- Posts: 2108
- Thank you received: 898
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
Sky Traders and Game Design
As I was reading I started to see this disconnect between how the designer wanted the game to play and how it was actually getting played. There were three main parts of the game where I noticed this.
First is the scoring mechanism - Your goal is to buy VPs with your money to move you along a track and once you reach the end of the track you win. But people tended to hoard the cash so they could afford to buy those higher priced goods to hopefully sell later. One comment I read was complaining that there wasn't enough incentive to spend money on the VP track. Which I thought was an odd comment to make...The same guy then went on to say that the game took to long. Allow that irony to sink in.
Second is the market manipulation to set the prices of goods - Most games use the buying and selling of goods to determine market movements. In Sky Traders the impression I received is you take on a role like the head of a crime family getting together with other crime families to determine the market price for goods. And here is where you're supposed to negotiate, trade and perform some diplomacy to protect the markets for the goods you're invested in and hurting markets in the goods your opponents are invested in. The complaint about this phase is that it is too random which makes me think that a lot of the negotiation is being skipped (of course it could just be because it is poorly implemented).
Lastly, there are multiple instances in the rules where it mentions a two-minute time limit on a turn. I didn't read comments about people enforcing or adhering to the rule so it was another area that made me question the people who were criticizing that the game is too long.
Where am I going with this?
What it made me wonder is: When the designer of a game intends it to be played a certain way but the game doesn't compel players well enough into the desired behavior patters is that bad game design? When the spirit and intent of the game is ignored or missed does that make the game bad because it wasn't played "right"?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- hotseatgames
- Away
- D12
- Posts: 7161
- Thank you received: 6270
Ultimately it doesn't sound like bad design, but simply a case where the game is flexible enough to be played differently than intended. Which again, is great if people like it, but they shouldn't complain if they aren't even playing it "right".
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Legomancer
- Offline
- D10
- Dave Lartigue
- Posts: 2944
- Thank you received: 3873
For a lot of players this won't be a problem because they approach every game as one where anything is negotiable, so they roll right into the spirit of the game. I suspect that the designers who fall into this trap are those kinds of players and thus think the negotiation is obvious and inevitable. For players who aren't use to negotiation as a regular ingredient, they won't see a void to be filled in by them unless it's pointed out.
This is part of why "above the table" games often don't work for me, because not only am I not much of an "above the table" player, but it requires everyone to be one or else it all goes wrong. And unless you have four people who are really into that sort of thing all the time it's going to be like playing at a table where one leg is too short.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
My question for you is...do you think the rules are clearly written out? Are they written in a way that leaves room for ambiguity?
If the rules are written clearly and people are still messing up or complaining about stuff then that is on the players. Also, some of the blame could just be on the person teaching the game. If they don't properly express how the game is meant to be played...that could be a problem.
I've seen games such as Cutthroat Caverns get played as a co-op with people being afraid to dick each other over. It's clearly not the way the game was designed to be played...but there are people out there who play it that way and then rate it poorly.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
Something I've noticed is that some game designers and gamers inject negotiation in games that I would never think of, simply because I don't see a reason to negotiate in them.VonTush wrote: And here is where you're supposed to negotiate, trade and perform some diplomacy to protect the markets for the goods you're invested in and hurting markets in the goods your opponents are invested in. The complaint about this phase is that it is too random which makes me think that a lot of the negotiation is being skipped (of course it could just be because it is poorly implemented).
Take Risk. Is there negotiation in Risk? To me there isn't, turns are sequential so keeping your word doesn't offer you any advantage and trusting not to attack you doesn't, either. I also don't think there's negotiation in Chaos in the Old World or Liberté or 1830. You can try it, but it's like trading in a 2-player game, it doesn't benefit you.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Sagrilarus
- Offline
- D20
- Pull the Goalie
- Posts: 8735
- Thank you received: 7349
Your first observation seems to indicate everyone at the table playing super-fat, perhaps fatter than the designer intended or witnessed during play-testing. It seems to me at some point someone in the group will decide to try a thinner approach and sneak a win on the others, changing their perspective on the game.
As for bad game design, 1) if the players don't enjoy the game it's surely an indication they don't understand the nature of the game; 2) if they enjoy it in a way other than intended it is certainly a sign of genius inherent in the machine. Just ask the designer and he'll tell you!
S.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
I've played 40 minute games of Monopoly...it's not hard. Just play the game as designed.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Sagrilarus
- Offline
- D20
- Pull the Goalie
- Posts: 8735
- Thank you received: 7349
charlest wrote: If you want people to buy VP but they think the cost is just not worth it, then your incentives are not clear enough (or strong enough possibly).
. . . or that you need to play the game at least twice to get the hang of it before going to the Internet to post your opinions on it.
I'll agree with your core concept though. It seems to me that with three or four people sitting around the table one of them would consider that path, to give it a try for a change if nothing else, were it presented as a viable alternative.
What will be curious to see is if the game will get a seasoned following that generates broader tactical choices. Puerto Rico got played to death in its first couple of years and it was quite a while before some of the favored tacks came to light.
S.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Quotes from the rulebook:
"As long as the time runs, players can attempt to negotiate with each other, trying to sell their dice, buy dice from other players, give them away for free, or arrange a promise to use the dice in a certain way. Players can offer any amount of GP, goods, or Crew cards they own. In other words, players should use their best trading skills to get the dice they desire."
"Note: After the player resolves this phase, phases 2, 3 and 4 must be completed within two minutes!"
So I do think those elements are pretty clear in the book. That you are supposed to negotiate and you are supposed to use a turn time limit.
Regarding playing super-fat, I do agree with that. And there is an option to attack another player's ship, pillage some of their stuff and cause them to lose half their gold. But it also doesn't seem like people pursue that option because it comes at the cost of sacrificing your points during the turn to bash on the other person.
Thinking about it, Risk I think falls into the a same trap this game has fallen into. When I play Risk with people the tendency is to build, build, build...But not move towards the overall goal of World Domination - And then the games get blasted for being too long because people are working towards a different goal than the win condition goal.
There is no responsibility to a player to make sure they're playing the game as intended. But it is in the designer's interest to push players into playing the game a certain way...So how does a designer coax players into certain behavior patterns? Because what I've noticed with Sky Traders, it seems like all the bad opinions are by people that either weren't or didn't want to play a certain way.
And after reading the rules, it actually sounds like a pretty fun, simple and straight forward pick up and deliver game. What I've also found interesting is that the designer has released the Director's Cut which is how he claims the game was supposed to be played (kind of throwing the developer under the bus). Also player screens were released as a pdf so you can hid your info which to me only matters when people are ignoring the 2 minute timer and number crunching everyone's current status.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Shellhead wrote: I hate it when economic games use victory points instead of cash to measure winning. Buying victory points is a fundamental failure of theme. Perhaps people sometimes play games differently than the designer intended, simply because the designer did a poor job of designing suitable rules to express the theme.
The theme is that you're buying influence within some sort of traders guild which will raise your rank and once you've contributed a certain dollar amount you've bought the presidency so to speak. So I do think it has a thematic tie.
Also, as you raise in rank it allows you to set your dice (instead of rolling them) which gives you greater control of the market prices in things.
But I do agree with premise that buying VPs to convert them into an unusable commodity is pretty weak.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
VonTush wrote: As I was reading I started to see this disconnect between how the designer wanted the game to play and how it was actually getting played.
I often wonder how much of that is due to experience and/or preconceptions.
I've had games of Bohnanza where a player was mad at the end because they couldn't plant any big crops. I've had games of Traders of Genoa where a player was mad because they couldn't complete any orders. I've had games of Settlers where a player was mad because nobody would trade with them. Usually it's because that player wasn't any good at the game, but with repeat plays I think they'd do much better.
My most recent City of Remnants game played out really strangely because two of the players were new. One player declared himself "out of the game" by the 3rd turn because he had gotten hit particularly hard by the Yugai Security Forces draws. I've never felt that City of Remnants is a game you are ever really "out of", simply because there are so many ways to harass the other players and doing so with a little negotiation on the side can almost always get you back in the game. Another strange thing about that particular game was that even though I (emphatically) explained before we started that each player's starting deck tends to be geared towards a certain strategy, and gave an example of the red deck's strength, nobody other than me bothered to do anything with that tidbit of information. I was the only player who did take advantage of my starting deck's strengths and by mid-game half the table was claiming that the game doesn't feel balanced because they weren't able to recruit as well as I was and I had way more units on the board than they did and that yellow probably needs to be house-ruled. It left a bad taste in my mouth about how the game was played, because I suspect at least two of the people at the table won't play the game again and use their experience to play better next time.
For what it's worth: I think City of Remnants is an example of a game where the way the designer intended the game to be played is also the most successful way to play, but people tend to come into it thinking, "I've seen all these mechanics before." Preconceptions and lack of experience result in poor play.
When I learn a game I'll often deviate from what other players are doing just to try a novel strategy even if it isn't optimal. I've also found that not playing as expected pisses some people off, and I wonder if sometimes other players' preconceptions are putting them in a strategy rut.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- SuperflyPete
- Offline
- Salty AF
- SMH
- Posts: 10733
- Thank you received: 5119
DUH.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Sagrilarus wrote:
charlest wrote: If you want people to buy VP but they think the cost is just not worth it, then your incentives are not clear enough (or strong enough possibly).
. . . or that you need to play the game at least twice to get the hang of it before going to the Internet to post your opinions on it.
Absolutely. My comment is assuming the players have played the game multiple times and fully understand how it works. Not understanding strategic implications in one or two plays definitely does not mean the game was designed poorly. However, if they've played it 3 or 4 times and still are not finding a good enough reason to buy VP, then something is very wrong.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.