Skip to Content

iBOT - international Bank Of Thieves

2 replies [Last post]
Realdeo
Offline
Joined: 05/18/2017

Hello :)

I hope that you would be able to help me to proofread the rules that I have created for my game here

It's a micro bluffing and hand management game for 2 - 4 players. I should not describe my game even further or else it's not the rule doing its job but me explaining.

There are 3 pressure points for me:

1. Is the narrative presented at the beginning of the game is suitable?

2. You would notice that I haven't put picture of game components. That's intentional. Given this is a micro game, if my rule can't speak without picture, I am in a danger.

3. Does the 2 players variant make senses?

Can't wait for your input and adivces =)

mindspike
mindspike's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/06/2011
Clearly stated.

I think you did a good job explaining the rules. Regarding your three pressure points:

1. Yes, I think the narrative suits the game well. It's an amusing story.

2. I understood the rules clearly without pictures.

3. The 2 player variant does make sense, but I don't really see a need for it.

It's an interesting little game. I hope you continue to work on it and refine the play.

Suggestions:

I'd like to see the bluffing be developed a bit more by giving players the opportunity to declare why they are there and then call each other's bluff.

I like the escalating die that requires increasing amounts of money to be put in the bank.

I'd like to see the bankruptcy end condition replaced with a simple score tracker, so that the game is played to a certain number of rounds and then players score their banked money.

Overall, it's simple and appealing.

Realdeo
Offline
Joined: 05/18/2017
Thank you for the advice. For

Thank you for the advice.

For the suggestions, I should try to incorporate the first two into my future play testing (although I'm still drawing blank on the first one on how to make it thematic)

The third one however. One of the reason why I decide to use bankruptcy instead of certain numbers of rounds was for three reasons:

1. Player elimination sucks even in a micro game.

2. The sudden bankruptcy is there to prevent absolute alliance. Without that rule, A can gang up with B and C to attack D until oblivion before having a battle royale. With that rule, even if player allies, they have an incentive to betray or to be selfish since they cannot attack D until oblivion since if they do, the game ends. If they are too committed to allying without taking care of their own, the alliance is futile.

3. I just want to insert an insert dose of WTF moment that can happen when the game ends suddenly. Most of the memorable moments from playtesting usually comes when A is safe at $8, but A played Steal while the other three played Secure and the fine was at $3.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut