Skip to Content
 

Chicago: playtest results

9 replies [Last post]
Mon, 09/13/2004 - 14:53
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

After "Gheos" we tested "Chicago", a quirky little deduction game. "Chicago" is a design that is taking shape more clearly every time it gets tested.

It's a simple deduction game: there are 24 cards (crooks), each with a unique combination of 4 traits. The cards are shuffled, one is put face down under the board and the rest of the cards are distributed between the players. The goal of the game is to find out, through clever questioning, which one is the missing card. It's not unlike "Mystery of the Abbey" or "Sleuth" in that respect. The twist is that it is a cooperative game. Players win or lose collectively and they have to try and help eachother.

There's a board with a track with 72 spaces on it. A pawn starts on space '1'. If the pawn reaches space '72' before the players have found out who is the culprit, they lose.

Play goes around the table. During a player's turn he rolls 4 dice. He removes the highest and the lowest dice and keeps the remaing two dice to execute his turn. He chooses one die to move the pawn that many spaces forward, the other pawn dictates which action the player may take.

Of course, there are six different actions. The low-numbered actions are a bit better than highered number actions. This means that a player often has to face the dilemma of taking a good action and moving a lot of spaces, or taking a weaker action, but moving less spaces foward.

The actions '3' and '4' will get rolled most often and require the most of a player's creativity. The '3' action, for example, is: "Ask a question to a player". That player must be able to answer the question with a single word, of course.

The cooperative aspect is most clearly seen in action '5', which doesn't give any information to the current player, instead he must give away information to the other players, so it is important to give away information that he thinks is helpful. Action '5' is: "Name a trait and then tell how many cards you have in your hand that match that trait". For example, you could say: "I have three people with glasses in my hand".

Of course, it is possible to get "lucky" or "unlucky" if you roll a lot of low numbers, or high numbers, respectively. I find that this only adds to the fun and replayability of the game. Length of the game is typically between 30 and 40 minutes.

One of the potential pitfalls is that sometimes people unintentionally give away information to others. For example, one player could say in his enthousiasm after getting valuable information: "Oh, now I narrowed it down to 4 people!". This could be a valuable clue for other players. The rules explicitly forbid to communicate information other than through the game's mechanics, but where you draw the line is pretty vague.

In reality, this hasn't been a huge problem yet. After a few turns, the players usually get into the rhythm of not giving away clues unintentionally, but it could possibly be something that makes the game "unpublishable"...

Anyway, after the last playtest I had been tinkering around with the different actions. I want the lowered numbered actions to be good, but not so good that it is too easy to win the game if you roll them a bit more often than statistics dictate. Likewise for the highered number actions, they shouldn't be good, but not worthless either.

Sunday's playtest went extremely well. Accidently passing information was never a problem. We rolled quite low during the first turns and I was joking that this would be an easy win for us. Well, everybody rolled low except me. This meant that other players had more information than I had. This put me in a position where, in the later stages of the game, I was more willing to do the actions that gave away information to others, rather than collecting information for myself. I think this is one of the cool things of the game and shows why the cooperative aspect makes it so subtly different from a normal deduction game.

Somehow the players with the most information had a tough time coming to a conclusion, despite the willing dice. Only in the second to last turn a player asked a question which gave the final clue to the last player. One player later told me that he might have been able to deduct the culprit earlier had he used a better notation system.

So far, we have always been able to beat the game, but this one was really close. We had good luck, but could have played a bit better, so maybe the balance is right. I don't think I'll change anything before the next playtest session.

Everyone seemed to enjoy the game and there was a lot of post-game banter, something it shares with a lot of deduction games, and that is most definitely a good sign. I'll keep you posted on how this one develops.

As always, comments and questions are welcome.

- René Wiersma

Top
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 07:20
#1
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Chicago: playtest results

I have posted the rules for "Chicago" online. Anyone interested can take a peek at these JPG's (high quality stuff, around 200k each)

Rules - page 1
Rules - page 2
Rules - page 3

If anyone is interested in printing out the components for this game and playtesting it, send me a PM and I'll give you a URL to the printable components.

I appreciate any kind of feedback.

- René Wiersma

Top
Mon, 10/04/2004 - 22:38
#2
Fos
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Chicago: playtest results

From the rules and the playtest report, it sounds like a fun, already solid game.

However, since you've never lost a game in playtest sessions, I wonder how fair the accusation mechanic will feel if, by chance, someone with very little information is the one forced to pose the game winning/losing question. Yes, it's probably bad gameplay on the part of all the players if they reach that point, but it might leave a bad taste in the players' mouths, with everyone feeling cheated out of a win.

Also, for a final bit of polish the story section needs some reworking. Nothing major, but some of the vocabulary is anachronistic. For instance, people were generally gunned down in front of speakeasies, not Old West saloons.

Top
Tue, 10/05/2004 - 06:08
#3
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Chicago: playtest results

Fos wrote:
From the rules and the playtest report, it sounds like a fun, already solid game.

Thanks. Yes, it is a fun and solid game. A lot of time went into balancing the different actions in relationship with the length of the track, but I think I'm very close to finalizing it. I might still adjust the length of the track a bit, but that is easy to do and I don't expect any major adjustments anyway.

Quote:
However, since you've never lost a game in playtest sessions, I wonder how fair the accusation mechanic will feel if, by chance, someone with very little information is the one forced to pose the game winning/losing question. Yes, it's probably bad gameplay on the part of all the players if they reach that point, but it might leave a bad taste in the players' mouths, with everyone feeling cheated out of a win.

Although it hasn't happened yet during playtests, it is certainly possible that someone with little information (or at least less information than others) is forced to make the accusation. It is a calculated risk the players have to make during the end game. Someone with more information than his fellow players might want to make an accusation before the pawn hits the end space, simply because he might not get another turn.

Is it an anti-climax when someone else makes a false accusation? I think it depends on the players and their like or dislike for cooperative games in general. When you play as a team you should accept that other players sometimes make mistakes. If you cannot stand this, you shouldn't play cooperative games.

You are right that so far we won all our games. I don't think a loss would have been an anti-climax in the games that we played that were close, though. In fact, I think the biggest anti-climaxes came in games where we guessed the killer really early. The best games were the ones where it really came down to the last few turns, and I've tried to tune the game in such a way that that happens most often.

Also, keep in mind that this plays as a relatively light game. It usually only takes 30 minutes to play and there's a fair bit of luck, which actually adds to the replayability and the fun of the game. It's not a long, heavy strategy game where every wrinkle has to be ironed out.

Quote:
Also, for a final bit of polish the story section needs some reworking. Nothing major, but some of the vocabulary is anachronistic. For instance, people were generally gunned down in front of speakeasies, not Old West saloons.

Well, the story is a bit pasted on and I'm not too concerned about it, as I a potential publisher would probably change it anyway. That said, your remark is pretty funny, because I copy-pasted that bit about someone being gunned down in front of a saloon from an article about the murder on William McSwiggin from a newspaper site. I haven't given it much thought, but I agree that changing it to "speakeasy" would make more sense, thematically. On the other hand, changing the whole theme to the Old West is also a possibility. :)

Thanks for your comments, Fos. I really appreciate it!

- René Wiersma

Top
Tue, 10/05/2004 - 16:37
#4
Anonymous
Chicago: playtest results

Hiya, I'm fairly new to the boards but I do have a rather minor suggestion. I assume that you are planning to get this game published? If so you may want to use two 12-sided dice with the sides 1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6. This will give you a little sharper curve and you only have to roll the two dice instead of four dropping the highest and lowest.

BTW, It looks like an awesome game! I would love to help play test it.

Top
Wed, 10/06/2004 - 05:25
#5
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Chicago: playtest results

bradlyely wrote:
If so you may want to use two 12-sided dice with the sides 1,2,2,3,3,3,4,4,4,5,5,6. This will give you a little sharper curve and you only have to roll the two dice instead of four dropping the highest and lowest.

Thanks bradlyely, that's a very good suggestion! Changing the dice would make the game a bit less fiddly and easier to explain, which is certainly a good thing. On the flip side, it would introduce an extra customized component into the game. I think 2 special 12 sided dice might be more expensive than four normal six sided dice, but that is something for the publisher to worry about.

Quote:
BTW, It looks like an awesome game! I would love to help play test it.

I'll PM you the URL's to the rest of the components, so you can print them out and try out the game, if you want.

Thanks again!

- René Wiersma

Top
Tue, 11/02/2004 - 05:06
#6
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Chicago: playtest results

This weekend I went to the "Spellenspektakel" (Games Spectacular), a game fair here in the Netherlands. The national board game club, called Ducosim, reserves a few tables each year for unpublished to designers to test their games with the fair's audience and this year I was one of those designers.

I brought "Gheos" and "Chicago" with me, but I ended up displaying only "Chicago", since I had only one table and "Chicago" was the game I wanted the most feedback on. Besides, "Chicago" is a bit easier to explain and plays a bit quicker than "Gheos", making it a more appropriate game to demonstrate to the crowd, with much less "gamer" types than the audience at Essen.

It wasn't very busy at the fair for the first hour or so, so I had a very chat with the guys at the Ducosim stand. They were really a nice bunch and very interested in my game. There was one other designer showing his games, which looked pretty abstract.

At first my game didn't get much attention from the crowd. It doesn't look very attractive, I think. It's mostly a few B&W cards, a B&W board and some dice. Also, there's some English text on the board. The text is not essential for the game, but it scared some people off and in hindsight it would have been a better idea to have a Dutch version of the board.

After a while the fair got busier and I was able to rope a guys into a four-player game. From then on the game got a lot more attention. I think this partly had to do with the fact that a game being played by people is more interesting than just some components lying around, but for the most part the game got more attention because I set up the player screens. I think people like screens to hide their stuff behind, it adds a sense of mystery to a game.

The first game went well. The guys I played with were quite smart and understood the rules without any problem. They really seemed to enjoy trying to come up with clever questions and trying to deduce the murderer. In the end we didn't succeed to beat the game, which was the first time ever that the game won. I was quite happy with this, because one of my concerns was that the game would be too easy. I think the main reason why we failed because we often moved a few spaces to take a weaker action, instead of moving more spaces and taking a better action.

The second game was with two young ladies. One of them was quite eager to learn and play the game, but the other girl was very quiet and didn't seem to enjoy herself much. She didn't pay much attention to the rules explanation and didn't really try her best during the game. Of course, we failed to catch the killer on time. The other girl seemed to enjoy the game, but as a whole this playtest wasn't really useful.

The third game was with a really nice young couple. Both were very smart and we made a good game of it. This time we did catch the killer, but it was a one out of three gamble. The guy made a good suggestion. He said it would be nice if all players encircled the suspect they thought would be the murderer at the end of the game. This gives the players who don't make the accusation the idea that they somehow participate in catching the killer. I really like this idea. Perhaps it would be nice to let everyone encircle one suspect at the end of the game and if at least one player guessed it correctly, they win. This would mean that I have to make the game a bit more difficult to balance the fact that players have a better shot at winning, but that isn't hard to do.

The fourth game was with 2 smart, younger guys. Again we got the killer. This time I was able to deduce the killer one turn before the end. I had seen a lot of cards, and with the help of some other information I could reason which card was removed from the game. Both guys liked the game a lot and afterwards they even had some good ideas for a strategy to try next time.

After four playtests I felt I had had enough input on the game and decided to pack it up, so I could see some of the fair myself as well. All in all, it was a very positive experience. Most people seem to like the game. The game is easy to explain and understand, but strategy and the choices players have to make during the game can be hard.

One of the things I wanted to find out was whether people would like the idea of cooperative deduction. I think it is fairly safe to say they do. Often, when I explained the game to people, their eyes would lit up when I said that players have to work together to beat the game, before time runs out. Most people haven't played "Lord of the Rings" so this concept is unique to them.

There are a few technical things that need some reviewing. I like the idea of letting all players encircle one suspect at the end of the game, but that means the game as a whole needs to be slightly harder to balance that. One way to do that would be to make action #2 a bit harder, as I thought that action was slighty overpowered in a 3 player game, especially when one player would roll it a a few times.

Like I said, it was a very positive experience. I can recommend any game designer to go to such a fair or convention and try out their games. It really is an eye opener.

- René Wiersma

Top
Mon, 01/10/2005 - 04:30
#7
Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Chicago: playtest results

Hi Zaiga

My test group did test this game this weekend and we want to thank you for the opportunity.

I had printed out 2 sets of the game and that was needed since we where 7 players. We played the game two rounds with one table with 3 players and one table with 4 players. Between the rounds we switched some players between the tables. A game took around 20-30 minutes to play.

The first round, none of the table did succeed with the task. In the second round did both tables succeed.

Overall: The game is a Cloedo/Clue clone that is similar to Mystery of the Abby (2003 Games of Wonder). There are some parts in the game that we find as unique for this kind of games:
The time: The time is an issue in the game. In each turn a time pawn will move towards the end. When it reach 72 (hours) the games ends.
Usage of dice: Each turn you roll the 4 dice, removed the highest and the lowest. From the other two you shall decide the dice to use and the dice to move the time pawn. Lower number on the selected dice will give you stronger questions.
Cooperative game: You shall work together and at least 2 of the players shall have come to the right conclusion. Otherwise: the game will win.

Overall comments:
- The players agreed on that this is a good game, which was easy to learn and fun to play.
– The strong mechanism in the game is the time vs. action mechanism. That is really good and can be reused in other games.
- The players wanted to win and did not like the cooperative game style at all (not for this game style).

Graphics:
- Even that we did see this as a prototype, the game relied on the graphics. The gangsters need to be more distinctive.

Details:
- The action 2 was the strongest action and that was selected over action 1 every time it was possible.
- Action 6 are also better then action 5 (but we learned to use action 5 in the game to our advantage).

Suggestion of changes:
- Action 5 could be changed to: Select 1-4 traits instead of two.
- Add a 24 hour and a 48 hour check. In each of those the players shall mark a suspect. The final condition does still apply (at least two detectives shall have selected the right suspect otherwise will the game win). Each player gets 1 point for each trait that is correct in each check point (and the player with most points will win). In this case you will still have a cooperative game but with a winner!!!

Good luck with your game.

// Johan

Top
Mon, 01/10/2005 - 07:26
#8
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Chicago: playtest results

Johan wrote:
My test group did test this game this weekend and we want to thank you for the opportunity.

I think it's you who should receive the thanks for testing the game! ;)

Quote:
The first round, none of the table did succeed with the task. In the second round did both tables succeed.

Did you succeed in the second rounds because you then had a bit more experience with the game? Or did you just get a bit luckier?

Quote:
- The action 2 was the strongest action and that was selected over action 1 every time it was possible.
- Action 6 are also better then action 5 (but we learned to use action 5 in the game to our advantage).

OK, noted. I agree that the #2 action is likely a bit stronger than the #1 action, so I might want to switch those around. I'm not sure I agree whether action #6 is better than action #5. Action #6 is a bit easier to use, but, as you noted, action #5 can be a bit more powerful if you know how to use it.

Quote:
- Add a 24 hour and a 48 hour check. In each of those the players shall mark a suspect. The final condition does still apply (at least two detectives shall have selected the right suspect otherwise will the game win). Each player gets 1 point for each trait that is correct in each check point (and the player with most points will win). In this case you will still have a cooperative game but with a winner!!!

I find this really an interesting suggestion. I think whether it will work or not will largely depend on how a group approches the game though. Will they see it primarily as a cooperative game, and selecting an individual winner as a secondary thing? Or will they view it as a competitive game, with the cooperative aspect simply as a extra hindrance when it comes to winning the game? I will have to think on this.

Anyway, I want to thank you very much for testing the game. It has been helpful and I really appreciate it!

Top
Mon, 01/10/2005 - 07:48
#9
Johan
Johan's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/05/2008
Chicago: playtest results

zaiga wrote:
Johan wrote:
My test group did test this game this weekend and we want to thank you for the opportunity.

I think it's you who should receive the thanks for testing the game! ;) .

The game was fun and interesting to play. I can recommend others to give it a try.

Quote:
Did you succeed in the second rounds because you then had a bit more experience with the game? Or did you just get a bit luckier?

Both. On my table (4 players) in the first round we had 2 sets of triple 6. We moved to fast.
The second round (with 3 player game) one of the players started to try to remove a group of 4 gangsters and he did hit the right group in the first try (we know who the killer was before hour 36.
The other table in the second round (4 player) manages to remove the gangsters in par of 2 and all know who the killer was around hour 60.

Quote:
Quote:
- Add a 24 hour and a 48 hour check. In each of those the players shall mark a suspect. The final condition does still apply (at least two detectives shall have selected the right suspect otherwise will the game win). Each player gets 1 point for each trait that is correct in each check point (and the player with most points will win). In this case you will still have a cooperative game but with a winner!!!

I find this really an interesting suggestion. I think whether it will work or not will largely depend on how a group approches the game though. Will they see it primarily as a cooperative game, and selecting an individual winner as a secondary thing? Or will they view it as a competitive game, with the cooperative aspect simply as a extra hindrance when it comes to winning the game? I will have to think on this.

Maybe it is possible to add this as a game option.

// Johan

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut