Hi all, I'm still working on that still nameless medieval card game I mentioned in an earlier thread. (Working title "King's favor" at the moment :) )
It is progressing quite well and I'm pretty pleased with player's reactions so far. It is a reworking of classical card game concepts but with several modern twists and a brand new deck with four suits representing medieval classes but with a different value spread.
The basic mechanic is open-ended trick taking where players compete with cards played until no one can answer the last bid. Scoring is based on who wins the most cards in the same suit and a bonus if you manage to win at least one card of each suit by the end of the game round.
So, all is well here and I feel that the mechanics have finally slid into place. There are no glitches and exploits that I've managed to detect, but i feel the game lacks a... "WTF moment." It all plays smooth and well, and there is a degree of tension but imo there should be a point when one player can dare other players for a greater gain (and risk).
At the moment, I have the following: The leading player may bid one or several of his scoring counters when he plays the first card (leads). If all other players "pass" nothing happens and he wins that card. However, if someone takes up the challenge then two things can happen: If leading player wins, his investment doubles from the bank; if he looses the player who answered the challenge takes counters directly from the challenger.
While the mechanic seems quite elegant and simple on paper, I found that during playtesting players almost never use it. I can't fathom why this is so. I'm rethinking the whole thing from a game theory perspective and the cost-benefit analysis seems to favor taking risks, especially when being an underdog, as well as taking up challenges since there is nothing to loose. Dunno, I'm a bit stuck. Anyone has an idea why this is happening or maybe if there is some better optional bidding mechanic for the game?
