Game #4: Profit and Provenance by jwarrend

Let me respond to a couple of points that FL and seth have raised.

First, I still don't think you guys are completely understanding the function of the "Artifact values". Let me explain again (and let me know if you got it already...)

For each location, the "strength", if you will, of your Exhibit is determined by the sum of the values of your Artifacts and the number of coin symbols on the Bid Card you associate with your exhibit.

For each location, players compare the strengths of their Exhibits, and the player with the strongest Exhibit scores Victory Points. (equal to the number of coin symbols on Bid Cards played by players with weaker exhibits at this location)

The point I'm trying to be crystal clear on is there is no point in the game currently where you score points directly for the value of your Artifacts (ie, the number printed on the Artifact). The *only* exception to this is when you sell to the Black Market. The reason I'm reluctant to go to a "you score VP for the value of your Artifacts at the end game" is that in renders the Black Market superfluous, unless some additional mechanic is created whereby having VPs early on is important (like if you need them to pay for something).

So, again, the "value" of your Artifacts never directly translates into Victory Points. This may be a bit counter-intuitive, but I think it actually leads to a more subtle and interesting scoring system. It's a design principle I sometimes use that rewards *relative* strengths rather than *absolute* strengths. So, I score points if I have a "stronger" hand than you, but the number of points by which my score exceeds yours isn't directly related to the absolute strengths of our hands, nor, necessarily the relative strength. For this game, it's actually somewhat of an abstract correspondence, the key point being that if I have a stronger exhibit, I'll score more than you.

The impact that I want this to have on the game is the core concept that having the best collection of Artifacts at a Location that lots of people are exhibiting at is more valuable than having the only Exhibit from a given Location. It rewards you more for competing and rising to the top than for creating a monopoly. You may or may not like this, but it's absolutely central to the design, and I think, creates a lot of tension (as long as there is a steady enough influx of Artifacts to players' hands that relative strengths can change every turn, otherwise, it's not so interesting...)

Now, as to the other point of "runaway leader" and "bringing up the rear". Let me again be clear that the redistribution mechanic was simply meant to prevent someone from scoring bonus points for the set repeatedly; that person need not have been the leader. And a simple way to do that seemed to be to force the person to give up an Artifact. And who should he give it to? Why not the person who is in Last Place, if anyone?

I couldn't disagree more with Seth's "the last place player should have played better". I think this has merit in the final analysis, but if someone is getting killed, and can be brought back into the pack simply and cleanly, I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing. It's no fun to have no chance of getting back into the game, even if it's due to making mistakes. That said, it's a flaw if "be the loser" is a viable strategy, because then the reward for being in last is too generous. Such may be the case here.

There shouldn't be a runaway leader problem in this game, because your scoring so depends on other players. People can slow down your scoring by shunning your auctions, which prevents you from getting mucho VP for winning auctions (although it gives you easier choices of Artifacts...the decisions!); or they can shun Exhibiting at a Location where you're strong, to slow down your point scoring there...

So, I think there are enough ways to slow down a leader without resorting to an explicit "hit the leader" mechanic. Furthermore, because everyone has the same Bid Cards every turn, there's no chance of a "rich get richer" system because VPs (money) can't currently be directly translated into buying power. Money doesn't beget more money.

And, I should point out, in the current "closed holdings" game, no one actually knows who the leader is, although it's probably knowable if people keep track. Yet, the consensus seems to be for open holdings, so maybe that will change.

So, I'm still not satisfied with a good mechanic to keep a player from scoring a set repeatedly. Maybe a simple system would be that once you score a set, you set it aside, and at the end of the game, all Sets played during the game are compared and the best one gets extra VP or something. Or perhaps there's a diminishing returns effect, whereby the first set cashed in gets X VP, the second gets X-1, the third X-2, etc. This adds additional bookkeeping, and again, wouldn't keep a player from scoring repeatedly, unless again you only let the player score once for that set...

Or maybe having a Set doesn't actually net you points, but lets you draw a special card that is worth extra VP at the end or something...

I don't know. I guess that this problem is only created as a result of my "exhibit every turn" rule, but since people seem to like that, I don't have a great system for how to prevent a player from scoring a set repeatedly. Maybe instead of "give one of your Artifacts to the Last Place Player", it should be "give one to a player of your choice". Inevitably, you'll give to the player who has no Artifacts from the same location, yet, that's ok; the person could either sell it to the Black Market, for quick VP, or could start trying to build a collection at that Location...

The third alternative is to just make Sets worth less, eg "Sets are worth the number of Artifacts in the Set". But maybe that doesn't incentivize Set collection enough, and anyway, it's still a steady supply of points that can never be stopped by other players, unless I add FastLearner's "steal an artifact" mechanic.

Anyway, another long post from me, but hopefully I've clarified a couple of things in my thought process...

Let me know what you think!
-Jeff

I agree; in principle, I think breaking up sets is a better solution to the problem of repeated scoring than "sets devalue with time". I think that will lead to some flux with your artifacts that isn't otherwise a part of the game. (In the original version, players could trade artifacts, but the first round of playtesters agreed this wasn't necessary or desirable; it would add length without adding much depth...)

I agree that this is probably the simplest and cleanest, but it also can lead to "signaling", as you describe, or perhaps deal-making -- "I'll break up my set by giving you this, if you give me that from your set", which is not necessarily in the spirit of the game. I don't want to have to add rules to limit that stuff, but it's a mild concern that it could happen...

In principle, you can play to lengthen the game just by restricting the number of Artifacts you're taking each turn. In the first game I playtested, we have 7 players, and due to a bug in the bluff card, most everyone used the "0" card to commission Expeditions, and since that card has 3 coins, we were pulling 18-21 Artifacts every turn; the full game ended in 4 turns. I think that was too short, however it suggests to me that if players are conserative with Expeditions, then the game won't be too short, although it could end up being too long. But, under the current rules, with no re-seeding of the draw piles, eventually, a player determined to end the game could do so, whereas in the "return cards to the piles" system, it could be prolonged indefinitely. So, I think I prefer a system where you can move more slowly in order to delay the endgame condition being met, moreso than one where you can actively prevent the game from ending. I think the game end condition should be inevitable and inescapable. I think then that the three best choices (in no particular order) are "First to reach X VPs", "Every player gets to be start player once", or "Deplete Y draw piles completely". I think the third may be the best choice because it does let you tailor the game length a bit, although perhaps there also needs to be a minimum game length (like 5 or 6 turns) just so it doesn't end too abruptly.

-Jeff

The current bonus for having a Set (3+ Artifacts from the same Location and Site) is +1VP/player in the game. Thus, in a 6 player game, you get 6 points if you have a Set. And if you could keep scoring that bonus every turn, that is a lot of points; certainly as many or maybe more than you're likely to get for having a ranking exhibit at a Location.

How does it cause a problem? I'm not really sure...just something about being able to collect a big bonus over and over seems problematic to me. Maybe it's actually ok. Are you saying that you don't think Sets actually need to be broken up? That players could continue to get full credit for them for the rest of the game? I admit I've never actually considered this as a possibility. I don't think I like it, but I'm afraid I can't say exactly why. I think it would just feel very stale. If I get a set in the third turn, and the game lasts 7 turns, I could see it being very ho-hum after a while -- "Gee, Jeff gets 6 bonus VP ...again". I think part of what could make the game interesting is that if you have a valuable exhibit at one location, people can slow you down by refusing to exhibit at that location. But under a "perpetually scoring Set bonus" system, you could be unstoppable, and wouldn't need the other players to exhibit at your location in order for you to score. And that seems at odds with what I'm trying to create.

One thing I haven't addressed is that a Set = 3 or more cards, yet all sets are equally valuable. Should this be the case? And if you score for a 4-card set, should you only have to give away one Card (in which case you could score the set bonus again next turn?)

-J

It's just the way the game is built. Most auction games are about using your money to get stuff that you want, and depend on how much you're willing to pay for that stuff. This game is more about managing your resources, which are identical to everyone else's every turn, in a more efficient way than everyone else, to maximize your VPs. Nothing comes "at no cost"; rather, the "cost" just is measured in a different commodity than the cost that wins you the game.

The only possible flaw I see is there's no reward for winning bids cheaply. You don't "have more money left over" if you win an Acquisition with a 5 card rather than an 8. But maybe, in a sense, you do, as you can then use that 8 to Exhibit, in which case you make more VPs.

In fact, maybe I should do something like this:

If you win an Archaeologist auction in Phase 2: Acquisition, you get VP equal to the Gold coins on other players' bid cards. But if you win an Exhibit at a Location, you get VP equal to the Coin symbols on other players' Bid Cards AND your own bid card. Thus, Exhibitions are slightly more valuable at generating VP than Acquisitions, which is not only in keeping with the theme, but also would make more sense from the resource management aspect -- you can use your valuable cards to win Auctions, but they give you a higher payoff if you hold back and Exhibit with them.

Of course, the game may already do this just by virtue of the fact that if you Exhibit, you're guaranteed to get some VP, whereas when you bid to Acquire, you're only going to get VP if you win. So, being able to hang on to your high value cards to Exhibit will net you more VP in the sense that if you can use a 5 card to come in 2nd place in an Auction rather than a 7 card, you not only give the auction winner one fewer VP, but you retain for yourself a more valuable card which you can exhibit and guarantee yourself an extra VP.

This effect could also be achieved by adding more "Red Coins" to the cards.

So, I'm rambling quite a bit here, but the point I'm trying to make is that this game has bidding, but it's deliberately a very unconventional bidding game, and attempts rather to merge bidding with hand management. I very much like the idea of giving people the same set of resources and seeing who uses them the best, as opposed to letting people who win early auctions end up with more money and thus have more money to commit to future auctions, and so on...The only real bug in my system is that since you only get one bid per Archaeologist, there will be a lot of ties. And that's a real pain from a design standpoint.

I don't know that this is necessarily a flaw, though. For example, if you win in the Olympics, you get a Gold Medal, regardless of whether you won by a little or a lot (unless of course you broke a World Record, which is icing on the cake...). The point is that this is the structure the game imposes on you; can you, through clever play, negotiate it? For example, I might conclude that since obliterating everyone in China exhibits will net me the same points as having a narrow lead (or, indeed, less points, since people may shun China exhibits), perhaps I should maintain a small advantage in China Artifacts and start diversifying so I start scoring some points in other Locations as well. In short, the game doesn't reward hoarding as a strategy. But I don't think it breaks the game; it just is a structure the players must plan around. But I think it's ok.

I think we may be using "bid" differently; maybe not. The point is that we compare the "strengths" of our exhibits, then the stronger player gets VP equal to the Coin symbols on all of the cards played by people at that location. Then 2nd gets VP for coins on his Bid Card and everyone below him. So, everyone scores at least for coins on their own Bid Card (I've modified your procedure because I'm concerned that if it was possible to get completely "closed out" of scoring, people would stop exhibiting if they thought they were going to lose. As it is, people may not Exhibit if they feel they'll be throwing points to someone else, but the key consideration ought to be "who else is exhibiting? And even if I lose, I will make points that the people who are NOT exhibiting won't make...")

But yes, if your exhibit is 1 point stronger or 100 points stronger than mine (and we're hypothetically the only two exhibitors for a Location), you'll make only as many VPs as the sum of the Coin symbols on our Bid Cards. And you'll only exceed me by the number of VPs on your own Card.

But there's no way to do it differently and still retain the effect whereby you only score big points by competing with other people; having the market cornered on China artifacts, e.g., is not a winning strategy. So, to retain that effect, you can't also have the effect of "if I beat Joe by a lot, I get a lot more points than him", since by defintion, you're beating everyone who didn't exhibit there by a lot as well. See the difficulty? And the competition effect, I think, is more important to the design than the "if I beat him by a lot, I score a lot" effect, even though it is counterintuitive.
Heck, you have to be different somewhere!

This is very much a matter of taste. I think it depends a lot on the nature and length of the game. For example, Axis and Allies is one of my favorite games, but it has a very big problem whereby the result of the game is pretty much determined by the end of the 2nd or 3rd turn, and from that point on, it's just details of the side with the momentum to complete its victory condition. That's not a lot of fun in a 2 hour game (although, as I said, I enjoy the game). And I think it's callous to say "well, if you didn't want to lose, you should have played better." In a game like A&A, you may have just had bad luck, and it may not be entirely your fault that you are losing.

We're not talking about a luck-heavy game like that. We're talking about a situation where a player may not have played well in the early game. Does the game system offer him a chance of recovering under the same rules that apply to everyone else, or is his situation hopeless? If it's the latter, the game should end as soon as possible, because nothing is worse than being out of it and having to carry out the game for another hour. It it's possible to win, how likely is it? It should definitely be difficult (or else the early game didn't matter), yet if it's trivial to win, then what was the point of playing?

One thing I don't mind is where a player is apparently in poor shape early on, but this is because he has sacrificed something for something else that will pay off in the end. A good example is Acquire; I played one game where I ran out of money early on and never had any cash for the rest of the game because my chains weren't merging. I watched the other players merge left and right and cash in, and keep buying stock. Yet, in the end, the chain I had initially invested in turned out to be one of the big ones, and I did respectably in the game, even though during the game, it seemed that I was out of it.

My point here is that I'm all for removing the "throw a bone to the last place player" rule in this case, if there's a better way to achieve the goal I have in mind (preventing repetitive scoring). Yet in general, I think it's overly simplistic to say "if you're in last place, you just aren't playing well". A person can end up in last for factors beyond his control, or at least, for minor miscalculations that lead to big swings in scoring. In Puerto Rico, if the builder comes up and I have 9 doubloons, I can't buy a Big Building, but someone who has 10 can. I was only one doubloon short of that player, yet the scoring different between us may be several VP as a result. Did I necessarily play "worse" than that player in proportion to the difference between our scores? In some sense yes, and in some sense no.

I guess in general, I agree that mechanics that allow the last place player to catch up should be adopted cautiously and in proportion to how much control a person had in their own fate anyway. But I think to paint with the broad brush of "however you fare in the game, it's your own fault" is a bit callous and fails to recognize the extremely complex nature of games, in the sense that there are in general so many variables that everyone's calculations on how to max out on VP will inevitably be off in one place or another. So I don't think we need to always reward the last place player, but neither do we need to blame him for being such a loser!

Wonderful. So why make rules to thwart a possible runaway leader? Or even a "Runaway scorer"... it would seem that scoring a set more than once shouldn't be a big problem for the very reason you describe (people exhibiting elsewhere)

I don't advocate rules to stop a runaway leader (I don't think there will be one). As for scoring a set more than once, see my reply to FastLearner. People can't stop you from scoring your set repeatedly simply by exhibiting elsewhere. A formal rule is needed to stop someone from scoring a set over and over, and I think that in a game where a player can score a Set over and over, the first player with a Set will have a huge advantage at winning. To this, you might say "well, the other players should have gotten Sets earlier if they wanted to win", but again, if the game is effectively won (or at least it's a huge step forward towards that) when a player gets a Set, why not just stop then?

I'm not just trying to stop a player from scoring the same Set over and over, but also trying to model the effect that if a museum exhibits the same exact collection over and over and over, then no matter how great it is, it will lose interest. So think of it like this: standard scoring simulates the influx into your museum based on the quality of your collection; it will be pretty steady. Yet, when you have a "Set", you have a "special exhibit" -- a group of Artifacts from the same Site! "King Tut's Tomb - revealed", for example. This creates extra interest, and thus, extra VP. But, it's more transient. Once everyone has come to see your special exhibit, interest wanes.

So, thematically, you shouldn't be able to score repeatedly.

Maybe this is a good solution. You can keep including the Artifacts in your collection, you simply can't get bonus VP for the Set anymore (whereas in the "give away one Artifact", you actually could score for that Set again, if you could get another Artifact from that Site...). I'm concerned that it would be a pain to do the bookkeeping, yet your solution (put the artifacts directly in front of you) seems to solve that problem. It also lifts the "deal making problem" I'm concerned about with redistribution. Maybe this is the way to go!

Thanks again Seth for some great ideas!

-Jeff

Ah...I see. I was thinking more that someone could end the game quickly if they were winning, to try to seal their win. You point out an opposite problem. That someone who is losing will try to end the game to "stop the bleeding".

I honestly think this is a problem more with the individual players than with the game. I think most games presuppose that all players are trying to win, and that a lot of games break when people give up and try to sabotage the game (for example, to end it just so they don't have to play anymore, which I think is quite childish).

That said, there are some games where "trying to win" can drag the game out. I watched a game of Settlers of the Stone Age where one player had 9 points after about 50 minutes, yet by making "the best" moves, the other players were able to drag the game out for another hour, at which point the player who was in the lead originally finally won. I think that's a flaw in the game, because 2 hours for a game that was basically done at 50 minutes is certainly ridiculous! Yet, I think for a player who thinks he is losing to attempt to abort the game just to not have to play is totally inappropriate, and I'm reluctant to design a game based around the preferences of someone who I deem to be a poor sport (apologies if you're the person you're talking about!)

What do you think? How much consideration should you give in the game to the way different play styles could sabotage the game? For example, I rarely design "fixes" for cheating because I just assume that everyone is adult enough that they won't cheat. If someone wants to cheat, why bother playing in the first place?

I think that a "minimum number of turns" could mitigate the problem you describe. eg, the game lasts at least as many turns as there are players, but after that, as soon as one of the decks is exhausted, it ends.

I sort of like a game end mechanic where the players have some control (like in Puerto Rico), yet it isn't just a "race" to get the most points. So that's why I went with the "deck depletion" system. Yet I see your point, also, as reluctant as I am to design around it.

Thanks!

-Jeff

Seth,

I agree that playing for placement isn't ideal, yet sometimes, after the game is over, I will say to myself, "hey, I came in 2nd, that's not so bad". I won't beat myself up over not winning. Yet, during the game, I don't think I should approach the game by setting out to come in 2nd; I should try to win, if it's at all possible to do so. I'm sure you're the same.

That said, I agree, some people just want to do well, and I understand that. For someone in PR to say "I've maxed out my score, and I want to end the game since with each passing turn, other players are scoring more points than I am, thus I can't get back in it", that's one thing, and I think it's probably ok for a player to try to end the game. What I object to more is for a player to decide he's not having any fun any more, and he's not even going to try to win, and furthermore, he's going to do everything he can to make the game end, with no effort towards improving his score or his standing; he just wants it to be over. I think that crosses the line, because he's now imposing a consideration that is external to the game, and he's making a decision for everyone else. If the game can't be fun for him, it won't be for anyone else, either.

I think we are actually in pretty good agreement on this issue. And let me just reiterate that I sympathize more with our "hypothetical poor sport" when the game is being dragged past its reasonable length just so one player can max out there score, or whatever. For a person who is leading in Carcassonne by 50 points to spend 5 minutes deciding where to place his tile is equally poor sportsmanship, and if I were the clear loser, I'd vote to abort the game, or else perhaps spending a nanosecond on my moves.

I guess the bottom line is, games always fall apart when poor sports are playing (which isn't to say I'm never a poor sport, because I'm sure I am sometimes) and I wonder to what extent you all typically design around that....

I have only tested with 7 once, so it's all just a guess, but I think extra players definitely add time, but probably not a tremendous amount, since the actions a player takes are all pretty quick -- "commission one expedition" or "place one bid". Those things can be done quickly. In the test game, I found that the evaluation of the Archaeologists in the bidding round, and of the Exhibitions, is what eats up time, so I think that in principle, the game shouldn't be too much longer with extra players, although it might be lengthened somewhat.

I agree that a VP limit can help to control game scaling, yet I think it creates a different kind of game. I'm thinking of my favorite games -- Acquire, Web of Power, Puerto Rico, Carcassonne -- and all of them use the design principle "try to maximize your points in a set number of turns, or before a certain configuration is reached" as opposed to "try to be the first one to reach X points", which has more of a "race" feel, and which I think I like less.

For example, let's say the game is getting down to the wire; player X has 93 points, and you have 86. Through cagey play in the Exhibition round, you keep him to 97 points total, whereas you leap forward to 94. But, then he decides since he has 97, he'll just sell a 3 point Artifact to the Black Market, and win. Game over. Doesn't that feel anti-climactic? And I'm afraid VP target games can end that way. "Oops, I guess I win if I do this..." Whereas in a game like Acquire or Puerto Rico, you know there are various configurations in which the game can end, but you never know when to make the push to satisfy that condition; you have to try to guess when it will end, and make sure you've taken every opportunity. But, you also can feel like you can let a slow strategy develop to fruition, rather than feel like you frantically need to rush to catch up with player A.

So, from the "player experience" perspective, I think I like "Victory Point Goal" less as a means of creating tension and fun.

Of course, it's pretty subjective. And indeed, it may work better that way. It might be worth trying both ways to see!

Looks like we're winding down week 2 for session 4 of the Game Design Workshop. Thanks again to all who have chimed in this time around! It looks like there's a playtest session happening this coming Monday, and I'm hoping to get this game into the mix there (anyone in the Boston area who'd like to attend, drop me a line!). I'll post a session report to let you know how it goes!

Next up, starting Sunday, will be FastLearner. So, FastLearner, sometime before Monday, go ahead and start a new thread and tell us about your game, and where we can access it! Looking forward to it!

Thanks again to all,

Jeff