Skip to Content

Game #3/12 - Anisoptera - an abstract card game for 2-4 players

14 replies [Last post]
Ched80
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2019
anisoptera_1
anisoptera_2
anisoptera_3

Anisoptera

An 18 card abstractgame for 2-4 players.

You are a collector of dragonflies attempting to organise your collection in the best way possible.

Files for playing:
Rules:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/yltl0cu438mtzc1/anisoptera_rules_01.pdf/file

Cards:
http://www.mediafire.com/file/3eznffiwsg6la9d/anisoptera_cards_01.pdf/file

No additional resources are needed.

Reflection:
This is my third game of my challenge to make 12 18 card PnP games in 12 months.

This was the fasted development yet taking approximately 1 week to go from theme to playable game, the this development was massively more enjoyable than the last.

The theme I had for this game was "minimalist". So I wanted to limit the everything in the game. So that;s why there are no additional items needed and only 1 type of card.

The theme is a bit bolted on, but pretty early on I wanted to use these beautiful dragonfly drawings from 1845 as I've been fascinated by dragonflies since high school.

I think the game runs pretty well and despite the limited complexity, the game gives you some interesting choices to make each go.

Anyway, I'd love to hear how others feel it plays.

If you're curious, here's the link to the other game so far:
Game#1:
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-design/game-design-workshop/gene-dreams-...

Game#2:
https://www.bgdf.com/forum/game-design/game-design-workshop/game-212-dya...

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Designing games is supposed to be enjoyable...

@Ched80: don't take this the wrong way... But making games (even as a business) is supposed to be an enjoyable process. It seems to me like you are making it a VERY mechanical exercise.

You don't need to create 12 games in 12 months... By all means creating ONE (1) GREAT game in 1 year might be more realistic. You can do like all the other Publishers, SIGN someone else's GREAT design.

No but all jokes aside... If one of these games really is cool... Even before you reach all 12... I would dig deeper ... And maybe make a "The Game Crafter" (TGC) Game. "TradeWorlds" started as a TGC game. And now it was Kickstarted and will hopefully be manufactured soon and into the hand of our backers.

This SERIAL style of Game Designing ... is ... well TBH ... Weird. Most designers only make one or two games in their LIFETIME. You're going to make 12 of them and then... forget about them???

Maybe make five (5)... And out of those five, choose the BEST one (or the one you like best) and make it into a TGC game ... See how well it can sell ... Maybe do a Crowdsale on TGC and see if you can get a bulk discount for multiple copies sold. Get an award badge for all your sales.

There is no reason to RUSH anything. I was the first one to comment on your Gene game and it reminded me a bit (in some aspects) to "Quest AC v2" (The Second Edition of Quest Adventure Cards) which I cannot financially create today... Because I don't have the finances to do this.

But that's not the point. The point is "Dyadic", I did not comment because I felt like the design was RUSHED. There is still a lot of work to be done on that game (TBH).

Most people TRY to finish ONE (1) DESIGN ... And get it out into the gamers hands... Like I said not all people have the same resources so our projects can't all get made because of timing and finances.

I know you've set out to make 12 games... And I doubt me reassuring you that FIVE (5) is enough... Will dissuade you into making all 12 games. I'm just hoping you are ENJOYING yourself... And not just FORCING to do something that doesn't matter if you do 5 or 12... in the end.

Your FIRST game (Gene Dream) is very SIMILAR to your THIRD game (Anisoptera) where there is matching going on with different colors/patterns. Granted it is also different... There are some similarities.

We'll see in the end... Whatever you choose to reveal and share to the community. But my guess is five vs. twelve ... Is not a big deal. Nobody on BGDF is going to go: "Wow ... He designed 12 games in 12 months... Impressive!" Most people won't even be reading your rules.

But it's your marathon... So just take it easy and ENJOY yourself!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Since I'm a very COOL DUDE! (LOL)

I looked into your rulebook. And there are some problem with the rules. You may 100% understand what is written ... But I as a "reviewer" DON'T. So let me question you on what it is that I DON'T understand!

Point #2: From the cards in your hand; either PLAY or PASS them until you have 1 card in your hand.

I don't understand what you mean. There are some challenges in what you are saying and can be misinterpreted.

PLAY is easy, it means just put a card into the line of cards (at either end).

PASS is a bit confusing. You GIVE the card to the opponent on the RIGHT (ODD a bit). And then you may MOVE ONE (1) card to either end of the line.

Getting back to Point #2: When does the "until you have 1 card in your hand" happen??? I'm a bit confused... If you keep DRAWING a card into your hand won't you have 2 cards?

I'd like some clarifications. The pass to the RIGHT is a bit odd... and I'm not sure about the "until you have 1 card in your hand".

Please if you have a moment, offer me your insight into some of the strategy behind this... Because I'm not sure I grasp what you are trying to achieve...

(Because like I could have 1 card and then the player on the LEFT decides to PASS and then I now have 2 cards... Is this how the game is supposed to be played - strategically???)

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Maybe it's just me...

But the DIAGRAM is WRONG: The Line on the bottom that goes to the right and back to the TOP SHOULD go to position #2 and NOT position #1 (Draw a card)?!

Am I correct about this???

Please double check... It's still a bit confusing. But maybe that's the reason for my confusion...

Note #1: I think the confusion is around the "until you have 1 card in your hand".

So everyone gets dealt ONE (1) Card. And then at the start of each turn, they get +1 Card (from Step #1). But WHAT IF I "PASS" to the RIGHT, that player when it's his turn he will have THREE (3) Cards...!

Ya I'm a bit confused... Definitely need some clarifications.

Note #2: Maybe BEFORE the RHS line that goes up to Step #1, you should have a RHS line that goes BEFORE and up to Step #2... I think I'm understanding better... But until we clear up the rules... I'm not sure I see the entire strategy ATM.

Note #3: Instead of BOTH lines going up... One should be on the RHS going from Step #2b to #2 (RHS) and afterwards a second line going from blow the RHS line to Step #1 (LHS) to indicate that it's the next player's turn...

Stormyknight1976
Offline
Joined: 04/08/2012
I would be impressed

I would be impressed for this designer if he accomplished 12 game design in 1 year. A game design per month.

He could do it. The next new member could put themselves to the test. Why Not? If its something or a goal they have planned, let them do it. It's their journey. Their goal. Their time in gaming history.

Encouraging others to do better than the ones who have already been through the journey of created / designing is what this website should be doing and not discourage.

Awesome for the original poster to challenge themselves to do 12 designs in a year. It's not that difficult at all.

But that's for another time and topic format.

Bows respectively

Creator of Dymino Monsters
Jesse

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Everyone has the right to their opinion! Ban on Censorship...

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
I would be impressed for this designer if he accomplished 12 game design in 1 year. A game design per month.

Well it doesn't impress me. To me I'd prefer seeing one superior design that hundreds of mediocre ones... But that's my opinion.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
He could do it. The next new member could put themselves to the test. Why Not? If its something or a goal they have planned, let them do it. It's their journey. Their goal. Their time in gaming history.

You've been working on Dymino for HOW MANY YEARS???

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
Encouraging others to do better than the ones who have already been through the journey of created / designing is what this website should be doing and not discourage.

This website is the sum of the thoughts of each designer who partakes on this forum. We are ALL ENTITLED to our OWN opinions. So if you don't agree ... that's your business. But I don't like to be called out and told that a way of thinking is WRONG ... People have the right to disagree. That seems like a concept you have difficulty understanding.

I don't BULLSH!T and I say it as it is.

Stormyknight1976 wrote:
Awesome for the original poster to challenge themselves to do 12 designs in a year. It's not that difficult at all.

The difficulty is bringing ONE (1) good game to fruition. And right now Isaac Childres has surpassed Jamey Stegmaier with his latest campaign of over $12 MILLION dollars in funding! This is so freaken insane... But it was to be expected ... Everyone loves Gloomhaven... So why NOT Frosthaven!!!

Also the quality of the PnP is also subject to scrutiny. We've got our own Jason Greeno that is partnered with PNP Arcade where they VET and offer both FREE PnPs and sold PnPs for under $5.00 (most) for games with superior PnP experiences.

So there is a place for PnPs and it's called PNP Arcade... So if you pursue ONE (1) or more designs ... that website will be a good site to VET your files:

https://www.pnparcade.com

Cheers!

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Also ...

I realize that for SOME Game Designers ... They are NOT interested in the fiscal side of things. But that makes me QUESTION "You" as a Designer. If the entire industry was FREE, nobody would make $1.00. And then for those of us who do decide to take our game(s) to the next level (and that means actual publication) there are a LOT of challenges and hurdles to surpass before getting a game into people's hands.

Okay I'll say it: IMHO if you've never TRIED to publish or self-publish a game, you're ONLY HALF of a Game Designer. And the reason I say this is because as I said, it's a tough road and long battle.

Doing HALF of the work may seem good enough. But in TRUTH it isn't. That's my opinion take-it or leave-it ... But Game Designers who have TRIED the next level know how hard it can be.

So just DESIGNING the game is 50%. The other 50% is bringing the game to market. I'm sure some of you will agree and others will not. Again differences in opinion are permissible. Everyone has a right to their own opinion. And mine is CLEAR: 50% is designing, 50% is publishing (and sales).

Ched80
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2019
Sorry I missed these messages

Sorry I missed these messages yesterday.

@questccg - I love your feedback. I fully get what you're saying about limiting the scope to a smaller number of bigger games, but that's not the point of this challenge to me. I had a long time of pretty much zero development and I was feeling stuck in a rut. I wanted a way to kick-start my love of game development again and I had seen lots of people do small 12 games in 12 months and the challenge really struck me.

Believe me I am enjoying the experience. I'm a hobbiest developer and if I wasn't enjoying it, I'd move on. This last game development was a really nice experience and I don't feel like this is a chore at all.

I will admit, the previous one, Dyadic, was less enjoyable, but I'm glad I went through the process - I learnt a lot from it. I know there will be some games that fall flat and other that work well, as long as it pushes me and I learn from it, then I'll be a happy man.

Ultimately I want to try out some ideas I have and see how they work. If I stumble across something that really sings to me, I'll take it forward at the end of this process. For now, I'm happy with how I'm developing and how the games are turning out.

I also love getting feedback.

Speaking of which; on to the specific points about this game:

Quote:
Your FIRST game (Gene Dream) is very SIMILAR to your THIRD game (Anisoptera) where there is matching going on with different colors/patterns. Granted it is also different... There are some similarities.

I disagree here. Apart from the "matching" aspect, the games play very differently. The first game uses matching as area control, in this one, the matching is purely a scoring mechanism with hidden information. I guess you could say they both have 18 cards too, but then again all these games will have 18 cards. Whether they are similar or not, they feel different when you play them.

Quote:
I looked into your rulebook. And there are some problem with the rules. You may 100% understand what is written ... But I as a "reviewer" DON'T. So let me question you on what it is that I DON'T understand!

I agree. That's a weakness of mine that I'm trying to improve at. The rules were sub-optimal and I've updated them to add clarity and correct some typos.

Quote:
Point #2: From the cards in your hand; either PLAY or PASS them until you have 1 card in your hand.

I don't understand what you mean.

So you start the game with a single card in your hand. Most of the time, on your turn, you will draw a card (giving you 2 cards in your hand) and then you play a card (bringing your hand back to 1 card). If someone has PASSED a card on their turn, you will start your turn with 2 cards in your hand, draw another card (giving you a hand of 3) so you then play 2 cards, bringing your hand back to 1 card. The point being, passing a card gives your opponent(s) an advantage whilst you are able to adjust the sequence (hopefully) to score big.

X3M
X3M's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
My opinion

Ched80 wrote:
Anisoptera
Reflection:
This is my third game of my challenge to make 12 18 card PnP games in 12 months.

This was the fasted development yet taking approximately 1 week to go from theme to playable game, the this development was massively more enjoyable than the last.


Putting yourself up to a challenge is a good thing.
I like this attitude.

Some say, to think outside the box.
It looks like you kicked the box away and started a new box.

This can be a good practise.
This way, a lot of different mechanics might be tried out. If you stick with the same game, not all mechanics might be learned of.
No one should judge you on that, seeing as how no one has attempted this speed before.
I hope it is enjoyable for you to attempt this.

Just keep in mind. That each game might be absolute crap in hindsight. Then you should remember the process instead.
The same goes for eating delicious dinner. IT will be absolute crap afterwards ;)
Just Enjoy! If not; stop┬┐

Ched80
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2019
I totally agree. The 18 card

I totally agree.
The 18 card limit was simply to impose some limitations. I find in more creative when there are limitations. It gives me a focus.

I'm trying to add variety into the games with the development theme. I have 12 different themes allocated. The last one was "minimalist" the next one is "play the game you make".

While the second game was less enjoyable than the last. I did learn from it.

Tim Edwards
Tim Edwards's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/30/2015
Beautiful looking game. The

Beautiful looking game. The clean, simple Victorian natural history illustrations fit very well with the sleek rules. There's an effective synergy there. I really like the matching mechanic. I haven't played it yet but I'm attracted to it and would buy it. It looks like it would play well with 2 people too?

Good luck with the challenge you've set yourself. I wouldn't be able to do it, but I can imagine it's a great way to learn for some people, if not all.

Ched80
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2019
Thanks Tim. I think it plays

Thanks Tim. I think it plays best with two. The down time is less, which is always more enjoyable.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Matching Mechanic

Ched80 wrote:
questccg wrote:
Your FIRST game (Gene Dream) is very SIMILAR to your THIRD game (Anisoptera) where there is matching going on with different colors/patterns. Granted it is also different... There are some similarities.

I disagree here. Apart from the "matching" aspect, the games play very differently. The first game uses matching as area control, in this one, the matching is purely a scoring mechanism with hidden information. I guess you could say they both have 18 cards too, but then again all these games will have 18 cards. Whether they are similar or not, they feel different when you play them.

Well just looking at a "matching" mechanic it is similar. You've got a matching mechanic in BOTH games. That doesn't happen a lot when you look through a lot of different games. They really look DIFFERENT from each other. In the particular case of these two (2) games there is a similarity in that you are "matching" symbols.

I know it's DIFFERENT. But the "matching" mechanic (having to match symbols) is SIMILAR. I didn't say "identical" ... I said similar... I'd try to stick away from "matching" in your future games, else wise there will be a commonality to all the games and they may not "appear" to be as different as you suggest.

Note #1: I really PREFER this game (#3) over #1. The matching of patterns is COOL. I like that they are partial patterns and that you need to mix and match cards to try to score more points. I also personally feel this game is BETTER in terms of play. The Gene game, to me, might have playability issues with not being able to play out a game (As you hinted in one of your comments).

Plus this one is "thematically" more pleasing...

Ched80
Offline
Joined: 02/09/2019
Questccg, yeah fair

Questccg, yeah fair enough.

I'll make sure the next one has less matching in it :)

This one has been my favourite so far. Everything just came together naturally.

questccg
questccg's picture
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
How about some dice???

Ched80 wrote:
I'll make sure the next one has less matching in it :)

Maybe you could use some dice??? Like Standard 2d6s... That's a pretty standard component to many games. Or maybe a Polyhedral Set of dice (4, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 20)?! Or maybe only one of those poly dice like a d20 or d12... AD&D uses the d20... So maybe you can design something RPG-ish. IDK ... Just offering up some other avenues.

Note #1: They could still work with a LIMITED set of cards too... You could keep the 18 card limit and try to use dice matching instead of patterns... That could be different. I know Boggle has set matching and is all about dice. Or Yahtzee is another dice game... As I said (forgive me) maybe you could do some kind of "dice matching" game.

I really think game #3 has strong potential. So maybe you're good with those kind of games. It could be a skill. So why not embrace it and see what comes next!

(Cheers ... and don't worry about "too much" pattern matching. If it works for you... Go for it. Like I said you may manage to IMPROVE UPON an earlier design with similar mechanics. Nothing wrong in that!)

Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut