In my previous post, I discussed the results of my GenCon playtest for Privateering.

On Saturday night at GenCon I also ran a playtest for Titans of Industry. I've been working on this game for over two years and almost twenty iterations. The last few playtests have only resulted in what I considered to be more and more minor improvements. Because of this, I planned for the playtest to reveal only a need for minor tweaks to these new features.

Things did not go as planned.

Firstly, the game lasted two hours, with two experienced and three new players. And the new players were all experienced playtesters. In fact, the playtest was made up entirely of Andrew Parks and his playtest team. That the game took this long for them was a very bad thing. I need to figure out a way to speed it up.

Second, players kept forgetting to collect real estate income right up until the very end. Speculation that it was because it took so long for players to start getting such income was the culprit; by the time they had built real estate, they were already in the habit of not collecting income.

I'll quickly mention some clarity issues.
  • Need to be explicit that only one facility can be used per turn
  • "Recycling" advancement confusing about whose discarded goods count
  • Age Two "replacement" advancements worded confusingly, players thought they could only replace the same type of cube
The age two advancement's wording was particularly problematic, as players misunderstood how they worked and didn't purchase them. Their failure to do so both doomed the player who has invested in Universities and prevented my major anti-"bottoming out" mechanic from coming into play.

The major balance issue was the turn order. A relatively new rule has a player jump to the front of the turn order when he or she builds a real estate card. I did this for two reasons: 1) to shuffle the player order and 2)to incentivize real estate for new players, who routinely ignore it. I wanted to get people to build real estate faster in order to speed up the game. The problem was that this made real estate astonishingly powerful. One player got only two turns during the second age because of this. This imbalance in turns taken, though slight, was enough to cause players to harbor very negative feelings about the mechanic.

Another balance problem is the triple-activation of facilities. This enabled a player to make nine cubes on the very first turn of an age, locking up a pricing grid before anyone else could take a turn. I have been trying to increase the cost for this over many versions of the game, and it is never enough. I am just going to remove the option altogether. Facilities will be limited to two activations per turn.

Strategy-wise, I discovered that the game is . . . difficult. There is too much going on for a new player to comprehend the deeper rhythm of the game. This was confirmed by the final scores: Andy 108, Michael 68, Anni 54, Catherine 48, Norm 22. Only Andy and Anni had played this game before. Andy's experience really allowed him to dominate this one, as he took an early lead by adapting to other player's actions and then used that lead to suffocate them.

Any of the other players (two in particular) could have easily stopped him and improved their own standings, but some were afraid of losing such a fight and others felt that their initial attempts to do so were unsuccessful and abandoned further efforts in that direction. In reality, those attempts were successful and should have been continued for full effect.

The players did not realize it because, and this is something one of them said later, this game's mechanics are too different from other resource games. In those, it is about collecting resources for yourself to power your engine. You generally want to prevent your opponents from having access to resources. In this game, a key component of the strategy is being the one who sells your opponents the goods they need. This is counter-intuitive and caused players to avoid winning strategies.

Seeing that happen was dispiriting. Frustrating. Maddening.

This is because, as Andy said, a game's designer "can't come in the box". First-time players will have to figure out the strategy for themselves. When those first-time players get frustrated by losing and not understanding why, there will be no second-time players. That means that a game whose strategy is as obtuse and unforgiving as mine was that night is completely, utterly unpublishable.

For those of you fellow game designer wannabes out there, that is a bad thing to realize about your game.

Thankfully, the Quixotic Games testing crew had some great suggestions on how to solve many of these problems. I will discuss those solutions in my next post.

GenCon was exhausting. For most of Friday and Saturday, I was running the Star Trek CCG World Championships. Here are pictures, if you're curious.

I also did manage to get two of my games playtested. On Friday night my friends Doug, Anni, and John (from the Origins playtest) played Privateering, joined by Norm from the Quixotic Games crew.

They all said that they had problems determining which cards were the "best" to draft. This is a non-trivial problem. I am aiming this game somewhere between Coloretto and Ticket to Ride on the complexity scale. If players are thinking too much to determine the best card to draft, then the game is too hard for its relatively light mechanics.

They did like the game's "built-in catch-up" mechanic. So a tip of my hat goes to Jeff on this one.

Right now, only the Spanish are different from the other bounty-types. The rest each need their own special rules, such as discarding two cards when capturing, or favoring/requiring one crew member type.

Speaking of crew types, a concern was voiced that it was too difficult to play all four crew types for the bonus and that I should reduce the number of types to three. I am against this. I think it will make the bonus too easy and worthless, because everyone will always get it for their crew.

A couple of the testers felt that a filler game needs to accommodate more than four players. Is this true? Anyone out there have an opinion?

They also suggested that some of the cards in the crew not not be crew at all, but special effect cards. I find this idea interesting.

None of them really ever split up their crews. They usually picked one pair of bounties and just threw everything at it. This is not what I want.

They felt that by the fourth round, the game had gotten a little long and repetitive with too much math. An opinion was voiced that I should ramp up the game (increasing and varying groups of bounties), give it an arc, fairness be damned. This I will definitely implement.

Lastly, there are changes I need to make visually concerning the layout of the cards to make them more readable while in a player's hand. Oh, and more "piratey", whatever that means.

Tomorrow I will write up the most important and morale-devastating event of the weekend, the Saturday night test of Titans of Industry.

Aug 13, 2008

GDW's GenCon Schedule

So, it turns out that the Star Trek CCG tournaments are being run in the Hyatt Regency, on the second floor, in the ballroom. So, if you're looking for me on Friday or Saturday morning/afternoon, that's where I'll be.

I've decided that I will hold two playtests for Titans of Industry and one playtest for Privateering.

Titans of Industry playtests:
Friday, 8pm
Sunday, 1pm

Privateering playtest:
Saturday, 10pm

All of my playtests will take place in the Board Games Reception Room (next to the Board Games Ballroom).

I posted my picture, so just look for me. If you want my cell number, e-mail me at:
playtest@gamedesignerwannabe.com

Thursday I'll be roaming the Board Game room and the exhibit hall. I'll be wearing the GDW logo, so if you spot me, feel free to say hi!

Aug 12, 2008

Rulebook Corrections

Quick note: One of my readers, Shawn, read the rulebook I linked to in my last post and noted some inconsistencies. These were artifacts from the many version changes I've made. The difficult thing about updating a rulebook is that you won't always remember every place you need to make a change.

So, thank you, Shawn! I've made the corrections and uploaded a new version.

In response to a reader request, here is the rulebook for the current version of Titans of Industry.

Also, I am again asking for GenCon attendees who can volunteer to test my games at the convention. Please send an e-mail indicating your interest to:
playtest@gamedesignerwannabe.com

For those of you who have already volunteered, I cannot pin down the exact location of these tests, as I can't fin a GenCon brochure online. However, if you meet me at the Star Trek CCG area in the collectible card game hall on Friday, I will definitely have exact dates and times for playtests by then. I will be running tournaments for that game on Friday and Saturday beginning at 10am.

I do plan on running three scheduled tests during GenCon. One Friday night, one Saturday night, and one Sunday morning. Again, please e-mail me at the above address so I know to expect you and come see me at the Star Trek CCG area on Friday anytime after 10am to get the exact details.

Update: to help people find me, here is a picture.

I've decided that Titans of Industry is just not yet ready. At this point, all I'm doing is making tweaks, but these tweaks have had large consequences. Until I can get the game to stabilize, I am no longer showing it to publishers.

The problem I have now is that I will no longer be spending GenCon meeting with publishers. Therefore, I've decided to spend it playtesting my prototypes as much as possible. This is where you come in.

If you are attending GenCon this year and would like to try out one of my games, send me an e-mail at playtest@gamedesignerwannabe.com.

At this time, I do not know exactly when/where at the convention I'll be holding these playtests. That will be up to whoever volunteers to playtest. I will schedule the tests around your schedules. So, if you are at all interested in trying out a GDW game, please send that e-mail to: playtest@gamedesignerwannabe.com.