts the rules of the game favorably for all players. In the case of the cathedral, having built it you have unlocked the secrets of construction and now all building actions require less resources. This would slightly benefit your opponents more than you, since you had already invested heavily into construction before this, but you still wanted it because it blocked off the cathedral objective from others.

Civ games and war games are some of my favorites in all forms. I think most war games are civs (if I'm using the term correctly), but not necessarily the other way around. Age of Empires. One of the only vids I play and the only video game my father ever played. Although we both enjoyed the conflict, there are plenty of other things to like about it, the tech tree type of upgrades, the physical building up of the civ, the resource management. Along with gathering resources, there is a trade action if you have extra resources or if you need resources. There is a cost or tax, but it's there if needed. It's been awhile since I've played it, but I think you can trade with other civs even if they are not your allies.

Regards CIV trading: I find the indirect player trading of MY FIRST STONE AGE very interesting. At the start there are 4 or 5 resources at the trade location. When you visit there you take as many as you want and replace each one of them with resources you have.

You could have player interaction limited to either the player to your left and right or only players that neighbor you on the board if that exists until late in the game when trade can be expanded to every player due to technology advances.

Trading is a big player interaction to me (sometimes could be very positive and/or negative though, depending on how it's done), and The Silk Road was quite active for centuries BC, through centuries AD. This particular trading route has helped with transfer of knowledge and technology, as well as cultural exchanges between so many civilizations in east, central, and west Asia, as well as northern Africa. Europe might have been somewhat isolated, and exceptionally slow in interacting with other civilizations (maybe until the 1400s that you mentioned), but Asian and African civilizations had all sorts of interactions. To me, it makes more sense to have various types of player interactions. Just as an example, if my neighboring country/civilization (or maybe an ally or even a trading partner) is particularly good at something, my civilization would have an advantage in gaining/copying/buying that culture/technology/science thing. even trading itself can/should be easier between neighbors and allies... just some thoughts

The trade route in Near And Far is for tea...but the idea of a cabbage trade route is hilarious to me!

When I think positive player interaction, I'm thinking more like founders of gloomhaven or roll for the Galaxy. Where people get to take the same actions that you take. But we each will have different bonuses we built up, like the tableaus and roll for the Galaxy, or the player who started the action gets a bonus while the rest get a lesser version. In Euphoria, it felt more incidental interaction. That it wasn't necessary other then the building's, but you could then be penalized if you didn't interact.

I won a whole game of Brass based on positive player interactions. Is it just me or does positive player interactions sometimes make for more cut-throat games then just direct attacking.

Positive player interactions are often diluted a little at two players, where I typically play, but I still really like them at that player count. Stuff you didn't mention that I view as positive player interaction - Roll and Race for the Galaxy's phase selection mechanism where everyone does every phase that anyone chose to do, so it benefits me if I don't select the phase you chose, since that way I can play a bit more efficiently (especially if I'm prepped for benefiting from the phase you chose), and Zooloretto allows you to take animals from other players shed, with every type of animal in a player's shed earning negative points, similar to the Azul example you mentioned, so by taking your stuff I'll be improving my position and leading you to be closer to scoring no negative points. I wrote the following paragraph before you brought Euphoria up, it's the game of yours I definitely consider to have the most positive player interaction. The commodity gaining spaces get better the more people are in them, my moves get more powerful the more people in like-factions do them, eventually like-factions gain a really efficient space for everyone in that faction, the market construction that encourages you to jump in on what other people are doing getting them their die back faster, but fundamentally - Worker Placement with bumping rather than blocking turns a (very slightly - a draft) negative player interaction - I go to a space and then you can't go there anymore - into a positive one - I go to the space, and then you can go there, if you're willing to give me a slight increase on action efficiency in exchange. (Fabled Fruit has a similar feel with it's worker movement - you can still go somewhere other players are, as long as you give everyone there a fruit). And most of those are still very present at two players (Though the markets get cagier, with more effort on getting them to yourself than just building them between the two players, and there's less likelihood of faction overlaps) And back to after hearing you talk about it: I noticed when Euphoria first came out that people kept under-playing how interactive a game it was. At a guess, some people don't seem to read positive player interaction as player interaction at all, and/or use it as a euphamism for conflict - I saw a few of people annoyed at the lack of blocking in Euphoria, describing it as removing the player interaction from worker placement (And, of those, a chunk seemed fairly dismissive of blocking as a form of player interaction - describing it as even the marginal player interaction of worker placement or some such). It was more passive (and perhaps passive aggressive at times, especially at two player when standoffs over markets sometimes occur)

I really love the positive interaction in Abyss. I am incentized to reveal cards from the ally deck as one of my potential actions (aka exploring the depths). However, my opponent to my left and all other opponents clockwise get first dibs on cards which they pay currency to me if they choose a revealed card. At some point, all unpurchased cards are placed face down in different common piles where opponents can choose to take from one of those different common piles (known as seeking council) in lieu of exploring the depths on their turn. I find that you will help your opponents but feel you have an advantage over them by making the choice you did that helps them too.

I'm skeptical of no combat in a civ game....perhaps a cold war like combat like in Scythe?

Thanks for the video. Why didn't you mention Between two cities and Between two castles of mad Ludwig? In Spyrium more near standing meeples provide more money for all players. In King's Guild the first player gets a card, the second shooses a reward.

Of course, I don't know how your game works. But in the real world, there seems to have been a lot more interaction in ancient history than people generally imagine. Have you noticed that writing and monumental architecture appeared in the new world and the old at suspiciously similar times? Unless we posit some strange ‘cultural clock’, someone, somehow, was transmitting ideas between continents. Much later, the Vikings, of course, visited North America. Have you seen the discussions of Greek influence on the Terracotta Army? The Eastern artefacts that show up in ancient Ireland? The odd pockets of displaced religions around the world? Have you thought about what cuisines look like when plotted on a map? Do you know the history of the Romany? Much earlier, there's genetic and archaeological evidence of a *lot* of communication-and technical sophistication-around the Western Pacific. The gene flows in both the new world and the old are turning out to be far more complex than we once assumed (of course, we should have guessed, based on the complex patterns we see in language ancestry and weights and measures-two cultural artefacts that let us see back several millennia). And there were many bulk migrations as well as interbreedings and cultural transmissions-think just about the history of Europe and where everyone's *ancestors* came from. I think at all times and in all places the ruling classes have benefitted from a rhetoric coupling language, religion, geography, technology and genetic heritage, but in the big picture it has never been very true. Over a timescale of millennia (even decades, if there is a war or other disaster) the people, the ideas, and the areas on the map are not locked to each other at all. How all that is a game, I don't know. But people can move, they can exchange ideas, they can interbreed, and it's actually harder in many cases to keep a cultural advance secret than it is to share it-unless it's tied to some special resource or some very narrow use. Perhaps everything you ever do has some chance of interactions that ripple out arbitrarily far. IIRC, in 15-something the Portuguese took Central American chili peppers from Hungary (where they had already caught on) to Thailand. Now *that* was a positive player interaction.

I am already on board for this Civilization game you are creating/developing! I know you will figure out the mechanics - don’t compromise your vision :) I’m also assuming that it won’t be Eurocentric and will be much more representative of the global community :) Keep doin’ you!

Interesting as always Jamey, Thank you I suggestion to view conflict with different perspective. I know your heavy euro oriented games but combat or conflict is not necessary a negative type of interaction. I share some of my ideas, in a game I was designing I decide to turn combat in some kind of positive interaction among players. When players fight for a resource (Area Control?) or ideal (Religions?) they are paying some kind of price, for example in Scythe you lost Militar power, in other games could be metal, troops, gold, etc, the result of the conflict always result on a reward for each player with and advance token (Science point?), in some way of representation that in the history of humankind war always push civilizations to go far beyond their limits. In some way the equation is, each player pay a cost to get a possible control of an area and always an advance for the civilization. Talking about positive interaction in Rising Sun, this kind of element on the game make some kind of natural diplomacy that is not listed on the manuals, there is no rule to negotiate with other players and the reward is the positive interaction of have an ally, as you say in the video. For my humble opinion Euro game oriented game couldn't fit the natural development of Civilization without conflict, trade or diplomacy. Sorry for my English Jamey, believe me I do my best.

Rather surprised to not hear Bohnanza in this list, it's the first thing that came to my mind. I'm quite sure you know it but, in case you (or others reading) don't, your hand of cards is in a fixed order. You MUST plant the next two in your hand on your turn and, if they don't match the two fields you already have planted, you have to tear them up (which may not get you as many points as you hoped for because the sets aren't large enough yet). But, before you plant, you can freely make trades with other players, with the condition that whatever you get in trade must be planted in your fields right away. So, often, you'll just give stuff away to players you know can use it because it just gets crap you don't want out of your hand. It's so friendly! Because it's trading, that maybe doesn't help with your civ game, but it might if you look at it from a point of view of overabundance: maybe there's a cost to storing goods or building the stuff to store it in so sometimes it might be beneficial to just give it away. Or perhaps doing so might earn you influence among that players' people. I have no idea what the mechanisms are in your game or what it's about, but that's what I thought of.

A little surprised to see Card Kingdoms of Valeria not included (not sure how 'mainstream' it is in the US) - granted you're not building stuff with other players, but you are often benefiting on someone else's dice throws... And generally benefit/improve every single turn...

Having conflict in a civilisation game I really liked the original Civ game. Also having only Risk (which I hate) as a comparison then, I really liked the diceless resolution and the fact, that conflict there is more like migration than outright war, because when the land can sustain all occupants, the decimation stops. And there are a lot of mechanisms to combat a player beat down, like the initiative. When you loose population, your starting later and can react easily to anything your opponent is throwing at you, beacuse you can choose your battles. I just wanted to chime in with this. PS: I concur with another previous poster, that the playtester missing out on player interaction, has propbably just a very narrow view on this subject. PPS: Thinking of civ games, I'd wonder if a mechanism of migration would be good idea. If there is a population cap on one of your area and you might reach it, you might donate some your population for a gain to a neighbor...

Don't add combat, not everything has to come down to fighting, the world is a crappy enough place right now without gaming being all about fighting. Or maybe that's just me. I enjoy having the opportunity to work together as you finished with. Like bartering of old, I have something you might need, you have something I might need, let's make a deal (as opposed to just smashing them and taking it).

Also really like the neighbor bonus (I think it’s called) in Clans of Caledonia

Love that your civ game won’t have combat! Maybe this will be the civ game that my husband and I both agree upon.

With that mechanic on Near and Far, it's essential that the best reward is for one player to get both. Otherwise, people might tend to hold their help hostage. I would also guess that it promotes progress in the game. Instead of waiting for sometime to help you get the best score, everyone could hurry to complete it. Unless there were outside bonuses too. It sounds like it might be time to blow up resources in your civ game. :] The are a lot of fun ways to add interaction that don't add trade, but do involve resources. Maybe a new, slightly different resource would do it. You have a fun challenge on your hands though. Thousands of years without war sounds like fun to me, but it will need a spectacular hook to make others forget how integral that was to a lot of civilizations on Earth... in this timeline.

Great subject and video Jamey! Really enjoying your MFGM and SS video series. With your WIP Civ game being in a real world setting I can understand why your playtesters would expect the presence of warfare as a form of player interaction. Is a real world setting nonnegotiable? A unique otherworldly setting might tamp down those expectations by providing a thematic explanation for the absence of combat.

I hope that you don’t put combat in your new game.. I am one of those who actually like Scythe because it gives me the dudes on a map feel whithout combat focus

Congrats on 10,000 subs! How about are a central pool of cards which players can conquer I say that loosely, to use as a unique worker placement options and if you've moved a certain distance along a tract you can use other players Decks

Coming a little late to the game this time around, I reckon that you have tons of suggestions of Positive player interactions you can use for your "civ game" if you haven't already found a solution yourself. But I will give my two cents anyway. Let me first say that I love the idea of players 'assisting' other players out of their own turn, because there are games where, when it's not your turn, you are either waiting for others to 'work on their tableau' or strategizing thru a slew of AP-inducing options and not paying attention to the overall game. Now you said at the start of your video that you felt that the empires in your 'civ game' shouldn't normally interact until late due to the nature of isolated civilizations historically. True, but that is not to say players can't interact. In fact, I'd argue that with the use of "Proxy Actors" or "Shadow Forces" you can interact with the current player. Example (knowing no specifics about your game): each round, the players, whose turn it is NOT, draw an 'Event card.' Whoever draws the highest value (or pays the highest fee - making it a bidding action) becomes the 'Proxy/Shadow player' who gets to enact their Event. The event can be a natural effect (unexpected rains, the discovery of precious ore, a migration of animals, etc) or an intelligent influence (nomadic tribe, traveling explorers, charismatic prophet, etc) - something positive that would benefit a player. The Proxy player can decide to run the event to the benefit of the active player after which it also impacts their own civilization, but in a lesser manner or the Proxy player can decide to let the event 'run wild' at which a randomizer will determine the location and impact, potentially giving no one a benefit. Thematic, a natural or nomadic event would make sense, leaving the civilizations in your world nice and separate, while involving players (through bidding and Proxy play) even when it's not there turn.

great topic, thanks for keeping it real bro !

As for adding combat in your civilization game, that is a hard call. Civilization: New Dawn has that, but combat really isn't the main focus and generally I've gone through most games only battling the local raiders... but it does allow for some capabilities. It all depends on how it balances in your design. I don't care either way, as long as it works for the design.

Thanks for the video!

Obviously I don't know your game, but ... thinking out loud here .. since your game takes place over a great expanse of time what if positive play interaction entails simultaneous discovery of technological advancement by separated civilizations as did happen in real history. Like fire, wood, the wheel, steel, etc. Every player being a separate civilization is discovering these alone yet through simultaneous or parallel invention. Players can piggy back off the advancement of another society not through trade but by sharing a secret recipe to learn or create a resource with an individual or laying on the board. Hmm Wait!! what if each player say is trying to simultaneously discover the same multiple advancements, one being basic logging. The resource recipe for the basic logging card amongst other yet similar time period technologies is on the board in a neutral space or maybe each player has them in hand. They are competing to be the first create these technologies for their civilization. Player one creates it first, receiving victory points for its creation. placing the card in his civilization. All player no longer need to create basic logging. They all now have that skill meaning they all can now use that skill as a resource towards another technology skill. Players then continue to secretly develop skills or resources towards the other technology cards. Then maybe Player Two discovers Tying Lashings. Lays card in its civilization and recieves points for it. the game continues . A new technology is raft building, its resource recipe being wood, rope, basic logging and tying lashings. Player three completes the raft building technology laying it in their civilization. They get the victory points. Player 1 and 2 also get smaller number of victory points for both discovering a technology which led to raft building. Raft building then becoming a new resource towards another technology. Player Three getting additional points for when it is used. This goes on through the game. Wood eventually leaving the game evolving into another resource to harness, maybe glass. Basic logging eventually having no value disappearing from the game as civilizations advance and logging gets so much easier. But this way each player is positively getting points for having a hand in discovering the next technology or advancement. Hope that helps.

Would you play Innovation if you took all the Demand cards away 😂 ? Would probably need to play with all of the expansions but it could be done. Lemme know and Ill make a list of all the cards to take out 🙂

Is there any sort of a tech tree in your game? When one player unlocks a technology or advancement, might it make it easier for other players to unlock that same ability in a thematic way?

Concordia is full of negative player interaction, I really don't think there's a single example of positive player interaction in that game. The example you gave where you harvest and other players get resources as well is actually negative for the active player, because you're giving valuable resources to the competition and they'll get the chance to use them before you do. Thus the players might actually beat you to a location and be able to build there, which will increase the cost for you building there. It's a very disruptive interaction, especially in the system of Concordia.

Jamey, was it hard to put the combat in scythe? I wouldn't call it positive player interaction. I can set a faction back considerably when they are attacked.

Id be happy to blind playtest for you at the two player count!

My feelings on positive player interaction: The feeling you get in a nasty game when someone sets someone back one point, takes their worker placement spot, whatever it is - that can be great. But the true nastiness is when you can do something that might help another player, or you can take advantage of their move has led to as much fun if not more as players fo anything they can to avoid helping or anything they can to take advantage of someone else's help - even as they take suboptimal moves. Positive player interaction leads to true nastiness! But truly

Love your videos. However, incorrect to state that there was little interaction between civilisations till the Middle Ages (2:21). There were significant trading regimes even in the ancient world between, for example, Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. I guess it depends on what you class as an “interaction”.

Whatever you decide, try to bring something completely new to the table, I'm tired of copycat mechanics... Inspiration is good and healthy, but innovation is what makes remarkable games stand out. Personally I'd like to see a game where I can buddy up with another player on a quest, in a sort of temporary co-op game for 15 minutes or so. Maybe we commit to give a card or two to the other player if the quest failed, and if each player agrees to the terms, they start the quest for a set amount of turns, and if they succeed they split the loot. In the meantime other players can do the same quest alone (better reward but harder to pull off), or combine forces so it's 2 vs 2, or do another quest completely different. Just an idea... I don't know if games like that exists, seems interesting concept to me.

CAT

Hi Jamey. Really interesting video! I think that a designer that put much positive interactions in his game is Vital Lacerda: the gallerist, for example, has the same "bump" mechanic you talk about, and then has a really interesting interaction in the way artist valuation works, which positively affects more players. Another exmple may be kanban's cards system, a seample but yet super smart mechanism. This made me think of gdc video about the designing of real time strategy videogame with the goal to avoid combat, which, as the speaker explain, brought lots of similarity with board games. At the end, they decided to add some way to have a bit of direct conflict between players. I think you may find it an interesting view: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-o2C4z_apu2I.html

Great topic. BUT Jamey, listen to the feedback. You got a little defensive about Euphoria. We as people get defensive when we’ve worked long and hard on something. Find a way to separate yourself from the project you worked on and absorb the essence of what they were telling you. Then decide if that is the direction you want to go with the game.