Well after a lot of writing, proofreading, and play testing, I'm finally releasing my rules. Note that there are a LOT of formatting issues, I know there's no example of play, and there are things that don't quite make sense.
What I'm looking for is if the rules communicate well. Do you get it? Does it make sense?
I'd like for people to give feedback, any feedback is appreciated.
I've posted my game up on unpub.net. Here's the link:
http://unpub.net/games/detail/?proto=809&o=695
Thanks all!
Thanks for sharing. This sounds like a fun themed game that should be quick to play. Like many of this sort of card game, the rules make it feel more complicated than it actually is. I like the timer recharge and draw-for-combat mechanics.
Here are some initial thoughts for improvements based on a first read skim of your rules.
- It would be good to have some introduction text so we know the basic idea of how to play and the story before you dive into the rules proper.
- I don't know what 'decisively' means in the first player paragraph.
- The meta-commentary on page 9 gets in the way a bit (the passage explaining that there's lots of decisions to make, for example). That would be good for a "strategies and tips" section.
- I'd cut the parts where you write "Other games do X, but we don't do that." Just leave that out entirely, unless it's so different that users will be actively confused (blind playtests should reveal if that's the case.)
- graphics explaining the time mechanic are good
- I'd try to find other words to use than 'mechanic.' it's a bit inside baseball and might turn off less serious gamers
- The note about PLAYER MUST DECLARE ATTACK is confusing, as it's unclear how this makes or prevents an attack. This is even more confusing, as the combat phase only allows one attack, so the "declare" doesn't feel crucial to me.
- "which is known as a drop" is this the card being put in the stack, the action of putting cards in the stack, or the stack itself at this point?
- The first person in the attack shuffling comment is off-voice from the rest of the rules
- I wouldn't put in conditions for what to do if someone is caught cheating.
- It would be great if early in the rulebook, there was a one paragraph version of the attack section.
- Why use two separate terms (Primary player) and (attacking player)?
- put the glossary in alpha order
- The ability window chart feels superfluous since there are only two times when you can't preform an ability. Could you just declare the other two parts "no ability" phases?
- The "yes" under deck building also feels odd
- You don't actually explain what you "do" when you recharge. Are you getting tokens? Is there a limit?
Thanks for sharing!
Brendan
-
-The distinction between Primary and attacking player has been on my mind a lot. They are one in the same, but if I just say Attacking player, it may be confusing to the reader, if I just say Primary player, it may confuse the reader as to who is actually the attacking player. Suggestions? Any word I can use that can mean both?
I'm glad it was helpful. Regarding the two points here:
- I guess I meant that it feels like you get a long way through the rules before you know what the attack is or looks like. A brief "here's what you do as you play the game" paragraph at the start would be helpful.
- Perhaps "Active" player?
 | Board Game Blueprint - New Episode Every Wednesday (21) by The Game Crafter |
| Premium Bullet & Premium Toxic Waste Board Game Pieces at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Build your own [insert game genre here] (3) by larienna |
 | PoA — Major shift back closer to FCE (2) by questccg |
| What “Should” Be in an RPG Design Book (11) by lewpuls |
| Blank Poker Card Sale - 3 Cents Each! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Blank Playing Cards - Bridge 57mm x 89mm UK (1) by questccg |
| Finally returned after all these years (1) by DyminoMonsters2004 |
| State of the let-off Union - November 2024 (0) by let-off studios |
| Shoppe: The Simulation of Guilds (1) by questccg |
| The fine line between a game and a simulation (22) by X3M |
| Only 24 hours left to bid on games for the Extra Life Charity Auction (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Songs of Conquest is now 60% off plus an additional discount for... (5) by questccg |
| Returned the reMarkable 2 and purchased the BOOX Go 10.3 (3) by questccg |
| Happy Halloween 2024 (0) by questccg |
| Epic Metal Monster Coins - Now on Kickstarter - Created by The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| DuelBotz: Sample New Card (12) by questccg |
| 2 levels for an unit (wargames) (6) by X3M |
| Dragon Spark Playthrough (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Board Game Pieces - Premium Water Droplet & Premium Blood Droplet (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Designer with an 'almost' ready product (18) by questccg |
| Protospiel Madison - Only 17 Days Away! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| New Board Game Pieces - Premium Milk Bottle & Premium Beer Mug (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Testing chat GPT for mechanics searching (6) by larienna |
| Epic Metal Monster Coins - Coming soon to Kickstarter - Need your feedback! (2) by questccg |
Here are some initial thoughts for improvements based on a first read skim of your rules.
- It would be good to have some introduction text so we know the basic idea of how to play and the story before you dive into the rules proper.
- I don't know what 'decisively' means in the first player paragraph.
- The meta-commentary on page 9 gets in the way a bit (the passage explaining that there's lots of decisions to make, for example). That would be good for a "strategies and tips" section.
- I'd cut the parts where you write "Other games do X, but we don't do that." Just leave that out entirely, unless it's so different that users will be actively confused (blind playtests should reveal if that's the case.)
- graphics explaining the time mechanic are good
- I'd try to find other words to use than 'mechanic.' it's a bit inside baseball and might turn off less serious gamers
- The note about PLAYER MUST DECLARE ATTACK is confusing, as it's unclear how this makes or prevents an attack. This is even more confusing, as the combat phase only allows one attack, so the "declare" doesn't feel crucial to me.
- "which is known as a drop" is this the card being put in the stack, the action of putting cards in the stack, or the stack itself at this point?
- The first person in the attack shuffling comment is off-voice from the rest of the rules
- I wouldn't put in conditions for what to do if someone is caught cheating.
- It would be great if early in the rulebook, there was a one paragraph version of the attack section.
- Why use two separate terms (Primary player) and (attacking player)?
- put the glossary in alpha order
- The ability window chart feels superfluous since there are only two times when you can't preform an ability. Could you just declare the other two parts "no ability" phases?
- The "yes" under deck building also feels odd
- You don't actually explain what you "do" when you recharge. Are you getting tokens? Is there a limit?
Thanks for sharing!
Brendan
-
Wow.
First of all, thank you for taking the time to read through and commenting on my rules. It's a lot to read and I know there are a lot of flaws in it, but you put in a lot of feedback and for that I'm grateful.
I guess I'll just address the issues in order:
-Introductory text. I put in a one-sentence summary of the game, but adding in an extra paragraph or two for a little story depth can really pull the reader in. I can pull some of the other story flavor text in the rulebook and I'll put it up front.
-Decisively was to mean "the players just decide who's first", but that was probably a bad word decision.
-Yeah, that was an area of contention before I posted the rules. I made it more clear in the example of play in my new ruleset and I ended up taking out that blob of text.
-Cutting out other mechanics. Noted. Will change.
-Actually in regards to the time mechanic, I'm thinking of making it more clear. It's a bit squeezed in there...I want to utilize the space. But if you like it, then that's something :)
-On use of "mechanic" Noted. Will change.
-On declaring attack, I took out a lot of that text in favor of the play example, which is not in the uploaded ruleset.
-The drop is the action of putting cards in the Combat Stack. Will clarify.
-First person attacking is replaced by the play example.
-Interesting. Definitely noted. Will probably pull.
-1 paragraph about attack? Not sure what the suggestion is. Should I explain attack in the intro paragraph?
-The distinction between Primary and attacking player has been on my mind a lot. They are one in the same, but if I just say Attacking player, it may be confusing to the reader, if I just say Primary player, it may confuse the reader as to who is actually the attacking player. Suggestions? Any word I can use that can mean both?
-Glossary is going to be in alphabetical order when I get all the terms down. I didn't want to set it up, then be like "oh crap, I forgot another one". My mindset was more, "get is all out, then alphabetize later.
-I definitely want to show an ability window diagram for advanced players. I think I'm just bad at explaining it or communicating it in a way that's easy to understand.
-Yes? Hmmm...I'll look at it again. Thanks for pointing that out.
-Yeah, that's explained in the example of play.
Well I think that's it. Those were some good points I'll keep in mind when I get another draft of the rules (I gave it to my proofreader to reorganize and edit) and I'll try and get those suggestions in there. Thanks again!
-Jay