Game #14a Swich & Tip

I am amazed by the simplicity of the game: 4 pieces, a 3x3 board and one page of rules! If the game indeed works as well as you imply, then this is a nifty piece of work!

Because the rules are so short, it is hard to find criticism, but I do have a few points.

Personally, I would like to see the "How to win section" at the end. Just explain what a player can do in his turn and then at the end explain what the winning conditions are.

If you do keep the "How to win" section at the beginning, then explain again later on that you can also win by occupying the two squares of your color. This, because you also explain twice that you can win by capturing another player's piece. Small gripe, but you asked for it.

Also, what happens if I somehow eliminate my own switch piece? This does not seem to be covered in the rules.

You say that the rules work well as is, but I do have some questions about gameplay. Does the starting player have an unfair advantage? Or perhaps a disadvantage? Do stalemates occur often?

I ask this because it is a luck free abstract, where a only a small number of moves are possible each turn. In theory this means that either: the starting player will win if he has a perfect strategy OR the starting player will always lose if he has a perfect strategy OR the game always ends in a draw if both players have a perfect strategy.

The caveat here of course is that in many abstract games the "perfect" strategy is not easily found, usually because there are so many different moves available each turn and therefore they stay interesting, even at a very high level of play (Go, Chess).

On the other hand, some games are "solved" and therefore are not very interesting to play if at least one of the players knows how to play the perfect strategy. Examples of such games are are Abalone (with the default setup) and TicTacToe.

Games such as Othello and Connect-Four can be solved by computer programs in a reasonable amount of time and are considered "solved" for that purpose.

Looking at your game it seems that there either is a perfect strategy that the starting player might be able to follow to win within a number of turns OR that there is an effective counterstrategy and that the game always ends in a draw. Each abstract has a perfect strategy in theory, but for some abstracts the perfect strategy is very, very tough to calculate (or practically impossible for us mortals), because there are so many options each turn. Since your game has a very limited set of possible moves each turn I would be afraid that the game can be "solved" within a few moves.

Then again, would this be a problem? I don't know. Personally I wouldn't feel very comfortable publishing such a game, but it depends on your public and what your intent with the game is. Perhaps if people care so much about the game that they are willing put in the time and effort to try and solve it, then you could consider it a success. :)

Anyway, good luck with it!

- Rene Wiersma

Hi Tyler,

I just want to post a couple of remarks that aren't directed at you personally so much as represent what I see the "purpose" of the GDW as being. I post it here so that other prospective GDW designers can consider whether they want to put up games in the GDW.

Ok, there are a couple of ways in which I think your game is not ideal for what the workshop is set up to do, from your perspective. First off, let me be clear that the GDW is not a proofreading service. We like to talk about game systems and mechanics. Naturally, when people have failed to explain their mechanics and rules clearly, we are able to help them find better ways to express them, and that's all valid. But, we also want to talk about game mechanics too.

Second, your game has been playtested a lot. Thus, the point that we are at is way behind where you are at. This means that the kind of feedback we may be able to generate may not be that useful -- you're already much further along in the process than general comments can address, and (I suspect) you need suggestions about playbalance and such, which only playtesting can do.

Finally, you're close to publication, and someone at that point generally isn't looking for suggestions for changes (because it's too late for that). For example, we had a post last week from a company that was selling their game, and while we talked about the game's mechanics, it was pretty much pointless because their game was already at the printers.

I thank you for sharing your game with us -- it's fun to hear what other people are working on, and I look forward to reading your rules and learning about how your game is played (I don't have Word at home, so it may not be till tomorrow). I just wanted to put these "overview" remarks here, not so much for you, because I'm sure you weren't aware of these "unwritten rules", but for others to think about when considering whether to submit to the GDW or not. This is necessarily just my opinion, and I'm not "in charge" of the GDW, I'm just a fellow designer and critiquer, so my opinion is in no way binding -- it's just based on what I've seen works well and doesn't work well in practice.

Thanks again for putting up your game! I'll generate some specific game-related remarks this week!

-Jeff