Diaries Entries - Xenon Profitier Part 2
Xenon Profitier or Xe$Pro for short or Xe$ for shorter
I'm staring at two boxes of Yomi. They are sprawled, half-opened among the stacks of reconfigured cards from Xenon Profitier, their garish colors and pop anime art-style drawing the eye like a neon paperweight. The concept of Yomi, the game design, the faux-depth and exception-based card-play, and especially the playing card suits printed on all the medium-quality cards, it all screams "misplaced pretentiousness."
It was one of my first snobbish board gaming moments and I remember it fondly. Here's a fighting game "guru" with a math degree that helped balance Street Fighter II's HD Remix. That's about it. With a flash of epiphany, his game design skills in obsessive two-player competition on the computers translates perfectly into a Poker deck with a bunch of tiny words on the cards and a stale mechanic. And it would sell for over $100 on the strength of his non-board-gamer fan base.
I dismissed him. I've always argued that a game should be great because the game is solid, not because of the designer's name attached. I dismissed his work harder than I think I dismissed anyone's work ever. I felt personally offended by his self-promotion style that seemed to promote his own image more than the merits of his design (something which I continue to lampoon in my own life). Also, he writes extensively and uses many examples about Chess, and Chess isn't even on my top ten list of abstract games.
I loved that David Sirlin was egotistical enough to pass off a rock-paper-scissors variant with a Robo-Rally-style convoluted order of operations as something revolutionary in his blog entries. Some people eat that shit up. They call it elegance. He even channeled the elitist gamer mantra. He insinuated heavily that the game had a higher level of depth that only the best and truest martial arts combat aficionados would understand.
Yet, this analysis completely ignores the fact that this "simple" rock-paper-scissors game includes a non-decision tree like a checklist of coding ifs and thens that occur after the initial simultaneous card play. If we both attack, check the speed of the attack, then check the card ability or power, if it allows a combo action, then play more cards if they are in hand, if the card has text, then engage text, if opponent can break the combo, then activate text, then... the list of possible effects go on and on, but are usually countered and exceptions are numerous. Which is strangely ambitious considering the rules are printed on a single page (and are equally frustrating for that same reason). This resolution of events, is most decidedly not elegant; cumbersome and vaguely thematic are better words.
Hype and spin are very important marketing tools.
I'm not hating on Yomi or even rock-paper-scissors, just pointing out that one person's elegance is another person's mess and that this game is not a groundbreaking reinvention of the card game, but is a variation on a basic concept. It takes a familiar element, a 54 card deck with playing card suits, adds words to each card and creates a new gaming experience. Bluffing being a key game mechanic. I think David Sirlin has since evolved as a game designer and has expanded his board gaming vocabulary while still highly valuing the direct back-and-forth nature of 2-player mental combat. This is good, and I'm hoping his recent departure from strictly fighting-themed games reflects this continuing evolution.
The game itself is what is important. Maybe you can become really fantastic at Yomi, maybe it's a random game with an over-inflated sense of self-worth, but once I stopped internally criticizing the man behind it all, it was still relatively fun to play. That's what games are about. It's like that. Even for a curmudgeonly, eurotastic, pacifist like myself.
And Xenon Profitier is like that. It takes a familiar concept like deck-building and the racing-style Euro game, creates a variation of both and pumps out a new game. That's not exactly how I would phrase it on an advertisement, as it completely ignores all of what I consider to make the game clever, but it doesn't make the statement any less true. It is new, but also an evolution. I could expound upon it's loftier purpose in reverent tones. Say that it is like a haiku. A simple, thematic statement that artistically examines an often overlooked piece of our modern framework. By building an infrastructure, tempering chaos, and trying to control the air itself, we can observe man's true conflict, the fight to find sense in an infinitely insensible world. A poem in game form.
It sounds good, but in the end, Xe$ (shortened, so I don't have to type the title every time) is an experiment in mechanics supporting theme (see Nat Levan's excellent post on isomorphism http://oakleafgames.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/game-theory-isomorphism/ ) and hopefully this makes the game fun even when the theme is not a reason to play. It's a weird little game, which is par for the course for me, and I'm starting to think it's pretty awesome.
The point of all this, is to explain how differently these two games attempt to draw players into their world. You can't go into Xe$ with any sense of hype. There is no fireball throwing, time travel, explosions, or anime art to fall back onto. It's a game. A little escapist fantasy about running a business that strives to draw you into it's world merely by the interesting and strategic interactions players have while building their engines and solving a puzzle each turn. It has to be good, because it sure as hell won't sell as many copies if I priced it at $100.
I ended the first entry before my first real play test, which is a nice cliffhanger for a game design. I'm a little better at anticipating player reactions after years of doing this, but there is always a sense of anxiety, especially when I know that I'm placing something less-than-ideal in front of a group. Luckily, I have a small, close-knit gaming group that eases my transition. A first play test with real human beings is the thing that either motivates me to continue with a design, or place it off to the side. And believe me, I've had successful play tests where I, personally, didn't see the game play out how I imagined, so even in the face of positive feedback I've shelved the game.
My explanation was brief and stumbling, but it relied heavily on the fact that we had just played Trains two weeks previous, so I could make parallels. What are the differences? You can hold whatever you'd like in your hand for next turn, theres no money on the cards, and you can build permanent fixtures; these are what trigger the end-game. I explained bidding tokens, and wiping. And then, we were off.
Nothing broke. That was the first hurdle. The game was relatively close and ended in about nine turns, which seemed like the speed I was shooting for. Everyone took different strategies. My friend Steve culled his System down to nothing and pumped in Xe with a certain card combination, while E.B. drew cards and pushed the game to it's conclusion with a money-heavy engine. Afterwards, there was high praise for the game, and I was already formulating ways to "fix" problems that only I saw while playing. I was a bit surprised when E.B. expressed her like for the game, as I just assumed she would shrug her shoulders. But, there was a general pledge around the table to try it again next week.
So, the last four weeks have been play test after play test, another six times alone with faux 4-player set-ups, and another twenty or so times with live players. Originally, there were three duplicates of every card in the game, with a few single outliers that could not be installed permanently, resulting in a deck of 24 cards. For anyone familiar with deck-builders, you can possibly see from this low number why this game is not really a deck-builder in any logical sense. But, I reduced the amount of duplicates to 2 for each card, and added a few more to support the bidding mechanic. And tweaked the numbers endlessly with sharpies.
Balance is key, and as I made more tweaks, players had to recognize tactical opportunities for a more well-rounded strategy, instead of simply rushing towards the game's conclusion. The game is an "open" style game, which means that there are no procedural limitations to players, or negative feedback loops to navigate other than the inherent, but admittedly simple puzzle of clogging a player's deck with cards every time that they gain capital (money). There's no "I need to build this, before I can add this cube, before I can build this other thing..." This means that timing is more important than simply building a perfect engine, because the game end will creep up and trigger well before you are prepared. I didn't want a perfect "standard strategy" to emerge as in other similar card games, so making sure that they are nicely weighted and that scooping up a key contract card for XPs might be just as important as grabbing a powerful upgrade for your system. Interesting choices, variable strategies.
And the reception from my players has been very positive. Too much so. I've had at least one player (occasional Magic player) that had never played a deck-builder give it effusive praise and it keeps getting requested at game nights each week. I didn't bring the copy this week, because I didn't want to sicken them with playtest-fatigue and I was surprised to hear a collective groan. Once I gain some more money and the ability to call off work again in mid-November, I will definitely be touring this game around to Unpub Minis and more.
I'm not a fan of games where a certain mechanic seems completely ineffective or introduced as a side-thought because it seems cool. Global Mogul has this neat bidding system that only occurs if players pick up Government Contracts. It's highly thematic, and a fun addition, but it's very weak in the game. Barely anything during play supports this concept and because Contracts are, in general, a crapshoot of possible payouts and a mishmash of various symbols, the actual bidding is not what would be considered "good" or interesting by bidding game standards. The game can even be played sans this bid, and some prefer it that way. Feels like a waste to me.
Originally, I wanted to steal this concept, but I realized quickly that I would have the exact same problem. Not only does it pause the flow of the game to have a surprise bidding round, but simply because something is thematically called "bidding" it doesn't mean that it needs to be or should be abstractly represented by an actual bid. Enter Bid Tokens (I'll probably changed the name of them eventually).
The concept is that I can place a Bid token onto a Contract or Upgrade. This prevents another player from removing the card from the line-up, gives me a discount of one money when purchasing the card, and if anyone else takes that card, they must pay me a money for the token. Essentially an indirect form of player interaction, and a way to encourage another player NOT to take your preferred action if you don't have the money for the purchase.
The problem I was having, is that players only placed Tokens if they had absolutely nothing they could do on their turn. It was like a consolation prize instead of a real strategy and barely affected gameplay. Depending on the deck-builder, a "worthless turn" seems to pop up two to three times a game, and is decidedly annoying (although a consequence of poor efficiency). But, f that were to happen in Xe$, it could be nearly a third of the gameplay.
Concurrently, the idea of a booby prize or semi-worthless turn was brought up by my friend, Jim in a later play test. He felt that he could "always do something," but the Distill portion of the turn had zero decisions. If you had an ability, you would use it. If you didn't and you had a bad draw, well it felt like a wasted turn and to compensate, you would take MORE cards to gum up your system, which made the next few turns feel even more random. This also caused decks to become immense in a 4-player game, and I was quickly running out of AIR cards to add to decks. It also artificially accelerated the game.
I needed a solution to combat both issues. Bidding wasn't being used. Players were ignoring everything except taking piles of cards in their deck for money. Something more than just simply renumbering the cards again (which I did).
So, the idea of OVERTIME came into play. Basically, you can FLIP your ASU (Air Separation Unit) to the backside at the beginning of their turn and take an accelerated turn with some specific caveats. You can Distill twice, which is the key portion, and then you are forced to Bid twice. There were no choices to make, players remove a ton of cards and are then unable to add cards to their System. AND most importantly, at the end of your turn, you RESHUFFLE. This final addition was the piece of the puzzle that vexed me for nearly a week.
I had essentially killed all the deck building tropes that I hated. Uncontrolled luck of the draw in both a deck and the line-up of available cards to purchase, not having enough time to use a purchased card because a deck cannot reshuffle, and not being able to actively affect what cards other players would choose. Even without any ways to directly attack other players, it felt like I could make "Take That" plays with a grin, using Bids to effectively make something too expensive for another player to purchase. And there was still a fair amount of surprise in the way that cards came up, both in the line-up and in a player's deck. However, if someone hates Shuffling in these games, oh well, I can't really help them.
I also added a few abilities that severely enhanced the placement of Bid Tokens. An option to Bid AND Buy in a single action (which becomes very powerful when used with Overtime), and an ability to place 3 tokens at once when placing Bid Tokens. Finally it feels as though bidding isn't simply a side mechanic for mediocre turns, but a legitimate strategy.
I also used to hate sleeving cards. But, these sleeves make it so easy to shuffle small amounts of cards that I'm considering that if this were ever sold it should have optional card sleeves with special backs available for purchase alongside. It's more viscerally satisfying to bridge shuffle, but practically, squeezing a line of sleeved cards together is wonderful and speedy.
And one final note; my friend, Steve, came up with a really cool game-end mechanic which actually increases some of the excitement. The person who triggers the end of the game (there's two way to trigger the game end, both controlled by the players, i love that shit so much), finishes their turn and receives the XENON PRIVILEGE COIN. On one side is a picture of Xenon, on the other side is +2XP. All other players receive one final turn, BUT the player with the coin has to decide (before the other players take their final turn) if they will keep the extra 2XP OR take one final turn and try to score more points.
I think the decision is cool, as it adds one final bit of uncertainty to the end of the game, which makes it less calculable and more risk vs. reward.
I understand now why certain game designers talk about play testing their games two or three hundred times before they are released. Card games and dice games are like a dream for play testing. I mean, in comparison to a sprawling board game with tons of moving parts and pieces, or a game that requires 7 or 8 players to play (VivaJava), this is a cake-walk. And enticing players to bang out a game that takes under an hour to finish is like the icing. I've been dabbling with another survival game concept that includes up to 9 players and I dread finding the time, friends, and energy to go through the rigamarole of testing even a small, short game with that many players.
So, I created the PnP files for Xenon Profitier recently and posted them. I need more play testers. I need to see reactions. Link here: http://tcpettyiii.tumblr.com/post/66779068158/xenon-profitier-print-n-play
It's a bunch of cards to print and cut, so I don't expect more than a handful of people may attempt it, but it is extremely helpful. I want to avoid "standard strategies" or any game-breaking combinations that players may find. What are the confusing portions? How are my rules-writing skills improving (or devolving)? Feedback is all appreciated.
I spent six hours straight, simply typing out the rules into TextEdit; 3000 words. I used multiple new techniques that I've picked up recently and will have to blog about soon. Then another four hours re-reading and re-editing the format, adding new clarifications from recent play tests with new players.
Recommended soundtrack: Kraftwerk "Minimum-Maximum". This robotic mix of pioneering bleeps and bloops and phasers should provide a wonderful ambience for a game of Xe$Pro.
And that's where I am. Past the point of initial exploration and discovery, into the refining stages of design where I do less iteration and more data collection. Pages and pages of design notes are now simply ink-stained blobs that look like distant memories. Stay tuned for more info, more egotistical ponderings, and self-important meanderings that will titillate your brain taste-buds with glucose-covered theoretical design chunks.
