Body Parts

UPDATE: Grrrrr, Geocities is being a pain in the butt! It won't allow downloads of ZIP files. Bloody useless.

So, here are the four available files...

http://www.geocities.com/ingredientx/body_parts/Cards.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/ingredientx/body_parts/Backs.pdf (This link might be temperamental - keep trying)
http://www.geocities.com/ingredientx/body_parts/Starters.pdf
http://www.geocities.com/ingredientx/body_parts/Starter_Backs.pdf

These files are all pretty big, from 500 KB to 2 MB.

CARDS
The cards file has one sheet of paper, with the cards numbered 0 through 5. Print this sheet out 15 times, and you'll have the cards.

BACKS
The way I do the card backs is that I print out all my card fronts, and then I rotate (not flip) the paper 180 degrees, so the side of the paper that came out of the printer first will go back into the printer first. This is why the backs are upside down... so that when you rotate the page, both sides of the cards will be oriented correctly. This is obvious, but make sure that the printer is now printing on the back of the page. :)

I like using card backs, because they help the card's opacity.

STARTER FRONT
These are the front of the starter cards.

STARTER BACKS
These are the backs of the starter cards.

Let me know if anything's amiss. Enjoy!

-- Matthew

Ahh... I thought I needed permission before the upload. Silly me.

I'll put the game up here if there are any further problems. And now I know for next time.

Thanks!

Hey Tom, thanks for the reply!

I don't have anywhere near the amount of data about how balanced this will be, especially with anything other than four players. I included six players out of good faith, but I'm not sure how it will work.

The old balancing mechanism in the game, which you missed by about two weeks, was absolutely abysmal. Players outside the lab with fewer points than the Scientist could play as many cards as they wanted, but players with more points could only play two cards. Yech!

There was another balancing mechanism in the old rules that was pretty awful too. Instead of going clockwise around the table, play order always went to the player with the fewest points. As a result, it would be common for a player to sit around for 30 minutes and never enter the lab. Double yech!

Finally, the game ended when someone reached 65 points. But failed experiments extended the game length, because there was no new card entering the Monster economy, as it were; one player's gain was another's loss. I introduced the peasants to make sure failed experiments moved the game along.

At the time, the hand limit was a strict five cards for everyone. I introduced the variable hand size and removed the play limit. I also dinged the variable turn order, came up with the peasants, and introduced the clockwise movement. Our game was the first non-solo test with these rules. It played quicker, and it seemed to be much more fun.

One issue with the game that will be a constant is that the more players there are in the game, the fiercer cardplay will be for the Skeptic, and the tougher it will be for the Scientist to pull off an experiment. This will probably be a real issue with five or six players. I haven't tried a game with these rules for that many players, so I'm curious.

On the other hand, a game with three players might be too easy for the Scientist. I'll have to watch it. I wonder if these differences, if they exist, are necessarily bad things that I will need to adjust. If each kind of game is different but still fun, then I think I can stay put. But if players are consistently frustrated for some reason, then I'll have to open up the hood again.

Yeah... at this point, it's just a matter of collecting data and watching for fun.

Yes, at first I thought it would be okay (kind of like the starting money situation in Alhambra), but the newest ruleset (I've changed it since the Playfest) has all players starting at 25 points, but with different kinds of cards in their Monsters. This way, a failed experiment can still be productive.

I appreciate the help, so don't worry if it doesn't work out! You've already been a fantastic help. Thank you!

In the game the player must roll a number which is less than the sum of the dice, and more than the number of "parts" in their monster. In your example, the dice add to 10 and the monster has 4 cards, so you state that "[the scientist] must roll between a 5 and 9 for a successful experiment" ... I assume this is an inclusive interval you are defining with "between" , for some reason this strikes me as a little ambiguous. It might be more straightforward/precise to say "the roll must be greater than 4 and less than 10"

am I having a mental lapse, or is "between" confusing for other people too? Maybe I just know too much math ... errr. something.

peace,
Tom

Actually, that's a good point. Thanks for the suggestion! I guess I should post revised rules... there's a few tiny changes I have made, and still need to make...

Cool, I'm glad you brought it to the table!

I'll probably have to throw together a reference card. The choices can be confusing. More on the villagers below, but remember that the game can't end until every player has had a turn in the laboratory.

How long did the games take? 30 minutes? 1 hour? Do you feel that if the game ran 15 minutes longer, it would be too long?

Your hand size should have been bigger than everyone else's. When you went down to 12 points, did you feel that your increased hand size made a difference?

Here's the thing about the townsfolk: first off, they're a new mechanic, so it's quite possible that there's something about them that's downright broken.

Secondly, as I've posted, a previous version of the game ended at 65 points. There was no peasant mob. This meant that every failed experiment kept the game going longer, because no new points were introduced into the game's "economy."

The peasant mob fixes that, as they bring the endgame closer with every failed experiment. If there was a way to appease them, then I worry that the game would run too long.

My initial reaction would be to start them further away. This would allow one or two more failed experiments in the game.

Yep. I have no idea how to remedy this. This is a theme-pasted-on game, and nongamers will probably be disappointed.

I wonder if that might be as easy to fix as having a pair of arms and a pair of legs on the respective cards. Nevertheless, it's a valid complaint, and another one related to the fact that the theme to this game is quite thin.

My friend Ben is very talented! He hates doing game artwork, but this one didn't take him long.

Interesting. So the non-gamers you played with weren't happy with the thin theme, but the gamers didn't mind it, but felt that the townsfolk approached too quickly. As I said, I'd prefer to fix the latter issue by starting the peasant mob further away from the players. Do you think this is worth a try, or would that not have helped?

As for the first issue, I don't know offhand how I can put any more theme into the game without either dismantling the scoring system, or adding needless, fiddly chrome.

Here's the most important question: Did the testers have fun playing the game? Were they getting into character? Were they twisting with agonizing decisions? Or did they just want to roll the dice and get it over with? And don't hold back - be as honest as you can, please!

I appreciate the help, Tom!

Hmmm... I'm not so sure I should worry too much about the first playtest result, other than the dire need to print out turn reference cards. :)

Here's an interesting dilemma: players would want to play longer to keep themselves in the game, but how long can I stretch it? I want first-time gamers to play this in an hour at most, and experienced players to finish in 45 minutes, tops. Any longer, and the game would certainly overstay its welcome. I'd like to see how starting the mob further up the scoreboard would help.

My initial reaction would be to start them further away. This would allow one or two more failed experiments in the game.

That might do the trick, that would probably be easier than having them move at a slower pace (ie 8 spaces rather than 10). This might also vary with the number of players. So the current set-up might work fine for 4 players, but with 5 you want them to be a little further away.

Cool, then it's just a matter of jiggling the numbers. Perhaps the mob starts at 89 with 3-4 players, and 99 with 5-6 players. Or something similar. It's just a matter of messing with it.

Still, I'd rather have a quicker game where not everybody has the same amount of time in the lab, than a 90-minute game where everybody visits the lab three times.

It's an interesting dilemma, isn't it? Without trying to toot my own horn, I'd say that the theme is too good. I think people, especially non-gamers, might feel a little "ripped off" that the game doesn't live up to its rich theme.

Funny that you mentioned Bohnanza a little earlier, because it has the opposite problem. The theme to that game is not that great, and there are people (especially non-gamers) who just won't play a game if it's about bean farming.

Now, the game must have a theme; as you can tell, I came up with the mechanics to this game first, and it took a few months to come up with a good theme. Without the theme, the game is very difficult to play. I'm not sure what other theme I'd want for the game; it would feel like I'm taking a step backwards. Not to mention that I'd have to shelve the great artwork my friend made for the game.

It's a question like this where I have to dig down and think: who am I making this game for? Do I seriously want it to be publishable? Do I want it to be an eccentric but fun game, with loyal adherants and angry detractors? Okay, maybe I'm flattering myself a bit much... but the point is, I'm not looking for mass appeal with this game. I don't mind if I turn off some non-gamers; I really want this game to function as a good filler for gamers, giving them meaningful choices inside a fun theme. Whether or not this game has a fun theme, non-gamers probably will not like the mechanics. At its most basic level, it's really just probability.

Of course, if I can figure out a way to make the game appeal to both gamers and nongamers, then I'll do it in a second. But I'm not sure this is the game with which to do it. There's a reason why "gateway" games are so celebrated; it's that designing a game with such broad appeal is very difficult to do. I don't pretend to be even close to that point yet. Maybe soon... but not now...

Not surprising that the Math people liked it the most! That's really who I anticipate will really like the game.

That's not a bad suggestion, and perhaps the easiest path. It would also cut down on game length. I'll try it in my next playtest.

Well, that's a good problem to have! :) As you say, I don't want the game to drag. Better to force them to muscle their way into the lab through Sabotage.

Yeah, maybe.

I can't say that folks were getting into character, they were too focused on the decisions, or being confused by my explanation. Though, the half of the group that was playing a different game while body parts was being played voiced their opionion that they expected to be hearing maniacal laughter coming from the body parts players.

I'm happy about the decisions... I'd rather have that than a Steve Jackson-esque game with all theme and no interesting mechanics to speak of (I played Chez Geek the other night, and I think I've hit my Steve Jackson limit). Again, perhaps the theme does not match the mechanics as well as I thought.

oh, the other thing I forgot to mention was that this game is kinda difficult to teach, so we ended up just playing an open hand first, that seemed to help people pick it up more quickly.

One day, I will design a game that's easy to teach. You'll recognize that day, because you'll see winged pigs and demons doing triple toe loops.

Thanks again, Tom!

It seems to be much more fun, and is a better fit with the theme.

I think I skimmed this in the rules. You cannot score a card that's already in your Monster (The exception is Igor; you can have as many Igors in your monster as you'd like). So if Igor brings you a card that you already have in your Monster, it gets discarded.

This means that a Monster is easy to start, because just about any Igor draw will help you. But by the end of the game, it's a valid option to hold back cards in your hand that you don't have in your Monster, and to have several Igors helping you. The Icebox grows during the game, so there will probably be a card you'll want there most of the time.

All in all, there's a little bit of luck involved, but since the game will run about 15-20 mins, I don't think that will be a problem.

Yes. The player with the best combination scores twice out of the possible three ways of scoring. But if he can't score, he can't score. So for example, if a player has the best combination but can't score from his hand or from the Icebox, he will only score once through his Igors.

Hmmm... this is an awfully good idea. I could make Igors 8 instead of 0. I'll give it a shot!

Every player gets one card after a hand is played. Additionally, when a player outside the lab gets a chance to play cards, he can instead choose to draw a card. This way, players can get two cards at once. Hand sizes seem to vary from three to five during the game, so this isn't a bad-sized swing. So far, playtesters have been into it, but I haven't tested nearly enough...

Thanks, I learned a lot!

Way too strong. :)

I don't know if I'll even put strong Igors into the game yet... we'll have to see how it shakes out.