http://www.reddit.com/r/gamedesign/comments/2ignt7/the_big_rewrite_revis...
Here's the text:
Hi all. I had the incredible misfortune of playing my first-ever design that I brought from idea to playable thing this weekend for the first time in over 3 years. Why misfortune? I found that I hated this game. A lot. It was fiddly. It fought its theme. It was clearly a first attempt-- the guy who played with me called it my "new engineer" game. So...I've decided to break this game in half, gut the rules, and simplify. The engine is this...it's a card game with a d6; it lasts 10 rounds (e.g. a round being everyone taking a turn); the highest score based on cards in play wins. The cards themselves are inspired by Dvorak.
TL;DR...Dvorak basically says: "Draw 1. Play a Thing in front of you. You have until the start of your next turn to play an Action if you want to." Sort of. I added the "one Action per round" part.
Your Thing cards have a points value: when oriented correctly, the value is green, and count as a positive amount. Some Things also have a Red value, when the Thing is inverted and instead count negatively.
Things are inverted by the roll of a d6 once per round (these have a die face and arrow showing). They can also be destroyed by the d6 roll (if an X with a die face). Additionally inversion/destruction can happen as soon as the die is rolled (an arrow or X with blank square).
Some things also have printed abilities. I would think that higher points mean no or weaker abilities since the card is valuable for its scoring capabilities alone.
What I would really like help with is the mathematical aspects here. How many of each d6 face are needed for balance? How should the point values of Things be distributed? Those kinds of things.
Help!
