Thursday, January 26, 2012

Good news about For The Win!

Tasty Minstrel Games' latest Kickstarter project, For The Win, has passed the funding goal of $15,000!

With 2 weeks remaining in the funding period Michael has announced an overfunding goal as well. If funding reaches $25,000, then all supporters pledging $15 or more will receive additional tiles in different colors in order to play the game with up to 4 players.

This project had an interesting reward structure - the first 200 supporters were allowed to pledge as little as $5 (though many pledged more than that), and the next 500 "pay what you want" supporters pledged a minimum of $10. The regular pledge level for 1 copy of the game is $20, and retail price will be $25.

This overfunding goal presents the early adopter with an option that later supporters do not have:

1. Keep my pledge the same, and receive a 2 player game for an extraordinarily low price.

2. Up my pledge to $15+ and receive everything I was going to receive, plus tiles for 3-4 players.

Both of these are good deals, depending on the desire of the supporter. And it makes sense that there be a minimum pledge level for the overfunding reward, because doubling the number of tiles will severely increase the shipping costs. I don't see how $5 could cover that!

Print and play tiles

So if you're a supporter already, then thanks very much! Depending on your pledge level you might have a choice to make (super low price vs 4 player game). If not, consider jumping in - any of the reward levels above $15 will come with one set of the tiles for 3-4p for every copy of the base game!

And if you haven't seen them yet, there are several very positive reviews of FTW popping up around the 'net:
Ryan Metzler's video preview for The Dice Tower
The Little Metal Dog Show
Grim Tree Games: For The Win is Full of Win!
Meet The Meeples
Father Geek

Sunday, January 08, 2012

Knights Templar - Rules outline

The Knights Templar
A game of influence and scandal for 2-4 Crusaders

Components

  • 64 Building tiles (16 in each of 4 player colors)
    • 16 Churches
    • 16 Castles
    • 16 Farms
    • 16 Banks
  • 4 Player boards
  • 48 Action cubes (12 in each of 4 player colors)
  • 16 Knight figures (4 in each of 4 player colors)
  • 1 Game board
  • XX Enemy tokens
    • XX Slav
    • XX Saracen
    • XX Prussians
  • XX Troop tiles
  • XX Influence tokens
  • XX Gold coins
Setup
  • Each player receives the following in their player color:
    • Player board
    • 4 Knight figures
    • 16 Building tiles (place them in the indicated spaces on the player board)
      • 4 Churches
      • 4 Castles
      • 4 Farms
      • 4 Banks
    • 12 Action cubes (place 2 in each Action bin on the Player board)
  • Lay out the Game board and distribute the Enemy tokens to the regions indicated by icons. Each player takes their Level 1 Castle building and places it on their indicated starting region along with one of their Knight figures.

  • Place the Gold coins, Influence tokens and Troop tiles in supply piles. Choose a starting player at random and you are ready to begin!

    Game Play
    Starting with the Start player, play will progress clockwise throughout the game. A player's turn consists of the following sequence:

    1. Choose any one Action bin on your player board.
    2. Resolve the action associated with that Action bin.
    3. Distribute the Action cubes from the chosen bin.

    1. Choose an Action
    Select any one of the six Actions on the Rondel that has at least 1 Action cube in its bin.

    2. Resolve the Action
    There are six Action spaces on the Rondel, though 2 of them are the same. Each of the Actions resolves differently. In each of the following descriptions, "X" refers to the number of Action cubes in the Action bin.
    • MOVE: There are 2 different MOVE spaces on the Rondel. The move action allows you to move your Knights on the game board, and it also adds gold to the Communal Coffer as your Knights collect charity.
      • Add X Gold coins to the Communal Coffer space on the board.
      • Move your Knight figure(s) up to X regions total.
    • BUILD: The build action allows you to erect buildings worth influence. Buildings confer benefits when resolving the various actions in the game.
      • Erect a Building tile of level X or less from your player board onto a region on the board occupied by one of your Knights. You must be able to afford this (see below).
      • Each Bank you have built increases the maximum level of building you may erect.
      • Remove Gold coins from the Communal Coffers equal to the level of the building.
      • Each Bank you have built reduces the number of Gold coins you must spend.
      • Only the lowest un-built level of each building may be erected.
      • Only 1 building can occupy each region.
      • Collect Influence tokens according to the level of the building erected.
        • Building Types:
          • Bank: Pay less Gold when using the build action.
          • Farm: Collect additional Troops when using the muster action.
          • Castle: Place an additional Knight token into play at the new Castle.
          • Church: Collect additional Influence when using the influence action.
    • MUSTER: The muster action allows you to muster troops to take crusading with your knights.
      • Collect up to X Troop tokens from the supply. You must be able to afford each (see below).
      • Remove 1 Gold coin from the Communal Coffer for each Troop tile collected.
      • Collect 1 additional Troop token for each Farm you have erected (you need not pay for these additional Troops).
    • CRUSADE: The crusade action allows you to fight Enemies, scoring influence and clearing regions to make space for more buildings.
      • Choose 1 region containing one of your (any player's?) Knight figures and an Enemy token.
      • Determine the Enemy Strength by checking the Enemy Strength track for the appropriate enemy type.
      • Each Knight figure (no matter which player's) in the region reduces the Enemy Strength by 1.
      • If the Enemy Strength is less than X, then discard Troop tokens equal to the Enemy Strength.
      • Collect Influence tokens equal to the Enemy Strength.
      • Move the Enemy token to the appropriate Enemy Strength track.
    • INFLUENCE: The influence action allows you to gain Influence tokens by spreading the word of the Order.
      • Collect X Influence tokens from the supply.
      • Collect 1 additional Influence token for each Church you have erected.
    3. Distribute Action cubes
    Take all Action cubes from the bin associated with the chosen Action and distribute them, 1 at a time, clockwise around the Rondel. See example diagram

    End Game Phase
    "God is not pleased. We have enemies of the faith in the kingdom"
    When the last Influence token is taken from the supply, finish out the round so that each player has had the same number of turns*. At this point, the Order of the Temple has become so powerful that King Philip, threatened by the Order and deeply in debt to it, issues an arrest order for all Templar Knights and begins to have the Order disbanded.

    * Players may still collect influence after the supply runs out. Keep track of this influence using Troop tokens.

    After all players have finished their turn in the round in which the Influence supply runs out, the End Game phase begins. Flip the starting Castle buildings (in the Paris region) face down - they are considered destroyed. Whenever a building is destroyed, each player collects 1 Influence for each building of that type they still have in play.

    At the end of each round during the End Game Phase, destroy all buildings in regions adjacent to a region that's already been destroyed. Flip the destroyed buildings face down (simultaneously) and collect influence for like buildings each time.

    During the End Game Phase the Community Coffers are emptied, and Gold Coins are no longer added during move actions. [The build action turns into a third move action (?)] The build, muster, and crusade actions no longer have any effect.

    Game End
    The game ends when one of two things happens:
    • All Knights on the board have reached Portugal (or Scotland?)
    • The wave of destruction reaches Portugal (6 rounds after the End Game Phase begins).
    When one of these triggers occurs, the game ends. Any player without at least 1 Knight figure safely in Portugal (or Scotland?) (ALL Knight figures?) is disqualified from winning. Of players reaching safety, the player with the most Influence is the winner.

  • Thursday, January 05, 2012

    Revisiting the Templar Knights

    A few years ago I had the idea that a euro game about the Knights Templar ought to be doable. I haven't put too much thought into the idea since then, but recently it's popped back up on my radar as something I'd like to think about. Here's the fruit of that thought:

    * I still like the idea of players dealing with a communal coffer
    * I like the idea of players building structures on the board which will give them points and benefits
    * I like the idea of player actions boosting the overall influence of The Order of the Temple, and that eventually triggering the End Game Phase (Friday 13, 1307 - when King Phillip IV issued an arrest order for all members of the Order of the Templar)
    * I like the idea of an End Game Phase where players must flee and make a last ditch effort to score points, potentially losing flat out if they do not make it to safety in time
    * I like the idea that the End Game Phase represents the destruction of buildings players had built, and that buildings closer to the 'epicenter' of destruction are worth more points while buildings further away will last longer (and confer their benefit longer)
    * I like the idea of both militaristic and economic viable strategies
    * And most recently I like the idea of using a Rondel mechanism to drive the game. Specifically, a "Rond-cala" mechanism (combination of Rondel and Mancala) similar to that in Stefan Feld's recent Trajan

    I've mentioned before that upon reading about the Rondcala mechanism in Trajan, my guess was that you would choose an action and it's intensity would be based on the number of bits in that actions bin... then you would Mancala those bits around the Rondel. It turns out I had it backwards - instead you pick a bin and Mancala the bits from it, and you take the action at the end of the line. That's a lot harder to wrap your head around, and I wondered if it wouldn't be worth trying my mistaken guess out as a main mechanism in some game of my own - and now I'm going to give that a try.

    I currently don't have a complete game, rather I have various parts of a game and ideas about how I'd like them to go together. The purpose of this blog post is to help chronicle them and facilitate putting the pieces of this design together to see if I can come up with the game I've got described in my head.

    I suppose I could start with a title... since the game is about the Knights Templar it seems fitting to name the game Knights Templar, Templar Knights, or Order of the Temple. The subtlety of tricky or clever titles such as Friday the 13th or Order 66 would likely be lost on most players, and would cause more harm than good. I am open to suggestions on this, I'm leaning toward those first three - I like Order of the Temple but I also like the word Templar...

    Players will be members of the Order of the Temple, and as such they would have gifted all of their personal wealth to the Order. Therefore players will not have personal holdings. They will act on behalf of the Order, spreading the Order's influence throughout Europe by building infrastructure and fighting in the Crusades. Players WILL however have personal Influence, representing their standing in the Order - the escaping player with the most influence will win the game.

    My version of the Rondcala:
    Actions in the game will include things like...
    * Moving pawns on the board
    * Constructing buildings
    * Mustering troops
    * Crusading (attacking a hostile region on the board)
    * Spreading influence (collecting VP)

    Each player will have a personal Rondel, and each of these actions will have an action space ("bin") on that Rondel. Each bin will begin with some number of bits in it (probably 2). On your turn you choose any action for which there is at least 1 bit in it's bin, resolve that action according to the number of bits in the bin, and then "mancala" those bits around the Rondel - that is to say take all of the bits and distribute them, one at a time, clockwise around the Rondel. In this way, the relative strength of each action will rise and fall over the course of the game. If you want to do a strong action (one with several bits in it), you must first do the actions preceding that one in order to build up enough bits in your chosen action's bin.

    In addition, and I'm not entirely sure this is necessary, I thought it might be interesting to have money in the game. But as above, that money is in a communal coffer and accessible to all players. This means that one player could spend money, and not leave enough money for the next player (which could be good or bad I suppose) - and it also means that there needs to be a way to add money to the coffers. My old thought was that there'd be an action to "collect charity" or something, which would add money to the coffers. My current thought might be a bit better though... Each time a player chooses an action, an amount of Gold is added to the coffers equal to the number of bits in that action's bin. This way, the bigger or more powerful your action is, the more money you make available for your opponents to use. That dynamic sounds interesting to me.

    In order to simplify the discussion, I'm going to define a variable X to be "the number of bits in an action's bin" - so the paragraph above translates to "when taking an action, add X Gold to the coffers."

    Now that I've got a pretty good idea of how the main mechanism in the game might work, I probably ought to consider the rest of the game...

    Actions:
    Here are some of the actions I expect to want to use in the game. This is not necessarily an exhaustive list. It seems like +/- 6 actions seems to work well for a Rondel game.

    * Move: Move your pawn up to X spaces. Or perhaps split X movement points between all of your pawns on the board. I expect that other actions such as Build and Attack will take place where your pawn is, so moving around the board may become important in order to take your other actions.

    * Build: Construct a building of level X or lower. I expect to use a variety of buildings, each conferring a specific benefit, and each coming in different levels (say, 1-4). The higher the level, the stronger the benefit of the building. In order to build a Level 3 building, you would need 3 bits in your Build bin, AND the Level 1 and level 2 buildings of that type must already be on the board. It's possible that the buildings will also cost some amount of Gold, in which case that Gold must be available in the coffer... though with the scheme outlined above you'd be adding Gold to the coffer before building anyway, which should help.

    Possible buildings and what they might do include...
    * Bank: allowing you access to more money in some way
    * Church: helps you score Influence with the Influence action perhaps
    * Castle: helps you with attacking perhaps? Or makes troops stronger (more Knights for example)? Or maybe when you build a Castle, you get a new Knight pawn on the board, making your movement options better/more versatile.
    * Farm: helps muster or maintain troops (you have to feed them)

    * Influence: Collect X influence (plus additional influence from each Church in play?) I like when a game has a 'straight VP' action, usually weaker than other actions, unless you work really hard to make it good. In this case, perhaps by building Churches you can choose this action more often and make out ahead while doing so.

    * Muster: Collect X troops (plus additional troops from each Castle in play? Limited by number of Farms in play?) Troops will be needed to attack regions. I expect there could be Knights, a special kind of troop that is stronger somehow.

    * Crusade: Attack a region with up to X troops, or maybe with strength X (or X per troop). I expect the board will have some spaces (region) that are empty at the beginning of the game, and others that are defended by enemies. Each region should have some number of building spaces (no 2 like buildings in any region), so in order to continue expanding players may have to clear out Enemies via Crusading. This would earn them influence as well as open up new Building spaces.

    Interesting idea: suppose you attack 1 region with this action, and if costs you X troops, meaning for this particular action, you want X to be small, not large. There could be a building that reduces the troop cost to attack (hospital?) In this way, the more often you attack, the less it costs each time - rewarding a warmonger for attacking often.

    * Move: Perhaps another Move bin, since movement may be key to positioning your pawns.

    Influence track and game end timer:
    I envision an Influence track across the top of (or around) the board, which records influence each player brings to the order (which will be their score), as well as the overall influence of the order itself - which I envision to simply be the running total of the player' influence. So whenever a player scores Influence, they adjust both their marker and the Order's marker on the Influence track. When the Order's influence marker reaches a certain point, marked on the board, that will indicate Friday 13, 1307, the time at which King Philip issues the order to arrest all members of the Knights Templar. At this point the Order's marker on the influence track would cease to represent the combined influence of the players, and instead would turn into a countdown timer of sorts. In some way the marker would decrement, and when it reaches certain spaces (marked on the track), buildings in the region(s) indicated by that space would be destroyed. Perhaps as well, Knights in those regions would be captured. Players would need to move their Knights to Portugal, the only European country where the Knights Templar were safe, before they are captured. When all knights are safely in Portugal (or captured), then the game will end. Perhaps there could be more than 1 (I want to say 3) different possible 'epicenters' of this destruction, so you don't know which it'll be, and it could be different from game to game.

    Building tech tree:
    I've got a couple of different ideas about this... it could be the case that there is 1 big set of buildings, with 1 or 2 tiles of each, and when all the Level 1 Farms (for example) are gone, then it'll be a little harder to get a Farm (need to build Level 2)... then the benefits would probably be related to the total number of the appropriate buildings on the board, meaning everybody has the same tech upgrades (though in theory you'll build the buildings that support your strategy more than someone else's).

    Another idea is for each player to have their own supply of building tiles. While this requires more bits, it could be better because (a) players could differentiate their player profiles based on which buildings they build (only 1 building of each type would be allowed per region, and only 1 building per player would be allowed per region as well) - and (b)there could be 2 copies of each, and when built, 1 could go onto the board, and the other could go onto the player's Rondel so it's easy to calculate and not miss the benefit. In this case, for each player it will get harder and harder to specialize in a particular building (each one will be a little harder to build), which is a neat dynamic. On the other hand it would be relatively easy to build several different level 1 and level 2 buildings, giving the player a variety of bonuses, but no action that is super powerful. This scheme sounds best to me at the moment.

    That's about all I have for now. I'm working on some thoughts for the game board. I'm sure I'll keep you posted on any progress this game sees. In the meantime I'd be interested in any comments you may have on it!

    Saturday, December 31, 2011

    EmDo Warmonger Expansion - some thoughts

    I have invited some people to share the DropBox folder with EmDo expansion files, and I hope to see some reports after the new year as to what those people think of the new stuff, especially if they printed it out and played with it. I have played a bit (mostly 2-player) in the last couple of weeks, and as John and I gain familiarity with the cards, we are definitely improving.

    I was worried that the Warmonger stuff - Warfare Technology, benefits of having a dreadnaught, and the necessity to get Destroyers to attack some planets - would overemphasize the Warfare role rather than simply be another option of something to pursue. I tried to balance this out by including planets that cannot be attacked*, and then I went 1 step further and made the effect of those planets be "collect 1 VP when dissenting a Warfare role." So far I don't think it's been a problem, but my latest thought is that I should make Tech cards that also give a VP if you dissent a Warfare role - probably put them on the back of the Warfare Technology tech cards (which allow you to discard fighters as if they were Research symbols).

    The Warfare Technology is currently a level 1 permanent tech in each of the tech stacks (i.e. there are 3 of them), with an interesting new technology on the back. In some games I think it may be too strong to be able to pay an unlimited number of Research costs with Fighters, so I'm considering turning those Warfare Technology techs into Level 2 techs - making them at least a little harder to obtain. Other games though I'm not so sure that's necessary.

    * As an aside, I think I might change that to simply be "requires infinite fighters" - so the card cost can stay consistent (put an infinity sign for the Warfare cost), and those planets can still be attacked if you do the work to get a Dreadnaught (which you can discard in lieu of any number of fighters when attacking a planet).

    Sedjtroll's Gaming Year In Review - 2011

    It's that time of year, and I see a lot of "year in review" and "best of 2011" posts floating around. I've never done that, but I thought I'd take a look at what I've played this year and do some sort of "year in review" post myself...

    Games Played
    According to BoardGameGeek.com stats, I have recorded 436 games played - about 36 games per month on the average, and more than 1 per day! This is actually somewhat low for me in comparison to recent years. Let's take a look at some of the more notable games I was into this year:

    Unpublished Prototype: 88 plays
    This entry is a combination of all the prototypes I played, 34 different games including Tasty Minstrel submissions (some of which are now published, such as Martian Dice, and some are in the process, such as Kings of Air and Steam), my own designs (such as Alter Ego, Exhibit, and Eminent Domain expansions), and other people's games I played at Spielbany, Protospiel, and BGG.con among other places.

    Eminent Domain: 56 plays
    This includes some recent plays of the expansion stuff I've been working on, since then I started recording it in the normal EmDo entry. I'm starting to be more comfortable with the Warmonger expansion stuff. Like the base game though, I suspect it may take players several plays to sort of "get it" - and if they don't persevere they might find the expansion wildly broken.

    As a side note, I've played over 150 games of Eminent Domain over the last 2 years or so, and I'm not sick of it. That makes me happy!

    Hanabi: 29 plays
    Hanabi is by far the most cooperative feeling cooperative game I have ever played. I think it's the crowning acheivement of the genre, at least so far, and I look forward to playing some more. The only down side to Hanabi is "The Great Convention Debate." The people who taught me the game are bridge players, and they had 3 pages of conventions such as "If I tell you you have "Zero 4's" that means your 1st and 3rd cards are playable." If you ask me, that kind of convention is specifically prohibited by the rules! There are more tame conventions though, such as "I keep my oldest cards to the left of my hand, and always place the newest card on the right" - which is a logical convention that sort of evolves naturally... however it leads to other conventions which become borderline cheating - like "When I discard, I always discard the card furthest to the left." Which then begets " "I know if they discard it'll be a safe card, so I won't give that player a clue, I'll look at the next player's hand..." which translates to "They just passed over giving me a clue, therefore my leftmost card is a safe discard..." Just how much of that info transfer is 'legal'? Certainly all of it is more legal than using the bids as code for other pre-agreed upon language.

    Sobek: 21 plays
    I got Sobek as a throw-in on a trade, and I ended up liking i better than the game I had traded for! I especially like Sobek as a 2-player game, and the only thing I wish were different is the "oasis" tiles - I wish you could hold onto them and use them later, so that they are always a reward rather than occasionally a penalty (you play a set to avoid drafting a card, but if all that's left is Oasis tiles, you'll still have to draft a card).

    Kings of Air and Steam: 17 plays
    I have been working on Kings of Air and Steam for Tasty Minstrel Games since February, and I really enjoy it. In the last weeks I've gotten a number of plays (mostly 2 player) in to fine tune the character abilities. After the successful Kickstarter campaign, this game's production is in full swing, Josh is hard at work on the visuals, and I look forward to an awesome looking game next summer.

    Glen More: 15 plays
    Glen More is a fantastic little game that I'm very glad I was able to trade for. The guy I got it from even pimped it out with fancy aftermarket bits! Though I would be just as happy to play with the standard bits. The market mechanism in Glen More is inspired, and the game offers several viable paths to victory. I am always a little disappointed that the special tiles overlap so much, but that doesn't keep the game from being really cool :)

    7 Wonders: 11 plays
    7 Wonders won all kinds of awards including the big one (Kennerspiel des Jahres), and it's a very popular and well liked game. I am not as enamored with the game as all that. It's a solid little card drafting game, but I think people are more excited that it plays 7 players and has a short play time than they are excited whether or not it's any good. It IS good, but I don't know if it's as good as it's cracked up to be.

    Kingdom Builder: 6 plays
    Kingdom Builder is the new hotness from the creator of Dominion. I can see a lot of Donald X's style in the variable scoring conditions and power tiles, and the game is an OK diversion, but I don't see it as being really skill based enough to really satisfy me. I'd much rather play Glory to Rome or EmDo, each of which is about the same scope/timeframe (though to be fair, they're both heavier and more complicated, so they only count as the same scope if you have experienced players).

    Navegador: 5 plays
    I first played this game at BGG.con last year, and played it 5 times in 2011. It's definitely my favorite Mac Gerdts game to date! I hope to play this one a few more times before I forget about it.

    Pantheon: 4 plays
    I played Pantheon at BGG.con this year, and really enjoyed it.

    Grave Business: 3 plays
    Grave Business is by a friend of mine, and if it weren't for that I might never have played it - a Zombie theme and blind bidding are both things that generally turn me off in games. but Andy's games are always well thought out, so I thought I'd see how his first published title played. I was surprised at how much I liked it! It's a solid, well thought out game, and one I've played a couple of times this year - more than I can say about any other game with a Zombie theme!

    Quarriors!: 3 plays
    Quarrior's is a standout game in that it was very popular, riding on the recent popularity of the deck building genre as well as the recent popularity of dice games - and almost nothing else. All 3 of these recorded plays were a result of me waling up when people were already explaining the rules and it was either play or watch (in some cases it seems like those are the same thing). I will note that the designer/publisher recently posted official variant rules which apparently they playtested for a year and made for what *I* would consider a better game - though maybe not "better" for their target market... I haven't tried the game with those variant rules, but I highly suspect they're an improvement.

    Shipyard: 3 plays
    I first played Shipyard at BGG.con 2009, and soon after that I bought a copy (buying games is actually quite rare for me). I have not played it nearly as much as I'd have liked, but finally I've picked it back up and gotten it back to the table a couple of times, and that reminds me why I like it so much! It has a lot of fiddly bits, but all of it goes together prefectly - nothing is extraneous. There are various approaches to get things done, and I like the various Rondels which govern most of the actions in the game.

    Shipyard is really a standout game and I look forward to playing it again. Rumors that the end-game bonus cards are not properly balanced have been greatly exaggerated - those people just like to compare apples to oranges.

    The Castles of Burgundy: 1 plays
    I played The Castles of burgundy at KublaCon last May, and I really enjoyed it. I have not had the opportunity to play it again, but I thought it deserved mention as a standout game of 2011. Stefan Feld had an outstanding year, and while it was his other games that got all of the attention, I think this one might be one of his actual best.

    The Manhattan Project: 1 plays
    I saw some posts about The Manhattan Project before it was picked up to be published, and it sounded very interesting. I was kind of hoping to get my hands on it for possible Tasty Minstrel release, but James grabbed it up at Protospiel. And I'm glad he did, I got a chance to play it at BGG.con and it's every bit as cool as I thought it would be! This might be a game I purchase, which (again) is rare for me - though it's sort of contingent on my play group wanting to play it... I hope they do!

    Trajan: 1 plays
    I got a chance to play Trajan at BGG.con, and it's every bit as interesting as I thought it would be, though perhaps not as good as I hoped it would be. Managing the colors on the Rondel sort of obfuscates the playing of the game, which is a little annoying - if I didn't think the Trajan tiles were such a big deal I could more easily ignore it. I'd like to play again, but if that part doesn't get more pleasant with experience then I'm afraid I won't want to play it too much. Shame, because I really like how the rest of the game fits together - many different approaches, and they overlap so you may be in contest with someone for an action even though you're both pursuing different strategies!

    Walnut Grove: 1 plays
    I hadn't heard anything about this one until Snowden brought it to game night, and he described it as a light sort of Agricola. After playing the game I rather enjoyed it and would like to play again, albeit with one small variant rule.

    Friday, December 16, 2011

    Kings of Air and Steam - Kickstarted!


    It's official, with 626 backers (representing almost 1000 copies of the game) and $41,722 in pledges, the Kings of Air and Steam Kickstarter project has funded! That was sort of a foregone conclusion, as it reached the initial funding level within a week... the bigger question is which Ovrefunding goals were reached? Answer: at $40k+, every copy of Kings of Air and Steam will have custom molded airships that look something like this:
    They'll also have a 7th team (2 additional characters) which were not originally going to be in the game. I'm really looking forward to playing this game with the final art and components!

    In true Tasty Minstrel fashion, Michael tried some new and innovative things with this project. Taking some of my advice, instead of offering exclusive game content or upgrading only Kickstarter copies with stretch goals, he used stretch goals to improve the production quality for the entire print run. I've posted before why I think this is the way to go - the long and short of it is that while these 626 kickstarters did support the game, the thousands of people who buy up the remainder of the print run, and any future print runs going forward, are supporters as well.

    Aside: Certainly people need some incentive to pre-order on Kickstarter, committing money well in advance of the release date, and taking the chance that they might not even like the game without having had a chance to play it. I don't disagree with this at all. However, as indicated in the post I linked above, I am a fervent supporter of those incentives NOT being Exclusive Game Content. Exclusive bling is better, depending on what it is. I believe that some types of bling should be just put into the full print run of the game. Other types of bling such as an alternate cover, or fancier dice (provided the standard dice are nice enough) is more acceptable as a physical exclusive for KS supporters.

    This choice to not offer exclusive benefits for supporters faced some resistance online, with a common sentiment seeming to be that "supporters need/want/deserve exclusive content!" I have been surprised at the number of those types of posts, and the relative lack of more rational "if the incentive isn't good enough, people will not support the project" posts. In any case, I was curious to see how well this project would do, given the distinct lack of exclusives and trinkets...

    In the end Kings of Air and Steam garnered over $40,000 in support. Not quite as much as Eminent Domain, but close. EmDo had some advantages over KoA&S with respect to funding viability - it was a more accessible theme, a lower price point, and a hot mechanism. However, KoA&S had some advantages over EmDo as well - Kickstarter is more well known now, more people are using it to fund board games, and therefore more board game players are aware of and are looking for it. Also, with the success of EmDo, TMG had a stronger brand and more fans going into this project.

    That KoA&S could garner as much support as it did is strong evidence that exclusive items (and especially exclusive game content) are not, strictly speaking, necessary. This is a huge relief, and I think it bodes very well for the longevity of KS as a board game funding platform.

    Could the project have raised more funds if it had included other rewards? I'm sure it could have, and I'm certain that the next TMG kickstarter project will build on the success of the first two projects and find some creative ways to encourage support. I'm personally happy that the results of this project show how overfund goals can apply to the entire print run!

    Tasty Minstrel is now 2-for-2 with Kickstarter projects in the Top 10 Funded Board Game Kickstarter projects! I won't say it was all because of the genius of the reward structure - I think the success of KoA&S was based largely on the TMG fan base, brand, and track record for publishing outstanding games. Many thanks tot he TMG fans who helped push Kings of Air and Steam into the Top 10!

    Another new and innovative thing TMG is trying out is a new distribution model for this game. KoA&S will be part of the Game Salute Select Exclusive program, meaning that these games will only be available though brick and mortar stores who sign up for the program, or online directly from the publisher through Game Salute's or the publisher's websites. As a result of this program, the retail price of the game can be reduced from $60 to $50 (%16 discount across the board), but it will not be available for the usual 30%+ discount ($40) that online retailers would normally sell it for. Nobody has seen this program in action yet, and I'm sure it'll have advantages and drawbacks compared to traditional distribution... we'll have to wait and see how it turns out. I believe the reasoning behind the whole program is noble, and a number of other publishers are on board with it as well, you can see a list of Game Select Exclusive games on Game Salute's website.

    Thursday, December 15, 2011

    Characters and player pieces in games

    If you're playing a game with player pieces on the board, and variable player characters such as Pandemic has:

    How important is it that the character pawn color is tied to the character card color?

    Case 1:
    A player likes to play Green. When playing Pandemic, he either cannot play green (unless dealt the Operations Expert), or else he always chooses Green and therefore always plays the Operations Expert.

    Case 2:
    A player likes to play Green. When playing Pandemic, he uses the green pawn no matter which role he is dealt. Therefore in one game the Green pawn can represent the Operations Expert, while in another game it could represent the Medic.

    I can see benefits and drawbacks to each of these cases. As a game player, which case do you think is better? Leave a comment and let me know!

    Benefits of Case 1:
    * It's always clear by looking at the board which character ability is associated with which pawn, no referencing must be done to figure out whether that Green Pawn is really the Medic (and can therefore more easily treat diseases near him), or the Operations Expert (and can't).
    * Potentially more thematic - always being Green gives both the green pawn and the Operations Expert role some identity.

    Drawbacks of Case 1:
    * Players may not get to play the color they want, or if they insist on it, they will play the same character every game.
    * More pawns are required - 1 per character rather than 1 per player. Additional pawns are required for each expansion that adds additional Roles.

    Benefits of Case 2:
    * Players can always play the color they want
    * Only 1 pawn required per player not 1 per character.

    Drawbacks of Case 2:
    * Loss of identity as described above.
    * Potential confusion or annoyance when players must do multiple cross references to determine which piece on the board belongs to which player and therefore which abilities that pawn may be capable of. This could be amplified if, unlike Pandemic, the game is competitive rather than cooperative.

    Wednesday, December 14, 2011

    EmDo Expansion Print and Play

    I've updated my current prototype files for the latest EmDo expansions (under construction!) and placed them in a DropBox folder. If you read this blog, then you probably have an idea what's in there.

    If you are interested in printing the expansion stuff and trying it out, please send me your email address and I'll invite you to share the folder.

    Please note that at this time I'm not intending to preview this as if it were a final product, rather I'm interested in getting opinions on the content so far so I can determine what should be in the expansion, what should be left out, and what tweaks should be made to the content I have so far.

    I've got 2 Expansions in there - the Exotic Expansion (which I've posted about a long time ago), and the newer Warmonger Expansion. There's also prototype files for the base game in there.

    I reformatted the prototype planets to look more like the published version.

    Thanks!