|
|
Post by godkingtom on Aug 17, 2014 10:08:40 GMT
Hey just wanted to air some suggestions I had thought of. I think what you're doing is great and want to help in any way I can. I honest think it would be in everyone's best interest if you ran a playtest. Something simple say using the map of Italy, Medieval period, two factions; Upper and Lower Italy both with their own goals. Lower Italy has only a small portion of land, is resource rich and ready to expand but there is only one direction to go. Upper Italy is large, strong, fortified but lacking the resources for an all out war. And finally to make things interesting mid-so game add a third faction the Goals (probably moderator ran), ready to invade Italy from sea and land, strong, huge forces but lack the technology advantage Italy has.
I think a playtest should be done asap. Nothing beats experience and this will give you the chance to test rules, situation, player roles, see how the groups interact, what rules they break ect.
This came to mind from when the chat that was had during the last Thursday game. In regards to whether plays are allowed to talk to each other or not this will be a great way to see how that pans out.
I'd love to help organise this 'mini mega game' but only enough that I can still participate because 4 moderators is possibly too much.
Let me know what you think.
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 17, 2014 13:19:38 GMT
Well, a playtest is s good idea, but I think it is still too early for that.
We have not yet decided about the setting, let alone started writing rules...
|
|
|
|
Post by Simon on Aug 17, 2014 13:21:57 GMT
But, as soon as we have some rules, it will be a good idea. If you want to join the organisation l, you are welcome to, but there already is 5 of us, we will need to have some players too  But I leave that decision to you. |
|
|
|
Post by godkingtom on Aug 17, 2014 13:38:23 GMT
I think 5 people is more than enough. However I think you will still need people to hear opinions, help make judgement calls, ect. Just make sure any spoilers are kept hidden to the best of your ability. I want to be a player in the big game and if you do the play test that too.
I want to voice an opinion, when you ask how big should the groups be? What positions are available per group? ect. As the players a little choice would be nice.
|
|
|
|
Post by thopthes on Aug 17, 2014 14:56:15 GMT
A playtest is a good idea but I'd rather do it unit-test-wise. I.e. separating all the mechanisms in the game and put them to a test in an isolated fashion.
This way we'd find out about weaknesses, wouldn't spoil much for possible players and also keep the testing to a minimum (of time).
I think the main part of the game will be the setting/scenario/the parties and their interactions and not the mechanics behind everything and that we certainly can't test without major spoilers and quite an amount of resources.
In addition I reckon we will probably have to make up some mechanics during the actual game because people will come up with new ideas that we haven't even thought of. So the mechanics aren't that important, I think.
Of course a little scenario would be fun and all but would also need quite some prep for something that we could also test more easily as mentioned above.
|
|
|
|
Post by auburney on Aug 19, 2014 13:52:18 GMT
I think godkingtom's suggestion of the Italy scenario is probably intentionally something completely different than we talked about so far - precisely in order to avoid spoilers. (Content spoilers, that is. Rule spoilers would be a whole different issue and could not be avoided during a playtest, naturally)
And/But I think I agree with Thopthes on this one. Testing the mechanics separate from the scenario may certainly be a good idea, yes.
And by mechanics, I mean not only the "rules as written" (the boardgamey elements as I like to perceive/call them), but also the "social contract" part of the game. So for example, who is allowed to go to which table, or talk to which people, or share what information is also part of the mechanics for me.
And yes, in some shape or form, a playtest would be nice to have. It might help eliminating glaring errors or oversights on our part before the game proper, and might also put us more at ease (=less nervous) when running the "real thing" eventually.
|
|
h
Game Organisers
Posts: 77 
|
Post by h on Aug 31, 2014 20:31:38 GMT
And yes, in some shape or form, a playtest would be nice to have. Agreed. For what little it's worth, I have a bit of experience with this sort of thing. |
|
