A short update today:

– I’ve updated the Print-n-Play file to reflect the changes in the latest set of rules. If you catch any errors, let me know.

Over the Next Dune – Print and Play – 6-27-14

– Part of the reason why this update is brief is because I’m working on a how-to-play video for Over the Next Dune. Have thoughts on what I should include? Leave them in the comments!

I’ve revised Over the Next Dune’s rules to take the latest changes into account:

1. The rulebook now includes the tracking rules.

2. The turn track and turn counter have been removed from the rules entirely. Since the searcher movement deck is now being used to define the length of the game they were unnecessary.

3. Italics are used more consistently to separate advice and comments about the theme from the formal rules.

These rules do not yet address reducing the number of turns to increase the difficulty, since that’s still in testing.

As always, let me know if you have any comments–either about these changes or about the rulebook in general.

Over the Next Dune – Rules – 6-23-14

Over time I’ve built up some questions about Over the Next Dune that I’d like your input on. Let me know what you think in the comments, or contact me directly!

1. Would a video showing a game of Over the Next Dune be useful, or do the rules as they exist do a sufficient job of teaching the game?

2. I’ve been assuming that a very simple board without art is best, owing to ease of printing. Would you prefer a more attractive board and nicer pieces? Assume you have to pick one or the other–“both” is not an option in this instance.

3. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being the highest, how complicated would you say Over the Next Dune is? Is that more complicated than you would like, or do you feel that there’s room for additional complexity, or is it at just the right spot?

4. How often do you find yourself making errors in the basic operation of the game? That is to say, how often do you realize that you forgot to move a searcher or something similar? What errors come up most frequently? Is there something I could do to make it easier to avoid them?

Over the Next Dune is working mechanically; so far as I know there are no lacunae in the rules and there is no dominant strategy. However, that doesn’t mean the game is done–not by a long shot! Among other things, there are player powers to be considered (are they needed? If so, what should they be? What else has to change to accommodate them?). Alternative terrain pieces deserve a shot (what new interesting things can they do?). Perhaps most importantly, the game needs to be harder.

Right now, an experienced player will win a game of OtND most of the time:

Game    Middle    End Run With Tracking
1            W/8/1    L/5/7
2            W/7/2    W/8/0
3            L/3/2      L/7/5
4            W/8/3    W/10/5
5            L/6/3      W/7/2
6            W/6/1    L/”11″/9 – players lose by timeout
7            W/6/0    W/7/0
8            W/9/3    W/7/3
9            W/9/4    L/6/5
10          W/8/3    L/6/4

Even using a strategy that the game was changed to make more difficult, the player wins half the time. Pursuing a less unusual strategy increases the win percentage to 80%! OtND shouldn’t be impossible to win–that would hardly be interesting–but the player should have to work for it.

One change I’ve been considering is reducing the number of turns in which to win. If the player had, for example, only eight turns the middle strategy’s win rate goes to 70% and the end run loses two of its wins; six turns, and the middle strategy only wins 20% of the time and the end run never succeeds. That’s harsher than I want to be, and of course using these numbers is dangerous because the games may have played out differently under greater time pressure. Still, it suggests that reducing the number of turns could increase the challenge.

Another benefit of reducing the number of turns is that it’s tunable by the players. New players or those who don’t want the game to be too difficult can play to ten turns. Those who want more challenge can try to win in eight. If they want a serious test, they can try to win in six.

Implementing this change is pretty easy. You can discard the turn track; it’s not necessary, because the cards work just as well. For an eight-turn game, use the following cards:

6 right turns
6 left turns
36 straights

Six turns uses this deck:

4 left turns
4 right turns
28 straights

These decks are close to the distribution of turns and straights in the 60-card deck. The game ends with a player loss the turn after the deck runs out (in other words, once the deck runs out the players have one last sneak phase in which to win).

All of that is the good news. The bad news is that figuring out the right number of turns for each difficulty level is a matter of testing, testing, testing. Back to the trenches, and let me know if you have results to share!

Evenly distributed starting points for searchers turned out to be, well, pretty terrible.

Facts: In normal play, the searchers in Over the Next Dune are distributed randomly across approximately the top half of the board. In the evenly distributed starting points variant, they are instead assigned one to a colored area, much like terrain pieces.

This variant eliminates certain extreme setups. For example, the worst-case scenario cannot occur.

Playtesting showed that this variant does not increase the difficulty of the game. If anything, it tends to make the game easier, as it makes it less likely that the searchers will “clump” and force players to deal with multiple searchers at the same time.

Issue: Should the evenly distributed searchers variant become the official rule?

Rule: Decisions players make should be interesting.

Thinking it through: My hope with this variant was that it would make the game more interesting by forcing players to confront searchers more often. The concern was that it would make it more likely that “holes” would open up between the searchers that the players would be easily able to slip through, making the game less interesting. As it happened, the former didn’t happen and the latter did. Oops!

What’s worse, when decisions beyond “hey look, there are no searchers there” did arise, they were often easier than those to be made in the normal game. It was unusual for multiple searchers to approach the same point, and it wasn’t hard to predict where those points would be. As a result, it was possible to only ever have to confront one searcher at a time. Once you know the game, dealing with a single searcher isn’t too difficult.

In addition, the extreme situations even distribution of searchers prevents can be interesting in and of themselves. The worst-case scenario is brutal enough that one wouldn’t want to play it often, but having a bunch of searchers coming on fast is fun once every so often. Similarly, having the searchers making a wall along the top, near the goal line, can be an interesting challenge so long as it’s not every time. All the searchers being on one side might make the game easier, but that’s OK on occasion too; recognizing an opportunity and seizing it successfully is part of the fun.

Evenly distributing the searchers, then, was a bust. That’s OK; it was worth trying to see what would happen. Next time I plan to talk a bit about a recent post on Quirkworthy, and then I’ll be looking at making OtND more difficult.

Having determined that the tracking everywhere variant isn’t worth pursuing, at least not in the near term, I’m back to conventional Over the Next Dune. A while ago I mentioned distributing searchers in the same manner as terrain, one per colored section. Now seems like as good a time as any to follow that up.

My expectations are actually pretty low for this change. The high concept is that the searchers will be distributed a bit more evenly, so the players will have to deal with the searchers more often. The searchers are what makes OtND interesting, so I want the players thinking about and maneuvering around them as often as possible.

Unfortunately, I don’t expect this change to actually achieve that. Since starting facings will still be random, I expect to continue seeing substantial gaps open up. (E.g., if the searchers on the left side face “down” and those on the right face “left,” the right side will end up devoid of searchers.) This is just low-hanging fruit that’s easy to test, so it seems like it’s worth trying out.

The modified rule is (relatively) straightforward: Instead of rolling a d20 and a d12 to distribute the searchers, start in the upper-left colored area and then roll two six-sided dice, one for the column and one for the row. Put a searcher so that its center square is in the indicated space. If the searcher would start in row 1 or 12 (so either off the board or too close to the players), roll both dice again. Then repeat for the remaining five colored areas.

If you try this out, let me know what you think. I’m going to run just a few games this way, and expect to have results soon.

Since last time I’ve been following up on the idea of having the searchers be affected by terrain, so that tracking everywhere would be more interesting. The new rules for this variant are simple: players are not affected by terrain, but the searchers are. Hence, searchers have to expend two squares’ worth of movement to advance whenever one or more of the squares they would occupy after moving contains terrain.

Overall, this variant has proven mediocre at best. My hope was that the game would revolve around getting the searchers hung up on terrain so that the players could sprint past them. Instead, the searchers hang themselves up all the time, and the players mostly just waltz to the finish line.

Furthermore, the effect of the searchers being stuck is so powerful that tricking them becomes largely pointless. It’s not worth fighting for a near-miss when you can just lead searchers through terrain and neutralize them for three turns.

I still think there’s an idea here, but it’s really a totally different game that will require a lot of development. Back to work on the main project!

(Sorry about the late-in-the-day update–things continue to be hectic here!)

Using tracking everywhere in Over the Next Dune has proven to be interesting. On the one hand, it completely breaks the game in its current form. It’s playable, the rules work, but it’s not that much fun. If you’re familiar with the joke about not needing to be faster than a bear, just faster than the slowest person running from the bear, it’s basically that in boardgame form. Somebody is offered up to the bear, everyone else rescues them, repeat until too many people are caught at once.

On the other hand, I can see a much more interesting game floating around in there. If the players and the searchers both interacted with terrain (as opposed to the current system in which searchers can ignore it), leading the searchers on merry chases could be a lot of fun. It would be a very different game from Over the Next Dune, but potentially a good one.

I’m torn about which direction to pursue. OtND is getting to a solid place, and I don’t want to leave it half-finished. Yet, the new idea seems like it has a lot of potential. If anyone out there has an opinion, feel free to share!

So far, I have learned the following about playing Over the Next Dune with tracking all over the board:

1. It is very, very hard.

2. It absolutely demands using some players as body-blockers.

3. However many tracking markers you have cut out, it’s not enough!

What would happen if the tracking rule applied in the middle of the board?

The tracks are everywhere. You have to build perfect paths to keep the searchers busy all the time, turning the wrong way. And you have to stay one step ahead of them, because they’re faster than you, and if they get past your tricks they’ll catch up.

Does this game even work? Do the players just get caught instantly all the time? Is there a single best pattern that always keeps the players safe?

I don’t know–but having had the thought I can’t resist following it up. Time to play a few games . . . .