Email This Post    Print This Post

Bellhop is the second game I designed, shortly after Supernova.

It has not yet been published but I am persistently searching for a publisher. In some ways, it is (imo) possibly a better game than Supernova for a variety of reasons:

• It is reasonably short; around 45-60 minutes
• It has simple mechanics that provide tense gameplay and difficult decisions throughout
• It is a bit backstabby (evil grin)
• It can be played with as few as 2 people

Bellhop is set in New York, 1939. The players play managers of a team of bellhops, whose task it is to assist customers on their way out of the hotel, most of whom are off to visit the World’s Fair. A player’s team of bellhops is small and gets smaller as the game progresses; your bellhops are not reused. The gameplay is quite simple; on a player’s turn, they may choose 2 of 3 available actions.

1. Play a card
2. Draw a card
3. Place a Bellhop

The trick to this is that the player must take their actions in the above order. So, for instance, I may play a card THEN place a bellhop, but not the other way around. Or, I may play two cards in a row… provided their sum is not greater than 7. Playing a card allows a player to load guests onto elevators or move/stop elevators. The crux of the game is basically that a player is likely to never be able to move the elevator to the lobby to drop off a bunch of guests AND have their Bellhops waiting for said guests… at least not all on their own. Collaboratively, they very well may do that. So there is a bit of working together and a lot of backstabbiness, which makes the working together part interesting.. and tricky. You’re never able to do quite as much as you’d like, which in my opinion, is the hallmark of a good game.

So, this last week, I’ve been thinking lots about Bellhop and how I could possibly make it even MORE interesting without adding unneeded complexity and playtime. Changes to Bellhop may or may not be necessary, depending on your perspective, but as it is still unpublished, I’m wondering if it is slightly too dry/analytical for people’s tastes. Hence my ruminations on a minor update.

What I’ve done is a couple things; I added guests in the lobby which need to be taken UP to a floor (all guests previously started on a floor and go to the lobby) and I added roles. It’s the roles which I think might make this game even better. I realize that roles in a board game are somewhat de rigueur and possibly passé but oh well. I like the idea of having the ability to do a little something extra to help yourself out on a turn that isn’t a ‘take that’ mechanism. Roles in this game are slightly different than how I’ve seen them implemented before, which is not to say they haven’t been done this way. Just that I haven’t seen them done this way.

Each player is dealt a role at the beginning of the game, placed face-up in front of them. On a player’s turn, they may play their role, for the cost of 1 point on the scoring track. It does not cost them a ‘play a card’ action. They must then trade their role either with an opponent’s role or with one of the extras. To trade with one of the spare roles does not cost them anything, but to exchange it with an opponent costs them an additional point on the scoring track. Some examples of the roles are:

• Elevator operator – The cost to move your choice of elevators is 2 less than normal (total) this turn.

• Chambermaid - Move one column of guests to the top of one elevator.

• Shift supervisor - Exchange one of your cards with the card on the top of the discard pile. It may not be more than 3 points higher than the card you exchange.

There are more roles, but these are just to pique your curiosity…

I’ll be trying this new implementation today; I’ll post my impressions later.

Email This Post    Print This Post

This isn’t boardgame-related in the least, but it must be posted just because it made me laugh so hard.

Email This Post    Print This Post

At least of late, I have been. For some reason, I can’t get the use of dice in a board game out of my head. And when I say ‘use’, I don’t mean in a Monopoly/Risk/Settlers way. In a way they haven’t been used before. But what is a way in which dice have never been used? When you’re coming up on many thousand games listed on the Geek, I’m pretty sure there’s been more than a few permutations of dice usage, beyond rolling 2 and divising their sum.

Making their use intriguing, strategic and interesting is what I’m still working on…. but I’ve got some ideas. It’s the rest of the game that might be formulaic and boring. Ah well, you can’t win at everything.

Email This Post    Print This Post

Every now and then, you come across some simply fantastic graphic design. And since today is that day for me, I must share it. Go, one and all, to view Peter Gifford’s various sites: www.universalhead.com (his company), www.headlesshollow.com (his blog), and www.petergifford.com (his photoblog). Especially download some of his fantastic player aids.

That just made my day.

Email This Post    Print This Post

…without really trying. Yeah, right.

I’ve been thinking a lot lately about what makes a game successful. Now obviously, the word ’successful’ is rather vague. What I’m referring to is simply the number of boxes that a certain game sells. This includes reprints, initial runs, and expansions.Basically, why does one game - X - outsell game Y when they both have more or less equal ratings on the Geek? I’m very aware of the obvious reasons as to why Ticket to Ride will outsell Die Macher. What I’ve been pondering is whether or not you could design a game deliberately to be a success. As in, ignore what YOU, as the designer really wants, and attempt to discern what the public will actually buy, en masse, and design the game to fit that mold. That’s obviously a pretty shallow idea, but is it completely implausible?

So, let’s look at the elements that (possibly) make a game receptive to the mass market. Please note that ‘mass market’ does not only include Wal Mart shoppers and people who browse games at Toys R Us. I’m talking about gamers here as well. The games I’m considering ’successful’ are ones that are not only sold in big box stores - Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Sorry, Life, etc etc - but those games that have been wildly successful both with non-gamers and gamers, like Ticket to Ride, Settlers of Catan, and Carcassonne. So what makes them uh… tick? Here’s my take:

(more…)

Email This Post    Print This Post

Well, it’s been over a week now since I got back from Dallas, so I guess it’s a good time to discuss what transpired. The long and the short of it is that I played lots of games. I taught Supernova a few times and played it a couple times as well.

Standouts:

Shark

Thebes

Gheos

Midgard

Vikings

Not too shabby: 

Buy Low, Sell High

Oregon

It’s Alive!

Blech:

Venus Needs Men!

El Capitain

Castle Merchants

 

Shortly after I arrived home, I ordered Shark (played) and Portobello Market (sight unseen). Once they arrive and I get a few more plays under my belt, I’ll do a review of Shark. A short review would be: very interesting with some potential for nasty play.

I can’t wait for next year.