Difference between revisions of "Talk:Press Gang"

From Ludocity
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
+
Looks good; simple at first glance, but with a lot of complexity underneath, the more that I think about strategies. Fantastic theme, as well, particularly the flashbulbs. I imagine it probably needs a playtest to shake out the ideal numbers for the card distributions, but they feel about right.
 
 
{{comment
 
|date=15:21, 15 December 2008
 
|user=[[User:Kevan|Kevan]]
 
|comment=Looks good; simple at first glance, but with a lot of complexity underneath, the more that I think about strategies. Fantastic theme, as well, particularly the flashbulbs. I imagine it probably needs a playtest to shake out the ideal numbers for the card distributions, but they feel about right.
 
  
 
Having the players reveal unclear cards feels a bit fourth-wall breaking, though, for a game with such a great sense of in-character drama. Could you insist that the journalists use the exact title of the card in their question? Or did you want to encourage some strategy in deliberate obliqueness? (If I make my question an obscure "look, we both know what I'm talking about here" thing, and don't give any big details, then whoever gets the card later in the game will find it harder to make the connection to the card I still have in my hand.)
 
Having the players reveal unclear cards feels a bit fourth-wall breaking, though, for a game with such a great sense of in-character drama. Could you insist that the journalists use the exact title of the card in their question? Or did you want to encourage some strategy in deliberate obliqueness? (If I make my question an obscure "look, we both know what I'm talking about here" thing, and don't give any big details, then whoever gets the card later in the game will find it harder to make the connection to the card I still have in my hand.)
  
And oh, who does the scoring - the person running the game?
+
And oh, who does the scoring - the person running the game? --[[User:Kevan|Kevan]] ([[User talk:Kevan|talk]]) 15 December 2008
}}
 
  
{{comment
+
Thanks for the FB.
|date=22:12, 15 December 2008
 
|user=[[User:92.234.23.173|92.234.23.173]]
 
|comment=Thanks for the FB.  
 
  
 
The word in the question thing would make it crystal clear but I equally agree about it preventing deliberate ambiguity as a strategy.
 
The word in the question thing would make it crystal clear but I equally agree about it preventing deliberate ambiguity as a strategy.
Line 24: Line 15:
 
The press secretary will keep score. I'll have to go back through the instructions and make sure this is clear. Maybe also a press secretaries' scoring sheet would be useful.
 
The press secretary will keep score. I'll have to go back through the instructions and make sure this is clear. Maybe also a press secretaries' scoring sheet would be useful.
  
thanks for looking at it most helpful. Gonna try it out on my family this christmas + a few rounds of pit then it will be ready for the next sandpit !
+
thanks for looking at it most helpful. Gonna try it out on my family this christmas + a few rounds of pit then it will be ready for the next sandpit ! --[[User:Simon|Simon]] ([[User talk:Simon|talk]]) 15 December 2008
 
 
S
 
}}
 
  
{{comment
+
funny just realised the themes for your latest game and mine are nearly the same. I didn't copy you honest gov! Lets say great minds think alike. --[[User:Simon|Simon]] ([[User talk:Simon|talk]]) 15 December 2008
|date=22:27, 15 December 2008
 
|user=[[User:92.234.23.173|92.234.23.173]]
 
|comment=funny just realised the themes for your latest game and mine are nearly the same. I didn't copy you honest gov! Lets say great minds think alike.
 
}}
 

Latest revision as of 16:29, 23 April 2015

Looks good; simple at first glance, but with a lot of complexity underneath, the more that I think about strategies. Fantastic theme, as well, particularly the flashbulbs. I imagine it probably needs a playtest to shake out the ideal numbers for the card distributions, but they feel about right.

Having the players reveal unclear cards feels a bit fourth-wall breaking, though, for a game with such a great sense of in-character drama. Could you insist that the journalists use the exact title of the card in their question? Or did you want to encourage some strategy in deliberate obliqueness? (If I make my question an obscure "look, we both know what I'm talking about here" thing, and don't give any big details, then whoever gets the card later in the game will find it harder to make the connection to the card I still have in my hand.)

And oh, who does the scoring - the person running the game? --Kevan (talk) 15 December 2008

Thanks for the FB.

The word in the question thing would make it crystal clear but I equally agree about it preventing deliberate ambiguity as a strategy.

I spent quite alot time sorting out the topics so that there was as little cross over as possible but I think the reveal rule is just a safeguard thing and hopefully shouldn't need to be used.

I worked out the card distributions to give a 1:5 chance of a secret being discovered per question (the number of journalists is irrelevant here). I figured over 10 questions this will yield on average 2 discovered secrets which, given the points scored from unsubstantiated allegations will leave the VIP on the same score as they started. Only particularly good/inept VIPs will score extra points/lose points respectively.

The press secretary will keep score. I'll have to go back through the instructions and make sure this is clear. Maybe also a press secretaries' scoring sheet would be useful.

thanks for looking at it most helpful. Gonna try it out on my family this christmas + a few rounds of pit then it will be ready for the next sandpit ! --Simon (talk) 15 December 2008

funny just realised the themes for your latest game and mine are nearly the same. I didn't copy you honest gov! Lets say great minds think alike. --Simon (talk) 15 December 2008