An Idle Village

One last post for the year...

Over the last couple of months I have been an occasional visitor to the Twitch stream run by Michael Fox of Hub Games, probably best known as one of the designers of Holding On: the Troubled Life of Billy Kerr. His stream is a mixture of live working on board game designs and playing stuff, with some really nice chat and banter alongside. He's a very warm and inclusive host, and has some very interesting thoughts and insights about game design.

Anyway, a few weeks ago he announced that he was planning an event in the week after Christmas, which was intended to be a game design jam and online community gathering to support anyone who just wanted some company and a distraction with fellow board gamers - and mostly designers. I cleared some time with the family and joined in.

Breathe in... Breathe out... Welcome to IDLEcon

The format was centred around a Discord server and Michael's stream. He would give everyone a challenge, then we would have about 24 hours to produce something playable, and everyone would then gather around the stream to play or watch the products of everyone's labours.

The challenge was three points...

1. Create a "something"-and-write game.

2. Include a second component in the game - something that  we could assume is easily available to anyone likely to play the game.

3. Must be playable solo, and also suitable for playing on the stream.

So basically, we were looking for a game where some component or set of components could be used to create input for player choices, and the players could write the results of their choices on some medium, and it shouldn't be necessary for everyone to be in the same location.

I ended up in the event's Discord chatting with Chris O'Regan, and we decided to work on something together, and after a bit of discussion we got working on a village building game (not the most original theme, but originality isn't always necessary) based on making use of cards from a regular deck of playing cards. 

The style of game was conducive to quick, online collaboration. We had a voice conversation over Discord, while tinkering about drawing things in a Google Drawings file where we could edit simultaneously. It was like using a whiteboard initially to sketch things out, but then we were able to refine this into a usable playsheet (which Chris then was able to add some shinier elements to in Photoshop).

My first ever play of The Village on the River,
on the first iteration of the playsheet.

While all this was happening, Michael himself was running a screen in which he was working on his own game to the same specification as the rest of us. I popped in there a few times for a bit to exchange a bit of banter. It was also lovely that people who were not actually working on games themselves were popping in to chat and support, both on the stream and the Discord. Also some other people were even streaming some parts of their work via Discord. It all made for a really enjoyable space to hang out with a heap of other very lovely designer people.

I managed to get a couple of tests of the game in the evening, including with another designer in the jam, whose really interesting game I also played. Based on that and a bit more play and discussion with Chris the next morning, we did a bit more revision and posted our files on the Discord channel set aside for the purpose, with several variant playsheets (all functionally the same, but cosmetically different).

The second afternoon of the event basically consisted of Michael leading a play of most of the games on his stream (this expanded onto the next day to cover the games that didn't fit in), with him doing the generation of random inputs as appropriate, so the rest of us could play along. I played along with a few, and played another on my own later.

Michael builds Upper Idleton live on stream while 
others of us play along.

The creativity and variety of games shown was really impressive, using dice and cards in various configurations, and also one memorable game using flipping through a book to generate some random inputs. Every game had something interesting and admirable about it, and I think they all stand a chance of becoming really solid with some more work on them. I think I was most taken by the clever dice usage and tricky decisions of the game about filming and releasing a science fiction TV series, and the elegant simplicity of the one about sailing around islands looking for treasure, but there was so much great stuff.

In the end we got some really positive feedback and a few helpful suggestions for our game, so we're delighted with what we achieved in the time. In the past I have done a number of 24 hour game design challenges, but they differed from this largely in that those challenges were to be done individually and that you could have some time to think about the "restriction" beforehand.  But the additional big difference was that this jam resulted in (almost) all of the games being played by multiple people right away, and feedback being given. That is a golden opportunity right there.

Chris and I have decided that we will do some more work on our game and see where we can take it. We'll probably switch to a custom card deck to make the game easier to understand, and I'm sure there will be tweaks to the buildings that can be constructed and so on. But that is all something for the coming weeks and months.

If you would like a look at the game, here is the set of rules we submitted and here is one of the playsheet variants.

In the meantime, it is New Year's Eve, so I'll sign off by saying that I hope that whatever sort of year 2020 was for you, 2021 is brighter and more positive for you. I know I am really hoping to see more people in person, as I am really missing all that. But big thanks are due to Michael for helping some of us to finish the year on a high.

Peace.

Bright-Eyed and Bushy-Tailed Invaders

If you have read some of my older posts, you may remember a game I have been working on, on-and-off, for several years now, with the working title, Invaded. It is based on being on the receiving end of a colonial invasion, where players are trying to respond to the overwhelming force of the non-player invaders. I had a game that showed a lot of potential, but had various things wrong with it. For instance, it was too fiddly for its depth of play, was uneven in its experience (some plays were compelling, while others were quite dull), and I think generally insufficiently focused. All of this is potentially fixable, but it has been on a back burner for a while now while I have done other things.

Recently, though, I had another wave of inspiration about the game, largely based on a few things that have been rattling around my mind...

• A publisher I was talking to a year or so back, who said I should commit to a setting for the game rather than the generic setting I had been working with.
• A discussion from all-round top chap Adam Porter in a YouTube video, suggesting that a useful exercise is to make a "junior..." or "my first..." version of a game you are working on to try to find the simplest version of a design that is true to it's core idea.
• Squirrels. Over the last few months of working from home and/or being in lockdown, my wife and I have been taking mostly-daily walks around the neighbourhood, where there is a decent population of squirrels, and we have had a running game of seeing how many we can spot. Our best so far has been seventeen.

"Squirrel Invasion" in Tabletopia.
I think that might be the new working title.

So, challenge accepted, I guess. After some monkeying about, I have a just-about-playable game for two players as an attempt to at least try out some concepts before I flesh things out some more.  It even has some features that seemed like a good idea, but I'm not yet quite sure what to do with.

The game is now set in a woodland, inhabited by assorted squirrels, which is being invaded by a population of nasty and aggressive grey squirrels. Instead of having the assorted resources that you could gather and spend in the old versions of the game, there is just one: acorns, and you are trying to gather enough acorns to feed your "clan" before winter comes or the greys take over entirely.

The old version had a series of rounds, during which you played through a hand of cards that activate the invading force in various ways (with a system that ramped up intensity as play progressed), while also taking actions for your tribe, selected from an action menu. What I have now are cards that each require you to take one action on behalf of your own clan and one for the greys, and the way to gain more cards is to trigger an event from a selection on display, and several of the events push the game towards an end.

Initial tests suggests that this works passably at the level I expect it to -- which is to work for a few turns for two players. The balance of actions isn't right, and there are some big holes in the gameplay, but I think it is worth extending the decks to allow for more play.  As with most of this year's game design work, I'm building the prototype online (in this case, in Tabletopia), which means that I don't need to be doing printing, cutting and sleeving, and also that I can get nicer pictures of the work in progress, but it is missing the immediacy of physical components. 

With several other projects also ticking along, this is a few down in priority, but it at least has some pretty straightforward tasks to do with it for now, so it might keep moving along for a while.

Hunting Accidents and Annulled Marriages

This is an expanded and extended version of a Twitter ramble I went on yesterday about taking inspiration from some history books I have been reading recently, most of which have been about England (and the petty kingdoms that preceded it) in the period of a couple of centuries either side of the Norman conquest of 1066. Various bits of these books have started me thinking about game ideas, and this post is basically my way of making some notes that might lead to a prototype one day, but there is no guarantee. 

One of the ideas coming to mind is not at all original, but I feel could be fun when mashed together with a game style that I fancy working on.

So the thematic idea is essentially a struggle for the throne. In the period we are considering, the principle of primogeniture -- that the eldest (legitimate, male) child of the reigning monarch inherits the throne -- had not been established. During the Saxon era, for instance, the next king would be elected by a council of nobles with candidates being from a pool of "æthelings", who were generally close descendants of a previous king, and the selection process would have potentially got quite political to say the least. Later, we see situations where there were a number of potential heirs, and it was the one who managed to reach London or Canterbury the quickest after the death of the previous king who took the crown.

One royal misfortune was the White Ship disaster, which
took the life of the sole legitimate male heir of Henry I
 along with many other nobles.
(Image is public domain, via Wikipedia)

Added to this, it is notable how many men of royal blood came to a sticky and early end, whether that be a hunting accident, being waylaid while travelling, poisoned at a feast, or any number of misfortunes which may or may not have been accidental.

So, a game where families or factions of nobles are manoeuvring to claim the throne and making use of misfortunes to remove their rivals. This is, of course, about as original a setting as trading in the Mediterranean, but I don't care.

I always figure though that I don't really have an idea for a game until there is at least the basics of both theme and mechanism pushed together. In this case, the "throne war" setting makes me think of a "take-that!" game, where players are effectively just attacking each other until, typically, there is only one left. This can, of course, be problematic for multiplayer games as they tend to involve player elimination, meaning that players who are eliminated early can be left with nothing to do while the game continues.

There are ways to deal with this. For instance, if the game is sufficiently short, then being eliminated doesn't remove you from play for long. Similarly, if the first player elimination triggers the end of the game, you don't have too long to twiddle your thumbs, and may be entertained by the climax. Another approach is to allow "eliminated" players to play on in a different way, for instance as a ghost who might have new objectives or ways to affect the game. 

I haven't had a proper go at making a take-that! game, and quite fancy having a try.

To be honest, I'm not a big fan of the style of play in general, but there are exceptions. For me, the likely king of the genre is Family Business, designed by David Bromley and first published in the 1980's, though apparently currently out of print. The game is about mobsters who are trying to wipe out their rivals, and involves a multi-stage system for attacking each other, where you take out contracts on your enemies, thus lining their minions up against "the wall", and then the targets at the wall can be killed in the order they are lined up. Card play allows you to rearrange the wall, add or remove mobsters, and do out-of-order kills. To be honest, the game probably takes a bit long to play for a "last person standing" type of game, but it's a lot of fun if you are in the right mood.

I've been thinking for some time about ripping off taking inspiration from Family Business as a starting point to explore a take-that! design, and I think this could work pretty well.

My thinking at the moment is that players could trigger events like hunts, feasts, trips to war overseas (or at the borders), and other potentially perilous environments. Each player has a few nobles (represented by cards or tokens) which can be sent to attend the events, voluntarily or compelled by other players, and when they are there, they are vulnerable to having a misfortune, though there may be a benefit for surviving an event, perhaps gaining prestige which could lead to a victory condition. I think one family or faction (i.e. player) being wiped out from the game should trigger the end of the game in some way, but that can be experimented with if the core mechanisms appear to work.

I have a picture in my mind of throwing a "hunting accident" at an opponent, who responds by cackling as she invites one of my characters to a feast...

So I posted a summary of this thinking on Twitter, and ended up having a discussion with Jess Metheringham of Dissent Games (check her work out, it's really cool!), who had some great thoughts about introducing female characters to the game.  The initial idea was centred on claims on thrones sometimes being transferred via an heiress, but developing into thoughts on the political activities of noblewomen in general and how they could exert a lot of influence, plus marital alliances being a good trope to play with.  In the end we were trading ideas about how, in an age when divorce was not legal, petitioning the Pope to have a marriage annulled for trumped-up reasons became a semi-regular occurrence. 

This also leads to another point: as any game that develops out of this idea is not likely to be particularly historical, we don't need to slavishly stick to "conventional" gender roles. There were plenty of times in the period where a woman had great control over the crown, or came close to claiming it for herself, so we can lean into that and assume that in our fantasy version of medieval England, women were considered viable candidates for the throne more often. 

Jess' ideas around marriages and the like would probably make for a much more complex game with greater scope than I had envisaged, but one that could have some real spark to it. At the moment I think this project would be a low priority one, as I have several more pressing things to work on, but may get a bit of work done on it. Initially I would expect to go with the lighter take-that! play initially, and then consider if marriages, alliances, and the like would make for a good extension of the game or something that should be considered a separate project.

The Quarter Vinyls

 A few years ago I found that game designer Phil Tootill worked at the same place as me, and for a while we met up regularly over lunch to test each other's prototypes or show each other published games that we thought were interesting. Eventually Phil moved on to another job, but we've been keeping in touch and meeting up occasionally, but we never quite managed to find a project to work on together.

Early this year, Phil pitched a promising idea to me about the development of popular music through the decades, and some possible ways to approach this. We talked this through a bit, discussed via a Google document for a while, and then Phil got to work on building an initial prototype.

Then, not too much later, Covid-19 hit full force and the country went into lockdown.  Phil found himself furloughed for a while, and used some of that time to work on this game, which he gave the working title of The Vinyl Age.

Time passed, and after the restrictions were sufficiently relaxed, we finally found a time to get together and play the prototype as it was. 

So in the intervening time, Phil had put in a hell of a lot of work and built a crunchy card game with some real brain burning as you work through one deck of oversized cards representing recording artists, and another deck of standard cards representing records, performances and events, looking for combos and synergies to maximise your scoring. The popularity of five broad genres of music was represented by tracks covered by "fan" markers, and you could attract fans of the different genres to your city, revealing scoring and resource opportunities as the tracks become uncovered, while being able to make use of the fans as a resource in themselves.

My partly-there rebuild of the game in Tabletopia, as per discussion later.

The game as it stood was a cracking piece of work and played very well for the right sort of players. I lost pretty badly, but could see how Phil had worked with the resources he had available to build something of an engine, while I was just trundling along opportunistically. I'd have been able to play much more strongly on a replay.

We had a feeling though that the game would be difficult to sell. It was easy, particularly when new to the game, to get caught up in "analysis paralysis" (a cycle of assessing and reassessing options in an attempt to find the best course of action), and the game could get very "mathsy", particularly towards the end. It felt like the game had to be either a bit lighter and smoother, or double-down on the crunchiness and go for something really heavy. Given the theme of the music business, I felt that lightening things up might be better, and possibly this could be done by removing the financial aspect to the game and refocusing on the remaining elements.

After some discussion, Phil said I could have a go at trying some changes. So that's what I've been doing, putting together a virtual prototype in Tabletopia.

Of course, removing a whole element of the game's economy (cash, in this case) results in a lot of knock-on changes, and fixing up those results in even more.  The changes I have been making bind the acts and the other cards together more tightly than before, so we see a story developing more for each of those acts; and some feedback from Phil has suggested a way to enhance this even more.

The downside is that the game is otherwise a lot less coherent than it was before, particularly with the alternative paths of building a career for an artist and having them retire from their active career. This is the current focus, to actually add some detail back in to the game and find ways to balance out the alternative ways to manage an act. The game as it stands is not fully playable, and only works for a few turns, so I also need to build that up.  Fortunately we still have the data files with all the ideas and detail from Phil's build of the game, so I can gradually pull more of them into my version as I put more flesh back onto the bones that I picked clean.

At this stage, I am just tinkering with ideas and we don't yet know whether this will result in a viable line of development or not, but it is an interesting project to work on when spoons and time allow.  Hopefully I'll be able to report some interesting developments on this in time.

Don't Cross the Streams

 Just a very quick post to say, in case you are interested, that tomorrow (Friday 23rd) I will be joining Alan Paull of Surprised Stare Games (with whom I am working on a couple of projects) at 11am (BST) for a discussion on Twitch.  The title is officially "Ideas Into Mechanisms", and we'll basically be talking about just that, how we implement an idea or theme in a playable way, with reference largely to the two games we are working on together: Snails and Grails, and the Castle War.

SSG on Twitch

So, if you are free, it would be great if you would come along and say hello in the chat and see if I can sound slightly interesting or informed.

Link to Surprised Stare on Twitch.

One Day at a Time

I know a lot of people have had it way worse.

I know it isn't a competition.

I also know that I am struggling, and have been for some time.

It is over six months since I have been to the office where I do my day job, and since then, said day job (which I am able to continue to do reasonable effectively from home), game design work, game playing and playtesting, and get-togethers with friends have almost entirely taken place in the same little room.  I am fortunate that we have a house with a garden and other rooms to sit and do stuff in, but the reality is that most of my waking hours are spent doing things in this room, and almost all of that involves looking at a computer screen.

My wonderful wife made this badger for me.
It makes me smile.

This is an environment that I was pretty positive about at first, with the challenge of creating games that could be tested remotely, and learning about technologies like Tabletopia and Tabletop Simulator was interesting and opened up more opportunities, but the longer we have gone, the more I realise that I really rely on the energy of other people sitting around the table and the physicality of the game, whether playing a published game for fun or working on a new design. 

Most days, by the time I finish work I often have little energy and motivation to do anything more, particularly without the payoff of seeing other people moving components on a table. As a result, my productivity in the last few months has been shocking. 

It's not all down though. A few weeks ago I was able to meet a game designer friend face-to-face for a few hours and as a result I have been managing to get some work done on developing (or butchering) one of his projects to see what happens if we remove a couple of the play elements in an attempt to streamline it. Even this has been moving very slowly, but it is at least something.

I have also been reading a bit more than previously, mostly books about medieval history, so there may be some game inspiration on its way.

This post doesn't really have a point. I don't have any epiphany I can pass on, or advice I can give, it's just me feeling a bit sorry for myself. 

I will say, however, that whoever and wherever you are, I hope that you and your loved ones find a way through the current troubles, however they are affecting you. If you want a chat and have my contact details, please feel free to use them; otherwise, look me up on Twitter (@harperrob).

August catch-up

 I've been letting the blogging slide quite a lot recently but, although I've not been working at high speed on anything, I have been making progress on a number of projects over the last month or so, so here is a quick summary of what has been going on.

Scurvy Crew

There isn't a lot I can say about this right now, as this is being turned from my pirate card game into a product with a load of cool stuff going on in it, but most of that is still not finalised. There are now a couple more, very talented, people involved in the development team (and another incoming), and there are some elements being worked on that I am very excited about. Hopefully in the coming months I'll be able to start sharing some of the details.

Snails and Grails

This collaboration with Alan Paull and Dave Mortimer is chugging along very nicely. We've mostly been playtesting it online, but Dave was able to get a physical prototype to the table with some "new blood" players who were pretty much in the target audience, and it's looking like we're really getting somewhere.

The Castle War

This has been chugging along too, gaining somewhat in complexity but also, I think, in depth. The interface (wordings, iconography, layouts) is causing some trouble though, so I need to spend some time on cleaning that up.

The Castle War mid-game. This play was about the tensest I have had yet.

The Vinyl Age

This is actually a game created by Phil Tootill, which we played together the other day (my first face-to-face playtest with someone not in my family for months), and it's pretty damn good, but I have taken on the challenge to experiment with simplifying the game (we felt it either needs to be a bit lighter or a bit heavier than it is) and see what I can come up with. No guarantee I can improve on what is there, but we can at least try out some options and feed that into the game development.

Grab Bag Zoo

This is another collaboration, this time with Mike Harrison-Wood, and is unfortunately utterly unsuitable for online testing, relying as it does on tactility. We received some really useful feedback from a remote playtester, suggesting that we need to address issues of frustration that can ruin the game, particularly for younger players -- and this is so clearly a family/kids' game that we need to work on that. I think we had been too busy working on this providing a decent challenge for gamers that we had lost track of the heart of the game. We're moving in a slightly different direction now that is looking promising.

UK Games Expo

Finally, last weekend was the rearranged-date-turned-virtual-con for UK Games Expo, which was a bit of a weird experience. At the physical event I would normally spend a good chunk of my time volunteering at the playtest zone, some more running my own playtests, and a bit more having some meetings, with the rest of the time generally prowling and chatting to people I meet, with a little gaming in the evening. This time, I played one demo game and one early prototype (both via Tabletop Simulator), and spent most of the rest of the time watching panels and seminars, something I almost never get to do. I think the event as a whole felt a bit disjointed, with lots of jumping around between different technologies and Discord servers, but it did feel like an actual event with things to see and discover. And the food and beer were cheaper this way, with shorter queues!

Playable Puffins

So this is yet another game project. I'm not going to go into great detail about it as it's basically just a toy I'm playing with. Long story short, last year I drew (on paper) a picture every day, and I got really into drawing puffins, and it was mentioned that a game about puffins might be fun. This jumbled around in my head until, for some reason, I got the idea of puffins in hats stuck there. (I actually wrote about this almost exactly a year ago, as it happens.)  

Some months later I decided to learn how to use a digital paint package (Krita, seeing as you asked), and soon I ended up with a bunch of pictures of puffins wearing hats.

I don't know much about art but I know when it's got puffins in it.

Actually, that's a lie, or the "soon" bit is anyway. It took bloody ages. I have even more respect for jobbing illustrators than I had before.

Anyway, I did actually have the foresight to do the art in such a way that I could separate the hats from the puffins, made some cards (adding in some cats -- this time using stock cat icons as placeholders -- because the game also needed cats, natch), loaded them into Tabletopia along with some coins and stuff, then managed to gull some innocent bystanders into trying the game.

As expected the game wasn't good, but I got some useful feedback and have tried to tern things around a bit.

The mark 2 e-prototype, now with a First Player Puffin.

So far I've just tried this iteration on my own with three other mes across the table, and it's difficult to tell if it is an improvement over the precious one. At least the changes didn't feel too aukward. Hopefully I'll get some friends to give it a go soon and we'll see what shakes out.

A World and Some Roles

This is something that has been bouncing around my head for a number of weeks now and I've been trying to find a way of expressing it. The story goes back to reading "The Well-Played Game" by Bernard de Koven, a book that is mentioned in many texts on game design. It is more a book of philosophy than of game design, and explores the interactions and tensions between "playing" and "games".  Games, in this case, including board games but mostly focusing on social and playground games and their extension, sports.

One of the lines of thought in the book included that a "well-played game" is one where the participants all take part willingly and enthusiastically, and can leave the game if they no longer wish to continue, and may even be able to change the way they play. There are plenty of angles to this well-played game explored in the book, but this is an area that had my mind firing off. Could I make a board game where players could come and go if they wish, and which allowed them to change the way they played?

As an aside, most roleplaying games I know about can be played in this sort of way: the core is the developing character narrative and a gamesmaster and the rest of the group can work together to adapt the play however the group wishes. I am certain there is a lot already written about this sort of thing (the RPG community has spent a lot of time thinking about how games are played), but that's out of my area these days.

After some sleeping on this, I started thinking about a world, growing from nothing, with players building the world, populating it, and guiding its inhabitants as stuff happens.  One player could be creating a map by laying tiles, another could be building villages on the map, and another could be an adventurer exploring the map, and so on.  You would take a role, which would give you a simple set of actions that you can take, and a way that you score points. When you choose, you may discard the role, take a new one and now, instead of being a terraforming deity, you are now a dragon gathering gold for its lair.

I threw together some tiles in nanDECK, going for an arrangement of square tiles, each of which contains four triangles that are put next to other triangles to make squares arranged at 45° to the alignment of the tiles. I'm not sure why I did that, but it seemed fun at the time. After printing and cutting a few of these I decided that I would actually take the opportunity to get some practice in playing with Tabletopia, so shifted my efforts to a digital version that I might actually have a chance at playtesting during the ongoing lockdown.

Printed tiles. You get the general idea

One of the advantages of an online platform is that you can import all sorts of components and just experiment. I have at home a good supply of assorted game components, but for tiles, cards, and so on, there is a load of printing and cutting required, which I have got pretty efficient at, but is still something of a grind. Tabletopia has a decent library of standard components (not covering everything, but good enough for many purposes) that can just be dropped into a game project. Preparing tiles and cards for upload and managing them in the system is a bit of a pain, especially at first, but there are some big advantages. Like, for example, when I decided I wanted twice as many tiles, I could just click on the existing stack and duplicate it.

I fiddled about with my virtual prototype for a while, building up a few of the roles that players could take, putting the instructions for them onto oversized cards that I added to the prototype, meaning that pretty much all of the rules would be within the game itself: each player could just take a role card, read it, and start playing.

Eventually I got to the point where I enlisted a friend to try the game out and see how it held together when I was not playing all the parts.

Testing with another human was very revealing.

As is so often the case, the game didn't play particularly well. The general concept of the game seemed OK, but it was just too damn complicated for the light-and-breezy type of game I was hoping for.  One of the big issues was that there was too much variation between the different roles, and as a player you were more or less having to learn a new game each time you took a new role. And the way that you played a role for as long as you wished before changing just didn't sit right.

At the start of the design process for this game I was wondering if it should be competitive or cooperative in nature, and I went for the former, mostly because it is what I know best and cooperative games can be so much harder to create. After all, not only do you need to make the game mechanisms work properly, but you need something for the players to be working against, and getting that right is hard.

Anyway, at this stage I decided that what the game really wants to be is a series of puzzles, where what one player is trying to achieve can interact with the other players' actions. And with this in mind, cooperative play could be best.  A game of this sort of form could be played against some sort of a timer, so the roles would now have an objective (on completion, or if you decide to give up, you switch to a new role with a new objective) and the aim would be for the players between them to complete a certain number of objectives before time run out.

A literal timer is out of the question for this. Real-time pressure, while exciting in some contexts, just adds stress and I don't want this to be a stressful game.  What I actually decided to go for is to introduce dice. A bunch of (six-sided) dice get rolled, players each take one in turn to use for the movement of their avatar, until there is only one left, and that die gets placed in a "timer" display, and a new fistful of dice are rolled.  When either one of each number (1 to 6) has been accrued, or there is three of a single number, the game ends. This way the players are partly at the whim of fate, but also have some control over how they allow the game to progress.

So building the next iteration of the game was largely about this timing mechanism and the idea that there should be core rules for everyone to learn and the roles just give minor variations, which may accumulate as you move through the game, but at no point should require anyone to absorb a large raft of new options. Getting these changes into Tabletopia can involve a little faffing, but I'm not having to print and cut physical components, so there is something of a trade-off.

I then managed to get a playtest with a couple of friends, who got on pretty well with the general concept of the game and its overall flow, but had plenty to say about it as well. I was left with a feeling that this iteration was definitely an improvement and I liked the game in its cooperative mode. The next thing to do would be to extend the selection of roles and sequence them so that there is something of an arc to their progression. One suggestion was to have three phases of play: one being to build the world, the next to add complexity and cause trouble and strife, and the third to heroically put everything right. Players then have to get through a certain number of roles, or complete some of the "ending" roles before the timer runs out.

A few turns in, working with the first set of "world building" roles.

I would also like to have some more significance to how the timer operates, maybe having events triggering when certain sets of numbers are completed, but I can worry about that later, I think.

As an aside, I have also figured out the "magnetic board" option on Tabletopia, which allows you to have components neatly snapping into position when you drop them, and have a grid board that makes placing tiles much easier.  What I made isn't as big as the potential play area, but it'll do, and you can always add more tiles alongside.

A "magnetic" board can make everything so much smoother and cleaner.

Last up, I need to think of a decent working title for this game. I've been calling it variations of "Role World Thing", which doesn't really have any sort of ring to it. Suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Virtual Invasion

So, Invaded, my old nemesis, are you back to torture me once again?

As you may remember, a couple of years or so ago, a large amount of my game design life was spent working on a "reverse colonialism" game with the working title, Invaded. The conceit is that you are tribes in a comparatively peaceful land, and have been invaded by a powerful colonial army that wants to settle in your lands and take all your stuff. Do you try to resist, keep out of the way, collaborate, or what?

The game has changed a lot from its early days, and works reasonably well, but the experience can be pretty inconsistent, and the game takes longer than I would like to explain, but it has some interesting features, particularly the way that players compete with each other and jointly control the invading force as it pushes forwards.  Eventually I pretty much burned out on the game, and it has been nearly a year since last time I looked at it.

Back in the present day, and after my chat the other day about online game testing, I have decided to buy a subscription to Tabletopia. I don't want to get into religious wars, but right now it seems to be a better fit to me than the main alternative, which I'm sure I will also continue to fiddle with a bit.  Anyway, I now have the capability to have a few games in my workshop, so I decided to start pulling Invaded's assets in to see how I do with setting it up.

Some of the Invaded components set up in Tabletopia.
If nothing else, I think this tool will be great for generating prototype rulebook illustrations.

I've actually been musing on this game for a while now, and a way forward has been bouncing around my brain. At the moment there is a system that ramps up the aggression of the invaders through the game, making them more demanding in trades and more likely to attack. The problem is that this required multi-part cards that needed to be read in conjunction with a score on a track, and this was a bit fiddly and easy for players to get confused.

The idea I am working with is that everything is done with cards, rather than my previous system of having the invaders controlled by card play but player tribe actions coming from a standard menu of options.  Under the new system, each card a player holds involves an invader action and a tribe action, and you do both of these on your turn. The ramping up of the game can come from there being two decks of these cards, the first one being more benign, but as these cards are used, they are discarded from the game and replaced by the second deck which contains more powerful actions for both sides.  This should remove the need to do all sorts of tracking and cross-referencing of status levels and action options, and make the game flow more smoothly. That's the hope, anyway.

It'll take me a little while to get all that set up as it is a massive overhaul of the game at a level that has not happened since its early days, but I think it will be at least worth trying.

Prototyping and Testing, Virtually

I talked in my last post about playtesting online and, in those instances, playing "roll & write" style games, which can be done over a videoconference system if everyone has the wherewithal to make whatever sort of record/play sheet that is required for the game. 

Since then, I have played prototype games (both mine and other people's) using the two most commonly talked about 3D simulators for board games: Tabletop Simulator and Tabletopia.  I don't have enough experience with either system to compare their pro's and con's in any detail, so I'll just discuss my first(ish) impressions. Lots of other people are talking about this stuff in great depth, so I'll just generally hand-wave.

Both systems have a physics engine that allows components to interact with some semblance of reality, but rely on supplying the components and the players knowing what to do with them. This is fine for prototyping: I don't particularly want to code in all the logic for a tabletop game that is still in development.

My implementation of The Castle War in Tabletopia.
This is just a mock-up, but it does work for real, and I've had a couple of very useful test plays.

My overall impression of each is that Tabletopia is more polished (it still has its problems, mind: one prototype I was playing with had a recurring issue with tokens falling through tiles and ending up underneath them!), while Tabletop Simulator is more flexible. I like that TTS allows you to add components on the fly as you are playing, for instance, but I do like the cleanliness of the Tabletopia interface and the really nice library of standard components.

The cost model of both systems is important here. You need to pay to install Tabletop Simulator, as do any people you want to play with, but from then on, you're free as a bird. Tabletopia, on the other hand, allows you to dip your toes in for free, and as a player that may be all you need, but if you want to play in a load of simultaneous games, or create more than one, you need to pay a monthly subscription, but your playtesters can join you for free.

My first experiment in Tabletop Simulator, part of an idea I have just started toying with.

Playing on either system tends to result in games taking a lot longer than the physical version would and, especially at first, everything can feel really fiddly. That improves as you get experience, but I don't think it will ever go away. I also massively miss being able to actually watch how people play and engage with the game, as that usually provides some of the best feedback, but this is so much better than not being able to playtest at all, and maybe it will lead to a faster testing rate than I have managed in the past. Plus it's a good incentive for me to get better at discussing games with testers afterwards.

I think I'm going to tinker with both systems for the time being, partly because people I am collaborating with and otherwise talking to are split between the systems, and partly because I'm not yet sure which is best for me.

It is also worth noting that these two systems are not the only games in town. For instance, if you don't want all the 3D whistles and bells, there is Vassal, a pretty old project that was, I believe, originally set up to run hex-and-counter style wargames, but allows just about anything to be configured if you can put the effort in. I've taken a bit of a look at this, but not got a game running yet. Similarly, but newer, I have recently heard of Screentop, which I have not yet taken a proper look at, but may be useful.

I'll just finish off with a few links to things I have recently seen other people have been saying on the subject...

• An interesting comparison video of TT and TTS from a player's point of view.
• Gil Hova on Twitter about why he likes TTS for prototyping.
• Ian Brocklebank blogging about his growing appreciation of online playtesting.

Coronas, Crowns, Zooms, and Another 24 Hours

It has been an odd old month. Scary for many, confusing for some, disruptive to everyone, and it looks like we're only getting started. From a game design point of view, having the country largely locked down (for some definition of locked) means not getting to meet up for playtesting (or even playing), events like UK Games Expo postponed or cancelled, and meetings with publishers and other designers are having to be severely rethought.

On the other hand, this is an opportunity to rethink some of how we do things. For instance, last week I attended an online playtesting session with a group of folk who would otherwise have been having a meetup in London, made a couple of new friends, and learnt that some sorts of games (many "roll & write" -- and similar -- games, for instance) work pretty well remotely.

This week I decided to have a go at the 24 hour game design contest for the first time in... oh... far too long.  The "requirement" was "Crown", and I decided to try making a game that could be played remotely, with nothing more than an audio connection and some trust that your opponent won't cheat.

I ended up with something that works OK, I think, and is actually intended to be a 2-player only game, a race to be the first to complete two out of three scoring tracks but also doing it before enemies arrive to destroy your stronghold -- those enemies being controlled, at a very basic level, by your opponent.

What pleased me here, though, isn't the game itself but the fact that it had a couple of playtests with people who are not in my house. A shout out on Twitter resulted in a Zoom meeting with a fine volunteer (thanks Nik) over which we played the game a couple of times, the first of which revealing that, if my explanation is not sufficiently clear, the game can easily go off the rails in ways that I would easily spot if testing face to face. The second play went way better, and showed that the game basically worked. A couple of hours later I was at an online playtesting meetup with a couple of other designers (thanks Ellie and Bez), who had a play and helped find a few issues with the game, some of which I was able to address before my 24 hours was up.

As always, the aim of a 24 hour contest isn't to really to make a great, well tested game, but to get to a playable print & play game that could be taken forward from there.   I usually figure I have done pretty well if one of my entries has had any playtesting at all with a player that isn't me, so having feedback and input from three people was amazing.  If you are interested, my contest entry is here, with links to the rules and playsheets.

And I think that this is where I wanted to end up with this post. While we are all pretty much housebound due to the Covid-19 pandemic and face-to-face gaming with anyone outside our immediate domestic situation is not a possibility, gaming doesn't have to stop. We just need to be a little more creative and flexible about how we do things. And, in my case, need to consider the current restrictions in my design activities.  (There are other options too, which I expect I'll talk about soon.)

Stay safe.

Castles in Their Proper Places (ish)

A long story about a small game design decision.

I've not done anything with The Castle War for a little while, but have been thinking about it, particularly in light of some feedback I received.  If you didn't know, or don't remember, this is a two-player card game inspired by the 12th century civil war in England between King Stephen and Empress Matilda, which eventually led to the crowning of Matilda's son as Henry II. The game is based on a period of that conflict where there was essentially a stalemate characterised by a series of sieges and exchanges of castles, where there were no significant open battles.

Game play involves the two players deploying forces and using tactics and events across six castles that were all significant during the period. If one player ever controls all six castles, they immediately win; otherwise, whoever controls the most castles at the end of the game (when the card deck runs out) is the winner.

But with six castles, a tie is clearly possible. How we break that tie is a question that has taken some thought.

I drew a sketch map to show the (approximate) locations of the castles.

Originally, the castles were nameless and numbered, 1 to 6, to tie in with a dice rolling system that was used to open up opportunities to the players. Then if there was a tie at the game end, you added up the numbers on the castles you controlled and whoever had the highest score won. This meant that the high numbered castles were more valuable than the low numbered ones, but if you concentrated on defending the two highest scoring castles, the other player could win by capturing the rest, even though their combined score was not as high. This was fine, but somehow a lot of players seemed to have difficulty internalising that the scores were only useful for tie breaking.

To give the game a little extra flavour, I wanted to name the castles, so a little research yielded the six locations depicted in the rough map above. (Fun fact: I live in between Faringdon and Wallingford, and have visited the sites of both castles.)  Furthermore, I wanted to have the initial ownership of the castles reflecting history as best I could.  (Another fun fact: Wallingford castle is distinguished in having not changed hands throughout the conflict, despite being sieged and attacked with some vigour.) The problem here is that, in order to keep the initial scores balanced, I had to distribute the names of the castles along the line of six with no real attention to geography. This was fine from a game play point of view, but as this is inspired by history, it bothered me a bit.

So now a slight diversion. We'll bring this back in a bit.

Before this stalemate stage of the war, Matilda was in a very strong position and very nearly got herself crowned as Queen, it seems there were effectively three power bases that needed to be brought onside in order to become officially the monarch: the Church, the royal treasury (based in the old Wessex capital of Winchester), and the people (or at least the leaders) of London. Matilda had gained Church support and held the treasury, but never managed to convince the leaders of London to back her cause -- partly, it seems, due to her own arrogance, and partly due to the actions of another Matilda, this one the Queen, and wife of the then-imprisoned King Stephen.

Eventually, Queen Matilda and her allies managed to retake Winchester, capture some key prisoners, and arrange for an exchange, thus freeing the King and bringing us to the Castle War's stalemate situation.

Anyway, three factions that could be influenced... that gave me an idea...

If there was some form of way of tracking influence with these three factions or power bases, then whoever has influence over the most of them wins an otherwise tied game. There are a number of ways this could be handled, but I have decided to make each faction a simple binary: they are supporting either Stephen or Matilda, and I chose to represent this with a set of three flippable cards, similar to the way I have players flipping the castle cards to show ownership.

I then added an icon representing one of the factions to each card in the game, with an even distribution of these icons throughout the deck.  The plan now is that each player can now take an action on their turn to flip one of the faction influence cards by discarding a set of three cards with matching faction icons on them.  The set of three decision is intended so that, with a full hand (of six cards) you stand a decent chance of having a set, but using it will dramatically reduce your options for the next turn and you may have to give up on some other useful cards.

With the numbers on the castles being irrelevant for game end purposes, I can now arrange the row of castles in an order that follows a plausible route between them that you may see in the map, from Wareham to Wallingford, and as there are some minor elements of adjacency in the game, that makes more thematic sense now.

You wouldn't put the faction cards there for an actual game, but you get the idea.

A common question from players is about how to cycle out unwanted cards in hand, so this system will give a way to address that, assuming those unwanted cards can be combined into a set.

So far this seems to work OK, but I am a little concerned that collecting three matching icons to gain influence in something might just feel boring and unthematic to a lot of players.  I'm hoping that it's one of those elements of the game that if you totally ignore it you may be at a disadvantage, but if you focus on it too much, you will almost certainly lose.  It should give a small, but meaningful, additional option at some points in the game, without dominating.  Only more playtesting will show if this is actually a decent decision, and if the set collection doesn't work out, I am certain there are other options to allow us to do something similar in the game.

The other real issue here is that this setup gives Stephen an advantage, winning the tiebreak if nothing else changes, so Matilda gets the first turn, which also appears advantageous.  Again, playtesting should help reveal if one side has a significant advantage here and if there is, there are plenty of ways to mitigate that.

Grab Bag Hare

I haven't been to a 3rd Sunday playtest at the Jugged Hare in London for a couple of months, but finally managed to get myself in order for a trip last weekend, taking with me Grab Bag Zoo, my co-design with Mike Harrison-Wood, who managed to make the trip too, for our first face-to-face meet since we started working on the game.

There was a little uncertainty as to whether I would actually get into London as we had just been hit by the second big (by British standards) storm in two weeks, causing all sorts of problems for travel (not to mention people's houses getting flooded and property damaged) around the country. Checking the situation before I left home everything looked OK for my planned route, and the train was close to being on time, but we ended up being delayed by an hour en route due to a problem that emerged later. Unfortunately this meant I was not able to meet with Mike before the main meetup, but I managed to arrive comfortably before the playtesting started anyway.

Thanks to Mike Harrison-Wood for taking a much nicer photo than I managed to take!

While waiting for everyone to arrive, we had a quick play of Grab Bag Zoo for five players, including me, with Mike sitting out and taking notes. This worked pretty well, but the players fell massively short of winning. We suspect that the game is just too hard for larger player counts.

A little later, with the whole group assembled, we were able to get some more plays, this time for four players, this time including Mike while I observed.  One of the key things I learnt from this is that for a fast-moving, real-time game, it can be difficult to take meaningful notes about what is going on!

The group was enthusiastic overall and there was a lot of intense activity in the game, and they were keen to play a couple more times, meaning that we managed to try out all four of the zoo board sets that I had brought along between this session and the earlier game. The idea is that the game has a number of different sets of boards, each providing a different style or intensity of challenge, and this proved to be the case: the players took a different approach to each set of boards. The balancing of the board elements isn't right yet, but we are learning how the different options affect play.  However, we are also learning that some of the rules we have for the game are just too complicated and can easily get missed or wrongly applied.

So, I think that this was a really helpful testing session. We got feedback that the game is pretty compelling, but also identified a number of problems that need addressing, and we are getting to work on that.  I'm also discovering the fun of working on a very short game where you can easily just say, "Let's try that one more time, with this change..."

Of course, there were other games there, and it was fun to work through a few games designed by others: an interesting "short straw" game, a game about being a band, recording music and going on tour, and a nicely stripped back investment game. It's always good to get a look at some of the projects other folk are working on.

Four Fings in February

I seem to have four game projects on the go at the moment, all of which are either collaborations or in development under external guidance, so here's a quick outline...

The one I have just spent a day working on has the working title of "Snails and Grails", and is inspired by 13th and 14th century manuscripts that show images of snails, monkeys and hares (as well as all manner of other bizarre beasts) in combat (and other) situations. My collaborators, Alan Paull and Dave Mortimer, and I had a few hours discussion about this a few weeks back, and each constructed different parts of a prototype, which we just stitched together, Frankenstein-like, into a somewhat creaky, but basically operational whole. Over three plays, which included a load of on-the-fly rules changes and writing on the components with Sharpies, we managed to refine the game into a magnificent, slightly less clunky version that we were really enjoying playing.  OK, so a long way to go on this one, but I think we are off to a good start.

Our third play of the day, with a load of scribblings on components.

Then, of course, there is Scurvy Crew, which you may remember is signed for publication with Braincrack Games, and we are slowly building into a campaign game, where you play a series of games, each of which introduces some new elements to change the focus of your strategy and, it looks like, you will be keeping a "captain's log", recording some of your achievements and earning power-ups as you go.  I'm really excited about where this is going now.

Next up we have something else new, which came out of a conversation with Mike Harrison-Wood at Dragonmeet at the end of November, and in early January turned into a physical thing. With the working title "Grab Bag Zoo", this is a real-time game that involved pulling wooden animals from bags in order to collect sets, and leans heavily into tactility (you have to choose an item by feel only). The game generally works, but there is a lot to tighten up about it, and we are both trying out assorted variations at the moment that we can compare and use to find the best way to play the game.

Finally in this little batch, we have a game about the history of popular music through the second half of the 20th century, which I am working on with Phil Tootill. I say "working on", but this is his baby so far and he has done all of the initial work, so only time will tell if this turns into an actual co-design or if it is his and I have just helped a bit. It looks like it could turn out really interesting though.

What's my 20?

Having looked backwards a few days ago, I guess it is time to look forwards to my game design plans for this year.

A significant part of the early part of the year is likely to continue to be development of Scurvy Crew, which may end up with a different name, and which I am still actively working on in conjunction with Lewis of Braincrack Games.

I forgot to mention in my roundup that, while I did pretty well for organising playtesting sessions for the first part of last year, I pretty much sucked for the second half. Every year I say I will try to get better at managing playtest groups, and this year will be no exception.

Collaborations... Now this is something that is big for me. I have been saying for some time that I have wanted to collaborate with other designers. This is partly in order to learn from others, but also because I seem to be more productive in many ways when I am bouncing ideas back and forth with other people. I have had a few collaborative projects over the last couple of years that have nearly, but not quite, got going, but it is looking like 2020 is going to the year of collaboration for me.

Over the last few weeks I have been discussing ideas for a light "tactility" game with another designers and this week this finally turned into a playable prototype that I tested with a couple of other folk, and the other designer, Mike, is really enthusiastic at his end, so I have a good feeling about this.

The first play of the "pulling animals out of a bag" game -- and it wasn't terrible.

I also have a get-together with a couple of other designers in a few days' time to work on a potential joint project that we are all keen on, so that's another thing.

Another thing I forgot to add to my retrospective post the other day (which is increasingly looking like I did a really poor job of!) was my collaboration with Tom Coldron, with him doing some development and testing of my old game Boogie Knights and me looking at his game Elvic.  I still need to have some further discussions with him but it was an enjoyable process for me and I'd be well up for doing similar things in future.

How about pitching games? I'm not sure this year, as it may turn out to be more of a "load up the queue" year, so I might not end up with pitchable product by UK Games Expo. I'm just going to wait and see on this front.  The "tactility" game I mentioned above could easily get to a pitchable state by the summer -- or totally crash and burn, only time will tell. Other than that, I would love to get one of my older projects (maybe Corlea, which has been rattling around for long enough) up to scratch in the next few months, but with the planned/possible collaborations, it may be that I have enough on my plate as it is.

Finally, something really specific. This year I'm going to create and illustrate a small card game involving puffins. After all the drawing of puffins last year, and a few general comments along these lines, I figure this should be a fun way to carry forward some of that art practice. I only expect this to end up as a print and play game, but we'll see how things develop.

N...n...n...n...Nineteen

Happy new year!

So, looking back on my plans and intentions from last year, how did I do?

I said I would share more games as print and play prototypes, and utterly failed at that. 

I also said that I would continue to read up on historical events (I have mostly been reading about the middle ages, focussed on the C9th to C12th), and have a number of ideas jotted down in a notebook, so that's something. I did say that I would make some of these ideas into prototypes, and I failed to do this (mostly), but am sure I will develop some of these concepts.

Sometimes research for a game involves playing with a pile of toy animals.

The reason I said "mostly" there is that I have talked with a couple of game designer friends about the bizarre "medieval battle snails" that appear in various medieval manuscripts, and did make a light card game prototype inspired by this as well as a very rough version of a more serious boardgame on the same theme.  Neither went beyond that, but more recently I have been discussing with these same friends something more solid, and we are planning to get together very soon to see if we can rough out the basis of a collaboration.

I also didn't do another proofreading course last year, but I have the intention of signing up for one in the next few weeks.  I have worked on a few rulebook proofreading jobs over the last year; they have all been pro bono, done for people I really wanted to help out, but I feel I should probably start charging soon.

So what did go according to plan?

Well, I successfully ploughed through the year drawing a picture on paper every day and sharing a scan of that picture on Twitter.  This did contribute to wiping me out a little some evenings, meaning that I was short of energy for other things, like game design. Overall, though, I feel really good about this whole project -- I think the average quality of my pictures improved a bit during the year, the speed of my work certainly increased, and I got to experiment with some different media along the way. Plus I am very proud of a few of the pictures.

Other than that, a year ago I was talking about wanting to work on a couple of my game projects, and that was a definite success, with Scurvy Crew now signed (and in development), and The Castle War still with a publisher who has not given a final decision but has said some positive things, and I will be seeing them next week so will be able to discuss it at that point.

I mentioned collaboration earlier, and something else came up towards the end of the year. I was chatting with another designer at Dragonmeet, and ideas started bouncing around. We've been exchanging emails on this since and are working on an initial version of the game (I'm just waiting for the arrival of some components), and hope to meet up soon to see where we can take the idea. This is something exciting for me, partly because the collaborator is such a nice guy, but also because it is a style of game I probably wouldn't have approached on my own. 

In summary, then, 2019 didn't really take the shape I had originally intended, and for various reasons I had spells of being unproductive, but overall things went really well for me.