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!

A Big Shift for Abby

As I noted earlier this week, I've been trying some different and strange stuff with Poor Abby Farnsworth to make the game more fun, more streamlined, and more unique.

A good friend called me to discuss the game on Wednesday night. He played the prototype on Sunday that included my new custom dice idea and liked the game, but had some reservations. We talked for about an hour and at the end I had a few ideas that were fairly big departures from what I'd been doing currently:

• No more dice, regular, custom, or otherwise. The dice weren't enough of a differentiating factor for the overall feel of the game and though they were working, they weren't really satisfying my core need. Removing dice also greatly reduces component costs.
• No more score tracker. Score trackers are inherently fiddly. Now, score will be tallied with scored cards (like Farmageddon) and a few other easy elements. 
• Jurors are the core of the experience. I added 3 more jurors for a grand total of six. But that's not all.
• You must control a Juror to obtain Evidence cards. This creates a back and forth between players.
• As a result, all evidence is now dynamically priced (somewhat) based on how much people want it and are willing to fight for it. If tuned and implemented properly, I think this will be a real innovation. 
• Jurors have Jury Tampering abilities. Based on how the Juror cards are dealt each game, they can influence and modify adjacent jurors in a few ways. 
• Court Actions were simplified. Now only the Judge and Witch have actions which are driven by Influence. 

I think this is a big step forward for the game. I plan to test it tomorrow afternoon.

Here are the rules with dice. Read these if you want a comparison.

Here are the new rules with dice removed. These are the current rules I'm testing.

As always, your thoughts are appreciated.

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.

By Jove a Witch

I'm making great progress with Poor Abby Farnsworth. Typically I'd be worried about writing so often on my blog, but it's easy to be prolific when you're excited. And I am!

I finished the last Evidence card on the shuttle home from work tonight. 60 cards! I also have 5 of the 15 Objection cards designed and really, those will come quite quickly. I did a re-write of the rules to bring them inline with some of the changes that emerged from the content. Finally, I did some really rough iconography work NOT to present as final art, but to begin the work of making the game clean, accessible, and easy to learn. I want people to focus on playing the game, not learning the game.

Before I discuss the changes, here are the updated rules to Poor Abby Farnsworth.

Thoughts on General Staff

I'm deep in the midst of Poor Abby Farnsworth content creation. There are many cards to design in a deckbuilding game (shocking) and it's slow and time consuming work. But, the fundamentals remain strong, though slightly modified since I last discussed them.

I think there are two phases to design: big design and little design. Big design focuses on the systems and mechanics. The concept. The theme. The big, fun ideas that come to us quickly in a flash of inspiration. Little design is less glamorous, more tedious, but ultimately more satisfying. And in my opinion, more important. The two phases use different parts of my brain, or at least tax my imagination differently, and I had a few thoughts today regarding what I may work on next.

I like to try new things each game. My first game, Space Encounters, was a big space civilization building game (that sucked). Farmageddon was supposed to be a light, quick game that I think has grown into something a little more, but light nonetheless. Poor Abby Farnsworth is a highly thematic 2 player deckbuilding game. I wanted to try my hand at the fantastic DBG mechanic and try to create something deeper. I decided this morning that I should distance myself a little from cards and try my hand at a board game. New things to learn!

Which way to go? Euro? Perhaps. Design-wise I'm more inclined to lean into the cleaner mechanics, though I like a little theme and prefer games that are an hour or less. Then I thought of a war game. I've been eyeing 1812: The Invasion of Canada, which many have said is a great blend of euro and war game design philosophies. It seemed like a good direction to go. After all, I've always wanted to make a better Risk.

Beautiful cover. I hear the components are top notch.

An idea I've had in mind for a bit involves the two sides of war. Two sets of soldiers engage in war: the old, crusty generals safe in the capital send orders to the young officers, conscripts, and volunteers on the front. There are two different experiences here for two different players. The old Marshall must think upon the grand strategy, supply his field commanders, and please his political masters. The field commander must use the resources given to him, try to carry out orders, and request assistance to better fight the war.

Really, it's perfectly captured in this image (I couldn't find an image of old Prussian men pushing blocks around).

It's a team game with two teams, though obviously it would need to work with as few as two players. I even thought there could be a 3 player variant, with one team of two and a third controlling a guerrilla faction. But that's getting ahead of myself.

There's also room, I think, for competitive cooperation. I.e. both teams most work together to win, but each team only has one true war hero, the one the people love and the fans remember.

Key innovation number one, at least I hope, is this dynamic of strategic versus tactical and the teamplay based upon it. A question I'm asking myself is whether there's an interesting mechanic whereby sharing information is difficult between teammates. For example, is there a fun and interesting way to make it such that a letter takes time to reach a front line commander? It'd be awful to force all players to sit behind screens and not talk. But there could be something.

I have some interesting ideas regarding a dice mechanic that acts for both the supply and the commanders. It's not ready to discuss, but it made me smile when it popped into my head. It felt unique and interesting. But also, really straightforward with lots of interesting possibilities.

Finally, though the game will be greatly inspired by history, especially the tactics, weaponry, and politics of the Franco-Prussian War, I want to create my own world. This lets me distance myself from the well-tread European battle map. It lets me remove myself from the history to create something new. There's approximately a 97.57% chance one of the sides is a very Germanic sounding group. The second side will probably be a bit less, well, Prussian, and more slapdash. Something fun like frontier American types or Australians. It'll be fun to push the flavor in a few key areas and create some interesting new scenarios.

I'm excited by this game. There are some ideas I've been trying to create for some time that I think can finally exist in this game. For the time being I'm calling it General Staff, though I pray I'll conceive of something better. As Poor Abby enters what will be a long test phase, it'll be fun to dive into this new idea.

Wooden blocks, dice, und Krieg. Mein Gott!

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.

My Own Worst Fan: A Critical look at Frontier Scoundrels

Frontier Scoundrels has been in development since July and I think I've hit another key milestone, though it's not necessarily a good one. I've held a few complete start-to-finish playtests of the game, and while I think the game is finally mechanically sound, it's too complicated, ill-focused, and lacks the fun element it needs to have. I'm not sure I can fix the game in its current state.

The past 5 months haven't been wasted though; I know a great deal more about what works and what doesn't. More importantly, I know which of my core mechanics need to change, though that means I need to discard some of my original design focuses.

This will be a long post, so here's a quick table of contents to show you what to expect. Another thing to note is that I aim for this post to be useful as a design exercise for folks and it hopefully won't require prior knowledge of Frontier Scoundrels.

Table of Contents

• The Current Frontier Scoundrels: Summary of the game flow with a link to the complete rules
• Why It's Broken: A breakdown of what's wrong with the current game
• Mulligan: Details on where I'm taking the game next, including a mind-map.
• Thinking Time: Questions for which I need to find answers

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.

Opening Arguments: Designing the Witch Trial

I've decided to steam ahead full on my design of Witch Trial, the sudden urgency being that this is National Game Design Month and I desire so much to be cool and hip. And what better way than to design a board game in a month!

I wrote about Witch Trial previously, but to save you time here's a quick summary. Initially, I wanted to create a detective game. I love Law and Order: SVU and CSI: Miami. They are just fun. But, I didn't want to make a game based in modern times. I feel it's not exciting or different enough. I love history, so I began thinking about mystery-like novels such asUmberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. From this, a friend suggested the witch scene from Monty Python's The Holy Grail. From there, I took the concept of a witch trial, picked colonial Salem, Massachusetts as a setting, and decided the game would be about the trial itself, not the discovery or the escape, but the trial.

I have been trained at work to design very quickly due to deadlines. However, designing board games are my hobby, so I take my time. Really, I work in two phases: concept and design.

My goals for the concept phase are to pick a theme, a few core mechanics, number of players, time to play the game, and general flow and feel of the game. Basically, my concept phase is when I put a line in the sand for high level and philosophical concepts that will guide the rest of the game. This phase takes me days, weeks, sometimes months. I often do it passively, and by that I mean my best ideas come to me when I'm walking my dog and I stop to write them on my iPhone. Or when I'm in the shower. Or when I'm running. I don't set a deadline on this phase and I don't force it.

Frontier Scoundrels: Second Playtest Results

I got tired of waiting for friends to have a chance to playtest Frontier Scoundrels (people are busy!), so I played a four player game against...myself. It seems silly, but it was an incredibly useful act and I made some good changes because of it.

Here are a few things I learned about the game...

I really enjoy the Explorer bonuses (i.e. which dice you roll) combined with the Command cards. Command cards are assignments dealt by the current Expedition Leader. Players with Command cards roll dice to try to win a Hardship. However, each Command card conveys different bonuses and abilities. For the Expedition Leader, assigning them is a great choice that is fun but not too heavy. You have to quickly scan to see what the challenge is, who is participating, how many points everybody has, which dice they can bring, how the bonuses will change this, and then think about who can do the most damage with the bonus contained on a card.

The challenge is that you must give out Command cards, but which ones and to whom? You must involve the others! The other great part is that sometimes you get Command cards that are basically duds, which restricts your choices even further.

I was really pleased with this mechanic.

It was difficult to test the Frontier Scoundrel cards by myself. Each player has a set of them and different cards can be played at different times. Some are offensive, others defensive, and some can be used in both ways. What I did learn, however, is that three of the nine cards I had were worthless and never seemed useful. I cut these three and swapped them out for two new cards: one allows a player to wager against the current hardship (which is especially great if you aren't participating in the current turn) and the other allows a player to counter another Frontier Scoundrel card.

The cards I did use were useful and entertaining.

I really enjoyed the two different dice mechanics the game currently employs. I fiddled with the tuning on some of the cards, but I thought the current weight and probability of the dice felt pretty good. Two of the Eight Hardships tried were failed. Another two were almost failed, but a good roll and some well-placed Frontier Scoundrel cards fixed things. Perfect! Well, I may actually want 3 of 8 to be failed, but we can see how that goes. Dice will be dice...

The current mock up for Hardship cards...

I'm currently worried the punishments for failure won't affect the game enough. I added a -1 Point penalty for Expedition Leaders when Hardships are failed to make them sting just a little bit more. I did this for another reason as well, however. I noticed that later in the game players didn't have enough options by which to gain the lead. I think this -1 point loss will give players another way to hurt the leader in hopes of taking the lead themselves.

I tweaked a lot of the numbers pertaining to most Hardships, re-wrote a few of the punishments, and tweaked some of the tuning on Frontier Scoundrel cards. The score was fairly tight, which I enjoyed. I really like the current bonus mechanic and how it's an advanced strategy to try to figure out who will get the bonus to stop them from getting it.

A bit surprisingly, I found out that not one, but two other designers are working on exploration games. One is even working on a Lewis and Clark themed game (dammit) titled Corps of Discovery, which was the first name for Frontier Scoundrels. And there I was thinking Lewis and Clark was a fairly safe bet for a unique theme...

Testing, Testing

I've been troubled for a bit about the art for my newest game, Frontier Scoundrels. I'm not an artist and I cannot afford to pay an artist again. I went all out for Farmageddon's visuals and I feel I got more than my money's worth. But, that's expensive and until I get published or find someone willing to work for free, I need another solution.

Immediately, the choices aren't great. I can draw, which is a horrible idea. Or, I can use public domain images. After all, many folks do this and I'm making a game about history. But, I feel if I'm going to sell this game for any amount of money, I need to give people something somewhat special, even if it's not a Fantasy Flight caliber production.

One option...

I had an idea based on claymation and simple art projects, like dioramas, from elementary school. I thought I could use simple shapes that I could draw, easily identifiable scenes, and put it together in a way that's unique and charming. Here's what I did:

Step 1
I sketched it. If I could draw something somewhat decent, that was progress. I chose the Hardship card called "The Fort Clatsop Decision?" I thought a snowed in log cabin would be good. I played around with shading certain portions and keeping it simple. I was actually pretty happy.

Step 2
I drew it on my sketch book. Plain white background. I picked a handful of colors (light blue, black, brown, white, yellow, and green) from my heap of construction paper, then cut out the shapes. I placed them in the proper layering order (like in photoshop) and glued them.

I then went back and added subtle accents. Tiny black slivers to separate the logs. Blue to accent the snow. Yellow to accent the tree.

Step 3
I scanned it onto my computer. I cleaned up some of the rough spots.  I then minimized it and put it onto the card.

So, what do you think?

Political Correctness can make things difficult for historically-based design

My current board game is based on the Lewis and Clark expedition in 1804-1805. One of the things that really appealed to me about the theme and setting is that there were a ton of hardships the expedition had to face, including horrible weather, disease, hostile Native Americans, and just flat-out getting lost.

I wanted to really leverage the Native Americans in particular as I thought their contributions to the story were pretty significant and interesting. At some times, the Natives greatly assisted the explorers. In fact, without them the explorers may have failed or perished.

However, in other cases, the Natives were hostile or supposedly stole from the expedition. This is great variety and frankly, I don't necessarily blame the natives for being hostile. After all, the Americans and Europeans didn't exactly greet them in friendship.

It's a tricky balance and it can be a very touchy subject. It's very tempting to use words like "savages" and acts like "scalping," but I don't think that improves the game, it doesn't match the theme or history, and it'll probably offend someone.

I've tried to stick to the history I've found on Wikipedia and other sites and go from there. My cards won't always be 100% factual, but they'll be within the ballpark. For example, in one event you can negotiate with Sacajawea's husband to bring her on as a translator. In another case the Blackfeet steals things from you. You attempt to trade with the Otas and the Omahas may give you fair warning of an impending attack.

There is history to mostly back this up and as a result I think I've created something that's entertaining, fairly presents the various entities involved in the history, and most importantly, leads to a fun game.

Plus, I've bolstered the mostly factual with the completely absurd with entities like the Missouri River Piranha and other less factual creations.