[GDS] February 2011 "Dice Defense" Critiques -- Feedback appreciated

I thought Dice Defense was an interesting theme (my assumption was that it is a dice based “Tower Defense” game), but that it was somewhat limited in its ability to be successful with the components that we had to work with. That can be successful of course, but now that the contest is over I think it might be interesting to consider increasing the scale of the game somewhat.

This is thinking in terms of Tower Defense, but one addition that I think would have drawn my interest more would have been some sort of game board or tile laying aspect so that you have the option of placing your dice towers in a meaningful/strategic way. Within the restraints of the GDS I can’t think of an immediate way to achieve this, perhaps some sort of range aspect then placing the towers you roll in a certain order as the monster “move” through the towers.

Then my main thought would be something to do with setting the dice towers in a certain order. Adding range to the towers and then having the mini-card monsters move through the spaes between the dice. I'll give it some more thought and try to come back with something with more substance.

In general I liked Dice Defense and gave it a vote in the first round.

I think a tower defense dice game was an interesting and unique choice. I'm not particularly a big fan of this type of a game but I give you credit for the conversion.
I also liked how the the creature cards overlap to make them harder. Its unclear if they keep splaying with all previous creatures or just the immediately previous one. This is a cool idea but you would really have to fine tune the balancing between this and the additional dice purchased for it to work.

The abilities on the player cards is also clever. However im not sure how balanced the inititive numbers are with the abilities. Is it really such an advantage to buy first and a hit vs a 2hard hit ability? Its seem like your stuck with the same ability and initiative throughout the game. It would work better if this changed over the course of the game.

Also maybe three rolls (2 rerolls) is too many. Just a hunch though. With three rolls the blank sides are useless. Try it with one reroll and see.

Another suggestion is to reward a player for how intact their castle stands at the games end.

The game also has limited player interaction. Theres no way to affect the other players beyond purchasing the dice they may want (which is probably the dice you want anyway). Maybe have the players take turns playing the creatures and inversly tie that to initiative. Maybe have ways to affect the other players dice.

Anyway I don't mean to seem negative, I like the design and think it has potential

In a lot of ways, I'm a thousand foot view guy. yes i do get into the nitty gritty details once in a while, but overall I like to stay zoomed out. That being said...

Trying to figure out what a game plays like from reading a page of rules is impractical at best. Graphics design helps in this regard and I would encourage you to post some updated graphics on your design which help describe what it is you're trying to accomplish.

yes, you want to make a Tower defense game using dice. Got it. The first question you should ask yourself is this:
What is the real experience in a Tower Defense game and how do i re-create it in boardgame form.

My personal belief is that a Tower defense game is at its heart a puzzle game. I do not believe it is a strategy or tactical game, again, at its heart. yes you could have some of those other elements...nevertheless.

I think you have too many rules. Strip everything away to the bare bones. What are the bare bones?
A monster
A tower
A cost for the tower
A hit point amount for the monster
starting money
value for killing the monster

work with the basics until you have a skeleton. Then as you continue to refine, you can add in things like "hard hits" and whatnot. Don't go for complexity out of the gate, because you'll just end up getting a mutant organism that looks like the abomination from war3.

I like tower defense games, but you should realize that they have limited replay value. How will you increase replay value? This is another question to answer before adding complexity.

If you can't have something with a degree of replay value before it becomes complex, you may achieve replay after adding complexity, but it won't be elegant or interesting. See: Arkham Horror the board game.

Think about a game of capture the flag, where you have variable pre-game start positions. Right there, in its infancy, the game automatically has Replay potential. Now you can add layers. Add in Terrain advantage. How about being able to purchase a piece of terrain or object before the game?

Puzzles are boring. That's why you DO a puzzle and you PLAY a game.

Here is your true challenge.
Can you make a Tower Defense game that is NOT a puzzle but retains that special experience?

Of course, you are free to disagree with everything or anything I've said. This is my stream of consciousness here, I'm not fixing spelling or whatever.

These comments might be more beneficial than my last.

I think your goal should be true cooperative survival. I would ditch “earning points” as a player.

Rather than have separate castles. You might consider that each player is in charge of a part of the castle. If a part is destroyed, the player "falls back" to a inner part.

I would (personally) steer clear from mixing the aspects of cooperative play with a single player “winning”. I would instead stick with, “we will all survive the onslaught, or we will all die the deaths of heroes.”

I think it becomes more epic that way.