Andrew Rowse
United Kingdom
North London
-
This is an attempt to remove the randomness of destination cards.
At the start of each round, each player secretly selects a city from each area, and notes it down.
Play continues as normal.
When it is time to score points, each player scores +1 point for each city that they (and only they) selected. Each player scores -1 point for each city that they and at least one other player selected.
Haven't tried it, so I'm unsure whether the points +/- is balanced, but I think the principle would make for an interesting game. Probably best paired with vexation.
-
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
-
How does this help? Or interact with connections?
This is a light random game. Enjoy it as is.
B>
-
Andrew Rowse
United Kingdom
North London
-
The game plays exactly the same, except players get to choose what destinations they are going for - so if they choose the 'easier'/'obvious' destinations, they take more of a risk that another player has also chosen that destination, and therefore risk points (both by completing the other player's route for them, and by losing points).
It helps address the issue where one player receives an easier random route and one player receives a more difficult one - more of an issue in Trans-Europa.
The interaction with connections is the same as normal, except with the added risk of completing another player's routes.
I do enjoy the game as it. I am proposing a change to change the randomness into a bluffing/metagaming component, which some people (including myself) also enjoy. We can enjoy multiple different things! The 'enjoy it as it is' feedback is quite pointless.
-
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
-
Ah. This wasn't clear from your original post. I confidently predict that adding an effectively blind-guessing metagame (bluff isn't exactly right here) would make the game deeply tedious. If you're looking to reduce randomness, this is not the way.
B>
-
Andrew Rowse
United Kingdom
North London
-
thepackrat wrote: I confidently predict that adding an effectively blind-guessing metagame (bluff isn't exactly right here) would make the game deeply tedious. If you're looking to reduce randomness, this is not the way.
B>
Fair point. I was also considering whether it might be a good idea to limit player choice, by not allowing a player to choose any of the cities he has chosen during the last three rounds - this would mean that the metagame would change from round to round.
-
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
-
KAndrw wrote: thepackrat wrote: I confidently predict that adding an effectively blind-guessing metagame (bluff isn't exactly right here) would make the game deeply tedious. If you're looking to reduce randomness, this is not the way.
B> Fair point. I was also considering whether it might be a good idea to limit player choice, by not allowing a player to choose any of the cities he has chosen during the last three rounds - this would mean that the metagame would change from round to round.
Mmm, forcing people inevitably into even worse blind decisions. I think you should seek out a different game. If you want to do blind biddy/bluffy things, the new Sneaks & Snitches is a fine light/fast game, and leave Trans* as a game where you try to leech off other people's networks as efficiently as possible.
B>
-
Andrew Rowse
United Kingdom
North London
-
thepackrat wrote: Mmm, forcing people inevitably into even worse blind decisions.
Quite the opposite, I would have thought. You know that some cities will be 'safe', because other players have all used them at some point recently, and you know that some cities will be higher risk. You can plan which combinations of cities you want to leave available to use in future rounds.
Quote: I think you should seek out a different game. If you want to do blind biddy/bluffy things, the new Sneaks & Snitches is a fine light/fast game, and leave Trans* as a game where you try to leech off other people's networks as efficiently as possible.
Thank you for the advice - I will be sure to check that game out.
However, I enjoy trying variants, and I remain convinced that there is a way to maintain the fundamental gameplay of Trans* while removing elements of the randomness. Admittedly, all the ones I can think of involve adding extra downtime to the game, which might not be some people's cup of tea.
For instance, I am trying to work out whether it would be possible to create a pick-your-destination-as-you-go mechanic. Perhaps by having a stack of numbers (1-6) for each colour, and allowing each player to select a destination city each turn - once chosen, the choice is binding (and secret), and the player takes the lowest remaining number card for the city's colour. During scoring, points would be adjusted in some way depending on whether a player's shared a connected city with players holding higher/lower numbers for that colour.
-
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
-
Your next logical step should be some sort of auction
B>
-
Bruce Murphy
Australia
Pyrmont
NSW
-
Perhaps this:
For smaller player numbers put all the cards (including the normally removed ones) in shuffled piles by colour. To start, let players blindly draw a card from at least 3 (up to all) piles. On all future turns, they have the option to draw one more card from any pile instead of (possibly in addition to) one of their track lays.
Scoring is as before, except that:
- 2 pts for each pile (city colour) you have no cards from.
- halved penalty points for unconnected cities of a colour where you have a different, connected, city.
Needs an auction and some sort of worker placement.
B>
-
John Bohrer
United States
Pittsburgh
Pennsylvania
-
Here is a non-random 5 player setup:
Each player gets a set of cards (Example: Pete gets the Red cards)
Each player chooses a card from their deck and passes the deck to the player on their left. (Example: Pete takes a red card and passes the remaining red cards to Dave (on his left) and gets the green cards from Vince (on his right)
This continues until each player has their 5 different color cards. Have fun.
-
Lacombe
Louisiana
It was a dark and stormy night.
-
John Bohrer wrote: Here is a non-random 5 player setup:
Each player gets a set of cards (Example: Pete gets the Red cards)
Each player chooses a card from their deck and passes the deck to the player on their left. (Example: Pete takes a red card and passes the remaining red cards to Dave (on his left) and gets the green cards from Vince (on his right)
This continues until each player has their 5 different color cards. Have fun.
I was going to suggest a draft.
Sounds like a good idea to me.
-
|
|
