Tag: RogerDogerGames

Arachnid ends up on the Scrap-Heap

2024-10-14 / / 0 Comments

After much deliberation, I finally decided to scrap this game. It just wasn’t viable in my opinion. It had many fun features but it occasionally fell flat on its face. The economy was balanced on a knife edge between scarcity and overabundance. When resources were scarce, the tension was high and the decisions were interesting, and difficult. Then the balance would shift to overabundance, resulting in a very boring game. There was also an obvious dominant strategy of keeping the web clear of Critters, which was often easy to do, since they were randomly generated at a fairly constant rate. Overall, I thing the game was too determinate, lacking the flexibility needed to handle the negative events and the fluctuations in the economy.

What I’ve Learnt

The main take from this experience was that you can’t force it. Like pushing a rope, it simply doesn’t work when you try force a game to be fun, or force it to be like some initial idealistic vision you had for the game. The harder you push, the further you tend to get from your goal. A couple recent games of mine come to mind.

The first is Nova-Raiders. It is a fast paced, dice driven, space game inspired by Backgammon. The first few attempts didn’t work well, but there was definitely a game in there somewhere. Playtesting proved this out. After a few more iterations, the game seemed fairly solid and players enjoyed playing it. I’ve recently tweaked the User Interface, modified the scoring and have tried to mitigate the arbitrary Take-That features of the game. It seems to be humming along very well. This was only possible because my core mechanics were sound and people like playing the game. The game, in a sense, was pulling me along, rather than me trying to push it. This is, I believe, the way a proper game design should work.

There are always surprises, of course. Fried dice is the second game I would like to mention. It is a simple roll and write game with an interesting dice mechanism which I came up with to entertain my young nephews. It turns out that it didn’t interest them but the adults sure had fun with it. A game could take you to unexpected places, but as long as it’s taking you somewhere, it’s probably a viable game.

The Bad, the Good and the Not so Ugly

We’ll start with the Bad:

  • The game started out competitive, but I switched it to cooperative because I couldn’t overcome the politics of one player sitting back while the other players duke it, depleting their resources. This was the wrong reason to make a cooperative game.
  • The game isn’t going anywhere until the core mechanics are solid and robust.
  • Adding more stuff doesn’t fix any problems and tends to make the game worse. I had to take a hatchet to the game and do some serious trimming down more than once.
  • Players need interesting choices, not obvious ones.
  • Mismatched mechanics that don’t reinforce the theme can cause dissonance and thematic breaks. This can ruin a good game and make a bad one worse.

Now for some Good things:

  • The marble based action selection mechanism I came up with in one iteration will make a really good core mechanism in a future game.
  • The various card based action selection mechanisms that I experimented with will definitely be useful in other games.
  • I’ve worked with many other game designers while developing this game and made a few friends.

The Not so Ugly

  • I’ve really honed my digital prototyping skills and have become proficient at designing and desktop publishing.
  • I still can’t draw worth a damn, but my graphic design skills have come a long way.
  • I worked with a professional printer and managed to have some very nice prototypes made.

Overall, it’s been a good experience, but I have to recognize when a game just isn’t working and pull the plug earlier.

Lesson Learned.

Arachnid gets a Reality Check

2023-11-22 / / 0 Comments

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…

2022-05-15 / / 0 Comments
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

2022-04-20 / / 0 Comments
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

Arachnid Version 19

Well, That didn’t work!

2021-09-05 / / 0 Comments
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.

Arachnid Main Page