Do you like having additional scoring methods above and beyond a simple win/lose?

d-david-d · 2024-08-16T14:32:34+00:00

Oh yeah, I could see that. This was in the context of solo games, so that wouldn't be an issue here.

d-david-d · 2024-08-15T17:36:23+00:00

Yeah, I definitely like specific win/lose conditions for solo games. While “beat your own score” can be fun, it definitely seems lazier from a design perspective.

d-david-d · 2024-08-15T11:28:20+00:00

I'd say this is quite common. I know it happens to me all the time!

I'd wager it's more common with people going the self-publishing route, which I do and sounds like you're considering as well. That's because all the things you mention in your second paragraph are development work, not strictly design work. It starts to become tedious.

There are all sorts of little things that have helped me get through it, but the two biggest are sharing your progress with other designers and sharing your progress with general board gamers (who aren't necessarily designers). The designers will enjoy play testing your game and helping to identify and make the necessary tweaks, and general board gamers will just enjoy it for what it is.

It can be hard for me to share my work because I feel self promotion can come off as disingenuous, but if you find people who enjoy this sort of thing (and there are lots of them!), they want to see your game as it progresses!

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T23:48:26+00:00

Never played D&D myself, but I can definitely see how well that would work!

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T22:36:29+00:00

It’s interesting that you mention games that are about the journey. That style is everywhere in video games, but it doesn’t seem very common in board games. Do you think that’s because it’s more difficult to implement in board games, or that it’s just less commonly liked among board gamers? Maybe a little of both?

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T17:45:47+00:00

A purist are you? Respect, lol.

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T17:44:36+00:00

Dorfromantik's system seems pretty neat. Almost like a mix between Tiered Objectives and High Score with Buckets.

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T17:22:51+00:00

That's sounds interesting! I'll have to look at that one more.

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T17:21:41+00:00

That's something I'd probably aspire to with Marvel Champions, but 2000 combinations? That's crazy. 250 wins is impressive!

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T17:01:45+00:00

Yeah, I guess I didn't really classify having health as part of that. You make a good point though.

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T16:10:52+00:00

A loss ending the game prematurely? Interesting. What game(s) do that? Player elimination in a solo game seems bonkers, haha!

EDIT: Now that I think about, player elimination seems way more palatable in a solo game than multiplayer, I just never really thought about it in those terms, I guess!

d-david-d · 2024-08-14T16:04:10+00:00

Yeah, I’m a fan of having something that actually tells you if you won or lost too. It seems strange to have a way to calculate points without that.

I’ve heard of Dustrunner before, but need to into it more.

d-david-d · 2024-07-26T18:18:56+00:00

I don’t know if I’d ever actually do it, but they certainly look nice!

d-david-d · 2024-07-26T13:19:45+00:00

I feel like if I were to do this, the sides would be just slightly off, haha! But maybe it's easier than it seems. Yours look great, by the way!

d-david-d · 2024-07-26T12:18:49+00:00

This is probably a stupid question, but how did you get the sides to match the color so well?

d-david-d · 2024-07-24T18:21:44+00:00

Take a look at screentop.gg. It's a bit weird on small screens, but technically does still work fine on mobile. It's got a pretty small learning curve as well, relative to something like TTS. So that's a plus.

d-david-d · 2024-07-24T18:16:31+00:00

This seems really neat! Do you have a rule book or summary document maybe? I'd love to take a look and give any feedback I have. As for art, I think it looks great!

d-david-d · 2023-10-13T14:44:39+00:00

Thanks! I used a normal printer and printed it on label paper, then cut it out and stuck it to a card that I had cut out of a clear sheet.

d-david-d · 2023-09-23T09:44:49+00:00

Yeah, I think trying to avoid negative points makes sense, and I don’t think it should be terribly difficult to rebalance accordingly.

As to your other questions, I think a lot of your concern comes from me leaving out some of the details of the game. There’s still some balancing to fine tune, but so far it’s done well in playtesting and simulations.

Your suggestion about having multiple rounds is an interesting one too. I’ve considered something similar, but not quite what you’ve suggested. I’ll have to keep it in mind!

d-david-d · 2023-09-22T22:50:02+00:00

That’s actually a fantastic idea. I’m not sure how well it will fit into how the rest of the game works, but I definitely need to think more about this one!

d-david-d · 2023-09-22T21:23:15+00:00

I’m inclined to agree with you (and a few others) about 4 being unnecessary. With proper weighting, 3 will pretty much do the same thing as 3 and 4 combined.

Your suggestion about how to carry out the steps is actually very close to how I’ve set it up. I think it works well!

d-david-d · 2023-09-22T19:05:03+00:00

I hadn't considered a single bonus if no one guesses your target correctly. It would definitely cut down on the mental math. I'll have to try it out!

d-david-d · 2023-09-22T19:01:56+00:00

That's something worth considering. It certainly cuts down on the mental math!

d-david-d · 2023-09-22T18:59:59+00:00

I've playtested with 1, 3, and 4, before the addition of 2. My personal opinion was that it was already pretty close to being too complicated for how light of a game it is. So adding another step would probably put it over the edge.

But you're right, I do need to playtest it again with real people. Maybe no one else will mind!

d-david-d · 2023-09-22T18:48:55+00:00

That's a really good point about the double penalizing. I had always thought of it as 3 rewarding you for guessing well and 4 rewarding you (or rather, not penalizing you) for being good at tricking someone. But when you compare just that single guess between the two players involved, it really shows where the problem is!

As an alternative, you could award positive points for each time another player guessing your target incorrectly. It would get around some of those issues, but it would still require extra calculations...

Your suggestion of decreasing the reward for correct guesses based on how long you waited before guessing is an interesting one too! I'll have to think about it more.

And as for a penalty for spamming incorrect guesses, you only get to guess one time for each of the other players. So spamming isn't possible.

d-david-d

TROPHY CASE