Pinnacle - New Playtest Rules

Go in G-Drive and then Right-Click on the Document and select Share, Share. And a dialog will pop-up and choose:

General Access... Anyone with the LINK can "View". And then click "COPY LINK" and paste that link in a thread comment on BGDF.com.

Right now it's asking for access ... Unless you are like paranoid with who reads your rulebook... I mean you already have the rules. Nobody is going to STEAL your concept, let alone read a rulebook which they have no clue is about.

Follow the above steps and you should be able to SHARE your rules for VIEWING ONLY...

Best!

Note #1: Rest assured only BGDF.com members will VIEW the rulebook. Because the link will only be visible to BGDF.com members. And ONLY to VIEW too... I don't think many anonymous people will view the document. There could be some. But only members will give you the FEEDBACK you are looking for... So don't worry.

Which is what you want... You don't want people to be able to EDIT the document only to REVIEW it.

So #1, you have 2 Teams, 12+, I would recommend a PLAY TIME like 30-60 minutes for example. You know from your own playtests how long a game lasts.

I read the rules and they seem OK.

Where I am just a bit concerned about "streamlining" is your -1 Movement. This is just my attempt at making it a bit "more flexible". And it goes like this:

And then make the Thin Air Movement a bit more "streamlined" too and it would be like this:

So to recap the Thin Air Movement is -1 Movement... Something simple or Logical. Maybe you want -2 Movement... Like this:

You should play around and find the RIGHT "Balance". But I feel like a THIN AIR PENALTY should apply to the STANDARD method of climbing the mountain.

Again this is my advice, obviously I would PLAYTEST it a lot to get the BEST feel for an AVERAGE PLAYTIME (which is something NOT stated...) It's good to know because it tells people, how long to expect a GAME to last.

But generally speaking the rules are good. Just I would streamline the Movement rules a bit... I like the IDEA of making the CLIMB HARDER during the LAST LEVELS of the Mountain top (a penalty either -1 or -2) depending on what works best.

Otherwise... Yeah the rules are pretty reasonable.

Maybe someone else reads the rules and have their own ideas to share.

Looks like a "nice" Family Game to Play as a group (2 to 6 players) with 2 Teams... I Like that. Very original and adds to the FUN.

Cheers!

The game called "Muchkin" by Steve Jackson Games. When I see YOUR game ... What I think is MISSING is "Push-Your-Luck" Mechanics.

Maybe you could have 3 PILES of Question Cards and the TEAM decides what they LEVEL they want based on the Category. This is a bit like Trivial Pursuit. So the more the players feel comfortable with the Category ... Means the GREATER the RISK they are willing to TAKE.

Each pile is categorized EASY, MEDIUM and HARD. The Team Making the CLIMB chooses the DIFFICULTY and then the CATEGORY is chosen by the OPPOSING TEAM. Or you can have a SIDE DECK with three (3) CATEGORIES and you randomly draw for the CATEGORY.

BOTH THE DIFFICULTY and CATEGORY affect the climb (somehow).

Again just sharing with you some ideas following the reading of the rules. You don't need to entertain them... But if you are curious or want more feedback, just let me know and I'll go deeper into this PYL mechanic...

Best!

Like the MIDDLE-POINT could be the ROUTE MARKER where everyone lands up BEFORE moving to the THIN AIR areas higher up on the mountain.

I'll do a small sketch of what I mean and show it to you TOMORROW night. It's almost Midnight on the EAST COAST ... So I'm tired and ready for BED.

I will show you what I mean... Because it's easier to comprehend a picture. Like they say: "A picture says 1,000 words."

To give you a better idea what I propose and something for you to THINK(?) about.

Cheers.

You basically have a NETWORK of various SYMBOLS with DIFFERENT "difficulties". How you NAVIGATE up the Mountain is up to your Team. There should be some short cuts at the cost of more challenging questions and everyone starts at the BASE CAMP to reach the MIDDLE POINT where ABOVE this is the THIN AIR Area. And then from the MIDDLE POINT another network of connections are available again with different difficulties too.

There is a LOT you can do with this TYPE of networked connectivity to make the game more challenging. For example for SEASONED PLAYERS, rather than just reaching the TOP... You SCORE Points along the way: Red = +3, Yellow = +2 and Green = +1. The goal is to beat the highest scoring run in addition to arriving at the summit first...

Things like that!

Cheers.

No worries that's what BGDF.com was for... To help people with their designs and rules. A forum to SHARE knowledge and a way to get in-depth suggestions which are RELEVANT to what people are designing.

Great to see that you are MOVING forwards... That's always important. But like they say: "Two (2) steps forwards, one (1) step back." Meaning that designing is an ITERATIVE process... We change/add things playtest and see that the design needs more work ... So we change/add some more and playtest again... Until we have resolved any and all issues.

the TAZ is a good idea. Allows you to SLOW down the game. And is itself a way to control the progress of the Teams in a "natural" fashion.

While I agree that the Avalanche chips are not really "necessary", I would say that the Oxygen Tank chips could be of value. Something like in the TAZ allows you to recover from an unlisted answer (which would be like a -1 or -2 penalty) ... So when you miss... You use the chip and STAY AT THE SAME POSITION.

Sort of like a way to MEDIATE or LOWER the cost of an ERROR.

I'll take a look at the PNP later... But for now... I suggest using the Oxygen Tank Chips in the TAZ (each team could have 3 Chips). Which mean you can guess an unlisted (or incorrect) answer up to 3 times. That could lead to more BALANCED play.

Kudos!

First and foremost, congratulations on creating a game.

Second, please do not take any of my advice as negative. Game creation is hard (at least, for me) and we are all in this together.

In no particular order:

** This gives off a re-skinned FAMILY FEUD vibe. That's not a bad thing. However, it does give off a FAMILY FEUD vibe.

** Part of the weakness (or strength, depending upon how you look at it) of this game is replayability. Simply put, it follows the TRIVIAL PURSUIT path whereby once you know the answer, the challenge is gone. TRIVIAL PURSUIT mitigates this aspect by having thousands of such questions and so the likelihood of memorizing a sizeable # of them in order to gain a competitive advantage is negligible.

I am going to guess that you will pursue the TRIVIAL PURSUIT path by having a lot of questions in order to mitigate the same said advantage. This is great from a business perspective because you can sell specialized expansion packs with additional questions ("Name the top 3 things a fan brings to a COLLEGE football game").

** From a strict personal perspective, I'd either revise or drop how the answers were arrived at. Unlike facts (TRIVIAL PURSUIT), these are popularity-based questions which are going to be subjective. Prepare for a certain percentage of your potential playing population to drop this game as soon as they realize that their answers don't match the ones on the cards ("What do you MEAN no one brings an umbrella to a wedding? I *ALWAYS* bring an umbrella to a wedding!!!").

Different regions of the world (even different regions of a country) have different customs for the same type of activity. Maybe clarify how you arrived at the answer or be specific ("250 Belgians between the ages of 18 through 49 were asked how often they carbonate their windshield wiper fluid per week...").

Also... I personally hate the phrase "It is what it is." Unless you plan on using a snarky tone to narrate your game instructions, I'd just drop it, especially if you're explaining to potential players the rules of the game (and especially the important part that determines how they win or lose). When you give players a "take it or leave it" proposition, a lot of them will leave it. Maybe have a more conciliatory tone ("We tried our best to have the fairest survey. Do you disagree with the answers? Join our Discord and discuss!").

As-is, it seems like a fairly nice party game. I may give it another read over later but just wanted to give my initial thoughts.

Again, congrats on the game.

With the connectivity... If you are going to ADD "Difficulty" to the CARDS themselves... Forget about the "Categories" and just go with DIFFICULTIES ONLY.

So use CIRCLES with different color inside: Red = Hard, Yellow = Medium and Green = Easy.

Remember with POKER cards there is MORE ROOM. I'd work with a Poker Template which allows 9 cards per page in a PnP and 2x this amount is 18 cards per sheet for "The Game Crafter" (TGC).

That gives you more to work with.

And then just build a pyramid of interconnections winding from the bottom to the top. And only DIFFICULTY is what changes (in colors).

That's a more MANAGEABLE change. Yes it's two (2) changes:

#1> For the Question cards to have 3 Difficulties. That's 1 BIG change.

#2> For the Board to have a network of connections. That's 1 easier change.

I feel like those 2 changes will IMPROVE the game SIGNIFICANTLY and it would add serious REPLAYABILITY both to the Trivia aspect but also how Teams NAVIGATE to the TOP!

Anyhow... We'll see what you decide to keep and try and we'll wait for more direction from you ... Once you've figured out what worth the effort.

Sincerely.

The connectivity version ... There are LESS PATHS that in your A/B Mock-ups. But there is a REASON.

#1> In the TAZ we know you need the #1 Answer to move UP ONE (1) LEVEL. Answers #2 and #3 STALL the Team and Unlisted makes you go DOWN ONE (1) Level.

#2> The paths criss-cross and connect. Why? Because YOU CANNOT PASS a Team in the SAME PATH as your OWN. Meaning the LEADING TEAM in ONE (1) PATH always stays in the LEAD.

#3> Below the TAZ, it's a bit TRICKIER. Going up depends on the COLOR of the guess: Red = #1 Answer (UP ONE LEVEL), Yellow = #1 or #2 Answers (UP ONE LEVEL) and Green = #1, #2 or #3 Answers (UP ONE LEVEL). Unlisted ALWAYS forces you BACK DOWN ONE (1) LEVEL.

So you don't need DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, the difficulty is built into the NETWORK version given the colors and what is ACCEPTABLE for moving forwards on the CLIMB.

You also said you wanted Easy and Hard questions on the SAME card. That could be a good idea... But I wouldn't choose the TOP SPOT to all be EASY. You can vary the difficulty between the TOP and BOTTOM Question for more competitiveness.

Again about the Oxygen Tanks... They are useful in the TAZ... You get three (3) tokens and the way I see it is this:

Of course you may want to test this all out...

I've put forth some creative IDEAS (Following a LEADER, Oxygen, Connectivity) and from my POV (Point-Of-View) ... I've done as much as I can do to HELP you.

But we can certainly discuss further IF you want to test more ... Have more surveys, etc. etc. I can still help you.

No worries if some of the ideas DON'T coincide with YOUR vision of the game. They are only SUGGESTION of things to TRY and see what WORKS and what DOESN'T.

Best!

Your START position may be a Green SQUARE. And your END (Victory) position could be a Red TRIANGLE...

There are other considerations like "What do you do if you are following a team and they go back???" I think I would handle this as that TEAM SLIPS and goes DOWN 2 LEVELS and the other TEAM is now in the LEAD (for that PATH)...

Tricky stuff like that... Make for Oxygen Tanks to be invaluable NEAR the Summit...

Hehehe... Got to have FUN in the game even if YOU FOLLOW... Below the TAZ the DIFFICULTY is tough... RED may look easy ... But there's no reprieve.

The NETWORK is NOT PERFECT. You may want to ADD more PATH EXITS near the TOP...

Just some ideas ... Have FUN with the design, And share whatever you like. I'll read ideas from others. I just wanted to SHOW you what could work.

Again it's NOT PERFECT. There is still room for DESIGNING... That's your concern, I've explained myself to the best of my knowledge and still there are issues to re-work and iron out.

Sincerely.

First and foremost, you have more artistic skills than I do. Someday, I'll graduate into creating competent-looking stick figures. Maybe.

Having written that, if I had to choose between the two designs as-is, I'd choose "A." I'd choose that one because the circles are easier to see than in "B" and there are also some descriptive graphics that are likely there to assist in gameplay. The colored circles in "B" mesh too well with the background graphic to be seen clearly; Perhaps have a black outline for the circles instead of light gray?

However...

I do have a few quibbles and, as always, do not regard these comments as negativity.

If this game is going to be about climbing a mountain of sorts, the path should be roughly pyramidic (Is that even a word?) as well. It isn't although, in the case of "A," it most definitely can be twisted to be that. "B" has some sort of alternating or branching paths and I don't know how difficult it would be in adapting that path to be more pyramidic.

Also, it may be best to either shrink the circles or expand the size of the mountain so that the circles are clearly within the area of the mountain. Again, as-is, it almost looks as though you could impose any graphic below the circles (a spaceship, a sewer system, a medieval castle, etc.). The two layers (the circles and the mountain) should be somewhat integrated with each other so that, upon first impressions, a person would look at the gameboard and think to themselves that this is a game about climbing a mountain. You don't get that sense with "B" but you do get that more with "A."

Those are my first impressions on the two gameboards.

This is more a WAY to "Throttle" the SPEED of the game. Obviously with quicker paths and shorter distances to TRAVEL... The SPEED of the game might get a BIT QUICK and fall a bit short on time invested in the game.

Obviously the opposite is TRUE too.

My GUESS is that MOVING +1 LEVEL is not FAST ENOUGH for the game?!

So you have MOVEMENT rules for the three (3) Zones.

Moving up "FOUR" (4) Spaces in the "middle track" can lead to a team winning in less than 10 minutes (as per my calculations and effort required).

***

Ok so this is a CONCEPT that will allow you to PROPERLY THROTTLE the game IF and ONLY IF you can't achieve that in the three (3) Zones.

How does this WORK???

To ANSWER A "RED" Question requires 3 Action Points. To ANSWER A "YELLOW" Question requires 2 Action Points and to ANSWER A "GREEN" Question requires 1 Action Point.

You can PLAY AROUND with the AMOUNT of ACTION POINTS per TURN and THROTTLE the game a bit more than your "movement rules".

This also involves strategy like "Optimal Play" or "Optimal Movement". That's when you try to MAXIMIZE your traversal of the Board such that you use the most possible Action Points on EACH one of your Team's turns.

So with my premise of "5" ... You could ANSWER "1" RED (3) and "1" YELLOW (2) or "2" GREEN (2 too).

Again I'm just sharing with you NUGGETS of Design Mechanics that BEEF-UP the depth of strategy involved in the game.

***

That's what I had for you ... In the event that you feel with your existing rules the game is TOO QUICK.

You could also answer "1" YELLOW (2) and "3" GREEN (3) for a TOTAL of 5 Actions.

It of course matters where you are AT in terms of the Board and what is available to you as optional or alternative paths to the summit...

***

Like I said... I don't know how FAST the game is. It feels from the movement rules to be FAST if you want it to be so. And that's not a great "feature" because it will lead to FAST games and people being not interested because there is not enough at stake. 5 to 10 minutes versus 30 minutes is a BIG DIFFERENCE.

Anyhow ... It's out there for you to try IF you NEED IT.

Like I said, I put out the mechanic because I was worried that the games would be TOO SHORT. The contrary to what you felt when playtesting that the Teams would lose momentum when they hit the TAZ.

In any event. It's cool to see your concept take SHAPE.

***

Lastly about the BOARD... Given that IF you want to use the Networked Board... And you have some PACING issues (Too FAST) and you decide to USE "Action Points" (maybe to TRY but probably only if your game is too quick) and then you could CHANGE the BOARD and make for EASIER connectivity.

OR maybe you set the "Action Points" to SIX (6) and that could allow you to attempt TWO (2) RED ("3 APs") on one TURN.

Again just saying you can work with was you have and see how it works.

Notice that instead of moving FOUR (4) SPACE UPWARDS... This Throttling would limit it to "2" RED (Hard) Questions and spaces.

Cheers and let me know more about how your playtests are coming along. Like I said in the PM, I'll check the SURVEY tomorrow.

Have a great night and tomorrow we're off to the races with the SURVEY!

Cheers.

Note #1: Since there are NOT "6" consecutive GREEN Nodes it's not a problem. 2 GREEN and 2 YELLOW = 4 SPACES but require 6 APs. Or 2 RED = 2 SPACES but ALSO require 6 APs...

Again think about it this way... You primary concern in ensuring the game is at the RIGHT SPEED. If your CURRENT movement rules in the 3 Zones WORKS... GREAT!

IF you feel like it still needs SOMETHING(?) Maybe look into giving a playtest the "Action Points" and TRY IT OUT.

But ONLY IF you need it. It's like Tylenol Pills... Take it when you have a muscle pain or a headache. Otherwise it's just there IN CASE. Same with this IDEA/CONCEPT.

Also NOTE that games with "Optimal Play" and "Optimal Movement" are VERY STRATEGIC. Some nerdy people (the board game kind) find it a challenge to PERFECT the BEST MOVES each and every Team's TURN. It's another sort of FUN for the ADULTS. Espcially Engineers and Mathematicians.

An "Event" Card like: "Avalanche": immediately force all Players / Teams down ONE (1) SPACE.

That totally ruins the mathematicians and their OPTIMAL Path Plotting.

Or "Oxygen Tank": Keep this card in your inventory. It allows a Player / Team to NOT go down ONE (1) SPACE during an unlisted answer in the "Thin Air Zone".

That can improve the odds in the TAZ and towards the end of the game ... If a Player / Team are sufficiently LUCKY to draw that card from the Deck.

Or "Frozen Yeti": Immediately grants you +3 Action Points this turn (only in the TAZ).

That can be beneficial after an "Avalanche" to get a Player / Team back on track.

Or "Big Foot": Keep this card in your inventory. When played, it grants you a +2 Action Points (but only if below the TAZ).

An early bonus which can grant a BOOST to a Player / Team and maybe get them ahead of their competitors.

Or "Angry Ram": Immediately play this against one opponent (or opposing Team). That Player / Team loses -1 Action Points during their next turn (anywhere on the Mountain).

***

I can probably spit out a dozen or more "Event" Cards like this. No seriously... Ok maybe not a dozen ... But more to make the game more EVENTFUL!

Again... Don't mind me... I'm just explaining more about what can happen in the game.

And that you have options to consider...

Cheers!