[GDS] JUNE 2014 "The Play's The Thing" - Critiques

Thanks! This was a fun challenge, and definitely good practice for writing rules. I'm looking forward to the critiques. :)

This entry received my gold medal.

Crafting a flowing story arc is a very hard thing to do with token piecemeal excerpts. One excerpt out of place or a little bit off and the spell is broken. I think only games that allow the players a freeform improvisational aspect like Gloom have any real chance of pulling it off. Alternative models are too rigid to allow for the subtleties required.

I think that’s why most games that feature the combination of narrative excerpts rely on a more “descriptive narrative” formula.

In most histories events of magnitude are presented in a timeline and the game would certainly give this feel. I think it could be improved by playing up to that idea a little more. Possible have it so that the narrative descriptions are on the bottom of the cards so they can be slid under each other to support the construction of a timeline.

The cards could also be given years on their reverse so the players draw from fixed sections of the deck. This would narrow down the outcomes, reduce the scope of the narrative and divergent paths for the overall story, and possibly create something resembling a cohesive story arc.

I liked the simple mechanics of the game, quick to learn but offering a great deal of scope in tactical planning. The opportunity to win through peaceful encounters as well as the more common “fight to win” pathway was very interesting and appealing.

This game made the top of my list because I felt it fitted the brief the best. The board was an integral part of the game play and the narrative element was closely tied to the solid core mechanics of the gaming experience.

Thanks for the comments. The idea started as basically a mix of Tales of the Arabian Nights and Game of Thrones, where the drama between characters affects a whole kingdom. So the story segments could be individual events like Arabian Nights, without regard to whether it's the beginning of a journey or the end. A betrayal could be the start of tensions between two kingdoms, or the final straw that leads to a war.

However, the suggestions of having a beginning and end to the story could fit by having specific events that only happen in certain circumstances, like only being directed to that page if you have a certain amount of victory points or war/peace tokens.

Game that has a strong theme and various paths to take, but imho that is not a story, giving background, depth and meaning to actions. Nothing happens because of a story-element.
I like the idea of parallel universes.

I voted this one for silver. I think the premise is very creative and sounds quite interesting. My biggest concern is that there would be too much information to be able to tell easily what's going on. It could be overwhelming to some players. I agree with Bike that it may not truly be a story, but I felt like all of the games teetered on the line between theme that progresses and narrative. That was the hard part of the challenge. All of the games were really closely separated in my mind as I tried to order them to vote. Ultimately, this one landed in silver for me because I liked the parallel dimension/time travel element.

Entanglement Agents

This one got my gold. I love the theme, and it's interesting having the story told with comics. I like how the time travel can affect a limited amount of time before the present until some events become locked.

I wonder though how well the time lines would work, and wish there was more that could be discovered through different plays, rather than just the time lines that are on the board from the start. I'm not sure how it would be implemented though.

The telling story part came close to players telling individual stories. It missed out on my vote for that, even though it is not exactly that.

The stories told do not really influence the game, apart from misleading others what you are doing. To be able to do deduction, the various options of objectives must be known to all players. Of course not the actual card, but the possible card another player can have. Getting this right is important.
I can see the fun in moving some pawns and making a big story out of it, and then, while continue to talk about the others, make a move with the one pawn your objective is about.

Entanglement Agents

I think this game mirrored my own entry a little. Accessing narrative points and narrowing down multiple potentials through the manipulation of game pieces (dice in this case, tokens in mine).

The main reason it didn’t receive one of my medals has been highlighted previously, the requirement of a large sprawling game board with a degree of repetition that would impede the visuals.

I’m note sure if such a large game board would be viable in respect to production. Cards could be used to represent the outcomes instead, but unless the stage split mechanic was changed even mini cards would require a lot of table space.

If the game was 2-4 players then the 12 stages could be split into equal subsections for turn order dice placement, 6 stages for 2 players, 4 stages for 3 players and 3 stages for 4 players. Each stage would have spaces for 2 dice.

The players would be given 12 d6 and they take turns to place dice in the current stage range until it’s filled. When a stage range is filled the next stage range opens. A player can only place 2 of each dice point value over the course of the game, 2 x 6 spots, 2 x 5 spots and so on.

The players would use the entanglement cards to move dice around throughout all of the open stage ranges. When the last stage is filled the game ends and the stages are resolved. The stages are considered in 6 pairings. A total value of 1-2 in a pairing gives one outcome, 3-4 gives another, 5-6 one more and so on, covering the 6 realities.

6 players could also be done, but 5 won’t go into 12 so it would be a problem.

Telltaletown

I liked the thinking behind this game, but I didn’t fully grasp how the primary plot resolutions would work. I suspect the action cards like “pick up a chest” would determine success if they where played on the relevant character in the relevant place. And a combination of these would resolve the major plot line.

The secondary plot points where a lot clearer, because they reminded me of the algorithmic placement mechanic in Uluru (one of my favorite games and a little known gem), but played on a single board and without a timer element.

My main concern was how easily these intricate placement requirements could be satisfied by a random card draw to a four card hand. Whether the game would stall as players waited for cards that could be played, whether they played cards to move the protagonists with little thought just to get desired cards, and whether a favorable card draw would outweigh tactical card playing to determine the winner.

I was also troubled by the powerful impact the veto cards might have in closing down game play and I struggled to see how the players could deduce what cards the others had with such a large number of variables in play and moves that could be made (7 listed buildings, 10 characters and several props).

I really like the idea of a cute town with cute characters and the players influencing their daily lives. I’m just not sure that the current design is the best way to draw the most out of such a theme.

We’ve seen farming video games and apps draw from board games and board games draw from apps and video games. With slightly different mechanics this could be a board game that replicates the Simms playing experience.

Telltale Town

This one got my silver. I thought this fit the contest well, and liked thinking about the kinds of stories that might unfold from it, which could have some good variety.

I imagine it would be very tough to figure out what objectives your opponents have if there was a good variety of objectives. Maybe there would be some kind of list of objectives you could look at to choose from, or you would start with a limited set of them that you review before starting (a few more than you need, so it's not too easy).

Ruins and Riches

Looking at my entry the weak points that stand out for me are the narrative element, the use of only two token spaces per location, the thematic conflict of multiple explorers in multiple locations at once, and an absence of what form the narrative entries would take.

In respect to the entry the narrative entries would have been action descriptors which would, when taken together, describe the event driven story experienced by all the explorers in their search.

The entries would have featured blanks where the name of the explorer triggering the entry would have been substituted by the player.

The different object tokens could have been described in more detail.

The simplicity of the board could be seen as another weak point, but a simplistic board is sometimes the best way to go – like King of Tokyo.

In the remaining days of the week, following my submission, I outlined the following revisions that occurred to me.

Revisions to First Outline

Token Types

Coins
Increases or decreases an expeditions money

Jeep
Move an explorer to another location, move an explorer from another location to the location, or remove an explorer from a location

Crate
Move a victory point counter to another location

Artifact
Add a victory counter to a location in an expeditions color

Journal
Change the color of a victory counter in a location

Radio
A variety of actions relating to object token movement and money

Each location has 4 placement spaces, 2 for characters and 2 for objects.

Token Option 1

The characters can only occupy one location at any one point in the game. If a location features the token of a character another token for that character can’t be added to another location.

Token Option 2

The characters are replaced by the backers and they represent the expedition as a whole.

Removing the link to a singular character will allow the players to place counters associated with a singular expedition in multiple locations without generating thematic conflict.

The hit points are replaced with money points. Instead of loosing health the expeditions would incur financial costs or gain revenue.

The mechanical aspect of the gain and loss in relation to the round exclusions would remain the same.

Board

The board is replaced with 6 square location cards. Each location card features 2 spaces to accommodate expedition tokens and 2 spaces to accommodate object tokens.

This will increase the choices available to the players for token manipulation. Having more than one expedition in a location will also allow for situations where the expeditions can influence each other.

For each player less than 6 a location is removed from the game, along with the expedition tokens and cards related to the expedition that isn’t used.

Token Matches

The expedition tokens can be replaced by tokens matching the icon and not the color. This will make more thematic sense by representing a change of actionable choice for the expedition in a location.

The objects would still be replaced in relation to the colors, because if it was changed to icons the actions would never change.

Narrative Booklet

The narrative booklet is scrapped and replaced with cards that are separated into decks for each of the six action types. Each card features a graphic, a narrative of the event, a positive game directive and a negative game directive.

The decks for each object type could contain any number of cards, allowing for the inclusion of various narratives and game directives. 12 cards for each object type would give a total of 72 cards.

When a player links together an expedition token and an actionable object token they draw a card from the relevant deck. After drawing the card the player can choose to apply the positive or negative action to the expedition in the established link or any other expedition in the same location.

I had trouble figuring out how it would work backing one of the explorers, and keeping that information hidden from everyone. It sounded like it would be too easy for players to force the negative consequence to other players explorers. There didn't really seem to be any reason to give another explorer a positive outcome, and I didn't really see anything in the rules that would benefit from keeping it hidden who you are backing.

The game offers a long story. It could be well developed, like most UP means he becomes a moviestar, or a CEO, and most DOWN... criminal, drugaddict, member of a boy-band, etc. The paths chosen can have descriptions on what happens.
The story itself does not have that much impact on the game though. It is selecting UP or DOWN and hoping on a majority going in your direction.
The card selection at the beginning... is it secret? But how can I select myself? Drafting could work, it is somewhat secret.
The way points are earned (more towards the edges and the end) is good. Those are harder to archieve.
I do like the scroll idea, but, is the end visible? Otherwise I might not know if he needs to go up or down now to come closer to my final goalcard.

I like the idea of guiding a young monster's path. I didn't see much in the description that made it feel specifically like monsters inc, so I'd say either make the monsters inc ties more overt or just make it a generic monster. This one missed out on a vote for me because I didn't feel like the voting mechanic was a strong fit for the challenge. I do think the voting works fine and I like the die to resolve ties. However, I think it would be better if each round one player could win the right to choose Blalil's path. Overall it's a good concept with definite potential.

Thank you for the compliment.
I could not fit more examples into the 500 word limit, and there are things that I have not decided on yet.
Examples for the number of bandits: It could rise by one with every saloon build, and by two with every bank build. Decrease by three with every prison.
Gold can be found near the water (go to a specific square) if the player has developed his skill. Or, otherwise, in the saloon by gamling (again skill needed).

My bronze medal winner.

I think the board would be pretty cool. Unfortunately, there was a very similar board used by Telltaletown. The narrative is not really shared as players will try to complete their own objectives with little influence of other players. The game does tell a good story though.
How are you planning on making some tasks easier than others? Are you going to use dice probabilities? If so, I think the best part of the game is lost to it becoming a dice chucking game. Making this game balanced for various numbers of players will be difficult. It will also be hard to create cards that are always going to overlap the goals of all the players. It will be a tough one to actually develop, but could be a lot of fun (especially if you can find a way of getting away from dice chucking)