GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters at year's end: 1000!

9,211 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
17 Days Left

Support:

Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
9 Posts

Above and Below» Forums » Variants

Subject: Greater trading rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
When I taught the game recently, I included 2 house rules related to buying/selling:
1. You can have unlimited items up for sale (tiles, cider, potions), rather than being limited to one. At the end of the round, you can choose to move any or all tiles still up for sale to your advancement track (which of course stay there once placed), or keep one or more items up for sale for the next round. Players may only buy items on their turn, but you can negotiate future deals.

2. Tiles, cider, and potions may be purchased with money as normal, minimum cost still $3 per tile. But you can also trade tiles that both parties have in their markets (like a mushroom for an amethyst), and such a trade can be sweetened with money, $1 or more.

Some might complain that this reduces the difficulty and tension involved of moving up the advancement track, but in my experience it makes for a more enjoyable game and more player interaction.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nat Morris
Canada
Creston
BC
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We are also very loose with the trading rules. It is half the fun for us. Lots of wheeling and dealing and laughing. (The only really strict rule is that once a tile is on the advancement track it is there for the game as you mentioned). I wouldn't want to play A&B w/o all the crazy trading!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Charles Waterman
United States
Commerce Township
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I like the first rule, but I think removing the requirement to pay $3 is likely to affect game balance. Of course, two players could negotiatre with a promise to trade the three coins back on their next turn.....*grin*
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James R. Gracen
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
montebanc wrote:
I like the first rule, but I think removing the requirement to pay $3 is likely to affect game balance. Of course, two players could negotiatre with a promise to trade the three coins back on their next turn.....*grin*

If they're trading goods and one party is throwing in an extra $1, that's basically the same thing as one person selling their good for $3, and the other selling theirs for $4.

I know you're *supposed* to have the full amount of gold in your stash before buying from another player (i.e. deal is off if one or the other trading partner doesn't have the $3 or $4 before the trade), but I would probably house rule that trading and paying the net $1 difference or whatever would be just fine.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
I don't know about game balance. Being able to just trade 1:1 without either player having $3 does make it easier to fill up your track, but I don't think that's a bad thing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
James R. Gracen
United States
Oregon
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ryan Keane wrote:
Some might complain that this reduces the difficulty and tension involved of moving up the advancement track, but in my experience it makes for a more enjoyable game and more player interaction.

I like your suggestions here and think I will incorporate them into my game as well. One thing though, why not just disregard the "for sale" corner of the playmat altogether, and just consider any goods any player has on their board as trade-able (until, of course, they are placed on the advancement track).

Here is an old thread where players discuss the lack of trading which ran from "never" to "maybe once or twice a game." But in any case, direct player interaction, aside from one player reading encounters to another, is a bit low for this game.

Do you guys use the auction mechanic?

I think incorporating your house rules will help immensely with player interaction. Of course, players still can set a value on their goods, and refuse a trade if they don't like it. They can sell, or trade, or combine both if they choose. And yes, advancement tracks will get filled quicker, and this will result in higher overall scores, but I don't think I mind that. I'll give it a shot!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Yes, that's basically what we do. Anything not on your track is up for trade. We just use the corner as a place to put them. Often players are arranging future deals when they plan their turn. E.g. If I harvest this rope, will you harvest your gem and trade me?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Mendenhall
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
We allow direct good-for-good trades. It definitely increases the incidences of trading.

And last night, we had a trade that was, IIRC, amethyst+villager for a mushroom. The trading players asked permission of the non-involved player, who shrugged, and said 'sure.' This was on the last round.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Keane
United States
Medford
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
Mpmuir wrote:
We allow direct good-for-good trades. It definitely increases the incidences of trading.

And last night, we had a trade that was, IIRC, amethyst+villager for a mushroom. The trading players asked permission of the non-involved player, who shrugged, and said 'sure.' This was on the last round.


We don't allow trading villagers. No slavery here.
Although I'd probably welcome someone paying me to take my stupid lazy cat.
 
 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.