Marylander here, Cowtails are definitely "a thing" here as are the Original Goetze's candies and yup they are manufactured here in Baltimore by Goetze's candy for over a hundred years. Edit: Oh and you nailed it Jon, it is pronounced 'Gets'
I think teams vs teams instead of 1 v 1 is an answer to most problems. The team aspect adds the cooperative element into a PVP game. It also gives people room to play different ways, because they can often rely on other teammates to fill different roles. So someone can play aggressive when aggression might end up killing them in a 1v1 atmosphere, and so on. It opens up the experience and exponentially opens up the meta of the game. Of course, this requires more players to complete a gameplay session, which is always going to be an issue in a hobby with such a high buy in.
That sounds like a fine game idea but it isn't the game I want to make. That isn't to say it couldn't be a future expansion to the game I want to make, however. I'm not even fully sure what problems we're trying to answer exactly. I haven't really formally written down a single rule yet!
At the beginning of becoming a life long D&D DM, some 25 years ago, I was also interested in 40k. I collected and painted a few armies, but only every enjoyed actually playing my tyrranids. Looking back, it seems I have always been a non-competitive narrative gamer. The only enjoyment I got from 40k was crashing waves of my aliens into my friends invincible space marines like a scene from starship troopers (this was like 2nd-3rd ed, I think, haven't played since lol).
Oh man. My daughter is diabetic. We don't fly often, but you DO NOT check your insulin, CGM supplies, and other diabetes stuff. The way airlines lose luggage... you've gotta have your stuff! I actually REALLY like Horus Heresy because there are almost no try-hards in the 30k community - it's super narrative, the armies tend to be really cool, so it's just been a blast. The worst part about 30k is that you sometimes get those guys who treat it like a historical wargame and "well, actually" every detail about your army, but even those dudes are few and far between.
My background is purely PC gaming. I paint but don't wargame. A better distinction could be player-vs-player and player-vs-environment. Then those could be distinguished as being competitive or casual. There are plenty of (competitive) PvE games with high skill ceilings and plenty to master. Now that said. I think Scott is right regarding finding value in competitive games because it feels like winning. It's clear where people play computer games religiously but hate the game ( Hunt: Showdown, CS:GO , LoL, etc ). Many competitive games are so popular not because people enjoy the game (or because it's a good game) but because the game has some addictive dopamine hook.
One type of game you're forgetting, that has no competition whatsoever (whether it's against AI or another human) are management/building/creative games. Games like City Skylines etc. However, when it comes to noncompetitive "games" that are played on a tabletop, I can only think of puzzles.
I used to own and run larp events from 2013-2018. I feel Scott when it comes to balance regarding abilities and all. After all those years of writing and updating rules I had to stop because I couldn't stop the game from growing. I basically, ran out of ideas and had to close up shop. I hope your game comes to fruition, bud. It's a rough ride, but the end result will be a phenomnal feeling.
Definitely highly recommend age of sigmar narrative. Definitely a bit different than you're thinking of. It's not re-enactment but focusing on the story and how different games relate to eachother. Build up your force with some narrative threads and play to the agenda of your army rather than simply playing to win a mission. Also lore knowledge is bot really required. The world of aos is so big an unexplored that you can just make stuff up that's in the general setting and it works.
I loved this episode! I have to say when Scott first mentioned making a mini based dueling game I also thought "no way", but then when I rephrased it in my brain as "How would I make a mini based dueling game?" Suddenly I had some ideas, like perhaps the environment is a factor. Maybe there are things to interact with that encourage melee minis to move around and not stand next to each other. Perhaps there are abilities like 'charge' that give bonuses for moving, etc. What if the players can "tell" the environment what to do. Now, I am way more interested in this dueling game. Also, as a reminder to all of us armchair critics out there... remember it's easy to criticize, but if you can't propose any idea of a solution yourself, maybe just don't say anything.
Joseph McCullough Rangers of Shadow Deep is a solo/coop wargame with AI bad guy and deck of cards to generate random events. Great game highly recommended
So it sounds like the TUP suggestion is to implement a Rule 0 Conversation. In the 'Magic the Gathering' Commander format, the community adopted the Rule 0 Conversation as a means of making sure everyone is on the same page before a game in terms of what they want with power levels, play styles, and general expectations. I know it is a lot easier when you are trying to have the discussion around an hour long card game vs hours long war game, but I'm sure there is something there with that.
When I go to play Magic the Gathering I always bring 4 decks. 1. Very competitive deck, 2. Somewhat competitive deck, 3. Friendly/Group hug deck, & 4. a deck I'm test playing. I ask the person I'm playing what experience they want and play appropriately.
That was a great discussion about coop vs competitive, it's really the mindset, one is really about trying to find the best deck and beat your opponent, not giving them an edge. The other is really more about hanging with your friend, low pressure. I don't think narrative people try not to win because their side lost in the lore, I think they're just relaxed because they didn't bring the ultra competitive list and have fun. It really seems to be the same with magic, want to bring the best deck and outwit your opponent, play competitive, just want to play a thematic or fun deck and have a laugh with your friends : play commander. The other big hurdle with vs AI in wargame, is the sheer amount of variables, coop game resort a lot on the random aspect on card and simple rules (attack closest ennemy). Give it the reign of an Army and it will to stupid thing, what's so good about a human competitor is that he will choose the best tactics to maximise his list, that's what's fun. Doing that vs an AI would be like beating a 6 year old at magic, not fun for everyone. Or he should gain massive advantage in term of model and points and this could also be frustrating.
I think a 1v1 dueling game could totally be achievable AND fun! You just need complex enough move sets that make it interesting. Or make movement super interesting like it is in Shatterpoint. I’m looking forward to seeing what you make!!
The vast majority of cooperative board games boil down to being a solitaire game. You just take turns at the helm. Conversely you can make any solitaire game into multiplayer co-op. Play classic Solitaire with 2 players by just swapping turns every time you flip cards. A frequent problem with co-op is the most skilled or vocal player “advises” the less skilled player and essentially plays the game themselves. If you’re going to make a game co-op and interesting, you’re going to need a way to circumvent this.
When I play 30k/Heresy even though it's a VS game, it feels like a cooperative affair due to forging a narrative with my 'opponent'. So much fun. I don't personally enjoy AI driven solo or coop experiences. I love Space Station Zero, but I haven't ever finished a run because it's too easy to game the AI and I get bored. It is fantastic for power outages tho, I have my crew ready to continue for the hurricane season.
Honestly I'm looking into 15mm skirmish games, and I found Sengoku Monster Hunter, by chance. It's a coop 15mm Edo period Japanese folklore monster hunting game.
Hey Scott, have you played Gorechosen? It's an arena combat game set in the AOS world's where you take control of a single Khorne champion against 1, 2 or 3 opponents. It's a very simple duelling game, but it's also kinda fun, and very different to GWs usual style. Hexed based arena, each hero has a different attack pattern, and actions are based on cards drawn from a common deck. They went much harder on the game then they needed to, as it was only designed to show off the "new" (at the time) Blades of Khorne range, but it's a shame they never expanded it for ranged or magic champions. But as a proof of concept on a 1 character duelling game, well it's one that I think proves it can be done.
My local petrol (gas) station in the UK sells cowtails - the brownie one is better than the caramel one - but I would say that they're too sweet for me in general. As far as coop games go Corespace (by Battlesystems) is amazing. I played it a lot during lockdown - and it has the benefit of being able to screw each other over and switch to competitive as you play a mission.
Co-operative wargaming: would be interested in a wargame built around playing 2v2. I love Warhammer doubles for example, but the game isn't balanced around it. Lot of design space there. Partners predetermined or randomized? The amount of minis needed would be less per player, but needing 4 players to play a single game could be an obstacle.
Scott, now that you're building a dueling TT game, i need to recommend Flesh and Blood to you. it is a card game in which players control a single hero in a duel to the death. i think there's some interesting design going on there and while it wont be a perfect reference point, it may spur some ideas!
Defining the tone of play or the experience that you want out of the game is something that is done in RPGs also. Do you want hack and slash? Are you looking for political intrigue? How about murder mystery? If you have 6 people at the table, they might all have different opinions about this going in and end up not enjoying it because they don’t match up.
The Inquisior with the visor is a species called the "Miraluka" they don't have eye like most of the galaxy's aliens. Instead, they "see" through the Force.
Still waiting for some acknowledgement of Arena Rex by Shatterpoint designers/fans. Seems sad to me that one of our hosts here likes Shatterpoint and has be recently quoted as looking for novel skirmish/dueling combat games systems and yet somehow Arena Rex slipping through the cracks. I'm not a AR fanboi, but I do think they have been overlooked for what at the time was one of the most novel game designs to come along in ages - and now to see it being lifted for other games without so much as a nod, seems unfair.
I've definitely been aware of Arena Rex. I've painted a mini from the range and read the rules at some point (many years ago) but you're right, I haven't given it the time of day!
Still waiting for that SAGA content. Scotty, you're into competitive rulesets that are tightly balanced, no? Also, studio tomahawk's next universe book is "Age of Chivalry" which should tickle your fancy, too. Just use your drowned men as proxies for Vikings. You have enough little dudes for a 6 point game already :)
@@Miniac Ironically, AoM is the most generic and feels the least epic. I'd recommend one of the historical ages first so that you have a strong baseline for what the system can offer. I'll keep nagging until you do it. See you again in a few days :)
Have you ever tried a Twin Bing?? It’s easily the most unique candy bar/nougat ball I’ve tried. Very hard to find. I buy one every time I’m lucky enough to find one.
'A Theory of Fun' by Raph Koster: starts slow but the ending and the overall argument is suggests is cool 'Gametek' by Geoff Engelstein: a book about psychology, math, and more and how they relate to games done in a short, tight chapters
It might not have been in the news when you were recording, but those idiots who stole the MTG cards were caught/identified because they were wearing t-shirts for the game they developed and we're at GenCon to promote. Smort. Also, interesting to note that Australia has similar local content laws for tv and streaming - so theoretically Warhammer+ might be out of compliance here too. (Hasn't been challenged yet afaik though)
You know there's probably a way to phrase the question without implying Jon and Scott were accomplices. Yeah the situation with Broken Anvil deserves a mention in the news section but taking a sponsorship from an active (as far as anyone knew at the time) Kickstarter is a far cry from knowingly promoting scams.
@@Squaydles at the very least its pretty sus to not even address it what so ever when they have a lot of sponsors that come from them and level 52(who we now know are the same company). Its not a good look to shield someone who is involved in steep controversy. I can understand them bringing it up and saying we don't know whats going on and formally distancing themselves, but this just seems either willfully ignorant or at the very least trying to keep your sponsor and leave your community who bought into the products your promoted out to dry.
Or maybe they recorded this episode without knowing about the controversy yet and will say something in two weeks. You're making some pretty big assumptions about shielding broken anvil and maintaining sponsorship. That's pretty uncharitable but I guess that's par for the course for RU-vid comments.
@@Squaydles I don't think its a very big assumption when there are writers on staff for the podcast whose job is to find news stories and its been talked about on the facebook group for about a week. I get wanting to protect the guys but its a very reasonable to request to want them to talk about a thing they heavily participated in promoting. if anything you are also making grand assumptions on their part.
@@Squaydles Agree that this is an overly accusatory way to present this question and it communicates more about the askers opinion on the matter than it does any sincere curiosity about the situation. This individual has already made up their mind, regardless of if the topic gets discussed or not. As someone who backed the paint, I agree, the situation is unfortunate. But Scott and Jon don't have any say in the matter, and I think they made a good decision in not bringing it up. There is plenty of discourse and torch/pitchforking available at other channels. The safest, most professional action at the moment is to wait until the dust settles. When all is said and done, its probably fair game to retrospect, but right now, its not a good look to engage with assumptions, speculation and hearsay, especially when it involves business partners and community peers. I've never seen TUP as a vehicle for toxicity, I don't think its about to start now.
The Doomed - Osprey Publishing. kind of co/op skirmish vs big bads. Technically you can fight with other player, but GL either of you winning if you dont team up to kill the monster.
