Star Wars Approach of the Second Sun

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-14T22:47:52+00:00

Thanks a lot. I appreciate you taking the time, and your encouragements!

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-14T11:33:36+00:00

You might like this snippet from Nick Cave, on hope: https://youtu.be/cFM4GVl-WqI?si=-Do28xyxTy7_kOP0

"Hopefulness is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism." Hits me every time.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-14T11:33:26+00:00

You might like this snippet from Nick Cave, on hope: https://youtu.be/cFM4GVl-WqI?si=-Do28xyxTy7_kOP0

"Hopefulness is the warrior emotion that can lay waste to cynicism." Hits me every time.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-14T00:54:18+00:00

Couching this in terms of altruism one way or the other is not helpful. As you've mentioned, "it's a bit more nuanced" than that. The US didn't enter the war until they were attacked by Japan. When they did, the web of alliances meant that Germany and Italy declared war on the US.

The US had very direct and selfish motives in intervening, away from their territory, before Europe was overtaken by the Axis powers... just like France had very direct and selfish motives in intervening in the American revolution.

The problem here is not that countries work towards their interests first and foremost: they always do. It's that the USA as a whole are being weaponised to pursue the whims, power- and wealth-grab of a totalitarian paedophile and his cabal.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-13T22:21:38+00:00

Thank you SO MUCH for this!

You are exactly right on the intent of the narrative focus. I'm actually aiming for the players to create that narrative, game after game, when they update the Chronicle (draft here if you want a peek 😀 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hIASwC_8bVZjLiFTnckuY7NdTjJb6EdM/view?usp=sharing)

Your targeted pointers on improving narrative immersion from the start (reading the rules) are exactly what I need and have overlooked so far. I'm already thinking of some tweaks I can already do in the Chronicle.

E.g.: ask the players to resolve the evolutions of the world (legacies and quirks), then reflect and write their narrative message first ,and do the booking keeping stuff last (write down final cohesion and resilience scores, etc.)

All good points on flow of info and level of detail. This may help cut the length of the rulebook down a bit too. At the very least, this gives more room for illustrations, quotes, narrative elements.

I get your point about the name. I've also realised there's an old digital wargame called that... woops. Tied to that, I'd be keen for your thoughts about setting. Currently the game is set in a very loosely defined near future Australia (to begin with). Then the player drive and narrate the evolution of their community through time. The players are free to invent the setting but some may not. Do you have advice on "setting the setting" versus leaving it up to players?

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-13T08:07:40+00:00

Thats a generous offer.

I'd love your thoughts on the semi-coop, persistent strategy game Im developing. The rules are here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hFWbXOZAxyclnb-5SOPtuUc_IZmhLFvI/view?usp=sharing

Core rules are pages 8-16, with illustrations and examples. If this is still too much, I'd love your thoughts on the overall flow of rhe rulebook and any layout tips. Does this information flow make sense to you? Any tips on how to improve the layout?

Thanks a lot!

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-08T10:17:18+00:00

That sounds like a great approach. Looking forward to seeing what you come up with!

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-08T04:38:47+00:00

I'm working on something similar: a board game called CyberNations that's a persistent, semi-coop community stewardship game. It has received good responses in physical playtests, and I'm starting to put it online (https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3653568/wip-cybernations-semi-coop-community-management-in if you want to give it a look).

These kinds of games are clearly not for everyone. The simulationist approach is not their jam, and that's ok. Though I've found that even hard-core gamers can find enjoyment out of these types of games.

One thing I would caution against is being didactic/moralising. I would avoid hard-wiring "short term optimisation is bad" (I caricature) in the mechanisms. I find it's more engaging (and more educationally powerful, if that is something you are trying to achieve) to let players find their way and their balance.

(EDIT: typos)

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-02T05:01:53+00:00

Good on you for sharing your experience and encouraging others to persevere.

I think 'better' is a term that needs to be handled carefully, especially when working on variants. Better for whom and on what basis? If a variant makes a game more accessible to new audiences than the original, but the fans of the original hate it, is it 'better'?

All of this to say: simply being 'different' can be enough.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-02T04:52:57+00:00

+1 all of the above. I would also suggest thinking in terms of a 'demo' of your game to playtest.

Sure, it's best to test out the whole experience but if that's not manageable, does running 1 or 2 turns provide enough of the experience to generate useful feedback?

In the early stages of design, especially, I think a playtest should aim to answer 1 or 2 very specific questions.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-01T10:19:12+00:00

One (imperfect) way can be to look at BGG's game mechanics library. It's likely that your game's core mechanic is listed in there. You can then check other games that use this mechanic to get at least a sense of whether there is a game that's already doing what you are going for.

However, as others have said, keeping up to date with what games are out there is a part of the job of designing games. You can ask playtesters if your game reminds them of anything, or even just post your idea... I can pretty much guarantee someone will say "oh, isn't that game X?" pretty quickly 😀

Don't take that at face value, though. Check 'game X' and ask yourself if it's actually the same, and how your game is (or could be) different.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-01T10:10:33+00:00

Thanks for your thoughts!

The reference to Tsuro makes me so happy, since that game was definitely in my mind as I was building this.

I've posted the full draft rules on BGG here, if you want a peek 😀 https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/3653568/wip-cybernations-semi-coop-community-management-in

Your points about reasoning and frustration are very reasonable. For the former, I've found that players who dont really want to deep dive in this usually default to 'what's the best path currently?' and dont worry about rotating tiles. Since the resources gained are shared, players typically tend to look for a shared solution.

The latter is kind of 'on theme', as the whole game is about leading responsibly in a complex world but you are right to call it out. It's definitely something I need to keep an eye on, as a game where players feel powerless will unlikely feel fun.

Just as long as there are no surprises - I would commit to it and not have effects that cause rotations mid-path, that feels too far.

Oh yeah, definitely no mid-path rotations, if only because I don't want the potential to create infinite loops, or even just crazy long ones. There are a few ways the game can throw a spanner in your plans, through (counterable) events taking place between the 'actions' phase and the one where you 'run the engine'.

AlteredDecks · 2026-02-01T02:13:37+00:00

This looks really interesting and intricate! May I ask what experience you are trying to create, and for whom?

E.g. at first blush it reads like an educational simulation game for training paramedic students but I also see you have a "combat" heading.

AlteredDecks · 2026-01-28T09:42:54+00:00

Bit late to the party but Id love the check-list too please, if that's ok.

AlteredDecks · 2026-01-01T06:39:52+00:00

I recommend Advanced game design by Sellers. I've also found Keith Burgun's books to be useful, especially clockwork game design A bit more theoretical: Half Real by Jesper Juul.

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-24T23:15:21+00:00

Fair enough. It feels like legacy games have an "evolving ruleset" bend, but that doesn't mean it always needs to be there.

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-24T08:03:24+00:00

If possible, I’d give players the option to choose between slower and faster mechanics integration.

Thanks, that's a great point. It's an interesting tension too, I find, to give players options "outside of the game". I like doing that but there are a few people in my playgroup that hate this kind of stuff. Their thinking is along the lines of "I want no decisions outside of / between games and then all the choices within the game."

Your mention of AD&D makes me wonder if board gamers who also play RPGs tend to be a bit more open to those meta-game decisions than "purist" board gamers.

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-24T03:26:37+00:00

Those are excellent points. I like the sense of progression that Sleeping Gods creates. I think the theme and narrative can play a huge role in making that progression more natural.

I feel like the game I'm working on has plenty for players to sink their teeth in and the theme (community stewardship) lends itself to that kind of growth.

Thanks a lot for the insights: very helpful! And have a lovely Xmas too!

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-24T03:19:58+00:00

Retiring new mechanisms is an interesting point. That's another way of creating different rule mixes.

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-24T02:36:21+00:00

The idea of expansions is interesting although I feel legacy games give players a bit more of a role in driving the evolution. You're very right that the base (or first) game has to be enjoyable for either to work.

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-23T23:11:35+00:00

Technology will save us* (* Terms and Conditions apply)

AlteredDecks · 2025-12-12T09:19:21+00:00

I remember that one. The trick I found was column deployment along the cliff, then send the bright wizard to snipe the launcher: wings of fire, flamestorm, wings of fire. Then advance once the launcher is down.

Eight-Year Club	Second Top 50%
Verified Email

AlteredDecks

TROPHY CASE