Disciples and an NPC Judas

Actually, the algorithm is pretty simple. You just take the 11 "good" disciples, pull one randomly, then shuffle the traitor in with the other 10 and deal out 2 cards to each player.

My concern with "drafting" is that it may give away too much info. For example, if you're the 3rd or 4th player in the chain, and you see the Traitor card the 2nd time that the draft goes around the table, you know for a fact that the 1st and 2nd player aren't the Traitor, for example. Sure, maybe this would necessitate throwing out the "guess the traitor" scoring but even then, there might be an advantage to having this knowledge. Certainly deserves more thought.

While I haven't played Terra, I agree that the "everyone loses" effect would feel different in a competitive game than a cooperative one; a narrow loss is quite satisfying in Lord of the Rings, whereas a game where "we all lose" would seem kind of anticlimatic and annoying in a non-cooperative setting (but I could be wrong).

Just to clarify there, think of the traitor as another player -- if his score is higher than any other player's, no player wins. If one player has a higher score than the traitor and all other players, then he's the winner.

But, I'm not sure this would be that meaningful. "Oh, ok, I didn't 'win'. But I still had a higher score than all of you." So in some sense, "all players lose" seems kind of semantic, since the players can of course just decide to "overrule" this aspect of the game. For people who were willing to actually take it seriously, though, it would work ok, I think.

I agree, it might be best to include these (and/or others) as "variants", something I hate to do in general -- I want the game designer to know what is the "best" way to play the game, and not have to decide for myself. But in this case, it's more a case of, "if you are uncomfortable with this rule, feel free to use this one instead." The concern with that, of course, is that by calling attention to it, people who weren't uncomfortable with the rule in the first place may become so! But, I think it's probably a good compromise to explore as a way to keep everyone happy, which is really what the game is about.

Of course, I have some playtesting planned with various and sundry Christian gamers and gaming groups, and we'll see what the reaction is, and whether there's any kind of a broad consensus...

Thanks again, guys!

-Jeff

I think the issue is that the designer should know best, and if you don't, it's a sign that perhaps you haven't playtested enough. I think throwing a lot of "optional" rules at the players runs the risk that no one will ever want to play the game because they have no idea what "the game", in its "ideal" state, actually is.

That said, I like your suggestion to include variants with a paragraph or two of analysis as to what players the variant might appeal to, and what specifically is accomplished by the variant.

But, I always shudder when the "optional rules" begin with something like "for players who want a more strategic game, use these rules..." I want to know what contribution each rule will make to the game experience; I don't want to have to play 50 times with all permutations to find out which one is the most fun.

And I think that's the tradeoff. Yes, customizability and flexibility of a game system can be a good thing, but it's presumptuous at best to say that people should be willing to invest a ton of time in your game to find the "best way" to play. As such, I think it's up to you, the designer, to test the game, find the "optimum" set of rules, and then provide one or two alternative rules and a clear exposition on what the rules add to the game, for those who wish to use them.

Of course, in this game, I think some optional rules would be appropriate and perhaps even necessary. But it's more with an eye towards accessing different sensibilities, and not so much with an eye towards customization in this case. I think making a game too dependent on "customization" may be a dangerous thing to do unless the game is so great that you're sure people will invest the time in exploring the system fully.

-Jeff

I'm not so sure about this, but I guess it would have to depend on the game in question. If it was something like "make the game longer by scaling the goals", then sure, I think that would make sense. In fact, there was an article in the Games Journal not too long ago about doing the reverse -- making long games shorter by scaling the goals back -- making the Risk board smaller, for example.

But, if you're talking about a change to the very mechanics of the game, this is a bigger issue, particularly when you're saying, "hey, you're going to have to invest 3+ hours just to find out if you even like the longer version." Obviously, I suspect it's quite specific to the game in question. For example, I've talked extensively about a game I have that currently plays at 4+ hours, but with a radical change to the turn structure, I believe I have gotten it down to about 2.5 hours or so. Now, the longer game gives you a little bit more "openness" each turn, but I don't feel it adds all that much in terms of actually making the game more fun -- the "density of decisions" as it were decreases. So, for me, it wouldn't make sense to say, "hey, you can play the really long version, if you want", because the game just isn't as much fun.

Your situation might be very different; perhaps, for example, that your "longer" version of the game adds complexity, and thus time, but the increased complexity is warranted because it adds a fun factor as well. But in all cases, I think Scurra's point is well-taken -- it's essential to say not simply "here's how to make the game longer" (because, trust me, no one wants that) but also "here's why you might want to make the game longer" as well.