Games within Underrail

[spocek]

Styg,

What do you think about an idea of being able to have the main character gamble in the cantina? You could have a video poker machine or a slot machine. Then again, you could also have some shady characters that the main character could play for money... even owe them money if you end up hitting a losing streak. 

[blackmoor]

* Spoiler Alert *

There is an establishment where you can gamble in the game.

----

But I like the idea of other games within the game. For example, a boardgame (like chess) that you do an intelligence check and move through dialogue options to win. You wouldn't need to simulate the entire game, just a bit of role-playing and the win/lose conditions.

[spocek]

Adding chess would be awesome (easier said than done) but even if it is some simple tactical puzzle as a way to advance the story...

[blackmoor]

Rather than simulate the whole game, it would be simpler to simulate certain key choices. I was thinking there would be a dialogue option stage, then an intelligence check and a die roll to determine if they won or not. For example:

Play a game? Yes / No

(The following are a random array of dialogue choices, which would be different every time.)

1. I play the Queen's Gambit! (50% change to lead to win)
2. I play the King's Pawn opening (50% change to lead to win)
3. I play the Rook Pawn Bluff. (20% change to lead to win)
4. I play the Knight's opening. (40% change to lead to win)

Then there would be a final array of dialogue choices:

1. Play for a small advantage.
2. Play for the draw.
3. Gamble it all for the win.
4. Play to lose.

Then the intelligence check would modify the final die roll and win lose conditions are announced.

[spocek]

I like your idea. Adding these sort of details makes the game playing experience deeper. Fallout 2 had something like that... Rage too...

[Atoning Unifex]

Rather than simulate the whole game, it would be simpler to simulate certain key choices. I was thinking there would be a dialogue option stage, then an intelligence check and a die roll to determine if they won or not. For example:

Play a game? Yes / No

(The following are a random array of dialogue choices, which would be different every time.)

1. I play the Queen's Gambit! (50% change to lead to win)
2. I play the King's Pawn opening (50% change to lead to win)
3. I play the Rook Pawn Bluff. (20% change to lead to win)
4. I play the Knight's opening. (40% change to lead to win)

Then there would be a final array of dialogue choices:

1. Play for a small advantage.
2. Play for the draw.
3. Gamble it all for the win.
4. Play to lose.

Then the intelligence check would modify the final die roll and win lose conditions are announced.

I really dislike this sort of thing in games. The arbitrary choices really remove any feel of playing a sub game. It, to me, would be just as entertaining to have a single "Play chess" choice and then the result randomly chosen automatically with no messing around in between. I think if any sub games are put in then they really should have a proper interface and graphics, I'd likely avoid them otherwise.

[blackmoor]

Rather than simulate the whole game, it would be simpler to simulate certain key choices. I was thinking there would be a dialogue option stage, then an intelligence check and a die roll to determine if they won or not. For example:

Play a game? Yes / No

(The following are a random array of dialogue choices, which would be different every time.)

1. I play the Queen's Gambit! (50% change to lead to win)
2. I play the King's Pawn opening (50% change to lead to win)
3. I play the Rook Pawn Bluff. (20% change to lead to win)
4. I play the Knight's opening. (40% change to lead to win)

Then there would be a final array of dialogue choices:

1. Play for a small advantage.
2. Play for the draw.
3. Gamble it all for the win.
4. Play to lose.

Then the intelligence check would modify the final die roll and win lose conditions are announced.

I really dislike this sort of thing in games. The arbitrary choices really remove any feel of playing a sub game. It, to me, would be just as entertaining to have a single "Play chess" choice and then the result randomly chosen automatically with no messing around in between. I think if any sub games are put in then they really should have a proper interface and graphics, I'd likely avoid them otherwise.

I agree that arbitrary choices aren't fun, because they aren't really choices at all.

But when you play a board game, you do have the ability to play for a draw, a win or try to lose and that's not an arbitrary choice at all. When playing for a win you might have different win percentage chances depending on the style you play, aggressive, positional or tactical. So that's a significant choice and I think it would add a layer of depth to the encounter.

P.S. You actually can apply win percentages to chess openings statistically.

[Atoning Unifex]

I agree that arbitrary choices aren't fun, because they aren't really choices at all.

But when you play a board game, you do have the ability to play for a draw, a win or try to lose and that's not an arbitrary choice at all. When playing for a win you might have different win percentage chances depending on the style you play, aggressive, positional or tactical. So that's a significant choice and I think it would add a layer of depth to the encounter.

P.S. You actually can apply win percentages to chess openings statistically.

Yeah of course. I wasn't saying the choices you suggested were invalid, just that it's possible to justify a wide range of choices as being valid and, whilst some choices are sensible to one person they may appear arbitrary to another. I also don't see the point of having a set up with 2 or 3 dialogues and trying to replicate a game that requires potentially many moves. Would that really be any fun?

Cards is a little bit different as long as it's done right - I've not seen the in game gambling yet so can't comment - maybe even a dice game, but I generally derive no enjoyment out of playing these choice type games.

[blackmoor]

I agree that arbitrary choices aren't fun, because they aren't really choices at all.

But when you play a board game, you do have the ability to play for a draw, a win or try to lose and that's not an arbitrary choice at all. When playing for a win you might have different win percentage chances depending on the style you play, aggressive, positional or tactical. So that's a significant choice and I think it would add a layer of depth to the encounter.

P.S. You actually can apply win percentages to chess openings statistically.

Yeah of course. I wasn't saying the choices you suggested were invalid, just that it's possible to justify a wide range of choices as being valid and, whilst some choices are sensible to one person they may appear arbitrary to another. I also don't see the point of having a set up with 2 or 3 dialogues and trying to replicate a game that requires potentially many moves. Would that really be any fun?

To me, absolutely.

All I am suggesting are ways to make dialogue challenges more dynamic. No that my specific example is the way to implement it, but it does describe a system that I think would be interesting. In chess, players make choices and those choices effect outcomes.

Cards is a little bit different as long as it's done right - I've not seen the in game gambling yet so can't comment - maybe even a dice game, but I generally derive no enjoyment out of playing these choice type games.

The core appeal of an RPG is that choice matters. But chess isn't for everyone, it was merely an example.