This game was crafted for October GDS entry and has moved into play testing and I’m hoping to log my journey. My idea came from the movie Young Frankenstein where controlling the monster was just as crazy as creating it.
My goals were to create a resource game without money or player trading. I also wanted no movement but later crumbled to the idea of assistants moving around. My idea was to have a simple game with easy decisions and let the Out of Control monsters do their job by mixing up the game.
It’s been play tested 12 or so times now with 2 and 3 players and has proven to be quite entertaining. Each game I tweaked and adjusted to get the timing just right. I made lists of players Likes and Dislikes of the game and each new play test improved game quality.
What went right? Monsters OOC got a lot of laughs, also the fun watching others try and Regain control and failing. Monsters raiding the Labs also made for a good time watching others suffer. The struggle of making sure your monster is under your control and in the Lab when you want to upgrade him. Players also enjoyed the Villager track and the Hostile Cards. Making sure your monsters is under your control and in the lab to be scored at the end of the game. The stress and nail biting of whether to chance sending out that level 3 or 4 monster near the end of the game to help you win, knowing that your high level monster who’s abilities are amazing could snake you the victory or go OCC and never be returned.
What went wrong? The first couple of test before balancing the DNA upgrades didn’t move fast enough. I wanted by mid game everyone to have their engine rolling but it was just getting started. This led to 1 animal type to create a Level 1 monster to speed up game play. The original Market idea had a few problems because it was randomly populated with sheep, pig and cow instead of take 1 of your choice. This led to yet another slow down in game and also balancing how many of each type should be in the bag. The other big issue was the Field; players didn’t understand its benefit of having an OCC monster in the field to populate the fresh corpse economy. The idea is Lower level monsters are quick to go OOC but easy to regain. While higher level monsters are harder to lose control but they are also harder to regain. By sending a low level monster to the fields to get a wolf or horse and maybe hoping it goes OCC to kill a villager. Later balancing of corpses was needed and the mechanic of monsters killing assistants and the Village location was added. This also led to balancing of the DNA upgrades and made Corpses rarity medium and switched places with the now rare wolves and horses.
I’ve included the full rules in PDF format for anyone interested in helping or fresh ideas. I have left out the Monsters abilities and how they can manipulate the game in your favor. I’m also working on more creative Villager Hostility cards.
Im including a pic of early prototype. The board and rules have changed since these pics but should give some insight.
Comments
Yes, i agree!
The game sounds like a lot of fun. I love the theme, and the DNA building of monsters.
Just a few questions I found from reading your rules:
1) How does each player start? (dice roll, card...?)
2) How many monster tokens for each player?
Other comments:
DNA and monster type switching; you said you had initial problems with speeding up DNA play. What if your DNA tokens were double sided, and a certian action could allow you to switch powers (without having to go back to the lab)?
I think its a pity to go back to a level 2 before upgrading again to different power. Maybe the idea is to create the monster with all the inherent qualities from the beginning and you can switch your powers via certian events - just an idea.
(to follow this front/back idea the DNA tokens could also be like thin fridge-magnet material so you can eventually add the back side DNA to the front side DNA to keep the combinations different and not fixed).
How many villager tokens are roaming the board? If there is just 1 villager then this means the villager goes to the cemetery as a corps. What happens to this token after it is taken and used? Where does it get repositioned to on on the board? (maybe i missed it in the rules)
I like the rearranging of cages ideas. Having to manage the position of your animals/fodder is another important parallel task in case of OOC monster in this area.
In any case I like your idea. Bravo!
Marco wrote:1) How does each
Each player has 1 assistant that travels around the board moving 1-3 spaces(your choice no rolls) a turn. On your first turn you place your token on any space and use its action. The rest of your turns you will be moving it 1-3 around the board counter clockwise.
The short answer is 3. Each lab holds 1 monster and you can upgrade to 3 labs.
Let me explain further, after creating a monster with a sheep, pig or cow you can upgrade it 3 times. There are 9 monster types to choose from and 3 main (middle) DNA strands associated with them (sheep, pig, and cow). Looking at the DNA upgrade pic in the PDF and following the rule that all upgrades middle strand must match your animal type used in creating a level 1, you'll see each monster type has 2 other types it can bond with to make a multi-type monster. For example, Market, Steal and Defender all have Pink (pig) middle strands, so they can be used together.
What’s confusing is that once a monster is created it’s considered to be level 1 and so I refer to my DNA upgrades as level 2, 3 and 4 instead of 1, 2 and 3 trying to avoid confusion. For victory points you add all of your levels together. Creating a level 4 Market monster yeilds 10 points 1+2+3+4. But for Multi-type monsters like a Level1,Market2,Market3,Steal2 yeilds 8 points.
Now to answer your question, you do not have to remove powers to add a different type. Let’s say I upgrade my level 1 with Market2 upgrade, I place it in the 1st upgrade slot. I can now later upgrade to Market3 or change types to either Steal2 or Defender2 and place it in my 2nd upgrade slot. You never remove types you always go forward. So you can push for a level 4 in one type or level 3 in one and level 2 in another or last try for level 2 in all 3 types. If you were Market 3 and added Steal 2 that doesnt mean your level 2 now, your still Market level 3 but you've added the Steal ability. Remember this, the DNA upgrades are randomly populated so a player might have to pass on that level 4 and go for another type. Also when a monster leaves the lab you'll decide which ability to use of a multi-type. Whats great is how players choose monster types as the game changes. OOC monsters make for a differnt game everytime.
There is no villager token roaming the board. It moves along the track on the outside. When a monster is created or leaves the lab the villager token moves 1 space. Every 6th space triggers a Villager Hostility card.
Im working on my ability to express my rules in text format :P so feel free to ask any questions.
I really appreciate you taking the time to look through my game and your ideas as well. I like your idea of flipping DNA tokens but I’m thinking I might use toggling tokens for combat. Thematically I’ve always wanted Monster on Monster action. When 2 OOC monsters meet in a location it always seemed fitting to have them duke it out, but I could never come up with a way to do it without drastically changing a player’s game. It didn’t seem fair to kill monsters or remove upgrades since it only makes the game go backwards. Plus when two monsters meet it’s a result of random die rolling anyway it just compounds the randomness to roll or have some kind of combat resolution. This is something I’ve been stressing over since the beginning of this game. Anyway thanks again and I look forward to any future comments.
Thanks for your detailed reply...
it cleared up my questions and made your mechanics more clearer - though its always difficult without the actual game to tinker around with when learning the Rules.
I like your idea of the OOC combats between 2 monsters - however I see the problematic that you are faced with in trying to keep a nice balance without killing or removing upgrades. Sounds like a few game-testing sessions with a few more ideas may be needed to see how this could be implemented!
If I think of anything in the next few days I'll let you know.
Cheers for now (and if you eventually want some advice help when finalising the Rules PDF don't hesitate to drop a line - details in my profile). Marco
The game sounds like fun
The game sounds like fun (sorry I don't have time to look at the PDF right now). The title, though, really makes me think of Dineh.
But then I'm in the Southwest, so I'm more likely to be familiar with the term
MatthewF wrote:The game
But then I'm in the Southwest, so I'm more likely to be familiar with the term
Mathew, I love that part about "NASA and the Dine" - excellent!!