My first impression is that this is a foolish idea - I like telling stories just for the fun of engaging the challenge

but...

When I think "game" and I'm publishing a boardgame, winning and losing becomes more relevant.

At this time I've retooled all my Engle Matrix Games into board game format. They come in a box with a next warp around cover, Nice shinny hard board map - it looks like a "real" game. Given those trappings I felt the need to define a way to decide victory. Right now the mechanic is to do one last round of arguments about who wins. This works but is ineligant and doesn't always tie to the events of the game well.

Now I'm toying with a new mechanic.

The games are played by players laying down a coin and buying the right to describe what happens next. Another player rates how likely it is to happen kind of like in Apples to Apples. A die roll determins whither it happens or not. All very simple and yields decent consistent results (as shown by 20+ years of use.) I provide the players with a suggested course of events and a list of actions they might want to do. The victory mechanic is to add in game tokens that have various plot points on them like: Find clues, create suspence, arrest, convict, meet you love, score! (it all depends on the story type). When  player does that action they grab the token. This gives them a victory point at the end of the game. If another player makes another action that makes up another clue they take the token away from the first player. This will create a Yankee Swap interaction between the players which could be fun. When players run low of coins they move the story to a climax and end the game. The tokens drive players to do actions that fit the type of story being run and also give a nice conclusion by defining who won. It ties into what the players do throughout the game so it feels more relevant to me.

I think it might also help for players to rate which actions are more important to them so they get more points for doing them. This will be secret so there is a hidden piece to the game which could make people second guess one another. It all needs to be tested.

So for this discussion I'm interested in a few things. 1. Of course what do you think of my mechanic?!? 2. What is your thinking about "winning" in story games? 3. If you have victory in your games how is it done?

I figure this is a pretty gamist way of thinking but I like a good boardgame (Talisment, Arkham Horror, Betrayl in House on the Hill) so I'm fine with that. I am interested though in people's oppinions who think victory has not place in these kinds of games. I'd like to hear your thinking on that.

Thanks!!!

Chris Engle
Hamster Press
http://www.hamsterpress.net

Fantastic Idea!  I myself have been thinking recently that there needs to be more hybred between board games and story games, so good on ya there.  My first thought is this:  If the players are all competing for the plot point coins as well as setting the difficulty for the other players then there is no insentive to make any stated event probable.  I know your games can be played with a judge but if they are going to become competative then a judge takes one person out of the competition.

The second thing that comes to mind is that two of the three games that you mentioned are fairly co-op.  Is there a way to set up your games to be so?  Maybe with something like in order for a token to be gained it needs to be passed with a certain difficulty level.  You already give the players suggestions on what kind of scenes they may want why not front load the game a little bit more?

Facinated by the idea I will think on it more and see if anything else comes to mind.

I also think it's an excellent mechanic, and it sounds like a pretty cool game. As far as winning in story games goes, I think it's fine. There's something to be said for "nobody loses" like most story games, but on the other hand there's definitely a cool part about being able to win in a game. One thing though is that you have to watch out for the people who're really competitive, as they might resort to fun ruining tactics to get their win. It doesn't always happen, but some people just can't stand losing. One thing I think would help that would be maybe to make it hard to know who's "winning", that way no one gangs up on the strongest as much, etc. Anyways, I do think the ideas pretty excellent overall.

I bounced the idea off my wife and she showed me where a bigh hole is.  If it fell into the Yankee Swap idea then people would wait to the ends and snipe one another (like EBay) That would completely defeat the potential fun. Competitive players altering argument rulings for partisan reasons would also cripple it.

The fix I'm toying with now is to have a list of victory points (pulled pretty straight from the plot track) and having the players rate them at the start fo the game. If there were eight goals then the one they rated first would give them seven victory points. Since this rating would be secret it shouldn't affect player's refereeing. It loses the interplay of grabbing tokens (I'm certain I will use that in a future game) but it would still give players hints at what to do in the game and yield a solid victory point winner.

I like playing just to play but a lot of people really to like a more solid conclusion.

If any of you want any help in learning how to actually fabricate your games send me an email hamsterpress@gmail.com I've got some very simple non-toxic techniques down that can be done at home without a tone of equipment. It all comes down to Yes Paste, Shellac and a color laser printer.

Chris Engle