Sometimes people don't understand the weight of their own casual comments. I was reading a post on the BoardGameGeek Game Design Forum, responding in my usual helpful manner when I realized that a game based on Memory could actually be somewhat fun if there was a sense of involvement and strategy. I became giddy when I discovered the first few game mechanics, and positively livid when I realized that I could force people to draw without them getting sick of it.
Each tile has one side that is laminated & blank, and one side that shows a picture with the number of tiles that are included. Just like in Memory, the tiles are shuffled and arranged face-down in a grid. But, instead of only two matches, each tile turned over could have up to 5 matches that need to be collected in order to take them from the grid and receive points. This makes it cool.Every turn, a player flips over two tiles, and instead of showing it to everyone like in normal memory, they keep it secret. Then, they grab their color dry-erase marker and write a symbol on the back of the tiles, hopefully something that will help them remember what's underneath, and return them to the grid. If they pick up two tiles that match (and they are not a 2) they many flip them face-up for all players to see, at this point they press your luck and look at a third tile, if this is a good match, they may flip it over and continue flipping until they've found the entire set. If they do not find a match, they flip over all tiles and write a symbol on each of the flipped tiles. Now others have an advantage. This makes it not boring.
And when four other people are trying to do the same, it becomes a nice, tense party game.
Thats the gist, and at the end, the last remaining set of tiles on the board is worth minus points to the person that is stuck with it. The key to scoring is that every tile a player collects is worth 1 point if it has their own symbol and 2 points if it has someone else's symbol on it.
Observations (1st Play Test):This week's Game night included a game of League of Six (which received a mixed, confused reception) and then a "quick" play-test of my new memory game. The simplicity of this game seemed to be appreciated after the confusion of the former, at least until we realized that writing symbols on the back of tiles makes it "harder" to remember the tiles than just memory itself.
Players: 4 (Rob, Jim, Tim, & TC)
Playlength: Approx. 30 Min.
Scores (approx): Jim 14, Rob 12, Tim 9, TC 5
Tiles Used: 1x5, 1x4, 3x3, 4x2 = 26 Tiles
After playing the game solo a few times, I realized that 39 tiles was way too many for a first game, and made it drag. I was afraid that using too many highly numbered Tiles would make the game longer and less fun, so I nixed a few of the 4's and 3's. My first decision was correct, but getting rid of 3's and 4's ended up being the opposite of what is good.
The game dragged for a while as we each flipped over tiles and spent time thinking about what symbols to write on the back. There was pretty much nothing to do except watch for funny pictures and phrases. Tim wrote "This is a Dolphin" on one of the tiles, which called more attention to that particular tile as it was picked up by others and erased 3 times (which brings up the strategy of calling attention to a piece you've picked up, in order for others to become curious about it). Tim was also the first to find a pair of matching tiles, and he immediately flipped them over and searched for the next tile, which failed, but gave him an extra pull.
Once some tiles were revealed, and there was a different colored symbol on every tile, the game picked up considerably and the tension mounted. Someone would flip over three tiles in a set of four to start their turn, then usually have a 50/50 shot at remembering where the last piece was. This would then cause the next person to have a huge advantage. It seemed close until the end.
The game hit a very interesting point when there were only 5 tiles left on the board and we each had one clue as to which set was which. Two matches were left over, and everyone hoped that person before them wouldn't have the lucky pull and stick them with negative points. Sure, there was bluffing and luck, but it ended up being a -2 for Tim, which wouldn't normally be insurmountable.
A note on the strategies of each player: Jim created a system for remember tiles that was usually just two letters; no abstract symbols or phrases. He won the game, so maybe there is something to a subtle symbology that may be hard to crack. Rob seemed to adapt to the situation, similar to what I was attempting, drawing symbols that sort of looked like the tile underneath and other times was a phrase or play on what someone else had drawn. Tim had no crackable code. Sometimes he would draw a circle, sometimes a sentence, sometimes a sun, but when we looked underneath, normally I could not find a reason to them, but usually they somehow correlated to the rest of a set.
I can't wait to try the TEAMS version of this game next time we play.
Changes/Suggestions:
Tile distribution- The 2's actually turned out to be the least fun tiles. They were hard to find, and when found, were only found by complete luck. There was no way to push your luck and try for more; there was no strategy. The next play-test, I am going to completely nix all 2's from the game to see how it plays. It's much easier to find a pair when there are less possible groups on the table (i.e. I could have 50 tiles on the table, if there were only two sets). Finding a pair and pushing for more seemed to open up new avenues of fun and depth to the game.
Finding the right amount of tiles will also be difficult. I will just have to playtest until it makes sense.
Starting Knowledge- It seemed like a "cold-start," where everyone had no knowledge of what was on the board, made the game drag. There was some fun to be had in watching others, but I think the best idea might be to have a bag that players grab maybe 3-5 tiles to start the game with, and everyone writes a few symbols. This way the game starts with a little more flash, and the "press your luck" mechanic may even happen on the first turn. Sure, someone might pull a lucky set, but that just means that they have less info to work with for the rest of the game.
Variants/Other Rules: I could probably make a million rules and variants. I already have included the "slowest player" award. A -1 Tile awarded by vote to the person who took the longest to write their symbols. Tim suggested special ability tiles that someone could hold for points or use during the game to interrupt and affect other people's turns.
Which brings me to the question of how adaptable I want the game system to be. A "classic" game thrives without expansions and extra content. Is it classic enough in it's current state, or should I go crazy and include separate rules and tiles for about 5 different ways to play the game? Expansions and alternate rules seem like niche gaming ideas. I think it's too early for the debate right now, but I'll to see how thematic I want the game to appear, and how many iterations I'd like the game to have in the future.
Overall:
Jim seemed to be relatively pleased with the game, althought I'm never sure if he's enthusiastic or borderline on a lot of games. Rob seemed to realize a few turns into it, why I had thought this was worth making and seemed pretty enthusiastic. Tim had a "good, but missing something" attitude about it, and had a million ideas for rules and expansions.
Me, I'm excited about it. It's easy to learn, fun to play, and pretty much anyone could play and enjoy it. I have no grandious notions about it, however. It is hands-down a "filler" type game, that can and should be played more than once in a hour's time. And that's not a bad thing. In fact, I love Pit! because it just works and is terrific fun for a group. It has fun-factor and scheming, over longevity and resource management.
Now I need a name and a theme.
No comments:
Post a Comment