Skip to Content
 

Qubits: a solo trick taking game

9 replies [Last post]
Wobt2
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2021

Hello.
I have made this little 18 card game and I would love your thoughts.
Qubits is an 18 card solo trick taker.
The theme is that you and your lab partner are conducting quantum experiments trying to prove 5 hypotheses.
The hook is that all the cards are entangled, they each have 4 super positions that collapse into a single value when played.

Here are the PnP files
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Uhpo0jFkOyAhWFkw_zwHoOpMb5YENFoz

And here is an online version (you will need to download the rules)
https://playingcards.io/7s662s

I would love to know your general thoughts. weather it was fun? were the instructions clear?

One thing I struggled with was how much to explain what a trick taking game is. Do I have to explain the terms more or are they common enough knowledge, like discard pile?

Thankyou

Steve
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
An Initial Impression

I viewed the rules on your game. Congratulations on creating your game.

No one enjoys being a grammar / spelling Nazi but I did notice that you used the word "weather" instead of "whether." I know that you'll go through other drafts of the rules but it's a completely fixable thing.

You might also consider having the rules as a PDF file instead of as individual PNG pictures. Having them as PNG pictures might put some people off with viewing your rules (even just to evaluate them). Again, a very minor thing that is easily correctable.

I did not play the game; I'm not much of a card game person. My general rule of thumb is to always over-explain because your audience has no idea how to play the game. In all of my rules, I always have a complete sample game in my rules that interested viewers can use as an example.

You'll probably want to explain what "trick-taking" is. Maybe veterans of card games know that term but I didn't. When in doubt, don't use terminology until it's been defined. I know what 'hypothesis' is but some people don't (and even those who do might be confused by the context used in this game).

Another formatting thing to consider is color. People love color. The presentation of these current rules is very black-and-white which is great if you are intending to manufacture these rules but, if not, adding color to your rules makes it stand out even more.

Those are my initial impressions of the game rules. Again, good luck with your game and congratulations on creating it.

Wobt2
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2021
Qubits. Thankyou

Thanks for the feedback.
The weather/whether thing and the png/pdf issue are definitely things to fix.

I don't think I will add much colour but that's more of a personal preference thing, making it "clean" helps me with comparing matches but others might not agree (I need a bit more feed back to see what people would prefer)

The amount of info is something I struggled with, and will certainly think about. I want to give a full explanation but I also don't want to make a long rule set that goes into too much unnecessary detail.

Again thanks for your input, it's given me some things to consider

Wobt2
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2021
Pdf

I have combined all of the rules into one pdf file that should be easier to use

larienna
larienna's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
I never expected trick taking

I never expected trick taking to be possible as a solitaire experience.

Wobt2
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2021
To be fair I'm not the first.

To be fair I'm not the first. Checkout "for northwood" for a good version. (Or the PnP it's based on "the emissary").

Fri
Online
Joined: 09/06/2017
Thoughts

Some rule book thoughts:
Have you considered using then term "rank" instead of value? Rank is a fairly common term in card games. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Playing_card_suit)

Could you add some details to instructions about to how to determine the rank? I found this process a little difficult to understand but I eventually got it. For the first set of cards I would recommend something like: the observer card (E) and your lab partners card (I) both have the number 8. Therefore 8 is the rank of your lab partner's card. The observer card (E) and your card(D) both have the number 9. Therefore your cards rank is 9. You when the trick because you have played the card of a greater rank. Additionally your example happens to use values that are on the same horizontal row of the cards. I tried to impart some meaning to this, eventually I realized it was just coincidence. I bet there are some examples you can use the ranks and observer card are not all on the same horizontal row.

Some design thoughts:
I noticed that you deviated from the usual win a trick and then lead in trick taking games. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that. You should ask does this design choice justify its existence through better game play?

Instead of the current method for determining which card wins a trick, maybe the observer card could state the win condition for that trick. Like highest rank, lowest rank, odds are trump, evens are trump if you introduced suits they could be trump. IMO, it would be easier to play, but it does digress from your theme.

Feel free to disregard, use or improve upon. Good luck with your game.

Wobt2
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2021
Thanks for the feedback. Rank

Thanks for the feedback.
Rank is probably the word to use.
The examples could probably need fleshing out A bit in the next rules iteration.
I will have to try varying who starts the next trick, as you suggest. The reason I used this way was if you lead trick 3 you have less info for that trick and trick 4. Because you are effectively choosing the cards for both at the same time. But this is probably a problem with most trick taker where you play your whole hand.
Thank you for the suggestion about the examples being on the same row, looking at the rules example 1 should say D has a value of 5 not 9 (5 is what it shares with the observer not 9, I think I originally had a different observer there) when written correctly it should show that the position doesn't matter just the value.
I think trick win conditions on each observer might be a bit too much to analyse before every round to chose the hypothesis, but that would help with the multiplayer version I am working on (a bigger fano plane with 31 matches).
There isn't exactly trumps in this game but I often think of each card as a suit of 4 cards, with the value of the suits being a-m or m-a. So any tie is broken by the "trump" for that rank. For instance in a round where high wins, card A (12/11/10/*0) has the highest over all value but would lose any ties because every other card trumps it.

I am currently knocking up rules version 2.0

Fri
Online
Joined: 09/06/2017
Card saving idea

As a card saving idea you could put your 5 or 6 hypothesis cards onto a single card. If you think of the card as a compass. There would be 2s in the west and east positions, 1 at the north and 3 in the south. Then 4 in the northeast and 0 in the southwest. Then you could just rotate this card around as needed.

Also the rule book shows a single 2 card at the bottom of the first page and two 2 cards at the top of the second page.

Good luck with your game.

Wobt2
Offline
Joined: 06/17/2021
Thankyou for the feedback

Thankyou for the feedback
the hypotheses need to be separate because...
A) some will have ascending priority and others descending.
B) you use each hypothesis once, but not in any order, so you need to know which have been used
C) the cards are used to track your score.

I am not sure what you mean about the single and double 2 cards. There are 2 at the top of page to to show both sides of the card.
I am currently rewriting the rules to clarify a few things.

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut