Cooperative Board Games

Cheatsi

Hey guys, I've been trying to make a co-op game were players run different villages, playing out the different roles within the village (Chief, Farmer etc). My Question is what are the fundamental things that I need to focus on before I look at some of the more fluffy stuff.

I've been looking at games like Shadows of the Camelot and I think I am missing the fundamentals Please Help :)

Elyaradine

What have you noticed so far? :)

Cheatsi

I am missing basic motivation for players to carry out their duties and move work for the team. I don't want to add a spy which seems like a easy motive to be a traitor. I don't have player personality coming through the game play.

dislekcia

A thing to try and avoid is bossy player syndrome: One player knows a lot about the game or understands the systems faster (or just thinks they do) and is loud about it, basically telling everyone else what to do. If they're good at the game, people might be fine to go along with this, but it does mean that's it's less fun for everyone else.

There are several ways to counter this: Hidden information known only to certain players (Mansions of Madness' later expansions and hardest game mode). Different win conditions per player (Shadows of Camelot, I think? Not sure if Dead of Winter is co-op enough). Time limits to make everyone focus on their own shit and not boss each other around (Space Cadet)...

Co-op stuff is great fun, but you do need to make strategies deep enough for individuals to play WITH each other, not order each other around.

Tuism

Dead of Winter has, what, 1/12 chance of being not co-op for one player, I think? So I'd say it's co-op enough :)

Yeah. Alpha gamer syndrome is my biggest bugbear against co-op, ALTHOUGH a fat load of people don't seem to mind it, so I don't think it's a huge point. (Pandemic, Forbidden Island/Desert, etc all still popular) Though of course mitigating it would be a good thing.

Other good co-op games to look at: Xcom (the app drives the game so time limit, there's a wealth of stuff for any single player to do and together they help people focus on their own things instead of bossing each other around). Hanabi is awesome if played with people who don't cheat (you don't get to see your own cards, you have to help other players deduce their cards)

Basically the elements that help co-op not turn into a single player game:
1. Incentivising hidden information between players (often this becomes a traitor element)
2. Time limit (Escape!, Xcom)
3. Mandating hidden information in the rules (Hanabi)
4. Giving each player so much to contend with that it becomes too much to ask/get advice (kinda needs time limit) Space Cadet, Xcom)

@cheatsi though your question is VERY SUPER BROAD. It almost amounts to "design my game for me please", and I'm sure you can get better help if you pinpoint your question more :) Get some rules down! :)

Rigormortis

So we recently got a game at the office called Flashpoint(I call it Firetrap). It's a co-op game where the players are supposed to rescue victims from a burning house and win when you've rescued enough. You lose if too many victims die or when the building collapses from too much damage. Flashpoint does a few things in terms of enforcing the co-op that I find very interesting.

1) The game is stacked against the players
The game(when played on the more difficult modes) are heavily stacked against the players. It feels like every turn is potentially the final turn and every move counts. The pressure of making the wrong move makes people more open to suggestions for their turn as they don't want to be the one that "causes the loss".

2) It "invalidates" your decisions every turn.
The state of the game changes by random input after every player's turn. This makes it very difficult for the alpha gamer syndrome to happen. There are usually a couple of bad decisions and a few worse ones(because of point 1). It's very difficult to actually pinpoint what the "best" move is every turn.

3) Each player has a different character and they are dependent on each other
Players fill different roles and the actually rely on each other. All the characters can essentially do the same things(douse fires/carry victims/other stuff), but they do it to varying degrees of efficiency. Because every character only plays in their player's turn they rely on other characters to make their turns more effective and protect them while the fire spreads in other player's turns.

4) Too complex for one person
There is a lot of stuff that happens across the board the whole time. It's usually littered with tokens. It's hard to keep track of all of the information on your own so you come to rely on your team mates to see options for your turn that you don't realize yourself.

5) The objective doesn't keep you alive
Focusing on the objective of rescuing victims doesn't guarantee that you will win. If the fire is not kept in check then the house could collapse and all of you lose. During different stages of the game and the positioning of characters the importance of each of these different goals changes and opens up discussions on what the "best move" is.

So yeah, if co-op board games is something that is interesting to you then you should really pick that up. If you are looking for an example of a BAD co-op game, try and play The Witches from the Terry Pratchett universe. Players share the same lose condition, but for the most part it plays like a single player game with NPC's in it....blegh.

(PS. I typed this very fast because I'm excited to talk about this game(some more :P) if there are things that don't make sense ask and I'll try to elaborate)

Tuism

I've heard of Flashpoint, I've kinda mentally compartmentalised it with Pandemic... Haven't played it, but I know it's quite visible on Boardgamegeek.

Yeah it does all these things, but how does it stop someone from running the game by being more experienced at it? There are always "best moves", even if they're not best by a big margin, or even if they get invalidated the next turn (which is by the way just pure randomness, which sucks for me, you know I'm anti-dice :P)

Rigormortis

@Tuism, I'm trying really hard to answer your question but it's not easy to explain. Not saying it's inexplicable, just that I'm finding it difficult to find the words.

What I can say though is that games without randomness or hidden information are deterministic. Those kinds of games will always have a best move. If you allow for perfect agents(players that always make the best move) the game will always have the same outcome. I don't think games like this will ever be suitable to play in teams.

What the points do that I mentioned is create actual team play. Options are discussed, divisions made and consequences lived with. The randomness and the escalating nature of the end game really has a lot to do with it though. I don't see how you would make a co-op game without uncertainty(like dice/decks/hidden info) included.

Tuism

No, you *know* I don't like dice OR chess, either of them fall into extremes of chaos and determinism, which are both bad in my view :) (extreme chaos and extreme determinism, I mean)

I don't like games without randomness, but there must be some rhyme or reason to it. For example in Pandemic, you *know* how many epidemic cards there are, they'll come up randomly, but you *know* you can't draw more than there are in there. Same as Netrunner - random card draws, if you don't get X, you know you'll eventually be more likely to get it. To me a well-designed random factor is somewhat predictable. Those are good random.

But randomness isn't the problem I'm talking about - I'm talking about the alpha guy problem. Uncertainty doesn't change the fact that there's a "best" play that alpha players can hound the team on - "best" given a situation of entirely visible options. Yes it can be complicated, yes it can all go wrong, but in the end the experienced guy has compelling arguments because of their experience, and without time limit/hidden info to sew chaos and distrust, that'll simply just be the case.

"I know what I'm doing, I've played this a hundred times. You listen to me." <-- randomness doesn't solve this.

Of course, you can ask people not to act that way, but that's not a game design solution :)

Rigormortis

Solving the alpha player problem doesn't necessarily mean you have to get rid of the best move. All that has to happen is for the team to reach the same conclusion on what the best move is.

The metrics for measuring the best move is also really hard because of competing goals. If the house explodes, the players lose. If too many victims die, the players lose. If the players save 7 victims they win. Obviously the move that saves the 7th victim will always be best, but depending on the situation(which changes the whole time) there might be 2 equally viable moves. You might also try and take the more risky move to get a bigger reward.

The randomness isn't the thing that is solely responsible for this, but it does play a major role. The next move isn't certain, so other moves actually become valid even when they are not "the best". It creates the "what if's" that the players can discuss to get to the move that they feel is the best for the current situation.

Tuism

What I'm trying to get at is that it fundamentally sounds like Pandemic - yes there's tons going on, yes everything can go wrong in one turn and invalidate all the "best moves" (have you seen when a couple of outbreaks happen chaining off one another? It's mad), yes there are competing goals...

But Pandemic still suffers from the alpha player syndrome, and nothing you're saying about Flashpoint is showing me how it's different from Pandemic :) In fact the chain reaction fire spreading mechanic can be directly likened to the pandemic disease spread mechanic.

Oh well! I'm sure Flashpoint is a great game, just as Pandemic is. The proof is in the consumer. I was just wondering if Flashpoint did anything different because I hadn't played it yet :)

Cheatsi

Thank you so much I think I have a great starting point i think how I will eliminate the players from having the bossy thing @tuism and @Rigormortis that In my game there is no room for long term trust because everyone has their own winning point, but they carry out their actions with everyone able to see thus they are have to be strategic about it.

I need to look at a lot more things before i can focus on specific things.

@dislekcia thanks, I realised that hidden information reduces trust in players and forces players to be more aware of their own and other's actions.