Was curious about existing interaction patterns that people might have used in BGA implementations of games where there are a lot of "reaction" opporunities.
Let me present an example. A two-player card game where on your turn you play up to three cards, one at a time, and interact with the game state in some way when you play a card. Perhaps you might draw more cards as a result. But in the shared deck you are playing from, there are some "reaction" cards that might be played in response to a card being played "e.g. cancel the card an opponent just played" or in response to an outcome of a card played, e.g. "when you lose tokens, play this card to prevent losing tokens"
Naively, you cannot let a player know what is in another player's hand - so you'd need to pass control of the game to the opponent to ask if he wants to react to a card being played, or to the game state being changed in some way that can be reacted to (e.g. losing tokens). But that would mean every turn would require you to pause a players turn to check for a reaction, even though there might only be 1-2 of these cards in the whole game, just to not give away if your opponent even has such as card.
Even if you weren't bothered by giving away that information, if the opponent DOES have those reaction cards, you'd still need to stop and ask if they want to react each time.
Is this pattern something that occurs in any BGA implementations? Or is this just a game that is bad for async play, so not really worth trying to create on BGA?
My only other thought was inspired by the changes made to the Heat BGA table, where each player is only asked to take there turn when the game already knows what everyone before them is doing, so rather than being forced to come back to the table to pick cards, and then come again to play those cards, you do everything in one go (which was, quite literally, a game-changer).
Would it be acceptable to let a player play out his full turn, and then replay that turn for the opponent, asking if he wants to react to any part of it, and if he DOES react then you go back to the original player and say "your turn was interrupted at this point, none of the subsequent actions you took happened, how would you like to play the rest of that turn now?" - I thought that might be acceptable if reactions are very uncommon; it would be jarring to go back to game where you thought you had played a full turn, only to be told the timeline has changed. But I think that hits a strange snarl insofar as you might see "secret information", such as when you draw cards, that no longer has happened. Perhaps the answer is "all card draws are done randomly, so the only disclosure ends up being a few cards in the deck that you know aren't in the opponents hand now" so that's OK?
Anyway, big dump of thoughts, if anyone has anything in mind related to this, I'd love to hear about it
Let me present an example. A two-player card game where on your turn you play up to three cards, one at a time, and interact with the game state in some way when you play a card. Perhaps you might draw more cards as a result. But in the shared deck you are playing from, there are some "reaction" cards that might be played in response to a card being played "e.g. cancel the card an opponent just played" or in response to an outcome of a card played, e.g. "when you lose tokens, play this card to prevent losing tokens"
Naively, you cannot let a player know what is in another player's hand - so you'd need to pass control of the game to the opponent to ask if he wants to react to a card being played, or to the game state being changed in some way that can be reacted to (e.g. losing tokens). But that would mean every turn would require you to pause a players turn to check for a reaction, even though there might only be 1-2 of these cards in the whole game, just to not give away if your opponent even has such as card.
Even if you weren't bothered by giving away that information, if the opponent DOES have those reaction cards, you'd still need to stop and ask if they want to react each time.
Is this pattern something that occurs in any BGA implementations? Or is this just a game that is bad for async play, so not really worth trying to create on BGA?
My only other thought was inspired by the changes made to the Heat BGA table, where each player is only asked to take there turn when the game already knows what everyone before them is doing, so rather than being forced to come back to the table to pick cards, and then come again to play those cards, you do everything in one go (which was, quite literally, a game-changer).
Would it be acceptable to let a player play out his full turn, and then replay that turn for the opponent, asking if he wants to react to any part of it, and if he DOES react then you go back to the original player and say "your turn was interrupted at this point, none of the subsequent actions you took happened, how would you like to play the rest of that turn now?" - I thought that might be acceptable if reactions are very uncommon; it would be jarring to go back to game where you thought you had played a full turn, only to be told the timeline has changed. But I think that hits a strange snarl insofar as you might see "secret information", such as when you draw cards, that no longer has happened. Perhaps the answer is "all card draws are done randomly, so the only disclosure ends up being a few cards in the deck that you know aren't in the opponents hand now" so that's OK?
Anyway, big dump of thoughts, if anyone has anything in mind related to this, I'd love to hear about it
