Hey folks,
Checking the schedule it looks like I'm a little late. Sorry to keep you waiting :-)
Build a family tree, try and grab some of the inheritance:
http://www.superpowernosissies.com/shrubs.pdf
I've spent a bit of time trying to simplify it down to the core mechanism and I'm looking to find holes in it, and come up with consistent add-ons to improve it ... the perfect job for the GDW!
I'm looking forward to your candid comments, criticisms and encouragment.
peace,
Tom
Hello Tom ...
On my first read-through, I think you've done a pretty good job on the rules. However, I do have need for one clarification ...
If I understand it right, none of the money starts to be passed down through the family until the Matriarch/Patriarch is dead (their will is automatically executed at that point) ... and there is a single final round after that point, in which players can make other family members dead and/or execute dead people's wills. My questions are this ... does killing a family member that has already inherited money automatically execute that person's will too? Or does the player have to purposely do it as a 2-step process: 1- kill person; 2- execute will? Also, is there any way to have the money flow down the family tree before the family founder is dead? If not, then what strategic/tactical purpose would killing other family members ahead of time play?
Nice job so far ... I like how you can use everyday items to play this game.
-Bryk
Hi Tom,
Just for background, I re-read your prelude thread (http://www.bgdf.com/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=7162).
First impressions: (1) the 'hidden identity' and 'kill person' mechanics reminds me of the game 'Titan' :) (2) the end of the game could be sudden (early matriarch kill) or until the deck/kill markers run out (in which case what happens?).
I'm not happy about the kill markers being "4 for each player + a few extras" as it's too vague for production issues (rather, 4 players using 4 markers at 3 markers per person = 4x4x3 = 48 max).
It feels like a waiting game to get a perfect hand of 5 cards that are also in play alive and with money on them (or on their parents/spouse as the money is 'one kill away'). Given this, I'm wondering how much luck there is in the hand-reconciliation step to have lucky draws into the persons near the money.
I was actually expecting the game to end when the deck runs out or there is only, say, 1 kill marker left between all players (to signify the matriarch's death). This would be a visible and partially controlled 'clock' for all players to work by trying to get their plan in place before time ran out (rather than the game ending on a single player's whim - which personally I don't like in games as it feels as if one has either total or no control over the timing of the end of the game).
Regarding dead cards in hand, I think a player should only be able to discard from hand rather than replace otherwise it adds game time when analysing the new card draw (and could create a long loop of discard-draw-discard again-draw again-etc. which is boring for other players). Simply drawing back to 5 at the end of the turn keeps the game moving fast and allows a player to analyse their own hand during other players turns.
Granted, one can't be ones own grand-father but can one marry ones own sibling, parent, grand-parent, etc.? Agreed it is difficult to prevent impossible relationships (and the method I've used is simply to have the card play consented by all the other players).
The size of the initial family fortune could be relative to the number of players (which hopefully makes for more varied gameplay).
The tie-breaker would be decisive if it involved who got the 'charity money'.
Minor points...
I'm assuming that step 3 of 'Executing a will' adheres to the same priorities of steps 1 and 2 (i.e. the money goes to the spouse before the children).
Also in 'killing the matriarch' can the remaining players perform either or both of (a) 'kill a person' and (b) 'select an identity'?
Small continuity point, I would mention the rule "a person is dead if it has a kill marker on it" before mentioning that you can replace dead cards (it's just easier [for me] to read rules when game terminology is explained before listing the applicable actions).
The first diagram (grand-daughter of the matriarch) only needs the first two sets of cards to make the point (surplus cards in a diagram just confuses things).
Nit-picky points...
A mother could give birth to a child for up to 9 months after the death of the husband.
An alive matriarch with great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren is a very old person indeed :)
In summary, I think the design is very clear, clean and elegant, and considering you're working with decks of cards should be easily produced.
Best wishes,
Dave W
On first readthrough the game sounds very clever, if a bit difficult to follow perhaps- with different trees that are really just portions of the main tree (or which turn into such).
My only comment off the bat is, why not strike the 'claim an identity' action, and change the 'final round' action to "Each player plays a card face down from their hand- this represents the identity of that player. When each player has played a card, reveal all identities and tally the score. Tiebreaker is number of Kill counters remaining." Or just add kill counters to money to figure the final score. Maybe tie going to the player further along the tree (more deaths had to occur to get the money that low).
I think I like the idea posted about the game ending when the deck runs out or something, rather than when someone decides to kill the matriarch.
Also, how about having people die as soon as their great grandchild is born (so people live 3 full generations, and money moves without someone spending an action to make it move).
I don't know exactly what it would do to the game, but it sounds like such a rule (in addition to if not instead of killing as an action - which is pretty morbid to begin with... reminds me of the serial killer thread we had) might be good... gotta make sure that money gets moving, and frankly, the way the rules are now, doesn't all the money stay put until the very end when the Matriarch/Patriarch dies?
- Seth
Also, is it good to be able to play all the cards you want from your hand? Maybe just 1 or 2 a turn or something- and make it a 'must'...
And another thing... this could be played with only 2 decks of cards (4 of each person), or just 1 (but that's only 2 of each- probably bad), Red = female, Black = male.
- Seth
I had a few more ideas that seem like they fit into your game. In no particular order:
One might be to begin the game not just with 1 M/Patriarch, but with 1 of those and maybe 2 other 'sub-trees' started already... some configureation of cards to begin. Maybe you start with the King of Spades and Queen of Hearts as the initial couple, three random cards dealt out as their kids, and 1, 2, or 3 random cards as seperate trees (which may later end up connected to the 'main tree').
Money could begin at the 'initial couple' as well as at the top of any 'sub-tree' - OR - perhaps at the end of the game some money is placed at the top of any tree that isn't somehow connected to the 'main tree' to represent money coming from the other families.
I still think the deaths should for the most part be from age/generation rather than the players hunting down people and killing them. It might be nice if each player had at least 1 Death token to use strategically, but I think it should be a smaller portion of the game.
I think it would be neat if the money moved during the game, rather than at the end. This however might cause problems if someone marries into the family 'above' the level where the money is. One possible solution is... require that all cards played are attached to the main line and have no sub lines... I think that might be worse though. The benefit of moving the money during the game is that players can have more control over how the money is split up... like you play a card on this line so that that guy dies and his portion of the money is split between his wife and kids- 1 coin each and split the rest how you like. something like that.
Maybe for identities, rather than the way you have it and rather than my previous suggestion, maybe at the beginning of the game each player is dealt a face down card which is their identity... the game could be less about creating a true family tree, and more about 'proving that you are in line for the inheritance' - so the M/Patriarch dies and all the players are trying to show that they have a claim in the fortune. They are 'constructing' family trees to prove that they are connected at some point, and the higher up the tree you are connected, the more of the inheritance you get.
Kills and playing cards: I think this game could be made so that each action is equivalent to 'playing a card', then the 'budgeted action points' could be just "play up to 2 cards per turn" or however many you want. So you could play a card to add a member to the family (child/spouse), you could play a card to put a family member in an early grave (play the card, put the death marker on the matching guy- means you have to have the card of the person you want dead), you could play a card to draw a card (cycle through cards, get rid of 'dead' cards- pun intended ;)
It would be nice to see cards turned sideways to indicate... stuff. Like if a family member in the main line appears in a sub-tree, those cards could be turned sideways so people can more easily tell. Also maybe dead cards could be turned sideways or upside down (probably not upside down...)
Maybe upside down dead people would be ok... and then copies of that card could be considered a different person ("You're the spitting image of your great grandfather!")
That's about it for now. I do like the idea of some cards that add money to the system, like Windfalls or marrying into money.
- Seth
For starters, by 'upside down' I meant face down, so if someone's dead then you're looking at the back of the card. I don't know that this would be good necessarily, but it's an idea.
Another idea to contain the 'lots of kids' problem you mentioned... allow a maximum of 3 kids per couple. It works space-wise as there's the 2 married people cards next to each other, and three cards will fit nicely below them (like a pyramid). Though it probably spoils a lot of the game perhaps.
I'd like to see a picture of a game in progress (or just finished)... I was picturing it as one big pyramid-type thing, your circle description really threw me off.
- Seth
I like the use of a normal deck of cards, definately easy for prototyping. :) And the theme is something everyone should be familiar with, which will make the rules easier to explain (or harder, as everyone thinks they're an expert and want to change the rules...)
I'd like to see a picture of a game in progress (or just finished)... I was picturing it as one big pyramid-type thing, your circle description really threw me off.
That's how I pictured it at first, as if we were watching the growth of the family from the matriarch downward, but if I understand it right, you're looking back and discovering the family member's connections as you go, first laying down cards independently on the table and then adding a parent from another group to connect back to the matriarch eventually? I think the second way captures more of what you want as a historical geneology game.
With this discovery framework though, it doesn't seem to mesh with the other parts of the game, such as where a card can't remarry until the spouse is dead, or have kids until there's a marriage. Each makes sense separately but it's confusing to try and have both. Maybe mothers can have kids and the fathers can be unknown (since it's hard for a father to have kids without knowing who the mother is)? Although without these restrictions, it muddies up the clean mechanic for executing the wills...
Also, if players can select their identity during the game and keep it hidden from others, how do you handle if two people select the same identity? Has this happened in playtests?
Cool idea, it will be interesting to see the next generation of rules (pun intended ;) ).
Mark
By popular demand, here's a photo. This was taken just before the matriarch (ace of hearts) died. Note that the stack of chips on the matriarch is the family fortune. The little mexican train markers are the kill tokens (I guess this family lived a little too close to the tracks).
Also, to give you a better flavor for how things appear during play, it was known that the 4hearts and Qspades were married and had kids before it was known that the Qspades was a son of the matriarch. Note that cards can be played without any specific relationship (on their own) ... see the dangling 8spades in the upper left hand corner. The player essentially decided, before the 8spades was dead, to discard the 8spades to the table(floor actually, no I do not have a carpeted table). This makes that 8spades available to any other player at the table. The problem the player had in this case was that the 8spades already had parents, and has no chance of re-marrying since the game ends when his current spouse dies, so the "discard" here was sensible.
So, does the game make more sense with the picture? Any suggestions as to how I can make this more clear in the rules?
ok, I'm off to respond to the couple of remaining questions so I don't trample on ensor's gdw time too much.
peace,
Tom
Ps. here's a quick quiz...
1. who are the matriarch's in-laws?
2. How many great-grandchildren does the matriarch have?
Ps. here's a quick quiz...
1. who are the matriarch's in-laws?
2. How many great-grandchildren does the matriarch have?
Hi Tom,
I haven't really chimed in on the game yet, nor have I really been following the discussion, but I did read the rules, and this quiz actually does an adequate job of capturing my concern about the game, to the extent that I have one. I worry that the game may suffer from a "visualization" problem which could lead to analysis paralysis. It seems like it could be difficult to quickly look at the card arrangement and evaluate the state of the game (ie, who is related to whom, etc). Morevoer, trying to figure out which way the money will flow at the game end, based on who's dead and such, could also require a lot of brain cells.
In short, my concern is that your game is meant to be (I think) quick and light, but in actual practice could be very cerebral. This may or may not be a bad thing, but it seems like the game will fall apart if players are each spending a couple of minutes or more trying to make their plays, yet it seems like you're giving them every opportunity to do so with the bookkeeping system.
Would it be possible to restrict the allowable plays to a "family tree" structure or something?
Also, it seems like it could be easier to keep track of the game state if there was an additional rule that a "larger number can't be a descendant of a smaller number". I don't know if this would make the game more interesting or not, but certainly restricting the players' choices is almost always a good thing from the standpoint of creating strategic gameplay.
In that sense, while I understand wanting to use a deck of playing cards, I'd almost certainly be more likely to play the game if it cost $10 and had some pictures of trees of varying heights and styles than to play it on a standard deck of playing cards. That's just me, and I don't know how representative I am of gamers out there...
I also think that having the matriarch's death being the end-game trigger could lead to games that never end, or, conversely, that end too quickly. It seems that if the matriarch could die and the money start flowing, it would make the game much more trackable, as you wouldn't have to trace the whole tree to see where the money was going to flow to. Also, giving each player "secret family members" isn't my favorite mechanic to begin with, and I think it's even more out-of-place in a quick game like this. If you want to have "secret faction" elements, where players are supposed to be figuring out what cards the others hold as a means to motivating their actions, you need more time than I think your rounds currently have. As a result, the "killing" mechanic will either be used randomly (bad) or opportunistically -- "I'll 'kill' my secret character's parents to get their money" which I guess is ok but a bit peculiar (though I guess it works ok with the theme, if a bit of a ruthless take on the theme).
Basically, I'm concerned that the secret "target" cards will be a very chaotic element. That's ok, so long as the rounds are short and the game is played over several rounds. What I'm concerned about is that a typical round would take 15-20 minutes, meaning that you'd really only want to play 2 or 3 in a typical game, which doesn't seem like enough to balance the luck and chaos out.
Have you playtested the game yet? How long do the rounds typically take? Do people have trouble "visualizing" the family tree or the route of money flow (both of which will change almost every turn...)
It is definitely a cute idea and I think it has potential, but I feel like it's in a limbo between requiring a lot of brainwaves but also being pretty light and luck-heavy. My initial reaction is that you need to push it one way or the other...
Since I'm now in the Albany/Troy area, I hope I get to try this one sometime!
Good luck!
-Jeff
I'm sure that would be possible, I think it would lose a bit of the genealogy research "flavor" and the play would change significantly.
Ah, this is something I hadn't fully appreciated, that it isn't just about "births and deaths", so much as discovering who is related to whom and how. To that end, can there be ancestors to the matriarch? I can't think of any reason why you'd do that currently, but...
I wouldn't think about marketing an ordinary deck of cards for this, but for game development it is nice to be able to deal with the game mechanics without having to resolve all of the presentation issues. I've been leaning towards charicatures of some famous and recognizable family. Suggestions welcome here.
The most obvious choice would be the family of President George W. Bush!
But since this will no doubt elicit the usual political snickering, I would say that just some cartoon pictures of trees and shrubs would be what I am envisioning in my head. Scott Starkey, who posts here as "Yekrats", is a very talented cartoonist, and his work feels like it would be a good fit for this one...
That seems to be a theme here, several folks are uncomfortable with the current game-end scenario. See the other comments in the thread. There have been some good suggestions and I'm likely to playtest some of the options. (But I must admit I'm somewhat attached to how it works now:-) )
Do you find, as a matter of practice, that people are actually willing to kill the matriarch and end the game? Does the person who does so always win (they should, it seems...)? Are there any games that end prematurely?
Just to make sure it's clear, the secret cards are not assigned, they are selected, so you do have some control of them, but you are still dependent on the draught to some extent.
You have some control of how many you get, but not which you get...is that right?
You're guessed it, they do take 20 minutes+, so while doing multiple rounds for a total is possible, it isn't something I want to rely on. I wouldn't say that people have "trouble" tracking as the tree doesn't really get that big, but yes, you do have to dedicate a few brain cells to it. And again, that is something I'm sort of attached to as a theme element.
I think it's fine as a theme element. My concern is that you have a somewhat 'cerebral' game but where the mental element isn't really about strategizing, but rather, about evaluating the current status of the game situation. I really think you need to come up with some way, even if it involves more restrictive rules, of making the relationships easier to size up quickly. Otherwise, you'll have a very difficult game to market -- a "brain-burner" that isn't terribly deep in its gameplay. It would be a waste of a clever mechanic.
If I were feeling self-righteous I would state that I think much of the discussion on this game is due to the fact that this really is just such a unique mechanism that you all just can't grasp how the mechanism really works, but it is more likely that I have just devised a new and unique way to randomly arrange playing cards on a table :-)
I don't think it's necessarily either of these. My concern is much more related to the practicality of actually playing the game, and less about the gameplay itself, which sounds fine. I suspect you'll end up with a different end game situation before it's all done, but that remains to be seen. I'd also hold off on "special cards" or "power cards", at least until you've got your mechanics finalized. Even then, I'd enter those waters very cautiously...
Good luck!
-Jeff
Hey I looked into your game a bit, and I even tried playtesting... it just didn't work out for me. It has great promise (in my mind), but without more clearifying rules I think your stuck.
A few observations:
Update: I looked at the photo you uploaded more closely. It appears to be the way you play the game, but I didn't see references in your rules.
Lots of rambling. I hope it makes sense. If it doesn't feel free to ask.
----
"Me fail english? That's unpossible."
 | Hidden Movement: What Makes it Cool? (19) by larienna |
 | Dymino Monsters Update 4-18-2024 (0) by Stormyknight1976 |
| Wizardry Legacy: the Forgotten Academy (12) by larienna |
| TradeWorlds — Tactical Core (3) by questccg |
| Introducing, Jacob! (that's me by the way...) (0) by Jacob |
| Chat GPT: Testing as a design assistant (8) by larienna |
| Winner Announced for the Meta Progression Community Challenge! (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Hi guys ~ Gameland and Yaofish are officially accepting board game design submissions! (1) by questccg |
| A programmer's dilemma (16) by larienna |
| Qubits: a solo trick taking game (9) by Wobt2 |
| Worker placement, Role selection and Action cards: Is it the same thing? (11) by larienna |
| Site Ads and Google Experiments (0) by questccg |
| TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg |
| Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (May 24-26) (0) by The Game Crafter |
| How to avoid being blocked at content creation (10) by questccg |
| Protospiel Indy 2024 (0) by sirvalence |
| In need of some IDEAS concerning a "Battle" System (15) by questccg |
| How to avoid quarterbacking in an adventure game (7) by larienna |
| How complicated could math get? (23) by X3M |
| Can we have gaming ads on this website (7) by questccg |
| Dice Mitigation Challenge - Winner Announced! (0) by The Game Crafter |
 | Delving! - " That is when it hit me, it was starting to feel like other games" (3) by MarkJindra |
| Game Purchase Contract (0) by MarkJindra |
| Blackboard Boogie Board: a bit of a REVIEW... (2) by questccg |
Thanks, though I'm positive I could have spent more time clarifying the rules before posting them.
Yes, although, it's not really an and/or ... see my answer below...
I'm not quite sure I grasp the distinction, so I'll explain it again, just more loudly, or clearly at least. Whenever a player kills a person who already has money then they must execute the will for that person. This happens on the same turn. If any of that money flows to a person who is already dead, then the player also executes that person's will. So, the end result is that the money has no further place to go after someone's turn until another person dies. Does that make more sense?
At the moment the only money in the game is that owned by the family founder (the matri/patriarch). I have considered adding in some action cards which would allow a player to add money to a person who is in play... say "sell a baseball team" or "find oil"... these would probably be smaller sums but they would change the dynamic.
The strategic purpose of killing off other family members ahead of time is to make sure that the inheritance reaches a family member who's identity you are assuming. I like to imagine it almost like a pipe dreams sort of thing, where you are building a network of pipes and opening/closing valves before the water(money) starts flowing.
Thanks again for your generous comments, and yes the everyday items makes it easy to play test too.
peace,
Tom