<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for game thought</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com</link>
	<description>a record of thoughts on games and game design</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:48:58 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on partnerships: race for the galaxy by funkcracker</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2010/03/02/partnerships-race-for-the-galaxy/comment-page-1/#comment-112</link>
		<dc:creator>funkcracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 19:48:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=132#comment-112</guid>
		<description>What makes designing a team variant for RftG difficult is the &quot;secret and simultaneous&quot; aspect. I did consider your suggestion of have an &quot;on turn&quot;, and I agree that it would probably work better. What this does is create a sense of &quot;turns&quot; that doesn&#039;t exist in RftG, therefore adding a constraint that forces the players to cooperate.

Also difficult is the importance of pacing in RftG. If you need the game to slow down but your teammate needs to push the end game, you now have opposing goals. Maybe good teamwork would allow you to avoid this.

The interesting thing about your variant (assuming that I&#039;m understanding it correctly) is that you can always choose the roles that are optimal for you without regard to how they help your opponents. The trick is, trying to guess which roles your opponent will select so that you can match them in the role you give them, decreasing the number of roles they use that turn. I suppose it could turn into a bit of a &quot;Princess Bride&quot; scenario at that point.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What makes designing a team variant for RftG difficult is the &#8220;secret and simultaneous&#8221; aspect. I did consider your suggestion of have an &#8220;on turn&#8221;, and I agree that it would probably work better. What this does is create a sense of &#8220;turns&#8221; that doesn&#8217;t exist in RftG, therefore adding a constraint that forces the players to cooperate.</p>
<p>Also difficult is the importance of pacing in RftG. If you need the game to slow down but your teammate needs to push the end game, you now have opposing goals. Maybe good teamwork would allow you to avoid this.</p>
<p>The interesting thing about your variant (assuming that I&#8217;m understanding it correctly) is that you can always choose the roles that are optimal for you without regard to how they help your opponents. The trick is, trying to guess which roles your opponent will select so that you can match them in the role you give them, decreasing the number of roles they use that turn. I suppose it could turn into a bit of a &#8220;Princess Bride&#8221; scenario at that point.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on partnerships by funkcracker</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2009/11/25/partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>funkcracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Aug 2010 18:04:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=121#comment-111</guid>
		<description>As you state, 100% cooperative games are difficult to design so that it isn&#039;t solitaire with spectators. One of your commenters mentioned a time-pressure element could mitigate that problem by forcing players to focus on their own decisions and not everyone else&#039;s. I haven&#039;t played Space Alert, but from the description it sounds like Chvatil thought that was a good plan.

Board games require a certain amount of social understanding between the players. Rules define a lot of these, but there&#039;s a lot of &quot;rules&quot; that are understood (e.g., you can&#039;t take the board and tip it over). Computer games (mentioned as a good model for coop games) have the advantage of 1) requiring real-time decisions, and 2) restricting players in many more ways than is feasible to mention in a board game rulebook.

The trick for coop board games is designing enough constraint to prevent one player from running the game, but still allow players to coordinate strategies.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As you state, 100% cooperative games are difficult to design so that it isn&#8217;t solitaire with spectators. One of your commenters mentioned a time-pressure element could mitigate that problem by forcing players to focus on their own decisions and not everyone else&#8217;s. I haven&#8217;t played Space Alert, but from the description it sounds like Chvatil thought that was a good plan.</p>
<p>Board games require a certain amount of social understanding between the players. Rules define a lot of these, but there&#8217;s a lot of &#8220;rules&#8221; that are understood (e.g., you can&#8217;t take the board and tip it over). Computer games (mentioned as a good model for coop games) have the advantage of 1) requiring real-time decisions, and 2) restricting players in many more ways than is feasible to mention in a board game rulebook.</p>
<p>The trick for coop board games is designing enough constraint to prevent one player from running the game, but still allow players to coordinate strategies.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on partnerships: race for the galaxy by Seth Jaffee</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2010/03/02/partnerships-race-for-the-galaxy/comment-page-1/#comment-110</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:42:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=132#comment-110</guid>
		<description>The key, I think, is to ensure that each player is responsible for their own actions. Maybe this means outlawing table talk about cards-in-hand altogether, I don&#039;t know. I&#039;m not sure Race for the Galaxy is a good example of a partnership game either, so it&#039;s tough to talk about things and keep them in the realm of RftG.

Passing an action card to your teammate is the same as Table Talk, only your opponents don&#039;t get to hear it. Mechanically different might be to have 1 player from each team be &#039;on turn&#039; - and the other player can pass them a card &#039;requesting&#039; a role... so the decision can be made taking their input into account (and then the &quot;on players&quot; switch for the following round).

I made up a variant for 3 and 4 player RftG whch I&#039;d hoped would make it feel more like 2-player - instead of playing 1 Action card, play 2... but play one to your right and one to your left. You resolve the 4 cards that are in front of you (your 2, and 1 from each of your neighbors).

Imagine that if you were a team with the player across from you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The key, I think, is to ensure that each player is responsible for their own actions. Maybe this means outlawing table talk about cards-in-hand altogether, I don&#8217;t know. I&#8217;m not sure Race for the Galaxy is a good example of a partnership game either, so it&#8217;s tough to talk about things and keep them in the realm of RftG.</p>
<p>Passing an action card to your teammate is the same as Table Talk, only your opponents don&#8217;t get to hear it. Mechanically different might be to have 1 player from each team be &#8216;on turn&#8217; &#8211; and the other player can pass them a card &#8216;requesting&#8217; a role&#8230; so the decision can be made taking their input into account (and then the &#8220;on players&#8221; switch for the following round).</p>
<p>I made up a variant for 3 and 4 player RftG whch I&#8217;d hoped would make it feel more like 2-player &#8211; instead of playing 1 Action card, play 2&#8230; but play one to your right and one to your left. You resolve the 4 cards that are in front of you (your 2, and 1 from each of your neighbors).</p>
<p>Imagine that if you were a team with the player across from you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on partnerships by Seth Jaffee</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2009/11/25/partnerships/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:34:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=121#comment-109</guid>
		<description>I have put some thought into this topic as well - in my posts I discussed it as looking for a way to do a truly &lt;i&gt;cooperative&lt;/i&gt; game, rather than a collaborative one - what I refer to as &quot;Solitaire by Committee.&quot;

You&#039;re welcome to &lt;a href=&quot;http://sedjtroll.blogspot.com/2008/01/cooperative-games-very-definition-of.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;check out my posts on the subject&lt;/a&gt; - I have not taken the time to figure out how exactly to get these ideas into a game yet. Well, that&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://sedjtroll.blogspot.com/2009/07/time-travel-and-board-games.html&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;not entirely true&lt;/a&gt;, but I have yet to get anywhere I like with it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have put some thought into this topic as well &#8211; in my posts I discussed it as looking for a way to do a truly <i>cooperative</i> game, rather than a collaborative one &#8211; what I refer to as &#8220;Solitaire by Committee.&#8221;</p>
<p>You&#8217;re welcome to <a href="http://sedjtroll.blogspot.com/2008/01/cooperative-games-very-definition-of.html" rel="nofollow">check out my posts on the subject</a> &#8211; I have not taken the time to figure out how exactly to get these ideas into a game yet. Well, that&#8217;s <a href="http://sedjtroll.blogspot.com/2009/07/time-travel-and-board-games.html" rel="nofollow">not entirely true</a>, but I have yet to get anywhere I like with it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on deconstruction: The Settlers of Catan by rethinking deconstructions &#124; game thought</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2009/02/16/deconstruction-the-settlers-of-catan/comment-page-1/#comment-4</link>
		<dc:creator>rethinking deconstructions &#124; game thought</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 18 Feb 2009 19:29:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=43#comment-4</guid>
		<description>[...] completing my first game deconstruction, I realized one [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] completing my first game deconstruction, I realized one [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on a record of thoughts by funkcracker</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2009/01/02/a-record-of-thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-3</link>
		<dc:creator>funkcracker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:48:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=3#comment-3</guid>
		<description>Of course! I&#039;ve added an &quot;About me&quot; page.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Of course! I&#8217;ve added an &#8220;About me&#8221; page.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on a record of thoughts by Yehuda Berlinger</title>
		<link>http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/2009/01/02/a-record-of-thoughts/comment-page-1/#comment-2</link>
		<dc:creator>Yehuda Berlinger</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 14:37:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gamethought.funkcracker.com/?p=3#comment-2</guid>
		<description>Can you tell us something about yourself?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you tell us something about yourself?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
