Monster Containment Quest Concept

Monster Containment Quest

Rework of my old Jurassic Park quest idea with proper analysis on the benefits and drawbacks of strategy quests.

---------
MINIMUM CONCEPT

You are a person in charge of a specialized and covert facility that is tasked with researching monsters.
Monsters have stats that determine their attacks, defences, specialties.
Stats are mainly comparables (numeric attributes like power and toughness) with some incomparable keywords (venomous, armored, etc).
A monster's stats determine how much security is required to contain it, or kill it in extreme circumstances.
It also determines their value as a research subject. Research is used to produces resources for further progression.
NOTE: You will lose if you do not take measured risks in researching monsters. You utilize your resources to mitigate RNG but laming it out is a loss state.

You decide what monsters to keep and what measures are used to contain them.
The more security, the more resources it takes, but the less likely the monster is to get out and cause far worse damage.
To gain resources, you perform research on the live monsters. This generates points according to the monster's value in stats.
Researching a monster generates Stress on it, which increases the likelihood of a breakout attempt.
NOTE: Research may be in categories, with more bonus in exchange for higher risk. Stress may be RNG but Research should be fixed ideally.
Monsters should be pre-defined with simple stat-blocks, but with options for user-submitted monsters too.
NOTE: Potential for lewder versions of the concept, obviously.
Primary security is defined as a policy once, but may be updated later. This includes fences, monitoring, drugging, etc.
Secondary security is a kind of policy but is more live units and defences. Weapons teams, gun emplacements, traps, etc.
Primary security is used to stop breakouts; Secondary security is used to subdue or kill a monster once broken out.
Fail-state would be the monster either wiping all secondary security, or perhaps reaching and destroying the POV character.
You might be able to escape early with a soft failure by escaping the facility before everyone dies. This could be offset by better chances if you stay but more personal risk to your POV character. Would always be able to reset with new scenario though, but lose progression as a result.

Once a monster breaks out, which should be inevitable if things are balanced for risk-taking, we move to a containment phase.
This might be a more action-oriented tactical game where you control teams and try to funnel the monster and subdue it.
The monster can rack up damage which costs resources to fix, destroy your assets, or even free other monsters for cascade failure.
NOTE: Similar to Lobotomy Corp in that regard.
NOTE: Freeing monsters means we can have low-security requirement but still high danger monsters. They are a time-bomb risk.
Killing a monster loses the most amount of value from it, but reduces damage it deals. Subduing it may let you research it more.
NOTE: Subduing can likely reset a monster's stress back down, but may have permanent effects.

Research should convert directly into Resources which are used for getting more monsters, building security, and doing general research and policy.
There should be a failure state in place if you cannot keep up with demands; maybe via Recettear thresholds, or by flat requirements of scenario.
This gives us a goal to strive for, incentive for risk-taking, and an end-state.
From this end-state we could reset the scenario and start with new monsters at a higher state; start with more security but more danger, or lower security.
NOTE: Good for environment dangers like disasters, monster already free, saboteurs, etc.

Research might either be an active choice each phase, or could be an assigned policy to repeat until change occurs (research, breakout, death).
Research might provide a big benefit the first time it is tried of each type, but then half or diminishing after. Encourages experimentation, but makes the policy option worse. Might be good if want to make each research vote more novel and variety rather than repeating options constantly.
Research categories if broad enough could have bikeshedding and benefits for write-ins if people are enthused; more research or less stress.
NOTE: This could be coupled with hidden statistics or types for the monster which are learnt through research.

To avoid bloat, we need to diminish, restrict, or tax the things we keep track of.
MONSTERS:
- Tax them with a limited lifespan so they always die eventually, probably as a result of research. Dont need to worry about dead monsters, only archive.
- Diminish can kill them early or during breakouts. Same as above.
- Restrict the amount of monsters you can take onboard by slots, perhaps upgradeable.
NOTE: May make a order to kill a potential for a breakout as well so its not a given when monster is dangerous or low life.
SECURITY:
- Tax with upkeep perhaps?
- Restrict with amount of teams or assets that can be held within the containment facility.
NOTE: This is where a map with visible slots may be more fun than just listing numerical limits.
- Diminish as they can die to monsters. Probably easy to replace, but cost resources.
RESEARCH:
- Restrict with limited tiers of research. Possibility limited amount of research as well via physical assets, as above.
- Diminish research could be destroyed if its a physical asset.
- Tax could be with upkeep but probably not needed here.
RESOURCES:
- Tax and Diminish by spending it constantly. Earn it through active action and policy. Not much to worry about here.
- Restrict probably not needed a money cap, but its there as a possibility.
MAP:
- Optional, but would be Restricted by pre-defined layouts or lego-block connections instead of bespoke tile-by-tile building.
- Restrict again by assigning monsters, security, assets to specific large areas or rooms. Might get dungeon-core-y though so within reason.

OPTIONAL:
Scenario based modifications could be fun to play with. Environmental conditions, disasters, additional threats, limitations, etc.
NOTE: Strategy games do this a lot with good reason.
The breakout segments could insert any action game into them for first person activity. POV character could be very survival horror.
Security, individuals, could be upgraded with technology or even monster powers to improve them for some character customization.
Along with that, POV character could have traits to encourage playstyles, like researcher or militant.
Monsters obviously have a massive assortment of ways to customize and have fun with them.
Could have ways to custom create your own monsters, unlock research from them, or hybridize them together for variety.
Unknown and hidden stats would increase curiosity about them without adding too much bloat.
Monsters might even be controlled by players.
- Main quest would be difficult since players want the facility to win, not the monster.
- Thread players would be more viable, but still risk of the same. Must be some benefit like glory to the player controlling them.
- Generally thread players best for a non-continuous requirement of decision-making, not one-to-one with a live segment.
- So it would work best for a Wilderness scenario of wild monsters or one with a Saboteur.
Different settings and scenarios are available; from jurassic park, to lobotomy corp, to umbrella, etc.
Research segments and Breakout are the high narrative-action segments where detail should be provided.
Votes during these segments can have consequences for what you learn, a bit like interviews in LobCorp, perhaps. Also makes them less a writing debt.
Could be a Capture phase as well to capture monsters in the wild for your facility. Would need to reward these more than just getting them via benefit or limits.
Various ways to upgrade and outfit the facility to increase complexity there but very much optional progression.
A map is interesting but brings a lot of potential complexity with it with spatial placement. Common to dungeoncore.
A variation on the quest would be to add in the Wilderness to capture and research monsters from; ie, the original JP concept.
On that note, some Tycoon stuff could be added with guests touring the monsters, but this feels pretty dumb, lol.

ANALYSIS VS JP
This is based on my research into the various types of civ quests and their benefits/drawbacks when coupled with the medium of questing.
The Original JP idea was a huge board-game, and very focused on the spatial play with 'dudes on a map' play.
This does not actually work that well with a quest with singular votes that are more about description than they are menus or sequences.
As well there was a shitload of tracking and debt that incurs with building items on a map and managing spatial teams.

The concept does crossover with Dungeon Core quests, but I think avoids some of the pitfalls.
It is not a passive concept; you do not wait for monsters to roam in, you actively add them and decide how much security to present.
You decide your risk/reward factor, and are encouraged to go for higher risk.
Once breakout occurs, which is a definite event within play, we get action segments with POV.
This could succumb to the same constant-rolling of dungeon core quests, but could be mitigated with direct control overt secondary security.
Maps are cited as optional to avoid the spatial tower-Defence puzzles of dungeon core, but might be fun for survival horror.
Hence why you dont place specific types of guards or units to compare them to monsters. You have direct comparable which are relatively easy to judge.
For this reason the hidden stats of monsters are good to prevent perfect info, RNG for combat so its not a given, and weaker soldiers vs monsters but more of the soldiers vs the singular monster.
You are also mobile and deciding to stay put is a tactical choice that puts your progression status at risk, vs fleeing for your life to restart again.
Resetting the facility also avoids the infinite-layout problem of dungeon cores, and having an end-state and diminishing monsters kept helps reduce tracking.