Re: [piecepack] Re: New Game Uploaded: Hotel Magnate

["Mike Schoessow" <mikeschoessow@...>]

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Benedict 
  To: piecepack@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2003 5:58 AM
  Subject: [piecepack] Re: New Game Uploaded: Hotel Magnate


  >Hi, Mike

  >I finally had a chance to read through the rules to HM.

  >I really liked your cornering idea, although I wasn't sure that there 
  >is the same benefit when you also do the middle tiles of a row 
  >like this - might it be better to include the ace tiles as part of their 
  >respective chains? Or use the middle tiles for some other 
  >purpose?
  You're entirely correct; the side gridded tiles don't offer the same movement options that the corner gridded tiles do. One reason I kept them was because it increased the length of the board to effectively 10 spaces per side, which I considered an advantage. Also, the Ace tiles wouldn't be worth much in a hotel chain, except as a way of buying into a chain, and for that reason, I thought the game might be cleaner without them. It didn't occur to me to consider a third use for the aces. I'll have to think about that.


  >The only other thing about the corners that may need a 
  >clarification is this situation: when 2 or 3 other pawns share a 
  >corner tile, and one of them is on the inside corner, and your roll 
  >takes you beyond the tile, do you still get to choose which 
  >squares of the corner are skipped when counting?

  Good point. Yes, I can see that this does require additional clarification, and I'll be adjusting the rules accordingly. The answer to the question is, yes, you do get to choose the lane in this case.

  >One other thing about layout - I lik the fact that each player starts 
  >ona  different corner, but I am concerned that with the random 
  >board some players start with an advantage if, say, the row of 
  >tiles in front of the player conatains all 4s and 5s.  this may not 
  >actually be a huge deal, but I was wondering if it was something 
  >you had thought about?

  Actually, I thought about this quite a bit, but wasn't able to come up with a perfect solution. Originally, I had all players starting from the same square on the same corner tile. This is not fair either though, because the player who goes first has a potentially much better chance of landing on an un-owned hotel than later players, especially the last place player. Another possibility is to arrange the tiles into color groups of 2 through 5, then separately shuffle these groups and build each side of the board using one of the groups. Then each side of the board will have a 2,3,4,5 of one particular suit, but in random order. Since the die gives equal probabilities for rolling 2 through 5, all players will have equal chances of landing on any of the four tiles in front of them. This scheme does seem to fix the problem you mention, but it results in a less random board (the additional randomness is desireable from a replayability viewpoint). Still, I may decide to switch to it.

  >I liked the idea of using the coins as fixed $ amounts which 
  >limits your ability to make change, adding to the decision making 
  >for the players.

  >I also loved the idea that payday is for everyone, but I was 
  >wondering why the person who rolled doubles gets to choose an 
  >extra coin?  Would it be fairer if they got to choose their second 
  >coin after everyone else has chosen their first one?

  The money situation was the most problematic when designing and trying out the game, especially the issue of how to get spent money back into players' hands in an equitable and timely manner. Timing is very important in the sense that the game doesn't play well if players are chronically either broke or too flush with funds. I couldn't seem to come up with a workable solution until I thought of the simultaneous payday idea. It's interesting that you question the "extra coin first" advantage for the player who rolled doubles, because it reflects back to me an aspect of my thought process that I hadn't realized occured while I was working on this. Firstly, you're right that it is unfair to give this significant advantage to one player. Originally, I tried various schemes in which players received individual paydays, and these were usually triggered by rolling doubles, so I guess the idea that rolling doubles was a personal advantage just got lodged firmly in a corner of my brain. Then when I came up with the idea of simultaneous paydays, I automatically still designed in some personal advantage for the player who rolled doubles, even though there was no longer a good reason for it. I still think it's OK to give a *small* or a potential advantage to the player (after all, this IS a game with the luck of the roll playing a part), but I agree now it shouldn't be as big as it presently is. Perhaps after all the bank money is evenly chosen (each player has taken an equal quantity of coins) the player who rolled doubles could take one additional coin, if any remain. He already has the advantage of choosing first, which is potentially another advantage. One other issue, which almost certainly still needs adjustment, concerns the frequency of paydays. With payday occuring whenever a player rolls doubles, they might occur too frequently, and there would be insufficient monetary pressure on the players. The *right* amount of pressure is essential if the game is to play well. It may be neccesary to restrict paydays to only certain classes of doubles, such as number doubles (no aces or nulls). I will be changing the rules to eliminate the "extra coin first" advantage.

  >The idea of using the coins as money or improvements (and for 
  >scoring) is great - I can imagine a player having a tough choice 
  >to make there.

  Yah, that was the idea. I'm still not real happy with the coin exchanging baggage that this brings with it though. Still, I'm not so unhappy that I want to change it .

  >Not everyone likes the kind of open dealing HM will allow for, but 
  >I know a lot of folks really get into this kind of thing - so I think it is 
  >a good idea and certainly reflects the nature of many business 
  >deals (you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours).

  I know what you mean, and perhaps some of deal-types presently allowed should be proscribed. Alternatively, there can always be variants. One reason I included a liberal deal-making rule is that this is one more way to counter the luck of the dice rolls, and also it's a good way to reduce player down time between turns. Also, I wasn't trying to recreate Monopoly using a piecepack. Rather I was using aspects of Monopoly that I like, as inspiration for coming up with a new game.

  >Looks like a fun monopoly-related game.

  >Phillip

  Thanks Phillip for the inciteful comments. As I mentioned in the other posting, the game has seen only minimal play-testing, and undoubtedly, there will be additional rules tweaks made (and maybe even more significant rules changes) following more plays of the game. I'll be up-dating the rules in the files probably sometime this week.
  Although I had planned to devote more play-test time to Hotel Magnate, as well as the other games I currently have in the Rules in Progress file, I'm presently working on solitaire piecepack games for the competition, and I'm also planning to enter the game design competition hosted by Abstract Games Magazine and About.com Board/Card Games. The theme for that contest is "shared pieces" this time (games must employ pieces that can be moved by either player). If anyone is interested in details of this contest, they can go to http://boardgames.about.com/cs/sharedpieces/a/shared_rules.htm  Both the piecepack contest and the Abstract Games Magazine contest come along every so often, and often overlap each other. I keep wondering if one of these times I can come up with a single game that can be entered in both contests :-)

  -Mike Schoessow