Post subject: Race for the White House (a game idea)
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
I had an idea for a board game while keeping an eye on the electoral maps yesterday, and whipped up the rules over the course of an hour or so. I've pasted them below, and welcome any thoughts you all might have. In this game, each player is campaigning for President of the USA. The goal is to get the most electoral votes -- since presumably you have more than two players, a majority isn't plausible. At the start of the game, you have a blank map of the USA, which is divided into states and media zones. Randomly lay down on each state a Population marker and three Stance markers -- these indicate how many electoral votes the state has, and the state's leanings on three key issues (the Red issue, the White issue, and the Blue issue, which you may decide correspond to actual real-life issues if you like). Yes, this means that Rhode Island might end up with a massive population. Population markers have a number (2 through 12), which indicates how many people the state has. Each state gets as many electoral votes as they have population. Each player then looks at the board, decides on their own stances on the three issues, and takes Stance markers to suit. The players start with $1 million each, in large bills. Stance markers have a color (red, white, or blue) and a number (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). 1 is liberal, 6 is conservative, and 3-4 are moderate. These numbers indicate how the state is projected to vote in the election. By influencing state stances to align with your own stances, you can get more states to vote for you, thus improving your odds in the election. Play occurs over a series of six Months, each Month having 4 Weeks (i.e. turns). Players take turns in a clockwise order. At the end of each Month, the player to go first moves one step clockwise (so the player that went first now goes last, the player that went second goes first, etc.). At the end of the sixth Month, campaigning is finished and the winner is determined. In a given Week, players may: * Campaign in a state to solidify their position there * Raise funds in a state * Send advertisements out to their current media zone, to influence all states in that zone * Reinvent themselves Additionally, each week, the player can move to an adjacent state (before or after their normal action), and at the beginning of each Month each player can fly to any state in the country. For purposes of not being a dick, Hawaii is adjacent to all west-coast states and Alaska is adjacent to Washington. Campaigning in your current state Decide how much money (in increments of $100k) you want to spend. Then pick an issue to campaign on. Your goal is to roll a d6 and get numbers that are higher than the difference between your stance on the issue, and the state's stance on the issue. For every $100k you spend, you get to roll 1d6. If you succeed, then the state's stance on the issue is changed to be closer to your own. So for example, say you're campaigning in Iowa, which is slightly liberal on Red (2), heavily conservative on Blue (6), and heavily liberal on White (1). Your own stances are moderate (3) on Red, moderate (4) on Blue, and heavily conservative (6) on White. You decide that you want to change Iowa's stance on White, which is diametrically opposed to your own stance. Because the difference in your stances is 5 (6 for your own stance, 1 for Iowa's stance), you must roll a 6 to change their stance. You decide to spend $300k campaigning, so you roll three dice. You roll a 2, a 5, and a 6. Because the 6 is greater than 5, you get to change Iowa's stance on White, moving it closer to your own stance by 1. Iowa is now only slightly liberal on White. If instead you wanted to change Iowa's stance on Blue, then you only need to roll more than a 2, because Iowa's stance is 6 and yours is 4. If you spent $200k and rolled a 3 and a 6, you would still only move Iowa's stance once. Raise funds In order to raise funds, you should to be in a populous state that agrees with your stances. Here your goal is to roll highly on 3d6, but you take a penalty for every point that you differ from the state on stances. For the Iowa example above, your stance differs by 1 in Red, 2 in Blue, and 5 in White, for a total penalty of 8. You roll 3d6, and get a 3, a 5, and a 4, for a total of 12. Subtracting your penalty from that, you get 4. Say that Iowa has a population of 5. Now look at the following chart for your extra funds:
Population range	Funds multiplier (hundreds of thousands)
2-4	              .5
5-7	              1
8-10	             1.5
11,12            	2
In this case, Iowa's population of 5 puts it in the second population range, so you get 4*1 = $400k more funds. If Iowa's population had instead been 11, then you would have gotten 4*2 = $800k. Advertise Advertising is a way to influence several states at once. However, it is more expensive than straight campaigning, and you can only affect the three to six states in your current media zone. Like campaigning, you pick a stance and dedicate money, then roll dice; unlike campaigning, it costs you $200k per die roll, and you take a -2 penalty on your rolls. Note that this means it is impossible for an extremist candidate to influence opposed states: if your stance is 6 and the state's is 1 or 2, then because of the penalty you cannot possibly roll well enough to influence them. You only roll dice once for the entire media zone. For example, if you are in Iowa, your current media zone includes Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Illinois. Your stance on Red is 3, while the states are 2, 3, 4, and 6 respectively. This means that to influence them, you must beat a 1, a 2, a 1, and a 3. You decide to dedicate $400k to your advertising, which gets you two die rolls; you roll a 1 and a 2. The 2 is enough to sway Iowa and Wisconsin; Minnesota already agrees with you, so they don't move. However, you were unable to change Illinois's stance, so it stays where it is. Reinvent yourself Sometimes the campaign is going badly, and you need to change your own stances. This is a costly maneuver to make, but it can help you make a comeback when the odds are against you. On your turn, declare you are reinventing yourself. You must turn in all of your current funds, as well as your current stance markers. On your next turn, you select new stance markers, and on the turn after that, you may resume normal play (though you still have no money). For example, say that the election is drawing near, and while you have a fairly solid standing in Blue, pretty much the entire country doesn't like your White stance, and you feel that you would be better off taking a more moderate stance in Red. On your turn, you declare that you are reinventing yourself, turn in your stance tokens and your money, and then end your turn. Next week, you choose your new stance markers -- you stay the same on Blue, but choose a totally different stance in White and move towards the center in Red, then end your turn. The week after that, you start campaigning again, secure in your new political position. The Election Once the last Month is complete, all campaigning is done. Now the votes are determined. Each state votes for to the candidate that most closely agrees with them on all three issues. Thus, for each state, compare the candidates' stances to the state's stance. Sum up the differences; the candidate with the fewest differences secures that state's electoral votes. The candidate with the most electoral votes is elected president, and wins. Let's look at Iowa again. Say we have three candidates, resulting in the following grid:
          Red White Blue Difference
Iowa		  2	1	6	
Clark	 	3	6	4	8
Rickard	  2	4	3	6
Shepherd 	5	2	6	4
In this case, Iowa likes Shepherd the best, so he gets Iowa's votes. Iowa's population of 5 means it has 5 electoral votes. Repeat this for each state to determine the winner of the game. And that's it. Aside from scoring, I think it's pretty playable, and I've been sketching out designs in my head for a way to make a a Javascript/JSON/MySQL implementation. Any thoughts?
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Active player (309)
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
EMO
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself. It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success." - Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
Drama, too long, didn't read, lol.
Joined: 5/17/2008
Posts: 212
Location: Virginia
Sounds interesting, and it shouldn't be too hard to make.
adelikat wrote:
It started off fairly tame, but as more balls entered the picture it sure got a lot more entertaining.
Player (120)
Joined: 2/11/2007
Posts: 1522
I'd play it :D To make it more realistic, maybe change the distribution of electoral votes so that there are some states with way more, and also make the minimum 3... easier to cope with if it's determined by a computer.
I make a comic with no image files and you should read it. While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free. -Eugene Debs
Skilled player (1405)
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1977
Location: Making an escape
Somehow I couldn't help but think of this when reading. Sounds interesting.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
arflech
He/Him
Joined: 5/3/2008
Posts: 1120
You've watched the hit MSNBC show, now PLAY THE GAME!
i imgur com/QiCaaH8 png
Former player
Joined: 3/30/2004
Posts: 1354
Location: Heather's imagination
It sounds pretty interesting. The only issue I could see now is that it might take a while to play (24 turns per person), even though it looks like each turn plays quickly. Of course, there's also not really a penalty for having a similar stance as an opponent.. and you're also not allowing smear campaigns and negative advertising (or, for that matter, positive image advertising that isn't focused on an issue). There doesn't seem to be any good way to interact with other players, at the very least. All you can do is try to advertise their power base away from them, and this (especially) is the kind of game where you want to be political. I might make a prototype and run it at my local Gamers' Guild and get some feedback for you on how it plays.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster. I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
Cool, thanks! I'm working on making a simple AJAX implementation; right now I just have a map of the USA divided into 15 regions, each of which you can click on; defining the imagemap for that was a royal pain, but once I get to the actual server-side details things should start moving pretty quickly, I hope. I definitely think there's lots of details that could be added -- negative advertising, as you mentioned, random global events, things like that.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Former player
Joined: 3/30/2004
Posts: 1354
Location: Heather's imagination
Here are some house rules I was planning on implementing when I ran it. Since you've been thinking about the game longer than I have, maybe you know better ideas or think I shouldn't use these? Anyway, comments appreciated (and if it's because of one of my alterations that the game didn't work it wouldn't be fair to you!). 1. Population. There are 50 population chits which are distributed randomly to states. 1x15, 1x14, 1x13, 1x12, 1x11, 2x10, 3x9, 4x8, 5x7, 6x6, 7x5, 8x4, 10x3. Fundraising in 11-15 gives 2x, 7-10 gives 1.5x, 4-6 gives 1x, and 3 gives 0.5x. 2. Stances. There are 10 chits of each possible stance (ie, Red 6) which are drawn randomly for each state. It isn't rolled. This ensures a more divided country which makes for a more interesting battleground. 3. Home states. Each candidate starts in a different state (of population 9 or below). That state's stances are initially set to the candidate's stances, no matter what those stances are (though during the game they can change just like any other state's). 4. Regions. There are 9 of them. 5. Debates. At the beginning of the 4th, 5th, and 6th months, there's a debate. Starting from the new first player, each candidate assigns a die to one of the issues (red, white, or blue), to negative advertising against another candidate, or to positive image advertising. Once each player has assigned 3 such dice, all of them are rolled; if a candidate has no dice in a category, they get a value of 2 automatically. Image dice can cancel any one negative die of equal or lesser value pointed towards you (so lets say I got a 5 on my image die and there's a 4 negative at me; both are removed). Negative dice can cancel any one issue die of equal or lesser value of the target's (so lets say, despite my image advertising, there's still a negative 3 pointing at me. It can cancel my white 3, but not my blue 4). Finally, remaining image dice (and automatic 2s) influence each state as if they were advertising (but a state can't move more than 1 on each issue, and if two candidates try to influence a state in both directions on an issue, neither works). Then play resumes as normal. 6. Ties. When it's time to elect, if a state is equidistant from two candidates, it entirely abstains, no matter how many votes it would've cast otherwise.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster. I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
Those sound like good house rules. Another one I'm considering is allowing you to have multiple successes when trying to influence a state (so every die rolled can potentially influence the state's stance). I think that the original "you can only move a state's stance gradually" rule would make it too hard to influence things. I didn't specify stance or population distribution in the original rules, but I'd always internally assumed that they'd be accomplished by distribution of chits as in Settlers, as opposed to rolling. Random distribution can result in pointless games, like when the entire country is radicalized. I've greatly simplified the map from the original 50 states, to reduce housekeeping. Here's the map I'm working with right now (which looks horribly washed out on this computer; I should darken the regions some). That's 15 regions, which should still be enough to keep play interesting without getting the players bogged down in trying to figure out where their time is best spent. It should also help keep players interacting with each other as they "steal" votes. I'm aware that there are some topographical issues with that particular version of the map (Maine et al are hard to reach; Texas serves as a shortcut across the Great Plains), but I'll have to play some before I can figure out how much of an issue they are. For debates, I was thinking that you could try declaring a debate any time you're in the same state as another player (and since you can move before your action, this means debates are possible if you're adjacent at the start of your turn). I'm not certain I understand your debate process, but it sounds like it would require you to update stances for every state on the board, which I tried to avoid. I do like the idea of negative advertising that your opponent can try to counter, though, as it encourages players to interact with each other. Here's what I came up with for debates: A debate allows you to influence every stance a given state has, for free. However, you run the risk of accomplishing the opposite effect. Any time you are in the same state as another player, you may, as your action for your turn, challenge that player to a debate. If the player refuses, then you get to move 1 stance of the state 1 closer to your own stance. If they accept, though, then you compare your stances on the issues. In any issue where your stances are opposed (i.e. the state's stance is numerically between your stance and your opponent's stance), roll a d6, and subtract the difference between your stance and the state's stance. If your result is higher than your opponent's, then the state's stance moves 1 closer to your own; otherwise, it moves toward your opponent. For example, you wish to challenge your opponent in New York. Your stances are 3, 6, and 4 (in Red, White, and Blue, respectively), while New York's are 2, 5, and 2 and your opponent's are 1, 2, and 6. Because both of your stances on Blue are more conservative than New York's stance, you cannot debate on that issue; however, you can debate on Red and White. You roll a 3 for Red and a 5 for White, and subtract off your differences to get a 2 and a 4. Your opponent rolls a 4 and a 1, which are adjusted to 3 and -1. Your opponent rolled better than you on Red, but you rolled better on him in White, so New York's stances are adjusted to be 1, 6, and 2.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Former player
Joined: 3/30/2004
Posts: 1354
Location: Heather's imagination
Ohkay. So. I ran the game and it was pretty fun! (I lost by only one vote!) But we had some issues and ideas for improvement. First, 51 territories is indeed way too many. Halfway through setup we decided to use 15 territories in 5 regions of 3 each. The smaller game was very interesting and it allowed you lots of room to mess with other candidates' plans. It works quite a bit better. We kinda halfassed population distribution but probably something like one each of 12-4 and then six 3s would work well, with the fundraising tiers being 10-12, 7-9, 4-6, and 3. Second, fundraising is too powerful, by which I mean, staying in one place and raising funds for a month straight is an uncounterable winning move. You shouldn't ever be able to raise funds in the same state more than once. Since that causes memory issues, we decided each state has an "emblem" that you get for raising funds there, and if you have the state's emblem, you can't raise funds there but they're considered 1 closer to you when voting comes around. Third, moderate positions are too good. There's no disadvantage to choosing all 3s and 4s, and because of the mechanics for advertising, there's a LOT of reason to be all 3s and 4s. One possible fix is to prestat candidates to make sure none of them are super-moderate. Another is to make more extreme candidates have more efficient fundraising (adding 1 to the 3d6 roll for every point away from center, ie, 5s and 2s give +1 each, 6s and 1s give +2 each). Fourth, it's too hard to "read" the map and see how well you're doing. What would be really nice is if each candidate had flags or markers or whatever, and at the beginning of each month you do a mock vote, putting the winning candidate's flag on each state, so you can instantly see which states are "yours", where you can raise funds safely, and where you can most effectively attack to swing large numbers of votes away from an opponent. We didn't end up using debates, negative advertising, random events, or anything like that. Monthly random events would be a nice addition though. Things like, for this month a particular region pays out more, or for this month a particular region is influenced easier so all d6s have +1 there, or this region's polling is inaccurate so all their Red opinions move 1 closer to Liberal or whatever. And one of the monthly events could be a debate, as long as it plays a lot quicker than whatever I was thinking when I suggested that one houserule. Anyway it's a fun game! And I hope it only gets better from here! EDIT: Oh by the way we used the multiple success rule and it works pretty well, though it's really annoying when you drop a cool mil on advertising in a region and then the very next turn someone follows you in and counters it with their own million to swing the opinions all the way back.
someone is out there who will like you. take off your mask so they can find you faster. I support the new Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun.
Mitjitsu
He/Him
Banned User, Experienced player (532)
Joined: 4/24/2006
Posts: 2997
Boco wrote:
Second, fundraising is too powerful
If you look at elections over the years then you'll find that whichever candidate or party spent the most money will nearly always win. For example in the most recent election Obama had twice as much money and had an ad ratio of 8 to 1 over his oponent.
Joined: 7/2/2007
Posts: 3960
Thanks for the feedback, Boco! That's awesome, and it'll be a big help for polishing the game design. Taking it point by point: * Glad to hear that 15 territories seems to work well. How many players did you have? I imagine that this game, like with Settlers, has an optimum "density" of players (where as you add players, it's a good idea to use maps with more territories). * Balancing fundraising. This'll be tricky. AKA's point is perfectly valid, and I love how that emergent behavior tracks true to reality, but we also need to make the game more interesting than just "fundraise, fundraise, fundraise, okay now go do a blitz campaign". Your emblem idea sounds reasonable and should keep bookkeeping low. Alternatively, each state could have a marker indicating that it can be fundraised from; when you fundraise there, the marker is removed until the beginning of the next month (when everyone gets their paychecks in :) ). * Moderate positions being too powerful -- I had thought that the ease with which moderate votes could be stolen by extremists would counter their ease of gaining votes, but looking back on it, my reasoning was flawed. Pre-statting or point-buy systems would have to also change the rules for self-reinvention (otherwise you start with arbitrary stats and then just reinvent on your first turn), so I'm inclined to try to find some way to make moderates just less powerful in general, like the fundraising idea you suggested. It'll be tricky finding something that doesn't make dice resolution even more complicated though. Bears some thought. * Reading the map will be easier on a computerized version of the game, but fundamentally, even with a 15-territory board, I just don't see a way to get status updates on a real board that doesn't involve lots of bookkeeping. The information is always available, though; voting is currently entirely deterministic. So it's certainly possible to, once a month, determine who is currently winning. I'm not certain I'm comfortable mandating that though. Again, it's totally awesome that someone actually played the game and had fun doing so. It's great motivation. :)
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.