Version 3.01 played very well - but several minor niggles and one major one.
The major one was that it went on far to long - it clocked in at about 3 hours or close to a 5 player game of Eclipse that was going on behind us. And while that can be a good length for a game (see eclipse) not in this case - it needs to be quick and chaotic.
The problem was the game end was caused by running out of trees and at the end of the game there was so little space that people were building heads - getting them kicked over - and no progress towards game end was being made. In the end we added a "40 vps and over" rule to end the game.
The minor niggles were that the mix on the action cards were not quite right, that villages were fiddly and made people defensive, that the placement rules for stone heads did not quite work, that the points for holding stone heads at the end of the game was simply to much, and that going first in the last turn really sucks.
I'm not going to try and tackle all of these - but as always - perhaps to much in a single go. As always - the "tweak only one thing" rule seems not to apply because I don't think I've got the base game right (which given I've been working on this since Feb 2011 is a little worrying).
The game end thing is simple enough - once a stone head is built it is not removed (there goes another rule that's existed in every version) - however only the player that built it gets to score it. This might have swung things the other way - a 5 player game might now lost about 4 to 5 turns.
I've set fixed amounts for holding stone heads at the end of the game - with more points in a game with more players.
I'm not sure it bothered the players - but village annoyed me. They are buy far the most fiddly part of the game - and they slowed down the chaos and action to much. I've been mulling this over for a while and in 3.02 I've removed villages. The pool mechanic still exits - but now it's just an abstract number on your player track - and won't go down. If you have all your men on the board it costs you one man to raise your pool by one - so if your already at your maximum men it's two men gets you one with a fixed maximum. So the good bit of villages - if you've got knocked down it's quicker getting back up then expanding is still there but hopefully the faff and the messing about is gone.
This meant a lot of other things needed fixing like RongaRonga cards that fired off destroying a village or defending a village. So I took the opportunity to drop the quantity of movement cards and add in some Ronga Ronga cards that you can play after winning any fight but all they do is take a VP of people doing better then you (unlike the rest which give you a VP and a steal a vp of someone doing better then you.).
It feels like I added in villages as a solution that sort of worked to stop people simply building a massive legion- however when I added in build cards that rendered them a little obsolete and it's taken a while for that feed through. I suspect this is a case of getting the fundamentals correct before you try and smooth things out.
Two Ideas.....
Defensive cards that provide more of a kick to make attacking a little more dangerous (one card - discard two other cards for 3 hearts).....
Shaman's - reward for taking very low power build cards that allow you to modify your build/pick order one if you want in a subsequent turn (are VP's still the best thing for controlling who moves first?)
One big question
Does the game now end to quickly? Are indestructible stone heads a good thing - so should a stone head still be kickable over - but once built kicked over leave an empty space?
Monday, 9 July 2012
Sunday, 8 July 2012
Stabcon games
Stabcon the twice yearly Stockport based gaming con has been and gone - and it was good. There was the normal madness and drinking and this time we got to play perhaps one of the funniest games of "Aye Dark Overlord" ever which almost made me pass out. I was laughing so hard that in infected and crippled another player..... It's not really a game - it's just an excuse to tell stories - just like Baron Munchhausen....
But a stabcon also means new games.
Manhattan Project
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63628/the-manhattan-project
A worker placement game - based (loosely) around making nuclear bombs. It was fun - I'd certainty play again - and it does have the cutest little artwork ever. However nothing really new.
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1044359/the-manhattan-project
The Castles of Burgundy
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/84876/the-castles-of-burgundy
A very good game that uses dice well - in that the dice define what you can do but no matter what you roll you get to do something (helped with with a good chunk of manipulation things). Want to play this again - was tempted to buy it.
Trajan
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102680/trajan
By the same person who designed The Castles of Burgundy - and proof that he has a very strange brain (oh and is the person who created the odd but excellent The Name Of The Rose that I want).
This game takes the "action roundel" and does something very odd with it.
In your normal action roundel you have a set of actions around the wheel - a counter somewhere on the wheel - and can move forwards a number of spaces to do that action. Often with the ability to mvoe further if you need to. This is one from the very playable game Antike - http://boardgamegeek.com/image/212148/antike.
So Trajan does two very odd things - a picture will help here.
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1162199/trajan
You have six spaces and 12 counters in six colours. On your turn you select one of the sets of pieces and move round the board putting one in each action space - where ever you place your final counter - that's the action you do. So in that picture - if you selected the pieces near the boat icon - you put one piece in the two columns , and another in the helmet and that's the action you'd do. If you picked the two columns (with five pieces) you'd go round putting in pieces till you got to the ship and then you'd do that action.
Which is pretty confusing (and very based on Macala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala) and hard to plan ahead.
But I've no mentioned the colours - those are related to bonus tiles. So in that picture - you see a tile with bread on it and a little orange dot and a green dot at the top. If after moving your bits around you can get an orange block and a green block in that space AND that's the action you do then you get that bonus tile - which generally does funky stuff (including free actions) and provides victory points.
Which made my brain drible out of ears trying to a) work out what I wanted to do and b) the impact on future turns. Because it's all about setting things up - I need to move a yellow there - and then an orange that activates that - so I'll drop a orange here on the way past to do that - and then next turn take this action which will allow me to take that action and do the bonus. This of course assumes that's an action you actually want.... I strongly suspect that this was the root cause of me getting so significantly drunk on the Saturday night as I needed to cool down my brain.
Ace game - I'd of brought that if there was a copy there - even if I've no idea who in Leeds would play it with me without either breaking down and crying or suffering horrible analysis paralysis.
We did get a play test of giant stone head version 3.01 - and it was broadly good. However oddly enough it's made me want to change some other pretty fundamental stuff as I try and smooth out the game and stuff that got added in to solve problems is pulled out. But the details on that can - I think wait to another day as this is long enough already. But not to long as I'll need a copy for this coming weekend and my friend from Amsterdam who is really going to look at the new version and go "what have you done!
But a stabcon also means new games.
Manhattan Project
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/63628/the-manhattan-project
A worker placement game - based (loosely) around making nuclear bombs. It was fun - I'd certainty play again - and it does have the cutest little artwork ever. However nothing really new.
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1044359/the-manhattan-project
The Castles of Burgundy
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/84876/the-castles-of-burgundy
A very good game that uses dice well - in that the dice define what you can do but no matter what you roll you get to do something (helped with with a good chunk of manipulation things). Want to play this again - was tempted to buy it.
Trajan
http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/102680/trajan
By the same person who designed The Castles of Burgundy - and proof that he has a very strange brain (oh and is the person who created the odd but excellent The Name Of The Rose that I want).
This game takes the "action roundel" and does something very odd with it.
In your normal action roundel you have a set of actions around the wheel - a counter somewhere on the wheel - and can move forwards a number of spaces to do that action. Often with the ability to mvoe further if you need to. This is one from the very playable game Antike - http://boardgamegeek.com/image/212148/antike.
So Trajan does two very odd things - a picture will help here.
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1162199/trajan
You have six spaces and 12 counters in six colours. On your turn you select one of the sets of pieces and move round the board putting one in each action space - where ever you place your final counter - that's the action you do. So in that picture - if you selected the pieces near the boat icon - you put one piece in the two columns , and another in the helmet and that's the action you'd do. If you picked the two columns (with five pieces) you'd go round putting in pieces till you got to the ship and then you'd do that action.
Which is pretty confusing (and very based on Macala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mancala) and hard to plan ahead.
But I've no mentioned the colours - those are related to bonus tiles. So in that picture - you see a tile with bread on it and a little orange dot and a green dot at the top. If after moving your bits around you can get an orange block and a green block in that space AND that's the action you do then you get that bonus tile - which generally does funky stuff (including free actions) and provides victory points.
Which made my brain drible out of ears trying to a) work out what I wanted to do and b) the impact on future turns. Because it's all about setting things up - I need to move a yellow there - and then an orange that activates that - so I'll drop a orange here on the way past to do that - and then next turn take this action which will allow me to take that action and do the bonus. This of course assumes that's an action you actually want.... I strongly suspect that this was the root cause of me getting so significantly drunk on the Saturday night as I needed to cool down my brain.
Ace game - I'd of brought that if there was a copy there - even if I've no idea who in Leeds would play it with me without either breaking down and crying or suffering horrible analysis paralysis.
We did get a play test of giant stone head version 3.01 - and it was broadly good. However oddly enough it's made me want to change some other pretty fundamental stuff as I try and smooth out the game and stuff that got added in to solve problems is pulled out. But the details on that can - I think wait to another day as this is long enough already. But not to long as I'll need a copy for this coming weekend and my friend from Amsterdam who is really going to look at the new version and go "what have you done!
Sunday, 24 June 2012
Version 3.00 playtest....
....was greeted by somebody going "you've changed a lot since last time." Which was a rather fair comment.
Broadly the changes worked. The new resource cards worked - and were much quicker and easier then fiddling things out - but they were felt to be quite samey and needed work. Which is something I expected - good idea not sure about the values was the feedback. The death spiral also seemed much less dramatic - one person got hammered down but soon bounced back. Also need tie breakers for when people have the same values.
Also the board got covered in stone heads - which was a dramatic improvement in terms of name and theme- and by the end of the game it did feel like you'd messed the island up since there was nothing but stone heads. Space became a vital resource.
One complaint was that once again there seemed no point to violence if you were at the top of the tree - yes you could do stuff but it would be undone by those going after you. Stopping your opponent getting VP's and playing RongoRongo cards did not seem to a viable position. People seem to be very defensive (not me then I'm playing like I think it should be played).
The movement cards need sorting - to make them more viable and/or easy to see when there worth using.
A RongoRongo card that activates just for winning a fight might be useful - no bonus VP - just the steal affect to give people an incentive for attacking the wining player.
Renown - originally a reward for violence is now fiddly and adds little.
Villages and the pool of warriors - not sure they now do much..... Also at 1 strength they seemed to get burned down a lot - and two they seemed to be pretty much left alone.
The work out resources then work out turn order is fiddly. And because taking top slot means going first just having more resources is not seen as that useful a thing.
Two good suggestions....
1) Defenders need something to make combat risky because once your out of defensive cards (or perceived to be out) you can be torn apart quickly.....
2) At the moment it's all about building stone heads - there needs to be more point to holding them. Possibly not through the game - but at the end of the game.
One other crazy idea I had well typing this - to help balance out the turn order thing - everybody declares there "grudge" for that turn and that's the only person you can attack...... That feels thematic and also funny. Might make players get cut off if players there are not able to attack seal them in.....
Need to work out what happens next - basically - Stabcon is coming up in a week and I need to take something to play. Do I bounce another version out the door or do I play test this one another time? I kind of want to play test this one again......
Broadly the changes worked. The new resource cards worked - and were much quicker and easier then fiddling things out - but they were felt to be quite samey and needed work. Which is something I expected - good idea not sure about the values was the feedback. The death spiral also seemed much less dramatic - one person got hammered down but soon bounced back. Also need tie breakers for when people have the same values.
Also the board got covered in stone heads - which was a dramatic improvement in terms of name and theme- and by the end of the game it did feel like you'd messed the island up since there was nothing but stone heads. Space became a vital resource.
One complaint was that once again there seemed no point to violence if you were at the top of the tree - yes you could do stuff but it would be undone by those going after you. Stopping your opponent getting VP's and playing RongoRongo cards did not seem to a viable position. People seem to be very defensive (not me then I'm playing like I think it should be played).
The movement cards need sorting - to make them more viable and/or easy to see when there worth using.
A RongoRongo card that activates just for winning a fight might be useful - no bonus VP - just the steal affect to give people an incentive for attacking the wining player.
Renown - originally a reward for violence is now fiddly and adds little.
Villages and the pool of warriors - not sure they now do much..... Also at 1 strength they seemed to get burned down a lot - and two they seemed to be pretty much left alone.
The work out resources then work out turn order is fiddly. And because taking top slot means going first just having more resources is not seen as that useful a thing.
Two good suggestions....
1) Defenders need something to make combat risky because once your out of defensive cards (or perceived to be out) you can be torn apart quickly.....
2) At the moment it's all about building stone heads - there needs to be more point to holding them. Possibly not through the game - but at the end of the game.
One other crazy idea I had well typing this - to help balance out the turn order thing - everybody declares there "grudge" for that turn and that's the only person you can attack...... That feels thematic and also funny. Might make players get cut off if players there are not able to attack seal them in.....
Need to work out what happens next - basically - Stabcon is coming up in a week and I need to take something to play. Do I bounce another version out the door or do I play test this one another time? I kind of want to play test this one again......
Sunday, 17 June 2012
All Change!
So despite at least one friend of mine telling me that Giant Stone Head is needs to be refined - not redone I've just redone most of it.
This is because the last couple of play tests have been ok - but the games a bit fiddly and there seems to be a distinct lack of building Giant Stone Heads which is a significant problem in a game about Giant Stone Heads. The resource system was also fitting less and less well into the game I was trying to write in my head - quick and dirty, up and down, low stakes but lots of it combat.
So version 3.00 walks onto the stage - and who knows - maybe it will melt under the burning heat of an actual play test - but currently I like it.
In the last version you had resource - which allowed you to take cards and then trade some of those cards in for men or giant stone heads. This new version the person with the most reources gets to pick where they want to go in the turn - and then in turn order every player picks a "resource card" which gives a fixed number of men, cards and stone heads. This hopefully creates a tension between going first for best card and going last which allows you to react to take your move knowing that nobody will nip in after you..... It also means that the death spiral/stream roller effect should be reigned in a lot - since even if your down to one hex your still going to get a card..... And finally the "not building any giant stone heads to ensure I keep going last - convert that into physical dominance and spurt at the end" will work less well. Because yes you might be able to keep going last - but other players will be getting better picks on the resource cards.......
This has involved rewriting how villages works - although "the pool" is still present as a limiter on the number of men you have. Renown now exists but is now used to boost your value for determining your turn order so there's an uncertainty element there. Equally the idea of sacrificing cards has gone - cards are now just cards. Which means I hope that cards other then plus to attack and plus to defence will be used as people will have them in there hands. Along those lines I've made is so that the Rongorongo can be played if one of two different conditions are met. So hopefully they will see more use - as players see more opportunity to fulfill them causing more movement on the victory point track.
We now also have empty spaces - so giant stone heads can be built at first without ruining peoples economies - so it easier to be an early builder.
I also dropped the event deck and moved to a known game end condition of the last tree being covered. And there's been a general slim down of play and correction of terminology so I call things the same consistently.
Even if this works - I'm back to square one regarding balance and values. How many men should a resource card get - how many cards and how many GSH? What is the difference between a good card and a bad card - to little and there's no point to choosing first and to much and you've got the same death spiral effect? Will going last still be good if holding onto resources is bad? How many spaces should the board actually have to create a game of decent length for 3, 4 and 5 players?
This is because the last couple of play tests have been ok - but the games a bit fiddly and there seems to be a distinct lack of building Giant Stone Heads which is a significant problem in a game about Giant Stone Heads. The resource system was also fitting less and less well into the game I was trying to write in my head - quick and dirty, up and down, low stakes but lots of it combat.
So version 3.00 walks onto the stage - and who knows - maybe it will melt under the burning heat of an actual play test - but currently I like it.
In the last version you had resource - which allowed you to take cards and then trade some of those cards in for men or giant stone heads. This new version the person with the most reources gets to pick where they want to go in the turn - and then in turn order every player picks a "resource card" which gives a fixed number of men, cards and stone heads. This hopefully creates a tension between going first for best card and going last which allows you to react to take your move knowing that nobody will nip in after you..... It also means that the death spiral/stream roller effect should be reigned in a lot - since even if your down to one hex your still going to get a card..... And finally the "not building any giant stone heads to ensure I keep going last - convert that into physical dominance and spurt at the end" will work less well. Because yes you might be able to keep going last - but other players will be getting better picks on the resource cards.......
This has involved rewriting how villages works - although "the pool" is still present as a limiter on the number of men you have. Renown now exists but is now used to boost your value for determining your turn order so there's an uncertainty element there. Equally the idea of sacrificing cards has gone - cards are now just cards. Which means I hope that cards other then plus to attack and plus to defence will be used as people will have them in there hands. Along those lines I've made is so that the Rongorongo can be played if one of two different conditions are met. So hopefully they will see more use - as players see more opportunity to fulfill them causing more movement on the victory point track.
We now also have empty spaces - so giant stone heads can be built at first without ruining peoples economies - so it easier to be an early builder.
I also dropped the event deck and moved to a known game end condition of the last tree being covered. And there's been a general slim down of play and correction of terminology so I call things the same consistently.
Even if this works - I'm back to square one regarding balance and values. How many men should a resource card get - how many cards and how many GSH? What is the difference between a good card and a bad card - to little and there's no point to choosing first and to much and you've got the same death spiral effect? Will going last still be good if holding onto resources is bad? How many spaces should the board actually have to create a game of decent length for 3, 4 and 5 players?
Sunday, 10 June 2012
So - latest play test.....
.... some serious blank faces when trying to explain the rules. Seemed to lift once play was started - and two of the three new players seemed to get it. I don't think it ever clicked for the less gamer of the three - and well they did ok they were pretty passive.
One player called it "oddly complicated and oddly simple". Which did not strike me as a good thing - although is suspect some of that is unclear terminology making things confusing.
We had two player eliminations - and the winning player was once again the person that ignored giant stone heads and went for resources. Not as bad as the time Cuss broke it - as they gambled on a long game and got it rather then Cuss massive one round swing - and if the game had ended quicker they would have lost.
The trouble is being an early stone head builder drags you down - and taking an early lead in Victory points means ending up with a bad turn position. But when the person at the back does not use that to catch up but rather focuses on resources they turn into a bit of steam roller of exactly the sort you don't want.
And after a while a player starts spiraling inwards - and unless player combine the problems can spiral out of control. In this game - I'm pretty sure I could have stopped the one player taking a dominate physical position but I needed to protect my own villages to much because I was going first and I was not sure the other player would have left me alone....
So what I'm thinking - and I'm mainly getting these ideas down in written form to get something more solid for my subconscious to tick over.....
Resources turn into cards - which turns into a direct advantage - leading to the possibility of a card gap. Worse a player can end up without the resources/people to take the actions they need to do anything.
There is also still a lack of giant stone head building which in a game about building giant stone heads is a bit of a problem.
So what to do?
The idea kicking around my head at the moment is that resources give you first pick from some sort of card row - in which each card provides a bunch of different values. So many new men, so many cards, so many stone heads. So yes more resources gets you "the best card" but the gap between best and worst in terms of resources is not so great - and players will be more inclined to build stone heads because they won't suffer so much from the act especially if there getting the stone heads "for free" - there not diverting resources into building them.....
This of course fundamentally impacts on the purpose of "renown" - which was meant to be used to encourage players to attack - because they had to attack to build stone heads. With a mechanism for rewarding you for hitting a player doing well - rather then kicking the weaker player. But it's not really worked - it's complicated things - and the last two players have just used it to power war machines to crush everybody else.
Also cards become - well cards - not a resource to be spent and so a slightly more situational card might be worth holding onto......
The role of villages fundamentally changes as well since they'd no longer be the force that controls the flow and supply of warriors.
If I'm honest with a change of this sort - I'd be keeping.....
1) The combat
2) The cards
3) The hexes and resources.
4) Events
And not a lot else - which is a major change and a half....
Which is an odd design decision - when the last couple of play tests have been described as "fundamentally playable" and change of this sort run the risk of throwing so very much other stuff out of wack.
Time to let my subconscious think on it.
One player called it "oddly complicated and oddly simple". Which did not strike me as a good thing - although is suspect some of that is unclear terminology making things confusing.
We had two player eliminations - and the winning player was once again the person that ignored giant stone heads and went for resources. Not as bad as the time Cuss broke it - as they gambled on a long game and got it rather then Cuss massive one round swing - and if the game had ended quicker they would have lost.
The trouble is being an early stone head builder drags you down - and taking an early lead in Victory points means ending up with a bad turn position. But when the person at the back does not use that to catch up but rather focuses on resources they turn into a bit of steam roller of exactly the sort you don't want.
And after a while a player starts spiraling inwards - and unless player combine the problems can spiral out of control. In this game - I'm pretty sure I could have stopped the one player taking a dominate physical position but I needed to protect my own villages to much because I was going first and I was not sure the other player would have left me alone....
So what I'm thinking - and I'm mainly getting these ideas down in written form to get something more solid for my subconscious to tick over.....
Resources turn into cards - which turns into a direct advantage - leading to the possibility of a card gap. Worse a player can end up without the resources/people to take the actions they need to do anything.
There is also still a lack of giant stone head building which in a game about building giant stone heads is a bit of a problem.
So what to do?
The idea kicking around my head at the moment is that resources give you first pick from some sort of card row - in which each card provides a bunch of different values. So many new men, so many cards, so many stone heads. So yes more resources gets you "the best card" but the gap between best and worst in terms of resources is not so great - and players will be more inclined to build stone heads because they won't suffer so much from the act especially if there getting the stone heads "for free" - there not diverting resources into building them.....
This of course fundamentally impacts on the purpose of "renown" - which was meant to be used to encourage players to attack - because they had to attack to build stone heads. With a mechanism for rewarding you for hitting a player doing well - rather then kicking the weaker player. But it's not really worked - it's complicated things - and the last two players have just used it to power war machines to crush everybody else.
Also cards become - well cards - not a resource to be spent and so a slightly more situational card might be worth holding onto......
The role of villages fundamentally changes as well since they'd no longer be the force that controls the flow and supply of warriors.
If I'm honest with a change of this sort - I'd be keeping.....
1) The combat
2) The cards
3) The hexes and resources.
4) Events
And not a lot else - which is a major change and a half....
Which is an odd design decision - when the last couple of play tests have been described as "fundamentally playable" and change of this sort run the risk of throwing so very much other stuff out of wack.
Time to let my subconscious think on it.
Thursday, 17 May 2012
On Dice
I recently played two games that were very heavily dice dependent and one I found the dice annoying - and the other the dice added a pleasing amount of randomness....
The first was Elder Sign and the second was Roll Through The Ages - the bronze age although technically we were playing the free expansion "the late bronze age" it's a much more balanced game).
Now there very different games - one is Arkham horror lite well the other is Civilisation in 30 minutes and there are a lot of other differences but as I sat there trying to work why the dice in one where annoying me and in another they were not. I think it hinges on one very big difference struck me....
In Elder sign i you roll dice to try and overcome a problem. You either succeed and gain a reward - or fail and take a penalty. And while the tasks come in stages you can not get partial credit -only clear 2 out of 3 stages it's still a fail and the next person will face all 3 stages again.
So very binary. And succeeding was also a bit flat - after all - what had I actually done?
In Roll Through The Ages - you roll your dice three times - keep some of them (have to keep others of them) and then use those dice to do stuff. There are times that you get terrible turns - when you need food and rule no food at all. Or when you roll a bunch of disasters. But no matter what luck sends you - you get to do something even if it's not quite what you wanted.
I find one of these annoying and the other fun......
So in my opinion - succeed/fail is a bad mechanic where as "where do I go from here" is a good mechanic to use with dice. And I shall do my best to remember that.
The first was Elder Sign and the second was Roll Through The Ages - the bronze age although technically we were playing the free expansion "the late bronze age" it's a much more balanced game).
Now there very different games - one is Arkham horror lite well the other is Civilisation in 30 minutes and there are a lot of other differences but as I sat there trying to work why the dice in one where annoying me and in another they were not. I think it hinges on one very big difference struck me....
In Elder sign i you roll dice to try and overcome a problem. You either succeed and gain a reward - or fail and take a penalty. And while the tasks come in stages you can not get partial credit -only clear 2 out of 3 stages it's still a fail and the next person will face all 3 stages again.
So very binary. And succeeding was also a bit flat - after all - what had I actually done?
In Roll Through The Ages - you roll your dice three times - keep some of them (have to keep others of them) and then use those dice to do stuff. There are times that you get terrible turns - when you need food and rule no food at all. Or when you roll a bunch of disasters. But no matter what luck sends you - you get to do something even if it's not quite what you wanted.
I find one of these annoying and the other fun......
So in my opinion - succeed/fail is a bad mechanic where as "where do I go from here" is a good mechanic to use with dice. And I shall do my best to remember that.
Sunday, 6 May 2012
So some friends of mine....
....helped me work out the probability of certain things and the deck design I had for "empire poker" did create some really really odd effects..... Not given up - running the numbers on another possible design but there's no sign my subconscious has got better at game design.....
But today we had a decent GSH play test. Actually went really well - felt like a game. Not perfect - one player started to death spiral in a bit - but still pretty good. One thing I'm noticing is that I don't see the temptation in hitting weaker player - but other players do....... Also the "lurking at the back" before leaping forwards tactic seems very strong....
Players have pointed out that I've created a game of Chaos - where nothing lasts and everything swings back and forwards. Which is good - as that's what I wanted to do......
Quick conversation provide some clear modifications - one change to board set up, reducing the cost of something, and a change in order. All easy enough to implement that version 2.08 is actually already read to go. Just need a bit of cutting out......
With some potential changes for 2.09 already lined up - but need to see how 2.08 works first.....
There is some serious work to do on the User Interface - and flow of the game which might help make the game rattle along quickly (it currently takes about 3 hours to play - but feels more like a two hour game in terms of the amount of game play you get) but that needs to wait till the game itself is better. But good overall.
But today we had a decent GSH play test. Actually went really well - felt like a game. Not perfect - one player started to death spiral in a bit - but still pretty good. One thing I'm noticing is that I don't see the temptation in hitting weaker player - but other players do....... Also the "lurking at the back" before leaping forwards tactic seems very strong....
Players have pointed out that I've created a game of Chaos - where nothing lasts and everything swings back and forwards. Which is good - as that's what I wanted to do......
Quick conversation provide some clear modifications - one change to board set up, reducing the cost of something, and a change in order. All easy enough to implement that version 2.08 is actually already read to go. Just need a bit of cutting out......
With some potential changes for 2.09 already lined up - but need to see how 2.08 works first.....
There is some serious work to do on the User Interface - and flow of the game which might help make the game rattle along quickly (it currently takes about 3 hours to play - but feels more like a two hour game in terms of the amount of game play you get) but that needs to wait till the game itself is better. But good overall.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)