Skip to Content
 

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

69 replies [Last post]
FastLearner
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

Ok, I've got some prototype rules together.

The game is called Everest, and is a race to climb the famous mountain. The players hadn't planned to climb this beast and don't have sponsors and climbers lined up yet, but another team (in the form of an advancing turn marker) is already on its way up so the players need to scramble and start climbing, hoping to put it all together on their way up.

At the moment this game doesn't... gel. It's inelegant, somewhat fiddly, and has too many components. It formed around an idea for the board, the tiles, and the climbers: the rest of the game is designed to try to create some interesting decisions.

None of the numbers is particularly balanced. For example the Royal Climbing Team (the turn marker) has 20 steps to reach the top of the mountain: 15 might be a much better number, or maybe 25. I have no idea at this point (though 15 would be pretty tight).

Some basic info:

  • For 3 to 5 players (may support 2 with some modifications) Playing time target is 75 to 90 minutes, though the current incarnation probably takes longer than that.

  • On the Chaos to Control scale the game should be pretty close to the Control side, with just enough Chaos to keep it interesting.
  • On the Light to Heavy scale the game should be pretty middleweight.
  • On the Abstract to Themed scale the game should lean well to the Themed side.
  • I've fixed the PDF and uploaded a slightly changed version. Please reference this one if you saw the earlier one (only reduced the graphic size and fixed an error in the tile numbers).

    The full PDF (366k)

    I'll try to put up some sample cards shortly so the ideas surrounding the cards are more clear.

    [/]
    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Just to make it clear, I uploaded a slightly modified PDF... please use that one (it fixes an error in the Tier numbering scheme and so should be more clear, and it's more reasonably sized).

    Please be forthright with your thoughts. I consider this one of my more awkward designs and most in the need of workshopping.

    hpox
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    After a throughout first reading,

    (I did read through all games posted here but haven't had the chance to reply in time before everyone had stated my same point of view. So please excuse me for the lack of contribution)

    WHAT I FEEL IS GOOD

      Different, cool (pun!) theme Introduction (Year: 1930)
      Pyramid board which encourage competition as you move up
      Simplicity of how the weather, energy and climbing skills works
      Grand theme (again!)
      "Board at Endgame" image was a very good idea!

    WHAT I FEEL ARE THE WEAK POINTS

      Clutter 6 different stacks of tiles
      6 actions might be too many to choose from
      Game ends (other than the first one) sounds very fiddly

    NITPICKS

      The board will be inversed/rotated for most of the players The energy box seems out of place

    Alright, that's the first impressions written up so I don't forget what I wanted to talk about.

    [/][/][/]
    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    hpox wrote:
    After a throughout first reading,

    Excellent, thanks.

    Quote:
    WHAT I FEEL IS GOOD
      Different, cool (pun!) theme Introduction (Year: 1930)
      Pyramid board which encourage competition as you move up
      Simplicity of how the weather, energy and climbing skills works
      Grand theme (again!)
      "Board at Endgame" image was a very good idea!
    Cool, thanks, I like those things too. The pyramid board along with the route markers and base camps were the germ of the idea.

    Quote:
    WHAT I FEEL ARE THE WEAK POINTS
    Clutter

    I completely agree

    Quote:
    6 different stacks of tiles

    There are technically only 5, but yeah, that's a bit tough. The idea is to make the mountain harder and harder to climb the higher you get. Any ideas on how to achieve that effect without changing the tiles as they go up? The mechanic also gives a little benefit to the first climber to make it to a new tier because he gets to use the easier tiles, where everyone else is now forced to use the harder tiles, even at lower tiers. I'm not sure that effect can be achieved any other way.

    Quote:
    6 actions might be too many to choose from

    I agree. I added "Rest" at the last minute, and it could easily be eliminated, with energy just coming back either through "no action" (which is what "Rest" essentially is) or by the non-strenuous actions (drafting climbers and getting sponsors).

    The tiles could be pre-placed on the board, face-down, creating more of an "exploration" theme. The upside is the elimination of another action, but the downside is that the only "screw your neighbor" mechanic would be gone.

    Quote:
    Game ends (other than the first one) sounds very fiddly

    Again I agree. I like the Royal Climbing Team as it pressures the players to climb rather than screw around at the bottom for a long time, but there's already a fair bit of incentive in the Flags mechanic. Removing the Royal Climbing Team would also relieve clutter on the board.

    The other game end can probably be removed through tweaking. I'm about 99% sure that it will never come about if the game is played by even remotely intelligent players, but it might be possible for it to fail that way if all of the players constantly screw around. A little math, though, would probably reveal whether it could ever hang like that. I'll have to take a look.

    Quote:
    NITPICKS
    The board will be inversed/rotated for most of the players

    Yeah, kinda sucks. Originally everyone had their own side of the mountain to climb, but that was overkill and seriously reduced the competition. I'm not sure how else to solve that yet still take advantage of the pyramidal concept.

    Quote:
    The energy box seems out of place

    Aye. I only added it at the last minute in order to reduce components, but maybe I shouldn't. Originally the players just had 5 energy tokens that they would put in a little spot on the table when they spent them and put them in front of them when they rested. The current system works but is very cluttered and ugly. Maybe a ltitle stack of cards or perhaps a tiny mat (that includes the rules summary) for each player where they move a marker.

    Quote:
    Alright, that's the first impressions written up so I don't forget what I wanted to talk about.

    Awesome, thanks very much

    [/]
    hpox
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Obviously, I like the theme very much it has a good competition feel without the battle or fighting part. The introduction is pleasing and make the game looks like it's fun. (I can't really pinpoint it though)

    From the first page of the rules, I could smell clutter by the way the material is listed. The tiles are different yet so repetitive.

    I see a pattern! You could use it to your advantage. What about just one stack of terrain tiles. Have the three types but instead of 2,4 / 6,8 / 10,12 / etc... make it Easy,Difficult (colors or symbols). Then add some informations on the board on each tier, write the value of the easy and difficult tiles. Tier 3: 10 and 12.

    I know this would modify an effect you had in mind. Grabbing the next flag so as to change the tile stack and the opponent will have a harder time. But in all fairness, the people behind should not be disavantaged even more.

    Next in the rules, the Daily Update is ok because clearly an upkeep has to be done and who better than the player the turn it is! That way I guess the pace won't bog down because it's that player's turn and he want to play!

    I thought the weather rule was weird because it start at 1 and player can leave it unchanged. I don't see why would anyone really move the weather at all.

    What I would find fun is if the player's position and the royal team position would somehow be intertwined to the weather strength. (If the royal team is way ahead, make the weather calm. But if they are behind, make it really high) I'm of course thinking in term of balance here.

    Also, moving just one is too predictable. A dice maybe? Throw a dice and advance the royal team that much but max they can advance is weather strength. Kind of weird (they are faster in strong weather) but I bet you could come up with something :)

    Now for the actions, 2 actions per turn is great. That "oh shiit, I need to build, rest and climb!!" feeling is great. But on the other hand, 6 actions to choose from is limit. I'm no expert but while designing other games I found that too many actions to choose from is too many (wow!)

    Actually six is not that bad, but in playtesting I'm sure you can find which actions are almost always used and make it mandatory instead. That will have the effect of speeding up the game I guess. Personally, I find the Climb, Build Base and Rest to be good actions for choice and would not make them mandatory.

    Clarification : When in the Draft and Sponsor phase you say the player has opportunity to "rest", does that mean he can do the "quick rest" thing that is only availible in the rest phase. Opportunity to rest might be seen as "do a rest phase". My understanding is that no, you can't quick rest.

    By the way, very clever and simple way to determine the climbing skills. Love it. Check the type of terrain, add up the points.

    The way it should be done though (IMHO) is determine the climb difficulty first (take a second), then determine your team's. That makes the miscalculation rule unnecessary. To boot, nobody won't feel stupid for not being able to add up numbers, which could be detrimental to the experience for some.

    *phew*. I almost never type up such long post, hope I wasn't too confusing...

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Thinking about it there's no reason the Energy tokens can't all be the same color, effectively another form of money. You'd just have a max of 5. That would clean up the board and the mechanic as well.

    hpox
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Yep, I like the energy tokens. Will let more space for a beautiful 1930's-style illustration of mount everest with a seamlessly superposed pyramid board. :wink:

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Here's a reduced size version of the board without the Energy thing (unnecessary), the Royal Climbing Team (the more I think about it the less useful it is), and without the row numbers (which serve no purpose at all).

    Much cleaner.

    Aye, I'd love to see a Münch-style illustration of Everest. Great idea, that would be gorgeous.

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:
    ...not sure how else to solve that yet still take advantage of the pyramidal concept.

    How about stretching the pyramid into a circle... like a target. Imagine the pyramid being wrapped around a cone, then looking at the cone from the top. Hell, wrap the board around a cone! Or make a little shelf for each level and have a 3d board!

    - Seth

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Oops, I missed this message.

    hpox wrote:
    From the first page of the rules, I could smell clutter by the way the material is listed. The tiles are different yet so repetitive.

    I see a pattern! You could use it to your advantage. What about just one stack of terrain tiles. Have the three types but instead of 2,4 / 6,8 / 10,12 / etc... make it Easy,Difficult (colors or symbols). Then add some informations on the board on each tier, write the value of the easy and difficult tiles. Tier 3: 10 and 12.
    Good idea, taking advantage of the pattern. It could reduce the complexity of the components, too. I'll think about that a bit.

    Quote:
    I know this would modify an effect you had in mind. Grabbing the next flag so as to change the tile stack and the opponent will have a harder time. But in all fairness, the people behind should not be disavantaged even more.

    Aye, very true, I kind thought about that. It's already damned nice that you're getting points and no one else is. :)

    Quote:
    Next in the rules, the Daily Update is ok because clearly an upkeep has to be done and who better than the player the turn it is! That way I guess the pace won't bog down because it's that player's turn and he want to play!

    Aye, agreed. A big part of the update is to keep the Climbers and Sponsors from getting too stale (frex 3 climbers no one wants). I also wanted it to feel like a new "day" with a fresh perspective on everything. And I wanted to give the first player a bit of advantage because he's got a bit of a disadvantage in the fact that everyone behind him is going to be building tiles around him (as they get closer to the top) sticking him with terrain he doesn't like.

    Quote:
    I thought the weather rule was weird because it start at 1 and player can leave it unchanged. I don't see why would anyone really move the weather at all.

    That may not be the best way to do weather. Again it's an opportunity for the starting player to get a bit of an advantage: if he knows he's low on energy, needs more money, or needs better climbers and can't climb this turn, he can make it a bit tougher for the other players to climb. If he knows that he is going to climb he can weigh how much he could use the better weather and decide weather to clear it up a bit.

    In some way I want the end game to have weather because it's such a big part of climbing Everest. Bad weather is probably the single biggest reason why early climbs failed (that and lack of oxygen, but oxygen became a hassle to simulate and just felt like bookkeeping). I could stand some more randomness with a little deck of weather cards that are turned over each day (though it's more components), but I hate dice so they're out. :)

    Quote:
    What I would find fun is if the player's position and the royal team position would somehow be intertwined to the weather strength. (If the royal team is way ahead, make the weather calm. But if they are behind, make it really high) I'm of course thinking in term of balance here.

    Also, moving just one is too predictable. A dice maybe? Throw a dice and advance the royal team that much but max they can advance is weather strength. Kind of weird (they are faster in strong weather) but I bet you could come up with something :)
    I'm wondering if the Royal Team even serves a purpose beyond flavor. Well, one use is that they make certain the game will end in x rounds. I'm not keen on dice but I agree that variable movement would be more fun!

    Quote:
    Now for the actions, 2 actions per turn is great. That "oh shiit, I need to build, rest and climb!!" feeling is great. But on the other hand, 6 actions to choose from is limit. I'm no expert but while designing other games I found that too many actions to choose from is too many (wow!)

    Actually six is not that bad, but in playtesting I'm sure you can find which actions are almost always used and make it mandatory instead. That will have the effect of speeding up the game I guess. Personally, I find the Climb, Build Base and Rest to be good actions for choice and would not make them mandatory.
    Aye, 6 is too many. See my notes above for thoughts on eliminating some of them.

    Quote:
    Clarification : When in the Draft and Sponsor phase you say the player has opportunity to "rest", does that mean he can do the "quick rest" thing that is only availible in the rest phase. Opportunity to rest might be seen as "do a rest phase". My understanding is that no, you can't quick rest.

    The idea is that he can indeed do the "quick rest," getting one energy back, but he can't take advantage of his climber's special energy regeneration ability unless he actually takes a rest action.

    Quote:
    By the way, very clever and simple way to determine the climbing skills. Love it. Check the type of terrain, add up the points.

    The way it should be done though (IMHO) is determine the climb difficulty first (take a second), then determine your team's. That makes the miscalculation rule unnecessary. To boot, nobody won't feel stupid for not being able to add up numbers, which could be detrimental to the experience for some.
    Aye. I was actually nastily punishing those with bad math skills. :) I like how reversing the calculation order simplifies it anyway.

    Quote:
    *phew*. I almost never type up such long post, hope I wasn't too confusing...

    Nope, super helpful again, thanks.

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    sedjtroll wrote:
    FastLearner wrote:
    ...not sure how else to solve that yet still take advantage of the pyramidal concept.

    How about stretching the pyramid into a circle... like a target. Imagine the pyramid being wrapped around a cone, then looking at the cone from the top. Hell, wrap the board around a cone! Or make a little shelf for each level and have a 3d board!
    I originally had a target-like design. The downsides were that (a) if the tiles were going to be similarly-sized there were a ton of tiles potentially needed, and (b) it took a long time for the players to really conflict with each other in tile choices... I would guess several hours.

    Perhaps there's still something like that that would work, though. Thanks, I'll think about it.

    On the 3D thing... it would probably be too pricey, and more importantly it would have to be transparent if you wanted to see what the other players were doing. :)

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    I'm doing this piecemeal... it certainly looks like a very nicely presented game! I haven't gotten into it enough yet to comment for real, but here's something I thought of while reading posts...

    FastLearner wrote:
    In some way I want the end game to have weather because it's such a big part of climbing Everest. Bad weather is probably the single biggest reason why early climbs failed (that and lack of oxygen, but oxygen became a hassle to simulate and just felt like bookkeeping).

    You could have Action points (denoted as "Oxygen Points" or something), of which you get fewer as you move up the mountain... I have no idea what that does to your game though, but it's a possible way to represent Oxygen.

    - Seth

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:

    On the 3D thing... it would probably be too pricey, and more importantly it would have to be transparent if you wanted to see what the other players were doing. :)

    You're right about the priceyness of the 3d pyramid... I was thinking something small that the players would look down on, to see what's on the next face would just take leaning or turning the pyramid but it would still cost a lot I'm sure... which takes me to my next suggestion (which I actually thought of first)- put the board on a Lazy Susan type of contraption, so if you need to see the board face up, or if it's your turn, you turn it toward you.

    - Seth

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    sedjtroll wrote:
    FastLearner wrote:
    In some way I want the end game to have weather because it's such a big part of climbing Everest. Bad weather is probably the single biggest reason why early climbs failed (that and lack of oxygen, but oxygen became a hassle to simulate and just felt like bookkeeping).

    You could have Action points (denoted as "Oxygen Points" or something), of which you get fewer as you move up the mountain... I have no idea what that does to your game though, but it's a possible way to represent Oxygen.
    Good idea. One way of doing it -- one that would both simulate the oxygen situation and make for an interesting game -- is just to have Energy (Oxygen, whatever) replenish more slowly the further you are up the mountain. On the downside it would probably slow the game down, something it probably doesn't need. Hmm. Good food for thought, thanks.

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    OK, I've read all the rules now. I like it.

    Regarding the Oxygen discussion: you could take those actions, and assign Action Points to them, and then have people receive Action Points (call them Oxygen or something) at the geginning of a round based on what tier they're on. They spend those points on the actions.

    So later in the game your action points are more scarce (they probably don't carry over).

    That might be instead of energy, but I kinda like how you have it now, so it's not too important to deal with Oxygyn I dont think.

    Other stuff: I like the seperate piles for mountain tiles. I don't see a problem with the number of bits or organization of them.

    I like the board. I think you're right about some of the stuff coming off it. On that note, you really only need 1 track for energy, not 5. Make the boxes a tad larger and let everyone use the same track. Its not like you'll be confused who's where on it (tokens are color coded).

    Royal Climbing Team... I like the flaver, but I agree that it's probably not necessary. Best to axe it alltogether. Is there any "Second Prize" for getting to a particular tier if you're not the first player there? Maybe there ought to be, so if there are three players, and two are neck and neck and one is trailing behind, that's reflected in the score. This might mean "Take 2 flags if you're the first player, take 1 if you're the second" or maybe "Take X flags (where X = #players) if you're the first, 2 if second, 1 if third." Or even a liner "Take X for first, X-1 for 2nd, x-2 for third, etc"

    This could also be accomplished by having numbered flags. As you get to a tier you take the highest numbered flag that's still there. So you get rewarded for your accomplishment but moreso for efficiency in that accomplishment. Points are the total of the numbers on the flags. If you want to reward more for higher tiers, the numbers need not be 1-5 or whatever each time.

    Base Camps: As I understand it, the only reason you'd want to build a Base Camp is to rest your party better or to add new guys. This soudns decent. I have a question about movement thoguh. It says you can move down the mountain as much as you want, presumably all the way to your base camp if need be... how do you then get back up? A bunch of Climb Mountain actions? I just wanted to clarify that, I suppose it sounds right. In that case, do you really need to build new base camps? I think the answer is yes, because you'll run out of energy...

    Game End Condition: Without the Royal Climbers, the game ends when someone reaches the summit, or when noone can advance- right?

    I don't know if I like the way the scoring (you can win even if you do not reach the summit) jives with the theme (you're challenged to reach the summit first). I like the mechanic, I just think the theming should match better.

    All in all a very impressive go at a game. This is the kind of thing I would expect to see in a commercial box. The Graphics help lend it validity in a big way. I really need to get on the Graphics end of 8/7c ! I don't suppose you'd be interested in helping out there, FL, would you? I have some friends who are artists who supposedly are going to do the art, but I don't know if they'll come through.

    After this GDW is done with it, I think this game will be ready to go. I think I might have mentioned having seen a rock climbing card game sitting near the checkout line at some Borders Books or someplace. I don't recall the name- might have been something about Everest. Might be worth looking into.

    - Seth

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    sedjtroll wrote:
    OK, I've read all the rules now. I like it.

    Thanks much.

    Quote:
    Regarding the Oxygen discussion: you could take those actions, and assign Action Points to them, and then have people receive Action Points (call them Oxygen or something) at the geginning of a round based on what tier they're on. They spend those points on the actions.

    So later in the game your action points are more scarce (they probably don't carry over).

    That might be instead of energy, but I kinda like how you have it now, so it's not too important to deal with Oxygyn I dont think.
    While I really enjoy Action Point games, I think I prefer two of 5 (or 4) actions instead, especially for this game (which I hope will be middleweight and not heavyweight), all with equal weight, mostly because it tends to speed decision-making somewhat (no "one of these and two of these, or one of these and one of these, or three of these, or..." types of decisions which can bog things down even more).

    As you note, it's probably ok not to simulate oxygen per se... I kinda figure it's rolled into the Energy thing.

    Quote:
    Other stuff: I like the seperate piles for mountain tiles. I don't see a problem with the number of bits or organization of them.

    Ok, good to have another opinion. I haven't come up with a replacement that makes it any easier but still simulates the increasing difficulty, but there's probably something there in the formula concept. What do others of you out there think?

    Quote:
    I like the board. I think you're right about some of the stuff coming off it. On that note, you really only need 1 track for energy, not 5. Make the boxes a tad larger and let everyone use the same track. Its not like you'll be confused who's where on it (tokens are color coded).

    Good point about one Energy track. I wonder if shared Energy tokens would be better or sticking with the track.

    One possible advantage of identical Energy tokens that are just moved in and out of a shared pile is that I can modify the maximum number per player based on the number of players (to help standardize the playing experience).

    Also, thinking about it, it's possible that rather than providing extra Energy the more sturdy climbers could instead increase the total Energy you can store up (changing the dynamic but having it make more sense).

    Quote:
    Royal Climbing Team... I like the flaver, but I agree that it's probably not necessary. Best to axe it alltogether. Is there any "Second Prize" for getting to a particular tier if you're not the first player there? Maybe there ought to be, so if there are three players, and two are neck and neck and one is trailing behind, that's reflected in the score. This might mean "Take 2 flags if you're the first player, take 1 if you're the second" or maybe "Take X flags (where X = #players) if you're the first, 2 if second, 1 if third." Or even a liner "Take X for first, X-1 for 2nd, x-2 for third, etc"

    This could also be accomplished by having numbered flags. As you get to a tier you take the highest numbered flag that's still there. So you get rewarded for your accomplishment but moreso for efficiency in that accomplishment. Points are the total of the numbers on the flags. If you want to reward more for higher tiers, the numbers need not be 1-5 or whatever each time.
    There's no second place prize right now. That whole mechanic needs some serious consideration and reworking, I think, and I like your suggestions. Right now you could earn 10 points if you made it first to every new Tier and win the game without making it to the top, as the guy who makes it to the top gets 7 points. That was intentional, as I figured all 10 aren't likely to go to the same guy, and hey, the Royal Team might get there first anyway, but I'm not too sure it works.

    The primary reason for the "get points by reaching tiers first" mechanic is to get people climbing, to increase the tension and interaction. I don't want players sitting down at the bottom of the mountain gathering up climbers for the first hour and then starting the climb -- the game would really lose a lot. Rather I want them climbing, climbing, climbing, as often as they think is feasible. It also makes the board look cooler as the game progresses, something that may seem kinda silly but I think it actually provides for better interaction.

    Quote:
    Base Camps: As I understand it, the only reason you'd want to build a Base Camp is to rest your party better or to add new guys. This soudns decent. I have a question about movement thoguh. It says you can move down the mountain as much as you want, presumably all the way to your base camp if need be... how do you then get back up? A bunch of Climb Mountain actions? I just wanted to clarify that, I suppose it sounds right. In that case, do you really need to build new base camps? I think the answer is yes, because you'll run out of energy...

    Yes. You need to build Base Camps every other level or so if you want to be able to rest up while you're adding new sponsors and climbers.

    The reason you can climb back down freely (but for the cost of an action) is because as you near the top of the board you could get cut off and not be able to proceed. If, for example, you've been doing a good job building up ice and rock climbers but you aren't so hot in snow an there's a 14 Snow and a 16 Snow are the only tiles you can climb to, you might need to back down the mountain a level or two before climbing back up.

    If every Route token goes upward (which isn't necessarily the case because you can climb sideways or even down onto new tiles if you want) you'll still have 3 tokens left at the end game, giving you a little bit of tension. It's possible to fork your route, too.

    Quote:
    Game End Condition: Without the Royal Climbers, the game ends when someone reaches the summit, or when noone can advance- right?

    Right, though I think I can work it so the latter condition never occurs. I just haven't taken the time to work out the math yet.

    Quote:
    I don't know if I like the way the scoring (you can win even if you do not reach the summit) jives with the theme (you're challenged to reach the summit first). I like the mechanic, I just think the theming should match better.

    Yeah, that's a tough one. As I noted above it's important to drive players to climb as fast as they can. It's also important to be able to score points even if you don't make it to the top so that you have some hope of winning if you're clearly not going to make it to the top before another guy but there's still 45 minutes of game left. I know it doesn't fit the theme, though. Maybe part of the "monarch's" reward is for finding efficient paths up (for future climbers) as well as for reaching the summit. That would help explain the idea of points along the way.

    Quote:
    All in all a very impressive go at a game. This is the kind of thing I would expect to see in a commercial box.

    Thanks very much. That's the idea, certainly.

    Quote:
    The Graphics help lend it validity in a big way. I really need to get on the Graphics end of 8/7c ! I don't suppose you'd be interested in helping out there, FL, would you? I have some friends who are artists who supposedly are going to do the art, but I don't know if they'll come through.

    Sure, you bet, I'd be happy to help.

    Quote:
    After this GDW is done with it, I think this game will be ready to go. I think I might have mentioned having seen a rock climbing card game sitting near the checkout line at some Borders Books or someplace. I don't recall the name- might have been something about Everest. Might be worth looking into.

    Ah, thanks, I will look into it.

    Thanks for the thoughtful advice,
    Matthew

    Scurra
    Scurra's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 09/11/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Can I just say that your end condition(s) strike me as being absurdly wrong, since the whole point is that no-one did manage to climb Everest in 1930!

    Seriously, I like the idea, and when I've had a proper chance to read the rules, I'll make some more comments. I see that the more obvious issues have been addressed by others (the Royal team, the Weather, Energy and so on.)

    There seem to be a lot of components for this game - not only a lot of terrain tiles but a stack load of other bits and pieces too. And not only is there a lot of open stuff (new terrain, sponsors, climbers etc), but players have to have a lot of things in front of them too. Combined with a board, I can see this requiring a lot of table space!

    The Sponsor stuff is cool, but seems to add a little too much book-keeping complexity for the sake of income differentials - nationalities, societies and so on. It's especially annoying when the card only applies once - I'm assuming that you take the card, calculate the money and that's it. I'm sure there must be a simpler way of doing that (can't think of one right now though ;))

    I like the Royal Climbing Team - it seems to be a neat pressure mechanic to force people onwards; without it I think players would indeed spend a lot of time faffing about at the foot of the mountain.

    I think your end conditions could still be collapsed into one, whereby the winning criteria is number of flags, regardless of how the game actually ended. Simply move the "Player Teams cannot climb any further" conditions into the main body of the rules, with a note saying that this ends the game automatically. Likewise, the Royal Climbing Team ending can be put in the Daily Update section.

    Feels interestingly deep but has perhaps a few too many mechanics (although with Weather and Energy removed, that issue may have been fixed.) Solid theme, and a wonderful board design (natch.) Good one.

    jwarrend
    Offline
    Joined: 08/03/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Ok, I haven't read any of the other comments, so there may be some redundancy here...

    First impressions: Visually spectacular. Clearly, game design is a great hobby for a graphic designer!

    I like the Royal Climbing team as a timing mechanism. You can't sit still and just boost your energy, or try to get more sponsors, you must climb. It doesn't add any complexity per se. I'd keep it in there. But I wouldn't make it an "all players lose" mechanic, rather, I'd just make it a game end mechanic whereby players compare the number of flags they have, but no one has the "mega flags" from the summit. I don't know if a "Republic of Rome" "all players lose" really fits here.

    There are WAY too many components. Is there some way you can reduce the number? Maybe not. My thinking was that rather than needing a separate type of tiles for each tier, you can just use the same stack of tiles, but just, following your math, add 4 to the tile for each tier you cross. Of course, people will forget to do that, and it's extra complexity, but it would streamline the components a bit. You have to decide for yourself which is more important.

    I was a little concerned with the sponsor thing; it seemed like the expeditions should have been funded before starting, and that you're not looking for sponsors while you're "on the mountain". But I guess the idea with building base camps, etc, is that climbing the mountain is a long process and so adding team members, getting extra money, etc, can happen in the time scale of the climb. I guess it's ok thematically. It just feels like you've tacked that on for the sake of having a resource management aspect to the game, but it only seems to come into play in terms of being able to win auctions. To that end, I don't really see the need for having climbers being from the same country as sponsors, etc. It adds an extra thing to think about when bidding -- do I want this guy, since he's from the same country as a sponsor I want to get? I can't see why you'd think along those lines when bidding. As such, it seems like it's just a luck of the draw thing whereby if a sponsor happens to come up and he's from the same country as your climber, you luckily get extra money for it. Although I guess other players could recognize that and try to deprive you of the bonus. I don't know, I think it's nice atmosphere but perhaps not essential to gameplay.

    I don't like the idea that "draft a climber" is an action that costs you your turn; what if you don't win the auction? You have wasted your turn. None of the other actions are like this. The auction should be a separate phase.
    Either that, or make "draft a climber" similar to the Sponsor pool effect. It will still be a tough decision; do I strengthen my team, or try to keep going with what I have to get ahead of the pack.

    Thematically, I don't think the strength of the team should be cumulative. In real life, the team only climbs as well as the weakest climber. But ok, I see your point.

    I don't know how I feel about the whole "your route is easier to climb once you've already climbed it" effect. It works thematically, but just adds one more component, and one that could easily be moved unintentionally by players. If you want to have that effect, why not make all the routes the same color, and using ANY previously climber route is easier? This would permit a little more interaction, and could make the game a little cagey -- should I keep climbing, knowing that others can use my route more cheaply? Yes, because the bonuses for reaching the tiers are worth it. Yet, it would be a nice "catch the leader" ability if you can follow people up the mountain.

    Maybe the effect you're getting at more is one whereby if you want to add a member to your team you must start at your base camp, so retracing to your last point will be a little easier. Maybe that's enough of an effect all by itself.

    I don't like things in games like "player A determines what the weather will be". I accept that it has an interesting gameplay effect, but something always bothers me when players are allowed to do things that don't work thematically. It's probably just something I'd get over quickly...

    I also don't know if there's a need for the exploration phase to work via "draw and place". Since you already have more tiles than board spaces, why not just pre-tile the board with face-down tiles? That makes exploration fit a lot better thematically -- you don't get to "choose" what terrain is where in real life, you just have to deal with it. It would result in a little more luck and a little less interaction, and so maybe it would be bad. The thing that it would let you do that would be cool, though, is that now you could try to "climb without exploring" -- so, you can explore by revealing a tile in front of you and then subsequently climb, or you can try to climb onto a tile sight-unseen, with the risk being that you will lose something if your climb fails. (and it can't just be an action, or else it's much more valuable to try to "blind climb" than to explore)... No clue if something like this would work.

    You have some language about a climb "succeeding" or "failing". Since the value of the tile, weather, energy, and climb team strength are all known to you, why in the bloody blue blazes would you ever attempt a climb that would fail? Only if you screwed up the math, yet making a math mistake is not fair grounds to lose a turn, and is not interesting from a gameplay standpoint. Remove that language from the rules, it's really bad.

    It seems that a player who reaches the summit first is almost guaranteed the win, and that another player would have to win at least three of the other "legs" (of which there are only 4) to have even a moderate chance of winning. I think it's ok for it the game to reward the person who reachies the top first with the win, but I think right now, it's quite unlikely that anyone other than that person would ever win. Yet, on the other hand, if the summit were less lucrative, then you could get into the opposite situation where a player who wins two other tiers would be guaranteed the win, rendering the summit superfluous...

    All in all, I'd say that it sounds like a lot of fun. I'm concerned about a couple of things; perhaps there's a little too much complexity, but it's hard to say without playing. I think the game has good atmosphere, and interesting use of (to be a little blunt) fairly standard exploration game mechanics. You've borrowed a couple of things from Tikal here, but I think the "team strength" thing combined with the auction for climbers (which I think might be better as a "drafting" mechanic) and the draft for sponsors are very clever additions that I think take into account the "funding" aspect of exploration in a way that other games really haven't (except arguably lost cities, which is much more abstract). Great show! This is definitely a game I'd want to try out.

    -Jeff

    (Incidentally, the "cave exploration" game has made me want to try my hand at an exploration game as well, although mine will have a much broader scope. I'll let you know how it progresses, I'd be interested to compare notes with you and anyone else who's done the "exploration" thing once I'm a little further along...)

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Scurra wrote:

    Can I just say that your end condition(s) strike me as being absurdly wrong, since the whole point is that no-one did manage to climb Everest in 1930!

    Hey, George Mallory and Andrew Irvine might possibly have climbed it in 1924 before they died. Probably not, but it's still unknown. :)

    Quote:
    Seriously, I like the idea, and when I've had a proper chance to read the rules, I'll make some more comments. I see that the more obvious issues have been addressed by others (the Royal team, the Weather, Energy and so on.)

    Thanks, I appreciate it.

    Quote:
    There seem to be a lot of components for this game - not only a lot of terrain tiles but a stack load of other bits and pieces too. And not only is there a lot of open stuff (new terrain, sponsors, climbers etc), but players have to have a lot of things in front of them too. Combined with a board, I can see this requiring a lot of table space!

    Aye, as I noted in my first post the game definitely has too many components. Table space might be an issue, though it might not as the climber and sponsor cards are designed such that they stack and don't take up much room. Still, there are absolutely too many bits.

    Quote:
    The Sponsor stuff is cool, but seems to add a little too much book-keeping complexity for the sake of income differentials - nationalities, societies and so on. It's especially annoying when the card only applies once - I'm assuming that you take the card, calculate the money and that's it. I'm sure there must be a simpler way of doing that (can't think of one right now though ;))

    You're correct about taking the card and calculating the money once.

    There are two core reasons for the nationalities and such: flavor/atmosphere (which can probably be accomplished another way) and to vary the appeal of the various climber and sponsor cards so that there are meaningful decisions each round and a sense of some agony when the guy before you grabs a sponsor that would be so very nice for you. If I eliminate those features I'd want another way to create that tension.

    Quote:
    I like the Royal Climbing Team - it seems to be a neat pressure mechanic to force people onwards; without it I think players would indeed spend a lot of time faffing about at the foot of the mountain.

    There is the incentive of reaching the various "tiers" first, for the points. That may not be enough, though.

    Quote:
    I think your end conditions could still be collapsed into one, whereby the winning criteria is number of flags, regardless of how the game actually ended. Simply move the "Player Teams cannot climb any further" conditions into the main body of the rules, with a note saying that this ends the game automatically. Likewise, the Royal Climbing Team ending can be put in the Daily Update section.

    Good point. I put that "alternate" stuff in there because I hadn't yet decided how the game should end, but I think that the winner is the guy with the most points (no matter what) is the way to go.

    Quote:
    Feels interestingly deep but has perhaps a few too many mechanics (although with Weather and Energy removed, that issue may have been fixed.) Solid theme, and a wonderful board design (natch.) Good one.

    Thanks. I hope that by the end of the GDW I'll have a game I'd actually like to play. (The game as written in the rules was just a first pass at putting a few ideas together.)

    Thanks for the great input. I look forward to any other insights.

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    jwarrend wrote:
    Ok, I haven't read any of the other comments, so there may be some redundancy here...

    That's totally fine, I appreciate your time and effort. One of the toughest things about the GDW as I see it is that not only do you need to read the rules but I also feel a need to read (if you're slow like me) several pages of comments before posting your thoughts. It's probably better to just post what you get after reading the rules, I suspect, though it does leave the designer to answering the same questions multiple times. Still, more input is better than less, I think.

    Quote:
    First impressions: Visually spectacular. Clearly, game design is a great hobby for a graphic designer!

    Thanks for the kind words. The full prototype will be much more graphically appealling, I hope.

    Quote:
    I like the Royal Climbing team as a timing mechanism. You can't sit still and just boost your energy, or try to get more sponsors, you must climb. It doesn't add any complexity per se. I'd keep it in there. But I wouldn't make it an "all players lose" mechanic, rather, I'd just make it a game end mechanic whereby players compare the number of flags they have, but no one has the "mega flags" from the summit. I don't know if a "Republic of Rome" "all players lose" really fits here.

    I now agree, especially about the ending (as noted in a couple of replies above). I think it also works in the theme: climbing Everest was nearly impossible in 1930, so the fact that the players fail to reach the summit (even if it's just that they're not first) is pretty thematic, I think. In addition they not only make certain that game doesn't last forever but they allow me to create different starting points depending on the number of players (the more players the less you'll need to lay new tiles as others will have done it for you).

    Quote:
    There are WAY too many components. Is there some way you can reduce the number? Maybe not. My thinking was that rather than needing a separate type of tiles for each tier, you can just use the same stack of tiles, but just, following your math, add 4 to the tile for each tier you cross. Of course, people will forget to do that, and it's extra complexity, but it would streamline the components a bit. You have to decide for yourself which is more important.

    Aye, as noted in my initial post and in several replies, I couldn't agree more. Way too many bits. I'm working on a scheme to make the tiles multi-use, so that should help.

    Quote:
    I was a little concerned with the sponsor thing; it seemed like the expeditions should have been funded before starting, and that you're not looking for sponsors while you're "on the mountain". But I guess the idea with building base camps, etc, is that climbing the mountain is a long process and so adding team members, getting extra money, etc, can happen in the time scale of the climb. I guess it's ok thematically.

    Aye, it's not how you'd really climb, hence the false little story at the beginning that the Royal Team is already on its way up, so you're basically having to fund your expedition and hire climbers as you go.

    Quote:
    It just feels like you've tacked that on for the sake of having a resource management aspect to the game, but it only seems to come into play in terms of being able to win auctions.

    It also takes money to build camps. Early on I had a mechanic for buying equipment, too, but the game was already complex enough when I started writing up the rules.

    Quote:
    To that end, I don't really see the need for having climbers being from the same country as sponsors, etc. It adds an extra thing to think about when bidding -- do I want this guy, since he's from the same country as a sponsor I want to get?

    That's the idea, certainly.

    Quote:
    I can't see why you'd think along those lines when bidding. As such, it seems like it's just a luck of the draw thing whereby if a sponsor happens to come up and he's from the same country as your climber, you luckily get extra money for it. Although I guess other players could recognize that and try to deprive you of the bonus. I don't know, I think it's nice atmosphere but perhaps not essential to gameplay.

    As I noted in a couple of replies, I agree that it adds a layer of complexity that might be too much. I do need something that makes some climbers and sponsors more or less appealing, though, to make the decision of what to do each turn more interesting. Can you suggest anything else, or do you think the decisions are interesting enough already?

    Quote:
    I don't like the idea that "draft a climber" is an action that costs you your turn; what if you don't win the auction? You have wasted your turn. None of the other actions are like this.

    Excellent point, I hadn't thought of it that way. You still have last bid, but if you don't have the bucks you've wasted an action. Yet if you don't then you'll never get climbers. I could cause a heavy delay problem early on as players try to gather more money than others so that they'll be guaranteed to win their own auctions. Hmm.

    Quote:
    The auction should be a separate phase.

    I've worked to avoid phases so the game doesn't get too complex in the minds of the players, but the idea of it not burning your action is a good one, I agree.

    Quote:
    Either that, or make "draft a climber" similar to the Sponsor pool effect. It will still be a tough decision; do I strengthen my team, or try to keep going with what I have to get ahead of the pack.

    That could indeed be enough of a decision. I'll ponder that. One of the things that the auction mechanic adds (and it's the only place in the game where this is true) is it gives you something to do (sometimes) when it's not your turn. Since the advent of Puerto Rico I've realized how much more I like games that aren't just a bunch of downtime when it's not my turn. I realize that the auctions won't happen all the time, but there's a pretty good chance that there will be one or two between your turns. Do you (any of you) have any suggestions for another way to enjoyably keep players involved when it's not their turn?

    Quote:
    Thematically, I don't think the strength of the team should be cumulative. In real life, the team only climbs as well as the weakest climber. But ok, I see your point.

    Yeah, that's definitely not "realistic," but it's pretty key to gameplay. The other way to go that would be more realistic (though it would still be cumulative) would be having a fixed team size where you replace members rather than making your team bigger and bigger. That could have the effect of simulating "only as strong as your weakest climber."

    Quote:
    I don't know how I feel about the whole "your route is easier to climb once you've already climbed it" effect. It works thematically, but just adds one more component, and one that could easily be moved unintentionally by players. If you want to have that effect, why not make all the routes the same color, and using ANY previously climber route is easier? This would permit a little more interaction, and could make the game a little cagey -- should I keep climbing, knowing that others can use my route more cheaply? Yes, because the bonuses for reaching the tiers are worth it. Yet, it would be a nice "catch the leader" ability if you can follow people up the mountain.

    Very interesting. The only problem I see with it right now is the problem where people won't want to build the route piece that's just before a flag level because the next guy will be able to grab the flags. Perhaps if every level had points. Still, though, you may be doing too much to help others. Hmm. Strong possibilities there, I think.

    Quote:
    Maybe the effect you're getting at more is one whereby if you want to add a member to your team you must start at your base camp, so retracing to your last point will be a little easier. Maybe that's enough of an effect all by itself.

    I realize after reading your comment that I've used the word Base Camp incorrectly in the rules... most of the time I should have been referring to your Camps. The idea I'm going for is to allow you to add a member to your team at any Camp -- I'll assume he managed to follow your trail up to the Camp you want to add him at. I definitely don't want people climbing up and down the mountain over and over because the game will take too long. Perhaps moving up your own route is effectively a free action (so if you create a fork you can retrace and move back up again freely).

    Quote:
    I don't like things in games like "player A determines what the weather will be". I accept that it has an interesting gameplay effect, but something always bothers me when players are allowed to do things that don't work thematically. It's probably just something I'd get over quickly...

    Yeah, it definitely breaks the theme. Hey, early on you were auctioning terrain instead of climbers. :)

    I'd still like to do some kind of weather thing where you influence how easy it is for everyone to climb that day. I guess I could make it completely random. Hmm.

    Quote:
    I also don't know if there's a need for the exploration phase to work via "draw and place". Since you already have more tiles than board spaces, why not just pre-tile the board with face-down tiles? That makes exploration fit a lot better thematically -- you don't get to "choose" what terrain is where in real life, you just have to deal with it.

    Yeah, definitely unrealistic. :(

    Quote:
    It would result in a little more luck and a little less interaction, and so maybe it would be bad.

    Yeah, that's definitely the problem with it. All of the "burn your neighbor" stuff would be gone.

    Quote:
    The thing that it would let you do that would be cool, though, is that now you could try to "climb without exploring" -- so, you can explore by revealing a tile in front of you and then subsequently climb, or you can try to climb onto a tile sight-unseen, with the risk being that you will lose something if your climb fails. (and it can't just be an action, or else it's much more valuable to try to "blind climb" than to explore)... No clue if something like this would work.

    Ooh, very nice, I like that. The price of a failed climb could be the death of one of your climbers (your choice, probably). I wanted to simulate climbers dying (since tons did on Everest), but I didn't have a good mechanic for it. I like this very much... I just need something to replace the "slow the leader" mechanic.

    Quote:
    You have some language about a climb "succeeding" or "failing". Since the value of the tile, weather, energy, and climb team strength are all known to you, why in the bloody blue blazes would you ever attempt a climb that would fail? Only if you screwed up the math, yet making a math mistake is not fair grounds to lose a turn, and is not interesting from a gameplay standpoint. Remove that language from the rules, it's really bad.

    Yeah, it really was just punishment for people with bad math skills, as I noted in earlier replies. I think the failure based on lack of exploring that you suggested above could be the solution to the whole thing.

    Quote:
    It seems that a player who reaches the summit first is almost guaranteed the win, and that another player would have to win at least three of the other "legs" (of which there are only 4) to have even a moderate chance of winning. I think it's ok for it the game to reward the person who reachies the top first with the win, but I think right now, it's quite unlikely that anyone other than that person would ever win. Yet, on the other hand, if the summit were less lucrative, then you could get into the opposite situation where a player who wins two other tiers would be guaranteed the win, rendering the summit superfluous...

    Yeah, this is one of the things I dislike the most. There are a couple of suggestions above (including second-place points as suggested by Seth) that might do the trick. The problem comes down to this: I want reaching the summit to be a key prize, something very important and the major goal of the game. But I don't want it to be the only way to win (as noted in an earlier reply) because there's no chance at all to come back from behind otherwise... the existing mechanic doesn't really help that too much. Part of the problem is that the number of flags currently in place were really just pulled out of my butt: I knew they'd need a lot of tuning.

    Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

    Quote:
    All in all, I'd say that it sounds like a lot of fun. I'm concerned about a couple of things; perhaps there's a little too much complexity, but it's hard to say without playing.

    I certainly think it's too complex. A big part of my hope for this GDW is to strip out the unnecessary stuff while strengthening the good stuff.

    Quote:
    I think the game has good atmosphere, and interesting use of (to be a little blunt) fairly standard exploration game mechanics.

    What do you see it as being similar to, out of curiousity?

    Quote:
    You've borrowed a couple of things from Tikal here,

    Ooh, very interesting. What do you see as being borrowed from Tikal? This is something that really interests me, as I can rarely see where I'm getting my influences from.

    Quote:
    but I think the "team strength" thing combined with the auction for climbers (which I think might be better as a "drafting" mechanic) and the draft for sponsors are very clever additions that I think take into account the "funding" aspect of exploration in a way that other games really haven't (except arguably lost cities, which is much more abstract).

    Thanks, I hoped that those would add a bit of a twist to the exploration theme.

    Quote:
    Great show! This is definitely a game I'd want to try out.

    Thanks again. I look forward to further comments when I put out the next version. With your comments and those of others above the real game is beginning to come out, I think. Things are beginning to gel in the back of my mind as a result of all of your great suggestions.

    Quote:
    (Incidentally, the "cave exploration" game has made me want to try my hand at an exploration game as well, although mine will have a much broader scope. I'll let you know how it progresses, I'd be interested to compare notes with you and anyone else who's done the "exploration" thing once I'm a little further along...)

    Absolutely, sounds like fun. One note from me: I didn't plan to make this an exploration game, but rather an adventure game (where climbing and dying and such were the focus)... it just kinda turned into an exploration game. :)

    Thanks again, very much.

    jwarrend
    Offline
    Joined: 08/03/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:

    As I noted in a couple of replies, I agree that it adds a layer of complexity that might be too much. I do need something that makes some climbers and sponsors more or less appealing, though, to make the decision of what to do each turn more interesting. Can you suggest anything else, or do you think the decisions are interesting enough already?

    Here's an idea that is cute. Sponsors only have the "flag" property. When you draft a sponsor card, you get the value, plus a bonus of X gold for each climber from the same country. AND, other players with climbers from that country get Y Gold, perhaps for the duration of the turn.

    So, if both the Sponsor and Climber mechanics were "draft" mechanics (like Sponsor currently is), there could be some decision making that could be kind of interesting. Also could add some interactivity -- do I get the Swedish sponsor, knowing that Jim will get a little bonus for his Swedish climber?

    Quote:
    I don't like the idea that "draft a climber" is an action that costs you your turn; what if you don't win the auction? You have wasted your turn. None of the other actions are like this.

    Excellent point, I hadn't thought of it that way. You still have last bid, but if you don't have the bucks you've wasted an action. Yet if you don't then you'll never get climbers. I could cause a heavy delay problem early on as players try to gather more money than others so that they'll be guaranteed to win their own auctions. Hmm.

    Quote:

    Quote:
    Either that, or make "draft a climber" similar to the Sponsor pool effect. It will still be a tough decision; do I strengthen my team, or try to keep going with what I have to get ahead of the pack.

    That could indeed be enough of a decision. I'll ponder that. One of the things that the auction mechanic adds (and it's the only place in the game where this is true) is it gives you something to do (sometimes) when it's not your turn. Since the advent of Puerto Rico I've realized how much more I like games that aren't just a bunch of downtime when it's not my turn. I realize that the auctions won't happen all the time, but there's a pretty good chance that there will be one or two between your turns. Do you (any of you) have any suggestions for another way to enjoyably keep players involved when it's not their turn?

    See my Archaeology Game for my standard solution: Most of my games use a "phased" turn structure during which each player takes one short, specific action. In that game, it's "commission an expedition" or "place a bid". As long as player's turns are short, you don't have to worry about downtime. I think that with each player taking 2 actions per turn, your game won't likely have too much downtime, so I wouldn't add an auction mechanic just for the sake of getting players involved in each others' turns. If you want a way for players to have an influence during others' turns, perhaps my modification to the Sponsor system would help with that.

    I don't think it's bad to not have to take an action during someone else's turn. Especially in this game. You'll want some time to plan and to absorb what changes have been made to the board.

    Quote:

    I'd still like to do some kind of weather thing where you influence how easy it is for everyone to climb that day. I guess I could make it completely random. Hmm.

    In real life it is. Why does giving that power to the start player necessarily make the game more strategic? If anything, it seems to give a huge power to the start player...

    Quote:

    Quote:
    I also don't know if there's a need for the exploration phase to work via "draw and place". Since you already have more tiles than board spaces, why not just pre-tile the board with face-down tiles? That makes exploration fit a lot better thematically -- you don't get to "choose" what terrain is where in real life, you just have to deal with it.

    Yeah, definitely unrealistic. :(

    Quote:
    It would result in a little more luck and a little less interaction, and so maybe it would be bad.

    Yeah, that's definitely the problem with it. All of the "burn your neighbor" stuff would be gone.

    But if your neighbor is at the top of the mountain and you're at Tier 2, you can't explore the top in real life! I think this is a major problem for me. Why don't you set a limit to how far away you can place the tile? A maximum distance of 2 spaces away from your climbers perhaps? That won't let you do much to screw people over in the beginning, but as the board gets narrower at the top, you have more of a chance of interacting.

    It would also force you to stay pretty close to the leader to be able to put the whammy on him when he gets too close. Otherwise, you could just sit at the bottom, collect gold, build an awesome ice team, say, and then when you draw a tough ice tile, put it in the leader's path, and then run like crazy to cross that tile first.

    Or can you do that? Can you only draw a tile for the tier that you're in? Or can you draw any tile? I'm confused now...

    Quote:

    Ooh, very nice, I like that. The price of a failed climb could be the death of one of your climbers (your choice, probably). I wanted to simulate climbers dying (since tons did on Everest), but I didn't have a good mechanic for it. I like this very much... I just need something to replace the "slow the leader" mechanic.

    Not if you have a good catch the leader mechanic. Don't rule such a thing out, it may be far more satisfying in a game because a "hit the leader" mechanic can be very unsatisfying if you're the leader who's being ganged up on, whereas a "catch the leader" mechanic still makes it every man for himself.

    I'll have more thoughts on some of your other remarks later today or tomorrow...

    -Jeff

    Scurra
    Scurra's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 09/11/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:
    Scurra wrote:

    Can I just say that your end condition(s) strike me as being absurdly wrong, since the whole point is that no-one did manage to climb Everest in 1930!

    Hey, George Mallory and Andrew Irvine might possibly have climbed it in 1924 before they died. Probably not, but it's still unknown. :)

    OK, so I did know that (which is partly why I bracketed my comment as being facetious. I suppose the real trick is getting back down again :) (something which I imagine will be discussed with regards to the cave game too...)

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    jwarrend wrote:
    Here's an idea that is cute. Sponsors only have the "flag" property. When you draft a sponsor card, you get the value, plus a bonus of X gold for each climber from the same country. AND, other players with climbers from that country get Y Gold, perhaps for the duration of the turn.

    So, if both the Sponsor and Climber mechanics were "draft" mechanics (like Sponsor currently is), there could be some decision making that could be kind of interesting. Also could add some interactivity -- do I get the Swedish sponsor, knowing that Jim will get a little bonus for his Swedish climber?
    I like the idea from a mechanic standpoint, though it doesn't make too much sense from a "realism" standpoint.

    Quote:
    See my Archaeology Game for my standard solution: Most of my games use a "phased" turn structure during which each player takes one short, specific action. In that game, it's "commission an expedition" or "place a bid". As long as player's turns are short, you don't have to worry about downtime. I think that with each player taking 2 actions per turn, your game won't likely have too much downtime, so I wouldn't add an auction mechanic just for the sake of getting players involved in each others' turns. If you want a way for players to have an influence during others' turns, perhaps my modification to the Sponsor system would help with that.

    I agree that phases are great for that. The only downside with phases that I see are that there's a certain amount of "delay" time that occurs whenever you switch from one player to another and whenever you switch from one phase to the next (as players say things like "your turn" and "It's Phase 3 now, right?"). That's just fine in a game where there are, say, 10 rounds or so. When you have something like 20 rounds (which I need with the mountain I've got), I think phases will add too much time. As you noted, if each player's turn is quick then it's cool as is.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    I'd still like to do some kind of weather thing where you influence how easy it is for everyone to climb that day. I guess I could make it completely random. Hmm.

    In real life it is. Why does giving that power to the start player necessarily make the game more strategic? If anything, it seems to give a huge power to the start player...

    The only reason I had (as noted in a reply above) is that the first player has a bit of disadvantage so I was looking to give him an advantage. He does get first pick of 3 new sponsor and 3 new climbers, so that should be enough.

    Quote:
    But if your neighbor is at the top of the mountain and you're at Tier 2, you can't explore the top in real life! I think this is a major problem for me. Why don't you set a limit to how far away you can place the tile? A maximum distance of 2 spaces away from your climbers perhaps? That won't let you do much to screw people over in the beginning, but as the board gets narrower at the top, you have more of a chance of interacting.

    I may do that. I want to keep the rule really simple, so I'll have to think of a good way to phrase it.

    Quote:
    It would also force you to stay pretty close to the leader to be able to put the whammy on him when he gets too close. Otherwise, you could just sit at the bottom, collect gold, build an awesome ice team, say, and then when you draw a tough ice tile, put it in the leader's path, and then run like crazy to cross that tile first.

    Or can you do that? Can you only draw a tile for the tier that you're in? Or can you draw any tile? I'm confused now...
    Everyone's drawing from the same pool. As such as the topmost player reaches a new tier everyone has harder tiles to use. That mechanic was also designed to get people moving up the mountain.

    Quote:
    Quote:
    Ooh, very nice, I like that. The price of a failed climb could be the death of one of your climbers (your choice, probably). I wanted to simulate climbers dying (since tons did on Everest), but I didn't have a good mechanic for it. I like this very much... I just need something to replace the "slow the leader" mechanic.

    Not if you have a good catch the leader mechanic. Don't rule such a thing out, it may be far more satisfying in a game because a "hit the leader" mechanic can be very unsatisfying if you're the leader who's being ganged up on, whereas a "catch the leader" mechanic still makes it every man for himself.

    I don't disagree. I just have no such mechanism now.

    Quote:
    I'll have more thoughts on some of your other remarks later today or tomorrow...

    Great, thanks again.

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Wow... this is long

    Ok, here goes... I'm going to put forth a couple of ideas. Some of them may be useful, some may not. Some are suggestions to change part of the game- those are intended to streamline or simplify- and others might just be for asthetics or theme. Do with these comments as you see fit.

    Royal Climbing Team: I was in favor of ditching it originally, but I think it grew on me. I particularly liked how you were talking about making the game such that the RCT will most often win the 'race' and therefore points for "good climbing" will win the game. In the case of the a player reaching the summit, just give them a huge bonus (such that reaching the summit means 99.99% chance you win the game because you'll have the most points- or MAYBE even only 90% or so, so the POSSIBILITY of winning otherwise exists, but only if you outplay everyone else). More on Scoring later...

    Scoring: Rather than scoring for flags or reaching a certain point on the mountain (though that does sort of make sense), how about scoring for being the first to climb any particular tile. This is how it could work. It goes along with someone's suggestion that you have random tile placement, using 1 stack of tiles, and add to difficulty based on how far you are from the base):

    Climb Action, Unexplored Terrain: Choose a facedown tile and place it in the Mountain space you wish to move to. If the tiles are already laid out- a waste of startup time if you ask me- then you just flip it over. this is the space you are currently trying to climb through. You add the number on the tile, some number based on weather (more on Weather later), some number based on distance from base of mountain, and that's the Difficulty of the climb. To see if you succeed, take the ability of each climber in that suit (the type of tile we're talking about- Rock, Ice, etc) - which might be negative or zero (more on Climbers later). Add the abilities, any bonus from Gadgets (things you could buy at a camp or at the beginning of the game, like Crampons which give you a bonus on Ice tiles. More on Gadgets later), any Energy you spend, and any other factors that apply. This is your Competence for climbing in that suit. If your Competence is greater than (or equal to?) the Difficulty then you succeed in climbing- move your Climber onto that tile. If not, you fail and your Climber stays on it's current tile. If you fail by a certain amount (or at all if you like) then you lose a climber. Discard the climber with the lowest ability in that suit.

      Possible Scoring for Climbing: * Succeeding in a climb earns you points equal to the amount by which your Competence exceeds the Difficulty.
      * Succeeding in a climb earns you a number of points equal to the level of the Terrain tile (printed on tile- same number as used for Difficulty).
      * Succeeding in a climb earns you a number of points equal to the tier you are currently climbing on (which should equal the distance from the base).

    Climb Action, Explored Terrain: You may use a Climb Action to move to an already face up terrain tile as long as your Competence is greater than the Difficulty (as described above). You score no points for climbing Explored Terrain.

    Climbers: I like how it sounds like you've set them up, with abilities in each suit and a nationality and perhaps an ability. I strongly agree with the comments on the Auction. It doesn't fit at all, and it's not equitable, and it basically sucks for the game. If player A wants to spend time and effort recruiting, then let him- but why should player B benefit? I think this means I agree with whoever said "make it like the Sponsers" which I believe is that you use an action to draw one of the three face up Climbers (then replace him, or maybe discard the other two and draw three new ones to choose from.) and then you get that climber on your team (tho he's inactive until you visit a base). I think it's important to note that the abilities in each suit could be both good and bad, like there could be a good Ice climber that sucks on rock (high Ice, negative Rock ability score).

    Camps: Rather than going back to camps (which I guess you could do, but I think the game could probably focus on forward movement mostly), why not just have the new climbers join your active team when you BUILD a new camp? Like you have to set camp and wait for them to catch up. I guess that's the same thing really, as people who could build a camp would probably do so rather than run back to get guys, and that option should still be open in case you run out of camps... I'm babbling now.

    Getting Crazy with Camps: You COULD set a limit on the number of Climbers in your "party," such that if you want a certain three guys, you have to leave the other two behind at a camp. This would be tricky and a little complicated (you could have game pieces for each climber and leave them at the camp tile) but would be somewhat interesting. I think it's a waste of effort though because it introduces problems along with all the neat decisions. I wouldn't do it, but it might be a neat idea for another game (I'll try and keep it in mind for the "Role Playing" stuff I've mentioned in other threads)

    Routes: I don't see why it's necessary to keep track of who's route is whose- especially if you take my suggestions re: Climb Action. You can get rid of the route tokens alltogether, and if you want to climb you just have to make sure you have the competence to do it.

    Weather: (You thought I forgot, didn't you?) Take a hint from Evo and have the weather move randomly but sort of expectedly during each Daily Report. Roll a die, or draw a card from a shuffled deck of "Up 1" or "Down 2" cards to see how the weather is changing. That will be in effect the whole round. The benefit of the cards is that it's not dice (which you don't like), and you can add flavor: "Snowstorm: Increment Weather Counter by 2. [Picture of a climber head down in the wind with snow falling everywhere] It was going well 'til that snow storm hit..." or "Sunshine: Decrease Weather Counter by 1. [Picture of the sun starting to penetrate through dark clouds] I think we're through the worst of it!"

    [EDIT: The Weather cards could simply have the number ON them, and do away with the weather counter alltogether- this means there could be bigger swings in the weather, but it's probably fair since it affect evereyone.]

    Gadgets: the one thing I think you should add (if you follow the other suggestions above) is Gadgets. These are things players can buy- either at the beginning of the game or maybe at camps which confer a bonus in a particular Terrain. If you want to get really intricate, add the number of Gadgets carried to the Difficulty of a climb. Now you have to balance that bonus 3 points (for example) on Ice the Crampons will get you with the 1 point penalty to everything that comes with it. Maybe a Repelling Set won't give a bonus, but will allow you to keep your climber rather than lose one when you fail a climb [EDIT: this could have a drawback like "counts as one item per climber in party" so that it makes climbs significantly harder, but hey- at least noone dies!]. A pack of Powerbars could act as an extra Energy counter.

    [EDIT: There could be a facedown deck of Gadgets where you turn up the top three- like Sponsers and Climbers- which would fit the theme, and you could just make it another action rather than only at a camp... might work out that way.]

    I think allowing these items for purchase as an action that's only available at a camp would add to the flaver and also the scoring mechanism described above. Yes, it means more peices, but in this case I think it addsmore than it subtracts. Besides, we're doing away with route tokens, board clutter (I still recommend the 1-line energy track rather than 1 per player or having lots of Energy Counters), extra tile piles... looks like the game will consist of a few tokens (Camps, Climber, Energy tokens in each color, 1 Weather token, Climber cards, Sponser cards, maybe Gadget cards, and Gold Bars. Oh, and a way to keep score, which could be a paper and pencil, or a scoring track, or VP chits.

    Ok, I think that's all for now. Hopefully some of that will help.

    - Seth

    [/]
    hpox
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Re: Wow... this is long

    Wow, thoses are great ideas sedj! For the scoring you propose, that would imply FL changes the difficulty on the tiles right ? Because now it's always just a difference of 2 between the tough and easy one (a greater spectrum would be nice). It's a bit more random but not that much, so I would call it unpredictable which is what it is (theme++).

    My first idea was to link the Weather and Royal team to keep the game close and tense (between the royal team and players that is) by making it easier to catch up the team when they are ahead and harder when they are behing. However, I find this card mechanic, easy and elegant. Also, to incorporate the "flavor" some climbers could have a special ability to negate the weather difficult for x type of weather.

    sedjtroll wrote:
    The benefit of the cards is that it's not dice (which you don't like), and you can add flavor: "Snowstorm: Increment Weather Counter by 2. [Picture of a climber head down in the wind with snow falling everywhere] It was going well 'til that snow storm hit..." or "Sunshine: Decrease Weather Counter by 1. [Picture of the sun starting to penetrate through dark clouds] I think we're through the worst of it!"

    [EDIT: The Weather cards could simply have the number ON them, and do away with the weather counter alltogether- this means there could be bigger swings in the weather, but it's probably fair since it affect evereyone.]

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Re: Wow... this is long

    hpox wrote:
    Wow, thoses are great ideas sedj!

    Why, thanks!

    Quote:
    For the scoring you propose, that would imply FL changes the difficulty on the tiles right ?

    Well, yes. But that was already suggested as a way to have only 1 set of tiles.

    Quote:
    ...I find this card mechanic easy and elegant. Also to incorporate the "flavor" some climbers could have a special ability to negate the weather difficult for x type of weather.

    That certainly sounds reasonable. Like "If Drill Sargent Murphy is in your party, subtract 1 from weather. It's a hard knock life... get used to it!"

    - Seth

    FastLearner
    Offline
    Joined: 12/31/1969
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    Detailed response later (thanks to both of you for your most recent input), but I want to pose a question.

    I'm still not quite convinced the auction for climbers should go away. How about this: Imagine that you're recruiting a climber. You pick a guy but as he arrives at the mountain there are all these teams trying to climb. The other teams try to lure him away. If they succeed then the team has to pay the guy who initially hired him, you.

    In game terms you pick a guy and put him up for auction. If someone besides you wins then you get the money. Either way you're ahead. Thoughts?

    sedjtroll
    sedjtroll's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 07/21/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:

    I'm still not quite convinced the auction for climbers should go away. How about this: Imagine that you're recruiting a climber. You pick a guy but as he arrives at the mountain there are all these teams trying to climb. The other teams try to lure him away. If they succeed then the team has to pay the guy who initially hired him, you.

    In game terms you pick a guy and put him up for auction. If someone besides you wins then you get the money. Either way you're ahead. Thoughts?

    Frankly, I don't like it. It's not AS BAD as losing your action alltogetehr, but still- if yuo need a climber then you need a climber- not money.

    Once you recruit someone, there's a point at which they commit to your team. Theoretically (and hopefully) you come to that commitment before they get to the mountain so they can't entertain better offers.

    OR, I guess you could like, bribe other people's climbers to come climb for your team. But that would get silly fast.

    I think it's best for the game to keep it uniform. The only question should be do you leave the other two up, or do you cycle through them (so recruiting one guy effectively removes another)?

    Note that this matching the SPonser mechanic is an underrated but very good thing. When your mechanics all work the same way people understand the game better and it feels less disjointed.

    - Seth

    jwarrend
    Offline
    Joined: 08/03/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:
    jwarrend wrote:

    So, if both the Sponsor and Climber mechanics were "draft" mechanics (like Sponsor currently is), there could be some decision making that could be kind of interesting. Also could add some interactivity -- do I get the Swedish sponsor, knowing that Jim will get a little bonus for his Swedish climber?

    I like the idea from a mechanic standpoint, though it doesn't make too much sense from a "realism" standpoint.

    Sure it does; the Swedes will fund your expedition, but if they find that their fellow countrymen are also climbing the mountain, they'll help them out as well.

    Quote:
    Everyone's drawing from the same pool. As such as the topmost player reaches a new tier everyone has harder tiles to use. That mechanic was also designed to get people moving up the mountain.

    This I don't like at all; this will almost certainly give you a runaway leader problem, and you'll definitely need a "hit the leader" mechanic. It not only doesn't work thematically (why do the lower tiers get tougher to climb just because one player has reached a higher level?), but give a double blessing to the person who reaches the next tier first -- not only does he get flags for VP, but he also had an easier time getting to that tier relative to everyone else. A really disastrous mechanic, in my opinion. If you want everyone drawing from the same pool, there are better ways than this...

    (Accidentally edited by FastLearner (instead of quoted). I managed to put it back to 99% of its original state. Bad design to have the Quote and Edit buttons right next to each other. :))

    jwarrend
    Offline
    Joined: 08/03/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    FastLearner wrote:

    Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

    This isn't two ways to win, it's just two ways that the game could end, in which case, the winner is evaluated differently depending on the way the game ends. That's fine, but it's not "this OR that", I don't think. "Two ways to win" would be something like "You get X VP for each Tier, you get Y VP for each sponsor, player with most VPs wins". There you can choose different ways to get VP, thus, multiple paths to victory. In your game, you only get VP by climbing, and being the first to reach the goals is the only way to do it. It's not like you would climb really fast to the top of Tier 4, then try to throw rocks down at everyone so they couldn't reach the summit and win before the RCT reaches the top and ends the game...

    [

    Quote:
    I think the game has good atmosphere, and interesting use of (to be a little blunt) fairly standard exploration game mechanics.

    What do you see it as being similar to, out of curiousity?

    The big "exploration games" are Tikal and Goldland. I definitely recommend checking the rulebooks out on bgg to see how those work.

    The things that leap out at me as being similar to these games are: players reveal tiles, then place them. Players can build "camps" that let them insert their pieces "further along" in the board. Some tiles are more difficult to cross than others. Some equipment (team members) make it easier to cross certain types of terrain. There is a "big goal" at the end that you're trying to reach, but you can win the game just by having hit certain "check points" along the way. Players can choose one of a limited number of actions each turn. There are others, I think, but you get the idea. I think some of these similarities are fairly overt, but again, because of the innovations with the funding system, and because the board is rotated 90 degrees (thus, it's "vertical" rather than "plan view"), I do think you have something different and original here. And I do think your game sounds fun in its own right!

    But what I would do, were I inventing an exploration game (which I am), is read the rules of every other exploration game, and make sure that the mechanics that occured to me as a great way to evoke the theme, haven't occured to other people as well...or perhaps this is part of your process anyway...

    -Jeff

    Scurra
    Scurra's picture
    Offline
    Joined: 09/11/2008
    Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

    (note: there is a game comment at the end of this post, so you can skip the top part if you don't want to read it :))

    jwarrend wrote:

    The things that leap out at me as being similar to these games are: (similarities snipped.) There are others, I think, but you get the idea.
    I think some of these similarities are fairly overt, but again, because of the innovations with the funding system, and because the board is rotated 90 degrees (thus, it's "vertical" rather than "plan view"), I do think you have something different and original here.

    There is only so much you can bring to any game system really.
    If you look at the designs we've had pitched for the GDW so far: a combat game (Kevin); a tile-bluffing game (mine); an auction game (yours, Jeff); a card-placement game (Seth's 8/7c) and an exploration game (this one.) They've all had elements of resource management because I think that you can't avoid that, but I think they all brought something different along with them - which has to be a good thing.

    jwarrend wrote:

    But what I would do, were I inventing an exploration game (which I am), is read the rules of every other exploration game, and make sure that the mechanics that occured to me as a great way to evoke the theme, haven't occured to other people as well...or perhaps this is part of your process anyway...

    I think I have to disagree with you here. A lot of writers say that they find it hard to read other people's work for fear of "subliminal contanimation". Not for fear of direct plagiarism, but simply of unintentional imitation. Now obviously this is even more so in games design since on the whole we are players as well, and it is inevitable that we bring other mechanics to the table when we sit down to design something. But the big difference with writing is that reusing mechanics in games isn't a bad thing. There's a reason why exploration games largely involve face-down tiles that are turned over during play - because it's the best way to evoke the experience! Sometimes it's done well, sometimes badly. The key seems to me to be how enjoyable the exploration actually is, or, sometimes, how innovative the tile revealing mechanic turns out to be (one of the reasons I dislike Tikal, actually, but that's a different story :))

    In FLs game, I suspect that the whole tile laying system could be drastically simplified in favour of more emphasis on the climbers, but that would probably remove too much of the exploration experience.

    Sorry about a post that isn't directly related to the game, but the meta-game aspects of design are often worth discussing too...

    So, as a contribution to the game discussion, can I suggest that the "Climber" and "Sponsor" actions are both drafts but you can't choose both on the same turn? That ought to meet the criteria that you were after of giving the player an agonising choice but often making it obvious what they need to do, thus reducing turn times.

    Syndicate content


    forum | by Dr. Radut