Game #46: Collectibility by Steve Sisk (SiskNY)

It's funny that you mention the board. I actually considered making it even MORE busy to help players understand the movement through the inside lanes. I was worried that the rules weren't clear enough and that players would play it wrong. When I playtested without the rules governing movement through the inner lanes, players basically ignored all the decision making aspects of the movement and raked in a ton of money. It broke the game, but I didn't want to muddle up the board with more graphics than necessary.

Otherwise, the board plays well. Players don't have a problem reading the text on the spaces as the game goes along.

That's a blast from my past! I actually had that game and had a blast playing it! I'm going to have to look through the attic to see if I still have it.

Thanks for the great feedback! I'll try to go through each post and respond:

Yes, I did repeat some of the spaces that worked well in the overall scheme. The goal when laying out the board was to roughly balance out the spaces that encourage players to buy in the second half of their turn and spaces that encourage players to sell in the second half of their turn. Hopefull a balance is struck (even though it meant duplicating some of the spaces).

Since it's a roll and move system, there's a good chance that a player will hit either one or the other. I don't think it would negatively impact the game. (Hopefully the auction concept becomes clear from the rules.)

Yes, that was intentional. There is supposed to be an inverse correlation to the relative ease of getting an item at a low price and the potential actual value of that item. The Antiques Store sells items for the most markup, but also guarantees that the items will never be appraised at less than GOOD. By extension, the Garage Sale had to offer players the chance to get an item at the absolute lowest possible price. Because of the balance of the game, it worked out that the Flea Market and Garage Sale offered items at the same price (50% or 25% if haggled successfully). To increase the chance that a player would get the item at the lowest price at the Garage Sale, the haggle was made more likely to be accepted by being rejected on a "Haggle Roll" of 6 or higher (while the rest would fail on a value of 5 or higher).

I was interested to see how this would come accross in the rules. The 5-6+ is taking into account any bonuses a player may have from the effect of a space on the playing board. Maybe that could be made more clear on the board (calling it a "Haggle Value" instead of a Haggle Roll).

Good catch! I can't believe that I missed that. It's true, you only see what you think is there, not what's actually there.

First comment: Make the low end $5(or $10) instead of $8 and eliminate $1 bills.

The item values were chosen because they must be evenly divisible by 4 to make the math for the actual values work out evenly. The potential actual values of an $8 item would be $2, 4, 8, 12, and 16. If I did change the low value to $5, I'd have to introduce quarters into the game! ;)

Can you believe that the hardest part of the game for me has been to come up with just the right categories? Of course that was back when I was going to self-publish what, at the time I thought was the next BIG THING! That was before I found BGDF and realized that I want to design games and not handle all the business stuff (I'll leave that to the professionals!). I like your ideas!! A few might make it into the final cut (so far the other choices are toys (obvious) and antiques).

That's just me being overly cautious (at the advice of Greg Aleknevicus). Yeah, I could probably eliminate it and some of the other more lawyerly sections.

Having an item appraised as GOOD in a set would always be more advantageous than one appraised at POOR since the actual value would be doubled. Taking $8 items, having a set (doubled actual values) of one GOOD and two POOR would be worth $16. A set with all POOR items would be worth $12. A set of 2 GOOD and 1 POOR would be worth $20 as it should be in real life (not that this is any great simulation or anything).

Having more items with fewer players means that it would take longer for players to find complete sets of items. In the limited playtesting, leaving them in increased the game length beyond what we were willing to play. I will have to test it more going forward, but for now it seems like a good method of keeping all games about the same length (roughly 90 minutes).

The wording is a bit clunky (with a penalty of 1.5 turns for not meeting the deficit listed in one paragraph and a reward and the ability to continue with his turn listed in the next.) The spirit of the rule was to keep players from being knocked back so far in their turn as to not be able to come back. Remember that the $50 bonus only goes for players with a total net worth of less than $30 (including the value of all item in that player's possession). That doesn't happen very often and it can be very hard to come back from. There may be a better way of accomplishing this (certainly a better way of spelling it out in the rules) and I'm open to suggestions!

Your edit is correct, it refers to shopping and should be changed in the rules to reflect that.

Actually there is text missing from that portion, that sentence should begin "If there..." Sorry about that!

As for the increasing/decreasing of values, I will admit that it is more abstracted that it could be for the sake of simplicity. I'm not sure how often such a case would come up in game play, likely not very often. I can think of times where the next higher/lower appraisal was used up so the next one from that was used, but not where the extreme case applied (though I wanted to account for it in the rules). I do agree that, if there is no POOR appraisal left, a space that indicates that the highest appraised item should be switched to POOR should not be ignored, but to quantify beyoud that would go beyond the "light game" aspect that I wanted. To state that a player would then use the next incrementally low appraisal and so on so long as it didn't increase the initial appraisal of the item seemed a bit complicated. Maybe not?

Great catch, thanks!

Actually, a player is able to place items into a space that is closed for business. Doing so would reopen that space again until all items in that space are once again sold. Sorry if that didn't come out clearly in the rules, I'll have to look at it again.

It's like setting a reserve price. If the bidding never gets higher than the reserve, then the seller isn't obligated to sell. If a plaayer doesn't state a minimum price, then that player IS required to sell at the close of the auction regardless of the winning bid.

Great question!! This was intended to allow players to entice others to sell an item. Lets say it's my turn. I want you to sell me an item. You want to sell, but you want to auction it instead of an outright sale in an attempt to drive up the price. The rules allow you to do so even though it's my turn (since I want the item, I'll let you go ahead). In practice, this works out really well, in fact one of the biggest draws of the game (as far as I'm concerned) is the interaction between the players. This mechanic just allows players a little more flexibility so that they can do more within the guidelines of the rules. Just imagine if I landed on a spot that rewarded me at the conclusion of an auction. I coax you into selling an item. You then say that you auctioned the item so youdeserve the reward instead of me. The rules take all that into account so that all situations are handled (hopefully!!).

Actually, a seller can make the actual appraisal know at any time. They can use that to guarantee the value of an item, or they can be sly to ditch an item for more than it's worth. It's a neat inter-player mechanic that looms Diplomacy-like.

Great catch!! I never thought of it using THAT pronounciation! I think I need to crack open the old thesaurus and look up another word!

Also please note that when I say "I don't know about..." it doesn't mean it's bad. When I think something is bad for the game or ought to be changed, I say so. If I say "I dunno" then it's sort of a red flag- something to think about, but might be just fine.

Hope I've been helpful,

- Seth

Great feedback! Thank youfor taking the time to go through my game and provide such detailed comments. I wouldn't even take it badly if you did use the old "I dunno" on me! ;)

Cool! Thanks for looking the game over and responding!!

does not seem to read/flow well to me. I assume the intent of the sentence is to state that a completed collection is worth twice the total face value of all items in the collection. Maybe just changing the "of" to "on"? (I think the MISCELLANEOUS section has this worded better, see that section for what would be better in this game play area)

Good questioN! Actually, the face values are only part of the actual value of an item. The appraisal that a player draws when buying an item will indicate what the actual value is. For example, an item with a face value (estimated value) of $8 that is appraised at EXCELLENT has an actual value that is worth 200% of the estimated value, or $16. If that item is part of a set, the actual value of that item (and all items in that set) are doubled. This item in particular would be worth $32 for being part of a set.

I'll have to read through to be sure that the difference between estimated and actual values are clear enough.

Yeah, this needs some re-work in the instructions and some rethinking for the motivation behind it (see my reply to Seth's question about the same issue).

Your interpretation is correct, in fact the cards are to be scattered in the space of the shopping area. A player may draw ANY card from that space that they choose, but may not look at any before drawing.

This was a balancing question, I didn't want players to be able to buy an item (albeit using haggling) at the Collectibles Store for less than the price of buying something at the Flea Market. The Flea Market and Garage Sale are differentiated by giving a lower chance of a failed haggle at the Garage Sale. In real life, Ifind that prices are very close between flea markets and garage sales anyways...

You must have seen the early versions of the playing board!!! They actually did have different haggle values depending on what you roll. A player would have to decide if they feel lucky enough to go for the lower price (more chance of failure) or haggle for a moderate prices chance of failure). In reality, players never declared which price they were haggling for. I tried to make it more obvious that a decision had to be made before haggling, but got tired of always explaining it. At that point (my being the bookkeeper for the haggling function) that I decided to make it simple. A player says they will haggle and rolls the die. One price and no bookkeeping.

Good catch! Yes, the words "If there" are missing from the start of that sentence.

Seth also mentioned this function in his post. I wanted to balance between simple mechanics (in keeping with the relatively light game play) and ensuring that the function was thought through. I wanted to have it so that a player that lands on a space that will penalize them will still do so even if the next lower appraisal is missing (though to more of an extent). Conversely, a player will be rewarded more if the next higher appraisal is missing (should they land on a space that indicates that an increase in appraisal is merited). Since there are fewer high appraisals that low appraisals, it is more likely that this mechanic will benefit the player rather than hurt them.

Maybe I need to look over the wording of the function or provide some examples?

Thanks again for the comments!! Very helpful!

Overall, I think it's very good. The theme is clear, the play makes
sense with it. I like having four different shopping areas with logical
differences. Light enough for the subject matter, but enough decisions
to make it more than just roll and move.

THE BOARD

There are too many bad spaces on the outer edge, especially by the Flea
Market corner.. The outer spaces are less useful because they only
border one shopping area. To balance this, better things should (on
average) happen to players who move there. (Or am I underestimating
"Window Shopping"?)

There are a lot of no-brainer decisions about where to move. For
example, "Sell your item at an auction house" is obviously better than
"Dog chews on an item". Nobody will land on "Dog chews" except someone
coming from the center. (This is not necessarily a bad thing. Easy
decisions mean faster play.) I see two alternatives:
1) Put bad squares the same distance from intersections: If someone
rolls 3 from the center, make all of the possibilities "pay money" or
"lower appraisal" spaces. (Maybe also a "random bad" space based on a
die roll. Possibilities could range from "no loss" to "give an item to
another player.")
2) Put some bad squares immediately after good ones: If someone chooses to land on a "collect $50" space, put a "pay $100" space immediately after it for an element of risk.

If someone lands on a side corner space like Rent-a-Truck from the
center, can s/he double back toward the center on the next turn?

Every path in the center borders a high-price shopping area and a
low-price area. This is probably good, but did you consider putting the
Flea Market next to the Garage Sale, creating a "cheap street" between
them and "Fifth Avenue" between the other two, and making some
adjustment to each set of squares between?

I'd like to see something happen if two players occupy the same space,
like: "If I player lands in an occupied space, s/he may make one of
these offers to one other player in that space (before shopping):
a) Sell a specific item to that player for face value.
b) Buy one of that player's items for face value.
c) Offer to trade a chosen item for a chosen item of equal face value
belonging to the other.
The offer must be accepted or declined as is. The player who moved into
the space continues his turn whether or not the offer was accepted.

Suggestions for the board :
1) Have a slight difference in color between alternate squares, so it's
easier to tell when you move an even number of spaces ?
2) Use a different background or text color for the bad-outcome spaces.
3) Put a small symbol on each space in addition to the text, such as a
dollar-bill .gif for "collect money", a hammer with a plus sign for "add
to auction roll", a cracked vase for "lower appraisal", etc.
4) Have events that fit where you are. By the Garage Sale, "Dog bite -
spend $25 on new pants" or "Wife unloads husband's item for half price",
etc.

The movement rules make it possible to keep circling the same block.
There may be nothing wrong with this, but to stop it you could move
counter-clockwise around the outside, and make the center a "no left
turn" intersection.

AUCTIONS

Auctions could be much slower if players debate how to count items. I
suggest that the seller choose an auction rule in advance:
a) Cash only.
b) Items count half of their estimated values.
c) Items count their full estimated values.
Optionally, an all-cash bid could win over a mixed bid of equal value.

Can the auctioneer bid on his own items? This probably shouldn't be
allowed, or the commissions should be restricted, or you could get free
money bidding on your own item at a Dutch auction. (Nitpick: "Dutch
Auction" is the wrong term for what happens in those spaces. Try "Double
Commission" or "Celebrity Auction"??)

Are you allowed to auction after you shop but don't buy? It looks like no,
but you should make it clear.

REDUCED APPRAISALS

Absence of "POOR" cards shouldn't save someone completely. Either
"exchange ... for a POOR appraisal, or the lowest remaining appraisal
deck (but no higher than the current appraisal)" or add "Badly damaged"
cards (see under "General").

I assume "your highest appraisal" means you can choose which if you move more than one at the same level, but please spell it out.

STRATEGY

I'm concerned that a "Garage Sale / Collector" strategy may work too
well: Buy everything possible from the garage sale, and when you land on
a "good auction" space, sell all your fair-or-less items that won't form
collections in one lot to the Collector. Have you looked into this?

The game can be much shorter, and end suddenly, if someone completes two collections quickly. Has your play-testing shown if that happens often,
and if the players are dissatisfied when it does?

GENERAL

Will the playing tokens have arrows to show direction of travel?

When an appraisal changes, do other players see the "before" and "after"
appraisals? If not, it becomes possible to cheat. You could make
"Damaged Goods" and "Professionally Restored" cards to be kept until
sale with the damaged item and the original appraisal.

CONCLUSION
I've made a lot of comments, so let me repeat that it looks like a game I'd like a lot!

I may have thought it was for people who had less than $30 cash, but either way I think it's rediculous to reward someone for being broke- even if the intention is to keep them in the game.

Yeah, it's a compromise that I had to make to keep players that perform poorly at first from being in last place for the whole game (hopefully). In large part, this rule was based on memories of my playing Monopoly with friends and being the one in last place with absolutely no hope of catching up. I didn't want that to happen in my game so I added this. I may eliminate it all together since it doesn't happen very often. I'll have to playtest without it and see how it goes.

I keep thinking that there ahs to be a better way than what I have. This might just be it! It would also speed up play since players wouldn't have to go digging for a card.

Since a lot of the game is trying to find a set of items, it's an advantage to place an item in a location with no other items (that's assuming that the player wants that item back for some reason). Placing it in a location with no other items ensures that anyone can grab it from there. Of course the player is taking a chance that someone else doesn't get it first. Mainly the rule keeps the option open for players to put the item where they want. Since a rule would be needed to specify whether they can put an item in a closed location or not, I decided to make it so that they can to give the playrs that flexibility.

If there IS a 'minimum bid', then why not simply say that you cannot bid lower than that?

Good call, I may need to fine tune the rules tomake the intent more clear. You're right in that other players won't bid lower than the minimum bid. Since the collector is an automaton, I had to include a rule to account for the fact that the collector will occasionally offer less than the minimum bid. The rule just makes it clear that if anyone (mainly the collector) offers less than the minimum bid, then the seller is not obligated to sell.

Like you said, it frees up the seller (not the player whose turn it is) to do other things when their turn comes around. That adds a little more enticement to the seller to agree to sell something at the expense of the turn of the player whose turn it is. It could go either way (allow players to sell things at the enticement of other players or have them wait until their turn), I decided to allow a little more flexibility. unfortunately that means more rules to cover the possibilities.

A lot of times a player will only bid low to start, see what the others bid and then seek assurances from the seller that it's really worth a higher bid. It adds more player interaction that I first anticipated, but the end result is really nice to see. If the seller wants to show others the appraisal they do. If potential bidders won't bid without reasurances that's usually what happens. It's a good way to get to know how ruthless your friends can be!

Thanks again for the great comments!!

The more I think about this idea the more I like it! The old system has always relied on the honor system since all appraisals are private. This way, the player never exchanges anything, but adds (or takes away) chips from their item!

Very cool!!!! (Although the manifest of components just got a little longer!)

Oops you created Good Cat, Bad Cat. Too easy to get mixed up on this site I guess =)

Thanks! I appreciate the feedback!

Yes, the category is listed right at the top. In addition, each category is a different color. I know it still falls into the pitfalls of not being distinct enough for colorblind players, but this design goes back to before I even thought about that. I'll have to think about fixing that going forward, but witht he category written on each one, it's not a priority.

I'd be glad to share the cards. I'm going to do a little more work on the game based on the feedback here and I'll post them afterwards.

Thanks! I think that there are enough elements that the general gaming public would find familiar to draw them in, and enough decision for them to make to be a little more interesting than just moving counters around a board.

Thanks, I'll take a look and see if I can clean it up a little better.

Yes, you're right. Just think of the outer lanes as one way streets that always go counter clockwise around the board. The inner lanes are two way streets that players may "drive" down in either direction. At no time and in no space may any player make a u-turn and go back the way they went in.

The movement rules are a little sparse and need a little more clarification (since the distribution of the spaces depends on proper movement to offer effective choices for the plaeyrs to make).

Thanks! Unfortunately it takes a lot of time for me to get an idea into even a rough form. I have been working on this game for almost 2 years now. I work and then put a game on the shelf when I can't put any more of myself into it. Then, something inspires me and I pull it back out again to fine tune and fiddle.

I'd love it if you would! Like I mentioned before, I plan on a few tweaks based on feedback here. I should have something ready to go soon! I'd love to get your feedback!

Thanks! I really appreciate your kind words and the great comments, thanks for taking the time to look my game over!

Thanks for taking the time to respond! I appreciate getting all points of view to help me get a more complete picture.

I do tend to try to over explain everything with the thought that I’m writing to the lowest common denominator. Feedback here has shown me a lot of places that are over explained or explained twice, and some areas that need to be reworded or explained with more detail. Hopefully the next iteration will be more concise.

Point taken—a lot of the problems I run into with design being over simulation. Part of that is a byproduct of developing a game theme first. A theme calls out for an obvious set of abstractions for it to be effective. The art in game design is knowing what to abstract and to what degree.

That’s about how shopping works. Players may pick up items at a much lower price, but it will take them longer to get items that are in good or better condition since there are no guarantees to the condition of the items. Shopping in the more expensive areas will guarantee that an item is not in the worst or second worst condition, but it will cost more. It’s a good example of the decisions that a player will have to make. in addition, the items are randomly distributed among all shopping areas. It’s possible that a player won’t be able to find the item that completes their collection at the garage sale or a flea market, they will have to look in the antique store, etc. I think this aspect of the game is a good example of a simple abstraction that fits well with the theme of the game.

Good point. It is a mechanic that could be eliminated without too much negative effect. Surprisingly, this mechanic was actually developed not from the theme, but from the need to encourage players to shop. When I set up the game board, I thought long and hard about how to best use the spaces to encourage the players to either shop or sell items in roughly equal amounts. To that end I developed the haggling system. The idea that a player may haggle (with a bonus to their roll from a space) for a cheaper price than normally available may be just the push they need to get them to buy something that round.

Yes, it may be something that the game could do without. If further playtests confirm what you suspect then I’ll readdress the need for it.

Interesting take on the collection aspect. I like your ideas but I’m not sure I’d be able to implement them without complicating the rules more. It’s something I’ll think about and see if it’s a fit.

That’s a flaw that I deal with in just about every game. Unfortunately I don’t have a good sense of mechanics first design so I move forward and look to feedback from GDW or from playtesters to help me pare down the unnecessary and streamline what is good!

Every game has some element worth keeping or remembering, even if the game itself is a bust. My follow up to this game was a horrible flop (after 3+ hours of playing, my brother and I were only just getting started in our empire building). I haven’t pulled that one out to work on and I probably wont, but it really helped me to grow as a designer!

I look forward to getting together with the crowd from Albany again soon! Thanks for the great feedback. I enjoy hearing everyone’s gut reactions since they seem to be the most sincere and to the point. That’s what makes the GDW such an immensely resource.