Skip to Content
 

Never Seven Nor Eleven - New Playtest Rules

4 replies [Last post]
Sun, 07/06/2025 - 15:50
Steve
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008

I'm releasing preliminary rules for the latest version of "Never Seven" which is now called "Never Seven (nor Eleven)." These rules are significantly different enough that I felt a new thread was warranted.

Notes:

1). The pieces are still numeric in appearance but only because I didn't have time to design new ones. I do have symbols instead of numbers and that may be added into the next version of the rules.

2). I have illustrations that walk players through a "free play" turn but, realistically, it has only happened a few times in solo playtesting. That rule is only there in case the player that can't play wants to continue playing. I may have it as an optional rule.

3). The "Late State" has never been replicated in solo playtesting but I needed the rules in the event that people are inattentive or through some bizarre quirk where they reach the end of their pieces and there still hasn't been a winner. I added the option of the players just settling for a tie.

4). The next version might ditch the current format for another but that remains to be seen for, as much as I'd like to give a "l33t-sp3@k" make-over, most people might be put off by it.

Anyway, I'm very impressed with this version and these are likely the rules for the game. However, I'm placing the rules in "playtesting" for a reason - Because I'm sure that I missed something and, if so, it would be nice to know what that was.

Top
Sat, 07/19/2025 - 07:46
#1
Steve
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
Three-player version in development

I've been developing a 3-player version of the game. A 4-player version is also feasible; However, I don't know how extensible the rules are before I have to significantly alter the game mechanics where it becomes a different game altogether. In trying to expand the game to 3- or 4-players, I have found out some interesting things although I don't think that will affect the 2-player version.

Top
Sat, 07/19/2025 - 19:15
#2
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
I don't like abstract games... But

Here are some ideas to think about:

#1> Start with a "1" in the middle of the Board (Center)

#2> Players need to place a "2" adjacent to the "1" in the middle.

#3> Players can build upon a "2" and place a "3" connecting the 2 and 3.

#4> When you reach a "3", you can connect with a "1".

***

These are just some ideas that I thought could "streamline" the game. I don't know if they are compatible with your current design or not. Just something that came to mind is some kind of "sequencing" meaning you can't play a tile at ANY position.

Why this might be good? Because it could remove the AP (Analysis-Paralysis) when figuring out a move.

"Sequencing" would limit the amount of choices available to players and you can verify if neither 7 or 11 are rules that work or not.

***

Again just some ideas.

But working it out as a sample... a DIAGONAL LINE would result in the following:

3-2-1-2-3 = 11. A player loses. So I know it works with 11. How about 7???

2-1-2-3 = 8. Not an issue.

1-2-3-1 = 7. A player loses. But it would require a bigger board...

Anyhow... It's your game. I don't want to share too many ideas especially if you are happy with the game you already have.

Keep up the good work!

Note #1: I had wished that it could work for a 7 too... It does but the current board's size is TOO SMALL. I know you'll understand what I mean by this. 7 is not a natural match for a "Sequence" and like you have it there would not be "7s" unless the board was BIGGER.

Again just ideas. No need to implement them unless they work with your concept.

Note #2: The "Sequencing" leads to dead-ends (where a player loses...) And much like a game of Chess ... You try to protect your "sequences" in order to FORCE an opponent to make a LOSING move.

That's actually really GOOD in the "spirit" of an Abstract Game. But at the same time, it injects a bit of ORDER to the game.

You should evaluate this and see if your board can be 7 x 7 instead of 5 x 5.

Again just ideas. Feel free to ignore them if they're not for the direction that you want for the game.

Top
Sun, 07/20/2025 - 15:30
#3
Steve
Offline
Joined: 07/29/2008
These are nice ideas and I

These are nice ideas and I thank you for sharing them. I'll be looking into that later.

I think that the game, as-is, is fairly set at this point. I do need to see if symbols can easily replace the numbers; As I wrote earlier, the only reason why I included numbered tiles as opposed to symbols was because I already had the numbered tiles drawn as opposed to the symbols. I've since drawn some tiles with symbols.

Currently the proposed symbols would be a dot for 1, an X for 2 and a triangle for 3. There is also the possibility for a line as a 1 as well but that might be too close to an actual number. I am ambivalent in the numerals-versus-symbols issue; They are each fine in their own right. A question for you would be: What would you, as a prospective player, find easy to remember concerning symbols as opposed to numbers?

One of the goals for this game, for myself, was to try and put some randomness into my games. No game has "perfect" information because you don't know of your opponent's intent. However, an attribute of a lot of abstract strategy games is that they have very little randomness. Yet having a very low amount of randomness scares off more casual players because success is then more skill-based which casual players tend not to want to acquire. Of course, too much randomness and all that you're playing is a form of Candyland.

Therefore, I think that the game currently has a nice balance of randomness; Enough to make the game interesting but not so much that it's a glorified slot machine. Players can memorize their own pieces and place them onto the board in a sequence of their own choosing (although they can't change that sequence once the game begins). Players can also memorize the underside of the pieces of their opponents during the game (during the act of flipping them over) and "play the odds" as each piece has two different values.

For me, the hexagon board was the real 'game changer' in that it solved a lot of problems of the earlier version. Another innovation (which was generated after the first version but before the hexagon board) was to not only have a total of seven (or eleven) of all pieces in a line but also have that total for the player's pieces as well. This further forces the players to strategize and not simply "flood" a line with high-value pieces. The players, in short, face constant danger in as little as the first 5 pieces in play and most games end within 12-15 pieces played.

Could there be slight rule revisions beyond the current ruleset? Absolutely. However, after a whole lot of solo playtesting, I'm just not seeing a lot more that can be done. That's why the playtest rules are out here; Maybe someone else can see something that I can't.

Top
Mon, 07/21/2025 - 14:26
#4
questccg
questccg's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/16/2011
Your symbol IDEAS sound GOOD to me!

Steve wrote:
...Currently the proposed symbols would be a dot for 1, an X for 2 and a triangle for 3. There is also the possibility for a line as a 1 as well but that might be too close to an actual number...

I would use "A Vertical Line" for 1, "An X" for 2 and "A Triangle" for 3. It makes sense since it's all about LINES and how many decides the value of the Tile... That sound SUPER! And it's very clever too... Since it intrinsically shows the NUMBER of LINES making it obvious the value.

Honestly you should make that CHANGE "asap" just so players who read your rules become more familiar with the change or use of symbols.

I don't have much to add about the game TBH.

My only fear is AP (Analysis-Paralysis) when it comes to making moves... I mean it will take a certain TIME for a player to decide where they should play a Tile and which one to play.

That's why I "suggested" sequencing from 1 to 3 which makes the game a little more predictable and reduces the amount of given choices they can make without harming the "style" of play. It would still be an ABSTRACT game ... But have some positioning rules which make the game more conclusive.

It's something you can playtest and see IF it improves the game or not.

Anyhow... Like I said, keep up the good work!

Top
Syndicate content


forum | by Dr. Radut