As noted before, Zomblobs! has three breeds of blobs vying over global control: The Aspirants, the Ferals and the Zomblobs. One of the high level design rules I’ve made for myself is that I want each breed to play differently, but still be as balanced as possible. Call it the StarCraft influence, perhaps. Balance between three factions is inherently more interesting to me than two faction balance. As such, one of the big things I want to change between the factions is the finer details of controlling units in tactical combat.
Some time ago, I purchased the Privateer Press Hordes: Primal book so that I could learn about the game. I have a passing interest in tabletop miniature wargaming, and I really like what I’ve seen of WarMachine, so when I found a great deal on the Hordes sourcebook, it seemed like a good purchase. It’s actually an older version, but that’s fine. All my WarHammer and WarMachine books are older versions, too; that’s how I get ’em cheap. Since I’m not on the cutting edge, itching to play in tournaments, older sourcebooks work just fine. (Aside to Hordes fans… if I mangle some of this, it’s inadvertently. I’m still digging into the system. I welcome corrections.)
Hordes has a curious mechanic they call Fury. Commander/spellcaster units they call Warlocks command a group of Warbeasts who can in turn generate Fury points as they are prodded into combat actions. The Warlocks then can leach those Fury points from the Warbeasts, using them to fuel spells and special actions. At first blush, this is all upside, which is a bit odd considering that WarMachine, the sister game, is one of resource management like the typical mana point system we see in RPGs. Fury-generating actions are useful in combat, and spells the Warlocks cast are similarly useful. Generation and use of fury points provide combat benefits. So where’s the resource management? Warlocks and Warbeasts have Fury limits, true, so there’s an upper limit to what can be done in any given turn, but an upper limit is a different thing from a pool that depletes. It’s also important to note that Warlocks don’t generate Fury on their own.
The significant catch is that Warbeasts can “frenzy” if they fail to pass a “check” performed with a dice roll. Warbeasts who have Fury points on them are more likely to fail this check; the more Fury points, the more likely they are to fail. When a Warbeast “frenzies”, the Warlock (and therefore the player) loses control of the Warbeast. They will tend to still try to attack enemies, but they do so in a blind fury. They can even turn on allies or even their “controlling” Warlock. As such, as the designers note, Hordes is a game of risk management rather than resource management, though there is still resource management on the battle level, as usual (losing units makes your team less effective, losing your Warlock means you lose the battle). Warlocks need Fury to fuel their powerful abilities, but pushing their Warbeasts too far flirts with losing control of their most significant assets. You will want those powerful abilities that come only with the use of Fury, but the more you use them, the more likely the Warbeast frenzy system is to blow up in your face.
So… what of Zomblobs?
Thematically, I really like the notion of losing control.
Aspirants are the most intelligent of blobs, and strive to always be in control. They know that they could slip into the natural, instinctive mayhem the Feral blobs embrace if they lose control, and they aren’t sure they can get back… or if they would want to. And Zomblobs, well… zombies have long represented the loss of control that most humans fear, a primal, deep rooted concern, as the loss of control wouldn’t be a surrender, but a corruption. Aspirants are deathly afraid of losing control, either to become a Feral blob or a Zomblob. They fight not because they want to rule, but because they do not want to be ruled… or corrupted. They know passion, they know fear, but they do not lose control. (Think Spock, not Data, and Trekkies know the trouble an uncontrolled Vulcan can get into.)
Feral blobs love being reckless and dancing on the edge of being out of control. They draw strength from that savage adrenaline rush. They don’t want to buckle down and bow to the sort of control an Aspirant cherishes. They glory in acting, not thinking, the faster the better. They love the hunt, and they cherish the kill. Life is simple for a Feral blob, though they don’t follow directions well, especially once they get rolling.
Zomblobs are corrupted monsters, some were once Ferals, most were once Aspirants. They no longer have full control of their faculties, though they are stronger in some ways for it. They don’t follow detailed orders well, but their single-minded drive to consume and corrupt means they are utterly implacable and totally committed to their course of action. Nothing short of complete defeat will keep a Zomblob from its destination, though they can occasionally be confused once they accomplish their orders.
Mechanically, I’m torn on this. I believe that players tend to like to keep the reins and control their units. Hordes does show that some fun can occur when that control is loosened a bit, and the WarHammer Greenskin army of Ork and Goblin fame thrives on a bit of chaos. It still seems like an acquired taste, though, and I’m not sure how many players want to trade power for a more unwieldy toolset.
I’m thinking of two major design approaches to this.
On the one hand, I’d play it safe and go with a Fury-like system, where each unit has a threshold where they lose control and do their own thing in combat (though just for a turn in all cases; control can be reasserted pretty quickly once the fury is expended). Ferals would have less control than Aspirants, and Zomblobs would be even less controlled. The “frenzy” equivalent would balance this loss of control out, and indeed, it can be a calculated risk to intentionally drive units to go crazy. I like the choices that might prompt.
On the other hand, I’d really like to make playing each breed a distinct experience, really embracing the flavor of the factions. Aspirants would play like normal ‘Tactics games, with full control. Feral units would pick a target at the beginning of a skirmish and begin hunting. Players could nudge them with interim commands, but for the most part, Feral blobs would just go for the kill and then wait for new targets. Zomblobs would just be given a direction and/or a location, then be left pretty much alone. Players wouldn’t have much control at all. It’s almost like the difference between commanding a group of snipers, a nest of rabid trench fighters, or a wind-up flamethrower automaton with C4 nailed to the tanks.
Now, in all this, players can play any of the three blob breeds, so they can always find one that fits their taste, and they would probably still have full control over the RNA layout, so they can prepare loose cannons before a fight. Still, I’m not sure that diverging too much between playstyles, as I’m thinking of in the latter option, is a good idea. I really want to make it work, and I think it could be a lot of fun, but how many players will bother with the Ferals or the Zomblobs then? Might the game be poorer when players don’t like two thirds of the potential units?
Any thoughts?
…perhaps it’s telling that I’m leaning to the latter design, with elements of the first, though it could be more risky. It seems like it could be more fun.
Tish Tosh Tesh 
Sounds like your three way system equates to Browncoats/Reavers/Alliance pretty well too. Good review of Hordes too, losing your warbeasts is bad too because then you lose access to leech the Fury you need to make your caster work and calm your beasts.
If I understand you correctly, your first thought is to incorporate the fury system with different length of fuses on their fury (therefore zomblobs would be really risky? aspirants not so much?).
Your second option being feral units are already a little out of control, and zomblobs are barely controlled from the beginning. Not really a system of risk management, just …risk/ combat involvement? Trade off of strategy for tactics? Sorry if I’m not being very clear here. Still figuring it out.
I begin to see the appeal in the second option (I didn’t for a minute). But I remain skeptical. I had the impression that DNA management was intended to be more advanced gameplay, and ignorable if you wanted. It sounds like you would be taking control too far out of players hands. You would probably still have to pay attention to the battle, which you are barely involved in, to see if your DNA build was working as intended, if it was the problem, or if you just need to point in a different direction at the start. And if you ignore the DNA, you’re pretty much left out of the game. I might enjoy that from time to time, it can be fun to watch the computer fight itself, but not for a whole game.
I wonder if instead, you might have them relate inversely to each other. Aspirants don’t berserk very easily, but once they do, they’re way out of control. And probably dangerous to everyone. Zomblobs on the other end of the scale gradually lose more control the harder you push them. That way it’s a very immediate question of just how much you want to prod. Or rather when to prod. I guess that leaves ferals with two or three break points. And I feel like I may be starting to miss the idea here. But it might be a decent combination of your two approaches.
I think you have three things being balanced, not two: 1. Control of actions/ involvement of the player, 2. power of the units, and 3. likelihood of that threat turning on you/itself. I also wonder if other/enemy units can prod. Is someone more likely to go beserk the longer they are in a fight? Will they bump into another beserk unit and lock horns, or will they move away from each other?
By your descriptions, Aspirants seem most dangerous to anyone nearby, slowest to calm down, and I suppose the most drained at the end. Ferals seem more constantly sliding out of control, but also back into control, and probably just keep going. I also realize I don’t know any other aspects of their fighting style. If Aspirants tend to fight at range, they may be more provoked in a frenzy to attack those nearby, which is probably their allies. Hypothetically.
Zomblobs do look like they are the furthest out of control. So maybe they are mostly manipulated instead of controlled? Never really in/out of beserk, they are also able to be manipulated, misguided by the enemy? But that seems to suggest you’re some sort of herder at the back of the zombies, and that doesn’t seem right…
Of course, any amateur psychology involved is immediately humbled by the fact I’m dealing with blobs, not people.
Sorry if that’s too long, or not clear. You’re getting the though in process, but it seems worth leaving in it’s present state. You might get something out of the middle of the process that’s not in the clear concise summary of my finished thought. Which I can still provide if this is confusing.
Thanks, ZP. I figured you guys might have a good read on Hordes. I hadn’t thought of the Firefly angle… but it’s a good one. 🙂
Iseu, thanks for the thoughtful reply! You’re right, I’m leery of taking the control from the player as a playstyle/UI concern. I do think that they different breeds need different feels, and maybe that’s just best done with fuse length (a good way to phrase it, incidentally) and the effects of frenzying. (I need to find another good word for that so I’m not just ripping off Hordes.)
I really like making each of them play differently, but making the manner of issuing commands be so different might indeed be too much. And yes, Zomblobs would be less interactive, and that’s potentially bad. I like the *feel* of the mechanic of just sending a shambling horde of zombies into a fight and seeing what happens, but I do think it could get old fast, and I want each breed to be fun to play.
As for the DNA, yes, you’d still be able to play without digging into it. It’s never going to be necessary to min/max the DNA to make a breed work. Baseline abilities for each breed would have to fit their playstyle, but that’s doable.
Oh, and conceptually, I’m thinking of the player as a sort of blob overmind that controls the entire breed worldwide. Not so much a herder as an entity in the field, more of a presence that coordinates the blobs from a distance.
I’d not worry about players disliking 2/3 of the units, as long as they like the 1/3 that they are playing. The fury/frenzy concept is interesting. Would there be a stat change when frenzied? It could be neat to see something like Aspirant frenzies get a major strength boost (did I remember the stats?) relative to other frenzies, but are also more likely to turn on their allies, whereas Ferals might have the least strength boost, but since they’re still Feral, just more so, are less likely to turn on allies.
Aye, I’m not too worried about everyone liking everything, I just wonder if anyone will like Ferals or Zomblobs if their control scheme is too far into that uncontrolled zone. It just seems like a waste if everyone’s playing Aspirants.
As to stat changes, I was planning on such, yes, and each breed behaving differently in some way when frenzied. I do like the idea of Aspirants going *really* nuts like a crazed Vulcan.
…and perhaps to flip things on their head, a frenzied Zomblob might just regain some semblance of sanity for a turn. That might be interesting. Send them into combat and hope they frenzy, then use their regained sense to indulge in surgical strikes they wouldn’t otherwise be capable of.
That might alleviate the sense of losing too much control, come to think of it. Aspirants have to toe the line so they don’t frenzy, Zomblobs *want* to frenzy so they have greater control, and Ferals dance the line between the two.
Hmm…
Maybe frenzy causes a Zomblob to have some brain activity again. That will boost intel, but will it make them a more useful servant or will they gain the willpower to resist?
Seems to me that both ought to be options thematically… though I’d put the “willpower to resist” at a lower chance. I like the idea of Zomblobs being more controllable if they push themselves. It seems like a good way to give Zomblob players some periods of control they can try to angle for instead of just making them “fire and forget” units. Making them rebel just takes that away again.
To me, it comes down to how much I feel like their choices are meaningful to the game. A random chance is a dangerous thing because randoms don’t always work as players anticipate. Using the Fury example, I might willingly choose to keep my Fury low on my beast, but if I lose control anyway then it’s frustrating if I could have just pumped up the Fury and got a high-powered effect off. Likewise, I can be frustrating if my opponent pushes Fury to the edge but keeps making lucky rolls to keep control despite pushing it continually.
It’s a delicate balance to let the player feel like they won from skill and ability rather than dumb luck. Let the player make interesting choices instead of feeling screwed over by the dice.
Here’s an idea off the top of my head: have levels of frenzy. Your different blob types get different benefits at each level. So the Aspirants want to stay near minimum, and if you gain some Frenzy levels then you have to decide to push it to gain/keep an advantage or to pull back to lower the Frenzy levels. Ferals might get some benefit as you gain frenzy levels, but gaining too much (or too much too fast) risks a backlash (losing control?); the Feral strategy is to maintain some frenzy but not too much. Less margin of error, though, than Aspirants.
Hope that helps.
On the other hand, sometimes players love those random rolls. I know, it’s a delicate balance, but there’s that whole “bitterness makes the sweet more savory” thing that gets bandied about once in a while.
Still, point well made, Brian, thanks! Humans just aren’t really wired to understand random instinctively. It really doesn’t conform to our presumptions. This is part of why I wrote that “Channeled Chaos” article a while back, noting that randomness within bounds tends to play better than pure randomness.
I’ve been thinking more on this throughout today, and I think I have an implementation that I like that does have a bit more of a gradient, and that fits thematically, but I want to get it on paper and hash through it before writing more on it. I do want to minimize the “loss due to bad luck” or RNG annoyances. A little randomness can be a heady spice for an otherwise bland grind, but like salt or onions, it’s easy to overdo it.
I like the choices a player has to make when dealing with these calculations, though, like when to really push and hope you don’t lose control or when to try to “ride the lightning” and count on the craziness. I think a crucial part of it will be to make the frenzy stuff still be useful to strategic considerations, if not precisely the desired tactic.
As in, a berserk unit isn’t predictable, but if you throw it in the middle of a pack of enemy units, you’ll see something good come of it. As such, it would be about watching how you rile up your units and make the most of their frenzy periods. That means contingency plans, thinking ahead, watching timing, that sort of thing, and I like including those in the choices a player has to make.
I think also about Magic:the Gathering and how it handles randomness. As a card game with shuffled decks, randomness is inherent in the game, and players have to use their deckbuilding and play skills to compensate. (Notably, some of the most powerful cards are those that counter the randomness like tutors or filters.) It makes for a more dynamic game, in some ways, and I like that. No two games will play the same, and improvisation is valuable. In fact, the most degenerate periods of MTG history seem to be those where the game is too predictable, and low interaction combo decks rule the metagame.
‘s brother.
So I’m going to be slightly out of place and comment on all of the game that I’ve read, rather than just loss of control. I have found loss of control in games perfectly fine..as long as I control something. Most of my relevant experience comes from playing dwarf fortress. In DF once your dwarfs (well, military dwarfs anyway) see the enemy, they go out of control. The balance to this is that I can control the dwarfs right up until I see the enemy. Further, I can control the environment to a large degree. Lastly, and perhaps most relevant I put a lot of investment in preparing them for fighting. You seem to provide some customization in the RNA. That might be sufficient… I would suggest rather than actual loss of control, have different ways of controlling the different types of blobs. Normal direct control for aspirants, landscape control for zomblobs…and my problem is I don’t know how to control the ferals.. perhaps one could focus on above ground, one on air, and one on below ground? eh, needs more work, and it’s just a possibility anyway. Point being loss of control can be acceptable under the right conditions. Oh yeah, almost forgot. In Warmachine… you can lose control of the one unit, you still control others right? perhaps another alternative would be units typed for loss of control in a similar way to warmachine? In other words have some units that lose control more / more easily than other units. Shepherding units perhaps..
In all that you are working on with Zomblobs! I note a strong two way thought, but a general weakness in the fearals. yes, they are agility units, but what else? simply being the intermediate of the other two doesn’t seem like enough to me. I might be dead wrong on this, but I do hope that the ferals see more attention one way or the other. I’m being slightly deceptive on this because the ferals actually are the most intriguing to me. Despite the previous hefty paragraph I do wish I had just a Bit more control over my dwarfs. just the ability to point out priority targets and issue some form of retreat perhaps. thus some of the interest in ferals.
Before I leave the issue of control entirely I wish to note the differences in control of three different types. Individual controls (say mmo’s and the like), mass controls (starcraft and other strategy games), and pet controls (old -near original – WOW being main one in mind). Quite simply individual gets full control while the other two have only basic controls. For some reason people are more content with less control over more units viewed as a whole. Perhaps you plan on using this in your … cytoglobe was it? Anyway something to note. Perhaps this is just a personal thing, but I always wanted more control over my pet.. getting too close to an individual again I think. Should probably check others opinion on that one.
Last thing (I think). You enjoy table top games? Could you prototype and refine Zomblobs! as a table top game? I don’t see why you have to wait for a programer for everything. You could even make blob figures easily.
I look forward to seeing what you do with these plans, and hope the ferals get some more attention soon. So far it all looks quite fun.
Funny you’d mention the Ferals, as I’ve been spending the most time with them recently. You’re right, they can get lost in some of the systems with strong duality, and I’m trying to find a good way to carve out a niche. One thing they do have going for them is flexibility; they will have the widest variety of units and possibly the most tactical options as a result. They are pulling from the DNA of the entire animal kingdom, after all, where the Aspirants and Zomblobs are pretty much just based on humanoid behavior with a bit of tweaking.
I’ve thought about making the tactical layer a tabletop game, and I might indeed need to go that route. I can prototype models in Sculptris and Blender and sell them in Shapeways, or even just papercraft PDFs. That said, I like the flexibility of letting the computer handle some of the maths, especially the randomness. There are pros and cons to each approach.
What comes strongly to me, for what it’s worth, is some sort of temptation mechanic as the entrance way to feral or zomblob paths. Basically lure aspirants toward feralness or zombieness, by offering more power in the moment, but at the risk of a potential long term decline to feral or zomblobiness.
I’d even do the reverse as well – tempt the zombblob player into evolving from it’s rut thought into feral or even aspirant, at the ‘risk’ of power now.
Callan, as it happens, that’s already baked into my storyline design, and it might be a part of the campaign mode… but I’m not sure I want that sort of evolution within a single tactical fight. Still, as the three blob breeds do share the bulk of their DNA, there’s certainly room for migration.
[…] I’m designing as well as a smattering of other widgets and wodgets. Yes, I’m making Zomblobs! into a tabletop game that maybe someday will be digital, but it won’t be the only miniatures […]
[…] my birthday (so much easier), so I ordered a couple pounds of dice from Amazon. I should have the Zomblobs! design in playtest form by the time they get here. (And I’ll be looking for beta testers, […]