Skip to Content
 

Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

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

My submission for the GDW is called The Hunting of the Snark, and is inspired by the Lewis Carroll poem of the same name. You can find a complete version of the poem here, although it lacks the original Tenniel illustrations:
http://www.literature.org/authors/carroll-lewis/the-hunting-of-the-snark/

The game files are included below. All files are in PDF format.

The rulebook: http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/Snark_Manual.pdf
The cards: http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/Snark_Cards.pdf
The hex tiles: http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/snark_hexes.pdf
Finally, the hex board (in two pieces): http://www.geocities.com/k_lanzing/Snark_Hex_Board.pdf

So why did I choose this poem as my theme? I am something of a Carroll aficionado, and the idea of hunting a mysterious beast across a desolate island seemed eminently gameable. Even better, the prey is actually the predator for most of the game.

Actually, this game is built on the foundations of a much earlier work. That game (which I shall simply call "Lost!" from now on) involved chasing down a confused Dr. Livingstone across the Africa heartland and rescuing him. The only antagonists were the players (who obviously competed for the same goal) and random encounters. Trouble was, very often Dr. Livingstone walked right to another player, who promptly rescued him and ended the game - before anyone could even respond! This was, of course, a broken mechanic.

Hopefully this game works a little better. The element of player-vs-player combat (for control of the board and key items) was something I toyed with earlier. I'm keeping it out of this game because I don't think it fits the theme. Another departure from Lost! is the endgame, where Dr. Livingstone is found and accompanies his rescuer - until a hazardous encounter with a player or game hazard causes him to become separated again. The trick is not just to catch up with Dr. Livingstone but to stay one step ahead of your pursuers - so that you and no one else gets the glory of rescuing the good Doctor. Again, this is an interesting concept that simply doesn't fit the theme very well - not to mention that each player needs a ship (or "home base") for it to work. In The Hunting of the Snark, there is only one ship.

Why do you need to know all this? I think it might help if you understood my thought process inventing this game. Right now the gameplay feels a bit shallow and unsatisfying. More player interaction is key, whether it is of the competitive or cooperative variety. Problem is, I don't know how I could make this game cooperative and I'm not sure how I could make it more competitive (aside from player-vs-player combat). Any thoughts on the matter are appreciated!

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

What I tell you three times is true.
And my apologies in advance for this.

"I've got an idea", Deviant said
As he picked up his cards and his dice.
"We'll go hunting a Snark", his posting read
A subject I had to read twice.

"A Snark?" was my thought - "what sort of a fool
Would think such a ludicrous theme
could work in a game - no matter how cool
the mechanics? It must be a dream..."

So I clicked on the files, the cards and the tiles;
I downloaded the rules and the board.
I printed them out on what still looks like miles
of paper to get my reward.

"It's a race game", I said- with hexes to play
on your travels through places unknown.
The pathways entangle around 'til the way
from the ship to... wherever is shown.

But random encounters may spoil your fun
As unless you have cards that agree,
You may find yourself trapped or forced on the run
by a tile-draw you could not foresee.

And it's usually right to feature some dice
in a light game as this seeks to be.
Did I mention the dice - I have mentioned them twice!
'cause they feel too restrictive to me.

The movement mechanic is clever and nice -
the players must think (not too long!)
But missing a turn to reroll "dead" dice
Just feels arbitrarily wrong.

Perhaps a free roll could be offered each turn
If a die showed a one or a two -
Or maybe a tool could allow you to "burn"
a die roll that just didn't suit you?

I've waffled too long without much of a clue
On a game that I'm happy to say
could well be good fun - and is no way a "Boo-"...
but I seem to have vanished away.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

First ... to Scurra: {stands and applauds} ;)

Now ... to Deviant:

I really like the theme that you chose. I'm overly entertained by Jabberwocky, so seeing one of Carroll's other odd poems used for a game gave me a big smile. :D

Now ... onto some of the details that I noticed (some of these are simple typo's):

  • You don't mention Hex Tiles in your list of components ... but, once you read the rules, it's pretty obvious that they're there and what they're for.
  • About midway through the "Moving the Snark" section, you have this sentence: The Snark can enter unexplored spaces and closs tiles not joined by a trail. I assume that "closs" is a typo in place of "cross".
  • In the "Attack" section ... Am I right in understanding that you don't actually add in the value of an action die that is used to sponsor a weapon? If so, does this mean that I'd always rather simply use a 4, 5 or 6 die as "fists" instead of using it to sponsor a "Smiles and Soap"?
  • I'm confused by the "Mustard and Cress" card ...
  • Looking at the "Grab Bag" card ... what's the Grab Bag? It's not mentioned anywhere in the rules -- only on this card.
In response to Scurra's finding the action die mechanic a bit too restrictive ... I'd slightly disagree -- it would seem that being able to rest would help you get rid of low numbered dice. However, I'm wondering if only being able to re-roll a single die is strong enough for a "rest" action ... how about re-rolling the die until it's a bigger number than you started with ... or re-rolling up to 2 dice?

I'm also wondering if you'd want to have some tools that only work for lower-numbered dice.

It looks to me that the tension of getting close enough to the Snark in order to attack it, but possibly having it attack you first will play out well.

Nice work so far -- "O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"

-Bryk

[/]
Hamumu
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Hey, I like it! The action dice mechanic is not one I've seen and is very interesting (yes, I'm not well versed in gameology, and I'm sure it's in dozens of games). It might be nice to have a tool or two that let you reroll dice without resting, but ah, I see you don't discard tools you use, do you? That wouldn't be so good then. I think it works well as is - you have a random amount of energy, and when it runs out, your odds of getting a good amount back are quite high, with an 88% chance that at least one of your dice will be 4-6 if I calculated that right, and you reroll all 3.

It seems to be a very luck-based game, but there's nothing wrong with that. I think you might want to sit down and write up everything about it that you think is an element of skill and see if you can play that up somehow. Offhand, I can't really think of any skill element other than deciding when to attack the Snark (which again is partly luck, depending on how it moves), which is pretty trivial, and the actual outcome will be mostly luck. Maybe there could be some strategic concerns somehow... the Snark is weaker depending on how many people have it surrounded (are in neighboring tiles), or something. Of course that's still something that just comes down to the one specific fight.

What about the ability to attack other players - Imagine if you not only can't stay in the same place as another player, but you can't pass THROUGH another player's space... without beating them in a fight. Fight rules kind of like the snark fight (assign weapons, compare rolls). If the attacker wins, he trades places with the defender and gets to steal one card from him. If the defender wins, he steals a card from the attacker. This adds some strategy in that you can try to block other players from parts of the map, if you are strong enough. Or you can just plain try to get your hands on some of their goodies.

I think a definite improvement would be having to haul the unconscious snark back to the ship, with fear of other players attacking to take it from you. Sort of a second phase to the game where the snark changes hands and people try to get it back (or perhaps it could wake up at any moment!? Aiyeee!). Better still, once beaten, it's knocked out for, say 3 turns. The other players need to try to delay the player that caught him until it wakes up, at which point he'll get boojumed and the snark is loose again for them to capture (possibly also with the snark-stealing from above too, almost like a game of Hot Potato - you want to be the one with the snark when you get to the ship, but you don't want to be holding it when it wakes up).

The Grab Bag is the grab bag card - that is, you give the victim of your theft the Grab Bag card in compensation for taking his item (the reason he can't just rob you back is that it requires a 6 to use). I got that part!

If I had the energy, I'd prototype and play this game with my wife, it seems like it would be good simple fun.

EDIT: Oh, I too am confused by Mustard & Cress. Does it up you to having 4 action dice? I think it needs clarification. "Roll into play"?

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Hamumu wrote:
The Grab Bag is the grab bag card - that is, you give the victim of your theft the Grab Bag card in compensation for taking his item (the reason he can't just rob you back is that it requires a 6 to use). I got that part!

Whoops -- that makes sense ... thanks for clearing my skies, Mike. ;)

-Bryk

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Yay, feedback! Don't you people ever sleep?

Scurra: Wow, just...wow. How long did it take you to compose that message?

Okay, on to specific concerns:

RESTING TOO RESTRICTIVE: As you may have noticed, all actions (other than weapons) cost 4 or more. Dice of value 1-3 are "dead", meaning they are useless for most purposes. Hence, the need for a rest action.There are reasons for all this. There is a 50% chance that a reroll will result in a 4 or more. That is to say, you have a 50% chance of being able to use that 4-cost tool a second time (less if it is a 5 or 6). If there was a 1-cost item in the deck, everyone would use that repeatedly to boost all their dice values to 6 in one turn - without resting. A one-cost item isn't just free, it's better than free! The same applies to 2 and 3-cost tools.

Is the rest action too restrictive? That's hard to define. From my limited playtesting experiences (3 games), the rest action doesn't get used too often. Sacricing a turn means sacrificing a chance to explore means sacrificing a potentially useful card. The rest action gets the most use in the endgame, when everyone is already well-equipped and preparing to attack the Snark. This might change if I allowed player-vs-player combat. This brings me to my next point.

PLAYER-VS-PLAYER: I've already said why I don't like PvP, but Hamumu has brought up a few good ideas for how it could work. The idea of the attacker trading places with the defender (if his attack was successful) is a good one. Originally, the defeated player returned to the ship, which had unintended consequences for the gameplay. Number one, players were too cautious about attacking. Number two, players could kill each other deliberately in order to "teleport" back to the ship. If the worst-case scenario is losing a card, that's not so bad, and a strong player can block off choke points in the map. In consideration of the theme, attacking players could be referred to as "mugging", "pickpocketing", or "coercing".

HAULING BACK THE SNARK: My original fear was that players would camp back at the ship and block off the player who caught the Snark. That's still a valid and dirty strategy. However, if I institute the changes in combat that Hamumu suggested, there is no longer any way to "teleport" back to the ship. Also, if the player with the Snark can attack her pursuers, it's not an indefensible strategy. Finally, there are four entrances back to the ship and only 3 opponents maximum, so there's ALWAYS a back door. I like this. I'll work it and other good ideas into the prototype and see if anything develops.

CONFUSING WORDING: Is the Grab Bag really that confusing? Can anyone suggest a better way to express what I mean? That is, the Grab Bag can be exchanged with any other card held by another player, for a cost of 6. Actually, that might be a better rewording.
Muffins and Jam appears to be giving people trouble. All it does is grant you an additional readiness die (you start with 3, but can have as many as 5). I should probably mention what happens if you lose the card (sacrifice a die of your choice). Any ideas for a rewording?

NEW TOOLS: More is always better. If you have any ideas for new tools, I'd love to hear them. I'm looking for cards that fill a niche more than variations on a theme.

Reroll Die - AKA the "Oops, can I do that again?" card. By popular demand. Reroll a bad roll. One use per turn. Not sure what to call it.

Insurance Policy - If defeated by another player ("mugged"), you may sacrifice this card rather than whatever they really wanted.

Whew, this is almost work! Well, no, not really. But I haven't had to type this much is quite awhile.

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Deviant wrote:
CONFUSING WORDING: Is the Grab Bag really that confusing?

Actually, it probably has more to do with my inability to understand things sometimes ... :blush:

Quote:
Muffins and Jam appears to be giving people trouble. All it does is grant you an additional readiness die (you start with 3, but can have as many as 5).

I didn't realize that you could add dice ... thought you started with and always had 3. Also ... it might just be an inconsistent naming thing -- you call them "action" dice otherwise.

-Bryk

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Whoops! Sorry about that! They are now "action dice", because that's shorter.

Brykovian earlier expressed confusion over how attacks work. Actually, he understands it perfectly but doesn't know that yet. Sorry for being confusing! Yes, fists are sometimes more powerful than the Smiles and Soap weapon. This isn't broken, it's deliberate. The Smiles and Soap is intended to make low dice values deal decent damage, not to make high dice values more powerful. A side note: you may only use one die for your fists, so if you have three sixes and only a Smiles and Soap, you're best-served by using a six for this weapon. The function of the fists is to give a player without many weapons a fighting chance. You always have at least one weapon!

Another bit of confusion involves the rest action. You may reroll any or all your dice when you rest; you are not limited to one reroll. If all your dice are low values, it's a good idea to rest.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Deviant wrote:
Scurra: Wow, just...wow. How long did it take you to compose that message?

You don't want to know. :-) (You could probably tell that I'm a big Carroll fan too...)

Deviant wrote:
Insurance Policy - If defeated by another player ("mugged"), you may sacrifice this card rather than whatever they really wanted.

Yes, I like this in the context of PvP, which probably does belong in the game even if it's rather out-of-theme. Should it not be a "Railway Share"? ;-)

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

I'm a little confused about the action dice, and how many things you get to do in a turn.

It sounds to me like you can do as many things as you want, as long as you have an action dice of the right value. When you use an action die, you re-roll it, but it's still there and you might use it again.

Is that accurate? Does it allow, in theory, for a turn in which you keep acting (though it might not actually make sense to do so)?

Would it be more clear if you set aside a die when you use it, then at the end of the turn you reroll all dice set aside? Or do you WANT people to use the same die over and over?

I'm also a little unclear on when or how often you move. It seems like you can move 1x/turn, and if you want to move 4, 5, or 6 spaces then you have to have the appropriate action die. I don't know if you can move (rolling a 4, say) then use that re-rolled die to activate a Grab Bag or something.

Hmm.. what if Move was just another action you could do with an action die, and no matter how many spaces you move you have to have the appropriate die. Exploration would just be a result of moving into an unexplored space (you'd have to stop there and put a tile down). This would give you something to do with low dice. That coupled with the 're-roll all dice at EOT' thing would allow you to move up to 3 times per turn, letting you get around the board easily (good or bad?), but there could still be a restriction of 1 explore action per turn.

As far as theme, I think it's GREAT! But I agree with the guy who said it'd be pretty much all luck. Adding a little bit of decision making would be cool, and his suggestions sounded good.

Good job with the rulebook as well, I like he poem interlaced in there.

- Seth

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

I have made many, many changes to the rulebook. Check it out! Or if you'd rather not, here are the changes:

PvP added - with a bonus to the defender, so you don't go totally crazy attacking everybody.

You must now haul the Snark's unconscious body back to the ship before you can claim victory. It remains to be seen how well this will play out, as the "screw-over" factor is high. I'm positive this will extend game length out to at least 45 min - more with four players.

Originally the text mixed first-person with third-person willy-nilly, but now I have it under control (I think). Third person has been heavily favored.

sedjtroll: Right now there is no limit to how many tool cards you may use in a turn. There is a probable limit, since low rolls are essentially "dead" until next turn. There is also a practical limit in most cases, since there is no reason to reorient a single tile multiple times. Is this a problem? I may limit dice to one use, or I could just as easily limit tools to one use (like weapons). Actually, I like that better, because then duplicate tools are somewhat useful.

The problem with rolling 1-3s is that you are more likely to roll a higher number than a lower one, so actions with 1-3 cost have effectively negative cost. If you then set this dice aside, this becomes less of an issue, but I'm still not convinced this is a good thing. Unless this is a tool designed to raise your dice values...hmmm...

Originally movement worked as you have expressed, with movement of 1 space costing 1 or higher, and so forth. The problem was, what if you get all high dice values and then have to move one space? Waste a 6? What's up with that! Not only was this unsatisfying, it made no sense, so I scrapped that idea.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

Deviant wrote:
Originally movement worked as you have expressed, with movement of 1 space costing 1 or higher, and so forth. The problem was, what if you get all high dice values and then have to move one space? Waste a 6? What's up with that! Not only was this unsatisfying, it made no sense, so I scrapped that idea.

Well, would that really be a waste? Either you use a 6 for a move action (and you decide to move 1 space), or you decide to do something else with your 6 and not move. If your dice are all 6's then no matter what you're going to 'waste' a 6 doing SOMETHING.

At least, that's the impression that I get.

- Seth

Deviant
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #60: The Hunting of the Snark by Kevin Lanzing

It looks like my week is almost over. Already! Here's what I've been up to:

CHANGES:
1) Added "Insurance Policy" card.
2) In keeping to the original poem, the "Lucky Penny" is now the "Dagger-Proof Cloak".
3) Rule modification: all tool cards are 1 use/turn. This rewards multiples, and eliminates the possibility of (for instance) multiple extra turns.

LIKELY CHANGES:
1)No passing - instead, at the beginning of your turn, choose to either draw a new tool card or reroll (any or all) your dice. This is faster and cleaner, I think. On the other hand, exploration is not so heavily rewarded (You used to get cards from exploration). On the other other hand, avoiding other players in the end-game will put pressure on players to expand the map through exploration, so this won't be a big loss (I hope!)
2)Update all this on my website.

As far as the likely changes go, I'll get to #2 soon, I promise! Right now I need sleep! Any thoughts about #1, or anything else for that matter? I'd like to rename the Grab Bag and Machete to something from the poem, but nothing really connects. Actually, it doesn't have to be from the H.o.t.S. at all - the Vorpal Blade is from Jabberwocky! Just something Carroll-inspired or from the period.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut