Introduction

I hope to spawn some dialogue about the redesigns described in this Game Makeover blog. However, in these first few entries much of the work described has already been completed and my actual efforts will probably be ahead of the postings for a few weeks. I don’t want this to discourage commentary, but I also don’t want my responses or lack of direction changes to be an indication that I am not listening to feedback. I figure that most of you reading (someone is reading, right?) are catching these much later than when they were posted anyway, so no harm done.  On to the makeover!

Objective

Redesign the traditional card game Nines (Nines on BGG) (also known as 9-Card Golf) to make a more “modern,” fun and interesting game while maintaining enough of the original game that it is still obviously “in there.” Let’s see how far I can get without making a different game.

Why Nines?

I started similar tweaking on a standard trick-taking game, but that is all the rage now; most recently by the grand master of card game makeovers, Mike Fitzgerald, in Diamonds (Stronghold Games, 2014). So I will leave my efforts for another day and makeover a game that is certainly less familiar, but hopefully just as ripe for the picking. Although Nines has an abysmal 3.25 average rating on BGG, there is some good in it. It is a typical traditional, family card game that appeals to those who would also like SkipBo (BGG average rating of 5.30). Please don’t let that stop you from reading on… I have played many games of Nines with family and friends and somewhere around the house there is always 3 decks shuffled together for this purpose.

Concerns

First a couple concerns that I need to remind myself occasionally to keep this endeavor in check:

• Right out of the chute I am concerned with being able to keep the game appropriate for the casual card players who usually play it…
• …while extending to other gamers. This tightrope may be razor thin.
• Since the game is so simple, I am immediately adding to it and adding… “mechanics soup, order up.”

At a Glance

In this first post let’s just take a glance at how Nines is played, what’s good about it and what needs work . I’ll post these on a separate page so I can easily refer to them later. One of the first challenges is to define what the game is today – variants abound – so I will simply start with how I have been taught to play. The “original” rules are in a separate post so they can be referenced easily.

Note: As the design evolves, there will be new rules introduced and existing ones changed. For expedience, I won’t post every new rule set, but will try to describe those changes. When I have reached a game and rule set that I think are final, I’ll post the new rules in the Games section.

Initial Assessment

Before doing a makeover of the game, I want to consider "what works" and "what needs work" in this initial assessment.

What Works:

Now with the rules understood, let’s see what is good about the game – what works.

• Accessible
  • Simple Rules
  • Teach/Learn in 2 minutes.
    • No rules exceptions.
  • Simple Components
    • 2 – 3 standard decks of playing cards.
• Scalable
  • 2-3 players with 2 decks.
  • 4-6 players with 3 decks.
  • Can push to as many players as you have decks (yawn).
• Quick Setup (Initial)
  • From opening the packs of cards to playing the first hand is about 3 minutes.
• Quick Rounds (Low downtime between plays in a round).
  • Typical time for a round is maybe 10-15 seconds per player.
• Quick Hands
  • Typical time for a hand is about 5-6 minutes per player.
• Game Length
  • Players can decide on a threshold score to end the game (and therefore the approximate duration of the game).
• Scoring
  • “Low Score Wins”
    • Not rare in card games, but also not that common, trying to score low adds interest to the game.
  • Quick and simple scoring method. Though, you need a pad and pencil.
• Finish Final Round
  • Once one player initiates the end of the hand, all other players get a final turn.
• Streamlined
  • A combination of other factors listed here, but the game is just very smooth in operation.
• Cascading (though Random)
  • Since discards can often be beneficial to the next player (particularly since many are discarded blindly) it is typical for a bunch of benevolent discards in a row.  In the metagame this often resolves to essentially passing the discard to the next player instead of discarding it with a sigh and an, “oh, sure!” (or something close to that).
• Visual
  • Building the tableau in front of you has an attraction as well as it provides everyone with easy visual cues as to how close someone is to ending the round..

What Needs Work:

It appears that there is plenty to like about this game (though the reasons may be thin), but what makes it less than great – what needs work? (In no particular order).

• Unmitigated Randomness
  • Easily 90+% luck. Make that 98% luck if all players have “card sense.”
• Few Decisions
  • There are very few decisions and most are dead simple. (At least, a positive in that is even the most AP prone players don’t have much to cogitate on.)
• Bland
  • Although the game is also called 9-Card Golf, it really has no theme. The golf reference is simply related to the similarity to golf in the objective is to score the lowest on 9 cards/holes and in some cases, the game is played in 9 or 18 hands.
• Multiplayer Solitaire
  • There is almost nothing a player can do to affect another player.
  • The progress of other players is only interesting when they are close to ending the hand.
• Game Length
  • The typical score threshold to cause the end of game is 100. The threshold has to be set high enough to mitigate a few random bad hands causing the end, but low enough to mitigate the game overstaying its welcome. Due to high randomness and low variation, that perfect threshold may not exist.
  • The end of the game is uncertain and not in full view of the players. (Not uncommon, but I think less than desirable for this simple, already very random game).
• Redundancy
  • Play is essentially the same with very little change within a round, a hand, and a game. Someone may press their luck a little more if they need to make a big point swing in the last hand – go for broke – but there is little they can do if the cards aren’t there.
  • There is no narrative arc to the game.
• Wasted Information
  • The card suit is ignored – half of the information is wasted.
• Wasted Cards (Chaff)
  • Many cards have no real value in the game other than as filler. Any card with a value above 5 or 6 is generally ignored in collections unless luck has it that a pair is made quickly. It would seem that if few players are interested in face cards, the one player that is will easily collect them, but another player will be urged to rush to a finish to catch them with lots of points.
• Frustration
  • Related to randomness. Since discards are often done blindly, the player often sees that they have discarded something they really wanted. Although, this has a gambling attraction for some.
• Hand Setup
  • Although relatively quick in theory, shuffling 162 cards, particularly for a set collection game, every 12 minutes is wearing. (This is when the players refill their tea and chat about the weather.)
• Narrative Arc
  • As suggested by the Bland and Redundant issues described, there is no narrative much less a narrative arc to this game. Maybe one isn’t to be expected, but we’ll watch for indications of what can be done.

Design Workbench

I immediately had several ideas about how to change up this game and noted them on my planning board (subject for another article). However, I am applying the changes stepwise and analyzing the results before making other changes.

Theme Me

Since this exercise not only started with a mechanism, but a complete game, any theme at this point may be considered to be “pasted on.” However, I am generally a theme-first gamer so the first change I want to make to the game is to apply a theme so that all future decisions are impacted by and hopefully will conform to the theme. Like making over a room in the house, we already know the purpose of the room and are starting by pasting on the wall paper before we have selected the furniture and wall-hangings. We are setting the décor of this room with the theme.

First Thoughts

While extending the theme of golf may seem like the obvious choice, there is nothing about this game that makes me think of golf. However, a collection of things that have point values equal to the depicted number except the highest depicted point card has a value of zero made me think of clocks. So, some early thematic thoughts:

• The 12 o’clock card scores zero. 12:00 is also 00:00.
• Of course, these clocks have to be collectible so they are fancy and/or antique.
• The collection already has clocks in it: some (3) that are known and some that are of unknown value.

So if the numbered cards are replaced by cards:

• With clocks with times on the hour of 1 – 10,
• And the Kings are replaced by 12:00 cards,
• What about the Jacks and Queens? What about 11:00? Pitch them all.

OK, I have already broken the theme. I am using clocks on the hours without 11:00, but I’m moving on.

Early Graphic Design (concept)

Employing the clock and collections concepts to the graphic design and art:

• The card faces for point cards have clocks with their faces depicting their values as times 1-10 and 12 on the hour.
• The card faces depict suit (still 4) by the type of clock depicted (traditional mantle, pendulum, torsion pendulum, etc.)
• The jokers are special clocks that do not match any others. For now, they can still be in their packing crates marked Fragile. (They must be Italian clocks).
• The card backs depict a dusty clock obscured by cobwebs and in sepia tone or grey scale.

Name Me

So now the game is one of collecting clocks, but oddly enough, for the time displayed on their faces, not for the type of clocks. Collecting clocks for an odd reason? Hmmm. Welcome to:

Eclectic Clock Collectors

Story Me

A peculiar and scary old gentleman has hired you to complete his collection of antique clocks. He has three shelves with enough room to hold three clocks each. His collection starts with three clocks that you have identified and (for now) six clocks that are too dusty to recognize. More than just collecting clocks, though, the old collector says he is "saving time." You aren’t sure what he means by this, but he says you will be rewarded for collecting clocks that have stopped at the same time.

Playtest

Prototype

Using the 3 standard decks that I had assembled to play the original game, I just eliminated the Jacks and Queens.

Playing

I simulated 2 and 4 player games several times. The Jacks eloped with the Queens and were not missed. The increased percentage of valued cards (Joker, K, A, 2-5, maybe 6) is real. Though not highly perceptible, in game speed, the frustration of getting one of those usually unwanted face cards is gone.

New Rules

The deck has changed, but there are no specific rules changes yet.

Working It Out

So have I made any progress with these minor changes?

• Bland
  • I have a theme that is at least a little more interesting and has potential narrative for game mechanisms.
• Wasted Components
  • I have trimmed the deck by 15% and eliminated cards that are mostly overlooked or unwanted. Though, still a long way to go on this one.
• Wasted Information
  • I haven’t addressed this directly yet, but I am making an artistic commitment to suit which will have to be addressed.

Design Workbench

Starting the Game

The first thing that bothers me about this game is the first thing that happens. Each player turns up 3 cards as their starting collection. At least in the version I was taught, they can put these in the grid however they want, but this is still very random and a player can feel like they have nothing to start with.

So I introduced a market at the beginning to “buy” the first three cards. Instead of dealing 9 cards to each player and then turning up 3 each, I dealt 6 cards to each player and then turned 3 cards up in the center to form a market. Players in turn select one of the cards from the market and a new card is turned up to replace it. Once all players have 3 cards from the market, they arrange their grid. Technically, it does not matter if the 6 unrevealed cards are dealt before or after the market, but for now we’ll stick with the deal being first.

Thematically, the collectors start their collection by going to an estate sale or collectibles auction. The competition for the treasures is heavy, but they eventually come home with their first 3 clocks. This is called the Start Phase or the Auction Phase. So the game now has three distinct phases:

• Start Phase: Drawing from the market and setting up the initial 3 x 3 grids (Cabinets).
• Collection Phase: Drawing/Discarding and placing new cards into the Cabinet.
• End Phase: Once one player completes their Cabinet to the end of the hand.

Ending the Game

At this point I also tinkered with the end of the game. Playing to a predetermined threshold is not uncommon, but it is arbitrary. Playing 9 or 18 hands (to simulate holes in golf) is arbitrary and a long game. I decided to see how the game would play with no shuffling and playing once through the deck(s). This would provide a predictable end to the game, keep the game length about the same for any number of players, and maybe add some interest on the last hand when the draw pile, and therefore time, is running out.

Playtest

Prototype and Playing

Still using the 3 standard decks that I had assembled to play the original game, I played several 2, 3, and 4 player hands using the 3 card market to select the original 3 cards for each collection. At this point, I am neglecting the higher player counts mostly since it takes so much more time to test and I am making minor changes and refining. The market is definitely most interesting at the lower play count (2-3) than at 4, since each player has a greater chance of getting a second card from the market that they have their eye on. If this doesn’t play well at higher player counts, I am assuming for now that more cards in the market will remedy the problem, so I am moving on.

Playing to the end of the deck (at its current size) the hands per game look like this:

• 2 players = 4 hands
• 3 players = 3 hands
• 4 players = 2 hands
• 5+ players = 1 hand with 3 decks, but boosting with another deck for every two additional players should get 2 hands.

While I was at it, I tinkered around with the idea that the players could go to a 3-card market for the entire game, but this did not seem viable in the current state, at least, so I dropped it.

New Rules

The new rules for the Start Phase look something like this:

Start Phase

1. Draw one card from the market in turn order starting with the player to the left of the dealer.
2. Replace the card in the market with the top card from the draw pile.
3. Continue until 3 cards have been drawn.
4. Arrange Cabinet however you want.

Working It Out

So have I made any progress with these changes?

• Unmitigated Randomness
  • At least some of the randomness in setup has been mitigated. Players have options for the cards that they will keep instead of being completely at the mercy of the deal.
• Multiplayer Solitaire
  • The improvement here is small since it only lasts as long as the setup, but right away the player is trying to guess how the other players will choose their cards. Many times the selection is obvious, but a mid to high rank pair in the market is an invitation, especially in a 2 or 3 player game.
• Few Decisions
  • There are a few decisions that have crept into the setup as well to pick a strategy, though still light, on what collections a player may want to start with.
  • With the deck running low in the last hand players may have to change their strategies.
• Game Length
  • The market adds a little time to the setup, but the increase is negligible or there maybe even a decrease since the players are likely to have a better start. Presumably, we have essentially cut through the first few rounds.
  • With the “once through the deck” idea, game length is at least predetermined.
• Frustration
  • We’ve taken a chip out of frustration at setup, but the biggest frustrations, during play, haven’t been touched yet.
• Hand Setup
  • Shuffling within the game has been eliminated, so the hands go quickly. (Now there is only scoring between hands.)

Design Workbench

Player Interaction

The next aspect of the game I want to address is the lack of player interaction. As the game stands, the only interaction is the occasional time that one player has a discard that the next player wants and the first player has the reasonable ability to hold onto it for a while. This doesn’t happen often since,

• Many of the discards are done blindly from the unrevealed cards in the grid.
• The discarding player often has no real choice in where to place a new card (and therefore which card will be discarded).

So there are few opportunities for even this light decision.

The way I see to incorporate some player interaction is through some actions that players can take on one another (seems obvious enough). Since this is a card game, those actions will be on cards, Action Cards. With a variety of actions possible on these cards, I can address some of the other aspects of the game that need work like dealing with some of the frustration related to the randomness of the unrevealed cards and adding some variety and decisions to change up each round.

I can also see a potential use for those unwanted high point cards, but for now I’ll just introduce the Action Cards to the deck and see how they work in play.

Here is a list of Action Cards that came about fairly quickly, categorized by their general effect (help me, hinder you). I wanted 3-4 cards in three levels of impact:

• Help Me Cards
  • Related to the Collection:
    • Dust the Shelf: Reveal any unrevealed card in your collection. (Cannot be the last card in a Collection)?
    • Get an Appraisal: Peek at any unrevealed card in any player's collection (including your own).
    • Spring Cleaning: Swap any 2 cards on your shelves (revealed or unrevealed).
  • Related to Drawing/Discarding Cards:
    • Collector's Road Show: Draw 3 cards (or some number related to the number of players) from the draw pile and use the Card of your choice. Return the others in any order.
    • One Man's Trash: Draw 3 cards (or some number related to the number of players) from the discard pile and use the Card of your choice. Discard the others in any order.
    • Time and Time Again: Play Again.
• Hinder You/Take That Cards
  • Back in Time: Turn over any revealed Clock Card in any player's cabinet.
  • Steal a Minute: Steal a revealed Clock Card from any collection.
  • Time Out: Send any Clock Card from anyone's collection to the discard pile.
  • Time Travel: Trade two Clock Cards between any 2 players.
• Other Cards
  • New Action: I threw these in and played an action that would come to mind – what I wish the card would allow me to do at that time.
  • Swap Meet: Trade one Clock Card with any willing player. (I found there was a shortage of “willing” players – even when they were all me – so this is retired for now).
  • Time Warp: I wanted an action that would change the time on a Clock Card, but this is not feasible at this time.

A few of these actions may result in an empty place in a player’s collection. For now all the Action Cards have the wording: “That player immediately replaces the card with the top card of the draw pile, in the same state (revealed/unrevealed) as the card that is replaced.”

I created them through thinking about a combination of thematic, clock collecting/time-related ideas, and typical card effects. As a result, they all have time themed names that are descriptive of the action. Unfortunately, they are a mixture of names that represent physical things you may do related to collecting clocks and concepts related to time. So, though they sound consistent, they aren’t really. Even so, they will do for now.

Playing with Probability

Also at this time, I decided to try playing with the number of 10s in the game. I had wanted to do this earlier, but this change required a change to the testing decks (to be easily tested) that I was dragging my feet on. Since 7, 8, 9, and 10 are generally unwanted cards, I doubled the number of 10s in the game. New players of the original game usually ask if they can collect Jacks and Queens together anyway. So now there are:

• 3 cards in 4 suits for values 1-9 and 12.
• 6 cards in 4 suits for value 10.
• 6 cards (total) of no suit for the “Special Treasures” valued at -3.
• 3 cards of no suit for each of 10 “Action Cards” with no point value.

Playtest

Prototype

At this point the original decks aren’t going to cut it without modification, so I created labels for each card that I applied to the original decks. The Clock Cards have a clock face with the number that is their point value in large print. They are in 4 colors (black, blue, red, and green). I pasted over the Jacks for the second set of 10s. The Jokers now say “Unique Treasure” and have a picture of a crate with a “FRAGILE” sticker on it. The Action Cards have their name, a brief description of their effect, and a picture of an alarm clock.

 

Playing

There was a lot to test here so the improved prototype was very helpful. Especially since I was trying to determine the impact to the duration of hands and games, trying to figure out what a card means would be too disruptive. As it was, adding the Action Cards to the deck had several unwanted impacts, like increasing the deck size and therefore eliminating any chance of running out of cards in the final round. I was fine with the deck as is for this testing, though, as I was mostly interested in testing the actions allowed by the Action Cards – do they work, are they fun, etc. I played many 2, 3, and 4 player games and revised the actions throughout the process.

I also created a spreadsheet for recording several statistics for every hand and game, paying particular attention to the use of Action Cards. The spreadsheet allows for testing alternate scoring mechanisms and summarizes the results for the different player counts to show any oddities. (average, min, and max of time, cards, and scores).

As for the 10s, they are a lot more attractive now and make for great fodder for the Action Cards that manipulate cards in the Cabinets.

Note: With the addition of action cards that affect how cards are drawn, I have all but eliminated the possibility of using the market once the hand begins.

New Rules

As a result of having the Action Cards in the game, I had to create a few new rules. Some may be temporary, depending on how the Action Cards are ultimately implemented, but these will work for now:

Start Phase

• If an Action Card is drawn for the market, set it aside (“burned”) and draw again.

Collection Phase Rules related to Action Cards:

• An Action Card can only be used once.
• An Action Card must be either played for its Action immediately or discarded.
  • If used for its Action, the card is discarded perpendicular to the discard pile to indicate that it is used and cannot be drawn. (Years of Canasta taught me this trick.)
  • If discarded unused, it is placed in the discards normally and the next player may choose to draw and use it.
• If the use of an Action Card creates a hole in a player’s collection, the player immediately draws a replacement card and place it face down to fill the gap.
• Once a player has completed a collection on a shelf (all the same number) that shelf is locked and another player cannot use an Action Card to disrupt it. (This may be temporary. I am considering the concept of “locking” a shelf and how that may be implemented.) This is to limit the ability of the “Take That” mechanism to drag out a round.

Working It Out

So have I made any progress with these changes?

• Unmitigated Randomness
  • The Action Cards allow for several mitigations to randomness:
  • Pre-mitigation: Drawing multiple cards and choosing one.
  • Post-mitigation: Shuffling clocks on the shelves and between players.
• Few Decisions
  • The Action Cards introduce quite a few new decisions and some that can be quite interesting. EX: I may want to force you to discard a low point card, but the next player will get it from the discards, so I may be better off causing you to discard a mid-level card that is paired up.
• Bland
  • Some new actions that relate to collecting clocks have been added that generally function within the game as the thematic action would indicate.
• Multiplayer Solitaire
  • Some actions have been added that allow players to effect other players directly.
• Game Length
  • The Action Cards themselves do not add significant time to the game, but they present tougher decisions that can result in slowed play; particularly with higher player counts. EX: If you can trade a card with any of 3 other players, you are considering as many as 24 other cards.
• Redundancy
  • The Action Cards do much to eliminate the redundancy of the game. With about 25% of the cards now providing an alternate play, most rounds are impacted by the Action Cards.
• Wasted Cards
  • The 10s are now a vital part of the game and actually add interest to the use of Action Cards.
  • The 7, 8, and 9 point cards are still mostly unused and unwanted, so there is no progress on these (yet).
• Frustration
  • The Action Cards alleviate some of the frustration by providing other means to get the cards you need and to retrieve a card that was lost.

Design Workbench

Catching Up

In this round I am going to catch up on a few things that have happened over the previous rounds, but I have been building information over time.

Player Order

At first I was concerned that the player order would have some impact on which player went out first or the score (First Player Preference). Playtesting statistics so far don’t show a bias, even though in my testing statistics Player 1 is always the player to the left of the dealer, their average score is in line with other players at 2, 3, and 4 player counts.

In any case, I had some ideas to mitigate any problem that may exist which at this point are not implemented. On the shelf for future reference if needed are:

• Players draw from the market in reverse order during the Start Phase.
• The deal passes to the person who was the first to complete their Cabinet in the previous hand.

Round Dynamics

One of the issues that I wanted to work on in this game was the lack of variability in how each round, hand, and game played out. To be fair, each round has a slight arc, but the game is really just a series of rounds. There is not much difference in play one round to the next. Did the introduction of the Action Cards have any impact? With the introduction of some “Take That” opportunities there could be a pile on the leader in later rounds, but not so much if the “Take That” is limited or light as we have seen so far. So this is what a round looks like and how the use of Action Cards varies within them:

Round Dynamics Observed:

• Early Round:
  • Establish Sets
• Middle Round:
  • Collect Sets
  • Adjust Sets (based on card count/availability and potential risk, etc.)
• Late Round:
  • Finish Sets
  • Limit Losses

Round Dynamics and Actions:

The Action Cards definitely have an impact on the decisions available and options taken, but the general round dynamics stay pretty much the same. Here is how the Action Cards seem to be used based on type:

• Reveal Actions seem to have little importance in the Early Round and pick up slightly in the Middle Round.  They are very situational and pick up in the Late Round.
• Draw Actions seem to keep the same relative importance in the Early and Middle Round – they are mostly situational – but pick up in the Late Round.
• Interactive Actions have little use in the Early Round but seem to increase in importance in the Middle and Late Round.

Playtest

Prototype

There were no updates to the prototype for these changes.

Playing

I continued to collect stats on the use of the Action Cards and noted (not hard stats) these uses by Action Card type and point in the round:

• How many Action Cards are “burned” in the initial market?
  • Since at this point there is no way to add an Action Card to the grid, they are immediately “burned” and a replacement card added to the market.
  • The number of Action Cards burned this way was frustratingly high, but I must have patience for now.
• If an Action Card is drawn from the draw pile is it likely to be used?
  • A high percentage of Action Cards were used.
    • Sometimes the rationale was purely to prevent the next player from having the action available to them.
• If an unused Action Card is in the discard pile is it preferred over drawing an unknown card from the draw pile?
  • This was highly situational as described in the Round Dynamics and Actions section above.
• If an Action Card is drawn from the discard pile is it likely to be used?
  • At this point there is no other reason to draw an Action Card from the discards.

We’ll look at these questions again as we continue to incorporate the Action Cards into the game.

Working It Out

This round did not introduce any changes, so there isn’t much to report here.

• Unmitigated Randomness
  • The potential changes to player order were intended to address any problems here that may turn up, but as yet, I don’t have the data to indicate a problem.
• Few Decisions and Redundancy
  • Not only did the Action Cards provide new decisions, but these decisions and when an Action Card is seen as a good option vary throughout the round.
• Hand Setup
  • Having the Action Cards implemented as separate cards in the deck, makes managing the deck a little more fiddly. So this is something to monitor as they are fully implemented.

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):

• 7 = Iron (black) Key = “Help Me” Collection Action Cards
  • Originally, I called these Brass Keys which seemed more thematic for collectible clocks, but the color is too close to gold, so I quickly changed to iron.
• 8 = Silver Key = “Help Me” Drawing Action Cards
• 9 = Gold Key = “Hinder You” Take That Action Cards

Graphically, these cards continue to have the clock, but also have a picture of the appropriate key. They can be used as either a Clock Card or to activate/acquire an Action Card, though the likelihood of them being used as a Clock Card is even less than before.

Locking-in Progress

Until this point I have had a rule that a Take That Action cannot be done on a Clock Card that is in a completed collection – the shelf was described as “locked.” It was convenient to have locking happen automatically for a while, but now it is time to consider how a player can lock a shelf. If the player has the option to take a turn to lock a shelf a few positive things happen that are described in the Working It Out section below.

Micro-iterations: Making these changes at the same time might be moving two balls at once, but I see them as integral and did short iterations (a few hands) on each. The decision to take an Action Card is based mostly on the current state of the collection.

Playtest

Prototype

These were the changes for this prototype:

• I pulled the Action Cards back out of the deck and pasted a picture of a lock (of the appropriate material: Iron, Silver, and Gold) on the back.
  • I hope this is a good idea because pasting on the back of the card essentially commits to pulling these cards out of the deck.
• I wrote the name of the appropriate key on the faces of all the 7, 8, and 9 point cards.

Playing

Separating the Action Cards from the deck cut the deck size back down and eliminated the confusion about what to do with them. I like the decision on what to do with a Key Card and have used them for the Lock to protect a row with a completed set or a low total. Their use to buy and Action Card is still uncertain because there are 3 or 4 possible Action Cards in the draw pile for each type of key. I thought about laying out the different types, but this made a mess in the center of the table. The table starts to look a little overwhelming for a casual gamer. Eventually, I decided to provide the option to use an Action Card immediately or to save it for later. This seems like a solid change; making the randomness of the Action Card drawn less bothersome and providing another option, but at the cost of a turn. The new rules are below.

Having to buy the locks is a nice addition. Leaders are quick to spend a turn to protect what they have accumulated.

• How many Action Cards are “burned” in the initial market?
  • This problem has been eliminated.
• If a Key Card is drawn from the draw pile is it likely to be used to acquire an Action Card?
  • Except in the case when an equivalent Key Card was placed in the collection during the initial draft, this is exclusively how the card will be used.
• If an unused Key Card is in the discard pile is it preferred over drawing an unknown card from the draw pile?
  • This often seems like a press your luck strategy (since the exact Action is not known until after the Action Card is drawn).
  • This may be done to acquire a Lock to protect valuable rows.
  • Providing the Action Card Space to accumulate Action Cards makes them even a little more enticing.
• If a Key Card is drawn from the discard pile is it likely to be used to acquire an Action Card?
  • Except in the case when an equivalent Key Card was placed in the collection during the initial draft, this is exclusively the reason to draw it.

Though, there are a few more ideas worth investigating, the current rules and configuration need more playtesting to collect statistics and to accumulate player comments before changing more.

• When a Key Card is used to buy an Action Card, the Action Card can be:
  • Used immediately for its Action.
  • Used as a Lock to protect a row in the grid.
  • Placed in the Action Space for later use. A card in the Action Space may be played on any turn instead of taking a normal turn. The options for use are the same as when drawn.
• When a Lock is played to protect a row, it is played Lock side up to the Lock Space – the space immediately to the left of the row.

Working It Out

So have I made any progress with these changes?

• Unmitigated Randomness
  • Allowing players to put an Action Card in the Action Space for later use mitigates the randomness of the card drawn. It can likely be helpful later.
• Few Decisions
  • Having the option to keep an Action Card for later use, though at the cost of another turn, makes the decision a little harder to turn down.
  • Having the option to lock a shelf – protect it from changes – provides players another decision that makes the game more interesting. The decision to lock/not lock might be based on the other player types at the table which adds to the metagame.
• Bland
  • Hopefully, the game is getting a little more interesting.
• Multiplayer Solitaire
  • With the ability to lock a shelf, but requiring a turn to do it encourages other players to interfere with progress more quickly.
• Game Length
  • The game length has not changed significantly as a result of these changes. The setup is a little longer to setup the Action Card draw piles.
• Wasted Cards (Chaff)
  • Although there are several Clock Cards that are still not interesting as Clock Cards, they have value for their actions.
• Frustration
  • Having the option to lock a shelf allows players to lock in progress and protect themselves from other meddlesome players.

Design Workbench

Introduction

With the Picky Packrats game essentially design-complete, I do not intend to dedicate much more time on the Nines game framework – at least for now. However, through the design process several other alternate uses of the framework came to mind that might be explored. Some of these mechanics seemed like great ideas, but were left out of the design for various reasons: They didn’t fit the original game of Nines and its target player, they added unnecessary complexity to a game that was intended to be dirt simple, or they didn’t fit the feel or theme of the game. I describe them here with a minimal amount of detail in part for posterity, but also in case one of them insists on my attention. Game design pieces conceived in the process of one game’s design process tend to find their way into other games. In fact, I describe a different game at the end that incorporates some of these lost ideas.

Alternate Directions

Here are some of the alternate or additional mechanics that have come to mind through the design process that I chose to leave out (or at least, leave for another day).

Common Initial State

The initial state in Picky Packrats still retains much of the randomness present in the original game of Nines. As stated in my original objectives, I was trying to mitigate the absolute randomness of the game, while trying to maintain an “acceptable” amount to keep the game recognizable to those who play the original. There are many who enjoy this input randomness.

A game with a common initial state (like chess or checkers) probably tends toward the abstract, which was admittedly my starting point, but not my desired endpoint. A common initial state also results in a greater competition of skill, which was definitely outside the realm of the family game I was targeting – one in which new or young players don’t always get pummeled. Also, given the game’s simplicity, this would drive the game too much toward puzzle instead of game.

Common Actions – Action Selection

Obviously, Action Selection (like in worker placement games) is an extremely useful and appreciated mechanic. There are many flavors of this as well, so it is difficult to address the mechanic so generally.

In Picky Packrats due to the minimalistic approach and also the intent of each card having variable and conflicting value – point vs. action – action selection was not really an option. It could effectively be achieved if each player started with the same deck, but there are many reasons for this combination to be ignored.

In designing Eclectic Clock Collectors, I definitely considered using a limited supply of known actions that players drew. This would accomplish much of the typical outcomes of the action selection mechanic; known, limited actions, blocking, etc.

Special Information – Cards Held in Hand

Special information, like holding cards in hand only known to one player, can add a greater degree of strategy to a game.

In part in trying to maintain a semblance of the original game and especially targeting the prime objective of paring down the components to the bare minimum, I opted to exclude any player cards held outside of the tableau. The cards that are left out of the game accomplish part of the objective of special information (technically imperfect information), but does not gain all the benefits.

However, in my original Nines makeover, Eclectic Clock Collectors, players can keep action cards for later use, which tries to take advantage of this mechanic, though still a slightly limited way (only certain cards can be held).

Spatial Elements – Orientation

Obviously, Picky Packrats is a very spatial game (pun intended), but throughout, as much as I wanted to incorporate card/tile orientation into the game, ultimately I didn’t. Orientation just seemed like a great fit for the framework, a missed opportunity or even a missed requirement. I leveraged all other states and attributes of the cards – Location, Exposed Side, Content (Point Value, Color, and Action). However, it never seemed to fit with the direction I took, particularly in scoring.

Finally, when the game transmogrified from Nines Micro to Picky Packrats, card orientation especially felt like it was perfect, but for a different game. Orientation seems to fit best with a game that:

1. Tiles (or at least, square cards, but chunky, weighty tiles in particular).
2. A Prescribed Pattern (rather than general layout objectives like in Picky Packrats).
3. A Thematic Reference (a reason why orientation matters).

Variable and Hidden Objectives

The variable objectives mechanic opens a lot of opportunity within a game to pique player engagement and to extend re-playability. In Picky Packrats everyone has the same objective (make sets and collections). The sets in rows and columns is the very basis of the original game and adding the color collections was as far as I wanted to deviate from that original framework for this game.

Making the personal objectives hidden can prevent others from dashing their opponent’s efforts too easily. Given my primary objective in the design of increasing player interaction, this mechanic may have moved the design the wrong direction. Hidden objectives can also add an element of deduction to the game – what is she trying to build over there? Given the intended short duration of the game, though, that deduction may have been a lost cause.

However, both variable and hidden objectives could still be integrated into Picky Packrats with a slightly modified scoring model.

Variable Player Powers

The variable player powers mechanic also opens a lot of opportunity within a game to pique player engagement and to extend re-playability.

Variable player powers may not be the first thing you think about when you think of packrats, but it is not outside reason that one packrat would have special abilities or, at least, preferences. This mechanic could still be added to the game without much effort and without breaking the game (given testing), but was beyond the level of complexity that I desired for the game. I was trying to keep it accessible to players of the traditional Nines game and this mechanic would put the game firmly outside the reach of the targeted players.

A  New Game Emerging

Miniature Golf Course Designer

This game design has been developing in my mind in parallel with Picky Packrats and has almost been compelling enough to pull my attention to it next. I intimated the possible direction by calling Nines Micro “Miniature Golf.” I think it has potential to be a great game, but a few reasons I am leaving it on the shelf for now are:

1. I don’t want to be constrained to one game framework (or to appear to be limited in my ideas).
2. I have only limited time to dedicate to this endeavor and other design ideas are boiling over on their back burners.
3. Picking it up while Picky Packrats is still fresh in my mind may drive me to use too much of the same material and concepts.

That said, Miniature Golf Course Designer was evolving precisely because I was not using some of the mechanics that came to mind in Picky Packrats that made perfect sense for this game. Thinking of the Mystery Rummy series of games reminds me that exploring different games within a simple framework is not always such a bad idea.

Some reasons why Miniature Golf Course Designer deserves some attention:

1. It leverages some of the alternate mechanics considered in Picky Packrats that were grudgingly left out.
2. It leverages all attributes of a tile’s state (Location, Exposed Side, Content, and Orientation).
3. It is (to my knowledge) a previously unexplored theme.
4. It is a very “fun” theme – who wouldn’t want to design their own miniature golf course?
5. Though of the same origins, it is a very different game from Picky Packrats and Eclectic Clock Collectors.

You can read all about Miniature Golf Course Designer in the Games section. At the time I am writing this, it is in the Concept phase, but maybe by the time you are reading this it has progressed from there. I may not cover its development process in this blog as closely as I have done for Picky Packrats and Eclectic Clock Collectors, but the outcomes will be (hopefully) maintained in its Games section entry.

 

Description and Rules

“Nines” is a simple set collection card game for 2 or more players played in a series of hands. The game is played with 2 or more standard decks of cards (jokers included), depending on the number of players. We play 2 decks for 2 – 3 players, 3 decks for 4 – 6 players. (I have not played with more than 6 players, but presumably the game will scale with more decks – it just won’t be fun.)

Setup

1. At the beginning of each hand nine cards are dealt face down to each player.
2. Each player turns over 3 of their 9 cards at random and arranges their cards into a 3 x 3 grid, putting the 3 face up cards wherever they want.
3. One card of the stock is turned over to start a discard pile. The stock is the draw pile.
4. The first player is the person to the left of the dealer.

Objective

1. Score the fewest points by:
   1. Making the most sets of the same number in rows and columns of the grid. All cards in a set score 0.
   2. Having the lowest point total of cards that are not in sets; including some special cards that score 0 or -3.

Play

1. In turn each player does the following:
   1. Draw one card from the draw or discard piles.
   2. Either:
      
      1. Replace any card in their tableau with the new card played face up and discard the card that was replaced.  -OR-
      2. Discard the card that was drawn.
   3. Their turn is ended.
2. Play continues until one player has all nine cards in their tableau face up. They are done.
3. The rest of the players turn all of their cards face up in place.
4. The final round is completed with the rest of players having one more turn.

Scoring

1. The hand:
   1. Kings always score 0.
   2. Jokers always score -3.
   3. All of the cards in a set score 0.
   4. Cards not in a set:
      
      1. Jacks and Queens score 10.
      2. All other cards score face value.
2. The game:
   
   1. Keep a running total of player scores at the end of each hand.

Winning

As soon as at least one player has reached a predetermined score (usually 100) the player with the lowest total score wins.

Imperfect Record:

In comparing the rules as I have learned them with what I have found online, it is obvious that I am working from an imperfect record of the original game.

Traditional Game Rules

Most people learn the rules for games from someone else, never have to read the rules, and therefore don’t really know if they are playing the game according to the rules.  This lack of rules knowledge is even greater for traditional games where the rules have been “handed down” verbally many times without any reference to the actual rules if indeed they exist. It is interesting to compare rules for the same game with someone who has learned them through a different genetic tree.

Like comparing documents derived through different paths from the same origin, one might reconstruct the original document. Don’t worry, I won’t go through all that, but an interesting side exercise for my Game Makeover of Nines is to compare some rules variations. I located several rules sets online, but for expedience will stick to a comparison of the rules as I learned them (hereafter known as the “JP Document”) to the rules recorded in BGG (hereafter known as the “BGG Document”). Let’s compare and evaluate the variations and maybe speculate a little as to why the variants exist. My assumption is that variations probably represent house rules made over time to tweak the game in different ways to make it shorter, easier, more fun, etc.

Variations

The variations are tabulated below with a color key indicating their relative benefit:

• Positive
• Negative
• Neutral

BGG Document	Comparison	JP Document
Setup
Turn over two cards in different columns.	JP makes for a quicker hand and some (minor) decisions on placement – mitigating luck.	Turn over 3 cards and arrange however you want.
Game Play
A drawn card may be played face down on the tableau.*	BGG allows for some deception / bluffing, but with the option of only turning over 1 card at the end, it is minor.	All cards drawn that are placed in the collection go in face up.
The game is one hand.	BGG is faster. JP mitigates good/bad luck potential of one hand.	The game is a series of rounds to a predetermined score.
Final Round
Players have the option of turning one card over before their last play.**	JP allows for greater shift in final round – mitigating luck. (Though potential is still relatively small). Sometimes a set is made with the revealed cards.	Players turn over all cards once one player has completed their collection.
Scoring
Only cards in columns can count as sets.	JP allows for more sets and 2nd sets require only 2 cards – essentially applies a graduated scoring mechanism.	Sets can be made in columns and rows.
Aces score 0 points.	Minor difference. Aces (and 2s) are usually mixed with Kings and Jokers to make low scoring non-sets anyway.	Aces score 1 point.

* Not certain if this is only applies to cards drawn from the draw pile.

** Not certain if this is instead of drawing a card.

Glossary

In addition to the standard card playing terms, I have derived a few new ones for this makeover. Not all are used right away, but I will keep a running glossary in a separate post that can be referenced at any time. This may look like a lot of terminology for a simple game, but it is intended to be used intuitively. Defining terms helps that happen.

• Action: Specifically, the action described on an Action Card.
• Action Card: A card that describes an Action on it.
  • Collection Actions: Actions that involve Clock Cards in that player’s 3 x 3 grid.
  • Card Actions: Actions that involve drawing and discarding cards.
  • Interactive Actions: Actions that can involve another player's 3 x 3 grid.
• Action Space: The space below the grid where unused Action Cards are kept.
• Cabinet: The thematic reference to the 3 x 3 grid or Complete Collection.
• Clock Card: Any of the cards that have a clock on them and are used in collections.
• Clock Type: The type of clock (effectively, suit and corresponding color) depicted on a Clock Card.
• Collection: Any row of 3 Clock Cards that have the same point/time value.
• Complete Collection: The 3 x 3 grid of Clock Cards.
• Key/Key Card: Any Clock Card that also has a key on it.
• Lock(ed): A row in the 3 x 3 grid that has been locked with a Lock Card.
• Lock Card: A card that depicts a lock and is used to lock a row.
• Lock Space: The space to the immediate left of the grid where Locks are placed.
• Revealed: A card in the grid that is face up.
• Reveal(ing): Turning a Clock Card in the grid face up.
• Set: Any row or column of 3 Clock Cards that have the same Clock Type/color/suit.
• Shelf: The thematic reference to the rows in the grid.
• Time/Value/Points: All refer to the point value of the Clock Card indicated by the time on the clock.
• Unrevealed: A Clock Card in the grid that is face down.
• Used/Unused: An Action Card that has / has not been used for its Action.

Playtesting

A few words about the playtesting approach are in order so they are not necessary in every posting.

Approach

Most of the changes made are playtested one at a time to avoid ambiguous cause and effect unless two or more changes can be made either to complement one another (intentionally as a unit) or it is quite certain that they have unrelated effects.

Player Types

See my other post about using Player Types in Playtesting . A high level description of their strategies and how they are exhibited in this game follows. Due to the multiplayer solitaire history of this game, the player types that focus on their own collection will be the most common among players who know the game. In rough order of expected occurrence:

• Perfectionists: In this game, a Perfectionist will try to get every Set and Collection possible to score 0 or less and won’t worry too much about the progress of other players.
• Soloists: In this game, a Soloist completely ignores opportunities to impact others and does not try to hold cards that the next player can use.
• Rushers: In this game, a Rusher hopes to catch others with an incomplete collection started with higher cards or with high cards yet Unrevealed.
• Pushers/Pressers: In this game, a Pusher is willing to start Collections with higher cards, hoping they will be discarded by others and therefore abundant.
• Opportunists: In this game, an Opportunist will ditch a Collection that has cards that are in decreasing number and take advantage of Action Cards.
• Long-Gamers: Though the “long game” here is not very long, in this game, a Long-Gamer is more likely to hold onto their original Collections, waiting for the right cards to come.
• Fiddlers: In this game, a Fiddler will most likely take advantage of Action Cards unless there is an obvious play to the Collection. They will focus on Action Cards that effect their own Collection.
• Meddlers: In this game, a Meddler will most likely take advantage of Action Cards unless there is an obvious play to the Collection. They will focus on Action Cards that effect the Collections of other players.
• SOBs: In this game, an SOB will most likely take advantage of the “Take That” Action Cards unless there is an absolutely perfect play to the their Collection. They will retaliate when possible.
• Snipers: In this game there are not a lot of opportunities to be so selective with sniping, but a Sniper will try to attack the leader.

Note: The specific strategies of each of these player types varies based on the elements of the game at the time of testing.