Game #4: Profit and Provenance by jwarrend

Hi all,

"Profit and Provenance" saw its second playtest session last night. A group of game designers in the area have gotten together a couple of times, and this time, we decided to attach ourselves to an existing gaming session to try to attract some potential playtesters. This seemed to work really well, although at the specific point that my game was tested, people were involved in other gaming and so we didn't have any but the 3 other designers who regularly attend the playtesting anyway. That was fine, though; I was interested in playtesting my game with 4, to see if it would work.

The results were somewhat confusing.

The last game I had brought was a pirate-themed placement game, and was received dismally. I attribute this in part to some weaknesses of the game, but also (and perhaps primarily) because we decided to start that game at 11 pm, after playing two other new games. The comments that that session elicited didn't, in my opinion, really match up with the reality of the game -- it was chastized for being too complex, when in reality, it's about as mechanically complex as Tikal, say -- and so I attributed some of the negative feedback to "external circumstances", although I admit the game has some bugs.

We agreed that it would be fair if my game was first in the rotation this time, and I thought this would be great, as it would remove those possible external circumstances so we could evaluate it fairly while we were nice and fresh and eager.

We only made it through 2 turns in about an hour. This wasn't really due to a flaw in the game so much as because we were talking a lot throughout the game. My impression is that evaluating too much midstream may be a dangerous thing, and when I started to hear some of the same comments coming out this game that were coming out in my pirate game, I began to seriously wonder what the heck is going on here. I suspect that this game has some bugs, some potentially serious, however, I also wonder if perhaps I'm designing games with the wrong group in mind; one of the more vocal critics of the game said as much, which I found interesting.

I think that people liked the core idea of the game, and enjoyed playing, but there were some concerns. I don't think people cared for the "if you win a bid, you get VP" as it seemed counter-intuitive, and also seemed to doubly reward the high bidder, as he gets an Artifact and some VP. Moreover, it's a sharp dropoff between being first and second, which may only be due to a slight difference in bidding, and since bidding is blind, is it fair that I should get nothing if I played my 6 and he played his 7? To me, the answer is, "I don't know yet; we have to play some more". As we are only just playing for the first time, I'm inclined to try it out more before sitting in judgement. Others in the group seem more comfortable with pronouncing certain aspects DOA, and perhaps this is because they have much more gaming experience than me. (I'm not being sarcastic, BTW -- these guys have definitely played way more games than I have).

One player didn't really care for the Expedition commissioning mechanic -- he felt it wasn't a meaningful decision, and added one extra thing to think about without it being important enough to think about. My response, of course, was, "then don't think about it!" -- I think there are situations where it could be important to be able to control how many artifacts are being pulled from a given location.

We found that the tie-breaker card isn't an important mechanic. Most of us didn't commit a tie-breaker in either turn. The one player who did in the first turn used it to win a tie, but then was involved in a couple of other ties in which it didn't matter anymore. I think the rule whereby ties are broken by who placed first is enough of a tie-breaker. It means you have to get your important bids out early, but there's a risk in doing so that others will shun your auction and give you fewer VP if you win. It also means that there cannot be second-order ties, something that can happen when the tie-breakers are involved. My only concern with this is it introduces a turn order effect in a bigger game.

I think the chief complaint seemed to be that there is a lot to think about, and this is valid. What I was going for was the kind of game I like to play; a game where you sort of play by intuition, and you can have lots of cues as to what factors might affect your decisions. But this game will almost certainly break if played by perfect planners, because there is a lot of stuff that you could potentially think about.

One or two interesting things that happened. One player trailed in points because he kept winning the Black Market (which nets you no VP), yet he assembled a truly impressive collection of Mexico exhibits, having 6 artifacts by the end of the 2nd turn! Yet, because he had already committed his "6" bid card in the bidding round, he could only exhibit 5 of them, depriving him of the chance to get a bonus for a "Group" of an artifact from each of the 4 different sites. Moreover, his exhibit had a value of 21, but he only scored 6 points for it, because scoring is tied to the Bid cards. I'm concerned that scoring Exhibits may actually not be lucrative enough, but I think that as you have more Artifacts, you need to hold your higher Bid cards for exhibiting, and so scoring should go up at that point.

Some proposals that came out include:

-- Instead of scoring Exhibits for each separate location, just have one big Exhibit where you play as many Artifacts as the Bid Card you lay out, and then compare the total value. Also allow ways for sets to be formed with Artifacts from different locations.

Of all the suggestions, I think something like this is most likely to get into the game, as it streamlines the exhibiting process. I'm not sure exactly how to make it work, but will give it more thought.

-- Rather than winning VP equal to coin symbols when you win a bid, you just get VP for the number of players who bid on that Archaeologist. OR, maybe you get no VP. OR, maybe the person who didn't get an Artifact gets VP.

Not sure about this, more testing is needed to know whether it's an effect or not.

-- Instead of commissioning Archaeologists with a Bid Card, just have them get 2 Artifacts every time.

I don't know that this is necessary, I kind of like the current system, but it may not be important enough to merit the need for a decision.

I think the bottom line of what needs to happen is that I need to clearly define what the goals are of the game, and then pull together the mechanics that best achieve that. I think it's clear to me that as designed, the game is a management game, where you have to use your resources in 3 very different kinds of actions, and balance the way you use them to max out your total points. I think most of the systems contribute pretty well to this, but some may be superfluous.

I will no doubt develop the game more and keep you guys posted. I would really be interested to hear your reactions to this session report; I know that without testing, some things will be hard for you to say, but any comments you have would be most helpful! Thanks!

-Jeff

I've been scooped!

A friend who had playtested this, my Archaeology-themed bidding game told me about a new game called "Maya". I read a brief description of that game, which involves constructing pyramids in meso-America. It looks like that game uses a couple of systems that I independently developed for this game -- first, the idea of "partially blind bidding" -- the cards telegraph the possible range of bids. Second, the "multi-use cards" form of creating tension. Apparently, you use your cards to bid for access to stones from various quarries, but you must hold back enough power to successfully transfer your acquired items to the quarries.

This, unfortunately, may be too similar to my game for me to jusitfy going ahead with it. Not too big a deal, as if it's a good game to play, then my need to create that game is removed! And, the review said the game was a former Hippodice winner (under a different name) so at least it suggests I was on the right track!

Has anyone else ever been "scooped" in this way? What is your response? To abandon the design, to retool it, or to just keep going as before?

-Jeff

I guess that's right, although, to be honest, things like this are small consolation to me! Still, my guess is that in the group I play in, no one will ever buy Maya (because we just aren't in the "buy every game that comes out the day it comes out" school), and so my game, should I ever finish it, can at least live a happy and productive life in that setting. As for taking it farther, clearly this particular game is looking at an uphill road, but I guess that your observation is that the mechanic is workable, which is encouraging. It suggests to me, though, don't wait if you have a good idea! Of course, in this case, Maya was probably at the printers even as my game was being developed, but the larger principle seems to be that your greatest idea is probably being developed by someone else even as we speak, so don't wait forever if you want to get it out there!

I'm not sure I really agree with the "complexity" issue; I think that this game is not going to be all that complex at its end point. Moreover, I think that reducing complexity is a "doable" thing from a game design standpoint. That said, this game is currently in my "crock pot" where it's marinating, and waiting for a new ingredient that will bring it back up to boiling. I'm happy with most of the systems, but feel like I need a breakthrough in the Exhibition mechanic to really give the game more tension. I'm currently focusing all my game design efforts on my Civ game, so unfortunately, this one will have to wait...

Nor was it intended to be -- this is a bidding game with an Archaeology theme, but the theme is the vehicle for the mechanic in this one, not vice versa. I do have an Indiana Jones game in the works that is much more immersive in its theme and mechanics, but it's also on the back burner at the moment. As always, I'd be happy to discuss some of the mechanics and ideas behind that one with you or anyone else who's interested.

-Jeff