Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 04:10

#1

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Hello Michael

I liked the game. This is a game that I would like to test.
The state that the rules are in, indicates that the game has been tested several times. The rules were easy to follow.

I tried to se if there were any loopholes in the rules and I did not find any.

First some questions:
The first year you have no money. The only worker you have is the owner. Is this correct?
The first drawn Demand card will never be used in the game. It is just a placeholder or?

And now some suggestions

If I do an illegal set-up I have to pay $1 and then do a new set-up. Actually I know some that would use that rule to see what others have set-up by doing an illegal set-up, pay the $1 and then do a new set-up. I suggest if you have done an illegal set-up, pay the $1 and then shall the player to the right remove workers down to the legal state.

There will be a lot of set-up behind the screen (24 times). You can reduce that (to 12 times) by letting the players both set up the factory and the sell at the same time (there will be a 1 month delay in the market and you can sell the products that was produced last month (or before that)). The turn sequence would be like this:
- Demand cards
- Set-up behind the screen
- Sell toys and get income
- Pay the workers
- Produce new toys.

// Johan

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 05:55

#2

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Johan wrote:

If I do an illegal set-up I have to pay $1 and then do a new set-up. Actually I know some that would use that rule to see what others have set-up by doing an illegal set-up, pay the $1 and then do a new set-up. I suggest if you have done an illegal set-up, pay the $1 and then shall the player to the right remove workers down to the legal state.

I thought the same thing... that the rule could be abused. I think the best way to avoid that is to make the penalty stiffer. I don't think $1 is a big deal, but I don't know how tight money is in the game. Maybe $5 would be better?

I really like the idea. I was thinking that instead of tiles for the toys you could use little wooden blocks, or ideally in production there'd be little bricks, plastic bananas, doll-looking things, and monkeys. Admittedly I thought about the blocks because I bought some of the Age of Mythology replacement cubes and have boon looking for something to use them for. This could be it! I could make a proto and try it out!

- Seth

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 08:12

#3

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Johan wrote:

The first year you have no money. The only worker you have is the owner. Is this correct?

Yes, this is correct.

Johan wrote:

The first drawn Demand card will never be used in the game. It is just a placeholder or?

This is also correct. It is in there so that the rules would be easier to understand later. I am now able to say, remove the oldest card and play a new one, instead of making special cases for turn one. It also gives the players one more card that they see, which becomes more important in later months, when they are trying to predict demand based on what's left in the Demand Deck.

Johan wrote:

If I do an illegal set-up I have to pay $1 and then do a new set-up. Actually I know some that would use that rule to see what others have set-up by doing an illegal set-up, pay the $1 and then do a new set-up. I suggest if you have done an illegal set-up, pay the $1 and then shall the player to the right remove workers down to the legal state.

The $1 penalty was a late addition. Originally, players would just take turns buying workers and belts, so you would not be able to buy more than you had in money. In practice, though, this slowed down the game unnecessarily. I like people setting up simultaneously behind their screens, but I agree the penalty needs to be tweaked.

$1 is probably too little. $5 may be too much, though. It could eliminate production for one whole month, which could basically end your chances in the game. I think your idea may be best, where the opponents could get together and fire some of his workers for him.

Johan wrote:

There will be a lot of set-up behind the screen (24 times). You can reduce that (to 12 times) by letting the players both set up the factory and the sell at the same time (there will be a 1 month delay in the market and you can sell the products that was produced last month (or before that)). The turn sequence would be like this:
- Demand cards
- Set-up behind the screen
- Sell toys and get income
- Pay the workers
- Produce new toys.

This is very interesting. I still think I need to pay the workers before selling the toys, but I do like reducing the number of times the screen is needed.

sedjtroll wrote:

I was thinking that instead of tiles for the toys you could use little wooden blocks, or ideally in production there'd be little bricks, plastic bananas, doll-looking things, and monkeys. Admittedly I thought about the blocks because I bought some of the Age of Mythology replacement cubes and have boon looking for something to use them for. This could be it! I could make a proto and try it out!

I was thinking along the same lines. I have seen tiny plastic babies and there must be monkeys. The only bananas I can think of are little candy bananas. Of course, I only picked bananas for that toy because they are yellow!

Thanks for the input so far!

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 08:39

#4

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

fanaka66 wrote:

Johan wrote:
]There will be a lot of set-up behind the screen (24 times). You can reduce that (to 12 times) by letting the players both set up the factory and the sell at the same time (there will be a 1 month delay in the market and you can sell the products that was produced last month (or before that)). The turn sequence would be like this:
- Demand cards
- Set-up behind the screen
- Sell toys and get income
- Pay the workers
- Produce new toys.

This is very interesting. I still think I need to pay the workers before selling the toys, but I do like reducing the number of times the screen is needed.

Yes, but in this case you will sell last month production before you pay the workers and then pay them to produce for the next month.

// Johan

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 13:26

#5

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

I had the chance to play “Fad Factory” at our last Albany playfest and I was quite impressed; the game is elegant in its simplicity, yet has a very nice economic model that really conveys the feeling of trying to be leading edge of the next big thing, and trying to avoid having 1000 unsellable hula hoops stuck in your warehouse!

My main “complaint” of the game is the flaw in the model whereby the demand cards convey both the number of items that can be sold AND the maximum price. In practice, this eliminated need for price competition for high-demand items, since the demand was high enough that everyone’s goods could be sold. My proposed solution was to have the max price still be determined by the sum of the demand cards, but to have the number that can be sold correspond to the highest card. This would create a shortage of demand that would lead to some much-needed competition in selling.

However, Johan’s post suggests to me a different way that you could do things, retaining the current cost/demand model. Have worker assignment and price setting occur during the SAME secret operation. Then, reveal the screens, people pay for their workers, then produce, then sell.

This is good in two ways. First, it injects uncertainty into the price setting, and that’s exactly what the game currently lacks. I think the current game just is too generous to a player who happens to have several sellable items in a high-demand category; he’ll be able to sell them for a huge price, and run away with the game. I don’t see any checks on this currently. Second, it simplifies the turn structure, and that’s something else you badly need if you hope to fit 12 turns into 45 minutes.

But the former reason is really the more compelling. As it stands, the current cost/demand effect lacks any tension for the high demand items. Either changing the demand side of things, or creating uncertainty about who’s producing what (and therefore who’s selling what) when price setting, are possible solutions to the problem.

Other than that, the game is great and I look forward to playing again soon!

-Jeff

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 14:35

#6

RookieDesign

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Fanaka66,

I really enjoy reading about your game. I think it's simple and efficient. I always had certain reserve for game that have use a screen, but this look it could work.

Let me have one suggestion for you. The December payout isn't such a big deal. It's just extra money at the end of the game. About having two years running. Each turn could be two months instead. That would give more credibility to Christmas. You should check the balance of the game b ut add a bit more realism.

That's it for me.
Good luck.

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 16:32

#7

Anonymous

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Hi! Having played this in the last Albany Playtest session, I am glad to see the changes you have introduced with this new version!

I love the humor of the descriptions of each of the types of items. Very poignant! One thing you may want to consider would be to use the images of each type of item on the cards so that the card features a number and an image of the item. That will overcome any issues of colorblindness that may arise.

The only issue that seems to linger is that of starting position. Since you start off with only 1 worker (yourself--that's a point you will want to specify in the set-up potion of your rules), you may only produce 1 toy in the first month. As we experienced, it is possible for one player to really take off quick while others have no demand for their product (for potentially a few turns). Since that is the only way to bring in revenue, you have the potential for stalled players.

I like the idea of the privacy screen, but I agree that the $1 penalty seems a little out of place. I like the suggestion to have players set up their factory and then produce and set their prices in one sequence without showing anything to other players, but the potential for an invalid set-up would only be exacerbated by this (an invalid set-up would lead to invalid production and invalid pricing strategies). Potentially a lot of time could be spent on mistakes.

To ensure that players have only a valid set-up, you could have all resources (workers and conveyor belts) in a common pool. Players then all buy them as they can afford in one phase. Players then put up their screens and allocate them, produce and set their price points at once. This way, no player set-up can be invalid since they ahve already paid for their equipment. For subsequent rounds, players could pay for the workers they already have and intend to keep, then allocate them as they need after the screens are up.

Having players set their price points before seeing the total supply would also add a little more tension to the game (since no one knows what other supply is available--more true to real world conditions).

One note about the rules, on the last page you have a rule stated only in the example. If a coin is flipped to settle ties between players selling items for the same price, then that should be stated in the rules and restated in the example. It's a relatively minor point, but one that should be noted.

Great layout of the player boards. The only thing I would suggest is to remove the arrows between the INVENTORY column and the SALES table. At first glance, it appears that each type of toy may only be moved into the immediately adjacent sales row as indicated by the arrows (for example, the Action Figure may only be sold for $4, $5, or $6). This isn't the case, but the layout seems to point to that. Not having the arrows won't really make the relationship between the areas confusing since it is described in detail in the rules.

Overall I like the changes you have made. It looks as though you have taken an already enjoyable game and greatly improved upon it!

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 16:59

#8

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

SiskNY wrote:

One thing you may want to consider would be to use the images of each type of item on the cards so that the card features a number and an image of the item.

Agree.

Quote:

The only issue that seems to linger is that of starting position. Since you start off with only 1 worker (yourself--that's a point you will want to specify in the set-up potion of your rules), you may only produce 1 toy in the first month. As we experienced, it is possible for one player to really take off quick while others have no demand for their product (for potentially a few turns). Since that is the only way to bring in revenue, you have the potential for stalled players.

This does sound iffy. Why not have the turn be (which Steve suggests below)
1. Hire workers/Pay upkeep
2. Allocate workers and arrange back stock prices (behind screen)
3. Reveal setup, sell items
4. produce new items based on setup

This makes it so that you can produce more than 1 good in the first cycle, though you won't actually have any production- maybe a Setup round of buying guys and setting up an initial factory is in order.

Regarding selling, if there's more demand than supply, I don't know why everyone should get the max price. Why not always have the cheapest units sell first and then the more expensive units, etc?

Quote:

To ensure that players have only a valid set-up, you could have all resources (workers and conveyor belts) in a common pool. Players then all buy them as they can afford in one phase. Players then put up their screens and allocate them, produce and set their price points at once. This way, no player set-up can be invalid since they have already paid for their equipment. For subsequent rounds, players could pay for the workers they already have and intend to keep, then allocate them as they need after the screens are up.

Yeah, I like Steve's idea here.

Quote:

One note about the rules, on the last page you have a rule stated only in the example. If a coin is flipped to settle ties between players selling items for the same price, then that should be stated in the rules and restated in the example.

I agree, and I saw that too and thought it was strange.

Quote:

Great layout of the player boards. The only thing I would suggest is to remove the arrows between the INVENTORY column and the SALES table. At first glance, it appears that each type of toy may only be moved into the immediately adjacent sales row as indicated by the arrows (for example, the Action Figure may only be sold for $4, $5, or $6). This isn't the case, but the layout seems to point to that.

Agree. I thought that was the case.

- Seth

Mon, 11/01/2004 - 18:00

#9

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Wow!

Lots of great ideas to think about (and playtest!). I have to run to class (Strategic Board Games!) now, but I will hopefully be able to respond to individual posts tonight.

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 00:08

#10

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Johan wrote:

Yes, but in this case you will sell last month production before you pay the workers and then pay them to produce for the next month.

Oh, OK. I think I get it now. The only issue I see now is the fact that everyone will lay off all their workers in December. It's not really a problem, it's just a weird thought to fire your workers in the busiest month, but that's how it would be with a one-month lag from making the toys to selling them. I think it would be worth it to simplify the turns.

jwarrend wrote:

My main “complaint” of the game is the flaw in the model whereby the demand cards convey both the number of items that can be sold AND the maximum price. In practice, this eliminated need for price competition for high-demand items, since the demand was high enough that everyone’s goods could be sold.

Actually, in the latest playtests, the high demand does not seem to be a problem. The values of the Demand Cards are now lower than when you played last, and supply is greater, due to a free worker (the owner). There is price competition in most months now, and it can be fierce.

jwarrend wrote:

However, Johan’s post suggests to me a different way that you could do things, retaining the current cost/demand model. Have worker assignment and price setting occur during the SAME secret operation. Then, reveal the screens, people pay for their workers, then produce, then sell.

Hmmm. This eliminates the one-month lag is production. This eliminates the December firing (again, not a problem in game terms, but it seems odd in reality). I think I will need to try the price setting this way, too.

RookieDesign wrote:

Let me have one suggestion for you. The December payout isn't such a big deal. It's just extra money at the end of the game. About having two years running. Each turn could be two months instead. That would give more credibility to Christmas. You should check the balance of the game b ut add a bit more realism.

This is a real nice idea, but I'm not sure it works here. Currently, the game goes through 2 phases. At first, people are struggling to build toys and make some money. Enough money is eventually made and production goes up. Then the players have enough toys and compete to use up their inventory. The December rush helps them clean out their inventory. In your idea you would have a holiday rush halfway through, and then again at the end. This would greatly reduce the time spent in Phase 1, which seems like the more interesting part of the game. I'll keep it in mind to try it, depending on how playtesting goes.

SiskNY wrote:

One thing you may want to consider would be to use the images of each type of item on the cards so that the card features a number and an image of the item. That will overcome any issues of colorblindness that may arise.

Yeah, I will eventually do something like that. I am currently just using UNO cards, but when I make a more official prototype I will do that.

SiskNY wrote:

The only issue that seems to linger is that of starting position. Since you start off with only 1 worker (yourself--that's a point you will want to specify in the set-up potion of your rules), you may only produce 1 toy in the first month. As we experienced, it is possible for one player to really take off quick while others have no demand for their product (for potentially a few turns). Since that is the only way to bring in revenue, you have the potential for stalled players.

This brings up the only downside to playtesting with designers, I think. When we tried it, I think we were all 'testing' the game instead of playing it. Several people tried out different strategies, instead of playing the higher percentage plays to try to win the game. That is not to say that a runaway leader is not a problem in this game. It may be, but I am not sure if it would be most of the time. I have some ideas to try out if there often is an insurmountable lead.

SiskNY wrote:

To ensure that players have only a valid set-up, you could have all resources (workers and conveyor belts) in a common pool. Players then all buy them as they can afford in one phase. Players then put up their screens and allocate them, produce and set their price points at once. This way, no player set-up can be invalid since they ahve already paid for their equipment. For subsequent rounds, players could pay for the workers they already have and intend to keep, then allocate them as they need after the screens are up.

This is how I did it in my last playtest. The purchase phase made the game drag and was very monotonous. I was hoping to speed it up, and simplfy the turn structure. I am thinking if you have too many workers, and they see you can't pay them, they should go on strike.

SiskNY wrote:

One note about the rules, on the last page you have a rule stated only in the example. If a coin is flipped to settle ties between players selling items for the same price, then that should be stated in the rules and restated in the example. It's a relatively minor point, but one that should be noted.

Great layout of the player boards. The only thing I would suggest is to remove the arrows between the INVENTORY column and the SALES table. At first glance, it appears that each type of toy may only be moved into the immediately adjacent sales row as indicated by the arrows (for example, the Action Figure may only be sold for $4, $5, or $6). This isn't the case, but the layout seems to point to that. Not having the arrows won't really make the relationship between the areas confusing since it is described in detail in the rules.
Thanks for pointing those out! I'll try to clean it up a bit.

sedjtroll wrote:

Regarding selling, if there's more demand than supply, I don't know why everyone should get the max price. Why not always have the cheapest units sell first and then the more expensive units, etc?

I didn't mean to make this sound like a rule. It's more just pointing out a fact. If the demand is 5, and three of us each have 1 to sell, there is no reason to sell them for less than the maximum price of $5.

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 02:20

#11

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

fanaka66 wrote:

This brings up the only downside to playtesting with designers, I think. When we tried it, I think we were all 'testing' the game instead of playing it. Several people tried out different strategies, instead of playing the higher percentage plays to try to win the game. That is not to say that a runaway leader is not a problem in this game. It may be, but I am not sure if it would be most of the time. I have some ideas to try out if there often is an insurmountable lead.

From reading the rules and the comment to which the above was a reply, It seems to me that the complaint was that everyone will have 1 unit for the first month. It seems like either everyone will choose to make the same toy, or if they don't then one player could get lucky and get a big lead because his 1 good turned out to be in demand. If players started with a couple toys each, then they could diversify a little, and there isn't the possibility that the demans card that turns up will match another and give one player a big edge while leaving another high and dry.

For example, say the preliminary demand cards are 3 of Yellow and 4 of Green (and something that's going to go away). Say I choose to produce Yellow and you choose to produce Green. Then say the new card that comes up for demand is 5 of yellow. Based on nothing but luck, I just made a lot more money than you did. And anyone producing red or blue is completely left out.

Quote:

The purchase phase made the game drag and was very monotonous. I was hoping to speed it up, and simplfy the turn structure. I am thinking if you have too many workers, and they see you can't pay them, they should go on strike.

I don't understand how a purchase phase could make the game drag. I really don't see how it's any different then just placing workers then paying for them later- you just pay for them first. The strike mechanic you are thinking about might be amusing but it sounds like it would make the game drag more than anything else.

Quote:

sedjtroll wrote:
Regarding selling, if there's more demand than supply, I don't know why everyone should get the max price. Why not always have the cheapest units sell first and then the more expensive units, etc?

I didn't mean to make this sound like a rule. It's more just pointing out a fact. If the demand is 5, and three of us each have 1 to sell, there is no reason to sell them for less than the maximum price of $5.

Hmm. But you did make it sound like a rule by putting it in the rules. My point is that if I have a $3 price tag on an item and you have a $5 price tag on the same item, I shouldn't get $5 for that item.

On the other hand, if I see people buying from you at $5 I might change the price tag on mine- which seems to be what your rule suggests. I'd like to assert that the point of the game seems to be to guess the right price for the item and set your price accordingly. Therefore, why be rewarded for guessing too low? In other words I think modeling my first example above (the first hand you might say, not the other hand one) would be a better game., and it seems like just what your game is trying to do - except for the part in the rules that says it doesn't do that at all.

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 04:15

#12

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Here are some ideas around this game. Some of them are maybe totally out of line (stupid), but there can be something that you can use.

The problem in this game right now seems to be the pricing. One idea is to switch from the number and the price per unit to the total amount the market is willing to spend on the products and the number.

You can limit the max $$$ the market are willing to spend on a product with the number (demand)One way to doing this is to have two sets of cards. The first set is the demand from the market and the other is the total $$$ the market is willing to spend. All cards in both the sets are marked with a specific toy symbol.
There will always be 8 cards on the board (that is the demand from the market).

Start: Have start cards and place the start cards (one demand and one $$$ for each toy).
Shuffle both sets together. When your market are changed, draw cards and when you receive the same type as before then stop and replace the drawn cards.

Example: 8 cards are presented Red-price Red-Demand, Blue-Price, Blue-Demand and so on…
Start to draw cards from the deck. You take Red-Demand, Blue-Price, Yellow-Price, Blue-Price (Stop, you received another of the same kind). Remove the last drawn card. Replace the other drawn cards with the responding once on the table. The market can now change totally (all 8 are replaced) or just one small change are made.

Then you can also change the market so if there are several that has the same price and the total of the toys cost (or the demand) is more than the market are willing to have, then nobody get to sell at that level.

Workers: One way to handle the workers is to letting you have a delay in the staff you have. You have 15 possible workers in your factory. When you hire a worker you only have to pay the upkeep, but when you fire a worker, you have to pay an extra upkeep the month he is fired (he get an extra month paid but you get no work from him). You can not use that worker anymore. The "December" effect will be removed.

// Johan

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 04:58

#13

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

I just had a thought, as I ran through a solo test of your game. Why do the demand cards have to set the price at all? Why not simply say that there are X units wanted, so that many will be bought- cheapest units first. If there's a tie maybe all the tied ones sell also (easier tiebreak mechanic)- unless that happens too often and everyone tiesm then something else would have to be done. Your least money idea is fine... maybe in a tie you go in order of money (least to most), with further ties perhaps getting an extra sale over the demand (rather than another tiebreaker).

So like say there's a Blue 4 up there. This means 4 units of Monkey toys will sell, period. If you have monkey toys to sell, you better price them well.

Have you found that with fewer than 4 players there's always plenty of demand compared to 4 players when there's probably more stock than there is demand for it- simply because more people are producing?

- Seth

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 05:23

#14

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

The problem is that if there are more demand then there are toys, you can set any price and still sell.
There has to be a upper limit.

// Johan

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 05:36

#15

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Johan wrote:

The problem is that if there are more demand then there are toys, you can set any price and still sell.
There has to be a upper limit.

This is true, but isn't that OK? I guess people could overprice their stuff and just hope there's more demand than product.

No, you're right, there should be an upper limit. I think it should be more than just the number of units demanded though. I mean sayyuou have 2 Blue units, and 3 are demanded. You should be abel to try and sell them for $4 if you want.

Hmm... Maybe 2x the number demanded? Or I liked jwarrend's idea of using the highest of a suit, so if there's a 3 Red and a 2 Red, demand = 5 units but the most anyone would pay is 3- or to mix this with my idea, $6.

- Seth

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 08:40

#16

Johan

Offline

Joined: 10/05/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

sedjtroll wrote:

Johan wrote:
The problem is that if there are more demand then there are toys, you can set any price and still sell.
There has to be a upper limit.

This is true, but isn't that OK? I guess people could overprice their stuff and just hope there's more demand than product.

No, you're right, there should be an upper limit. I think it should be more than just the number of units demanded though. I mean sayyuou have 2 Blue units, and 3 are demanded. You should be abel to try and sell them for $4 if you want.

Hmm... Maybe 2x the number demanded? Or I liked jwarrend's idea of using the highest of a suit, so if there's a 3 Red and a 2 Red, demand = 5 units but the most anyone would pay is 3- or to mix this with my idea, $6.

- Seth

Another way would be to remove the amount and just have what the market is willing to pay for a type of toys (for $10 you can sell 1 for $10, 2 for $5, 3 for $3 (or any mix as long the total amount doesn't exceed $10)).
To avoid the run away leader from the first turn, the players should then start with one toy of each type.

// Johan

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 12:24

#17

phpbbadmin

Offline

Joined: 04/23/2013

Nice

First off. I wanted to say that I love the simple elegance of this game. Very cool. I sometimes wish I could create something so elegant, but alas I usually design 'american' games, and thus I try to include everything but the kitchen sink.

First let me give my standard disclaimer when reviewing a GDW game. First, there is really no way I can get the feel for the game simply by reading the rules alone; my brain doesn't work that way. Second, and more importantly, this is YOUR game, so I have no idea what direction you're going with it, so the following few comments may be not what you want or not even relevant.

With that being said, I really like Johann's idea of limited funds available for purchase, but I think it might be cool to take it even further. The demand cards could have both a demand quantity and a funds available to purchase that quantity. For example, a banana action figure might have a demand of 5, but the those folks wanting to buy those 5 units only have a total of 15 cash to spend on purchasing. Going with your rule that the lowest bids sell their units first, this might add an extra layer of strategy, especially if the players aren't aware of how many of a given product all the other players have in their possession.

Another thing, besides the market trends cards, how about a deck of market events? Like for each turn, an event card (which could represent bad or good publicity for a particular toy) could be turned over, and for that turn only the demand and/or price would be modified by that event card.

Just some ideas. As always, use or discard at your discretion.

-Darke

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 14:39

#18

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Allright, I did a sort of solo-test of your game and I think I see how I think the turn order ought to go...

First off, I thnk there needs to be a sort of Startup phase to handle the first turn issue that came up in this thread. Also I think I have an idea to deal with the upkeep issue.

Setup:
1. Shuffle, remove, and deal out starting demand cards per your rules. This is the current state of the fads when you decide to get into the toy business. Cards could have 2 numbers on them- number of units demanded and max price that will be tolerated (for simplicity I'm going to say that Max price is 2x demand number, but if printed on the card it could be anything)
2. Each player gets a 'factory' (playmat), an Owner, and 2 Workers. Reorganize playmat like so: from left to right-
a. Sales table- from $1 to $max (doesn't have to be 12. Could be 10 which is 2x the max demand, but that seems high as well. 9 makes a nice grid).
b. Factory area- where workers go to determine what's being produced. Below it there should be an empty box labeled "Training"
c. Warehouse (or Stock Room)- area for unsold toys.
Startup round:
Each player places his Owner and Workers in their factory (behind screen) to determine what will be produced. Reveal placement and collect appropriate starting toys based on worker placement.

Regular turns:
1. Remove oldest Demand card and reveal new one per your rules.
2. Behind screen, arrange Toys on Sales Table (Call it Store Front?) and workers (and owner) in Factory.
3. Reveal placement. Going from oldest Demand card to newest, one card at a time, resolve sales. For each card, the number demanded will be bought, and units sold will be in order from cheapest to most expensive. If there's a tie for the last unit to be sold, player with least money at that time makes the sale. If 2 players with the same amount of money are selling for the same price, they both make the sale (lucky sellers).
Maybe there should be something for when demand is greater than supply, like if 5 Pet Bricks are demanded and the players between them only have 3, put 2 counters on the demand card, then if a demand card that's not satisfied (has counters on it) is supposed to go away (oldest), then instead leave it there, treating the number demanded as the number of counters on it... this could be bad though because it might mean that you know over the course of the game how many of each unit will sell (except the removed cards)... Maybe worth considering. Anyway, back on track.
4. Hire/Pay workers. First, collect as many workers as you like from the supply and place them in your training space. Then Pay $1 (or $2 or whatever) for each of your workers or discard them. Yes, they are already set up in your Factory, and if you discard one then that one won't produce what he was planning on producing that turn. There may ought to be a rule that you MUST pay for them rather than choosing to fire them, I dunno if that's necessary or not.
5. Collect toys based on workers in your factory and place them in your Warehouse space. Trainees do not produce toys, only workers in the spaces in your factory.
6. Move on to next month. You can take all your unsold toys and put them back in your Warehouse and put all your workers in Training if you like, they'll be redistributed in a minute anyway.

Next month starts with #1 again, remove oldest demand card and flip up a new one (or if you liked the counter idea, just flip up a new one...) Maybe the counters could be Money, and if you sell to the 'unsatisfied group' you get a bonus $ per unit (grab the coin in addition to the normal income).

What do you think? I think the Training thing is a good way to handle the workers, and it allows the screen to be used only 1x/turn and makes the actions flow efficiently.

- Seth

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 15:13

#19

RookieDesign

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

I don't want to burst anybody's bubble, but the more I read what's going on, the more I feel like the game Schoko & Co. (1987) from Schmidt Spiele. I got one version in French and the original is in German.

Maybe you should look it up in BoardGameGeek. Overthere rules are in french, but I can help on the translation if you need it.

Take care.

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 16:14

#20

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Wow. I am getting overwhelmed with the replies, but keep them coming. To make my life easier, I am going to try to reply to one post at a time. Sorry about the avalanche of posts I am about to produce:

sedjtroll wrote:

From reading the rules and the comment to which the above was a reply, It seems to me that the complaint was that everyone will have 1 unit for the first month. It seems like either everyone will choose to make the same toy, or if they don't then one player could get lucky and get a big lead because his 1 good turned out to be in demand. If players started with a couple toys each, then they could diversify a little, and there isn't the possibility that the demans card that turns up will match another and give one player a big edge while leaving another high and dry.

In my limited playtests, the game is closer in the beginning, when production is low. The runaway leader is more of a problem when the supply is higher. Therefore, I don't think it will help to have people start with more workers.

sedjtroll wrote:

For example, say the preliminary demand cards are 3 of Yellow and 4 of Green (and something that's going to go away). Say I choose to produce Yellow and you choose to produce Green. Then say the new card that comes up for demand is 5 of yellow. Based on nothing but luck, I just made a lot more money than you did. And anyone producing red or blue is completely left out.

Red and blue would be completely left out in your example, but that would be a highly questionable play. Why would someone who only had one toy they could produce not go with the guaranteed green or yellow? If you started with the owner and 2 workers (for example) the swing could be even bigger. You could have one person produce all 3 yellow. They would be way ahead of someone who produced one green, one yellow, and one blue.

sedjtroll wrote:

I don't understand how a purchase phase could make the game drag. I really don't see how it's any different then just placing workers then paying for them later- you just pay for them first. The strike mechanic you are thinking about might be amusing but it sounds like it would make the game drag more than anything else.

This is probably just me misunderstanding the previous question. When I was playtesting, I had each play take turns buying one worker at a time. I didn't want to have them buy all at once, because that would give an advantage to those going last. The game did drag at this point, which is why I wanted to change to simultaneous set-up behind a screen.

As far as the strike, I was just saying that if a person had an illegal set-up (i.e. they hired more workers than they could pay for) then the workers would strike and produce no toys that month. It's a harsh penalty, but probably better than my previous $1 fine.

sedjtroll wrote:

Hmm. But you did make it sound like a rule by putting it in the rules. My point is that if I have a $3 price tag on an item and you have a $5 price tag on the same item, I shouldn't get $5 for that item.

I did not mean to say if you bid $3 and I bid $5 that your bid would be changed. I was justtrying to say that there is no reason to price your toy at $3 in that circumstance. I can easily take it out. Or move it to a simple strategy section at the end.

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 16:32

#21

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

Johan wrote:

The problem in this game right now seems to be the pricing. One idea is to switch from the number and the price per unit to the total amount the market is willing to spend on the products and the number.

I guess I am still not convinced that pricing is a problem. If I understand your example correctly, I don't think it would work for low demand. Say the demand is low, like '1'. In your idea, the market would be willing to spend $1 total on that toy? Does that mean if there were 100 toys available, they would buy them for $0.01 each? I like having the price determined by the players, with some inventory not being sold, if the demand is low.

Johan wrote:

Shuffle both sets together. When your market are changed, draw cards and when you receive the same type as before then stop and replace the drawn cards.

If the market changes totally, this takes away any pre-planning month to month. Also, I like the card counting aspect currently in place, where you may have seen a run on Monkeys early, you know not to stock up before December.

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 16:37

#22

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

sedjtroll wrote:

Johan wrote:
The problem is that if there are more demand then there are toys, you can set any price and still sell.
There has to be a upper limit.

This is true, but isn't that OK? I guess people could overprice their stuff and just hope there's more demand than product.

No, you're right, there should be an upper limit. I think it should be more than just the number of units demanded though. I mean sayyuou have 2 Blue units, and 3 are demanded. You should be abel to try and sell them for $4 if you want.

Hmm... Maybe 2x the number demanded? Or I liked jwarrend's idea of using the highest of a suit, so if there's a 3 Red and a 2 Red, demand = 5 units but the most anyone would pay is 3- or to mix this with my idea, $6.

- Seth

I definitely think there has to be an upper limit, like Johan said. For now, I will go with what the number on the demand card is. If this needs changing, I'll look at jwarrend's idea or your 2x idea, but these are minor tweaks that will come out in playtesting, if necessary.

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 16:44

#23

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Re: Nice

Darkehorse wrote:

With that being said, I really like Johann's idea of limited funds available for purchase, but I think it might be cool to take it even further. The demand cards could have both a demand quantity and a funds available to purchase that quantity. For example, a banana action figure might have a demand of 5, but the those folks wanting to buy those 5 units only have a total of 15 cash to spend on purchasing. Going with your rule that the lowest bids sell their units first, this might add an extra layer of strategy, especially if the players aren't aware of how many of a given product all the other players have in their possession.

I think this already exists, in a way. If the demand is 1, then there is 1 person willing to spend $1. If the demand is 2, there are 2 people willing to spend a total of $4. With a demand of 3: 3 people willing to spend a total of $9 etc... I currently have a linear number of people with an exponential amount of money. Again, if these numbers don't work, then I'll look at tinkering with them.

Darkehorse wrote:

Another thing, besides the market trends cards, how about a deck of market events? Like for each turn, an event card (which could represent bad or good publicity for a particular toy) could be turned over, and for that turn only the demand and/or price would be modified by that event card.

I like this idea. I could also just have them in the Demand deck instead of having a seperate market event deck. I'll have to give this further thought to see if it adds a level of American complexity :)

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 16:48

#24

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

sedjtroll wrote:

4. Hire/Pay workers. First, collect as many workers as you like from the supply and place them in your training space. Then Pay $1 (or $2 or whatever) for each of your workers or discard them. Yes, they are already set up in your Factory, and if you discard one then that one won't produce what he was planning on producing that turn. There may ought to be a rule that you MUST pay for them rather than choosing to fire them, I dunno if that's necessary or not.
5. Collect toys based on workers in your factory and place them in your Warehouse space. Trainees do not produce toys, only workers in the spaces in your factory.
6. Move on to next month. You can take all your unsold toys and put them back in your Warehouse and put all your workers in Training if you like, they'll be redistributed in a minute anyway.

I don't understand the training box. Can you give an example?

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 16:52

#25

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

RookieDesign wrote:

I don't want to burst anybody's bubble, but the more I read what's going on, the more I feel like the game Schoko & Co. (1987) from Schmidt Spiele. I got one version in French and the original is in German.

Maybe you should look it up in BoardGameGeek. Overthere rules are in french, but I can help on the translation if you need it.

Take care.

That is scary. I'll have to look at it closer, but at least on the surface there are some definite similarities. One thing I have going for it is the fact that this will never be a 3 hour game. Maybe there is a high enough Demand Card for both games in the market :)

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 17:03

#26

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

fanaka66 wrote:

RookieDesign wrote:
I don't want to burst anybody's bubble, but the more I read what's going on, the more I feel like the game Schoko & Co. (1987) from Schmidt Spiele. I got one version in French and the original is in German.

Maybe you should look it up in BoardGameGeek. Overthere rules are in french, but I can help on the translation if you need it.

Take care.

That is scary. I'll have to look at it closer, but at least on the surface there are some definite similarities. One thing I have going for it is the fact that this will never be a 3 hour game. Maybe there is a high enough Demand Card for both games in the market :)

Well, first off, it's only scary if your goal is to see your game get published; if you're just looking to make a fun game to play with family and friends, it's not a problem!

But having said that, let me assuage your fears a bit. I haven't played "Schoko", but some of the folks in my game group once referred to it very disparagingly as being a highly accurate simulation of running a chocolate factory -- and as a result, No Fun At All (TM).

Your game does have some similarities to Schoko, in reading the review posted on the Geek. But your game also has a lot less simulation, yet also quite a healthy dose of theme. I think your market mechanic in particular is quite elegant and has a lot of legs (although I'm still not convinced you won't still need to tweak it, but anyway...). I think it's definitely worth your while to learn how Schoko works, but I wouldn't consider abandoning your project over it. Your games have similar themes, but Fad Factory has simplicity on its side, and that's a huge plus in today's game market. If it gets picked up, it will do just fine.

-Jeff

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 18:01

#27

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

fanaka66 wrote:

sedjtroll wrote:
Hmm. But you did make it sound like a rule by putting it in the rules. My point is that if I have a $3 price tag on an item and you have a $5 price tag on the same item, I shouldn't get $5 for that item.

I did not mean to say if you bid $3 and I bid $5 that your bid would be changed. I was justtrying to say that there is no reason to price your toy at $3 in that circumstance. I can easily take it out. Or move it to a simple strategy section at the end.

Oh, I see what you were saying now. The thing is, you're not supposed to know how many goods ther will be, right? So even if you guess well about the demand for a particular toy, you don't know how many toys will be available so how do you know which is greater?

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 18:18

#28

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

fanaka66 wrote:

sedjtroll wrote:

4. Hire/Pay workers. First, collect as many workers as you like from the supply and place them in your training space. Then Pay $1 (or $2 or whatever) for each of your workers or discard them. Yes, they are already set up in your Factory, and if you discard one then that one won't produce what he was planning on producing that turn. There may ought to be a rule that you MUST pay for them rather than choosing to fire them, I dunno if that's necessary or not.
5. Collect toys based on workers in your factory and place them in your Warehouse space. Trainees do not produce toys, only workers in the spaces in your factory.
6. Move on to next month. You can take all your unsold toys and put them back in your Warehouse and put all your workers in Training if you like, they'll be redistributed in a minute anyway.

I don't understand the training box. Can you give an example?
It's just a holding bin for workers you 'buy' this turn- workers that aren't in the factory producing yet. It's a way to hire people in advance but still have to pay them to produce (so the 'december effect' doesn't occur).

Here's an example:
I have 3 workers and I want to hire 2 more. So I take 2 more workers and put those 2 in my Training Area. They won't produce any toys this month. Now I have a total of 5 employees so I pay $5 (or 5X$). Then we get the latest batch of toys created by my first three employees (and my owner I guess). Remember, the trainees don't produce- which is why they're not on the factory floor in one of the colored boxes.

If you are worried about a turn order effect in the hiring of workers you could do it like this-
When it's time to hire/pay workers, each player selects the amount of money they wish to spend and reveals it simultaneously (so you grab 5 coins in your hand and when everyone's ready you show them). Then you make sure the number of workers you have matches the amount you just spent- if you spent less than you needed to you have to fire people. If you spent more then you get to hire people (and put them in Training).

Another way is to have each player take a stock of workers at the outset (maybe limit the number that way), and when they're doing their setup behind the screen they put new hires in the Training space and the workers in the Factory spaces, leaving the supply elsewhere. Then when you reveal everyone has already decided how many people to hire (down side is you don't know how much money you'll have because you haven't sold yet).

- Seth

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 20:35

#29

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

sedjtroll wrote:

fanaka66 wrote:

sedjtroll wrote:
Hmm. But you did make it sound like a rule by putting it in the rules. My point is that if I have a $3 price tag on an item and you have a $5 price tag on the same item, I shouldn't get $5 for that item.

I did not mean to say if you bid $3 and I bid $5 that your bid would be changed. I was justtrying to say that there is no reason to price your toy at $3 in that circumstance. I can easily take it out. Or move it to a simple strategy section at the end.

Oh, I see what you were saying now. The thing is, you're not supposed to know how many goods ther will be, right? So even if you guess well about the demand for a particular toy, you don't know how many toys will be available so how do you know which is greater?

Actually, in my original version, you do know the supply. You manufacture, reveal demand and then set prices. So you know the supply and demand when trying to set the prices. Johan has a similar process, but one with a one-month delay in manufacturing, so that you are selling last month's supply while setting up this month's production.

In jwarrend and SiskNY's suggestions, they propose setting up your factory and setting your prices first, then revealing demand, and then seeing what everyone made and finally selling. It's a major change in thinking, and one that I will need to playtest to see how it ultimately works out.

-mikep

Tue, 11/02/2004 - 20:38

#30

fanaka66

Offline

Joined: 11/18/2008

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

sedjtroll wrote:

It's just a holding bin for workers you 'buy' this turn- workers that aren't in the factory producing yet. It's a way to hire people in advance but still have to pay them to produce (so the 'december effect' doesn't occur).

I think I get it now. It solves some problems, but does it add another level of complexity? I'll have to think about that one.

-mikep

Game #49: Fad Factory by Michael Pearsall (fanaka66)

User login

Navigation

Dec 29 2024

Dec 27 2024

Dec 26 2024

Dec 25 2024

Dec 24 2024

Dec 17 2024

Dec 16 2024

Dec 14 2024

Dec 13 2024

Dec 11 2024

Dec 5 2024

Dec 3 2024

Dec 2 2024

Nov 28 2024

Nov 27 2024

Nov 24 2024

Nov 21 2024

Nov 20 2024

Nov 18 2024

	DuelBotz: Sample New Card (18) by questccg
	2025 New Year Sale at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter

	Madison Game Design Cabal (0) by The Game Crafter
	PoA — Major shift back closer to FCE (13) by questccg

	New Product: Large Quad-Fold Game Boards (0) by The Game Crafter
	2025 New Year Sale at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter