Brackey's has a good tutorial on this. It teaches both how to use a tool and steps to creating a good-sounding piece.
UpperC
Creator of
Recent community posts
Cool to see you got a full board clear! When initially designing the game I feared that unorded matches would make it trivial to find dice combinations, although in hindsight it may have been better. The 'parity' matching condition was added as a sort of duct-tape fix to allow you to re-roll dice because it was too hard to find any straights, doubles or houses under normal circumstances. Were I to remake the game, I'd definitely test how it feels to play with unordered matches.
Big thanks for trying the game and the feedback!
Thanks for the extensive feedback, it helps a lot!
I kind of regret not teaming up with a playtester, as both the comments and watching people play have shown that the game is skewed heavily towards my personal playstyle which is more short-term matching rather than a grand plan. I think the Zachatronic approach you mentioned would be a great way to mediate this, as those games tend to reward you on different criteria.
Also yeah it probably needed a second look at the level/move descriptions. I noticed a few typo's, but it seems some of the moves don't explain themself very well either. You mentioned needing a house in level 6 for a single coin, this shows that I didn't write the house rules in a clear way. You can do larger combinations than 2-3 which increase coin rewards (4-4, 2-6) which could've been communicated more explicitely.
Wildcards being unhelpful was more of an oversight. They choose the move that rewards the most points and don't take into account coins. They're also generally buggy with houses. Board size (and layout) was meant to vary between levels, just didn't have enough time.
Once again, I really appreciate that you took the time to write this feedback. It helps a lot.