Treasure Castle - POSTED! (finally)

I can see how it can be confusing. For the most part I hope to clarify a lot when I'm done with the rest of the illos.

There are 6 Thieves to choose from, 2 of each color. The game is designed for 3-4 players in mind. I havn't playtested it yet, but my thinking is that the player colors won't offset things because when played smartly, there is always a chance (even if through politics) to even things out. Choosing paths and timing is important to this game.

So to answer your question, there will be 2 players who are of the same color in a 4 player game (or even 2 sets of players), so the posibility to have neutral lineups is possible.

As for the bonuses, basically the player making the action takes his players color into account. Elements around that character (the room color, trap color, etc) will affect either his attributes or die roll. I know that I probably need to detail this more carefully and clarify the wording. But ultimately I think since it's mostly a visual rule, some visual examples are needed.

Again I need to go back and clean that up a lot. When you choose to attack another player you declare the attack on that player, then "move" the Goon to the player. Goons can't pick locks, so they need open doors to do so.

They don't actually move independantly. It's like telling some dogs to fetch. They run up, beat up the theif (or try) then if you win you get to steal a card. When I show the example of the Theif Character card, there will be a spot that the player places the Goon Pawns on. Most likely there will be an "attack" square that the player can move his pawn onto to keep track of how many Goons are being used to attack with.

These goons are like this, because I figured it'd be a way of using them as a "weapon" rather than elements that move independantly on the board so things don't get too cluttered. I want the emphasis to remain with the theif characters, yet I want players to constantly have to watch their backs and plan their moves. So you could wait for someone to leave the treasure room and then mug them on the exit (or if you planned far enough ahead, set a trap on one end so they'll have to exit another way, and thus mug them). It's just another element to think about, otherwise players will just be moving around avoiding traps and not very much interacting is going to happen.

The assiting is there so that players can barter with each other for protection and player politics can start to take shape.

ARGH! Another section I need to clean up. I think my rushing to get it done is starting to show. Each trap has a number (1-4) on the back to correspond to the Thief pawn and Ship Token. When you disarm the trap you spend the points before you actually disarm. I should have added before you roll, and before the trap is flipped over. When you flip it over if it's a bluff, obviously there is no need to roll or disarm the trap, but you've already spent your AP so you can't continue on (if you don't have any remaining AP). There should be no question as to who has to disarm the trap. Although it could be very interesting if everyone had to keep mental track of who's traps are whos, and anyone can set off any trap. When multiple traps are in play, it could get very tense trying to tiptoe around them, and try and remember which ones are safe for you to cross and which ones you should desparately avoid (negative trap color in a negative colored room). However, I'm afraid that would require too much mental bookkeeping. When I actually build this and start playtesting I'll try it both ways.

Actually this was my intention all along. Every player gets a set of trap tokens. One of each color and three bluff. I guess it wasn't clear.

Only playtesting will tell methinks.

You're right I did, I'll fix it. What I meant to state was that the aiding player doesn't lose any of his/her treasure cards if they are on the losing side of an assist. YET MORE clarifcationg. I'm starting to wonder if I should have just kept you all waiting another day so I could have cleaned this up :P

When you retreive a treasure from the treasure room then you place the cards in your hand. You're thief party is thought to be carrying this loot. When you finally turn it in to the boat, you place the cards on your Character Card (there will be a spot for them) if they have VP on them, these you can't lose, any cards you are carrying are subject to being taken or lost. So until you secure your loot on the boat, it isn't quite yours yet.

I'm not sure if it'll take too long. The player can hold, on average, 3 treasure cards, and I'm figuring on average they'll grant 2 or 3 coins each, that's about 9 coins per trip, so about 3 or 4 trips to the center (if nothing happens to make you lose treasure cards) could mean end of game.

The actual number of both total coins, and coins requied to end the game of course will require playtesting to know for sure.

However I'll admit the end game was thought of... oh... about 8 hours ago :P

I'm thinking a max of 4 player (who knows what playtesting will say), and the player who goes first get's first pick of the theif characters. Perhaps I can devise a more fair solution to the thief characters, but each character will have strengths AND weaknesses. So a Thief who has 4 AP (1 more than standard) he might also have a weaker trap skill. More mobile, but more likely to fumble a trap disarm attempt.

I'll post the Theif Characters when I ge them written up. I'm thinking these will require the most playtesting.

Whew. I feel like I only wrote half the game. I know that I wasn't nearly as done as I thought I was. Just feeling the pressure of realizing I'm a week overdue I guess. I'll revise it and post again tomorrow most likely.

Thanks for the comments, and I hope I cleared up some questions.

I'm starting to really like the idea of not knowing who owns what traps. So perhaps players can stock up on traps randomly or something. Who knows, but it could add an interesting element.

And I realize since this is a color heavy game Blue/Green color blind people will find it almost impossible to play. I'll have to think of a workaround for that (perhaps patterns in addition to the colors).

I'm going to leave it color for now until the game get's more refined, then I'll look into alternate means. The problem is, do you call some rooms "halfling rooms" or "dwarven rooms"? That kind of doesn't make sense either, so I don't know.

And I see what you mean about the AP 4 character essentially getting a +1 anyway. I'll keep that in mind when I finish the Character Cards. THANKS!

I was toying around with the idea of putting in a "pickpocket" element which would also use the dexterity skill. You would have to be in the same square as the player, and it doesn't involve goons (or a die roll from the defender for that matter).

I was going to put it in as not only an alternate means for taking treasure from an opponent, but a way to circumvent an opponents lucky streak if they seem to have hot dice. However, at the last moment I plain ol' forgot that I was thinking about it. Does it seem like it's still worth investigating?

You're right, that does seem a bit unneccessary. I mainly wanted disarming traps to be a tricky encounter, however since there is still a possible neutral result, it really wasn't a solution. I'll probably take it out.

I wanted the defender to feel he has at least some input on his own destiny. That way it doesn't feel like he's just rolling over and letting the attacker take him, or just putting himself on autopilot for defense. Ther is something to be said for two players rolling a die trying to beat each other. It feels more engaging then watching your opponent take control of your destiny. Some people might think it adds unneccessary random elements to the game, but I say if you plan your moves carefully you can ensure that you're in favorabel positions so if attacked you'll get bonuses. Only the defender get's room bonuses on the attack.

I'm not too worried about time saving in this instance.

You know, my initial intention for traps was to have different color combinations of traps and rooms have different effects. Like a red trap in a red room would be a snare trap that causes the player to lose all AP their next turn, or a red trap in a blue room would be a guillotine that causes the playes to lose all Goons (and if they don't have any, then oh well, the thief always rolls out of the way in face of death). However with 3 colors that leads to 9 possible traps. I'm sure 3 of which could be treasure loss, and 3 could be some other type of loss, perhaps 1 could place the character 3 spaces on the board. However I was starting tot hink that 9 different traps could become a litle much, and got worried that players trying to set specific traps will find that they'll be too predictable.

Although if the effects are varried enough, all with good benefits, then I suppose I should have kept it.

I'm open to suggestions on that.

Heh, the "I go first" play mechanic was mainly just a joke, kind of a tie in with the theme. The roll off is the prefered method, as it's left up to the players, I'm sure they'd probably choose that route.

This came from an earlier topic discussion on "Playing for Placement" where when players are feeling they have no possible way to win they'll lash out and try to ruin the game for the players doing better. I figure if you actually make it a rule that there is a second place player, then players will at least attempt to play their best through the game. Especially if they see another player with more gold coins then them, they can shoot for VP (if actually shooting for them is viable).

Plus I didn't want the player who ended the game by collecting the most coins to feel cheated out of that recognition. I figure ending the game should merit some sort of bravo.

Thank you very much for your commments, and I'm going to be reworking the rules today.

Any more comments are very welcome.

Yeah, I see your point I'll most likely take that out with the next revision. It does seem very clunky and ugly.

Then, once the player picks the lock, it would seem to me they should get free passage between those tiles going forward. This would require extra markers with the player's number on it to show which locks had already been picked ... so maybe it's not practical.

I could just make it so you have to pick the lock if it's a single door. That certainly would make explaining it more simple. However, it goes with the route planning bit. If you know you can travel one way, but it will be more expensive (AP wise) to go back that way, you'll probably try to find an alternate route. However, I like it the way it is so that Goons can travel a little easier, you can always leave the treasure room freely, but may require lock picking to get in, and it again forces players to choose their paths wisely.

It's worth trying in playtesting though.

I imagine the treasure room filled with gold coins and relics and treasures. The players are simply scooping up sutff by the bag fulls, and then taking them back to the boat.

Some of the Treasure Cards will just be "bags of gold". When you turn these in, you'll just get the gold value printed on them, to symbolize that you emptied your bag into your hold or whatever.

I'm thinking that about a third of the treasure cards will just be gold coins (perhaps even half).

The rest of them will have actual treasures like chalices and jewelry printed on the card. These will have Victory poins in addition to gold coin values.

When you bring them back to the boat, you'll get the gold coins because you emptied the bag of coins, but you'll also get to keep the treasure card for additional VP.

There are also 4 sets within these treasure cards. Each set is 5 cards, and total they make up a third of the total treasure cards. Collecting 3 or more from the set (like a knights helmet, breatplate, sword, shield, and cape will be a set), then you get additional bonus points depending on how complete the set it.

You don't lose treasure cards when they're on the boat. I had a rule where the players could actually loot each others boats, but it got complicated and felt out of place.

I am thinking however that you'll place your treasure cards that you've brought back to the boat face up, and cards that you're carrying back are face down. that way nobody knows what you got (it's in a sack after all) and it'll be less confusing as to what's kept and what hasn't been turned in yet.

Also it'll come in handy when you need assistance, and you know someone needs a certain treasure you have.

it's one of those things that's clear in my head, but I guess explaining it is a bit obscure.

Hmm, I hadn't thought of that, you're right it is essentially the same. I guess I could make all the VP treasures parts of sets. 6 sets in all perhaps.

I'm thinking about some Treausre Cards actually being more like powerups, that players can either cash in, or use to gain special abilities, but I'm not sure if that would throw things off or not.

Thoughts?

Anyway, keep it coming, this is really helpful.

With the current cards, how likely is Player A to win? Will it be the kind of thing where he'd feel that he'd be ripped off if he lost, because he made the most trips to the treasure room?

Let's say Player A only brought back 3 cards (eaten by a troll or something :) ), so the game is between B and C. In this scenario, the sets will come in handy deciding who will win. The players' decisions to sell their treasure instead of keeping them for VP would come in handy also.

I can see how sets would work in this game... but I don't think they should vault a last-place player into first place, over players who completed two more trips to the treasure room and back. Rather, they should force a player into tough decisions during unloading. "Should I try to make one last run to finish this set, or should I pawn off the two sets I do have for gold/VP?"

Perhaps all treasure should be exchangable during onloading for gold or VP. It's just that if a complete set is traded in during the same unloading phase, it gets a VP bonus.

Also, perhaps the treasure room's cards should be in three piles, with the three different elements of a set in each pile. This way, collecting a set isn't as difficult, and becomes a realistic strategy for players. If you'd like, one pile could be worth more VP than gold, and another can be worth more gold than VP. The third would have a very small amount of both VP and gold, so it would be only for players who are looking to complete a set. This opens up another strategic avenue, as a player who is short gold or VP can go fishing in one deck, while a player who's looking to collect a set can risk gathering a low return in gold and VP for the potential bonus of a completed set. Another player could try to stymie this by fishing in the set-completion deck, but at the expense of gold and VP for him.

Thoughts?

Every treasure cards has a gold value on it. So you'll always get some gold by dropping treasure off at the boat.

I don't like the three piles as it complicates things needlessly. However, searching for particular cards has some merit to it.

I'm worried that it will be far too easy to complete sets this way though. Making the search option a complete no brainer as to being the prefered method. Why draw randomly when you can spend just 1AP more and get the exact card you want? Then why not just make searching the standard rule?

I'll have to give it some thought, but thematcially it does fit really well and compliments the gold tokens quite nicely. I would probably raise the AP cost though, since it's an extremely powerful move to be able to find a particular card, and I don't want that to become the standard move when entering the Treasure Room. I want players to cue into "bob" lingering in the treasure room. These Theives are supposed to just be mad dashing in and out while avoiding each others traps and hazards.