I've posted a new game design here: Horde http://www.bgdf.com/node/6035
It's in the prototype/playtesting phase.
The Offer: If anybody would be willing to read through my rules document (direct link here Horde Rules) and let me know what you think, I'd be happy to do the same for your game rules or game design. I've designed a number of games and teach college writing as part of my day job, so I don't suck at critiquing and editing rules documents.
My main questions for this game's rules:
- What parts of the gameplay are unclear?
- What parts of the rules seem overly long and complex?
- Does the difficulty structure I've added (basic, intermediate, full) help, or is it just needless complexity?
- Is this a game you'd be interested in playing?
Any other comments or ideas you have are of course welcome. If you're willing to have a look without me reading yours, that's wonderful too. :-)
Thanks!
Dave
Thank you so much for your detailed and useful comments - exactly what I was hoping for. I would definitely like to return the favor when you're ready.
I've already implemented a number of edits based on what you've suggested.
1) What parts of the gameplay are unclear?
On my first read I didn't get that we were laying out our cards until after each Monster phase, then compiling them into the deck at End phase. The info was there, it just was easy to miss. An illustration of a tableau in process, giving an example of the matching rules, would clear this right up.
I've added some more text that explains this - I'll likely add a picture, too, as you suggest, but I have an artist friend working on some new art, so I'll wait to add it to the document until she's done.
"Picking High-Value Cards" completely baffled me until I read the "Basic Idea" box. The tendency is to read main text before summations, so I'd look at revising that section to get all the basics up front. Also, the name of that section isn't really helpful. You're talking about picking cards with a special characteristic of being "worth" two or three cards, but the intuitive understanding of "worth" would be the numerical value of the cards, not the physical card count. Though the cards may be said to be valuable, you're not talking about value in this section, you're talking about cost. On his or her turn a player may draw one or two cards. A Vampire counts as two cards -- it has a higher cost than usual -- regardless of its eventual value. Perhaps you should expand the terminology you introduce in this section, calling your normal Monsters "one-pick" and the special Monsters "multi-pick" (for example). When the "main player " selects a multi-pick card, other players take a turns drawing additional cards until all players' pick counts are equal for the turn.
Yes, this is a problematic section and one that I struggled over. In playing the game, the extra picking seems to happen very easily, and people understand it quickly, but it is very difficult to put into words. I've rewritten the section (again) to focus on cost, not value, and I've called the additional-pick cards "double" and "triple" which I hope will clarify. I also shifted the Basic Idea box to be clearly at beginning of the suggestion and urged people to be sure to read it before diving into the more complex explanation.
4) Is this a game you'd be interested in playing?
For me, the theme is an impediment. I'm interested in specific fantasy themes (WotR, AGoT), but generic/D&Dlite themes don't interest me in general, and I avoid anything with demons and vampires particularly.
That's interesting - if you don't mind saying, where does that distaste for vampires and demons come from? An over-saturation of them in our culture, or from a religious standpoint, or just personal taste? The vampires are totally optional - I only picked that as the monster type because I had a picture drawn for one, and they could just as easily be goblins or Djinnis or smurfs or whatever. The demons I did more intentionally, because I liked the idea of sacrificing cards to get them to work and the demon seemed to fit that mechanic.
Mechanically, the Full Game has promise. The only design choice I wonder about is why you chose to introduce the score cards as a random draw. Seems like one random element too many, when you could as easily have laid out all the options and let players load up the tokens on a first-come-first-served basis.
[/quote]
An interesting suggestion - I'll definitely playtest it having them all up. It will likely depend some on how much uncertainty you're willing to take. I think having them come up in a different order each time makes the game feel different each time, which might help replayability, but I can definitely see that your suggestion would make it more strategic. The way I have it, you have to bend your strategy around the cards that come up, which does lead to a different feel each time through at the expense of there being some luck in what you draw. Whichever way is better, the other might be good as a variant way to play.
Again, thank you so much for your very insightful and helpful comments. I'd love to include you in acknowledgements in the rules - just let me know how to cite you. If anybody else wants to have a look, I'd really appreciate it. I've updated the version linked above to include the edits suggested by rtwombly.