TMG is rocking and rolling this year

I got word that inside the latest issue of Buyer's Guide/GAMES 100, Belfort, Village, and Martian Dice have been listed among their picks for the best games of the year!

In addition, Tasty Minstrel Games has some games nominated for Golden Geek awards over at BGG:
* For The Win is up for Abstract Game
* Belfort is up for Art/Presentation and Strategy game
* Eminent Domain is up for Card Game
* Martian Dice is up for Children's Game and Party Game
* Village is up for Family Game, Strategy Game, and Innovative Game
* Train of Thought is up for Party Game

Way to go TMG! Take a look and cast your votes!

"Templar"

I've mentioned my Rond-cala game about the Knights Templar a bit recently. Playing Trajan again just made me want to work on this game. So I pored over my most recent posts and rules for the game, brought it to our monthly Gamesmiths meeting, and have been giving it a lot of thought. Here are some of the questions that have come up and decisions that I've made about the game:

• Title: I'm now leaning toward the simple title Templar. Order of the Temple, Knights Templar, and Templar Knights are decent titles, but the word Templar is almost iconic and relatively unique, so maybe cutting the chaff and just using that word alone is the way to go.
• A communal coffer containing funds for players to use will be problematic. When players are not spending their own resources, there's no reason to budget - and when spending resources leaves less for the next guy that becomes an even bigger concern! Therefore I am considering 2 options:
  Option 1) Remove currency from the game. This makes things simpler, you just do the action according to how many tokens are in the action bin, period. No need to manage another resource.
  Option 2) Have an "infinitely large" communal coffer, and whenever you spend you actually take the money out of the coffer and keep it. This record of how much of the Order's money you have spent could be referenced at game end, and there could be penalties for players who spent the most/2nd most, etc. This may encourage budgeting, even in light of player "not having personal holdings." Then again, at some point why not just have personal holdings after all?
• Along the lines of simplifying things, I am reconsidering how Troops ought to work. Currently they are a currency in the game - you use the Muster action to collect Troops, and the Crusade action to spend Troops to "buy" enemy tokens (and the VP they provide). On top of spending that currency, there must be enough tokens in the Crusade bin to defeat the enemies. That seems cumbersome and redundant. The strength of the action is supposed to be based on the number of tokens in that action's bin. Perhaps Troops should add to that in the way Buildings add to other actions. Thus, Troops act the same way Buildings do, but you get them with a different action. The rules I'm considering now is this:
  CRUSADE: The crusade action allows you to fight Enemies, scoring influence and clearing regions to make space for more buildings.
  1. Choose 1 region containing one of your (any player's?) Knight figures and an Enemy token.
  2. Determine the Enemy Strength by checking the Enemy Strength track for the appropriate enemy type.
  3. Each Troop token adds 1 to the number of action tokens in the Crusade bin. If the Enemy Strength is less than or equal to the number of action tokens in the Crusade bin, you have won the Crusade. Otherwise you have not.
  4. When you win a Crusade, collect Influence tokens equal to the Enemy Strength and move the Enemy token to the appropriate Enemy Strength track. When you lose a Crusade, do nothing.
  
  MUSTER: The muster action allows you to muster troops to take crusading with your knights.Each Farm you have erected adds 1 to the number of action tokens in the Muster bin. Collect the next Troop token from your supply - its level must be less than or equal to the number of action tokens in the Muster bin. Your board has 3 spaces to hold Troops. Each Farm you have erected confers an additional space to hold a Troop token.
• That said, the building wording would need to be adjusted for Banks - they should add 1 to the number of action tokens in the Build bin. For that to work, the Buildings would have to "cost" something like 3/5/7/9 rather than 1/2/3/4. Similarly, each player would have a supply of 7 Troop tokens with levels something like 3/4/5/6/7/8/9.
• I like the idea of the End Game Phase, where destruction radiates from Paris and Knights flee to safe havens. I like it thematically, and mechanically I like how buildings can score that way, making building score values sort of interesting and variable from game to game. Other than that mechanism, I don't currently have a reason to build a particular building in one location over another, or a reason to build one building over another in a particular location. However, I'm not sure I like having to change the rules for the last 20% or so of the game. Perhaps better is to simply end the game when the Influence pool runs out. This was suggested at Gamesmiths, and in some ways I like the idea while in other ways I don't. Historically, the arrest order for the Knights Templar was given in 1307, but the Knights weren't gone until 1312, so there were a few years there where things kept going. Maybe it would be OK to keep the End Game Phase, but NOT change the rules? Let people build and Crusade as normal. Maybe offer a bonus for each Knight that's in a Safe Haven at game end (or a penalty for each Knight on the board that isn't).
• There were some additional comments at Gamesmiths about making the Rondel do more stuff, like a benefit for having the most action tokens in a particular bin - maybe to encourage saving them up in different bins? This may add a layer of player interaction, which could be a welcome thing, but at the same time it adds a whole layer of complexity that I'm not sure I want. I think I prefer a simple, straightforward implementation of the Rond-cala, at least for now.
• One more comment that came up at Gamesmiths was about the Crusade action. Matt wanted to see more focus on the Crusades - specifically on an individual Crusade. I think it was a difference in scope - I am looking at the whole thing from a more 'zoomed out' perspective, where the crusades moving across the land are represented by you moving your Knight from region to region, and the culmination of the Crusade is the Crusade action where you defeat an Enemy. I think Matt wanted to zoom in more and watch a Crusade actually move across the board.

Super busy + not feeling well = unfortunate combination!

When I started this blog post on Monday I was feeling feverish - my fingers were numb and I was shivering despite it being almost 80 degrees in here. I spent about 4 hours feeling this way, but then made a more-or-less miraculous recovery! I'm so relieved I didn't get sick (or, that I got better right away)!

We're inside 2 weeks from RinCon! That's both very exciting, and very hectic. I feel like there's so much to do, and everything feels like it's behind schedule - but at the same time I feel like it will all get done, and the convention will be awesome! I'm learning a lot about what I'll want to do differently for next year - making plans for that already.

In addition to RinCon planning, I've been finalizing the rules for my Eminent Domain expansion: Escalation as the illustrations for tech cards roll in. I believe we're down to the last two! [EDIT: We've got them all now!] Then the whole shebang gets sent to the excellent Graphic Designer Gavan Brown who worked wonders with the base game. I haven't heard if the cover will be done by him again, or if we're going to get an illustration done this time.

On top of that, the final pages of the Kings of Air and Steam rulebook have been popping up like wildflowers, and approvals have been fast and furious. As usual Josh has really hit this one out of the park... again! Perhaps Kickstarters will get a peek at a rules spread in an upcoming update. The rest of the graphics look as good if not better than the rulebook - with my favorite being one of the player board images - but I'll keep that to myself for now - you can place your wagers when they become public as to which one is my favorite (hint: they're all fantastic, but there are 2 I like best, the "favorite" wins by a nose, so to speak).


In case you haven't heard, the big news is that Michael and I are headed to Essen next month! TMG will not have a booth, but you can find TMG titles Ground Floor, Belfort, Eminent Domain, and Martian Dice at booth 4-230 (LocWorks). I will be in the LocWorks booth signing copies of Eminent Domain for a couple of hours each day, so if you are at the show (especially if I have any European readers who I may not otherwise meet in person), please come on by and say hello! It would make my day to hear that my humble blog is being read on the far side of the world :) I'll try to post more information (such as, I don't know, some kind of schedule maybe?) as it comes to light.

In actual gaming news, I finally got a chance to play the copy of Trajan that I picked up at GenCon. I think I like the game, but I do find something about the Rondel mechanism to be overwrought... I think I might like it better for example if instead of 6 colors, the action tokens were monochrome, and instead of a particular combination of colors, the Trajan tiles simply had a number on them, and you scored them by landing in that action bin and having exactly that number of tokens. Trying to plan ahead which color you'll want where is largely impossible, and introduces my least favorite dynamic to the game - analysis paralysis due to simply not knowing which of 2 choices could possibly be better (and trying to find some reason to pick one over the other).

Playing Trajan mostly made me want to revisit my own game idea using a "Rond-cala" mechanism... For those just tuning in (and for those who read my blog all the time, since it's been a while since I talked about this), here's how my idea came about:

When I first read some teaser information about Trajan, I only heard that it used the Mancala mechanism to distribute markers around a Rondel. I thought that idea was brilliant, and made some assumptions on how that must work. My guess was that on your turn you would choose an action to do, resolve that action based on the number of action tokens in that space on the Rondel, then distribute those tokens around the Rondel a-la Mancala. This sounded fantastic, as each action would sort of grow in power until you take it, then it would revert back to zero, and you'd have to build it back up again or settle for it being weaker the next time you take it. I was really excited about this idea, and waited with baited breath for Trajan to come out... only to find that I'd guessed wrong! Trajan did not work the way I thought it might, instead that game has you choose a bin, distribute the tokens around the Rondel, and then perform the action associated with the last bin you land on.

Trajan's mechanism is also interesting, but as I mentioned above, I find it annoyingly difficult to plan ahead, and a small mistake seems to not just set you back, but force you to drop all of your plans and start again (because all the bins have the wrong number of tokens now, meaning all of your available actions are different than you may have expected). I think my guess would make for an entirely different mechanical experience, one well worth pursuing. Playing Trajan has encouraged me to start thinking about this again, and so I brought my 1/2 prototype (more like 80%) to Monday's Gamesmiths meeting where I described it to a few people and got some feedback from them. One of these days I'd like to actually play the game and see what needs fixing! My next blog post will likely be new and ongoing thoughts about that game (the title of which I'm now leaning towards Templar).

Recent Developments

Gen Con was a lot of fun. We didn't have to spend a lot of time in the booth, so we got a lot more opportunity to meet people, play games, and review submissions. We played 3 or 4 prototypes, accepting 2 of them to take home with us.

I met a number of people at Gen Con, some of whom I'd met before, some of whom I see on Twitter, and some brand new faces.

While at the con I managed to play Hanabi for 12 hours straight. An epic session culminating in a very satisfying perfect score! It's fascinating to watch people play Hanabi together over time, and watch how they shift their thinking and behavior to be on the same page. We found that even with the same 4 players, our score would drop when we mixed up turn order.

Speaking of Hanabi, I spent last weekend at Strategicon in Los Angeles where the Guest of Honor was Antoine Bauza - designer of a number of popular games including Ghost Stories, the award winning 7 Wonders, and Hanabi. I played prototypes of Antoine's upcoming Tokaido, Sinbad, and the 7 Wonders expansion: Armada. I liked all three of those. I chatted with Antoine quite a bit over the weekend as well, even introduced him to Mountain Dew (he'd never heard of that particular soda) - though I don't know how he liked it. Antoine was nice enough to play one of my own prototypes as well: Exhibit. He had some interesting comments for me, which I will be taking into account.

At Strategicon I also ran several events or tournaments for Village, Belfort, and Eminent Domain. My friend Brian happened to win the sponsored Village tournament on Monday, so he got a copy of the game :) Other games I played at Strategicon include Seasons, which was the sleeper hit of Gen Con (and seemed very popular in L.A.as well), Off Your Rocker, and Dixit Jinx. Seasons and Dixit Jinx, along with Tokaido, were taught to me by Stefan Brunelle of Asmodee, who turned out to be a fun guy as well.

P.S. Stefan: I think you got a rule wrong in Seasons! That emergency action where you discard 2 resources to get 2 other ones - the rulebook says they don't have to match. Not a big deal, but thought you might like to know!

I had brought with me an advance copy of Noblemen, a co-production between Pegasus Spiel and TMG. I didn't really have time to play it, so I set the game up on a table and made a "Try Me" sign... I left it set up all weekend, and it got played at least 5 times, with at least 15 different people! I didn't talk to all of them, but I know for a fact that Brian Poe and Eric Elder liked the game :) I'm really excited for Noblemen to come out because I remember its development 4 years ago, before it won Hippodice. I even wrote some blog posts about it back then.

I've also been playing a homemade copy of Il Vecchio, by Hall games, which I believe TMG will be doing in English as well. It's by Rudiger Dorn, and I'm excited to have a big name designer such as Dorn in the TMG line. Yesterday we played Rialto, by Stefan Feld, which I believe TMG is going in on with Pegasus as well. That's another name I'm proud to see in the TMG lineup. At Gen Con I picked up Feld's Trajan, which I played at BGG.con last year, but sadly I have not had a chance to play it yet.

Finally, the big news is that I'm making arrangements to go to Essen this year! I've been interested in Essen for some time now, but it's so expensive (and so long) that I haven't really seriously looked into going. Well, this year I am taking the plunge! My plan is to scope it out so that hopefully next year TMG can have a booth there and I'll have an idea of what's going on. I'll post more details as I have them, but I have secured a place to stay, and now I just need to buy a plane ticket!

Gen Con bound

In about 5 4 hours Mike and I head up to Phoenix to fly out to Indiana for Gen Con! Last year was an interesting experience... this year we will be camped out in the Game Salute booth along with a few other small publishers. As far as I can tell we'll be spending the week demoing and selling Village, Belfort, and Eminent Domain. I've also done something I've been meaning to do for several years - I've had play mats made!

I got a phone call this morning from Larry Fettinger, who we're staying with in Indiana, letting me know that the mats arrived safe and sound. he opened them up to take a look, and he tells me the quality is phenomenal. I'm excited to see them and play on them tomorrow!

I'll be bringing the following stuff to gen Con with me...

• Eminent Domain: Escalation prototypes (x2)
• Captains of Industry prototype
• Ground Floor prototype
• Kings of Air and Steam prototype
• Exhibit Prototype

After all that I ran out of space in my bag!

I'm also bringing some flyers and Exhibitor Info packets for RinCon to see if I can drum up some business for that. I don't think I've posted the flyer I'd made here, so behold:

Swing by booth 1033 to check out (maybe purchase!) Village, or the EmDo playmats, or whatever other TMG stuff we have. After vendor hours I'll be happy to demo any of the prototypes I am bringing as well!

Eminent Domain Play Mats

I've always wanted to do this, and now I'm excited to say that it's finally happening... I'm getting play mats made for my card game Eminent Domain! Just like everything I do - this is kind of last minute for Gen Con coming up next week, so for the moment we only have two designs. I would like to follow this up by getting more designs made, incorporating more different tech cards. I personally would like to see Improved Warfare, Exclusive Victory, Improved Colonize, and some of the images for the upcoming Escalation expansion (images you haven't seen yet).

Here are the first two...

Eminent Domain

 Terraforming

I think they're pretty darn cool, and I look forward to playing on them next week at Gen Con! click over to boardgamgeek.com (or leave a comment here) with your nomination for which tech card art you'd want to get on a play mat!

Storytelling game thoughts - Fiasco, Lady Blackbird

I mentioned recently that I had played Fiasco, and since then I've given it a bit more thought - and I watched the two-part Table Top episode featuring the game (and the Setup clip as well, which is useful if you want to play the game).

After the conversations started by my last foray into storytelling (in the blog comments, on Twitter, and in person) I think I gained a bit more insight into how these games are intended to work. Of course, like with any type of game I always think that some variant version would better suit my personal liking - and so in my last post on the subject I outlined some thoughts on a game similar to Fiasco that I might like to try. Well, I haven't done that yet (I still intend to sometime), but I have observed another indie STG which I think has the potential to work really well. It's called Lady Blackbird.

Lady Blackbird isn't so much a system as a single "adventure" or "module" (I don't know the terminology, if any exists) intended to be played over 1-3 sessions. It has pre-made characters (though you could make your own), and a very specific starting scenario, but I suspect it has at least some replay value, as the story could play out differently each time along the lines of Groundhog Day or episodes of Daybreak.

The system it uses appears to me to be a good one for promoting storytelling on the part of the players. Each character has a set of traits, and each trait has a set of tags. When you are faced with an obstacle or challenge, you apply 1 trait and roll dice based on the number of tags that apply. You may add some dice from your personal supply if you wish. The difficulty of the challenge indicates how many successes are required (4+ on a d6). In general, the action described will succeed, but the situation may escalate due to a failed die roll. Or else the action will fail, the situation will escalate in some way, and then you may try again. Mechanically, if you succeed, you lose any personal dice spent on the roll, but if you fail, then you keep your dice and in fact earn 1 more from the supply. If you wish to recharge your personal supply (which is only 7 dice), then you are supposed to do a "refresh scene" - which sounds like it's supposed to be a sort of dialogue with other characters which gets some character development going without advancing the plot. In other words, if a player is telling a portion of story, they are encouraged to play "in character" - because if they do things that are out of character then they will not have as many dice to roll when they are called upon to roll dice. I like that the system seems to reward that, rather than a Game Master having to assign rewards or penalties for playing in character.

I got the impression from reading the 'rules' stuff that it was intended to go something like this: a player (or players) gives a detailed narrative of what they want to do, then the GM tells them if and how many dice to roll and what the outcome is. By way of example...

Blackbird: "I'll make a raucous to lure the guards into the room, and once they are beyond the 1st cell we'll cut off their escape and overpower them!"

GM: "OK, you start to make a raucous. That's a Cunning plan, using Deception and Misdirection, so roll 4 dice. It'll be easy to get the guards into the room, but to lure them to your cell is more tricky - they may see through your ruse. Difficulty 4."

Kale: "I'll chime in to, to help sell that there's a hull breach. Here's one of my pool dice."

Snargle: "Me too - here's one of my pool dice"

Cyrus: "I'll stand at the cell door (which has been unlocked by Kale already), waiting to spring on the guards.

Blackbird: "Ok, I'll add 3 of my own pool dice as well, so we have better than even odds of this working. [Rolls 9 dice, looking for 4 successes, gets 3]

GM: "The ruse works like a charm! Well, almost. The door opens and 2 Guards file into the cell room. A 3rd guard scurries off down the hall, probably to get help of some kind." (the situation escalates)

Cyrus: "Concerned there may be a hole in the hull, the guards approach the far cell to take a look. As soon as the 2nd one is even with my door, I fling it open - knocking him into the opposite wall - and leap out of the cell to cut off the 1st guard's escape!

Naomi: "...and I swing open the door to our cell and jump out to surround him! The guard raises his nightstick, but as the two of us close in he thinks better of it. Dropping the stick to the floor the guard gives up!"

GM: "Ok, sounds like a good plan. And pretty easy, since they've already fallen for the ruse... difficulty 2. Vance's Warrior trait applies, but none of the tags really do - that's just 2 dice, and Naomi can give one of her personal dice for helping."

Cyrus: "I'll add 2 dice from my pool [rolls 5 dice]..."

Etc. That's how it sounds to me like it's supposed to go, but while watching a session the other day, what I observed was that players mostly looked at their stats and tried to roll dice to allow them to do various things. Players constantly asked the GM about details such as how exactly the door opened, in an effort to try to formulate some plan based on the details of the environment. I'd kinda like to see that game played by various groups and see how it pans out. I think it would be cooler if the players asked fewer questions and took the responsibility of inventing the details themselves - I think that's the way it's supposed to go.

My guess is that more typical GM'ed RPGs (such as Dungeons and Dragons) have conditioned players into a pattern where the GM invents the world, and the players simply interact with it. These Storytelling games, Lady Blackbird anyway, seem to be the opposite. I think that's neat for a collaborative storytelling exercise (I'm not so sure they should be called "games")!

TMG updates, recent gaming, and Protospiel

It's been a little while since I posted any sort of update, so here're a few things that have been going on...

TMG Updates

* The Ground Floor kickstarter project went well, raising over $116,000! Skyline and Ground Floor are at the manufacturer, and production is underway.

* Michael mentioned in his last update that Kings of Air and Steam has suffered from some art delays, but the art updates we've received have looked great!

* People have received their Kickstarter copies of For The Win, and it seems very well received thus far.

Recent Gaming

* Lords of Waterdeep has been getting a lot of play lately, and I got a copy for Jeremy and Amelia for putting me up while I was in Seattle. I continue to be very happy with it. We've been playing without the Mandatory Quests and without the Lord who rewards buildings. However, after several games with my Seattle friends in which we added that building Lord back in, I am not so sure we need to leave it out anymore. I don't see us playing with the Mandatory Quests though.

* Castles of Burgundy is my most recent game acquisition, and I've played it a handful of times.  I like it, but it does tend to take a really long time.

* Ascension was never my favorite game by any stretch, but after several hours alone with the iPad app, I've definitely grown to appreciate it more.

Protospiel

Last weekend I attended Protospiel for the second time. It turned out to be really productive for me, and a fun time overall. Here are some games I played by other designers:
* A prototype in early stages by Kevin Nunn which he asked us not to discuss. Later in the weekend I didn't play but got a peek at another of Nunn's games which looked more interesting to me. I gave some comments for both which seemed promising, I hope they pan out for Kevin.

* A dice game by Andrew Juell which was pretty cool. It didn't really have a theme, but it reminded me of Dice Works a little bit.

* Pushka by Peter Dast is an abstract game which I thought looked pretty cool. You have different types of units, and you use cards to move them across the board, pushing or trapping opponents' pieces. Score by trapping pieces or getting your own pieces across the board. Later in the con we tried a modification to make it more like a weird game of football, which is a theme that seemed to fit the mechanics.

* I saw a low-bid auction game called Skyline (which the designer said he needed to re-name now that TMG's Skyline is coming out. I didn't play this, or even see it played, but that didn't stop me from talking about it for about an hour with the designer and making comments!

* Gladiators by Sam Liberty and Kevin Spak (Spoiled Flush Games) is a game which will be coming out from Rio Grande since it won the RGG game design contest. Something of a deck building arena game based somewhat on Texas Hold'em.

* Grave Robbers Dilemma is another game by Sam and Kevin. this one is all about double think and simultaneous action. It's very quick, and I ended up liking it a lot better than I thought I would.

* Avast is a pirate themed deck building game that I got the rules for at GenCon last year, and now I've played a few rounds with the designer. I think it's a bit too involved and fiddly as-is, but it had one aspect that I really thought was interesting - the idea that you actually bury treasure. In the airport on the way home I started to come up with one of my typical "this is how I might pursue that idea" things, and I've got my own thoughts about a pirate themed deck builder in which you bury treasure in order to thin your deck and score points. My version is more along the lines of Ascension in complexity, but of course that would be too simple for me, so there's a bit more to it than that.

* A Game of Cat and Mouse by Al Leduc is another simultaneous action double think game where you send your cat to collect mice.

* Beware the Dragon is a set collection game which is sort of like a trick taking game. Each round the 'leader' plays a card face up, then all other players play one face down as an offer. Once revealed, the leader may choose one of the offers to exchange with, or else keep his own card. This reminded me of the main mechanism in Oasis.

And I managed to get a fair number of games I'm working on to the table as well:
* Captains of Industry is a 2013 release from Tasty Minstrel Games formerly known as Titans of Industry, until a few months ago when a Kickstarter project popped up for a different game with that title. I had played that game last year at Protospiel, when it was called Industrialist... At first we were bummed that we had to change the title, but there are some advantages to Captains of Industry, which is what we've decided to go with. I sat out and watched a 4 player game of CoI with Al Leduc, Dave Whitcher, Peter Dast, and Steven Dast. The game (not including rules) took 2:15, which isn't too bad, especially for a con environment (I find that environment adds 10-20% to the game length). The game went well, and the players seemed to enjoy it. We played with a slight modification to the round end dynamic that I've been meaning to try, and I think it worked well. I got some good comments on a few details such as terminology, but the main feedback I got here was on the Captain cards - like Railroad Tycoon's Tycoon cards, the Captain cards confer end-game bonuses based on what you've done in the game. Those and the Advances are what I am really concentrating on at this point in development - the main rules and dynamics of the game are pretty much final.

* I have trouble testing the Escalation, the expansion to Eminent Domain, because in order to do so I really need people who already know the base game. Last year I tried testing Exotic, but I first had to teach the base game by itself, and one player asked why we were playing a published game at Protospiel... This year I was able to put together 3 players who had at least played EmDo before, though 2 of them were only barely familiar with it, while the third was a bit more familiar, but none were really all that experienced with the game. But it was enough that they knew the rules! I sat out while they played a 3 player game with the expansion. I think it went pretty well - in fact it was kind of a lousy playtest, since there wasn't really much in the way of feedback. Gil mentioned that he felt like there wasn't enough to do with Destroyers, and that might be a missed opportunity. Gil did end the game with a few leftover Destroyers he couldn't use, but he also passed up on the opportunity to take some planets to spend them on and stuff like that. It brought up a good question though - should a player be allowed to spend a Destroyer as if it were a fighter? It's a bad deal, and since a Destroyer is harder to get (and therefore "better"), one might expect it can do anything a Fighter can do and more... I am considering allowing that, as I think it won't matter very often, and when it does matter, it'll only disappoint people if they cannot spend their Destroyers like Fighters. I haven't made a final decision on that yet.

* Alter Ego is a game I've been stuck on for a while now. I love the theme and basic idea of the game, but I haven't been happy with the design. I was ecstatic to get not 1, but 2 different groups to play it this year at Protospiel! First, I got a 3 player game going, during which I realized that I had forgotten to remove a number of (about 1/2 of) the Henchmen cards. We cut that game short and talked about it a bit, then we tried again, incorporating some of the comments (and I removed those cards). Unfortunately, the cards I removed (because they were unaligned with the Arch Villains) happened to also be the cheaper Henchmen, AND one of the suggestions was that the display size might be too big - so this resulted in a game where players could only play 4 cards at a time, and the Henchmen mostly cost 5 Fight symbols. In theory this is not impossible, as players can use Teamwork tokens and trophies, but getting there was tougher than it's supposed to be and the game didn't go exactly right.

As that game was wrapping up. 4 other people walked up and inquired about the game, so when the first 3 had to leave, the next 4 sat down and we started again! More great comments and suggestions this time. All in all I probably had about 4 hours of Alter Ego on the table. Very useful!

* I played Exhibit with Sam Liberty and Kevin Spak (Spoiled Flush Games), to test the finishing touches I'd put on that game. Everything worked really well except for one thing, and I'm not sure if that was an anomaly or not, so I'll have to play it again with that rule (lopping off a round by starting the game with 2 tiles in each auction).

* All For One: My biggest disappointment so far in my short game design career is that the first game I worked on that was any good, All For One, never went anywhere. For years it was very well received at conventions by just about everyone who played it, but now it feels sort of, I don't know... old fashioned or something. I have been wanting to revive it though, so I brought it with me to Protospiel. Fortunately I was able to get it to the table late Sunday. There were 5 people interested in playing it, and I'd forgotten that 5 is not the best number for new players because the level of chaos is higher - so we played a 5 player game (I watched). I had thought about not using the guards, but since I hadn't played it in so long, I just left everything the same and figured I'd take comments on what the players thought of the current state. Sadly I forgot the rulebook somehow, but on the up side, my player aids were very descriptive, and I remembered how to play the game!

A41 went over well, everyone seemed to like it. There were some suggestions which I liked, and some I'm not sure I agree with - some players didn't like how you can duel to affect the game end timer (and thereby end-game bonus), and they especially didn't like that you could start a fight (with a Demand action) intending to lose. Thematically that might be a very valid point, though if players are sort of storytellers, then it stands to reason that they can manipulate the characters like that. It might be good though to make it such that the Active player does not have any incentive to tank a fight.

Thanks to everyone at Protospiel who played my games, and to those who showed me theirs. I had a great time, and look forward to the next event!

Yet Another New Game

Finally, as I mentioned, some of the hours in airports and on planes on the way home from Protospiel I spent outlining my version of a pirate themed deck building game based on the idea I got from Avast. I'm calling it Scourge of the High Seas. Maybe I'll get some cards together for it and give it a try, but I'm not sure if or when that will happen.

I'm trying to make this game along the lines of Ascension, sort of. There's a "center row" like Ascension has, only there are 2 of them: displays from a Tortuga deck and a High Seas deck. Each turn players will first visit Tortuga, where they can upgrade their treasures into better treasures (like combining 3 Copper into a Gold, to use Dominion terms), spend treasure on Crew, Equipment, Ship parts, Rum, and Treasure Maps. Then they will go a-plunderin' on the High Seas, where they'll spend Crew and stuff to plunder ships, or they'll spend Treasure Maps to find Buried Treasure. When these things are done, they'll confer some booty (some combination of treasure, goods, rum, maps, etc), any or all of which the player can take into their discard pile. Finally, the player will visit their Island Hideout, where if they choose, they can bury any number of Treasure cards, setting them aside in a score pile. However in doing so, they'll have to take an Island Hideout card into their deck, which is completely useless. I suppose this could be simplified to 'players BUY Island Hideout cards of a particular value with their Treasure by returning the treasure to the supply. Anyway, the more often you do this, the more useless cards will be in your deck, so the idea is to get treasure, maybe combine it into fewer, higher value treasure cards, then build up a hand of those and then bury them.

I expect Ships my have treasure value on them, so you can use them to buy stuff - allowing you to bury the treasure in your deck. I also foresee "goods" which you would be able to turn into Treasure if you have the right cards (Avast had something like this as well), to offer a strategic path there (If you have the cards which allow you to Trade Goods, then you go after/keep Goods cards, otherwise, maybe you let them sink rather than take them as plunder). Rum is for activating better abilities on some Crew cards, allowing players to either ignore it, or get some rum and crew with good Rum abilities. I think there will also be a Hold on your ship which allows you to hold over 1 card (plus 1 more card for each Hold Ship Part you have obtained) - which should help players build up a good hand for either plunder, or a hand full of treasure to bury.

I'll let you know if this pans out at all, if I ever get around to making cards for it!

GM Conference, Fiasco! And beyond...

Last Sunday SAGA hosted its GM Conference at which a number of speakers gave presentations - about 30 minutes apiece - about some aspect of running a roleplaying or storytelling game. I missed the first half, but managed to catch the presentations after the lunch break. In fact, I caught them on video! Currently the videos are about 5GB each, and as soon as I can find a way to reduce them to a reasonable size, I'll post them online.

After the conference I was invited to my friend Brian's house for an RPG. If you read my blog regularly, you probably know that I'm not much into role playing... I played some Dungeons and Dragons in junior high, tried it again in college, but while I liked the idea of it, the experience never panned out the way I would have liked it to. More recently, Brian has introduced me to some of the more modern indie RPGs, most of which don't appear to me to really qualify as "Role Playing Games" so much as "Collaborative Storytelling Games." Many don't even have a GM. At one of SAGA's RPG days I sat in on a session of Yesterday's Tomorrow!, a sort of retro-sci-fi storytelling game based on speculative future... what did people in the past think the future would be like? So the stories you make will resemble old, dated pulp sci-fi such as Flash Gordon.

A few years ago I learned about a Storytelling game called Fiasco. When it came out I heard about it from several people, read about it a bit, and watched Brian and friends play a session of it. The idea is pretty cool - the game sets you up to tell a story in the vein of those Fiasco movies such as Fargo, Burn After Reading, or Blood Simple... you know, those movies where people get in over their heads, and everything seems to go wrong. The game's tagline is "A game of powerful ambition and poor impulse control." It was Fiasco that we played at Brian's house the other night.

I really like the way the game structures a web of interconnections between characters and encourages their stories to overlap and be at odds with each other. I had a pretty good time with it - even though it took about 5 hours rather than the advertised 2. With all it's good points though, there are some aspects of that game I'm not too happy with... For one thing, the game goes out of its way to encourage failure. The book goes on and on about it, and people who like the game seem to like it at times merely because it's a foregone conclusion that pretty much everybody's going to die at the end. Any goal your character may have? Forget about it - you'll be lucky if you're still walking when the credits roll. I agree that it can make for a more interesting story if everything doesn't simply go the characters' way all the time. Part of the reason Indiana Jones is such a fun hero to watch is that he fails constantly! But then he perseveres and succeeds in the end. But it's as if whoever wrote this game (or at least some proponents of it) thought "well, if failure makes a better story, then if ALL the players fail ALL the time, then it'll be the best story EVAR!"

I don't agree with that. JC Lawrence said something insightful in a short Twitter discussion yesterday:

"The narrative requirement isn't success, but personal growth thru travail. The growth needn't connect to orig goal."

I think a good story can result from a game of Fiasco, but I don't think that in order for that to happen, all players must meet with disaster. I think it's enough that the game sets the characters up to be in conflict with each other from the outset, so it's not possible for every character to succeed all the time. I might go a step farther and suggest that instead of requiring just 1 "Need" for the group (which is what the game rules suggest), that each character be assigned a "Need" of their own, so each character has their own ambition, and because of how it's set up, that ambition will bring the characters into conflict with each other.

So that's my beef with Fiasco. I have another, smaller issue with the game, but it's not really something that I would say is wrong with the game so much as I simply don't like a particular dynamic that comes along with the way that game does a shared narrative. The same thing is true of Improv Comedy to an extent. When I have an idea for a story, it's not a simple action by a character... for a choice or action to even make sense a lot of times it depends on other things happening in the future. If a storyline gets re-routed before the initial idea plays out, then it fails to even make sense anymore, and makes for a disjointed, unfulfilling story for me. Instead, the way to go is NOT to plan ahead at all, just be reactive and live in the moment, so that it doesn't matter what direction the story takes, it won't dismantle what you were going for. That's fine, it's just not the way I want to tell a story - I'd personally prefer a bit more control over at least my character and what I want to do with him.

On that note, the other day I was thinking about how a game like Fiasco could allow for more player control over their own character's story, and I came up with an idea that may have merit. I'm not familiar with many of these storytelling games, so it's possible something like this already exists - I wouldn't know. I'll preface by saying that I very much enjoy movies like Pulp Fiction, with multiple separate, distinct story arcs which occasionally cross paths, and are not necessarily told in order. In my storytelling game, of course, there would be an overall setting, and probably some overall attributes like there are in Fiasco (important locations for example). Each player would be in control of a Story Arc, which would have a main character, possibly a supporting character, and probably some sort of goal or ambition. Also like Fiasco, the players would have inter-relationships between themselves and other players at the table.

The storytelling in the game would take place in 2 Acts. In the first Act, scenes would alternate between Monologue scenes, and Interactive scenes:

1. Player 1 would start with a short Monologue scene, basically telling part of their Story Arc - what happens to the characters that they're in charge of - up to a point at which their Arc crosses paths with another player's Arc. 
2. At that point, those players play out an Interactive scene together, shaping their stories based on what happens between them.
3. After the Interactive scene is resolved, that second player gets a chance to do a Monologue scene following their own Arc, probably a chronological continuation informed by the previous Interactive scene.
4. The second player's story will then cross paths with a 3rd player's Arc, initiating another Interactive scene, this time between players 2 and 3.
5. ... And so on until the last player's Monologue scene collides with player 1's Arc, ending the round with an interactive scene between PX and P1.

In Act II, the players return to the beginning of the overall story chronology, and players 2 and 3 (who's Story Arcs have not yet crossed) will do an Interactive Scene, filling in a gap in the story leading up to the first Interactive scene of the game. It'd be like "while player 1's Monologue scene was going on, Players 2 and 3 were doing this." And the end of that scene leads up to the Interactive scene between Players 1 and 2 (the first one of the game). Then we get to see what was going on in Player 3's Arc while P1 and P2 were having their Interactive scene... etc.

That probably sounds a bit confusing, I have a graphic that makes a bit more sense (click for bigger image):

Anyway, I haven't tried this and I don't know if I ever will get a chance to, but I think the Monologue scenes would offer the control I'd prefer to see. I also think the constrained end conditions of Act 2 scenes (they have to set up scenes from Act 1) could be really interesting. And with a setup like Fiasco's where the characters all have ambitions that will force conflict, then there will be an appropriate amount of failure going around.

Gamesmiths - 6/18/12

Last night's Gamesmiths meeting was poorly attended. While there was a new face there, none of the regulars were in attendance, only myself, Ben Butterfield (who's Rail net we played last month), and Aaron (referred by Ethan Myerson).

I had a few different games I wanted to test for various reasons, and I wasn't sure which to go with. I brought Alter Ego, which needs some work, but I could not find the player boards. I also brought a submission called Panic which TMG is considering, and a game TMG is committed to for next year which really needs to get back into the development rotation.

While it was just the 3 of us, I suggested we start with something short and see if anyone else would arrive. So I brought out Panic.

Panic

Panic is a quick, light game by James Ernest, Greg Parsons, and Mick Sullivan. There's a blog post about its inception (linked above), which is a pretty interesting read. It's about stock trading and set collection, sort of - or as James put it: the last 5 minutes of Trading Places. There are cards in different suits (where suits are commodities), and players begin with a hand of 9. There are also 9 cards (3 sets of 3) face down in "the market" - the center of the table. Players will bid for the right to peek at the face down cards, pass cards from their hand to their opponents, and eventually dump cards from their hand to the market, and by the end of the round, players will end up with a hand of 5 cards. The value of each commodity will depend on what's in the market - the commodities of which there are the most in the market are in plentiful supply, and therefore aren't worth much. The commodities of which there is not much supply are in high demand, and are therefore worth more.

The structure of the game is quick and easy. You bid to gain information about the makeup of the market (the winner gets to peek at a face down stack of cards), and you pay for your bid by locking cards into your final hand (face up so opponents can see). Each round after bidding players pass some cards to their neighbor in an attempt to improve their hand. After the 3rd round, each player discards 4 of their 9 cards into the market, finalizing their scoring hand. The market is sorted by commodity and the value of each commodity is determined (ranging from -2 to 2 for example). The idea is to keep cards that are worth positive points and not cards that are worth negative points.

I have played this game a couple of times now, and the response as been pretty universal - it's interesting and kinda fun, but it seems like too much of the market comes out at the final discard. So much that it overshadows any information you may have received from bidding. And being able to discard your unwanted cards completely insulates you from being passed cards you do not want to deal with. However, these are things which could only be an issue with certain groups, and they may be easily addressed without really changing the game much.

Last night's game has solidified a few questions and comments I'd like to discuss with the designer before deciding whether this is a game we should pursue further.

Captains of Industry

Captains of Industry is the new name for the game I'm developing for TMG that was originally called Titans of Industry. We had to change it when another Titans of Industry popped up on Kickstarter. It's been a while since I have played the game, and I have not yet used the newest small changes.

The 3 player game went smoothly, taking a total of about 2.5 hours including rules explanation. One player was slower than average, and I hope that the average game time turns out to be less than that session would indicate.

Comments after the game centered around some details of the technologies, such as maybe a tech which increases your demand (exportation) should occur earlier in the game so that it pays off more, or perhaps tech should cost more if someone has already purchased it. Other comments included:
* Rules questions such as Do you score your Titan card (Captain card?) if you are tied for "most" on something? and a component question about the new 1st Facilities (is that a production cost or an OVERTIME production cost printed there? Answer: Overtime. Designer changed icons on me!)
* Are the Titan cards well balanced? Especially the ones that reward Real Estate - which (a) you have other incentive to buy, and (b) accelerates the game, making other cards harder to score.
* Why is there no tech which gives a bonus for selling the higher level goods? (maybe Age 2, +1 Market Share, or at least + $$ per Machine/Oil/Corn sold)
The thing that concerned me the most was a comment that perhaps the ages end too abruptly. I like the Age timer mechanism a lot, but it might be true that once the 2nd Real Estate is bought, players are further encouraged to buy the third, and that ramps up the speed of the Age considerably. It might not actually be an issue, but it's one of the main things I'll be watching out for in future playtests.

We discussed some of the other potential new titles for this game, and a couple came up that we had not yet considered:
Masters of Capital
Captains of Capital

Overall a useful Gamesmiths, even if poorly attended. Hopefully next month's session will be better.

Game Auction on BGG

I have posted a Game Auction on BGG, selling off pretty much every game I own (save a few that I actually expect to play soon or often).

Some of my favorite games are on that list, but I figure if it hasn't hit the table in over a year, it's hard to argue that I need to keep it!

So take a look, and if there's something you like, feel free to bid!

Somebody asked me about donations. I hate the thought of asking for handouts, which is why I thought it was better to sell off these games, but if you are so inclined I suppose I wouldn't turn it down. Maybe the best way to handle that is with the donation link at the Board Game Designer's Forum. I pay for that every month, so any donations there will help me directly and would be much appreciated!

Thanks everyone for your support. I feel kinda like a jerk complaining about my robbery when other people have real problems (like when their house got destroyed by a natural disaster, or their child died). But I appreciate the help all the same!

Robbery Relief Game Auction

I posted an auction list at BGG - feel free to check it out, and if something interests you then place a bid.

Thanks!

Fundraising Game Auction

I apologize in advance for this off topic and sort of whiny post.

If you follow my FB or Twitter stuff then you already know that yesterday my house was broken into and I was robbed of a great deal of cash as well as my iPad and a few other little things. I am no stranger to theft and loss - over the years I have had wallets stolen (out of my jacket, out of my car, out of my backpack) as well as bicycles (3 in a 6 month period)... but the value of this particular loss was about an order of magnitude larger than all the rest combined, and because much of it was cash, it won't be covered by insurance.

It's been a bummer to say the least, and to make matters worse, it happened while I was out negotiating a deal on a car...

In an effort to recoup some of that money (which was to be my down payment), I have decided to host a game auction on BGG. I have an awful lot of games, many of which I never play. With the exception of a few favorites, I think I'll put them all up and see if I can get any interest in any of them. I could really use the money!

So if you are interested in buying a game and helping me out, stay tuned - I'll probably put up that geeklist in the next couple of days.

And to be at least a little bit on-topic...

RECENT GAMING
I have played an awful lot of Lords of Waterdeep lately. With two caveats, I find it's a very solid game and I like t very much.
Caveat #1: Remove Mandatory Quests - The Mandatory Quests are a bummer pretty much all the time - often you don't want to draw it, because it does not net you anything, and it sucks to have a Mandatory Quest played on you, because (especially if it's in the last round or two) it can keep you from scoring a large VP Quest that you've spent multiple turns building up to. Nobody I know likes those cards, so I simply leave them in the box when I play.
Caveat #2: Remove the Lord which rewards buildings - In some games I think it's fair and balanced, but with a Quest, a Building, and several Intrigue cards which allow a player to build even if the building space is occupied, in some games I think that Buildings are too available, making that Lord too easy to dominate with. So I simply leave it in the box to ensure a more fair game.

I just got Castles of Burgundy and I've played it a number of times already. I enjoy it more as I play more and discover strategies and tactical tricks. However, I do think it takes too long, and much like Martin Wallace's London, I'm surprised at the degree to which you cannot plan your turn ahead of time in this day and age.

KublaPros and KublaCons

Last weekend I attended KublaCon, as I've done every Memorial day since 2005. Most years I log about 30-40 games played, and I've developed a long list of people who I see only once or twice a year. It's been a few years since I've been eligible to enter the Kublacon Game Design Contest (or as I call it, the "KublaContest") - but I still choose KublaCon for my Memorial Day convention over the closer, cheaper to get to, Gamex convention in Los Angeles. This year KublaCon was a little different for me - here's a brief account of some of the pros and cons of my trip this year:

Pros
Right off the bat I had a nice opportunity - I had bought a direct light to SFO, and they said they needed someone to bump. I generally don't like to do that at the beginning of my vacations because I want to get where I'm going. This time however thy were able to route me through LAX with a short layover (which gave me time to eat), and for $311 in flight vouchers I arrived just an hour or so later than originally planned!

I got to visit with a number of friends who I never get to see - this year that included Andrew, Paul, Rick, Helen, Marlin, Fred, Miguel, Peter Hansell (TableStar games), Leah and Matt, Ceej, Chris and Susan McKinley Ross.

This year I got to spend a lot more time than usual talking to James Ernest, which was fun (he's a funny guy!), and I met the special guest from the convention, Martin Wallace. I've never met Martin before, and for some reason I expected him to be standoffish or something. I don't know why I thought that, but I'm happy to report that Mr. Wallace was a really nice and friendly guy! I also met the Game Whisperer himself, Richard Bliss, and spoke briefly with Doug Garret and Scott Alden as well. I even met Evan Denbaum, who would have been a part time employee of Tasty Minstrel Games, if not for receiving a position at Electronic Arts. Finally, I met Dennis, a $250 supporter of Eminent Domain (he named a planet after his daughter: Echo Rose).

Oh, and I got a chance to see a game by Candy Weber which sounds like it will be published soon! Congrats Candy!

Cons
I don't mean to complain, but this year was not the best for me. Mostly it's my own fault - I feel like I was underprepared for the con this year. First off, the night before every convention nowadays I seem to have trouble sleeping. I don't know if it's anxiety, or anticipation, or what. This time I was up all night creating a final art prototype of Ground Floor to take with me, and I only got 2 hours of sleep (if that). With how little sleep I tend to get at conventions, it would be nice if I could at least get a good night's sleep before the convention!

I normally head out to KublaCon on Thursday night, so that I can enjoy the con all day Friday. By contrast, the Strategicon conventions in L.A. tend to not really get started until late Friday afternoon. I suspect that's what I had in mind when I was shopping for plane tickets, and I ended up with a flight arriving at about 4pm on Friday. When I arrived at the hotel (about 5:30pm - see above) it occurred to me that I was actually a day later than normal, and I'd missed out on most of Friday!

For the second time in a row now I appear to have forgotten to pre-register for the convention!

While this convention was a good one for me socially, it turned out not to be a very good one game-ially. I only played about 8 games, 2 of which were Yahtzee Free-For-All, and none of which were on my list of games I really wanted to play while I was there. Here's what I played at KublaCon:
Battle Line with Miguel
Alter Ego playtest with Miguel
Castles of Burgundy with Evan Denbaum
Eat Poop you cat with Miguel and company
Yahtzee Free-For-All with Chris and Susan McKinley Ross
Yahtzee Free-For-All with Andrew, Elmer, and Andrews other friend
Glory to Rome with Andrew, Elmer, and Andrews other friend
Unpublished Martin Wallace game

In addition I did demo Ground Floor several times, and Eminent Domain: Escalation once. But while it's important, demoing games is not the same as playing games!

I would have preferred to be better prepared going into the convention - if I'm going to demo games, it's better to get them on the schedule, have specific times for the demos. Also maybe I'll try harder to arrange specific games if I want to play them - I didn't really play anything on my list this time. It never seemed to be a problem before, but I think there are more demands on my time nowadays, so I would do better to plan ahead a little more.

Monthly recap - May 2012

I think I'll try a new thing... I have this dry erase calendar at work, and when I erase it and reset it for the next month I'll try posting a recap of the previous month of my life. Let's see if this idea lasts...

May 2012

I don't have much written on the calendar on the first 1/2 of the month, but I think that's because I was lax in updating it more than because I didn't do anything. It does appear that the month was somewhat uneventful though.


5/11 I drove up to Phoenix to meet with Patrick Nickell of Crash Games (as well as Fred McKenzie of Clever Mojo, Tory Neimann, and Nathan Kohatsu). We played some games and that was fun. The next day I stopped by and had lunch with my old friends Chris and Becky, who I hadn't seen since way before their second daughter was born (she's like 2 or 3 years old now).

5/19 the Ides of Gaming event that I run at Espresso Art on campus was bigger and better than it has been in recent history - more people and more fun all around.

5/25 - 5/28 I went to Burlingame, CA for KublaCon. KublaCon is a lot of fun, and I normally get to play a lot of games. This time however I was under-prepared as far as gaming is concerned, so I barely played anything at all. I did however get to meet Martin Wallace, attend several interesting seminars by Wallace, James Ernest, and Richard Bliss, listen to (and participate in) a live recording of a podcast (part 1 part 2), and visit with some friends.

I demo'ed Ground Floor (14 hours left on the Kickstarter! Will it break $100k?) three times, and got to play one of my prototypes once, and one of Martin Wallace's as well. I played only a couple of commercial games (Castles of Burgundy, Glory to Rome, Yahtzee Free-For-All, and Battle Line) and I played 1 game of Eat Poop You Cat (AKA Paper Telephone or Telestrations). Not a whole lot of gaming for a con at which I used to log 40 plays of various things!

I did take the airline up on its offer to pay me $311 in flight vouchers in exchange for bumping to a different flight. So I flew through LAX (instead of direct), had time to eat at McDonald's, and arrived about an hour or so later than originally scheduled. Seems like a good deal to me!

That's about it for May! See you next month...

How to get into game design

I was offered the opportunity to write something up for Why I Design Games - Collected essays from established game designers on the theory, art, and compulsion of board game design. 

 I was excited about the opportunity, but when considering why I design games, I found my thoughts coalescing more toward the question "how does one get into the game design hobby?" So I answered that question instead. Have a look, and leave a comment (here or there) - I'm interested in what you think!

KublaCon 2012 - Here I come!

I stayed up all night preparing a full art prototype copy of Ground Floor to bring with me to KublaCon today. If you're going to be at the convention and you would like to try out the game before deciding to pledge for a copy, find me and we'll make it happen!

I'm also bring my prototypes for the following upcoming TMG games:
* Belfort : the Expansion Expansion
* Eminent Domain: Escalation
* Kings of Air and Steam
* Titans of Industry - NOT Titans of Industry! I guess we need a new title for this one :(
* Alter Ego

As well as a couple old standbys that may or may not be upcoming TMG releases (at the moment they are not officially "on the list," but they may be soon):
* Exhibit: Artifacts of the Ages
* Dice Works
* Wizard's Tower

I've been known to bring more than this in the past, but this is it this time. Unless you count Brain Freeze on my iPad :)

I posted a geeklist of stuff I might like to play, but it's pretty half-hearted this time, including mostly those prototypes I am bringing. I just want to hang out with people and play something fun, I don't even know what. I would like to play Trajan though. And of course I intend to show Ground Floor to people and encourage them to pledge on Kickstarter. David and I even made business cards with a URL and a QR code leading to the KS page for Ground Floor - they look awesome!

I'll also be promoting RinCon while I'm there - which really just means mentioning it, and potentially handing out some flyers we made.

T-minus 6 hours and counting!

Themestorming session #1 (Exhibit): Success!

I had a nice long chat with Clive and John in a G+ Hangout to do some Themestorming for Exhibit: Artifacts of the Ages, with the goal of getting thematic names for the special tiles. I think it was rather successful, here's what I've got now:

1) Government Grant
2) Research Assistants
3) Professor Emeritus
4) Antiquities Broker
5) Expanded Vault
6) Deadbeat Shill (maybe there's a better name for this)
7) Philanthropist
8) Premium Show Case (or Premium Display)
9) Holy Grail

I am wondering if I need to worry about creating individual (real or imagined) artifacts, or if it'll suffice to say that "that tile is an Early Roman Tool."

Alter Ego, Exhibit, and Theme-storming

I was up in Phoenix this weekend, meeting with Patrick Nickell of Crash Games, Fred McKenzie of Clever Mojo Games, Nathan Kohatsu, and Tory Neimann - and we got a chance to play a couple of prototypes:

Alter Ego

Patrick, Nathan and I went through the current version of Alter Ego, with the fresh new organizational format I thought up in the car on the drive up.

I was disappointed in how fiddly the turns seemed to be last Tuesday, and how complicated it sounded to get Teamwork Tokens and Call the Cops. I figured a player aid would help the situation, but I hadn't made any yet - and while it would be a reminder, it would not actually simplify anything. I'm really happy with the idea I came up with in the car. Imagine a player board, approximately 4" tall by 11" wide, divided into 5 columns as follows (with the following information in each - probably abbreviated and/or iconized):

1. Income Phase (skip if no cards are played to this column): Collect 1 $ token for each $ icon you have in play. Job cards, some equipment, and some Henchmen have $ icons.

2. Support Phase (skip if no cards are played to this column): Draw 1 card for each [card] icon you have in play. Family cards, some equipment, and some Henchmen have [card] icons. Collect 1 Teamwork Token for every 3 Teamwork icons you have in play.

3. Patrol Phase (NEVER SKIP! 1 Henchman icon printed on board): Draw 1 Henchman card for each [henchman] icon you have in play. Put 1 of those into play, discard the rest face down. Community cards, some equipment, and some Henchmen have [henchman] icons. For every 4 [henchman] icons you have in play, you may call in an Anonymous Tip (discard a henchman and rescue any hostages on him).

4. Fight Phase (skip if no cards are played to this column): You may spend Hero icons that you have in play to rescue Civilians. Hero cards, some equipment, and some Henchmen have Hero icons. You may give up to 1 Teamwork Token to each opponent in order to use 1 Hero card in their display. You may discard 2 Teamwork Tokens in lieu of any 1 Hero icon for the turn.

5. Recoup Phase (NEVER SKIP!): Discard all cards in your display and all $ tokens. Take a new card from the table and place it in your display. Play 4 cards from your hand into your display. Discard the rest of your hand. Draw 4 cards, plus 1 more for each Henchman you have defeated.

The way I wrote it above reads more like a rulebook, but that's really because I'm not sure the readers of this blog are super familiar with the rules so I wanted to be more clear. I imagine it would be more reminder rather than rules text-y. I even think it could be awesome artistically. I imagine a sort of panorama which starts with morning: in a suit going to work at the left end (Income), afternoon: guy at home with family (Support), evening: patrolling the streets (Patrol), nighttime: fighting a bad guy (Fight), and maybe dawn: battered hero returning home (Recoup).


I have not played Sentinels of the Multiverse, but from the day it was announced I had feared that Alter Ego may not be viable anymore because the theme and game sounded similar (cooperative superhero card game). However, Nathan assured me that Alter Ego may be viable after all, and he mentioned that even in its present state (which I think is still too fiddly) he thought it was much more streamlined than SotMV. Sentinels seems to be enjoying great success, as evidenced by the blockbuster Kickstarter performance of the expansion. Hopefully I can get Alter Ego to a point where I'm happy with it - it sounds to me like sentinels is a much different game anyway.

Exhibit: Artifacts of the Ages

This morning on the way out of Phoenix I had lunch with an old friend Chris and his wife Becky. They were nice enough to try out a TMG submission I had brought with me, and then we played the latest version of Exhibit. Chris had played the game a while ago (and liked it at that time). Not much has changed since then - just the Consolation bid for not winning any auctions, the multiple tiles in an auction when nobody wins one, and the new Grant idea (one shot "wild weapon" of which each player started with one). Long ago I decided that I liked the Consolation bid. More recently (which is still about a year ago!) I decided I liked unclaimed artifacts sticking around for the following round (when the top 2 bids without going over will get one). The new idea is the Grants.

The first time I tried these I gave every player 1 Grant for each color (except Purple). That seemed like overkill - people didn't use very many, and it amounted to 35 components which didn't seem worth it. My plan for the next time was to give each player 3 Grants that can be used on any color other than Purple, however at the last minute I decided to just try 1 such Grant per player. the single grant seemed to work just fine, and I don't think I need to add more.

I think Exhibit is about done. It does tend to take a bit longer than I'd like, so I'm going to try starting the game with 2 Artifacts in each auction for the first round. I expect that to do 3 things - first, it will cut a round off of the game which will reduce the play time by at least a little bit. Second, it should help with the same thing the Grant was helping with - making it easier to get something going in the early game. And finally, it will give more players an Artifact going into round 2, and therefore a reason to want 1 artifact over another.

Other than that mall change to the beginning of the game, the only think I need to do is some Theme-storming in order to attach some meaning to the Purple tiles, and maybe the artifacts as well.

Themestorming

I think that a hallmark of a good game - and something I think Tasty Minstrel Games has going for it - is having a great look and feel in addition to being an interesting game. Theme and art factor heavily into that, so I need to add chrome to the parts of the game that are still abstract or are placeholders. This holds true for all of the games I'm working on, so I think it would be good to get some help with it. I'd like to start holding Themestorming sessions, on IRC, or a G+ hangout. If you'd like to participate in those conversations, then please feel free to do so! Leave a comment and I'll make sure I let you know when it's going to happen. Thanks!

Under the Hood: Belfort

"Under the Hood" is a series of strategy articles about the inner workings of games developed for Tasty Minstrel Games. Watch for these posts a couple months after the release of the game so that players have a chance to explore the game for themselves first!

Under the Hood: Belfort

Belfort is a game with a jovial and lighthearted theme – as a Master Architect, you direct a workforce of fantasy characters who toil to erect buildings which make up the city of Belfort. But don’t be deceived by the cute elves, dwarves, and gnomes on the box! Belfort is a heavy game of resource management, area control, and strategy!

Large vs small workforce
Like many worker placement games, Belfort rewards players for increasing their workforce. While it’s possible to win without your full complement of Elves and Dwarves, it’s very difficult if you don’t at least hire 1 or 2 more workers. With no upkeep cost, the only real down-side to hiring is the upfront cost – a placement and 2 Gold to go to the HR Department. After a point, the return on that investment diminishes – if you hire a Dwarf in round 4 for example, he’ll only provide 3 placements before the game is over. A round 4 Dwarf will pay for itself, and may contribute to resource majorities and points, but it’s nowhere near as useful as a turn 1 Dwarf! And while a turn 1 Dwarf is awesome, it does cost a significant portion of your starting capital. So be sure to hire when the opportunity arises and you can afford it, but also make sure you’ll get your money’s worth out of your new employee!

Gardens and Pubs are good Properties when working with a small workforce. They are inexpensive, they increase your income, and by turning a worker into a Master, they allow you to increase your resource gathering ability.

Income generation vs Taxes
There are 3 types of buildings in Belfort – Properties, Guilds, and Walls. Properties have a wide range of cost and effects. Guilds are expensive, but do not require a card – meaning you can build them in whichever district you want. They provide income when used, and that income comes at an interesting time: during the Placement phase. Walls are moderately priced, but provide no income at all, making them very poor choices in the early game. The strength of a wall is in the late game, when you know which district you’d like to build in, but do not have the correct card to build there.

Deciding which Property to build is one of the interesting things you’ll do in a game of Belfort. You’ll want to consider the ability – would you like to use many building powers and fight for Gnome majority? Maybe the Tower is a good choice – but you should also consider the income of the Property. The Inn is a good building for expanding your workforce, but with no income it can really hurt when tax time comes around. The Keep is expensive and only good for scoring, but it does give 1 gold income as well.

If you can produce more income from buildings than you are paying in taxes, then you’ll have a lot more gold to spend on things like Gnomes and Guilds!

Majority scoring
It’s easy to forget while building properties and collecting resources that you only score for 1^st, 2^nd, and 3^rd majorities in each district. Placing additional ownership markers in a district where you’re already way ahead may be a waste of resources! Also, keep in mind when hiring new workers that there are points to be had for controlling the most Elves, Dwarves, and Gnomes.

One more note about area majority scoring – it’s better to score 2^nd place in two districts than it is to score 1^st place in one!

Belfort has another area majority mechanism in addition to scoring – bonus resources from the Forest, Quarry, and Mines. Being the last player to pass gives you the advantage of seeing where other players have sent their workers, but every placement spent stalling means 1 fewer worker to send for resources. Earn majority bonuses where you can, but make sure you’re getting the resources you need to build this turn, and don’t forget about your taxes!

King’s Camp
Turn order in Belfort is unusual – it doesn’t change unless you go to the King’s Camp and change it. And when you do that, you get to CHOOSE your turn order. It can be advantageous to go first for the best worker placement choices next round, but that can also make you a target for another player to take your turn order crest. You could choose to go 2^nd, hoping that a future player will choose to take the turn order crest from player 1 rather than you, while still getting an early placement order. You could even choose to go last, which is especially strong in a scoring round so you can see where other payers have placed their ownership markers. However, going last runs the risk of the spots where you’d like to place drying up.

Some guilds, such as the Thieves’ Guild and the Bandits’ Guild, make the King’s camp a much more important consideration, so it’s important to look at what guilds are in play when you decide how you want to deal with turn order. Maybe a trip to the King’s Camp is the right play!