My submission for the GDW is called The Hunting of the Snark, and is inspired by the Lewis Carroll poem of the same name. You can find a complete version of the poem here, although it lacks the original Tenniel illustrations:
http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/
The game files are included below. All files are in PDF format.
The rulebook: http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/Snark_Manual.pdf
The cards: http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/Snark_Cards.pdf
The hex tiles: http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/snark_hexes.pdf
Finally, the hex board (in two pieces): http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/Snark_Hex_Board.pdf
So why did I choose this poem as my theme? I am something of a Carroll aficionado, and the idea of hunting a mysterious beast across a desolate island seemed eminently gameable. Even better, the prey is actually the predator for most of the game.
Actually, this game is built on the foundations of a much earlier work. That game (which I shall simply call "Lost!" from now on) involved chasing down a confused Dr. Livingstone across the Africa heartland and rescuing him. The only antagonists were the players (who obviously competed for the same goal) and random encounters. Trouble was, very often Dr. Livingstone walked right to another player, who promptly rescued him and ended the game - before anyone could even respond! This was, of course, a broken mechanic.
Hopefully this game works a little better. The element of player-vs-player combat (for control of the board and key items) was something I toyed with earlier. I'm keeping it out of this game because I don't think it fits the theme. Another departure from Lost! is the endgame, where Dr. Livingstone is found and accompanies his rescuer - until a hazardous encounter with a player or game hazard causes him to become separated again. The trick is not just to catch up with Dr. Livingstone but to stay one step ahead of your pursuers - so that you and no one else gets the glory of rescuing the good Doctor. Again, this is an interesting concept that simply doesn't fit the theme very well - not to mention that each player needs a ship (or "home base") for it to work. In The Hunting of the Snark, there is only one ship.
Why do you need to know all this? I think it might help if you understood my thought process inventing this game. Right now the gameplay feels a bit shallow and unsatisfying. More player interaction is key, whether it is of the competitive or cooperative variety. Problem is, I don't know how I could make this game cooperative and I'm not sure how I could make it more competitive (aside from player-vs-player combat). Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated!
Yay, feedback! Don't you people ever sleep?
Scurra: Wow, just...wow. How long did it take you to compose that message?
Okay, on to specific concerns:
RESTING TOO RESTRICTIVE: As you may have noticed, all actions (other than weapons) cost 4 or more. Dice of value 1-3 are "dead", meaning they are useless for most purposes. Hence, the need for a rest action.There are reasons for all this. There is a 50% chance that a reroll will result in a 4 or more. That is to say, you have a 50% chance of being able to use that 4-cost tool a second time (less if it is a 5 or 6). If there was a 1-cost item in the deck, everyone would use that repeatedly to boost all their dice values to 6 in one turn - without resting. A one-cost item isn't just free, it's better than free! The same applies to 2 and 3-cost tools.
Is the rest action too restrictive? That's hard to define. From my limited playtesting experiences (3 games), the rest action doesn't get used too often. Sacricing a turn means sacrificing a chance to explore means sacrificing a potentially useful card. The rest action gets the most use in the endgame, when everyone is already well-equipped and preparing to attack the Snark. This might change if I allowed player-vs-player combat. This brings me to my next point.
PLAYER-VS-PLAYER: I've already said why I don't like PvP, but Hamumu has brought up a few good ideas for how it could work. The idea of the attacker trading places with the defender (if his attack was successful) is a good one. Originally, the defeated player returned to the ship, which had unintended consequences for the gameplay. Number one, players were too cautious about attacking. Number two, players could kill each other deliberately in order to "teleport" back to the ship. If the worst-case scenario is losing a card, that's not so bad, and a strong player can block off choke points in the map. In consideration of the theme, attacking players could be referred to as "mugging", "pickpocketing", or "coercing".
HAULING BACK THE SNARK: My original fear was that players would camp back at the ship and block off the player who caught the Snark. That's still a valid and dirty strategy. However, if I institute the changes in combat that Hamumu suggested, there is no longer any way to "teleport" back to the ship. Also, if the player with the Snark can attack her pursuers, it's not an indefensible strategy. Finally, there are four entrances back to the ship and only 3 opponents maximum, so there's ALWAYS a back door. I like this. I'll work it and other good ideas into the prototype and see if anything develops.
CONFUSING WORDING: Is the Grab Bag really that confusing? Can anyone suggest a better way to express what I mean? That is, the Grab Bag can be exchanged with any other card held by another player, for a cost of 6. Actually, that might be a better rewording.
Muffins and Jam appears to be giving people trouble. All it does is grant you an additional readiness die (you start with 3, but can have as many as 5). I should probably mention what happens if you lose the card (sacrifice a die of your choice). Any ideas for a rewording?
NEW TOOLS: More is always better. If you have any ideas for new tools, I'd love to hear them. I'm looking for cards that fill a niche more than variations on a theme.
Reroll Die - AKA the "Oops, can I do that again?" card. By popular demand. Reroll a bad roll. One use per turn. Not sure what to call it.
Insurance Policy - If defeated by another player ("mugged"), you may sacrifice this card rather than whatever they really wanted.
Whew, this is almost work! Well, no, not really. But I haven't had to type this much is quite awhile.