Our Game
In “The Council of Crises” (name subject to change), players assume the role of either a noble advisor or of an emperor, with the fate and the stability of the realm resting on their ability to manage resources, fulfill secret objectives, and maintain or seize power. Nobles are assigned crises (e.g. famine, pestilence, warfare) to solve earning them points upon completion, requiring acquisition of a certain set of resources which are hidden from others. The emperor, tasked with distributing resources (e.g. food, weapons, land) to solve crises, must choose wisely to retain power, since nobles can trade resources and maneuver for influence, potentially overstating crises to gain an upper hand. The emperor, tasked with their own objectives for maintaining the throne like gaining support of specific advisors or making enough trade deals, can be deposed upon failure, and a new emperor is chosen from the ranks of the advisors.
Questions we want to answer through prototyping:
How much information is actually shared about each player’s objectives? Our assumption is that there are only a fixed number of different emergency types that correspond 1:1 with noble types. Potentially, the kind of emergency (famine, pestilence, etc) could be made public but the precise objectives/resources needed to resolve the conflict could be made private. Partially available knowledge could up the level of deception, with each player having some awareness of what general resource others might be interested in acquiring or trading for. Why: We want to evaluate how varying the level of public knowledge alters the tension in the game (do players try harder to bargain with each other, try to buy out a resource type from the emperor to block another player, etc)? How: answering this question could be as simple as creating two sets of emergency cards: 1. Option 1: double sided, with the category of emergency visible face up but the objectives listed face down), 2. Option 2: Single-sided card where all knowledge is hidden. Predicted outcome: I think players will prefer option 1, upping the stakes for successfully acquiring resources and encouraging more negotiation between players.
How should resources initially be distributed to the emperor? We want to experiment with the amount of resources the emperor starts with for meeting resource requests. Why: It seems unfair for the emperor to have full control of the entire resource deck, as this would result in a severe power imbalance, with them being able to meet any of the requests received and to secure a high number of points. How: For this prototype, we will experiment with different formats of resource banks: 1. Option 1: Create decks for each resource type (weapons, medicines, food, etc) and have the emperor only choose a fixed number from each stack. The emperor can then replenish their hand after making deals with nobles. Option 2: The emperor has full control of the resource deck. Option 3: Nobles start with some random number of resources (but still far less than what the emperor has). Predicted outcome: I think players may prefer to be able to start with some limited amount of resources as that gives them some incentive to start trading and doesn’t force sole dependence on the emperor. However, I think a perceived power imbalance in the direction of the emperor would make for a more exciting game and legitimize the need for an emperor in the first place.
What theme/design is most appealing for gameplay? We were brainstorming a variety of themes including traditional royalty roles (king vs nobles), Chinese dynasty themed, fantasy, sci-fi etc. Why: Do certain themes (and hence role, token, emergency) and abstractions foster different responses and aesthetics that create greater appeal than other? Is a court themed game an overused trope? Even if the underlying game mechanics don’t change, we want the presentation to be as inviting as possible. How: we can experiment with different graphic styles (ornate and decorative, modern and abstract, comic and cartoony, etc) and theme options by creating mock components (cards, tokens, etc) and presenting the options to test players. I really enjoyed the example in the video of creating different boxes as a way of doing marketing prototyping. Prediction: Unsure but I’m leaning towards royalty or dynasty themed since players will be more familiar with such themes from prior games which may lower the barrier to interest.
What should the emperor’s winning condition be? We were considering several possibilities for defining paths for the emperor winning. The emperor could be required to earn a certain number of points, achieve certain hidden objectives similar to the nobles (like being forced to win the support or make the most negotiations with a randomly assigned noble), or a combination of both. Why: It would interesting to evaluate multiple modes for winning, analyzing differences between a pure point system vs meeting hidden objects vs some combination of both. Having defined goals beyond the purely numerical might make the game more engaging and less abstract. How: Prototyping these mechanics could be as simple as designing variants of goal cards that have either point totals or solely objectives. Different rounds would be played using each of the options. Prediction: I think the emperor would enjoy having motives beyond solely reaching a point total. It creates another layer of challenge that prevents the emperor from getting bored or acting solely as a “banker”.
