Monday, October 29, 2012
Long time no see...
I know.. I get into these stretches where I don't update the blog for a long time. So here's a long overdue update on various things.
I published Of Feast & Famine in The Game Crafter.
The Game Crafter released a new product, rule books. I have upgraded Of Power & Glory, Of Pride & Policy and Of Feast & Famine to use these. This drives up the cost even more, but since nobody's buying the games anyway, they might as well not buy the best game I can make! The rule books are actually not bad... a big improvement over the documents. Now if only TGC would upgrade their boxes, the games would actually be pretty close to true pro quality.... to expensive still, but that's a whole other issue.
I have another game that I will likely publish soon called Scarborough Fair. I'm getting another copy soon... likely today. So I'll take some pictures of it and publish it. It's a much simpler game than the others, but still too pricey to sell much.
I'm also going to have put a hold on any more games for the time being. It's just become too much of a financial burden. If / when I can start making a little money off the games I already have, I may start up again. I'm not looking to get rich, but it would nice to at least break even! Or course, I won't turn down being rich either!
I sent off Of Pride & Policy to be reviewed by the Dice Tower... a long time ago, I had sent it off the The Gamer's Table and I wanted to wait until that review came back before I sent it off to someone else, but they had gone a few months without updating their website (some people!) that I started to wonder if they were still "in business" so to speak. As it turns out, soon after, they chimed in again, so I guess I'll get both reviews at some point.
This is way too short a blog for as long an absence as I've had, but nonetheless, I think that's all I have right now!
Monday, September 10, 2012
Web site update and other thoughts
I've decided to change the website a bit. Previously I had a site hosted on a sever that I was paying for that was running php. The original thought was that I could build a dynamic website that automatically updated when ever I made changes to games on The Game Crafter. And it sort 1/2 worked, but ultimately I decide it wasn't worth the effort... By the way, the hosting is about to expire which kind of forced the issue. So now the site is running completely off of blogger. I lose the dynamic updates when I change games on Game Crafter, but that's a two sided coin it turns out. It wasn't easy to format text so that it works correct on both sites.
Changing subject...
I've decided to make some changes to Of Feast & Famine. I'm simplifying the mechanic for driving the wars and plagues. I think is was an innovative mechanic, but not appropriate for this game... maybe I can use it in some other game. The main problem was that it took too long for things to get interesting.
Plagues will get much simpler. Each plague card causes a plague. I thought about driving the intensity of the plague off the population; higher population means more plague. This makes thematic sense, but I don't know yet if it makes the game better so I'll have to try it both ways.
For the wars, I'm still going to have a tracker, but instead of cubes bubbling up like they did in the past they simply move up (or down) in a more straight forward manor. Each card bumps the cube up if you refuse the tribute or down if you pay it. As the cube moves up the attacks get stronger. Defending an attack is also simpler now: each worker (and minister) cancels one die. I'm also considering bringing the black rings back. Another thing that I keep flip flopping on is weather the tributes should be reoccurring or not.
One partially related concern I have is that there's too much in the game. I feel like there not enough time in the game to educate workers. A thought just occurred to me. What if I got rid of the rings and made the colors of the workers relevant. A green worker is better at agriculture, while a blue worker is better at medicine. Interesting simplification, but it has a large impact of the game. Education goes out the window and what are the red workers? There isn't a red ring. The red minister is all about religion, so maybe there's a thematic area, but what does that translate to in the game? Or maybe I exchange colors.... lots to think about.
Changing subject...
I've decided to make some changes to Of Feast & Famine. I'm simplifying the mechanic for driving the wars and plagues. I think is was an innovative mechanic, but not appropriate for this game... maybe I can use it in some other game. The main problem was that it took too long for things to get interesting.
Plagues will get much simpler. Each plague card causes a plague. I thought about driving the intensity of the plague off the population; higher population means more plague. This makes thematic sense, but I don't know yet if it makes the game better so I'll have to try it both ways.
For the wars, I'm still going to have a tracker, but instead of cubes bubbling up like they did in the past they simply move up (or down) in a more straight forward manor. Each card bumps the cube up if you refuse the tribute or down if you pay it. As the cube moves up the attacks get stronger. Defending an attack is also simpler now: each worker (and minister) cancels one die. I'm also considering bringing the black rings back. Another thing that I keep flip flopping on is weather the tributes should be reoccurring or not.
One partially related concern I have is that there's too much in the game. I feel like there not enough time in the game to educate workers. A thought just occurred to me. What if I got rid of the rings and made the colors of the workers relevant. A green worker is better at agriculture, while a blue worker is better at medicine. Interesting simplification, but it has a large impact of the game. Education goes out the window and what are the red workers? There isn't a red ring. The red minister is all about religion, so maybe there's a thematic area, but what does that translate to in the game? Or maybe I exchange colors.... lots to think about.
Thursday, August 30, 2012
Of Feast & Famine Rules
I don't have much of an update, but since I haven't posed in while I thought I should post something! I have complete the first draft of the rules for Of Feast & Famine. There will doubtlessly be changes in the future. I have made a few rules changes since the last time it was played.
- Building the Castle is now the last step in the season... previously it was before paying Tribute. The last time I playtested the game, we could simply accept all the tributes on the last round because we knew we were going to win before paying Tribute for the season. That felt like cheating, so I changed the order.
- I've decided to not allow Tribute to be refused once it has been accepted. So if you accept it... you've accepted it for the whole game. This does a couple of things. It makes paying tribute a bigger deal and therefore increasing the likelyhood that you fight.... which is what I want. It also gets rid of at least one "loophole." If the Player with the Combat Specialty happened to be Chancellor, then the players could all "pay tribute" only to have it refused by the Chancellor (Combat Specialist) later. That too felt like cheating.
- I decided to change Poverty to be like the other dice rolling events in that ALL workers matching the die color go into poverty instead of one chosen by the player. This is done for consistency and to just make the game a bit harder.
- Giving the Religion player the ability to re-roll the die when Poverty comes up.
- Giving the Medicine player the ability to re-roll the die when Plague comes up.
- Adding a set of modifers to each Specialty for Gold, Stone and Food (medicine, at least right now doesn't apply). These modifiers concern how much resource is lost during for the Famine, Repairs and Feast cards. In fact, maybe I take all the numbers off the event cards and only use the number on the Specialty Cards. There could be multiple instances on a resource icon on a card that indicates that you subtract a particular resource more than once. Hmmm... I like.
Wednesday, August 22, 2012
An extension of a couple of previous game ideas
A few days ago I posted a blog about a game idea that was sort of a variation on the game Scotland Yard. And a few months ago I posted a blog talking about how cool it would be to have a game that had a really big turning point where the game completely changed. Well, yesterday, while hiking for 5 miles through Kennesaw Mountain park, I came up with an idea that sort of combined those two ideas into one. It's still, at best, a half baked idea, but here it is.
Suppose every player was on sort of a treasure hunt... I don't know what the treasure is, but there's on one on them in the game. There may be many minor treasures that help you out in some way or another, but there's one big treasure that every one is looking for. The board needs to mostly contain lots of places to look, possibly with various terrains that the minor treasures could help you to navigate easier. Once someone finds the big treasure, the game completely changes (here's one of the ideas mentioned above). The game then runs into an asymmetric game where the one player who found the treasure is up against all the other players... those other players represent a team that wins or loses together. They are trying to catch the player that found the treasure before he can get to some particular location.... the location he has to get to needs to be far from where the treasure is found... I'm sure some mechanic can be used to ensure that. The treasure that is found gives the player that found it some sort of special power (there's a bit of a supernatural theme going on here I guess). That power allows him to move more freely than the other players (see my previous post for more details of what I'm thinking.) Of course, it could be a magic ring that makes him invisible, but that may be to Scotland Yard like (or Lord of the Rings like).
The second phase of the game (i.e. after a player finds the treasure) needs to be balanced so that the single player has an advantage... otherwise, why would players be hunting for it in the first phase of the game. But it shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. I'm thinking, ideally, the single player should win 60% of the time. There are some other concerns too. When searing for a treasure, how do you keep someone from finding it on the first turn? Or do you just embrace that? perhaps finding the treasure early means that players haven't found many minor treasures that improve transportation, thus making the second phase of the game longer. Or maybe it's not just a single treasure, but a few treasures that, when obtained by a single player, has the game changing effect. Of course if you do that, there's the potential for deadlock.... I have part A, you have part B and no one will give up one part to the other player. You can minimize that by having multiple copies of part A and B, but you can't eliminate the deadlock unless you do something like this: have at least as many copies of the parts as there are players and then not allow a player to take more than one copy of a part. So maybe that's what I'll do.
Oh well, that's it for today!
Suppose every player was on sort of a treasure hunt... I don't know what the treasure is, but there's on one on them in the game. There may be many minor treasures that help you out in some way or another, but there's one big treasure that every one is looking for. The board needs to mostly contain lots of places to look, possibly with various terrains that the minor treasures could help you to navigate easier. Once someone finds the big treasure, the game completely changes (here's one of the ideas mentioned above). The game then runs into an asymmetric game where the one player who found the treasure is up against all the other players... those other players represent a team that wins or loses together. They are trying to catch the player that found the treasure before he can get to some particular location.... the location he has to get to needs to be far from where the treasure is found... I'm sure some mechanic can be used to ensure that. The treasure that is found gives the player that found it some sort of special power (there's a bit of a supernatural theme going on here I guess). That power allows him to move more freely than the other players (see my previous post for more details of what I'm thinking.) Of course, it could be a magic ring that makes him invisible, but that may be to Scotland Yard like (or Lord of the Rings like).
The second phase of the game (i.e. after a player finds the treasure) needs to be balanced so that the single player has an advantage... otherwise, why would players be hunting for it in the first phase of the game. But it shouldn't be an overwhelming advantage. I'm thinking, ideally, the single player should win 60% of the time. There are some other concerns too. When searing for a treasure, how do you keep someone from finding it on the first turn? Or do you just embrace that? perhaps finding the treasure early means that players haven't found many minor treasures that improve transportation, thus making the second phase of the game longer. Or maybe it's not just a single treasure, but a few treasures that, when obtained by a single player, has the game changing effect. Of course if you do that, there's the potential for deadlock.... I have part A, you have part B and no one will give up one part to the other player. You can minimize that by having multiple copies of part A and B, but you can't eliminate the deadlock unless you do something like this: have at least as many copies of the parts as there are players and then not allow a player to take more than one copy of a part. So maybe that's what I'll do.
Oh well, that's it for today!
Monday, August 20, 2012
Of Feast & Famine update and other thoughts
I've been working on creating a rules document for Of Feast & Famine. I don't think the rules have completely settled down, but I do think they're at the point where having them written down is a good thing. The recent changes to the Specialties is an improvement, but I'm not sure I'm happy with them yet. They "work" but they're not terribly exciting. There doesn't seem to be enough of a reason to assign a particular event to one player or another.
*change of subject*
I've started wondering if I'm using the right strategy with trying to sell Of Power & Glory to publishers. So far, I've submitted it to 1 publisher and no one else. That's because I had heard that publishers don't want to look at games being considered by other publishers. But recently I've heard some things (almost said in passing) that made me wonder if that's really true. Or maybe it comes down to what "Considering" really means. I wish I had someone that I could ask about it. Perhaps I'm just getting impatient. I think I just want an answer from the publisher I submitted it to... even if it's a "no". But if it is a "no", I hope I get some feedback that I can use when I try the next publisher (or the next game to the same publisher!).
*change of subject*
I started thinking about a game I played a long time ago that I liked called Scotland Yard. The cool thing about that game is that is was "asymmetrical" meaning that it was one player vs. the rest of the players. The one player by himself was a criminal trying to escape the police (the other players) in London. The board was basically a map of London with tons of distinct locations on it with paths to near by locations. There were different types of transportation that the criminal could use: walking, bus, taxi, subway, ferry (I think.... it's been a long time). But the big advantage that the criminal has is that he doesn't have a pawn on the board (or at least, not always). So the police have to figure out where he is using information about what types of transportation he has used.
Anyway, I started to think about a twist on this concept. I loved the idea of an asymmetric game, but I thought I could change the advantage of the single player to become some other game..... I'm not at all tied to the police chasing a criminal theme, but that's where I'm starting. If it ends up being a game about duck hunting on Mars so be it! Nonetheless, I don't have another theme yet, so I'll stick with criminal theme for this post.
What if instead of being hidden, the one player was allowed to move and take actions at will, but the other players had to plan in advance. In other words, what if the other players had decide a turn in advance (or 2 or 3 turns in advance) what they were going to do. Could be be kind of cool! I can imagine some wonderful frustration of being right next the bad guy and knowing you're about to move the wrong way. And this kind of restriction might make some thematic sense. Big groups (represented by the many players) often are slower to move and must plan further in advance. While a single person can just do what they want.
That's it for today!
*change of subject*
I've started wondering if I'm using the right strategy with trying to sell Of Power & Glory to publishers. So far, I've submitted it to 1 publisher and no one else. That's because I had heard that publishers don't want to look at games being considered by other publishers. But recently I've heard some things (almost said in passing) that made me wonder if that's really true. Or maybe it comes down to what "Considering" really means. I wish I had someone that I could ask about it. Perhaps I'm just getting impatient. I think I just want an answer from the publisher I submitted it to... even if it's a "no". But if it is a "no", I hope I get some feedback that I can use when I try the next publisher (or the next game to the same publisher!).
*change of subject*
I started thinking about a game I played a long time ago that I liked called Scotland Yard. The cool thing about that game is that is was "asymmetrical" meaning that it was one player vs. the rest of the players. The one player by himself was a criminal trying to escape the police (the other players) in London. The board was basically a map of London with tons of distinct locations on it with paths to near by locations. There were different types of transportation that the criminal could use: walking, bus, taxi, subway, ferry (I think.... it's been a long time). But the big advantage that the criminal has is that he doesn't have a pawn on the board (or at least, not always). So the police have to figure out where he is using information about what types of transportation he has used.
Anyway, I started to think about a twist on this concept. I loved the idea of an asymmetric game, but I thought I could change the advantage of the single player to become some other game..... I'm not at all tied to the police chasing a criminal theme, but that's where I'm starting. If it ends up being a game about duck hunting on Mars so be it! Nonetheless, I don't have another theme yet, so I'll stick with criminal theme for this post.
What if instead of being hidden, the one player was allowed to move and take actions at will, but the other players had to plan in advance. In other words, what if the other players had decide a turn in advance (or 2 or 3 turns in advance) what they were going to do. Could be be kind of cool! I can imagine some wonderful frustration of being right next the bad guy and knowing you're about to move the wrong way. And this kind of restriction might make some thematic sense. Big groups (represented by the many players) often are slower to move and must plan further in advance. While a single person can just do what they want.
That's it for today!
Monday, August 13, 2012
Of Power & Glory Playtesting
I posted the following to a Secrets Factory meetup discussion. But I thought I would copy it here:
First, I want to thank everyone who helped me play test Of Power & Glory this weekend. You are all a great help.
So after having a little time to reflect on some of the feedback I've made a few decisions on the game and I wanted to run them by people to see what they think. I really liked the rule change we played with the second time around... the one where territory cards that don't result in an actual battle just get removed. So I want to make that change. It also more elegantly solves the problem that the silly the-king-takes-a-ring-from-a-player rule was trying to address, so I want to remove that rule. Rodger indirectly suggested something to me that makes me want another rule change: He kept trying to change turn order as an action instead of favor. I think that's actually a good idea. So I want to make that change. That leaves 4 favors and all of them are about the king. Floyd had mentioned that the turn order favor wasn't really about the King and until he said that, I didn't really consider it thematically... but you were absolutely right! So it shouldn't be a favor, it should be an action.
Floyd as recommended using cubes for the map and rings for the titles. I'm willing to give that a shot, but I'm not compelled right now to make that change. Yesterday, while reflecting on the playtesting, I rediscovered why I wanted those two things to be linked in the first place. Of course my silly the-king-takes-a-ring-from-a-player rule (which may go down as one of the worst things I did to my game), destroyed the effect. So here's the reasoning:
If one King, say the red king, starts to get powerful, players will start to take more red rings. That effectively limits the amount that the red King can expand and makes that other kings more attractive comparatively. My thinking is that that will tend to even out the power of the kings and make it less possible for one player to control the whole game.
I did, however, start thinking about the number of rings. If you think about it a bit, the fewer rings you have, the greater the effect described above. And after a little math, I decided I want to add two more rings per king. That's enough to (almost) cover the board and allow all 20 possible nobles to max out their rings. Of course, some kings will die reducing the number of rings, but on the other hand, not all 20 nobles will be used and not all that are used will max out their rings.
I've also decided to make the conditions on the King cards easier. I don't want them to be just as good as taking a glory favor, but they should be within the realm of being possible. Here's what I'm thinking for them:
First, I want to thank everyone who helped me play test Of Power & Glory this weekend. You are all a great help.
So after having a little time to reflect on some of the feedback I've made a few decisions on the game and I wanted to run them by people to see what they think. I really liked the rule change we played with the second time around... the one where territory cards that don't result in an actual battle just get removed. So I want to make that change. It also more elegantly solves the problem that the silly the-king-takes-a-ring-from-a-player rule was trying to address, so I want to remove that rule. Rodger indirectly suggested something to me that makes me want another rule change: He kept trying to change turn order as an action instead of favor. I think that's actually a good idea. So I want to make that change. That leaves 4 favors and all of them are about the king. Floyd had mentioned that the turn order favor wasn't really about the King and until he said that, I didn't really consider it thematically... but you were absolutely right! So it shouldn't be a favor, it should be an action.
Floyd as recommended using cubes for the map and rings for the titles. I'm willing to give that a shot, but I'm not compelled right now to make that change. Yesterday, while reflecting on the playtesting, I rediscovered why I wanted those two things to be linked in the first place. Of course my silly the-king-takes-a-ring-from-a-player rule (which may go down as one of the worst things I did to my game), destroyed the effect. So here's the reasoning:
If one King, say the red king, starts to get powerful, players will start to take more red rings. That effectively limits the amount that the red King can expand and makes that other kings more attractive comparatively. My thinking is that that will tend to even out the power of the kings and make it less possible for one player to control the whole game.
I did, however, start thinking about the number of rings. If you think about it a bit, the fewer rings you have, the greater the effect described above. And after a little math, I decided I want to add two more rings per king. That's enough to (almost) cover the board and allow all 20 possible nobles to max out their rings. Of course, some kings will die reducing the number of rings, but on the other hand, not all 20 nobles will be used and not all that are used will max out their rings.
I've also decided to make the conditions on the King cards easier. I don't want them to be just as good as taking a glory favor, but they should be within the realm of being possible. Here's what I'm thinking for them:
- Have at least 1 territory
- Have at least 3 territories
- Have at least 5 territories
- Have move power than at least 1 other king (including defeated kings)
- Have move power than at least 2 other kings (including defeated kings)
- Have move power than at least 3 other kings (including defeated kings)
Friday, August 10, 2012
(Very) Quick Game Idea
I don't have long to post today, so I'll just give a brief description of a half baked.... make that a quarter baked game idea I had. I actually thought about t while watching some horrible reality show called moonshiners.. about moonshiners. So I can't currently think of the game with other theme than that (even though I'm not super thrilled with that theme).
Ok, so it's a card game for three or four players. One player is the moonshiner, one player is the bootlegger (they work together). The other one or two players is/are cops. The cops are trying to bust the other two players. The bootlegger has to come and pick up a delivery, but the moonshiner needs to make sure it really is the bootlegger and not a random car or worse yet, the cops in a sting operation.
The cards have various cars on them. The bootlegger draws some number of them... lets say 6. He then displays them face up on the table however he wants. Something about how he displays the cards is supposed to indicate to the moonshiner which car is the correct one. Maybe one is upside down (that's an example, but far to simple to be realistic). The moonshiner and bootlegger can discuss the signal before game play begins, but not during. Of course, the cops can see everything the other players are doing to. The bootlegger then lays down six of his special cards next to the six cars... one of those cards is an arrow saying... this car!!! The cops do the same thing. Then the moonshiner picks a car to put the moonshine in. If he picks the cops car, the cops "win" if he picks the bootleggers car the criminals "win". Cops win if it's the same car... something (or perhaps nothing) happens if he picks a car that no one chose.
That's about it... there's a lot to work out, but it's an interesting mechanic.... information passing. I'm not familiar with any other game that does that... at least not as a primary mechanic.
Ok, so it's a card game for three or four players. One player is the moonshiner, one player is the bootlegger (they work together). The other one or two players is/are cops. The cops are trying to bust the other two players. The bootlegger has to come and pick up a delivery, but the moonshiner needs to make sure it really is the bootlegger and not a random car or worse yet, the cops in a sting operation.
The cards have various cars on them. The bootlegger draws some number of them... lets say 6. He then displays them face up on the table however he wants. Something about how he displays the cards is supposed to indicate to the moonshiner which car is the correct one. Maybe one is upside down (that's an example, but far to simple to be realistic). The moonshiner and bootlegger can discuss the signal before game play begins, but not during. Of course, the cops can see everything the other players are doing to. The bootlegger then lays down six of his special cards next to the six cars... one of those cards is an arrow saying... this car!!! The cops do the same thing. Then the moonshiner picks a car to put the moonshine in. If he picks the cops car, the cops "win" if he picks the bootleggers car the criminals "win". Cops win if it's the same car... something (or perhaps nothing) happens if he picks a car that no one chose.
That's about it... there's a lot to work out, but it's an interesting mechanic.... information passing. I'm not familiar with any other game that does that... at least not as a primary mechanic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)