This interview might interest folks that are reading this blog:
-
FACEBOOK
-
FEEDS
-
Archives
-
PROFILE
-
Blogroll
-
Links
This interview might interest folks that are reading this blog:
Origins
Pecking Order is a game I developed originally for a standard deck of cards, and later augmented a bit for publication with Winning Moves. The inspiration for the game came from watching birds jockey for perches – I would watch them approach and sometimes dislodge the other bird, and sometime fail to dislodge the other bird. I imagined that it wasn’t really known which bird was higher in the pecking order until this challenge took place … and that is the basis for the game.
The original game as played with a deck of cards is as follows:
Two players each take a suit – one diamonds and one hearts. The spades are placed up on the table in order. The clubs are set aside. Each player shuffles their deck of 13 cards. Choose who goes first then play alternates.
History
In 2001 (I think) Alexey Stankevich created a game called Astral Tournament. On the surface it looked like a simplified Magic:The Gathering clone. Once one started to play it was easy to see that it was much more original than that. After years of difficulty in adapting Magic to online play I deeply appreciated a game that was designed for computer play from ground up.
In Astral Tournament players played dueling wizards. Each player was dealt “cards” from a common deck of 60 cards, so that 20 went to each player and 20 were unused. Each turn players gained an astral power (mana) in 5 different types of magic – earth, air, fire, water, and death. Any card a player was dealt was available to that player the whole game provided they could pay the astral power cost. Each turn a player could play exactly one card – a spell or creature. A spell had an immediate effect – like damage or healing, a creature went into one of several slots in front of the player, and each turn would attack the creature in the opposite slot or the opposing player if it was unblocked. Players took turns playing cards until one of them had no more life – and thus lost the game.
Games with Garfield LIVE at PAX
Richard will be on the “Game Design 101″ panel at PAX Friday Morning.
Tyler will be on the “Original Gangstas” panel at PAX this Friday night.
Come by for the panels and say hello afterwards (we would love to hear what you think of our podcasts).
Tyler’s panel is in the Unicorn Theater at 6:00pm on Friday, September 4th at PAX, Richard’s will be the same room but at 10:30am.
All the information can be found here;
http://www.paxsite.com/schedule.php
See you Friday!
This article refers to competitive games of more than two sides where one player or side can be eliminated. I am not referring to cooperative or semicooperative games, or two sided games, or single player games. This is specifically about where one player or side is eliminated from the game and the game continues on without them.
Games that eliminate players are often regarded negatively with a knee jerk reaction. I believe it often sends people back to games of Risk or Monopoly where a player was eliminated and had to watch for hours as the game plodded on. Some of my favorite games eliminate players, and I have thought a lot about whether I like them despite their elimination of players or perhaps a bit more because of it. I have come to the conclusion, that for me, elimination of players is not inherently better or worse than leaving players in for the whole game, but each have their own risks.
If a player is eliminated there is a risk that player will grow bored and frustrated with their non-participant status. If a player is not eliminated there is a risk the player will find themselves in a position where they don’t believe they can win, and they may still grow bored or frustrated – and worse – they may use what influence they have in the game to disrupt the remaining players. This is what I like to call effective elimination, which is in many ways worse than simple elimination.