Playtesting Blues

Do you ever get tired of trying to figure out what a designer meant from a written set of rules? Have you ever set down to play a game, only to discover that such a balance problem exists as to make the game an exercise in frustration? Have you ever wondered how anybody could design such a game that looks fantastic but the actual play itself is about as much fun as having an ingrown toenail removed? The answer is probably that the designer was either too close, or too distant from playtesting. There are some things about playtesting that should be obvious. I've probably stated this before, but here I go again, ranting and raving about playtesting. The major problem with platesting isn't the players, but rather the designers proximity to the playtesting process. It is my sincere opinion that a designer must insulate himself from the playtesting to some extent in order to discover a few things about the game. First, by taking a step back he can learn what portion of the written rules are unclear or ambigiuous. If he explains the ambiguity to the written rules to the entire group of playtesters, say via a mass emailing, then he may not see the need to write the rules in a clearer manner. Believe me, I've seen this done a number of times. Instead of explaining the rules as soon as a question comes up, the designer should answer the question by revisiting the portion of the rules from which the rules derive. If the designer simply explains the rules he permits the playtesters the ability to understand them. If he fails to rewrite the rules that needed such explanation he leaves them in a state that will only confuse the people who actually put out money to play the game. At least one playtester should be assigned the responsibility of compiling s simple alphabetical index to a ruleset. Of course, this may be problematice if page numbers are used as those are bound to change as the written rules are edited and rewritten for clarity. This also may not be necessary for shorter sets of written rules. I don't see the need for an index in a simple six page rulebook, but heavier rulebooks such as those use in more complex wargames nearly scream their demand for an index. If the designer is actually "playing" in the playtest, he needs to be tightlipped and utilize his keen powers of observation to note the flow of the games. In multiplayer wargames, he cannot sit back and say, "Well, I designed the French to _____________________ while I wanted the British to have a stronger ____________________." He needs to quietly see if that design intent is evident and balanced. If he openly shares his intent, players will attempt to steer the game towards that intention and skew the testing. A designer needs to be close-mouthed so that he can see if his design intent is naturally present. Finally, playtesting can not be pushed against artificial deadlines. For example, a boardgame based on a movie or book tie-in cannot have playtesting rushed because of the movie or book's release date. (saw this happen to one boardgame and what could have been a great game was harmed by huge flaws-- which were fixed, but by that time players had moved on.) I guess it is obvious that game companies should hire me to oversee their playtesting programs.. {wink} Okay, it is easy for a blogger to sit back and express his concerns, his ideas about what is wrong with playtesting, etc. However, in closing, let me state a concept that should be blatantly obvious. If a designer is too close or too far removed from the actual playtesting of a design he risks creating a game with confusing rules, poor game balance, and confused, frustrated players who will avoid his designs in the future. With that said, I have to remind the kind readers that while I speak fairly boldly about what they should and should not do, as of this writing and for the foreseeable future, I have no game designs on the market. Therefore, I'm like the movie goer who wants to tell Stephen Spielberg how he should make his film. While I think my points are valid, I'd like to know what you think?

Alien Frontiers Features Dice Placement

If you enjoy the dice placement mechanic of "Kingsberg" you might want to check out Clevermojo Games' "Alien Frontiers." In some ways, I think I like it better than "kingsberg." Why? Kingsberg has the "stick-it-to-the-other-guy" effect, that can actually prevent another player, depending on turn order, from placing some or even all of his dice. In Space Frontiers, there are limited spaces, but there is always something to do with your dice.

The dice in "Alien Frontiers" are actually space ships. The goal of the game is to dock your space ships (dice) on various spaces on the gamegboard to receive certain benefits. The goal is to take control of colonies on a planet (with areas named after great Sci-Fi writers such as Bradbury or Heinlen). Controlling an area gives you a benefit and a victory point. However, you have to dock your ships, obtain fuel and ore, and work on constructing colonies, they don't just magically appear. So players dock at a solar collector to gain fuel or at the lunar mine to obtain ore.

There is still the "stick-it-to-the-other-guy" factor, though. For instance, at the lunar mine a player has to dock a ship with a die result that is at least equal to the largest die there. So, a player might place a 6 there, causing the next player to also place a 6 there if he needs ore. Or it might cause the next player to be unable to place a die there if he didn't roll a 6.

In a major difference from Kingsberg.. players roll their dice on their own turn and complete all placement (dice stay in the spaces until their next turn) so one player doesn't know what the next player's dice will show when he is placing. Spaces are limited, with only one space having only one spot.. but docking there consumes the die (taking it out of play)as it converts a "ship" into a colony. Players can manage resources to purchase extra dice.

Mounted vs. Paper maps

One place a lot of wargame publishers save money is by printing folding paper game maps. Recently, a discussion broke out in the GMT games forum on Consimworld when it was announced that several new games would feature mounted boards. I was shocked to see that there are actually players who prefer the paper maps. For the most part it makes no difference to me, but I thought the subject was worth covering here. I suppose a factor favoring mounted boards would be durability. I'm not really certain that a mounted map will have more durability, but one assumes that if the board is properly constructed it will hold up longer than a paper map, which if mistreated is easily torn. On the other hand, a mounted board can be folded back the wrong way and then be broken. If players care for their games properly then the difference in durability will be negligible. A mounted board might allow for cleaning with a slightly damp cloth (a baby wipe) if it becomes sticky, etc. A glossy paper map might permit this as well. Of course, some people who suffer from game-owner OCD will wonder how dare someone bring food or drink to the war. One factor favoring paper maps mentioned by a player in the forum was that a paper map has more of a "military" feel to it. I guess he can imagine hunkering down in a bunker somewhere and ordering his troops about. I'd never thought of such a thing, but to a small extent I have to agree with the poster about the "feel" even though I never get that deeply immersed into my fantasy command. Paper maps certainly have an edge when it comes to weight and box-size. Especially if a gamer is packing around a number of boxed games. Obviously, a game box will have to be a bit larger to accomodate a mounted mapboard. If a gamer has a large collection of games then the space on his game shelf might be filled up more quickly. I can't think of any more reasons to prefer one over the other, except to say that while I tend to prefer mounted maps, and thicker heavier components for durability purposes, that preference doesn't translate into a factor when making a purchase. I may "oooh" and "aaah" over some really nice components, but the real deciding factor is whether or not a game offers a challenge and is enjoyable to play.

DeckBuilding- Innovative Game Mechanisms

Some years ago, Wargames took on a new subgenre as designer Mark Hermon presented "We the People" (originally published by Avalon Hill). This subgenre is the Card Driven Wargame. Following this innovative game came a number of game titles. These games rely on cards to provide the ability to move units, build units, construct defenses, or introduce historical events into a game. Now we're seeing a new type of design that may become "the next big thing" in wargames. It is the deck building mechanism. (I say mechanism because the phrase "game mechanic" would technically refer to one who repairs broken games, while a "game mechanism" would be a design concept that allows a game to function). This game mechanism is becoming popular in Euro stle games, and probably saw its genesis in the Rio Grande Publication "Dominion." Now, there are a number of titles out there that utilitze similar mechanisms to drive the game. I suppose it would be best to describe such a game for those who are unaware of them. In a deck building game, players obtain cards from a pool of cards by purchase or selection and gradually build a deck of cards that they have in their own personal deck. Such cards may provide particular benefits, victory points, or at times have more than one use. The first wargame example that I've seen of this style of game is "A Few Acres of Snow" designed by Martin Wallace and published by Treefrog games (apparently distributed in U.S. by Mayfair games). This game (for two players) allows players to play what is commonly called "The French and Indian War" between the British and the French in North America during the period shortly prior to the American Revolution. I've been trying to get my hands on a copy for some time, but online retailers seem to be sold out and the prices on Ebay have seemed exorbitant to me. In other words, it seems to be fairly highly sought after. Players either buy, draft (obtain at no cost) cards that allow them to produce income, increase defense, or permit movement to other areas. The French player makes his money primarily through trading fur while the British player collects cards that can later produce gold. Once a player takes over a village, city, or named space, he can add the card for that area into his deck. Those cards allow movement to other areas. A player has to have the right sort of movement card in order to move units into a new area. He might need a card which provides boat movement or a card which provides trail movement, etc. Some cards simply provide an attack or defense. A siege mechanism allows a player to being a siege and try to keep it going for multiple turns. Such a siege can be broken by play of militia defense cards. While I only had a limited introductory experience with "A Few Acres of Snow" I can easily see the mechanisms utilized in this non-traditional wargame becoming a new sub-genre of wargame. I don't know if this is really a good or bad thing, but I do know I want to see more of this game. Whether I want to see a World War II era game attempting to use these mechanisms or not, well, such a design I think would have to be genius. A Few Acres of Snow may serve one really strong purpose, however. It may whet player's appetite for meatier, more traditional wargames. I've heard that neumber of players who started out with this game quickly moved on to try GMT's "Wilderness War" which is an awesome card driven wargame. So, perhaps the greatest innovation is the ability to move Euro-favoring players into grognard type games.

Urban Sprawl

This weekend I played URBAN SPRAWL for the first time. This is a Euro style game published by GMT games that seems to be getting good reviews.

For now.. I'll opt to reserve my opinion on the game, but offer you a few first impressions.

FIRST, the game is BIG!!! Lots and lots of cards, along with a nice map, and some neat colored wooden blocks.

Second, there is a lot of stuff going on. Maybe too much! Lots of events occur that make me feel completely out of control. This is one of those games where you cannot really figure out the strategy without playing it a time or two, knowing that certain events happen and being prepared for them. Once you have an idea of the possible events you realize that you have to set yourself up for them. Sadly, for most of the game I sat back and watched events earn the other players money, victory points, etc. while I lagged terribly behind. One event, despite a reshuffle and only one copy in the deck happened THREE TIMES in one turn, pushing one player ahead in both money and victory points.

The basic design (outside of the events) is clever, with profits occuring for nearly every player on nearly every player's turn. The concept of bidding on projects (by selecting them using action points) and then having the leftover projects become cheaper for the next player's turn is neat. Having to have the appropriate "permits" to build these projects is also a neat design.

I really believe I was overwhelmed by my first play of this game and therefore, I reserve judgment.. overall, it looks and seems cool, but the extent of the events sort of put me off a bit. That may change with future play.

Building Your Kingdom in Kingsburg

I recently had several occasions to play a combination dice-driven/placement game called "Kingsburg." This is not your typical placement game because it allows players to create their own path to victory based on the buildings that they build.

The dice rolling and placement element of the game can be sort of cut-throat. Each player throws 3 dice (though there are sometimes extra) and then uses the results. There are advisors each numbered 1-18 on the board. In turn order (from the lowest number to the top number) Each player may make a placement. He can place all of the dice, one die, or two dice on one of the spaces (once a space is taken, no other player can select that advisor) Each advisor grant a different benefit. An advisor may grant one or more resources, military strength, or even a die-roll modification chit (which can be used to add +2 to a dice placement, but not alone).. Often, a player will have one die left over because the turn order allowed another player with the same die result to place before him. While this is something I normally don't like in placement games, something I call getting cheated by the turn order, in this game it seems to work because player's choices are all limited to what their die results are. A player might choose to make a choice that body checks another player, but he can only do so based on his die roll so it is not simply making a placement in order to be cruel to another player.

At the end of the "season" (the name for a round in play) each player can use the resources he has gained to "build." The buildings he builds can provide extra benefits like increased military strength, the ability to affect a die roll, a possible reroll, increased victory points, etc. Each player has a mat (shown below) and can build on any level, but cannot build to the right until he has built the buildings on the left.

At the end of the year, all players have to fight the "monster" card. Some players may know how strong the monster is because they were permitted to look at the card based on their dice placement. Each player who has a strong enough military strength + the die roll (same roll for one player) to beat the monster gains a benefit. Each player who is defeated by the monster suffers a penalty-- which may mean losing a building or victory points. The blue section at the bottom of the card show the Victory points gained by players who defeated the monster.

Two samples of monster cards are shown above (these are among the stronger monsters).. the number at the top, next to the name, indicates the number that the player needs to beat in order to defeat the monster. The middle section of the card show the penalties for losing against the monster. For example, it is a straight -5 Victory point loss if the dragons defeat the player while if the demons do so the player loses 1 bulding and number of victory points. When a monster kills a building it always kills the rightmost (most expensive) building. If two buildings are both in the same column then the buiding highest on the player's mat is the one that is eliminated. Also, any victory points that the player obtained for building that particular building are also lost. Players have to provide military strength to add to a single die roll in order to built the monster.

This game mechanics reward cuthroat die placement! Still, players are forced to balance the choices of building for Victory points or other benefits and building for military strength to protect from the end of the year and the monster's attack.

For our group, it was an interesting change of pace. The game does not have a steep learning curve and plays fairly quickly, though we haven't managed to complete a game in less than an hour and forty-five minutes or so. While browsing boardgamegeek I see that there is an expansion available and I'm wondering what it has to offer. In the meantime, we'll probably get a few more plays of this one under our belts in the near future. It isn't the greatest game I've ever played, but for now, it is one that is worth playing. It combines a lot of neat elements into a nice building game that works for me, a player who normally doesn't care for building and placement games.

We all live in a non-yellow Submarine!

Imagine being on a submarine where everything is going wrong! The oxygen level is dropping, the atmospheric pressure is increasing, and heat from a malfunctioning reactor is becoming intense. In addition, some compartments are flooding, others are on fire, and your fellow crew members have got into the captain's store of "grog" and are passing out. That would be the premise of Fantasy Flight Game's "Red November" a cooperative game from their silver line of smaller, less expensive games.

I guess I should begin by saying that I normally don't care for cooperative games. I like games that let me "stick it to the other guy" and that offer fierce competition. However, Red November intrigues me because its system reminds me of an addictive computer game where the player moved crates around. As the player moved crates around he either improved or harmed his situtation and ability to complete the mission. Red November offers the same challenge. It seems like the more the player does to resolve problems the more problems seem to pop up.



The Submarine board shown above is small and if you note the track around the edge, it is very difficult to use that mini-track. This was the biggest annoyance in the game, so I thought I would get that complaint out of the way. On each turn, the player can move about freely and even choose to fix problems, etc. How many minutes the player decides to use to repair a problem becomes a target number. For example, if a player choose to spend 5 minutes attempting to repair the reactor he would have a 50% chance of accomplishing this fix by rolling a five or less on a ten sided die. Here's where the really tricky part comes in... The more time he spends trying to accomplish this task, the more time marches on. As the time marker is tracked in minutes, almost every other space on the track has an event card. Events can range from the "respite" card (nothing happens.. and that's good) to a random fire breaking out, a hatch becoming jammed, missile malfunction, oxygen disaster track increasing, reactor heating up, pressure increasing, etc. Even sudden death events occur which set up a ten minute track window of resolving a problem or dying immediately. Players have to balance the use of time and the urgency of a repair because as time marches on those events keep happening. By the way, a failed repair doesn't make matters worse, it just allows time to keep on slipping into a future filled with more and more frustrating events.


Tiles represent objects that the players find to assist them in their tasks. For example, a crowbar gives a postiive modifier to unjamming a hatch. A fire extinguisher allows the player to put out a fire (so does grog, but we will get to that in a moment. One item, the lucky charm, allows a player to use up minutes but skip drawing new event cards. Events often cause a player (or all players) to discard tiles (and they are out of the game until all tiles are drawn.

Players can go to the Captain's quarters in order to draw grog tiles. Grog gives the player the fortitude to enter a room that is on fire and attempt to put the fire out. The fire extinguisher does the same thing but without the intoxicating result. A player who uses his grog (for a nice die modifier in fighting a fire) also risks becoming inebriated. When he uses the grog he indicates with his character card the inebriation status (levels 1-4) of his character. At the end of his turn he does a faint check by drawing an event card. If the inebriation number is equal to or less than the number on the card, the character passes out and ten minutes are added to the chart. This can and does happen at the worst moments. Sometimes, it causes the "ghost marker" to cross the minute where a catastrophic game ending event occurs. In one game, a fire fighting gnome used grog to fight a fire and passed out, causing the marker to go over the missile malfunction and BOOM!!! Game over.

This is the place where players either will love or hate the game. Personally, I like the uncertainty and inability to completely game the system. I like a game that has enough strategy to keep a player interested with enough wacky random stuff to keep the game uncertain. On the other hand, an individual gnome can pass out and get burned up and die halfway through the game, and it is not fun to get shut out of a game. The rule booklet suggests an optional rule for players who don't like getting eliminated from a game. Since games are social, elimination is sometimes not the best option.

I found "Red November" to be a quirky niche game. I would love to see someone program this one for the computer. It would be a great solitaire computer game.