Scoundrels

I like the illustration of the map but would prefer if the writing could all be read from one direction. top/bottom, not wrapping around.

I like the map art!

Some suggestions after a quick read of the rules:
--Reduce hand size from 8 to 6.
--Change deck composition:
Instead of having three suits (swords, cannons, sails) and wilds, reduce it to just swords and cannons and make all cards work as sailing cards. With every card doing double duty, you could never draw a bum hand. You could always move and always attack. It then becomes your choice what to do, rather than dictated by your hand.

Having movement not dependent on card draws would probably speed up the game significantly. Plus, it would allow pirates to reach other areas of the map much faster.

I know you didn't ask for development suggestions, so you are welcome to completely dismiss these ideas.

Please do not hold back "unsolicited tough love"! That's how a game gets better, and how I get realistic about things. I may not enjoy hearing tough things, but I'd rather hear it now and get my game made than have a game that no one is willing to pay for. I'm going to need hundreds of people I don't know to give me $50 to make this happen. Always plan for worst-case.

In terms of specific game feedback, I would say that until you've played the game, I won't find much value in it. I've been tuning all these details for 2 years. Every change at this point is very particular, and a hand-size or card-type change is not happening. To respond specifically to removing the sail card, I'd say read the blog I wrote on F:AT a couple weeks ago. I like the 3-choice system of cards. And I actually would say there is almost too much choice now at times, especially for more casual players. It's a balance of decision-making, and Sail cards are useful for movement while also a backup choice in fights.

The 2-ships per player is a fascinating idea for 2-3 players! I will definitely be testing that out. It could maintain the chaos of a full board, though it may also be too confusing.

I'm also interested in maybe standups as a lower-cost alternate to ship models, so thank you guys for that idea! This is why I'm here.

Map writing: Yeah, I'm torn on how it is now. This new version of the map removed directionality for the most part, so all players get an equally beautiful view no matter the angle, but there might be value in maintaining some directionality. (I also ran out of room for the compass rose I drew. D'oh!)

Here's a maybe helpful breakdown of a battle. (Skip to 1:49 for the battle stuff) CRAPPY VIDEO WARNING

What's with the card flipping? Why not just have each player build a hand and then show them all? (battle)?

Two reasons:
1. Fights are really fun as a crowd. Watching what's happening is actually quite exciting, largely because people only engage when they think they have a reasonable chance at winning. So battles are often pretty close.

2. Strategy. The defender may choose to back out of a battle. When a battle begins there are a bunch of unflipped cards. The attacking player is going to lose all of those cards whether they win or lose, but the defender, at any time during the battle, may choose to keep their unflipped cards. So if they uncover 2 attacking 3-cannons in a row, they may recognize they're not going to win, and keep any remaining defense cards. It's always 1 and 1. Both players reveal a card at the same time, and then the defender can choose to concede or keep going.

In addition, whenever a player is attacked, they get 1 free Action card when their hand isn't full. If they don't think they can win, they can concede the battle without playing any cards. This way, if I spend a bunch of cards and I know someone is going to both shoot and then board me, I can concede the first battle (take the loss) and get a free card, and then get another card and engage in the second battle when they're trying to board me.

The fun thing with certain strategic players is they know they can get away with this. So some players will shoot and you think you're going to get boarded after, so you take the damage, and then they sail off to do something else instead.

randyo wrote: In terms of specific game feedback, I would say that until you've played the game, I won't find much value in it. I've been tuning all these details for 2 years. Every change at this point is very particular, and a hand-size or card-type change is not happening.

Good luck with your game.

randyo wrote: Two reasons:
1. Fights are really fun as a crowd. Watching what's happening is actually quite exciting, largely because people only engage when they think they have a reasonable chance at winning. So battles are often pretty close.

2. Strategy. The defender may choose to back out of a battle. When a battle begins there are a bunch of unflipped cards. The attacking player is going to lose all of those cards whether they win or lose, but the defender, at any time during the battle, may choose to keep their unflipped cards. So if they uncover 2 attacking 3-cannons in a row, they may recognize they're not going to win, and keep any remaining defense cards. It's always 1 and 1. Both players reveal a card at the same time, and then the defender can choose to concede or keep going.

In addition, whenever a player is attacked, they get 1 free Action card when their hand isn't full. If they don't think they can win, they can concede the battle without playing any cards. This way, if I spend a bunch of cards and I know someone is going to both shoot and then board me, I can concede the first battle (take the loss) and get a free card, and then get another card and engage in the second battle when they're trying to board me.

The fun thing with certain strategic players is they know they can get away with this. So some players will shoot and you think you're going to get boarded after, so you take the damage, and then they sail off to do something else instead.

Gotcha. That wasn't super clear in the video (I did Fast Forward to the point you noted, so maybe I missed it).

I'd buy this game, based solely on the art and theme, to be honest. It'd have to be like 30 bucks or less because it's a lot like Dread Pirate, almost like Dread Pirate "Advanced Edition" or something, and I happen to really like Dread Pirate. The art totally makes this. I don't like the cards very much, though.

I apologize, Gregarius, for being dismissive. That was not my intent. I feel a responsibility to lock certain elements down if I ever want to call the game finished and feel comfortable shipping it. I'm certainly biased, but I am at the core design I want except for two things: The game goes 15 minutes longer than I want, and the first thirty minutes are confusing for most new players because of each one-off balance rule.

There's a bunch of asymmetry in the game, and I kinda love how well it works. I'm testing new starting conditions to jump people forward more directly into the action part, but I also plan to leave in the "full" game as well. And then for rules teaching, egh, there's a balance between making the rules simpler for new players and maintaining the cool things going on right now in the game.

But the concerns raised in this thread are considerable; it puts to light all the realities of game design and creation. There are plenty of logistical decisions that will make this "not for someone". Cost, playtime, not into aggressive games, number of players needed, rules confusion. It's not a game that will be pulled out every other weekend because of those logistics. That's the game I've made. But I believe the audience is out there that would enjoy my game. I chose this site as my first foray into board game communities because the site named seemed appropriate to Scoundrels. I think many of y'all would like this. But time and Kickstarter will tell! The hope is people will buy it cause it's pretty, and then after playing it, will say: Oh, that was fun, too!

Dread Pirate was a direction inspiration! I bought Dread back in college but it just didn't do what I wanted. The collection of treasure and stealing it back and forth is definitely rooted there, but the inner workings of the game are completely gutted into something different. Good eyes. (You may notice in the pictures that I'm using various pieces from Dread Pirate! Namely the ships and tokens.)

And I am very ready to move on and make a new game. I already have the premise.

Check into getting a rollable neoprene playmat, or better, cloth. I have a guy in Dayton who screen prints, and another guy who has an NC laser cutter for tokens and whatnot. PM me if you want contact info.

If you are really open for advice here's what I'm thinking.

First, don't be so dismissive about opinion from people. Despite not playing your game, each one of us here has played scores of games and experienced scores upon scores of mechanics. Meaning, you've got nothing new that we haven't seen so we have a pretty solid understanding of what's going to likely happen during a game session.

That said, I like the core of what you have and I like the aesthetics and components. If the game goes up on Kickstarter for $35 or less, I'd be a likely backer. BUT, that's with the intention of basically pulling a gut-job on the game.

randyo wrote: But the concerns raised in this thread are considerable; it puts to light all the realities of game design and creation. There are plenty of logistical decisions that will make this "not for someone". Cost, playtime, not into aggressive games, number of players needed, rules confusion. It's not a game that will be pulled out every other weekend because of those logistics. That's the game I've made. But I believe the audience is out there that would enjoy my game. I chose this site as my first foray into board game communities because the site named seemed appropriate to Scoundrels. I think many of y'all would like this. But time and Kickstarter will tell! The hope is people will buy it cause it's pretty, and then after playing it, will say: Oh, that was fun, too!

I absolutely do not want to discourage you in any way, but this paragraph does not bode well, in my opinion. I may be misreading the bolded part, but it looks like a red flag as far as game design goes.

If you are not familiar, I STRONGLY recommend you read Jamey Stegmaier's blog about game design and specifically Kickstarter. stonemaiergames.com/kickstarter/ He is very friendly, knowledgeable, and has a lot of good advice that I think you would benefit from.

Also, I realize you've had this game in the works for "2 years," but that is sort of vague. Is that 40 hours a week for 2 years, or occasionally on weekends for 2 years? Game design takes a lot of work and a lot of refinement beyond just the first great idea.

Haha, that statement you bolded is the cynic in me. Art sells games. I completely agree that it doesn't make a game good. But many people dismiss or take interest in a game based on its visuals. "Oh! That game had a ton of time spent on its art, it must be good." Ugh. I think we can agree people places like here are the exception. So while I hope that my game will sell on its gameplay merits, I am cognizant that I'm more likely to get backers because it's a fun looking pirate game. I stand confidently behind its gameplay (I'm personally more interested in design than art) but that won't do a lot for most people.

One thing that's happened with kickstarter and tabletops becoming so huge is that reviewers won't accept kickstarter prototypes unless it's a paid preview. I want to send out a few prototypes to reviewers so that you won't have to just take my word for it, but it's either gonna cost me, or I have to figure out who I should send the game to.

In that vein, I'd love to hear where you all go to for reviews. What other youtube channels or blogs or websites do you trust, big or small? I can't afford to pay for a paid preview on Dice Tower, so I'm gonna aim for a few smaller folks.

And if anyone is a PnP person, let me know, I can send you a copy of the game. I'd like to offer the PnP as a $3-5 tier on the kickstarter, but for now I'm selectively sending out some copies.

I'd also love to play the game with any F:AT folks in the San Francisco area. I'll be going to DunDraCon in February for probably that Saturday or I can drive to where you are!
--

Jamey Stegmaier's blog is super informative, I found that a couple months back and have been reading it!

I responded to Gregarius's concerns and criticisms on my blog post:
http://fortressat.com/blogs-by-designers/4807#josc91965

The randomness of the game, and bad hands, are legitimate concerns, but they are also a core conceit of the experience I've been fostering. I hope my post justifies the decisions I've made.

To answer how many hours? I don't know. It's not 40 hours a week as it's not my main gig. I'd say it's been about 2-3 hours a week most weeks, with every couple months a good 20 hour binge-week of work. So, maybe 500-600 hours between playtests, art, writing, brainstorming?

I do really appreciate your feedback and responses to Scoundrels. They point out things I may or may not be aware of, but they also reflect the importance you place on certain aspects of the game. As a designer, I am conscious of the importance of feedback. My only goal is to be fair both to the criticisms of others and my own aspirations for the game. So thanks again for the time and care you've given to responses!

Hi folks, thanks to your feedback, I've been working on a couple different things:

-I made art for cardboard ship pieces! I actually really like these, maybe as much as the ship models. I'm also looking forward to drawing the ghost ship. Anyway, this'll make prototypes more professional for reviewers. I've been researching making cardboard pieces, so that'll be happening later this week.



-I designed and tested a 3 player variant that works surprisingly well! It's a different type of game, but I removed all the quests and most of the treasure, and now it's last man standing or first person to bury 4 points of Infamy. It's also easier to dig up treasure to keep the game going. Anyway, it was a 45-60 minute game, holds much of the appeal of the full-game, and was pretty enjoyable to me. I'll want to test it more times, and with others, but I was thrilled that it wasn't terrible.

The one downside is that it loses some of the cool epic nature of the longer full game.

I might also try a variant for fewer players where you go 2 rounds before drawing, thus creating more of the dynamics of the full game.

Aight, looking to write another blog soon, too.

Cheers!

I officially want this game. Love the art. Don't dumb down the game just to make the time shorter. Make it work with the existing stuff in there, but shorter. Epic does not always mean long - Cyclades is 1.5 hours MAX and it's epic as Luke Skywalker and Fat Bastard's lovechild.