Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 11:45

#31

hpox

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

FastLearner wrote:

Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

I like it very much! It improve the replayability (or the freshness, as Mario would say) and will make the games more memorable. Also, it's very easy to implement and give a nice end condition tied with the theme so the game will never bog down.

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 12:05

#32

Brykovian

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Quote:

Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

I personally like this move -- I think that simplifies a lot, and seems rather natural for the theme of the game. I tend to like games where the ending condition and winning condition are somehow tied together (I know that goes against the grain with a number of the folks here). It's just a simple way to create tension, a goal, and encouragement to keep moving forward.

It is a race afterall, right? ;)

-Bryk

p.s. It's nice to be back reading this forum again. 8)

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 12:45

#33

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

FL wrote:

Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

Everyone's commenting on this quote, so I may as well chime in. I mentioned it in my previous post as well... I think I agree with Jeff on this one. It's not really different, it really is just a large score bonus for reaching the top. So it's "who scores the most points by the time someone reaches the top", be that the RCT or a player. If you're the player that reached the top, then you probably just won.

Changing the scoring system a bit could actually make it so you could win without being the player to reach the top... But first you have to decide what you want to reward- Upward progress? Upward Progress before everyone else? Or just exploring and climbing the mountain?

In my big post I suggested the scoring be for climbing in unexplored territory. Once a tile is revealed, it's 'easier' to climb because you know what to expect and there's no risk. So as a reward for covering new ground you score points. If you climb where there's already a tile, you don't score any points.

So you could have 1 player racing to the top of the mountain to end the game and get the big bonus. In theory you have all players doing that, and if they cross each other's path then they take points away from each other. Then you might have one guy who goes around the board "exploring" lots of new tiles and scoring lots of points. Depending on the timing that guy could theoretically outscore the guy who reached the Summit. If it were balanced right that could be comparable to Building vs Shipping. In a long game the Explorer might win where in a shorter game the High Climber will likely win (because of the bonus).

I don't know if you like that scoring system instead of the Flags, but maybe this explanation will let you know what I was thinking when I mentioned it.

- Seth

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 13:13

#34

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Scurra wrote:

jwarrend wrote:

But what I would do, were I inventing an exploration game (which I am), is read the rules of every other exploration game, and make sure that the mechanics that occured to me as a great way to evoke the theme, haven't occured to other people as well...or perhaps this is part of your process anyway...

I think I have to disagree with you here. A lot of writers say that they find it hard to read other people's work for fear of "subliminal contanimation". Not for fear of direct plagiarism, but simply of unintentional imitation.

I agree that this isn't a good "first step". I think in the beginning, you just create your game. But I think it's an absolutely essential "pre-publishing step". If you create a game about being a merchant in medieval Europe, you're going to have literally dozens of games that have already been published in this theme, and to not acquaint yourselves with those games is to almost guarantee that you're going to recreate something that someone else has done.

I agree that borrowing mechanics is ok -- the core system of Citadels is lifted from Verrater. But those games are completely different, both thematically and mechanically. If you set out to create a "feud between houses" -- say the McCoys and Hatfields -- and you want to have different "characters" -- the sheriff, the sharpshooter, the deputy, etc -- you are almost certainly going to end up with a game that bears so much similarity to Verrater that someone will look at it and say "Isn't this just Verrater? Why should I play this instead of Verrater?"

My point here is that I think FastLearner has created a game that, while using some common "exploration game elements", forges some new ground. But I still think it's a very important excercise to go and find out what else is out there, both for the purpose of making sure you're not replicating an existing game, but also for the purpose of seeing how other people solved the same design challenges that you yourself are facing.

It's also a sign of respect for your intended players, that you aren't trying to sell them something that they've already bought, or more importantly, that you've done the homework to make sure you're not trying to sell them something they've already bought. If you create a property game that is identical to Monopoly, you can't sell that game just by saying "oh, I'd never heard Monopoly existed", even if that were somehow true -- your players and buyers expect you to not be recreating an extant product.

I also think it's important to know why we're creating games. If you guys are like me, it's not just for the money, it's because we feel that there are game experiences we'd like to create that don't currently exist. If there's already an Exploration game that succeeds in creating the atmosphere and experience that FastLearner is looking for, why should he spend any more time trying to create his own? Why shouldn't he and his friends just buy and play that game? So, let's remember that we're not just game designers, we're game players, and we should want to play our games as much or more than we want to design them, or else we're wasting everyone's time.

And again, I do think FastLearner has a genuinely unique game that has a nice balance of simulation and strategic gameplay. But at its core, it does have similarities to already well-done exploration games, and he should make himself aware of those similarities and then decide how they will affect his development of his game. Only he can decide what that answer will be; maybe it will be "not at all", maybe it will be "maybe I should change this system", etc.

To me, I want to create something original with each game. Sure, mechanics like "tile-laying", "set collection", etc, are all well-worn, but there's plenty of room for originality in how they are blended together, and how they are married to the theme.

So, I think that there's a huge difference between a game that has been created independently of outside influences, and a game that is "original". Games aren't played in a vacuum, and the wise designer won't create them in one either...

-Jeff

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:18

#35

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Re: Wow... this is long

sedjtroll wrote:

Ok, here goes... I'm going to put forth a couple of ideas. Some of them may be useful, some may not. Some are suggestions to change part of the game- those are intended to streamline or simplify- and others might just be for asthetics or theme. Do with these comments as you see fit.

All appreciated, I assure you.

Quote:

Royal Climbing Team: I was in favor of ditching it originally, but I think it grew on me. I particularly liked how you were talking about making the game such that the RCT will most often win the 'race' and therefore points for "good climbing" will win the game. In the case of the a player reaching the summit, just give them a huge bonus (such that reaching the summit means 99.99% chance you win the game because you'll have the most points- or MAYBE even only 90% or so, so the POSSIBILITY of winning otherwise exists, but only if you outplay everyone else). More on Scoring later...

Yeah, after hpox's excellent initial post I pretty much thought of them as useless, too, but later I realized they did still serve a couple of purposes and so I'm confident that they're back.

Quote:

Scoring: Rather than scoring for flags or reaching a certain point on the mountain (though that does sort of make sense), how about scoring for being the first to climb any particular tile. This is how it could work. It goes along with someone's suggestion that you have random tile placement, using 1 stack of tiles, and add to difficulty based on how far you are from the base):

I'm considering this.

Quote:

Climb Action, Unexplored Terrain: Choose a facedown tile and place it in the Mountain space you wish to move to. If the tiles are already laid out- a waste of startup time if you ask me- then you just flip it over. this is the space you are currently trying to climb through. You add the number on the tile, some number based on weather (more on Weather later), some number based on distance from base of mountain, and that's the Difficulty of the climb. To see if you succeed, take the ability of each climber in that suit (the type of tile we're talking about- Rock, Ice, etc) - which might be negative or zero (more on Climbers later). Add the abilities, any bonus from Gadgets (things you could buy at a camp or at the beginning of the game, like Crampons which give you a bonus on Ice tiles. More on Gadgets later), any Energy you spend, and any other factors that apply. This is your Competence for climbing in that suit. If your Competence is greater than (or equal to?) the Difficulty then you succeed in climbing- move your Climber onto that tile. If not, you fail and your Climber stays on it's current tile. If you fail by a certain amount (or at all if you like) then you lose a climber. Discard the climber with the lowest ability in that suit.

Aye, something like that makes good sense. I especially like the idea of the climber with the lowest ability with that type of terrain is the guy who dies (with the player choosing in the case of a tie).

Quote:

Possible Scoring for Climbing: * Succeeding in a climb earns you points equal to the amount by which your Competence exceeds the Difficulty.
* Succeeding in a climb earns you a number of points equal to the level of the Terrain tile (printed on tile- same number as used for Difficulty).
* Succeeding in a climb earns you a number of points equal to the tier you are currently climbing on (which should equal the distance from the base).

I'm hoping to not make the game a score-fest (that is, you score points almost every round), not because I don't like them (my elf city game is like that) but because this game already has enough going on that I'd like scoring to be more sporadic. I may do something with mountain position at certain times, like when the Royal Climbing Team hits certain landmarks or something.

Quote:

Climb Action, Explored Terrain: You may use a Climb Action to move to an already face up terrain tile as long as your Competence is greater than the Difficulty (as described above). You score no points for climbing Explored Terrain.

Aye, though I'd probably want to limit it to one tile per climb action (which you do imply).

Quote:

Climbers: I like how it sounds like you've set them up, with abilities in each suit and a nationality and perhaps an ability. I strongly agree with the comments on the Auction. It doesn't fit at all, and it's not equitable, and it basically sucks for the game. If player A wants to spend time and effort recruiting, then let him- but why should player B benefit? I think this means I agree with whoever said "make it like the Sponsers" which I believe is that you use an action to draw one of the three face up Climbers (then replace him, or maybe discard the other two and draw three new ones to choose from.) and then you get that climber on your team (tho he's inactive until you visit a base). I think it's important to note that the abilities in each suit could be both good and bad, like there could be a good Ice climber that sucks on rock (high Ice, negative Rock ability score).

I'm pretty much convinced to kill the auction now, though to give the game enough "depth" I'm going to work on a slightly more complex scoring system or something... elegant is good, but I'm concerned about falling over the line into "simple".

Quote:

Camps: Rather than going back to camps (which I guess you could do, but I think the game could probably focus on forward movement mostly), why not just have the new climbers join your active team when you BUILD a new camp? Like you have to set camp and wait for them to catch up. I guess that's the same thing really, as people who could build a camp would probably do so rather than run back to get guys, and that option should still be open in case you run out of camps... I'm babbling now.

I think the current camp system is workable unless something else pushes it around.

Quote:

Getting Crazy with Camps: You COULD set a limit on the number of Climbers in your "party," such that if you want a certain three guys, you have to leave the other two behind at a camp. This would be tricky and a little complicated (you could have game pieces for each climber and leave them at the camp tile) but would be somewhat interesting. I think it's a waste of effort though because it introduces problems along with all the neat decisions. I wouldn't do it, but it might be a neat idea for another game (I'll try and keep it in mind for the "Role Playing" stuff I've mentioned in other threads)

Definitely an interesting idea. I'm concerned that it might make the game too fiddly, but I'll think about it.

Quote:

Routes: I don't see why it's necessary to keep track of who's route is whose- especially if you take my suggestions re: Climb Action. You can get rid of the route tokens alltogether, and if you want to climb you just have to make sure you have the competence to do it.

The route tokens make the final board look too cool. Shared routes are a possibility but don't fit the 1930 theme. (As an historical aside, today most climbers take the same couple of routes, but that's only after a lot of people died or were seriously injured figuring them out. For example the last portion of the north face was considered unclimbable due to a 100 foot high rock wall that no one had managed to climb, both because of the features of the wall, a 15-foot gap that had to be crossed, the wind, and other things. In 1975 a Chinese climbing team made a huge sacrifice to succeed at the north face: they brought a 20-ft ladder up with them and when they got to the wall they all took their gloves and boots off so they'd have really good grips. Standing on each others' shoulders and cramming their fingers and toes into tiny crevices they managed to put the ladder across the crevice. In the process, though, all of them lost some fingers and toes to frostbite. Everyone who climbs the north face now uses the ladder they put in place.)

Quote:

Weather: (You thought I forgot, didn't you?) Take a hint from Evo and have the weather move randomly but sort of expectedly during each Daily Report. Roll a die, or draw a card from a shuffled deck of "Up 1" or "Down 2" cards to see how the weather is changing. That will be in effect the whole round. The benefit of the cards is that it's not dice (which you don't like), and you can add flavor: "Snowstorm: Increment Weather Counter by 2. [Picture of a climber head down in the wind with snow falling everywhere] It was going well 'til that snow storm hit..." or "Sunshine: Decrease Weather Counter by 1. [Picture of the sun starting to penetrate through dark clouds] I think we're through the worst of it!"

Based on some comments above I figured an Evo-type movement of the weather was the way to go, so I'll work something up. I'm not big on that kind of flavor for this game, especially since I'm eschewing text for the whole game. I'm avoiding text for the bulk of my designs so that it can easily be internatinalized.

Quote:

Gadgets: the one thing I think you should add (if you follow the other suggestions above) is Gadgets. These are things players can buy- either at the beginning of the game or maybe at camps which confer a bonus in a particular Terrain. If you want to get really intricate, add the number of Gadgets carried to the Difficulty of a climb. Now you have to balance that bonus 3 points (for example) on Ice the Crampons will get you with the 1 point penalty to everything that comes with it. Maybe a Repelling Set won't give a bonus, but will allow you to keep your climber rather than lose one when you fail a climb [EDIT: this could have a drawback like "counts as one item per climber in party" so that it makes climbs significantly harder, but hey- at least noone dies!]. A pack of Powerbars could act as an extra Energy counter.

[EDIT: There could be a facedown deck of Gadgets where you turn up the top three- like Sponsers and Climbers- which would fit the theme, and you could just make it another action rather than only at a camp... might work out that way.]

I think allowing these items for purchase as an action that's only available at a camp would add to the flaver and also the scoring mechanism described above. Yes, it means more peices, but in this case I think it addsmore than it subtracts. Besides, we're doing away with route tokens, board clutter (I still recommend the 1-line energy track rather than 1 per player or having lots of Energy Counters), extra tile piles... looks like the game will consist of a few tokens (Camps, Climber, Energy tokens in each color, 1 Weather token, Climber cards, Sponser cards, maybe Gadget cards, and Gold Bars. Oh, and a way to keep score, which could be a paper and pencil, or a scoring track, or VP chits.
As I noted in a previous post, I once had equipment in the game. There are a couple of downsides that were strong enough that I eliminated it. First was that the game seemed too... fiddly. There's already a fair bit to manage, and tracking equipment just seemed to make it worse. The other thing is the amount of math: The more numbers you need to add up (a) the more likely you are to screw it up and (b) the more you punish people with bad math skills. The same holds true of negative numbers: I'd rather just increase all of the numbers across the board so that things that would be negative can be set to zero.

Quote:

Ok, I think that's all for now. Hopefully some of that will help.

Yes thanks, it's quite helpful!

[/]

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:23

#36

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Re: Wow... this is long

hpox wrote:

Wow, thoses are great ideas sedj! For the scoring you propose, that would imply FL changes the difficulty on the tiles right ? Because now it's always just a difference of 2 between the tough and easy one (a greater spectrum would be nice). It's a bit more random but not that much, so I would call it unpredictable which is what it is (theme++).

I'll look at spreading it out a bit. My early design allowed for it to become surprisingly easy for a short bit in the top half or surprisingly difficult near the bottom, but I removed that because the leader already has an easy-enough time.

Quote:

My first idea was to link the Weather and Royal team to keep the game close and tense (between the royal team and players that is) by making it easier to catch up the team when they are ahead and harder when they are behing. However, I find this card mechanic, easy and elegant. Also, to incorporate the "flavor" some climbers could have a special ability to negate the weather difficult for x type of weather.

I still like the link idea... if nothing else it would seem like the bad weather should make it harder on the Royal Team.

Thanks again!

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:24

#37

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

sedjtroll wrote:

FastLearner wrote:

I'm still not quite convinced the auction for climbers should go away. How about this: Imagine that you're recruiting a climber. You pick a guy but as he arrives at the mountain there are all these teams trying to climb. The other teams try to lure him away. If they succeed then the team has to pay the guy who initially hired him, you.

In game terms you pick a guy and put him up for auction. If someone besides you wins then you get the money. Either way you're ahead. Thoughts?

Frankly, I don't like it. It's not AS BAD as losing your action alltogetehr, but still- if yuo need a climber then you need a climber- not money.
Fair enough. I'm very nearly completely convinced now. :)

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:33

#38

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

jwarrend wrote:

FastLearner wrote:
I like the idea from a mechanic standpoint, though it doesn't make too much sense from a "realism" standpoint.

Sure it does; the Swedes will fund your expedition, but if they find that their fellow countrymen are also climbing the mountain, they'll help them out as well.

I can see that. Somehow it just doesn't "feel" right to me, though, so I think I'll try to work out something a bit different. Thanks, though: it's a solid suggestion that fits the game.

Quote:

Quote:
Everyone's drawing from the same pool. As such as the topmost player reaches a new tier everyone has harder tiles to use. That mechanic was also designed to get people moving up the mountain.

This I don't like at all; this will almost certainly give you a runaway leader problem, and you'll definitely need a "hit the leader" mechanic. It not only doesn't work thematically (why do the lower tiers get tougher to climb just because one player has reached a higher level?), but give a double blessing to the person who reaches the next tier first -- not only does he get flags for VP, but he also had an easier time getting to that tier relative to everyone else. A really disastrous mechanic, in my opinion. If you want everyone drawing from the same pool, there are better ways than this...

I'm revamping the entire tile system now, so I'll make a point to keep runaway leader problems in mind.

Thanks much.

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:41

#39

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

jwarrend wrote:

FastLearner wrote:

Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

This isn't two ways to win, it's just two ways that the game could end, in which case, the winner is evaluated differently depending on the way the game ends. That's fine, but it's not "this OR that", I don't think. "Two ways to win" would be something like "You get X VP for each Tier, you get Y VP for each sponsor, player with most VPs wins". There you can choose different ways to get VP, thus, multiple paths to victory. In your game, you only get VP by climbing, and being the first to reach the goals is the only way to do it. It's not like you would climb really fast to the top of Tier 4, then try to throw rocks down at everyone so they couldn't reach the summit and win before the RCT reaches the top and ends the game...

Actually I do think it provides two ways to win. One is to scoop up as many tier flags as possible to win with points, the other is to let someone else forge the path, revealing tiles, following behind but conserving your energy by building a better team to fit the placed tiles, and then making a run for the top even without the flags.

Quote:

Quote:
Quote:
I think the game has good atmosphere, and interesting use of (to be a little blunt) fairly standard exploration game mechanics.

What do you see it as being similar to, out of curiousity?

The big "exploration games" are Tikal and Goldland. I definitely recommend checking the rulebooks out on bgg to see how those work.

I've played both several times and am familiar with them.

Quote:

The things that leap out at me as being similar to these games are: players reveal tiles, then place them. Players can build "camps" that let them insert their pieces "further along" in the board. Some tiles are more difficult to cross than others. Some equipment (team members) make it easier to cross certain types of terrain. There is a "big goal" at the end that you're trying to reach, but you can win the game just by having hit certain "check points" along the way. Players can choose one of a limited number of actions each turn. There are others, I think, but you get the idea. I think some of these similarities are fairly overt, but again, because of the innovations with the funding system, and because the board is rotated 90 degrees (thus, it's "vertical" rather than "plan view"), I do think you have something different and original here. And I do think your game sounds fun in its own right!

I do see some of the same similarities, but (except for the camps) they feel mostly like "they both use cardboard" types of similarities. I feel that the "thinking" style is quite a bit different than both. But that may be because I'm too close to it.

Quote:

But what I would do, were I inventing an exploration game (which I am), is read the rules of every other exploration game, and make sure that the mechanics that occured to me as a great way to evoke the theme, haven't occured to other people as well...or perhaps this is part of your process anyway...

I hope that I've more-or-less done that already, but that's why I asked: I'm probably too close to the game to see some of the similarities.

And... I'm still working to make this more of an "adventure" game than an exploration game. I hope that the next version fits that idea better.

Thank again!

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:46

#40

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Scurra wrote:

In FLs game, I suspect that the whole tile laying system could be drastically simplified in favour of more emphasis on the climbers, but that would probably remove too much of the exploration experience.

I'm going to try to push it more that way. Even now I don't think the exploration is nearly as important as the climbing, but the next (rather substantial) revision might reflect that more.

Quote:

So, as a contribution to the game discussion, can I suggest that the "Climber" and "Sponsor" actions are both drafts but you can't choose both on the same turn? That ought to meet the criteria that you were after of giving the player an agonising choice but often making it obvious what they need to do, thus reducing turn times.

Ooh, I like that idea a lot. I'll consider what it does to game time, but I like it quite a lot. Thanks!

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 14:55

#41

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

hpox wrote:

FastLearner wrote:

Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

I like it very much! It improve the replayability (or the freshness, as Mario would say) and will make the games more memorable. Also, it's very easy to implement and give a nice end condition tied with the theme so the game will never bog down.

Thanks, I think it will help the game and, as you noted, fits well with the theme.

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:03

#42

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Brykovian wrote:

Quote:
Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

I personally like this move -- I think that simplifies a lot, and seems rather natural for the theme of the game. I tend to like games where the ending condition and winning condition are somehow tied together (I know that goes against the grain with a number of the folks here). It's just a simple way to create tension, a goal, and encouragement to keep moving forward.

It is a race afterall, right? ;)
Aye, it is indeed! :)

Quote:

p.s. It's nice to be back reading this forum again. 8)

Welcome back, and thanks!

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:07

#43

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

sedjtroll wrote:

FL wrote:
Here's an idea: If you make it to the summit you win, period. If no one makes it to the summit, though, or the Royal Team gets there first then points acquired through good climbing determine the winner. Then I tweak the game so that reaching the summit is improbable, that in only (say) one game out of three or five will someone actually make it. This provides two ways to win, always a plus in my book. What do y'all think?

Everyone's commenting on this quote, so I may as well chime in. I mentioned it in my previous post as well... I think I agree with Jeff on this one. It's not really different, it really is just a large score bonus for reaching the top. So it's "who scores the most points by the time someone reaches the top", be that the RCT or a player. If you're the player that reached the top, then you probably just won.

Does my response to Jeff change your view on it?

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:30

#44

Anonymous

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Jumping in on this late, but having read (I think) every post, I only have a few things to add:

You seem to be facing a design problem that will kill the game if you don't solve the runaway leader problem. For this reason, I really liked the player controlled weather. I know it isn't thematically consistant, but I'm not too sure it would wreck the experience thematically either.

Also, I don't really enjoy the other NPC climbing team going up the mountain, and here's why: You're making these huge complex decisions, which are rewarded by upward movement, right? But here the other non player team is just steadily moving up the mountain. Kind of a killjoy, I think, and minus points on theme. Plus, the explanation of a better funded team in the rules seems a bit too contrived.

Might I suggest that you have a calendar date track around the edge of the board instead (weeks or something) to solve the time limit question for the game? Then, the race becomes to get to the top before winter.

Perhaps you could tie in the weather element: Tiles towards the bottom will be less affected by the weather than tiles on the top, and the weather gets worse the closer to winter the date marker gets. This also takes away some of the runaway leader problem.

Not being that familiar with this kind of real-life activity, this date progression idea may take the "real" right out of the theme of the game, so feel free to shoot it down on those grounds.

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:32

#45

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

jwarrend wrote:

I agree that this isn't a good "first step". I think in the beginning, you just create your game. But I think it's an absolutely essential "pre-publishing step". If you create a game about being a merchant in medieval Europe, you're going to have literally dozens of games that have already been published in this theme, and to not acquaint yourselves with those games is to almost guarantee that you're going to recreate something that someone else has done.

I agree with Jeff. While I do think that subconscious contamination is a very real issue, I also don't want to create the same game someone else already did. Fiction plots -- because they can include all of reality and surreality -- have a lot more room for new ideas, I think. In game design there's a certain amount of copying that's effectively mandatory, with very, very rare exceptions. As such I think it's easier to accidentally copy another game if you aren't familiar with the field than if you are.

Quote:

My point here is that I think FastLearner has created a game that, while using some common "exploration game elements", forges some new ground. But I still think it's a very important excercise to go and find out what else is out there, both for the purpose of making sure you're not replicating an existing game, but also for the purpose of seeing how other people solved the same design challenges that you yourself are facing.

See my previous response for both my familiarity with exploration games and how much I think mine overlaps.

The very reason I asked the question is because I was concerned about subconscious contamination. A forum like this is great for having people point out similar games, imo, and because the game field isn't nearly as broad as fiction it's easier for folks to find or dismiss matches.

Quote:

It's also a sign of respect for your intended players, that you aren't trying to sell them something that they've already bought, or more importantly, that you've done the homework to make sure you're not trying to sell them something they've already bought. If you create a property game that is identical to Monopoly, you can't sell that game just by saying "oh, I'd never heard Monopoly existed", even if that were somehow true -- your players and buyers expect you to not be recreating an extant product.

This is a big one for me. That and if you're designing with the intent to publish there's no point (as far as I'm concerned) in pouring your heart into something that's going to be dismissed because there's already a nearly-identical game out there: they don't want to do that disservice to their potential customers since it will kill sales.

Quote:

I also think it's important to know why we're creating games. If you guys are like me, it's not just for the money, it's because we feel that there are game experiences we'd like to create that don't currently exist. If there's already an Exploration game that succeeds in creating the atmosphere and experience that FastLearner is looking for, why should he spend any more time trying to create his own? Why shouldn't he and his friends just buy and play that game? So, let's remember that we're not just game designers, we're game players, and we should want to play our games as much or more than we want to design them, or else we're wasting everyone's time.

I'm not as solid on this one. If you're not planning on publishing and have no intent to do so then I think it's perfectly valid to work your butt off to reinvent the wheel if you're enjoying yourself. In addition there's something to be said for going down the same path someone else already has in order to learn.

Quote:

And again, I do think FastLearner has a genuinely unique game that has a nice balance of simulation and strategic gameplay. But at its core, it does have similarities to already well-done exploration games, and he should make himself aware of those similarities and then decide how they will affect his development of his game. Only he can decide what that answer will be; maybe it will be "not at all", maybe it will be "maybe I should change this system", etc.

Aye, and again that's why I asked. Thanks very much.

Quote:

To me, I want to create something original with each game. Sure, mechanics like "tile-laying", "set collection", etc, are all well-worn, but there's plenty of room for originality in how they are blended together, and how they are married to the theme.

Aye, me too.

Quote:

So, I think that there's a huge difference between a game that has been created independently of outside influences, and a game that is "original". Games aren't played in a vacuum, and the wise designer won't create them in one either...

I know that's why I've played as many games as I can.

--Matthew

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:40

#46

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

great_undoing wrote:

Jumping in on this late, but having read (I think) every post, I only have a few things to add:

You seem to be facing a design problem that will kill the game if you don't solve the runaway leader problem. For this reason, I really liked the player controlled weather. I know it isn't thematically consistant, but I'm not too sure it would wreck the experience thematically either.
I agree that there's a real potential runaway leader problem. Fortunately this game was intentionally put forth as an immature concept (even if the rules don't look like it) so there's still tons of room to fix things.

Quote:

Also, I don't really enjoy the other NPC climbing team going up the mountain, and here's why: You're making these huge complex decisions, which are rewarded by upward movement, right? But here the other non player team is just steadily moving up the mountain. Kind of a killjoy, I think, and minus points on theme. Plus, the explanation of a better funded team in the rules seems a bit too contrived.

Might I suggest that you have a calendar date track around the edge of the board instead (weeks or something) to solve the time limit question for the game? Then, the race becomes to get to the top before winter.
Ooh, I like that idea. Same effect but better theme. It matches reality quite well, too: there's a quite limited window for when Everest can be climbed, a climbing season.

Quote:

Perhaps you could tie in the weather element: Tiles towards the bottom will be less affected by the weather than tiles on the top, and the weather gets worse the closer to winter the date marker gets. This also takes away some of the runaway leader problem.

Good idea. I'll look into how that can be implemented without making things too complex.

Quote:

Not being that familiar with this kind of real-life activity, this date progression idea may take the "real" right out of the theme of the game, so feel free to shoot it down on those grounds.

As noted, it's a real life situation, so it really works well. Thanks for the great idea!

--Matthew

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:44

#47

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Quote:

Actually I do think it provides two ways to win. One is to scoop up as many tier flags as possible to win with points, the other is to let someone else forge the path, revealing tiles, following behind but conserving your energy by building a better team to fit the placed tiles, and then making a run for the top even without the flags.

But they're the same in the sense that assuming you've scooped up tier flags to win with points, what are you going to do then? Stop, or keep trying to reach the summit? There are two different game end conditions, but there's only one real play strategy: Climb like heck up the mountain!

I think we're splitting hairs over details here. What I guess I'm saying is you don't really have multiple paths to victory, because the only way to get VP is through climbing. There may be different climbing strategies one could employ (like "scoot for the top", "hold back and try to sneak up at the end", etc), but that's not the same as a true "multiple paths to victory" game like Puerto Rico where there are different VP mechanisms. By your argument, chess would be a "multiple paths to victory" game since you could mate with your rook or your queen...

Quote:

I do see some of the same similarities, but (except for the camps) they feel mostly like "they both use cardboard" types of similarities. I feel that the "thinking" style is quite a bit different than both. But that may be because I'm too close to it.

Right, I think they are different games.

Quote:

And... I'm still working to make this more of an "adventure" game than an exploration game. I hope that the next version fits that idea better.

This is an important distinction that I admit I sort of overlooked; unlike an "exploration" game, the tiles in this one really only represent obstacles, they don't ever represent "treasures" that you're trying to obtain. So you're not trying to "discover" what's on the tiles, you're just trying to be able to go past them, which is sometimes harder than other times. A very important distinction, and I think the game captures the atmosphere just fine.

Again, let me just be clear, I don't think you're ripping off other games, I just want to be sure you're aware of their existence. Obviously you are, and it sounds like your process is pretty similar to mine wrt research of existing games.

-J

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 15:53

#48

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

jwarrend wrote:

Quote:

Actually I do think it provides two ways to win. One is to scoop up as many tier flags as possible to win with points, the other is to let someone else forge the path, revealing tiles, following behind but conserving your energy by building a better team to fit the placed tiles, and then making a run for the top even without the flags.

But they're the same in the sense that assuming you've scooped up tier flags to win with points, what are you going to do then? Stop, or keep trying to reach the summit? There are two different game end conditions, but there's only one real play strategy: Climb like heck up the mountain!

That's where I disagree. I mean, sure, you can only win by climbing, but you can win by climbing first or by climbing best (most efficiently). At least potentially.

Quote:

I think we're splitting hairs over details here. What I guess I'm saying is you don't really have multiple paths to victory, because the only way to get VP is through climbing. There may be different climbing strategies one could employ (like "scoot for the top", "hold back and try to sneak up at the end", etc), but that's not the same as a true "multiple paths to victory" game like Puerto Rico where there are different VP mechanisms. By your argument, chess would be a "multiple paths to victory" game since you could mate with your rook or your queen...

Hmm. I'll think about that more. At this point I don't agree. Maybe I just need to differentiate them more.

Quote:

Quote:
And... I'm still working to make this more of an "adventure" game than an exploration game. I hope that the next version fits that idea better.

This is an important distinction that I admit I sort of overlooked; unlike an "exploration" game, the tiles in this one really only represent obstacles, they don't ever represent "treasures" that you're trying to obtain. So you're not trying to "discover" what's on the tiles, you're just trying to be able to go past them, which is sometimes harder than other times. A very important distinction, and I think the game captures the atmosphere just fine.

Thanks. I'm hoping that will be more true in the next version.

Quote:

Again, let me just be clear, I don't think you're ripping off other games, I just want to be sure you're aware of their existence. Obviously you are, and it sounds like your process is pretty similar to mine wrt research of existing games.

Sorry if I came off wrong in my replies. I agree that we probably approach it in very similar ways.

And thanks very much again!

--Matthew

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 16:04

#49

Brykovian

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

First, I think that the great_undoing's comments were excellent. I like the idea of (as FL put it) a "climbing season" -- a slow-closing window of opportunity to create tension ... having that calendar impact the weather (or maybe just the weather's baseline, with turn-by-turn adjustments on top of it) and having the weather impact the top of the mountain more strongly are very nice ideas. I think they both fit the theme nicely, and make the race at the top of the mountain more interesting (and give those below a fair chance to catch up).

jwarrend wrote:

I think we're splitting hairs over details here. What I guess I'm saying is you don't really have multiple paths to victory, because the only way to get VP is through climbing. There may be different climbing strategies one could employ (like "scoot for the top", "hold back and try to sneak up at the end", etc), but that's not the same as a true "multiple paths to victory" game like Puerto Rico where there are different VP mechanisms.

Good point Jeff ... but I don't think it's a bad thing in this case. There is only one goal for climbing Everest -- getting to the top -- but, as the saying goes, "there are many paths up the mountain." And those different paths (strategies) are what would make this a fun, re-playable game.

And one just plain silly comment about ...

Quote:

since you could mate with your rook or your queen

... I hope you get to choose. ;)

-Bryk

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 16:24

#50

jwarrend

Offline

Joined: 08/03/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Brykovian wrote:

jwarrend wrote:
I think we're splitting hairs over details here. What I guess I'm saying is you don't really have multiple paths to victory, because the only way to get VP is through climbing. There may be different climbing strategies one could employ (like "scoot for the top", "hold back and try to sneak up at the end", etc), but that's not the same as a true "multiple paths to victory" game like Puerto Rico where there are different VP mechanisms.

Good point Jeff ... but I don't think it's a bad thing in this case. There is only one goal for climbing Everest -- getting to the top -- but, as the saying goes, "there are many paths up the mountain." And those different paths (strategies) are what would make this a fun, re-playable game.

Yes, I absolutely agree. I think the game sounds like a lot of fun, and I think that there could be different strategies, and I think that the victory point conditions are fine just as they are. What I am disputing is Matthew's contention that he has built in "multiple paths to victory", which I think is a different game design concept. I think it's a minor quibble, because I'm not arguing that there is any problem whatsoever with the game or the victory point conditions. What I'm quibbling over is how we're defining multiple paths to victory.

Again, when I think of multiple paths to victory, I generally think in terms of "multiple mechanics to victory". Like Puerto Rico as I mentioned, or Princes of Florence where you can get VP in other ways than Works, or in Settlers where you get VP from settlements, cities, roads, knights, or in Illuminati where you can meet either your "Illuminati group special goal" or you can collect 10 groups in your structure, etc... I think "multiple paths to victory" is a distinct concept from "different strategies".

I think what's confusing the discussion is that we're equivocating with the word "path". Of course there are different "paths" up the mountain, but I don't think that's really important from a game standpoint since you don't know from the beginning what obstacles those paths might contain.

So when I think of "multiple paths to victory", I think in terms of the strategy a player might pursue, but I think this game, due to the nature of exploration, is a bit more tactical, although I admit there are some strategic decisions. But again, when I think of "multiple paths to victory", I interpret that to mean "multiple mechanics to victory", ie, there are more than one way to get VPs. In this game, there's only one -- climb up faster than the others. In Chess, there's only one: put the opponent in checkmate.

So, I think the difficulty here is just that we're using the same word different ways. Again, though, I think the game is fine, and I don't think all games have to have "multiple paths to victory". I wouldn't add a mechanic whereby you can get VP for having the most Swedes on your team or some crazy thing. (although Scots, I would consider...) The VP system is fine just as it is. But it's not, as far as I can tell, "multiple paths to victory".

Quote:

And one just plain silly comment about ...

Quote:
since you could mate with your rook or your queen

... I hope you get to choose. ;)

Ha! Should have thought that one through some more...

How's the baby doing?

-Jeff

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 16:31

#51

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

As some additional general Everest info -- and a big reason why I like the multiple routes (not MPTV, but multiple climbing routes) is images like these (include BMPs unfortunately, so they're bigger than they need to be):

http://www.everesthistory.com/stories/routes1.htm

http://www.everesthistory.com/stories/routes2.htm

http://www.everesthistory.com/stories/route4.htm

--Matthew

(Edit: Not saying it's logical to put them in the game just because of the images, mind you... but it does drive me!)

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 16:55

#52

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

FastLearner wrote:

sedjtroll wrote:

Everyone's commenting on this quote, so I may as well chime in. I mentioned it in my previous post as well... I think I agree with Jeff on this one. It's not really different, it really is just a large score bonus for reaching the top. So it's "who scores the most points by the time someone reaches the top", be that the RCT or a player. If you're the player that reached the top, then you probably just won.

Does my response to Jeff change your view on it?

Not really.

Here's some more stuff I just thought of in the car. A lot of my suggestions (as you may have noticed) rely on previous suggestions I've made (or don't make sense otherwise), but some are independant. You may need to keep that in mind.

So, to build on what others have said, how about we get rid of Money alltogether. Actions could be...

Climb

Choose a card

Camp

Then you choose how many actions you let people have each turn. You had said 2 before, but perhaps only 1 if the actions are big enough.

Alternatively, you could do like Puerto Rico and on your turn you choose what everyone's doing, then everyone in turn takes that action. "Ok, we're climbing. Let's go" "Oh crap, I don't have my new cliber on my team yet!" "Drat, since you chose Climber, you get points for the face-down tile we're both about to go on..."

So Recruiter means everyone in turn chooses 1 of X Face-Up Climber cards and adds that guy to their team (tapped), then you reveal the next X cards. X = # players, or maybe #players+1 or something.

Same with Sponser (Sponser cards), Pro Shop (Gadget cards), Climber (everyone must take a Climb Action or Pass)

- Seth

[/]

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 17:07

#53

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

FastLearner wrote:

...a big reason why I like the multiple routes (not MPTV, but multiple climbing routes) is images like these

If the game board were the same every time I think I'd see a reason to have routes shown in the game. Since this game has random tile placement to see how the mountain 'develops' I think it's unnecessary. If you look at the board after a game you will see the routs people took by where the tiles are. Or if there was a lot of exploration, then much of the mountain will be covered with tiles- it might look something like a photomosaic.

- Seth

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 17:15

#54

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

I'm going to hold off on detailed replies while I work on the next revision, but I thought I'd address this:

sedjtroll wrote:

Alternatively, you could do like Puerto Rico and on your turn you choose what everyone's doing, then everyone in turn takes that action. "Ok, we're climbing. Let's go" "Oh crap, I don't have my new cliber on my team yet!" "Drat, since you chose Climber, you get points for the face-down tile we're both about to go on..."

I actually had a Puerto Rico style roles system at first, but it felt (a) too much like Puerto Rico (see above, heh), and (b) less like the independent-spirited thing that mountain climbing is. I know that some of these decisions may be for flavor and not support the best possible mechanical game play, but I'm certainly trying to balance them.

Thanks.

--Matthew

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 17:16

#55

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Here's some really funny Everest humor, btw:

http://www.mnteverest.net/humor.html

Thu, 08/21/2003 - 18:50

#56

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

oops

Something I forgot to say in my second-to-last post. You said you didn't like Gadgets because they were fiddly.

The reason I thought of them at all is as a way for people to customize their team- either to make them good at one type of terrain (get strong Rock climbers, then get gadgets which help Rock climbing) or to round out your skills (your team is weak in Ice climbing, so you pick up some Crampons)

The idea being between the climbers and the gadgets you tune your teams abilities the way you want them. It might not be a bad idea to say you only get 3 active Climbers at a time and 3 Gadgets at a time (others are turned sideways and can be swapped out at a Camp).

Just some residual thoughts... I'm interested to see your revision and see what ideas you incorporated and what you didn't.

- Seth

Fri, 08/22/2003 - 00:45

#57

FastLearner

Offline

Joined: 12/31/1969

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Before I give up entirely on the auction thing, I have one more idea to ask for feedback on:

How about if there was a simple mechanic where climbers and sponsors rotated through every turn (like a "discard one and draw a new one to put in the pool"), and players had some form of interrupt tokens that allowed them once per round (on anyone's turn) to pause the game and start an auction for a climber. It wouldn't be one of your actions or anyone else's.

Yeah, ok, so maybe I'm fixated on auctions. I've already worked out some math for just letting people pay for climbers on their turns that doesn't involve auctions in any way. I just like the multi-player interaction and money management part of it, and the idea that climbers work for the highest bidder, so I figured I'd give it one more shot.

Thoughts?

Fri, 08/22/2003 - 03:44

#58

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

FastLearner wrote:

Before I give up entirely on the auction thing, I have one more idea to ask for feedback on:

Yeah, ok, so maybe I'm fixated on auctions. I've already worked out some math for just letting people pay for climbers on their turns that doesn't involve auctions in any way. I just like the multi-player interaction and money management part of it, and the idea that climbers work for the highest bidder, so I figured I'd give it one more shot.

Thoughts?

DO climbers work for the highest bidder? Or do they get recruited- probably without knowledge of who else is recruiting? Maybe a little of both.

I say you nix auctions- they don't make a lot of sense here, and go ahead- tell me you don't think "interrupt tokens" sound a little fiddley ;P

In fact, I still think you should nix money alltogether. Make the sponsers worth VPs or something (or nix them), and make the camps free (costs an action)- combine with Rest Action. If that doesn't sound like camps cost enough, make them cost 2 actions (this turn, instead of doing anything constructive, I'm pitching camp and resting and adding dudes to the team and etc).

- Seth

Fri, 08/22/2003 - 06:20

#59

Scurra

Offline

Joined: 09/11/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Well, just to be awkward, I think you do need money but you don't need auctions.
Does that help? Thought not :)

Actually, I'm going to hold off now on major comments until I see the next revision. However, can I say that the "calendar" idea seems perfect, since it will also give you a method of affecting the weather, and that the "gadgets" idea has potential for interacting with both the climbers and the sponsors nicely. OTOH it adds more bits to a component-heavy game.

Looking forward to seeing what comes next.

Fri, 08/22/2003 - 11:47

#60

sedjtroll

Offline

Joined: 07/21/2008

Game #5: Everest by FastLearner

Scurra wrote:

...the "calendar" idea seems perfect, since it will also give you a method of affecting the weather

I have to agree. That sounds way better than the Royal Climbing Team. It could interact with the weather in a simple way, like as time goes on, the weather gets worse. Or it could not interact at all, and have a seperate mechanism for determining weather. For simplicity (if we're still trying to get rid of extra components) I'd go with the former.

Scurra wrote:

...the "gadgets" idea has potential for interacting with both the climbers and the sponsors nicely. OTOH it adds more bits to a component-heavy game.

I don't see how it would interact with the Sponsers. As for it being a component heavy game, I think we can remove a lot of the components... Weather incorporated into calendar- there goes the weather counter and ay dice or cards that might have been involved in determining weather. Nix money, there go Gold counters and possibly even Sponsers (although it would be nice to keep Sponsers, I like how they work and they fit the theme). Energy- combine to 1 track with X tokens on it (X = #players).
What's left? Gadget deck, Climber deck, and a pile of Terrain tiles, a board and the X energy tokens, 4X (or was it 5X?) camp tokens, and a pawn for each player. That's it. That doesn't sound like too much to me.

- Seth

User login

Navigation

Apr 25 2024

Apr 24 2024

Apr 20 2024

Apr 18 2024

Apr 16 2024

Apr 15 2024

Apr 13 2024

Apr 12 2024

Apr 9 2024

Apr 6 2024

Apr 4 2024

Apr 1 2024

Mar 28 2024

Mar 21 2024

Mar 20 2024

Mar 19 2024

Mar 13 2024

Mar 8 2024

Mar 5 2024

Mar 4 2024

	TradeWorlds — Smuggler's Run (7) by questccg
	Single Item Shipping at The Game Crafter (0) by The Game Crafter