[GDS] DECEMBER 2014 "MSP-Games' Micro-game Challenge" Critiques thread

There is one missing from the round two voting form. Just FYI.

The second round of results are in.

Discussion Schedule

Goblin Derby

The theme of this game has a fun feel to it, and the rules were entertaining. The powerups sound fun, but the rest of the gameplay feels too slow. You build up stress so fast that most of the time you would just be moving a single space. Also, the components were cut smaller than allowed by the rules.

@Thoughtful Monkey - If you move 3 spaces twice in a row, you get 4 stress and blow up. Also, other players could hit you with a magnet to move you back or a bomb to bring you backwards. I'm thinking staying back or in the middle of the pack might go a bit better, allowing you to save up some of your stress for when you need it so you can use a rocket pack, or not get blown up by another player.

Dragon Fight

It seems like it would be tough to hit your opponent without them hitting you, which makes me wonder if the game would end in ties a lot. I love the mechanic of losing movement options as you get damaged. This could give some variety to the game, especially if you made it where movement options were lost at random, forcing players to attempt new strategies. Explaining what each movement/attack option does was a bit wordy, but I think it would be shown pretty clearly with a picture on the card instead of text. Also, the components were cut smaller than allowed by the rules.

Node Conquest

There were a few hidden-stuff strategy games this month. With hidden information, I'm often concerned if the players will have enough information to make their choices interesting. I think the way this one requires memory sets it apart. Although in the beginning you know nothing of what your opponent did, you still have the challenge of remembering where you put your own pieces. Combat would leave survivors often enough to see many of the opponents pieces, adding to the complexity of the memory game. I thought the simple strategy & memory challenge fit well for a game in your pocket, so I voted bronze on this in round 1.

Zoo Contest

This game sounds like a really good chess style game for your pocket. I like that the 3 pieces have slightly different abilities within the same basic framework of moving and retreating. The rock paper scissors element is there, but not in such a simple way of just what beats what. Like how the elephant has a large area of influence against the monkey, but the monkey is faster. I tried to play this one with a friend, but unfortunately they were a bit overwhelmed by all the relationships between pieces and all the retreating. While trying to explain the rules to them, we noticed there were some gaps in the movement relationships. For example, you explicitly state that mice may not move in a square with friendly mice, but don't mention opposing mice. Can they share a space with the enemy? If not, you could just explain that a piece cannot move onto a space with another piece, with only 2 exceptions (since an elephant will never actually move onto the same space as the opposing monkey). I did just try the game out by myself though. It's fun! I voted Silver in Round 1, and I think 3rd in Round 3.

Goblin Derby

(+) Looks like a fast playing drag race. It’s got the feel of Mario Kart on a board game. The pickups add a strategic element, and there’s room for much good goblin-insults to be thrown.

(-) The goblin theme feels tacked on to the basic kart race. Not a problem, but noticeable. The short track and highly restrictive movement removes too much variability, but this is due to the component and play time restrictions I think.

Dragon Fight

(+) The movement of the dragons on the game board works really well for the limited number of options. The emphasis is equal parts predicting your opponent and hiding your own actions.

(-) Losing your own movement tokens in order to damage the opponent seems counter-intuitive. This game really suffers from the component restriction, and it doesn’t seem like it wil play satisfactorily in the 10 min time limit.

Node Conquest

(+) As an abstract strategy game, this has a very basic principle that could be applied in all sorts of interesting ways.

(-) Attempting to tack on a theme hurts the game, as does the component restriction. For this to capture my interest, it needs to be much more complex with interconnecting tokens and paths. I’m okay with a pure abstract.

Zoo Contest

(+) The movement is simple and the theme is amusing. The components interact naturally, and I can see playing a version of this with my kids.

(-) The ability of the mice to move other mice around the board seems like it could be troublesome, but I’d want to see it in action more. With only 25 squares on the board, there doesn’t seem to be much room for maneuvering and I want more squares to move pieces on the board.

Angels and Demons
Obviously images weren't allowed, but because so much of the game was visual I struggled initially with just the text rules. The idea of limited actions, and claiming them, is good. You could have quite a nice visual style of Tarot cards or something Gothic. I didn't actually play it, so it's just a gut feeling but I thought you could easily end up in a state of mutual blocking.

Tower Builders
A nice idea for a ‘take-that’ mechanic. I wasn’t sure how you would know if someone is cheating without seeing their cards - unless there were rules about how players held the cards (e.g. retained card always held in the left hand). It’s also likely that in many games only one player will get the collapse cards - making for an unbalanced game.

War Wizards
It seemed like there were quite a few caveats in the rules. I liked the randomisation of setup, and there was an interesting use of ‘outcome tiles’ as dice. Edit - I got the maths wrong.

Cloak and Dagger
The layout of the board and general theme sounds interesting and novel. The naming of the person at the gate is also interesting. I initially misread the rules - thinking that you could just put 3 people in jail to win. I prefer "you win under conditions A, you lose under conditions B" - rather than "you win under conditions A, or if your opponent meets conditions B". But that's a minor point that didn't seem to throw anyone else. A deserving winner.

Angels and Demons:

The game itself seems pretty unique – I do like the fact that you can win using your opponents pieces, and how the actions can potentially mess with an opponent. My main concern is that, the way that the rules are written, Player 1 takes all of their actions first, and then Player 2 takes their actions. Given that the actions are part of the board, and it is possible to block players out of potential actions, this gives Player 1 a huge advantage. Could you have players alternate actions, and then clear once all players have played all three of their actions? The powering up of action points would only be usable once per clearing of the board. You could move a powered up piece to the side to indicate that it was used for the turn. Otherwise, I have the same concern as thoughtfulmonkey, in that the game is a bit too visual to completely understand from just reading.

Tower Collapse

Fun concept, and very simple to understand. However, it seems like a highly luck-based game, as a collapse at the end can force a loss, and there's a good chance that one player will get both collapse cards. Maybe weaken the collapse card so that it only destroys the last card played on the tower? This way, a player isn't completely out of the game if a Collapse happens at the end.

War Wizards

I like the way in which chance is introduced into the system, as well as the unique way that the board is arranged. However, I'm not a huge fan of the way that the cards are laid out. The 1-1 card feels redundant, you could just choose to flip the other two and add one to that roll. A different layout could be 0-1, 1-2, and 0-3. This still keeps the range and average possibilities (1 to 6, 3.5 average), but allows for more variance (8 possible combinations instead of only 4).

Cloak and Dagger

Congrats on winning! I really liked the game as written. It is simple, quick, and has an element of strategy as well as chance. It feels almost like Love Letter or Coup, with the small amounts of deception while each play works towards giving away what you might have in your hand. I don't really have any other comments – I'm definitely going to have my playtesting group try it out and give you more detailed feedback down the line. Good work!

Notes on games 5-8

Angels and Demons

(+) The challenge of flipping and positioning in the small space provided seems like it would provide an interesting puzzle challenge.

(-) The theme doesn't seem to play an integral part of the game, and play seems like it can rapidly get very complex. I'm not sure I understand the purpose of the tokens governing plays.

Tower Builders

(+) It's got a bit of competition and some "take that". I can see this becoming a quick pickup card game.

(-) I'd rather see it for more people with a larger deck. With the limited number of cards there are too few options to keep me involved in the game.

War Wizards

(+) I love to see magical duels and appreciate the strong theming that this game brings.

(-) Just reading the rules makes it seem like a very complex game. I don't have a strong understanding of how it works, and feel that there is a lot to keep track of for what is supposed to be a short game.

Cloak and Dagger

(+) Very clean and streamlined play with a strong bluffing element. This fits extremely well within all the guidelines, and I will be trying it out with my gaming group soon.

(-) The theme is really weak, especially with a title like Cloak and Dagger. I'd rather see some cold war spies. The game board is completely unnecessary; positioning within the game is irrelevant since the admit/arrest decision is resolved immediately.

Congrats on the win. Well deserved.

Angels and Demons
Using the board for using or blocking actions seems unique and interesting, but seems like the game would be pretty complex.

Tower Builders
This game seems mostly random, depending almost entirely on who happens to draw higher value cards, with collapse cards being the highest possible value by undoing everything your opponent has done. Half the time one player will get both collapse cards, almost guaranteeing their victory. The part that isn't random is solvable. Simply hold onto the highest value card, counting collapse cards as the highest, for as long as allowed. This way, if you keep a 10 in your hand when your opponent plays a collapse, you'll score more than if you played it early. Playing the collapse as late as possible lets you destroy more cards, which I imagine you made the 3 turn limit on holding cards, so you can't just play the collapse card last and have both players scoring 0.

If a collapse card only destroyed a few cards, this could help balance it in a way that you try to time it better. But even then, I recommend thinking more about what information players have to go on when making their decision. If information is hidden, what information do players have to go on to figure out what their opponent may be up to?

War Wizards
This game has some good strategy options, like summoner wars. I wonder though, once the wizards are alone, it sounds like they can't damage each other except through terrain spells. Couldn't the opposing wizard just stay off special terrain and be immune to the enemy wizard? This could easily lead to a stalemate once wizards destroy each others armies. I'm surprised you didn't have something to summon armies again. The randomized armies in the beginning bug me, that you could start out with just your wizard against an army. I like randomizing for variety, but at the very start of the game the randomizing should be more balanced, like randomly drawing two units. This way, both wizards get the same number of units, but don't have the same ones each game.

Cloak and Dagger
At first I wasn't sure if you would have enough information to go on when choosing to arrest or admit, but I think the forced lie and limited number of cards really makes it work. Since players have a small number of cards in their hand, they're revealing a lot by naming a card. The possibility of the assassin ending the game right off the bat seems odd, but with such a quick game, it should be fine if you win or lose on turn one and just start another game.

I scribbled a quick version of this on some card stock and played a couple times. It was fun! I won once with sell swords, and the second time by my opponent ending up with nothing but an assassin and a peasant, having to tell me which one they weren't putting at my door. Congratulations on the win. I voted gold in round one, and I think #1 in round 3.

Thanks for all the feedback... (War Wizards)

mindspike: The game is an extremely stripped down version of a game I did almost 30 years ago. Maybe I didn't water down the rules enough to remove much of the complexity. (I have the rules burned in my brain so I may not have made them as readable as needed.)

JTAshby: The outcome tiles probably should have been as you suggested. This game originally was with dice. And with the time constraints, I should have spent more effort on the tile values.

DifferentName: What may not have been properly conveyed in the rules... The wizards have hand to hand combat (range of 1) so if there are only the wizards left, they would basically move toward each other to fight. The first pass had a Raise Dead spell but after play testing, the game could last much longer. There may have been some confusion in the instructions... The randomized armies at the beginning still give each player three armies, it is randomizing what type of army unit they get. (So each player would always start with 4 units.)

-nomad-

Mediterranean Convoy

I like the merchant ships, and can imagine a bit of bluffing as you either try to protect your merchant, or make a ship look like it's not a merchant. But I wonder if this would really work, or if the game would just boil down to attacking things and hoping for the best. With face-down strategy, attacking something seems more like a coin flip, as you hope it's something you can destroy. Node Wars did this, but had a memory element that I felt worked well with the game.

Maybe more interesting ship abilities would help, if they didn't overcomplicate the rules too much. Like, if the submarine couldn't be destroyed when it's first revealed. An ability like this could fit well with the face down merchant element of the game, making a tense situation when you attack a face down opponent, hoping they're not a submarine. Maybe a Destroyer has a second attack that flips an opponent face up, only destroying it if it's a submarine, countering the submarines ability, but being a bit weaker against everything else.

Beasts

Scoring every round in this game would require players to either remember their scores, or to use an outside component to keep track of their scores. Sure, almost everyone has a cell phone they could use to keep track, but for a mini game that goes in your wallet I think a victory that doesn't require multiple rounds of scoring would work better.

I never saw anything in your rules explaining the numbers that are next to the name of each card. I imagine this would be used in scoring, but it's never actually stated.

The Treacherous Pond

This seems like a decent game for the pond player, as they try to make a pond that is impossible to cross. For the mouse it's more of a simple guessing game. Since the pond player gets access to all 6 pond cards, I think this game is solvable. You can simply pair powerful jumps with weak landings, guaranteeing victory against the mouse.

Maybe the pond player should get a randomized hand of pond cards so they don't have complete control to solve the game against the mouse. Two cards at a time may work well. So when two cards have to be placed, you choose the order and which side is face up. When you only need to play one card, you can choose which card.

Witty Engine
The rules were written in kind of a complicated way, but the game play is basically just adding or subtracting, and could have been explained much more simply. I could see a lot of games ending in draws, since players would always be able to counter the other players move. The only things that might prevent it from ending at a neutral temperature are the restore normal cards, and the temperature limit, but even then I can see players canceling eachother out pretty easily.
I thought it was odd that you randomize players goals, to be either a straight tug of war (hot goals vs cold goals), or more of a precision tug of war (like trying to get -1 or +2). I wonder if playing the game a bit would show one to be more fun than the other.
For the players turn, when you say "placed the card on the back side of the information card", do you mean the card is played face down? And is not revealed until the next player chooses which card of their own to play? I could see that making the game a little more fun, but that part of the rules is unclear.

Micro Robot Rodeo
I've never played Robo Rally, but this sounds like my understanding of that game. It sounds fun placing things on the board that can either aid my robot or mess with my opponents robot (although thematically it seems odd to call these "programs" when they affect any robot on the board). I wonder how it would play out with the current rules though. It sounds like the only mechanic for a robot to stop is to get stuck, so couldn't they end up in an infinite loop, getting infinite points?

Fences
My game. It was a challenge trying to explain a game that's so visual using only words. Here's a photo!
http://differentname.com/2014/linesWin.jpg

Notes on Games 9-11

Mediterranean Convoy

(+) The theme of a quick sea battle really appeals to me. Movement seems simple and straightforward. The use of a rock-paper-scissors mechanic makes conflict a bit strategic but not heavily so.

(-) The RPS mechanic here may not be in compliance with the restrictions. I'd rather see a 7x7 board. Plastic pieces are not permitted (nor really necessary, I think). With the RPS, I'd like to see an even distribution of fighting ships.

I like this idea. It appeals to me.

Beasts

(+) I'm a huge fan of monster taming games. I like to see the different beasts interacting with each other.

(-) I don't have a strong grasp of the rules, but I don't see how the theme of the game relates to play. Moving cards between piles doesn't make a strong connection for me. I don't have a clear grasp of basic strategy in this game, either.

The Treacherous Pond

(+) I feel like there is a lot of potential here, with one player creating a puzzle for the other to solve. The theme is whimsical and appeals to me.

(-) There is a lot of interaction between the components. I feel like I need a cheat sheet to keep track of things. I don't have a strong grasp of the rules and really feel like I need a visual explanation.

Thanks again to everybody who voted for Zoo Contest, and especially to everyone who has commented and provided feedback.

I've made a PnP version of the game, with expanded rules. I would be thrilled if anyone wants to try it and has any feedback.

Here's the thread for any feedback, and the PDF's: http://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-creation/playtesting/zoo-contest-playtest

A quick thanks to everybody for the critiques. Running about the place at the moment has me limited for time. I will try to get on here soon and post my own critiques, when I can get to my PC. In the mean time, thank you so much to everybody who has given such good advice on Tower Builders. I have been toying with it a bit, and yes, I have expanded it out with more cards to be a two to four player game, and I love the idea of some kind of "fortification" card. Yes, the three turn limit is there to stop the holding of a collapse card from beginning till end, and it works to some extent. My eagle eyed fiance caught me out every time! However, particularly with the four player mode, an extra bit of protection is a good idea. The extra players make tracking another players held card harder, but also, could be bad if player one simultaneously irritates players two, three and four! (At this stage, with the four player deck, I simply doubled the number of each card. Four collapses in one game could really get frustrating.)

I will be continuing my development of this one, and will be putting in a few extra things as testing proves them workable.