I guess I'll get the ball rolling. First off, congratulations to tsquared for the win. I voted Gold for this game. I feel it would have a nice balance and create some interesting decisions. I really liked the idea of having to choose to play a special event card on yourself or someone else with only one per person per round. My question/concern is if you get to do enough between events. Maybe there could be a way to be a little less formulaic on the timing of the events. Perhaps they could have some kind of trigger within the game play rather than simply action, card, event, repeat. Or maybe they could be further apart early in the game and then you start to have less and less time in between them as the game goes on. Overall nice job.

I also really liked the mechanic of choosing whom to play your event card on, but can't figure out a way to keep this idea meshed with the new play-style. Any ideas you have are welcome!

Thanks for the feedback mindspike and andymorris! I'm currently working on getting a rainbow deck to play test this (it has 12 suits 0-15).

I'm attempting to make a game that has some tough decisions. Since you need at least 2 cards (most likely more) to score positive points for a set I was hoping players would have to make tough decisions on whether to start a new set even if they don't currently have cards to score positive points, trade a high value card for one or more lower value cards in a set they already have, trade multiple cards for a high value card while depleting this hand, or take some cards from the discard pile if they are running low on cards.

Once I start play testing I may need to tweak the number of sets, number or cards in a set, or hand limit to make the game feel tight.

I'm also envisioning fun, cartoony images. For example, for a set of instruments the 1 value card might be a kazoo, where the 12 value card might be a Stradivarius violin.

Thanks again for the feedback!

I didn't feel like this game was about collecting or matching, but it does sound like an interesting deduction game. I think this game would have lots of appeal to people who like sudoku and things of that nature. Actually now that I think about it, this would be kind of like multi-player mastermind. The key would be giving players a handy way to track information.

There are lots of interesting concepts in there. This one definitely lived up to the heart of the set collection challenge. I like that the values of the items is only secondary as a tiebreaker. The make-up of the cards within the series, category, type framework wasn't totally clear on first blush. Perhaps there are different terms that would have made the card structure easier to understand. I think an example card and an example goal would have been helpful. I really like the simultaneous play, but I think it might be better to change the order so that you swap before you add a card to the shelf. Otherwise, if after you manage to con someone into to giving you the last card you need to win you have to wait for the next round to play it, it would give the other players a chance to lucky draw their winning card before you play yours. Also, I think having four cards in hand would give more options for the swapping.

As a side note, I thought it was interesting that you and I landed on such similar themes.

Overall: It reminded me a little bit of the frantic trading game Pit, but this game has a lot more going on and a lot more to offer the players.

(+) I liked the theme and the different options for the players to gain/exchange cards to complete their target sets. The simultaneous action and social exchanges should make for a very lively game. Having three values on the cards was a nice inclusion, because it increases the likelihood of making a match. It also means other players could be hindered by a player taking a card with a value needed by another player (simply because they need one of the other values). So in essence the cards have a double usage, set collection and blocking.

(-) The description of the category values was very confusing, but I think I figured it out. However, when I got to the examples I was completely confused again, because they didn’t associated with the value distribution I surmised. The scoring is interesting, but matching category sets to the role cards limited the game a little for me. With so many possible matches to be made narrowing down success to the role cards put me off a bit. I had the feeling (rightly or wrongly) that the game had been directed at satisfying a 72 card count (18 x 4) and the 8 role cards where made as a focal point of the game scoring to use all 72 cards. With 16 different values in the distribution I couldn’t really see how they could be split amongst 8 cards equally and in a way that made sense and full usage of the values in the game. Each card could have 2 different category values, but with role satisfaction being the only win condition that would leave a lot of cards without a collection value for each player. The cards could have more than 2 values, but then you have to accord everything equally in respect to the different category types and the overall distribution (which could be fiddly).

(=) With a little tidying and a clearer description of the vales in the game, along with the values associated with the role cards, the game should work very well and be a lot of fun to play.

(+++) I like the format you use in your critiques :)

I jotted down this outline after reading about the game again; in the hope that it might generate some ideas or contain something that might be of help to you.

Genre

Adventure / Romance / Horror / Mystery

Theme

Steampunk / Gothic / Fantasy / Super Hero

Item Category

Literature / Costume / Merchandise / Memorabilia

Specific Item

A description or graphic that relates to the specific item on the card which represents the combination of the three value areas associated with the card.

Example

Adventure + Super Hero + Memorabilia = Batman Film Cell

Sample combinations for the Adventure genre

Adventure - Fantasy - Literature
Adventure - Fantasy - Costume
Adventure - Fantasy - Merchandise
Adventure - Fantasy - Memorabilia

Adventure - Steampunk - Literature
Adventure - Steampunk - Costume
Adventure - Steampunk - Merchandise
Adventure - Steampunk - Memorabilia

Adventure - Gothic - Literature
Adventure - Gothic - Costume
Adventure - Gothic - Merchandise
Adventure - Gothic - Memorabilia

Adventure - Super Hero - Literature
Adventure - Super Hero - Costume
Adventure - Super Hero - Merchandise
Adventure - Super Hero - Memorabilia

Game Play

The players receive a hand of cards and one card for each player is placed in the centre of the table. Subsequent game play is then simultaneous.

The players can take a card from the central area. To take a card a player must replace it with a card from their hand that matches one of the category values on the card they want to take.

The players can offer to swap a card from their hand. To initiate a swap a player announces one or more of the values on the card they want to swap.

Announcing all three values on a card gives very specific information about the card which increases the chance of another player accepting the card.

Only giving partial information decreases the likelihood of a swap, but it can be used to make cards less attractive to individual players. So if a player has deduced that another player is collecting adventure cards they may choose to offer a card in a swap without revealing its genre to decreases the attraction of the swap in respect to that player.

The players can request a particular card from the other players. To request a card a player announces one or more of the values on the card they want to receive.

Requesting a card that has all three values could lead to the player receiving the exact card that they want, but it will be hard for the other players to satisfy the request increasing the likelihood of the request going unfulfilled.

Requesting a single value has more chance of receiving a card, but it reveals the category that a player is focusing on. In contrast a player could ask for a card with two values, even though only one of the values is of interest to them. The second value is given as a means of disguising the focus of their interest.

The players can put down a set of three cards at any time, providing that the three cards share at least one common category.

After putting down a set the player takes three new cards from the draw deck to replace the ones they included in their set.

Play continues until the draw deck is depleted.

The players score their sets. For each matching category within a set a player receives 1 point. So the minimum score from a set is 3 points, reflecting the 3 common category symbols the player had to match to play the set. However, sets can score more than 3 points if at least two of the cards in a set have other category symbols that also match.

Example

Adventure - Gothic – Literature
Adventure - Steampunk - Literature
Adventure - Steampunk - Costume

The cards in this set would score 7 points (3 for Adventure, 2 for Steampunk and 2 for Literature).

The role cards serve as bonus point generators. Each role card features a number of category values. These category values represent the specific interest of a fan boy or fan girl.

During the final scoring a player receives 1 additional point for every appearance of a category type in a set that corresponds with a category type on their role card.

Estate Sale

Overall: A solid set collection game

(+) I liked the swap action mechanic where the players can either take one card from the estate for multiple cards from their hand or multiple cards from the estate for one card from their hand (with the cards being of equal value in both exchange instances). I think this would result in some shrewd strategic thinking, because it makes each acquisition a dilemma between what you want to take and what options you open up for the other players by putting down cards. Working with the hand limit would also increase the variables linked to a choice. Simple, easy to understand and the potential for very interesting decisions, loved it.

(-) The final scoring seemed a little over fiddly and accumulating as many cards, in hand and in front of a player, seemed to be a clear strategy to aim for.

Seeking a Friend for the Zombie Apocalypse

Overall: Some interesting concepts and the potential for a very good game

(+) I liked the idea of working with and adding to a single evolving set as opposed to the collection of multiple sets. The theme was appealing and the potential for player interaction could be very high.

(-) The outline was a bit sketchy, but the general details that where given outlined an intriguing game. I don’t think the Zombie element is strictly necessary and the theme could work just as well if dealt with survivors of an apocalypse facing challenged like starving dogs, polluted rivers, cannibals and so on. Having the values for the characters constantly escalate seemed a little weird, because people don’t get perpetually stronger without any supporting reason.

(=) It needs a lot of work to bring out a fully fledged game from the initial conceptual outline. I like a lot of the thoughts that where included in the response to the critique and the game is already looking much improved.

Stuff

Overall: Another solid set collection game

(+) I liked the twist where the cards had a dual use, as items and as vehicles for payment. The employment of dual usage cards is an interesting mechanic that always serves to up the strategy in a game. I also liked the restoration mechanic that allows players to take cards and increase their value by paying other cards, at the expense of lowering the cards they have to bid with.

(-) Accumulating as many cards as possible seemed to be a clear strategy, because having a dual usage for each card gives every card a value (albeit some cards have a higher collection worth). Dealing with so many cards in hand could be confusing for some players.

Thoughts – It might be interesting to consider giving the cards four values; collection worth, restored collection worth, pawn value payment and restoration value payment. And/or link the restoration value payments to specific sets of stuff.

By giving restoration payments their own value the diversity of the values on the cards could be increased and the players could be given an additional decision. Do I take a card with a low pawn value but a high restoration value (in the hope that I can associate it with the linked stuff type) or do I take a card with a low restoration worth that will benefit me more in general bidding.

To the Ends of the Earth

Overall: A fun party game with an attractive and immersive theme

(+) I really liked the theme and the scope of play offered by the story telling element.

(-) I would have liked to see an extra twist to make it stand out further in comparison to other games like Snake Oil and The Big Idea. The rich theme offers plenty of scope for introducing something to spice thing up a bit more in terms of game play.

It could mean giving the players the option to draft cards in relation to a hand limit in the form of object total weight or drawing a second set of cards that can be used to introduce events into the stories. So the players could give an event (like head hunting pygmies) to a player on a jungle adventure and the player would have to counter that event by telling an escape story that utilized their chosen object. Or it could be something else entirely.