• closed information – Each player holds cards in their hands that are hidden to other players. Additionally, Action Card selection is hidden until all actions are revealed simultaneously.
• not a trick-taking game – Unless I drastically change the rules, this is most definitely not a trick-taking game.

Obviously the first point (partnerships) is the easiest to implement. For my design process, I focused on a four-player game, with two teams of two players each.

The only point that remains is to allow the players to communicate through play. Obviously there are a lot of other logistics involving how to players can play as a team, but I felt it was more important to focus on communication and let the details grow from that.

As noted above, there are primarily two aspects of the game that are hidden: cards in hand and the action selected by each player. These are what partners may wish to communicate to each other is some form.

When you consider a trick-taking game, usually the communication is open so that all players have a general idea what is being communicated. Leaving Bridge out of the discussion (as I am not qualified to speak to it), in many trick-taking games, players will play cards that do not affect the current trick to signal something about their hand. In RftG, if you are playing something that is ineffective, you are playing inefficiently and are going to lose. Therefore, another form of communication is necessary that does not require for inefficient actions.

I believe the best way to communicate with another player in RftG (without table talk) is to pass action cards and/or hand cards.

Action cards would be the easiest, as partners could share their planned action first, and then have the option for one or both of them to switch actions before playing them. This would require some verbal communication (“I’ll switch mine. You keep yours.”), but it would be a simple way for two players to act as a team. However, I think the uncertainty of non-verbal communication leads to more rewarding play. There are also other balance problems that would have to be worked with (Produce-Consume strategies would be especially strong).

Hand cards provide a variety of methods of communicating. Players could exchange cards, show their partners their discards (and perhaps allow them to exchange a discard for a hand card), or players could even openly discard as a way to openly cue their partner.

Unfortunately, the ways to communicate hidden information is not the most problematic portion of creating a partnership game out of RftG. Larger issues of balance with two players working together would need to be worked out. If I were pursuing this more seriously, I would consider setting up the game like a 2-player game with 2 actions per turn, and each partner is selecting an action. A shared tableau between partners is a possibility, but only if a system can be devised to determine who gets cards from trades and consumes (perhaps the one who chooses the phase IV action?).  There are several routes that this could take, but lots of playtesting would be needed to determine if the game ultimately breaks when two players are able to share information.

However, for a partnership or team game to be successful, there needs to be the ability to cooperate without one person running the show. One night, 6 of us sat down to play a game of Settlers of Catan: Cities and Knights, in order to shorten the game length, we decided to play teams. We didn’t change the gameplay drastically, so one key strategy was to balance your cards and your partner’s cards at the end of your turn so that you stayed below the hand limit.

What ended up happening is that one player (me) on the winning team basically ran the game for both players since the other player was fairly new to C&K. We overran the competition, and it generally wasn’t any fun.

In retrospect, it wasn’t really a team game because there was no team play. We didn’t need to communicate, cooperate, or otherwise by “in sync”. These are the aspects of a team game that differentiate them from individual games.

Although I’m speaking from limited exposure to the wealth of existing games, the partnership or team games that I have played (or have otherwise been exposed to) seem to fall primarily into three categories: trick-taking cards games (e.g., Bridge, Euchre, Spades), semi-cooperative games (e.g., Shadows over Camelot, Battlestar Galactica), and party games (e.g., Taboo, Pictionary). I recognize there are  probably more that I don’t know about, and I would love to hear about them. Inkognito seems to fall outside these categories, and does interest me. However, it seems that it would have some of the problems I have with semi-cooperative games, which I will describe below.

Unfortunately, these three categories feel a bit stale to me:

I love trick-taking games. However, I find myself more and more wanting to have a richly integrated theme in my games. This is an entirely subjective point, and I couldn’t even begin to explain why, except that I find myself enjoying a game more when the actions a more tightly tied to a theme.

Additionally, their mechanics are so similar that I usually don’t care whether I play Euchre, Spades, or Rook (or whatever other trick-taking game you want to teach me). But I’m definitely not going to quit a game of Euchre and switch to Spades over some other game.

Party games are fun for a social gathering. I usually don’t find them intellectually challenging, and many times the teamwork is more about having a breadth of talents/knowledge than it is about working together.

It’s hard for me to complain about semi-cooperative games because I haven’t played them. I suppose one reason I avoid them is that they usually contain information that is only known by yourself (or a select few), and require bluffing to play well. Let’s put it this way: I don’t play poker for (a lot of) money for good reason. Bluffing stresses me out. I prefer games that I can play straight.

All of this generated a design problem for me — create a game with the following properties:

• partnerships — two players playing together as a team with a common goal
• closed information — each player has only partial knowledge of the entire game state
• communication through play, not table talk — partners can only reveal information to each about their knowledge of the game state through their own play
• not a trick-taking game — because there are plenty of these

Initially this design problem led me to explore partnership possibilities in Race for the Galaxy. Following that, I began exploring my own design that centers around actions triggered by set completion as a mechanic. My next two posts will detail these thoughts.

Despite the disappointment of not winning, it was a good exercise to go through. Here are some of my takeaways:

1. Hit lots of ideas quickly, and filter out any that unreasonable or unoriginal.
2. Engage other people that are either interested in the design process or are willing and able to give good feedback.
3. (cliche alert) Think outside the box

Although I have not seen the winning entries, I believe that my submitted ideas were too unoriginal more than that they were untenable. In retrospect, I wish I had submitted Instigating, although I’m not convinced that would have done any better. Hopefully I can objectively compare my entries to the winning entries to determine where I fell short.

I was hesitant to “bother” other people with my ideas as well. I don’t like rejection and failure, but I love to get constructive criticism. The problem is that I haven’t found a definitive source of it. The people I usually game with may or may not be helpful. The primary problem there is that we find our game-time so limited that we would rather play tried-and-true games than playtest something that may not be fun.

It was definitely a worthy exercise, and I look forward to entering future design contests!

Sirens – When an opponent conquers a coastal regions (adjacent to a Lake or Sea) occupied by Sirens, the opponent immediately gains 1 coin, but also loses 1 token. If only one token was used to conquer the region, then the conquering race will have no tokens in that region.

I basically ditched this because I don’t think it works to have additional disincentive to conquer a region beyond the number of tokens required to do so. Token count is so important, and even an extra coin probably doesn’t make up for a lost token.

Final ranking:

1. Instigating
2. Giant Spiders
3. Stealthy
4. Flanking
5. Necromancers
6. Sirens

Our scouts from the north indicated that only a small number of enemy troops had gathered in that direction. As we prepared to defend the northern front, our scouts from the east arrived with a similar report. And then the same from the northwest. And southeast. Before we knew it, they were descending on us from every direction. Panic and chaos ensued; we were forced to retreat in the only direction we could.

Flanked!

Flanking – Flanking races receive can conquer regions with one less token for each additional adjacent region they occupy beyond the first region adjacent to the target region. For example, if the flanking race occupies two regions adjacent to the target region, they need one less token to conquer it; three regions, two less tokens; etc.

This worked quite well. I felt that I needed to make it a 5 ability because you simply need numbers to pull it off. Therefore, the bonus could only kick in for situations where there was more than one region adjacent to the target region (otherwise it would be a better Commando, which would knock the number down to 3). It also makes more sense thematically this way.

Unfortunately, it is difficult for me to describe this without being overly verbose. Hopefully I can rephrase the above description so that it isn’t so awkward.

I’m beginning to think that I could submit 2 or 3 ability/races around the theme of “positioning” — Stealthy and Flanking definitely fit that category.

Rankings:

1. Instigating (although recent thoughts have me questioning this one)
2. Giant Spiders
3. Stealthy
4. Flanking (although it’s basically a tie with Stealthy)
5. Necromancers

Our burgeoning civilization started slowly, only laying claim to three regions. Thanks to our heros, we were able to concentrate most of our forces in one region. We were prepared to defend ourselves from any large scale attack. Suddenly, a great web descended on us, immobilizing our troops. We were ready for battle, but could not expand our glorious civilization into further territories! Instead, we could only watch as the Giant Spiders spread their influence throughout the surrounding regions.

Oh, that’s sounds like a … sticky situation!

I apologize for that. On to the description!

Giant Spiders – At the end of their turn, active Giant Spiders may place the web token in any adjacent region occupied by an active race. The race tokens in this region are stuck in this region and cannot be used in conquest. They may decline normally, in which case the web token is removed from the board.

I started this one at 6 thinking that since it does not add a conquest or direct defense bonus, the start number would have to be on the high end of the spectrum to make up for this. So far this feels about right, but it’s really hard to judge. The web can be incredibly crippling to the player affected by it. The spiders do tend to score less points in the beginning, but they can also affect the other players’ ability to score as well.

In my two-player game, this was especially significant. I didn’t take notes, but if I remember right, it caused the other player to decline sooner than they may have otherwise.

It was also effective in three-player. What surprised me here is that it did not grant a significant advantage the the unaffected player. I would think that it would continue to be affective in games with more players, but it’s difficult to say for sure.

One web token was enough without any limitations on placement (other than the adjacency requirement). I could tweak this by giving the Spiders multiple web tokens, but limiting the number of race tokens one web token could be used on. For example, I could give the Spiders two web tokens, and each web token could control up to 2 race tokens. Therefore, the web tokens could be placed on two regions with up to 2 race tokens on them, or both on one region with up to 4 race tokens on it. I would prefer to keep it simple with only the one token, but if playtesting shows that it needs improvement, this would be a way to do it.

Right now it’s a bit of a toss up which I like better between the Spiders and Stealthy, but I think since Spiders introduces a completely different mechanic, I’m placing it above Stealthy.

1. Instigating
2. Giant Spiders
3. Stealthy
4. Necromancers

Instigating – At the end of their turn, Instigating races place the four reward tokens any four separate occupied regions on the map that are occupied by a player’s race (active or in decline). If any other player conquers that region, the conquering player receives one coin, and the reward token is removed from the board If the race occupying that region abandons the region, the Instigating player receives one coin and the reward is removed from the board. Any reward tokens that are still on the board at the start of the Instigating player’s next turn are removed from the board, and the Instigating player receives one coin for each of those reward tokens. This happens before the Instigating race starts conquest or goes into decline. This process starts again after every turn the Instigating race is active. Note: In two-player games, the Instigating player cannot place reward tokens in a region occupied by his opponent’s active race.

First, I have to mention that I’m not married to the name. I tried “persuasive”, “conniving”, “rewarding”, but nothing seems right. Is there a term for someone who places a reward or bounty?

I started this one at 3. Comparing it to Alchemist, it has the potential of generating more points per turn (up to 4), but not all 4 points are guaranteed. As I’ve only played games where I’m controlling each player, it is a bit difficult to judge the effectiveness of this power. In general, it seems to work. 3 is a pretty decent number consider the race’s ability to generate points without conquering anything. It could be tweaked up, especially if the number of rewards are reduced. 3 might play okay with 5 rewards as well.

It also swayed my decisions for the other players quite a bit. By conquering a space with a reward, you gain 2 points while denying the Instigating player one point as well as causing the same or another player to lose a region. It creates a tension of doing what gains you the most points, but knowing that you are also doing it in a way that may be in the instigating player’s best interest.

I like this one a lot, but it will require much more playtesting. Because of it’s flexibility in numbers (can add or remove more tokens as well as rewards), this one is jumping to the top of the list.

1. Instigating
2. Stealthy
3. Necromancers

Sure, the initial confrontation had shaken us. After all, they did out number us. We were not, however, prepared for the terrifying site of our fallen brethren reanimated, bloodthirsty, and turned against us. Who were these warriors, and what dark magic did they command?

Necromancers, clearly! (and the reanimating-the-dead type of dark magic, of course)

Necromancers are able to raise their fallen enemy to use in future conquests. A token can only be raised if there are more Necromancers than raised tokens in the region. In general, there must be one Necromancer for each raised token in any given situation. Specifically:

• During redeployment, the raised tokens may be redeployed with the Necromancers as long as each region has at least as many Necromancers as raised tokens.
• While readying your troops, you may leave as many raised tokens in a region as you want, as long as you also leave at least as many Necromancer tokens in that region.
• During conquest, you may use the raised tokens to complete a conquest as long as you use at least as many Necromancer tokens in that conquest.
• When a region occupied by Necromancers and raised tokens is conquered, the Necromancers must return a Necromancer token to the try. If before the conquest, the region contained an equal number of Necromancer and raised tokens, a raised token must be returned to the try along with the Necromancer token.

Note: As Elves do not return any tokens to the tray when active, Necromancers may never raise any active Elves. When Elves are in decline, they are subject to the Necromancers’ power.

I really like this idea, but it is a pain to balance. Some comparisons:

• Trolls(5): They both gain defense, but the Necromancers must conquer an occupied region to gain defense (in the form of raised tokens). However, upon successive conquers, the Necromancer’s defense stacks, whereas the Trolls only receive +1 per region regardless. Trolls keep their defense in decline; Necromancers do not.
• Giants/Tritons(6): Giants gain a -1 conquest bonus when on mountains. Tritons have a -1 conquest bonus along coasts. Necromancers cannot gain a combat bonus (in the form of raised tokens) until their second turn, but their combat bonuses can stack, and it can be used anywhere.

Based on that point, I began playtesting the Necromancers at 6 because they do not have the decline bonus to make their defense bonus as effective, and they do not get the combat bonus out of the gate. At 6 they start very slowly — in both games they only gained 3 and then 6 territories. However, it is cost prohibitive to attack them early on, which allows them to gain momentum. I think they would be a good “long-lasting” race to come in as a second race after “wide-spread” race like Amazons, Skeletons, or Ratmen.

I have not tested it, but they might work well at 5 with an added decline bonus:

When Necromancers go into decline, they can keep up to 1 raised token for each declined Necromancer token. When the declined Necromancer token must be returned to the tray, the raised token must also be returned to the tray.

This probably makes them better than Trolls, who are 5. For that reason, it seems that they are better without the decline bonus. Therefore, this needs to be added to the Necromancer description:

When the Necromancers go into decline, all raised tokens must be returned to the tray.

My biggest fear is that this race is too fiddily. It takes some sorting out to determine how to make sure that you can maintain your raised tokens, as well as capture new ones. Some might find that tactical thinking fun, while others may find it too difficult to want to bother with it. Also, the rules take a lot of explaining, even though they are quite simple. One must be quite verbose to cover all the bases and fill all the holes.

New rankings:

1. Stealthy
2. Necromancers

It was quiet that night. Our scouts from the front lines reported no signs of activity from the enemy. After a day of traveling, we welcomed the cool wind that accompanied our warm dinners. It felt good to relax and actually enjoy each others’ company. What didn’t feel good was the Troll’s club coming down on my head. The last thing I remember thinking was, “How did they get past our front line?”

Clearly these were no ordinary Trolls! No, these Trolls were something special. They were Stealthy Trolls!

Stealthy – Stealthy races can sneak past the enemy lines, using the element of surprise to gain an advantage on their opponent. You may attack any region that is adjacent to a region that is adjacent to a region occupied by your race. If the target region is not adjacent to your active race, you may conquer the region with one less token than normally required.

I need to check how some of the other abilities are worded to make sure that this make sense, but this basically allows your race to attack behind enemy lines for an attack bonus. I’m not sure if this is more or less powerful than Commando as it opens the number of regions you can attack, but does not give any bonus on normal attacks. I’d am playtesting this at 5, but might also try 4 to see what makes the most sense.

A couple of simulated games (i.e., I played against myself) seems to indicate that this is both a viable and interesting ability. I played one game with Amazons where I did not use the ability as much, but in the second game I used the ability quite often with Orcs. The condition that the attack bonus only comes when the target region is not adjacent to one of your regions caused me to abandon regions just to gain the advantage to maximize my point bonus from Orcs.

I feel that the rules for this ability are difficult to explain, as there are three regions involved: your region (A), a region adjacent to your region (B), and the target region (C). B must be adjacent to A and C, but in order to receive the combat bonus, C cannot be adjacent to any of your regions. Perhaps it would clearer to say:

Stealthy races can sneak through one region, using the element of surprise to gain an advantage on their opponent. You may conquer any region that is not adjacent to one of your regions if it is adjacent to a region that is adjacent to one of your regions. Such a conquest requires one less token.

The above also clarifies that the “middle” region does not need to be occupied by the same race that is being conquered, nor does it need to be occupied at all. Originally my thought was to make it so that the middle region did need to be occupied. However, it was difficult enough to position the Stealthy tokens so that they were not adjacent to the planned target region that I felt additional restrictions only dimished the value of the ability.

Although it’s a bit silly to list it after only one ability/race, here’s my current ranking for my ideas:

1. Stealthy

Even though my recently busy schedule has prevented me from blogging, it has not prevented my mind from wandering into the realms of game design.

A mini design contest was held on BGG. Although I completed some tiles for my design, I didn’t follow through in writing up the rules or entering the design in the contest. In my game, each player starts with a set number of tokens. At the beginning of a player’s turn, the player can make one change to the layout of the tiles. The layout of the tiles determines to which other player each player passes their tokens on that turn, and how many points they get for doing so. I never play-tested it, so I have no idea if it’s even any fun.

Another mini contest started after that, but despite the fact that I’m a huge sports fan, I couldn’t gear myself up to think of a good design for it. I do have a rough design that intended to give the feel of several seasons of fantasy sports, but I’m neither happy with it, nor do I feel that it was appropriate for this contest.

I’ve become rather obsessed with Race for the Galaxy. I’ve been kicking around ideas to put my blank cards to use. Right now I’m thinking of a set of cards around a Cybernetics theme, perhaps introducing a new keyword. I fear that the upcoming expansion may distract me from that, but I suppose I could avoid it by not purchasing it (yeah, right).

I was also impressed with the recently released Small World. While it’s not much of a brain-burner, it does require enough thought and planning to make it interesting. I’ve only had a chance to play with two and three players, but I’m expecting that more players will increase the table banter, which is always good.

Days of Wonder has also started a contest to design new abilities and races for the game. The idea of getting my idea published is incentive enough for me to put in an entry, but DoW is sweetening the deal with an expenses paid trip to Essen Spiel 2009. That, my friends, would be unthinkably awesome.

I hope to continue this blog for my own good. Family, jobs, and other general grown-up activity has a way of putting a cramp on the blogging time, but I can’t ignore the value of a creative outlet that this blog can be.