Suitcases

Your insights about the game have been confirmed by previous playtesting. The game has been a bit 'fidgety' since most versions require players to pick up cards from the table in order to 'insert' other cards where there is room. It has also suffered from the counter-intuitive idea that a 10 suitcase doesn't actually hold 10 objects, but 9. Both of these things have reduced the fun factor of the game and proved to be huge burdens on the design because they seem to be inherent to the very theme of the game... suitcases nested inside suitcases.

I have not been able to figure out a way to have nesting without causing this handling issue. So... the design for the game either has no handling and no nesting or it has nesting and is 'fidgety'.

And, your observations about opportunistic play being linked to player number are spot on. In all versions (except the one where you have your own personal suitcase), more people make it less strategic. It becomes a game of hot potato with little strategy and a lot of in/out of cycle issues. It is for this reason, that I am inclined to pursue the game further only as either a two player game or as a real time card game. With only two players, you could control what each suitcase has much better. Whereas a real time card game would reduce the issue of control to speed/dexterity rather than strategy.

However, I wish I could salvage the multiplayer turn based game because I see this as a very light hearted family game rather than either a serious strategy game (two players) or a drinking game (real time). And, in order to fit that feel, it needs to be able to handle x number of players in turn based play.

If that is the direction it must go, then your feedback actually confirms to me again what I have known (and been unable to solve) about getting rid of the existing 'nesting' mechanism. As I see it, each suitcase is really just a stack with a finite limit. The goal of the game is either to collect as few as you can (like Poison) or as much as you can (like Rummy). And, if there is no nesting allowed, each stack can either be started with a suitcase (if the goal is to avoid collecting) or capped and claimed by a suitcase (if the goal is collect a lot).

However, in both circumstances there is a huge imbalance between a suitcase and a trinket... the suitcases become power cards because they allow you to choose your time of attack. Poison gets around this by making the Cauldrons a finite size so all cards are potions. But... the problem with adopting that solution is that it would likely mean recreating poison and getting rid of the whole theme of the game about packing suitcases.

So... the real question is how do you make a design where things can stack in one direction (or not be stacked at all) and at the same time let some of the objects simultaneously hold and not hold other objects?

Perhaps you have a suggestion... but I'm not sure there is one that involves stacking. I think the only solution is to have a common pool of all objects which are un-ordered. Players can then impose order by playing cards to the pool which can be used to combine with the existing items in a way that fills up a suitcase. That way a trinket and a suitcase both have equal potential to trigger a match.

I have already explored a design like this which has the players trying to avoid making a match... but it felt rather monotonous. There were never more than six suitcases on the table at a time because after six there would always be some way to match up items. The alternative is to give the players the goal of collecting items instead. But, I'm not sure how to do this without introducing a cycle / king maker problem where your opportunity to win depends upon where you sit in the turn order. Ultimately, when the board is being cleared based upon some combination of order, the previous player will have a huge influence on what you do and more often than not his decisions will determine whether you can win or not. That's why I tend to feel like 'avoidance' games are more stable in multiplayer environments than 'capture' games.

But, perhaps you can think of a way to structure play to a common pool which requires people to be very strategic even though they want to claim items there.

Coloretto does this somewhat effectively by entwining the destiny of objects and imposing penalties on collecting 'off' colors. Since you can only claim once per round and you must claim all in a row, the game creates a lot of patience and strategic thinking. However, it nevertheless suffers from a long-term king-maker problem. You want to avoid competing for the same colors with as many people as you can... so ultimately, the game tends to devolve down into a better of two bad choices for the third party. Essentially, once the other two players have committed to certain colors, you must choose who you are going to help lose with you (as you will end up splitting a finite resource).

So... the design remains vexing.

Btw, here are some of the previous designs/thoughts for the game:
http://www.evertidegames.com/?s=suitcases

In fact, what you suggest was written into the very first version of the game as well as the one that went the farthest in playtesting. It seems rather natural that trinkets are worth points and suitcases can hold things.

Ironically, it is the very theme/name of the game that is the source of the frustration. It is the fact that suitcases can hold things means that the game is fidgety and counter-intuitive. So, it is these entwined properties which become the source of all the problems with the design. How do you allow nesting without repacking?

Here's an idea:

Make it more like Rummy, where you can draw cards into your hand. In that case, the players can repack (arrange sets) at their own leisure in their hand and cards are thus either picked up one at a time or played altogether to be scored.

But how to make it different than rummy and interesting?! Got any suggestions?

What if instead of a draw pile there are draft piles? And, what if, instead of adding to someone else's sets, you could 'capture' someone else's luggage if you can pack it in a larger suitcase? The game might still end when a player 'goes out', but if the trinkets are colored, then maybe you only score one of your colors and the rest count against you. That way, players might be wary about 'stealing' other people's luggage without requiring a poison pill dynamic.

What do you think?