Aquasphere rules posted to BGG! Also, BGG is awesome!

Aquasphere rules posted

Just a quick note to let you know that you can find the web version (low res) of the final rules for Aquasphere (English TMG edition) on BoardGameGeek!

Public Service Announcement

BGG is an invaluable resource for me personally, for TMG, and for the rest of you gamers out there. They host a website CHOCK FULL of content on every game imaginable, they hold an AWESOME convention in Dallas every year (which I haven't missed yet!), and they work tirelessly at (and before) GenCon and Essen to bring LIVE, up to the minute coverage of the events to those sitting at home unable to attend.

BGG is terrific, and it's run by terrific people. You probably already know this, but if you don't, then go check it out. And if you're not already a supporter, consider pitching in - if you care about games enough to follow this blog, then you'll get your money's worth. If not for BGG, I might not be the published designer I am today!

Presenting Eminent Domain: Microcosm

Some of you reading this may actually follow my blog on occasion... and of those, some may have seen some posts I made on my attempt at a microgame, MicroCiv.Well, the news is that I developed MicroCiv, set it in the Eminent Domain universe, got some sweet art and graphic design done by the very talented Ariel Seoane, and long story short (too late...), I present:

Eminent Domain: Microcosm

The galaxy just got a whole lot smaller...

Two mighty empires are about to collide. Play your cards right and become the ultimate ruler of this microcosm!

Eminent Domain: Microcosm is a quick-playing two-player card game which brings you all the thrill of building a space empire in just 15-20 minutes. Each turn you take a card into your hand from the supply, then you either play a card and carry out its instructions, or pick up your discard pile to refill your hand. Each card also has a scoring condition on it, and to win you'll want to maximize those conditions.

As in the grandfather game Eminent Domain, actions you take can be "boosted" by revealing other cards sharing the same icon. Colonize and attack planets, do research, and take advantage of politics to score the most influence by the end of the game!

That's right, apparently all I can do is design Eminent Domain over and over again :)


I will have a final art prototype copy (or two) of Microcosm with me in the TMG Demo Room at GenCon this week, so if you want to check it out, swing by and challenge me to a game!

Aquashere, Bomb Squad, and GenCon!

AQUASPHERE

Last month we ran a Quickstarter project for Stefan Feld's new game: Aquasphere. It was very successful, with 1,464 backers pledging $70,506... that will definitely help Michael decide how many English copies of Aquasphere to bring to market. After helping to edit the rulebook [that link has the latest and greatest version of the rules, btw], I'm excited to get a final copy of the game to play! I like seeing all the anticipation and discussion on BoardGameGeek for this game, and I'm happy Ralph over at Hall Games gave TMG the opportunity to be involved with the project.

BOMB SQUAD

GenCon is next week, and I'm SUPER excited about that, but before I get into it let me just get this out there... our next Kickstarter project will launch after we return from GenCon, and it will be for the long awaited (by me) Bomb Squad!

Bomb Squad, by Dan Keltner and David Short, is a cooperative, real time game in which the players act as a team to program a bomb disposal robot to navigate a building, rescue hostages, and disarm bombs.

This game combines elements of my favorite examples of the cooperative genre: Hanabi and Escape: the Curse of the Temple, bringing them together is a way that is fun, exciting, and thematic.

I first played Bomb Squad at a Gamesmiths session in March 2013, and I knew right away that it was my kind of game. Since then I have played many games of Bomb Squad in order to test rules and missions. It has been fun helping Dan and David develop it into the next TMG title.

GENCON 2014

Last year, GenCon was amazing. We had a fantastic booth (see right), and we had a bunch of college kids helping to run demos of Dungeon Roll, Martian Dice, and other games.





We demoed Dungeon Roll a LOT...
The stack of little treasure chests you see on the left was eaten away almost entirely and then replaced each day.

I made a GIANT Dungeon Roll box which we filled with "treasure" (Dungeon Roll Hero Boosters), to give away to everyone who bought Dungeon Roll at the con. We even wrote "winner" on the back and gave away a few other games as prizes for added fun!


When we ran out of those, Michael used the prop as Dungeon Roll cosplay, wearing it around the dealer room :)

One unfortunate thing we noticed was that our bigger, longer games were not conducive to in-booth demos. They take too long, use up too much real estate, and in the vendor room people aren't really interested in sitting down to a 1-2 hour game. This is one of the big areas where GenCon differs from Essen, I've noticed. It's interesting to see some of the big foreign companies like Asmodee come to GenCon and run it like Essen - with large demo space with tables for teaching and playing full games.

For us that didn't work so well. We decided that the best way to run our booth was to demo the quick, small, inexpensive games, where a large portion of the quick demos turn into sales. We have an idea which we hope will make for a better outlet to demo and teach our bigger, longer games, and this year we're going to give it a shot...

TMG Demo Room at GenCon = Room #137

That's right, we've got our own Demo Room at GenCon in Indianapolis, Indiana from August 14 - 17! Across from the Vendor Hall, room #137 is ours. Those of you who subscribe to TMG's newsletter probably saw the announcement already, we're very excited to have an entire room of tables to display and demo some of the TMG catalog, as well as some upcoming New Hotness.

For those of you going to GenCon, come by room #137 and check out an upcoming TMG game, such as Gold West, Bomb Squad, or Aquasphere, at our New Hotness events (scheduled just about every odd numbered hour), or plan an old favorite such as Belfort, Ground Floor, or Eminent Domain at our TMG Catalog events (scheduled just about every even numbered hour).

Play To Win

The TMG Catalog games are all Play To Win, so every time you play one you earn 1 entry into a drawing to get that very copy of the game! So play early, play often, and maybe watch your soda - you might be taking the demo copy home with you ;)

Teach To Win

In fact, when it comes to teaching these games, we could really use your help! I'm afraid we may end up short-handed, so we've put together a new opportunity for those of you willing and able to teach these games... we're calling it Teach To Win - and it's pretty much what you'd expect: Every time you TEACH one of our games, you get a chance to win a brand, spanking new, in-shrink game! Increase your chances of winning, and help us out at the same time, by sharing the fun and enjoyment of playing games!

Prototypes of upcoming games

We will have some final art prototypes with us for Aquasphere, Gold West, and Bomb Squad, all coming soon. We'll also have non-final art prototypes of some games that are even further down the road, such as Chimera Station, Steam Works, and Eminent Domain: Exotica. Obviously the prototype games aren't Play To Win, since we haven't got any copies to give away yet, but I'd like to include the prototypes in Teach To Win somehow. Maybe you'll win your choice of game from our prize pool.

Actually, as Bomb Squad is about to go on Kickstarter, we WILL have some kind of promotion to encourage people to try it out... I'm not exactly sure what that'll be yet. But you should seriously come try it out no matter what, because it's a really fun game!

I look forward to seeing you at GenCon - come say "hi" in the TMG room (#137!), introduce yourself, and let me know you read my blog. I'd love to meet the people who enjoy reading my random thoughts!

Also, bonus point if you challenge me to a game of Quick Change! :)

Storytelling games, revisited (a little)

About 2 years ago I posted some thoughts on "role playing games" (more accurately "collaborative storytelling exercises") - specifically my experience with Fiasco, and my observation of Lady Blackbird.

At the time, I enjoyed the concept of Fiasco, but took issue with 2 things:

1) Failure for failure's sake. I feel like that comment/issue got a little overblown in my previous discussion - the bottom line is that I thought people were more excited than necessary about the game allowing and encouraging failure. But it's mostly semantic anyway, and that wasn't my main gripe about the game.

2) Completely reactive storytelling - that was my main gripe. When I think about a story, I think about ideas that are more interconnected and that take more than 1 comment to get across. That's not how Fiasco works - if you go into a scene in Fiasco with an idea that will take any kind of developing, you'll be disappointed. The way to enjoy Fiasco is to have no forethought (indeed, the game is about characters with little or no forethought), no plan, just see what happens and react to it.

That's all well and good, but it wasn't what I wanted from a storytelling game, and after putting thought into what I WOULD want from a storytelling game, I came up with a sort of variant or alternate structure - similar to Fiasco perhaps, but which would give players a bit more control over their own story arc, so their clever ideas don't get sidetracked and overrun by other players' clever ideas.

While Fiasco sets you up to tell a story like those Fiasco movies (Fargo, Burn After Reading, etc), my game would set you up to tell a story more like Pulp Fiction, where there are several distinct story arcs, but they overlap and intersect with each other. Each player would be "in charge" of one of the arcs, which could include more than just a main character (you could have support characters for example), and by alternating what I called "monolog scenes" (maybe a better term is "spotlight scenes") and "Interactive scenes," players would both get a chance to complete some thoughts about what's going on in their story arc, as well as play out interactive scenes with other players which will help shape and drive the overall story.

In the discussion of this idea, several people commented on potential down time - the phrase "monolog scene" seemed to turn people off, as if it meant 1 person would be talking at the rest for a long period of time. I feel like those comments were overly cautious though, as my impression of how those monolog scenes would go is more like "setting the scene" in Fiasco - a couple of paragraphs at most, just a chance for a player to get a word in edgewise without being interrupted by other players. I'd think they'd be short bridges between the interactive scenes, following one player's story arc from their interaction with their left hand neighbor's arc, to their interaction with their right hand neighbor's arc.

Anyway, I'm sure each person has a different idea of what a monologue or "spotlight" scene really is, and each person has their own level of tolerance for listening to someone else's idea before wanting to interject their own. So even if my structure works just the ay I think it will, it's not going to be for everybody.

There was another aspect of my structure that I thought was neat, but it didn't come up in any of the discussions at the time... and that's the set-in-stone-ness of the scenes in the 1st act (once they've played out), toward which you must construct the scenes in the 2nd act. That is to say, in the 2nd act, when the players are re-playing the chronology, they know what's got to happen in the future (they already played those scenes out). So they have some direction... they know they have to get to the diner with the briefcase, for example, but they currently do not have the briefcase. So they have to work that into their narrative.

Last night I was talking to my indie RPG friend, Brian, and he mentioned some new (?) game where the whole premise is that everyone knows the endpoint of the story, and knowing that gives players direction. Unlike Fiasco, which is very open, this type of game gives players a specific end goal that they know they have to work toward. I found that interesting, and it reminded me of my Pulp Fiction game structure, where in act 2, you have exactly that (you know what you have to work toward).

I actually like that in the Pulp Fiction game, you have both aspects - in act 1 you have the openness to create whatever lynchpins you want, then in act 2 those lynchpins provide direction for the scenes to build toward.

The last thing I wanted to talk about was a little more specifically how the Pulp Fiction game would work. Brian pointed out to me that with the openness there's something of a hurdle to get over to get scenes started. That could be one of the challenges in Fiasco, in fact. An interesting thing about these storytelling games is when the characters are thrown a curveball, some stimulus they have to work into the story. I agree with that. Brian was concerned that my Act 1 would suffer that same problem, but I think that's because it wasn't clear that the 'setup' part of the game (analogous to Fiasco), you would be choosing this stimulus in some way. But what way?

My First thought was to borrow the dice draft like in Fiasco, but I don't particularly like that. It's fun to draft from the pool of choices, but rather than feel like "ooh, now I have to work a rabid dog into the story" I just feel like "hey, he got to pick the thing he was interested in, and now I can't pick an "escaped chip" because there are no 5's left (and I thought that would go really well with our current setup), I can only pick "rabid dog" :(" - it's disappointing, and even the fun parts of that setup take a really long time.

I'd prefer to put the elements on cards, and just deal them out as needed, or give players a hand and thy can play one to inject it into the story, or something like that. After talking to Brian it became clear that there will need to be injections of stimulus periodically during the game, especially in Act 1 (in Act 2 you'll be building toward those lynchpins, so it might not be as necessary). So now I'm thinking that when it's time for an interactive scene (i.e. the spotlight scene draws to a close as your arc intersects another players's arc), you draw a card off the deck to see what it is the interactive scene must be about.

So like, my arc brings me to a diner, where I find your character(s)... so what? What are we going to interact over? Draw a card... "Robbery" Oh, so either I o into the diner to rob the place (and you happen to be eating there at the time)... or maybe I enter a diner that you are currently holding up... whichever makes more sense. There's something.


So the setup for this game will probably be deciding which subset of cards (apparently the smart way to do that is to use a standard deck of cards and a chart to cross reference) to use, or just shuffle them all together (possibly separated by type - Location, Action/Activity, Object, Person of note), and defining relationships between the players (like in Fiasco). The thing I like best about Fiasco is probably the web of interrelationships encouraged by the setup, so I don't see a good reason not to emulate that!

One of these days maybe I'll sit down and formalize these rules and try the game, but I'm not sure that'll ever really happen, as I never really play that type of game.

Aquasphere Quickstarter launches MONDAY 7/21!

Here's the news...

The Quickstarter project for Aquasphere will run 10 days: from 7/21 to 7/31.

THAT'S THIS MONDAY!

So watch your email for a TMG newsletter on Monday announcing the launch, or just go search for it on Kickstarter, or subscribe to Aquasphere on BGG (I'm sure SOMEBODY will mention it there) so you don't miss out!

Since Aquasphere is an import and not an in-house design, I don't foresee any stretch goals or additional goodies being added. This is a short-run campaign to (a) determine how many copies to bring over to the US, and (b) get some up-front money to pay for doing so.

Time to start getting excited about this new Feld title! Oh, am I too late? Already excited? Well, time to start getting excited about actually getting it! :)

Last call for Harbour!

Harbour is in the final 24 hours on Kickstarter - last chance to get in on the action. For a mere $20 it's a pretty good deal. A bunch of stretch goals added characters and buildings to the game, as well as to a launch promo (which you get on Kickstarter, but won't be in the retail box).

Designer Scott Almes and I have been working on a solo variant that feels like a 2 player game of Harbour. In the variant you play against a Training Dummy who collects resources, blocks spaces, and buys buildings. I don't think the solo variant will be done in time to send the game to print, so we intend to release it as a PDF fr players who would like to download it. I'm sure the community will be a great help in mass testing of the variant, which will make it even better.

Not every game is for everyone, but if you think you'd be interested in a short (under 1 hour) 2-4 player worker placement game with simple rules and interesting decisions, then you might want to give Harbour a look in these last 24 hours! There are several video reviews, and text reviews, linked from the Kickstarter page from people who have played with the Print and Play files that have been available for a couple of months.

Watch It Played: the Card Game - Rules Post

Rules last updated 8/7/14

This post will house the current game rules for Watch It Played: the Card Game. I will try and keep it up to date with any changes that may occur.

For PnP files, click HERE. (Updated Comment cards HERE 8/7/14)
Files last updated 8/7/14

Watch It Played: The Card Game

A game of reviews and how-tos for 2 to 4 video gurus

Contents:
18 Game cards (depicting a game box on the back and a YouTube video page on the front)
36 Comment cards (Depicting a thumb icon on the back and an Action and Comment on the front)

Setup:
Shuffle the Game deck and place it in the center of the play area. Place the top 2 cards of the deck in a row beside the deck, game box side showing.

Shuffle the Comment deck and deal 2 cards to each player. Set the remaining deck beside the Game deck.

The player who most recently posted a video online is the start player.

Object:
The object of the game is to post videos online about games, and garner comments on those videos, striving to increase your View count. Views are victory points in the game, and at the end of the game, the player with the most Views will win! Each game will be a member of one (or more) categories, and at the end of the game bonus views will be awarded to the player with the most Thumbs in each category.

Over the course of the game, you will obtain games, post videos about those games, get comments on those videos (some positive, some negative) which will raise (or lower) your view count and thumbs. You'll build an audience, and score a bonus for each genre of game that you have more thumbs than anybody else.

Game Play:
Begin with the start player and take turns clockwise. Your turn consists of 2 parts, DRAW, and PLAY.
DRAW: Choose one of the following options:
a) Draw 2 cards from the Comment deck
b) Draw 1 Game card, paying the cost by discarding Comment cards.
- It costs 0 Comment cards to take the Game card furthest from the deck. Slide the other two cards over so that there are again three to choose from.
- It costs 1 Comment card to take the Game card adjacent to the deck. Slide the top card of the deck over so that there are again 3 to choose from.
- It costs 2 Comment cards to take the Game card on the top of the deck.

Place any discarded Comment cards into a common discard pile next to the Comment draw pile.

Game cards drawn by players are placed face down (game box showing) in that player's tableau.

PLAY: Choose one of the following options:
a) Post a video, paying the cost (listed on the card) by discarding Comment cards.
b) Add a Thumb to a video by tucking a Comment card face down (Thumb icon showing) under a video in play
c) Play a Comment - execute the text on the comment side of a Comment card, then tuck the card under a video in play so that the comment shows. Comments will increase or decrease your view count and thumbs.
d) Draw 1 Comment card.


Game End:
The game end triggers when the Comment deck runs out a 2nd time (when it runs out the first time, shuffle the discards and create a new draw deck).
The game end also triggers when the last Game card is drawn.

When either of those things happens, finish out the current round such that each player has the same number of turns, and the game ends.

Also considering:
* Finish that player's turn and the game ends immediately
* Play out the round, then play 1 full round 

Winning:
Players score points according to two things: views on their videos, and thumb majorities in each category.
* View Count: Each video has a view count, and most comments will add or subtract views. Views are points in this game, so total up all views on your videos and comments to get your total view count.
* Thumb majorities: For each of the 6 categories in the game, the player with the most thumbs will receive a bonus 300* views. Black thumbs count as any 1 color associated with the video they are attached to. Players tied for most thumbs in a category score 100 views instead.

* Considering 500 or 400 as well

Watch It Played: Progress

A couple of weeks ago I posted about a new game I wanted to make to help promote Rodney Smith's Watch It Played video series. That post included the basic rules and structure for Watch It Played: the Card Game (hereafter WIP).

I mentioned this in the comments on that post, but for those who missed it, WIP got an inaugural play at Origins last weekend. Two plays actually, one 2 player and one 4 player.

Let me begin by saying that, as any game designer knows, the first live playtest of a game is not always pretty. But I'm happy to report that as first tests go, this actually went very well!

I'll certainly have some tweaking to do, and there's a question as to the game length (and how exactly the end of the game should be handled), but so far so good!

One thing I need to figure out is the value of thumb majority. I'm pretty sure I know how I can figure that out, I just need to make it attractive enough to go for, but not so strong that it overpowers  the regular points.

The other thing I need to figure out is exactly what happens at the end of the game. I generally like the game end trigger of exhausting the deck twice, and I might have to change a few of the cards so the deck draws out a little slower to make that work. But what happens when the trigger occurs? Should we finish out the round? Play 1 additional full round? End the game immediately? I'm not exactly sure what's best.

What I'm going to need now is some outside playtesting. So if you'd like Print and Play files, and are willing to play the game and give me feedback, then please leave a comment on this thread, or email sedjtroll at gmail with the subject "WIP PNP" and I'll get you set up with a PnP file.

Thanks!

Dungeon Roll Rules Edits - send me your most important comments!

I'm going through the rules threads looking for important edits or omissions for the Dungeon Roll rulebook, but I don't want to miss any!

If you have a specific edit to the rulebook that you feel needs to be in the 2nd edition, sound off here. I've got geek gold to tip with, and I'm not afraid to use it!

Thanks!

Harbour, history, and just a little bit of emotion.

In October/November 2010, TMG took a chance on a new thing called Kickstarter. Michael Mindes and I raised $48,378 to publish my card game Eminent Domain. We had set the funding threshold at $20,000, and we were very nervous going into it that we would not succeed. No board game project on Kickstarter had made that much - the only thing close was Alien Frontiers and the $14,885 it raised earlier that same year.

Needless to say, we were taken aback by the overwhelming success of Eminent Domain on Kickstarter, and we're very grateful to the backers that made it happen. Since then, TMG has gone on to build a strong company and a strong reputation, returning to Kickstarter time and time again. We've grown our followers and fan base with each new project, and as anyone paying attention knows - Kickstarter has simply exploded with game projects - over the last 4 years, MILLIONS of dollars have been raised to print board games.


Earlier this year TMG wrapped up several quick Kickstarter projects for some microgames, and then took a hiatus to work on getting all of those through the pipeline. Today Michael launched TMG's latest Kickstarter project, a game called Harbour, by Scott Almes. Harbour is a small box worker placement game that is simpler and quicker than many games of its type, but more fun and interesting than many "microgames" out there. Rob Lundy has done FANTASTIC art for the game, bringing the fantasy harbour town to life with a cast of fun, adorable characters.

The project went live some time this morning, and right now (6:16pm) it's sitting pretty at $45,318 - and the first day isn't even over yet! A lot of factors went into such a fabulous first day of funding, but the prospect of out-funding the entire Eminent Domain project in 1 day has made me reflect on just how far TMG has come.

We started as a couple of friends that liked to play games, and here we are today with 7 full time employees, a pipeline full of games, and a whole host of terrific fans! I'm getting a little emotional thinking about how far TMG has come in just 5 short years.

So I wish a big thanks to all of our fans and backers for helping bring us to where we are today, and a hearty congratulations to Mike for his relentless pursuit of the vision he has for TMG despite any setback that may crop up. I'm proud of you, man!

... And of course, if you haven't already, you should check out Harbour on Kickstarter. It's a good game, and a good deal - well worth a look at least!

Watch It Played promo game

I saw that Rodney Smith is going to be running a kickstarter campaign to fund the next season of his Watch It Played YouTube series. Rodney does the best job of anyone I know at clearly explaining how to play a game, myself included! I fully support his series, and to show that support I thought I would try and do something nice to help his kickstarter project.

Rodney said that he would like to have more concrete rewards this time, and as he creates videos about games for gamers I thought "what would be a better reward than a game people could download, print, and play?"

"Well," I thought, "I design games - maybe this is something I could make happen." Maybe I could design a game that would fit the bill. It should be a small game, easy to print out - so probably a card game. It doesn't have to be deep and complicated, just a light filler type of game seems right.

"What should the game be about?" I asked myself. "Why, about making videos about games, of course!"

 So I have put together the basics of a game design. I was going to keep it a secret until it was complete, then send it to Rodney lock, stock, and barrel. But I feel like the odds of it becoming complete anytime soon are much increased if I post about it, and maybe solicit the help of the community - or at least my 5 readers. Here's what I have so far...

[Edited 6/22/14]

Watch It Played: The Card Game

A game of reviews and how-tos for 2 to 4 video gurus

Contents:
18 Game cards (depicting a game box on the back and a YouTube video page on the front)
36 Comment cards (Depicting a thumb icon on the back and an Action and Comment on the front)


Setup:
Shuffle the Game deck and place it in the center of the play area. Place the top 2 cards of the deck in a row beside the deck, game box side showing.

Shuffle the Comment deck and deal 2 cards to each player. Set the remaining deck beside the Game deck.

The player who most recently posted a video online is the start player.

Object:
The object of the game is to post videos online about games, and garner comments on those videos, striving to increase our View count. Views are victory points in the game, and at the end of the game, the player with the most Views will win! Each game will be a member of one (or more) categories, and at the end of the game bonus views will be awarded to the player with the most Thumbs in each category.

Over the course of the game, you will obtain games, post videos about those games, get comments on those videos (some positive, some negative) which will raise (or lower) your view count and thumbs. You'll build an audience, and score a bonus for each genre of game that you have more thumbs than anybody else.

Game Play:
Begin with the start player and take turns clockwise. Your turn consists of 2 parts, DRAW, and PLAY.
DRAW: Choose one of the following options:
a) Draw 2 cards from the Comment deck
b) Draw 1 Game card, paying the cost by discarding Comment cards.
- It costs 0 Comment cards to take the Game card furthest from the deck. Slide the other two cards over so that there are again three to choose from.
- It costs 1 Comment card to take the Game card adjacent to the deck. Slide the top card of the deck over so that there are again 3 to choose from.
- It costs 2 Comment cards to take the Game card on the top of the deck.

Place any discarded Comment cards into a common discard pile next to the Comment draw pile.

Game cards drawn by players are placed face down (game box showing) in that player's tableau.

PLAY: Choose one of the following options:
a) Post a video, paying the cost (listed on the card) by discarding Comment cards.
b) Add a Thumb to a video by tucking a Comment card face down (Thumb icon showing) under a video in play
c) Play a Comment - execute the text on the comment side of a Comment card, then tuck the card under a video in play so that the comment shows. Comments will increase or decrease your view count and thumbs.
d) Draw 1 Comment card.


Game End:
As I've mentioned, I'm not too good with end game triggers. I would think this game should end when the Thumb deck runs out a 2nd time (when it runs out the first time, you'd shuffle the discards and create a new draw deck). Or possibly when the last Game card is drawn. Or maybe either of those things should trigger the game end.
_____________________________________________________________________

I imagine having actual images of board games on the back sides of the Game cards (I bet Rodney could get permission from publishers fairly easily), and I think the YouTube video side of the card, with columns of comments sticking out below the card, would be highly thematic. I plan to put actual (though generic) text comments on the Comments section as well for flavor.

Let me know if this sounds interesting to you, if you'd like to work on it with me, or if you're an artist or graphic designer and would consider donating a little time to putting cards for this together once the game is ready.

I feel like this could work, and make for a short, fun game that Rodney could give away as part of his kickstarter project. If Rodney wants to look into printing and mailing the game to people, more power to him, but I suspect it would be better to just send people a PDF and put the money toward Watch it Played.

So tell me, what do you think?

Random Thoughts: End Game Triggers

I'll freely admit that endgame triggers are not my strong suit. I've historically had lots of trouble with figuring out when a game should end, what should trigger that, and how should the final turns play out. I wrestled with that quite a bit for Terra Prime.

Luckily, Eminent Domain had a natural trigger (stack depletion), but it still wasn't trivial to get the end game right. In fact, I don't think I got it right in the base game, so in Escalation I actually changed it - rather than simply finishing out the round, the new game end rule is that once the game end is triggered, you finish out the round and then play 1 full round.  I MUCH prefer this rule for Eminent Domain, especially as the player count increases.

I have noticed a few games lately have a game end trigger and a last round dynamic that I find really disappointing, and it's the same thing I had done in Eminent Domain. I'm sure there are more, but specifically I'm talking about Splendor and The Builders: Middle Ages here.

Splendor is up for the prestigious Spiel Des Jahres - the German Game Of The Year award. I heard that it was all the rage at The Gathering Of Friends, so that it was nominated didn't surprise me terribly.I got a chance to play a few games of Splendor, and it's a solid game - elegant, streamlined, simple yet interesting... all around a fine nominee for the SdJ as far as I'm concerned. But every time I played the game, one thing in particular really bothered me. It was the end game. The game end triggers when 1 player reaches 15 points. When that happens you finish out the round so that all players have the same number of turns, and that's it. While I think that's completely fair, the problem is that during the normal course of play, it's unintuitive and annoying to keep track of how many points each player has, and therefore how close they are to triggering the end of the game. As a result, you can be surprised by the end - just when you think you're about to make some big play in a couple of turns, another player will build a 2 point card and say "That's 15!" - immediately putting an end to your plans.

The Builders has that exact same mechanism - as soon as a player hits 17 building points in that game, you finish out the round and then see who has the most total points (building points plus money). For some reason it didn't bother me as much the one time I played The Builders - possibly because I was the one to trigger it, so I didn't get surprised by it. But it definitely bothers me just about every game of Splendor I play!

My thought at the moment is that like Eminent Domain, both of those games (and possibly many other games that use the same end game dynamic) could benefit from playing one full round after the game would normally be over.

Have you ever felt this way about a game? Which one? Does this dynamic of a surprise game end bother you in Eminent Domain? In Splendor? In The Builders? I'd love to hear your thoughts on this! Maybe it'll help me make better end game rules in the future :)

Random thought on game mechanics

I've always got ideas floating around about game themes or mechanics. Sometimes they're thoughts that pass through my mind, recurring every once in a while. Other times I write them down and forget about them until I come across the note later.

I have such a note sitting next to my computer from a while ago... about a trick taking game where you have a track for each suit, and you increment the tracks as you take tricks including the next card in that suit. Perhaps you win the game by getting to the top of one/some/all of those tracks, or perhaps advancing on those tracks simply helps gain you benefits which you can use to win the game.

For example, if I take a trick that has a 2 of hearts in it, I increment my hearts track to 2. To increment it again (to space 3) I need to take a trick containing the 3 of hearts.

In the meantime, there would have to be reasons to play cards as well, like when you play one you get the action printed on it, with lower cards being early game actions and higher cards being late game actions.

And I don't think people would need to follow suit, but maybe the highest card of the led suit (or the suit matching an Event card which is drawn at the beginning of a round perhaps) is the one that takes the trick.

I like the sound of that. Each round a card could be revealed from an Event deck with an effect or special rule that applies to everyone. That card would indicate a suit, and the highest card played in that suit "wins the trick" - I suppose if nobody plays a card in that suit, the highest played card would win (probably the first copy of it, if there is more than one card of the same value).

Then players would play cards, either simultaneously or in turn order (probably turn order... I don't care much for simultaneous play, and I think you need to be able to see which cards you might be winning), resolve their effects, and the player who played the highest card in the indicated suit takes those cards, advancing any appropriate track.

Alternatively, rather than needing to take specific cards, maybe the winner of the trick advances any track matching one of the cards taken, or the specific track matching the suit indicated by the event.

And the tracks, as they advance, would be your tech tree. Each track would apply to a different aspect of the game, and as you advance on that track, you get batter at  that particular aspect.

Maybe one of these days I'll develop this further...

New game idea - MechFight!

The other day I was thinking about game mechanics, and for some reason I wanted to try something new. When I look for something new, I generally start by looking for tweaks on existing ideas, and I thought about card drafting - the kind you see in 7 Wonders, Notre Dame, Ginkgoplis, etc.

I thought maybe it would be interesting to have a game where players pass hands of cards around, playing one card from each hand, but not removing it.

Today I wrote down a few different options - the first was a resource management type of thing where you'd collect resources of various types, and use them to build stuff... but that seemed too similar to other games I've been playing and working on, and I thought maybe something different would be better.

I briefly thought about porting an existing game (Puerto Rico) into that format, but I quickly moved on from that as well. What I decided to try was a game with a board on which players would move units around and attack each other, upgrade and repair their units, and stuff like that.

Like I've discussed before, this was a Mechanics-First design attempt. I was not sure what theme I wanted to use, though moving units around a map and attacking each other narrows the field a bit. I needed 12 action cards for how I wanted the draft to work, and while I'd started with variations on Moving and Attacking, I needed some other stuff to make the choices interesting. I wanted to be able to improve the units via training, upgrading, or leveling in some way, and I wanted to include some kind of healing. I decided to go with "Upgrading," and for a theme I landed on Mech combat, and to heal I added Repair actions.

I plan to have a hex board, and each player will begin with 4 units. Each unit is made up of a stack of chips, where the top chip will describe the level, and later on the specialty, of the unit.

The cards have the following action on them, and are in a certain priority order. This is just a first draft, as yet untested:
1. Hold -  Your units take no damage this turn. You may resolve your next card at any Priority.
2. Set for charge -  Damage any unit that charges one of your units this turn. You may resolve your next card at any Priority.
3. Dash - Move 1 unit up to 3 spaces.
4. Assault -  Attack with up to 3 units.
5. Melee -  Attack with 1 unit. You may damage that unit to attack with it again.
6. Coordinated Charge - Move up to 2 units 1 space each and attack with them.
7. Solo Charge - Move 1 unit up to 2 spaces and attack with it.
8. Flank - Move up to 2 units 2 spaces each.
9. Mobilize - Move up to 3 units 1 space each.
10. Jerry Rig - Upgrade up to 2 units and damage them once each.
11. Upgrade - Upgrade 1 unit. Add an Upgrade chip to the TOP of that unit's stack.
12. Repair - Repair up to 2 units once each. Add a chip to the BOTTOM of those units' stacks.

These 12 cards are shuffled and dealt into 3 hands of 4 for 3 players (4 hands of 3 for 2 and 4 players). Each player gets one of those hands, chooses and simultaneously plays one of the cards from it. Those cards resolve in priority order, then are returned to the player's hand.

After the round is over, players pass their entire hand - including the card they played - to the left. In a 2 player game there would be a virtual player left and right of each actual player, so there would still be 4 hands traveling around the table.

Moving units around the board is simply picking up stacks of chips and moving them. Attacking means removing a chip from the bottom of a stack. Removing the last chip kills the Mech - last team with a Mech standing wins. Perhaps there could be objective based variants as well. Repairing means adding a chip to the bottom of a stack, and Upgrading adds a chip to the top of the stack - which serves to repair the Mech, as well as improve it.

When upgrading a Mech, its health and attack abilities increase. After level 3, the Mechs can specialize by becoming a Calvary unit, a Ranged unit, or a Heavy unit.

I think this will be an interesting 'draft' mechanism, as the same sets of cards will be going around and around the table, so you can start to figure out which actions will come in what order, and what actions your opponents will have available to them.

I hope to try this out soon. I had some notes about potentially adding side effects to some cards, such as "pass right instead of left this turn," "each player keeps one card and passes the rest this turn," and stuff like that to manipulate the groupings. I don't know if that'll be necessary in this version of the game, but I've got it written down for future reference :)

New Eminent Domain content! Microcosm, EmDice, and new stuff!

Long time no post...

EmDo News

I have some news on the Eminent Domain front. I've posted in the past about Exotica, EmDice, and MicroCiv. The news is that TMG is moving forward with some of these!

One of our excellent artists, Ariel Seoane, is putting together art for Eminent Domain: Microcosm (formerly MicroCiv), and will then be doing art for Eminent Domain: The Dice Game.

Eminent Domain: Exotica is still on the list, and will likely be a 2015 release.

Anyone interested in playing the latest version of the game, you can print the files out here:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4093/My%20Games/Eminent%20Domain/EmDo%20-%20Microcosm/EmDoMicro3.2.pdf

I've changed the language to refer to cards instead of tiles because in the final game the planets and techs will also be cards to make the game more portable.

If you play the game, please let me know what you think by leaving a comment here!

In addition to those EmDo products, I've been working on some new, fun stuff for the Eminent Domain base game: New Base Game Scenarios, and something I'm calling Emperor Avatars.

Base Game Scenarios

In Escalation I added Scenarios to Eminent Domain, and they have been very well received. People get excited about asymmetric starting positions, and really like the jump start that Scenarios add to the game. 6 of the Scenarios in Escalation used only cards from the base game so that players could play with Scenarios even if they didn't have he expansion (perhaps by looking up the details of the Scenarios online). Michael asked me to create additional Base Game Scenarios, so I've gone through and made 6 more Scenarios using cards from the base game, and so far I've really enjoyed playing with them.

Emperor Avatars

While working on the new Scenarios I had another idea that sounded interesting... so I created something I'm calling Emperor Avatars (though honestly that title doesn't make a lot of sense). Originally Avatars were going to be very similar to Scenarios, but rather than starting you with a Level 2 tech, it would simply give you an ability. The idea was to expand the Base Game Scenarios with abilities from the expansions. However, that quickly evolved into something else.

What I ended up doing was making 12 small abilities and putting them on 24 tiles - one each on "left half" tiles and one each on "right half" tiles. At the beginning of the game, player will draft these, and will end up with 2 abilities, a left-half/right-half pair. The combination of 2 abilities can lead to many different possible setups, and being able to draft them is a fun way to customize your position.

If you are interested in trying the New Base Game Scenarios or the Emperor Avatars, the files can be found here:
New Base Game Scenarios: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4093/My%20Games/Eminent%20Domain/Scenarios%20-%20new%20Base%20Game.pdf
Emperor Avatars: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/4093/My%20Games/Eminent%20Domain/Emperor%20Avatars.pdf

Note that the icons in the upper left are from my old prototype files - they are a Survey icon, a Produce icon, and a Trade icon.

Enjoy!

You're not thinking 4th dimensionally!

Time travel has always been an interesting topic for me. Unfortunately, most of the time travel games I've played tend to fall flat, because time travel is hard. With advances in board game technology, and in general creativity of designers, I feel like we're getting closer to one of the holy grails of game design - a fun, fluid game about time travel.

As yet I have not come up with anything that really worked well with respect to a time travel themed game design. However, last night I might have stumbled onto an idea that could work... at this point it's just an idea, and it would probably only work for 2 players, but here's a potential way to do a sort of time duel card game:

Suppose each player has a set of cards, numbered 1 through N, where N is the number of total rounds there will be in the game. These numbers would correspond to specific times (T=1, T=2, etc) and would represent some action a player would take at that time interval. You'd have several cards for each interval in your set, but you can't play more than 1 card of each time interval - because you can only do one thing at a time!

Each round, each player would simultaneously choose one card to play face down, simultaneously revealing them. You would not need to play the cards in any particular order - the only restriction is that you cannot play a card if you've already played a card at that time interval. Then, after reviewing your opponent's card, you move on to the next round and select another card to play.

The idea here being that you can see your opponent is going to do a specific thing at time T=4, so you can decide to take an action at time T=3 which makes their T=4 action weak or useless. In other words, you see that your opponent is going to grab a tool at time T=4, so you go back in time to T=3 and grab it first! Or something like that.

Once all N rounds have been played, players would put their cards in numerical order and resolve them to determine the result of the game.

I would think that strategically, you could play lower numbered cards early, making yourself less susceptible to an opponent's monkeying with your plans, however you also give up the ability to 'undercut' your opponent's actions as well. On the other hand, if you play higher numbers first, you reserve the ability to undercut an opponent, but at the same time you open yourself up to possible sabotage from your opponent.

I'm not sure if that could be  made interesting, but it sounds like it might work. I would think players would need an open goal from the outset, and possibly a secret goal as well in order to give them reasons to choose one action over another, especially in the early game.

Anyway, that's just an idea - I wanted to get it down here so that I don't forget.

Another Alter Ego playtest: Gamesmiths, 3/17/14

At Gamesmiths last night I hosted a game of Alter Ego in which David, Eisen, and John Morgan took on an Anarchist...

It was an informative playtest. From the outset, David saw some equipment that looks like it would work well together - one that allows you to buy 1 (or 3) Speed icons for $1 (or $2), and another that allows you to spend $1 to change a Speed icon into any other icon. He was very proud of this combo, and while he was sure it was a great combo and a great strategy, it being his first game he may have concentrated too heavily on setting it up in the early game and not enough on defeating Henchmen... which is a "trap" I sort of want in the game. Trap isn't the right word really, one of the main strategic decisions is when to focus on your Alter Ego life and when to focus on your Hero life. If the players spend too much time building their engines, then by definition I want the city to be overrun by Henchmen.

Morgan on the other hand began by going for Hero cards - mostly Smarts at first, but he ended up with a little bit of everything. As such, he was the one to beat up Henchmen, and he racked up a number of trophies (boost icons) - many of which were Hero icons... eventually he had one of each Hero boost icon in play except for Speed. So in the late game he was able to beat up a whole lot of henchmen.

Eisen didn't really specialize in much, he played Family cards a lot in order to get some teamwork tokens, and he beat some Henchmen up here and there, he ended up being more of a support character... which I think is fine, but I'm not sure if it was as much fun.

One thing I've noticed over the last several tests is that the Henchmen build up (as they're supposed to) and then the players struggle to catch up and stabilize (as they're supposed to), but if they make it over that hump, then it's smooth sailing all the way. This climax comes at the wrong time, because the Arch Villains aren't triggering early enough. I need them to be coming into play just about the time the players have stabilized and feel like they've caught up to the henchmen, so that rather than relax, BAM - there's a new, bigger challenge thrown at them.

What I think this means is that the Henchmen deck needs some tweaking. There need to be fewer Henchmen with no affiliation, and maybe more with multiple affiliations. David suggests the deck should be smaller, but I don't know if that's necessary. I still think the costs are OK as they are.

Another thing that has come up almost every time I've played the game is that the feeling of neglecting your Alter Ego life isn't coming through like I want it to. My personal opinion is that it's actually working darn near perfectly - if you neglect your family, your next turn's options are limited to what you've drawn... if you neglect the Community, you're at the mercy of the deck as to which Henchmen enter play... if you neglect your job, you don't get to use fancy equipment. But the big problem is, rather than that feeling like a result of your actions, people tend to feel like it's the luck of the draw... they don't recognize that they had some part in it, and they prefer to blame the deck for pulling out too many Sadist affiliated Henchmen when they wanted to fight the Anarchist (or whatever) rather than play more Community cards.

So, because it's come up more than once, and because the current version is failing to communicate the point of the game, I'm going to try the following... You never skip any of the phases. Every turn you have each phase of the game - Income (Job), Support (Family), Patrol (Community), Fight (Hero), and Recoup. Boost icons will go back to how I had them in the last test - more like EmDo planet symbols, boosting the phase, not each card of that type played in the phase. Here's the kicker - during each phase (Income, Support, and Patrol), if you played no card of the appropriate type (Job, Family, Community), then you put a counter on your player board in that phase. During Recoup, when it's time to take a card from the stacks, you check your player board... if you have 3 (2?) counters in any phase, then you MUST choose that phase's card from the stacks (rather than any card you want). Then you clear out those counters. If you have too many counters in 2 phases, then you must take cards of both of those types from the stacks, and then you'll have to play fewer cards from your hand (you'd take the required cards, then play from your hand to reach your display size).

This way it will be more obvious that if you're neglecting your job, then you get penalized for that. My concern is that it may sort of force players to just do a little bit of everything, and I do want them to have the ability to choose the cards for their decks. But I could see this potentially working out, it's definitely at least worth trying.

After some discussion, I have another thing I want to try - it's kind of a combination of the current "Arch Villain" thing and the ideas I've had for a Nemesis. And it could potentially increase the cooperative feel of the game as well. I think I'm going to give each player their own player colored tokens (ideally they'd be cardboard tokens with their insignia on them), and whenever you defeat a Henchman, you put YOUR token on he Arch Villain. Once in play, ONLY the player (or players) with the most insignias on the Arch Villain can actually engage them in their Fight phase. So not only are the Arch Villains getting upset that their Henchmen are getting beaten up... they're specifically getting upset AT YOU for beating them up. This way I think it could be acceptable to have to fight multiple Arch Villains in a game, maybe as a difficulty knob for example.

We talked a bit about some possible static effects that the Arch Villains could have. David suggested that each Villain could have multiple effects, and for an easier game you just use the first one, while for a harder game you use both the 1st and 2nd one. That could be doable, but I'm not sure if all the ideas I've got for static abilities will scale so easily.

I do like the idea of static effects, and I'm excited to figure some out and get them in the game. I think they could be thematic, like the Sadist abilities would kill off Civilians, removing them from the game, while the Anarchist abilities would change up the rules, and the Mastermind abilities would make the game become harder by removing options from the players.

Well, time to do some updating so that I can bring the game to MidSouthCon this weekend!

Alter Ego: Game Design Retreat playtest (3/8/14)

I got Alter Ego to the table during my Game Design Retreat last weekend, for the first time in a year and a half (!)... and with a few caveats, it went VERY WELL!

Caveats:

* The game took a very long time. I was not surprised to have a pacing problem, but I think it can be overcome - At this point I'm not as worried about the amount of time it takes as I am about whether or not the game works!

* I want to re-do the Henchmen deck. I knew this would be true.

* I probably need to reduce the number of tokens it takes to trigger an Arch Villain. The players were too strong by the time the Arch Villain arrived, and the ending was a bit anticlimactic.

Good stuff:

* The new version of Equipment seemed to work much better than the old version! I used some cards that you buy directly into play (they do not count as being in your display), and have activation costs. That way in order to make use of them, you have to constantly play Job cards to get $s to spend. I want to make some that are also good to buy if you don't concentrate on money, they'll have some static effect you don't need to pay for each turn. Also, I'd like some Equipment that goes into your deck as well and does stuff, so I'll make some of that again, but with an eye toward the right type of effects (and maybe I'll call them Events instead of Equipment).

* The Teamwork tokens really seem to make the cooperative feel in the game. The fact that players can use each other's cards by trading Teamwork tokens back and forth had everyone talking on everyone's turn about what card they should add to their deck, which Henchman they should go after, etc. It sounded a lot like other "real" cooperative games sound during play.

* The player boards and turn sequence (skipping phases when no cards are played) also worked well.

* The players really seemed to like the game! They appeared to be having fun while playing, they claimed to really enjoy it, and they were even sort of role playing up their roles. For example the guy who concentrated on money and equipment really felt like Batman, using all his wonderful toys to fight crime, and throwing money at problems.

* The limit of 5 Civilians of each type seemed like it worked alright. That could obviously change with other tuning to get the pacing right, but in the early game the players did say they felt like they were on the ropes with respect to the Civ tokens.

Changes and updates I'm making for the next playtest (hopefully Friday):

* I added and tweaked Equipment cards (and events) based on the playtest commentary and seeing it in action.

* I had forgotten that the boost icons were intended to be PER CARD PLAYED, not per phase... so a $ icon is supposed to give you 1 additional $ per Job card played, not just once no matter how many Job cards you play. That's a pretty big difference, especially once you get a few of them into play. The idea though is that I want every Job card not played to feel like a big deal. I don't want players to build up icons and think "ok, well I better play 1 Job card, but the rest aren't a big deal" - I want EACH job card to be worth a lot, so it's painful to play Hero cards instead. I have to be a little careful not to make the Equipment so good that you can ignore training and Hero cards altogether and just go all JOB all the time.

* Similarly, I think the Hero boost icons are supposed to boost each card OF THAT TYPE that you play. So if you have a Speed boost icon, it'll trigger when you have a Speed card in your display, but not when you have only a Will card. However, it'll trigger twice if you have 2 Speed cards in your display! This means getting a Hero boost icon trophy makes it much easier for you to defeat things that have THAT symbol, but not things that require diverse symbols. For example the 5-cost Henchmen that cost 3 of one icon and 2 of another.

* I re-did the Henchmen deck... I added some easy-to-beat Henchmen that take 2 of the same colored hostage, to make the deck a little more scary. Before I had henchmen that either attracted the attention of Villains, or else gave the players some benefit. I changed that to make most Henchman do both. I especially like that for the early game (cheaper) Henchmen, because that way going after boost icons will also usher in the Arch Villain, and players will have to be careful. I might have overdone it though, I want to make sure players have the ability to rescue hostage without accidentally summoning the wrong Arch Villain.

* I also added Teamwork icons to the Henchmen as well as Display +1 icons.

* For reference, Calling the Cops on a Henchman saves 1 Civ, and if that's the last Civ, the henchman is removed from play, and does NOT trigger the affiliated Arch Villain.

* I haven't done it yet, but I intend to revamp the Arch Villains, adding a status effect when they come into play. For example, maybe 1 version of the Mastermind has created distractions to occupy they police, so once they're in play you can no longer Call the Cops.

* It was suggested as well that one of the Arch Villain types require a broader range of icons to defeat. Where the other types encourage you to specialize in an icon or two, currently none require a more balanced assortment of icons. That was sort of on purpose, so players could reasonably build their deck toward defeating the Villain... but maybe a Villain requiring all the symbols would be interesting.

* I'm going to update the player boards as well, just to make sure everything is up to date. I'm considering reducing the card draw of Family cards to 1 per card, +1 (or 2) automatic during the phase. I.e. as long as there's a Family phase, you draw N+1 (or maybe N+2) cards, where N is the number of Family cards in your display. This way the Card draw boost icons might feel a little more strong and useful. Currently you draw 2N cards, which seems like a lot.

* The new mechanism for Equipment has 3 face up from a shuffled deck, and as a standard option players can spend 1$ to cycle 1 of the cards, or 2$ to cycle all three. This way a player who happened to have 1 Job card could have SOMETHING to do with that money. I'll add these actions to the player board.

* I think I might reduce the display size to 4. I think that will emphasize the main agonizing decision in the game - which cards do I play. I'll keep the hand size the same, so if you play no Family cards, you choose 3 of your 4 cards to play (plus add 1 from the supply). With the addition of Display +1 icons on the Henchmen I think that'll work out well (people can earn a bigger display).

I'm excited to be working on this game again, and even more excited that the prospect looks promising!

Reviving old games... Alter Ego and Scourge of the High Seas

In the last few weeks I've brought 2 old game ideas back to the forefront of my mind... partly because I really like the ideas and have always wanted to work on them, and partly because Michael would like to see more Seth Jaffee designed games in the marketplace. Many people don't realize that I'm associated with some of the big box games from TMG: Ground Floor, Kings of Air and Steam, and Belfort for example, even though I do have a developer credit on those games. Developer credits in the rulebook and on the back of the box are not as prominent as Designer credits, and on database websites such as BGG there's not a field for developer (though I think there should be). So I've finally gotten around to reviving 2 of my designs that have been sitting around for a few years: Alter Ego and Scourge of the High Seas.

Both of these games are card games with deck building aspects, and both have the opportunity for excellent art... both seem very thematic and fun to me, so i think they could both be well received in the marketplace. In case you're new to this blog, or have simply forgotten since it's been so long, here's a short description of each of these games.

Alter Ego

A cooperative deck building game of vigilante heroism

You won't see Crime City on any map, but that's how people have come to know your hometown. Sadists, Anarchists, and the Mafia each carving out portions of the city they call their own. Hundreds of innocent bystanders caught up every day in their turf wars, or held under their oppressive thumbs. Precious few have the time, the money, the guts, or the wherewithal to do anything about it. You're one of those few... Of course it means you'll have to give up that happy home life, or that cushy job. The paper paints vigilantism in a negative light - you'd be viewed by the community as a monster. But your city bleeds... the city bleeds and it calls your name. Will you answer?

You're a vigilante hero, one of the few in Crime City who have come together to put an end to the reign of terror the city's been trapped under. Banding together, you'll fight through a swath of henchmen in order to find and defeat an Arch Villain. But as you get stronger as a hero, you'll have to neglect some parts of your Alter Ego life - your family, your job, and your community.

In Alter Ego you play Job, Family, Community, and Hero cards into a display. You can only play so many cards each turn, and as the game goes on you'll need to play more and more Hero cards to defeat henchmen... meaning you'll have to neglect some aspect of your Alter Ego life.

Henchmen come into the game each turn and take civilians hostage. Fight the Henchmen to free the civilians, and defeat them to gain benefits... defeating underlings will eventually pique the interest of the whoever they're working for, bringing an Arch Villain into play! Defeat the Arch Villain to save the city and win the game!

In "expert" or "competitive" mode, each player will also have a Nemesis which they must defeat as well to win the game.

I'm pretty sure I know how the general rules of the game will go, and I have a prototype from before. I'm struggling with how the Equipment cards should work, but I have a new idea for that which I think will be good - all (or most) equipment stays in play, not your deck, and has an activation cost to use. Some can be used once per turn, some more often than that.

I just had a thought about a different way to do a showdown between each player and their Nemesis... maybe once the Arch Villain is defeated, players simply sort out their decks, and if your deck meets certain criteria (enough of each type of indicated card in it), then you are deemed strong enough to defeat your Nemesis. That way you don't need to play out some sort of battle turn by turn (though that might be fun). Defeating your nemesis could simply be worth some bonus points, and defeating henchmen could ls be worth points, and the winner could simply be the Hero with the most points.

Scourge of the High Seas

Yo ho, yo ho, a pirates life for me...

Captain of a ship in the Golden Age of Piracy! Visit Tortuga to recruit crew, buy equipment, and upgrade your vessel in order to engage in trade, treasure hunting, and plunder on the High Seas. Stash your booty away at your island hideout to keep it safe and off of your ship. He who buries the most treasure will be remembered forever as the Scourge of the High Seas!

This one is intended to be like Ascension, but with 2 Center Rows. I have a pretty good idea how I want this game to work as well, but have faltered on creating cards for it. I have a handful of card ideas from a year or two ago, and I just put together a spreadsheet to try and tabulate a bunch more card ideas. I have made some progress, but there's a lot of work to be done balancing and creating all the different types of cards in the game!

On your turn you first visit Tortuga and spend Treasure to get Crew, Equipment, and Ship Parts. You can also condense resources (turn 3 copper into 1 gold, to put it into Dominion terms).

Then you hit the High Seas and engage Ships, Trade Ports, and Buried Treasure cards ("buying" these cards with Plunder, Goods, and Maps which you've accumulated from other cards).

Finally, you visit your Island Hideout, where you man Bury cards to get them out of your deck. Each time you do that, you must take a Hideout card into your deck which is useless, so you'll want to be a little careful about when you choose to bury cards.

At the end of the game (when should this be???) the player with the most Treasure buried in their hideout will be the winner.

I've never been good with game end triggers. This game could end when someone has buried a certain number of Treasure (like Ascension), or it could end when a limited pool of Hideout cards are taken... I can't think of another way that makes a lot of sense.

Game Design Retreat

I'm hosting a Game Design Retreat this week (tomorrow through Sunday), and I hope to get both of these games "to the table" - to discuss with other designers even if not to play. I guess we'll see how that goes. I do not think I'll have a playable copy of Scourge, but hopefully I can get at least a partial test of Alter Ego in and see if I'm headed in the right direction with that one!

Final days of Scoville kickstarter

We're down to the final 48 hours of the Scoville kickstarter, and we're up to $65,500 in funding. The final stretch goal is at $80k, so if you've been on the fence then now's the time to jump in - we're going to make it!

TMG big box games on Kickstarter have come to an odd place. They're very likely to hit their funding goal, but since we don't like exclusive content, and we like to provide a full game in the first place, there isn't much to get excited about as far as stretch goals...

It's one thing to come up with a mini-expansion for a 10 minute microgame from scratch, there's much less going on in those games, and there's time to test it and make sure it's good... however the same is not true for a larger-scale game. Big games are a lot of work, and unless the designer has been sitting on the game for some time and has already designed an expansion, there's not a lot of game content that can be "tossed in" as a stretch goal. Bigger, longer games by definition take more time to test new content, and so big box games don't have the luxury of coming up with mini expansions or new content on the spot (without risking that content being out of balance or, in general, bad for the game).

What we've got on deck for this last stretch goal for Scoville is something that many people have expressed an interest in... pepper shaped bits rather than cubes. Due to board legibility concerns, we've combined the pepper bits with a fancy board with depressions into which the "cubes" will fit, which will serve to ensure uniform placement on the board. This is more important than many people realize, because it will significantly reduce the load of simply reading the board, allowing you to concentrate on your game decisions.

This upgrade is not exclusive to Kickstarter backers, it will be an upgrade for the entire print run. We tried a similar format for Kings of Air and Steam, and frankly I'm a little surprised at the overall reaction to that format.

To me, it's an extension of the original funding goal - and it should work the same way. When a game meets the original funding goal, it becomes available for everyone - not just Kickstarter backers. So when an upgraded version of the game becomes available at some higher funding level, why is it people hesitate to back, citing that the upgrade will also be available to everyone, not just the backers? By that logic, why were those people backing in the first place?

Best I can figure is that if the original funding goal isn't met, then there's no game at all. If it IS met, then the game will be available - even if not in an upgraded version. The risk of the game not being upgraded isn't as big a deal as the risk of not being able to play the game at all, and maybe that's why people make that choice to wait for retail - even if they say they really want the upgraded version.

My advice to anyone considering backing is this: If you want the game, and you're planning on getting it anyway, then you might as well pledge now rather than waiting for retail - to help ensure the threshold is met for the upgraded components (assuming you in fact do want the upgraded components). Of course, if you do not want the game, or cannot afford the game, then don't pledge - that goes without saying.

At this point I'm confident we will make the $80k funding goal, but that's only true if the people who want the pepper bits go ahead and pledge!

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/michaelmindes/scoville-the-hottest-farming-euro-game-ever