A Holiday Polyomino Roll & Write, 2-4P

Hi Jay103. Thanks for the feedback.

Turn order on rolling the dice is similar to Railroad Ink. It doesn't matter...in Round 1. In this game, it matters when the new rules come into play. The rules introduced in later rounds pertain to the person rolling the dice. See the rules in the Toy Chart. They are specific to the person who has just rolled the dice and affect the choices of the other players.

Regarding opting out (of a round, not the game), a player may be content with their crate for that round. Any more rounds beyond their turn they risk overflowing the crate. I am giving the player the chance to say "I'm out this round" while allowing others to continue rolling if they want to continue filling their crates. Once all have opted out, the round ends. Maybe on average players opt out in the same round, but every crate is different so I don't want a single player to end the round for everyone. It's also my way of adding a press-your-luck element. Maybe you want to stay in and score some tiles before backing out, with the risk of overflowing.

The difference in difficulty shows up in different ways. At the beginning of each round, we want those bigger tiles. You are correct in that. However, toward the end of a round players will start to feel the pinch (as you mention) and may only want a smaller tile versus a larger tile that won't fit. Back to Railroad Ink--and surely other Roll and Writes--it really comes down to the last spaces that the decisions and luck have prominent effects. Also, with the introduction of new rules, we may not get to pick the toys we want. Only in Round 1 is it a free-for-all with no restrictions.

In general, but not strictly, the points per tile increase with increasing number of blocks. Also, the "complexity" of the tile increases, i.e. the shapes get more unusual. Finally, the more common dice rolls involve simpler shapes while they generally get more complex with the rarer dice rolls.

Good point about the coal. I am not sure how much easier or difficult it will make tile placement. In my head, I was aiming for A Feast for Odin tile placement where part of the challenge is leaving those spaces untouched (you have to) and completely surrounding them for effective point achievement.

I hope that clarifies my intentions. Though, I acknowledge that it doesn't disprove your comments. Let's see what the others say. I appreciate your response.

To your first comment, I'm not sure I completely understand. You must draw a toy every roll with the exception of the later rule that let's you give it away, if it is in effect. Ignoring the later rule, your cart will fill up no matter what. Efficient placement will slow that process, but approaching a full crate, you can either bow out or press your luck that later turns will give you something you want. If everyone bows out before you, you must draw a toy for every roll you do, which you are not in control of. If I am the last player rolling and I roll a 2, those toys might all be too big for the space left in my cart. I have to then fill a discard spot. I can certainly keep rolling but my cart is very likely full and I don't want to keep rolling and discarding. At some point I will want to give up before losing more points. Is that addressing your comment?

"You Shouldn't Have" - Always being able to give away toys--with the rule in effect--I feared would make it too easy for players to escape tiles they don't want too often. This is a good element to monitor during playtesting, though. The current design is such that players must choose wisely when to use this opportunity. We'll see if my intention plays out, or if players indeed want what you say. Thanks for that.

"And YOU Get A Toy!" - This is modeled after a card in Viticulture/Tuscany. Like you said, players should only add the roller's choice if it is fitting. That's the point. The catch is that the roller benefits from the number of players who choose to use this rule. You indeed stated the intention of the rule.

"Same Same" - The choice of the roller is a complete replacement. All players must play that toy, not add it to their personal choice. Comment noted for Rules revision. Thank you.

Giving away a toy here means you do not draw it. You "give it" to another player who must draw it. The action happens before the rolling player draws. Also noted for clarification in the Rules.

Thanks Jay. Happy to keep the conversation going.

You can't go wrong with alliteration in a fun holiday Roll and Write. I like the title. Will absolutely consider. Thanks for the suggestion :)

Exactly. Players should want to take advantage of this rule if it is selected. I decided to allow it only once per player so it isn't abused and to limit the "take that" nature of the game. But this rule can certainly be used to screw over another player. To make sure I understand you, are you saying that you are ok with this rule but you would prefer it wasn't limited to one use per round?

I'm hoping that each game is different enough such that one rule is only more beneficial than the other based on the circumstances of a specific game. Does that make sense? The intent of this rule is that it may be the just the tile you need. It is up to you if you want it badly enough to allow the roller to benefit as well. Maybe it's a 1-point tile but you are in the lead and are ok with the roller getting two points. Maybe it's a 4-point tile and you want those 4 points with the roller of course getting 2 points.

I think if the game overall turns out to vary enough from game to game, then no one rule will be better than the other. It will depend on the circumstances of the particular game being played. Hopefully more playtesters weigh in and this comes up as a topic again. With more feedback, the general arc of the game will start to show.

That is what I am hoping for all of the added rules, actually. If the arc of the game is too defined (no variability) and it is clear which rule(s) is/are more beneficial than the other then there is certainly some tweaking to be done.

I appreciate your feedback. I definitely want more players to weigh in on this.

Well, it's not much move the goal posts but to add strategy and depth to the game each round. The new rules apply to everyone. It's just a bonus for the previous round winner that he or she gets to choose the added rule. All players get to use the rule so it isn't necessarily benefiting the last round's winner. Does that make sense? I could clarify this in the rules.

• Yes, I simply want to add a layer of challenge. All players get access to the new rule. The reward is simply that the last round's winner gets to choose which challenge to add.
• Since each round starts with a new crate, no one player has a starting advantage. But to answer your question, no, I have not tried the game with the last person choosing the new rule. I would hope that doesn't add an incentive to play badly in order to be the person to choose the rule. No harm in testing this out, though.
• There is certainly an opportunity to add depth in scoring! For now, I am designing the game for my company party so I don't want to add too much depth. My colleagues are not board game players and I need to teach the game as quickly as possible as this is played before or during appetizers at a restaurant. After the party, I would absolutely love to add more scoring opportunities in further development.

I should have mentioned the intention is to have toys drawn in the tiles at design completion so your desire for actual toys is absolutely going to be in the game. It will certainly allow for other scoring opportunities in later development, as I mentioned. This is a prototype, so I am focusing on the tile placement. The aesthetics can come later, as you know.

I understand. They might as well be randomly drawn rules. I am trying to apply them in the same way random goals are drawn in strategy games, whether at the onset or upon starting new rounds. Having them all out to choose from without offering incentives for the choosing player isn't much of a reward.