Expanding the Farm: Learning about Expansion Design

The Kickstarter campaign to raise money to manufacture Farmageddon went insanely well. It went so well, in fact, that our backers began clamoring for a fantastic stretch goal. our solution was a full expansion to the game. By full expansion I don't mean the 2-3 promo cards that folks might throw into a game, but something that significantly adds to the game.

I found, and still find, this prospect a bit terrifying. I'm worried it's a tinge cart before the horse and I'd vastly prefer to design without the pressure of over 1200 excited people. But, this is a good problem to have.

Expansion design is quite different from creating a new game. You have an existing structure you must work within or expand very carefully. You need to take what was balanced, add a few layers, then polish it again. But, unlike a digital game, you cannot just patch or overwrite the base experience. Oh boy.

The purpose of this post is to share some general lessons I've found as well as discuss some aspects of the expansion, which is currently titled Livestocked and Loaded. 

In All Fairness: Treating Designers Correctly

I'm a new designer. I have a single published title that isn't even manufactured yet and a pile of prototypes that weren't worth finishing. And there are so many others just like me. We have a few good ideas, a game worth looking at, and no record to point to.

Similarly, especially in this new environment of Kickstarter, The Game Crafter, and the Internet, there are new publishers. Publishers who have only one (or no) titles available for purchase. Titles that were designed and published by the same person (and so we're clear, there's nothing wrong with that). There are many of them and new ones cropping up every day.

For those of us designers who seek the traditional path of publication (i.e. we design, YOU publish), this presents new opportunities and challenges. For one, there are more people who might publish my game. More avenues. But, just like there are dozens of designers who are unworthy of your time because they are too green or too immature, I'm going to argue that same problem exists with publishers.

I submitted Farmageddon to many publishers before I found a great fit with 5th Street Games. Many of my experiences with publishers were greatly unfavorable, not just in rejection, which is expected and a part of the process, but in how they conducted business. I will not name names, but I'd like to call out a few things I think are fair to ask of publishers when dealing with designers.

Why is this valuable? I think the best publishers attract the best talent. If you are a good publisher to treats designers fairly, you'll attract Donald X, Stefan Feld, Knizia, and more. If  you develop a reputation for being a jerk, and believe me, you will, none of these people will work with you. Take a look at the digital space. Not long ago, Activision royally screwed over Infinity Ward. Guess what? Activision's not having a lot of fun signing new developers right now. Who would work with them?

THIS IS NOT THE END OF THE CONVERSATION. Merely the beginning. Designers: what have I missed? Publishers: what have I missed? Post your comments below. If you know me, send me an email or ping me on Twitter. I'll post an opposing view gladly.

As a publisher, you need to play a submission multiple times before offering feedback.
Publishers who play a game a single time and offer feedback are careless and lazy. A good board game has a mechanic that changes based on the cards dealt, or the players involved, or different strategies employed. By playing the game a single time, you are going to miss a key aspect of a game.

For example, Farmageddon is a game where a player's choices are determined by drawing cards. I took great pains, especially as I gathered feedback, to ensure a player wouldn't have a terrible experience in the majority of cases due to cards drawn. I say the majority because one can never fully control probability. And yet, it was always incredibly apparent when a publisher had only played once because they would give feedback that someone who played even twice wouldn't have given.

Play the game. Learn the rules. Learn the flow. See the variety.

The counter, of course, is that some games aren't worth a second play. This judgement will vary greatly from publisher to publisher. After all, preference is and should be a part of what makes us interesting creatures. If the game is sloppy, or broken, then sure, put it aside after a single play. But if the game mostly works and you just don't get it yet, or something seemed awry, play it a second time. You may find clarification. Furthermore, you'll have more to discuss with the designer when you send him or her feedback.


As a publisher, you owe it to the designer to maintain a reasonable level of correspondence.
This is a tricky one. The immediate response is "I got busy" or "unexpected things popped up." Life is tricky and we all get that. And if we don't, we're jerks.

But here's the thing. As a publisher, you're running a business. Designers are business partners. I've heard many of the new small, indie publishers thump their chests and boldly proclaim that they will be better than the Z-Mans and Rio Grandes because they'll be responsive. And yet months can go by without a single thought or reply to an email.

Writing a single email isn't that hard. Sometimes you're too busy to write the full email, or make the decision, but you can absolutely write an email that says "Hey, we're swamped. Sorry this is taking so long, but we'll need a few more days. Stay tuned." That's not too hard to do and if it is, you greatly need to re-examine your justification for calling yourself a publisher.

How are you going to be responsive to manufactures and distributors? What about customer complaints? If you want to make this your day job, how are you going to simultaneously launch several products with several designers, artists, and graphic designers?

Don't put us in the void and ignore us. We need you, but you also need us. It's about being reasonable and showing respect to others.


As a publisher, if you request a prototype from a designer, you owe it to them to play it in a reasonable time frame.
If a designer submits a game to you unsolicited, then you don't need to rush to play it. Get to it when your priorities allow and only if you accept submissions (of course). But, if you approach a designer and say "We are interested in your product. We would like you to send us a prototype." things immediately change.

I spent a lot of money sending prototypes to publishers who approached me with an interest in Farmageddon only to see my game sit idly for months. If you approach a designer and tell them you're interested, their game needs to become a priority.

If that's not possible, then you need to be up front about the conditions. Be clear on the rough timeline. Go over the process. Your time is valuable, but guess what? So is mine. And so is my money.

This also ties in greatly to the point just above regarding reasonable correspondence.


As a publisher, you need to be willing to hold a discussion about the feedback.
Design is a series of compromises and conversations. The publisher may ask for modifications to streamline the game, adjust it for a different audience or theme, or reduce components to mitigate costs. All of this is awesome and most often leads to a better game.

But, it needs to be a conversation. It is infuriating when the feedback conversation is one-sided. If a publisher expresses concerns, it is my responsibility to address them or add clarification if I desire to be published by the publisher. But, the publisher needs to listen in turn and not approach it as "my way or the highway." This is doubly infuriating when it's clear the publisher has only played the game once.

Here's an example. One publisher was convinced Farmageddon was inherently unbalanced and flawed by the first player's actions. I took this feedback into account and addressed it in several ways. After the second prototype, the publisher came back again with this feedback. I wrote 3 pages of analysis explaining why I believed the problem was addressed. Keep in mind I wasn't standing up shouting and saying "no no no!" I approached it as a point of discussion and tried to provide evidence to back up my point. Evidence backed by a great deal of playtesting. The publisher responded almost immediately with "Well, thanks. Maybe next time."

Both sides need to engage in reasonable discourse. If you're working with a child of a designer who cannot take feedback, then cut them off. But if the designer embraces the feedback and tries to initiate a conversation, then hold the conversation. You may find a better game emerges that neither of you could envision alone.


As a publisher, you owe it to a designer to give them a "No" when you've made a decision.
This is yet another byproduct of the reasonable correspondence note, but I think it deserves its own mention.

If you decide you don't want to publish the game or don't feel your feedback is being addressed, awesome. Take a minute and send the designer the official rejection. Your email can be as simple as the following:

Dear (designer name),

We appreciate your submission and unfortunately do not feel it's a good fit for (publisher name)  at this time. Thank you and best of luck.

Sincerely,
(publisher representative)


You can use that template. On the house.

BONUS ROUND: If you want to guide novice designers to help them become good designers and therefore potential business partners, give them feedback. This is why we didn't publish your game: Points 1, 2, 3, and 4. Here are some suggestions on how to do this in the future.

I see this as a conversation. Designers and publishers should join. Have a good weekend!

Fifth Test for Abby

Testing Poor Abby has presented me with many lessons. Some I've learned, forgotten, and now must relearn, others I'm learning for the first time.

Make sure features present a clear value to the player

I keep trying to add another layer to the game for the sake of gameplay depth and differentiation. These layers keep failing. Last night's test revealed that the Jury Tampering ability was neat on the surface but was entirely irrelevant. Neither one of us used a single ability once for a few reasons.

• The benefit for using the ability was always too subtle. It's key to make a feature's value to the player overt and mostly clear.
• Using the abilities was too complex. There were 5 icons and they were easily forgotten. I can only imagine how difficult it is to learn a game like Race for the Galaxy which has far more icons.
• The abilities didn't work within the flow of the game. I basically designed a benefit for permanent area control when control of a juror is often temporary or tenuous at best.

Card games need useful card

Another lesson, which I knew, but is always coming back to me, is that it's important in a card game to make every card valuable most of the time. Over its life cycle I cut and tweaked many cards from Farmageddon because their use was too limited or required too many pieces to come together. Last night playing Poor Abby, there were several cases where neither of us a.) wanted the cards present or b.) knew the value of the cards present. (Fun Fact: I designed the game and this was still a problem!)

We laid out all 60 cards and went through each of them.

What we discovered during the examination was that:

• I had many sets of virtually identical cards. They either did the same thing (verbatim text) or essentially did the same thing.
• Some of the mostly identical cards were clearly weaker than their nearly identical counterpart. Who would ever choose that one? And was the weaker aspect interesting? Often times, no.
• Many of the cards didn't work with the flow of the game. It was fairly obvious when took a step back right after playing the game. And what I failed to see, my friend made painfully obvious with his comments. 

In a deckbuilder, someone is permanently (usually) adding a card to their deck. If it's going to ultimately make a deck less efficient (more cards reduce efficiency), the card needs to present a clear and useful value to the player and his strategy.

Imagine that?

Cumbersome Card Design

Another key concept is to be sure to not create cards that force the player to remember something throughout his turn.Here is a good and a bad example.

Bad: Play this card. If this condition is met during the turn, you can do this thing.

This is bad because the player actually doesn't do anything when the card is played. He must play the card, then track whether he does the thing or not. You never want the player to forget to take the action they've earned. Don't set them up to fail with cumbersome things.

Better: If this condition is met when this card is played, do this thing.

Now, the player knows to set up the condition before playing the card. 

In some cases it's relatively easy to reword the card or massage the design a bit to make it work nicely with the flow of the game. Other times, you must cut the card and move on.

Scoring versus deckbuilding? 

One other thing I noticed while playing last night is that there was an awkward choice between building your deck or scoring points. It wasn't a good choice or an interesting choice, but an awkward one. Currently, scoring and obtaining cards are built into a similar mechanic. This is largely good because the game is streamlined. But, it means players are often trying to score with a bad deck because they don't want to choose deckbuilding over a scoring opportunity. I have some ideas on how to resolve this.

Some Good News!

Fighting over jurors was fun. Removing prices streamlines the game and creates an interesting dynamic element. Increasing the basic value of Influence you must obtain makes it more valuable and makes the game more exciting as the Influence amounts escalate. Some of the cards did work and some interesting combos were pulled off. The game is getting easier to explain and makes more sense. Removing the dice seems to have been a good move.

Changes for Poor Abby

• Remove Jury Tampering feature. Cut. Dead. Gone. Done. 
• Streamline player turns from four steps to three:
• Score
• Play Cards
• Discard and Draw
• Deck has been refined down to about 40 cards. This doesn't seem like many, but this is a 2 player game and I can always add new ones. I feel the current 40 cards all add value.
• Remove Argument cards from starting deck. They are now something you must acquire.
• When do you want to acquire them?
• Which ones do you wish to acquire?
• Introduce the concept of game Rounds/Phases. There will be two. This is to address the buy versus score problem. This also returns to one of the earlier ideas I had for the game, but now with the current game's structure and format. 
• The initial phase is about acquiring cards, i.e. thematically "building your case." This will focus on witnesses and gaining cards.
• The second and final phase will be about delivering your arguments, scoring, and using the strategy you built in the first phase. Instead of witnesses, it'll focus on Jurors. 
• Both phases will use similar game flows.
• During the first phase, the Witness side of a card will be revealed. In the second phase, the cards will be flipped over to reveal the Juror side. 
• I need to design something to make Jurors and Witnesses interesting and valuable. I strongly feel the game needs another layer. I just don't know what or how to do it. 
• I think it needs to be something so simple it can be conveyed with an icon. Forcing players to read text on cards they want for their deck AND Jurors is too much. If players know the value of the object at a glance, that's good.
• I think there need to be at most 2-3 Icons with abilities. There are only so many variables people are comfortable processing. I'm not building a 7 hour epic here. Also, keep in mind tht there are 5 Jurors out. 
• I need to think about ways to improve the game's layout on the table.
• One idea is to give the player a card to play to denote control over a juror. This eliminates the need to move cards around. I can just play a card with my color or symbol to denote "boom, I control this juror."

I need to think and design a bit before I'm ready to write and post new rules. If you have questions or thoughts on the test and changes please post them on Comments. Thanks!

Quick Notes on Poor Abby

I'm really enjoying the development of Poor Abby Farnsworth. I feel that I'm coming up with far more good ideas than bad ones and my playtesters have been enthusiastic about the game. I keep finding good, solid ways to improve the game and it's overall been really enjoyable.

Things don't always go that way so I'm just really enjoying it. Frontier Scoundrels and Space Encounters were both huge struggles with no end in sight, so it's nice to see some positive rays. Dice, deckbuilding, witches...what's not to love (at some point)?

After my fourth test I think the game clearly works at a functional level. We played an entire game, the pacing was right, there were cool choices, a little strategy, it was fun. But it's not fun enough and it's not different enough. Remember that there are several outstanding games with deckbuilding: Dominion, Eminent Domain, Ascension, Quarriors, plus games like A Few Acres of Snow and the upcoming Princes of the Dragon Throne include DBG engines. Now that the structure and foundation of Poor Abby are strong, I'm going into fine tuning and skunk works mode. I'm just going to start trying crazy stuff to make the game incredibly unique and streamlined.

Here are some of the things I have or will be testing shortly:

• Iconography and Layout. One of the problems of any deckbuilder is that a player must learn many cards on their first experience. This isn't fun and I'm trying to test and improve my layout and iconography to lessen the burden of the first play experience. I'm still using index cards and pencil scratches but even there it's possible to refine these things, which saves me time/money when I begin printing real prototypes.
• Cutting Cards. After four plays and lots of design time I can already see the weaker cards. I removed 12 cards from the deck this morning and have about 5 or 6 more I think I can easily extricate. I don't want any fat or filler cards. I want everything to create interesting choices and if I can already see the card as boring, my players will too.
• Custom Dice. I've been trying to lean more into the dice element of the game in good ways. I don't want the game to have some dice and also have some cards. Previously, there would be 3 Jurors in the game that, when controlled, would convey an ability. This meant you had to read more cards! Now, you trade in your regular d6 (which means you lose some flexibility) for a custom die based on the controlled Juror (which means you gain some abilities). After one test this made the game simpler and more fun!
• I'll need to play around with this to ensure it's necessary. Custom dice are great, but they increase the cost of the game to develop.
• Lawyer Abilities. A tester/good friend/published designer suggested I add Lawyer abilities. Basically, the prosecution player has an ability and the defense player has an ability. This will hopefully add a layer of strategy to the game, provide some asymmetrical gameplay and depth, and a little replayability. 
• Court Events. I want to make the Witch Abby and Judge stronger characters for thematic and gameplay purposes. What if the witch lit somebody on fire in the middle of the trial? Or if the judge made some sort of sweeping declaration? I think I'm going to design some cards that emerge from the draw deck. They will create an opportunity to exploit that is available to both players. I'll have to see if I can make this work.

I'm not going to post an updated version of the rules just now (they might change in 20 minutes and I'm being a tinge lazy at this second), but I will soon. They read really cleanly and are now only 6 pages long (and that includes visual diagrams). 

I'm going to being the photoshop work for a better prototype layout this weekend. Hopefully that means in a few weeks I can send some folks early versions to test and help me improve. 

And a two and a three (Poor Abby)

I've been hustling (and taking advantage of my hour long shuttle ride every day) to test and update Poor Abby Farnsworth. I was able to work in a second and third playtest this week. These tests incorporated the feedback from the first test.

Before I discuss the tests and the changes, you can read the updated rules for Poor Abby Farnsworth here. Feedback is appreciated! 


“Perfection is achieved not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away” – Antoine de Saint-Exupery 


This quote has been a guiding phrase for Poor Abby's development. I find that every playtest I streamline or remove a feature and it is improving the game every time. I noted offhand this morning that if my rules are longer after I incorporate my feedback I did it incorrectly, but it's somewhat accurate.  

After the third test, I feel we have some fairly refined core mechanics. Not refined as in "I'm shipping this soon," but refined as in I think we'll be digging more into the content (cards, balance, strategy, tuning) which will inform the decisions I make on the game's structure.

I feel the fundamental focus of the design are shining through: a new way of doing things (not revolutionary, but evolutionary). A faster deckbuilding game. More player interaction. More traditional board game entities to wrestle over. I'm excited and I hope I can push the game further from its contemporaries (Ascension, Dominion, Alien Frontiers) and more towards its own beast that players are excited by.

Poor Abby Testworth: Results of the first Test

I took the opportunity to test Poor Abby Farnsworth this past week. We didn't play a full game due to time and some issues with the game, but the test went remarkably well and I've finished implementing the changes that came about as a result of the test.

Below I'm going to detail the results of the test as well as the changes you'll see in the game. The foundation to the game didn't receive any drastic changes, though one significant support feature was removed and I tweaked an existing feature in a pretty significant fashion. However, most of the changes were polish and tuning fixes.

Here are the updated rules for Poor Abby Farnsworth. As always, your feedback is very much appreciated. I'm fairly pleased the rules are a tinge shorter now, even though the game is deeper.

Changes on the Farm

We've been testing Farmageddon steadily and furiously lately. No rest for the weary! We've been trying some slightly bizarre and nutty ideas, as well as ones designed to refine, deepen, and polish existing cards. Here are some of the changes lately!

Foul Manure Tweak: For the longest time, Foul Manure provided two turns of immunity for a crop. This rule was fiddly and confusing in a few ways. Firstly, some players had questions regarding what justified a turn. Furthermore, this required players keep track of how many turns had transpired. While it wasn't that difficult, it was something they had to do. It's fiddly and that's not good enough.

I finally received a push from a peer for whom I have great respect. The change, surprisingly, came quite quickly to me and was really good. Now, Foul Manure is permanent. It never goes away unless one of two things happens.

1. Dust Bowl is played. Dust Bowl destroys all unprotected crops and now, removes Foul Manure. The crops underneath are still safe. This strengthens Dust Bowl. Not only is it an offensive card, but it can combo with your Foul Manure to get it off.
2. A player discards two crop cards. This can be used in two ways. The Foul Manure owner may deliberately put the Manure on his crop for the protection. It'll cost him two more Crop cards, but he's expecting that cost. OR, I can put Foul manure on YOUR Crop. Now, if you want to harvest it, you'll have to pay two more Crop cards that you WEREN'T expecting. Because of this, cards like Darn Gophers and Farm Futures, which allow you to obtain more Crop cards, or Genetic Superworm, which reduces the cost of the crop, are also greatly strengthened.

Crop Rotation Killed: Crop Rotation has always been a popular card, especially with the more casual players. After all, it's an Uno card. Unfortunately, as the game has matured it has lost its value and isn't as strong anymore. Furthermore, when Foul Manure was changed, it no longer had the combo. Another flaw of the card was that it was insanely over-powered in 2 player games.

Several people pushed me to remove it and finally I did.

Uprooted Added: In the wake of Crop Rotation's demise came Uprooted. Uprooted will replace it to keep the current card distribution unchanged. Uprooted allows the player to swap ownership of any two Planted Crops. That means I can give you my Wheat for your Melon. OR, I can remove the leader's Squash and give it to the last place guy, who planted a Corn. The card is flexible and interesting without being too nasty or unfair. It's been really fun to use so far.

Crop Insurance Rectified: Crop Insurance is one of the last incredibly fiddly hold outs. It's a great card, which gave it a lot longer life in its current form than it should have had. Previously you had to use face-down Crop cards to act as your Insurance payout. But, there were edge cases, like what if I use Thresher? Do the crops go back in my hand? It also didn't protect against theft.

To fix the stupid fiddly bits and strengthen the card, it now provides a fixed payout ($6) much like Bumper Crop. Furthermore, if the Crop is now destroyed OR stolen, the player of Crop Insurance puts the card in his harvest pile for $6 at the end of the game. This has broadened the game's scoring and strengthened the card. It's also now a far more viable defensive card. This one needs more testing, but we've liked it so far.

A Good Idea that Didn't Work Out: One of the oldest pieces of feedback I have routinely received is to make it so that a crop can be instantly harvested. In fact, the first test of Farmageddon allowed that, but it removed any risk or, well, game, from the game.

We tried out a test where the cheapest crop, Sassy Wheat, could be instantly harvested. Here's what happened; when given the choice of a mathematically inferior way to score that had NO risk versus a way that was worth much more but had some risk, players chose the no risk path every time. What happened was everyone just played and harvested Sassy Wheat.

This meant there were rarely crops out on the board. Players horded crop cards until they had a wheat. With no crops, players had few targets or uses for Action cards. Scores were lower, fewer crops were harvested, and people had much less fun.

We toyed around with the notion of working it into an Action card, but I think the same problem would persist. Players who drew the card would horde crops, then insta-harvest a 15 point Squash. The card would unfairly favor those who drew it. Worth a shot!

Graphic Design Lesson: After a year of testing Farmageddon the layout has remained completely unchanged. That is, until I received some great feedback from one of my newer testers. He noted the cards were difficult to read in hand because the harvest value was in the top right corner of the card instead of the top left corner. That was easily fixed and now players can read the cards without moving them around in the hand!

Players also noted it'd be easier to keep track of the value of Bumper Crop and Pesticides if the numbers were displayed like the crops. Another great idea that has really improved things.

The Rules to Witchcraft plus Hyperbole

A week or so ago I wrote a post about my design progress on what was then known as Witch Trial. You can read it here. Since then, my brain has been very busy. I've answered many questions and I was able to draft a first pass set of Rules for the game. I was quite pleased with the rules immediately -- the game felt good, sound, tight, and interesting. This is a feeling I never gained from Frontier Scoundrels, but one I did have from Farmageddon. That's a good thing, to me.

I also created the character of the Witch, Abby Farnsworth, and mentioned it in a tweet. A co-worker of mine (who just so happens to be a designer) commented that I may have a name, and indeed I did. The game is now known as Poor Abby Farnsworth: A Salem Witch Trial.

Finally, I sent the rules to four peers, two of whom managed to find the time to provide me with excellent feedback. Thanks to Phil Kilcrease and AJ Porfirio for their time! I took full advantage of it.

I have not had a few hours to unplug to design the Objection and Evidence cards, though I plan to do that tonight or tomorrow. Nevertheless, I have a strong feeling that Poor Abby Farnsworth will eventually become a completed, fun game.

For those of you interested, here are the current full rules for Poor Abby Farnsworth. It is a dice and card based deckbuilding game for two players. I hope you take a chance to read them and share your thoughts. I feel like there's a solid core and a good foundation upon which to I can create fantastic content.

Enjoy!

As a final note, a month or so ago I hired a friend of mine to design a logo and website for me. I plan to migrate all of my design blog posts there and use the site as a basis for all my design efforts. Note my focus on design. I don't intend to join the ranks of independent board game publishers. I don't think I have the know-how or talent for such a thing, so I'll leave that to those more clever than I.

The logo is nearing completion and I think we have a nearly final candidate. My friend managed to design something that I think is simple, sharp, and makes me laugh.  I wanted to share it. The site will be HyperboleGames.com.

Try Me! An Update on my Witch Trial Themed DBG

Last night's design/prototype efforts, brought to you by Crayola.

I've made some interesting progress on Try Me! lately, so I wanted to put my thoughts down to see if others had insight or thoughts to guide me further. I'm referring to Witch Trial as Try Me! because Witch Trial is already taken. Obviously, the name still needs work.

Initially, Try Me! was a deckbuilding game based on a witch trial in colonial Salem. It's a two player game with the players comprising the roles of the defense attorney and the prosecuting attorney. I love the deckbuilding game mechanic and the theme has been a huge hit with everyone who hears it, so the two seemed like a natural pairing. Plus, I've wanted to design a more focused two player experience.

The Dustbowl Fracas

It's my goal to find a publisher for Farmageddon. The path towards this goal includes a lot of rejection, though oftentimes that's paired with feedback. Some I take, some I ignore. Most of the feedback I ignore is that which pushes Farmageddon outside of the realm of a casual game and towards something more hardcore. It's not that Farmageddon can't be that, it's just it wasn't designed to do that, plus I feel that direction requires more than a tweak, but an overhaul.

Well, I spent yesterday doing one such overhaul. I spent an hour scribbling notes on my notebook at a coffee shop, then several hours at home drafting the rules and refining the content.

I'm not abandoning Farmageddon, because I think over time it's evolved into a solid casual card game. I believe in my derpy corn. But, there's room for a second entry into the Farmageddon family. I've been working on the game for a year now and that familiarity allowed me to create something new really quickly. That new thing is Dustbowl Fracas.

Before I go into the explanation of the new game, here are the rules for Farmageddon. Here are the rules for Dustbowl Fracas. If you're familiar with the original Farmageddon I think the new game will be both more familiar and more interesting. They are cousins.

Dustbowl Fracas is a deckbuilding game for 2 to 4 players. It includes some of the content and core elements of Farmageddon, but tweaks almost everything in order to serve its new purpose.

The Status of the Expedition

My current lead design project, Frontier Scoundrels, has traversed some difficult terrain lately. I finally played the game from start to finish, which was excellent, but also showed me just how far I needed to go.

The feedback from the test was as follows:

• Explorers didn't have enough interesting choices. They were basically pawns while the Expedition Leader and War Party battled it out. They had little incentives for either outcome, as well.
• Event cards (now Action cards) played almost no role in the game. They were too hard to obtain and didn't matter much.
• Resolving Hardships was too easy.
• The Land mechanic was interesting on paper, but nobody really liked it as executed. During the test, each Explorer selected 1 Land card (from a hand of 3) and gave it to the Expedition Leader face-down. 

I tried to solve these problems in a few ways.

• I made it so that Explorers played a Land card in clockwise order. Instead of the Expedition Leader choosing the order, the Explorer picked it. This actually simplified the game, sped it up, and made the Explorers' choices more interesting.
• I modified the Land to benefit the Explorers more and the Expedition Leader less. This made it so that Explorer's could play cards that leaned in their favor.
• I made it so Explorers earned points as well as the Expedition Leader (though fewer), but also would gain more dice to use throughout the game. 
• I gave players more Action cards at the start of the game and added several ways to get them (primarily tied them into Land to once again make the Explorer's choice more interesting). 
• I made Hardships more difficult by increasing/decreasing the numbers and putting more restrictions on how the dice could be used. I also cleaned up the mechanics here to be more consistent. Just a better change overall. 

The Trial Will Re-Adjourn

I'm trying to make consistent progress on Witch Trial. I've made a few decisions since my last post.

If you're just now joining us, I'm doing this for National Game Design Month. My first post (brainstorm) is here. My second post is here.

Decision the First
The game will come with a deck of ten cards called the Townspeople deck. This will be an assortment of men and women, interesting characters like the constable, the merchant, the fisherman, the baker, and more.

What will be interesting is that each one will have a certain quirk that creates a gameplay element. It'll need to be simple enough, as there will be many, but imagine something like the benefit on a card in Dominion, but you must "control" the person to use it. OR, it'll affect the cards you play.

At the start of the game, you'll randomly deal cards from the Townspeople deck to determine the jurors (currently I'm thinking there will be six jurors) and the Judge (one). The last three will comprise the witnesses, who may or may not be called to the stand to testify.

My goal is that, like Dominion, each game is different. Like Dominion, you cannot use the same strategy every time. And finally, like Dominion, you can learn new combos and experiment.

I'm worried that this will be very difficult to balance. I'm also worried that so much information will be difficult to parse for new players. But, if I follow the standards set by Dominion and Eminent Domain (not hard, right?) it can be done.

Decision the Second, Son of Decision the First
I've decided the Witch will not affect gameplay. She'll always be the same, misunderstood character. She'll be a comically tragic figure who is ultimately always innocent (weren't they all?). I don't think I can have a varying jury/judge/witnesses each game AND a different Witch. It's too much and something has to give.

So, the witch will never actually be a witch. But, if the prosecution plays their cards right, she'll sure as Salem be guilty!

The two lawyers (i.e. players) won't be unique, either. Players will essentially create characters and strategies based on their personal play style and the conditions on the board (Jury, Judge, Witnesses).

Decision the Third, estranged spouse of Decision the Second
The game will be broken into three phases: Opening Arguments, the Procession of Evidence, and Closing Arguments. I really enjoy phases for a few reasons.

Firstly, they help focus a player's decisions, while keeping a certain richness. What do you need to do in order to best maximize your efforts in the current phase AND help you win the overall game? You may have a great initial phase, but you could peter out.

Secondly, I think the broad possibilities of many deckbuilding games can be overwhelming for some. I don't mind simplifying this genre if new players try it out.

Thirdly, it gives a distinct ending to the game. This has been a sticking point for me since my very first unsuccessful game. I like it when there's a clear ending that everyone understands and can work against.

Finally, I really enjoyed the phases in 7 Wonders. I have no clue how I'm going to do it quite yet for Witch Trial but I think that it's a good element to borrow and evolve.

Decision the Fourth, this joke isn't funny
Players earn points by using their cards (i.e. legal maneuvers, evidence) to manipulate the various entities. This will also, in some cases, be how you earn cards. So, play a set of cards to manipulate the judge and acquire a powerful card from him. Use a set of cards to influence several members of the jury, then cash them in to rake in several points.

The game will be point based. Player with the most points at the end wins the case. The poor, poor witch.

Finally, there will be a card or a concept known as "Objection!" I don't know how it will work, but by god it will be in the game.

Brainstorming the Witch

I've begun pondering my new game! Farmageddon is in a bit of a holding pattern as I wait and see if anyone wants to publish it. Frontier Scoundrels is finally, finally entering a playtest phase. I know that the game is far from complete and will probably still require an overhaul or two, but the time between playtests can be long and I hate sitting idly. This means I have the time and bandwidth to think about what I want to create next.

I've been watching a lot of Law and Order at night before bed, plus Beth and I tend to watch CSI: Miami on Sunday nights. Crime dramas are fun and I started thinking about the fun of being a detective. I love being the good guy and many of my favorite games are ones that let me feel clever. Unfortunately, the detective genre is jam packed for pretty much every form of entertainment. Every other show on television is a crime drama. LA Noire recently came out. Everyone's talking about Elder Sign. I want to do something unique, so instead of modern crime I shifted my thinking to an alternate setting.

Biggus Diggus Would Wuv This: Review of Vanguard: Rome

I try to buy many of the games at The Game Crafter, which is where I sell Farmageddon. I really like the community and I appreciate how much they've supported Farmageddon. I try to return the favor, but lately games like Castle Danger and Vanguard: Rome are making it all too easy to keep purchasing more. These are great games and my wallet is sore!

Vanguard: Rome really stands out due to its unique mechanics -- I haven't really played anything like it. Both players begin the game with two rows of five units each. This is called your battle line. The goal of the game is to eliminate all of your enemy's units from the field. Each turn a player places 1 additional unit and must attack, so attrition is heavy and you cannot rest or turtle up. They key is that you must attack! The concept of defense is completely absent from this game and it keeps the pacing and the strategy focused in a fantastic way.

Your front battle line must always have a Vanguard unit in the middle, who, by default, is the only unit that attacks. However, there are some units with unique abilities as well as Command cards than can mix things up. For example, a ballista may attack the unit immediately in front of it, even if the ballista isn't the vanguard. A slinger gives +1 attack to all adjacent units, which makes him a great unit to place near your vanguard. Centurions, Praetorians, and Consuls may shift places with other units in the line to maximize the damage dealt. Understanding the 12 units and how they must be used in conjunction with others and the Command cards is the meat and potatoes of the strategy.

Vanguard is relatively easy to learn, but full of depth and reasons to keep playing over and over again.

The player who can defeat 2-3 units in a few sequential turns will turn the tide and ultimately win. But, if the losing player plays their cards right, gets a few good draws, and has a little luck, the game can swing completely back. It's very well tuned and balanced.

I have a few complaints with the game. Like all card games or games that deal with any randomness, if a player gets a poor draw they might lose. This is worsened if one player gets a fantastic draw and the other gets an absolutely crummy draw, like I experienced last night. I do want to call out that this game is overwhelmingly based on strategy, not luck. Where you place your units, how you place command cards -- this is not random.

Towards the latter half of the game, it can drag a tinge. It may be clear that one player is going to win, but the losing player can cling for dear life for a few turns without actually making progress towards victory. They won't be winning, they just aren't losing as quickly.

Finally, and this isn't really a negative, because the game has so many unique elements the learning curve can be a bit wavy at times. The rules are very well written and the game is elegantly designed, but it is different. Different can lead to some confusion, but I really respect the designer's desire to be unique.

I've only played the game in 2 player, though it does support 3-4. Personally, I think 2 player is just right.

Vanguard: Rome is very reasonably priced under $20 and is absolutely recommended to fans of unique strategy games. It plays quickly and is full of depth, so you'll want to play again and again. I was fortunate enough to learn to play the game from the designer himself who happens to live in San Francisco. He's a great guy and I can't wait to see more from him.

Farmageddon: Rules

NOTE: THE RULES BELOW AND ON THE LINK ARE OUT OF DATE. FARMAGEDDON CAN BE BOUGHT WITH FINAL RULES AND BEAUTIFUL ART FOR $13.99 HERE!


Farmageddon is my most recent card/board game project. I didn't create it to sell, so in the hopes of more people enjoying it I am posting it here for others to create and try. Please feel free to print the rules and build the game yourself. All I ask is that if you play it, leave me a comment and tell me what you thought! If you have any questions, please post a comment.


The rules can be seen in document form here.