Dan Manfredini

Design Challenge Winner

Mar 212007

I won the design challenge this week with this entry below. It is basically an abstract game with beads. I was suprised at how well it played right off the bat with only a few tweaks to my original design. We played this one first, and Ian voted me the winner before we even got a chance to play his design! Marc emailed in an entry, but we were unable to play it since it was just two of us and the game required three. Without further ado…

Bead Game v0.1 by Dan Manfredini (C) 2007

Overview

Players try to get rid of their bead chains.

Components

Per player:

  • 3 red beads
  • 3 black beads
  • 3 clear beads
  • 3 green beads
  • 3 orange beads
  • 3 white beads

Setup

  1. Each player randomly arranges two beads of each color into a long chain such that one end is toward the center of the table and the other end points toward the player.
  2. Each player takes one bead of each color into his hand.
  3. Randomly determine a starting player.

Playing the Game

Beginning with the starting player, and going clockwise, each player will get a turn until the game ends. The active player must take one of the following actions:

  • Play a bead.
  • Draw a bead.
  • Split a chain.

Play a Bead

The active player takes one bead from his hand and discards it to the center of the table, forming a pile with the other discarded beads. The active player then chooses outside or inside. If the player choose outside, then all beads matching the discarded bead’s color on the outside (nearest the edge of the table) of any chains must be discarded to the center of the table. Similarly, if the player chooses inside, then the same holds true for the insides (nearest the center of the table) of all chains.

If this action causes any another player’s chain to disappear, then the active player take that player’s discarded bead into his hand. Note: The active player never takes a discarded bead from his own chain.

Draw a Bead

The active player may take one bead from the pile at the center of the table and place it in his hand.

Split a Chain

The active player takes one bead from his hand and discards it to the center of the table, forming a pile with the other discarded beads. The active player then chooses one of his chains and divide it in to two sections. The division must be on either side of a bead matching the discarded bead’s color. The new sections can be of any length, but must retain their order and orientation. They should be placed side by side.

End of Game

The first player to have no chains remaining is the winner. In case of a tie, the player with the most beads in his hand is the winner. In case of a further tie, whoever ended the game is the winner.

Design Challenge

Mar 142007

Ian and I came up with a challenge for next week to get the design mush in your head to start churning. So here it is:

Design a game using only glass beads. The quantity and color are up to you. No board, no paper and pencil, nothing but the beads.

We’ll judge them at next week’s meeting!

Like a rulebook without pictures...

Jan 242007

Last night, Mischa, Ian, and I met at my place for some good old-fashioned playtesting. One of the first things we did was go over my rulebook for Salvage. Admittedly, it was not a polished as I would have liked it, but I tried to make sure it was as rules complete as I could make it. Writing a rule book is not as easy as it might seem. It needs to be tested just like the game itself to make sure that everything has been covered.

Both guys gave some good suggestions on layout and wording. One big problem was the lack of card layout and procedural examples. I did have examples, but not enough and not in the needed areas. As they say, you can never have enough examples.

Besides examples, I included a glossary for all of the cards in the game (there’s not that many). It serves as a mini-FAQ and a dumping ground for any notes I have about a particular card. I like it because it’s not in the way when you’re trying to learn the game, but it is there when you have a question about a particular card.

I made a change to one card that required quite a lot of explanation in the glossary. The concept is simple once you know it, but it is a real pain to write it down succinctly and clearly. Imagine trying to explain the word “most” to people who had no concept of numbers being greater than or less than others. To me, that’s what it feels like. I tried my best, but after reading it, Mischa was definitely disturbed by it because it seems like a big clunky addition to the game. I strongly feel that it is not a difficult concept, and I just need to find a better way to explain it. After we played, he agreed that it was a simple concept, and he suggested adding a thematic explanation to make it easier to swallow, ala Star Trek via Futurama:

Fry: Well, usually on the show, someone would come up with a complicated plan, then explain it with a simple analogy.

Leela: Hmm. If we can re-route engine power through the primary weapons and reconfigure them to Melllvar’s frequency, that should overload his electro-quantum structure.

Bender: Like putting too much air in a balloon!

Fry: Of course! It’s so simple!

It’s as simple as that!

Salvage Playtest

Jan 122007

This past Tuesday we had a productive game design meeting. Everybody got to playtest each others’ prototypes, and we all found them to be rather interesting. I brought to the table a card game I’ve been working on for over a year now called Salvage. I haven’t been constantly working on it; it’s just been on and off the back burner for a long while. It has gone through a lot of transformations along the way. I like to try out a lot of ideas, and some of them just feel as though they are meant for another game, not this one. I scrapped a lot of ideas along the way because I wasn’t happy with how they worked in the game, but I think I’m to the point where I like how the system works.

Players assume the roles of post-apocalyptic scavengers searching through the rubble of a war-torn landscape to find the components they need to rebuild their lives. The piles of junk are limitless, but the resources they need are scarce. Players alternate between rounds of scavenging (card drafting) and building. During the draft, each player is dealt seven “junk” cards; they simultaneously select one each and pass the remainder to the left, repeating until done. With the “junk” cards they have acquired, players then take turns building and upgrading their camps, tools, weapons, and vehicles which all have their own unique abilities.

The testing in this latest version was mostly about the recycling of the junk deck. The depletion of the junk deck marked the end of a “season” in the game. The game lasts as many seasons as there are players. This allows for games with different numbers of players to roughly last around the same amount of time.

In previous versions of the game the junk deck would run out, players would get short changed junk cards (by design, I convinced myself), and play would continue as normal. The player with the leader card would get less short-changed than the other players because he was dealt his card first. After the short-changed round, a new season would start. Each new season would require all junk cards (even the left over ones the players had in their hands) to be shuffled into a fresh new deck. Even though the short changing of the cards didn’t affect the overall balance of the game, it just felt sloppy. It didn’t feel like good design when players played a round with one or two new cards instead of the full seven.

To fix that problem, I decided to just have the discard pile be shuffled when the deck ran out. That let the players continue to draw their cards so that each round they had 7 new cards. When the deck runs out, the players should note that the end of this round marks the end of the season. I also allow players to keep their card between seasons. It seems like a simple solution used in countless other games (and even in previous incarnations of this game), and I just took the long approach to get there.

With that nagging flaw no longer there, I plan on focusing on the project abilities, cleaning up the rules, and more playtesting!

Trilogy Theme

Aug 312006

Now that I’ve described the structure of the system, I’ll talk about the theme of the trilogy. The concept that I decided upon is that of alien contact and visitation. My hope is to simulate (as much as a board game can) the decisions and feelings surrounding this topic. There aren’t a lot of “book” science fiction games out there. When I say “book”, I mean science fiction in the classic sense. It’s exploring behavior through non-existant scenarios. Doom: The Board Game would fall under “movie” sci-fi where the setting, weapons, and characters are unreal, but it doesn’t really explore any ideas. Anyways, here’s the rundown:

Trilogy Theme Overview

Game 1 – Players use resources to collect and decipher space signals.

Game 2 – Players control governments and organizations to prepare the world for an alien visit.

Game 3 – The aliens visit our planet.

This is a rough outline, but I think that each one of them will have their own feel. Since each game will have its own focus, I will be allowed to explore mechanics in depth. For example, if this were just one game, I’m sure “decipher space signals” would be just one card. In this series, it will be an entire game!

Next Up: Where to Start?

Trilogy Project

Aug 302006

I’ve had this crazy idea in the back of my mind for a long time, but until now have I actually decided to take a stab at it. I am planning on designing a trilogy of games. We’ve all seen trilogies in books, movies, and video games, but not so much in board games. In the board game world, we have expansions (Seafarers of Catan), spin-offs (Blue Moon City), conversions (Travel Blokus), and let’s-sell-you-the-game-you-already-own (Ticket to Ride: Marklin Edition). However, nothing is what I would call a true sequel or a trilogy. (Note: I hear that there is a game being developed called Cartagena II that will follow where Cartagena left off. They may have beaten me to the punch, but that still remains to be seen how that game actually plays.)

My definition of board game series (in my case, trilogy) requires the following:

1. All games in the series will have an effect on one or more games played later in the series.

This can be accomplished in a variety of ways. My current plan is to have the final state of Game 1 to determine the setup of Game 2.

2. All games in the series can be played by themselves.

This is related to the previous rule. Separating the games apart from the overall series experience is important. Each game should stand on its own merits.

3. All games in the series are connected through a story.

This requirement is to strengthen the connection between the games. The story is what separates my definition from game series like the GIPF project.

4. All games in the series require the same range of players.

The same group of players should be able to experience the whole series from start to finish. This will make it more challenging to design, but it will make the players much more open to committing the time to play the series.

I plan on documented my way through this whole project. I know I will have a lot to learn. Designing a single game is no small task, so designing three of them that connect is going to be a challenge. Stay tuned for next time when I tell you about the theme of my trilogy…

King Fish

Jul 272006

This is my entry for the monthly Boardgame Designer’s Forum contest. The description, entries, and winners can be found here. I placed third!

King Fish

2-5 Players

Components:

1 x Standard Deck of Cards
1 x Scoring Pad and Pencil

Overview:

Players are competing to catch the most fish in a tournament. The game will be played with one round for each player. Players will take turns being the dealer.

Setup for the Round:

1. Shuffle the deck.
2. Deal 6 cards to each player.
3. Deal 3 cards face-up (fish) into a group (pond). Create 3 ponds in this manner.

Playing a Round:

The round will consist of up multpile fishing excursions. During each excursion, players’ hand sizes will get smaller and smaller denoting their fatigue throughout the day. The round will end when all of the ponds are empty or at the end of an excursion when the deck has less cards than players. During each excursion do the following:

Choose a Pond

• Each excursion, starting with the dealer and going clockwise around the table, that player will choose one pond that all players will fish in.
• Each fish has a number and a suit. The number represents its distance from the boat. It suit represents the bait that will catch it.

Choose a Fishing Line

• Starting with the dealer and going clockwise around the table, each player plays one card face-up in front of him.
• This is his fishing line, and only the number is used. The number represents the distance your line will be thrown out. The higher the number, the more fish you will have in range but be careful because the lower numbered lines will reel in first and may take your fish!
• From lowest to highest, the numbers are: A,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,J,Q,K.
• King Fish Rule: The only way to catch a J,Q, or K fish is to use a line with a J, Q, or K. The order doesn’t matter. Example: A Queen Line can catch a King Fish.

Choose the Bait

• Starting with the dealer and going clockwise around the table, each player plays one card face-down in front of him.
• This is his bait, and only the suit is used. The suit represents which fish you are able to catch.

Reel ‘Em In

• Starting with the player with the smallest line card and going higher, each player turns over their bait.
• As a player’s bait is turned over, that player chooses one fish in the pond whose suit matches his bait AND whose number is less than his line. He keeps that fish card as a “trick”.
• If more than one player have the same line number, the highest bait number is used to determine who chooses first.

Back to the Tackle Box

• From the deck, turn over one card for each player. Starting with the dealer and going clockwise around the table, each player chooses one card to keep. If there are less cards than players, end the round instead.

Scoring:

• Each fish is worth one point.
• Each J, Q, or K fish is worth two points.

Vices and Virtues

Jul 272006

This is Chris’ game that we playtested on Tuesday.

Overview

We only tested the basic functionality of the game so a full review of it cannot be made. What we did test was the basic acquisition, moral influence, and movement of the characters. The game consists of a board with buildings and streets. In each building, there are characters that have three moral traits. These traits are one of seven which are either in the good or evil state. The object of the game is to change the characters so that more of them are matching your hidden alignment.

Critique

We were given two actions each turn. These actions could be used to move one space, recruit a character, or turn a character. That is fairly simple, but the real problem for me was the board evaluation. With those actions, you must first see what is possible for you to do. You have to look at the traits on your characters, the traits on the buildings, the traits of those who you want to turn, the good/evil alignment for those traits, and to see if anybody else owns those characters. There is a lot of looking around. Once you enumerate all of those possibilities, you must come up with some heuristic to determine your move. Right now, the game has these mini-goals: don’t leave your people in the street, turn people to your alignment, and recruit. If you can do those things on your turn, then you’re in good shape.

Right now, there is not a lot of bang for the buck. Either lower the buck (complexity), or increase the bang (interesting choices). That is just my initial impression of it based on the incomplete game.

I do have some ideas to reduce complexity without totally stripping the game down to nothing. Mark Kreitler (who may be rejoining us in a few months) once told me that you shouldn’t force complex realistic mechanics in your game if you can get away with just the essence of it. Right now, your game has a very literal translation of moral converting. Characters have multiple vices and virtues, just like real life. Characters with a bad trait can convert another one, just like real life. Like-traited characters can be recruited (made friends with), just like real life. My idea is that the game retains the good/evil conversions, but maybe not with the movement, “owned” character, or tons of traits. An example of this idea can be found in games like Othello where you convert based on location to opposite pieces. That is a very basic example, but the point it that the goals you want to achieve with this theme can be approached in a different manner.

As it stands right now, you have a lot of challenges ahead, and I’m glad you decided to proceed in steps to test out the viability of different aspects of your game. It’s good to have a strong framework to build the rest of your game on.

Fluffy Bunny Tea Party

Jul 272006

This is a game that Marc brought that broke new barriers in game design… or something.

Overview

This is a card game with two decks. One deck is full of tea party treats which have points on them. Points are bad. The other deck is full of action cards, like serve a treat from the row of three face-up treat cards, or “hop” to switch places with another player. On your turn you can play a card and either draw a card or sip your tea (remove a tea token from your supply of four). The game ends when the action deck is depleted or one player is finished with their tea.

That sounds simple enough, right? Well, imagine doing this “in character.” We’re talking fluffy bunnies here. Also, politeness is a rule in this game. When a player serves you a point-filled treat, you must gracefully accept like a college hazing. If you fail to be polite or forget to refill the treat tray, another player can force another treat onto your plate.

This game was so hilarious and we all had a great time playing. No doubt Marc will post his video soon.

Critique

The game itself is pretty good. I like the fact that you have to “push” the treats on other rather than playing them from hand. That prevents players from getting really powerful hands with high point treats. The trading, hopping, and frolicking all work fairly well, too.

The tea drinking mechanic was neat, but it seems like we have too much tea. None of the players were able to finish off their tea. Also, the benefit of drinking the tea is minimal. You would only drink it to try to end the game, but that is a difficult task that will take many turns. On top of that, you skip drawing a card. I think it needs to be tweaked a bit, but I do like the essence of what it is trying to do.

I wonder about the target audience for this game. You mentioned that this was for kids and old British ladies. Is it also intended for us gamers to play? If so, I wonder if Pretty Pretty Princess or similar games would have the same humorous effect.

In the end, you challenged my understanding of incorporating humor in games. Good Job!

Rocket Game

Jul 272006

This is one of Marc’s games we playtested on Tuesday night.

Overview

This game is a card game with a deck full of rocket components like boosters, fins, and cones. The object of the game is to assemble various sizes of rockets to launch various sizes of astronauts. The astronauts include a chicken, a dog, a cow, a monkey, and a human. To collect the rocket parts, a blind auction is performed on two pieces at a time. The high bid gets his choice. The low bid gets second choice. Ties are broken with another bid.

To gain more money, you can sell of unwanted components, which all have a black market value on them.

To launch your rocket, you must perform a die roll for each component in it to see if it burst into flames on take off. Each component has different modifiers. If you succeed in your launch, you score points for your astronaut.

Critique

First off, I think this is a very nice framework for a game. It is simple and quick to pick up. People like building things, and using cards to build rockets is a great idea that works perfectly. Launching random animals is another plus.

I think the auction system needs some tweaking. While the bid high/low mechanic may work great with two players, it didn’t work very well with more than two. Maybe the idea can be expanded upon. Possibly have one card for each player. Bidding will determine the pick order of the pieces. There are a ton of different styles of auction mechanics out there, but I still think that you can find a new one that will be interesting and still work for this game.

Failure to launch is another problem. The punishment doesn’t fit the crime: All pieces of your rocket are discarded because you rolled low. Now matter how good you bid, you can’t help rolling a 1. Also, you get no credit whatsoever for even trying to launch. You go back to square one, only with less money. One way to fix this is to lessen the blow: Give the players some compensation money for each card discarded. Another way to fix this is to localize the damage: Only the failed component is discarded. One thought I just had is to give players experience for trying: Each time you fail a launch, you get an experience card that adds +1 to all your rolls on your next launch. This will give players with good bidding skills a way to overcome their bad luck.

Some other suggestions I heard thrown out:

  • Put the quantity of each component on the card itself, similar to Bohnanza.
  • Make the animals into cards. Why stop at just five animals?
  • Add other income opportunities. Right now a player with no money or parts is virtually screwed.
  • The bonus cards should be able to be added after the roll.

Overall, this is a good start, and I look forward to seeing any tweaks made.

Older Entries Newer Entries