Dare to Defy

This was a medal winner from me. The game is simply and sounds like a fun little push your luck game with a theme that fits those mechanisms. I saw a comment that they thought there were 21 cards, I first had the same thought but quickly realized that the Priest, Pharisees, and Roman Soldier cards were the three Authority cards. Shame, I think some folks may have penalized it (maybe subconsciously) without realizing that it is within the 18 card limit. The description was clear and easy to follow. Even though the mechanisms were familiar, I thought it was a well thought out implementation and excellent entry.

Suspicious Souls

This game was sooo close to getting a medal from me. I have a soft spot for hidden information in games and deduction (especially social deduction). Althought this game isn't strictly just that, the theme and mechanisms matched and fit the guidelines of the contest very well. But this was also a game I felt "gosh, this game desparately needs more cards!". Overall, I thought this was a great entry and made me wish I had more than three medals to give.

Religious City

This entry was quite ambitious IMO, not in a bad way mind you. It felt as though it had some CCG/LCG-ish elements with direct confrontation. I really enjoy these types of game, but I had a hard time imagining how the game would work with so few cards. Especially with the winning condition being to score 12 (out of the 18) cards. The theme fit well with the guidelines of the contest, but it feels like a game that needs far more than 18 cards to make it fun. Overall a very good entry though.

Theocracy

I have to say, naming the 2 players 'first' and 'last' made reading the gameplay rules somewhat awkward. At the very least, having First and Last capitalized might have helped. The game is a simple bluffing game, which I enjoy. But I wasn't enamored with the implementation here since the bluffing was very shallow. Also, the rules didn't mention that the resources had different values. If they did, it might have added a little more flavor to the bluffing and deciding on which power card to use. Without that, there wasn't as many interesting decisions as I would have liked. Overall a solid entry but overshadowed by the slew of really great entries this month.

Sancti et malum

First off, I have to give kudos for making a cooperative game for this challenge. The theme of Good vs Evil fits the mechanisms but not strictly religious. This seemed like a fun little dice-chucking game. I can see being more enjoyable with each card having special abilities to alter die rolls and provide rerolls. And interesting twist to add might be have one member actually being on the side of the fallen. Since the cards in hand are kept hidden, it may lend itself well to a 'traitor' variant. Overall, it was a fine entry and definitely one I considered.

Wrath

I wanted to give this entry a medal just for the bad @$$ theme of gods battling it out (reminded me of the video game SMITE in terms of theme). But after giving it more thought, I'm not sure this would be categorized as a "religious game". But I didn't want to hold that against this entry. I had high hopes for this entry. But I ended up a little disappointed that the example powers were just adding, substracting, and dividing the results of die rolls. This could have been a victim of my enthusiastic expectations. I was hoping to see abilities like "Death Curse: Place the black die on a god card with the '1' face. Each round that god has that die, he/she loses life equal to the face value of the die. Each time the death god deals damage, increment the black die." or "Fire Blast: Roll three die. You may reroll once. Deal damage equal to the lowest value die to 3 god cards adjacent to each other." If it was closer to what I had in my head.. and let's face it, it's always better in your head, right?.. I would have given it a platinum medal. At the end of the day, the combat rules seemed a little mundane.. again, it could be because of the unrealistic expectations I had. But overall, a great effort.. and one that has the potential to become a bad @$$ game.

This game got my silver medal vote. I really liked the potential to highlight differences between the major religions. I like how the actions are setup and how you have to fight over the dice. I thought how the dice results were assigned to the different religions was very creative. My only concern is replay value, as you have to play the cards sequentially.

I think the designer was talking about the current populations of religions and not historical influence. There is a clear drop off after Hindu. One could make the arguement that atheism could be included in a "big 4".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations

A short history

This was one of the most clearly written rule sets this month. I liked the epoch spanning feeling of the game. And I like the way in which populations are being pulled back and forth. The variable card actions would create a mechanically interesting flow in game. But the problem is that they seem to constrain players’ tactical choices too much, making the gameplay too much based on luck. Thematically – to keep with the “history” title of the game – perhaps you could consider substituting the “religious elements” on the cards with “historic moments” tracing the origins, development and spread of each faith instead of  (i.e. original prophet, early sect or region which took it up, first state to take it up, subsequent spread through empires or trade).

On Earth As It Is In Heaven

Thanks for the forthright but thoughtful feedback. On reflection I think that my design suffered from some sloppy choices of language and an underdeveloped theme. The intention of the game was to explore the relationship between religious institutions, their beliefs or ideologies, and more worldly powers, in particular the state. The title was a reference to this relationship, but “Temple and Palace” (or “Church and State”) would have conveyed the idea of the game better, and “Pantheon of the Gods” (my original title) would have fitted the theme better.

Thematically I had in mind a fantasy/fictionalised version of ancient societies like Rome during the period in which polytheism and regional diversity gave way to centralised state religions. (No judgement or pan-historical generalisation about polytheism intended!).  I used the term “cult” in the classical sense of Roman cults devoted to the worship or “cultivation” of a particular deity. Perhaps alternative terms like “religious order”, “devotees”, or “temple” would have less derogatory connotations to a modern audience though.

I would be keen to get more feedback on the mechanics of the game.

Regarding play choices, I was anticipating that the fact that each player’s “obvious” choice is likely to be different, means that each needs to decide whether to go it alone by supporting their own obvious choice or try to team up with another player to support their obvious choice. In this sense alliances and player overlap are design choices which are integral to the game.

Peace was deliberately tough, both as a thematic choice, and to encourage fast risky aggressive play rather than a defensive play which might slow the game down. Though it would obviously need to be tweaked if it turned out to be a totally undesirable option.

Battle between the Good and Evil                        

The mechanics here make for good beer and pretzel gambling game. But thematically it does not make sense. Why are players all playing as both good and evil?  It seems like it would work better with a different theme, or simply as an abstract card game.

#16 Druids - Silver Medal

My silver medal this month. A push your luck that seems to favor the attacking player right from the start, though maybe the cards provide more resistance than I’m imagining. I think that it could be tweaked to handle any balance issues though. The cards are doing something meaningful, but the main game is in the dice rolling. The three missionary rollers each round do have a somewhat meaningful choice to make, but it could probably be automated so that one poor opponent doesn’t give some players an advantage on the offense based on table position. On the whole this is one of the games this month that I’d be most likely to want to try out.

#2 Trinity - My entry

I definitely ran into the 500 word limit for the description here. The answer to some of the questions already asked had to be cut from my original type-up in order to get the entry down to the right length. I might flesh the game out further here or elsewhere in BGDF in the future to solicit opinions on more detailed mechanics. Out of curiosity, and for future months, was there any part of my entry that people feel could have been left out? I need to get the balance down still.

#4 Cult

There doesn’t seem to be a lot of choice in the game. Each player either wants a character in the cult or not, and so adds the support or not based on that (is there incentive to bluff that I don’t see?) The leader does choose which characters to try to recruit based on the dice, but with the small character pool they and the one die roll they could easily be forced to make a choice that hurts them (I wonder if the option to pass would be reasonable to include as failure to recruit a character takes that character out of contention for at least one round most of the time.)

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

There seem to be lots of interesting things happening, so I'm sure there's lots of potential. It seems like there would be a fair bit to factor in with each decision and I like the simultaneous play. However, as already noted it lack for examples which made it hard to really picture everything going on. Lastly, I'm not sure the title fits. Trinity is a distinctly Christian term and this is not thematically related at all.

This game seems like it would work fine, but I'm not sure there's enough depth. All the cards are face down there's no way of knowing what's going on. Maybe after everyone has chosen their first card, those can be flipped over and then the round can continue with face down cards until everyone has passed.

#10 The Darkness

A deduction game is a nice choice here, but I wonder how valuable that die roll to decide the question is; I suppose you tailor the person you ask to the question you get, but I’m not sure how valuable that restriction is. I also think it would be nice if there were some penalty for guessing incorrectly. As it is now, asking a question gives everyone at the table more information which you won’t be able to take advantage of until your next turn (if it gets back to you,) but guessing resets any information that others are working with and doesn’t particularly cost you anything for being wrong.

#18 I am GOD

I’m not sure I understand what the conflict value does, but it appears to involve interaction with a card the player already has rather than the dice rolled. It looks like players who don’t roll close to 7 on their dice (compared to other players) will never get a chance to play. In the long run that balances out, but it might lead to a very frustrating game for some of the players. What happens if two players have identical rolls and could both sway a card? The interactions between cards might have the potential to deal with all the issues that I have; it’s hard to tell without more examples which are hard to give with just 500 words.

#8 Proper Worship

I like that followers flip back to face up when all are used. This prevents particularly strong actions from being used over and over again unless the player has very few followers (and I assume that they would be vulnerable to other actions like the Crusader in that case.) As the players share the Mandate each turn I worry that the motivation for trading might normally be pretty non-existant, but perhaps seeing a mix of cards would make it clearer why you would want to negotiate. Is there an order of negotiation for the negotiation phase? If not I worry that the order that saved actions come in might be chaotic and hard to track.

#15 To Heaven or Hell

I guess the biggest problem that I have with games that look for this sort of thing for scoring points is that I just wouldn’t find it fun to be involved in most of the described sin categories. If I’m not going to have fun playing a game then why would I play it? Punching, berating, forcing people to eat foods they don’t like and the like aren’t what I want to do with friends. It’s possible that this could work with the right groups of people, but I’m leery.

-Zorblag R`Lyeh

I like the creative choice to highlight the darkness that fell for three hours at the crucifixion. I like the information chosen for each character. I agree that having to wait your turn and lack of penalty for incorrect guesses are the main things to be addressed. What if it was round based? Each player could get maybe three or four questions each per round. After all the questions everyone would secretly write down their guesses for each other character and then score a point for each correct and lose a point for each incorrect.

Druids

I discarded this game because the push-your-luck mechanic. (Druids are fine for theme.)

Trinity

I like the game, but it does not fit the theme very well. There are too much direct attacks. Gangster-theme?

Cult

Some good elements, but it is not working yet. (Or I did not understand). For instance, can only the player whose turn it is recruit a card? The others will then all select their card (angel/devil) against this choice. Only if the difference in dice is enough, the player succeeds. Not too good on the religion theme.

8 Proper Worship:

I very interesting game of negotiation, it was a candidate to a medal but after all I awarded others games. My main critic: the mechanic isnt too clear, in a negotiation game is important to clarify the moderation mechanic, the way to create trades in order or simultaneity. Free and not hidden negotiation, as it seems to say the rules, dont make sense to me.

10 The Darkness:

My main critic here: I see the theme too forced, i.e., not really related to some aspect of a religion. More than a game seems a interesting mechanic to teach something about the biblic history of christiniaty. It seems more as a educational game, what is not bad in any way, just that I prefer a different kind of game.

15 To Heaven or Hell:

Funny party game, really open to anyhting. No one critic here, I cant critic a game like this, it is just perfect as is it (at least to me) but I prefer award other games (I played some similar party games, and is really funny with some drinks, lol).

18 I am GOD:

Seems a tweak of a TCG to fit in some way a religion theme. Seems interesting but maybe too much random-based and I doesnt have too clear the mechanic to swear: dice vs card or card vs card... the text isnt too clear to me, maybe cause Im not english, Idk. Anyway I preferred award other games.

There are some good creative ideas in this game. I think it would work fine. I don't see any real issues, but I don't think it has enough tactical depth. I think there would a clear choice most of the time.

Falling... behind... again...

The Darkness

I was actually surprised that this wasn't voted higher. This deduction game got a medal from me. The mechanisms were interesting. The roll of the die determined which question you get to ask, so you are slightly at the mercy of the die roll. But after the die is rolled, then who to ask the question to is also an interesting choice. One issue that may arise is that all players will have the same amount of information if each player has only one card at a time. Perhaps if each player have a hand of cards, and the questions would apply to all cards in hand would add more engagement. The rules were very clear and easy to understand. The backstory seemed to stretch a bit to justify the mechanisms in the game, but that didn't bother me at all. The entry fit the guidelines for the contest neatly. Overall I thought this was an outstanding entry. Great job!

I am GOD

This is also one of those entries that seems like it needs more that 18 cards to make it work. There doesn't seem to be any benefit to being the lead player. So players are just hoping they have the right combination of dice and abilities on the card. The game seems like it could be lopsided at the start since each player is randomly given a card to start with. With some cards having useful abilities and other cards having no abilities, I got the impression that the players that were lucky enough to get a card with useful abilities had an advantage over those that got the cards that had no abilities. Perhaps the card with useful abilities had higher(or lower) CV but it's really doesn't have much of an impact since it depends on your die roll. The theme and mechanisms adhered to the contest guidelines very well. This slipped out of contention for a medal only for some minor gameplay issues that I would imagine would crop up and the feeling that 18 cards is just not enough for this type of game. The rules had a couple of areas where I had to reread it a couple of times. Overall a very solid entry in a tough field of contenders.

Proper Worship

This entry was a little difficult to follow at first, but upon re-reading the entirety a couple of times, I was able to get the jist of the game. I was intrigued by the negotiation element in the game. And it is the only game with negotiation amoung all on the entries, kudos. With that said, I'm not sure if there's really enough incentive to do any trading. Each round, the objectives are determined by the die roll of the mandate die. What reason would player A make a trade that would allow player B to earn a victory point this round (and vice versa).. simply a promise of reciprocation on the following round? With very limited number of components, I just couldn't imagine there would be enough 'things' to trade at all. I could see this being an enjoyable game of negotiation if 1. the goals were more end game goals rather than goals that were only in effect for the round. And 2. there were more components, essentially more 'things', to trade. Overall, another solid entry that's hindered by component limits. Good effort!

To Heaven or Hell

"punch another player", in the best case, slapstick humor shouldn't be necessary to make a game fun. In the worst case, well... people will get hurt. Assuming that issue is ignored (it is a tough one to ignore), the premise of the game had potential. players would choose to be good to try to go to heaven, or choose to be sinful and purposely go to hell. The player to reach one of the two extremes wins the game. The theme is religious only in the reference to heaven and hell. For a party game, I thought that was perfectly fine so the thin religious theme didn't bother me. Now onto the mechanisms of the game... The triangular cards, while novel, didn't really add anything to the game that regular cards couldn't do (just ignore one of the corners, or make the fourth corner the place to 'opt-out'). Which section of the card is used is completely determined by the die roll. Player's place their die on one of the corners of the card. It's here, that it seems a part of the game rules is missing. There's no explanation as to why players would choose a corner. When the master die is rolled to determine which corner is 'activated', are only the players with dice in that corner take part in the 'activity'? If that's the case, players that are trying to go to heaven will always stay on the white sections and those that want to go to hell would stay on the black section. So it seems there's no interesting decision there. Also another issue, and this may be a game breaker, is most of the example actions allow players to pick other players to gain/lose points. If that's the case, the hell player will always choose a heaven player that's closest to winning to lose points, and vice versa. This will drag the game out.. possibly indefinitely. A proper design should always have a force that drives the game to a conclusion. I think overall, this had some good potential. The entry was easy to read, but it seemed there might be a missing rule (perfectly understandable in a 500 word limit). But ultimately it had some issues that couldn't be ignored. It was a good effort nonetheless.