Skip to Content
 

high level rules

15 replies [Last post]
Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

So playtesting for El Cid is underway and problems are popping up here and there. Little problems, mind you. Nothing is horribly broken and on the whole the game works as intended.

However, each problem needs to be addressed, and that's usually an additional sentence thrown into the rules. All of our rules can fit onto the front of one page, so tacking on rules is a very noticeable choice (to me), and it makes me slightly uncomfortable every time I do it. Obviously, El Cid is mostly a small selection of very low-level mechanics (and it turns out it actually creates interesting high-level behavior!), but it's not perfect yet. . .

Here's the problem: when is "remolding" your design based on playtesting simply patching up problem areas? For instance, in the attack sequence someone has to start it off and originally we said the player to the left holding El Cid would start, with El Cid going last. However, this caused players to not want El Cid at all in the last turn or two simply because they didn't want to go last. The fix was easy. Give the first turn to the player holding El Cid. Since it's a fairly arbitrary (and abstract) choice anyway, and it boosts El Cid's strategic importance, I view that as a "remolding" change.

However, I start to get uncomfortable as we patch up the bidding procedure. Bidding was quite simple before, but we soon discovered we needed rules to cover a tie and rules if players are still tied, resulting in a coin flip. Makes me uncomfortable because no where else in the game do you roll a die or flip a coin to determine the outcome. Now, is that a reasonable high-level rule, or should we have designed the bidding procedure to make tying bids impossible? Easiest way to do that would have open bidding/auction style bids, but that eliminates a lot of the fun in the closed bidding and I think damages the game more than it fixes.

So is the coin flip a necessary evil, not that big of a deal really, or completely avoidable via a system we haven't thought of yet?

Also (to take the discussion past our own game), I understand one should strive for collections of low-level rules and avoid high-level rules, but is there a categorical difference between the two, or is it much more of a gradient and you have to guestimate based on what you're comfortable with?

SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
high level rules

During the days after playtesting my game, I usually think about specific instances in the game that didn't seem right and work on patching those parts of the game, if needed.

Sometimes my playtesters have brought up the way to fix something (I've made a lot of rules and used a lot of feedback from my playtesters.)The rest of the time I think and think and think until something clicks in my mind and then I rewrite the rules, usually as the old mechanic didn't exist to begin with.

In the case with your game (and because of time restraints I have not looked completely at your game, well I think I did, but it's been changed since then) I think that you could come up with something unique to solve your ties instead of resorting to a coin flip. Like who won the last battle or something game related.

Another thing to ask yourself how much does bidding matter in the game? Could bidding be replaced with something different, possibly something simpler? How much does the bid affect the game? And if it does, should it?

I hope this helps and good luck with your game!

-Steve

DarkDream
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
high level rules

Fos,

I remember your game from a chat session. I think tossing a coin is rather a cop out when doing bidding. I would try to come up with a more ingenious way of solving the tie situation.

Your game is simple with no real randomness in it. I think you should keep to this design principle for your game.

When patching a game, I think it is important to not try to lump on rules to fix it. Try to find the most elegant fit that seems to fit with the other design goals of the game.

That's my 2 cents.

--DarkDream

SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
high level rules

DarkDream wrote:
I think tossing a coin is rather a cop out when doing bidding.

When patching a game, I think it is important to not try to lump on rules to fix it. Try to find the most elegant fit that seems to fit with the other design goals of the game.

That's what I wanted to say but didn't know how to put it. When making the newer set of rules, it should feel like you would if you were fixing your house. You don't go for the cheapest thing out there or something that won't fit, but for something that will make your house more beautiful.

-Steve

Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
high level rules

Hmm... well, El Cid could go to the player who won him last, but I don't think that supports the "El Cid is a true mercenary" theme we were shooting for. Either way, it still doesn't address a tie for the bid in the first turn in a 4 or 6 player game, where everyone is completely tied. Perhaps in a tie it could go into an open bid between the tying players.

And yes, bidding is quite essential to the game. Since people bid and choose how much to spend on armies in the same step, choosing how much to bid is a very strategic choice. Eliminating bidding would require a complete reworking of how El Cid works, making an entirely new game. While that may be the only way to fix it, I don't think it is, or at the very least I'd like to try to solve the problem without resorting to essentially scraping the idea.

How does bidding affect the game? By forcing alliances beyond just arbitrary lines (to pool resources so your allies win El Cid), by creating a "second-guessing" mechanic that increases a sense of limited information while rewarding players who can best anticipate the actions of their rivals, and by forcing players to make a choice between the powerful piece or many less powerful pieces. Players are also bidding on turn order (player who wins El Cid goes first) which has its own strategic aspects to it. So, in effect, most of the strategy of the game comes from the bidding, the choices stemming from the bidding, and choices to limit other players' ability to bid later in the game, thus increasing your chance of eliminating them. It's important, and I don't feel stubborn thinking so.

edit: And thanks for the comments... i was replying to SVan's original post when the other two posts went up. Yeah, flipping a coin really does feel like a cop out, but I think open bidding might work better. Thanks for the advice... though I'm still a bit fuzzy on the difference between "remolding" and "patching," but I suppose that's because it's a very fuzzy concept to begin with, where you have to rely on your intuition to guide you, not categorical differences.

...

If only designing games was like the games we designed.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: high level rules

Fos wrote:

However, I start to get uncomfortable as we patch up the bidding procedure. Bidding was quite simple before, but we soon discovered we needed rules to cover a tie and rules if players are still tied, resulting in a coin flip. Makes me uncomfortable because no where else in the game do you roll a die or flip a coin to determine the outcome. Now, is that a reasonable high-level rule, or should we have designed the bidding procedure to make tying bids impossible? Easiest way to do that would have open bidding/auction style bids, but that eliminates a lot of the fun in the closed bidding and I think damages the game more than it fixes.

So is the coin flip a necessary evil, not that big of a deal really, or completely avoidable via a system we haven't thought of yet?

Also (to take the discussion past our own game), I understand one should strive for collections of low-level rules and avoid high-level rules, but is there a categorical difference between the two, or is it much more of a gradient and you have to guestimate based on what you're comfortable with?

Quick suggestion that I can think of (not meaning to ignore your question about complex rules systems) : When there is a tie, no one get's El Cid. Or both players share El Cid (each person can use El Cid to grab one territory). Or El Cid goes to the next highest, non tieing bidder. Just a few thoughts!

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: high level rules

Darkehorse wrote:
When there is a tie, no one get's El Cid. Or both players share El Cid (each person can use El Cid to grab one territory). Or El Cid goes to the next highest, non tieing bidder.

Well, 'highest unique bid' wouldn't really fit the theme. Neither would 'no one gets El Cid' (though it might work). Maybe something like El Cid moves the the left to the next player who's tied for highest bid.

This could represent the case where if 2 people offer El Cid the same amount, he might take the one that was easier for him (in this case closer in turn order).

Another way to handle it would be to use something like the Ra bidding system, so there could BE no tie (but some players can auto-win the auction if they want to). If someone wants to describe the Ra bidding system, they could do a better job than I so I'll defer to them.

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: high level rules

sedjtroll wrote:
Darkehorse wrote:
When there is a tie, no one get's El Cid. Or both players share El Cid (each person can use El Cid to grab one territory). Or El Cid goes to the next highest, non tieing bidder.

Well, 'highest unique bid' wouldn't really fit the theme. Neither would 'no one gets El Cid' (though it might work). Maybe something like El Cid moves the the left to the next player who's tied for highest bid.

This could represent the case where if 2 people offer El Cid the same amount, he might take the one that was easier for him (in this case closer in turn order).

Another way to handle it would be to use something like the Ra bidding system, so there could BE no tie (but some players can auto-win the auction if they want to). If someone wants to describe the Ra bidding system, they could do a better job than I so I'll defer to them.

Sure it fits the theme. El Cid decides that the top bidders are greedy b*st*rds and goes with the next highest bidder just to spite them. Or El Cid decides he doesn't like the extra attention brought upon by more than one high bidder so he decides to lay low for a while (A lot of people would love to see El Cid's head on a platter). Seth, why not think a little more before you shoot down other people's ideas? You'll make more friends that way.

-Darke

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Re: high level rules

Darkehorse wrote:

Sure it fits the theme. El Cid decides that the top bidders are greedy b*st*rds and goes with the next highest bidder just to spite them.

That doesn't seem to fit the 'true mercenary' idea that the author had mentioned. The Mercenary thinking other people are greedy bastards? That's pretty rich.

Quote:
Or El Cid decides he doesn't like the extra attention brought upon by more than one high bidder so he decides to lay low for a while (A lot of people would love to see El Cid's head on a platter).

That sounds like a more reasonable fit to the theme, which just goes to show that you can explain away almost anything. The feeling I had was that El Cid's 'true mercenary' nature meant that he went to the highest bidder, period. At least in the context of this game (maybe not history). It sounded absurd to think that a 'goes for the highest bidder' would ever work for a lower bid- especially when there's not one but MULTIPLE better offers.

Quote:
Seth, why not think a little more before you shoot down other people's ideas? You'll make more friends that way.

Wow. It wasn't a personal attack. Just discussion. You have a bad day today or something?

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
high level rules

It's always better to solve problems at a low level than to patch them up at a higher level. One of the reasons why I avoid blind bidding mechanics is because I dislike rules to solve ties. Most of the time they are fiddly or simply unfair or random.

There are some good solutions, though, if you really want to use blind bidding.

One is, as mentioned earlier, the Ra mechanic. In Ra each player has three stones, each with a unique number on it, so ties are simply impossible.

Another idea is the mechanic used in ZooSim. In ZooSim each player has a flag on a flagpole. When there is a tie between players, the player whose flag is highest on the flagpole wins the tie. That player's flag is then lowered to the lowest place on the flagpole. The intitial seeding of the flagpole is random is this gives a slight advantage to certain players, but since there are so many auctions in the game and teh positions on th epole change so often it's not a huge problem.

Yet another method would be to give the win to the player who is closest to the left of the player holding a certain token. In your game that could be the player holding El Cid if he is involved in the tie, or otherwise the player closest to his left involved in the tie. For the first round you could simply give El Cid to a random player. Yes, that would give a slight advantage to the player who receives it at first, but you have to ask yourself if that is worse than adding yet another fiddly tiebreaking rule.

Good luck with your game!

- René Wiersma

Anonymous
high level rules

While I wish I had something insightful to contribute to the overall question of patch vs remodel, I don't. However, I would like to suggest another some tie breaking mechanisms:
1) how about another bid? The two (three, four...) tied players simply bid again.
2) El Cid goes to the player with the most (or least) money/resources in available.

I haven't read the rules, so I'm sorry if these don't work but they're pretty simple solutions. Though I do like the flag idea from ZooSim; reminds me of the possession arrow in college basketball.

Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
high level rules

Hmm...

Well, since tying for a bid is random anyway (and doesn't happen all that much either), instead of flipping coin the tying players could keep drawing income cards until one player has more money total in their bid pool for El Cid. They wouldn't keep these Income cards, of course. This is better than flipping a coin because it at least uses a game piece already on the table. Also, this is better than open bidding, for while open bidding (in the case of a tie) would reduce the chances of a complete tie, it opens up a whole new host of problematic circumstances (what if no one wants to bid? who bids first? what if it's still a complete tie?), and I think it's better than the flag system. There's simply not enough bidding within the 45 minute game to justify such a game piece. The Ra system, while interesting, simply wouldn't work because players' bids are made up of multiple Income cards and those same Income cards are used to purchase Armies.

So it does resort to a bit of randomness, but it's a simple way to figure out who should get him and won't require a new rule for each successively infrequent tie breaker needed. And as far as high-level rules go, it's the only exception rule we really have, so I really don't feel bad about it.

Thanks for the input everyone. (I fear there won't be much left to workshop by the end of May...)

phpbbadmin
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2013
Re: high level rules

sedjtroll wrote:

Quote:
Seth, why not think a little more before you shoot down other people's ideas? You'll make more friends that way.

Wow. It wasn't a personal attack. Just discussion. You have a bad day today or something?

Hmmm I went back and read this and it does seem unjustly harsh, even though I was *trying* to be sarcastic. My apologies. And Yes, I was having a bad day... Again my apologies.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
high level rules

Grendel wrote:

2) El Cid goes to the player with the most (or least) money/resources in available.

Here's an idea- El Cid (being a true mercenary and therefore in it for the money) goes to the tied player with the most money, and then takes an additional unit of money...

I'm not sure how the money stuff works in this game, if holdings are open or if the different income cards or whatever have various amounts on them such that making change is an issue, but the principle of the idea is that El Cid goes to the person who offers him more money, and if multiple people offer him more money he goes to the one that could pay the most and then demands a little more.

Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
high level rules

sedjtroll wrote:
I'm not sure how the money stuff works in this game, if holdings are open or if the different income cards or whatever have various amounts on them such that making change is an issue, but the principle of the idea is that El Cid goes to the person who offers him more money, and if multiple people offer him more money he goes to the one that could pay the most and then demands a little more.

Income cards range from 200 dinar to 500 dinar, with the weight on the lower amounts. Your idea would work in most situations, granted, but what if two players bet all of their money on the first turn and have happened to draw the same Income cards? In the case of a complete tie (which would be very rare, mind you), the players couldn't give El Cid more money. Also, the exact amount in your bank is secret. Players will know if opponents have a lot of money or very little by the number of cards they're holding, but no one knows each other's denominations unless that was negotiated.

Personally, I'd rather have one semi-thematic fix that covers all possibilities than 10 rules, each less elegant than the one before, but required to patch up even the rarest of occurances.

Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
high level rules

We've made a few changes to the game, none as high-level as the tied bidding rules. At one level I still feel like we're patching the game, though the patches do seem fundemental enough where they won't be noticed by people who haven't looked at the original set of rules; they don't feel tacked on. I suppose that's the most solid test I have for determining which rule additions are out of line, which answers one of my original questions.

Anyway, in addition to the tying bid rules, we changed turn order, the army buying mechanic, added "tired armies," and gave players a choice to defend. The result of all these changes is an increased importance on preserving armies, thus increasing the difficulty in deciding to attack another player. They also seem to speed up territory card transfers and on the whole keep the game more balanced from beginning to end. If you want to read more about these changes, feel free to read my 5/6 journal entry about it (I also talk a bit about the strategies involved in playing the game, which has turned out remarkably well, though I can't say "as expected," because I really wasn't sure what to expect).

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut