Sunday session 5th Feb @ The Red Deer

paulyg wrote:

JamesETT wrote:I'd also like to have a go at android paulyg if you'll save me a spot

Yep, we can stretch to 4. See you later!

Actually, Liz can't make it so we are back to 3. We can still go to 4 if anyone else fancies joining.

Finally got to play Hero Realms, finally got a chance to turn down Dribbel-Fieber, and played three cool prototypes by three very talented club members, which I will now criticise for prosperity:

Nomads, by Tom, has this great board/movement idea. Your tiles are moved around in a Nokia Snake-like manner, and how much stuff you can do when you reach a village or shrine tile is dependant on how many of those tiles you are already covering with the rest of your snaking tribe.

This version of the game didn't quite click for me. I wonder how much strategy there is to moving around the board. I say that having decisively lost, so take it with scepticism. Still, there is plenty of everything in each area of the board, so no need to step on anyone's toes. With only two movements per turn it's hard to intentionally get in anybody's way anyway. Plus, because between turns the trade row has certainly almost entirely changed it's impossible to makes plans to move in order to get resources for a specific item.

You asked if having a few future cards visible would be an improvement. What if, instead of a trade row, you had a number of cards laid out Mare Nostrum style from the start, say 15 balanced cards that would always be available if you got to a village (if you have the resources). Then you could plan an efficient route around the board to get the resources you need, think about what other people are aiming for based on the resources they are collecting, strategize a building order etc. Because each card is only available once, it might also give a little more incentive to get in people's way if you think they are aiming for the same card as you. Just a thought.  

I know there is something amazing and original that can be done with the Nomads idea. Did you try giving resources for every space you are on, not just the ones you move into, so you commit a piece to a certain resource for several turns? What about card or resource based movement so that you can sometimes shoot ahead several spaces in one turn, but it will cost you something? Programmed movement?

Spleeny's Cold War/Aliens World Domination Game, by Spleeny is... well, it's a beast. The most complex game made by a member of the club I have yet played. It's kind of incredible. There are two particularly delightful and original mechanics that I have to explain straight away:

First, the bidding. If you get to a second round of bidding, the player that picked the territory being bid on sets the final possible price. If everyone else passes in this second round, the first player gets it as usual, but if any other player meets his bid that territory is no longer available that round, but both parties left in the auction have to pay that final amount. The other bidding player has paid to keep it out of the first player's hands, even though the other player isn't getting it themselves. This makes the bidding rounds are really short, and everyone basically gets ONE chance to actually take the territory, so they have to bid what they actually think it is worth. Then there is that possibility of nobody getting the territory but players still having to pay for it. That brings up the question of: whose responsibility is it to pay to keep an key territory out of the hands of a strong player? With more human players I think this would be an important question.

Second, even more interestingly, is this key conceit that the alien players have a fuck-ton of powerful technology, but can't even get onto the game board to begin with, so have to negotiate with the human players for spaces on the board in exchange for technology. The humans lose a space they own, but get a leg up on their human competition. This almost smells like a social experiment. Could the human players agree at the start to just freeze out the aliens from the game and have it out amongst themselves? Is there a reason the aliens wouldn't reveal themselves as having secret rulers as soon as that card is passed on? I love the idea that an alien could reveal itself late in the game, having been a secret ruler for most of the game, but why not do it immediately to get involved in more battles?

As I said, it's sprawling game, and that makes it hard what to think about some aspects. Like, are events really necessary? Do we really need that many action cards (I had about 15 most of the game)? Do the aliens have enough to do? Is there enough reason to negotiate and make deals (I basically just grabbed my favourite technology from an alien on either side of me, in exchange for a hidden rule and 10 resources, then told the aliens to sod off)? Is it possible to come back when at a big economic disadvantage? Are the effects of scepticism relevant enough? I have not a clue, and I certainly couldn't even begin comment on balance and strategy or anything like that.

But I kind of think it's amazing anyway!

Ma1functi0n, by Samuel, is a funny little puzzle that I'm not quite sure fits together, though I confess I may not have given it a fair chance.

My first question is: why have the scientists move around the board at all, if they don't effect the path of the robot, and their location doesn't affect the placement of items? They are only there to get to the items, so their existence of the board is just to delay getting the items that are used to actually solve the puzzle. And their movement is based on dice roles, so it's not like there is even a question of efficiently collecting items or timing their collection, as the speed that you get to them is always decided by random numbers. It would be very possible to remove them from the board entirely, and instead give each player a different way to tackling the problem happening on the board, perhaps by handing out cards with effects that are played as your turn.

The other question is this: what solutions are the players coming up with/what decisions are they making? What path the robot should be taking is quite obvious, of course. Does the random movement of the robot actually create a puzzle that must be solved? Aren't the players just course correcting — or, worse, just waiting for the random movement to work in their favour?

I wonder, with this idea of movement being based on the deck of cards, if there is the possibility of playing the odds. Say there were only up, down, left and right cards in the deck. Then you drew five cards for the robot but the players only see two of them, and they have to commit to all five cards or discard all of them based on those two (the facedown cards would be discarded facedown), and they can also look through the discard pile for more information, and then can rearrange the cards, if they take them, so NavBot can carry them out in a different order. And if the map was far less forgiving and more complex, with traps and conveyor belts and obstacles and the like, that could be the start of a cool puzzle.

Just brainstorming I was glad to play the game anyways. It's always really fun to see what people come up with, and to play a new game with original ideas, especially if it's a bit rough —it gets me thinking! Plus, your board and cards were seriously nice. Bring down your next thing, the next version or next game, and I'll be happy to play it!

Oh, and welcome to Claire, Angel, Lee, and Brenda (which may or may not be how you spell any of your names, if I got any of your names right at all), some who have been down to the club before but I met for the first time yesterday. Best wishes for many great games to all of you.

Would the designers like the above comments moved to the member's forum? It just occurred to me people might prefer to discuss their inventions in "private", so maybe it is worth having a thread for feedback in that section of the forum. (That said, this thread is already irrelevant, so it's not like people are going to be looking...)

I make fun of Dribbel-Fieber, John, but I genuinely would like to play it sometime!

Dribbel-Fieber was great. It's a weird hybrid mix of a deckbuilder for actions you can take, but then the actual actions feed into and take place on a somewhat abstract depiction of a 5-a-side football pitch. Positioning your players, moving your players, fighting for possession, choosing where to pass, knowing when and when not to shoot all become interesting decisions. The deck building part has an interesting twist where you only get 1 opportunity to thin your deck and reposition your team on the board (the half time team talk).

There is a bit of luck in the game in what cards you draw per turn, but you have a fair bit of control as cards that you buy go straight into your hand and you know all the cards in your deck so it is possible to plan both short and long term. There is further luck in that when you shoot you roll a D6 to determine if you score. You manage this luck by having your best shooter take the shot, playing cards, being closer to the goal etc, so again there are factors which feed into the decisions you have to make. Will you take a pot-shot and hope for a lucky roll or wait and plan to engineer a better shooting position on your next turn where you'll have a much better chance of scoring?

I'm suspecting it is biased towards experienced players but not more so than other games of this type. I soundly trounced Meurig 4-2, and in all honesty, it could have been more. His forwards showed some nice link up play with a few one-twos in the middle of the park, but he never really threated other than from long range. I even denied him a last (albeit meaningless) shot at goal when he was in his best position of the match and almost guaranteed to score, just to be a bastard.

So ungracious in victory, John.

Meurig wrote:So ungracious in victory, John.

It was like watching men against boys out there

Sam wrote:Ma1functi0n, by Samuel, is a funny little puzzle that I'm not quite sure fits together, though I confess I may not have given it a fair chance.

My first question is: why have the scientists move around the board at all, if they don't effect the path of the robot, and their location doesn't affect the placement of items? They are only there to get to the items, so their existence of the board is just to delay getting the items that are used to actually solve the puzzle. And their movement is based on dice roles, so it's not like there is even a question of efficiently collecting items or timing their collection, as the speed that you get to them is always decided by random numbers. It would be very possible to remove them from the board entirely, and instead give each player a different way to tackling the problem happening on the board, perhaps by handing out cards with effects that are played as your turn.

The other question is this: what solutions are the players coming up with/what decisions are they making? What path the robot should be taking is quite obvious, of course. Does the random movement of the robot actually create a puzzle that must be solved? Aren't the players just course correcting — or, worse, just waiting for the random movement to work in their favour?

I wonder, with this idea of movement being based on the deck of cards, if there is the possibility of playing the odds. Say there were only up, down, left and right cards in the deck. Then you drew five cards for the robot but the players only see two of them, and they have to commit to all five cards or discard all of them based on those two (the facedown cards would be discarded facedown), and they can also look through the discard pile for more information, and then can rearrange the cards, if they take them, so NavBot can carry them out in a different order. And if the map was far less forgiving and more complex, with traps and conveyor belts and obstacles and the like, that could be the start of a cool puzzle.

Just brainstorming I was glad to play the game anyways. It's always really fun to see what people come up with, and to play a new game with original ideas, especially if it's a bit rough —it gets me thinking! Plus, your board and cards were seriously nice. Bring down your next thing, the next version or next game, and I'll be happy to play it!

Thanks Sam, you've given me some good ideas and things to think about there - I'll have a good old think about how I can develop the game. I feel it is a reasonable start but I do need to properly sort out what I want the core mechanics etc. to be.

I don't personally mind the comments on my game being in this thread, that's fine.

Sam wrote:I make fun of Dribbel-Fieber, John, but I genuinely would like to play it sometime!

I would also very much like to play Dribbel-Fieber at some point!

JohnH wrote:

Meurig wrote:So ungracious in victory, John.

It was like watching men against boys out there

It was a disappointing result and I'd like to apologise to the fans who gave us such great support and deserved better. I think maybe the lads just let the big occasion get to them a bit and at this level, you can't afford to make mistakes like that or you will be punished. Still, I'm sure my players learnt a lot from the experience and our focus now is on how we can improve and make sure that we get the win in our next game.

JohnH wrote:

Meurig wrote:So ungracious in victory, John.

It was like watching men against boys out there

Don't worry Meurig - I sent him down a peg or two yesterday.

Aneurin wrote:

JohnH wrote:

Meurig wrote:So ungracious in victory, John.

It was like watching men against boys out there

Don't worry Meurig - I sent him down a peg or two yesterday.

Clearly bribed the ref