Enough of the teaser from my previous post. Here's the information on my newest game design.
In a distant galaxy, there are 8 systems of planets. Between these systems, there are 8 space stations that provide varied benefits to passing travelers; however, there is a major problem with the stations. Due to flaws in the construction of those stations, they are all unable to maintain position in any one of the systems. Every so often, the stations move to another system.
The inhabitants of the 8 systems gathered and decided on a solution: build a massive station to connect each of the stations. By doing this, one station will be fixed in position near each system.
In the game, each player has a ship that travels to the various stations to gather resources to aid in construction of the central station, and then connect each station to the central hub. Since each station has a different function, players must decide if they want to ally themselves with any of the stations (thus making it easier to use their functions). However, becoming an ally with 1 station makes you disliked by another station, so players must balance their alliances Also, players must watch out, as the order of the stations will change every 2-3 turns (depending on the phase of the game).
The game (currently called Stationary Change), is tentatively for 2-6 players and should play in 60-90 minutes. The core mechanics are simultaneous movement and pickup and deliver resource management. There is a good amount of economic considerations in the game, as the cost for resources is determined by how far away the stations that provide resources are from the systems that produce those resources.
At this point, the initial playtest has been completed (2 player). Based on that playtest, there were no aspects that required major rework or just did not work at all. There were just a few minor items to investigate, which should not take too long (I have already made most of those changes). For anyone that attends the Metro East Gamers meetups, I currently plan to have this ready at SWIC in 1.5 weeks, and welcome anyone that would like to playtest it.
TalkieToaster's Board Games Blog
Wednesday, December 31, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Anytown - Game Overview and a Look Ahead
Anytown: At the Corner of No and Where is a worker placement, card drafting, resource management game for 2-6 players ages 12+. The game length is 40-70 minutes.
In Anytown, it is the height of the Gold Rush. The players have gathered at an area of available land in the vicinity of a gold mine with the idea of constructing a town, and attracting as many citizens as possible. Over the course of 3 years, an empty patch of land will be developed into a bustling town, and the player that attracts the most citizens will win the game.
As stated above, Anytown is played over 3 years (rounds). In each round, players draft building cards, then proceed to construct those buildings (as building space allows), while helping to construct common buildings that require more than 1 person to complete. After buildings are constructed, they can then be used for various abilities such as resource trading or gaining Citizen Points (CP). At the end of the year, players discard unused building cards, and then the available land for the town is expanded for the next year.
Since the town is new, there is no reason for duplicate buildings. Also, each building has multiple copies in the deck, so players are racing to be the first to construct each building. Then, in later years, buildings already in play may be upgraded, allowing for co-ownership of those buildings. Having an ownership stake in many buildings is highly recommended, since every non-owner using a building ability provides the owners with a bonus (either resources or CP).
To date, Anytown has been playtested around a dozen times between all listed player counts, and will continue to be playtested whenever possible. At this time, I am seeking blind playtesters to help prepare Anytown to the next step (searching for a publisher).
I have briefly considered doing a Kickstarter on my own, but with my family and work, I do not believe I would have enough time to devote to setting up and running a campaign. Perhaps that will change over the next year, but I have my doubts.
In Anytown, it is the height of the Gold Rush. The players have gathered at an area of available land in the vicinity of a gold mine with the idea of constructing a town, and attracting as many citizens as possible. Over the course of 3 years, an empty patch of land will be developed into a bustling town, and the player that attracts the most citizens will win the game.
As stated above, Anytown is played over 3 years (rounds). In each round, players draft building cards, then proceed to construct those buildings (as building space allows), while helping to construct common buildings that require more than 1 person to complete. After buildings are constructed, they can then be used for various abilities such as resource trading or gaining Citizen Points (CP). At the end of the year, players discard unused building cards, and then the available land for the town is expanded for the next year.
Since the town is new, there is no reason for duplicate buildings. Also, each building has multiple copies in the deck, so players are racing to be the first to construct each building. Then, in later years, buildings already in play may be upgraded, allowing for co-ownership of those buildings. Having an ownership stake in many buildings is highly recommended, since every non-owner using a building ability provides the owners with a bonus (either resources or CP).
To date, Anytown has been playtested around a dozen times between all listed player counts, and will continue to be playtested whenever possible. At this time, I am seeking blind playtesters to help prepare Anytown to the next step (searching for a publisher).
I have briefly considered doing a Kickstarter on my own, but with my family and work, I do not believe I would have enough time to devote to setting up and running a campaign. Perhaps that will change over the next year, but I have my doubts.
Game Design - What has happened the last 7 months?
So I have been negligent on updating this space now for too long. Here's a recap of what has happened since May:
1) The original design of the game has been abandoned. Gameplay was too long (2+ hours), I had to keep adding mechanics to get more player interaction (which made the game overly complicated), and it started to not be as much fun.
2) Stonemaier Games announced a Design Day that took place in November. This jump-started my thinking into the common town approach to the game. With only ~4 months to have something ready to show, I got started on the redesign of the game to use a common town.
3) The first playtest of the new common town design took place in September. Jamey Stegmaier was present, and participated in the playtest. There were many minor issues, but even from that first playtest, I knew this design was vastly superior to the old design. Over the next couple months, several additional playtests were completed, and the design (now called Anytown: At the Corner of No and Where) was ready for the Design Day.
4) Anytown was playtested at the Stonemaier Games Design Day. I was extremely pleased with both playtest sessions. At the end of each session, I had questions ranging from "Is there a website where I can follow the progress?" to "When will this be on Kickstarter?" I initially thought that everyone was just being nice and did not want to point out any flaws, but then I received news that Anytown was rated in the Top 10 of the designs presented at Design Day! I was completely speechless! I thought I had a good game, but I would not have guess that something I had essentially thrown together in 4-5 months would have been so well received.
5) Blind playtesting of Anytown is now available. If anyone would like links to the documents for a print and play version, please let me know.
6) I have started designing a 2nd game. More on that in a later post.
I think that brings you all up to date. My next post will explain Anytown in a bit more detail for those interested.
1) The original design of the game has been abandoned. Gameplay was too long (2+ hours), I had to keep adding mechanics to get more player interaction (which made the game overly complicated), and it started to not be as much fun.
2) Stonemaier Games announced a Design Day that took place in November. This jump-started my thinking into the common town approach to the game. With only ~4 months to have something ready to show, I got started on the redesign of the game to use a common town.
3) The first playtest of the new common town design took place in September. Jamey Stegmaier was present, and participated in the playtest. There were many minor issues, but even from that first playtest, I knew this design was vastly superior to the old design. Over the next couple months, several additional playtests were completed, and the design (now called Anytown: At the Corner of No and Where) was ready for the Design Day.
4) Anytown was playtested at the Stonemaier Games Design Day. I was extremely pleased with both playtest sessions. At the end of each session, I had questions ranging from "Is there a website where I can follow the progress?" to "When will this be on Kickstarter?" I initially thought that everyone was just being nice and did not want to point out any flaws, but then I received news that Anytown was rated in the Top 10 of the designs presented at Design Day! I was completely speechless! I thought I had a good game, but I would not have guess that something I had essentially thrown together in 4-5 months would have been so well received.
5) Blind playtesting of Anytown is now available. If anyone would like links to the documents for a print and play version, please let me know.
6) I have started designing a 2nd game. More on that in a later post.
I think that brings you all up to date. My next post will explain Anytown in a bit more detail for those interested.
Monday, May 19, 2014
New Game Design - Playtesting at a Convention
This past weekend was Geekway to the West - a 4-day board game convention in St. Louis. It had been a couple years since I attended, but it was just as fun as in years' past. The difference between this year and previous years, however, was that I brought a game design to playtest. I have a lot to learn about bringing a game to playtest at a convention.
My first mistake at the convention was not setting aside time just to playtest the game. I am used to going to Geekway to take part in the Play and Win promotion (play a game, then enter for a chance to win it). Unfortunately, I spent most of Geekway doing just that. When I finally thought to myself that I need to get a playtest in, it was Saturday afternoon, which was spent at the Euphoria tournament run by Stonemaier Games. This left Sunday morning to get a playtest.
To follow up on the first mistake, it's time for something I did right: I playtested someone else's game. Ben Rosset (designer of Brew Crafters) was at Geekway playtesting a game (tentatively called Home Brewers). By watching someone else demo their game, it gave me a lot of information on how to present my game to people that have never seen it before. Ben's game was a lot of fun, and I hope that I provided some decent critiques based on my play of it.
So now, back to the mistakes. My 2nd (and hopefully last) mistake was that I did not get the word out about playtesting my game. When I finally sat down to playtest, I had a few friends at the table that wanted to play. Naturally, I let them play, along with the 1 person that was unable to find an available game. At this point, I had a 5 player game (which I had never attempted before - the game plays 2-6), so I did not even think about asking anyone else to join in. Although I received fantastic feedback (only 1 of the four players had played the game previously), I think I should have attempted to find one more person so that I could get as much feedback as possible.
With all that said, though, the playtest was fantastic! After the first Year, we had a good 20 minute discussion (started by the other players - I was going to wait until the end) where many ideas and critiques were voiced. The biggest complaint in a 5 player game was that there was not enough player interaction. I had done quite a bit to help that for 2-4 players, but the traveling coach did not work well in a 5 player game because not every player had a chance to use it in the first Year. My plan, based on the feedback provided, was that there will be a second coach for 5-6 players, and a new building in each starting town that allows opponents to trade resources with the owner of the town. I need to look further into the new building spot, though, because, based on our discussion, it could be too powerful (by allowing players to return their Workers to their home town if no agreement is reached).
Also, it appeared that the resource availability was a little high (after the last playtest, I increased the amount of resources received per worker). The consensus was that there should a different amount of each resource available depending on what season it is (since each Year is divided into 4 rounds, each round can be considered a season). I have decided to take this one step further by combining the seasonal resource collection with the event cards. My plan (at the moment) is to have a default value for each resource, then a card of the current season will be revealed. This card will adjust the value of the resources for that turn only, and, depending on the season, may also have some event (based on the old event cards).
Unfortunately, we were only able to complete 2 Years of the 3 played in a game. At the end of Year 2, though, one player had uncovered a strategy that would allow him to score 11 points each round in Year 3. This definitely seemed like a very powerful strategy (since the best buildings in Year 3 can score up to 10-12 points if they are upgraded), so I am going to pay close attention, and see if I need to make a change to (just slightly) weaken that path.
Looking forward, when I next go to a convention, I plan to devote most of (at least) one day to find playtesters whenever I take a design with me. I would love to go to DieCon in June to attempt another playtest, but I will be unable to do so (kid patrol).
For the other designers out there, do you have any tips based on your experiences at taking designs to a convention? For other convention-goers, what do you look for when being asked to playtest a game?
My first mistake at the convention was not setting aside time just to playtest the game. I am used to going to Geekway to take part in the Play and Win promotion (play a game, then enter for a chance to win it). Unfortunately, I spent most of Geekway doing just that. When I finally thought to myself that I need to get a playtest in, it was Saturday afternoon, which was spent at the Euphoria tournament run by Stonemaier Games. This left Sunday morning to get a playtest.
To follow up on the first mistake, it's time for something I did right: I playtested someone else's game. Ben Rosset (designer of Brew Crafters) was at Geekway playtesting a game (tentatively called Home Brewers). By watching someone else demo their game, it gave me a lot of information on how to present my game to people that have never seen it before. Ben's game was a lot of fun, and I hope that I provided some decent critiques based on my play of it.
So now, back to the mistakes. My 2nd (and hopefully last) mistake was that I did not get the word out about playtesting my game. When I finally sat down to playtest, I had a few friends at the table that wanted to play. Naturally, I let them play, along with the 1 person that was unable to find an available game. At this point, I had a 5 player game (which I had never attempted before - the game plays 2-6), so I did not even think about asking anyone else to join in. Although I received fantastic feedback (only 1 of the four players had played the game previously), I think I should have attempted to find one more person so that I could get as much feedback as possible.
With all that said, though, the playtest was fantastic! After the first Year, we had a good 20 minute discussion (started by the other players - I was going to wait until the end) where many ideas and critiques were voiced. The biggest complaint in a 5 player game was that there was not enough player interaction. I had done quite a bit to help that for 2-4 players, but the traveling coach did not work well in a 5 player game because not every player had a chance to use it in the first Year. My plan, based on the feedback provided, was that there will be a second coach for 5-6 players, and a new building in each starting town that allows opponents to trade resources with the owner of the town. I need to look further into the new building spot, though, because, based on our discussion, it could be too powerful (by allowing players to return their Workers to their home town if no agreement is reached).
Also, it appeared that the resource availability was a little high (after the last playtest, I increased the amount of resources received per worker). The consensus was that there should a different amount of each resource available depending on what season it is (since each Year is divided into 4 rounds, each round can be considered a season). I have decided to take this one step further by combining the seasonal resource collection with the event cards. My plan (at the moment) is to have a default value for each resource, then a card of the current season will be revealed. This card will adjust the value of the resources for that turn only, and, depending on the season, may also have some event (based on the old event cards).
Unfortunately, we were only able to complete 2 Years of the 3 played in a game. At the end of Year 2, though, one player had uncovered a strategy that would allow him to score 11 points each round in Year 3. This definitely seemed like a very powerful strategy (since the best buildings in Year 3 can score up to 10-12 points if they are upgraded), so I am going to pay close attention, and see if I need to make a change to (just slightly) weaken that path.
Looking forward, when I next go to a convention, I plan to devote most of (at least) one day to find playtesters whenever I take a design with me. I would love to go to DieCon in June to attempt another playtest, but I will be unable to do so (kid patrol).
For the other designers out there, do you have any tips based on your experiences at taking designs to a convention? For other convention-goers, what do you look for when being asked to playtest a game?
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
New Game Design - Playtesting
After a few months, I was finally able to get a playtest of my game! There were many changes made since the last time it was playtested, so I will attempt to hit most of those changes as I describe how the playtest went.
This playtest was a 3 player game, so the first thing that had to be done was to take the cards for a 4 player game and randomly remove 6 cards (making sure at least 1 copy of each card was available). Year 1 started with drafting all the cards (instead of draft 1 card and play it), which definitely allowed for better strategic choices since you knew all the building cards you had available at the beginning of the Year. Since the number of rounds per Year decreased from 5 to 4, it was more important to have a good strategy based on the cards drafted.
For the 1st Year, I made the decision to get building cards that allowed me to increase my resource production and allow me to trade those resources (either for Gold or for Food). On the first round, I also decided to build a house to get an additional Worker. Even though this made it difficult early to have enough resources to keep constructing buildings, I really think it paid off later in the game. At the end of the 1st Year, all 3 players had 2 buildings constructed in their "downtown" area, so everyone gained 2 Citizen Points (This was another change - the player with the most would gain 3CP, 2nd most 2CP, and 3rd most 1CP).
For the 2nd Year draft, my plan was to find a Blacksmith to lower my worker cost (1 Time reduction in all building costs), and then try to focus on protecting my town from opponent's Workers. Early in the 2nd Year, I decided to try the new Traveling Coach (allows players to move their Workers to other buildings - at the end of each round, it moves clockwise to the next town). To make up for losing a Worker in my town, I was able to build another house the next turn. The Worker I moved to an opponent's town was a huge help as it probably gained me 8 or 9 CP over the course of the last 6 rounds (either by helping to build buildings or use one of their buildings to trade Gold for CP). At the end of the 2nd Year, I had the most buildings in "downtown", while my opponents tied for 2nd most.
In the 3rd Year draft, I focused on getting buildings that could be upgraded for potentially large bonuses (5+ CP). I was able to draft 3 such buildings. Immediately after playing the first 2 of those buildings, however, I realized that I could not upgrade both, so I focused instead on upgrading the building that provided the best return, and used my remaining workers to get Gold to trade in for CP. When Year 3 ended, I had 7 buildings in "downtown", while my opponents both had 6.
When everything was counted up, I won by a score of 66, 56, 53. I finally won at my own game!
Now on to what needs to be addressed. The glaring problem was that resources were too scarce. It was extremely difficult to maintain enough resources to build anything late in the 2nd Year and during the entire 3rd Year. Based on feedback from the other players (my wife and someone that has played the game twice before), I have increased the amount of resources that players receive when placing Workers in resource collection locations. I also changed the cards that allow trading resources to match the change in resource collection. At this time, I will not make additional changes prior to the next playtest, as I want to see how much this affects the game.
Something else that was brought up after the playtest was that it might be better to have a central town board that all players build instead of separate towns. To help with this concept, I have decided to make the person that suggested this (Josh Walker) a co-designer to aid in determining the extent of changes that would need to be made to get this concept to work. Josh has provided a lot of really good feedback every time he has playtested my game, so I have no doubt that we can make a really good game.
For anyone that is attending Geekway to the West this weekend, I will there all 4 days with my game available for anyone that would like to try it.
This playtest was a 3 player game, so the first thing that had to be done was to take the cards for a 4 player game and randomly remove 6 cards (making sure at least 1 copy of each card was available). Year 1 started with drafting all the cards (instead of draft 1 card and play it), which definitely allowed for better strategic choices since you knew all the building cards you had available at the beginning of the Year. Since the number of rounds per Year decreased from 5 to 4, it was more important to have a good strategy based on the cards drafted.
For the 1st Year, I made the decision to get building cards that allowed me to increase my resource production and allow me to trade those resources (either for Gold or for Food). On the first round, I also decided to build a house to get an additional Worker. Even though this made it difficult early to have enough resources to keep constructing buildings, I really think it paid off later in the game. At the end of the 1st Year, all 3 players had 2 buildings constructed in their "downtown" area, so everyone gained 2 Citizen Points (This was another change - the player with the most would gain 3CP, 2nd most 2CP, and 3rd most 1CP).
For the 2nd Year draft, my plan was to find a Blacksmith to lower my worker cost (1 Time reduction in all building costs), and then try to focus on protecting my town from opponent's Workers. Early in the 2nd Year, I decided to try the new Traveling Coach (allows players to move their Workers to other buildings - at the end of each round, it moves clockwise to the next town). To make up for losing a Worker in my town, I was able to build another house the next turn. The Worker I moved to an opponent's town was a huge help as it probably gained me 8 or 9 CP over the course of the last 6 rounds (either by helping to build buildings or use one of their buildings to trade Gold for CP). At the end of the 2nd Year, I had the most buildings in "downtown", while my opponents tied for 2nd most.
In the 3rd Year draft, I focused on getting buildings that could be upgraded for potentially large bonuses (5+ CP). I was able to draft 3 such buildings. Immediately after playing the first 2 of those buildings, however, I realized that I could not upgrade both, so I focused instead on upgrading the building that provided the best return, and used my remaining workers to get Gold to trade in for CP. When Year 3 ended, I had 7 buildings in "downtown", while my opponents both had 6.
When everything was counted up, I won by a score of 66, 56, 53. I finally won at my own game!
Now on to what needs to be addressed. The glaring problem was that resources were too scarce. It was extremely difficult to maintain enough resources to build anything late in the 2nd Year and during the entire 3rd Year. Based on feedback from the other players (my wife and someone that has played the game twice before), I have increased the amount of resources that players receive when placing Workers in resource collection locations. I also changed the cards that allow trading resources to match the change in resource collection. At this time, I will not make additional changes prior to the next playtest, as I want to see how much this affects the game.
Something else that was brought up after the playtest was that it might be better to have a central town board that all players build instead of separate towns. To help with this concept, I have decided to make the person that suggested this (Josh Walker) a co-designer to aid in determining the extent of changes that would need to be made to get this concept to work. Josh has provided a lot of really good feedback every time he has playtested my game, so I have no doubt that we can make a really good game.
For anyone that is attending Geekway to the West this weekend, I will there all 4 days with my game available for anyone that would like to try it.
Wednesday, April 2, 2014
New Game Design - More Changes
Since my last update, my game has not been playtested. There have been too many things going on to provide enough time to play a 2 hour game with about an hour of instructions. To that end, I did some thinking earlier this week, and had what I hope to be a breakthrough.
First, though, I want to explain a little about the former structure of the game. Since I started designing this game, it has been 3 Years long, with each Year consisting of 5 turns. Each turn, all players pick 1 card and choose to either build it or discard it for a resource production boost. The remaining cards are passed to the next player (similar to 7 Wonders). Then players take their workers and place them to either build or upgrade their cards, activate abilities on their cards, or gather resources.
I knew that the addition of worker placement to the card drafting scheme would add length to the play time; however, I did not think that the length would be tripled due to the additional options made available. To that end, I have decided to lower the number of rounds per year from 5 to 4.
With this change, I also had to make some decisions on starting hand size and card allocation. Previously, the starting hand size was 7, with players discarding 2 cards at the end of the year (1 of the cards would be shuffled into the cards for the next year). Also, the card distribution was fixed based on the number of players (for example, there were always 2 copies of Saloon in a 3 player game).
While I liked the idea of always having a fixed set of cards every game (the drafting mechanic would allow for plenty of replayability), I was not always fond of hunting for all the 3+ cards for a 3 player game. When I designed the cards for each year, I took my time to attempt to balance the power of each card when compared to the other cards of that year. So now, here are the other big changes I plan to make:
1) Each player will start the year with a hand of 5 cards. After 4 are played, the last card will be discarded (not added to the next year's deck).
2) To add a little more variety, there will be extra cards that are not dealt to the players (in a 2 player game, 10 of 12 cards will be dealt...15 of 24 and 20 of 24 in 3 and 4 player games, respectively)
The 2nd change is the one that will have the largest impact. By having some cards unknown to all players, the strategy level gives way to more tactical thinking. The biggest problem I am having with this change currently is that I feel that 3 and 5 player games will be a bit too tactical due to the additional 6 cards that are not used when compared to 2, 4, and 6 player games. A thought I have to address this is to either have players choose buildings to remove from the decks for each year to makeup the difference, or reveal 6 cards from those not used each year.
I am still attempting to figure this "issue" out, and welcome any ideas that you all wish to share.
At this point, I have many changes to make to have the game ready for a playtest. Those changes include:
1) Board changes (both player and main board) to account for 3 fewer rounds
2) Card changes to account for fewer rounds. This includes the removal of the Synergy abilities (they will be replaced with more Upgrade abilities)
3) Changes to the rules to account for all changes listed above
With this list, I do not believe that I will be ready in time for SWIC, but do hope to have something ready the following weekend when I have friends over to play games. Wish me luck!
First, though, I want to explain a little about the former structure of the game. Since I started designing this game, it has been 3 Years long, with each Year consisting of 5 turns. Each turn, all players pick 1 card and choose to either build it or discard it for a resource production boost. The remaining cards are passed to the next player (similar to 7 Wonders). Then players take their workers and place them to either build or upgrade their cards, activate abilities on their cards, or gather resources.
I knew that the addition of worker placement to the card drafting scheme would add length to the play time; however, I did not think that the length would be tripled due to the additional options made available. To that end, I have decided to lower the number of rounds per year from 5 to 4.
With this change, I also had to make some decisions on starting hand size and card allocation. Previously, the starting hand size was 7, with players discarding 2 cards at the end of the year (1 of the cards would be shuffled into the cards for the next year). Also, the card distribution was fixed based on the number of players (for example, there were always 2 copies of Saloon in a 3 player game).
While I liked the idea of always having a fixed set of cards every game (the drafting mechanic would allow for plenty of replayability), I was not always fond of hunting for all the 3+ cards for a 3 player game. When I designed the cards for each year, I took my time to attempt to balance the power of each card when compared to the other cards of that year. So now, here are the other big changes I plan to make:
1) Each player will start the year with a hand of 5 cards. After 4 are played, the last card will be discarded (not added to the next year's deck).
2) To add a little more variety, there will be extra cards that are not dealt to the players (in a 2 player game, 10 of 12 cards will be dealt...15 of 24 and 20 of 24 in 3 and 4 player games, respectively)
The 2nd change is the one that will have the largest impact. By having some cards unknown to all players, the strategy level gives way to more tactical thinking. The biggest problem I am having with this change currently is that I feel that 3 and 5 player games will be a bit too tactical due to the additional 6 cards that are not used when compared to 2, 4, and 6 player games. A thought I have to address this is to either have players choose buildings to remove from the decks for each year to makeup the difference, or reveal 6 cards from those not used each year.
I am still attempting to figure this "issue" out, and welcome any ideas that you all wish to share.
At this point, I have many changes to make to have the game ready for a playtest. Those changes include:
1) Board changes (both player and main board) to account for 3 fewer rounds
2) Card changes to account for fewer rounds. This includes the removal of the Synergy abilities (they will be replaced with more Upgrade abilities)
3) Changes to the rules to account for all changes listed above
With this list, I do not believe that I will be ready in time for SWIC, but do hope to have something ready the following weekend when I have friends over to play games. Wish me luck!
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Kickstarter Spotlight #2 - Tuscany: Expand the World of Viticulture
 |
| From StonemaierGames.com |
Before I get started, though, I feel that I should provide my opinions on the base game, Viticulture, so that everyone knows my starting position. I consider Viticulture to be a very strong and enjoyable light to medium weight worker placement euro-game. If I had to determine where it stood in my top games of all time, it would easily be in the top 10 (and in the top 5 for worker placement games). There is very little that I can find wrong with Viticulture, and nearly all of the minor problems I had were fixed with the 2nd edition rules. The only minor problem that I still believe exists with the 2nd edition rules is that the end game is very abrupt, and does not provide many chances for players to catch up due to limited placement spots. Will this be fixed by one or more of the expansions?
The intent of Tuscany is for all players to discover the changes at the same time (when the choice is made for what to uncork. Since, like most of you, I would be hesitant to buy something sight-unseen, I will make an attempt to explain all of the expansions with a minimum of spoilers. If you want the full spoiler, then check out the rules to Tuscany here.
The rules for Tuscany break out the expansions into 3 tiers. All expansions from Tier 1 must be "uncorked" before proceeding to Tier 2 (and similar for Tier 3). I will go through the expansions by tier for this review.
Now, let's explore the many aspects of Tuscany!
Tier 1 Expansions
Mamas & Papas Expansion:
This expansion changes the beginning of Viticulture by introducing asymmetric starting resources. At the beginning of the game, each player is dealt 1 Mama and 1 Papa card. These cards provide the player with their starting workers, cards (Vine, Summer Visitor, Winter Visitor, and Wine Order), money, and possibly a pre-built structure (can take more money instead).
I think this is a great addition to the game. By providing all players a different set of starting resources, it allows everyone the chance of pursuing a different initial strategy.
Property Expansion:
This expansion makes a minor change to the 3 fields that players plant their vine cards in. Each field will now have a different maximum vine value (5, 6, and 7). In addition, each field can be sold (and repurchased) for lira based on their maximum vine value.
I really like the idea of being able to gain extra money by selling the fields I do not use. This will make money easier to acquire during the game, so structures can be built and workers trained earlier and more often.
Patronage Expansion:
This expansion attempts to give players a unique strategy to pursue. Each player is dealt 1 card that contains 2 chances to score points. First, the player must fill the wine order of the card (a 5-value wine of any type) to gain 3 VP. Then, at the end of the game, if the player fulfills the additional condition, they gain 2 VP (revealed at the end of the game).
This expansion is probably my favorite of the Tier 1 expansions. The chance to score 2 VP at game end by fulfilling the hidden agenda will help allow all players to catch up during the last year.
Advanced Visitors Expansion:
This expansion takes many of the existing summer and winter visitor cards, and enhances their abilities. The changes are meant to allow the visitors to be used at any point in the game (in base Viticulture, some of the visitor cards are best used either early or late in the game).
I like the idea of making the visitor cards useful at any point in the game. Hopefully, this will change the general idea that Summer Visitor cards are best used at the beginning, while Winter Visitor cards are best used at the end of the game (I realize that there are currently exceptions to this, but this is just a generality).
Overall, I think the Tier 1 expansions all have excellent potential to improve the re-playability of Viticulture. These are all minor changes that should be very easy to pick up. My only concern with these changes is that the game tempo will be increased due to the extra money and initial resource boost available to the players.
Tier 2 Expansions
New Visitors Expansion:
As the name implies, this expansion adds new visitor cards to the game. Unlike the Advanced Visitor cards, though, these visitors will add new abilities that players can utilize to gain an advantage over their opponents.
I generally welcome anything that provides more options for players, provided it does not muddy the waters too much. From reading the descriptions of some of the new visitors from the rules, I think these will be excellent additions to the game.
Extended Board Expansion:
There are many changes to the game made by this expansion, so I will just make a quick note of some of the larger changes. Are you tired of only using your workers in the summer and winter? Then this expansion is for you! The expanded board allows for workers to be used in all 4 seasons. Each season has 4 different worker locations, which means there will be new abilities to explore. The wake-up order now provides different bonuses for each season, and there is a new area-control aspect where you want to provide the most influence to the regions of Tuscany.
This is the number 1 expansion that I want to try. I think that the new board, combined with all the Tier 1 expansions, will really open up the game to an entirely new level.
Special Workers Expansion:
Continuing from the Grande Worker in 2nd edition Viticulture (and the Aboriculture expansion from the Kickstarter version of Viticulture), this expansion provides new workers that have additional abilities. At the beginning of each game, 2 of the special workers will be made available to all players. Whenever a player hires a worker, they may pay an additional fee to instead hire a special worker.
This is a very interesting expansion. Looking at the stretch goals listed, there appear to be more Special Workers to unlock. My hope is that players that do not hire the special workers are still capable of winning (I realize it will probably be more difficult). I also wonder why the limitation of 2 Special Workers was placed instead of 3 (since players can train 3 additional workers)?
Overall, I think the Tier 2 expansions provide the largest and most interesting changes to Viticulture. Of these expansions, I think the Extended Board will have the biggest learning curve due to all the changes made to the game.
Tier 3
Before I start on the Tier 3 expansions, I want to mention the main difference with Tier 3. Unlike the other tiers, this tier is meant to only use 1 of the expansions each game.
Aboriculture Expansion:
This is the same expansion that came with the Kickstarter version of Viticulture. There are some rules changes to make this compatible with Tuscany (mostly dealing with morale).
Having played Aboriculture with 1st edition Viticulture, I think the rules changes make this expansion more streamlined and easier to play. I look forward to trying this with the other Tuscany expansions.
Formaggio Expansion:
I do not really have any information about this expansion, except that it deals with making (and I assume selling) cheese.
Final Thoughts
I look forward to receiving my copy of Tuscany: Expand the World of Viticulture. The (currently) 9 included expansions look like they will complement the already enjoyable game of Viticulture.
If I had to choose an order to uncork the expansions, I would choose the following:
1) Mamas & Papas
2) Patronage
3) Advanced Visitors
4) Property
5) Extended Board
6) Special Workers
7) New Visitors
8) Formaggio
9) Aboriculture
What order would you uncork the expansions?
Based on past experiences with Stonemaier Games, I have no doubt that the quality and components will be top-notch. To anyone on the fence about Tuscany or Viticulture, I welcome you to search BoardGameGeek and find anything bad mentioned about Viticulture, Tuscany, Euphoria, Stonemaier Games, or Jamey Stegmaier and Alan Stone.
Friday, March 7, 2014
New Game Design - Ready for another Test
I now have version 0.0.6 of my game ready for another test. I made all of the changes that I had mentioned in the previous post (word clarifications and some more player interaction).
I also took some time to make calculations of the advantage a player would have if they skipped building in Year 1 to build a max Worker force to collect resources and build the best buildings in the last 2 Years. The results were not good. It looked that that strategy would win by nearly 20 points! After seeing the result, I immediately went to find ways to weaken the strategy while not hurting anyone else. I believe I have made some changes to address that, and look forward to seeing how close the game is now (it should be within 5 points -- but with some new event cards, it could be 0).
Here's the items/rules that have changed/added since the last playtest:
1) A new Traveling Stage Coach that moves to a different town at the end of each turn. This allows all players to move Workers around without having to build a card that provides this ability (more player interaction).
2) Word clarifications on many cards.
3) Adjusted the average Citizen Point values of most buildings in each Year. The average points/building is now 3.0 in Year 1, 3.9 in Year 2, and 5.0 in Year 3. In addition to these changes, I also adjusted the Upgrade values for the Year 3 buildings to limit the Citizen Points awarded (this is where the max Worker strategy gained the highest advantage).
4) Removed the resource limits. Until now, there would be a limited number of each resource (except food) noted on the resource board at the beginning of the game (based on number of players). This had to be removed because of the max Worker strategy (they would take the majority of resources, thus leaving the other players with no resources to collect in Year 3).
5) Replaced and added some Event Cards. Due to removing the resource limits, 2 event cards were no longer needed. These have been replaced with events that force all players to lose nearly all of a single resource type they have (there is one for Wood, Stone, and Gold). This should also help limit the advantage of the max Worker strategy.
6) There is a slight tweak to end game scoring. With the addition of the Traveling Stage Coach, it is now possible to players to have some workers that are not in any town at game end. To mitigate this issue, players will now lose points at the end of the game for each worker that is not in a town.
I hope that I can get this tested at SWIC tomorrow, but I am not going to hold my breath. There is a special guest that will be visiting with a game that I really want to try (and will hopefully post about soon).
I also took some time to make calculations of the advantage a player would have if they skipped building in Year 1 to build a max Worker force to collect resources and build the best buildings in the last 2 Years. The results were not good. It looked that that strategy would win by nearly 20 points! After seeing the result, I immediately went to find ways to weaken the strategy while not hurting anyone else. I believe I have made some changes to address that, and look forward to seeing how close the game is now (it should be within 5 points -- but with some new event cards, it could be 0).
Here's the items/rules that have changed/added since the last playtest:
1) A new Traveling Stage Coach that moves to a different town at the end of each turn. This allows all players to move Workers around without having to build a card that provides this ability (more player interaction).
2) Word clarifications on many cards.
3) Adjusted the average Citizen Point values of most buildings in each Year. The average points/building is now 3.0 in Year 1, 3.9 in Year 2, and 5.0 in Year 3. In addition to these changes, I also adjusted the Upgrade values for the Year 3 buildings to limit the Citizen Points awarded (this is where the max Worker strategy gained the highest advantage).
4) Removed the resource limits. Until now, there would be a limited number of each resource (except food) noted on the resource board at the beginning of the game (based on number of players). This had to be removed because of the max Worker strategy (they would take the majority of resources, thus leaving the other players with no resources to collect in Year 3).
5) Replaced and added some Event Cards. Due to removing the resource limits, 2 event cards were no longer needed. These have been replaced with events that force all players to lose nearly all of a single resource type they have (there is one for Wood, Stone, and Gold). This should also help limit the advantage of the max Worker strategy.
6) There is a slight tweak to end game scoring. With the addition of the Traveling Stage Coach, it is now possible to players to have some workers that are not in any town at game end. To mitigate this issue, players will now lose points at the end of the game for each worker that is not in a town.
I hope that I can get this tested at SWIC tomorrow, but I am not going to hold my breath. There is a special guest that will be visiting with a game that I really want to try (and will hopefully post about soon).
Saturday, February 22, 2014
New Game Design - Playtest #3
On Friday evening, my game had its 3rd playtest. Unfortunately, due to time constraints, we only played 2 of the 3 Years. However, over the course of the test, I still received lots of good information. I have a few minor tweaks to make (mostly card wordings), and a couple moderate changes/additions to consider (mostly to get a bit more player interaction).
It was a 3 player game, with 3 different strategies. My strategy was to build my worker pool while getting buildings that allowed trade for food and extra resources. The second player's strategy was to build lots of buildings for extra resources, and gain the ability to trade resources as needed. The third player's strategy was to not feed their people, but build a trade engine of gold for Citizen Points, while sending workers to other player's towns to gain more Citizen Points. At the end of the 2nd Year, the scores were:
Player 1 (me): 28
Player 2: 18
Player 3: 21
The scores were pretty close going into the 3rd year, where the majority of points are scored. My thoughts on the game was that it seemed a bit more brain-burning than before, but the flow and balance seemed really good. There is a strategy I want to attempt next time that deals with growing my work force as quickly as possible while ignoring 1st Year buildings, instead choosing to build a large supply of resources.
My hope is to make most or all of the changes I've identified, and bring the latest version to a game day in 2 weeks.
It was a 3 player game, with 3 different strategies. My strategy was to build my worker pool while getting buildings that allowed trade for food and extra resources. The second player's strategy was to build lots of buildings for extra resources, and gain the ability to trade resources as needed. The third player's strategy was to not feed their people, but build a trade engine of gold for Citizen Points, while sending workers to other player's towns to gain more Citizen Points. At the end of the 2nd Year, the scores were:
Player 1 (me): 28
Player 2: 18
Player 3: 21
The scores were pretty close going into the 3rd year, where the majority of points are scored. My thoughts on the game was that it seemed a bit more brain-burning than before, but the flow and balance seemed really good. There is a strategy I want to attempt next time that deals with growing my work force as quickly as possible while ignoring 1st Year buildings, instead choosing to build a large supply of resources.
My hope is to make most or all of the changes I've identified, and bring the latest version to a game day in 2 weeks.
Thursday, February 20, 2014
New Game Design - Ready for Playtest Again
I have updated everything to be ready for a potential playtest tomorrow! I even went so far as to create actual tokens and player boards instead of just using paper. Maybe I've gone a little too far, but I really think the board design and tokens are pretty close to being done. Just to note, all art is either clip art (houses) or quickly done in Paint (resource symbols). I am not an artist and do not intend to add too much (if any) art myself.
Above are the House Tokens. There are 6 different types, which are separated by cost. All except the most expensive provide 1 additional worker, while the most expensive provides 2 workers. The 4 similarly priced types also provide a bonus of Citizen Points and/or resources.
Here's a player board showing a few cards already placed, and the some of the other tokens to be used.
If this gets tested tomorrow, I will share the results sometime over the weekend. If not, then I hope to get this to the table in the next couple of weeks.
 | |
| House Tokens |
 |
| Player Board |
If this gets tested tomorrow, I will share the results sometime over the weekend. If not, then I hope to get this to the table in the next couple of weeks.
Thursday, February 13, 2014
Kickstarter Musings #2 - Reward Levels
Before I begin this Musing, I want to apologize for something in my last Musings. I should not have made suggestions that were not in the realm of possibility for Kickstarter as part of my main argument. From now on, my main suggestions will be usable in Kickstarter. If something I mention is not doable (since I have not created a project, I am not 100% sure), then someone please let me know. I may still make some non-Kickstarter suggestions, but will refrain from mentioning them until the end of the post.
Now, today I want to talk about backer reward levels. First, I will not be talking about the price of the levels as that is the creator's choice (they need to raise the funds). What I want to discuss are the different levels that are presented to us backers to choose from, and what is offered in them. Let's get started from the beginning:
1) $1 - A big "Thank You!" - Most projects include some form of the $1 Thank You level, whether it's a mention on their website or a toast, etc. Although this level is not necessary (A backer can select the "Back This Project" button and put in $1), I think it's nice of the creator to thank everyone that backs their project (even at the lowest level).
2) You don't get the game, but here is something related to it - I have seen some projects that have a level below the "Get the Game" level that includes some related item (dice, tokens, etc...see the Compounded $8 level as an example). Depending on the reward, I think these are either completely worthless or barely passable. I don't really care about a button that has the name of a game that I could not back enough to own. Perhaps if I would have received some tokens from the game, I might be okay; however, in general, I would pass on these levels.
3) Early Bird backer - I hate hate hate (did I mention hate?) these levels. If you are going to offer a special rate for the first 50 or 100 backers, then either offer it to all backers, or reduce the price of your "Get the Game" level by $1 or $2. It is really annoying to not know that a project has gone live until a mention on BGG, and then find that all the Early Bird level(s) have been taken. Anyone who does this (especially Queen Games), please stop!
4) Get the Game - Yay! I get a copy of your super-awesome game! Enough said.
5) Get a Copy of the Base Game (Expansion Project) - No problems here.
6) 4 + 5 - Again, no problems. Need the base game if I just found out this existed.
7) 4 + A copy of an unrelated game - I will say that I have pledged at this level before to get a hard to find game; however, I am generally not a fan of these levels. It just seems like the creator is trying to do anything to get enough support to fund the game. If your game is truly good, these levels should not be necessary. Let your game speak for itself, and keep your other games out of the project.
8) Get drawn in the game/design a card/etc. - Generally, I think these are great rewards. My only issue is that, similar to the Early Bird, you generally need to be one of the first 100-200 backers to have a chance at one of these. My suggestion would be to release these over the course of the project to allow backers just finding the project the opportunity to get these as well. Feel free to mention on your project when you will add some or provide an unfair social media advantage, but if I really like your project enough to back at a large level, then give me a chance at one of these levels.
9) Multiple copies of the game - These are excellent for international orders. Keep using them.
So now that I have gone over most of the levels, there is one reward item that some projects add to most levels that I want to talk about...
Your name mentioned (insert location here) - In most cases, this is just fine. The one location that I do not like, however, is in the rules. Looking at the Kings of Air and Steam rules, the inside front page is just a list of backers. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great as a backer to have my name mentioned somewhere, but please don't do it in the rules. If it will be included in every copy of the game, then put it on the game box or the back of the game board.
So that's it for backer levels/rewards. The topic for Musings #3 (at this time) will be Videos Included in Projects. Thanks for reading!
Now, today I want to talk about backer reward levels. First, I will not be talking about the price of the levels as that is the creator's choice (they need to raise the funds). What I want to discuss are the different levels that are presented to us backers to choose from, and what is offered in them. Let's get started from the beginning:
1) $1 - A big "Thank You!" - Most projects include some form of the $1 Thank You level, whether it's a mention on their website or a toast, etc. Although this level is not necessary (A backer can select the "Back This Project" button and put in $1), I think it's nice of the creator to thank everyone that backs their project (even at the lowest level).
2) You don't get the game, but here is something related to it - I have seen some projects that have a level below the "Get the Game" level that includes some related item (dice, tokens, etc...see the Compounded $8 level as an example). Depending on the reward, I think these are either completely worthless or barely passable. I don't really care about a button that has the name of a game that I could not back enough to own. Perhaps if I would have received some tokens from the game, I might be okay; however, in general, I would pass on these levels.
3) Early Bird backer - I hate hate hate (did I mention hate?) these levels. If you are going to offer a special rate for the first 50 or 100 backers, then either offer it to all backers, or reduce the price of your "Get the Game" level by $1 or $2. It is really annoying to not know that a project has gone live until a mention on BGG, and then find that all the Early Bird level(s) have been taken. Anyone who does this (especially Queen Games), please stop!
4) Get the Game - Yay! I get a copy of your super-awesome game! Enough said.
5) Get a Copy of the Base Game (Expansion Project) - No problems here.
6) 4 + 5 - Again, no problems. Need the base game if I just found out this existed.
7) 4 + A copy of an unrelated game - I will say that I have pledged at this level before to get a hard to find game; however, I am generally not a fan of these levels. It just seems like the creator is trying to do anything to get enough support to fund the game. If your game is truly good, these levels should not be necessary. Let your game speak for itself, and keep your other games out of the project.
8) Get drawn in the game/design a card/etc. - Generally, I think these are great rewards. My only issue is that, similar to the Early Bird, you generally need to be one of the first 100-200 backers to have a chance at one of these. My suggestion would be to release these over the course of the project to allow backers just finding the project the opportunity to get these as well. Feel free to mention on your project when you will add some or provide an unfair social media advantage, but if I really like your project enough to back at a large level, then give me a chance at one of these levels.
9) Multiple copies of the game - These are excellent for international orders. Keep using them.
So now that I have gone over most of the levels, there is one reward item that some projects add to most levels that I want to talk about...
Your name mentioned (insert location here) - In most cases, this is just fine. The one location that I do not like, however, is in the rules. Looking at the Kings of Air and Steam rules, the inside front page is just a list of backers. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great as a backer to have my name mentioned somewhere, but please don't do it in the rules. If it will be included in every copy of the game, then put it on the game box or the back of the game board.
So that's it for backer levels/rewards. The topic for Musings #3 (at this time) will be Videos Included in Projects. Thanks for reading!
Thursday, February 6, 2014
Kickstarter Musings #1.5 - An Update on Stretch Goals
As I stated in my last Musings, I am not a fan of stretch goals that add game play content. My biggest example of this was the TMG Kickstarter for Scoville. The biggest problem I had with this project is the addition of 5 and 6 player options when the appropriate stretch goals were reached.
Earlier this week, TMG announced that they are removing the 5 and 6 player stretch goals, and adding them to the game! This is excellent news, and I cannot thank TMG enough for listening to their backers and making this change. I realize that this adds cost to the game, and I would have been okay with them restarting the project with a higher base price due to the change, but they have decided to keep the backer cost the same.
The other stretch goals that Scoville has are more recipe and market cards at 2 different levels, then replacing some tokens/cubes for customized meeples/wooden pepper tokens. Let me first say that stretch goals for upgrading materials are excellent goals and I fully support them. The stretch goals for adding more content to the game, however, leaves me with mixed feelings. TMG has stated on their project page that all stretch goals met will be included in all copies (including retail) of the game. Since there is no Kickstarter Exclusive for these cards, I do not have a problem with them being stretch goals on that count. I have a slight sticking point, though, when it comes to items that add game content without being included by default.
After thinking about my previous Musing where I outright stated that goals adding game play content should not be used at all, I need to back up a little bit. I realize that in that post, it could have appeared that I contradicted myself stating that Promos are acceptable stretch goals, while new game play content was not. I feel that Promo items for games are acceptable stretch goals since they are add-on content above what the base game experience provides. As an example, look at the Eminent Domain: Bonus Planets Promo pack that TMG provided on the original Eminent Domain Kickstarter. This promo pack added 9 new planets that players could use in the game. These planets were new planet types, not the 3 basic types included in the base game. Since this provided a new "mechanic" to learn, I believe this was an acceptable stretch goal. In the Scoville project, however, the new cards do not really change the game play experience. Instead, these new cards only provide a little more replay value without adding anything new to the game.
I realize that my stance above walks a very thin line and could be considered a gray area, but I feel that new content as stretch goals should provide new game play features, not just adding a little more replay with nothing really new to add.
Earlier this week, TMG announced that they are removing the 5 and 6 player stretch goals, and adding them to the game! This is excellent news, and I cannot thank TMG enough for listening to their backers and making this change. I realize that this adds cost to the game, and I would have been okay with them restarting the project with a higher base price due to the change, but they have decided to keep the backer cost the same.
The other stretch goals that Scoville has are more recipe and market cards at 2 different levels, then replacing some tokens/cubes for customized meeples/wooden pepper tokens. Let me first say that stretch goals for upgrading materials are excellent goals and I fully support them. The stretch goals for adding more content to the game, however, leaves me with mixed feelings. TMG has stated on their project page that all stretch goals met will be included in all copies (including retail) of the game. Since there is no Kickstarter Exclusive for these cards, I do not have a problem with them being stretch goals on that count. I have a slight sticking point, though, when it comes to items that add game content without being included by default.
After thinking about my previous Musing where I outright stated that goals adding game play content should not be used at all, I need to back up a little bit. I realize that in that post, it could have appeared that I contradicted myself stating that Promos are acceptable stretch goals, while new game play content was not. I feel that Promo items for games are acceptable stretch goals since they are add-on content above what the base game experience provides. As an example, look at the Eminent Domain: Bonus Planets Promo pack that TMG provided on the original Eminent Domain Kickstarter. This promo pack added 9 new planets that players could use in the game. These planets were new planet types, not the 3 basic types included in the base game. Since this provided a new "mechanic" to learn, I believe this was an acceptable stretch goal. In the Scoville project, however, the new cards do not really change the game play experience. Instead, these new cards only provide a little more replay value without adding anything new to the game.
I realize that my stance above walks a very thin line and could be considered a gray area, but I feel that new content as stretch goals should provide new game play features, not just adding a little more replay with nothing really new to add.
Saturday, February 1, 2014
New Game Design Update - Many Changes
So as I stated in my last design post, I have been in the process of making some major changes to the card design. I now believe that I have achieved an acceptable product to begin testing. Rather than keep you all waiting, let's dive right in to the changes.
Here is a picture to compare the old card structure to the new structure:
I realize this does not look like much of a change, but it really changes how the game is played. Here's a brief explanation of the new card layout:
Here is a picture to compare the old card structure to the new structure:
 | |
| Card Changes |
I realize this does not look like much of a change, but it really changes how the game is played. Here's a brief explanation of the new card layout:
 |
| Card Anatomy |
- Card Title
- Cost to build
- Ability provided
- Synergy/Upgrade
- For Synergy, the building listed is required to utilize the Synergy ability.
- For Upgrade, the listed cost must be paid to gain access to the Upgrade ability
- Hidden Ability – this ability will be provided while this portion of the card is visible.
- Citizen Points rewarded for the building
- Year this card is available
- Number of players to include this card
The real change to the card is the new Hidden Ability. This ability will only be available until a new building card is built next to it. The new building card will overlap the existing card such that the Hidden Ability becomes, well, hidden. What this also accomplishes, is that it hides the Citizen Point value that the building provides, which will hopefully make all players "forget" about how many points everyone has and just enjoys playing the game.I also made changes to the player boards. Previously, the boards were very basic holding spots for all the cards. Now, however, the layout looks more like that of an old Western town:
Player Board As you can see, the new player board lists the starting resources, number of workers, and special ability that player has. Why Special Ability? Well, my plan is to make each player board double-sided. One side will have the board you see above, while the other side will have different starting resources, workers, and/or a special ability.Also added in this version is new House Tokens. Before this update, players received additional workers for free at the beginning of each year. Now, players will have to buy House Tokens which provide additional workers. There are currently 4 different types of houses that provide between 1 and 2 workers (and possibly some additional Citizen Points and resources). I was not really a fan of just providing new workers for free each year, so my hope is that this will be a good replacement.At this point, I have no plans to have a playable version with the new changes ready for any game days that I will attend this month. I hope to be able to get a few people to visit and try a runthrough with these changes, however, before bringing a copy to one of the game days in March.
Friday, January 24, 2014
Kickstarter Musings #1
So in the past couple of days, there have been 2 events that have made me really think about stretch goals that are offered on Kickstarter for board/card games.
The first event was the start of the TMG project for Scoville. All of the stretch goals offered are not Kickstarter exclusive. All of the goals add more to gameplay (5/6 players, additional cards). The backer price is 67% of MSRP.
The second event was an update for the Euphoria project from Jamey Stegmaier concerning amending the Kickstarter exclusive for realistic resources for the game. For those that are not aware, the retail version of Euphoria comes with wooden tokens to represent gold, stone, and clay. For the backers, those resources are replaced with gold painted metal bars, painted glass beads, and resin bricks.
Kickstarter Exclusives
After receiving Jamey's update and doing some hard thinking, I have come to the following conclusion:
Exclusive Kickstarter backer rewards should be avoided at all costs!
Now some people will probably think "Then why should I ever back anything on Kickstarter?". There are many reasons to back a project. The biggest reason being that there need to be enough backers so that the game is actually produced! Even though I said that there should not be exclusive rewards, there are still things that projects can do:
1) Provide additional "Promo" content
There are many projects that provide additional game content as backer rewards. Some of these projects, though, also provide a means to purchase this content later (usually through BoardGameGeek). My opinion is that this does not constitute an exclusive reward since I will have the ability to purchase it at a later time.
2) Provide the game at a decent discount
As stated above, the backer price for Scoville is 67% of MSRP. Most online sites will sell the game for around the same price point. To me, this is enough to make me back the project since shipping is generally included in the backer cost (provided the game ships from the same country). Also combined with this is that backers generally receive the game first, with distributors receiving it a couple weeks later.
Just before starting this post, I received another update from Jamey stating that Stonemaier Games is removing all Kickstarter Exclusives from future projects. I applaud Jamey and Alan in this decision, and look forward to their upcoming project Tuscany: Expand the World of Viticulture!
Gameplay Content Stretch Goals
Another topic I would like to weigh in on is the use of stretch goals to provide additional content. I am not a fan of this tactic. I would prefer to play the full game instead of a mostly complete game. If developers have playtested something and thought it was good enough to keep, they should include it by default. I realize that in some cases, not having a few extra cards does not really affect the quality of the game, but there have been some projects that were adding items to the game board if a stretch goal was met
I realize that if the project included all the gameplay content by default, the starting price would have to be higher. I am perfectly okay with that, and will gladly pay the difference. What the project could do instead, although I realize that Kickstarter makes it more difficult to do this, would be to have stretch goals that decrease the cost for each backer, since the burden of producing the full content of the game has been covered by enough backers. Again, I realize that this is impossible, but I find it really annoying when I keep hoping 3 more people back the project so that my copy of the game will include those 10 extra cards.
Hopefully anyone that reads this now understands my view. These are strictly my opinions, and I welcome any debate.
The first event was the start of the TMG project for Scoville. All of the stretch goals offered are not Kickstarter exclusive. All of the goals add more to gameplay (5/6 players, additional cards). The backer price is 67% of MSRP.
The second event was an update for the Euphoria project from Jamey Stegmaier concerning amending the Kickstarter exclusive for realistic resources for the game. For those that are not aware, the retail version of Euphoria comes with wooden tokens to represent gold, stone, and clay. For the backers, those resources are replaced with gold painted metal bars, painted glass beads, and resin bricks.
Kickstarter Exclusives
After receiving Jamey's update and doing some hard thinking, I have come to the following conclusion:
Exclusive Kickstarter backer rewards should be avoided at all costs!
Now some people will probably think "Then why should I ever back anything on Kickstarter?". There are many reasons to back a project. The biggest reason being that there need to be enough backers so that the game is actually produced! Even though I said that there should not be exclusive rewards, there are still things that projects can do:
1) Provide additional "Promo" content
There are many projects that provide additional game content as backer rewards. Some of these projects, though, also provide a means to purchase this content later (usually through BoardGameGeek). My opinion is that this does not constitute an exclusive reward since I will have the ability to purchase it at a later time.
2) Provide the game at a decent discount
As stated above, the backer price for Scoville is 67% of MSRP. Most online sites will sell the game for around the same price point. To me, this is enough to make me back the project since shipping is generally included in the backer cost (provided the game ships from the same country). Also combined with this is that backers generally receive the game first, with distributors receiving it a couple weeks later.
Just before starting this post, I received another update from Jamey stating that Stonemaier Games is removing all Kickstarter Exclusives from future projects. I applaud Jamey and Alan in this decision, and look forward to their upcoming project Tuscany: Expand the World of Viticulture!
Gameplay Content Stretch Goals
Another topic I would like to weigh in on is the use of stretch goals to provide additional content. I am not a fan of this tactic. I would prefer to play the full game instead of a mostly complete game. If developers have playtested something and thought it was good enough to keep, they should include it by default. I realize that in some cases, not having a few extra cards does not really affect the quality of the game, but there have been some projects that were adding items to the game board if a stretch goal was met
I realize that if the project included all the gameplay content by default, the starting price would have to be higher. I am perfectly okay with that, and will gladly pay the difference. What the project could do instead, although I realize that Kickstarter makes it more difficult to do this, would be to have stretch goals that decrease the cost for each backer, since the burden of producing the full content of the game has been covered by enough backers. Again, I realize that this is impossible, but I find it really annoying when I keep hoping 3 more people back the project so that my copy of the game will include those 10 extra cards.
Hopefully anyone that reads this now understands my view. These are strictly my opinions, and I welcome any debate.
Monday, January 13, 2014
New Game Design - Taking a Break from Playtesting
So it's been 2 months since the last playtest of my game. I am not worried about it, though, since there have been a lot of new games (Kickstarter and Christmas gifts) to play. Recently, I have had a couple new ideas for my game that will also deal with a couple issues that I had.
The biggest issue I've had so far is the amount of space each player would need. I have been trying to figure our how to reduce the footprint required by all players. Then it hit me, overlap the cards. Given the layout of some old west towns, the majority of buildings could be on one main road. By setting up the player boards to have a single, main road, I could have the players overlap the cards, thus reducing the footprint.
The slight downside to this change, however, is that there would be a lot of blank space on the cards. So in thinking about it for a little bit, I came up with an idea. The idea is to give some/most of the cards from the first 2 years a temporary or one-time ability that can only be used while it is visible. This would add more strategy for players by making them decide when to overlap a specific card, thus losing its temporary ability.
So with these changes in mind, I need to take some time to modify the cards to add temporary/one-time abilities, and generate new player boards. While I am working on these changes, I also plan to start thinking of some ways to give players unique starting resources/abilities that provides each player a different potential strategy to pursue.
Until next time, keep gaming!
The biggest issue I've had so far is the amount of space each player would need. I have been trying to figure our how to reduce the footprint required by all players. Then it hit me, overlap the cards. Given the layout of some old west towns, the majority of buildings could be on one main road. By setting up the player boards to have a single, main road, I could have the players overlap the cards, thus reducing the footprint.
The slight downside to this change, however, is that there would be a lot of blank space on the cards. So in thinking about it for a little bit, I came up with an idea. The idea is to give some/most of the cards from the first 2 years a temporary or one-time ability that can only be used while it is visible. This would add more strategy for players by making them decide when to overlap a specific card, thus losing its temporary ability.
So with these changes in mind, I need to take some time to modify the cards to add temporary/one-time abilities, and generate new player boards. While I am working on these changes, I also plan to start thinking of some ways to give players unique starting resources/abilities that provides each player a different potential strategy to pursue.
Until next time, keep gaming!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)