Tag: Tabletop Game

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.

Voices in my head?

2022-05-15 / / 0 Comments
The Sheeny-Man Game

My head is a scary place lately. I’m supposed to be working out the kinks of my latest game “Arachnid” and finalizing the rules, but I keep getting distracted by two new games in my head, just itching to get out. I’ve put a couple earlier games on the back burner for now so I can concentrate on the latest one, but these two new games are coming together as if they’ve got a mind of their own. Here’s a peek at one of them.

Sheeny-Man

Sheeny-Man will be a card based game that has a two-phase turn system. Each player, in turn order, will perform phase one, which will be two actions from a list of three or four available. These actions will include “Pick’n” to collect items, “Shift’n” to arrange them on your tableau (Your junkyard) and “Swap’n” items with other players. There will be a unique method of set collection and a super simple but effective market mechanism. Turn order will be tracked by the “Sandford and Son Pick-up” first player marker which is passed to the next player after phase#1.

The second phase will be led by the previous winner of the “Gavel”, rather than the next player in turn. This is where a player can auction things off to other players, sell items at the market and then auction off the “Gavel” by itself, or auction off various power-ups which become available in the later part of the game. The player with the “Gavel” will have an edge when auctioning the power-ups and can only sell their valuable sets of merchandise when they have it. This will make the “Gavel” a very desirable item. It is passed to the winner of the Auction, ending phase#2.

The next round will be started again at phase#1 by the player who has the pick-up marker. Phase #2 will then be initiated by the player who holds the “Gavel”. It is possible for one player to have both items, which could result in a powerful turn.

Timing is crucial in this game. The value of your items will fluctuate with the market, there will be times when you really need that Gavel, and don’t forget about the “Market Crash” which happens near the end of the game.

Accurately assessing your opponents is also important because different phases of the game are triggered as players fill their mattresses with money. You need to anticipate when somebody is going to trigger the market crash or the final phase where the market is declining again and you must hurry to sell off your items before they become valueless.

There should be a lot of fun decisions in this game. For example, when Pick’n at the dump you might find a “Diamond Ring”, but you could also find a “Dead Possum” which will actually cost you money to get rid of. Don’t worry because you can always auction off the possum to another player who’s desperate for that “Gavel”.

Stay tuned for Sheeny-Man…..At tables near you.

Chaos Reigns in Arachnid Land

2022-04-04 / / 0 Comments
Arachnid Board Game v18 by RogerDogerGames

I’ve always enjoyed a little chaos in my games, and I also like simultaneous play. These two things are tricky to pull off in a board game, but I think I’ve done it. The new action selection board for Arachnid is shown above, and it seems to work well in initial testing. I guess I should start at the beginning.

The earlier designs of Arachnid (Versions 16 and 17) had been switched to cooperative mode which eliminated many of the problems of politics and the boring “tit for tat” play of the competitive mode. This, however, introduced a whole set of new problems specific to co-op games. Certain bits of the game were fun but the game lacked an overall purpose and cohesive theme. I was at a loss for words when a game developer asked what the hook was. Just being a spider wasn’t enough and the game was going nowhere fast unless I could pull it all together. I finally came up with a juicy theme and a “Raison D’Etre” for the game, with a little help from my wife who likes to vacuum up spiders and bugs.

Arachnid is about a group of spiders living in a nuclear missile silo. Through being exposed to radiation, they have gained intelligence and are working together to expand their web and gather the keys to the “Red Beacon” (Launch Button). This will bring on Armageddon and the new age of Arachnid. Meanwhile, there are a number of “Critters” constantly invading the web in ever increasing numbers. An ominous whirring is getting louder and louder as well, which is Molly the cleaning lady vacuuming up the dust and cob-webs in the silo. Will the spiders gather the keys and hit the launch button before molly sucks up the spiders in a in a horrible “Hoover-geddon”? You’ll have to try the game and see for yourself.

The spiders must perform various spider actions like building the web, reinforcing it to capture food, gathering the food and fending off the “Critters”. This was originally done with cards placed on an action conveyor, which is explained in an earlier post. This puzzle didn’t mesh well with the action on the main board and severely detracted from the theme. It also failed miserably with 4 players. It had to be discarded from this game and replaced with something more streamlined so players can concentrate on the gameplay on the main board. There were a few conditions that had to be satisfied with this new mechanism:

  • It had to be streamlined and simple
  • It had to be expandable and flexible
  • Players had to have well defined roles
  • Player roles needed to be customizable
  • Players needed a clear direction to avoid confusion
  • It would be great if simultaneous play were possible.

I decided on a shared action pool. Players each have their own colored actions which are played on their own cards. There were also some shared tokens and shared actions which provided some flexibility. Players can also purchase more action tokens or action cards which enhance their abilities. The pool has a default order of actions which can be overridden when necessary by the players when certain actions have to be played in a specific order. This may sound a little wishy washy but it actually worked. In fact, the last playtest resulted in the players playing simultaneously in the second half of the game. It happened naturally and it appears that the game may even go faster with more players that with just two. I have no idea how to write rules for this player behavior which seemed to organically come about during gameplay. I hope it wasn’t just a fluke, and that this chaotic behavior will remain a big part of my game. Only time and more playtesting will tell.

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

Nova Raiders gets Facelift

2021-05-20 / / 0 Comments
https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2484637697 Click on the link to try it out on TTS

Nova Raiders (AKA Pirates of the black hole) has gotten a complete redesign, both inside and out:

  • I discarded about half of the movement rules to streamline the game
  • Introduced the “Telleport” spaces
  • Re-structured the turn order so players wouldn’t fall asleep in between turns
  • Made the dice more prominent to encourage tactical play
  • Gave it a complete graphical face-lift
  • modified the end-game to increase the tension
  • opened up the movement rules to give players more flexibility
  • and gave it a snazzy new name.

I was a bit worried that I may have broken the game with so many changes, but it played fairly well in the last play-test. I would like to thank the game designers for the time they spent testing the game and for the frank and honest feedback. I managed somehow to maintain the fun parts of the game while fixing the bugs.

Of, course there were a few new issues as expected with such a drastic overhaul. It appears that I might have opened up the movement possibilities a bit too much, making the game a bit less challenging. I also had too many restrictions on bringing new player pieces into play. My next challenge will be to increase the opportunities to bring in more components, while at the same time, restricting movement just the right amount to make things more challenging. I’m gonna have to put on my thinking cap for this one.

The next issue is the counter-intuitive scoring system. There is some type of thematic or behavioral dis-connect that I have to iron out. The system works, but seems weird. I’ve been wracking my brain trying to sort this one out. There has got to be a simple solution, I just have to find it.

All in all, it was a great test. Only about a thousand or so more to go…LOL