[GDS] JANUARY 2014 "Big Ideas in Tiny Packages" - Critiques

I like the simplicity of this game, and how accessible it seems. The mechanics are very straightforward to me, and I could see this as a bonus when trying to get people to play this game and get people to think about the subject matter more, without trying to create a realistic simulation of the subject matter.

From a theme perspective, it hit on the major things I think about related to fossil fuels and sustainable energy - different power sources, pollution, pollution caps, etc. However, I felt like there was a bit of a disjoint between the game mechanics and the theme, as it relates to the accessibility of the power plants. By limiting the number of power plants (by my math) at 6 Oil, 5 Coal, 4 Gas, 4 Wind, 4 Sun (Solar), and 2 Nuclear, it makes it statistically easier to obtain the dirtier power sources. However, there’s already an incentive to obtain these dirty energy producers early game, as they produce more power and things aren’t all polluted yet. I think I understand mechanically why the decision was made to have these with different odds of coming up, but from a theme perspective, I’m not sure if it fits as well. Perhaps this was an intentional choice to balance game accessibility vs realism (which I often struggle with myself).

As this is primarily a set matching game with random card draws and limited trading, it seems like this will lead to players building whatever plants they can, as soon as they can. Through random draw, the chances of getting 4 of a kind seem relatively low, and without trading, would be looking at having around 16 cards drawn / in hand before even being able to make an Oil plant. The trading mechanic might change this, but I could see players wanting to hold on to their cards rather than allow another player to possibly make a set, especially if the other player would start polluting as a result.

I like the threat of pollution, and the idea that players may negotiate whether or not to activate a power plant that pollutes (and possibly end the game). I could see this as creating a sore loser / bullying effect, where a player that is losing the game just pollutes as much as possible (maybe because they didn’t manage to get any of the non-polluting sets - again relating to the odds / restrictions around gaining power plants), to destroy the world, with little or no way for other players to appease or stop that person. This may be completely intentional on the part of the designer, and could possibly be considered a very accurate reflection of the real life relationship between countries, but might cause some issues from a gameplay perspective. I’d be interested in seeing how that plays out in an actual game.

One of my top picks (I liked a lot of the entries). Was in a four way tie for bronze.

I think that there are a few reasons that I really liked this entry (and therefore gave it my gold vote):

The awesome:

First, I like how quick the game would play out: it sounds like the playtime for each game would be 40 minutes, and with rules simple enough that they can be taught to any non-gamer in a matter of minutes.

Second, I like that the game is semicooperative, with a pollution marker that keeps you from trying to mess up the communal pollution limit. I feel that will spark a lot of tension and serious debate between players.

I also like the potential use of the the "perceived need" mechanic, where your desire for one more wind card may be great, and your friend might not want it at all, so you could bluff them into giving it to you for cheap.

Additionally, the depth of the decisions is compelling: "I have two of each of these. Which am I willing to give up and try to reach a set with?" "I know that this is a good trade, but will giving him one more coal allow him to produce a lot of pollution that I will have to deal with later?

My only concern:

I'm simply worried that there aren't enough of the specified cards already in game. I say this only because I haven't playtested it yet. However, I think that if there are any problems with the build, you'll be able to get rid of them easily.

Ideas for building on your thoughts:

Could you perhaps grant the ability for a player to expand a power plant and thereby increase its output by having a 5th card attached to a power plant? I can also understand the desire to make it about building individual reactors, so take this (and all other ideas) with a grain of salt.

Could there be a card that represents a "wild card" of sorts that helps players that might increase the volatility of the game?

When a plant is built, are they just down that many cards until they draw (or trade for) more?

Evening all, thanks for your votes and critiques!

Thanks for your feedback! I think you're right baberahamlincoln about the unnecessary 'double incentive' for fossil fuels (plentiful & efficient). On reflection I think a more even distribution of resources would be more appropriate. Although I'd still keep Nuclear rare, as this is both thematic & interesting mechanically (IMO!). I also think I'd use a card drafting mechanic like 7 Wonders rather than a random draw, where a communal hand is passed around and players pick & place one card face down. I also think I'd make the 'set collection' mechanic variable, so that players could turn 2, 3 or 4 cards in for a small/medium or large power plant. Hopefully this would increase the number of interesting decisions a player could make, as I agree Corsaire it's probably a 'forced decision' game in its current iteration.

The whole point of the global pollution mechanic was to promote discussions around who should use their power plants. Without trying to sound too serious, it was intended to hint at the way the developed Western world (built on fossil fuels) now lectures the developing world on their fossil fuel usage - though it would need to be balanced in playtesting. One idea I had was to include 'climate sink' cards, which are created like power plants but reduce global pollution rather than producing energy. The pressure would then be on leading players to place these, which would act as a balancing mechanic. Just an idea!

Cheers ruy343, short length and simple rules were two key design goals for this project. I hope that the changes I propose above would keep it relatively straightforward while adding more decisions and depth. It's always a hard balancing act, and in my experience it never really 'clicks' until playtesting begins.

Thanks again for your kind words, and I look forward to commenting on your other ideas.

Jack

As a first time participant in the GDS I'd like to offer kudos to all participants. They all passed my most basic test, "Does this sound like a game you'd like to play?". And thanks to those of you who voted for my submission (I actually had my game ranked 10th of the 13 games).

Climate Control received my Gold Medal vote. The game design incorporated the renewable energy theme in an elegantly simple way, with the "everyone loses" scenario adding just the right amount of complexity as the game progresses. As it was the first entry in the list, I finished reading it the first time and thought, "uh oh. If these are all this good, this is going to be a tough job assigning medals." Well, it turns out they were (almost) all this good, but after several passes through the list, this one kept coming out on top for me.

I liked this entry. It has a good focus on a key issue related to the GDS, but also included the possibility of other related elements (politics, energy security, and alternative energy), and the all important Bear Cavalry.

The majority of the game play seemed simple and clear enough. My one area of concern was what seemed to be the potential for (relatively) complicated math related to World Demand and barrel pricing. Dividing World Demand by number of Barrels on the market = price per barrel, then multiplying the number of barrels being sold by the price per barrel seems like it will create a bit of a headache. If pursuing this design further, I’d recommend trying to simplify this, perhaps through reference charts / scales / score tracks, and keeping values within a predictable range, like between 1 and 10 for barrel pricing, which are easier to multiply. Unless the game is packaged with calculators - maybe with country flags on them!

Overall, a great submission. Good stuff. It got my gold.

Side note - caring about the environment isn’t just for hippies anymore.

Sorry, wasn't able yesterday... since this was my gold medal some words about it.

Good small game. Easy to pick up, Plays fast. I do not like games where everyone can loose. Sounds like something a player can do when performing badly. However, here it might shine a light on the fossil fuel problem. Continue to use it means *everyone* loses.

(I would not give nuclear energy zero pollution.)

I didn't have this game ranked as high as the the group did overall, I think I got lost in the presentation style and the sense of complexity that resulted. Upon re-reading the submission, I'm glad others found their way through and gave this submission the kudos it deserved. I was also probably put off initially by the "bribing for rig purchasing" aspect of the game. I'm personally not a big fan of games that have "unchecked" player interaction - it can detract from the game if players decide to "gang up" on another player (all agree to not let player X purchase ANY rigs) and can give one player too much influence over the flow of the game - their goal may not be to win, but instead to play the role of spoiler for another, or perhaps they just decide to act in a totally random manner. But again, that's just a personal preference, not an adverse criticism of the game. I would definitely give it a few plays if it showed up on my gaming table. Well done, ruy343.

National Interest has a catchy name and concept. It's a game that I can see being fun to play, and is simple enough to explain gameplay satisfactorily in 500 words. The design is pretty elegant, with seemingly few components.

A minor quibble I had with the design was the necessity of dividing the available money by the number of barrels provided to determine payout. Perhaps needing the players to do math could be circumvented with a chart where they could lookup the payoff?

My major issue with National Interest was that sustainable energy really took a back seat - it wasn't a winning strategy (and thus the game wasn't underlining its importance to our future); it was merely a tactic one could employ to help get an edge when producing oil. The game also didn't seem particularly critical of fossil fuels.

I think this is an interesting entry that tries to show a very real facet of the current global energy situation, as contextualized through the lens of small town america. Overall, I like the theme and what explanations were provided of the mechanics. I liked the voting on actions and tragedy of the commons reference. I think these are great mechanics for the theme of this game.

My one big issue with this game are its end conditions, which, as I understand them are, either a) the town goes bankrupt, or b) someone’s family dies. Assuming there is a continually increasing “price” that must be paid, and it is impossible to pay that price without selling your land for fracking, it seems like there is no motivation to actually work together and prevent fracking (it’s effectively inevitable), as if you can’t pay the price, everyone loses. The other end game condition (the only scenario under which someone can actually “win”) is for someone’s family to die (presumably as a result of fracking activities), which means that players are motivated to poison one another, so at least one of the players can say they won. I’d hope there would be some way for the small town to survive without fracking, and without killing each other off, though perhaps very difficult to achieve, and reward all players with a feel good “everybody wins” ending (or at least an ending where someone doesn’t die / the town goes bankrupt). However realistic it may be, I’m not sure how I feel about it as an aspect of gameplay.

Was one of my top picks, but fell slightly out of my top 3. I did really like the idea behind this game.

I really liked the sound of Frack, it covered a very current topic that wasn't touched by anyone else's design. I agree with other commenters that the victory conditions are a little morbid, and while thematically excellent it's a little bit 'no hope' depressing. Still, very interesting design, well done!

This actually was my gold, and Climate control silver. Now I did check and not let my memory help me. What I liked is the setting, putting the energy question into a small community with profits versus pollution. This game could be further developed as eurogamer-game, but also as simulation game with probably local council as target audience. I gave points for the latter option.

I liked some parts of this - the random scenario generator, solution based play - but had a difficult time imagining how it would all work, both mechanically and play wise. A few examples, 1) the number of World Cards and TaE cards suggests a high number of possibilities when determining Applicability Modifiers, which seem like they would be difficult to manage when scoring. 2) Laying out Solutions facedown, and then revealing them (presumably by matching the layout of TaE to World Cards based on the grid - unsure) seems like an overly complicated mechanism. 3) Applying scoring modifications from the multiple in play SaSC cards seems like it could create a math nightmare.

I’m left thinking that with the amount of variables may make this game unwieldy. Theme wise, I see the potential for meeting all of the GDS requirements, as there is clearly room for reflecting many aspects of the fossil fuels and sustainable energy theme. Perhaps if this submission was written to be more high level, to see the strategies around the GDS theme, I would not have gotten so caught up in what I saw to be difficult mechanics.

The idea of a random 4x4 world where all players must make the best of their own cards is good. The fact that I can keep my SaSC card hidden (I will) and that the hidden cards of all players have impact on the score, I do not like. Some hints about what to expect I would like to add. For instance, building step-by-step, so you can see what others are doing, and guess their SaSC card.

I apologize but the stomach flu is going around our house and I havent' been able to get on until now.

National Interest--Got my bronze medal. I liked the concept and the mechanics show a lot of promise. It lost points for me in that the demand phase seemed to be quite mathematically demanding and probably could be simplified, but overall sounds like a pretty good concept.

Frack--This game is topical and covers a very controversial subject. Like most, I found the end goal to be morbid and depressing and it also feels to me like the Sun/Wind components were thrown in gratuitously and don't really offer a valid alternative overall. I do like the event cards but I'm not sure on what types of options they would have that would provide items to vote on. A couple of examples would be nice.

I gave Climate Economics my bronze metal because I found it pretty well thought out without too much unnecessary complexity.

The most interesting part of the game, to me, was the tension and interesting player interaction inherent to the pollution generation system. This mechanic would also be the hardest system to balance around in order to avoid grimming problems (where the losing player attempts to destroy the world), and also to avoid anticlimax in the end game (if too many people are being affected by weather events, then without well-balanced end conditions the game could peter out or drag on).

The other challenge with the pollution mechanic is from a message standpoint: you don't want the optimal strategy of the game to be "ignore pollution and let all the others clean up your mess." This is a challenge pretty unique to competitive board games because, unlike reality, there is no tragedy of the commons problem - our games tend to have a winner and losers, and you don't care what happens so long as you're the winner.

All in all a solid entry and I'd like to play a prototype!