x 57
With Ballot Bots moving into pre-production, the development team is moving on to it's next list of projects. One of these projects actually came together as a playable game during last night's session.
Paparazzi started life as our testers' response to Ballot Bots' original rules submission. (Think of it as Mike & Stephen's game, but with our review staff's rules suggestions thrown in) We thought the title could work along side JetSetters, perhaps even serving as a color sequel of sorts.
Over time, many aspects of Mike & Stephen's original design were taken out and several aspects of Paparazzi were put in. This made Ballot Bots better, but left us with bits and pieces of a second, potentially interesting game.
The most interesting piece was the tie & score mechanic. Basically, each of the six original suits had a twin that shared the same bid value range, and the mechanic identified which twin would trump the other if two players 'bid' cards of the same value. The mechanic simultaneously indicated the victory point value of each card (based on it's suit) at the end of the game.
This gave players two interesting decisions: make their hand cards worth more, so they could win bids and collect resources OR boost the value of the resources they already had. Unfortunately there was not enough certainty to each card play and resulted in many tie games.
I think what drew us to that system (giving players the ability to impact the global value of the cards in their hand) may have been it's biggest problem. Global shifts meant we had to record each player's score each round (which slowed the game down) OR leave scoring until the end (which resulted in a strategic crap shoot).
We finally abandoned the global effect last night (thanks Wolf & JD!) and strangely the game worked almost immediately.
Here's a quick run down:
1. Each player gets his own suit of cards. He has all 8 cards from the suit in his hand at the start. Each suit has card values 1 - 8 and each card has its own score value. He also has a placement card that matches his suit. the remaining cards go out of play.
2. There is a bonus card in the middle of the table. It has 7 slots on it, starting at zero and climbing clockwise around the card. Each player puts his placement card next to the zero slot. Then the group chooses one player to start the game.
3. The start player puts a card face up on the table from his hand. This card is now up for auction. The other players choose cards and place them face down on the table. When all cards are down, reveal them.
4. Players who have matching values (ties) return their cards to their hands. In a three player game, the remaining player is always considered to have played the lowest remaining value.
5. The player with the lowest card value scores the auction card by placing it face up in a stack in front of him. There can be multiple middle cards.
6. A player with a middle card value scores his own card by placing it face up in a stack in front of him. There can be multiple players with middle cards.
7. The player with the highest card value advances his position card 1 slot around the bonus card. He then becomes the next start player.
8. The round ends when a player has only one card left in his hand.
9. Record each player's score by adding up the score values on the cards in his stack. Cards in the player's hand are not counted, nor is the bonus on the bonus card.
10. Return cards to their owners hands. Do not move the position cards around the bonus card. Now begin a new round.
11. The game ends when a player's position card advances to the 7th slot on the bonus card. When this happens, record the players' scores as if a round had ended. Now each player then takes a turn adding his round-scores together. He then adds in the value adjacent to his position card on the bonus card.
12. The player with the highest score wins.
We're still ironing out some details (like the start player's card is both a bid and an auction, some of the time) but it's a good start.
cheers
G
Paparazzi started life as our testers' response to Ballot Bots' original rules submission. (Think of it as Mike & Stephen's game, but with our review staff's rules suggestions thrown in) We thought the title could work along side JetSetters, perhaps even serving as a color sequel of sorts.
Over time, many aspects of Mike & Stephen's original design were taken out and several aspects of Paparazzi were put in. This made Ballot Bots better, but left us with bits and pieces of a second, potentially interesting game.
The most interesting piece was the tie & score mechanic. Basically, each of the six original suits had a twin that shared the same bid value range, and the mechanic identified which twin would trump the other if two players 'bid' cards of the same value. The mechanic simultaneously indicated the victory point value of each card (based on it's suit) at the end of the game.
This gave players two interesting decisions: make their hand cards worth more, so they could win bids and collect resources OR boost the value of the resources they already had. Unfortunately there was not enough certainty to each card play and resulted in many tie games.
I think what drew us to that system (giving players the ability to impact the global value of the cards in their hand) may have been it's biggest problem. Global shifts meant we had to record each player's score each round (which slowed the game down) OR leave scoring until the end (which resulted in a strategic crap shoot).
We finally abandoned the global effect last night (thanks Wolf & JD!) and strangely the game worked almost immediately.
Here's a quick run down:
1. Each player gets his own suit of cards. He has all 8 cards from the suit in his hand at the start. Each suit has card values 1 - 8 and each card has its own score value. He also has a placement card that matches his suit. the remaining cards go out of play.
2. There is a bonus card in the middle of the table. It has 7 slots on it, starting at zero and climbing clockwise around the card. Each player puts his placement card next to the zero slot. Then the group chooses one player to start the game.
3. The start player puts a card face up on the table from his hand. This card is now up for auction. The other players choose cards and place them face down on the table. When all cards are down, reveal them.
4. Players who have matching values (ties) return their cards to their hands. In a three player game, the remaining player is always considered to have played the lowest remaining value.
5. The player with the lowest card value scores the auction card by placing it face up in a stack in front of him. There can be multiple middle cards.
6. A player with a middle card value scores his own card by placing it face up in a stack in front of him. There can be multiple players with middle cards.
7. The player with the highest card value advances his position card 1 slot around the bonus card. He then becomes the next start player.
8. The round ends when a player has only one card left in his hand.
9. Record each player's score by adding up the score values on the cards in his stack. Cards in the player's hand are not counted, nor is the bonus on the bonus card.
10. Return cards to their owners hands. Do not move the position cards around the bonus card. Now begin a new round.
11. The game ends when a player's position card advances to the 7th slot on the bonus card. When this happens, record the players' scores as if a round had ended. Now each player then takes a turn adding his round-scores together. He then adds in the value adjacent to his position card on the bonus card.
12. The player with the highest score wins.
We're still ironing out some details (like the start player's card is both a bid and an auction, some of the time) but it's a good start.
cheers
G
We built test night around Mike Petty and Stephen Glen's TreeO project this week. Our goal was to get "almost" off the game's "almost done" status report and I think we've finally accomplished that.
TreeO will be the first Atomic Sushi project to be released in full color. It's still a Sushi project. So expect single sided printing, medium weight card stock, and our standard re-sealable poly bags. And of course, the reasonable $5 price tag :)
TreeO's been a fun post-origins project to work on, in large part due to Mike and Stephen themselves: they are smart, fun guys to work with. Their game was basically printable (though not without room for improvement) in it's prototype form. It's mostly been an issue of getting testers to a table and seeing where balance can be tightened, and where motivation and psychology could be clearer.
That isn't to say the game hasn't changed significantly along the way. In fact, the game has changed enough that we may even release a final draft of the original concept as a separate game.
Mechanically, TreeO is a cards with numbers game. Like Zombies of LMH and Get Bit, players lay down cards simultaneously, and take actions according to the relationships of the numbers they play. However instead of simply netting a auctioned card or avoiding a shark, TreeO's numbers net the player a specific action. An action may net you a public card, or a hidden card, or even your own card -- what is best for you, and how you do that is up to your take on what your opponents need most and what they will play to get those things.
I was surprised when Simon pointed out that many of our games employ this blind play mechanic. Our goal has always been to make games that use different mechanics and since each game has been pretty different so far, I hadn't noticed our tendency to use this core mechanic.
It shouldn't be surprising I suppose… single card bidding uses a lot fewer cards than open bidding, and since Sushi projects are limited to the 50 card range to keep the cost down. Bidding itself can offer a lot of variety, and is one of the easiest ways to give players interesting decisions to make, without being whole unfamiliar or difficult for new players to understand. Still, something to keep an eye on considering TreeO and the next two projects are all bidding style games…
More images to come during the week (depending on David's schedule).
G
Hot on the heels of our Tuesday night Arkham Games session, tonight was a three game play test night. Many thanks to Chris C for being our fourth player -- his quiet, but spot on observations really rounded out the session.
taking notes after Morocco
First for the night was Morocco, an economy game designed by Steve Zamborsky. We played one and a half times through the game (Chris arrived late, so we restarted a few rounds in) and while the game has a few rough spots, all of the fundamentals are there.
I think Steve has a winner here, and if we can tighten up the rules and get the number of cards down Morocco could easily be the next sushi game available on the site. If that's the case, it may also be the first sushi game to transition into color printing (but more on that bombshell later ;-) )...
finally found a use for my old Palisades business cards... the prototype for 'speculation' card game
Following Morocco we played an unnamed speculation card game of my own design. It turned out to be more of a proto-game (an experiment with a mechanic) and the excruciation level was medium to medium-high.
Ultimately the game has too few cards to speculate on, too many of them pay out, and too many loan options don't force you into a corner. On the up side, I do like the Loan/Cash duality of the money cards. We'll see if this goes anywhere. If not, there's always room for another free game on the message board :P
testing project Quadro, by Mike Petty and Steven Glenn
The quadro project was the third and last game of the night. The QP is a set collection / position taking game for three to four players. This is the game's second test (previously only for 3 players) and because the rules haven't changed much, nothing really unexpected happened. That isn't to say it wasn't good :P -- come on, this is Mike and Steven we're talking about! Much like Morocco, QP just needs some rough edges and inconsistencies ironed out and is otherwise a mostly finished project.
releaved the session is over, my three prisoners have some beers and cool off in the kitchen
11:30 and we've all had enough. This weekend is going to be absolutely packed (artscape, alexandria micro con, harry potter and the story of the last book in the series, otakon, sunday soccer, and more) and we're all feeling it.
We've been on the booth, around the booth, in the booth, and with the stuff for the booth all week and sometimes we've got to step back and take a break.
Playing games and meeting people were two big reasons why we got into the business. It was Sir Lovejoy's birthday too, so we picked up some bolt babes and headed over to GWG and to play some items in our back log.
First up was Get Bit!, which has been played a lot before, but not with it's final production pieces and game cards. Nothing unexpected happened... except Luke Naden made it through 90% of the game without losing a single limb :P
Unfortunately, Zeke did not seem to get the game as well, and proceeded to lose limb after limb. Zeke, lemonfreshLJ , and MechaShiva all bit it early on. Wolfgang and Sir Lovejoy gave Luke a good run, and while they barely got him nibbled, Wolfgang slid in for a surprise win.
(zeke and luke exchange some event cards, taking eachother down a peg)
(zeke considers attacking david, but eventually decides to blast me instead. gang up ensues :) )
we followed up with Rat Race, which has been sitting on our shelf for some time. Rat Race is a cubical building game, that involves a simple tile placement + cash management system that the GWG crew really loves (and does much better than I at).
After months of playing at the Looney's, I can't say it's a game that really does it for me, but it was still plenty of fun as a diversion. This is the second game that I've played recently where everyone enjoyed it, and I realized how much of a game-snob I'm being. If it's fun, and everyone is enjoying it, it's doing what it's supposed to: give the people something to do while hanging out. Who cares if there are some unbalances that undermine any real strategy in the game.
Food for thought anyway
x 57
For the fifty people who visit our website each day it should be obvious, but it must be said anyway: Criminals is the largest project we have undertaken to date. This project would not have been possible without the help of many people, and I would like to give them thanks by showing where they helped in the development process.
The project starts with Kory Heath's submission. After quick discussion, the project is given the go ahead. Dave Chalker makes a testable prototype and begins testing with John Cooper, and Jake Davenport, Sean Klein, Andy Looney, Kristin Matherly, TV Tom and other regulars at Thursday nights. Dave coordinates tester feedback with Kory, and after a few weeks brings me into the testing circle.
I begin art development and coordinate with Kory and Illustrator David Lovejoy. Our legal councilor is also involved, and suggest we change the product's name. Due to the speed and frequency of mechanically changes, I take over the graphic design responsibilities of the project.
Official testing continues on Thursday nights, and the co-designers continue to play-develop it at other gatherings during the week. As the rules become complete, we go to unexposed groups for fresh critical eyes. Dave coordinates with Sean, Justin, and others from the Westminster game group. I coordinate with Ezekiel Bailey, Zachery Bailey, Luke Naden, Andrew Steeble, and others from GWG. MechaShica coordinates with Renee, Sam, and Julia from the bolt babes as well Nate & Co from the Baltimore game group.
Criminals comes with us to events. Dave and Kory bring it to the Alan Moon's Gathering, where serious designers and reviewers see it. Dave and I bring it to GCon, where local gamers try it out and let us know we are on the right track.
MechaShiva and Dave begin marketing the product around the web. I convert David Lovejoy's illustrations for use on the Criminals' product page.
Dave, John, Jake, and Kristin draft a written rules and as Kory drives across the country Dave and I work on layout and editing. Wolfgang and Alex Wachter help blind read the rules and give excellent feedback. Alex's perspective is especially useful as he has never played Mafia / Werewolf type games and shows us how much clearer the rules have to be. Renee and Ezekiel Bailey both lend substantial help to the editing process.
When the rules are printed and done, MechaShiva and I will be hand stuffing each ploy bag before they are stored in inventory.
All told, around 35 people in total have participated in the development of this game. My thanks to all who are listed here, and to those I do not know by name and those I may have missed.
Draft seven is printed and Kory should be in town tonight or tomorrow. All things willing, it will be approved, and anyone who has yet to play the game will be able to do so early next week.
The project starts with Kory Heath's submission. After quick discussion, the project is given the go ahead. Dave Chalker makes a testable prototype and begins testing with John Cooper, and Jake Davenport, Sean Klein, Andy Looney, Kristin Matherly, TV Tom and other regulars at Thursday nights. Dave coordinates tester feedback with Kory, and after a few weeks brings me into the testing circle.
I begin art development and coordinate with Kory and Illustrator David Lovejoy. Our legal councilor is also involved, and suggest we change the product's name. Due to the speed and frequency of mechanically changes, I take over the graphic design responsibilities of the project.
Official testing continues on Thursday nights, and the co-designers continue to play-develop it at other gatherings during the week. As the rules become complete, we go to unexposed groups for fresh critical eyes. Dave coordinates with Sean, Justin, and others from the Westminster game group. I coordinate with Ezekiel Bailey, Zachery Bailey, Luke Naden, Andrew Steeble, and others from GWG. MechaShica coordinates with Renee, Sam, and Julia from the bolt babes as well Nate & Co from the Baltimore game group.
Criminals comes with us to events. Dave and Kory bring it to the Alan Moon's Gathering, where serious designers and reviewers see it. Dave and I bring it to GCon, where local gamers try it out and let us know we are on the right track.
MechaShiva and Dave begin marketing the product around the web. I convert David Lovejoy's illustrations for use on the Criminals' product page.
Dave, John, Jake, and Kristin draft a written rules and as Kory drives across the country Dave and I work on layout and editing. Wolfgang and Alex Wachter help blind read the rules and give excellent feedback. Alex's perspective is especially useful as he has never played Mafia / Werewolf type games and shows us how much clearer the rules have to be. Renee and Ezekiel Bailey both lend substantial help to the editing process.
When the rules are printed and done, MechaShiva and I will be hand stuffing each ploy bag before they are stored in inventory.
All told, around 35 people in total have participated in the development of this game. My thanks to all who are listed here, and to those I do not know by name and those I may have missed.
Draft seven is printed and Kory should be in town tonight or tomorrow. All things willing, it will be approved, and anyone who has yet to play the game will be able to do so early next week.
Thursday night at Looney Labs was well attended and many games were played, but somehow I ended up at the poker table early, and stayed there until closing. I did at least get to play three rounds of the last Criminals variant to be tested.
Jake's variant
1. All of the crime cards are laid out face up in a row.
2. Crimes are debated one at a time, starting at the left of the row and moving to the right.
3. When an innocent player chooses to pass, the crime card they were accused with moves to the end of the line.
Jakes variant removes the memory aspect of the game (that players do not need to remember what crimes are in the game) and allows easier removal of crimes that were exposed out of order.
It also adds an interesting focus on the last crime, because most players will wish to claim that crime as their own because it is the last to be issued. This added focus does give them game some interesting twists (especially if the final crime is actually your crime) but it also reduces much of the game's tension. Since you known when your crime will arrive, there is less surprise when it pops out in front of you.
All in all, I enjoyed this version more than our final rule set, but that is largely because I am better at it then the final version. I am better at lying than reading, and best at reading when I am being accused of a crime I did not commit. Because the last crime focuses the liars attention, it is a little easier to see when a player is trying to tag you for their own crime. Also, because I can see where my crime is in the line, I can defuse my tells and build my strategy very early on (even when my crime is in the front of the line).
Still, there are other psychological issues with the variant and I agree with the other players that the stack is the more effective method. If you catch me playing at game nights or at Origins '07, just expect me to ask if we can play this open variant instead ;)
After three solo victories for me, I gave up my spot to Val's husband and went off to play poker. Hope he enjoyed the following play throughs as much as i enjoyed poker. Long game (from 10 to 1) and while I didn't really shift my position much, I came out ahead and learned some more restraint. Up $2.84 from my buy in, still down $5.78 total.
Jake's variant
1. All of the crime cards are laid out face up in a row.
2. Crimes are debated one at a time, starting at the left of the row and moving to the right.
3. When an innocent player chooses to pass, the crime card they were accused with moves to the end of the line.
Jakes variant removes the memory aspect of the game (that players do not need to remember what crimes are in the game) and allows easier removal of crimes that were exposed out of order.
It also adds an interesting focus on the last crime, because most players will wish to claim that crime as their own because it is the last to be issued. This added focus does give them game some interesting twists (especially if the final crime is actually your crime) but it also reduces much of the game's tension. Since you known when your crime will arrive, there is less surprise when it pops out in front of you.
All in all, I enjoyed this version more than our final rule set, but that is largely because I am better at it then the final version. I am better at lying than reading, and best at reading when I am being accused of a crime I did not commit. Because the last crime focuses the liars attention, it is a little easier to see when a player is trying to tag you for their own crime. Also, because I can see where my crime is in the line, I can defuse my tells and build my strategy very early on (even when my crime is in the front of the line).
Still, there are other psychological issues with the variant and I agree with the other players that the stack is the more effective method. If you catch me playing at game nights or at Origins '07, just expect me to ask if we can play this open variant instead ;)
After three solo victories for me, I gave up my spot to Val's husband and went off to play poker. Hope he enjoyed the following play throughs as much as i enjoyed poker. Long game (from 10 to 1) and while I didn't really shift my position much, I came out ahead and learned some more restraint. Up $2.84 from my buy in, still down $5.78 total.
Now that criminals is mechanically done and bug free, thursday night sessions at the lab feel less about designing and more about playing games to have fun. That isn't a bad thing, and we still did some design and testing,
Criminals was played twice, though I missed the first game to talk with Kristin Looney about packaging options. She'd showed me some samples from Carta Mundi, and it was fascinating to see what different box sizes do to change the implied value of the product. Also got to see the gold and silver rimmed 007 playing cards, also a CM print job. Can't say they did anything for me (aside from the metal edge). The print quality of the cards themselves just didn't live up to the edge, and ultimately it is just a 52 card deck with some extra text and photos scribbled on it. Have to wait and see if I retain this knowledge when we move onward into color games.
I joined the second game of Criminals and found that I'm just not that good at this version (gah!). The game is greatly improved by not allowing solo finger attempts to bounce endlessly around the table, but it was something I had grown used to and just haven't landed on a strategy that I like yet.
Post GWG earlier in the week, I think the game is done. It will take players a game or two to remember all of the win conditions, but they are not hard to remember once play it. If playing with fresh players, give them a little direction in the first accusation round or if all of the players are fresh to the game, try not to agonize over the first decision. As you play the game more often, what feels like no information turns to little tells here and there.
Next we played Acid Cowboy, a game I designed. Each player has a secret identity card, which puts them on the side of hallucinations or reality. There are two teams on the side of reality (the sherif's and the cowboy's). The Hallucinations win if the sherif is eliminated, the sherif wins if the cowboy is eliminated, and the cowboy wins if the hallucinations are eliminated.
Cards that represent items in the town are spread around the center of the table. Each card grants a single function and has a order in which it is resolved in relation to the other cards.
Functions range from being able to ask a player questions (try to catch them in a lie), challenging a player to a staring matching (the winner sees the losers secret identity), nominating a player to be the judge or mayor, and nominating a player to be eliminated.
The judge and Mayor have special powers. The judge can break ties during votes and throw one player in prison (where they can not vote or be eliminated that turn). The Mayor chooses the order in which players get to select their cards. Both characters must reveal their secret identities to another player as a penalty.
In practice, the option to question didn't mean as much as the opportunity to reveal an opponent's identity. Also, because voting is only for or against a nomination, the judge and mayor stagnated because new candidates could not get chosen. Lastly, there was no clear motivation to do one thing or another.
The point of the game was to put structure into the accusation, read, vote, eliminate game genre. I've played a number of games where players just didn't do anything, and left 'the game' up to one or two driving personalities. Also, by adding cards there is more 'product' in the game, and it is harder to feel bad that you payed $10 for 16 cards and three pieces of artwork. Unfortunately, after months of Criminals (and previously Jake's covert action), it is hard to really want to pick up another Werewolf style game and test it right now.
John had an excellent suggestion to proto-game the concept to test the motivations. If you strip the whole game away, and just have secret identities, can players ever figure out who is on who's side simply by questioning and voting? Jake's suggestions boiled down to getting rid of the cards at the center of the table, or at least make each card more like the judge and mayor (and reduce the potency of the judge and mayor). Dave suggests some sort of long term voting system, where you offer and collect votes towards a goal of some kind.
Have to give it some thought, but I am definitely leaning in Jake's direction (ironically it is what i suggested to him about Corruption). I think there is some potential in letting each player control one aspect of the game, and just leave the questioning open and free form. Have to address the motivations though, even if it ends up just as two teams (real vs. hallucinations) of equal numbers. Maybe one real character wants all other real characters dead. Have to play with this one.
Played Brad Fuller's drawing party game before poker. While we did modify the game from its submitted rules, the "I tell you what to draw with a limited vocabulary" aspect remained intact. We had some fun with it, especially when we drew the train tracks, fens, and latter cards back to back (all of which have similar descriptions).
No one else felt this way, but I would like to see what the game is like if each card was more multi-layered (instead of just presenting one off images). Like if the card you drew was the 'Gangster', and the card listed a number of items which you had to get the players to draw, and many of those items had overlap with other cards in the deck (the cowboy, policeman, soldier, and pirate cards would all require players to draw guns for example). The point would to ultimately guess what the full card was, based on it's components. I think that would also make more product out of the game, which right now is just two words on each card.
Ended the night with long winded poker. I played medium well, but in the end my suited queen ace lost to Dave's pocket queens. I'm going to stop listing dave's running score, as it's too depressing to keep track of :P. down $8.62
Criminals was played twice, though I missed the first game to talk with Kristin Looney about packaging options. She'd showed me some samples from Carta Mundi, and it was fascinating to see what different box sizes do to change the implied value of the product. Also got to see the gold and silver rimmed 007 playing cards, also a CM print job. Can't say they did anything for me (aside from the metal edge). The print quality of the cards themselves just didn't live up to the edge, and ultimately it is just a 52 card deck with some extra text and photos scribbled on it. Have to wait and see if I retain this knowledge when we move onward into color games.
I joined the second game of Criminals and found that I'm just not that good at this version (gah!). The game is greatly improved by not allowing solo finger attempts to bounce endlessly around the table, but it was something I had grown used to and just haven't landed on a strategy that I like yet.
Post GWG earlier in the week, I think the game is done. It will take players a game or two to remember all of the win conditions, but they are not hard to remember once play it. If playing with fresh players, give them a little direction in the first accusation round or if all of the players are fresh to the game, try not to agonize over the first decision. As you play the game more often, what feels like no information turns to little tells here and there.
Next we played Acid Cowboy, a game I designed. Each player has a secret identity card, which puts them on the side of hallucinations or reality. There are two teams on the side of reality (the sherif's and the cowboy's). The Hallucinations win if the sherif is eliminated, the sherif wins if the cowboy is eliminated, and the cowboy wins if the hallucinations are eliminated.
Cards that represent items in the town are spread around the center of the table. Each card grants a single function and has a order in which it is resolved in relation to the other cards.
Functions range from being able to ask a player questions (try to catch them in a lie), challenging a player to a staring matching (the winner sees the losers secret identity), nominating a player to be the judge or mayor, and nominating a player to be eliminated.
The judge and Mayor have special powers. The judge can break ties during votes and throw one player in prison (where they can not vote or be eliminated that turn). The Mayor chooses the order in which players get to select their cards. Both characters must reveal their secret identities to another player as a penalty.
In practice, the option to question didn't mean as much as the opportunity to reveal an opponent's identity. Also, because voting is only for or against a nomination, the judge and mayor stagnated because new candidates could not get chosen. Lastly, there was no clear motivation to do one thing or another.
The point of the game was to put structure into the accusation, read, vote, eliminate game genre. I've played a number of games where players just didn't do anything, and left 'the game' up to one or two driving personalities. Also, by adding cards there is more 'product' in the game, and it is harder to feel bad that you payed $10 for 16 cards and three pieces of artwork. Unfortunately, after months of Criminals (and previously Jake's covert action), it is hard to really want to pick up another Werewolf style game and test it right now.
John had an excellent suggestion to proto-game the concept to test the motivations. If you strip the whole game away, and just have secret identities, can players ever figure out who is on who's side simply by questioning and voting? Jake's suggestions boiled down to getting rid of the cards at the center of the table, or at least make each card more like the judge and mayor (and reduce the potency of the judge and mayor). Dave suggests some sort of long term voting system, where you offer and collect votes towards a goal of some kind.
Have to give it some thought, but I am definitely leaning in Jake's direction (ironically it is what i suggested to him about Corruption). I think there is some potential in letting each player control one aspect of the game, and just leave the questioning open and free form. Have to address the motivations though, even if it ends up just as two teams (real vs. hallucinations) of equal numbers. Maybe one real character wants all other real characters dead. Have to play with this one.
Played Brad Fuller's drawing party game before poker. While we did modify the game from its submitted rules, the "I tell you what to draw with a limited vocabulary" aspect remained intact. We had some fun with it, especially when we drew the train tracks, fens, and latter cards back to back (all of which have similar descriptions).
No one else felt this way, but I would like to see what the game is like if each card was more multi-layered (instead of just presenting one off images). Like if the card you drew was the 'Gangster', and the card listed a number of items which you had to get the players to draw, and many of those items had overlap with other cards in the deck (the cowboy, policeman, soldier, and pirate cards would all require players to draw guns for example). The point would to ultimately guess what the full card was, based on it's components. I think that would also make more product out of the game, which right now is just two words on each card.
Ended the night with long winded poker. I played medium well, but in the end my suited queen ace lost to Dave's pocket queens. I'm going to stop listing dave's running score, as it's too depressing to keep track of :P. down $8.62
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 >
Tomorrow
The Mister Taru show "gets you over the hump"
Drinking with GWG
The Mister Taru show "gets you over the hump"
Drinking with GWG