$20.00
Recommend
6 
 Thumb up
 Hide
15 Posts

Decktet» Forums » Variants

Subject: Boojum: A new decktet game on the decktet wiki. rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
I have just added a new game called Boojum to the dectet wiki. Details can be found here: http://decktet.wikidot.com/game:boojum.

It is tagged as "work-in-progress" as it would be good to get some feedback , especially in making sure that I have a sensible 'value' of the various sets that you collect. If I get no crippling feedback then I will add it to the geek, so you can all rate it

Boojum is difficult to categorise. It is a set collecting game, with an auction mechanism. Since the currency that you use for the auctions are the cards themselves, you could also describe it as a deck-building game. A sort of Dominion meets Ra and they played rummy together.

There are two areas where I would especially welcome feedback:

1) Number of players: I have listed it as 3-6, best with 4 or 5. I have not yet played a 6 player game, but see no particular reason why it would not work. In theory, you could play with more, but I would worry about the cards running out. Since it already uses two decktet decks, adding a third will not happen very often. But if you play it and have feedback on numbers of players, that would be good.

Mechanically it would work with 2 players, but the auction mechanic would fall a bit flat, I suspect. But if anyone wants to try ot, feel free.

2) Types and value of sets: The idea is to gather sets, and swap those for suit tokens, with the first player to get all six suits being the winner. I deliberately wanted to make some suits much harder to achieve than others. I have a series of different types of sets including those you will be familiar with from rummy, poker, etc (straights, flushes, n of a kind, etc), and multi-suit ones that are a dectet speciality. I have clumped these together so there are 3 or more ways to gain a particular suit token. The intent is that each of those ways should be approximately the same degree of difficulty, and that the moon sets should be harder than the sun sets, which should be harder than the wave sets, and so on. The more feedback I get here, the better, since it should be easy to fiddle around with the set requirements for each suit: it will have no structural impact on the game.

Enjoy
2 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:

2) Types and value of sets: The idea is to gather sets, and swap those for suit tokens, with the first player to get all six suits being the winner. I deliberately wanted to make some suits much harder to achieve than others. I have a series of different types of sets including those you will be familiar with from rummy, poker, etc (straights, flushes, n of a kind, etc), and multi-suit ones that are a dectet speciality. I have clumped these together so there are 3 or more ways to gain a particular suit token. The intent is that each of those ways should be approximately the same degree of difficulty, and that the moon sets should be harder than the sun sets, which should be harder than the wave sets, and so on. The more feedback I get here, the better, since it should be easy to fiddle around with the set requirements for each suit: it will have no structural impact on the game.


Just looking at the rules and pondering over it, I'm wondering if only one type of set per token would be more appropriate / interesting.

Seems it would generate more tradeoffs, if you can fine tune the six sets such that it's not likely many people will be "going for" the same one at the same time, but that any given card could potentially help a number of players, each going for an entirely different type of set.

But, that kind of change would break the central structure of the game: sets in ascending order of difficulty for the different tokens.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
In general, though, you do have some really interesting ideas for new decktet "set" types.

I like the "3 consecutive" vs "3 of the same suit" people/event/location sets especially.

Seems like those sets in particular could admit of some really catchy / cool terminology:

"Family" - 3 people of the same suit
"Generation" - 3 consecutive people
"Plot" - 3 events of the same suit
"Narrative" - 3 consecutive events
"Map" - 3 locations of the same suit
"Journey" - 3 consecutive locations

Or something like that. The distinction would be whether the view is a snapshot [same suit] or a temporal procession [consecutive, "following after" each other].

You could also have things like a "Fairy Tale" that consisted of a person, event, and location [any type], a "Story" that consisted of sequential person/event/location, or a "Legend" that consisted of a suited person/event/location.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
NateStraight wrote:
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:

2) Types and value of sets: The idea is to gather sets, and swap those for suit tokens, with the first player to get all six suits being the winner. I deliberately wanted to make some suits much harder to achieve than others. I have a series of different types of sets including those you will be familiar with from rummy, poker, etc (straights, flushes, n of a kind, etc), and multi-suit ones that are a dectet speciality. I have clumped these together so there are 3 or more ways to gain a particular suit token. The intent is that each of those ways should be approximately the same degree of difficulty, and that the moon sets should be harder than the sun sets, which should be harder than the wave sets, and so on. The more feedback I get here, the better, since it should be easy to fiddle around with the set requirements for each suit: it will have no structural impact on the game.


Just looking at the rules and pondering over it, I'm wondering if only one type of set per token would be more appropriate / interesting.

Seems it would generate more tradeoffs, if you can fine tune the six sets such that it's not likely many people will be "going for" the same one at the same time, but that any given card could potentially help a number of players, each going for an entirely different type of set.

But, that kind of change would break the central structure of the game: sets in ascending order of difficulty for the different tokens.


You could obviously try that in playtesting. It is not at all clear what the 'right' thing to do is: more data is required. But there are various reasons that I wanted to have lots of different types of sets

1) to get people to have to think about alternative ways to use the cards they have, which is why I added the '3 suited people' etc., sets.
2) to give people decisions about when to cash in a set versus keeping it to try to grow it into a better one. If you only have 6 targets, then probably as soon as you have, say, a 4-card straight, then you know you need to cash it in, because there is no 5-card or 6-card straight. And to put those in to maintain the pressure means you have to drop all the other types of set, which significantly reduces the variation on offer. I didn't start with so many choices, they kinda grew on me . As it stands, there is a decision to make: do you take the token on offer (and don't forget the extra card), or do you keep the 4-card straight in hand to hope to grow it to a 5-card or 6-card one?
3) etc

As for people not going for the same sort of target: well in the playtesting thus far, people have all tended to go for a biggie (6-card straight or the 4 aces, 4 crowns, depending on the cards they have). I want to have a tiered thing, where moon is much harder to get than knots, and that kinda forces folks to concentrate on the biggie.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
Suddenly a shot rang out! A door slammed. The maid screamed. Suddenly a pirate ship appeared on the horizon! While millions of people were starving, the king lived in luxury. Meanwhile, on a small farm in Kansas, a boy was growing up.
mbmbmbmbmb
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:
NateStraight wrote:
AnnuverScotinExile wrote:

2) Types and value of sets: The idea is to gather sets, and swap those for suit tokens, with the first player to get all six suits being the winner. I deliberately wanted to make some suits much harder to achieve than others. I have a series of different types of sets including those you will be familiar with from rummy, poker, etc (straights, flushes, n of a kind, etc), and multi-suit ones that are a dectet speciality. I have clumped these together so there are 3 or more ways to gain a particular suit token. The intent is that each of those ways should be approximately the same degree of difficulty, and that the moon sets should be harder than the sun sets, which should be harder than the wave sets, and so on. The more feedback I get here, the better, since it should be easy to fiddle around with the set requirements for each suit: it will have no structural impact on the game.


Just looking at the rules and pondering over it, I'm wondering if only one type of set per token would be more appropriate / interesting.

Seems it would generate more tradeoffs, if you can fine tune the six sets such that it's not likely many people will be "going for" the same one at the same time, but that any given card could potentially help a number of players, each going for an entirely different type of set.

But, that kind of change would break the central structure of the game: sets in ascending order of difficulty for the different tokens.


2) to give people decisions about when to cash in a set versus keeping it to try to grow it into a better one. If you only have 6 targets, then probably as soon as you have, say, a 4-card straight, then you know you need to cash it in, because there is no 5-card or 6-card straight. And to put those in to maintain the pressure means you have to drop all the other types of set, which significantly reduces the variation on offer. I didn't start with so many choices, they kinda grew on me . As it stands, there is a decision to make: do you take the token on offer (and don't forget the extra card), or do you keep the 4-card straight in hand to hope to grow it to a 5-card or 6-card one?


That makes a lot of sense.

I wonder what setting a specific "size" for each level in some kind of way would do.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
P.D. Magnus
United States
Albany
New York
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
There are enough different sets combined in enough different ways, I guess players will need reference cards. It would be nice if they went together in a more mnemonic way.

That's just a first impression, though. I'll see whether they feel more natural after I've played it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg J
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
As I was finishing Shed, I was working on a game which started with a similar premise to this. If memory serves (I don't remember making notes ) each player was building three sets simultaneously, with each set having a different condition similar to the ones you've come up with. There was no auction mechanism and I was having trouble making the game interesting enough to want to play repeatedly.

On first glance at this game, I think I can safely lay the idea to rest and pursue a different design that has been percolating for a while.

Looking forward to trying this one - thanks for sharing it.

Oh, I love the title! Just a nonsense word or is there some etymology that you'd care to share?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
Octogreg wrote:
As I was finishing Shed, I was working on a game which started with a similar premise to this. If memory serves (I don't remember making notes ) each player was building three sets simultaneously, with each set having a different condition similar to the ones you've come up with. There was no auction mechanism and I was having trouble making the game interesting enough to want to play repeatedly.

On first glance at this game, I think I can safely lay the idea to rest and pursue a different design that has been percolating for a while.

Looking forward to trying this one - thanks for sharing it.

Oh, I love the title! Just a nonsense word or is there some etymology that you'd care to share?


See the link I have just added to the links section of the wiki.

Funnily enough, I started with the auction mechanism - the idea of bootstrapping your deck by using cards from it to bid on better ones is the skeleton on which I based the game. The targets were somewhat secondary - obviously you need them to aim for, but the auction/deckbuilding/recycling mechanism was the *big idea* (or not).

Indeed, that idea came along waaay before I decide to use the decktet - for this purpose they are more interesting than normal cards, and more generic than tyring to come up with my own themed set of cards for a game from scratch (in concept, this started out as a sort-of God game, but I am more an abstract mechanism kinda guy than a theme one).

I have been toying with using the concept to come up with a new game that uses dominion cards. Unfortunately, at the moment, I do not see an obvious way of coming up with a multitude of interesting 'sets'. But I suspect that I will worry away at that for a little while.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
pmagnus wrote:
There are enough different sets combined in enough different ways, I guess players will need reference cards. It would be nice if they went together in a more mnemonic way.

That's just a first impression, though. I'll see whether they feel more natural after I've played it.
Fairynough. I tried to group to some degree (top 3 suits are fundamentally the same, just getting smaller and easier, and the others tend to be internally consistent, though knots is rather random) but I agree that some form of reference cards will be needed. There is a nasty trade off between simplifying to the point of losing the interesting variety, and making it simple enough to play without reference cards or constant rule lookup.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
Octogreg wrote:
As I was finishing Shed, I was working on a game which started with a similar premise to this. If memory serves (I don't remember making notes ) each player was building three sets simultaneously, with each set having a different condition similar to the ones you've come up with. There was no auction mechanism and I was having trouble making the game interesting enough to want to play repeatedly.

On first glance at this game, I think I can safely lay the idea to rest and pursue a different design that has been percolating for a while.

Looking forward to trying this one - thanks for sharing it.

Oh, I love the title! Just a nonsense word or is there some etymology that you'd care to share?


Greg: Is the "Octo" in the name significant? I have a tile-laying game that is just about done with playtesting that I call Octopath - because the main tiles are octagonal.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg J
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Bidding with the Excuse
In the rules we have "If the Excuse is used in auction bidding, it counts as two cards but zero pips."

Q. Can the Excuse be the only card a player bids? In the bidding example in the rules, players are advised to call out "2 for 14" if they are bidding an 8 and a 6, so if it is allowed, I'm not sure how a bid with only the Excuse would be called out.

Assuming that this move is allowed, my interpretation is that The Excuse would beat any single card bid. I would think this would come up from time to time and would be a nice way to kill a single crown bid for example.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
Octogreg wrote:
In the rules we have "If the Excuse is used in auction bidding, it counts as two cards but zero pips."

Q. Can the Excuse be the only card a player bids? In the bidding example in the rules, players are advised to call out "2 for 14" if they are bidding an 8 and a 6, so if it is allowed, I'm not sure how a bid with only the Excuse would be called out.

Assuming that this move is allowed, my interpretation is that The Excuse would beat any single card bid. I would think this would come up from time to time and would be a nice way to kill a single crown bid for example.


Yes. "2 for zero". Yes.

I find that the bidding is quite interesting. I don't know if you have tried it yet, but in my games there is a tendency for players to be quite conscious of the 'free' card they get if they did not win an auction that round. So people freely bid up to the point where they have bid 1 less card than in the lot, but only fight on when there is a card they really want.

The excuse is far too good a card to waste in bidding. I have never seen anyone use it in bidding, though I put the rules in because I could see it was possible. The most likely circumstance to use it, it seems to me, is when you have already won an auction or two this round, and so do not have any 'disposable' cards, but the current lot includes a card that you need for a straight, and where you are currently expecting to use your excuse. An excuse bid seems to me to be more likely to succeed than it should, because players will be conscious that it will be offered in an auction lot next round, and thus give them a chance to buy it. So in a marginal case, it may be better not to overbid.

--------------

Edit: There is now an entry for Boojum up on the geek, and one for Snark, which is basically the same game but using the Rainbow Deck rather than the Decktet
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg J
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the quick clarification. So basically, if I use the Excuse in bidding, I have to openly declare it when doing so. Got it.

Looking forward to trying this after I scrawl up some reference sheets. Actually, I'm not so secretly hoping that someone with the skills will whip up a nice colourful one that we can all print off... whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Morris
Scotland
Harrogate
North Yorkshire
flag msg tools
designer
Join the BGG Folding @Home Team !!
badge
This user had more :gg: than sense
mbmbmbmbmb
Octogreg wrote:
Thanks for the quick clarification. So basically, if I use the Excuse in bidding, I have to openly declare it when doing so. Got it.

Looking forward to trying this after I scrawl up some reference sheets. Actually, I'm not so secretly hoping that someone with the skills will whip up a nice colourful one that we can all print off... whistle


When you bid you have to play the cards face up in front of you. So there is no hiding an excuse.

I have a reference card in a PDF. Colourful it aint. Can we upload/attach such things to the wiki? I will upload it as a file on here, but that will take a week.

------------------
Edit: Submitted the sets reference to the file queue. It is now attached to the wiki.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Greg J
Canada
Richmond Hill
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
When you bid you have to play the cards face up in front of you. So there is no hiding an excuse.


Doh! Missed that part. Perfectly clear now.

Thanks for the reference card. Not sure how to put that sort of thing on the wiki, but it can probably be done.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.