Tracking conventions.

One of my games will use a screen, but i'm leaning towards mini-screens that screen, but do not take too much space. Since I'm nowhere close to getting a prototype done on this game, it'll be a while before I can say if it will work. Maybe a small to medium overhang(s) on the top and sides can help.

Perhaps if all tiles had an arrow on the back (to disguise which ones were catapults and which weren't) then it should be pretty easy to maintain orientation upon flipping a catapult (as long as players stay conscious of the original orientation). It would also make it really easy know how to flip it: along the axis of the arrow so that it's pointing the same way.

For that matter the tiles could simply have a line down the middle of their backs: when you flip a tile you always do so along that axis (the catapult direction would line up the same way as the line on back). A diagram in the rules would make it clear.

-- Matthew

I think it's clunky. Why not use the solution of Samurai Swords, that has blind bidding behind a screen, but each bid option has its own bin that you place your bid in? Unless there's some reason that the bids can't be revealed simultaneously, something like this would be better than 6 screens, I should think (though you may have to think a little big about what to use, since not everyone has access to a styrafoam tray like in Samurai Swords!)

I think screens are definitely clunky, with only a few exceptions. For one, they take up table space (though, I guess, so do "player mats"). For two, they can tip over. For three, they only keep info hidden if everyone stays in their seat and doesn't get up to go to the bathroom or something. For four, and this is the biggest one for me, I don't like having to "destroy" components that come with the game, and I feel that in the act of folding up the screen, I am marring the product that came in the box. Now, sure, the same is true for punching out tiles, but it's obviously different. The problem with screens is that you have to constantly fold and unfold them to set them up and put them back in the box, and unlike the game board, they aren't usually designed to take this wear and tear gracefully. I guess I just like all of the game components to feel durable and "permanent", and screens definitely feel like the flimsiest part of a component set.

I haven't used a screen in my games, and I hope to not have to; I just feel that there are better ways to keep information hidden. Upside down cards and tokens can do this just as well as hiding behind a screen. Often, a screen is simply used to mask the amount of something that someone has. If one used a better way to track whatever commodity that was (cards, say), this might work better.

Bandecko, I admit that the "orientation dependence" of your tiles is a problem. But as for the screen thing, I don't really see yet why you need it. I understand that you want people to pick and choose their traps, but I don't see why this needs to happen behind a screen. Won't other players know how many traps the player has? If not, why not?

So, assuming quantity is public, just have the players keep their traps face down in front of them, and place them face down on the board. This will be a little bit "clunky" in that players will have to keep looking to remember what they have, but other than that, it doesn't seem like a problem. Or, use a screen; it doesn't really matter either way. But I think screens are sufficiently annoying that I personally try to avoid them. Clearly, as the others point out, they have their uses!

Good luck,

Jeff

I had an idea for a game of mine that uses "hidden information" but for which screens wouldn't be appropriate. The idea is that you have cards that are at different "levels" and the cards themselves are known only to you. My idea was that it would be cool if there was some sort of way to make something that the cards could slide into such that you could see when a level was occupied, but not what the card was, unless you flipped the whole thing over -- in other words, the bottom would have windows that, by flipping the device over, you could remind yourself what your cards were.

It wouldn't be that hard to make something like this with cardboad, an xacto knife, and some clear card protectors, but I haven't done it yet. Still, something like this would be a good compromise for games with cards, particularly when the "local configuration" of the cards is important. For games where tokens or cubes are to be hidden, I suppose screens are the best.

The other option, of course, is to limit the number of hidden things that a player has so there isn't an unintentional memory element built into the game. In my game, there are only 3 levels, but people (me included) still forget what their cards are. So, a game with much more than that, screens might be better *unless* keeping quantities public is important.

But yes, I assume it's a matter of personal preference to some extent...

-J

The former. Each player has 3 "levels", each of which can hold exactly one card. The level determines the way in which the card is played.

There are 2 decks, a deck of "action cards" and the "other deck" that go into the levels on your "player mat". My point is simply that if the mat was transparent underneath, and if there was a way to rigidly hold the cards onto the mat, you could pick the thing up and remind yourself what your cards were without having to flip them individually. I'm sure I could rig this up, but I haven't yet. But, perhaps it might be a useful way for others to be able to keep track of "hidden specific, but public quantity" information.

It's not at all complicated in the game I mention. Everyone has a play mat with 3 levels, each can hold one card. That's it. No messy bookkeeping or anything.

-Jeff