March 8 / Thursday night game testing session at the Looney Labs
Dave and I arrived around 9:30 pm and found testing underway. So instead of spectating Jake's "excruciating" tile collection / shopping / mad science / connection game, we played with Dave's most recent shark-hunting attempts. While certainly out of place with the product, I did enjoy running around with the 9 inch squeaking bath toy shark, and for the sanity of others soon had it wrestled away from me.
There is something very strange feeling when you are waiting in Andy's house. All the cameras and security monitors peaking out of the corners, or displaying the goings on of another room just seem so out of place with the Looney's life style. Odd too, are the monitors not displaying feeds, but instead the hunched form of Okami, breathing up and down in her cell shaded goodness. Perhaps there is a story there for Andy to one day tell us.
Soon enough Jake's "excruciating" game ended and John Cooper , now free from Jake's clutches, reviewed and cleared final art for his upcoming game: Inquisition . We're still in the 'figuring it out' stages of Robot Martini, and unfortunately John had made several reasonable suggestions just a little too late in the design process to be implemented. So I was happy that he was ultimately pleased with how the artwork had turned out. If people are interested (comments?) I will post some of it early next week.
Another interesting aspect of my ongoing attendance of the Thursday night design & testing sessions at Looney Labs is that we have yet to test an actual Looney Labs product. So far, Jake Davenport's company products and the indipendant designers who feed me and/or other companies not present have been the main stay. As Thursday night has been going on long before I hit the scene, I'm sure there is a reason for this. Just another story for Andy to tell.
Because it's two weeks away from printing, Kory Heath's Suspects was the first up on our testing block. We had Kristin, Jake, John , Sean, Dave and I in attendance, all of which are seasoned werewolf players and, by that should be excellent manipulators of truth and readers of subtle body language and lies. Based on last weeks testing, i suppose it should come as no surprise that none of us really caught our marks :P
To be fair, the revisions from last week worked pretty well. I really did have more involvement with the game's psychology now that I couldn't just lie and be unpunished for my falsely accused crime. It was definitely a plus to have incentive to find who was framing you, and lead to some neat double bluff pay offs, but there is still not enough information revealed to play the game accurately.
There were some great moments still. Kristin got caught in a fumble, where she said 'I wasn't caught, i mean guilty' for burning her house down and my intentional murder motif was a little too convincing, and Dave took the opportunity to divert blame for it onto me. At the same time, my admission that my crime had come up 'long ago' confused Dave enough to change his arson suspicion from Kristin to me, and thus loose a point.
There were two open suggestions that may not get looked at for the next round. First Sean suggested that all crime cards start open for debate at all times. He felt this would speed up the game a little and give people more to slip up on. There were some group concerns about chaos and a lack of focus, but Jake's amended suggestion of just 'pulling a card out of the center and nominating a person as the target of its vote' seemed like a reasonable solution. Second was my thought of swapping out a crime for an Innocent card. I know this would loose the 'everyone is guilty of something' play, but I think innocence would add some fun / diversity to the psychology. I'd be interested to hear Kory's take on it either way.
I had a new design concern emerge late in the game that the cards are not actually used enough to not feel superfluous. It's hard to lock down as a credible concern, as games like werewolf really only use their cards to inform the player what group he is in, and reveal that to the collective when he is eliminated, but it was something I noticed. Ironically, even before we test the next fix (which may resolve both this and the information issues) the game already uses its components much more than werewolf anyway. So perhaps my concern is over nothing -- I'll have to test it on Guys with Guitars for a more accurate analysis.
Suspects was followed by an interesting programming game co-authored by Jake and Kory . This was a stage one prototype, but even so the balance of resource gathering, item creation, and sales components were interesting enough. The combat was rather blase, but it wasn't a significant part of the game's decision making process anyway (well, unless you wanted to king make I suppose) and I found myself programming my character for combat only as a countermeasure to other player's potential attacks. This made me feel more like I was choosing to 'hide' when unwanted encounters were most likely. So when Jake mentioned his thoughts on adding anti-player NPC characters to the board I felt with only minor tweakage, the mechanic still fit. I'd be interested to see how the game plays if no one may occupy the same game tile too (if two players enter, they both bounce out / if a player does not move and a player enters his square, the entering player is bounced out). I think this may open up some more points of negotiation in the game, which would make it a little more social.
My copy of Acid Cowboy and Jake's Political game were both present, but not tested this time. No poker was played either (at least not by Jake, Dave, or I ). So the score still stands:
Dave: +$4.09
Me: -$3.10
Additional links:
John Cooper http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/games/index.html
Kory Heath http://www.koryheath.com/
Dave Chalker http://critical-hits.com/
Dave and I arrived around 9:30 pm and found testing underway. So instead of spectating Jake's "excruciating" tile collection / shopping / mad science / connection game, we played with Dave's most recent shark-hunting attempts. While certainly out of place with the product, I did enjoy running around with the 9 inch squeaking bath toy shark, and for the sanity of others soon had it wrestled away from me.
There is something very strange feeling when you are waiting in Andy's house. All the cameras and security monitors peaking out of the corners, or displaying the goings on of another room just seem so out of place with the Looney's life style. Odd too, are the monitors not displaying feeds, but instead the hunched form of Okami, breathing up and down in her cell shaded goodness. Perhaps there is a story there for Andy to one day tell us.
Soon enough Jake's "excruciating" game ended and John Cooper , now free from Jake's clutches, reviewed and cleared final art for his upcoming game: Inquisition . We're still in the 'figuring it out' stages of Robot Martini, and unfortunately John had made several reasonable suggestions just a little too late in the design process to be implemented. So I was happy that he was ultimately pleased with how the artwork had turned out. If people are interested (comments?) I will post some of it early next week.
Another interesting aspect of my ongoing attendance of the Thursday night design & testing sessions at Looney Labs is that we have yet to test an actual Looney Labs product. So far, Jake Davenport's company products and the indipendant designers who feed me and/or other companies not present have been the main stay. As Thursday night has been going on long before I hit the scene, I'm sure there is a reason for this. Just another story for Andy to tell.
Because it's two weeks away from printing, Kory Heath's Suspects was the first up on our testing block. We had Kristin, Jake, John , Sean, Dave and I in attendance, all of which are seasoned werewolf players and, by that should be excellent manipulators of truth and readers of subtle body language and lies. Based on last weeks testing, i suppose it should come as no surprise that none of us really caught our marks :P
To be fair, the revisions from last week worked pretty well. I really did have more involvement with the game's psychology now that I couldn't just lie and be unpunished for my falsely accused crime. It was definitely a plus to have incentive to find who was framing you, and lead to some neat double bluff pay offs, but there is still not enough information revealed to play the game accurately.
There were some great moments still. Kristin got caught in a fumble, where she said 'I wasn't caught, i mean guilty' for burning her house down and my intentional murder motif was a little too convincing, and Dave took the opportunity to divert blame for it onto me. At the same time, my admission that my crime had come up 'long ago' confused Dave enough to change his arson suspicion from Kristin to me, and thus loose a point.
There were two open suggestions that may not get looked at for the next round. First Sean suggested that all crime cards start open for debate at all times. He felt this would speed up the game a little and give people more to slip up on. There were some group concerns about chaos and a lack of focus, but Jake's amended suggestion of just 'pulling a card out of the center and nominating a person as the target of its vote' seemed like a reasonable solution. Second was my thought of swapping out a crime for an Innocent card. I know this would loose the 'everyone is guilty of something' play, but I think innocence would add some fun / diversity to the psychology. I'd be interested to hear Kory's take on it either way.
I had a new design concern emerge late in the game that the cards are not actually used enough to not feel superfluous. It's hard to lock down as a credible concern, as games like werewolf really only use their cards to inform the player what group he is in, and reveal that to the collective when he is eliminated, but it was something I noticed. Ironically, even before we test the next fix (which may resolve both this and the information issues) the game already uses its components much more than werewolf anyway. So perhaps my concern is over nothing -- I'll have to test it on Guys with Guitars for a more accurate analysis.
Suspects was followed by an interesting programming game co-authored by Jake and Kory . This was a stage one prototype, but even so the balance of resource gathering, item creation, and sales components were interesting enough. The combat was rather blase, but it wasn't a significant part of the game's decision making process anyway (well, unless you wanted to king make I suppose) and I found myself programming my character for combat only as a countermeasure to other player's potential attacks. This made me feel more like I was choosing to 'hide' when unwanted encounters were most likely. So when Jake mentioned his thoughts on adding anti-player NPC characters to the board I felt with only minor tweakage, the mechanic still fit. I'd be interested to see how the game plays if no one may occupy the same game tile too (if two players enter, they both bounce out / if a player does not move and a player enters his square, the entering player is bounced out). I think this may open up some more points of negotiation in the game, which would make it a little more social.
My copy of Acid Cowboy and Jake's Political game were both present, but not tested this time. No poker was played either (at least not by Jake, Dave, or I ). So the score still stands:
Dave: +$4.09
Me: -$3.10
Additional links:
John Cooper http://www.wunderland.com/WTS/Ginohn/games/index.html
Kory Heath http://www.koryheath.com/
Dave Chalker http://critical-hits.com/
March 15 / Thursday night testing session at Looney Labs
Pre-lab Thursday was intense. From seven to one thirty, we ran all over the city liberating items for use at our booth at Origins. By the end, we had acquired a stereo with three disc changer and surround speakers, a long 70's style coffee table, outdoor chairs, and six double walled mannequin shipping boxes. All of this material was free and some of it will be given away at the end of Origins.
The boxes will be stripped, painted, and laminated for use as moquettes. Think of a moquette as a two dimensional mannequin, who's purpose is to be a branded item instead of showcasing clothing draped over top of it. You usually see them in movie theaters presenting a movie's star in a card board diorama. Many thanks to Lania D`Agostino, the owner of the Mannequin Service Company located on Light Street, south of Downtown for providing this material.
Dave and I made it to the Lab around nine thirty, mostly due to the intense rain, and intense lack of driving skill Marylanders show during off-weather conditions. Lunatic Harness and Two Lone Swordsman were playing over the in house system, which made the lab feel much more schwank-fantastic and loungey than it normally does.
I played Jake and Kory's untitled programming adventure game with Dave, Jake, and Josh Looney (like all Joshes, i have no idea what his real name is) first this week. Jake has created a clearer, better organized board, and as proposed last week, four NPCs have been added and the attack program card has been replaced with a hide program card. The victory conditions have changed from 3 victory points scored to 3 items sold, which gets rid of the fussy 1 vs 2 point item cards. Also, programs now do an action AND gather a resource, which makes them feel stronger over all.
The new board is better but still a little too busy. It's hard to keep track of the 8 resource colors and where they are on the board. It is also hard to keep track of the 2 and 3 color combinations of the 8 resources and what item card those combinations create, and where on the board. Finally, it is harder to keep track of where each item card can be sold on the board, which is the victory condition of the game. I feel more strongly about this with Jake's new board, because it is clearer and while graphic design could help this tremendously, it's a lot of data to keep track of and time as correctly as the other players around the board. I feel like as pristine and concise as the game is, there may be 'too much stuff' here.
The NPCs are a good addition. When a card listing the NPC by name is drawn, that NPC either interacts with players sharing its space, or moves along a set path if no players share the space. Each NPC has a movement pattern (circle the outer spaces, circle the inner spaces, move everywhere, etc.) and either Attacks a player, or Gifts a player. Attackers take a resource of the player's choice and the Gifter grants an item card of the players choice. This works very well with the Hide program card, which adds some enjoyable strategy for timing and placing yourself on the map.
I think there could be a little more variation between the NPCs, which may add some flavor to the board as well. Say the outer ring is 'safer' and the Attacker there only takes one resource, but the center Attacker takes an item (or two resources?). This would make the expensive but powerful items that much more risky to go for, and the cheaper items harder to quickly sell.
Initially we played three cards from a face-down deck for every round players resolved their programs, but very quickly the group reduced it to one card per round. Even still, with 8 spaces, 4 players, and 4 NPCs, I think the board was too crowded and a player (Dave) can get slammed too often. Perhaps one of the Attackers could go and it would run smoother. Alternatively, Jake suggested that all three NPC cards be revealed at the beginning of a turn, which would give players more to negotiate about. Perhaps a combination of these suggestions would iron it out, or perhaps Kory has a suggestion via email.
The new victory conditions worked well. It's interesting, you'd think having the item cards grant different amounts of victory points would give you more interesting decisions to make, but the new system which keeps the items clean (sell any three to win) just did it for me. The choices are interesting now because you can get cheaper items faster and be close to victory, but the advantages they offer are cheeper. You also have to sell them in the central area of the map, which was the hot bed of NPC action in our game, and thus lent them an equal level of risk to the more expensive alternatives. It was very satisfying to have the cheap items if you found yourself strapped for resource options, or were on your way to a resource offered in the center and were able to sell a cheaper item along the way.
My largest concern with the game is the player to player interaction. Rather, the lack there of. Right now, the only point of contact between players is negotiation over which programs will be traded, but this has already lead to king maker situations. For example, Jake had sold two of his items, and already owned a third, but at the group's whim, was not given any sell-program cards for several turns. Likewise, I received no create-program cards for a quarter of the game, giving me no shot at all in victory. One suggestion was to force random distribution of the programs each turn. Another suggestion was to have a complete deck of programs for each player, where they do not trade at the end of the turn but are simply shuffled back into that player's deck and possibly redrawn for the next turn. As an addendum to this, Jake suggested that each deck could have different distributions of the programs, lending a more unique style of play to each player. I like this idea, because at the very least it adds 3 more plays of the game (three variants for each player).
Next time we play, I'd like to try a 'bounce' movement system (diplomacy / players can not co-occupy spaces). Coupled with some of the ideas above, I think it would encourage players to negotiate over who can go where and when (to get resources, avoid NPCs, etc.). I have more ideas for this game, but most are theme / absurd so i will post them separately later.
TV Tom, John, Jake, Josh, Dave and I gave Suspects another play this week and I think the psychology is totally fine. We tried the Jail + reveal one card when accused by the group + central deck / single crime + 5 min time limit per crime + if no one is accused, no one gets the crime. By the end I felt the game was all punches and knives. There was just not enough important information here and again the group failed to accuse anyone correctly. Thankfully, there were some reasonable fix suggestions:
- When accused, the accused player gives one card to each player. Each crime is 'nominated' by a player (goes round the table) and that player can not receive a card from the accused player. this means not all info is leaked, and thus colusion between players does not flush each player's chances at winning. it's also simple to follow. This adds the need for pad & pencil ala Clue, but that isn't too bad in this case. It's a detective game, so writing down clues on an included sheet shouldn't be that big a deal.
- If a player reveals the crime they were accused of, they may return the accusation to the center of the table for a revote. This may not fix anything, but is interesting all the same. Addendum by TV Tom. perhaps the player may choose which crime they reveal to the table?
- Reveal a random crime to each player, one at a time. this again needs pen and paper, but ensures everyone sees a card, but may see the same card across multiple players.
Depending on how Suspects does next Thursday, we may be push the game back a week. I think the game has a lot of potential, and i think people will like it a whole lot more when we get it there, regardless of the delay.
Jake's EXCRUCIATING game came next but since it is 4 players only, I didn't play. From the groaning, the addition of random victory point conditions didn't do it for the table.
We brought the night to a close with a few hours of Hold`em. Andy and John spent most of the game playing some sort of two player RPG on Johns PDA, which involved Andy drinking the plaid potion, being attacked by unicorns that aren't there, and being chased by leeches. I'm not sure how many times i heard "he walks up to you and swings at you, but misses" during the game...
Dave busted out early but bought back in and busted me out. Curse be his flush on the river and my two pair on the flop! When the game finally let out after 2:00, Dave had cut his losses to 3 cents, and I'd crawled back to 2.34 of an original 3.05. So...
Dave + $4.06
Me: - $3.81
Relatively short write up of Thursday night this week. It was all about Suspects for Dave and I (well, and poker) and since we've gone into detail about the game for the past three weeks, I'm not going to rehash everything.
The first time we played with Jail Rules (correctly accused must mark all other crimes correctly or be eliminated AND incorrectly accused must mark the person framing them or be eliminated), Witness Rules (reveal one random card to the person on your left at the start of the game), and Alibi Rules (when accused, reveal on crime to the group). This version was certainly better than [url=http://www.robotmartini.com/forum/viewpost/183]
last week's[/url], but the result is the same: not enough information, frustration over group dynamics, and so on. This is the second time a player has won simply because the group decided to not accuse that player of a crime, and double up on another player. Also, the individual witness card was useless for several players because they were shown the crime that they committed (thus they gain no info, as they already know who has committed that crime).
The second play through added a second card to the Witness reveal, which ensured that at least one card would be useful information. The Jail rules were modified from eliminating players to just giving the player -2 points unless they could finger the truly guilty party. Lastly, every player must be accused of something, which I have advocated for a while now, since the game is built around the idea that every player has committed a crime. It is impossible to describe how much better the game was. It is certainly not finished, as the group gave too much information and we found it too easy to guess by the end, but it added a lot of fun and direction to the game, and is on its way to be fully satisfying.
The most interesting result of all of this was the emergent 'accomplice' effect, where you wanted to find another player in the group to take your crime, in exchange for taking their crime, without the rest of the table figuring it out. Jake suggests that the next version we play go back to 1 witness card, but that each player gets to choose what they show their witness. Even if you are shown your own crime, it gives you a point of contact with the other player to quietly negotiate over. Kory will be in next Thursday, and I'd like to see him in action with this one.
The night ended with poker, which I was only invested in for a hand or two. Just wasn't feeling the cat, and after several rounds of crap hands, went in too aggressively with a pretty blase hand. Dave did much better, at least doubling up, but I didn't catch his final score. So...
Dave +$4.06 (5.61?)
me -$5.36
The first time we played with Jail Rules (correctly accused must mark all other crimes correctly or be eliminated AND incorrectly accused must mark the person framing them or be eliminated), Witness Rules (reveal one random card to the person on your left at the start of the game), and Alibi Rules (when accused, reveal on crime to the group). This version was certainly better than [url=http://www.robotmartini.com/forum/viewpost/183]
last week's[/url], but the result is the same: not enough information, frustration over group dynamics, and so on. This is the second time a player has won simply because the group decided to not accuse that player of a crime, and double up on another player. Also, the individual witness card was useless for several players because they were shown the crime that they committed (thus they gain no info, as they already know who has committed that crime).
The second play through added a second card to the Witness reveal, which ensured that at least one card would be useful information. The Jail rules were modified from eliminating players to just giving the player -2 points unless they could finger the truly guilty party. Lastly, every player must be accused of something, which I have advocated for a while now, since the game is built around the idea that every player has committed a crime. It is impossible to describe how much better the game was. It is certainly not finished, as the group gave too much information and we found it too easy to guess by the end, but it added a lot of fun and direction to the game, and is on its way to be fully satisfying.
The most interesting result of all of this was the emergent 'accomplice' effect, where you wanted to find another player in the group to take your crime, in exchange for taking their crime, without the rest of the table figuring it out. Jake suggests that the next version we play go back to 1 witness card, but that each player gets to choose what they show their witness. Even if you are shown your own crime, it gives you a point of contact with the other player to quietly negotiate over. Kory will be in next Thursday, and I'd like to see him in action with this one.
The night ended with poker, which I was only invested in for a hand or two. Just wasn't feeling the cat, and after several rounds of crap hands, went in too aggressively with a pretty blase hand. Dave did much better, at least doubling up, but I didn't catch his final score. So...
Dave +$4.06 (5.61?)
me -$5.36
Kory Heath stopped by the Looney Labs Thursday night design session before heading out to The Gathering this week. Having work-shopped his upcoming game Criminals (formerly Suspects) heavily with Dave, Kristin, and John Cooper the night before, and being blessed with Kory magic the game went much smoother this time through. In fact, I wouldn't say smoother: I would say the game played near-perfectly from the very first of three passes we made during the night.
Dave (left), Jake (center), and Kory (right) debating Criminals following a successful play at Looney Labs. Oddly I won that game...
Because everyone has seen the development of this game for way too long, I will keep the update short and sweet. The three plays of the game used the following new rules:
1. Nothing is revealed at the beginning of the game
2. One crime voted and issued at a time
3. Reduced majority (3 in 6) required for a successful vote
4. When the group accuses a player correctly, the whole group wins
5. When the group accuses a player incorrectly, the accused player reveals his alibi and keeps the crime for which he has been accused
6. When the group accuses a player incorrectly and that player already has a crime in front of him, the accused player must reveal an additional alibi, but may make his own accusation using the crime he was previously accused of. If his accusation is correct, he wins. If his accusation is incorrect, review #5 or 6.
Starting with the pros, the game moves faster, the players motivations are clearer, the scoring is cleaner and more a part of the game, and the group psychology is on the money.
The faster pace comes from the smaller number of votes needed to make an accusation (which is good because before, two fence votes could lock a 6 player game into a standstill, as the accused does not a reason to vote on himself) and because it is quite possible for the group to correctly accuse a player on the first crime. While some may find the game short (somewhere between Sniper and Werewolf in length), it is no longer the frustrating mess that is was before, and with the simple addition of (optional) points-per-round rules, it can go on all night. Ultimately, if you really messed up and gave yourself away, or just felt like you had a raw deal, unlike werewolf where you would have to wait for everyone else to finish play, you can just hop right into another round and take another crack at the game.
The motivations are clearer because now you always want to find someone who has committed a crime even if only to help score for the group. Also, while you want to be accused of two crimes to take a shot at a solo-victory, this is a dangerous way to play as you will reveal multiple alibis, which makes it easier for the group to pin your crime to you. This actually gives those of us who are good werewolves, but lousy villagers a chance to play this game (as we can misdirect attention, while letting the game reveal logical deductive info to us over time), which previous versions did not.
The scoring is a no brainer: gone are cards all over the table, cards to each player and juggling things every which way. You accuse, you win. You are accused, you don't.
The psychology is on the money because even if you aren't the best, most seasoned reader of people, you can take a few wins as part of the group. Likewise, if you like the risk, you can strike out on your own. It's just very satisfying in this way.
The cons list is thankfully pretty short. You now start without any data. So it takes a bit longer to catch a hint of what the other players are doing. This can make the first accusation a little bit in the dark, though subsequent accusations get more and more on the money.
There is also a timing issue, where two groups of three (or three groups of two) can accuse different players simultaneously. Our house rule on this was just to make a recall, or have a quick re-discussion if there was any question of who was accused 'in majority' first.
Since there is no intrinsic timer built into this version of the game, it is possible for players to choose a lock down, but since this is 'choosing to not play the game' Dave, Jake, Kory and I didn't see it as a real problem (see previous wars where John and Kory decided 'not playing a game was the correct tactical move, if not the most interesting one). Even still, adding a clock, and a 'you get it by default this turn' rule to the game is a pretty simple way to go.
lastly, on the artwork down-side, David and I have to redraft some of the cards, and craft a new logo (the Usual Suspects being unusable for legal reasons). This isn't an excruciating thing, it just pushes back the time table a little more (already delayed since Dave and Kory are at the Gathering all week).
All in all, Criminals has become an excellent game -- perhaps even as good as Inquisition, John Cooper's competing product (see previous John vs Kory competitions) and I look forward to hearing feedback from the Gathering on how it's ongoing testing has been. Baring anything crazy, we will likely be getting it on shelf this coming Friday the 13th.
We followed Criminals with a round of Jake Davenport's Corruption and I have to say, I really want to like this game, but… don't :P . Jake has tooled it here and there, even foolishly listening to suggestions John and I made over the last few weeks, but the game cards just feel too dense, but without a whole lot of relevance to the density. In our play through, Dave and Jake combined their two powers (a double vote and the ability to block one player from casting any votes) to push Kory, Kristin, and I completely aside. Because the basic function of the game gives a player a victory condition / score card for voting against a bill, and because Kory, Kristin, and I could not vote through any bill, our only option was to vote against everything ever turn, lest we give Dave and Jake a free point, for nothing otherwise gained each turn.
This was an interesting turn of events, as in previous versions of the game, the game has suffered from tyranny of the weak (players behind block out players ahead with blanket votes). In this game, there was nothing but tyranny of the powerful (or as I noted to Jake, just 'regular' tyranny). In the end, the present game just doesn't feel focused. The end-game score card trading doesn't feel like it is part of the main game, the cards do a lot but don't feel important (except for one or two of them), and the driving motivation of the game is just to hop onto a deal as quickly as possible, to get at least more than 1 score card a turn. It isn't "I'm the Boss" bad, but nothing is really compelling either: the players with the most cards, seem to make the most points, and under certain conditions, nothing can be done to change that outcome. I'd really like to see jake crack the property trading aspect of Monopoly that inspired him in the first place, and then move outward from there to make the rest of the game.
The night ended with some poker fun. I find I do well against Andy Looney, as we have consistently have the same hand, but mine has a better kicker. Andy also usually has enough money to back off and not take me to the mat if i go all in. This is important, because it is how i got any profit at all during the game (busted out early after doubling up, then slightly up after better on my second buy in). I still have a love and hate relationship with the game, as I don't know what to do about stealth pocket pairs, or going an entire night with no more than two playable hands (thanks to Andy for giving in to some bluffs), but I will keep at it. It is fun to just be at the table, and for a dollar fifty five a pop, it's cheap fun (and ice houses kick poker chips out of the water!).
This week will be relatively quiet, as Jake, John, Dave, and Kory are all at the Gathering of Friends and I will be in Boston over the weekend. So I am not sure who (if anyone) will be at this coming Thursday night to test out games, but if I make it, I'll report it!
Dave: +$5.09
me: -$6.22
Dave (left), Jake (center), and Kory (right) debating Criminals following a successful play at Looney Labs. Oddly I won that game...
Because everyone has seen the development of this game for way too long, I will keep the update short and sweet. The three plays of the game used the following new rules:
1. Nothing is revealed at the beginning of the game
2. One crime voted and issued at a time
3. Reduced majority (3 in 6) required for a successful vote
4. When the group accuses a player correctly, the whole group wins
5. When the group accuses a player incorrectly, the accused player reveals his alibi and keeps the crime for which he has been accused
6. When the group accuses a player incorrectly and that player already has a crime in front of him, the accused player must reveal an additional alibi, but may make his own accusation using the crime he was previously accused of. If his accusation is correct, he wins. If his accusation is incorrect, review #5 or 6.
Starting with the pros, the game moves faster, the players motivations are clearer, the scoring is cleaner and more a part of the game, and the group psychology is on the money.
The faster pace comes from the smaller number of votes needed to make an accusation (which is good because before, two fence votes could lock a 6 player game into a standstill, as the accused does not a reason to vote on himself) and because it is quite possible for the group to correctly accuse a player on the first crime. While some may find the game short (somewhere between Sniper and Werewolf in length), it is no longer the frustrating mess that is was before, and with the simple addition of (optional) points-per-round rules, it can go on all night. Ultimately, if you really messed up and gave yourself away, or just felt like you had a raw deal, unlike werewolf where you would have to wait for everyone else to finish play, you can just hop right into another round and take another crack at the game.
The motivations are clearer because now you always want to find someone who has committed a crime even if only to help score for the group. Also, while you want to be accused of two crimes to take a shot at a solo-victory, this is a dangerous way to play as you will reveal multiple alibis, which makes it easier for the group to pin your crime to you. This actually gives those of us who are good werewolves, but lousy villagers a chance to play this game (as we can misdirect attention, while letting the game reveal logical deductive info to us over time), which previous versions did not.
The scoring is a no brainer: gone are cards all over the table, cards to each player and juggling things every which way. You accuse, you win. You are accused, you don't.
The psychology is on the money because even if you aren't the best, most seasoned reader of people, you can take a few wins as part of the group. Likewise, if you like the risk, you can strike out on your own. It's just very satisfying in this way.
The cons list is thankfully pretty short. You now start without any data. So it takes a bit longer to catch a hint of what the other players are doing. This can make the first accusation a little bit in the dark, though subsequent accusations get more and more on the money.
There is also a timing issue, where two groups of three (or three groups of two) can accuse different players simultaneously. Our house rule on this was just to make a recall, or have a quick re-discussion if there was any question of who was accused 'in majority' first.
Since there is no intrinsic timer built into this version of the game, it is possible for players to choose a lock down, but since this is 'choosing to not play the game' Dave, Jake, Kory and I didn't see it as a real problem (see previous wars where John and Kory decided 'not playing a game was the correct tactical move, if not the most interesting one). Even still, adding a clock, and a 'you get it by default this turn' rule to the game is a pretty simple way to go.
lastly, on the artwork down-side, David and I have to redraft some of the cards, and craft a new logo (the Usual Suspects being unusable for legal reasons). This isn't an excruciating thing, it just pushes back the time table a little more (already delayed since Dave and Kory are at the Gathering all week).
All in all, Criminals has become an excellent game -- perhaps even as good as Inquisition, John Cooper's competing product (see previous John vs Kory competitions) and I look forward to hearing feedback from the Gathering on how it's ongoing testing has been. Baring anything crazy, we will likely be getting it on shelf this coming Friday the 13th.
We followed Criminals with a round of Jake Davenport's Corruption and I have to say, I really want to like this game, but… don't :P . Jake has tooled it here and there, even foolishly listening to suggestions John and I made over the last few weeks, but the game cards just feel too dense, but without a whole lot of relevance to the density. In our play through, Dave and Jake combined their two powers (a double vote and the ability to block one player from casting any votes) to push Kory, Kristin, and I completely aside. Because the basic function of the game gives a player a victory condition / score card for voting against a bill, and because Kory, Kristin, and I could not vote through any bill, our only option was to vote against everything ever turn, lest we give Dave and Jake a free point, for nothing otherwise gained each turn.
This was an interesting turn of events, as in previous versions of the game, the game has suffered from tyranny of the weak (players behind block out players ahead with blanket votes). In this game, there was nothing but tyranny of the powerful (or as I noted to Jake, just 'regular' tyranny). In the end, the present game just doesn't feel focused. The end-game score card trading doesn't feel like it is part of the main game, the cards do a lot but don't feel important (except for one or two of them), and the driving motivation of the game is just to hop onto a deal as quickly as possible, to get at least more than 1 score card a turn. It isn't "I'm the Boss" bad, but nothing is really compelling either: the players with the most cards, seem to make the most points, and under certain conditions, nothing can be done to change that outcome. I'd really like to see jake crack the property trading aspect of Monopoly that inspired him in the first place, and then move outward from there to make the rest of the game.
The night ended with some poker fun. I find I do well against Andy Looney, as we have consistently have the same hand, but mine has a better kicker. Andy also usually has enough money to back off and not take me to the mat if i go all in. This is important, because it is how i got any profit at all during the game (busted out early after doubling up, then slightly up after better on my second buy in). I still have a love and hate relationship with the game, as I don't know what to do about stealth pocket pairs, or going an entire night with no more than two playable hands (thanks to Andy for giving in to some bluffs), but I will keep at it. It is fun to just be at the table, and for a dollar fifty five a pop, it's cheap fun (and ice houses kick poker chips out of the water!).
This week will be relatively quiet, as Jake, John, Dave, and Kory are all at the Gathering of Friends and I will be in Boston over the weekend. So I am not sure who (if anyone) will be at this coming Thursday night to test out games, but if I make it, I'll report it!
Dave: +$5.09
me: -$6.22
Thursday night was a little different this week. With Dave and Jake at the Gathering, and John here but unavailable for testing, I decided not to drive down to the Labs and instead throw a smaller session here. Fortunately, MechaShiva
and ReesesObsession were both on spring break and Sir Lovejoy hadn't started in on his nightly drinking. I wish Guys with Guitars had been available, but as they had spent several hours with JetSetters the night before, I can understand why they put in a rain check.
Sir Lovejoy seen here eating a Hawaiian candy, which is 75% salt, 25% sour.
The night consisted of two protogames, a play through of JetSetters, and ended with an old favorite Guillotine. Everyone was polite about it, but ultimately the protogames were complete bombs.
The first protogame was a ongoing push your luck mechanic I've been working on this week. There is a central deck, which contains 40 cards numbered 1 to 5 equally distributed between four suits. Cards are placed in the center of the table and there are always as many cards at the center as there are players in the game. Each player takes a turn collecting one of these cards and then either drawing two cards blind from the top of the deck or choosing to score the cards they already had. Only runs of a suit can be scored and if a player collects a straight at any time (regardless of suit), all of his cards are discarded. When a player scores his cards, he discards them and write down how long his run went. The longer the run (eight being the largest possible) the more points by escalation.
The game originally had two more levels, where the suit runs were needed to pick up Asset cards and the Asset cards needed to be collected in combinations to fulfill Goals (both public and personal/secret). The Assets required a specific suit AND a minimum sum of the values on that suit's run, which made it riskier for the player to go after some Assets over others, as their required a near-bust value. The Assets also gave an end condition, in that when all of them were revealed (always 4 on the table), the game ended immediately. The Goals gave incentive to compete over certain Assets, and set scoring conditions. Ultimately, the game started to feel like some bastard child of Alan Moon's Permission to Rail. So I abandoned it for the simpler version.
Sadly, this didn't go anywhere. The game just felt random and was not compelling. We played one round where once a run had been scored in a suit, the next score in that suit had to be larger or you were busted out, but there was no real end condition, and no one was really in the mood to give this any more attention. Thinking about it in hind sight, I think you need to be eliminated when you bust out, and possibly be eliminated when you score. The game is short enough for players to not get overly board waiting for their next shot, but again, it may just not be a very interesting mechanic.
Mecha, Reeses, and Lovejoy attempt to figure out what the heck this game is about
We took a short break to wash the game away with booze (Becks, Creme du Cacao and Van Gough brand Expresso Vodka) and then moved on to the second protogame. While this one went better (it is an older design that got more love and development a while back) it was still not very satisfying and for the life of me I couldn't figure out what my end-condition meant.
In Set up, each player selects a colored deck and put its number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 cards face up in a row in front of Him. Then he takes his 0, -1, -2, -3, and -4 cards and puts them face down on each of his opponent's cards. The opponent is the player to your left.
The turn starts with your opponent revealing (flip face up) one card they have played on your row. You then swap any two cards your opponent has played on your row. Then let your opponent locks one of the cards you just swapped (put it above your row). Locked cards can not be swapped. The game ends when each player has three locked cards above his row. You are the winner if your highest card combo value AND your lowest card combo value are higher than your opponent's.
As best I can figure from my own notes (not always written in english), you want the least penalty on your 5, and if you and an opponent have the same penalty on your 5s, then who ever has the least penalty on their 4s wins, and so on. So you don't want to reveal your 0 or -1, at least not until something better has been locked on the opponent's 5. Likewise, you don't want to reveal your -4 because the opponent will usually move it away from their 5. Long story short, it just isn't very interesting and nothing comes to mind on what to do with it. If nothing comes of it in the next few sessions, I'll give it some quick art and kick it into the dumpster section.
Mecha and I take a pass at JetSetters on the porch before the sun goes down
By the end of the game, Lovejoy was only a point behind me
We moved on to JetSetters and actually had fun. Coupled with the GwG play through the night before, I have to say I am very satisfied with this game. It is easy for almost anyone to pick up and play, yet there is a lot of honest thinking here. It is also nice that by the very nature of the game, where each player gets as many cards as every other player, the scores stay pretty close.
last but not least, Disney style executions never felt so good
It has been a very long time since I played this game and while certainly not a perfect game, I think everyone had a lot of fun with Guillotine. Sure, the cards in your had drive the game and are basically unbalanced, but for a relatively straight forward, well arted mindless point collection game, there isn't much more to ask for. ReesesObsession owned the first game and I took the second.
As the BoltBabes don't play, there was no poker tonight. Nor were there any mouse killings. 50 points if you can identify all the changes in the photos!
and ReesesObsession were both on spring break and Sir Lovejoy hadn't started in on his nightly drinking. I wish Guys with Guitars had been available, but as they had spent several hours with JetSetters the night before, I can understand why they put in a rain check.
Sir Lovejoy seen here eating a Hawaiian candy, which is 75% salt, 25% sour.
The night consisted of two protogames, a play through of JetSetters, and ended with an old favorite Guillotine. Everyone was polite about it, but ultimately the protogames were complete bombs.
The first protogame was a ongoing push your luck mechanic I've been working on this week. There is a central deck, which contains 40 cards numbered 1 to 5 equally distributed between four suits. Cards are placed in the center of the table and there are always as many cards at the center as there are players in the game. Each player takes a turn collecting one of these cards and then either drawing two cards blind from the top of the deck or choosing to score the cards they already had. Only runs of a suit can be scored and if a player collects a straight at any time (regardless of suit), all of his cards are discarded. When a player scores his cards, he discards them and write down how long his run went. The longer the run (eight being the largest possible) the more points by escalation.
The game originally had two more levels, where the suit runs were needed to pick up Asset cards and the Asset cards needed to be collected in combinations to fulfill Goals (both public and personal/secret). The Assets required a specific suit AND a minimum sum of the values on that suit's run, which made it riskier for the player to go after some Assets over others, as their required a near-bust value. The Assets also gave an end condition, in that when all of them were revealed (always 4 on the table), the game ended immediately. The Goals gave incentive to compete over certain Assets, and set scoring conditions. Ultimately, the game started to feel like some bastard child of Alan Moon's Permission to Rail. So I abandoned it for the simpler version.
Sadly, this didn't go anywhere. The game just felt random and was not compelling. We played one round where once a run had been scored in a suit, the next score in that suit had to be larger or you were busted out, but there was no real end condition, and no one was really in the mood to give this any more attention. Thinking about it in hind sight, I think you need to be eliminated when you bust out, and possibly be eliminated when you score. The game is short enough for players to not get overly board waiting for their next shot, but again, it may just not be a very interesting mechanic.
Mecha, Reeses, and Lovejoy attempt to figure out what the heck this game is about
We took a short break to wash the game away with booze (Becks, Creme du Cacao and Van Gough brand Expresso Vodka) and then moved on to the second protogame. While this one went better (it is an older design that got more love and development a while back) it was still not very satisfying and for the life of me I couldn't figure out what my end-condition meant.
In Set up, each player selects a colored deck and put its number 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 cards face up in a row in front of Him. Then he takes his 0, -1, -2, -3, and -4 cards and puts them face down on each of his opponent's cards. The opponent is the player to your left.
The turn starts with your opponent revealing (flip face up) one card they have played on your row. You then swap any two cards your opponent has played on your row. Then let your opponent locks one of the cards you just swapped (put it above your row). Locked cards can not be swapped. The game ends when each player has three locked cards above his row. You are the winner if your highest card combo value AND your lowest card combo value are higher than your opponent's.
As best I can figure from my own notes (not always written in english), you want the least penalty on your 5, and if you and an opponent have the same penalty on your 5s, then who ever has the least penalty on their 4s wins, and so on. So you don't want to reveal your 0 or -1, at least not until something better has been locked on the opponent's 5. Likewise, you don't want to reveal your -4 because the opponent will usually move it away from their 5. Long story short, it just isn't very interesting and nothing comes to mind on what to do with it. If nothing comes of it in the next few sessions, I'll give it some quick art and kick it into the dumpster section.
Mecha and I take a pass at JetSetters on the porch before the sun goes down
By the end of the game, Lovejoy was only a point behind me
We moved on to JetSetters and actually had fun. Coupled with the GwG play through the night before, I have to say I am very satisfied with this game. It is easy for almost anyone to pick up and play, yet there is a lot of honest thinking here. It is also nice that by the very nature of the game, where each player gets as many cards as every other player, the scores stay pretty close.
last but not least, Disney style executions never felt so good
It has been a very long time since I played this game and while certainly not a perfect game, I think everyone had a lot of fun with Guillotine. Sure, the cards in your had drive the game and are basically unbalanced, but for a relatively straight forward, well arted mindless point collection game, there isn't much more to ask for. ReesesObsession owned the first game and I took the second.
As the BoltBabes don't play, there was no poker tonight. Nor were there any mouse killings. 50 points if you can identify all the changes in the photos!
This week was a more chaotic than usual because there were two separate sessions going on at the same time (see MechaShiva's post). If last week had not been the Gathering, and if we were not already late getting Criminals printed, I would have chosen to stay and play Nate and Rob's copy of Dogs in the Vineyard.
From what I did see, the set up process (which involves a solo conflict for each player to resolve and be partially shaped by before joining up as a team) was pretty interesting and the conflict resolution (which involves raising and calling values with dice) looked like it got sufficiently far away from the "roll eight d6, look at table" to be enjoyable. I look forward to catching Nate and Rob the next time we can hook up for a min-e-vent.
As for the testing session, Dave and I arrived before most of the testers. So we had the opportunity to play I playtested a potential Looney Labs product. This isn't the first Looney prototype I have played, but it is the first I've played since I started coming to the Thursday Labs and I was looking forward to the experience.
After two plays and some brain storming, John and Kristin had shown up and we sat down to play the Ultra New, Single Malt, Extra Dry, Super Clean, Brand New, seventeenth edition of the game known as Criminals. Good lord, if I hadn't seen the updates in my email earlier this week, I would have thought we were already done with this game. What's new:
one more crime than the number of players
players are eliminated from the game if they are correctly accused
play continues until only two players remain (no single player victory)
The new rules are good (as they should be by this point). Having one more crime than the number of players in the game adds a real hook to the game play. Now when there are only three people in the game, you really can convince the group that your true crime is actually 'the one out'. The elimination is also fun, because while you can not win, you can still participate (accuse, but not vote) and there was as much importance (to me) in manipulating the people no longer in the game as those who were voting against me.
The game is solid at this point. Even though I feel I am more or a liar than a reader, I'm starting to get a good feel for what people are doing (motivations are clearer) and there is a good level of strategy involved in how you go about directing a group, and who you go after with each accusation. It's funny, we've played this game for so long now that I don't think there is much else to say but: PUBLISH!
John and I played my matching game next. You now have six bases ( three criminals, two workers, and one bunny ) and six cards ( two criminals, two workers, one bunny, and one bomb ). You put one card face down on each of your opponent's bases and reveal one each turn. Your opponent must swap two cards of the cards on his bases and then you must 'lock' one of those two cards to prevent it from being moved later in the game. The game continues until all players have revealed three cards, after which all cards are revealed, and the player with the most matches wins.
I played a second round with Dave (fresh from an ice house prototype session) and we agreed that there are some interesting decisions to make, but not enough to make it a publishable game. It's been simplified pretty much to it's core now and it does not seem to be usable as a component of a larger game. You can download a printable PDF of the game by clicking here . Please let me know what you think if you play it.
We finished up the night with a quick review of Brad Fuller's atomic sushi submission. It's a fun themed matching game (come on, selling drugs and flushing the evidence?), but doesn't quite have enough there yet. It's funny but Drug Bust has similar design challenges to the unsuccessful push your luck game i was working on earlier this week: how do you make a simple action like card drawing and match making (pairs, trips, quads, etc.) compelling? How do you get balance into it and defeat the "I didn't draw the right cards so I lost" problem? Obviously I don't have the answers to those questions either.
There was no poker, which strangely left me unsatisfied with the night. Always next week to loose a little more money...
From what I did see, the set up process (which involves a solo conflict for each player to resolve and be partially shaped by before joining up as a team) was pretty interesting and the conflict resolution (which involves raising and calling values with dice) looked like it got sufficiently far away from the "roll eight d6, look at table" to be enjoyable. I look forward to catching Nate and Rob the next time we can hook up for a min-e-vent.
As for the testing session, Dave and I arrived before most of the testers. So we had the opportunity to play I playtested a potential Looney Labs product. This isn't the first Looney prototype I have played, but it is the first I've played since I started coming to the Thursday Labs and I was looking forward to the experience.
After two plays and some brain storming, John and Kristin had shown up and we sat down to play the Ultra New, Single Malt, Extra Dry, Super Clean, Brand New, seventeenth edition of the game known as Criminals. Good lord, if I hadn't seen the updates in my email earlier this week, I would have thought we were already done with this game. What's new:
one more crime than the number of players
players are eliminated from the game if they are correctly accused
play continues until only two players remain (no single player victory)
The new rules are good (as they should be by this point). Having one more crime than the number of players in the game adds a real hook to the game play. Now when there are only three people in the game, you really can convince the group that your true crime is actually 'the one out'. The elimination is also fun, because while you can not win, you can still participate (accuse, but not vote) and there was as much importance (to me) in manipulating the people no longer in the game as those who were voting against me.
The game is solid at this point. Even though I feel I am more or a liar than a reader, I'm starting to get a good feel for what people are doing (motivations are clearer) and there is a good level of strategy involved in how you go about directing a group, and who you go after with each accusation. It's funny, we've played this game for so long now that I don't think there is much else to say but: PUBLISH!
John and I played my matching game next. You now have six bases ( three criminals, two workers, and one bunny ) and six cards ( two criminals, two workers, one bunny, and one bomb ). You put one card face down on each of your opponent's bases and reveal one each turn. Your opponent must swap two cards of the cards on his bases and then you must 'lock' one of those two cards to prevent it from being moved later in the game. The game continues until all players have revealed three cards, after which all cards are revealed, and the player with the most matches wins.
I played a second round with Dave (fresh from an ice house prototype session) and we agreed that there are some interesting decisions to make, but not enough to make it a publishable game. It's been simplified pretty much to it's core now and it does not seem to be usable as a component of a larger game. You can download a printable PDF of the game by clicking here . Please let me know what you think if you play it.
We finished up the night with a quick review of Brad Fuller's atomic sushi submission. It's a fun themed matching game (come on, selling drugs and flushing the evidence?), but doesn't quite have enough there yet. It's funny but Drug Bust has similar design challenges to the unsuccessful push your luck game i was working on earlier this week: how do you make a simple action like card drawing and match making (pairs, trips, quads, etc.) compelling? How do you get balance into it and defeat the "I didn't draw the right cards so I lost" problem? Obviously I don't have the answers to those questions either.
There was no poker, which strangely left me unsatisfied with the night. Always next week to loose a little more money...
The name of the game is Criminals, and that was effectively all we played Thursday night. Version after version of of Kory Heath's Criminals.
In some regards, I've started to enjoy playing slight variants of this game each week. It has become comforting to expect a problem to arise during play, or appear in testing between Thursdays and require a fresh round of work-shopping. This is in no small part due to the fact that Criminals is a very enjoyable game now, broken aspects aside.
So, delayed it this time? In last weeks version, if three players are in the game, and each has been accused incorrectly, when the final crime is revealed from the deck, you will not vote to accuse the player who holds your actual crime. Since that player can not vote against himself, this deadlocks the game. To a lesser extent, the game ending with two winners was also seen as a satisfaction problem as well.
There were several fixes this week, but in what order and configuration I can no longer say. Many of the earlier versions of this tried to force the accused to finger someone, which was fun and intense because it gave a real penalty for being falsely accused (eliminate, or be eliminated) and made the game much shorter. However I think all the players agreed that it was too fast. Alibi cards became less relevant, because you were unlikely to survive early accusations and because crimes no longer cycled (because players would be eliminated before the crime would return). There were questions of weather we are designing a short game for Gary Coleman or an eliminated player should reveal their actual crime (unless actually accused or fingered correctly) and It was also very hard for players who were accused earlier in the game, as less information was available. Finally, it didn't resolve the two player co-win element.
The final version to be played:
Each player has a secret crime
There is one more crime than the number of players (Guido's Crime!)
When the group accuses a player correctly, that player is eliminated.
When the group accuses incorrectly, the accused reveals his alibi and may:
a) finger another player or
b) finger Guido or
c) choose to finger no one and place the accusation on the bottom of the deck.
If the accused fingers a player correctly, that player is eliminated.
If the accused fingers a player incorrectly, the accused is eliminated.
If the accused fingers Guido correctly, the accused wins the game.
If the accused fingers Guido incorrectly, the player who actually committed the crime wins.
The game continues through eliminations until one player remains, or a solo victory has been achieved.
When two players remain, the first to accuse (points first) gives the other player the choice to finger or pass.
The two player game is interesting, because you do not always want to accuse first -- if you are too strong with it, the opponent may figure you committed the crime and finger it back at you. if you didn't do the crime, you give the opponent a chance to finger guido (who can not be accused directly)
I may have experienced the most unplayable game of poker that night. In 20 hands, i had 1 face card. in 20 hands i had a card higher than an 8 only four times. in 20 hands i was suited twice (8-6 spades, A-10 hearts) and on both flopped nothing. in 20 hands i got an 8-3 or 6-2 off suit 12 hands in a row. I flopped nothing, nor would i have gotten anything on any rivers seen. When I did actually have a hand (A-10 suited) I had to pay half my stack to even see the flop (which was then total crap) and left the table very unsatisfied. Jake lost three times as much money as i did in half the time. So I wasn't the only luckless player at the table. Dave looked like he tripled up.
Dave: +$5.09 (+4.50?)
me: -$7.77
In some regards, I've started to enjoy playing slight variants of this game each week. It has become comforting to expect a problem to arise during play, or appear in testing between Thursdays and require a fresh round of work-shopping. This is in no small part due to the fact that Criminals is a very enjoyable game now, broken aspects aside.
So, delayed it this time? In last weeks version, if three players are in the game, and each has been accused incorrectly, when the final crime is revealed from the deck, you will not vote to accuse the player who holds your actual crime. Since that player can not vote against himself, this deadlocks the game. To a lesser extent, the game ending with two winners was also seen as a satisfaction problem as well.
There were several fixes this week, but in what order and configuration I can no longer say. Many of the earlier versions of this tried to force the accused to finger someone, which was fun and intense because it gave a real penalty for being falsely accused (eliminate, or be eliminated) and made the game much shorter. However I think all the players agreed that it was too fast. Alibi cards became less relevant, because you were unlikely to survive early accusations and because crimes no longer cycled (because players would be eliminated before the crime would return). There were questions of weather we are designing a short game for Gary Coleman or an eliminated player should reveal their actual crime (unless actually accused or fingered correctly) and It was also very hard for players who were accused earlier in the game, as less information was available. Finally, it didn't resolve the two player co-win element.
The final version to be played:
Each player has a secret crime
There is one more crime than the number of players (Guido's Crime!)
When the group accuses a player correctly, that player is eliminated.
When the group accuses incorrectly, the accused reveals his alibi and may:
a) finger another player or
b) finger Guido or
c) choose to finger no one and place the accusation on the bottom of the deck.
If the accused fingers a player correctly, that player is eliminated.
If the accused fingers a player incorrectly, the accused is eliminated.
If the accused fingers Guido correctly, the accused wins the game.
If the accused fingers Guido incorrectly, the player who actually committed the crime wins.
The game continues through eliminations until one player remains, or a solo victory has been achieved.
When two players remain, the first to accuse (points first) gives the other player the choice to finger or pass.
The two player game is interesting, because you do not always want to accuse first -- if you are too strong with it, the opponent may figure you committed the crime and finger it back at you. if you didn't do the crime, you give the opponent a chance to finger guido (who can not be accused directly)
I may have experienced the most unplayable game of poker that night. In 20 hands, i had 1 face card. in 20 hands i had a card higher than an 8 only four times. in 20 hands i was suited twice (8-6 spades, A-10 hearts) and on both flopped nothing. in 20 hands i got an 8-3 or 6-2 off suit 12 hands in a row. I flopped nothing, nor would i have gotten anything on any rivers seen. When I did actually have a hand (A-10 suited) I had to pay half my stack to even see the flop (which was then total crap) and left the table very unsatisfied. Jake lost three times as much money as i did in half the time. So I wasn't the only luckless player at the table. Dave looked like he tripled up.
Dave: +$5.09 (+4.50?)
me: -$7.77
While Thursday night was predictably built around Kory Heath's Criminals, we started the night off with with Kristin Matherly's Comic Collection Game. This is not a new game, just one that we haven't played since Kristin designed it months back. KMCCG is much like penuckle, but actually fun.
There is a bit to keep track of at first, but once you get the basic collection values it is easy enough to stake a strategy and go for it. Plus, because the cards were designed to hold this information, provided you can wade through the density, all you need to know will always be in your hand. The design goal would be to make each card look like a comic book cover, which in and of itself would easily present the game play information in a pretty straight forward way. The very significant design challenge is to get that information density to read well as well as look good on the Atomic Sushi's relatively small card size.
KMCCG is an interesting conflicts for me as a publisher: the game seems good, the theme seems to work well enough for us ( even have a perfect artist match for the game if Joe agrees it it), but at the same time, I can see that the game would be better served by higher production values than what Robot Martini can offer at this time. It comes down to goals and motivations: do I make the product anyway, to fulfill the Sushi project once a month intention, or do I let it go because the game can be better if done by someone else, Food for thought.
On Criminals, while this unexpectedly lengthy development process has delayed the product's release, the process remains as it has been: enjoyable and satisfying on the week to week basis. Kory had a number of proposed fixes to the Guido lock-down and Loose Cannon problems raised last week.
I think we played Kory's final version first (this isn't clear due to several revision emails that came in throughout the week). Weather this version was fully his intended design or not, the lack of Guido really took something away from the game. It also broke the game at 2 players, because when two players remain in the game, and only two crimes are in the deck, the first crime to come up will automatically kill it's owner (the owner is accused and looses, or preempts the accusation, but is then fingered), which is not satisfying and oddly enough happened in both times we played. On the up side, Kory;s suggested Guido fix and some modifications to the elimination rules worked quite well.
A26 version:
There is one more crime than the number of players (Guido's crime)
One crime is revealed at a time from the deck
The crime must be give to a player (the accused) by majority vote OR given to Guido with unanimous vote.
When you accuse a player correctly, he reveals his alibi cards and is out. He can not vote, but he can talk and can finger.
When you accuse a player incorrectly, he reveals the matching alibi card and must finger another player, finger Guido, or pass (place the crime card on the bottom of the deck, to be reissued later in the game).
When you accuse Guido correctly (by unanimous vote) reveal all of the hidden crime cards and everyone wins except the players who are already out.
When you accuse Guido incorrectly (by unanimous vote), reveal all of the hidden crime cards and the player who actually committed the crime wins a solo victory
When you finger a player correctly, he reveals his alibi cards and you win a solo victory.
When you finger a player incorrectly, he reveals his matching alibi card and you are out. You can not vote, but you can talk and can finger.
When you finger Guido correctly, you win a solo victory.
When you finger Guido incorrectly, everyone except you wins.
Jake and Dave should check the above to make sure i have all of the victory conditions right. We've played this so many different ways, I can not remember if there was a difference between being fingered correctly, fingering incorrectly, and being accused correctly, in your opportunity to win the game. I think that correctly accused players are totally out and have no shot at winning, where finger players can be pulled in with a Guido win, but honestly can not remember.
Guido - there is an interesting game here, because one player may want to manipulate the group into voting for Guido to get a solo victory OR the group could honestly go for a collective win. He adds some texture to the game and fits with the theme. He's there as an aspect of the game from the very start and is integrated with the game. so does not feel like a patchy or tacked on. He fixes the two player head to head issues and adds a great liar aspect to the game.
He also adds a lot of rules, albeit easy enough to remember, and certainly few enough at any one time to keep track of.
Loose Cannon - where one player can threaten to accuse guido if they themselves are accused, thus throwing the game to one player has obviously been fixed (in that if such a player were trying to spoil the game, he would either win solo, or be the only player not to win).
Elegance - well this one is not exactly elegant by Kory's standards. There are a lot of rules, and while they are relatively consistent, they are not truly so for game play reasons. Guido being incorrectly accused equals a solo win as opposed to Guido being incorrectly fingered equals group win for example. Though I don't think it would be as satisfying, we could try an alternate where an incorrect Guido accusation resulted in all non-voting players winning ("Guido takes his revenge on those who tried to do him in").
(Soft) Elimination - if Kory wants to play this again next week, the above alteration to Guido could give the players who are out a little more to do, though since their crimes are revealed, they don't have too much to work with towards a victory goal. I'm trying to figure out how they could use their ability to finger too, as again their crimes are revealed so there is no reason to ever accuse them. I suppose when it was down to two voting players, you could choose to accuse a non-voting player to mix it up (or if you yourself were unsure of weather your opponent or Guido had committed the crime), but that's not very likely to happen, and doesn't seem to really do much good for you :) curious: is there anything for these players to truly do?
I enjoyed the final version we played (three times i think?) but was not on my A game and bounced out with several bad fingering attempts. I had a lot of fun trying the claim-everything strategy (aka the Renaissance Criminal) and with the first game as an exception (where tom got accused on my crime, the first crime revealed, and he knew it was me, but didn't feel the 20% pay-out was enough for him to risk it) it worked pretty well.
i think this is a solid rule set, because it works with two players and all of the motivations are there, and it has good texture (the crime boss has turned us all in to save himself, and our only way out as a collective is to get him instead, or individually roll on our friends and associates to the feds).
Not sure if Kory will like how this played out (as he is not fond of Guido) or if he will be able to break this version too. At least Jake, Kristin and Dave all feel it worked, and can argue for it's worth (and TV Tom and I liked it too :P ).
Publish! second try :)
we followed up with Dave's Hobo Adventure Game, which he admits isn't really a game yet, but has some great theme-ing. I mean, hobos! cans of beans, lint, nickles, boxcars. First pass in the workshop was to give all players incentive to do one thing or another and instated the 'if multiple players attempted the same action, it fails' concept ala Get Bit!. Look forward to another play next week (and maybe some merchandise during the week!).
We we're too socially drained to try Acid Cowboy, which consistently gets shelved because we are working on Criminals. Hopefully next week.
Following last weeks "worst game ever", this weeks Poker was wonderful. I've got to work on changing my game up based on my opponent -- i'm too used to playing one way, which works against some and not others. Tom, who got my 250, doesn't really go in on the bluff-- he may play lower odds, but he isn't a ace high kind of guy. Best hand : pocket 6s, going to four of a kind on the flop. Even after giving away $2.50 away foolishly on my last hand, I still ended $2.50 up for the night. Dave was actually down 30¢.
Dave: +12.89
Gavin: -5.52
There is a bit to keep track of at first, but once you get the basic collection values it is easy enough to stake a strategy and go for it. Plus, because the cards were designed to hold this information, provided you can wade through the density, all you need to know will always be in your hand. The design goal would be to make each card look like a comic book cover, which in and of itself would easily present the game play information in a pretty straight forward way. The very significant design challenge is to get that information density to read well as well as look good on the Atomic Sushi's relatively small card size.
KMCCG is an interesting conflicts for me as a publisher: the game seems good, the theme seems to work well enough for us ( even have a perfect artist match for the game if Joe agrees it it), but at the same time, I can see that the game would be better served by higher production values than what Robot Martini can offer at this time. It comes down to goals and motivations: do I make the product anyway, to fulfill the Sushi project once a month intention, or do I let it go because the game can be better if done by someone else, Food for thought.
On Criminals, while this unexpectedly lengthy development process has delayed the product's release, the process remains as it has been: enjoyable and satisfying on the week to week basis. Kory had a number of proposed fixes to the Guido lock-down and Loose Cannon problems raised last week.
I think we played Kory's final version first (this isn't clear due to several revision emails that came in throughout the week). Weather this version was fully his intended design or not, the lack of Guido really took something away from the game. It also broke the game at 2 players, because when two players remain in the game, and only two crimes are in the deck, the first crime to come up will automatically kill it's owner (the owner is accused and looses, or preempts the accusation, but is then fingered), which is not satisfying and oddly enough happened in both times we played. On the up side, Kory;s suggested Guido fix and some modifications to the elimination rules worked quite well.
A26 version:
There is one more crime than the number of players (Guido's crime)
One crime is revealed at a time from the deck
The crime must be give to a player (the accused) by majority vote OR given to Guido with unanimous vote.
When you accuse a player correctly, he reveals his alibi cards and is out. He can not vote, but he can talk and can finger.
When you accuse a player incorrectly, he reveals the matching alibi card and must finger another player, finger Guido, or pass (place the crime card on the bottom of the deck, to be reissued later in the game).
When you accuse Guido correctly (by unanimous vote) reveal all of the hidden crime cards and everyone wins except the players who are already out.
When you accuse Guido incorrectly (by unanimous vote), reveal all of the hidden crime cards and the player who actually committed the crime wins a solo victory
When you finger a player correctly, he reveals his alibi cards and you win a solo victory.
When you finger a player incorrectly, he reveals his matching alibi card and you are out. You can not vote, but you can talk and can finger.
When you finger Guido correctly, you win a solo victory.
When you finger Guido incorrectly, everyone except you wins.
Jake and Dave should check the above to make sure i have all of the victory conditions right. We've played this so many different ways, I can not remember if there was a difference between being fingered correctly, fingering incorrectly, and being accused correctly, in your opportunity to win the game. I think that correctly accused players are totally out and have no shot at winning, where finger players can be pulled in with a Guido win, but honestly can not remember.
Guido - there is an interesting game here, because one player may want to manipulate the group into voting for Guido to get a solo victory OR the group could honestly go for a collective win. He adds some texture to the game and fits with the theme. He's there as an aspect of the game from the very start and is integrated with the game. so does not feel like a patchy or tacked on. He fixes the two player head to head issues and adds a great liar aspect to the game.
He also adds a lot of rules, albeit easy enough to remember, and certainly few enough at any one time to keep track of.
Loose Cannon - where one player can threaten to accuse guido if they themselves are accused, thus throwing the game to one player has obviously been fixed (in that if such a player were trying to spoil the game, he would either win solo, or be the only player not to win).
Elegance - well this one is not exactly elegant by Kory's standards. There are a lot of rules, and while they are relatively consistent, they are not truly so for game play reasons. Guido being incorrectly accused equals a solo win as opposed to Guido being incorrectly fingered equals group win for example. Though I don't think it would be as satisfying, we could try an alternate where an incorrect Guido accusation resulted in all non-voting players winning ("Guido takes his revenge on those who tried to do him in").
(Soft) Elimination - if Kory wants to play this again next week, the above alteration to Guido could give the players who are out a little more to do, though since their crimes are revealed, they don't have too much to work with towards a victory goal. I'm trying to figure out how they could use their ability to finger too, as again their crimes are revealed so there is no reason to ever accuse them. I suppose when it was down to two voting players, you could choose to accuse a non-voting player to mix it up (or if you yourself were unsure of weather your opponent or Guido had committed the crime), but that's not very likely to happen, and doesn't seem to really do much good for you :) curious: is there anything for these players to truly do?
I enjoyed the final version we played (three times i think?) but was not on my A game and bounced out with several bad fingering attempts. I had a lot of fun trying the claim-everything strategy (aka the Renaissance Criminal) and with the first game as an exception (where tom got accused on my crime, the first crime revealed, and he knew it was me, but didn't feel the 20% pay-out was enough for him to risk it) it worked pretty well.
i think this is a solid rule set, because it works with two players and all of the motivations are there, and it has good texture (the crime boss has turned us all in to save himself, and our only way out as a collective is to get him instead, or individually roll on our friends and associates to the feds).
Not sure if Kory will like how this played out (as he is not fond of Guido) or if he will be able to break this version too. At least Jake, Kristin and Dave all feel it worked, and can argue for it's worth (and TV Tom and I liked it too :P ).
Publish! second try :)
we followed up with Dave's Hobo Adventure Game, which he admits isn't really a game yet, but has some great theme-ing. I mean, hobos! cans of beans, lint, nickles, boxcars. First pass in the workshop was to give all players incentive to do one thing or another and instated the 'if multiple players attempted the same action, it fails' concept ala Get Bit!. Look forward to another play next week (and maybe some merchandise during the week!).
We we're too socially drained to try Acid Cowboy, which consistently gets shelved because we are working on Criminals. Hopefully next week.
Following last weeks "worst game ever", this weeks Poker was wonderful. I've got to work on changing my game up based on my opponent -- i'm too used to playing one way, which works against some and not others. Tom, who got my 250, doesn't really go in on the bluff-- he may play lower odds, but he isn't a ace high kind of guy. Best hand : pocket 6s, going to four of a kind on the flop. Even after giving away $2.50 away foolishly on my last hand, I still ended $2.50 up for the night. Dave was actually down 30¢.
Dave: +12.89
Gavin: -5.52
Newest
First to Last
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
< prev | next >
Today
The Mister Taru show "gets you over the hump"
Drinking with GWG
The Mister Taru show "gets you over the hump"
Drinking with GWG
Tomorrow
Sidescroller(Astrobrot)
Tapped / Drink of the week / Drinking with GWG rep
Game night / Test Session
Sidescroller(Astrobrot)
Tapped / Drink of the week / Drinking with GWG rep
Game night / Test Session