Sails & Sorcery playtest: plunder follow-up

After a nice 4-player 1/2 test (had to cut the game short half way through), I was able to compare the plunder card row (which I had tried previously) with the version I used last time (1 card per island, cost based on opponents present), and yeah -- the card row just played better.

Other than having to quit early, this test was pretty good all around: the players had fun, and most everything worked well. On the down side, after about 30 mins of rules and setup, we quit an hour and change into the game, and we were only 1/2 way through -- but most of that is down to Tabletop Simulator (and a learning  game), I think. I don't love dismissing problems by saying "it's just a learning game" though, because everyone's first play will be a learning game!

Here are a few notes I took down after the playtest and discussion:

* when coming out of hiding, deploy 1 from bag, not from ship

It's just lame to be unable to use the benefit if you don't happen to have pirates on your ship when the Kraken gets you

* maybe add immediate effects for all tokens (like drawing a card when you get the Hand Size one)...

It's a bit of a bummer to gain control of an icon, only to have it wrested from you before you even get a chance to use it. For the Monsters, you get their immediate effects when you summon them, so it's not so bad if you don't also keep control of the icons some of the provide. For the Hand Size icon, it bugged me whenever you would get the token, then lose it before the end of the round, meaning you had no chance to benefit from it. Because of that, I added the rule that when claiming the token, you immediately draw a card. With the rest of the icons, perhaps that would help as well.

Recruit and Deploy have obvious immediate effects (recruit a pirate, get 1 deploy icon to spend), but the rest don't have anything that makes obvious sense. Maybe collect a silver for Plunder? But what about Build and Summon? They could also be "get a silver," but that's kind of lame.

* OR, instead of permanent bonuses that pass around, maybe get a 1-shot icon each time you gain control of the area?

This idea has some merit along the lines of what I was saying above - nobody can take your bonus away from you. However, it changes the dynamic a bit, removing any reason to continue to hold control of an area, and I don't think I like that very much. Maybe a 1-shot icon could work for Summon and Build (and a silver for Plunder)

* Maybe extend the 2p variant to all player counts, ensuring the areas go up in value over the course of the game (instead of doubling the values half way through)

In the 2 player game, in order to maintain some tension, I add neutral pirates to the board each round, in the areas that will score. This way you can't just siphon points by dropping 1 pirate in each scoring area, and as some of the neutral pieces are buildings, it also serves to increase the value of certain areas. Perhaps this should be extended to all player counts, even if just to make 1st place worth more than 2nd by enough to matter via neutral buildings. 

Sails & Sorcery revisited -- now on TTS!

It's been about a year and a half since I posted about, or even played Sails & Sorcery, Michael's game that I had been working on. For some reason it drifted back into my consciousness recently. I thought about a tweak to the most recent aspect (treasure cards for the Plunder role), and realized it should be pretty easy to make a Tabletop Simulator mod for the game so I could potentially play it again. So here's a quick update:

First, the tweak to Plunder and treasure cards...

In my last post I re-imagined the Plunder role: Instead of just killing off masses of pirates, the new idea was to use Plunder to "buy" treasure cards, which each have an ability (on par with the Davy Jones effect - adding a couple of pirates to the board and/or capturing a couple opposing pirates), as well as one of five different gems, which confer some set collection scoring at game end. I liked this format a lot, but I wasn't sure what the best way to implement it was. I had gone with a simple card row, with the cost ranging from 2 to 6 (a good range, on par with the other roles) based on the position of he card in the row. But I had a number of other options in mind. 

The card row was simple, and it worked, but I kinda wanted it to matter which area (or at least which island) you were in when you Plundered. Another cost structure (even using a card row) that might have had an interesting geographic effect was "2 Plunder + 1 per opponent in the area." I thought that might have provided an interesting incentive to go where other people were not, which could stand in contrast to the dynamic incentivized by the way certain areas score each round (encouraging players to congregate in those areas). That's still something I think I'd like to try.

In addition though, it occurred to me that - especially with the alternate cost structure above - there's no reason the cards would need to be in a row at the side of the board. Perhaps better if they were in the areas (or on the islands) themselves? Might they then drive players to go to specific areas (or at least specific islands) if they're chasing VP from the gems? Or is that too many hoops to jump through? Maybe the option of any card in the row is appropriately flexible? I guess it's worth trying, if I can ever get some testing done!

And on that note, in an effort to eventually get some testing done on this game, I went ahead and made a Tabletop Simulator mod:

As you can see in the screenshot, I placed a treasure card in each area. Almost immediately I thought it might be better to just put one card per island instead of per area -- which could foster a little more interaction (in the case multiple players are after them). However, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if the better course is to just stick with a card row on the side of the board.

Even still, I would like to try the alternate cost structure (based on opponents in your ship's area) to see if that drives any geographical considerations or not. If so, and they're good enough, then that'll be great. If not, or if they're super weak, then the simpler cost structure might be a better choice.

Here's to hoping I get a chance to play it soon!