I don't think any of the new ideas completely flopped, but not all of them may end up as keepers either. Here's my sense of what worked and what didn't work as well.
Enemy in the temple: No one liked this very much. The AI we came up with was clearly rough, but it was more the idea of having to have an AI was unpopular -- you want players focusing on how to plan their own best route through the temple, not having to worry about policing the rules by which the enemy explores. In a game with no GM, enemy movement just didn't seem to fit, and everyone agreed the time track was an appropriate abstraction.
Enemy outside the temple: I liked this quite a bit more. We played that you add an enemy when you move into a city; you reduce the enemy progress track by the number of enemy in the city at the end of your turn; and when there are 5 enemy or more in a city, you roll a d6 and the enemy either digs for the temple (1-2), kidnaps the theme card in the city (3-4), or activates an "agent" (5-6) (which simply controls the speed at which the enemy explores the temple). I think it worked pretty well -- you were worried about the enemy becoming too big in a particular city, but it didn't lock the game board down like the old system.
Lead cards: Neutral to negative. I don't think there was any specific excitement about this system, whereby you're told where you can find someone. But the implementation was at least part of the problem -- it was sometimes the case that you'd draw a lead to the same city you were in. And they weren't easy to get; facing a challenge to get a lead, or asking a theme card for a lead, were useful but not heavily used by the players. So as a result, it felt like you were just supposed to chase down whatever lead you were initially dealt, which lost some of the route planning that originally made the game fun. Maybe if, instead, every theme card has an associated whereabouts, and you need to get a lead to be authorized to look at it, this could be an acceptable compromise between the previous version, where all cards are always available, and the new system, where no cards are out at the start.
Encounter cards: Neutral to postive. These had descriptions of a scene, rather than an actual image, so players had to use their imagination, but they were all good sports about this, and most everyone saw some potential in the system. Concerns about knowing the "right" way to beat each card emerged, and the observation was made that there's no difference between the various skills -- they're just different numbers, but there's no difference between a "fight", an "escape", etc. A very interesting suggestion emerged to switch this to a group vote dynamic, a la Dixit, whereby you'd all look at the card, the active player would select his "response", and the inactive players would select what they think the solution ought to be, and if they match, the player passes -- or some permutation of that idea. There are some issues to be thought through but I think it could work, the question is simply whether there's enough to make it interesting.
Clues instead of check marks: Neutral. I think it was nice to be able to get a concrete clue from everyone you interview, but on the other hand, once you reveal that card X gives a level 3 clue, everyone else pretty much just wants to go visit that card to get a level 3 clue. This does what I wanted -- it creates convergence at a particular location, which boosts the enemy's strength by giving the enemy die rolls and progress track movement; but that doesn't create a disincentive to the other players to go there to get the best clue (*). The previous version made it harder to get better clues, this version makes it more statisically unlikely, and I think I like the previous version better, because it introduces more challenge to the decision of how much effort to expend to get the better clues?
(*) A couple of players suggested that a city that is full of enemy is locked down, and can't be entered by the players, period. And probably, that players have some ability to pull enemy out of the location they're in.
Theme cards as allies: Neutral to positive. Most players liked this thematically; Steve suggested separating the theme cards, which give info, from a separate category of ally cards, which give boosts to your stats.
Turn structure: Neutral. Turns were pretty quick, but on the other hand, there wasn't quite enough for the players to do; I think we'd like to see a little more action. Steve specifically suggested wanting there to be things you could be doing even in a turn where you won't going for information. I think this is a fruitful direction for further thought. But there are two important considerations that have to guide such thinking. The first is that the game can't tolerate much more complexity, and the second is that any system in the game should ultimately relate back to the information hunt in some way.
With respect to the last point, I think the "problem" is that there just isn't that much information in the game -- 3 clues with 3 levels each = 9 pieces of information, and you can possibly skip over the lower ones if you luck out or pay attention. I don't think we can add much more information than this, though -- breaking a clue into more than 3 levels would be difficult and/or would render the lower-level clues nearly worthless. So, the action in the game is really about adding obstacles to make the info hunt more challenging or time-consuming or interesting. The variable difficulty of visiting each location used to be the way that we did this, the current version makes it hard to find the people that give clues, but maybe there are additional ways to achieve this that we haven't considered yet.
Overall, it was an informative session that I hope will lead to some promising next steps for the design.
Note: I typed a long response to each part of your post, and then there was some error while posting and it all disappeared into the ether. I absolutely hate when that happens! Here's an abbreviated version of that post:
ReplyDeleteRE: Enemy in the temple:
I agree that a game clock is an appropriate implementation of the enemy in the temple.
RE: Enemy outside the temple:
I suppose this could work, but I still prefer the old version. This new thing just sounds more fiddly. I will note however that I never saw the board as "locking up" as you keep mentioning, so maybe it's a difference in perception about how the old version was playing out.
In my mind it made a lot of sense that the theme cards were the incentive to go places, and the enemy presence was like the cost. It was never impossible to get the info you wanted, but you had to balance the cost of it. Some specifics could have used some work, for example I think it was too easy to 'beat up' a Nazi token, and doing so effectively negated the one token you added to the board, so that was awkward, but the structure I always thought was sound and worked thematically as well.
RE: Lead cards:
To me this really feels like an extraneous layer of complexity and cost to the info hunt. It sounds like just making the players jump through hoops before they (pay a cost and) get their information. I think instead the cost should be appropriate - and I think this additional cost of first getting then chasing down leads is too much and too distracting from the actual hunt for info.
RE: Encounter cards:
I still like the sound of the Visual Encounter cards, but for them to work I think they need to be structured like this:
1. Reveal card
2. Choose a stat (Escape, Luck, Fight, Wits)
3. Maybe there's some additional thing like paying cards or rolling a die
4. Place card under slot corresponding to chosen stat and player's 'level' in that stat (including whatever modifiers may have come from step 3)
5. Determine result...
Where each card could have different 'success thresholds' and different definitions of success based on which stat you used. For example, possible results could be:
- Nothing happens
- You are captured
- You get a check mark in category A
- You get a check mark in category B
(note that this incorporates part of your next post)
In fact, I think Theme Cards could maybe work this way as well - so 2 different players visiting the same theme card may get different information based on their chosen stat (and their 'level' at that stat)
This assumes players have character stats which probably start at 1 in each of those 4 categories, and can rise over the course of the game. This has come up in the past, and I think it would be a good addition. I would probably use Hat/Gun/Satchel/Whip tokens, where each token is +1 to it's associated stat.
RE: Clues instead of check marks:
I much prefer the check mark idea, and I also like your thoughts on expanding that from your next blog post.
RE: Theme cards as allies:
Above I was talking about tokens which increase a players stats... Another idea is like this one about allies... each theme card could start with one such token on it, and the first player to visit the theme card could collect it (or, players visiting certain theme cards using certain stats could collect a token) - which is kind of like an ally following you around, but without having to move or change the theme card.
RE: Turn structure: I don't recall having any problem with the turn structure in the version I played. It seemed like we were able to do an appropriate amount of stuff every turn.
Now I'll go comment on your next post about checkmarks.
"RE: Enemy outside the temple:
ReplyDeleteI suppose this could work, but I still prefer the old version. This new thing just sounds more fiddly."
I really don't think it's especially fiddly, but that doesn't mean it's a great idea, either. If the encounter cards are taking over the role of challenges (which I think is desirable as a way of enhancing the theming), then this gives a way for the increasing numbers of enemy cubes to still mean something tangible, and it does a good job capturing the "growing threat" feeling that the previous version had.
"RE: Lead cards:
To me this really feels like an extraneous layer of complexity and cost to the info hunt. It sounds like just making the players jump through hoops before they (pay a cost and) get their information."
It basically is that, but my thought was that it's perhaps justified by the enhancement to the "feel" that it provides -- it just seems cool to receive a telegram telling you to come to Ankarra, or a hastily scribbled note left at your hotel desk, or you find a fragment of a map. I just like the idea of a "set-up" prior to going to find the theme card, but it has to be implemented in a way that doesn't feel like hoop jumping, I agree.
"RE: Encounter cards:
I still like the sound of the Visual Encounter cards, but for them to work I think they need to be structured like this:"
I agree, that's almost exactly the structure I had envisioned for them as well! Once concern was that each category basically feels the same, it's just a matter of consulting a different stat. Not sure yet what to do about that.
"In fact, I think Theme Cards could maybe work this way as well - so 2 different players visiting the same theme card may get different information based on their chosen stat (and their 'level' at that stat)"
That's a neat extension of the idea.
"This assumes players have character stats which probably start at 1 in each of those 4 categories, and can rise over the course of the game. This has come up in the past, and I think it would be a good addition. I would probably use Hat/Gun/Satchel/Whip tokens, where each token is +1 to it's associated stat."
I've always taken the view that the game spans such a short time that the player's skill doesn't increase over the game, but he can improve by acquiring equipment (ie adventure cards) or allies. But improving skills could work nicely mechanically, so I'm definitely not dismissing it.
"RE: Theme cards as allies:
Above I was talking about tokens which increase a players stats... Another idea is like this one about allies... each theme card could start with one such token on it, and the first player to visit the theme card could collect it (or, players visiting certain theme cards using certain stats could collect a token) - which is kind of like an ally following you around, but without having to move or change the theme card."
That is a good alternative idea.
Thanks for your comments!