Skip to Content
 

Game #3: 8/7c by sedjtroll

65 replies [Last post]
zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #3: 8/7c by sedjtroll

Sedj asked me to give his game a look, so I did. I haven't been involved in this thread before so I perhaps can look at it with a fresh view.

I'll read Sedj website and give comment as soon as I seen something unusual or something I think I don't understand or seems weird.

Intro: OK, sounds reasonable. Nothing unusual. OK theme for a game.

Typo: "Advertisements are the your source of income"

Modifier and Event cards seem to have almost the same purpose, except that you play Modifier cards onto a Program card (much like global and local enchantments in Magic). Is this distinction necessary? Would not a single line on each Event card "play this on a Program card" be enough?

"Deal out 5 cards from the Play deck face down to each player (you may look at your cards at this time). ". It sounds as if you just take a single peek at your cards and then put them face down again and not take them in your hand. Would it no be better to just say "each player takes 5 cards from the play deck and takes them in his hand"?

Players take turns bidding first each round . Two players will have a slight advantage (or disadvantage, I do not yet know) when there are 4 players, as they will be start player twice and the other players will be start player only once. Might not be a big deal; just an observation.

The bidding procedure reminds me a bit of Amun-Re. In that game each player has a "bidding stone" in his color, that they place on a number on the card to show what their bid is. This is a bit less clunkier than you "closest edge".

The bidding is not flawed, but I think it can be executed in a better way. First, I think that players should only be allowed to move their bid to another program when they are overbid. Secondly, a player should not be allowed to overbid on the same program card, but must move his bid to another program card. I think this will make the bidding a lot fiercer and tense. I think in your version I would simply start by bidding $1 and see what they others do and reacting to that, instead of trying to bid the "right" amount right away. Oh, by the way is it possible to bid $0? Or is $1 the lowest bid?

A possible variant you might want to try out is having one program card less than the number of players. This will leave one player out in the cold, which probably leads to even fiercer bidding. Might not work so well with 2 players though.

Programs on the current day are checked for Hits.
All programs? Also the programs of other players, or just the programs of the current player?

...

Ah, I understand it now. Player 1 is just the guy who rolls the dice for all players. I think the layout here could be a bit better. A day consist of all players taking two actions. At the end of the day the dice are rolled and some "end of day" things happen.

It might be nice to have a way of tracking which day it is. More important is some sort of token or card to keep track of who is "player 1".

At each weeks end, in turn order, players choose a Program and roll a die. If the roll is LESS THAN the number of Ratings Counters on the chosen Program then that Program has Jumped the Shark and is discarded.
Wow, seems pretty random and quite harsh. I don't know yet how fast rating counters go up an a program, but if a program has 4 counters you already have a chance of 50% of losing it. Wouldn't rolling two dice be good enough? Isn't there another non-random way of doing this? I mean generating hits is already random... why not just state that a program with 5 hit counters becomes discarded? Other players could anticipate this and move their programs to that timeslot, hoping that a popular show will jump the shark an their own show will fill the gap.

Whenever one or more players have Programs to place (we'll call that "in their hand"), players take turns Placing a Program in an open time slot, Picking up a Program at the cost of $1 (any Ads on such a Program are discarded and a Ratings Counter is removed) and then placing a Program (either the Program just picked up or another Program), or Passing
Use a bulletlist to list the three options a player has, makes it clearer. I'm not sure I like the structure of this phase. I understand why you have chosen it, but I don't think the $1 is a very elegant solution. Why not start this phase with a round of giving each player the option to move exactly one program, and then rounds in which they can place their program cards from their hand? This makes it less fiddly and it becomes more important to plan ahead as you cannot move more than one program at a time.

Hand size in 8/7 Central is 5 cards. When taking this action a player may discard any number of cards before refilling their hand (to 5 cards) from the Play deck. The first card can be discarded for free, but the player must pay $1 per card discarded this way after the first.
Again, I understand the reason for this rule (to prevent a player's hand from filling up with unplayable cards), but there must be a more elegant way of solving this problem. How about, as an action, a player can sell a card to the bank; that card is discarded and the player gains an amount of $ equal to the cost associated with that card. It could work, the player gets an extra card, some $, but for the cost of an action.

Resolve Active Player's actions first
You mean Player 1 ;)

If there is no Ad attached to the Program, collect $1 Revenue
Why? Seems illogical, fiddly and not related to reality? Especially when you use my idea of sellign cards for money, because then you have an alternative way of generating money.

EXAMPLE: Station Identification matches categories NECESSITY, CONVENIENCE, and LUXURY. On a Program with both NECESSITY and LUXURY a hit would provide [1 Card (Revenue in upper left corner of card) x 2 (matching Ad Categories) = 2 Cards]

What?? I don't understand; do I get cards as a revenue, not money? I think I get money, but the example is confusing.

For EACH GENRE, the player with the highest Genre Total (total of Genre Level plus Ratings Counters for all Programs on the current day) scores a Victory Point
But you only count programs on the current day right? Otherwise I don't see how it matters where you place your programs.

The winner of the game is the player that collects the most Victory points in the alloted time. 2 and 4 player games should last 4 Weeks. 3 player games should last 3 weeks. Players can agree on a longer game, but it is recommended that each player have the same number of Weeks as "Player 1".
Determining the winner should be in its own paragraph, not hidden somewhere in scoring. I prefer that the length of the game (or the end condition) be stated somewhere at the beginning, preferably in the part where you explain the game structure.

I don't like idea that you play 4 weeks with an even number of players and 3 weeks with 3 just so that the (dis)advantage of the starting player evens out. Just an idea: what if you go with the variant where you auction off N-1 program cards, but the player without a program card becomes the starting player for that week? Then you can lose the whole "passing the player 1 status to the left" thing and it becomes more or less a player's choice instead of a thing that the game mechanism dictates.

The cards: get rid of the minimum bid thing. Auctions are supposed to be a self-balancing thing, so if a player wants to bid low on something, let them.

I don't like how the "hit" numbers on the cards are not sequential. I think it is nicer to to have sequential numbers, like 9-12 instead of 2,5,7,12 even when they provide statistical the same probability. It just makes it easier to check when something is rolled. I like it that you state the probability on the card (the 12/36 for example) but I think whenever you make a "nicer" prototype it is better to colorcode them (dark to light for example), because it is even more numbers on the card that is already quite full with information. I think players are interested to know whether a program has good, mediocre or bad probabilities, but giving them the exact numbers might be just a bit too much information.

The overview shows that the game and the cards becomes quite cluttered near the end of the game so it probably is a good idea to streamline the information on the cards as much as possible and remove anything that doesn't contribute a whole lot to the game.

Overall, sounds like a nice game with some interesting mechanics and a nice blend of German mechanics and American theme and chaos. Kep us informed on it!

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #3: 8/7c by sedjtroll

Another thought:

Players score victory points for the quality of their Programs. For EACH GENRE, the player with the highest Genre Total (total of Genre Level plus Ratings Counters for all Programs on the current day) scores a Victory Point.

Who wins a tie?

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #3: 8/7c by sedjtroll

zaiga wrote:
Who wins a tie?

All players score. So if players 1 and 2 have Comedy 4 and player 3 has Comedy 2, players 1 and 2 each score 1 point.

- Seth

sedjtroll
sedjtroll's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/21/2008
Game #3: 8/7c by sedjtroll

-------- Reply to Zaiga's PM asking what I thought of his comments --------

Very thorough, thank you!

To me, splitting the Events and Modifiers makes sense (maybe because I played Magic for so long). I don't like cards that say "play only [here]".

Some of your clarifications are right on. I'm still working on cleaning up the wording, and everybody's comments have been helpful there.

The advantage in bidding first isn't a big deal in practice. At first we thought it would be and tried to make some crazy rules to "fix" it... turned out not to be necessary.

My "closest edge" wording was just to give an example. I might get rid of that alltogether- I maintain that keeping track of one's own money is one's own problem. People who can't keep track of their own money have more to worry about than winning a game.

Regarding overbidding the same program card... "I think in your version I would simply start by bidding $1 and see what they others do and reacting to that, instead of trying to bid the "right" amount right away." I don't see a problem with that.

I kind of like the idea of 1 less show than players, but the ramifications will have to be looked at.

ALL programs on the current day are checked for hits, as you seem to have figured out.

I have a little paper die that I made that has P1,M,T,W,R,F on te sides for keeping track of who's P1 and what day it is.

Jumping the shark isn't as random as it sounds, because players choose the program. Also, this kind of chaos I believe s good for the game.

I REALLY like the "selling a card to the bank" idea. Fiddley thematically, but fixes 2 other rules alltogether and alleviates amna screw. I thin the 12 cost Steal Program is not giong to make the cut. It causes too many problems.

The Revenue example used a card that gives Cards as revenue instead of money, in part that was to demonstrate that the Revenue was "whatever's in the upper left corner of the card", and in part i wanted to use a card that was complete (from the list) instead of a generic ad without a name.

Yes, you only count programs on the current day for scoring.

The 'starting player' mechanic is interesting, but in my bidding system it's possible for 1 player to get all the shows, and I think I like that. Game Length per #players sounds fine to me.

The Cards: I think I'm going to try it w/o minimum bids... it has been suggested by enough people.

the hit numbers I think need to stay. That's the core mechanic of the game and it's got important ramifications... mostly two opposing shows with similar pip values need to be able to hit independantly of each other. In practice it's not that hard to check, and the total pip number makes it really easy to tell how likely it will hit.

Thanks again for the input! Keep it coming!

zaiga
Offline
Joined: 12/31/1969
Game #3: 8/7c by sedjtroll

Some comments on the comments on the comments...

sedjtroll wrote:
To me, splitting the Events and Modifiers makes sense (maybe because I played Magic for so long). I don't like cards that say "play only [here]".

It depends on where you want to put the complexity. You make the rules in the rulesbook a bit complexer by having 2 different types of cards that are almost the same in functionality. If you put the text on the cards, you clean up the rules a bit, but you add some-in game complexity. One isn't necessarily better than the other, it's just a choice you have to make.

Quote:
The advantage in bidding first isn't a big deal in practice. At first we thought it would be and tried to make some crazy rules to "fix" it... turned out not to be necessary.

and

Quote:
The 'starting player' mechanic is interesting, but in my bidding system it's possible for 1 player to get all the shows, and I think I like that. Game Length per #players sounds fine to me.

I think it is weird that you have 4 weeks with 2 players, 3 weeks with 3 players and then 4 weeks with 4 players again. It sounds contrived. If being the start player is not *that* big of a deal, then it doesn't really matter if one player is starting player more often than another and you could use some "in game" mechanism to determine the starting player each round. It seems logical to tie this in with the auction mechanism, but I now see that your auction mechanism does not lend itself to that very well as there is not someone who drops out first or last or something like that. Perhaps you could say that the last player to make a bid, becomes the start player for the next round. Then you could also say that the game lasts 3 rounds, whatever the number of players.

Quote:
My "closest edge" wording was just to give an example. I might get rid of that alltogether- I maintain that keeping track of one's own money is one's own problem. People who can't keep track of their own money have more to worry about than winning a game.

I think you need to get rid of the "closest edge" thing alltogether OR make it a hard rule. Now it is just confusing.

It's not just keeping track of your own money, but also that of the opponents. Before I make a bid, I want to be able to see how much John had bid on certain programs, how much Mary has bid and where Peter's bids are. I think this kind of information can be very important in a bidding game, you don't want to continually ask "is this your bid or Peter's bid?" you want to be able to see this in one glance.

A solution could be that every player takes the program(s) on which he has a highest bid in front of him. If he is overbid, than he takes his bid back and the overbidder takes the program card in front of him, with his bid placed on it.

Quote:
Regarding overbidding the same program card... "I think in your version I would simply start by bidding $1 and see what they others do and reacting to that, instead of trying to bid the "right" amount right away." I don't see a problem with that.

It's not necessarily a problem. It's just want you want to accomplish with your bidding system. I don't like auctions that start at the lowest amount possible and then player's continually overbid with $1. I like the angst that comes with once-around auctions. In such an auction you need to bid the right amount right away, you can't get away with bidding too low. I like that kind of tension, but your mileage may vary.

Quote:
the hit numbers I think need to stay. That's the core mechanic of the game and it's got important ramifications... mostly two opposing shows with similar pip values need to be able to hit independantly of each other. In practice it's not that hard to check, and the total pip number makes it really easy to tell how likely it will hit.

Programs, with the same pip value can hit on different numbers. Suppose program A hits on 2-5, program B hits on 9-12. They have the same pip value, but hit on different numbers.

I think there is quite a lot of information on a program card and especially a lot of numbers. A lof of people think that numbers are scary. If you can reduce the amount of information and numbers on a program card, it will reduce the amount of number crunching and analysis and makes the game move faster, without losing much in the way of strategy.

Therefore, I also suggest to remove the pip value of the card and color code the "strength" of a card (perhaps in 5 or 7 different shades). This means you lose a bit of information (you might not be able to distinguish a card with a pip value of 7 from a card with a pip of 8 for example), but you make it easier to "see" immediately which card is good and which is not.

I think these two changes will make the auction go faster, a bit less prone to analysis and number crunching, a bit more intuitive, without losing much information. I agree that once you have a program card and you roll for hits, it doesn't matter much if the numbers are sequential are not. It's the auction that I worry about.

Good luck with it!

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut