Test of games the 21 May

Sands of Time received a grade of 3.5 (observe that we always grade the games for what it is and not for its potential).

Ouch! Not exactly a ringing endorsement, eh? My apologies that the game didn't appeal to your group.

That's one of the real issues that came up in the GDW. Some folks said "there's too much complexity", but there's no one system that is the obvious culprit. If I had to hack something, it would probably be the "caravan" system, which is pretty new. Yet, I like it because it offers interaction. Maybe it could be considered a "variant". I'll also note that I have actually done a fair bit of hacking and streamlining since the GDW; any further changes would be to remove core systems (like resource production, or combat, etc.) I'm not sure I'm ready for those kinds of changes yet.

I agree that the game forces you to manage a few different things, but this is really the whole idea of the game, that you can steer your civilization in a variety of directions, and choose to focus on expansion, or development, or production, etc. There's a certain baseline of complexity that is needed to enable that.

But on the other hand, the game has a certain idea to it, that the "goal" of an empire isn't merely to do big deeds, but to also pay attention to building up a "legacy" so that people will remember your deeds when you're long gone. In that sense, the game could probably be cut into either a fairly standard Civ-building game where you build/produce/fight, OR it could be cut into a game just about the history-writing aspects. But I like having the game be about both.

This is a valid concern. The "ramp-up" of the game is something I'm still calibrating. It's very hard to get people to test this one due to its length, so there hasn't been nearly enough tweaking done. My sense is that the "quick start" setup might have appealed to your group more, as it gives you a few upgrades from the very beginning of the game. The game's rules as written are probably more appropriate for people who like to "start from scratch" and spend a few turns just deciding and defining in which direction their empire should go. I really think that the full version of the game is best for people who have played a few times and have some ideas about strategies.

Yeah, I just made up a little reference card yesterday, too late to benefit you. I did make up a book of illustrated examples; I thought I sent it to you? That might have helped, but surely, there's still room for improvement in the explanation of the game.

I don't think the game actually has that much of an analysis paralysis problem. Rather, I'd say that it has a learning curve -- there is a lot going on, and it takes some time to understand and internalize how everything works.

I was mentally rehearsing a rules explanation for the game yesterday (we had a playtest session, but didn't end up playing) and I said to myself "wow, this sounds pretty involved!" But once you get the feel for the game, there's actually not all that much going on.

This is an interesting dilemma; to me, the variability of the setup is something that has been part of the design since day one, and it's something I really like. I've played the game probably 10 times or so now, and I don't have any problem translating the information from the boxes on the edge of the board to the actual territories on the map. It's useful, then, to hear that this was a problem for your group, as I hadn't heard that particular complaint before, although I do understand it.

One thing that I think is interesting about the variable setup concept is that you can see how different strategies emerge from different geographies. For example, a region with several large Crops territories is a good place to spring up a militaristic empire; a region with several low-capacity territories can be a good place to try to spring up a few cities.

The game is really meant to give historical flavor without explicitly trying to recreate history, and the variable board really serves a key role in facilitating that. And the information boxes are a necessary evil, in that sense, because putting markers on the board would just clutter it up too much. But printing on the board might not.

Hmm... this is a tough call; it's a shame to have the game turn people off after one playing, yet I suspect that people who play 2 or 3 times wouldn't have a problem with this aspect of the game. Does one design a game around the needs of the first-timers, or of the "veterans"? It's a challenging decision.

I appreciate your playing the game, and your insights and candor in your comments. My feeling about the game is that it has a bit of a learning curve, and I'm unfortunately not surprised that your first time playing was slow going. I do suspect that if you played again, now that you understand the game better, your group might enjoy the game more, but I realize that it's a big investment of time and wouldn't ask you to make it.

I'm not sure what's going to happen with this one. My guess is that there's a decent chance it will end up in the scrap heap; I don't really have access to a group that can/will playtest it regularly enough to try out changes, so even if I could mentally come up with a set of changes as sweeping as what it sounds like you're advocating, I don't think I'd ever be able to test it.

Thanks again!

-Jeff

Yes, of course. I think there's also a sense in which designing a game that works very well and one that is easy to play right out of the box are two different aims (though obviously, you want to achieve both if you can).

But I think Johan's comments about the game board are a useful example of my dilemma. Let's say, hypothetically, that the mental effort associated with the board layout I'm using is, indeed, too difficult, and 3/4 of everyone who plays the game will be so irritated by the board that they won't want to play again. But for the 1/4 who will play the game 2 or 3 times, they will find the board aspects managable, and will like the variability aspect. Given this, what is the right thing to do?

To my mind, there isn't an obvious answer to this question; the variability is something I feel strongly about, yet if I could bring myself to sacrifice it, I could broaden the appeal of the game (maybe). It's a tough call; it really forces you to ask "who am I designing this for?"

Surprisingly, no -- in my experience, the most useless playtesters are the ones who drool all over the game. It's flattering, but not terribly useful, particularly when you know that the game is flawed, and believe me, I have no illusions that Sands, as is, is anywhere close to perfect. The tricky bit for me is separating the "learning curve" aspects associated with becoming familiar with the game, and the "this game doesn't work" aspects. I think that Johan's feedback sounded like a mix of both.

Well, maybe "scrap heap" was too dramatic a term; "backburner" might be a better term. It just might end up on a real low simmer. And I should make it clear that it's not going there just yet; my point was simply that, if Johan is right and the game does indeed need (yet another!) severe overhaul, it will likely be quite a while till that happens...

Thanks!

-Jeff

Of course this is OK with me. Bummer it didn't go smoothly. I'm curious to know what was played incorrectly. I thought the rules, though not well organized, covered everything pretty well.

Will do... can you tell me what parts weren't easy to understand?

Thanks for taking a look,

Seth

Perhaps a comparison to a recently-published game with a similar scope and length would be handy. A couple of weeks ago I played Martin Wallace's new Struggle of Empires with 5 players.

I think this is actually a big part of the "problem", to the extent that there is one. The game presents you with a fair number of mechanics to learn up front, and it can take a little time to acclimate yourself before you're really following a plan. I don't think it's that different, or that much more involved, than other comparable games.
It's certainly different than SoE. Don't get me wrong, it's got lots of stuff going on, but by the second turn everyone understood all of the rules and how to use them. We referred to the rulebook for a couple of niggling things over the next hours, but maybe 3 or 4 times, and only on niggling bits.

But for recording your history, the same things are done in SoE.

Here I'd argue, though. I haven't heard a good argument from you as to why it's ok to take multiple games before one is sufficiently familiar. Potential reviewers are going to pan it if they don't understand it fairly quickly. Game retailers who play it at a convention or what have you aren't likely to buy it if they think it's likely to be returned because people didn't understand it the first time.

All of that assumes you're interested in publication, of course.

Actually, were I still living in Boston, this would be the answer -- my group there liked playing the game when it was a 5 hour game!
Which makes me wonder if your pespective isn't a bit skewed.

As we've discussed before, game length isn't a huge deal if everyone's enjoying themselves throughout, at least for many people. For comparison purposes, it took us about 5 hours to play SoE the first time. Future playings with 5 will probably take 4 hours, maybe 3.5. Familiarity with the various power and upgrades is what will make the difference, as it will be easier to rule certain upgrades out more quickly once you're familiar.

Perhaps, and not having played the game I certainly cannot say, having the recording thing plus a full civ game might be a bit much. Perhaps the civ part can be lightened up a bit, eliminating one or two mechanisms/systems.

Just an outsider's perspective. SoE tells me that it can certainly be done, Euro-concepts, civ building, constant fun, reasonable time frame, and I and my group would love to have another good one to play that fits those criteria, so here's hoping you can make it all work!

-- Matthew

Hi Johan ...

I assume this is the game that you and I have traded e-mails on. If so, I just wanted to point out that the title of the game is "DareBase", not "Deer Base" ... it's a "Dare" -- as in convincing someone else into taking a risk -- that's involved in the game.

("Deer", in English, are larger brown animals, like Bambi, or Santa's Reindeer. Having deer involved changes the theme of the game a bit. ;-D)

In any case, feel free to call it what you want -- I'm just happy to see that you plan on testing it!

Cheers,
-Bryk

I hope that nothing I said in my remarks was construed as raising this kind of question, as I certainly don't feel that your group's reaction was because your group is at the wrong "level" or something.

But at the same time, your group's reaction is, as I said to FastLearner, the opinion of one group who played the game one time. Your opinions are valid and extremely useful, but obviously I shouldn't change the game dramatically without establishing a broader consensus on some of the aspects you found problematic (since some of the concerns are ones I have not heard expressed previously).

Here's an example that might help to make my point. I had a playtest of a different game the other night that usually takes about 1 hour to play, but because of one "perfect planner" in the group, it took 2.5 hours. His complaint after the game was that the game had too much for him to think about, and should be simplified. Now, this guy is an experienced gamer and a good player, so I take his comments seriously. But at the same time, I recognized that his reaction to the game may have more to do with his particular play style (methodical planning) than a flaw in the game itself. So I probably wouldn't change the game without first finding out if more people felt this way.

In this sense, it's interesting to decide how to interpret the comments of a group that played any game for the first time. Of course, in the case of Sands, one of your comments was that it's hard to play the first time, which is useful!

I do sincerely appreciate the time you invested in giving the game a try, and I hope that it one day ends up in a finished state that your group would find fun. (and preferably, that that day would be sooner rather than later!) If you did choose to play the game again, I'd be very interested to hear whether your impressions changed after that playing: whether you became more familiar with the game's mechanics, whether you were able to make meaningful decisions and develop a strategy, etc. The question I'm struggling with right now is, "Is the game simply hard to learn, or is the game itself flawed even once one has internalized how it is played?" (And the answer could be "both"!)

Again, my sincere thanks for your time and input! It's been very, very helpful.

-Jeff

I didn't mean to give this impression. You had previously told me that your group like History of the World, Civilization, etc, so I figured that it would be a good group to try Sands.

One other question that didn't occur to me before; was the fact that all of the game's components are in English an obstacle for anyone? Even if you all speak and read English, is it as easy to play as if everything was in Swedish? (I'm not bilingual, so I have no experience with this kind of thing...)

Hey, now that's a great idea! I think that 16 different setups would probably be plenty. I'll start thinking about how this could be achieved. There are a couple of minor obstacles, such as that the four "quadrants" don't each contain the same number of territories, and the fact that some territories have to be removed for the 4p version, but other than that, it should be doable...

I agree!

If you don't mind a little more printing and cutting, it would be no problem for me to create a version of the map board that had the capacities and resources printed right on it. It wouldn't have the two-sided, variability aspect, but unless you're planning to play the game a dozen times, the static board would be sufficient to play and would hopefully solve one of your concerns. Let me know if you'd like me to do this, it would require relatively little time on my end.

Thanks again!

-Jeff

Ok, I'll get something ready for you in the next week or so.

You're more than welcome to modify the components in whatever way you want if it makes the game easier for your group to play!

In the very early stages of the design, I envisioned having each territory have a corresponding card, and the buildings built in that territory would go with that card. But I worried that having to switch all those cards when someone conquered another player's territory would be a pain.

The version I'll provide to you will probably still have an info box for each territory at the edge of the board (but with the 3 white boxes removed). Obviously, if you want to crop those out, you're welcome to do so!

I'll keep you posted on the progress with the new board...

-Jeff

The main reason was a fear that the chits would be easily jarred as you moved the playing pieces around. That, and that some of the territories (Gracia, e.g.) wouldn't be big enough to accomodate both the chits and the citizen pieces. Printing on the board alleviates both of these, but loses some of the customizability. I like Johan's idea as an "in between" solution.

Doubtless there's a "perfect" solution for this, but it's not really something I've ever worried about much, since the information boxes haven't ever presented much of a problem when I've played. I figured that if and when the game got published, the board wizards could come up with the ideal way to physically implement the game.

-J