| |
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gil Shaw" <NIXtoradochSPAM@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: lugnet.space
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2002 7:36 PM
Subject: Re: Portable Bot Factory
> I think this is an excellent turn for Lego as a hobby for a couple • reasons.
>
> 1. Limited pieces, unlimited combinations. As you've mentioned, this is
> really a cornerstone of the Brick. As kids, we all had limitations as to
> the supply of elements, but I would argue that some of our best builds • were
> working in those confines. It pushes your imagination and ingenuity to • its
> fullest potentional.
Totally. When working with a small assortment of parts you absolutely
*must* use pieces in new and weird ways. I had the liberty of selecting the
parts that went into this, but I immidiatly felt the restrictions of what I
had chosen. Best way to learn new building techniques IMO. Like a crash
course of sorts.
> 2. Travel value. For a kid living between two households and constantly • in
> transit, this was the difference between a good toy and a bad one. If it
> was portable, it was at the top of my list. For years, my favorite set • was
> the Mineral Detector rover. Wheels, dishes, some clear elements, fig and
> gun with some bricks. Perfect.
Great story. Really takes me back.
> I see this as a modern take on those themes....and it's great stuff.
> Considering the Star Wars mini line coming out 2003, these portable
> playscapes would translate nicely to that theme as well.
>
> As always, dig your 'bots. Tried my hand at my own in my last • post....more
> details to come.
Thanks! I saw the little radar dude. Looking good.
> This could be a fun 'Fest event. Everyone comes with their own Plano • filled
> with choice parts such as these. Once gathered, everyone passes their kit
> to the person beside them, then a build session.
That is an AWESOME idea! Seriously. Super easy to do too. Only
requirement is that everyone's kit is the same model, maybe a slightly
larger plano case. It would be great to see what other people made with
your parts.
-Jon
--
| The Shipyard - http://zemi.net/shipyard
| The Moonbase Project - http://www.classic-space.com/moonbase/start/
| My Lego Creations - http://zemi.net/lego
| Attack of the Bricks - http://www.bricklink.com/store.asp?p=jpalmer
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Jon Palmer writes:
> >
> > This could be a fun 'Fest event. Everyone comes with their own Plano filled
> > with choice parts such as these. Once gathered, everyone passes their kit
> > to the person beside them, then a build session.
>
> That is an AWESOME idea! Seriously. Super easy to do too. Only
> requirement is that everyone's kit is the same model, maybe a slightly
> larger plano case. It would be great to see what other people made with
> your parts.
Hmmmm ... how hard would it be to come up with a game system based around these
portable cases? Each case would be limited to a given number of *pieces*, but
each person could use whatever pieces they so desired. Then a person builds a
robot of some sort, or a vehicle, or whatever, and uses it to combat the other
persons. On each turn, you could use your remaining pieces to build another
robot (or ship ...) in response to the other persons' forces ...
One of the greatest elements of some games is the preparation and the
personalization. Brikwars is great ni that respect - I love spending hours
perfecting my troops. Way back in college, that was one of the most intriguing
elements of Magic: the Gathering. Same resources (essentially) available to
all, but SO VERY DIFFERENT in the strategies, themes, and executions. Now, can
something similar be designed for a portable bot factory? A set of rules for
play, whereby two people go head-to-head, and can play new 'bots, or upgrade
existing ones. Different people would obviously have different strategies - I
might go for more buzzsaws and drills, while my opponent uses oilcans and a
flamethrower.
There would have to be some standardization of parts, though, and what their
capabilities were. Drills, saws, little guns, cameras, hover engines, treads,
and so and and so forth would all need to fit in the same contextual layout.
But what each user puts in their case could be completely individualized, and
furthermore how they are used in play would add another element of variation.
Massive robots, strong but few in numbers? Little robots, swarming in great
groups?
I'd love to see someone (or the group as a whole) develop something along these
lines. How fun would it be to play this at a 'fest, or a LUG meeting?
I'm rambling.
In any case, great work Jon. These look amazing, and I keep bonking my hand on
the monitor as I try to reach in and grab them. As someone who cannot help
but fidget and keep busy while on the phone, they look especially appealing to
me; I'd much rather absent-mindedly build while talking on the phone, instead
of pacing from one end of the house to the other. One by each phone ...
mmmmmm.
-s
|
|
| |
> Hmmmm ... how hard would it be to come up with a game system based around these
> portable cases? Each case would be limited to a given number of *pieces*, but
> each person could use whatever pieces they so desired. Then a person builds a
> robot of some sort, or a vehicle, or whatever, and uses it to combat the other
> persons. On each turn, you could use your remaining pieces to build another
> robot (or ship ...) in response to the other persons' forces ...
> One of the greatest elements of some games is the preparation and the
> personalization. Brikwars is great ni that respect - I love spending hours
> perfecting my troops. Way back in college, that was one of the most intriguing
> elements of Magic: the Gathering. Same resources (essentially) available to
> all, but SO VERY DIFFERENT in the strategies, themes, and executions. Now, can
> something similar be designed for a portable bot factory? A set of rules for
> play, whereby two people go head-to-head, and can play new 'bots, or upgrade
> existing ones. Different people would obviously have different strategies - I
> might go for more buzzsaws and drills, while my opponent uses oilcans and a
> flamethrower.
>
> There would have to be some standardization of parts, though, and what their
> capabilities were. Drills, saws, little guns, cameras, hover engines, treads,
> and so and and so forth would all need to fit in the same contextual layout.
> But what each user puts in their case could be completely individualized, and
> furthermore how they are used in play would add another element of variation.
> Massive robots, strong but few in numbers? Little robots, swarming in great
> groups?
>
> I'd love to see someone (or the group as a whole) develop something along these
> lines. How fun would it be to play this at a 'fest, or a LUG meeting?
A great idea.
A quick hello first - I am a long time lurker, first time poster. My name is
James and I am a legoholic! I live in Reading in the UK. I have yet to post
any pictures, but hope to. Soon. I promise....
I emerged from my "Dark Age" after discovering Brikwars, but I think a true
Lego game should be primarily about building rather than just using Lego as
playing pieces.
I think Lego is a great medium for gaming - it is all about infinite
possibilities from simple components. Its like Go - only a few rules, but
inifinite depth.
With lego you have both colour and shape to work with. Probably TOO many
shapes to define function for each of them, even if you only consider the
small parts, so I would think you would need to limit the game to specific
parts, or group them by type.
A "traditional" wargame would probably require terrain for the battles to be
interesting, which would negate the portability of the game. I think
therefore an abstract battle (much like Magic) would be a better idea.
Possible powers:
Wheels/legs/other motive devices: Manuevering/agility - change the range of
combat, avoid attacks
Weapons: blow stuff up ;) Chainsaws, hammers and so on would only work at
close range, guns at medium, Big Guns and missiles at long
Shields/armour: prevent or redirect damage
Repair systems
Wings/jump packs: allow flight to avoid combat/drop bombs or whatever
Colours could be used to determine the type of attack - e.g a white gun
would be an ice weapon, and would be blocked by a fire shield (red). Some
simple, easy to remember hierarchies should be used - fire melts ice, ice
freezes water, water puts out fire, that sort of thing. Like
scissors-paper-stone.
The game would be best if it were simple enough not to require a rulebook
once you had learned the rules. The kit could probably contain a die, but
some other method of random determination might be preferable.**
Just typing out ideas as they come to me at the moment. What do you think?
James
P.S. I am also working on a Lego game based on Steve Jackson's Car Wars,
working title "Burning Plastic". Watch this space...
** You can simulate an "n" sided die roll with a 1xn plate or brick. One
player secretly places a 1x1 piece on the brick somewhere, then the other
person chooses a number between 1 and n. The brick is then revealed and the
person counts along the studs from the marked place, "wrapping round" if he
reaches the end. However many studs along it lands it the die roll. Hope
this makes sense:
= <Marker piece
====== <1x6 block Player A places the marker piece on position 4
Player B chooses 3
3 =12
====== The brick is revealed and 3 places are counted from the marker
The result is 1.
|
|
| |
Hmmm, of course you could go for the idea of everyone builds one unit at the
start, stats it up and then you place your case (with it's remaining pieces)
on the board. You own this case. Each turn you can take 1D6 pieces from each
case you own and start building new units with them. You can also capture
other players cases.
I like the idea of different colours representing different types of attacks
too, although getting hold of certain weapons in certain colours would be
tricky :)
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Burge writes:
> Hmmm, of course you could go for the idea of everyone builds one unit at the
> start, stats it up and then you place your case (with it's remaining pieces)
> on the board. You own this case. Each turn you can take 1D6 pieces from each
> case you own and start building new units with them. You can also capture
> other players cases.
Yes - I like this idea - equivalent to your deck in a CCG. Capturing pieces
might be a problem as it would be tough to remember exactly who owned what.
Your case could represent your base, or the remaining parts could be built
into a base. Instead of attacking other bots, you could directly attack the
base (perhaps you would first need to outmaneouvre the defending bots). If
you hit the base they lose pieces from it, and they are out of the game if
they run out. This would create an interesting game dynamic - if you spend
too many resources on bots, your base will be weak.
> I like the idea of different colours representing different types of attacks
> too, although getting hold of certain weapons in certain colours would be
> tricky :)
True. This highlights one of the problems a lot of people have with CCGs -
the better cards are harder to get hold of, and give an unfair advantage to
those who spend more money. If the parts were grouped this would be less of
a problem if e.g. any sticky out part could represent a gun. I can see
problems with certain parts though, like chainsaw blades - I've only ever
seen them in grey and trans orange.
It would be good if the game could extend easily to multiple players. Games
to me are about socialising as much as anything else.
James
|
|
| |
> Yes - I like this idea - equivalent to your deck in a CCG. Capturing pieces
> might be a problem as it would be tough to remember exactly who owned what.
Yeah, unless you introduced a ruling that a unit can only be built from
pieces from a specific base - you could have a staging area by the base
where your unit sits while it is being constructed. That way all you have to
do is mark which unit was built with whose pieces. I keep forgetting about
the piece mix-up problems in lego-based games as I'm the only one in my
gaming community who owns a large amount of lego, so I'm usually the
supplier of all bits for games (Hence my large pirate collection...)
Which means you could also introduce the ruling that only one unit can
be produced at a time from a base but you can scrap a unit currently under
construction and just put the pieces back in the base (or maybe just 1/2 of
them... hehehe...)
> Your case could represent your base, or the remaining parts could be built
> into a base. Instead of attacking other bots, you could directly attack the
> base (perhaps you would first need to outmaneouvre the defending bots). If
> you hit the base they lose pieces from it, and they are out of the game if
> they run out. This would create an interesting game dynamic - if you spend
> too many resources on bots, your base will be weak.
Ooh, I also like this one too. It's a nice way of giving a base 'hit
points' too. Maybe you could just put the pieces removed to one side and
then once it has no pieces left you have captured the base and get those
pieces back in order to build with.
> True. This highlights one of the problems a lot of people have with CCGs -
> the better cards are harder to get hold of, and give an unfair advantage to
> those who spend more money. If the parts were grouped this would be less of
> a problem if e.g. any sticky out part could represent a gun. I can see
> problems with certain parts though, like chainsaw blades - I've only ever
> seen them in grey and trans orange.
Yeah that would be a problem.
> It would be good if the game could extend easily to multiple players. Games
> to me are about socialising as much as anything else.
Definitely. One of the thing that really annoys me about most CCGs is
that you can only have two players. If we go with base capturing, then lots
of players will be best although you will probably have to add Neutral Bases
to make it up to a number divisible by two (So that when it gets down to two
players, one player won't have too large an advantage over the other).
Having a minimum number of bases (like 4) would be good, or else two player
games will just become capture-the-other-guy's-base games.
Steve
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, Steve Burge writes:
> One of the thing that really annoys me about most CCGs is
> that you can only have two players
Steve, that's not true. Most rules are indeed set up in the
"two-player" frame of mind, as was M:TG, but this is where creativity comes
in. We used to play Magic with tables full of people, sometimes in a
pattern (you could only attack those to either side), sometimes free-f'rall.
Some of our best times were like that. We also had 1 on 1 tourneys
together, with the "all-of-us" game being the tourney itself.
You're only limited, as with playing with Lego bricks, to your
imagination. A game using Lego pieces could be just as creative, and should
be just as infinitely different for each of us, as is a really good CCG,
which I think makes a great model for a game of this sort.
Peace and Long Life,
Tony Alexander
|
|
| |
In lugnet.space, James Casey writes:
> A "traditional" wargame would probably require terrain for the battles to be
> interesting, which would negate the portability of the game. I think
> therefore an abstract battle (much like Magic) would be a better idea.
If you like the idea of a "traditional wargame", you may
wish to try out my new lego RPG. However, it's only
castle related to a sense, however, could still work
for space if one were to augment it further.
http://www.lugnet.com/~1112/DraKen
> Possible powers:
> Wheels/legs/other motive devices: Manuevering/agility - change the range of
> combat, avoid attacks
> Weapons: blow stuff up ;) Chainsaws, hammers and so on would only work at
> close range, guns at medium, Big Guns and missiles at long
> Shields/armour: prevent or redirect damage
> Repair systems
> Wings/jump packs: allow flight to avoid combat/drop bombs or whatever
>
> Colours could be used to determine the type of attack - e.g a white gun
> would be an ice weapon, and would be blocked by a fire shield (red). Some
> simple, easy to remember hierarchies should be used - fire melts ice, ice
> freezes water, water puts out fire, that sort of thing. Like
> scissors-paper-stone.
Yeah, added the environmental concepts as well...the rpg
layout page mostly spells out phenonema of that respective
type.
> The game would be best if it were simple enough not to require a rulebook
> once you had learned the rules. The kit could probably contain a die, but
> some other method of random determination might be preferable.**
Unfortunately, this might not be possibly, unless you were
cognizant to memorize the rules easily (they aren't that
long, mostly explanation.) Other than that, you would need
occasional reference to character values (I use character
cards as a template to keep track of health, etc.)
<<_Matt Hein_>>
Fellow lego enthusiast
|
|
| |
Every game needs a good working title, so considering the thread which
started this off, how about the Portable Patented Plastic Building Brick Bot
game? P3B3 for short?
James
|
|
|
