What is a Dungeon Crawler

 If you are unaware, I'm heavily involved in Dungeon Crawl Board games, and in an effort for a comprehensive list of what one is vs what one isn't, I've amalgamated this list.

Dungeon Crawlers

Top Down, in Order of Importance, These are the items that I classify as needed in a Dungeon Crawler, and a small blub about each. I will start off with a few critical points. 

I prefer Story over Stats. I would like players to choose items that match the idea of their character, rather than the 'best' item to defeat the monsters. Wiggle room permitting, a player might have a choice between a Greatsword and a Two Handed Axe, and their Barbarian is wondering what's going to chop harder. But if the same barbarian has a choice between a Greatsword that will do 7dps, and a wand of fire, that even after modifiers, does 9dps, that's too far. 
How Far is Too Far. There is often a line, between a Dungeon Crawler and a RolePlay Game. Its a grey area, sometimes I see RPGs that try to simplify things too much/quickly, and you lose the depth of an RPG, and they really should just be a Pen & Paper DC. More often, I see a DC adding in the kitchen sink, and ending up with a bloated RPG with too many tokens, too many miniatures, and too many rules to look up. Worse, if the players have to read all the rules, and act like a GM, without a GM.  

A Party of Characters/Heroes

While Solo Play is ok, I'm not ok with the idea of a dungeon that's "designed" for a single Hero. Dungeons are designed, by Evil Overlords to be impenetrable, dangerous places, where armies have failed to defeat them. A Good solo player should work for it, that said, to be honest, I'd love to see a set of quests which the townsfolk warn them are too dangerous for 1-2 heroes, and point out some crypt missions that might suit them better, so they can improve their abilities before going into dangerous places.

Character Customization

There is a middle ground, Not being able to make any choices at all, doesn't feel like your character is progressing, often pre-chosen upgrades come along with increasing enemy levels, so you never feel like you are getting anywhere. Vice Versa, full open choice, can lead to making poor choices, ones that hamper the game for everyone, its less likely in a DC than in RPG, but I do see it creep in.

Exploration of unrevealed areas

If I know, the whole layout of the Dungeon in Advance, its because I found a map in a previous location, not because the game gets me to set it all out on the table. A good DC should have some rules about placing rooms after opening doors, or setting out structures as the story progresses, especially if the game, rightly, makes it clear I should retreat and return in the future (with better preparation). 

Scenario / Mission Scope

The Idea that the players are 'crawling', at some slower pace, because its dangerous, as the core 2/3rds+ of the game. This can be split up, allowing an average pace for the town->dungeon-> travel, faster pace 'in' town, to get supplied, and the location itself being the round by round speed. Any more than 1/3rd time spent in the 'setup/packup' phase doesn't make me feel like I'm Dungeon Crawling, instead I'm RPGing.. (see above & below)

Character Progression

If we're creating a Boss Battler, Level up after the boss is defeated. But if its a Dungeon Crawl, there needs to be the ability for players to progress mid dungeon, it doesn't HAVE to be structured that way, but it feels great when it happens. One way is to have the the macGuffin be specifically an upgrade for 1 character, "Lets go into the Forests of Alderrell, and retrieve the Bow of Swiftness for our Halfling Archer." Alternating between story progress and upgrade quests is a way for RPGs to progress, why not do the same for DCs, Heroquest did it.

Scenario Goal

Which Ties in with Scenarios having specific goals. This one is important to differentiate between an open ended PRG and a story specific DC. The DC is a boiled down, quicker, faster, focused RPG. The quest is straight forward. Players know what the quest is, so they can buy specific weapons and equipment. They know why they are going, where they are going and what they expect. THEN a surprise twist is more impactful.  

Campaign Story

A little less important (to me) is the overarching campaign. I don't mean, at al, I mean, The Scenarios goals should be following a path that makes sense, but I don't need to know the names of all the NPCs that may be affected by the plot. Include a 1 paragraph TLDR at the beginning to read out to players, and hand the 1 page backstory to the person who likes to know the extra details.

Miniatures vs Standees vs Tokens & game boards.

I don't think a good DC needs miniatures, but it most certainly makes a good DC a great DC, unfortunately it also makes a poor DC into a half-decent DC, for the purposes of Kickstarting / Buying at Discount. Mostly, because I can use those minis in other DCs or RPGs. That said, it needs 'something' otherwise, theatre of the mind is purely RPG territory. Also If I'm drawing layouts on paper, for the minis/tokens to sit on? Again, RPG land. The very nature of a DC is the board, the tokens and some other parts make a DC 'exist' as a board game.

Combat; Enemies to kill/overcome

What Crawler would be complete without the reason your crawling. Monsters, While a single monster type would be the bare bones minimum (Adv Heroquest, 3 forms of Skaven) A Variety to make the game replayable, and introduce varied levels of difficulty make it even better.

Traps, Hidden objects/items/enemies, Discoverable loot.

I think of these more as, interesting quirks. Not every Dungeon is set up as a death trap for heroes. Some might be the homes of creatures, and unlikely to use Traps, easily forgotten, deadly to the inhabitants, while Crypts, expecting to be looted, would be covered with all manner of ways to dispatch intruders. Loot is likely to be hidden in secret compartments, but regular weapons should more likely be found in the hands of the guards, AND should be acquirable by players.

Other Aspects of DCs that others like: In Order of, Yes these are nice to have vs oh no, please don't.

Focusing the game on Heroic Individuals

This.. hmm, maybe it just me, but every peasant, with hard work, and the right contacts, should be able to train and become a hero. The idea that an Individual must be destined to be a Hero isn't my cup of tea. I like character progression, and I like the idea of the poor no-body, becoming the winner. BUT maybe the idea of this one, is that the game should be focused on that hero, and not side-line them for sub-quests.  

Unique Skills

Yes, a DC is supposed to be boiling things down to simplify choice, but setting aside specific skills starts to approach the line in the sand. Ok, sure, this character has trained to fight with a staff for years, and has some cool maneuvers, Why is it that no other character 'can' choose to train in the staff too? I get that the rules to allow more cross-class abilities would make things difficult, so I can sit on the fence for this. It breaks my heart when RPGs even attempt to do this, So I'll allow it for DCs only.  

Class Specific Loot

Again, a little on the nose, but maybe that's my GM/RPG Designer coming through. A sword is a sword. and the idea that a mage, cannot pick up a sword, at all, for any reason, is dumb. Yes a DC is supposed to simplify things, but this is the line in the sand, and given a choice, I want players to be 'able' to choose the sword, and wield it, (poorly) in rare circumstances, to save the day, because the rest of the party is down, the bad guy is immune to magic, and the silver sword is the only weapon that will kill him. Maybe that's just for RPGs. Because this usually doesn't need any extra rules, why its enforced I don't know. 

Tiered/Scaled Loot.

Worse still, the game actively only 'hands out' items because of the level of the group. No. Seriously No. The Dungeon is designed way in advance of the players, If my group of level 7 heroes want to slum it, and go wipe out a Goblin warren, they should not be finding a few dozen magic swords. No. The opposite side of this, it should be a small, but interesting chance that a more powerful item can be found in an average Dungeon, that 'sets' the players apart from an average heroic party. Maybe finding a Wand of Firebolt in the first dungeon, was the reason this party has succeeded where no other could. 

Scaled Monsters.

To Take things to their ultimate Doom, a Dungeon that, no matter what level YOU are, the difficulty is set to 'slightly below hard'? NOOoo. Its boring, its repetitive, it loses all meaning, now your just rolling dice for the sake of an activity with friends. Also, games are about learning too, and once you've learnt the singular tactic of taking out the dungeon, every experience after will be a pointless task of repetition. 

Dishonorable Mentions

Space vs Fantasy

While you might consider a sci-fi concept, still a Dungeon Crawler, I posit that there are certain aspects of what makes a sci-fi.. feel sci-fi. The majority of which will destroy the vibe of a 'Dungeon' and 'Crawl'. 

I Played XCOM as a kid, its certainly got a LOT of the 'dungeon crawl' feelings of the above, yet the key sci-fi things, shooting lasers down corridors, remote access to locations from a terminal, radar pings to find enemies, the focus far more on pre-preparedness, as the statistical likelyhood that any weapons you find are geared for human hands is nigh on impossible.  It all leads/lends itself more to a tactical game.
You almost need to have some military training, to structure HOW you'll enter the location, scout ahead, burst through a door guns blazing, against those green blips on screen. You might secure some tech to take back to base, but forget using any of it now. You only have what you brought in. Sci-fi doesn't feel sci fi without those elements, and Dungeon doesn't feel Dungeon *with* those elements, Can you imagine a crack team of Soldiers, bursting into the Dungeons of the Necromancer.. it's be comical.

Sure, I'd love to see that, and it might be a great and fun game. but, just don't call it a Dungeon Crawl. 

i.e. I don't like my Dungeon Crawlers to feel like a tactical game, which ties back to story vs Tactics. I prefer players to choose weapons and armour because of theme, not strategy, or at least theme first, strategy second. So a Space Marine Battle, even in corridors of a space hulk, is too far gone for me to count them.  

Deck Builders and Worker placement: A few ideas

 I've been playing games more frequently of late, and my two favourite genres are worker placement and deck builder. So of course I come up with ideas in that 'genre'.

Board Game Ideas List:

Herbs and potions

The Idea is, to have a herbal gatherer, either by worker placement or by card draws, gather herbs. You then use some kind of tools to change the herbs from their raw form into a more accessible form, then you combine them into potions that you can sell on the market, to afford more to upgrade and to create the final 'prize' which ends the game.

My Initial thoughts were pure deck builder, where playing of certain cards allow you to draw from certain decks: Play a sickle and draw a card from the herb deck (or maybe one of many herb decks), play a backpack to allow you to draw more or hold more.

i.e. 

sickle: draw 2 cards from the herb deck. You may keep 1 + any number of storage items.

satchel: you may store 1 extra dry ingredient.

vial:: you may store 1 extra wet ingredient.

bottle: you may store 2 extra wet ingredient of the same type.

pouch: you may store 1 extra dry or moist ingrediatnt

Once you've got some ingrediants, you might draw them in your next hand, and you can play them with their relevant tools, such as pestle and mortar to grind into powdered form, 

Once you've drawn the powdered form, you can attempt to create potions, by combining the ingrediants, drawing random effects cards, and doing some quick calculations to see what kind of potion it is. 

i.e. 

Dandelion seeds, ground into 'sage powder' which has +2 rest, but +1 stomach ache.

Pig snout root, ground into 'concoction sap' which has +2 healing but +2 stomach ache.

Frogs Legs, boiled into 'slimy soup' which has -3 stomach ache, but -1 comfort.

and

Rosemary Leaves, ground into 'herbal rememdy' which has '-1 any'

combined, this would result in +2 rest, +2 heal. Which consulting a chart = a 40 gold potion.

You'd use the 40 gold to buy an upgraded sickle, maybe a apothacary kit, and a +1 satchel, so in future turns you could get 5-7 ingrediants in a turn.

Once you can get as high as 10 ingediants, you'd be able to make the famed "Healers Broth" which is needed for the Kings sick son. It needs 10 ingrediants, and they need to heal +5. Or some game setup sickness which lists a preset number of ailments all to be cured by the potion. 

Possible, doesn't need to be 1 potion, but does need to heal the child in one turn.

The King Awards 500 gold to the player who heals their child, and players can add up their gold & wealth to determine who actually won.

The Castle

Akin to Stone Age, you place workers in regions to gather resources, but, with some complexity.

Soldier meeples, will 'move away' enemy meeples, on resolution. i.e. blue places 4 peasants in the stone mines, red places 2 peasants and 1 soldier. the soldier moves 2 of blue away from the mines. 

Players can't just breed, they also need houses, you start with 5 thatch houses, which can house 1 meeple. you can upgrade to other forms of houses that can cope with more meeples.

You also need to breed animals for food for happiness, else, instead of negative points, the meeples don't come out of their house. 

So you could try to build some places which help happiness, 

At the same time, you have tech trees to invent better things, improve the number of resources that come out. i.e. SWORD All soldiers are worth 1 extra point,  but its done on a turn by turn basis to improve your deck. put meeples into the 'science places' to draw cards, to add to your deck. but also those cards can improve other cards. 

Stone age has 'tech' cards, but you only get them, you don't use them, the game is a static move of choices. but by adding the 'randomness' of your deck, as to 'improve' your actions, you get a sway of the strategic 'worker placement' and the random effect of 'deck builder' 

Ranking Games

 There's a lot of controversy on Board Game Geek, ignoring the bulk of it, I want to focus on one that comes up time and again. The game ranking system.

Ranking Games to avoid hyper numbers

The Main issue, in board game rankings, complained about the most, is the assignment of a value system. The 'arbitrary 1-10 vote' you assign to a game. Anyone can vote for any game, and as a result, there is a very easily abusable way social media can push a game into the top 100, when it hasn't even been played, or people voting down a game to offset this.

A system that could replace this, has to allow for people to vote, has to include some bias for new accounts vs long term accounts, but also, needs to allow for the varied ways people vote. 

If a game has just arrived at your house, and you play it, and love it, surely you're going to vote it into your top 10, but as time goes by, and you get newer games, should you need to go back and vote that game down, so you can allow for your next great loved game to take that top position?

Games that last the test of time, need to be able to rise above. Games which are a fad, games which are fun today yet boring tomorrow, who is going to go back and edit all their previous posts & scores and change to reflect this?

Sites haven't yet incentivized people to do this, and they could, but they don't feel the need for it, and it'd be a lot of work for very little gain.

But, having thought this over for many years now, this one clicks for me:

1. BGG (or alternative) Idea: When you 'vote' for a game, you vote it against another game you voted for. When you vote you are presented with one or two other games from your list, and asked. of the games shown: * If you are showing this to new players, which would you choose. * If you are playing this with friends, which would you choose * Its your birthday, you choose what ever game YOU love.

 

The game is not stored as a number, instead its stored as a list. your ranking, of your games, from least to most, in three very relevant situations.

Computers, which can crunch numbers quickly can assign a weighting to your list from 0 to 1, and use this weighting to 'list' all games in the system.

This will create a top 10, or top 100, without needing to score them as 10s. The top 10, will reflect  the games that of all games voted for, so far, these games have the most people, saying it is their best game.

There will be no need to chastise the hundreds of people saying its a '10' because they haven't, they've just said, of all the games 'they' have played, its in first place.

Anyone who votes a game down to 'tank' its ratings, are doing nothing more than voting all the games above it, as being better. In their opinion.

Participants, who have only ever voted for 10 or 20 games, wont be able to influence the system to say their no.1 is the best game ever (or in last, as the worst), because, its only the best game, for them, out of 20 games they've played. (see below for the math)

Furthermore, instead of asking "is this 'the' best game", your asking, Is this game, the better choice, based on your previous rankings, of other games you've experienced. and its asked 3 times, in three ways, that often, don't match. new players, games for your friends, or games for you.   

1. The Math: The Vote system shows you three games, one half way down your list, the other halfway up your list. when you click, the list shifts deeper into your list and again, matches half way up, or halfway down. until it finds its spot. Math shows us, this can only ever, worst case, happen 7 times with 2 values, or 5 times with 3 values. You vote for your games, and they create a list, inside the workings, the computer breaks your list into mathematical % of your whole list, and finds the middle number of that %. i.e. if you have only voted for 5 games, the % of each 'title' is 20%, and the mid point of that is 10, so the games would be weighted 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, and 0.9 Note, with only 5 games, your 'lowest' is a 1 and your highest is a 9, you can't vote it to 0 or 10, you haven't got enough experience voting yet. This 'weight' is averaged with all the other votes, but also, with all the not yet votes. If the site requires 1000 votes to record any given game against, all those 999 others have a base score of 0.5 for all games. So, if you're the first person to vote, and you give it top marks? its the best ever game? your 9, combined with 999 5s, will give a final score of 5.004 Its going to be in the middle.
   

 

    And this is what we want, we don't want games with 1 vote, jumping into top place, an we don't want some kind of 'catch system' to say, Oh, we need to have 300 votes before we publicize the number, because, once social media finds out, they'll get 301 people to vote it a 10, and then the opponents of this, will vote 1s to cancel out the ratio, we don't even need the arbitrary 1,000 in there, just give all uses a base 0.5 middle and scale accordingly, sure the math will end up with values between 0.4 and 0.7, but that's also arbitrary, because, the users will only see the 0.7 as 'first' and the 0.4 as 'last'

And if anyone requires to see a 'value' score, then math can easily spread a 0.4 - 0.7, into a 

[Board Games] A Different way to classify.

I have a half decent collection of board games, I'm also a Kickstarter super backer of board games, I like to vote on my games on BBG, but something recently sprung to mind, that the out of 10 system does not really help me with.

How could we classify Board games better

1. Price? 

Board games come and go, you might like a board game the first time you play, but never play it again, if you paid $100 for such a game, was it worth it? Often the person who buys the board game, invites his/her friends to come play it, at their house even, so often the owner of the game puts out a bit more cost than the players. Be it drinks, snacks, cleaning time before and after, and house products consumed by guests. How does this compare?

If I invite my friends to the movies, I want to go see terminator, so I say, Who wants to come watch Terminator with me, they all buy their own tickets, parking fees, drinks, popcorn, and the ticket price includes the cleaning of the theatre and toilets.. so we each pay $20 (or so), yet for the same 2-3 hour experience, I pay $100 + extra expenses?

The Argument could be, I choose the movie, I pay for my friends, $20 each it'd be $100 for my 4 other friends and me to either A) play a board game or B) go to the movies, and next time, my friends would choose the movie (or buy a board game) and they'd pay..

Well, that might be true for people who buy many board games...

For now, the only argument I have close to this, is, I get to play it more often, because I'm the one that owns it, so I get better at it.. I'm not playing WITH friends.. I'm playing AGAINST friends, so I can attain some skills that I want, in this genre of board games.. maybe.. 

I chart my board games with Price / Times Played, and I record its potential sale price -5% per play in a spreadsheet, and it gives me a fair idea of how "much" each play through cost me.. also, gives me an idea of what game I should play next.. so I get more worth from my costs.

2. Time?

All games have a time value on the side(or back) of the box.. usually its like 1.5 hours, or 2hrs, some games say 30mins per player, which is often closer to the truth, the bugger problem is, they don't list set up and pack up time.. 

People who play games often, know that the first time you play a game, with new players, you double the play time listed.. this gives you a fair feel of how long its going to take. 

My house rule is.. Evening Games: No more than 1 hour listed time, this allows for rules clarification (since we might forget how to play since last time) average setup/pack up and distractions from kids not sleeping well, going down late, being tired from the end of the day, etc.

Lunch Games, With kids: 1-2 hours, not that I'm talking playing with the kids.. that's different, I mean that the kids are a distraction, so while you thought you were going to play in 2 hours.. it takes 3, because of said distractions..

Lunch Games, without kids.. My preferred games, because I like a good meaty 3 hour game. Which often takes 6. as long as the distractions are at a minimum, I'm good.

All Day Games.. sigh.. I've almost forgotten what they feel like.. friends arrive at 8:30am, game was set up the night before, everyone is in, notes are taken, game play is full of thought and discussion and each turn takes a lifetime, and before you realize it, its midnight and you've been holding your bladder the whole time.. such fun.. Haven't done that since I was a teenager/early twenties.. sigh.

3. Complexity?

Another one that's so wrong. 1) because the designers can't list 8yrs old anymore without going through rigorous testing, getting certified, all to avoid potential legal costs. Parents.. why can't you judge for yourself. If the game says 2 hours.. surely your kid won't have the attention span at 6yrs to play for 2 hours. 

I have played games that say 13+ that needed a PHD to understand, and others that my 3yr old grasped the concept of in minutes. The "age" classification is just wrong on all counts. Maybe like Movies have those PG & M rated values (D)rug use, (V)iolence, board games should have (M)aths, (P)hysics, (WP) worker-placement, (2T) 2 turn forward thinking strategy (R)andom events.. people will quickly learn that (R) games can be over quickly, while a (3T)(P) game will require some thinking.

4. Players

This one is likely an issue with Kickstarter games more than most, In order to get the most backers, you need to make sure your game can cope with the demographic of as many people as possible. so often a 2 player game, that can be 2vs2 gets some kind of halfway mixed up rules to make a 1v1v1 or 2v2v1 game. What works great for 5 players gets balanced poorly for 3 players, but they're not going to tell you.. no.. you need to find out for yourself..

Also, the Solo Player. A byproduct of computer games in the 80s & 90s has left several 20 somethings without a lot of friends, let alone board game playing ones. Its hard enough to meet new people as it is, finding board game playing ones is daunting. So they buy board games that have a Solo variant.

Sure, the game will more likely see the table, if you'd alone, bored on .. any night of the week and you decide to break out Solo Star Wars battles, or Kingdom Death.. Personally, I only have fun, when I see other people playing the game that I love.. I guess that's what I'm paying for.. the enjoyment of watching the enjoyment of others.

Still, I'd like to see a "best" number on the board.. like 1-6(2).. meaning, we gave you all the components to play between one and six players, but originally, we designed it for 2, so most of the theme and mechanics are for 2 players, or 2vs2, so if you're a couple, that likes to play board games together, then this game will likely suit you. 

FOMO and Board Games... the rabbit hole

The excitement for, the new game, the new KS campaign, the new things the campaign will have, the game funding, then the lull in between you start that WHOLE excitement again.. and its months if not years til the game arrives and you've either been lucky enough to not return, or instead you crave that excitement again.. and again and then a year later the 1st game arrives, but you've backed 12 other games in between.

Then it arrives, you unbox it, you maybe get to play it straight away, and it reinforces the whole chemistry, on par with a new friends a new partner a new job.

Then the 2nd game arrives.. and they compete for your time.. a 3rd and you can't give the love to the 1st like you used to. do you make more time to play games? or do you gauge which one has more fun and sell off the excess.

The interesting part is when you sell the excess, often with KS games, you can still break even with a 2nd hand, this feedback loop, justifies your purchases.. you played the game, you had your fun and you sold it back for what it cost you, or close enough that the price diff is negligible.. you've not spent any money going out this month, because you're home playing games, your bank account is looking healthier.. strangely, so you increase your game budget.

Then, you go a little overboard.. you back a game that you.. maybe, might be interested in.. it looks ok, maybe it'll be up your alley, but hey, who cares if its not, you can sell it and break even.

now you'e getting a new game every fortnight, you crave the high of the next KS campaign.. Oh so high, stretch goals, unlocks, new expansions.. ALL-Ins.. your shelves strain under the weight, you start buying Kallax shelves and maybe even inserts to bling out your game boxes.. you forget that the resale of the game will unlikely include those costs..

You now have enough games, to play twice a day 7 days a week, campaign after campaign for 4 years.. and still your KS account says 20 more games are due to arrive.

you're spending more than you're selling, you've forgotten about life outside of board gaming..

What do you do?

you start a You Tube channel....

Board games are Card games are c-Roleplaying games?

I follow kickstarter board games quite heavily, actually, all kinds of games, if its being Kickstarted, I want to read about it, this gradually started about 2012 or so, and I was a kind of local guru on 'what makes a good kickstarter' enough to run some workshops for some people in different industries that had heard about me..

After I returned to Oz, It slowed a little, yet I kept my finger on the pulse.. just ignored that pulse a little too often and missed 2-3 great games (and likely ended up paying more than I should have to get them later on)

The most interesting thing I've noticed recently is, the blurring of the lines between the different genres of

Board game, Card games and c-Roleplay Games

Lets double check we're on the same page with these things.

Board games of 2011!

Board games, typically have a board, pieces, sometimes of board, sometimes of wood or plastic. They have rules for moving/placing/removing the pieces, which results in score or win/lose conditions.

Card games, produced by fantasy flight!

Card games, typically have cards (made of thin boards ;) ) which are played according to rules about placing, moving or removing, which results in scoring or win/lose conditions.

If you think Diablo is an RPG, stop reading and go away

c-(components of or computer variety) roleplay games, have rules, which are played according to rules, about placing, moving or removing (from your character sheet) which represents an avatar. c-Roleplaying games result in a win/lose condition (and sometimes even score)

Yes, I know.. Roleplaying games, are different, that is, REAL roleplay games, are a set of rules or guidelines in order to tell a fun, yet believable story, some of that fun is understanding the restrictions of the character you are playing, which is represented by a set of rules, but those rules are to help people to feel fairness and order, not to represent any value or score or win conditions.. which seems to be lost on anyone who grew up with the c-variety of roleplay games as staple.. but thats not the topic of this blog.. I just wanted to clarify for you, so the comments section won't have anyone ... 

well forget it.. people comment, its the internet, so I'll just leave that.. 

So, to re-clarify, Computer/Component roleplay games are about levels, bonuses, equipment and numbers, of monsters killed. be it in a computer, or a psudeo-RPG-in-a-book variety.

These are board game cards, almost as complex as D&D

Back to my point

I've recently seen some awesome looking board games, that have charactersheets.. not Dungeon crawls, I like dungeon crawls, they break down the idea of the game and simplify it to be played in 45 minutes. my first real board game, was Heroquest. ahh Heroquest.

Heroquest is the best game ever made.

No, I'm talking about these new games, where the in-game charactersheet is more complex than Dragon warriors.. the simplest roleplay game I know of. 

Maybe, just maybe I've played for DW than any other system (except my own, based on DW)

Take this concept.. Monster are attacking a castle, the players are playing heroes, who are slinging spells, making actions, to hold back these monsters. At the same time they're placing workers to shore up the battlements, set up traps or defences to push back the invaiders, or gathering resources to prepare. Sounds ok as a game, yet the 'heroes' are not just Health tokens, Magic tokens, some weapon cards and skill/spell cards, no, they have progression, they level up, they gain backstory, they gain so much more.. More than a fully realised DW character.. If I wanted a roleplay character on a board game.. why wouldn't I simply get my DM to create the plot to 'play' that game? shouldn't be THAT hard right? or is $90 worth learning a new RP system, just for the stand alone, repeatable quest?

I think it might be just me, I don't like to watch a movie twice, or a tv-series.. if I wasn't concentrating the first time, it wasn't good enough for me to watch again.. the same with roleplay.. If I've entered the dungeon, defeated the monsters and died.. well so be it.. that character is dead.. I don't want to come back with a new guy, because 'I' the player have already experienced the first 6 rooms of this dungeon...

Except of course for Legacy Games, now that's different.

So replaying a board game with a different, roleplayable, character, just seems... off..

There was that dice rolling game, where you matched, Yatzee style, a set of rules to form.... a Character. A character, as GM I would NEVER allow in any of my games.. so min-maxed, so ultimately broken. How a child would survive the rigors of medieval times with a charisma of less than 7, I'll never know...

Then there are board games, Dungeon Crawl board games, with deck building mechanics.. advance in the dungeon by fighting monster cards, or drawing equipment cards or helper cards, try not to wake the dragon, but try to grab all the lot before the other players.. Its an awesome game, it mashes all the parts together in a worthy style, and is enjoyable.. once or twice.. luckily, it has no character sheet, maybe that's why it works.

I think the broken part is, the use of RP components, rather than real RP mechanics. In the world of gamification, there were components such as points, badges and leaderboards, all extrinsic motivators. All shiny, all broken. Why? because they only bring IN the user, they don't KEEP the user. RP components, Weapons, Armour, Skills and Levels, bring in players, but they stay because they get to build stories.

Look at Minecraft, No points, No badges, no Leaderboards, just self created goals, exploration and learning. people 'advanced' by discovering upgrades, not because the game told them to, but because it just felt like the next progression.

I'm slowly building a graph of games.. Why? because last time I did, I predicted Minecraft.. 1st person games, flooded market looking for something new / different 1st person games.. crafting games, a new emergent genre of game, makes the market interested, open world games, a solid genre that people trust, and look out for.. not specifically fantasy, nor science fiction.. could be both or neither.. gap in the market.. first half decent game to hit that gap wins.. Minecraft!

So the graph of card/board games.. the rise of deck building and worker placement games two emergent genres, looking for a solid genre that people trust, Euro games? and a flooded market? Board? Card? Roleplay? that's the final unknown.. I know where I'm putting my money...