Pinnacle - New Playtest Rules

As much as I love questccg, I think he has the wrong idea. As a party game, it's imperative that Pinnacle doesn't have have too much mechanical depth: it can't have too many rules.

Is this a high-strategy game that needs to strive for "adult content"? Or do adults like to get together sometimes to enjoy a handful of good mechanics?

People like Family Feud, and I imagine they'll want to interact with the core mechanic of Pinnacle.
This game reminds me most of Pictionary. The game is about drawing pictures under pressure, and the board and cards merely supplement that: telling you what to draw and not much else. I fear that oxygen tanks, avalanches (the Thin Air Zone, a little bit) detract from the core mechanic instead of guiding it. However,

Because of this, combined with the inability to conduct THOUSANDS of surveys, strategic depth will be what gives this sufficient replayability. The challenge will be minimizing mechanical depth (rules) and maximizing strategic depth (ways to use the rules). Off the dome, perhaps having simple beneficial/detrimental spaces players would want to try to land on/avoid so they would intentionally guess the 2nd or 3rd answer. Spaces like "send your opponent backwards" like questccg suggested.

Lastly, in my experience, it's highly frustrating to make no progress on a turn without consciously choosing a high-risk option. If the Thin Air Zone is able to reduce a team's movement to nothing, then the Thin Air Zone should be really small, like 3 successful movements at max

Please don't misquote me...

I said having Event Cards which lead to some ACTION (Bonuses or Penalties) could be good for the game. But I would put those events INTO a SEPARATE DECK. Why because nobody is going to play "Trivia Candyland". It's too infantile.

Like I said ... SOLELY focusing on the Questions is the WRONG strategy. I've already explained that he would need to "Reverse" his way of thinking when it comes to the Trivia Questions themselves.

Instead of "Name of song sung by the Bee Gees." I stated that it would be better to "Name of song sung by Taylor Swift." She's got over 100+ songs in her catalog already. And that's something "kids", "Millennials" and "GenYs" could be more interested in.

One question even I could not answer: "Name someone who has lived over 100 years dead or alive." IDK ANYONE BY NAME who has lived so long. They're obviously NOT the most FAMOUS of people. Because I haven't heard of ANY of them. Yeah there is a on online Wiki with a list of them (dead or alive). But again, I have yet to have even heard their names... Nobody FAMOUS that I know of...

So the Trivia is not the "hottest" thing going for the game either. Yeah it MAY be "Family Feud"-like... But do you see KIDS on Family Feud??? No... It's mostly for ADULTS. Same for the direction of this TRIVIA Game. But... Wait a minute... We said it's NOT FOR ADULTS!?!? Well then who the heck is this game supposed to be FOR???

I don't want to discuss it more... Because @Raydad909 has yet to report back and tell us what he thinks (other than telling me in a PM that the game will have a linear track and a deck of questions). Something I already told him that I think is TOO SIMPLE.

It's no point to discuss further ... Because there is no clear direction. Until the OP comes back and tells us what HE wants to do...

Sincerely.

Note #1: And I wouldn't put ALL the Events into the rulebook. Right now he has 2 to 3 spaces that he put into the rulebook. To explain them because you cannot figure them out from the Track. If he makes Events a separate Deck... Where on each card he can explain each one in detail there will be no need to have a section in the rulebook listing each event. KISS.

This is about the "Question" cards. I was thinking since I took multiple surveys you may want to INDICATE on the front of the card ... AGE GROUP. What do I mean?

Why do this??? Well because IF your intent is to have a FAMILY game with TEAMS (I have my own opinion about this... But this is not the place for that...), it will help CHILDREN to become more INVOLVED in the game. Like "For ages 9+" is a kids question and the TEAM can ask their child (in their team) to know what they think is an appropriate response.

Again the reasoning is to encourage ALL players to HAVE FUN. And that means answering and guessing questions correctly. Sort of a bit like "quarterbacking" but to help CHILDREN (or kids) be more involved in the game.

SECONDLY...

This method of identifying the AGE of each Question Card is GOOD... Because it allows you to BALANCE the game. So you can figure out which cards belong to which category of players. And it allows you to BUILD "better" surveys knowing that ONE (1) SURVEY is for Millennials and another is for GenX. etc. etc.

Again all ideas to HELP improve your process, the game itself and ensure that there is some kind of "balance" so that everyone can be included in the Question phase of the game... Knowing who knows what answers.

Like I saw a question: "Name an animal in the Farmer in the dell." That could be a KIDS question or not. Depending on how the child was brought up. I've heard the song but "guessed" COW ... Because it's a kids song and it's got to have a COW or a PIG or a HORSE... One of those.

But STATING the AGE of the Questions on a CARD could go a LONG way in IMPROVING the game making it more FUN because sometimes you may be getting too many ADULT questions and kids may not be a part of the FUN.

Again just some extra ideas.

Cheers!

But I saw that in the RULES you made the Pinnacle Answer in the TAZ = +2 Movement. Seeing as the LAST version of the board (or Mountain) was that there were ONLY "3 Spaces" at the top... I would have the Pinnacle Answer by only +1.

IDK it's your call. And playtesting will reveal what works best.

I'm just saying I don't like "overly-easy" ending which just ruin the game because it only takes 1 correct answer.

How? Well on the Mountain wall earn +2 Spaces and move up into the TAZ by +2. Gives you only 1 Space and the Summit. My guess that's only ONE (1) correct HARD question and so it requires only ONE (1) GOOD ANSWER and that team wins (with the +2 movement in the TAZ).

But I get that the STALLING in the TAZ is also a problem. Could this be a sort of "catch-up mechanic"??? Making the game tighter and harder to win... IDK.

However this is a question of playtesting and seeing different ways of going up the mountain.

I'm not saying YOU SHOULD change the TAZ movement rules... I'm just saying maybe playtest a few variations and let us know what YOU FEEL is BEST.

Cheers!

I'm still not sure I understand HOW(?) this challenge is supposed to work. Looks like there are a bunch of OPTIONS and it's a bit UNCLEAR about HOW TO WIN. Sorry that's just me re-reading this section a couple of times and NOT being sure.

***

So when a Team reaches the SUMMIT, they must ANSWER one (1) Red Question and give 1 of the Top 3 Answers.

This does not GUARANTEE a Win... Now the "stealing" the victory is perhaps a bit confusing. Let me continue my thought process and we'll see HOW(?) it is meant to work.

So where the confusion lies... Has to do with the OPPOSING Team being the READER and the Pinnacle Answer being chosen by the eligible winning Team.

***

So IF the Team at the SUMMIT chooses the #1 Answer... The Opposing Team gets to STEAL??? Remember they are the READERS for the SUMMIT Team's Answer.

Do you choose another Red Question and have the SUMMIT Team become the READER role to ensure fairness?!

But that's not the only confusion that I get...

***

If the SUMMIT team is "blocked" by the Opposing Team ANSWERING the Pinnacle Answer from a "NEW Question Card" (This is introduced for fairness as the Stealing team - the READER got to see all the ANSWERS to the SUMMIT Question) but this can ONLY be done ONCE.

So if you reach the SUMMIT TWICE (2x) You cannot be blocked a second time. Only once.

***

I've proposed some refinements for fairness (Switching of READER role when the NEW Steal Question is chosen) and as you stated REQUIRES the Pinnacle Answer to Block the opposing Team.

***

This is how I interpreted the rules. Maybe I misunderstood something because I felt like the "Steal" was a bit unclear WHO DOES WHAT. It's clear that it can ONLY occur ONCE (1x) but the logistics of the Question and the switching of roles was a bit unclear.

If you have additional questions or my feedback is unclear, please reply to this comment and I will do my best to explain the challenge that I raised.

Cheers!

Note #1: And if you are unsure... I can simply state that in a game where there are only 2-Players (1 per Team) this means that the READER of the SUMMIT Question knows all the ANSWERS when he confirms that the LEADING Team (or Player) guesses one of the 3 correct SUMMIT answers. For this to work you would need to REVERSE the Roles and have the LEADING player ask a NEW question and require the "stealing" Team to get the Pinnacle Answer (#1 on the NEW question) in order to "steal" the Victory!

Let me explain because I checked the rule AGAIN and the confusion is still there. To recap, it goes something like this:

#1> The Climbing Team reaches the SUMMIT. Time for the SUMMIT CHALLENGE.

#2> The Climbing Team answers are a QUESTION. If they Answer with the #1 (Pinnacle) Answer, they WIN the game. If they Answer with the #2 or #3 the opposing Team can answer the Pinnacle Answer to STEAL.

That's where there is a PROBLEM. The opponent is the READER and he ALREADY knows the answers for the SUMMIT Challenge Question. Do you see my point???

#3> Instead the READER should be the Climbing Team and a NEW Question should be asked of the "Steal" Team ... Only a Pinnacle answer (#1) will suffice.

#4> If the "Steal" Team gets the Pinnacle answer, the SUMMIT Team goes back 2 spaces...

Do you understand NOW??? The issue is with the READER seeing all the answers and knowing the Pinnacle Answer on the Question for the SUMMIT Challenge.

I don't think I can explain it any CLEARER. The process is broken if the READERS do NOT switch roles and a NEW "Steal" Question Card is chosen...

So yeah I think Alternative #2 which is a bit STANDARD makes it a better candidate for a replacement to "stealing".

- If you get the Pinnacle Answer (#1) that Team wins.

- If you get #2 or #3 you don't win but you stay in position for a RETRY.

- If you Miss the list: Move back 2 spaces.

***

My only difference is that this is the ONLY way to win. The "done it once so I don't need to do it again" confuses me. I'd keep it STANDARD that to WIN THE GAME you MUST "answer the Pinnacle Answer".

But my variation IS:

So FIRST TIME is RED, SECOND TIME is YELLOW and THIRD TIME is GREEN. Making it easier and easier to WIN...

Something like that could be KEWL and be in-spirit with what you wanted some kind of RETRY but a bit easier...

Let me know if this alternative works for you:

So it's like ALTERNATIVE #2 with REPEAT questions being less and less difficult.

Cheers!

Note #1: This means that the SUMMIT Team gets "stalled" and the opposing team can reach the SUMMIT while the original team is waiting to answer a Pinnacle Answer... It's like a STALL (rather than a "Steal")...

My choice is SUMMIT #2. Sounds more logical in how there doesn't need to be a 1 vs. 1 version in 2-Player games for SUMMIT #1 to work.

I usually prefer mechanics that are UNIFORM. That's my personal preference. I don't like "outliers" or special conditions (like it's normally like THIS but in one case it's like THAT...)

But that's just my opinion.

You do what is best for your game. I'm just expressing an opinion... Maybe @Noah McQ can chime in with his input.

Maybe PM him ... As I have not seen him for a while. Only IF you want a 2nd opinion. Since he is the only other member that contributed to your game. Or @Steve too... You could PM him too... Since he too manifested some interest in your progress too...

You've got a couple people you can ask what THEY think is better.

Cheers!

So one thing about the duration... You can put "~30 minutes" or "30 minutes appx." Depending where you want the indicator. On a BOX you could use either "~30 minutes" or "30+ minutes" and in the rulebook you can use "approximately 30 minutes" or "30 minutes appx.", etc. etc. And that solves you issue. It's AROUND 30 minutes... But you can explain it depends on the Teams playing and how they come to a decision on Answers to Question. The longer the discussion or deliberation ... The longer the gameplay time.

Alternatively... And you MAY or MAY NOT like the idea... IDK you very well. But you seem open to suggestions: use a SAND TIMER of 60 seconds for discussion. That means that at 40 Questions, the game lasts about 40 minutes. This is a cool COMPONENT and it serves a REAL purpose: to prevent discussions from going on forever.

One (1) Minute timing per question is enough and it can be policed by the player who reads the question.

So that's a bit my take on HOW(?) to FOCUS Players. add a bit more pressure and not have games going on forever because people take like 2-Minutes to answer ONE question. Secondly, I've shown HOW(?) you can rate the play time to 30 minutes plus... Given the context whether on the BOX or in the RULEBOOK.

***

Your second issue about reducing the spaces... 8 - 7 - 3 might be okay. BUT I think my suggestion of the "Sand Timer" will go a better distance if used in that context if a game requires 30 questions, it's about 30 minutes in play.

Where I would cut a space would be at the END of the Ice Wall (Last space connecting to the TAZ)... That makes the appearance look streamlined and it doesn't affect (much) the design of the board.

***

I will also answer about the "Chips". And my answer is: "I'm not sure!?" I have never been a fan of that concept ... But here are some of my recommendations and that MAY help you figure out what works best for YOUR game.

#1> I would have a collection of "Chips". Maybe at most 10 Chips.

#2> I would choose each team to pick two (2) "Chips" and place them in any space below the TAZ.

#3> That means that 4 spaces have a "Chip". Which is reasonable and that it's not a big "stretch" to include them.

#4> That 40% of of 10 (100%). Which is reasonable for replayability.

#5> You only have 5 tokens per the rulebook. That TO ME seems TOO LITTLE. And so I'm going to recommend some more as follows:

2x - No Effect: (2 out of 10 = 20%) and it means Tactically at least TWO (2) "Chip" will have an event.

2x - Need Oxygen: (2 out of 10 = 20%) and it means that the team SKIPS their TURN.

2x - Yeti Gamble: (2 out of 10 = 20%) and as you have in the rules. YEAH I wasn't sure about these "Chips" but I like the VARIABILITY and REPLAYABILITY aspect of them.

2x - Avalanche!: (2 out of 10 = 20%) and as you have in the rules.

2x - No Peak-ing: (2 out of 10 = 20%) and as you have in the rules.

What am I getting at??? Well each token has a 20% possibility out of 10 (100%) to be chosen. I'm not going to go into probability calculations but these are my RECOMMENDATIONS based on a review of the rules.

And as I said "I was NOT a FAN of these 'Chips'..." You won me over by their ADDED VALUE to the game in making it more replayable.

***

So that would mean 10 chips in total, 2 of each and each TEAM picks TWO (2) and places them where they would like at the START of the game.

And know that I am proud about how you've taken the game and improved it to suit your players and focus on a more "Party Game" aspect. I'm sorry if I felt a bit "pushy" about the "networked board", I just thought it was cool. And you managed to find something that WORKS "for your game"!

Again congratulations on your hard work and perseverance... It looks FAR better than the LINEAR PATH that you had in the beginning (2 paths straight up).

Also kudos for recognizing what WORKS and what DOESN'T ... Like I say we offer IDEAS but ultimately it is up the the Designer to figure out what works BEST. And I think that cutting one (1) SPACE from the game will shorten the game a bit... But I feel like you should consider the "Sand Timer" because IT WILL reduce discussion time and FORCE teams to work UNDER PRESSURE.

You're CLIMBINB a MOUNTAIN... No time for Jibber-Jabber... Got 1 minutes to get an ANSWER! Hehehe.

***

Again if you don't like the "Sand Timer" (And you can buy one from "The Game Crafter" (TGC)) they have 30 second, 60 seconds and 90 seconds timers. I would recommend 60 seconds... But you can also see IF you want SPEEDIER and higher pressure games with 30 seconds.

ALTERNATIVELY... You can have TWO (2) Sand Timers: 30 seconds and 60 seconds. The 30 Second Timer is a PRESSURE COOKER and make for more INTENSE games. The 60 Second Time is a NORMAL self-regulating timer to ensure teams don't debate for too much time.

***

I would recommend NOT making a DECISION ... Unless you PLAYTEST BOTH Sand Timers. They're like ~$5.00 (Red and Blue) and you can SEE IF it makes sense to use them... But KNOW that at 60 seconds... You will dramatically reduce the time to 30 minutes of gameplay. The 30 second Timers is crazy pressure ... But that might attract some people who like PLAYING under pressure. Just like Pictionary...

***

Again please share with us your THOUGHTS and tell us YOUR decisions that you make pending the review and TRYING to the various suggestions that I have come up for you based on my own experience. And I've been doing it for over 10-Years so ... I don't offer BAD advice. It's just YOU need to figure out what works for YOUR game.

Best!

Well I just was curious if any advancement in terms of PLAYTESTING the use of the Sand Timers...

BTW IF you order JUST one (1) or two (2) Sand Timers from "The Game Crafter" (TGC), you are put on the PARTS ORDER LIST which is usually processed in a day or two... You don't need to WAIT one-month's worth of time.

Also curious about YOUR THOUGHT???

Any early impressions? Do you think this will solve your issues?? I can honestly say that IMHP ensuring the discussion phase of each question is narrowed down to something REASONABLE, will result in short play time. And I think this was ONE (1) of your primary concerns.

Just curious...?

Yeah it would add more PRESSURE to the game. I already explained how 40 Questions at 1:00 per question equals 50 Minutes of Game Time. If you want the game to be UNDER 30 minutes you NEED to ensure that deliberations ONLY takes about 30 seconds per question. That makes the numbers work for 30 minutes + plus some prep time to setup.

At the moment, you have ZERO (0) way in CONTROLLING the time it takes to deliberate. And TIME is of the essence ESPECIALLY if you want to keep a match around the 30 Minute duration.

My recommendation is... If you are too cheap to spend $5 Bucks to order a 30-Second Timer... Make a PLAYTEST using a SmartPhone with a 30-Second Timer from the Clock App in the SmartPhone. Most newer SmartPhones have a TIMER.

TRY IT OUT! And then get back to me. Seems like you are IGNORING the MATH and the fact that IF you want the game to be played in AROUND 30 Minutes... You will need to CONTROL the major TIME CONSUMER which is deliberations.

I don't know how you can make decisions without first TESTING the idea first. You were against Question Levels and that works great. At first you were against the Board being more than two (2) tracks and that's working out BETTER.

TRY IT WITH A SMARTPHONE if you want to save the $5 bucks.

And then IF it works you can ADD a Sand Timer Component to the game. For under $5 bucks... Yes I realize that it's an ADDED EXPENSE... But one that could be ESSENTIAL in ensuring that the match doesn't go much more that 30 minutes.

That's all I have to say on this matter.

Note #1: Your Family Feud Style Question are always TIMED in that Game Show. You have Seconds to ANSWER. 30 Seconds per question is MORE than enough. Even Stealing a Question requires a huddle of 5 to 10 seconds before Steve asks: "What's your family's answer?"... This is just a way to ENSURE the game doesn't last forever. Or hover more around the 60 minute time to play...