A good option for keeping tracks of score

I think we might need some more context. Are you just trying to track how many points each player has after each round? Could you just use unique cards to do that? A lot of the more involved solutions will depend on how your game plays. For instance dominion has victory points on cards that go into your deck. It’s a pretty good solution for a number of reasons. But this approach only works in certain games.

From what you've written here, it seems like there are numbers on the cards collected, and the numbers can be different, so you end up spending a lot of time at the end of the round going through every single card to add up the sum of their values.

Depending on how many cards you end up with, yeah: that can be a pain.

Here are a couple suggestions for you, though as BlueRift notes above, we have no additional context on your game so Your Mileage May Vary.

I use the number 3 a lot in the examples below, but it's an arbitrary value. Change it to whatever works best for your game.

Can you do one or more of the following?

1. Have cards that belong to different sets, so "piles" of collected cards are smaller and counting isn't so onerous. Compare the values of different sets to see who wins that set. The player with the most wins in sets wins that round.
2. Remove the point values from cards and use some other criteria to determine that round's winner: the first to collect 3 of a certain type of card, for example.
3. Players only count the 3 highest and 3 lowest of their cards for their round's score.
4. Players line their collected cards up against one another, and the player with more cards wins that many points that round.
5. Players select their 3 highest-value collected cards and line them face-down against their opponent's 3 highest-value cards. Flip the cards over and the player whose total is higher wins a point for that round.
6. A set of three matching cards equals one point for that player in that round. At the end of the round, the player with the most complete sets wins the round, with ties being broken by the sum of the point values of remaining cards.
7. Earn a rolling number of round points. As soon as a player earns 10+ points from cards, those cards are flipped into their own face-down stack and become 1 point for the round. The result is you're counting as you go instead of all at the end.

The general idea here is to find some way to either reduce the numbers the players must count at one time, or reduce the point value of each card to 1.

And a final counting to see who wins is a fun part of the game.

Personally, I too have several sorts of rubberbanding in my game. But if possible, I try to get rid of them all. Or at least make it a yes/no situation.

There are games where there's a lot of counting involved. To go "way back," Power Grid comes to mind. You count at the end of each round to determine if you've powered every node or whatever in your grid, then you count up the money you earn. Finally, at the end of the game you count all your leftover money and find out who wins.

There are games where it's more than counting. I remember Knizia's Kingdoms sticking out in this regard (maybe his 2nd edition?). At the end of a round, you would score points earned in each column and row, and if there was a castle in that vector you would multiply the results. That adds a layer of complexity which reaches my "personal satisfaction limit."

One of the games whose scoring system annoys me the least is Knizia's Samurai. Throughout the game you are collecting symbols of three different types, and concealing your collection from your opponents. At the end of the game, your collections are revealed, and the player with the majority totals of the three individual categories wins the game (with a few other criteria if there are ties in one or more categories).

If I wanted to test my math calculation skills, I'd visit Khan Academy again. If I want to play a game, however, I spend my time critically thinking or pushing my luck, not doing math problems. That's just me.

///

My earlier post title was just my attempt at a pithy lead-in. For the record, I personally enjoy a lot of math problems and I find myself naturally curious about engineering and complex mathematics beyond the algebra and geometry I was taught in school.

Unfortunately, in attempting to figure out how lots of stuff works in real life I realized I am woefully under-educated and have had to learn more stuff - my baseline understanding of trig and calculus included - on my own. I'm not very intelligent, and certainly not as educated as I should be at my age, but I am quite curious (which helps to a point, I suppose).

The idea of having a SIMPLE "Scoring" Mechanic in-between rounds just makes a lot of sense. I mean knowing you're at 3 and I'm at 4 ... Means that the next round is crucial because if I win it... I win the game.

Obvious things like that are very important. It's hard to keep track of points if you need to carry-over all the points from one round to the next.

It also means that the Complexity of Scoring DURING the round can be VERY deep, strategic and complex. Relying on "Abilities", Time of Day (Noon or Midnight) and ensuring that each and every card COUNTS on the Battlefield (not a board but simple Play Area — Maybe I can design a Playmat!)

(Sorry for the digression ... Back to the OP which is Mathematic and Scoring...)

Indeed this does make a lot of SENSE. And it got me thinking... I've recently done a few "small-ish" games that are two (2) Card Games. One was either 2 Players or 4 Players so I figure this one is marketable and the other one was ONLY 2 Players and a duel. But with "Archon: Circlet of the Heavens (ARCH) ... It's two (2) Players with a "deeper feel" when it will come to the ROUND Battles.

And the game is clearly DIVIDED into two (2) DISTINCT Factions: Light and Darkness. Where as "Monster Keep" (MK) was a mathematical small and light game with plenty of Deck Customization but is very simple in terms of what the players are trying to do.

ARCH is better than MK for certain. And that's why I'm working more on ARCH and discussing with you mathematics and scoring. I'm not saying the game is for EVERYONE... But it is BROADER than MK and has some more interesting Mechanics that most people love to experience...

Anyways I just wanted to know is ARCH had more appeal since the math is in the ROUND and not when determining a Victor. That's a Victory Point (VPs) mechanic that is very simple to understand and compute. +1 VPs or +0 VPs is about as simple math for a game as possible...

I took a look at Istanbul and the GOAL is pretty simple: Be the FIRST to collect 6 rubies. How you go about doing this is your option... But you don't have to "do it in different ways..." You do it as you see fit with the board layout presented to you. And obviously RANDOM layout is also one of the options too.

This sounds more in-line with my: "Be FIRST to collect 5 VPs."

I also had heard of Euphoria (Stonemaier Games) but never took a look at it. Again the GOAL is pretty simple: Be the FIRST to rid yourself of 10 stars. I agree that HOW you get rid of your stars is different and is the gist of the game.

But again, it's a SIMPLE "Goal". And this is making me think that INSTEAD of talking about "Victory Points" (VPs) ... Maybe I should use something like:

"Be FIRST to win five (5) Battles."

Although the ROUND is won or lost ... How this happens is more or less the SAME but RELIES HEAVILY on the three (3) out of five (5) cards/units that you play. You're actually making me FEEL more "confident" about ARCH because the strategy to winning a ROUND may VARY according to the cards that you have in your HAND. Sometimes a ROUND can be OBVIOUS and other times, very challenging in TRYING to win the round...

So I think generally speaking the GOAL to most games is something SIMPLE.

There are Heavy Euros where your GOAL is to SCORE POINTS and obviously the winner is the one with the most POINTS. Often there is a TRACK around the board that you can use to keep score of everyone's point amount. But Heavy Euros are NOT for me (I don't like them)!

Even regular or lite Euros like "Portals & Prophets" (Which I backed on Kickstarter — Andrew Harmon's game @harmon89) are okay... They have manageable goals and the games are a bit less "crowded". But nothing more complex because I just think there is too much going on.

And to that note I wanted to wrap up with: I think "Euphoria" would be just too much for me... Like Tom Vasal says: "You need one playthru to figure out HOW to play..." And then more attempts to figure out how to play BETTER. I don't want to need a degree in a board game, I want to have FUN playing...

Anyhow I think with the exception of Heavy Euros (and some regular to lite ones...) I think most games have a SIMPLE goal. Again having the MOST amount of POINTS sounds simple... But is too BROAD of a generalization and can actually mean something VERY, VERY complex as seen in some heavier Euros (like for example: Lorenzo il Magnifico, etc.)

Peace.

Note #1: @let-off studios please feel free to share your OWN thoughts on the two (2) games that @Fri mentioned. I didn't want to give the impression that I was answering on your behalf...

BUT I know now for CERTAIN that "Monster Keep" (MK) would NOT be for Stephen... Why? Because you roll 4 dice which becomes your SCORING GOAL. Like for example: 3 + 4 + 2 + 4 = 13. The goal is to be the player CLOSEST to 13 points. That's the easy math ... Then you PLAY CARDS/UNITS with points (like 3 points, 2 points, 6 points, etc.) and you do so in ROUNDS but you also CONTROL the OPERATOR (+, -, /, x) and so you are tweaking your POINTS to TRY to score EXACTLY 13 points using five (5) cards/units...

And then there is a BATTLE ROUND where you may "knock-out" a card/unit breaking your SCORE (13 points) and forcing you to play another card/unit in its place to obtain a final score... It's ALL about MATH.

I'm sure "let-off studios" would HATE this kind of game...

I personally find it ENTERTAINING and FUN... And you can build your own Micro Deck of twelve (12) cards... But it's all about computation...

Euphoria looks fiddly and opaque to me at first blush, and on the surface I'm not really into a game with so many moving parts. Istanbul seems quicker to engage with, and I'd probably go for that. Tom Vasel mentions in his review that turns are quick and there's little down time, while the "Euphoria in three minutes" review mentions that if one player is plodding and slow, then the entire game slows down. I imagine a game of Euphoria with 2 to 6 first-timers must be an excruciating experience.

Personally speaking, I like "race" games where you try to be the first to finish a to-do list. They tend to be simpler, more direct games that lack complexity. The good news is that they hardly ever tread into micromanagement and/or "spreadsheet exercise" territory, which I do enough at my day job.

I'm not paid to play games anymore (my past history with a video game studio aside). These days it's the other way around. In fact, I am paying someone else - with my own time - every time I play a game. If you're young (or feel like it), you likely don't feel that pressure or anxiety. I don't necessarily have that luxury.

If I can't pick up, play, and then put down a game in at most 60 - 90 minutes, there should be a damn good reason. If a game expects me to come back for repeated plays, it should be accessible and compelling, with surprises and/or interesting decisions.

Meanwhile... I'm not sure how this somehow morphed into the "let-off studios fireside chat," but at least I hope my comments are turning out to be useful for someone. :)