My latest design inspiration is a co-op game idea I've had for a while. The setting is a nuclear reactor plant that has gone horribly wrong. Players try to operate various controls to keep the reactor (or perhaps multiple reactors in a single plant) from melting down. Problems can accelerate rapidly; players can quiesce one issue only to have another pop up elsewhere. Players win if they can stabilize the entire reactor plant; players lose if any core gets hot enough to start a meltdown.
Existing co-op games like
Pandemic and
Forbidden Island are obvious models. I have a couple of specific innovations to try to induce a strong sense of urgency (and perhaps panic) in the players. I've realized that in general, a co-op game (one that does not have traitors) is rather like team solitaire. That means that the game boils down to card luck and problem optimization. The tricky part about making a game like this fun is ensuring that players' decisions are not obvious but do affect the progress of the game. I want to make sure that mistakes cause setbacks but don't render the problem unsolvable. So there has to be a pretty broad decision space, with multiple variables in play and multiple "knobs" for the players to manipulate in an effort to control the game state and get to a solution.
I recognize that in any players-
vs-game, luck has to be a factor. In fact, I think uncertainty and variability contribute to the fun and excitement of the game. But I'd hate for the game to devolve into a question of what order the cards came up or how the dice rolled.
I had some thoughts regarding card luck in general. In an upcoming post, I'll discuss a game design idea that came out of the question, "can I make a card game that minimizes card luck?"