Board Game Design at San Diego State University

San Diego State University's college of education has a course on "Exploratory Learning through Simulation and Games". As part of this course, there are several listings of materials for board game designing as a project for the class (including evaluation critieria that is somewhat similiar to my own that I posted previously on this blog). Here is a link to the course:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC670/

On the bottom left hand side of the course's page will be a link to various projects - one of which is entitled "Board Game". Click on the "evaluation rubric" link in the middle and it will pull up the criteria. (The reason why I'm having to provide directions here is because the interface on the webpage doesn't provide me with unique addresses to each of these items. It's a different format so all I can provide here is a link to the main page.)

There is also a link I found that is part of this course which details the process of game designing. It is done with the intent that the game be some sort of educational game so keep that in mind as it details the process. Here is the link:

http://edweb.sdsu.edu/Courses/EDTEC670/boardgame/BoardGameDesign1.html

-Enjoy.

Bluffing and Game Theory

This is an amusing little video on game theory and bluffing. Enjoy:

Game Design: Video of Reiner Knizia discussing game design

What follows here is a Spanish video where Dr. Reiner Knizia discusses some of his ideas on game design. The title and subtitles are all written in Spanish as are the names of the games on the boxes pictured but he is speaking English throughout (with Spanish subtitles at the bottom of the screen).

The introduction and some of the artistic work in this video at the very beginning tends to drag a bit but after getting past that, there are some good ideas presented by the good doctor. Enjoy:

Review: Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit

This review is a version of one that I posted on BGG previously.

Okay, let's get two things out of the way first:

1. I am a Eurogamer. I came into this game not having played any Ameritrash "classics" that I enjoyed. In fact, I hadn't played any Ameritrash games that I really enjoyed - period.

2. I hated Episode I the movie. I found the acting wooden, the dialogue trite, the plot lacking a true emotional tie in (and I'm not even going to start into the whole Jar-Jar issue). Don't get me wrong, I am a Star Wars fan. I've read a lot of Star Wars fiction and I'm a loyal fan of the original trilogy. Perhaps it was because of these things that I found Episode I to be the most disappointing movie I've ever seen - simply because of the anticipation that I, along with many other Star Wars fans, felt leading up to its release.

So, with a general distaste of Ameritrash in my mouth and wearing my Episode I hater cap, I approached "The Queen's Gambit" simply out of curiosity due to the praise I've read about the game. I asked myself, "can a game based on such a lousy movie be any good?" So, what's the answer?

Well, I'm here to tell each and every one of you out there from a certified Eurosnoot that "Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit" is one of the best games I've played in a long time. The game just oozes with theme. Sure there are lots of dice (which are normally a problem for eurogamers) but, with this game, I just didn't care that there was so much dice rolling. The movement of the different characters on the various boards immersed me in the theme of battling Darth Maul, fighting the battle droids on the plains of Naboo, trying to deceive the other player with my two queens, trying to storm the palace and fight my way to the Viceroy, trying to plow through the fleet of ships as Anakin to blow up the Federation control ship, and so forth. I hated the movie, and I expected this game to disappoint me like the movie did, but it wasn't to be. This game is good, really good.

So, why is it so good? It's the details. I'm not about to go into a lengthy discourse on the rules but perhaps a few examples will suffice:

-There are two decks of cards: one for the Theed-Palace area and one for the battlefield / space-battle-above-the-planet area. A player has to play four cards in a round and these four cards are planned out and set in place in terms of which cards and in what sequence before the action begins (so there's some second-guessing and anticipation involved). At the end of each turn, both players draw from each deck (two cards per deck). The result is, if you hammer one area, you will mostly have cards for the other area in your hand - thus providing a natural compulsion to focus on a balanced approach in the game.

-There is an "energy shield" on the plains battle that prevents federation droids from shooting at Gungans from a distance. Droids can walk through the shield (just like in the movie) and can work towards taking out the shield generators so that the rest of the forces can work more effectively. (By the way, "just like in the movie" is a phrase you will hear a lot as you continue reading.)

-The battle between Qui-Gon Ginn, Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Darth Maul is set up so that Qui-Gon will take the blunt of the hits at the beginning - thus making it more likely that, if one of the two Jedi die, it will be him - again, just like in the movie. In fact the initial placement of the characters is set up just like in the movie with Qui-Gon having to battle Darth Maul and Obi-Wan stuck having to watch at first.

-Getting Anikan through the federation fleet to blow up the main ship will take some luck. Again, just like in the movie.

-You can ascend the palace through the stairs or on the outside using grapling guns - again, just like in the movie.

-The Gungans will not tend to do well on the battle field as there are three units of gungans per hex while there are four units of droids per hex - thus giving the federation a distinct advantage in combat - again serving as a thematic reflection of the movie.

-In some cases with some characters, you can roll defense dice when attacked. With the Jedi, the possibility of hitting back out of turn when attacked is presented - just like in the movies how Jedi can deflect laser blasts back at their opponents. Also, the destroyer droids (the scorpion looking droids with shields) have defense dice that make them harder to kill. Further, the general luck of hucking a lot of dice fits the idea of a laser gun battle. Sometimes you hit lucky shots. Sometimes you don't.

Components

Now, let's look at one staple of Ameritrash-ism in particular: namely that of bits. I haven't really cared that much about bits in the past. As a Eurogamer, I'm fine with my LWC's (little wooden cubes). However, the bits in this game add a lot to the experience. Trying to imagine this game with abstracted components like cubes just wouldn't work. After a lot of Gungans and droids have bitten the dust, it's pretty cool to watch these bits be set off to the side as a visual body count of the action that's taken place. The way the board is constructed with the three-dimensional aspect to the palace really heightens the thematic feel of the game. It's not just a gimic. It's functional to place the boards as they are because of the ability of the palace guards to use their grapling guns to ascend the outside of the palace to a higher floor.

Balance

A complaint that is often layed at the door of the Ameritrash genre is one of balance - namely that the games are often not balanced. This game is not necessarily balanced - but it doesn't matter (at least, it didn't matter to me). There are swings in the momentum of the game due to "bonus cards" that a player earns the right to play when they accomplish something significant. I was getting hosed pretty badly until I finally defeated Darth Maul which not only gave me bonus cards but also allowed me to unleash Obi-Wan on the droid forces. These "swings" in momentum really captured a thematic element that created a rich experience for me. They are also not the kinds of momentum swings that can rob a game of its enjoyment. With 1960 for example, the swings are so drastic from turn to turn that they undermined my enjoyment of the game. With Queen's Gambit, the swings are just as drastic but much farther apart from each other and much fewer in number such that strategy and tactics retain much of their significance.

Time

This game's length clocks in at about two hours and that's about right for what it offers. Both players are involved the entire time. (I'll admit I haven't played this game as a 4-player game but I imagine that it's a stretch to do so. This strikes me as a two player game.)

Audience / Who will like this game?

This is not a game that will work very well for most newbie gamers or those who feel threatened by rules (though it's not a tremendously complex game). If you are looking for a game that is rich in theme then this game is it.

Conclusion

I've personally found, at last, an Ameritrash game that I not only think is good, I actually find the game design to be pretty remarkable in that all of the little details of theme were incorporated so well into the overall flow of the game. I personally feel pretty priviliged to own a copy of this out-of-print classic. If you know someone who owns a copy and would be willing to teach you, it's worth it to take the time to learn this game. It's a keeper.

Review: Ricochet Robots

This is a version of a review I did on BGG some time ago.

Rules

Ricochet Robots is comprised of a board (assembled out of four sections), several robots all of a different color (ex. a red robot, a blue robot, a black robot, etc.), a “starting chip” for each different colored robot, and several destination chips (which are one-sided and which contain a symbol with a specific color). On the board are a number of destinations (each of which corresponds to a destination chip) and a number of walls. The robots are placed on the board randomly and all of the destination chips are turned over with the non-symbol side up.

One destination chip is then turned over (symbol side up) and placed in the middle. The color of the symbol is the robot you are trying to get to that destination (ex. red circle = get the red robot to that destination). The trick to moving these robots is that they can only move in a straight line and cannot stop until they hit either a wall or another robot. So, you can’t just stop the robot in the middle of the board without that robot hitting something to stop its motion. Each time you move a robot in a specific direction it counts as one move. Once the destination chip is turned over, each player begins calculating (in one’s head) possible routes to get the robot to its destination. Once someone has a route, they announce a bid. Their bid is the number of moves they can get the robot in question to its destination. Once the first person makes their bid, a one-minute countdown begins (there is a one-minute hourglass supplied with the game). Within that minute, anyone else can bid lower so long as they can actually follow through with their bid and get the robot to its destination in that number of moves. Once the timer is up, whoever bid the lowest number of moves demonstrates the path of the robot. If it is correct, they take the destination chip and move any “starting chips” to the new location of the robots after completing the destination.

The game continues until each of the destination chips have been completed. Whoever has the most destination chips at the end wins.

The board is divided into four sections and each section has two sides. Thus, you can create a number of different combinations of boards to play on (which keeps the game fresh over time). There is a black robot but no black destinations. There is also one destination chip that is multi-colored – meaning you simply have to get any of the robots to that destination regardless of the color of the robot.

Thoughts

Because the board can change every time you play the game, and because the starting positions of the robots are random, the game stays fresh over time. There are also no restrictions on the number of players who can play. You could, theoretically, have 20 people all standing around the table playing the game. You could also, theoretically, play solo where you give yourself a limited time to find the shortest route possible for a given chip.

Ricochet Robots is not a test of strategy. Rather, for each player, the game is essentially a test in spatial thinking. Most people I’ve seen who encounter the game need to see a few examples first of how the robots can move and successfully arrive at a destination to properly understand how the game works. I have also seen people improve over time as they become more acclimated to the type of thinking this game requires.

The game can also vary in its length. It just depends on the players and how quickly they can think through the routes of the robots.

The one major drawback to this game is that there can be a significant skill mismatch among the players (ex. one or two players excelling at the game while the rest just don’t see the routes quickly enough or simply don’t see them at all). There are certain rules that can be implemented to “fix” such scenarios. For example, you could say that, as long as a player who has less chips than the lowest bidding player sees a route with a number of moves equal to the lowest bid, that player can take the chip. However, such “fixes” are often not very fun for the more skilled players in the group.

Trying to see the routes and having a significantly shorter route than what you had at first thought possible occur to you can be really entertaining. However, because of the spatial thinking requirement, this game might not appeal to everyone. I personally really enjoy it.

I have seen people get better at this game over time. However, it's possible that, for some people, the game may move too quickly for them to pick up on it effectively in the early stages. In other words, they may need lots of time to study scenarios at first in order for them to start picking up speed and to start seeing better solutions on the board. However, if such a person were to play consistently with better players, then they would probably not have that time because the better players would probably see the solutions quicker, start the timer earlier, and be ready for the next scenario before the struggling player had a chance to properly digest the scenario that just finished - just something to be aware of.

Review: Marvel Heroes

This is a version of a review I posted on BGG some time ago.

Introduction

I was looking forward to this game and was intrigued by what I had heard about it (that each player controlled their own group of superheroes and a supervillan as well that can attack the other players' teams). The game seemed to have been well received here at BGG so my hopes were high. I also collected comic books for a while when I was younger so there was some nostalgia for me coming into this game. I really wanted it to be good. Nevertheless, I found myself disappointed overall with this game.

Brief Overview of Game Play

Each player controls one of four possible groups of Superheroes (composed of four superheroes each):

The Avengers
The X-Men
The Marvel Knights
The Fantastic Four

The game takes place on a quasi-New York inner city map. The map is divided up into six districts and there are four subsections within each district. The flow of the game is divided up into a series of 5 rounds with 5 rotations of turns within each round. At the beginning of each round, there are a number of “Headlines” that come out for each district. Essentially these "headlines" represent combat scenarios in which you may encounter bad guys and have to fight them. These headlines are of several types (Mystery, Crime, Danger). There is also a certain skill listed underneath the main description (such as science, mystic, protection, etc.). The skills listed correspond to specific character skills that can be found on the character cards for the various superheroes that can be used in the game. There are also "plot points" that are used by each player to get their superheroes ready for action before each round begins.

On a player’s turn within a round, they can do things like move their superhero, give medical attention to a superhero, or begin "troubleshooting" a headline (which is really where most of the action is). Each headline has a certain "trouble" rating – which is essentially the number of dice you roll to determine, in broad terms, how many bad guys or extra problems there might be as part of fighting the headline. A superhero may move to an area and may fight the headline alone or they may have a "support" hero along with them. Each headline grants a number of victory points to the person who successfully defeats any villans involved in that headline.

Combat

Combat consists of a series of dice rolls that have to be processed through a series of modifiers present on the villan’s card, any modifying cards for the villan, and the superhero’s modifiers on the superhero’s card as well as any modifiers on the "supporting" hero’s card. There is some simultaneous decision revelation prior to combat but it is essentially a choice of which set of dice modifiers your character – be it villan or hero – will use in combat. And, here we come to the source of my disappointment. In essence, the game pretty much mostly just dice rolling in which the rolls have to be tediously processed through the various modifiers. When looked at from a larger view, all of the mechanics in the game - including the card drawing - strike me as simply serving as window dressing for the dice rolling.

The main aspect of the game that had intrigued me was the concept of controlling a supervillan as well as a set of superheroes. Herein, again, I was disappointed as the supervillan you control is not able to actively engage the superheroes. What I mean by this is that you cannot, for example, on your turn declare that Dr. Doom will now attack the Fantastic Four. Instead, you control Dr. Doom only after the Fantastic Four decide to go after a headline. In other words, you have to wait for the other player to initiate any combat and then, again, combat is simply a series of dice rolls being processed through a series of modifiers. There are other familiar "sub-villans" that can be played in the form of cards that can be drawn by the players during the course of the game (e.g. Venom, the Juggernaut, and Dr. Octopus among others). However, these cards are, again, simply a set of dice modifiers and, in that respect, I found combat to be an unfulfilling experience.

In general, the strategy of the game seems to pretty much be the same as it is with any dice-driven game: hedge your bets with the dice rolling by trying to stack modifiers (of whatever form) in your favor. Granted, there are various ways that this can be accomplished and there are also some resource management skills involved with how and when you use your plot points but, again, a game that is this dice driven does not tend to be my style of game. There have been dice driven games I have played in the past that I have liked but this was not one of them. I won the game of Marvel Heroes I played (all of us who played were new) but I didn’t attribute my win to any great acumen or strategic cunning. I just hedged my bets as best I could and hoped for the best.

Components

With respect to the components, it’s been stated before that the map is lacking in its appearance. However, I don’t really dock any points from the game for that as the art work of the map seems to be presented with the intention of making it look "comicbooky" and, in that respect, the map works. I also liked the miniatures and the art design on the various character cards as well as art design for the rulebook. I also liked the plot points being small chips with speech windows in them (you know, the circles above the characters’ heads in a comic book where their dialogue is written). I also liked the quirky-ness of the "trouble" counter being a very "comicbooky" exclamation point. However, all of the components simply served to reinforce my disappointment that, behind the chrome, the game is pretty much just a "dicefest".


Game Length

In terms of time, the game I played took a little over 2 hours which was mostly due to the fact that we were all new to the game. I can see how, with players who have an understanding of the rules, it could move a lot faster. So, my perception is that the time factor can be alleviated by having experienced players. Each player is provided with a game summary that is serviceable in design. However, I can also see how a self-created player aide that simply integrates the various sections on the summary into one cohesive round outline would result in a more understandable aide for a new player.

Overall Impressions

I personally found that the choices being presented by the game were simply steps to set up the culminating modifier system for dice rolling in combat rather than being diverging paths leading toward several different methods of scoring or accumulating points. Because of this, I didn't find the choices very interesting to make. For example, with respect to which team member to send into an area, that choice revolved primarily around the possible sets of how many dice can be rolled for "attack", "defense", and "outwit". Again, that wasn't necessarily a very interesting choice for me. Now, if there were different kinds or sets of dice with different actions available depending on the character I'm using, then now we're talking. But if it's not which type, but rather, just how many of the same type of dice can be used depending on the character, that just isn't a choice I find very interesting to make.

I'm not saying that a game has to be really complex to be enjoyable. I'm also not saying that Marvel Heroes is a bad game or that all games have to have a "many paths to victory" element to them to be fun. What I am saying is that the choices in Marvel Heroes were not interesting enough to me to make the game fun enough to try again for me. I can see how the game would appeal to other people who derive more of a sense of satisfaction from wading through processes of arriving at the number of dice in a roll (along with any re-roll possibilities) but that person isn't me in this case.

Who will like this game

I suspect that the main group of people who will like Marvel Heroes are the same people who tend to like games where dice are the predominant driving force of action. This game will more than likely not appeal to casual gamers simply because of the amount of rules that go into processing the various modifiers for the dice rolls.

Board Game Companies With Game Submission Pages

I recently decided to look around and find any game companies that are actually, currently accepting game submissions. The following is a list along with links to the submission pages:

Cambridge Games:

http://www.cambridgegames.com/

Here is the link to their submission letter:

http://www.cambridgegames.com/uploads/CGF_Submission_Letter.pdf


Sunriver Games:

http://www.sunrivergames.com/about/designer-submissions/


Z-Man Games:

http://www.zmangames.com/


Steve Jackson Games:

http://www.sjgames.com/general/guidelines/authors/card-board.html


Twilight Creations:

http://www.twilightcreationsinc.com/gamesubmissions.pdf


Out of the Box:

http://www.otb-games.com/contact.html#submissions


University Games:

http://www.universitygames.com/contactus.asp


North Star Games:

http://www.northstargames.com/contact/submissions.page


There is the German board game desgin competition known as Hippodice. Here is their webpage:

http://www.hippodice.de/inhalt.php?pg=601&lang=en


There is a convention for board game designers in Michigan known as Protospiel. Here is their website:

http://www.protospiel.org/


Other options include companies like GameWright. But, it's through their regular "Contact Us" page/template that you can submit your request. They will respond with the procedures for submission but it may take a while for them to get back with you after you submit your request for info. Here's the link to their contact page:

http://www.gamewright.com/gamewright/index.php?section=talktous&page=index

Other companies go back and forth on accepting ideas or ceasing for the time being. For more information, one can visit the Board Game Designers Forum:

http://www.bgdf.com