I have a board concept in mind for my board creation debut. The question I have is whether or not it's plausible. I'm in the middle of laying out the premise and mechanics of the board to get a true adventurers feel to it, however, only one adventurer is allowed currently.

Can I create a 1 player game?

If the neutrals win, which I'm assuming will happen often, do I get the championship point! Ideally this would rock my socks off. Realistically, I know this should not be the case. Which brings me to my next question.

If a 1 player game can be created would it be impossible to implement it into the current championship point system?

The current system does not support solitaire games. It's an intriguing idea, though. One work-around option would be to set it up such that 2 players to go head-to-head in independent, identical solitaire games (i.e. one wargear board, but for gameplay purposes two boards). The first person to "win" against the neutrals wins against the other player, or barring a win, the person who "loses" to neutrals loses to the other player. Does that make sense?

Is it even possible to create a game where neutral wins?

hmmm. Not exactly what I wanted to hear even though It's exactly what I thought I would hear.

@M57, The only way the neutrals would win would be due to the luck alone with an ever expanding factory effect.

Restating that I'm in the layout and premise for the game, I've mulled over the 2 or 4 player option, but wanted to reserve that for extra scenarios. The solitaire fashion was going to be the defining feature to the board. The championship point issue began as a humorous nuance of the board which, after consideration, became a legitimate problem with the design and now ultimately a concept flaw... or creation ability flaw depending on how you see it.

@Kjeld, that's exactly what I'll end up doing unless someone else chimes in with a closer option to what I'm aiming for.

wargear doesn't support 1 player games, so you're going to need Tom's help with this.

Usually he monitors the forum posts doesn't he? Do you think he'll just cruise by or should I drop him a line?

More importantly... am I going to be able to get a butt-load of points off of this?

I'm just kidding... Kind of.

KillDawg wrote:

Usually he monitors the forum posts doesn't he? Do you think he'll just cruise by or should I drop him a line?

More importantly... am I going to be able to get a butt-load of points off of this?

I'm just kidding... Kind of.

He probably reads this, but I would recommend posting this idea as a thread in the suggestion box - with a more detailed explanation of how it might work.  This is the kind of "feature" that has a lot of 'loose-end' questions. How should it work?  Who gets the win? - the loss? How does it affect - rankings, h-ratings, etc.?   Should it 'count' at all? (My gut reaction is it shouldn't - at least not as proposed)

Anyway, it's the kind of feature that Tom is unlikely to consider until he sees these types of issues sussed out by the community - not to mention that there's consensus that it would be good to have in the first place.

All joking aside, that all completely makes sense. I can answer almost every question there except for the most general question amongst them being: How should it work? Unless you meant that to be the blanket that covered the following questions into a category.

1. Who gets the win? No one. This is clear from the start seeing as it would be simply unfair to assign a win in a single player game that has championship rankings. People could just spam games and become king of the world. When you get into the 'how' of the matter the solution becomes a little more grey for me. I'm not a programmer, but I do know how to use software that would let me set parameters in order to assist me in the board making process... essentially the same thing a programmer does. I may need to go get another degree now. That might be a life changing epiphany, thanks for that.

2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.  No. It shouldn't count at all, for the same reason.

I was an avid table-top gamer in my youth and often got anonymously voted to DM well more than half the game we sat down to play. The game concept I had in mind would be to DM this 'series' of games. All of which, over time, would become to easy to beat once you played through and figured out the best strategies. It could be easily considered repetitive and therefore gain a low replay value to that person. Some people, like myself, don't mind that sort of thing and would often come back occasionally which would depend on whether or not I can give it that classic adventurer feel. I think I can. More players, co-op modes, different classes, and of course entirely different 'campaigns' could ensure that, and they all would be assigned different scenarios for this effect to be interfaced.

Over the years of my membership on WarGear I've been messing with the ideas of how it would work and it's not that hard to place into a die system since that's how all those games were intended to be played. The only problem was to maneuver it into a frame-by-frame format while still getting to 'level up'.

See what I'm saying now?

With all that you guys are saying I suppose it would be added as a feature to the board design specs. I figured I'd give it a shot in case it's came up before. I still refuse to believe it hasn't actually. Like I said before, I think this site has some of the best game creators I've seen using a very limited environment in which to make them.

Sorry to say I'm not really convinced about the merit of this one - it doesn't seem to really be in the spirit of WarGear which is all about competitive gameplay!

It kind of feels like a whole new gaming website :)

That makes sense too. So a 2 or 4 player "race" to complete a quest would more likely be the answer I'm looking for then.

KillDawg wrote:

That makes sense too. So a 2 or 4 player "race" to complete a quest would more likely be the answer I'm looking for then.

The Dungeon Quest map that just got released works like that...except in that case the opponents share the board the quest is on.

I have long considered some kind of race map where the goal is to get to the end territory first.  Opponents would have the ability to block/slow each other through various mechanisms. 

Maybe not what you all had in mind, but both War of the Roses and Renaissance Wars have a single Quest. Players block/slow each other as they battle for the different mechanisms that are used to claim the throne. The winner is generally NOT the player who controls most of the board.  In many ways these games are races.