[GDS] APRIL 2014 "Fool me once..." Critiques thread

Gold: Idol flatery

Nice bluffing game. I think it does work best with two players. With three or more players too much will have changed when it is your turn again.

Silver: Countdown D.C.

Exactly for 2 players, well done. It could be that with perfect tactics the police are able to capture all red pawns, or vice versa, the bombers might rush (4 steps at once) towards the building. I think the movement can be improved by adding some random element.

Bronze: Agents and Agitators

Not everything is clear to me, but I see potential to develop this further. I like to give players the choice to reveal more information and get more dice with chance for revolt. I suggest starting with some regions already in revolt, and more chances of neighbour districts to revolt. That adds more deduction and makes bluffing smarter.

Fourth: Go Go Gatherer

I did not like the fact that the players have no influence on which will be the next pile. I think the game improves if the players take turn in deciding which pile the gatherer stands. Players can pick their own resource but might reveal their card, or they can force the other player to reveal some information. If any player wants to guess the card of the other player they can do so. If they are correct they win, otherwise, they lose.

I chose this game because I felt like while absent of theme it placed more of an emphasis on player interaction. Drawing 2 cards and being forced to give one to an opponent seemed like a really fun mechanic. Will need to try this one out

It’s too bad that there were so many entries this month and this one was so far down on the list. I really didn’t want to put as much effort into sorting it out like the first few entries. There is a lot to take in and this game is quite liberal with wording, which makes it unclear. This game really needs to be explained better, but I think you would have had a hard time getting it down to 500 words.
The theme is interesting and the piñata idea would make it fun for everyone to play. All of the monsters and heroes need to be explained more to get an idea of how the battle will commence. I just think you tried putting too much game into such a limited word count. Next time try to focus more on mouth feel if you want to explain a complex game like this. Leave off all the card names and focus more on the mechanics.

Two points from other critiques that I share:
- No clues about cards, just guessing
- Too long/repetetive

A good thing (with just about any game) is to remove as much as possible, without removing the game. I think this game still holds well with 11 cards (1-5 2x and one fool).
As for guessing, one way would be to have the players look at their 5 cards and put them down sorted. Highest vs. highest, lowest vs. lowest.
Instead of commenting on a card of your own, the player points to a card of the opponent and asks what it is.
Only score the 3-cards.

(When a card must be replaced, take the 4 remaining cards in hand, add one, sort, and then put them down again - the shifting in order should not be visible for the other player)

I'm afraid my feedback isn't going to be all that helpful. The reason being, after reading the entry three, maybe four times.. I can't quite grasp how the game works. Too many aspects of the game are unclear to me:

Where are the pinatas?
Why would your stick power change when you attack a soldier of equal battle?
Where/What are the walls?
How do you attack something with a value of 15 when the highest value on the die is 6 (Demigod being the highest)?
How do you successfully attack your opponent to win?
"Letting the horse pass thru" sounds like it should be the same as "Open the horse".. but is one sending yourself the Trojan Horse?
You only untap one soldier per turn?
ect.. You get the idea.

This had the potential to be a very interesting idea.. but I suspect it wasn't feasible to fully describe the gameplay in the 500 word limit. I wish I could give better feedback on this one.

Entry #1 – Go Go Gather Are the number cards only used to place the villages? Why is this even important? Does village placement have any impact on the game? Perhaps the opponent can place the villages (or just let the player decide where they go.) After the game gets going, the villages become important, but not at this stage yet. I think that the “villages” provide a nice way to randomize the game, giving it replay ability.
This game reminds me of the recent experiment – “Twitch Plays Pokemon”. I feel like this game will be exceedingly frustrating as most of the time you are just trying to get a dude to move around. And in this case, I think the frustration will not translate into fun. This is not so much about misleading or bluffing as it is about wits. Last month’s challenge had an entry that had the same basic mechanism as the gather, but with a spinner instead (the weather control game).
This game is not a resource management game, so I would suggest moving away from that theme. Perhaps the selector can be a selector and it ‘chooses’ Tetris pieces to create something (or be played like Tetris). I feel like the resource gathering makes this game boring. A re-theme will make this game worth playing.

Entry #3 – Hidden War I like this game because you don’t need to purchase it to play it. It also looks like fun and a great game of wits. However, it missed on medals for me because it’s not a new game. It’s just a twist on an old game. For example, you can play Pictionary by using the intended cards, or making your own. But, don’t get down about it, I’d rather play this game than ‘war’.

Entry #4 – Sheep or Cow The premise of this game made me cringe, but I suppose most gamers don’t know much about farming anyways. Without tearing the story apart too much, I’ll just ask a couple questions: Where would farmers on communal land NOT be part of the local community. If water is so scarce and for some reason, the town’s people are not exploiting this water supply, are there no other farmers in the area that would compete for the supply? I separated the ‘story’ from the game and judged it based on the mechanics instead. I think that a game focusing on cooperation (like sand bags preparing for a flood, or moving humanitarian aid in a train fashion) is more appropriate for this game.
All that being said, I liked this overall concept game. I think this game falls short of the medals because there is no way to stop a player. There is no benefit to bluffing. The winning player will just be luckier. I also think this game is more complex than it needs to be. I think if you strip down the game and make it about linking to a resource, this game would be much better. But hey, that is just my opinion.

Entry #5 – Rakshasha I would like to see the other forms also carry with the hindu theme. Admittedly, I didn’t know this before researching it. I feel like this game lets me down by using ‘dragons’. I would like to see what the other forms are, but I am sure they were a victim of the word limit.
I liked this game. It’s not exactly as I would have done the game, but I think it works well enough. I would have simplified the game a bit, but having the players race past obstacles that are placed in front of them. Skirting the obstacles seems like a cop out. Maybe a card is played each round to overcome an obstacle and the other player has to decide whether or not to call their bluff. Cards always remain face down, unless a bluff is called. A new card is selected from the deck of ‘forms’. This is just my humble offering towards this game.

Entry #6 – Auction Showdown A good auction game with secret bidding. I think this game would be better if players had competing and overlapping interests (I see you tried to do with extra character cards – though you could use more). While it is possible, it is not likely in the two player game. If this game were expanded to 4 or more I think it would work better. To make the game more competitive, consider reducing the number of auction cards. You could add another parameter as well. This game is about competing for items (like any auction game)… so the only competition is to send out as many $0 bids as you have. As far as the game goes, I think it fails to offer something unique enough to make me want to purchase it. However, I would play it if it was in front of me.

Entry #7 – Odds and Evens It was difficult to follow where the tokens go for each roll and WHY do they go there. I do not understand this game. I get the mechanics… I just don’t know why I would want to play this game. Why do the rolls move tokens? Have you considered the probability curves for rolling pairs and straights? It seems like you should call a bluff on every turn. What are the playing cards for? Can’t you just make two piles of tokens? I also don’t understand the center dice. Are they necessary? What is the difference between a die being on the bluff or face up pile? Can you use the dice if you win them? Why would you want to put your dice in the middle? There were just too many questions about this game to give a medal.

Entry #8 – Dragon’s Dojo First, I would challenge the two bag rule. Any smart player will start the game by taking both piles, mixing them together and put them back into the bags. It is not stealthy, but completely legal in this game. Therefore there is no reason to be sneaky about that. Why not just use one bag?
I liked the ideas of ‘relics’ and traps, though I feel ‘relics’ was a poor choice and that a more suitable name for those could be sought.
I have some questions about this game: Is the 9x9 square large enough to accommodate all of the tokens and movement of the ninjas? Can multiple tokens be placed on each square?

I feel like this game lacks the bluffing and misdirection of the challenge. Misdirection relies more on the cards and how to play the cards than the abilities of each player to deceive.

This game would be interesting in the form of “jack the ripper game” as the opposing player tries to catch the other ninja through the streets by following the trail, but along the way there are traps and misdirections to confuse them.

Entry #9 – Agents and Agitators A word to the wise: be consistent in naming your parameters. The title of the game and introduction used Agents and Agitators and then the instruction switched to Radicals and Imperials without ever explaining it. It was confusing.
This game looks like it has a rather complex battle mechanic that is key to the game. I fail to see where the misdirection / bluffing comes into play. The “guess my cards” part of the battle seems to be randomly inserted in and unnecessary for this game. It was not a key mechanic.

Entry #10 Cunning and Conjecture My game. It was a re imagining of another game I have made called clairvoyant. One player is the clairvoyant and knows the winning conditions. The other players try to work out what the winning conditions are before the clairvoyant wins.

Entry #12 – Stranded I don’t see how this relates to the challenge criteria. The voting stage surely can’t be the misdirection.

#13 – Fight or Fleece Love the name of the game. I think this game would become more interesting if you can place the facedown card on either player. I think I’d have to play this game to really understand how it works, but as far as I can tell, there is not much deception in this game. There is no bonus for lying, etc.

Entry #14 – Countdown DC I was with you on this game until you added the movement points. I think this game would be great just going after each other. Alternating turns. The police could get overrun and have to try to stop as many people as possible while the bombers try to sneak through and blow up a building. Bombers could also send the police on a wild goose chase after a blank red token. I am also unsure how much misdirection is really going on in this game. It doesn’t seem like much.
I could also see how this game may be a little offensive to some people. You are essentially trying to be a terrorist. Some people may not want to play a game where the goal is to destroy and kill the innocent.