Black Thursday [was Re: Announcing the winner!!]

["Clark D. Rodeffer" <cdrodeffer@...>]

I hope y'all don't mind, but I made some small edits to the quoted
text for clarity. I don't believe I changed the intended meaning.

CDR> I did consider using Black Tuesday
CDR> as the name

RL> [A]t one spot in the rules you do
RL> refer to the game as Black Tuesday

That's odd! I *thought* that I sent in a (very minor) rules update
soon after my initial submission, but maybe those edits didn't make it
into the "redacted" copy. It obviously wouldn't have changed the
contest results, but in any case, the version now in the files area is
the one I intended to enter (except without the identifying texts),
and that's the one we can all use for discussing possible
improvements.

CDR> Vary initial portfolios [...]

RL> Getting more [stock certificates at
RL> the beginning] is a good thing. It
RL> either needs to be a lot more
RL> difficult [to get] rid of them,
RL> *or*, there needs to be way more
RL> to get [rid of].

In principle, I agree. I want the game play to be driven by trading
and negotiation rather than just dumping stocks at any convenient
window of opportunity. However, I don't think just starting with more
stocks will do the trick, especially if it's still just as easy (with
no other changes) to dump them at windows of opportunity. But I will
hold onto this idea as a possibility. Increasing the difficulty of
getting rid of the stock is probably a more promising route.

CDR> Change the building layout

RL> A smaller tower might work. We
RL> also found that skinnier towers
RL> made for better games. It appears
RL> that with any 1x? layout, you can
RL> get into situations where two
RL> people can block the progress of
RL> those above and force them to do
RL> other actions.

This is a feature, not a bug! But yes, there are ways by which players
further down on the building can hinder the progress of those above.
That is, assuming they have a compelling reason not to make a run for
the ground floor. It's a gamble, but in the standard 2x12 layout, if
you know that someone doesn't have any stock in a particular company,
opening a window of opportunity in front of them (if it's in that void
company) should steer them toward the opposite side of the building
into a bottleneck. On the other hand, if you don't know what lies
behind that window, you risk inadvertently helping your opponent
instead. In a 1x? layout, an open window of opportunity can be a huge
obstacle, especially if someone else has most of the matching stock
certificates and time to get rid of them. But this is an almost
overwhelmingly strong bargaining situation, hence the choice of a 2x12
grid as the default building layout. One of my goals was to give
windows of opportunity both positive and negative qualities. The
positive is obvious, a chance to dump stock and improve your score.
The negative is more tactical, a chance to hinder opponents who are
doing well (don't own much stock), or at least to affect their freedom
of movement.

CDR> Set some maximum for the number
CDR> of Windows of Opportunity that
CDR> can be open at a given time.

RL> Another idea we discussed was to
RL> close a Window after it was used.
RL> The down side of this is that
RL> this really penalizes the person
RL> whose turn opened it (ie. what we
RL> found was that you completely
RL> lose a turn when a Window opens,
RL> and so it's the people that go
RL> after that really gain the
RL> benefit of it.)

Arbitrarily losing a turn is a bad thing, something I hate about games
like Trouble, so I don't think forced closure is likely to work. I'm
typing as I think here, but an alternative could be, once two windows
of opportunity are open, opening a third causes one of the original
two (the player's choice) to close? I want to give the players
tactical choices whenever it makes sense to do so. For both mechanical
and thematic reasons, windows of opportunity should not stay open the
whole game. Giving players tactical reasons to want to close them
would be good, but where is the balance point? I'll keep this in mind
as a next step to try in case other fixes are less effective. Again,
the goal was a game driven mainly by negotiation and trading, since
that best fits the stock market theme. So almost anything that guides
the game in that direction is probably a good thing.

CDR> Limit number of action points
CDR> spendable on movement (to 1 or 2
CDR> per turn)?

RL> There did seem to be a large
RL> number of action points available.
RL> I agree with this!

During play testing, this was one thing we tried. The problem was,
with only two players, it was sometimes impossible to use all of the
action points, due to there being only one other player with whom to
initiate a trading session. Our flawed fix was to allow more movement
and market buying, but in hindsight, a better choice would be to scrap
the two-player version and make the game only for three or four
players instead. I'd like to try it again with a maximum of one step
of movement per turn (still limited to down orthogonally or down
diagonally). Also, since the game ends when the next-to-last player
leaves the building, someone is going to get stuck behind. Lots of
available movement invites picking on the losing player with an
unsatisfying "race for the exit" strategy. I'd like to reduce the
effectiveness of this, and limiting motion should help. The spread
between first and last exits should also be reduced. Right now, I
believe this one tweak has the most promise of guiding Black Thursday
back toward the negotiation game it was intended to be.

CDR> Limit number of action points
CDR> spendable on buying from the
CDR> market (to 1 or 2 per turn)?

RL> Buying [from] the market wasn't
RL> much of a problem, as it rarely
RL> happened that people wanted to
RL> buy after the first couple rounds,
RL> because every[one] knew [that the
RL> bag was full of high-value stocks
RL> that had been dumped earlier].

So if I understand correctly, what you're saying is that since "bad"
windows of opportunity are easy to avoid, market buying is rarely
necessary. This is unfortunate. I believe that, to give the game a
sense of urgency, there must be something to force progress, hence the
limitation on directions of movement, always toward the ground floor,
if at all. But I'd also like there to be some tension between the
desire to dump stock and the need to have access to some minimal
portfolio (to avoid jumping), especially on the lower floors of the
building. I'd also like there to be enough flexibility in the rules
such that placing pawns and manipulating windows of opportunity can
both be used as tactics to hinder opponents. Slowing the movement rate
to a maximum of one space per turn should go a long way toward giving
opponents chances to respond by either getting their pawns in the way
or opening "bad" windows of opportunity. But there's some balance to
find, and being able to buy in the market to avoid jumping, at least
in some limited sense, seems necessary to prevent stagnation. On those
cold October days, the New York market was anything but stagnate.

CDR> Force sale of some number
CDR> more than one (perhaps 2)
CDR> matching stock certificates
CDR> from a Window of Opportunity,
CDR> in order to force players to
CDR> hold onto more certificates?

RL> I'm not sure what you mean by
RL> this?

Again, the idea was to give windows of opportunity both positive and
negative aspects. In this (admittedly rather arbitrary) suggested fix,
if someone didn't have at least two certificates in the company
matching the window, it would be the same as having none: depression
and a death jump. But this kind of kludge rule does feel arbitrary,
and it kind of takes away from the theme in my mind. On the other
hand, opportunity seems to imply something more than the usual, so
perhaps forcing a sale of at least two certificates wouldn't be that
bad after all? I'll keep it in mind.

RL> I think it may also be that
RL> the one square that allows
RL> you to dump an entire colour
RL> is overpowered.

It might be, especially toward the end of the game as the last players
near the ground floor. I'll keep that in mind as another possible area
for tweaking in case limiting movement and/or market purchases doesn't
work.

RL> Another choice may be to
RL> only allow people to use
RL> each window once, then are
RL> forced to move off of it
RL> before using another one.

I'm pondering what this means. You already have to move off one window
of opportunity to use another (one for a different company). Maybe I
don't understand your suggestion. How would it work? Have you tried
it? Does it feel smooth?

CDR> I am encouraged, and will
CDR> continue to work on Black
CDR> Thursday with the hope of
CDR> having a much better game in
CDR> the not-too-distant future.

RL> Keep working on it! The group
RL> really liked the theme, and
RL> negotiation games, while not
RL> for everyone, are usually fun.

Thanks for the compliment. I like the theme, too, and want Black
Thursday to feel like stock traders on the verge of panic. Some sort
of negotiation mechanic seemed most appropriate for the theme.

RL> Make it more difficult to get
RL> rid of certificates, or build
RL> in mechanisms where people are
RL> forced to get more. (First
RL> action of your turn is to draw
RL> a chit from the bag?)

Well, not to sound like a broken record, but I had hoped that the fear
of jumping would discourage players from dumping *all* their stock.
And again, perhaps limited movement will help a bit. More turns
required to get anywhere means more chances for opponents to
manipulate windows of opportunity, which means more chances to run
into side-by-side windows with an empty portfolio. Drawing new
certificates as a first action kind of hurts the theme, at least to
me. But since I'm in listening mode, I'll indeed listen, and consider.

RL> Most of all, playtest, playtest,
RL> playtest! Suggestions you get
RL> from people who have played your
RL> game are usually gold!

I agree wholeheartedly! I hope to find more people willing to play
(not an easy task). And Rob, thank you for all your suggestions so
far. Again, I welcome ideas from anyone else as well. Play Black
Thursday, tell me what you like and dislike, and especially let me
know if you try anything that makes it better.

Clark