Division of Labor 5p playtest

 I finally got a 5p test in of Division of Labor last night! It went alright. There was one brand new player, and the rules took us almost 30 mins for some reason - I sometimes think teaching a game is harder to do on TTS than IRL, but that did seem excessive. Then the play took a full 2 hours, which is on the high end of the range I expected. I'd prefer a little shorter duration, but I don't think 2h is out of the question for 5p. Also, I think that game took longer than average due to the new player, but of course, every person who plays after publication will be a new player at some point! 

I got a lot of feedback about certain aspects of the game, all of which is useful, but my goal for this test was specifically to see how 5p worked, and what changes would need to be made to accommodate the 5th player. Here are some observations I made specific to 5p:

1. Turn order compensation 

For 5p, I reduced the number of rounds from 5 to 4. This is mostly to keep the duration down, and I think it was fine, but it also means the player that goes last in round 1 (arguably the worst position) also never gets a chance to go first, which seems like a clue that turn order compensation would be in order. This came up in our last 4p game as well, and I just haven't gotten around to trying it yet. My thought is to give late turn order players (maybe just the last player) a random cube from the bag... or if that's not enough, maybe 2 cubes.

2. Penalty tracks 

Because there is 1 fewer round (and relative to 2-3p games, you get your 3rd worker 1 round later as well), you end up doing approximately 4 fewer turns, which means about 8 fewer penalty track bumps on average... Which means players won't be pushing up against game end penalties-though the early game in-game penalties are probably fine). I might want to reduce the track lengths for 5p, probably taking a space out of the middle section (between the 1st and 2nd penalties).

I seem to recall having a similar thought for 4p, so maybe the penalty track board could be two sided, with 4-5p penalty tracks on one side, and 2-3p tracks on the other that are 1 space longer. 

3. Worker spaces 

I was afraid this would be a problem... In lower player count games, there has always been enough worker spaces to go around, we've never had a player be unable to place a worker (though if enough players earn their extra worker off the training track, I think it's not impossible). In 5p, the way I had it set up, in the turn you get your 3rd worker automatically, there will be 14 worker spaces, and 15 workers (or more!). So immediately this is a problem. For the playtest we said that if you are unable to place a worker, you get a consolation prize of 1 cube of your choice. 

That allowed us to play, but it's not an ideal solution. I think I need to make sure that there are always enough spaces for all the workers in play. However, in a rare case where multiple players train their extra worker, there will be situations where this problem arises, unless I add a LOT of extra spaces (which might not be so terrible, perhaps). So, I'll think about how many spaces I'd need at an absolute maximum and consider making that available (a fortuitous side effect is that means almost always there will be some islands where the cubes accumulate and then you split like 6 cubes instead of 3). Failing that, another consolation prize option could be a free Explore action in any island you want... That's not nothing. Maybe also a random (or chosen) cube. If the consolation could be useful enough, then that might be preferable to the setup getting out of control! 

4. Letter token limit 

I had been scaling the number of each letter token because I thought "naturally there ought to be enough to go around." My last epiphany was that maybe scaling those isn't actually necessary, mostly because not every player will be going for them anyway. So lately I have been using 5 of each token no matter the player count. That's more than the 3 I had previously used for 2p games, which means there can be more of a back-and-forth fight for majority perhaps, and also that blue cubes don't become meaningless so quickly... 

My concern for 5p was that despite that revelation, 5 players might just be too many for that number of tokens. In our game last night, 2 players went heavily into the set collection (1 got a complete set, the other got shut out of one of the letters, costing them 4vp), 1 more ended up with 3 of the letters, and the last two players only got 2 letters. That result wasn't too bad really, and if it's common, then maybe 5 tokens per letter is enough after all. I'm tempted to up that a little bit though, maybe just 1 more of each token... Though I'd hate to change setup for only one player count :/ So maybe I'll leave it as 5 for now. 

Also, we upped the majority bonus a tiny bit... Instead of 1 point per majority, we got 2 points for a clear majority, and 1 point for a tie. I'm not sure if this was any better, but at least it was a little more complicated :) I do kind of like the idea of majority feeling worth going for.

Another suggestion that has come up, probably instead of a majority bonus, is to allow players to *spend* the letters for some effect. I'm not sure what effect would make sense - boosting actions, I guess. Maybe I could color code the letter tiles, so you spend the red one to boost the red action, for example, making them similar to the cubes "in hand," only they don't cancel penalties, and they are potentially worth more points. Does that mean they're better, or worse?

5. Letters "over-centralized"? 

Not related to 5p, but a concern keeps coming up (from the same people, so it may or may not be a universal concern) that the letter set collection is basically worth too much, they felt like the winner did that, and if you want to compete, you cannot ignore the set collection. I am not sure if I 100% agree that it's a problem, but I DO 100% agree that it would be bad if that were true!

Potential solutions, if it IS a problem, include:

* Nerfing the points, especially at the high end (doesn't have to be exactly triangular)

* Boosting the value of other aspects (e.g. buildings score face value rather than 1vp)

Side note on the set scoring...

Currently I'm using triangular scoring for different letters plus majority bonus for each. I also liked the multiplicative scoring (number different x number same) with a majority bonus for each as well, which was out of control when the letters scaled per player count, but is ok with a max of 5, though it *can* get up to pretty high scoring. Someone recently suggested RA monument type scoring, where you get triangular type score for variety, and then for each letter you get a flat bonus if you have at least 3 of them (so nothing for 1 or 2, except the set scoring) - that's pretty similar to the majority bonus, but I like that you don't have to count everyone else's stuff to get your score, so maybe I should try that - maybe 0/0/1/2/3vp for 1/2/3/4/5 of each type (AKA 1vp for each letter beyond your 2nd of each type).

6. Also unrelated to 5p, a suggestion came up that I don't want to forget about, so I'll include it here. It happens to be something I'd considered initially. but haven't given any further thought to yet. The suggestion was to make the Island tiles more distinct, more different from each other, perhaps by adding some kind of effect to them. For example:

• When you Split here, take a letter tile from the Choose player
• When you Split here, take a cube from the Choose player
• When you Place here, take a [red] cube from the bag into hand
• When you Choose here, you may add a cube of your choice from the bag to the island

I think this kind of thing could give the islands a bit more character

Division of Labor: My favorite mechanisms

 Jamey Stegmaier has a video series on his YouTube channel called My Favorite Mechanisms in which he makes short videos for various games he has played, highlighting mechanisms he finds interesting, clever, or fun. As I approach the finish line on my latest design, Division of Labor, I thought I might try to do a post highlighting some mechanisms in the game that I'm particularly proud of or happy with. So here we go!

I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement

The core mechanism of the game is worker placement mixed with I-Cut-You-Choose. While WP is a very common mechanism, ICYC seems a little underused, and I actually get the impression that it's a well-liked mechanism, with its popularity on the rise. But most games I can think of that use ICYC are small games where that's the whole game: from older titles like Colloretto, Zooscape, and Tussie Mussie, to new ones like The Great Split. There's a classic game called San Marco that utilized ICYC pretty well, though people say it's really only good at exactly 3 players. I did think Zooloretto did a pretty good job of building a bigger game out of the mechanism that is Coloretto - that's probably my favorite entry in the genre so far.

Division of Labor uses ICYC to drive a game that has a lot more going on, which I think came together pretty well.

"Penalty" tracks

As a key part of the ICYC mechanism, I think a "poison pill" is necessary - like the penalty you get in Zooloretto for taking an animal into your barn because you haven't got room for it in an enclosure. In Division of Labor, you are able to do 2 different colored actions per turn, but your split might have 3 or even all 4 colors of action cubes in it. Doing the same colored action too often, or taking splits with extra cubes you won't be using are ways to introduce this idea of "poison" into the game, which helps make the splitting and choosing really work well.

Note that you can mitigate the in-game penalties with a couple of the actions by gaining cubes to store on your board, covering up the penalty spaces on the tracks. However, if you do a particular action too many times, you could still end up with some negative points at the end of the game.

Overbuilding

A happy accident in Division of Labor is the dynamic born of the ability to cover up smaller buildings with larger ones of the same shape. I initially allowed this as a way to sort of increase the amount of space to build, so it wouldn't be too frustrating. But it led to a dynamic where building early for the uncovered benefit on your player board made you susceptible to being covered up, while waiting and building later in the game could potentially be better for scoring (cover up opponents' buildings, and ensure yours are in play to score at game end). That was an unintended dynamic that emerged, and one I'm pretty happy about. 

Overbuilding also makes the game feel a little more interactive than some euro-style WP games. 

Explore as a backup option

In Division of Labor, there are 4 actions color-coded to the action cubes, but anytime you're resolving an action with some cubes, instead of the action associated with those cubes' color, you may opt to Explore - drawing 1 tile per cube and choosing one to add to the island, augmenting the whole island for everyone. Doing this gives you a small benefit of your choice from what's available on the tile you added (a free level 1 building - if you haven't already built it, a free icon token - if any remain, or a free cube of a particular color). of course, the more tiles you draw to choose from, then more options you have.

Being able to Explore, which is never amazing but is also never bad - it's always a little bit good - means that you're never stuck with cubes you cannot use, and it also means you can explore with your first action in an attempt to improve your second action, making room for clever plays.

One of the building types allows you to draw additional tiles when you explore, which means you'll have a lot better odds of getting something useful, facilitating these clever plays even more.

Division of Labor v2.4 -- By Jove, I think I've got it!

 I've given this game a few tests, and made some tweaks each time, and finally have decided to add it to my pitch list. Which means I think it's "done" enough to pitch, even if I think small improvements could still be made - in this case mostly to do with thematic consonance.

Rather than paste the entire rulebook (v2.4 5-24-24) here, I'll link it, and provide a layman's summary below.

In Division of Labor, players are officers in some entity that is exploring and developing a new area - currently we're talking about a new, uninhabited planet, but perhaps it could be a newly discovered island, or some other (uninhabited) area. I'm not trying to model colonialism here!

EDIT TO ADD: maybe a better theme is this...

You and your siblings are heirs to a newspaper magnate. It may have made your father rich, but in this day and age, print media is out, and the newspaper is failing! If you are to salvage your father's legacy, you'll need to revamp the whole operation and bring it into the modern era. Which one of you will build your father's old newspaper business into a media empire?

EDIT AGAIN ON 6/14 TO ADD: I liked the novelty of the media empire theme briefly, but quickly grew tired of it. I'm working with this for the time being...

Lead a tribe of voyagers, sailing the seas with other tribes and discovering new islands everywhere you roam to explore, develop, and inhabit!

In any case, each round you reveal a new "Island," which is a worker placement space with 2 slots: one labeled "Choose" and the other labeled "Split." At the beginning of each round, you draw a random assortment of action cubes for each Island, and then players take turns placing workers. The first player to place in a space takes the "Choose" slot, while the 2nd takes the "Split" slot - immediately splitting the action cubes into 2 piles. 

Once all workers have been placed, you'll resolve the Islands from left to right - at each one, the player in the Choose slot will choose one of the available piles and use it for their turn, and the player in the Split slot will use the remaining pile for their turn. On your turn you'll do up to 2 actions based on the colors of cubes available to you, the more cubes of that color, the better.

After resolving your turn, you must advance "penalty" tracks in each color -- one advance on each track that had any cubes present in your pile, whether you used them or not. If you get too far along a penalty track, you'll suffer a penalty: that action becomes 1 cube more expensive for you. You can overcome this penalty by gaining an action cube via a certain action and placing it on your player board, covering that penalty. Those cubes can be kept for endgame points, or spent to boost future actions if you're short the cubes you need.

You keep doing that for about 5 rounds, then you count up your score. Things that are worth points are:

1. Cubes on your board (covering penalties) are worth 1 point each
2. Buildings in play are worth 1 point each (note that a higher level building can be built over the top of a lower level building of the same type -- yours or an opponent's! So if your building gets built over, it doesn't score a point anymore). Each level 3 building also has a bonus scoring condition that can be worth a chunk of points
3. Things you collect score - there are 5 icons, and you score the [number of different icons you have] x [the number of any single icon you have] (so it's good to get lots of one icon, and 1 each of the others). [EDIT: either this multiplicative scoring, or just a triangular score for different icons] There's also a 1-point majority bonus for ech icon (friendly ties)
4. There's a Training/Research track, and you advance a training marker and an Research marker on it. The training marker is not worth points (it can unlock a new worker though), but it makes way for the Research marker, which is only worth points (the Research marker cannot move past the Training marker)
5. Finally, there is a point penalty for being too high on each of the penalty tracks

And that's it, most points wins!

Division of Labor (I Cut YouChoose Worker Placement) v2.0

The Story So Far

Some time ago I posted about some ideas about, and even a first playtest of, an I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game that I so cleverly (haha) called Division of Labor. I thought the theme was sound: in search of a new home world, we were bringing specialists of various types on colony ships, and as officers, we players would boss the specialists around, then divvy them up and send them to their next assignment. 

Mechanically, you'd place a worker where there were Specialist cubes, do some actions based on the color (type) and number of specialists present, then split the cubes into 2 piles, sending each to a different adjacent location. In this way, players would take turns sort of *choosing* a pile, then *splitting* a pile for future players. This worked, technically, as a sort of procedurally generated worker placement game, but it really didn't feel like I-Cut-You-Choose at all, which was the feel I was going for. 

At that point, I had to decide whether I wanted to pivot to a procedurally generated worker placement game, or find a way to make it feel more like I-Cut-You-Choose, or abandon the project altogether. I decided to give ICYC one more chance, and tried to identify what makes that mechanism really work in the first place. 

What makes ICYC tick?

As I mentioned before, I-Cut-You-Choose has roots in something called Fair Division. I came across a video one time about fair division of a cake between more than 2 people, which was interesting, but which is kind of irrelevant when it comes to using ICYC as a game mechanism.

You see, in Fair Division the goal is to make splits that are *as even as possible*, while in a game, you kind of want the opposite - you want as big a difference as you can get away with! In order to accomplish this, the things you're splitting need to have a few aspects to them:

* They can't be worth the same to everyone.

If you were to split some pocket change into 2 piles, it would be trivial which pile is better - you'd just take the one with more money in it! But if you're splitting something that could have a different value to you than it does to me, then it's a lot more interesting 

* I think it helps if there's a "poison pill" in the mix. 

I don't actually like things that are strictly negative, but many ICYC games have a dynamic where a certain type of thing is good *unless you get too many of them*, then it's a problem. Or an item could be bad, unless paired with another type of item. In Zooloretto, any type of animal is kind of poison if you don't have a pen to put it in, but you can spend money to discard the extra animals, thereby getting rid of the poison

Things like that seem to help give players a sense of agency over their splits, a way to try and engineer a situation wherein they can get what they want, even though they pick last.

For this to work, I think it's important to know for whom you are making the split, and you need to be able to tell what that player may want or not want. If you have no idea who you're splitting for or what they might want, then you can't really "make them an offer they can't refuse," if you know what I mean. 

For these reasons, I also think that splitting for 2 players at a time works better than trying to split for 3 or more players. Not that the latter is impossible, just that it's hard to do well, I think. 

In my original game, when you split cubes, it wasn't clear who would be choosing them, so it failed to feel like you were even doing ICYC at all. Some of my thoughts to change the game were along the lines of trying to make players split more explicitly for a particular other player. However, I never got around to trying a 2nd draft. Disheartened, I shelved the game until I had some epiphany or something.

New Blood 

Despite having shelved Division of Labor, I kept it on my mental list of things to work on next, and when I'd done what I could with Taiko Kiri, Eminent Domain: Coalition, The Great Goballoon Race, and The Sixth Realm (and stalling out on Isle of Adventure), I needed something to work on next, so my thoughts returned to Division of Labor.

I mentioned the premise in a few different online design forums, and somebody said they had a friend who was working on a similar idea for an ICYCWP game, but the main mechanism sounded a lot more straightforward than what I had originally tried to do. Rather than each worker placement trying to be both a "choose" and a "split," it would only be one or the other -- worker spaces would take 2 workers each, one would split and the other would choose.

I felt inspired by this much more explicit ICYC format. Each worker space could be seeded with cubes related to available actions, as I had originally planned, and could take 2 workers. I could see four ways it could go:

1. First worker to a space splits the cubes, second worker to the space chooses
   One problem here is that you'd never know what player you're making a split for - so that's not ideal, given my above conclusions
2. Second worker to a space splits the cubes, first worker to the space chooses
   In this scheme, the splitter would know who they're splitting for, which seems better
3. First worker to a space chooses whether to split the cubes, or choose
   I strongly suspect it'll be vanishingly rare that a player is so interested in making a particular split that they would pick "split," without even knowing who would be doing the choosing
4. Neither worker splits the cubes immediately - after all placements, first worker decides who splits and who chooses
   Unlike the last option, players splitting the cubes would at least know who they're splitting for. This sounds like the most agency for the first player into a space, but as above, I suspect that the vast majority of the time, the first worker will decide to choose rather than to split

Of all those, the second option (2nd splits, 1st chooses) makes the most sense to me. Option 4 sounds like a better deal for the 1st worker, but in practice I strongly suspect it'll be the same thing, so might as well use the simpler, more straightforward rule!

Division of Labor 2.0

So there we go... I modified my old Division of Labor prototype on Tabletop Simulator to sort of shoehorn this new format in, and gave it an initial test with Rick, and was very promising! Rejiggered a few things and had a 3 player test a week later, and it felt a lot like a real game!

At that point I still didn't really have all the values of things, I was telling players things like "this is supposed to reward you for having done a lot of building -- so if you build a lot, just assume you get an appropriate bonus." These last couple of tests went so well though, I filled in the values and we played a 3rd game a few days later and I think the structure of the game is in really good shape. I have made some more detailed changes for the next playtest, and I'm excited to get it to the table again. I'll post about the current state of Division of Labor 2.0 in a separate post, including the current rules. 

I had been inspired to combine Worker Placement and I-Cut-You-Choose in the first place because of Jamey Stegmaier's top 10 favorite game mechanisms video, wherein his top two mechanisms are, you guessed it, I-Cut-You-Choose, and Worker Placement. Now that I have a working prototype, if I can clean it up and make it good, maybe I should try and submit it to Stonemaier games. Stonemaier has some pretty clear submission guidelines for games they publish - relevant points from their website:

We’re looking for tabletop games (not RPGs) that capture our imaginations.

This is a tricky one, as I tend to be attracted more to clever mechanisms, but the story of the game is probably what captures most players' imagination. The story of Division of Labor made more sense with my original conception of it but less sense with the new version, so I could stand to revisit the story of the game and find something better 

The player count must accommodate a minimum of 2 players without a bot (we’ll add a solo variant to take it down to 1) and an upper range of at least 5, 6, or greater (without adding significantly to playing time or downtime). We’ll ignore submissions for 2-4 player games.

 My current prototype only supports 4 players, but it could easily expand to 5 or 6 -- the biggest question form e in that case being downtime - will there be too much? Will the game take too long? Is it OK if the game takes too long at high player counts?

We’re looking for event games–the featured main course at game night, not the appetizer or side salad–that play in 1-2 hours.

This is my wheelhouse, and Division of Labor seems to be in that range 

We’re looking for unique games–your game must feature something that has not been done before.

I haven't seen a combination of ICYC and WP mechanisms before, so I think Division of Labor offers a new twist on Worker Placement, and uses the underused ICYC mechanism which appears to be becoming popular 

We’re looking for games that flow well, which typically means each player’s turn is short and there are no rounds to break the flow. If your game has a number of phases (either within each player’s turn or within each round), please don’t submit it to us.

Division of Labor does have rounds, like most Worker Placement games do. To an extent I think that's part of the genre, and there's not a lot of bureaucracy between rounds, so it seems reasonable to me. Hopefully that won't disqualify it!

Hmm... I wonder if there's a way to do it without rounds, like you just place your worker, and if you place 2nd in a space, you split, the other player chooses, and then you both get your workers back -- and if you have both of your workers out and your turn comes around, you're just skipped or something. For flow-of-game purposes, I wonder if that might be worth considering

We’re looking for designers who are open to constructive feedback and who are willing to work on their game well after we accept it for publication, as our version of the development process is a collaboration.

I am definitely such a designer!

I don't see it on their list, but there's one other criteria I thought Stonemaier looked for -- maybe I heard it on a podcast or video somewhere, or maybe it's old news -- that they like to have a notable component that stands out and grabs people's attention, such as the Mech minis in Scythe, or the sculpted buildings in Tapestry. In Division of Labor, you are able to build higher level buildings on top of lower level ones of the same type. I was thinking a way to make that very clear, and maybe provide an interesting component, that perhaps the building pieces could be like those in the abstract game Gobblet. In that game you have little upside-down cups of various sizes, and you can place a bigger one over the top of a smaller one, thereby "gobbling it up." So what if the Level 1 buildings were a little sculpted mini, and the Level 2 and Level 3 buildings were similarly sculpted, but bigger, and hollow, such that they fit over the top of the smaller ones, enveloping them. That seems like it would be pretty cool!

2020-2021: A playtesting retrospective

 A couple of years ago I posted a playtesting retrospective spanning late 2017 through the end of 2019, and I thought it as interesting to see the breakdown of time spent on various games, especially while considering the state that I know those games to be in now.

Now it's a couple years later, most of which has been spent in a global pandemic. Let's see what I managed to get playtested in 2020 and 2021...

2020

January
Throughout January, after a break for a Disneyworld vacation, we iterated a few times on the All For One revamp, and I brought Apotheosis back out after 6 months on the shelf.

All For One seemed to be working well, and I remember being pretty excited about the new updates. Unfortunately I haven't played it since, though in the interim I did create a Tabletop Simulator mod for the game, and I've even pitched it to a couple of publishers that way.

Apotheosis progress was coming along, and we ended up playing it a few times a month throughout 2020.

February
In addition to Apotheosis, February saw the debut of an Isle of Trains board game. First we played Dan's first draft version. Then a few weeks later I brought my own take on his concept, which was a lighter, more straightforward game, and we played that a few times.

March
March was weird, because I had to cancel most weekends for my Anniversary, and then a COVID scare. The 1 time we did play, we tested Apotheosis one more time, and enjoyed a published game: Glen More. Beyond that, I did play Apotheosis one more time at home with my wife.

April
Sadly, I had to cancel my weekly playtest meetup indefinitely due to COVID. I didn't test anything at all in April, but I did figure out how to implement prototypes on Tabletop Simulator, starting with Apotheosis.

May
Thanks to the technology of TTS and the internet, I was able to get a test in now and again online. In May we played Apotheosis a couple of times.

We also played the Isle of Trains boardgame once, and I think I've come around to thinking that maybe Dan was on the right track wanting to make a heavier game.

Finally, we played an updated version of Automatown which designer Michael Brown joined in on as a co-designer. He made a TTS mod and we were able to see his updates.

June
I was still getting the hang of making digital prototypes, and getting online playtests together. Unfortunately I didn't get any tests in June at all.

July
In July I pulled couple of older prototypes out of the woodwork. I played Reading Railroad at home with my wife, I played Exhibit online with my testers, and I got together with a designer who had come on board to work on Kilauea with me to check out his ideas for the game.

August

I got an online tests of Reading Railroad in August, as well as a couple games of Crusaders at home with my wife to test new faction powers I was developing.

I had an online pitch meeting for Apotheosis, which seemed promising. The publisher wanted to set the game in their fantasy universe, which was a perfect fit, so Rick and I reskinned the prototype with their art assets.

September

I kicked off the month with another test of the new Crusaders factions with Michelle. 

A few weeks later I had a prototype of a brand new game, Keeping Up With The Joneses, which I played twice with Michelle, and twice solo - and solo testing is something I almost never do!

Online I played one more game of Apotheosis with Rick and Aaron, my two main testers since going digital.

October

October was a busy month for testing, mostly on account of solo testing for Keeping Up With The Joneses - I played 6 solo games in.

I got in three online tests of Keeping Up with the Joneses as well, and three tests of Apotheosis too.

November
I revisited a couple more older games in November via digital prototypes with Rick and Aaron: Exhibit and Dice Works. I also played one of Rick's prototypes called Cwen.

December

We finished off the year with 4 tests of Apotheosis with some significant changes based on playing with the publisher who had showed interest, and the game got better and better.

2021

January
I started out 2021 playing games by a couple of my testers' latest games: Andy's Gemstone Pylons, and Rick's Stardock (later renamed Starlight).

We played Keeping Up With The Joneses once, and Apotheosis twice (once with the publisher)

February
I only had 2 test sessions in February, and we switched gears and played Sails & Sorcery, trying to figure out how to fix the issues with the Plunder action.

March
I didn't test any of my own stuff in March, but I played Rick's Starlight game a couple of times, as well as a skiing game that Andy was working on as a developer.

April
In April I revived another prototype, Deities & Demigods, to reacquaint myself and my players with the game. We also played Exhibit again, then later in the month I had the opportunity to pitch it to a big publisher (unfortunately, they passed on it). 

May
I started off the month with two more pitch meetings: Apotheosis and Keeping Up With The Joneses with one publisher; Riders of the Pony Express, Deities & Demigods, Sails & Sorcery, and Apotheosis with the other.

I played Rick's Starlight once more as well, then missed the rest of my sessions due to a vacation to Hawaii, lack of players, and technical difficulties.

June
Another tough month for playtesting... I had a first test of a new I-Cut-You-Choose game idea (later titled Division of Labor) with Rick, and a pitch meeting for Sails & Sorcery, then missed the rest of my sessions for one reason or another.

July
I got a 2nd test of Division of Labor and found some fundamental issues that would need to be addressed, and finished off the month with 3 tests of another revived prototype, Skye Frontier.

August
Another rough month for test sessions, I only got 1 playtest in: I got a gig developing expansion content for Amun-Re, a classic Eurogame from 20 years ago, and I tested some early content for that with Rick.

The rest of my sessions were canceled, but I did have a pitch meeting for Eminent Domain: Chaos Theory (unfortunately that didn't go anywhere)

September
I started September with a solo test of Keeping Up With The Joneses, then spent the rest of the month working on the Amun-Re expansion - 3 live tests, and 6 solo.

October
Six more solo tests and 5 live tests of Amun-Re took up all my testing time in October.

November
One more Amun-Re test in November, then I switched gears to Deities & Demigods because (drum roll please)... it got signed by a publisher! The publisher requested some changes, and I spent November working on those.

December

I finished off the year with 3 more tests of Deities & Demigods iterations as I worked on addressing the publisher's concerns.

The switch to online playtesting was a setback in my playtesting throughput, and it cost me some of my regular testers, but TTS has allowed me to continue testing, and pitching games, through the pandemic, and I've got at least a couple of regular online testers.

I miss testing more, but the good news is that I am finally making a little headway with pitches. Over the course of the pandemic, Isle of Trains got picked up by a new publisher who's going to do the base game as well as the expansion Dan and I made what, 7 years ago now? Deities & Demigods has been picked up, and I got that development gig on Amun-Re. I've had a few meetings recently to try and find a publisher to ick up the EmDo and Crusaders game lines, hopefully one who's willing to pick up the entire line (base game, expansions, and as-yet-unpublished content). No luck with EmDo an Crusaders thus far, but I just had a promising meeting or two about them, so hopefully something will come of that.

My kingdom for a playtest! Partial plays of Division of Labor and Skye Frontier

 I have been missing out on playtesting lately, as every week for the last month I have had to cancel for one reason or another. So I was very excited to get a 3-player test of not one, but two of my games last Sunday. Well, they were each only partial plays, but it was still a lot better than nothing!

Division of Labor

First up was Division of Labor, which is the working title I'm using for the I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game. The last time I playtested anything, Rick and I gave this idea a first run, and that basically led me to believe the mechanism had some potential, but the game had all kinds of issues. I addressed some of those and was excited to give the 2nd draft a go. At this point I don't really have the endgame figured out, so Rick, Andy, and I just played 1 round and then had some discussion (also, at that point, TTS started acting funny anyway). The biggest idea that came out of that session is that while the main mechanism did work, it didn't feel much like I-Cut-You-Choose. In addition, it felt frustratingly difficult (in a bad way) to do some of the things you wanted to do.

For the next iteration, I will make some tweaks and changes, the most important of which address the above issues. It might be OK if the game doesn't FEEL like I-Cut-You-Choose... I could just stop billing it like that and it could just be a worker placement game with procedurally generated spaces or something. But I do like the idea of "I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement," enough to give it at least 1 more shot. I think a mistake that led to this failing has to do with the hasty board I made in order to test the game. I had players each splitting a bunch of cubes and placing them in a central location, and as they were used, they got distributed outward. As a result, there were basically far too many options when placing your workers - when splitting cubes it didn't fee like you were making an important split that would affect another player. 

To make the choices feel a bit more like ICYC, I will try reducing the instances of splits. Instead of each player splitting 8 cubes at the top of each round, I'll just have 1 player split 8 cubes, then the next player choose between them. Then player 3 can choose between the other pile from p1, or the 2 new piles from p2, etc. I suspect this will feel a lot more like ICYC, though it may be tricky to make geography matter, or else I could lose the Worker Placement aspect.

As for the latter issue, things being frustratingly difficult to do, I have a solution as well. In general terms, I had designed a lot of stuff in the game with restrictions, when I may have done better using incentives instead. For example, in the first draft you could only build the building indicated on the tile explored in its space. Therefore if you wanted to build a particular type of building, you were at the mercy of the Exploration draws. Perhaps better would be to allow any building to be built, but offer a bonus or discount when building the indicated type. That's similar to what I did in Crusaders, and the thought crossed my mind in this case as well - and now I think that's probably the way to go.

Skye Frontier

Since we only played a partial game of Division of Labor, we had time to try another game. A few weeks ago I started getting antsy to dig into one of my older designs, last played about 2 years ago at AZ Game Fair: Skye Frontier. Unfortunately, we had to cut that one short a few rounds in when my toddler awoke, and my players were running low on time anyway, but we did get a chance to feel out at least a few rounds of play. It went OK, though I started getting the impression that of the 4 actions in the game (Explore, Build, Produce, Trade), it seemed like most of the turns the player chose Explore. I'll note that when we had to stop, it was about when we were all running out of our starting cubes (it costs cubes to build tiles into play - we might have started with too many cubes by the way), so perhaps we would have started seeing some Build and Produce actions, maybe Trade too.

Maybe this is OK - I mean, it is a tile laying game... maybe it's OK if most turns consist of drawing and placing a tile? But to an extent, if that's all we're doing, then why bother with the other actions. The obvious response is that you could set up an engine, then start producing and trading or something like that. So maybe there's not a problem at all. I'd like to get through a whole game before committing to any thoughts on that.

Division of Labor (I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game) - quick thought on penalties

I just had a thought about the penalty tracks in this game. Here it is for reference. I'm happy to hear opinions on it in the comments, though without much context I don't know if it'll make a ton of sense:

Currently you advance once on each penalty track per cube of that color in the group where you place your worker. In other words, if you place in a space with 3-1-2-1 (red-green-blue-yellow) cubes, you would advance the red penalty track 3 times, the green and yellow ones once each, and the blue one twice. Granted, 7 cubes at once is probably uncommon, but that's just an example. Based on this, I can set the track lengths and penalties such that they'll fill up at about a certain rate - maybe for any given color, figure an average of 2 advances per turn, so if the first penalty is at space 7, that's about 4 turns - but it's variable based on whether you're concentrating on that color's action or not.

However, this can get a little swingy. If a space ends up with, for example, 5 red cubes, that's a significant penalty, and I'd hate for spaces to get so undesirable players don't want to choose them, lest they sit around all game, maybe gathering more and more cubes...

I was thinking about possible solutions to this potential problem, and came up with a few ideas. To keep spaces from becoming TOO poisonous, perhaps I need to limit the number of advances per track per turn somehow. Here are a few ways that could be done:

1. Limit the number of cubes allowed per group. That's arbitrary and weird, and might cause problems where you can't split cubes properly if certain situations arise.
2. Limit the number of advances per color. A simple version is that you only advance once on each track if there are any cubes of that color there (and of course you don't advance if there aren't). Or the limit could be some arbitrary number, like 3, which would preserve the current feel, but knock out the edge case where a space has a large number of cubes on it
3. Institute a clearing mechanism - if a split puts a group over a certain size (maybe 6?), return all those cubes to the bag. This could be used aggressively to remove cubes from the board (is that good or bad?)
4. Combine #2 and #3 above... after a split, discard any cubes beyond 3 of each color, and still advance once per cube on the penalty tracks. That would limit the penalty to 3 per color, and limits the power of actions as well, and it COULD be used to remove some cubes from play, if that's an interesting dynamic

Option #4 sounds interesting. A player could still boost their action by discarding cubes-in-hand, though I'm not sure how useful that would be.

Side note: Red and Blue actions keep getting better and better the more cubes there are (though the returns do diminish), but if you're only allowed to build 1 building or train 1 level per action, then the green and yellow actions miss out on utilizing extra cubes. Maybe you should be able to build/train as much as you can afford. I started with that rule, but thought I should switch to 1x/turn after the first playtest.

Just counting 0-1 penalty per track might be simpler, easier to grok, and quicker to recognize/resolve. It might also clear up any question about how boosting with cubes from hand works: if there's already a cube of that color, then you lose nothing by boosting whether you count the boosted cube or not (which might be a good thing rules-wise)

I'm happy to hear opinions or arguments for any of these schemes:

• Penalize each track at most once, if there are any number of cubes of that type there
• After splitting, discard cubes over 3 of each color
• Arbitrarily limit penalties to 3 per color per turn (but don't discard any cubes)

I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement: inaugural playtest and changes for next time

 Unfortunately, last weekend I was unable to do any playtesting, but the week before that I did manage to get a 2p test of the first draft of the I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game (for lack of a better title, maybe Division of Labor?), and while just about every part of it needs some work, I'm relatively pleased with how it felt!

Prototype board

I have put together a physical prototype, but I'm not sure if I'll ever actually use it... I also uploaded those files to Tabletop Simulator (actually, someone volunteered to do that for me this time, and they did a much more sophisticated job than I probably would have!), and that's how I was able to get that first test in. The board I made is pretty uninspired:

First draft board for ICUC WP (working title: Division of Labor?)

Those center spaces are supposed to represent the spaceship / starting spaces, and even though it's awful graphic design, I was using those spaces as each player's starting 2 spaces. Yes, you'd split 8 cubes into 2 piles, and put them both into that odd shaped space -- that space was to act like 2 spaces at once. When you place there, you choose 1 pile of cubes and ignore the other, leaving it for the next person to place there. I have attempted to improve on that for next time, but I haven't had a chance to try it yet:

2nd draft of game board - to try next time

When splitting, follow the arrows
This was done in MS Paint, sorry about the 2 different styles of arrow!

This 2nd draft seems likely a little clearer, and closer to my initial intent to begin with. Each player now has their own 2 spaces (in their player color) in the center 3x3 section of the board. The very center space isn't really part of it, and neither are the 4 corners of the board (though I guess they could be). That leaves 44 spaces - I have no idea if that's a good or bad number!

8 does feel like a decent number of cubes to split at the beginning of each round. I've got players making that initial split concurrently, behind a screen, then revealing and placing the piles in the starting spaces. One question that came to mind is what to do if a starting space still has the 4 cubes from last round in it... presumably you'd add to them, which might be fine. I wonder if a max number of penalty track advances (per color) would be in order, mostly for that situation...

The player board worked as expected, as did the "research" track*. I had forgotten to make a file for penalty tracks, so the guy who made the mod for me did some up on his own.

* Side note: while I've been calling that a Research track, the buildings are more like your technologies, and the "research" ended up being extra workers and VP, so maybe better would be to call that a Training track

Training track and Workers

In the 1st draft, I went with [no effect] / [+1 worker] / [+1 worker] for the effects of the top token, and then [1vp] / [3vp] / [6vp] for the bottom token. I also started us each with 4 workers apiece. We were playing a 2 player game, and 4 workers to start felt like way too many. I could see more workers being a good idea in a game with more players, as there would be more spaces to utilize, but I'd have to try it to be sure. With 2 players I think perhaps starting with just 2 workers might be good (perhaps start with 2/3/4 workers for 2/3/4 player games).

Starting with too many workers already, adding another at 2 steps on the Training track seemed too easy, and the thought of adding a 2nd new worker on top of that didn't sound as attractive anymore, so next time I am going to try changing the 2nd space effect to [ne effect] instead of [+1 worker] and see if that feels more appropriate.

I also bumped up the VP values of the 2nd marker, as they just looked weak (not sure exactly what that should be worth yet).

Penalty tracks

I think the 1st draft penalty tracks might be a good length, but the penalties themselves need some work. The only in-game penalty that I could think of was increasing the cost of actions by a cube, but it turns out that causes some problems and raises a lot of questions. My opponent (Rick) suggested just making it loss of VP at game end, and that sounded like a good fix. I would have liked to have some in-game issue for players to have to deal with, but for now I'll try -2/-3/-5 VP (cumulative). You can still get out of these penalties (left to right) by covering hem with cubes "in hand" of the appropriate color.

The Actions

All of the actions in the game sort of worked, but it was a little weird how some of them (Explore, Experiment) worked no matter what, and some (Expand, Exploit) required a tile to have been Explored already in that location. I had figured it would work out, as Green and Blue cubes would just be "poison" if there wasn't a tile there yet, and Red cubes would become worth less and less as the board filled up with tiles. In a way, I like the sound of that, but realistically, it didn't feel great - a little too frustrating, especially if the red cubes just refuse to come out of the bag for some reason, and you just can't build anything at all.

Rick had a good suggestion for this as well: basically find a way to be able to Explore no matter what. My next draft will switch out the red action (Explore) with a new one: draw X cubes out of the cube bag and keep one of those "in hand," put the rest back in. Compare that to the Explore action, where you draw X tiles, choose 1, and get a bonus from it (which could be 1 cube in hand)... some of the tiles have no cube shown, so theoretically this new action will offer better choice of cube than Exploring (besides, if you take a cube when Exploring, then you're out a free scoring icon or building)

But we still need a way to draw tiles! So  let's say that ANY action could be used to Explore instead of the action indicated by the cubes' color. I think this will help a lot - you can ALWAYS explore, which populates the board with tiles, and gives you a thing, but maybe the specific actions are more efficient at their job. For example, Exploring can get you a Level-1 building for free, but your choice is limited, and it can never give you a Level-2 or 3 building at all. Similarly, Exploring can get you 1 scoring icon, but the Blue action can get you 1 per cube, so potentially several icons. And all of these are bolstered if you have built buildings to support them!

Oh, and on that note: I think the building that lets you draw 1 extra tile with exploring could apply that ability when drawing tiles (when Exploring) AND cubes out of the bag (when Recruiting - the new action).

Can't wait until next playtest!

Well, that about summarizes the changes I want to try next time I get a chance to play this game. Hopefully this weekend!

If this sound interesting to you, and you would like to blind test it on TTS with your group, let me know, I can probably get you access to the mod. I'd just ask for feedback in return!

I-Cut-You-Choose with more than 2 players

I stumbled across this video today (someone posted it in the new BGDL+ forums) talking about I-Cut-You-Choose with more than 2 players. It's not the process I'm using in my newest design, an I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game, but I thought it would be really good to keep track of it in case I'd like to review it later:

The basic idea being that P1 splits something into 3 groups, P2 decides one thing they DON'T want, and trims one of the other two so they're "equal," then P3 chooses one thing... P2 gets the thing they trimmed (if it's still available), or the other, "equivalent" thing (if it's not), and P1 gets the remaining thing, and everyone should be happy... then they similarly divide up the trimmed piece.

This process would work for any number of players, but it looks like it gets pretty cumbersome pretty quickly as you add people. A pragmatic solution might be to discard the "trimmed" bit, or do something else with it (add it to the next group to be split?) - then it still should be the case that each player is happy with what they get, and it doesn't get too iterative.

For example, P1 takes 13 cube and splits them into 3 piles of 3, 4, and 6 cubes. Note that while these aren't even with respect to total number of cubes, they might be even (or close to even) with respect to total value of cubes. Then, P2 decides they don't want the 3-cube pile, and trims 1 cube off the 6-cube pile (making it a 5-cube pile instead) -- the trimmed cube is discarded, or maybe used later in some other part of the game. P3 get to pick any of the three piles, maybe they choose the 3-cube pile, because those specific cubes are really good for their position. Then P2 gets the 5-cube pile that they had trimmed, and P1 gets the remaining 4-cube pile.

P1 should be happy, because they (theoretically) split the cubes such that they'd like any pile, P2 should be happy, because they (again, theoretically) trimmed the 6-cube pile so they'd be equally happy with the 4-cube or the 5-cube pile, and P3 should be happy, because they got 1st pick of all the piles.

I'll note that "everyone being happy" is the goal when splitting a cake, but in a game there might be more of an aspect of "getting away with something." If the cubes have different (non-obvious) values to different players, then things like P3 in that example taking the 3-cube pile over the other two are reasonable, and there's an opportunity to make piles that are not so much "even" -- tempt someone into leaving you what you want by making a pile that's attractive to them! That's the crux of the ICYC mechanism in games, I think.

I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement: Further progress

I spent the last week on vacation in Hawaii, and that gave me some time to think about stuff, and I chose to spend much of that time thinking about this I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game design.

I like thinking out loud - I started my game design career spouting off ideas in the BGDF irc chat room to whoever would listen (even if that was just me, reading a transcript later). Terra Prime was largely designed that way, thinking out loud in BGDF chat and forums. Over the last few days I've tried something similar... I posted a few Twitter threads:

https://twitter.com/sedjtroll/status/1392214318989545472?s=20 ("poison pill" in ICYC)

https://twitter.com/sedjtroll/status/1394099337664163840?s=20 (a Menahune theme? Nah...)

https://twitter.com/sedjtroll/status/1393838830197698561?s=20

https://twitter.com/sedjtroll/status/1394832730148405249?s=20

https://twitter.com/sedjtroll/status/1394920800415715336?s=20

Thinking through those, and seeing some of the responses, has helped me visualize the game much more clearly, and I think I'm close to being able to create a prototype (if I can motivate myself to do so... that's often a stumbling block for me!). There are still some details to work out, but some of that happens for me during the actual prototyping process. Here's the shape of the game as I see it at the moment:

Players are officers in an organization that has sent multiple colony ships full of cryogenically frozen specialists out into the black, seeking a new homeworld. Now that we've arrived, groups of specialists are "thawing out," and we're directing them to do their thing, and then splitting them into smaller groups and sending them to adjacent sectors.

Each ship generates ~8 random specialists (colored cubes in 4 types) each round, which you will split into 2 groups to begin the round. Each player will do this simultaneously to seed the board with 2N spaces with cubes (plus any others that remain from previous rounds). Then you'll take turns placing workers (maybe 4 per player to start) where there are cubes.

When you place a worker on a space, you will mark off each of the cubes there on tracks per color. There will be thresholds on each track, beyond which you will receive in-game or scoring penalties, so marking off things is generally bad - but it's necessary... ideally you won't mark off too many more cubes than you need to (or too many cubes that you don't get the benefit of using). You will then be able to activate up to 2 types of cubes for their effects. Each type of specialist does an action:

Explore: For each cube of this type, draw 1 tile from the bag. Choose 1 to place in this space and return the rest. These tiles represent information about the local area. They will indicate one of the cube colors, a building type, and a resource icon, and when you place a tile, you get to choose one of those (take a cube of that type into hand, place a level 1 building of that type from your board, or take a resource of the indicated icon) 

Expand: Place a building from your player board in that space, as long as there are "enough" cubes to cover its cost. Level 1/2/3 buildings require 1/2/3 cubes, and a L(n) building can only e built where a L(n-1)  building of that type already sits. If you have enough cubes, you could build 2 buildings in one action. Only 1 type of building can be in each space, L(n) stacks on top of L(n-1), and at the end of the game, some scoring is based on the buildings showing from above. Each building you remove from your player board reveals some in-game benefit, where each type of building helps with one aspect of the game. For example, building Habitats might get you extra workers to use. Building Laboratories might help you Experiment (see below). Building Watchtowers might help you explore.  

Exploit (Extract?): Once a space has a tile on it, you can extract resources from it based on the icon(s) on the tile. For each cube, take 1 resource of that type. These resources are a set collection scoring type of thing... you get points for sets of different icons, and maybe a majority bonus for each icon type. 

Experiment: Studying the new world will yield benefits. You'll have 2 markers on a research track - the first will give you benefits as it moves up, and it will make room for your second marker to advance, which will increase your score. You can advance on this track as much as you can afford, using 1/2/3 cubes to get one of your marker to the 1st/2nd/3rd level of the track

After placing in a space with just 1 cube, you get that cube's effect, then take the cube into hand to use later... you can use it to cover (negate) a penalty from reaching a threshold on that color's track, or you can spend it in a later turn to boost that color's effect, as if there were an additional cube there, which will help you reach those more expensive actions such as L3 buildings and Research.

Once everyone has placed all their workers, take them all back, draw another 8 cubes from the bag to seed the initial spaces, pass a start player marker, and start a new round.

What I really need is (a) a game end dynamic (something I'm historically bad at), (b) details of building effects, tiles, and research track effects populated, and (c) a working title!

Since I'm so bad at (a), I really don't have anything in mind yet, and I'm hopeful that something will seem obvious by the time I get an initial playtest in.

As for (b), I do have a few thoughts. Like with Crusaders, I think each building type could help with one of the actions in the game. For example, one type could give a discount on building, or the ability to stack the wrong type of building on an existing one or something. Another type could help advance on the research track. A third type could help with set collection (maybe just give you icons?), and another could let you draw more tiles when exploring, or keep more than 1 of the choices when you explore. Finally, there could be a type that adds workers.

And for the exploration tiles, each one could have 0/1/2 (maybe a few 1/1/1) of cubes/icons/building options in all the possible combinations, so when exploring, you can have an interesting choice depending on what you're after.

I'm not sure about the research effects, but I imagine they should be small, on the order of a cube for the first token, and for the 2nd (the one that's supposed to help score), could maybe give icons for set collection, or straight VPs based on position.

As for a title... I'm afraid I've got nothing! I'm happy to entertain suggestions in the comments below!

I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement -- thoughts on a theme

 I'm still looking for a theme for that I-Cut-You-Choose Worker Placement game...

I still think the way it would work makes sense: 

1. Seed some spaces with ~6 cubes, 
2. Place your worker where there are cubes, 
3. Do a thing based on the number/colors of cubes there,
4. Split the cubes between 2 of the adjacent spaces, 
5. Repeat

I solicited theme ideas on Twitter, and got a few responses, one of which seems promising to me. Jonathan Weaver said: 

Wow I love the mechanism and I think a theme of widespread exploration of a new land and the color cubes are different skilled explorers (i.e. huntsman, trappers, cartographers, sailors, scouts, etc.) Then the game is about who can use the conscripted explorers best each split.

I liked the sound of sending, for example, a cartographer and a scout this way and a scout and trapper that way, then you choosing the scout/trapper and as a result get some furs, then sending the scout here and the trapper there.

Each unit type would need an effect, and there could be some combinatorial effects. Like maybe a scout amplifies the effect of another worker (cartographer makes a better map, trapper finds more animals).

My initial thought was that you'd add tiles to the board spaces, changing them for everyone (and maybe like Caylus, you get benefit when someone uses your tile). "Buying" tiles based on which unit types are there could represent effects of certain combinations of units.

Thinking about this a little more, it definitely sounds workable:

Players are officers in an organization that has sent multiple colony ships full of cryogenically frozen specialists out into the black, seeking a new homeworld. Now that we've arrived, groups of specialists are "thawing out," and we're directing them to do their thing, and then splitting them into smaller groups and sending them to adjacent sectors.

Each ship generates ~6 random specialists (colored cubes) each round. You place a worker on a sector with specialists to build a tile there, of 15 different tiles, each with a 2-color cost (those 2 colors of specialist must be present). Each tile gives 2 effects, 1 for each specialist required (so there are ~6 specialist effects in the game). 

If you place in a sector with just 1 cube, you get that color's effect, then take the cube to use later... Maybe you spend it to build when that color isn't present, or maybe you spend it for that color's effect in addition to a normal turn.

And I think an effect tied to the sector would be good, so there's a geographical element as well. Like maybe when you activate a building, you get the effect of the sector (and maybe you can do this instead of building, so long as you have either of the specialists related to the building present, or maybe in hand). "In hand" could be neat, so in the early game you're placing workers in sectors with more cubes, for better choice of tile to build, and you're building new stuff onto the board, then later you're placing workers to grab up singleton cubes in order to activating that stuff.

Maybe the tiles you build are on your player board, and the goal is to get yours all into play? I'm not sure about that, or what "winning" would represent, but in general this kind of theme -- with the cubes being units with specific jobs, and players bossing groups of those units around -- sounds to me like it makes sense and fits the mechanism.

What I really need is a discrete ability for each specialist, a "building" or whatever that makes sense for each pair (6 types => 15 different "buildings"), and some sector-specific effects before I could put together a prototype and try this out. I'm open to suggestions in the comments below!

YANGI x2, and an old game off the back burner?

In addition to Keeping Up With The Joneses, I have had a few other new ideas crop up. Unlike KUwtJ however, these other ideas haven't been fleshed out quite as much, so I haven't mentioned them. I should at least add these to The List, if not work on them to the point I could get them to the table...

False Prophet (Mancala-Worker-Placement)

Listening to an interview with Isaias Vallejo of Daily Magic Games about the new/upcoming Margraves of Valeria, I heard him say that Margraves started out as an attempt to use a Mancala mechanism in a Worker Placement game. He said he couldn't make it work, so the design shifted to what they have now... a Concordia-esque hand building game where you can move your Margrave around the board and use neutral Knight figures to help you fight monsters (one of the various aspects of the game).

I thought the idea of Mancala Worker Placement sounded really good, and I wondered how I would go about that. So far I just have initial thoughts for a structure, but I think they sound reasonable -- maybe I'm not far enough along to see how it wouldn't work :)

I'm imagining a board, maybe a grid of tiles (like Istanbul for example), with neutral "follower" pieces on it, as well as a "Prophet" figure for each player. The game would be about moving your Prophet around and doing deeds, while follower meeples tend to follow whichever prophet they most recently saw.

On your turn, you would pick up your prophet figure and all of the followers in their current space, and distribute them Mancala style (like Five Tribes), placing your prophet last. Wherever you place your Prophet, you take the action of that space, and it's more potent the more followers are there with you - perhaps there are 3 levels of the action, Level 1 for when there's only 1 follower with you, Level 2 for when there are 2 followers, and Level 3 for when there are 3 or more followers. If you land in an empty space, you'd add a follower to the board there, and if you resolve a Level 3 effect, you'd remove a follower from the board.

That's about all I have at the moment, so I don't know what these effects would be (other than manipulating the number or location of followers on the board, for example). It still sounds to me like it has potential.

Edit: Perhaps better, on your turn you pick up all the followers in the space with your prophet figure into your hand. Then you place followers from your hand onto spaces 1-by-1 from your prophet to wherever you want to go. Then move your prophet to the last space you placed a follower on and execute its action (again, the more followers there the better). This way you might keep a (presumably small) hand of followers from turn to turn, and there could be some income you collect at the end of each turn that's based on the number of followers remaining in your hand.

I-cut-you-choose Worker Placement

This is my latest idea, based on Jamey Stegmaier's "Top 12 favorite game mechanisms" video that he recently posted. His top 2 favorite mechanisms are (spoilers...) Worker Placement and I-Cut-you-Choose. Just for fun I wondered what a mashup of those two would look like.

My initial thoughts were mostly just "make piles and draft them," which removes the Worker Placement dynamic altogether, but then a structure hit me that I think could work really well:

Imagine a board with a network of big spaces (let's call them "cities") and little spaces (let's call them "towns"). At the top of each round, seed the cities with ~4 (~6?) random cubes. Then take turns placing workers.

You place a worker into a city or town that has cubes. Then you do something that relates to the number or types of cubes there. Finally, you distribute those cubes to 2 neighboring towns (divided any way you choose) that do not have workers there already. If you distribute cubes into a town that already had some, then it has more now, no big deal.

Maybe if you place a worker where there's only 1 cube, it goes away afterwards (you can't split 1 cube). After all workers are placed, I figure there could still be some cubes on the board - that's fine. Add 4 (6?) more to the cities and start again.

I think that sounds like a solid main mechanism. I have some thoughts about possible details for what you actually do when you resolve a worker spot, but it's not fully fleshed out yet.

At this point, I find it very helpful to come up with a good theme that would fit the main mechanism described above. That helps inform the rest of the design. 

Worker-ception (Worker Group Placement)

A few years ago on the inaugural BGG cruise, I came up with an idea for a game based on cruise lines. In the game, you would place groups of workers -- not individual worker pawns -- into a few areas on the board, and then when resolving an area, you sort of zoom in and play a mini-worker-placement game with the workers in the group you had sent there.

I had sidelined that idea, but recently local designer David Short showed some interest in it, and in theory we are going to try it as a co-design. David suggested a slight re-theme as competing travel agencies, where the groups of workers are families going on vacation, and the worker spaces are little brochures so you can change them out from game to game.

I came up with a list of mini-WP games that could be used, so it might be that this game is close to being ready for an early playtest!