Tag: RogerDogerGames

Arachnid gets a Reality Check

Designing Arachnid has been a long learning process. Just when I think I’ve made every possible mistake, I managed to make a few more. The most notable mistake was being blind to the flaws in my game. I also became too attached to one of the cool new mechanisms I came up with which resulted in me losing my objectivity. These major flaws were finally brought to light in a recent play test with other game designers. They were honest and forthright with their observations and I thank them for that, The consensus was that I have to put down the scalpel and bring out the axe, some things in this game have to go.

Arachnid Version #31
The above Image is version #31, with more mechanisms than you can shake a stick at.

The concept was sound, the theme was good, but the mechanics were horrible. The worker placement and action selection system was very fiddly, causing players to constantly disconnect from the theme. The action queue, using marbles in an angled trough was a cool mechanism, but it was ill fitting and under-utilized for this game. It was the first thing I decided to remove. Everybody liked the marbles, and they will definitely be used in some other game, but not in this one.

A really cool but misplaced mechanism. It will be used in another game.

The next thing to go was the awkward bug event deck, this will be replaced with a simple chit-pull system used in the earlier iterations of the game. The action queue was also used to trigger certain events in the game, but this tended to divert the players attention away from the core actions of the game. These actions will be integrated into the turn structure instead, and hopefully provide a smoother game flow. 

Also gone, is the movement tracking system because it was fiddly, and players constantly forgot to reset their movement tracks during the opponent’s turn. I had noticed players disengaging from the game, so in the last iteration, players would have to rest on the other players turn by moving their action markers back one space. I thought this would keep the players engaged between tutns and focused on the game. The exact opposite happened. Players struggled to remember to reset their action token, causing them to disengage from the game more than before. I guess that didn’t work.

Arachnid version #32, a cleaner and simpler design.

The player boards are gone, now that the action system is being reworked, and the auxiliary board with the hospital and nursery are no longer required. Eliminating all this excess junk gave the game a much cleaner look. The only items on the table are;

  • The main board as well as tokens for webs, flies and Critters
  • The spider university, a market where spiders acquire new action cards.
  • The scenario board which controls each of the four scenarios.
  • A bag of event tokens
  • A deck of action cards which the players use to perform their various actions throughout the game.
  • An Alpha Spider token used to indicate the first player each round

The actions the players perform are the same, but the old worker queue and placement system is replaced by a deck of cards. Players simply select an action from a hand of 6 cards. The movement is tracked by discarding cards face down from the hand. The finite amount of cards forces players to choose their actions wisely and move efficiently. 

The critters move after all the players have performed an action and the bug events are determined by drawing a token from a bag whenever the players refresh their hands. The peril advances after each action round and hand refresh. This will hopefully make for a much more streamlined game. The next play-test will tell me if I hacked off too many parts of the game. It’s time to put the axe down and carry on.

Broke Again – The Arachnid saga continues…

Arachnid version 20 by RogerDogerGames

The Arachnid game was coming along quite nicely. The cooperation between players works quite well. Each player tends to have their own speciality, but they also have to depend on each other to get things done. The mechanics are smooth and intuitive and the game length seems just about right. In spite of all this, I still went and broke the game.

Working out the earlier kinks made the game run smoother. Unfortunately, it started to make the game a bit boring and predictable. There was no compelling reason to come back and play the game again. The players had experienced most of what the game offered. I needed to inject some replayability into the game or it would just end up on the shelf after one play, never to be taken out again.

I started with the current main objective. Players have to acquire 4 or 5 keys to enable the launch button before “Hoover” ends the game by finally reaching the web. This worked fine, but would just be a boring repeat if the game were played again, in spite of the different ways the spider characters evolve during the game. I decided to mix it up a bit. Players can play their introduction game with the keys displayed on the corners of the hex shaped player board as before, but they can choose to randomize the positions in subsequent games and hide the keys under rocks. This way, a player never knows when lifting a rock, whether it will reveal a new ability, be one of the sought after keys, or reveal a dangerous critter. This will create some variability to the game.

I also decided to start working on the action cards, increasing the count, so that only a small subset of the total cards would be in play in any given game. This should greatly help with the replayability of the game. It’s a real challenge coming up with new and interesting spider behaviors and ways to implement them, but I’m slowly picking away at solving this puzzle.

The third way I plan on dealing with the replayability problem is by introducing different scenarios with unique objectives. I will address this after I work out the latest kinks in the game and expand the deck. Some of the new cards can even be specific to certain scenarios. I will get to all of this after I fix what I just broke in the latest version of the game.

One of the complaints from the paytesters was the excessive administration of the “Critters” during their activation phase. This caused a break in the rhythm of the game which broke the players immersion of the game. This needed to be dealt with, so I decided to simplify the critters to eliminate redundant behaviors and reduce the administration of these A.I driven beings. This is how I actually broke the game……BOOGERS…..!

Originally, as you tried to acquire the keys, you activated Critters from the same location which could start chasing you around the web or wreak havoc in other ways. There were some logistical problems with the new, hidden, critters which were revealed as you turned over the rocks so I had to change this. In an effort to simplify the rules, I decided that the critters would enter the web at one of the six points of the board. This would be decided by rolling the A.I. die, the same way as they entered when drawn from the event bag. This simplified the rules, but turned out to be a very bad decision.

The result was a reduced risk of exploring and acquiring things because the critters would enter the web in places that didn’t immediately affect the spiders. This removed almost all of the tension from the game and made it very easy to win. It sucked the life out of the game, just like a spider drinking a “Critter Shake”. I now have to backtrack a little and find another way to deal with the introduction of the critters as they are revealed. They absolutely must start out from the rock under which they are revealed. This will create a tense moment whenever a rock is flipped over. I don’t know what I was thinking when I eliminated this in favor of a simpler rule-set. I just have to find an elegant and intuitive way to do this. I’m always amazed at how easy it is to derail a game with a simple rule change. It’s time to put my thinking cap back on and fix this game, then start making it better. Piece of cake…..LOL!

More Bugs – Less Filling

Arachnid 19d
Arachnid 19 on Tabletop Playground

Arachnid has gone through some major changes to reduce the number of components, simplify set-up and streamline game-play. I was worried for a moment after I finally worked out most of the problems with the action deck and action board. Once the game flowed smoothly, I realized that there weren’t enough interesting decisions throughout the game. I thought this game might just end up on top of the ever growing scrap-pile of dysfunctional games.

I took a short break from the game before deciding it’s fate. After taking a fresh look, and getting some good input from my #1 playtester (my wife) I was able to narrow down the problems. To start with, the game was too easy to win and the path to victory was too obvious. The “Critters” attacking the web weren’t really much of a threat and the end-game countdown (Hoover) wasn’t very dramatic. This all made for a boring and predictable game. With just a few tweaks, I was able to turn all this around.

The main objective in the game is to acquire the four keys in order to unlock the “Launch Button”. I made this task more complicated so players had to work together or find different ways to get them. I added more Critters and gave them more interesting and dangerous behaviors. This really ramped up the tension in the game and forced some tough decisions between defending the web and acquiring the keys. Having so many things to do and limited time to do it, automatically, made the end-game count-down much more dramatic.

It looks like the game is back on track and it’s time to write a final set of rules. Writing the rules is an important part of the design process. It reveals logic errors and provides a completely different perspective on the game. I’m really looking forward to ironing out the final glitches. I just hope there aren’t any really big issues I’ve missed. The “Kinda” “Sorta”, simultaneous turn-order (but only if you need to…) is going to be tough to explain. This should be fun!

You can subscribe to the game here on Mod.IO

Well, That didn’t work!

Arachnid Version 8 – Rework

In the previous version, I decided to eliminate as many constraints as I could and let go of the reins. As the playtest started, I eagerly anticipated the game moving along like a run-away stage-coach at break-neck speeds……but I think the horse may have fallen asleep. The most insightful comment was “The best part of the game was the teach”. In other words, the game was full of promise, but just didn’t deliver on any of them. I had to call it quits early again because the game just wasn’t progressing. The economy was also dysfunctional, one player just couldn’t get things rolling because of an early expenditure of energy to buy an action card, and another player experienced an over-abundance near the end. Much of the excess gains were just wasted, but in spite of this, the players, still, couldn’t do what they really wanted. The energy track and maintenance costs were simply not working.

I know there are some fun bits in this game, but the players just haven’t been able to get to them. It’s time to take a serious look at the economy of the game.

The second problem, of excess resources, is easy to fix. A slight rule change regarding the incorporation of the bug hexes into a player’s web and a different distribution should correct this problem. These tiles will also be double sided so that their function will be more clear. The broken economy, however, is another story. I’ve often heard the expression “Sometimes you have to kill your darlings” as it pertains to game design. I decided to take out what I originally thought was the most crucial part of this game. The Energy track, along with the maintenance costs are being eliminated.

There will still be some type of economy, but it won’t be an explicit energy track because the maintenance costs are unnecessary and punitive. Players can incur costs many other ways, like opportunity costs when they have to decide between one action or another, or spending resources or actions to gain new abilities. I will be reworking the action card mechanics in order to embed these costs in a less direct way. This might be a bit tricky but I’m sure it can be done.

Another thing that came up in this playtest, as well as the prior one, was the ability of spiders to move onto the opponent’s webs. I originally didn’t allow it, but I really can’t see why this shouldn’t be allowed. This can open up many strategic possibilities, and the opportunity cost of being on an opponent’s web, rather than expanding your own web, will help counter-balance this tactic. I don’t know why I didn’t allow this sooner.

It’s time  to move on to version #9. Hopefully the next game will make it all the way to the end. We’ll see what happens with the next major play-test.

The Fate Delusion

“Chance Favors the Prepared Mind”. This is one of the more important quotes that has guided me in life in my later years. We have all heard stories of a single chance meeting or unusual occurrence which has started a chain of events, putting a person on a path which eventually leads to success. Our propensity to eliminate noise makes us see this unbroken path as absolute, rather than a single branch among the scores of possible choices heading off in all directions. Our confirmation bias ensures us that this path was the only path to the ultimate goal. Last but not least, we overlook the mental “Priming” effect which brings this singular event to our attention, and inspires us to act on it. In short, we tend to subscribe to the popular delusion that success is based on fate.

Under closer examination of these success stories, there doesn’t appear to be any consistency in the number of attempts it takes to succeed. Some people have succeeded on what appears to be the first try, while others have only succeeded after a string of failures. This would imply that random events could be what starts a person on the path for success, but in the essence of true randomness, this could take any number of tries, or experiments. We also overlook the years of hard work which is often involved in becoming an “Overnight Success”. I believe that all these stories have one thing in common, a firm focus on success. This mental priming is the key factor.

It is fine to delude ourselves when we are in the safe environment of a Board Game, in fact it is often an important factor, contributing to the fun. The fate delusion is a welcome addition to the “Magic Circle” of the game group. The challenge to game designers, however, is how to employ this to the best effect.

It is critical to “prime” a player in the early part of a game so that they can start off on their path and head in a chosen direction. This can be done with unique character profiles or abilities, proper graphic design clues, a clear game theme, reduced choices in the beginning which expand afterwards, a story-line to follow, and anything else which can create a clear starting point in the players mind and one or more clear directions to head. Once a player is primed to look for certain specific opportunities, and has a clear direction to follow, the designer needs to introduce some choices.

Uncertainty could be introduced by other players actions, causing a player to make a choice and react a certain way. Another common way to induce choice is by introducing random events with cards or dice. However it is done, the players must receive a constant input of decisions to be made, so that they can lay down their path of action. As this decision path becomes more firmly anchored in a player’s mind, the player will be able to peer into the possible future and develop strategies. In the end, the player should be able to see a clear path of action from the beginning to the end of the game. Whether they attribute their victory or loss to fate or skill is completely up to the player and, of course, part of the fun.

Disclaimer…..

I am not an expert, nor am I  successful in publishing games. (Yet!) I am just trying to figure things out and hope you enjoy my occasional rant. Feel free to comment if you agree or disagree, or even if you just want to say hi.

Roger Meloche