Competitive vs. Co-operative wargames.
Do I really have to choose?
Most games these days are presented as a binary choice, but something tells me there is a lot of room in between those poles for interesting game-play.
Do I really have to choose?
Most games these days are presented as a binary choice, but something tells me there is a lot of room in between those poles for interesting game-play.
These are the bad guys from the TV show "24".
Our plucky hero, Jack Bauer, was forced to work with each of them at times.
Even knowing they were opposed to his goals, he found himself co-operating with them in the short term to achieve a long term goal.
Our plucky hero, Jack Bauer, was forced to work with each of them at times.
Even knowing they were opposed to his goals, he found himself co-operating with them in the short term to achieve a long term goal.
This is close.
You have to trade to win.
Trades are mutually agreeable or wouldn't happen.
But this isn't a wargame.
You have to trade to win.
Trades are mutually agreeable or wouldn't happen.
But this isn't a wargame.
This is closer, but meeples aren't miniatures.
And aside from table-talk there's no way to apply leverage to other players.
And aside from table-talk there's no way to apply leverage to other players.
Ah ha!
Now we're talking!
Alliances, necessarily short-term, and plenty of opportunity to gang up on the leader.
It should be easy to apply these principles to tabletop wargaming or even RPGs.
Now we're talking!
Alliances, necessarily short-term, and plenty of opportunity to gang up on the leader.
It should be easy to apply these principles to tabletop wargaming or even RPGs.
You know, something like a set of rules that would allow one group of players to form a temporary alliance. To combine forces to launch a raid on another player's base.
Like a moat house or something.
Like a moat house or something.
If only there was a way to combine the best of both worlds...
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
