Skip to Content
 

Smores: The Game - Looking for feedback on the concept

9 replies [Last post]
zapcat
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2013

The game is called Smores. Collect the cards needed to make and eat a gooey, wonderfully chocolaty Smore. The first person to build a fire, collect their ingredients, and enjoy their Smore wins. Your opponents are trying to accomplish the same goal and may try to interfere with your plans.

2-6 players

The game has cards of the following types:
Firewood
Poison Ivy

Matches
Wet Matches

Fire
Rain

Graham Crackers
Broken Crackers

Roasting Stick
Short Stick

Marshmellows
Burnt Marshmellows

Chocolate
Hot Sun

Eat It
Dropped It

(8 cards of each type, 112 cards total; Each card has one that interferes with it (e.g., firewood and poison ivy))

Objective:
A player wins by being the first to lay down one card of each type in the following sequence: Firewood, Matches, Fire, Roasting Stick, Marshmellows, Chocolate, and Eat it.

Game Play:
-Shuffle the deck.

-Each player draws 7 cards. Players look at their cards, but do not show them to other player.

-Play starts with the youngest player.

-On a turn, a player draws a card from the top of the deck or from the top of the discard pile. The player may do one of the following:
--Build their sequence by laying down one or more cards in the correct order. Cards are laid down face up in front of the player.

--Interfere with another players sequence by playing an obstacle on top of their sequence. For example, you could play a “Poison Ivy” card on top of an opponent's “Firewood” card.
Note: You may only interfere with an opponent's sequence during the same round that they laid down the most recent part of the sequence. Further, your interference must match the sequence they laid down. For example, if your opponent laid down Firewood and Matches, you could only interfere with them by laying down Poison Ivy and Wet Matches.

--If you interfere with another player's sequence, all of the cards that were part of the interference are shuffled and put face up on top of the discard pile.
--Discard one card face up onto the discard pile.

-Play moves clockwise to the next player.

-If the deck runs out before there is a winner, the discard pile is resfuffled.

-A player wins when they have completed their sequence and eaten their Smore.

Comments & Questions:
-Basic game play enables players to have several strategies: They could build their sequence in the open, one card at a time. This opens them to more interference. They could build all or part their sequence in their hand and lay it out at one time. This is less prone to interference. Alternatively, a player could focus on a disruptive strategy and try to undo others' progress.

-One of the things I like about this concept is that the “story” can easily be changed while not really changing the mechanics of the game. For example, you could have a game of saints and sinners where the saints are trying to build something and sinners are interfering. Alternatively, you could play the game with abstract sequences.

-Would an element of sharing and trading be useful? For example, is there a way that players could share a fire or other resources? Could they trade resources?

-Is there a way to “steal” resources from an opponent?

-Is there a way you could win strictly by interfering with other players?

Thoughts/ideas/feedback welcomed!

ralphthesquirrel
ralphthesquirrel's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/19/2011
Re: S'mores

I had a card design that utilized building up things in order. What I found was that due to the random nature of the shuffled deck some players would get great cards and could jump out to a fast lead while others basically sat there for several turns before they could do anything. It was a poor design.

One issue with this that I noticed right away is that it seems like a player could win on their first turn if they happened to get the right cards in their hand. That is a problem that you should address.

I do think an element of sharing and trading could be useful, but I would almost prefer this to be a two-player versus two-player team game. One team member could build/maintain the fire while the other has to work on roasting the marshmallow and making the S'more. You could trade between the two of you to help each other out. Ultimately you are competing against the other team.

Just some thoughts,
Ed

silasmolino
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2013
Old Mechanic

I remember a game mechanic in which all players start out with a hand of cards, and then player 1 drew a card from the pile but had to pass any card to the player next to him in counterclockwise order. The last player would discard. The frist person to get a hand (royal flush I think) won the game.

Perhaps instead of showing your hand as you build it, you can do as above and hide your hand as you build and then reveal your deck when done.

I think your game can be played with number 1-8 from 2 deck of cards. Quick and easy play testing.

Good Luck.

randomuser
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2013
Who is your target audience

Who is your target audience for this game?

Here are a couple brainstorming ideas I had:

Instead of having it be completely linear, I would consider separating it out into discrete types so like:

ingredients: marshmallow, chocolate, graham cracker
materials: firewood, matches, roasting stick
preparation: fire
taste: eat it

You could start out with either ingredients or materials, but you need to finish that set before moving on.

You need to finish both ingredients and materials before moving on to preparation

You need to finish preparation before you get to eat it

That somewhat solves two things: getting bad cards (since now 6 types of cards are more or less viable at the start), and 1st turn win (since you can only put down 3 cards in ingredients or 3 cards in materials)

One other brainstorming thing I can think of is to allow the original player a "reaction" when someone puts a obstacle on a card to keep the effect in place. So for example, if you played a fire, and the next player went and put rain on it, you could cancel that effect by playing (out of turn, ie a "reaction") another fire to preserve your fire.

Lastly, you want to make sure the game doesn't bog down by having 2 people hoarding all the "eat it" cards, so I would think about either using some sort of forced discard at the end of the turn, or introducing some sort of steal/swap effect via a card (or both).

Just my 2cp

zapcat
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2013
Thanks to all of you for the

Thanks to all of you for the constructive comments. Your feedback is greatly appreciated. It is very cool to have help in thinking about this.

A few thoughts about some of the comments:

1st round wins: Great point about a bad mechanic! I like the solution of imposing a constraint that you have to lay down a complete set at one time. I was also thinking that you might constrain players to have fewer cards in their hand than are required to win. For example, if there have to be 7 cards in a sequence, you constrain players to have only 5 in their hand at a time.

Team play and trading: I'd like teams to be flexible and dynamic. For example, in this round, I would use your fire to roast my marshmallow. Maybe it costs me a card or two (of a specific type?) to do this. This definitely requires some more thought because it introduces some new actions.

Target audience: I'm envisioning a family-style game with older kids (e.g.,parents, tweens, young teens). It needs to be a relatively quick play, maybe 10-15minutes maximum. Given this age range, I'd also like to build up the ability to win by doing something negative. In the current design, you can be an obstacle, but you can't win by being an obstacle. To me, this suggests that there has to be some common baseline that players are either trying to build up or tear down. Maybe that's a different game...

Playtesting with regular playing cards: Thanks for mentioning that. That's a quick, cheap, easy-to-do idea.

Hoarding/Stealing/Reactions: The idea that you could steal a resource with a special card could work well. With a sufficient number of "steal"cards, it adds to the dynamic of being an obstacle. I also like the idea of being able to react out of turn. That might drive up the pace of the game.

Orangebeard
Offline
Joined: 10/13/2011
2 Phases?

What about a 2 phase style game where the first phase has players working as a group to build the fire, gather food, etc. followed by a second phase where they actually try to make the s'more?

I really like the idea...sounds like a good vacation game!

zapcat
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2013
Orangebeard, I think you've

Orangebeard, I think you've got a good dynamic for this concept. Trading, sharing, and obstruction could happen at any point. For example, as you build your fire, I could lay down a card that shows that there is poison ivy in your wood, etc. I can also imagine this as a vacation game.

starflier
starflier's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Is there a push-your-luck

Is there a push-your-luck mechanic for toasting the marshmallows? That might be cool...

zapcat
Offline
Joined: 07/12/2013
playtesting the game

I started doing some playtesting of the game and quickly learned a few things:

1. The interference mechanic needs to be simpler. We decided that it worked best if you could only interfere with the very last card the person laid down, instead of the entire sequence. Further, you should be able to interfere at any time, not just on the same round the sequence was laid down.

2. There was a desire to proactively interfere. For example, if the next card I need to lay down is "fire", then my opponents could proactively lay down "rain" to block me. I would need to lay down one fire card to remove the block and another to continue the series.

3. We don't need to be able to draw the top card from the discard pile. It simplifies play because you don't have to deal with the case where cards that were "interfered" with end up at the top of the discard pile.

4. We played with 2 decks of normal playing cards and the game worked pretty well from a mechanics standpoint. However, I don't think "smores" is a compelling enough story to make it something I'd want to play over and over. Playing with normal cards was fun because of who I playing with. A "story" wasn't necessary. This is something to look into further. What should the story be? Is a story even necessary?

5. The "steal" mechanic is unnecessary. It didn't add anything to the game.

6. I want to test the idea of "undoing" interference more. There was a suggestion that you should be able to undo interference immediately (if you can). I want to take it a step further and let the recipient of the interference take revenge out of turn. For example, if you interfere with me, I should be able to undo the interference (if I can). Then I should be able to do something back to you before the next player gets their turn. This type of disruption could add some fun to the game.

Thanks for all of your suggestions!

Word Nerd
Word Nerd's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/02/2012
Here's s'more

Perhaps some other "camping" concepts can be integrated with this system. For example, there might be a few alternate goals which players can pursue, such as pitching a tent, collecting samples of local plants, spotting wildlife on a checklist, digging a latrine or building a camp shower.

Mechanically, I imagine your game to be something like straight Rummy, where players collect sets before someone finally goes "out" and the scores are tallied. Adding the element of "interference" makes the theme somewhat unrealistic (who in their right mind would go camping with a known asshole?), but potentially wacky enough to be entertaining. The wackier, the better, IMHO.

Wacky: Players can dump a bucket of water on a rival's fire.
Wackier: Players can piss on a rival's fire.

I think I'll go watch a sunset now.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut