Skip to main content

Mechanic Monday: Out of Mutana

Just did a post yesterday, so let’s cut the chatter and get back on schedule with a Mechanic Monday.

Whole Combinations of Pieces as Win Condition

In GREEM, the board begins with a (randomized?) setup of neutral pieces, each of which can move along one axis - North-South, East-West, NE-SW, or NW-SE.  On their turn, a player can move either a piece or a stack.  In the first instance, the player can claim a neutral piece and move it in the direction that the piece allows.  If the piece lands on a neutral or friendly piece, stack the pieces - the new stack can move along any axis that any of its composite pieces could move along.  A player may also use their turn to move a stack, but may not move it onto or past an opposing piece or Stack, and may not move it onto a piece (or a stack containing a piece) that it already contains.  Once a player creates a stack with all four types of piece, the stack is removed from the board and added to the player’s scoring area.  The game ends once a player has scored three stacks.

I love mutate.  Love it.  I didn’t understand how the mechanic worked at first so I could not figure out the blue/black premade deck in Arena that utilized it, but once I saw it in action, leveraged against me, I was instantly enamored of it.  The risk inherent of consolidating your forces, balanced against layered-on micro engines - chef’s kiss.  I have a quiet suspicion that Mutate has been on the design doc for a long while, as it reminds me strongly of failed 2000s WotC transparent hex card game, Hecatomb.  Anyway, here I’ve mapped it onto the most basic of abstracts, and for the purposes of simplicity I’m picturing a square board, but this could scale up in complexity and still be quite interesting.  And despite Hecatomb’s failure, I still think it could work as like a standalone card game, particularly with the recent interest in transparent cards.

Anyway, that’s enough for today, I’ve work work and playwriting to do.  Be safe, wear a mask, punch fascists!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

TTRPG Tuesday: Three Means Of Resolving

Hi it’s another TTRPG Tuesday! First of the year.  Let’s get right into it. Saw a challenge on Twitter to make some resolution mechanics.  I can do those! Here we go: Hand to Hand The player performing the action and the person running the game or otherwise opposing the action both put their dominant fists toward one another, bounce them three times to get a rhythm, and reveal a number with their fingers, 0-5.  Sum the two numbers, and if the number is greater than 5, subtract six, so that the final number is always between 0 and 5.  On a 0, the action fails catastrophically, on a 1-2 it fails, 3-4 it succeeds, on a 5 it succeeds spectacularly.  The player taking the action starts the game with all five fingers up on their non-dominant hand; after an attempt, they may lower fingers on that hand to add to the sum of the attempt. Ex. Alice attempts to seduce Cat’s character over to the coup conspirators.  They put their dominant hands together (right for Alice, left for Cat) and thro
Post a Comment
Read more

TTRPG Tuesday: Minimum Viable Product for WWDW?

Hello and welcome back to TTRPG Tuesday! I’ve put together a barebones introductory document for We Won, Didn’t We? and, well, I think it speaks for itself.  Check it out HERE ! This introduces the skeleton of the game, as well as walking through the steps; I’d say next up is a rudimentary character sheet, and maybe I can bring this to a Playtest Zero session and see what folks think of character creation within one of the starting Bulbs.  I’ve opened the doc up for comments, so if you have thoughts dear reader, fire away.  Brain fried, go read the doc, til next time!
Post a Comment
Read more

TTRPG Tuesday: Beliefs as Roles

  Hello from high above the Rockies, as I make my way back to Chicago from Big Bad Con 2023.     This was my first con in five years, and only my second ever.     I had a better time at it than I did at GenCon, which I understand derives largely from this being an industry con vs a consumer show.     I made a modest number of purchases but it was easy to stick to the constraints of my limited luggage space, which was fine; shopping and new releases were not the attraction here.     Gaming, panels, and (as I soon learned) networking were. This con was certainly less overwhelming and I think my expectations were clearer and my FOMO much lighter, but I’ll readily admit that I had a lot to learn.    I misunderstood or made mistakes regarding almost every event I signed up for, including happy accidents like sitting in on the wrong panel only to learn a ton, or expecting a mending workshop to be about fixing one’s writing when the application was rather more literal, which was a fascinat
Post a Comment
Read more