{"id":2616,"date":"2015-09-14T11:07:45","date_gmt":"2015-09-14T15:07:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mycours.es\/gamedesign2015\/?page_id=2616"},"modified":"2015-09-21T15:23:24","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T19:23:24","slug":"theme-and-gameplay-flavor-change","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"http:\/\/mycours.es\/gamedesign2015\/theme-and-gameplay-flavor-change\/","title":{"rendered":"Theme and gameplay (flavor change)"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Carcassonne hunters and gatherers<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Ludonarrative dissonance<\/a> by Clint Hocking
\nOther examples? <\/p>\n

And… does it really matter?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Flavor text in collectible card games<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"<\/a>
Freedom: the Underground Railroad – cards from the board game<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"Hearthstone-like
Hearthstone-like educational game.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\""Nuclear
“Nuclear Gandhi” a glitch in Civilization II made India’s A.I. particularly aggressive.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n
\"\"<\/a>
The first activist game was designe more than 100 years ago by a. Quaker woman called Lizzie Magie (it was the first game that obtained a US patent).
She believed that the main cause of poverty was land monopoly and the way to solve it was to impose a single uniform tax that would discourage speculation. So she created a game to represent this conflict. Thirty years later a man called Charles Darrow patented a modification of the landlord\u2019s game and turned into a “pro landlord” game. It would later become Monopoly.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Flavor change<\/strong><\/p>\n

In an economy where 3 players try to accumulate resources:<\/span><\/strong>
\n3 Players<\/span><\/strong> start with 5 resources<\/span><\/strong> + 3 resources<\/span><\/strong> in the pool<\/span><\/strong> (center of the table)
\nEach turn players<\/span><\/strong> take a decision in Rock Paper Scissors style. Players<\/span><\/strong> can choose Action A<\/span><\/strong> (fist) or Action B<\/span><\/strong> (open hand).
\nThere are 4 possible outcomes:
\nOutcome 1<\/span><\/strong> – one player chooses Action A<\/span><\/strong>: this player takes 1 resource<\/span><\/strong> from each other player.
\nOutcome 2<\/span><\/strong> – two players choose Action A<\/span><\/strong>: these players both give 1 resource<\/span><\/strong> to the third player.
\nOutcome 3<\/span><\/strong> – three players choose Action A<\/span><\/strong>: all players put 1 resource<\/span><\/strong> in the pool<\/span><\/strong>
\nOutcome 4 <\/span><\/strong>– three players choose Action B<\/span><\/strong>: the player with most resources<\/span><\/strong> proposes once, without discussion nor barter, how to divide the pool<\/span><\/strong>. If at least one player agrees the decision becomes effective. Otherwise, nobody takes anything.
\nThe game ends<\/span><\/strong> when the first player is out of resources<\/span><\/strong> the player with the most resources wins.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ludonarrative dissonance by Clint Hocking Other examples? And… does it really matter? Flavor change In an economy where 3 players try to accumulate resources: 3 Players start with 5 resources + 3 resources in the pool (center of the table) Each turn players take a decision in Rock Paper Scissors style. Players can choose Action<\/p>\n