Skip to Content

Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

31 replies [Last post]
markmist
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969

I am starting this thread for people to submit their comments and critiques about the games in the April showdown. Since there were so many entries (13!), don't feel like you need to comment on all of them. You could just highlight your favorite and why you voted for it.

[EDIT - Bryk ... I'll add a link to the challenge thread to make finding it easier in the future ...]

Brykovian
Brykovian's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Thanks for starting this thread, mark ... I've linked to it from the main challenge/entry-presentation thread.

-Bryk

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
The Entries

Well done, fellow designers! For the second straight consecutive month in a row (with no break in between), I have had fun reading the showdown entries.

I believe that the "unknown" mechanic was the most difficult aspect to design. Gremlins makes good use of the unknown in two places! First, when the player on the left gets to peek at his opponent's HQ card - creating tension in the "hinder him" vs "help myself" decision process. Second, the Scout action generates bluffing opportunities!
Catch an Imp! has a nice unknown, in that you have to guess at your hidden imp to score a bonus. This entry, as well as Secret Garden use what I'll call passive preferences, in that you really can't do anything about the unknown cards. (Actually, Secret Garden doesn't say whether a player can view his own Little People Card. Being able to do so, obviously changes the nature of the game.)
Rainbow has a nice time-bomb effect with its End of Round unknown mechanic. The theme is colorful, too!
Little Treasures really nails the mechanic! It would be like playing Pit after your little brother hid some of the cards! Great job!
Die Wichtelmänner seems to employ a passive preference for its unknown. I'm not clear on whether each shoemaker has the opportunity to induce his elf to make shoes using his preferred material. It doesn't matter though, because the theme and the cooperative nature of the game makes this a winner! This is the only entry that doesn't presuppose the existence of "little people", yet uses their mythological power in a realistic way (sort of like explaining Santa Claus to your little brother- then eating the cookies yourself!)
Dig! is a great design! Its unknown mechanic doesn't appear to affect the outcome vis-a-vis one's opponents (maybe I'm missing something). Nevertheless, Dig! reminds me of an an old classic: Trac 4. (
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/game/10198)

Mitch

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I haven't got into the game rules yet, but I do think Die Wichtelmänner deserves to be a children's picture book. (That is, this particular version of the fairy tale where every shoemaker helps his neighbour, just to keep the belief in elves alive.)

Yogurt

ensor
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I'm impressed by the quality, variety and thoroughness of the entries, and I think everyone should be proud of coming up with an interesting and playable design in a week. I hope you find time to playtest your games and report back later with revisions; I already see things I need to change in my submission.

I'm sure a year from now, game companies are going to be scratching their heads saying "Where did all these games about Little People and Dog Competitions come from?"

Well, my vote's in, but I'll hold off more detailed comments until next week, so as not to tip my hand to which entry I had a hand in making. Personally, I thought the hardest constraint to meet was not having a central board yet trying to keep player interaction high.

Good luck to all the entrants!

Mark

Pt314
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I too was suprised at the quality of all 13 entries. I ended up voting for the one I made, but only after I looked through them all.

ensor
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Pt314 wrote:
I ended up voting for the one I made, but only after I looked through them all.

Can we vote for our own entry? I voted for someone else. Seems like a zero-sum game if we all get one vote and vote for our own...

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I haven't put my vote in yet, but I'm not going to vote for my own game. (even though it's the best... ;o]) It's a little hard to deside, because I will only have played my own game...

However, I have 'studied' (for lack of a better word) most designs and already have an idea who might get my vote...

Cheese.

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I voted for someone else's, too.

I think it's too hard to objectively compare your own design to someone else's -- after all, you understand the subtleties of your own (even the ones you may not have clearly communicated in your rules write-up). Seems like that makes it hard to evaluate the others on even footing.

Of course, I thought most of the other designs were better than mine in spite of the bias...

Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I agree with Kreitler that it is hard to objectively assess and compare your game vs other entries. Thus I also voted for someone else.

I hope that many of the other members who did not enter a design vote, since it will help to balance the "vote for myself" dilemma.

emxibus
Offline
Joined: 10/24/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Wow, great designs from all!

It's a little overwhelming to comment on all the designs in one post, so I'll just comment on three (I orignally was going to do one at a time, but felt like I was taking too much space) at a time.

Entry #1 Secret Garden (may as well start at the beginning)

I think the rules are simple, but have depth. The scoring is clever and makes placement more involved and interesting. The hidden mechanic is a nice touch, it adds to the player's strategy. The theme was used well, and I can see myself playing this game with my family.

Entry #2 Snatch a Fairy

I like the theme of this game (anything with building armies is very cool with me), but I don't know if the name fits. The mechanic I like the most in this game is the secret weapon card, and how it works with the game. A player has to decide if his oponent is trying to bait him into a raid or not? Question: How may raids can a player go on, once or up to the number of 3 card battalions he has?

Entry #3 Little people in a blender.

Lots going on here. I would have to play this one to get a good feel for it. I really like the sleuth aspect of the game, and the interaction with the two discard piles.

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Looks like I'm going to vote for someone else's entry too, which is hard for me because I'm very very selfish.

;)

Yogurt

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Once again, I think my entry is really good, but probably not best so I'll probably vote for someone else's as well.

It would be nice if we had a rule that you can't vote for your own (honor system?) to make it more interesting.

- Seth

Rick-Holzgrafe
Rick-Holzgrafe's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/22/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Well, I didn't get an entry in this month (wish I had!) but I did vote, so even if everyone voted for themselves, somebody would get at least two votes. :)

I wouldn't vote for my own entry if I had one (I didn't last month, the only other time I've entered) because I couldn't possibly be objective about it. And anyway, it's not a political election -- nothing's on the line here except minor bragging rights.

I enjoyed reading the entries, even though there were a lot of them to get through. To thin the herd, I made a quick pass and noted the ones whose originality particularly impressed me. (This is a very subjective measure, of course! Some I liked the for their theme, some for their mechanics.) Then I went back through those few and read them more carefully, eventually dropping one or another for having vague rules, clumsy mechanics, difficult scoring, insufficient player interaction, and such. When there was one left, I sent in my vote. It was hard dropping some of them, they were such cool ideas!

I will do my best to enter next month's Showdown. For this month, well done everybody!

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

sedjtroll wrote:
It would be nice if we had a rule that you can't vote for your own (honor system?) to make it more interesting.

Yep. I think an honor system would work fine. Like Rick points out -- nothing's on the line except some minor bragging rights.

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Hey, great! I'm glad people liked Gremlins. A squeaker of a contest!

I think Fey Folk was very underrated. I loved the tough decision about when to give up a power for scoring, as well as the growing forest. I think the forest could be used more in the game, but this one was definitely my favourite.

As I mentioned earlier, I was charmed by the theme of the shoemaker game. I had trouble wrapping my head around the gameplay, so I went with Fey Folk.

The recent proposal to have required headers, including Strategy Advice, might have helped me grasp the core of some games faster.

I'd thought about doing both shoemaker and rainbow games, but couldn't figure out how to make them work. Collecting colours of the rainbow to make the best possible rainbow was clever. I find the idea of a 3-colour rainbow very amusing.

The borrowers game had a great mechanic with the rarity-scoring. I thought the theme wasn't a critical part of it, so for the contest I went with a different one.

It took me a while to think of a little-person creature that would collect things. I may try to work with the theme of gremlins again. As far as I can tell, the only games on the subject are based on the Phoebe Cates movie.

How did the two creators of the shoemaker game split the work? Did you brainstorm it together, pass it back and forth?

Yogurt

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Now that the votes are in, here are my thoughts on the entries.

First off, I liked all the designs, and was truly impressed by the wide interpretation of the theme.

That said, when it came time to judge, I based my choices on three primary factors: use of the theme, use of the hidden mechanic, and clarity of the rules (I only had time to read over the entries once, so if I didn't get it the first time, I didn't get it at all).

In the end, my top choices were: Snatch a Fairy!, Die Wichtelmanner, and (loosely tied) Battle Imps and Catch an Imp!

I liked the rules and play mechanics of Snatch a Fairy! Both were direct and easy to understand. The game felt like it would have depth without too much rules complexity, and the theme felt light and fun, despite being a "battle game".

Die Wichtelmanner possessed a great storybook atmosphere, and again, the rules seemed clear yet deep. This game used the theme to great effect -- certainly the most charming of the lot. I appreciated the fact that you got more points for helping your neighbor than for the shoes you owned.

Both Battle Imps and Catch an Imp! caught my imagination -- I felt like I could see the cards. The rules weren't quite as clear as the other front runners. Catch an Imp had solid, basic gameplay, but seemed to rely a lot on luck. Battle Imps rules weren't as clear, but seemed like it offered more opportunities for strategic play.

In the end, I decided against Catch an Imp! and Snatch a Fairy! because the secret mechanics didn't really allow for deduction -- you either guessed right or you didn't. That's really not true in either case, as you could probably count cards -- but it seemed like you'd have to be superhuman to do so, and you'd still have to play a majority of the game essentially "blind".

I chose Die Wichtelmanner over Battle Imps based on its storybook qualities and the fact that its secret mechanic allowed for deduction without card counting.

As for the rest (not in any particular order of preference...):

I loved the chaos I envisioned during a game of "Little People in a Blender". Had I had more time to review the rules and understand the game, I might have voted for this game because it caught an aspect of the the "Little People" that everyone else missed. Unfortunately, I couldn't really understand the intricacies of the game play in the time I had to decide and vote.

I think Rainbow made the most creative use of the set-building mechanic. Had I judged on that alone, it would have won. It also integrated theme and goals very well (as well as Die Wichtelmanner, but in a different way). As with "Little People in a Blender", the gameplay was complex enough that I couldn't fully understand it in the time I had for judging.

Little Treasures had the most intriguing mechanic. I have never played a "hording" game before. That worked for and against the entry, as I thought it had the most original take in terms of mechanics, but I couldn't easily envision how a game would play out. I also liked the "Borrowers" reference -- that was one class of "Little People" no on else managed to think of.

Looking back at Fey Folk, I'm not sure why it didn't rank among the front runners -- the rules, while involved, aren't overly complex, and the theme fits well (though it's definitely the darkest game in the bunch). I like the forest mechanic, and the cards provide a good array of "special powers" to keep things exciting. Utlimately, I think I passed on it because the hidden mechanic didn't seem to allow for much deduction, and the "game depth divided by number of rules" quotient wasn't quite as high as some of the simpler entries.

Midsummer Night's Dream used the them well and had a small number of rules, but I confess to getting lost trying to understand the interaction between distributing cards and the frequency of scoring rounds. Also, the record keeping required to reveal hidden cards but track them for scoring seemed a bit awkward. I suspect this game would have finished much higher on my list had I actually been able to *play* it. All rules were simple, but the interactions were too complex for me to work out in my head.

I thought the Gremlins stretched the "Little People" theme the farthest (to its credit). I also liked the "parts chaining" and tinkering mechanics. As with most of the more complex entries, I couldn't get a good feel for the interactions of a full game, which hurt the entry's score. Also, it seemed like conservative players who jumped early would have to sit out for several turns, waiting for a crash. I prefer games where all players interact for the duration of the game.

I liked Dig! -- especially the presentation. I also felt it solved the infamous "no central board" problem in a very elegant way. The hidden mechanic allowed for deduction, but with the variety of designs, I couldn't get a solid feel for how easily one could guess his opponents' designs based on their tile choices. Also, with a limit of 1 tile draw per turn, it seemed unlikely that you could try to counter an opponent's strategy and make any headway on your own. However, I'll admit that I couldn't run a good mental simulation of this game, either. Maybe I need to start taking herbal supplements...

A Little War seemed like a solid idea -- the mechanics were simple and the theme well integrated. The lack of specific card examples hurt the entry -- I really couldn't tell what kind of interactions the author intended. Without knowing that, I couldn't tell how much deduction the hidden mechanic allowed. This entry may have won had it been fleshed out a bit more.

And finally, there's Secret Garden -- my own entry. My goal going in was to create the simplest rule set possible that still provided some depth. I figured I wouldn't be able to communicate complex rules both concisely and clearly, so I'd rely on simplicity. However, after reading the other entries, I felt like Secret Garden was almost trite, and its use of theme very cliche. Even so, I like the scoring system and think that the game could be fun to play with younger kids, so I may mock it up and try it when my own get old enough to recognize sets and not eat the cards.

One final note: it seemed like everyone saw some merit in multiple entries. Maybe we should vote by listing the entries from most-to-least favorite, which would allow them all to receive points -- highest point total wins. Of course, that's a lot more work for the moderator...

Thanks to everyone who submitted as well as to those who voted. I had a blast both designing and critiquing. Here's to the next showdown.

K.

ensor
Offline
Joined: 08/23/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Wow, second place, in a tight field! Hats off to everyone, and thanks for the votes!

For our entry, disclamer and I met up the Friday after the anouncement and had a brainstorming session, where we hammered out the basic mechanics of the shoemakers and elves. We discussed things more over email, disclamer had the idea of scoring for both sets of shoes on your left and right, and I nailed down the number of materials. I had a playtest last Tuesday with 5 players, which helped clarify some of the ending possibilities and solidify the rule set.

I think the standard format idea is a good one; our entry could have used some Strategy Tips to help get the deduction and gameplay concepts across, and I want to playtest with fewer cards in player's hands (18 is a lot to hold). We had to shoehorn the hidden mechanic into the game, and I want to work on integrating it more with the theme. The contest was a great way to get the creative juices flowing, so we'll see where this idea goes from here.

As I said before, everyone's entry was really good, and I had a hard time choosing. My vote was cast for Little Treasures, a nice simple idea that reminded me of Haggle by Sid Sackson, where you trade both goods as well as how much those goods are worth, but here it was all wrapped up in the same mechanic. I went with those that I felt matched the speficiations, and while Fey Folk and Gremlins were very cool games I want to play, they had too much of a central board for my vote in the contest. Dig was also a great entry and well integrated, I would like to see more player interaction somehow. (Outside the contest restrictions, I expect these games to really take off) I got lost reading Little People in a Blender with the special powers of each folk, but that's more my fault, as I lean toward simple games with little card-text.

Good luck to everyone working on your designs, see you next month!

Hamumu
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I think Kreitler has a point in that I am surprised I got a vote at all (from the champion himself, no less!), since the "pick your favorite" voting system seems like it will focus all the energy on just a few games, leaving the slightly less desirable games feeling like they're just garbage! I appreciate the really positive comments I'm hearing here though - I was really worried about my Forest mechanic (my game is Fey Folk for quick reference) because it's pretty much Concentration, and I know how people hate that. I didn't really want it either, I was just totally stuck on the whole "hidden information" part.

I actually ended up picking Dig as my winner almost at random from an agonizing top 4 or so, which were from 8 that I really thought deserved it. It was tough! Wouldn't have been any easier with a ranking system, but at least then I could've rewarded the others that I appreciated nearly as much. There were quite a few where I was just really enthralled and wanted to buy a copy just to give it a play and see. They were all out at the local game store, though. Especially intriguing to me besides Dig were Gremlins, Der Wickelpickle, and the battle one where you build armies and can kidnap the opposition (Snatch A Fairy!?). Those are the ones that still stick in my mind now. That last really felt like a quick-playing, very simple game. Probably not a lot of depth, but it doesn't need it. It's nice to have something elegant instead of a big mishmash.

I was very impressed with how just about everyone really came up with a solid hidden-information mechanic. Made me feel even more dumb on that front when I saw the entries!

I just wanted to share my alternate design too. I think it's a lot goofier (and not very fleshed out) and could've gotten me some votes, although I never did come up with a hidden info mechanic for it. That was definitely the hard part! Fey Folk followed the rules more and was much more of a legit game, so I entered it. Here it is, Leprechaun Twister:

Each player has a mini twister mat, and a Leprechaun playing piece. The Leprechaun has 6 parts, connected by strings – a torso, a head, two hands, and two feet. The strings are just long enough that a body part can be 2 spaces away from the torso at maximum. Gameplay works vaguely like twister, with cards played from your hand that call out different colors with different body parts. You may move your torso anywhere you like whenever you move a body part, provided moving it does not dislodge any body part from its spot. The goal, since you’re a leprechaun, is to get your body to be on each color of the rainbow (except Indigo, which isn’t really a color anyway – ROYGBV), to build a rainbow for your pot of gold! Play the cards that will help you or hinder your opponent. If you can’t make a valid move, you toss out your twister mat and draw a new one (there is a deck of ones with different layouts), and start fresh on it. Fresh, by the way, means that all parts of you get lumped together on any single dot you choose. I don’t know where the hidden information comes in with this game.

PS - There's nothing dark about grinding fairies into soup! They deserve it.

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Hamumu wrote:
PS - There's nothing dark about grinding fairies into soup! They deserve it.

I didn't mean "dark" in a bad way -- heck, grinding faeries is very "story book" (just like gobbling up granny and cutting the tails off of mice :P ).

Love Leprechaun Twister. Wish you could've entered it.

Quick thought for a possible hidden mechanic: instead of every player needing 6 colors, each one needs 5 and can't be touching the 6th (all players draw their forbidden color when they pick a board). Maybe this violates the rules of Twister -- I only played it once...

K.

Scurra
Scurra's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/11/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Well, I guessed who had written three of the other entries (Sedjtroll, Yogurt and Nando), partly from style and partly from comments made elsewhere. I think I probably left enough clues in mine for people to work it out if they could be bothered.

In the end I think I picked my winner with a pin (I eventually voted for "Dig" because the designer had clearly had the same problems with finding a good name as I had!)

A great bunch of games. Congratulations to everyone.

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Kreitler wrote:

Midsummer Night's Dream used the them well and had a small number of rules, but I confess to getting lost trying to understand the interaction between distributing cards and the frequency of scoring rounds. Also, the record keeping required to reveal hidden cards but track them for scoring seemed a bit awkward. I suspect this game would have finished much higher on my list had I actually been able to *play* it. All rules were simple, but the interactions were too complex for me to work out in my head.

rereading my entry it really sounded sort of dry, theme-wise. In the chatroom I had talked about it with more of the theme in mind, but for my entry it appears I pretty much just listed the mechanics. So I wouldn't have voted for my entry anyway.

However I must say I'm suprised at the confusion some people had with the mechanics.

I'm not suprised about the confusing draft mechanic. If you've ever played in a Magic: The Gathering booster draft then you would know exactly what I was talking about, but it's nearly impossible to describe in any succinct way with words. Much easier to explain while you do it.

So the jist of it is, you roll the dice each turn, ese if you trigger a scoring round, then draw cards (based on die roll) to distribute.

You put hide one in your hidden stash first, then it's just like Citadels (or the Magic draft I mentioned) where each player drafts a card at a time and passes the rest.

I complicated things by making it so that you only draft if there are enough cards to go around, and if there aren't then you put the rest in the face up pot (which I never described).

Is there a better way to explain that? Because I think the game has a lot of subtle interaction and could actually turn out to be very good. I would like to know if it's worth trying.

- Seth

Kreitler
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

sedjtroll wrote:
Is there a better way to explain that? Because I think the game has a lot of subtle interaction and could actually turn out to be very good. I would like to know if it's worth trying.

The additional description helped, but the place where I keep breaking down isn't so much in the description of the mechanics as it is in the implied interaction between drafting and scoring.

Example: the more you draft, the more likely you are to trigger a scoring round in a subsequent turn--but how do these numbers work out, precisely? And how does the addition of "only draft if you have enough cards" change the probabilities?

I agree that I think there are a lot of subtle interactions. I can see that these will exist, but I can't see what they are. I wouldn't worry about whether it's worth trying -- mock it up and test it out! Then let us know how it goes, because it sounds pretty interesting...

K.

Challengers
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Way to Go, yogurt!

Wow! two in a row! Sign yogurt up!

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Regarding Midsummer Night's Dream, Kreitler wrote:

Example: the more you draft, the more likely you are to trigger a scoring round in a subsequent turn--but how do these numbers work out, precisely? And how does the addition of "only draft if you have enough cards" change the probabilities?

Well, the more you draw the more likely there will be a scoring round, true... and you draw (almost) every turn. However it's more like the more cards you PLAY the LESS likely you will trigger a scoring round. This may or may not matter to people... unless they only score themselves on a scoring round- which might be more interesting- but either way, that's the meat of the game.

So I don't think it's important to know or think about how many cards you'll draw vs the probabilities of scoring. It's supposed to be interesting to think about how many cards you'll have left after you play some. THOSE are the probabilities that matter.

The divying up evenly thing and putting the rest in the middleis just so that everyone always gets the same number of cards at a time, rather than just drawing what you roll or whatever. TYhis keeps it even, and gives players some control over what they want to collect, AND what categories will be scored... Points aren't available in a suit unless you pass cards of that suit, but in order to get those points you have to HAVE cards of that suit.

Playing the cards makes it a sort of area majority thing.

- Seth

Gogolski
Gogolski's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/28/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

First of all, congrats to all, voting was extremely hard!

I was almost going to vote for Gremlins due to it's originality, but disqualified it in the end (after much conferring with myself) for having a central board. Sorry for that, but I still had to eliminate a bunch of others too...
I ended up voting for Little Treasures, because I thought it was brilliant to discard a bunch of cards at the end to drive up the value.

My entry was Little People in a Blender. I only dicovered this site on sunday night, when the showdown was already running. I supplied a first draft on monday night and after testing it with some friends (four player game), wrote up a second draft on tuesday, which was the final entry. I've played it with two players too in the meantime and have writen a third draft.

The object of the game is not only to collect your own race, but also to look carefully at other players' cards to find out what race they are collecting, and trying to disturb their collection.
The guessing at the end during the scoring makes that you can loose an awful amount of points, so you have to be careful to make the right guess.
The playtesters liked it, and so did I. It's almost finished I guess...

Cheese.
-Fred-

btaggart
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Critique Request

I would love any feedback people are willing to give me about my entry, Little War. I'm in the chat room lurking now, and will be there explicitly for this purpose at 2pm Pacific (GMT-8, so 22:00 GMT). Otherwise PMs are fine, or posts in this thread, as appropriate.

I'm already looking forward to the next one and will be sure to do better in my presentation.

Thanks in advance,

Ben.

Zzzzz
Zzzzz's picture
Offline
Joined: 06/20/2008
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

Ok I guess I would like to have a little input on "Catch an Imp!". I know the game was very very basic, but I just wonder if the depth of the game was the downfall? What else was not appealing about the game?

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

For "A Little War," I needed to know more about the cards to understand the game. I always want to know what sort of difficult decisions a player will face. A Little War player might agonize over choosing which single card to play, but without knowing what the cards might say, I couldn't tell. A few examples would have helped a lot.

For "Catch an Imp," I simply didn't get it. (I do now.) I think this may have been one of the submissions that would have benefited from less detail, in order to highlight the unique aspects. I only realized just now that the players draw cards not just simultaneously, but at their own frantic pace, and that the messy draw pile is *face down*. You say all this, but I missed it. I could see kids having fun with this game, and the messy face-down pile suits the Catch an Imp theme. Two thoughts: the hidden mechanic seems a bit random. I may be missing the strategy there. Also, the game might work with colours better than numbers, if it is meant for kids.

Yogurt

btaggart
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Repost Submission

Would it be appropriate for me to re-post my submissions with changes here? I know the contest is over, but I've appreciated the input I've gotten so far.

Yogurt
Yogurt's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/09/2009
Critique the game designs - April 2005 showdown

I'd be happy to look at a revised Little Wars, but I'd start a new thread just for that topic.

Yogurt

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut