November 2014

  • John Parker

    Design Workbench

    Design Objective

    The goal of going micro is to drop the game down to its bare essentials in components and rules while keeping the essence of the game. I’ll start by dropping the card count down (assuming 2 players) to:

    • 18 = Minimum for the player grids.
    • + 3 = A trade row of 3-5 cards (depending on player count, maybe n+1)
    • + 3 = A few cards that are taken out of the game to hide some information; hopefully, making it more than a puzzle and keep it interesting.
    • = 24 Total cards.
  • John Parker

    Introduction

    At the time that I am doing this makeover, card games, particularly ones derived from traditional games, are quite popular. Even more popular are “micro games” and micro card games are all the rage. There is much discussion among game designers, developers, publishers, and enthusiasts about what makes a game “micro.” I won’t dwell on that, but will proceed with the following definition:

    A micro game is significantly simpler, quicker, and smaller (has few components) relative to a “full size” game of the same genre while providing a similar experience.

    Some call it streamlining, but I would hope that most games, including “full size” games go through a streamlining process throughout development anyway. So it is more than just streamlining.

    So, in Microsizing Nines (or more accurately, Eclectic Clock Collectors) I am going to trim the game that I have designed to this point (somewhere between Round 5 and 6) down to its very basics. I will also strip the theme and look for an appropriate one that matches the final game play (or leave it abstract).

  • Welcome to Opie Games

    Submitted by Game Master on Nov 14, 2014

    Consider this website a documentary of a tabletop game designer's discovery. While many of the articles address serious topics and are intended to report and inform, they are intended to entertain as well. Like the games in design, this site is a form of play and sharing a passion. If you like what you read here or have other ideas, requests, or words of wisdom, PLEASE COMMENT.

    We also offer several services to the tabletop game industry, including: writing, editing, proofreading, playtesting, Fantasy Grounds conversion, industry analysis, and Drupal website development and administration.

    Summaries and links to the latest articles are below, but there are many ways to find the site content through the menus, subject tags, search, etc. Enjoy your time looking around.

  • John Parker

    Design Workbench

    The Key to Incorporating the Action Cards

    As mentioned in previous rounds and in “What Needs Work,” the 7, 8, and 9 point cards are generally not used and not wanted. The 10 point cards had a similar problem until I doubled the number of them in the deck. Certainly it would not be advisable to double the count of all the unwanted cards, but I have been saving the 7, 8, and 9 cards for this next change.

    Since there are 3 different types of Action Cards and 3 values of unwanted Clock Cards, I have applied the actions to the point cards. (I have been heading this direction from early in the design process, but didn’t want to give life to an idea that I would later have to kill). I have called the ability to use the action on a Clock Card a Key (picture a clock winding key). Since the lower point cards are more likely to be kept in a collection, they might best be used for the higher value actions. However, the difference between keeping a 7 or a 9 seems to be negligible – the decision is based more on the perceived availability of the cards than the avoidance of a penalty. So I have applied the “higher value actions” to the higher point cards, which seems to be more intuitive to the casual player. The perceived value of a particular action is subjective and some players would not value some of the actions at all (e.g., a Take That action is undesirable to some). So here, higher value = greater blast radius (impact):