Skip to main content

Indie game storeFree gamesFun gamesHorror games
Game developmentAssetsComics
SalesBundles
Jobs
TagsGame Engines
(+1)

I don’t have good English writing skills. I still hope to make myself understood in this comment.

I also leave below an Italian translation of the comment, for those who want to follow the discussion anyway.


Hi Esteban!

You’ve created a very interesting game. I really liked the idea of having the two different maps over time, especially the “character that explores in the past” rule (for 3+ players), as if in the present map the characters follow the footsteps of an ancestor.
Also great idea to include an in-depth example of the game to better explain what you mean. I solved some of the questions I wanted to ask by reading the example.

The only doubts I have are more about the usability of the maps.

  • Why did you choose to give players a few references in the Discover the Past table? Was a different result for each number on the dice too detailed? Do you prefer to give players complete authority to draw what’s in each hexagon?
  • I’m afraid there will be confusion on the two maps during the game. Can players draw a path on both the past and present maps? Or can players use two markers to mirror the drawings?
  • From the example I guess you’ve tried the game.Did you find it easy to manage your movements and new discoveries? Or every time you move in the present you have to stop and roll dice?

Apart from these doubts that concern more the play than the game, I would say that you wrote a very good rules, clean and essential and easy to read.
Bravo!


Ciao Esteban!

Hai creato un gioco molto interessante. Mi è piaciuta molto l’idea dell’avere le due mappe diverse nel tempo, soprattutto la regola (per 3+ giocatori) del personaggio che esplora nel passato, come se nella mappa del presente i personaggi ricalcassero i passi di un antenato.
Ottima idea anche inserire un esempio approfondito di gioco per spiegare meglio cosa intendi. Alcune domande le ho risolte proprio leggendo l’esempio.

Gli unici dubbi che mi sono rimasti sono più sull’usabilità delle mappe.

  • Come mai hai scelto di dare ai giocatori pochi riferimenti nella tabella del Discover the Past? Un risultato diverso per ogni numero era troppo in dettaglio? Preferisci lasciare ai giocatori l’autorità completa del disegnare ciò che c’è in ogni esagono?
  • Ho paura che durante la partita ci si perda sulle due mappe. I giocatori possono tracciare un sentiero sia sulla mappa del passato che quella de presente? Oppure si possono usare due segnalini per rispecchiare i disegni?
  • Dall’esempio immagino tu abbia provato il gioco. Ti è sembrato fluida la gestione degli spostamenti e delle nuove scoperte? Oppure ogni volta che ci si muove nel presente bisogna fermarsi e tirare dadi?

A parte questi dubbi che riguardano più il giocare che il gioco, direi che hai scritto un ottimo regolamento, pulito ed essenziale e facile alla lettura.
Bravo!

Ciao Daniele! Your English is fine 😄
Thank you! Hehe, I have the impression that many questions I had about other games would have been answered by an example, that's why I always try to add one 😄

Regarding the Discover the Past table, it was on purpose: first, to make it more generic; second, to give the players more control. I think I even considered having a bit more detail and having categories like Public Building, Worship Building, and stuff like that, but I think it works better as it is now, for these reasons:

  • If it had categories, all generated maps would tend to have the same statistical distribution of religious buildings, private houses, etc. That limits the settings a lot, because maybe some settlements would never have religious buildings at all, or private houses. Or not as many. Or not as few! I considered having playbooks for different kinds of settlements (with different kinds of buildings and different distributions of the kinds of buildings), but that's a limitation in its own right, and didn't seem necessary.
  • It opens up for possibilities that I haven't thought of! If I added categories, maybe someone could come up with a kind of settlement that needs a kind of building (or kind of fragile path) that I didn't think of.
  • It could be difficult to make sense of why there's a certain kind of building in a certain place (eg. right besides a cliff)... although that kind of limitation can sometimes result in super-interesting possibilities than the players wouldn't think of by themselves! So maybe this is not a big deal.

I'm not completely sure what you mean about the second point, what kind of situation do you think will be problematic? Fragile paths are drawn in the past map, and as they are explored in the present, also on the present map. When they are drawn on the present map, they might be drawn destroyed, that's why they can only be drawn on the present map once they are explored ("resolved") in the present. I don't have the impression it will be confusing, but I haven't played with other people so I don't know!

Regarding your last question, every time you move you have to roll dice at least once, because you are exploring some new hexagon so you don't know its current state (including whether or not you can even enter it!) until you roll. If you want you could move hexagon by hexagon, including "clear path" hexagons... but you have nothing to do in that case, so it's kind of an empty turn, so to speak, so I didn't even consider it. However, if you are wondering if you have to discover the past every time you move in the present, that's not the case! For two reasons:

  1. Every time you discover the past, the "radius" of the discovery is _two_, not one, partly so that you switch between past and present in batches, and not for (almost) every action.
  2. Once you have discovered the past, you have around 7-8 new hexagons to explore, and often the players will want to visit several of those before moving on farther down the map.

I wonder if I should describe more explicitly what happens in a turn and what the possibilities are, do you think that would help?

(+1)

Hi Esteban!

Discovery table: What I meant to expand the Discovery table was more to help players see what they found: a signed or unsigned route, a place with water, reliefs, etc… It doesn’t have to be too detailed, otherwise you’d need a much bigger table and the game doesn’t want that.

Second point: what I mean is that I see the grid of hexagons very wide (even if the one you submitted is not) and I think that players have to continuously figure out where they are because they have no other references.
To better explain: I would find it handy to have a counter on each hexagon to make direct reference from the map of the past to the map of the present.

Give more examples: Surely explaining some mechanical parts might help. I couldn’t tell you if it’s worth more in this case to increase the examples or adjust the text to make it clearer.

Thank you for your answer! Bye


Ciao Esteban!

Discovery table: quello che intendevo per espandere la tabella delle scoperte era più per indicare meglio ai giocatori cosa trovavano: una via segnata o non segnata, un luogo con dell’acqua, dei rilievi, etc… Non per forza troppo in dettaglio, altrimenti avresti bisogno di una tabella molto più grande e il gioco non vuole questo.

Second point: quello che intendo è che vedo la griglia di esagoni molto ampia (seppure quella che hai inviato non lo sia) e credo che i giocatori debbano continuamente calcolare in che punto sono perché non hanno altri riferimenti.
Per spiegare meglio: troverei comodo avere un contatore su ogni esagono per fare riferimento diretto dalla mappa del passato a quella del presente.

Dare più esempi: Sicuramente spiegare alcune parti meccaniche potrebbe aiutare. Non saprei dirti se vale più la pena in questo caso aumentare gli esempi o sistemare il testo per renderlo più chiaro.

Grazie di aver risposto! Ciao