Skip to Content
 

Playtesters needed for new planetary colonisation game (wargame/Euro blend)

13 replies [Last post]
Sat, 02/06/2016 - 07:34
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016

Hi there,

I'm designing a boardgame set on a struggling planetary colony descending into mayhem. Five factions, including an orbiting AI, are struggling to carve out a successful survival strategy, balancing resources and protecting themselves from each other. The primary objective is to be part of a successful alliance of two viable factions, but if all hell breaks loose and the planet becomes incapable of supporting its citizens, a solo victory goes to the AI faction.

The game mixes Puerto Rico style action selection, simultaneous ordering a little like Diplomacy or Game of Thrones, some trade and resource management, and some fog of war with pieces on face-down location cards. There's also a skill track and card management, so the game is moderately complex - about as complex as Game of Thrones or Dominant Species.

I've set up a PBEM group to playtest it, and I have 3 definite players, but I need one or two more to get the game started.

I'll be acting as game master and entering the moves on a digital version of the board...

Sample card:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3155259/location_e3.png

Screenshot:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3155259/Screenshot.png

This will be its first real playtest, so there will be a chance to discuss the rules and play balance as we go.

I'd be happy to return the favour by helping other designers.

Let me know if you are interested.

Cheers,

Craig.

Top
Sat, 02/06/2016 - 08:59
#1
The Professor
The Professor's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2014
Interesting concept!

Craig,

The concept sounds interesting, but I would suggest attaching a copy of the rules for possible play-testers to check them out.

Also, provide the approximate length of time for a game, as that info is vital to potential play-testers, as well.

Finally, do you have a rubric for assessing the gameplay, along with the myriad other aspects of the game? If not, reach out to me.

Good luck with the design and development!

Cheers,
Joe

Top
Sat, 02/06/2016 - 09:21
#2
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
Hi Joe, I'm aiming at a 3-4

Hi Joe,

I'm aiming at a 3-4 hour game time. First-time players are unlikely to play more than half a game in that time, though. It may require some simplification to get the time down. The email version will probably be a turn a day for a few weeks.

This is a work in progress, but I have a *rough* draft of the rules available through the Google group where we'll be playing. The current rules are about 30 pages long and not necessarily very user-friendly. I'll be working on a tighter 3-5 page summary over the next few days.

Link to Google group:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/kepler-board-game

Rules:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3155259/KeplerRules.doc

Feedback is welcome, but apart from a couple of minor planned changes, I'd like to test out the current rules in action before making any further changes.

Cheers,

Craig.

Top
Sun, 02/07/2016 - 03:42
#3
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
First attempt at a briefer

First attempt at a briefer version of the rules...

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3155259/KeplerPBEMRules.doc

Top
Sun, 02/07/2016 - 07:08
#4
The Professor
The Professor's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2014
Good idea on the rules

Arcuate,

Yes, you definitely want to playtest as much as possible before making any substantive changes to the rules. I've had designers present rules already laid out via In-Design, only to be completely rewritten.

Take the time you need to get the playability right, let the rules reflect the most up-to-date version of the game, and then get it out to others via PnP.

All the best!

Cheers,
Joe

Top
Sun, 02/07/2016 - 07:54
#5
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
Hi Joe... I guess the

Hi Joe... I guess the rule-writing and playtesting processes run in parallel. No point in letting one get way ahead of the other.

I think the playtesters deserve a moderately comprehensive attempt to explain everything well, but effort spent in finalising the layout is obviously wasted, as a lot could change.

I've picked up one more playtester via Reddit, so in theory now I have seven players ready for a five-player game, but it will probably end up being five when it comes to committing to play. One or two backup players could be useful if people get busy and have to drop out.

If anyone else is interested, though, please let me know. I will GM a second PBEM game as soon as the first runs its course and I've had a chance to refine the mechanics.

Top
Mon, 02/08/2016 - 06:18
#6
The Professor
The Professor's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/25/2014
Play-testing

Arcuate

Yes, you're correct...either run a series of play-tests and take copious notes or have a series of blind play-tests run and ensure good notes are taken. From the responses and comments made during the play-tests, along with defining concepts, take the time to update the rule set. Evaluating what is and what isn't worthy of the change will take some time.

I wish you well with all of your play-tests.

Cheers,
Joe

Top
Wed, 04/20/2016 - 22:39
#7
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
Need a new player

Hi there,

I am currently running a playtest of Kepler by email.

The rules have undergone some adjustments and refinement, and the interface for play-by-email play has been sorted out, but we have one player unable to continue because of other commitments.

Would anyone be interested in stepping in to keep the game moving forward? The position you would be taking over is still quite strong. It would take about 5-10 minutes per day to submit your rules, with the game paused over weekends. I'd be happy to return the favour by playtesting your game or reading your rules. (I have a prior commitment to playtest Cold War, but could take on your game in about 1-2 weeks.)

The game is also now available on Tabletop Simulator, so I could give you a rules walkthrough in that medium, to bring you up to speed.

The game mixes worker placement and area control mechanics, and involves simultaneous submission of military orders. Big potential for player interaction.

Preview of the game here:
https://youtu.be/RrLiZLibHs8

I can send you a link to the latest rules - the above versions are a bit out of date.

Cheers,

Arcuate.

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 06:35
#8
ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
3-4 hours sounds like quite a

3-4 hours sounds like quite a lot. Have you considered trimming it?

Even without looking at the game itself, it will be an instant turn-off for quite a few people.

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 07:25
#9
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
Yes, I will work on trimming it

But I like longer games myself, on occasion, and I'm not trying to make money here, just design the sort of game I would like to play.

We've had plenty of fun in our family with some of the meatier games, and they are always more memorable than the 2-hour fillers.

;)

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 10:01
#10
ElKobold
ElKobold's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/10/2015
Not saying that it won't work

Not saying that it won't work otherwise.

Just pointing out that increased length limits the target audience.
Which might not be a problem in some cases. Especially if you aren't planning to monetize it.

"2 hour fillers" :)))

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 11:56
#11
ruy343
Offline
Joined: 07/03/2013
Great art!

I'm not an artist myself, but what you present here is pretty solid. I would consider thinning the lines between territories and using other methods to delineate the divisions; right now it's list a little bit too bright for my taste.

Regarding the game length: as someone who's perfectly fine playing 3-4 hour games, and one who's designed a fair number thereof, I've noticed that no matter how good the game may be, I can never get them to the table. In that regard, I recommend that you look at why the game is long, and consider what you can do to shorten it. Can you allow things to occur more simultaneously? can you reduce the total number of decisions a player makes at one time (using game phases) to avoid analysis paralysis? Can you accelerate the start position of the game? Can you alter the victory conditions?

Also, consider printing and playtesting feasibility. Does the game include hundreds of cards, figures, and dice? Is there any way you can simplify for an initial release, allowing you to produce expansions later on? It's really hard to balance when you have hundreds of abilities and cards, since random situations are bound to occur that you can't anticipate without a hundred playtests.

Anyways, I look forward to your rules, and I"ll get back to you with thoughts.

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 18:08
#12
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
Game length

In all seriousness, it is a concern of mine, and I will be looking hard at ways to shorten it. Two hours would be much better, if it could keep the same depth.

My other concern is rules length. The game does not feel complex to me as I play it, and there will be little need to look up unit strengths and so on, as I usually need to do for, say Command and Colors Ancients. But, at first meeting, most people look at the rules and feel daunted.

Top
Thu, 04/21/2016 - 18:19
#13
Arcuate
Offline
Joined: 02/05/2016
The art and the rules

Yes, I agree the borders can be toned back a bit. Thinner and less white. Most of the art would need to be done by a real artist, if I can afford it - I was just playing around on GIMP. One of the links at the top of the thread is to the Java version of the game, and shows an old version of the map that would not be used in a physical prototype.

Rules are here. Currently long-winded, and more directed at PBEM and Tabletop Simulator players than potential players of a physical game, but they cover everything, and seem to have stabilised in terms of what the rules actually allow. They will be refined in future.

The card text for Skill Cards is completely tentative and largely untested, so I expect that to change.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3155259/KeplerTTSRulesApril2016.docx

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut