Skip to Content
 

Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

31 replies [Last post]
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 09:54
Anonymous

Here it is, my first submission to the GDW! It is a card game called Good Cat Bad Cat. Here's the teaser from the rules:

Quote:
Do you have the right cards to be good? To be bad? Can you bluff your friends into giving you the cards that you need? Did you correctly guess what behavior they're trying to attempt? Are you keeping them from getting a point or helping them?

It is a fairly light card based game that has plenty of room for strategy. As you can probably tell from the teaser, it also puts players' ability to bluff and outguess each-other to the test.

Here's the link to the rule booklet.

Here's the link for the cards. There ate 116 cards in all. One of the later pages is half-empty (some would say it is half-full). Don't worry, it's supposed to be that way. There were originally 120 cards, but 4 of them just didn't play well so I axed them. The cards are designed to be equally distinguishable in either color or black & white (color-blind proof, if you will).

Here's the file with 2 card envelopes laid out on one letter sized piece of paper. The card envelopes aren't mandatory, just eliminate the possibility of cheating. Anyone who wants to try out the game without assembling card envelopes can just lay the "Try to be Good," "Try to be Bad" cards one on top of the other face down on the table so that their choice is face down.

Lastly, here's the image for the Catnip Token. The token only serves to remind players whose turn it is to go first in any given round. Any token will do, this just carries on the look and feel of the game.

That's everything. Thanks for taking the time to look over my game! I'm looking forward to hearing your comments.

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 12:46
#1
rkalajian
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

You had probably thought of this before and then tossed the idea out, but what about calling the discard pile the "Litter Box" to stick with the theme?

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 12:53
#2
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

:lol:

I didn't want to get too scatalogical in the ruleset, so I deliberately left it up to the players to reach their own conclusions!!

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 12:59
#3
rkalajian
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Figured as much :)

So far i've looked over the rules and it seems like a pretty sweet game. I even told my wife about it during my lunch break and she actually agreed to playtest it with me, so you know you've got something good going already :)

I'll let you know how my play session pans out.

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:01
#4
dr_Edge69
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

I really like the theme :)
like the litter box idea too :) maybe i'm a little scatalogical
I really hope i could try this game soon!!

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:12
#5
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

rkalajian wrote:
I even told my wife about it during my lunch break and she actually agreed to playtest it with me, so you know you've got something good going already :)

dr_Edge69 wrote:
I really hope i could try this game soon!!

Ver cool!! Let me know how it goes!

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:14
#6
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Steve,

Looks good so far, a nice light "filler" game with some little bits of humor tossed in but with gameplay that drives the game along and will last even after the humor element wears off a bit.

This, unfortunately, is one of those games that feels hard to comment on because it's so compact and straightforward. Everything seems to fit together nicely, and I think it will play out just fine.

It does seem that with only 6 card plays, the element of "figuring out someone's actual alignment" could be more guesswork than warranted conclusion. And, like Judas in Disciples, is there an advantage to figuring out someone else's alignment? If I'm holding 3 big positive (or big negative) cards, all I need to do is get them down, and hope that the other players don't offset them so much as to not allow me to have the alignment I called out. In fact, if I make them my last 3 plays, could anyone really stop me? There's also the element of "taking one for the team" inherent in this, that if someone appears to be boosting their own score a lot in one direction, who's going to be the one to sacrifice their turn and try to rein that person in?

Of course, all of these are concerns that would be more valid for a 90 minute "main event" game. For a 20 minute filler, I suspect you'll have "lucky" wins and all sorts of such things, but it shoudn't really bother anyone.

I hope to have the chance to give this one a try sometime! It feels like there isn't too much left to do; I certainly wouldn't really add any more rules, and I can't really think of any candidates for deletion right at the moment, given how simple the game is currently. The real obstacle, as far as I see it, is getting "yet another light filler game" off the ground. I think there's definitely a market for light, filler games -- a very big market, it would seem. But still, one wonders how many the market can tolerate before it "saturates." (Something I worry about since I also have a somewhat humorous, light filler game in the "very close to done" stage). But this isn't really a concern from a gameplay standpoint, only a "what next?" standpoint. I think the game itself will be cool!

Best of luck with this one! Very different than Ghost Hunters; it's cool that you can do different genres so seamlessly; not as easy as some of the pro designers make it look!

-Jeff

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:27
#7
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

jwarrend wrote:
Best of luck with this one! Very different than Ghost Hunters; it's cool that you can do different genres so seamlessly; not as easy as some of the pro designers make it look!

Thanks for the kind words!

Quote:
If I'm holding 3 big positive (or big negative) cards, all I need to do is get them down, and hope that the other players don't offset them so much as to not allow me to have the alignment I called out. In fact, if I make them my last 3 plays, could anyone really stop me?

This is one of the driving forces between the earlier version and this newer version. Before, players were playing for 1 point per round, so it didn't matter if you were throwing big cards at someone without being sure of their attempted behavior. It was only one point. I'm hoping that the new point system will give players more incentive to really try and stop another player from getting their points (especially if that other player has a few higher cards already on the table).

I also toyed with the idea of having players who do get to score only score the DIFFERENCE between their Good Cat Score and Bad Cat Score. That would be in an attempt to reign in players with the bigger cards and keep them from running away with a round (or the game). My main concern is the oft used refrain, "how much math is too much math?" so it was left out for this iteration. Maybe it should be included?

Quote:
For a 20 minute filler, I suspect you'll have "lucky" wins and all sorts of such things, but it shoudn't really bother anyone.

That was my thought, if the games go fairly quickly enough, an upset victory here and there shouldn't cause too many problems.

Thanks again for the feedback!!

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:33
#8
jwarrend
Offline
Joined: 08/03/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

I should point out that since posting my remarks, I reread the rules, and the cards that have effects like "Move 1 Card" or "Switch alignments" could be another way to stop someone who is obviously helping himself to a lot of points. I ordinarily dislike "power cards" like those because they make planning pretty much pointless, but again, it's more tolerable in a short game.

I don't know about scoring the difference between Good and Bad; what I think it would lead to would be to keep everyone as close to zero as possible, and the people who scored points would do so almost as fluctuations. On the other hand, it would have some positive effects as well. The game is pretty short; I'd playtest it both ways and see if it makes a difference. I'd also playtest with and without the power cards, just for curiosity as to whether they make the game more or less fun. I don't typically like "Take that!" card play when the cards have such strong effects, but some people love it; keeping that in mind will help interpret the outcomes of playtesting the various iterations.

Again, best of luck.

-J

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:41
#9
Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Beautiful game, Steve! Crisp, tight, simple, fast, interactive ... just really good.

This means I really don't see any places that need my advice-giving. So, it relegates me to proof-reader at this point. ;-)

The manual looks very nice as well ... only typo I spotted was on the first page, right column, last sentence before the "Getting Started" question. You have: Once a Day end with any player ... which should be "ends" instead. (Pretty minor typo.)

I like the way you have the scoring now ... allows the game scores to tip back and forth a bit between hands, instead of everything minimizing down toward small per-hand scores.

Nicely done!

-Bryk

p.s. It's tight designs like this that really make me frustrated with my own mushy, slow-to-develop designs. How long have you worked on this one, Steve?

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 13:57
#10
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Thank you for the comments!

Brykovian wrote:
The manual looks very nice as well ... only typo I spotted was on the first page, right column, last sentence before the "Getting Started" question. You have: Once a Day end with any player ... which should be "ends" instead. (Pretty minor typo.)

Doh! Good catch! I just fixed the rules file.

Quote:
I like the way you have the scoring now ... allows the game scores to tip back and forth a bit between hands, instead of everything minimizing down toward small per-hand scores.

Thanks! This also tends to reduce the runaway player effect. In the old system whereby each player could only score 1 point in a round, it became almost impossible to overtake an early leader.

Quote:
p.s. It's tight designs like this that really make me frustrated with my own mushy, slow-to-develop designs. How long have you worked on this one, Steve?

Thanks again!! The idea popped into my head a few months ago. It was a little rough, but mostly as it is now, just some fine tuning to the scoring system.

I really appreciate your comments and taking the time to look things over.

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 14:01
#11
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

jwarrend wrote:
...cards that have effects like "Move 1 Card" or "Switch alignments" could be another way to stop someone who is obviously helping himself to a lot of points.

They definitely help, although it is interesting to see the mechanics when someone thinks they have another player figured out, but they guessed wrong. My 13 year old niece was absolutely flawless at not giving away her true intent so that we'd all throw things at her trying to stop her from scoring, and all along just play right into her hand. She should be in Vegas playing poker! : )

Quote:
I ordinarily dislike "power cards" like those because they make planning pretty much pointless, but again, it's more tolerable in a short game.

True enough. Funny that I never thought to playtest the game without them! I will definitely try it and see if the game has the same depth. I originally intended for them to add some depth to the game, but you're right, they do tend to minimize player strategy (more of each player hoping to have the right card at the right time).

Thanks again for the input!

Top
Mon, 07/19/2004 - 23:33
#12
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Nice work. And if it wasn't enough having a game that seems to work well, you've also got a nice rule book, cards and envelopes with artwork that seem to fit in nicely with the theme.

Two little nit picks about the rules (noting that I think you've done a great job with them). First, I'd prefer to refer to player's cats being bad (or good), rather than the player (which to me refers to the actual person). Secondly, under 'Scoring', we have "If a player was has both an Attempted Behaviour...", I suspeect the "was" needs to be removed.

Comments specifically about the game ... hmmm ... I think you'd need to be careful that any changes didn't result add too much complexity. I get the feeling that the balance is about right at the moment.

Nonetheless, I'll brainstorn some ideas, which probably aren't required ...

Just before each person reveals their Attempted behaviour, you could ask all other to say what they thought it was ... score 1 point (say) if they were right.

Alternatively nominate someone else's cat at the start of the day (can't be own cat, can't be a cat already nominated, can't force someone else to select their own cat) and earn points (= opposite behaviour - attempted behaviour) if you can get them to behave opposite to their attempted behaviour. (Thus you have 2 ways to score - your own cat and someone elses).

Make it that some cards (e.g 8 and 9 pointers) can only be placed of the cats of other players. Here I'm thinking about someone playing high points on themselves (of the appropriate behaviour) near the end and not caring if other work it out because their high points will offset what everyone else does ... particularly if everyone else is doing to same thing. It would be interesting to know from playtesting whether people tended to keep cards of their attempted behaviour til later in the day and then play them of themselves ... but then again I suppose that might give away your attempted behaviour ... I suppose I'm trying to get a feeling for how often (and when) people tended to play cards on themselves, rather than other people ... After all, playing a right card on yourself gives you points, whereas playing a card on someone else stops them getting points if you've guessed correctly or actually gives them points if you've guessed incorrectly. ...

I think I'm rambling now so I'll stop (for now) ...

- Bill

Top
Tue, 07/20/2004 - 10:52
#13
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

GeminiWeb wrote:
Nice work. And if it wasn't enough having a game that seems to work well, you've also got a nice rule book, cards and envelopes with artwork that seem to fit in nicely with the theme.

Thanks for the comments! Being a graphic designer by trade, I tend to think in more visual terms. I almost always try to make the games visually cohesive from the very start (which makes the initial prototypes more time consuming and more of a pain to update!!).

Quote:
First, I'd prefer to refer to player's cats being bad (or good), rather than the player (which to me refers to the actual person).

Good point, in an earlier version of the rules, I had intended each player to pick a specific character to play, then referred to those characters as being either good or bad. That complicated things too much (including an already complicated component list--unique card envelopes for each character!!). I scrapped the idea and changed it to what you see now, but I do agree that I should make it clear that the behaviors are that of the cats, not the players. I'll work on updating the rules to reflect that.

Quote:
Secondly, under 'Scoring', we have "If a player was has both an Attempted Behaviour...", I suspect the "was" needs to be removed.

Good catch, thanks! I have fixed the typo (it's funny how many times I have gone over the rules, and yet still missed the most common errors!)

Quote:
Nonetheless, I'll brainstorn some ideas, which probably aren't required ...

I welcome any and all suggestions!! : )

Quote:
Just before each person reveals their Attempted behaviour, you could ask all other to say what they thought it was ... score 1 point (say) if they were right.

I love the idea of multiple ways to score, that would open up the possibility of someone getting at least some points in a round in which they have no hope of matching their attempted behavior. I honestly never thought of that, but it does sound like an interesting idea!

Your suggestion here sounds to me like each player would be able to score up (# of players)-1 points in any round as they try to guess each other's attempted behaviors. I like the idea! It would also have the benefit of keeping players from making their attempted behaviors too obvious, even after the point where no one can do anything to stop them... Hmm... I'll have to try this one out and see how it playtests! At the very least it would be a great rules variation/house rule!!

Quote:
Alternatively nominate someone else's cat at the start of the day (can't be own cat, can't be a cat already nominated, can't force someone else to select their own cat) and earn points (= opposite behaviour - attempted behaviour) if you can get them to behave opposite to their attempted behaviour. (Thus you have 2 ways to score - your own cat and someone elses).

Do you mean that if they have an actual behavior opposite their attempted behavior, then someone else (player who chooses them at the start of the day) scores their points? Interesting! I love the idea of multiple methods of scoring!! I'll have to playtest them and see how they fit!!

Quote:
Make it that some cards (e.g 8 and 9 pointers) can only be placed of the cats of other players. Here I'm thinking about someone playing high points on themselves (of the appropriate behaviour) near the end and not caring if other work it out because their high points will offset what everyone else does ...

The Move and Change of Heart cards were designed to help with this problem. Someone can throw all the high cards they want, someone else may move them, take them, or flip your attempted behavior on you. In playtesting, I haven't seen a game runaway in any one player's favor as a result of a strategy like this, but I have thought about it. At one point I considered adjusting the distribution of the cards so that they follow more of a bell curve--(2) 1 pt, (4) 2 pt, (6) 3 & 4 pt, (8) 5 pt, (6) 6 & 7 pt, (4) 8 pt, and (2) 9 pt cards. I never playtested this distribution, but it may help any runaway effect of the higher point cards (and lessen the number of bonus draws from the 1 pt cards).

If future playtests indicate that the game is less fun because of it, then this may be the way to go.

Thanks again for the great comments!!

Top
Tue, 07/20/2004 - 13:06
#14
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Thanks again to everyone that has read and commented on the game! Keep the comments coming!! I noticed that no one has commented on this game resembling in part or whole any other games out there. That bodes well! Please let me know if something seems familiar (or too familiar!!).

If you do get others to playtest a game with you, please let me know how it goes! Also, please ask your group if they want their names in the rules as playtesters. I want to credit everyone who wants the credit! PM me with the names exactly as they should appear in the rules.

Thanks again!

Top
Tue, 07/20/2004 - 18:24
#15
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

SiskNY,

You've interpreted my suggestions for additional scoring correctly and I agree that you'd need to playtest them to make sure they didn't hinder the game.

(1) +1 point per other player that you correctly guess their attempted behaviour

[could be revealed simultaneously by all players with either a card or say a thumbs up/thumbs down]

(2) score pre-nominated players points if their actual behaviour is opposite to their attempted behaviour

GeminiWeb

Top
Tue, 07/20/2004 - 23:02
#16
dr_Edge69
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

I really like the idea of gessing the behaviour, maybe it will be kind of a strategy if all strategy fails to fake a behaviour, just to missled people!!

Top
Wed, 07/21/2004 - 09:20
#17
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

dr_Edge69 wrote:
I really like the idea of gessing the behaviour, maybe it will be kind of a strategy if all strategy fails to fake a behaviour, just to missled people!!

It could even work both ways, if a player guesses wrong, the player whose behavior they're trying to guess would get a point... Hmm... I'll definitely have to try your ideas and see how they work.

Top
Wed, 07/21/2004 - 10:06
#18
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Well, Steve, since you posted such a great critique of my game earlier in GDW, I felt it only appropriate that I do the same (although I'll leave the judging of "greatness" to others). However, first I have to give my standard playtest disclaimer:

"Playtest critiques should be as constructively harsh as possible, so that when a design is presented to a publisher all the weak points have already been addressed."

With that in mind, and within that spirit, let's begin.

My first impression on this game was that the "Change of Heart" card is far too powerful. It seems to me (and not having played it, I could be wrong), that a player who draws this card in the opening draw phase is pretty much kingmaker (or at least "not-the-king maker") for that round by playing that card last, thus reversing everything a particular player has built up. Targeted on the lead player this may have the effect of balancing the game (reigning in the leader), but I think to have planned through 5 cards only to be dumped on with the CoH at the end would tend to make planning pretty near useless.

The next impression was, "what strategic choices do I have as a player?" I don't see what my initial hand is until after I decide what kind of behavior I want for the day. As such, that first decision is almost a crap-shoot, especially the very first round. Sure, in later rounds if you've seen a slew of "Good Cat" cards make it to the discard pile, you can reason that there's probably mostly "Bad Cat" cards left, but then there's that CoH card that could change everything...so how can I make a strategicelly valid choice rather than just a purely random one?

The last impression I had was, "Is it fun?", and I think that's the fundamental (no pun intended) question that any game design has to ask. To me, it didn't seem like there was enough meat on the game. Even filler games, which this is obviously designed to be, should have some capability of formulating and executing a strategy towards victory. I don't see such a capabilitiy here (again, it might just be me, but these are my impressions).

Okay, enough with the negativism, let me mention what I like.

First of all, it has great flavor! I wouldn't worry about calling the discard pile the "litter box"...for any cat owner, there are two basic requirements - food (and water) dish and litter box. They go hand in hand. I liked the flavor text on the cards as well. That really contributes to the overall light feel of the game, and I think I'd strive to getting a unique behavior on each one (certainly not needed in early proto phases, but something you can work on over time).

The rules were very clear and explanatory, almost to a fault.

Some possible suggestions:

I noticed that scoring came up as a concern. You could consider a player's score (if actual behavior matches intended) to be the number of matching cards, rather than their combined value, with the highest rank being tie-breaker. Or a flat point system based on who had the most matching cards (or highest value of matching cards), who had second most, etc, etc. There's all kinds of simple ways to score the game, IMO.

Draw your 6 cards before picking your intended behavior for the day, as opposed to afterwards. Now you at least have an inkling of what cards you will have for the round when deciding your behavior ("hey, I've got a high good-cat card and a move-a-card card...I'll be a good cat, play the good card on someone else, then move it back to me at the end of the round").

Are there any "interrupt" action cards that you can create ("Dog barges in")? Something that would interrupt an action as it's being played to either alter its effect of cancel it entirely. Maybe something that allows the player playing the interrupt card to choose the destination of a move-a-card played by someone else, or one that cancels a change of heart. This would increase player interaction, and player interaction = good.

Speaking of which, I had a question that wasn't covered in the rules (and if I don't write it now, I'll forget it!): can move-a-card move a change-of-heart, or does it only affect good-cat/bad-cat cards?

One thing I'd test with the rules as written is whether a completely random strategy is as valid or not as a planned strategy. If so, the game has a serious flaw that needs to be addressed. If a random strategy doesn't win but is competitive, the game has a minor flaw that should probably be tweaked. This particular game lends itself well to the random-strategy test, so it should be fairly easy to do.

I offer these comments in the interest of helping you make your game better (at least, better as I see it). You can use them, discard them, print them out soak them in acid burn what's left and scatter them over the Atlantic ocean, or whatever makes you happy. ;)

Top
Wed, 07/21/2004 - 10:33
#19
nosissies
Offline
Joined: 07/26/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Hey Steve,
I finally had a chance to read the rules last night (actually Maya and I both read through them :-) ), and here's a few comments.

I think the typos/wording issues have already been addressed. Though, we did find the rules to be generally wordy. This is a very simple game and it shouldn't need such extensive reading to be able to play. If I were you I'd take a close look at how the rules for Knizia's Loco! (or finke plinke if you prefer) are laid out as the box indicates that you can learn the game in 30 seconds. I think your game is simple enough that you should be able to teach it just as quickly/concisely.

ok, on to game play...
From my understanding of the rules it seems that you have to decide your behavior prior to seeing what cards you are going to have that round. Have you playtested the scenario where you get to look at your cards before deciding your behavior? It seems that it would play somewhat differently either way. Without looking at your hand first, the decision becomes somewhat arbitrary with the primary goal of just not being predictable across a number of hands/days.

My initial feel for the game is that it falls into the category of games where other players have more control over you than you do yourself. Without playing it I can't really substanciate this, but it looks like there is enough opportunity for back-stabbing that this would be the case.

Another game I would put in this category is another knizia game, too many cooks, which, if you squint your eyes, tilt your head to the side and jump up and down a little bit, is essentially a trick taking version of your game. Oh and in too many cooks, your goal is known by all, and you get to look at your hand before deciding your goal. Though, given that other players have more control over you than you do yourself I often just arbitrarily pick my goal anyhow.

From the conversation here it seems that folks want to tweak your scoring mechanisms. I'm not sure that this is really neccesary. I'll put a vote in for just leaving it as is. I think over the number of hands that should be required to reach 100 you should be averaging out any abnormal hands.

All that said, it looks like a quick, simple game with a good bit of replayability which would probably make it to the table with some frequency in my group when we are looking for something lighter.

I'm sure I have some other thoughts, but they escape me at the moment. I'll post them If I think of them.

peace,
Tom

Top
Wed, 07/21/2004 - 13:21
#20
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

MikeDew wrote:
Well, Steve, since you posted such a great critique of my game earlier in GDW, I felt it only appropriate that I do the same (although I'll leave the judging of "greatness" to others).

They really are great comments! I welcome them and all comments!! They can only help make the game better.

Quote:
My first impression on this game was that the "Change of Heart" card is far too powerful. It seems to me (and not having played it, I could be wrong), that a player who draws this card in the opening draw phase is pretty much kingmaker (or at least "not-the-king maker") for that round by playing that card last, thus reversing everything a particular player has built up. Targeted on the lead player this may have the effect of balancing the game (reigning in the leader), but I think to have planned through 5 cards only to be dumped on with the CoH at the end would tend to make planning pretty near useless.

You raise a good point in that the CoH card can easily upset someone's plans, but a lot of the game is bluffing and waiting out your opponents. Players must play their cards carefully and try to balance what they do to themselves to gain points and what they do to others to keep from getting points. In playtests, the CoH card almost always comes out at the end of the round, that's just the nature of it. Most players end up using them to alter their own behavior since it can be tricky getting the cards you need to accomplish your goal. Often times it is very tenuous until the very end since a good player will keep you guessing as to their true attempted behavior.

As for players building up their own behavior, it is almost never done initially since no one wants to tip their hand as to what they are attempting to do. It is all very much about controlling your reactions to what other players do to try to get them to play into your plans. It is actually more of a bluffing/diplomacy game than anything, since that is where the real strategy lies (or at least the ones that more often than not end up taking the round).

Quote:
The next impression was, "what strategic choices do I have as a player?" I don't see what my initial hand is until after I decide what kind of behavior I want for the day. As such, that first decision is almost a crap-shoot, especially the very first round. Sure, in later rounds if you've seen a slew of "Good Cat" cards make it to the discard pile, you can reason that there's probably mostly "Bad Cat" cards left, but then there's that CoH card that could change everything...so how can I make a strategically valid choice rather than just a purely random one?

Another good point. I have honestly never playtested it where players look at their cards first and then decide how they will attempt to behave. Part of the rationale for that is that each player's cards are more relevant to how they will play on others. Since other players will be throwing cards at you, the strategy is to what degree can you get them to throw the cards you need. If not, what kind of damage control can you do at the end of the round?

I would like to playtest it with this variation (look at cards and then decide on behavior goal). It may make a difference in the perceived strategy for the game.

Quote:
The last impression I had was, "Is it fun?", and I think that's the fundamental (no pun intended) question that any game design has to ask. To me, it didn't seem like there was enough meat on the game. Even filler games, which this is obviously designed to be, should have some capability of formulating and executing a strategy towards victory. I don't see such a capabilitiy here (again, it might just be me, but these are my impressions).

I agree that this is not going to scratch any deep gaming itch! I do like some earlier suggestions to open up alternative scoring options (something that a player who has no hopes of scoring could do to get something at the end of the round). I also have thought of having players be able to play one card face down so that its effect wouldn't be seen until the end of the round. So many alternatives that I would like to try out. I'm glad I have a really flexible playtesting group!!

Quote:
First of all, it has great flavor!

Thanks!! Great suggestion about having a unique behavior on each card, that would really give the players a laugh! My main hope is that the flavor doesn't get stale too soon! Your idea would go a long way towards accomplishing that!

Quote:
The rules were very clear and explanatory, almost to a fault.

Thank you and point taken! Nosissies mentioned something similar to this as well (rules seemed too lengthy for the complexity of the game). My main fear is confusion!! It is a very simple mechanic that seems (to me at least) to be somewhat complicated to explain to people (both in playtesting and in writing). I am interested in anyone who playtests the rules to see how the game explanation portion goes. I

Quote:
You could consider a player's score (if actual behavior matches intended) to be the number of matching cards, rather than their combined value, with the highest rank being tie-breaker.

Can you believe that this was the original scoring system?!? Word for word, I kid you not! I actually changed it to reflect the degree to which the characters' actions would get them into or out of trouble (at the suggestion of many playtesters).

I also noticed that the games, when player one point at a time tended to go on for a long period of time. Since players' scores tend to clump together, it took quite a while (usually up to 9 points which was the original goal) before a clear winner emerged. The hundred point goal with the new scoring system tends to go much quicker with more balance, but I am open to trying out other suggestions.

Quote:
Or a flat point system based on who had the most matching cards (or highest value of matching cards), who had second most, etc, etc. There's all kinds of simple ways to score the game, IMO.

These might be good ways to offer alternative scoring possibilities. This avenue has only just been opened to me and I'm very interested to put some of these great ideas to the test!

Quote:
Draw your 6 cards before picking your intended behavior for the day...

Yes, I will give this one a try too!

Quote:
Are there any "interrupt" action cards that you can create ("Dog barges in")? Something that would interrupt an action as it's being played to either alter its effect of cancel it entirely.

That's a specific direction that I hadn't considered before. There are plenty of ways to counter what players do to each other, but nothing that acts as an interrupt. I will have to give this one some more thought. It may overcomplicate what should be a light game, but it is worth considering.

Quote:
...can move-a-card move a change-of-heart, or does it only affect good-cat/bad-cat cards?

Good catch, I'll try to make this more clear in the rules.

Quote:
One thing I'd test with the rules as written is whether a completely random strategy is as valid or not as a planned strategy.

Interesting theory, something I never thought about before. I will have to see what pans out in playtests! Thanks for bringing it up!!

Quote:
I offer these comments in the interest of helping you make your game better (at least, better as I see it). You can use them, discard them, print them out soak them in acid burn what's left and scatter them over the Atlantic ocean, or whatever makes you happy. ;)

Wonderful disclaimer!! Thanks again for the great comments. You are really helping me think in new directions that I hadn't considered before!

-Steve

Top
Thu, 07/22/2004 - 12:59
#21
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

nosissies wrote:
I finally had a chance to read the rules last night (actually Maya and I both read through them :-) )...

Hi! Thanks to both of you for reading through the rules and for the great comments!

Quote:
Though, we did find the rules to be generally wordy. This is a very simple game and it shouldn't need such extensive reading to be able to play. If I were you I'd take a close look at how the rules for Knizia's Loco! (or finke plinke if you prefer) are laid out as the box indicates that you can learn the game in 30 seconds. I think your game is simple enough that you should be able to teach it just as quickly/concisely.

Very good point, and i agree that it is an easy game that should be much easier to explain to people. My main issue is that I playtest with a few gamers that are notoriously dificult to teach a game to. I tend to write the rules of my games with them in mind as a "worst case scenario." If anyone has printed the cards and playtested this game, please let me know how the explanation of the rules went. I always seem to get confused looks at first, and then after player a round or two, you can see the lightbulbs coming on as the game system "clicks."

I will work on condensing where I can! : )

Quote:
From my understanding of the rules it seems that you have to decide your behavior prior to seeing what cards you are going to have that round. Have you playtested the scenario where you get to look at your cards before deciding your behavior? It seems that it would play somewhat differently either way. Without looking at your hand first, the decision becomes somewhat arbitrary with the primary goal of just not being predictable across a number of hands/days.

Yes, MikeDew mentioned the same thing. It never even occured to me to try it the way you're suggesting. That's one of the great things about this forum, there are so many ways in which I get "content" with my dsesigns and then just stop thinking up ways to make them better. The experience has really opened my eyes to the possibilities that I have been missing!!

I will definitely try out this method and see how it afects game play.

Quote:
My initial feel for the game is that it falls into the category of games where other players have more control over you than you do yourself. Without playing it I can't really substanciate this, but it looks like there is enough opportunity for back-stabbing that this would be the case.

Yes, it is a game that is intended to get the players to interact with each other through the mechanics. In playtest sessions, players almost never play cards onto themselves at first. It is more of a bluffing/misdirection game whereby you rely on your ability to get others to give you the cards you need to succees. This also ties in with the idea of guessing your attempted behavior before looking at your cards. The challenge is in overcoming a bad hand by getting the cards you need from others. It may be just as good as in the alternative method you and Mike have mentioned, but the element of heavy player interraction is still the foremost feature of the game.

Yes, there is a lot that a player can do to back-stab, but it is balanced by other players' ability to do the same to them. No one wins by playing cards on themself.

Quote:
Another game I would put in this category is another knizia game, too many cooks, which, if you squint your eyes, tilt your head to the side and jump up and down a little bit, is essentially a trick taking version of your game.

I have seen it in the store, but never bought or played this one. It is interesting that you mention that the goal choosing in that game is just as good when done randomly. You could almost pick it before looking at your cards with little difference in the outcome... ; )

Quote:
From the conversation here it seems that folks want to tweak your scoring mechanisms. I'm not sure that this is really neccesary. I'll put a vote in for just leaving it as is. I think over the number of hands that should be required to reach 100 you should be averaging out any abnormal hands.

Thank you for saying so! I do want to experiment with some alternative scoring methods (however SOMETHING in the rules will have to go to make room for the new rules: )), but I think the current system achieves a good balance in the game environment.

Quote:
All that said, it looks like a quick, simple game with a good bit of replayability which would probably make it to the table with some frequency in my group when we are looking for something lighter.

Thank you! I hope you get a chance to print out the cards and try it out. I just thought of a way to get the effect of the card envelopes without having to make them... just use card protectors. There's more than enough room for two cards, and it will serve the same purpose!

Sorry for the tangent!

Thanks again for the great feedback! You have given me some good ideas to work with and to think about. I look forward to hearing any other comments!

Top
Thu, 07/22/2004 - 14:46
#22
SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

I've read the rules, been following everything on this, but haven't found anything I could help with; until now:

You say that players usually play their cards on other people. Is there a limit of how many cards can be played on one person? I think it would be strange if during a 4 player game, player 1 has 3 cards played on him, player 2 has 8, player 3 has 12 cards, and player 4 has 5 cards (this may not ever happen in the game, but I wanted a slightly exagerrated example.)

I think you may need a rule that will make sure a player won't get played on too much. It might not be necessary for 95% of the games, but you never know.

Other than that, the game looks wonderful! Good luck on it!

-Steve

Top
Thu, 07/22/2004 - 15:12
#23
rkalajian
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

SVan brings up a good point. In a game with more than 2 players what's stopping people from ganging up on a player? I don't see this being a terribly big problem, and maybe not worth even looking into, but you never know.

Otherwise I still think this game is great!

Top
Fri, 07/23/2004 - 01:56
#24
GeminiWeb
Offline
Joined: 07/31/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

SiSKNY,

Thanks for a look at the game. I'd be interested in hearing about how things progress with it, including the result of any future playtests.

GeminiWeb

Top
Fri, 07/23/2004 - 10:28
#25
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

rkalajian wrote:
SVan brings up a good point. In a game with more than 2 players what's stopping people from ganging up on a player?

If I had to wager a guess, you risk falling directly into their attempted behavior and allowing them to score a huge amount of points. Even if the cards are fairly well-balanced between good and bad, you still have a bunch which will add up to a large score (unless using a flat-point system, but as written, a huge score). Therefore, it would be prudent and in your own interest to "spread the wealth".

I could see a strategy where you start by actually playing a card, "tipping" your hand, everyone piling on to you, and you reveal that you were actually going the other way...or using a CoH to cash in.

Lesson: Be careful who you pile on to.

Top
Fri, 07/23/2004 - 13:24
#26
dr_Edge69
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Mirror Card

I was thinking about a new mechanism for the game i don't know if it will work but here it is:

Will it be a good idea to add some mirror cards, like if someone give you a card you use the mirror card to give him back insead? or it will be too cahotic and unpredictable??

I think it would had some uncertainty in the game, and sometime it will make you think about your action before giving a big bad card to someone :)

What do you think about it?

Top
Fri, 07/23/2004 - 14:29
#27
SVan
Offline
Joined: 10/02/2008
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

MikeDew wrote:
rkalajian wrote:
SVan brings up a good point. In a game with more than 2 players what's stopping people from ganging up on a player?

If I had to wager a guess, you risk falling directly into their attempted behavior and allowing them to score a huge amount of points. Even if the cards are fairly well-balanced between good and bad, you still have a bunch which will add up to a large score (unless using a flat-point system, but as written, a huge score). Therefore, it would be prudent and in your own interest to "spread the wealth".

I could see a strategy where you start by actually playing a card, "tipping" your hand, everyone piling on to you, and you reveal that you were actually going the other way...or using a CoH to cash in.

Lesson: Be careful who you pile on to.

I was thinking of the same thing myself after I was finished writing my post, but before I posted it. It may not be a problem, but I wanted to show the possiblity of it being broken. Playtesting maybe the only way to find out.

dr_edge69 wrote:
I was thinking about a new mechanism for the game i don't know if it will work but here it is:

Will it be a good idea to add some mirror cards, like if someone give you a card you use the mirror card to give him back insead? or it will be too cahotic and unpredictable??

I think it would had some uncertainty in the game, and sometime it will make you think about your action before giving a big bad card to someone :)

What do you think about it?

I think this is interesting, although if used by a player who isn't very good, it would allow other players to guess their alignment much more easier. I think that is the biggest draw to the game, allowing players to bluff with each other, and a card like this may possibly ruin this, or if used right, it might enhance it. That's my opinion on it, which isn't worth much.

-Steve

Top
Fri, 07/23/2004 - 19:28
#28
dr_Edge69
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Quote:
I think this is interesting, although if used by a player who isn't very good, it would allow other players to guess their alignment much more easier.

Yeah that's right but for a good player who play this card at the right time (near the end of a turn) it would be a great defense, and a new strategy. Because you will be always asking when should i play my mirror card...

It would be a good strategy to put a card that is good for you and bad for the opponent, so you don't care if he has a mirror cause if he does the card is back in front of you :)

Top
Sun, 07/25/2004 - 14:40
#29
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

SVan wrote:
I think you may need a rule that will make sure a player won't get played on too much. It might not be necessary for 95% of the games, but you never know.

rkalajian wrote:
SVan brings up a good point. In a game with more than 2 players what's stopping people from ganging up on a player? I don't see this being a terribly big problem, and maybe not worth even looking into, but you never know.

MikeDew wrote:
If I had to wager a guess, you risk falling directly into their attempted behavior and allowing them to score a huge amount of points. Even if the cards are fairly well balanced between good and bad, you still have a bunch which will add up to a large score (unless using a flat-point system, but as written, a huge score). Therefore, it would be prudent and in your own interest to "spread the wealth".

These are very good questions to which MikeDew provides a great answer, since you don't really know what you're opponent's Actual Behavior is, you risk playing into their plan. With the scoring being based directly on players' behavior scores, it automatically limits players ganging up on any one specific player.

MikeDew wrote:
Lesson: Be careful who you pile on to.

My 13 year old niece is a pro at bluffing. Even when everyone thought for certain that they had her figured out, she completely faked us out and took in the points. She killed us every time!

dr_Edge69 wrote:
I was thinking about a new mechanism for the game I don't know if it will work but here it is:

Will it be a good idea to add some mirror cards, like if someone give you a card you use the mirror card to give him back insead? or it will be too cahotic and unpredictable??

I think it would had some uncertainty in the game, and sometime it will make you think about your action before giving a big bad card to someone :)

What do you think about it?

Excellent suggestion! The Move cards function sort of like this. They allow you to move any 1 Good Cat or Bad Cat card. Instead of reflecting a card played back to the player that played it on you, you may move a card from any 1 player to any other player. It will do the same thing with the added bonus that you can actually take cards you need, or move higher cards from another player onto a third player.

SVan wrote:
I think this is interesting, although if used by a player who isn't very good, it would allow other players to guess their alignment much easier. I think that is the biggest draw to the game, allowing players to bluff with each other, and a card like this may possibly ruin this, or if used right, it might enhance it. That's my opinion on it, which isn't worth much.

I'm glad that the bluffing/guessing element comes across as a big draw, that was my hope at the outset!! Being that you don't want the other players to know your Attempted Behavior, players tend to move towards strategies that will keep that information hidden for as long as possible.

SVan wrote:
Other than that, the game looks wonderful! Good luck on it!

rkalajian wrote:
Otherwise I still think this game is great!

Thank you very much!! I really appreciate everyone's comments and suggestions. I wanted to thank everyone for allowing me the opportunity to post GCBC and to take part in the workshop. It has been a great experience for me to get your feedback on how I am doing as a designer and where I can work to improve!

Keep the feedback coming!!

I would love to hear from anyone who has printed the cards and playtested the game.

-Steve

Top
Wed, 08/18/2004 - 16:18
#30
Anonymous
Game #37 - Good Cat Bad Cat by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

Hi,

Your game is well thought out and everything looks great. I personally wish I could make a game this good! My only concern is that in the rules, you seem to keep giving people a general summary of what happens instead of fully explaining it. I understand the point of playing cards, but that's about all I understand. I don't get the point of figuring out whether your opponent is good or bad since players don't draw from the discard pile anyway as far as I know. Other than that the rest of your game is well done.

Aaron

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut