Galaxy Wars by Ryan Brenner

Ok, I'll bite; this is one of the reasons we created the GDW, it's a guarantee that one will get some feedback. Of course, it has it's obligations as well, namely, that you'll return the favor and review other rulebooks, etc.

I always have a hard time evaluating abstracts like this, because they're so dependent on the spatial interactions between pieces. I had a little concern that keeping track of the different abilities of the different pieces might be difficult, but probably with a reference card showing the range and movement and such for each piece, it could be picked up quickly.

The rules could stand some editing. One thing that was a bit unclear was the role of "optional rules" like "Turrets" and "Cards". I'm not a big fan of optional rules like these, because they usually indicate that the designer hasn't playtested the game enough to know which ruleset is the "best", although I can understand that card play changes things enough that it could make the game very different. Still, in the "action sequence" area of the rules, I'd tidy up the wording so that it's more clear that some actions are only followed if the entire game is being played with optional rules. I think you had a rule that said "If you're playing with cards, you do [such and such]", which a good rules lawyer could interpret to mean "well, I choose to play with cards this turn, therefore, I'm going to do [such and such]".

I don't completely understand the signficance of the raised platform. What effect does it have on game play? It's going to be *very* hard to justify the additional expense of building/buying the 3D board unless it's absolutely essential to the game play. As far as I can tell, it's just something of a gimmick at this point.

Other than that, I think your game sounds interesting enough. I bet it would be fun to play, once one had internalized the different abilities.

Finally, I would adjure you to be patient. Putting up questions about mechanics and such usually gets quick responses. Putting up a whole ruleset and asking for comments is asking a lot. For myself, I usually only respond if I have a strong opinion about the game one way or the other. In that sense, consider this post to be an exception; I bet your game will be fun, but because it's built on the platform of Chess, it doesn't blow me away. Nevertheless, I think you're off to a great start. Keep at it!

Best of luck,

Jeff

Good to know.

Sure, because people like gimmicks -- at first. But if it doesn't affect the game, it's not worth it.

How does that platform impede that currently? Do you have to stop when you reach the platform? If so, how does one get onto or off of the platform? I didn't see this in the rules, perhaps I missed something obvious.

Fair enough, but it seems like you're going for more of a chess variant here, and it's a legitimate question as to whether people will pay three times as much to "take a chance" on your game (assuming they're seeing it in the store and know nothing about it) simply because of a raised board that doesn't actually affect gameplay.

My strong advice to you here is to become your own harshest critic. Let's face it, your friends are your friends -- they're always going to like your game. But even beyond that, you can't design your game by majority rule; you are the game design dictator, and what you say, goes! You can take suggestions into account, but you must always be the one who knows whether a rule is good or bad. For sure, you need to test it to find that out, but in playtesting, you should be watching the game unfold, and observing what went well and what didn't; you shouldn't need to wait for the players' feedback to know what worked. Their feedback is, in my experience, an added bonus -- a confirmation of what I've already observed in some cases, or a few ideas to consider that I hadn't personally thought of in others. So, bottom line: don't ever make major design decisions simply because of what the majority of playtesters prefer.

That said, it takes time and practice (and patience!) to become good at evaluating your own games, AND to detach yourself from the game enough that you can look at it objectively and honestly admit when it isn't happening. (not that this is the case currently, just speaking generally here...) That last part is hard for all of us!

Best of luck, and keep at it!

-Jeff

Don't get me wrong; that's not a bad thing -- you should like your game! It only becomes a bad thing when one becomes so convinced that one's game is great that one won't listen to honest criticism, or worse, that one doesn't seek out honest criticism because one's game is so self-evidently wonderful. I don't think that's a risk you face.

It's just, as you design more games, be honest with yourself. Game ideas are easy enough to come by, and there's no sense trying to force a lousy game to become a good one; you might as well just work on one of your other designs.

Again, best of luck!