[GDS] MARCH 2014 "Make Mine Random" - Critiques

Thanks for your comments. This was my first challenge and it's been very good. There seems to be a lot of questions, so I'll try to explain my thinking as much as possible.

Firstly, it was meant to be a very simple game without a lot of strategy but, obviously, this can put some people off.

Generally, I like to be much more thematic and illustrative in my rules but the word limit and lack of images was a shock for my first challenge.

Clarifications

Thank you Mr S. No, it's not that abstract. That was left in from when the game was originally more abstract. I don't want to get into definition discussions but... chess.

I do realise I should have been clearer:

should have been "...any of their own pieces, which have not been attracted towards the centre,..." (pieces which are attracted cannot be moved by the player in that turn, other than being attracted to the centre one space)

Players also can't move their pieces away from the centre (expect for the spaces that allow it).

The spaces nearer the centre would be have the greater point gains and losses.

The only time a player might move another players pieces would be by landing on the space that allowed it but this was really just a filler action, so I'll remove it.

An invalid spin is if the pointer of the spinner fails to rotate enough to move past two whole spaces. This was to get a balance between avoiding players just tapping the spinner slightly to not hit their own piece and to allow a player to still spin it softly. However, this whole idea could just be removed and say that the spinner has to spin completely...

Comments

The idea of hitting the pieces away with the spinner was what gave me the space theme because of the many sci-fi ideas of black holes, like 'teleporting'.

I could have the game in the box to avoid lost pieces but with a specific "out of play" zone, to avoid every piece staying on the board, but I don't think it would be too much of an issue in practice.

I really like anonymousmagic's idea of a modular board. Perhaps I could have different quarter-circles that fit together to make a circle and each one would have a different arrangement of spaces instead of just concentric circles. This would give more strategy to where you moved your pieces.

I'll do more proof reading next time :)

Thanks.

My bronze. The idea of switching inserts, and give players the option to spin with the old or new one is nice. Theme is good. Destroy a robot that otherwise will hurt you.
In the current rules a random player will receive any damage done. That is just too random.
The idea of having multiple robots is good. Maybe the number of spinners can also be limited. You can either swap your top with another player, or spin (where it is not allowed to swap with a player who just took a new top).

The game feels to heavy/serious to have that much randomness by spinners. I did not see any specific spinner element in the game.
Sorry, no more comments. Game has enough in it to work on it further.

Arctic Dissection:
I liked the theme of this game - the cold war is always rife with possibilities and is especially topical now. I had similar difficulty with picturing how this game would play out, though. I couldn't see it and envisioned the game play as one coin flip situation after another. Maybe a better explanation would cure all those ills though.

Fate and the WOF
This was actually my gold - the only thing I really didn't care for was the title, just a little too wordy.

Something about the strategy of this game seemed really intriguing to me - you're basically trying to survive as long as possible, either by avoiding disasters or forcing other people into them. It's the kind of game that if you win, you have no friends when it's over. It was well thought out and used the spinner intelligently.

One criticism mentioned that the spinner mechanism could have been replicated with dice - which is definitely true, and I struggled with the same in my design. One thought would be to eliminate the peace sections from the spinner (more on that later) and have different inserts that weighted some disasters more likely for that game.

A big flaw I did notice was that your end game requires a 1/12 chance to happen 3 times. And while it may work out, there's a good chance you could have some really long games and a good chance you could have some really short games (what if the first three spins are peace?) Because you have a mandatory draw mechanic with the cards, perhaps your peace rounds could be shuffled into the draw deck?

Either way, I really liked the game and hope to see more on it.

Interesting theme but I think you meant blind bees as they locate flowers based on ultra violet lighting. Bees are also considered the most intelligent of the insects and they do a dance to show the other bees where the good plants are. They are very interesting insects.

Now as far as your game goes:
I had to reread the objective a bunch of times... That’s not a good start. I am not sure you need to have 6 spinners either. So let me get this straight first... Each spinner represents a different flower / pollen color? And each spinner is like tossing a die to see if you get the pollen or not? Or does the spinner just tell you the direction you are heading? If it is both, you will always have a set path that you must take. Also, how many flower spinners are we talking about. It sounds like they are surrounding the hive 360 degrees, which would be A LOT of spinners (pricey for how much game there is)
Are some of these flowers farther away than others? That would make it more interesting as players would have to weigh the advantages (more points) vs the disadvantages (time to get out there). They could also pick up other pollen along the way. In this way, you don’t need to use the cards. In this particular game, I think the cards rather limit the playability of the game.
Overall, I like where this game is starting from, but I think it could use some tweaking and much more development before being play tested.

I just want to thank everyone who critiqued my game today and I loved the advice and suggestions everyone gave.

Couple more general observations:

I do understand the game feels serious and perhaps this one just is. I just thought the theme was interesting enough to explore for this showdown. I also think that once in a while a game should be more serious and not every one needs to be lighthearted.

The reason I used three spinners is there are/were three Fates so there is a spinner for each of them.

Yes, with regard to the ability to substitute the spinner with dice, I suppose one could but that argument could be made in the end for almost any game. The swappable inserts could be substituted with a table or multiple tables of values that mirror the spinner percentages and you have the same result. To me the spinner, if really spun adds a dramatic touch to this game...who will get hit, how will they get hit and how many get affected? Again the three spinners matches the three Fates in a way. That was my thinking process.

Yes, the title could be replaced. I think I was having a "Love, American Style" moment when titling the design. (The title is similar to the titles used in that series). I agree it could stand for a better title...I just thought it was a clever summary, but I'm not hooked on it.

I do like Daniel's modification to move the peace from the spinners to the cards and add more opportunities for peace. The exact number of opportunities probably would need to be playtested to see what is optimal, however there was another end game condition which is if one continent gets wiped out at the end of a turn. That will also end this game.

I also like Andy's suggestion to combine the severity of the disaster with the disaster spinner.

Overall, I like this game design and will probably flesh it out more and I will admit that I may change some of the mechanics a bit because you all had some good advice.

Thanks to those who thought well enough of it to medal it. I appreciate all of your encouragement.

I definitely enjoy being a part of the community.

Peace,

David

Bumbling Bees:
I really struggled understanding this one as well. I tried to picture it but the movement seemed stilted and the scoring wasn't clear either; my takeaway was that you wouldn't have very much control over where the bees moved or what they did because you're all using the same bees with different (most likely) objectives.

But again with this, it could just be the way the game was described and not an actual issue of the game play.

Fishing Float:
This game didn't make sense to me until I read the above critique and then realized you were talking about a spinning top and not a spinner. It makes trying to decide what your outcome is much harder, but it still seems pretty basic. Might make a decent children's game, but I could see most people spinning it right off the board. Maybe the pond needs walls? I do like the development cards aspect...would start teaching kids those game mechanics early and get them hooked!

I think moving bees is really hard. The can only be moved if the spinner points to their colour. Somehow players should be able to claim bees. Suppose a bee is close to the hive, and I can add pollen to it, and move it to the hive. Then my turn is over. The next player harvests the pollen and the points.

Those points can be solved, and it could develop into a nice childrens game.

This may be a good math game, but I couldn’t understand it. I think we need to know more about how the spinner affects the game as well as a better description of it physically. There is also a lot going on with the dials. I assume that the discrete dials are somehow hidden from the other players, but it is unclear how. Also, when and how are they revealed? We also need a better physical description of the dials. How do you choose three actions (which dial, direction, player to challenge) from one dial? I also have no idea how a challenge works. What if there is a tie? What if two players challenge each other… do they play two challenges? There may be a good game in there, but I am just having a hard time picturing the game, components and mechanics. So, it is difficult to evaluate.

I'd echo what danieledeming said. I really liked the theme and the idea of placing the spinner onto the hexagons. It was really close to getting a medal, but it fell just a bit short because it didn't give the players enough control. Also, I'm not sure it makes sense for the board to wrap around. Maybe the drop off spots could be on the edges to force players to keep going back and forth. Overall I think there is lots of potential here.

Good use of the spinner, simple pick up and deliver mechanic that fits well. Wrapping around a non rectangular board will cause some confusion, you might need to place the tiles onto a real board with rows and columns numbered like a chess board.
The problem is that the spinners are too random. When on my second spin, the spinner ends in a single section that points towards my first spinner, my turn is over. That is the worst example. Players have very limited choice to make meaningfull moves.
Since the game is small, a high luck factor might not be too much of a problem. Could work very well with kids.

I admit I was not totally sure what a spinner was. I looked it up and got the Twister-type and also this type: http://education.scholastic.co.uk/resources/156741. I thought these were the same as: http://blog.mrprintables.com/spinning-top-poetry/ (4th image especially).
To give the spinner (spinning top?) the right amount of heavyness to give players after some tries the opportunity to land somewhat close to the center requires testing. I also think it would be good if the spinner would not spin very long, it makes the game last too long.
Later I thought that maybe all players spin their personal spinners at the same time, and, have improvements in the game to change the tops (more red fish for instance). When players spin together collisions might shorten the game, and give more chance to end near the center.
If the improvements are suitable for kids is open for debate, or playtest.
Mr. S. I am glad I could make you laugh at "fases". It is a proper word in my language, and even though I checked my entry various times, I have read over this one. I do not have access to a wordprocesser to check, but, have found something on internet that will do the same. Although this is about the game-submission, the point that proper English is needed when in contact with distributors is taken.

Ok, well this is a solid game. We know this from Slap, Set and games like that. There is a lot of information on each wedge. If you are doing a 12 sided spinner, I am not sure there will be enough room on each piece unless you plan on making very large spinners spinner plates.
I think that it might be interesting to incorporate different aspects of each card together: have the spelled color written in a different color, have certain numbers of critters to be number and critter together. I realize that you have essentially done this, but I think it needs to be done to save space. Having a number and a number of critters is a potential source of confusion.
I do like these types of games as a change of pace or filler game sometimes. It’s great to play with a younger audience, too. So yes, it’s ok, but it offers me nothing really that new. With six spinners, this game would cost far more than a game of slap (the same type of game). This game could just as easily be made with cards that have all of the information on them. As such, I couldn’t give this one a medal.

EDIT: I'm not sure why the post above ended up appearing twice(?), but I cannot seem to find a way to delete this duplicate. Sorry folks.

Warriors

Firstly, I like the name. It is very apt for the challenge. I'm not really familiar with this type of game, so it just didn't quite stand out enough to get a vote. Overall it was well thought out and should work pretty well.

Critter

I like the general idea of trying see the matches when they are intentionally being made to confuse you. I think could make for a fun game, but I think it would better with cards rather than spinners.