I played another four-player decade. It went a little faster. It still needs to be faster. I want players to barely be able to surround a castle and do a 3 or four other things and be done. If that.
Game Clock - I started the game with the first player having the crown. “Hand the Crown to a random player and they go first”. The rule was at the end of your turn if you had the crown the marker moved one. But it was weird that the marker would move after the first turn or there would have to be a exception to the rule or something. I didn’t like it. So I moved the crown to the first players right. Giving it to the player that would go last. This made more sense to me after all players went the clock moves one. Plus it gave a benefit to the player that went last making up for going last.
So now the game take 10 turns minus partial turns each time the crown changes hands. It was much closer to being a good speed. So my new idea is to also move the clock when someone builds a church. I will try this and see how it goes. I really think that erring on the side of too fast is much better than too slow.
Acquire Land - Also this game I started everyone with one with Acquire Land token. The idea is twofold I wanted players to be able to reap lots of lands sometimes if they have been working hard at playing forest. Two players have more to loose from Men-at-arms now.
Players now get one Acquire land token and one taxes token per decade.
I started the Acquire Land area of the board with 3 of each land type. In the previous game it seemed too low to be the first to Acquire land and only get 2 while you are then paving the way for all the other players to get more. 3 felt good.
In general I still have a problem with the new Acquire land action. I don’t like having an extra pool ready to add to the lands. There is more that bothers me too I just cannot quite word it. I think next game I will try each player gets two AL tokens per decade and can take that action when they want with no face up lands.
Masquerade Ball / Scandal cads - The last thing I added was during Masquerade Ball players get one scandal card only if they have prestige (if they attend the ball). I like this for many reasons but its more clear now that the Scandal cards need some balancing and maybe just need to be more interesting. I also need to add some cards to reflect some of the new rules.
I have been doing some more research and much of the scandals were on a social level. In this game the Ball represents using your social skills. I think that it makes sense that in addition to the church scandals would be generated at Balls. The other half of it is you could then turn around and use your newly acquired scandal card to gain prestige at the ball.
More coming.
3 comments:
Game Clock: Yes, if moving the game clock at the end of the turn, then the last player gets the crown - definitely. That's the same thought process I went through, and the same conclusion I came to :)
As I recall, moving it that way and using 10 turns per round seemed like it should have been a pretty good length. I would be hesitant to add clock movers (like the church build). I'd recommend live tests as-is before adding that (these tests so far have been solo tests, right?)
Acquire Land: As I've mentioned, I'm a big fan of the 'juicing' mechanism, for a number of reasons. Starting with stacks of 2 seemed very good when we played - too many and it becomes the automatic first play that you wanted to get away from. With 2 lands for the first pick, you really have a decision to make - which lands do you want to play (which feature do you want to make), and how big a deal is it to make that soon vs later. Do I take just 2 Farms? Or do I wait and risk getting no farms but 3 or 4 Clearings? Again, I'd try this multiplayer... starting with 3 would be too many lands for everyone I think. I recall thinking that players should maybe start with 1 of each (instead of 2) plus 4 random, and of course seed the lands with 2 of each.
I don't like the Acquire Land action tokens with the 'juicing' mechanism. I think it's one or the other... unless the AL action just means "Draw random lands out of the bag (1/Wood, +2/Forest) and has nothing to do with the seeded lands...
Why give each player an AL token (and a Tax token) rather than making those limited actions for the round (like 2 total)?
Masqurade Ball/Scandal cards: What do you think of people getting Scandal cards as either a reward for upgrading their title, or else a consolation for not upgrading? I'm not sure there needs to be any more Scandal cards in the game, there seemed a good number starting with one and getting one via Church build. If you want to add more, what about everyone getting 1 Scandal card at the beginning of each scoring round? I don't really feel it's necessary, personally, but if you want more Scandal in the game...
Also, I know you like player triggered Balls, but I much preferred the Balls that triggered automatically on the game clock. Once again, I'd play that in a live test and see how it goes, see what players think of it.
>Game Clock: Yes, if moving the game clock at the end of the turn, then the last >player gets the crown - definitely. That's the same thought process I went >through, and the same conclusion I came to :)
>
>As I recall, moving it that way and using 10 turns per round seemed like it >should have been a pretty good length. I would be hesitant to add clock movers >(like the church build). I'd recommend live tests as-is before adding that (these >tests so far have been solo tests, right?)
Yes Solo. I am pretty good at solo play and judging. I think players only need 7 or 8 turns per decade. The “classic path” will be to play land 5 times and buy a church. This gives them 3 2X2s and in a good position to do other things in the 2nd an 3rd decades.
If adding churches as a clock mover is too much then I will just reduce a decade to 8 moves. I really liked the theme of 1 move is one year though. Also using the church makes the rule a little messier which I don’t like and it might make the decade too short.
One thing I do know is that the track should have a final move at the end of the decade: 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 + SCORING ROUND. When the marker reaches the 10th “year” all players get one more turn and then score. I am trying to find a better way to word it.
>Acquire Land: As I've mentioned, I'm a big fan of the 'juicing' mechanism, for a >number of reasons. Starting with stacks of 2 seemed very good when we played - >too many and it becomes the automatic first play that you wanted to get away >from. With 2 lands for the first pick, you really have a decision to make - which >lands do you want to play (which feature do you want to make), and how big a >deal is it to make that soon vs later. Do I take just 2 Farms? Or do I wait and risk >getting no farms but 3 or 4 Clearings? Again, I'd try this multiplayer... starting >with 3 would be too many lands for everyone I think. I recall thinking that >players should maybe start with 1 of each (instead of 2) plus 4 random, and of >course seed the lands with 2 of each.
You just gave me a great idea. I hope. But back to that in a second.
I love the juicing too to a point. I love that the player makes it better for the next player but gives him less choices.
The thing with 2 or 3 is this. If I go first and juice the others from 2 to 3 I have increased the stacks 50% for my opponents. They will get 50% more than me. If I juice it and they go from 3 to 4 they are only getting 33% more than me. I didn’t think of it that way while I was playing it but now that I think of it it makes sense to me. While I was playing it felt like I should not go first. I understand you are trying to make the players have tough choices and that is a good thing. I just thought land was too needed in the game to be that lean with. What I want is to limit the players turns enough to make that the tough choice. Should I even use the turn to take land.
Now on to the great idea: What if they all started at 2 at the start of each decade and then did not replenish when taken, but still juicing the ones not taken. So someone takes one and its now 0/3/3/3. Then someone takes another and its 0/0/4/4. You get then idea. And if that’s not enough of a juice then maybe a land and a $ is added each time. Coupled with this I would go back to 2 of each to start and 4 random. I would also go back to players get two AL tokens per decade.
>I don't like the Acquire Land action tokens with the 'juicing' mechanism. I think >it's one or the other... unless the AL action just means "Draw random lands out >of the bag (1/Wood, +2/Forest) and has nothing to do with the seeded lands...
AL token only gives you random lands.
>Why give each player an AL token (and a Tax token) rather than making those >limited actions for the round (like 2 total)?
Two is not enough I feel. Maybe it is. I plan on testing that. Anyway, N AL actions on the board is the old way that sucked. Players would just do that all at once.
>Masquerade Ball/Scandal cards: What do you think of people getting Scandal >cards as either a reward for upgrading their title, or else a consolation for not >upgrading? I'm not sure there needs to be any more Scandal cards in the game, >there seemed a good number starting with one and getting one via Church >build. If you want to add more, what about everyone getting 1 Scandal card at >the beginning of each scoring round? I don't really feel it's necessary, >personally, but if you want more Scandal in the game...
If it’s too many than maybe the churches don’t pass them out. But I like players having one at the Ball since that’s where they learned about the scandal and then they can use it for the Ball. Maybe its bad I have to play it more. All this depends on me improving the quality of the cards too.
>Also, I know you like player triggered Balls, but I much preferred the Balls that >triggered automatically on the game clock. Once again, I'd play that in a live test >and see how it goes, see what players think of it.
Dude I get maybe one live test per month. That’s the sad reality of my life.
The “classic path” will be to play land 5 times and buy a church. This gives them 3 2X2s and in a good position to do other things in the 2nd an 3rd decades.
Wow, that's more land than I'd like to see played in the early game. I think if a player wants to play that much land, they'll be set up for the future sure, but they should necessarily be missing out on other things.
One thing I do know is that the track should have a final move at the end of the decade: 1/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 + SCORING ROUND. When the marker reaches the 10th “year” all players get one more turn and then score. I am trying to find a better way to word it.
I'm not sure why you think this is needed. It seems arbitrary when you know when the Ball is coming. It would work fine I guess, but I don't think it's good to interrupt play for the Ball, then play 1 round, then interrupt again to score.
I love the juicing too to a point. I love that the player makes it better for the next player but gives him less choices.
The thing with 2 or 3 is this. If I go first and juice the others from 2 to 3 I have increased the stacks 50% for my opponents. They will get 50% more than me. If I juice it and they go from 3 to 4 they are only getting 33% more than me. I didn’t think of it that way while I was playing it but now that I think of it it makes sense to me. While I was playing it felt like I should not go first. I understand you are trying to make the players have tough choices and that is a good thing. I just thought land was too needed in the game to be that lean with. What I want is to limit the players turns enough to make that the tough choice. Should I even use the turn to take land.
I don't think it's useful to worry about 50% more vs 33% more... and yeah - that's the trade off. If you are the first person to get land, you'll be getting less land. But you get what you wanted. Everyone starts with some land, so that first 2 is enough to get started, the opportunity cost of your opponents getting more land than you is what the game is all about, right?
Now on to the great idea: What if they all started at 2 at the start of each decade and then did not replenish when taken, but still juicing the ones not taken. So someone takes one and its now 0/3/3/3. Then someone takes another and its 0/0/4/4. You get then idea. And if that’s not enough of a juice then maybe a land and a $ is added each time. Coupled with this I would go back to 2 of each to start and 4 random. I would also go back to players get two AL tokens per decade.
If you thought that the juicing land idea I proposed was bad, then I'd suggest that this is even worse. The lands run out, you can't go back and get more Farms or whatever later if you're the guy that got the first draw of 2 farms... I don't see this as being good in any way. the good thing about the juicing is that there are always lands to take, and they're always in some interesting distribution.
regarding Acquire Land action:
Two is not enough I feel. Maybe it is. I plan on testing that. Anyway, N AL actions on the board is the old way that sucked. Players would just do that all at once.
the old way sucked and people would just follow suit because the old way there was a limited pool, and if you didn't follow suit you would get none. You need some, so if threatened with getting none you have to follow suit. With a mechanic which makes land always available, there's no urgency to get land before they disappear and following suit isn't as necessary.
If it’s too many than maybe the churches don’t pass them out. But I like players having one at the Ball since that’s where they learned about the scandal and then they can use it for the Ball.
I thought it was cool how thematically, scandals were involved with the Church. Also, I liked the Churches yielding Scandal cards for a couple other reasons. I don't think anything should happen during the Ball except resolving the titles (which means paying for prestige maybe).
Maybe its bad I have to play it more. All this depends on me improving the quality of the cards too.
I think the quality of the cards is fine as is (with one exception - outmaneuver)
Dude I get maybe one live test per month. That’s the sad reality of my life.
Well, that's why you send the game out to other people for blind playtests, right? ;)
Post a Comment