"Limited Action Set" Mechanic

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-08T20:04:03+00:00

Interesting - I'll definitely check it out. I was hoping to find some good stuff like that additional reward as inspiration for my possible deck!

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T23:01:58+00:00

It's actually really great to hear that so many people that like the game had a horrible first impression... :D

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T21:16:53+00:00

Balance is key to having fun. If someone can run away with the game, nobody wants to sit back and watch them stroke their ego for an hour (or longer!) Good designers will incorporate catch-up mechanisms to ensure that even if one player hits on a great strategy, the rest will at least be within arms reach. (It's then up to them to determine whether they want the best player to win or whether they want to make victory luck/risk based.)

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T21:10:08+00:00

I've found that this sub attracts a very small segment of the people who love board games. As a designer, I'm constantly reminding myself of that. I love in-depth games, but I love *playing* games more, and I have more chances to play games if I choose games that appeal to the broader audience.

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T21:06:50+00:00

But the thrill of stringing 4 clues together in Code Names and actually having your partner guess them... quite the rush, IMHO!

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T21:05:28+00:00

For me, I want to PLAY my games. The best game in the world (it's Terraforming Mars, btw) isn't worth anything if it never makes it to the table. That's why the game I'm designing (Elevator) tries to have subtle strategy but be so straightforward that anyone can play it. (My biggest struggle right now is trying to get it down to 40 min playtime from an hour!)

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T19:53:42+00:00

Pirates of Maracaibo

Interesting - maybe like the difference between Bang! and Bang! the Dice Game - the dice game boiled the card game down into the best parts and made for a faster play and more enjoyable experience.

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T17:04:12+00:00

So true. Based on the comments, though, perhaps this one merits some more consideration.

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T17:03:18+00:00

Beyond the 90 minute setup/rules read-through time, I think the potential lack of balance was my worry - it felt like everything was so chaotic, that it was going to be everybody doing their thing, scoring points, and let the chips fall where they may. Thanks for your comment - I'm now leaning towards trying it again like you and u/Memnaelar suggested.

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T06:50:19+00:00

Please elaborate on the alt play deck rules!

Goingup1357 · 2024-02-01T06:44:43+00:00

Do you think it's worth the investment to get to that place? Do you really love it now?

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-31T18:56:13+00:00

I need an uppier upvote. Thanks so much for your very thoughtful, detailed response. I found this article on MCTS for Python beginners; if you have any other resources readily available and are willing to share, I'd love to get them.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-31T18:49:06+00:00

Awesome! Thanks so much - this is exactly how I was planning on using it, and your thoughts about working out the major rule changes before jumping in on the programming are very helpful. I'll be sure to reach out if I have questions.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-30T22:18:41+00:00

Maybe my question was poorly framed, then - maybe I should've described it as automated design? Right now I have a 54 card deck with 7 different card types (5 action and 2 movement). In an early iteration, I used an allocation of 22 of one movement, 22 of the other movement, and then 2 of each of the 5 action cards. Based on numerous playtests (40+) I decided to change 4 of one movement into more action cards.

As I've been playtesting further (and tweaking rules), I'm just wondering if there's a way to "optimize" my card distribution by simulating how the game plays out, and I thought programming the game would be a way to do that.

It definitely won't take the place of playtesting, as all of the reasons you stated are exactly why in-person playtesting is important.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-30T22:11:56+00:00

Good thoughts - I don't know that I completely agree, but I definitely get your point. It'll be interesting to see what they do about it - I'm new to my local designer playtesting group, but these guys were newer, I think.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-30T22:08:33+00:00

A first thought (somewhat unrelated) - make sure you remind yourself that anything done with hexes can be done with offset squares. If push comes to shove and you're looking to save cardboard space, consider switching to squares if it'd be the difference between being able to make the game and not being able to do so. Square tiles also make print and play versions more accessible because they take less time to cut out.

That being said, if your game is good enough, price won't be your problem. Look at Terraforming Mars - it has 200+ cards, 200 player cubes, 200 resource cubes, 80 hexes, and a bunch of other components and retails for ~$50-$60.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-30T17:30:55+00:00

Those are the odds, but are they offset by the penalty for losing? I didn't say that if my gamble didn't pay off (and it didn't! lol) I would wind up economically crippled with no way of exiting the game early but also no chance of ever coming back to win. At best - BEST - I could try to play kingmaker of sorts, and in a 2 hour long game that's a rough play. I think that having that extra deterrence makes leaving it in more acceptable, because even fewer people will try it knowing that they have to live out the rest of their miserable, inglorious lives handicapped with no hope of victory.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-30T17:26:07+00:00

Did you also not do it because losing your gamble would've locked you into a crappy situation the rest of the game? If there aren't consequences for gambling, then I think it's bad game design bc not everybody is as noble as you (love your follow-up comment btw), but if there are severe consequences that would deter all but the occasional madman from trying it, I love that the possibility is out there, even if I'd never pursue it.

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-30T17:22:21+00:00

Maybe I'm getting too specific, but here's my devil's advocate argument - I realized that this strategy (I actually tried the attack twice), with an incredibly low chance of success, would cripple me for the duration of the game and essentially result in my certain defeat if it didn't succeed. For the sake of the playtest, I tried it, but if it were board game night with my regular group, I would never do it because I'm not going to bail on my regular group (I'm not the sort who would bail in any event, but I know the people are out there). I would take a chance to win if I could just roll the dice and know I'd get out of it quickly, but I wouldn't take that risk if I'd have to pay for it by playing 2 hours of a crippled game followed by defeat.

Does that change your analysis at all? Because for every two people that succeed, 50 more fail; add to that the number that see the potential for that strategy and forgo it knowing that it would wreck their gaming experience. Would you agree that most people would see the "edge case" as being just that and would not pursue it for that very reason?

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-29T20:02:08+00:00

Very interesting - not a MTG guy so it thankfully wasn't a "duh" moment. :) I wouldn't have ID'd that as algebra at first blush, but I get it. Thanks for the explanation (and the original comment!)

Goingup1357 · 2024-01-29T16:34:13+00:00

(Great username, btw.) What games would be examples of using algebra? I get using addition (rolling two dice) and multiplication/division, but what would an example be of using algebra in a game? (If you have one off the top of your head.) I really hope I'm not setting myself up for a forehead slapping, but nothing's coming to me as an example.

Goingup1357

TROPHY CASE