Dice of Chaos
Team: Misc.
Game Overview & Rules:
The game master controls the mobile phone which is used to roll a dice two times to decide where and how many times you move your YoYo. This process repeats until one person or a team has scored 100 points. A player gains points for moving their YoYo over a coloured square where they are awarded 10 points for a black square or 25 points for a red square.
If a player reaches the other side of the board, they will flip around.
If a player goes into another players square they get double score (red – 50, black – 20)
Game includes: Mobile, Tabletop, Yoyo
Tabletop: 9x9 Grid marked with 10-point markers and 25-point markers on some squares
Black – 10 points Red – 25 Points
Players: 5 Players (game master is 1 player). This game can also be played in teams of 2v2
Object Used to play: YoYo
Location played: Anywhere you have a table and a board with 9x9 squares.
Requirements to play: 4 YoYo’s, mobile phone with dice roller, 9x9 board
Objective: Reach 100 points first
Prize: Yoyo Biscuit or Wagon Wheel
Dice Rolls:
1 – Forward
2 – Backward
3 – Left
4 – Right
5 – Diagonal Top Left
6 – Diagonal Top Right
Dice Roll 2:
This dice roll will simulate how many moves your “YoYo” moves forward a turn, eg. Max move forward is 6
1 comment:
Dice of Chaos assessments
Game Master’s Reflection/Review
// game played by 5 players //
The game was a little frustrating for 2 of the players, especially the one that wasn’t scoring. It all depends on luck.
Approximately 50 minutes was taken to complete the game. The winner gets a ‘yo-yo’ biscuit as a reward but to encourage those who ended up frustrated we rewarded biscuits to everyone in the team.
GM feedback
Overall they enjoyed the game; although Dan was frustrated having not scored for 11 turns in a row. The moment he scored though you could see there was a great sigh of relief especially since he scored the 25 points.
This was also quite obvious during the game play, when someone scored a 25-point square they were very happy compared to the normal black square (10 points).
They picked the rules up very quickly and understood how the game worked. They soon got into a groove with rolling the dice and got through the game relatively quickly and were happy to know that there was a reward at the end of the game.
The Final scores of the game were quite amazing since it is first to 100
Dan: 90 Points
Erlend: 105 points (winner)
Paul: 90 Points
The chances of all of them reaching the sudden death round of the game is pretty amazing since Dan started with 11 turns of no score.
Explaining the rules and getting things going was very easy however the players (two teams of two on each board) seemed confused by the aim of the game. After talking with them for a bit after the first round(s) we worked out that they were actually confused by the lack of any human decision in the gameplay.
The game is really a simulation exercise in chance. Much like roulette. While anyone can play the game it can get boring quickly after the novelty of unexpected results wears thin.
Dice Chaos would appeal to age groups primary school and up, so suit any age that had simple maths skills and an able mind
It wasn’t too hard once the rules were established nor was it too mentally challenging, initially It was confusing though - in that; the start points set a slightly different path for all players as your moves were based on your home position.
It wasn’t really a game that you could improve your skills with as dice are random and so the name “dice chaos” was very appropriate.
An improvement would be that players get an easier way of being able to tell which is there checker as there were two colours it got confusing to know which one you were with five players.
The idea of the game was easy first to score a certain amount won, quite simple always a winner weather or not you r competitive by nature these things tend to become more emphasized in a game situation being a board type game essentially it was a fairly social game you are all in close proximity and can talk etc….
There was no real strategy in the game though, it was just luck, and so I tended to lose interest, to be fair I lose interest in things quickly in general unless they are fast paced. And I think that may have been an issue in this game it did drag on a little.
I did enjoy the change in playing this game to playing the others it broke up the day from playing games that involved a lot of running around. It was good in that it gave variety to the day.
It was fun in that you made your own fun by joking around about beating each other, though there was no control in it, it was a game of chance.
Who would the game appeal to? It wasn’t complicated so I think 8 + any gender, race, wealth. It was a game for everyone.
Was it too hard? Or easy? Why? Very easy, roll the two dice, depending on the numbers move this direction, this many spaces.
Was it physically or mentally challenging? It was more to do with luck, nothing challenging at all.
Does it have a steep learning curve? If you want to memorize what each numbers direction is, maybe.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc? You don’t really need skill, but it’s a game you could play over and over.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical? Easy to understand and made sense.
Are they easy to remember and follow? What each number represented was a little confusing but the paper was in front of us so it was okay. We didn’t have to do the scoring the GM did that, so that was fine too.
Are there enough or too many? I thought it could have used a rule with the directions, I would have perfered it if everyone had the same view, so like forward is the same for everyone as is left, because it got confusing.
Do they get in the way of playing the game? No, the rules directed the game.
Magic circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established? It was to play on the board, that was easily established.
Is it over an appropriate area? I thought the board could have been bigger just to make the game last longer.
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate? Checker pieces. They could have used any sort of token so nothing special really. But they had black and white on a black and white board so it sort of fits.
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game? Yes, I think so.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game? Not really, we could have had rubber ducks as pieces and it wouldn’t of changed the potential, it might of made it funnier but no.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is? Yes, it was to score 100, we played in teams of two so 100 was reached in 3 moves. It was a quick game.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal? Yes they did, I thought that was defined well. It was funny to always land on the white squares and get no points.
Do the goals seem meaniful? I wanted the biscuit. But after rolling unsuccessfully a couple rounds I was just hoping to land on black.
Duration
Did it take too long? No, it was extremely short, but if we wanted to up the goal the game would go longer.
What was the experience like? It wasn’t bad, there was a clear goal, an interesting way of achieving it, and it was completely left up to luck, I found out I’m not a very lucky person. It wasn’t as challenging as the other games but I felt it was still good in its own right.
Gameplay
Was it fun? And why/not? When you’re playing with friends everything is fun, so you’re constantly egging each other on. It was fun getting frustrated at not scoring anything and I don’t think you could really compare it to the other games because it wasn’t really location based, it was more just a board game you’d play at home.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to? Yeah I think so, it’s something you could sit down and play anytime, it doesn’t take much preparation and it’s not hard to play.
What could have been improved? The only thing that confused us was everybody’s direction is different depending where they are facing so I thought they could of made set directions like everybody’s up is this and everybody’s left is this etc.
What really worked about it? The use of dice and the idea of them equalling direction and movement, I thought that was clever. It could have been implemented better (as said above) but I still thought it was enjoyable, real board or not ☺
Overall a simple effective game that is enjoyable but not overtly challenging. Widening the board or perhaps raising the goal could improve this game.
I found this game to be quite relaxing its objective to reach 100 points in an hour entirely possible. I scored quite regularly on my dice rolls, but one of my competitors did not score for more than 6 or 7 turns breaking all sorts of laws of probability. (They then proceeded to land on a red square twice in a row, worth 25 points each).
This game though reposeful was completely based on chance, more an interesting probability simulator than a game. Mobile Tabletop Yoyo was surprisingly fun and there were also interesting rewards, such as witnessing strange probability anomalies (above) and seeing yoyo pieces ‘bouncing’ off the sides of the board especially the corners where it would ‘bounce’ back and forth if you had rolled a diagonal trajectory.
I would like to teach my son to play this game/sim as no strategic skill is required, (he’s only 3 ½) it’s more a system of process, of learning about movement around a board and the luck of the dice roll (a good place to start) At it’s core it is pretty much random number generation… the mechanic behind D&D and some simple game AI… just minus the story and characters etc…
Who would the game appeal to?
Ex chess players who went crazy and or bored housewives. Who were crazy.
Was it hard? Or easy? Why? It was, how you say, “challenging”
Was it physically or mentally challenging? Mentally…kind of?
Does it have a steep learning curve? Yes, there I said it.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc? Actually yes, after a few rounds.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible? Well the goal yes but the dice rules were tricky to keep up with and I had to keep referring to the sheet which was frustrating because I wanted to at least try to think ahead.
Are they easy to remember and follow? That is no.
Are there enough or too many? There are enough rules but they aren’t clearly consistent with the actions taken on play. i.e. When my token lands on another players suddenly I am awarded 25 points, but I got there via chance (Dice) anyway so it’s not like, “ Aha, I planned that CHESS NAZI”
Do they get in the way of playing the game? Yes a little.
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established? Pretty quickly.
Is it over an appropriate area? Perhaps if the board were larger we wouldn’t collide with other players so quickly, especially when we’re just figuring the game out. This also leaves some space to develop tactics.
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate? Yes, although having identical pieces to other players was difficult and confusing.
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game? Yes they fit.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game? Not dramatically. I supposed if the tokens were in the shape of a certain character who had an obvious value…possibly.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is? To get to 100 points. Right?
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal? I saw it as a dart game only on a checkered board and the dart was...two dice. If you believe in fate then it makes sense, if you don’t it does come down to the dice... and since there isn’t enough self-help options (AKA being able to force gravity perfectly on to the dice) to redeem you once you’re in trouble – it’s frustrating and halts game play.
Do the goals seem meaningful?
Not exactly. Let me explain: In chess the goal is to knock the oppositions King into checkmate. The king has an ancient connotation and status whereas a red square whose position is landed on primarily by chance…isn’t a “meaningful” goal.
Duration
Did it take too long?
Yes, but maybe that’s because we felt we were always stopping and starting.
What was the experience like?
It was fun seeing us all look so lost and celebratory over the silliest things, but in terms of gameplay not so much.
Was it fun? Why/not?
See above.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
Sure, it wouldn’t hold them that long that’s all.
What could have been improved?
A bigger board. Different shaped tokens, or tokens of clearer value? More options that weren’t left to chance and more reward points for tactic based principles. Some arrows on the side of the board so as to remember what position players were supposed to base their moves off.
What worked?
The checkerboard worked damn hard.
- Interesting Challenges
- A game of chance
- This game had a difficult learning curve
- The playing pieces were too similar. The game would benefit from using different player pieces like using chess pieces or similar objects
- Possible game bug is when all player lands on a white square, the game goes into a stalemate which is hard to breakout which made the game run into overtime
- If the game would correct the flaws it can be a game that can be play more often
So we got introduced to this game with a thorough tutorial. The rules are fairly comprehensible and easy to remember and follow. After just a couple of dice throws we the players were going at it with no need for surveilance and guidance at all. The game would probably appeal to the same people who enoy Yatzy as you sit around a table throwing dices and adding points. As Yatzy its pretty much completely luck driven which for better or worse makes it approachable by pretty much anyone, no skills needed. The only paraphernalia needed to play this game is two dice colored differently from each other (actually you could without problem play it with one dice only as the first result would mean direction and the second result would mean steps), one piece of paper with a drawn grid and a second piece of paper to keep a track of the scores with. The rules basically come down to moving your brick around a grid, each time you land on a black square you earn 10 points, each time you land on a red block you earn 25 points and each time you land ontop of a opponent you earn 2x whatever he/she is standing on. First person to earn 100 points wins the game. Very easy, no 'lore' or theme, just throw the dice and go. During our playtesting there were three players involved, we ended up getting a incredibly tight match with two players scoring 95 points and with me actually winning. You actually can't get it tighter than that which was pretty fun and overall we thought it was a very pleasing game which can be played in a relative short period of time (we ended up around 20min I would say). They could have had a bit better paraphernalia present (but we were told that this was due to one team member being late forcing them to print out a black & white paper version of the board, the red block now grey) but it was obvious that they had done a great effort with a lot of rule printouts for everyone to take, prizes for the winners and so on. A very solid relaxing game.
The game played like checkers and wasn’t area based so it kind of defeated the point of the assignment. The rules of the game were simple and didn’t involve any strategy like most board games do .it involved throwing 2 dice for directions and then placing them on the paper which looked like a check board. I could say at this point that the game was bad but there is only so much u can do with a board game when compared to a area wide game .the excitement isn’t really there . It can be hard designing a board game specially one that can be very challenging or as addictive as noughts and crosses but the idea of the game did have potential and I personally don’t think it was used to the furthest extent because all it involved was throwing dice a trained ape could’ve defeated me. Actually any ape could’ve defeated a person as long as it had hands to throw dice. But I guess the game was more a simulation than a game itself
Survey Sheet Review
Who would the game appeal to?
Anyone who had nothing better to do?
Game Play
What was the experience like?
Interesting exercise in Simulation
Was it fun? Why/not?
Interesting for the first 3 minutes because it had no objective in it
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
NO
What could have been improved?
Everything. dice and a board can be changed into something more addictive like noughts and crosses Even a game of modified monopoly would’ve helped
What really worked about it?
Not much sadly: (
Who would the game appeal to? (Age groups, demographics)
People of all ages. 1 person vs. 1 person.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
Too easy.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
Neither was particularly boring.
Does it have a steep learning curve?
No. lol.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?
No it loses its novelty very quickly.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
I suppose but very very basic.
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Yes. Too easy.
Are there enough or too many?
Not enough and what there was weren’t very good.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
No they don’t, that’s all that keeps the game going.
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
Not really. Seemed sort of pointless and too short.
Is it over an appropriate area?
Was just a board so yes.
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate?
Do the dice and checkers count?
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game?
Yes, if that’s what it ment.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game?
It’s the only thing that keeps you there.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
Yes, get points and win.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes, getting points to win.
Do the goals seem meaningful?
Not really.
Duration
Did it take too long?
Could take like 30 seconds to complete theoretically.
What was the experience like?
Boring at the best.
Gameplay.
Was it fun? And why/not?
Not really. Was to short and not enough rules.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
Possibly in boredom.
What could have been improved?
More rules, more specific rules.
What really worked about it?
It didn’t involve a lot of running around which was a nice change. Competitive. Use of the 2 dice was good, one for direction and one for movement
This game is likely to appeal to people with an existing interest in boardgames. Ages 5 and up to avoid toddlers and infants eating the pieces.
The game was hard for me personally as I lost, but that was caused by pure chance. The game was easy as it appeared to be a simulation rather than a true game. Everything was dependant on the dice.
While there was no physical challenge it was mentally exhausting as we had a large group playing. This had the effect of dragging the game out longer.
The learning curve was not steep. We just read out the rules and were straight into it. From the looks on my fellow players faces I don’t think anyone would like to replay this game too soon. The game needed to involve tactics and skill rather than just the luck of the dice.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
The rules were mostly clear and comprehensible but didn’t always seem logical. Lucky prior to commencing I drew starting directions for each piece – otherwise we would have lost track of which piece was who’s.
We all found the rules difficult to follow at times. We were regularly looking up what the numbers on the dice represented on the rule sheet.
Are there enough or too many?
It would have been nice to make the game a bit more challenging, perhaps adding more scenarios/rules.
I don’t know if the rules get in the way of playing the game.
Magic Circle
There isn’t a sense of the scope of the game established. The game was restricted to a board game format and didn’t have any location based game elements. I thought this was a requirement of the project.
The dice was good but should have been used in conjunction with some other game element. Each player’s game token would have worked better if they were a unique shape or colour. The Dice certainly fits in with the game theme. But rather than the game being chaotic like it’s name it became monotonous.
The dice and board may have limited the experience or the games potential. I would have loved to see a more unique game board able to provide more than just points for landing on black or red square.
Goals
The goal was to get to 100 points before your competitors. Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal? The game actions make a bit of sense in relation to the goal. The goals don’t have much meaning other than winning of course!
Duration
This game went for a bit too long, but as we had a large group we had been pre-warned.
The experience was like waiting for your turn to roll a dice and not having any real control over the outcome.
Gameplay.
The game wasn’t fun because the player had little control of the experience. I think people might try it once out of curiousity but I can’t see people going back for more, unless they were doing some sort of probability study.
What could have been improved?
I would have liked more complexity built into the game. Perhaps more obstacles and rewards like a snakes and ladders gameboard could have been introduced. This could have sped up the game duration, and created a more enjoyable experience. Individual player tokens (preferably with a front to them) would have avoided confusion on every turn.
We noticed once you got stuck on a white square you were likely to stay on it and rarely accumulate a score.
The fact you only needed game tokens and a board make it playable almost anywhere.
Sadly I do not have such a glowing report for the second game tested. As a matter of fact I have a hard time calling Chaos dice a game at all. Players of chaos dice are given no autonomy within the game and merely act as elements of a random and arbitrary simulation. The game doesn’t use the elements assigned to it well, as far as I can make out it doesn’t use two of these elements at all. Players have no control over the game and at best it can be viewed as a game of chance with no betting element.
The game should use the roll dice function of a mobile phone but instead we played with dice, this did not impress me at all and I consider the use of the dice roll function of the phone to be poorly conceived use of the item. Similarly the object a ‘yo-yo’ was interpreted to be a confectionary biscuit instead of the toy, and it was only used as a prize at the end of the game. It was not used interactively as part of the game at all, it could just has likely been any other object. Finally the simulation itself is perpetrated by moving a certain number of spaces in a certain direction as decided by the dice, scores are accrued by passing over colored squares. There is no story or motivation in the game that makes in enjoyable and players are incapable of playing with any skill.
Assessment considerations
Who would the game appeal to?: Probably small children who would may find the experience of following instructions interesting and get some thrill out of the random element of the game. Additionally they would probably endure all sorts of game to get the biscuits at the end.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?: The game wasn’t hard or easy at all. There was no task to accomplish that could be rated by difficulty.
Was it Physically or mentally challenging?: No relevant physical challenge was present but coming to terms with the rules requires some patience.
Does it have a steep learning curve?: Yes. For a limited game the system of movement requires careful study to understand. It is not a system that is instinctive and resembles no patterns that I can see from other games.
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?: Its impossible to become better at playing chaos dice. A player has no control over any elements of the game. If a player doesn’t find the study of the patterns revealed by the game intriguing I can see no reason to play the game more than once. Indeed I tried unsuccessfully to get my group to play the game more than twice.
Rules.
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?: They are relatively clear, they are a bit tricky to grasp at first, they are mathematically logical. But the overall game lacks any justification for the pattern. So I hesitate to call it logical.
Are they easy to remember and follow?: Uncertain. Its tricky to understand the game but after a few rounds of play there would be little innovation to be had from subsequent rounds of play.
Are there enough or too many?: There are not enough elements to make an engaging game here so I would say there are too few rules.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?: In a way yes. The rules are so rigid and bland as to make any sense of ‘play’ obsolete. There are to many rules to be a game?
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?: The game is played upon a grid pattern board spaced with red white and black squares. The first person to gather 100 ‘points’ wins. But the victory seems quite hollow.
Is it over an appropriate area?: The board works I suppose.
Is any special Paraphernalia needed for it? Is it appropriate?: The game requires a playing board and a set of two six sided dice or similar random number generator. It also uses an item as a reward at the end. I must note however that the dice used and the yo-yo biscuit reward are not within the spirit of the items chosen for this game. Relegating a complex communication device like a mobile phone to the limit of being a random number generator shows little imagination.
Do such items fit in with the Theme of the Game?: No they don’t. ”Chayos Dice” doesn’t allude to a phone at all. Their use feels arbitrary and contrived.
Do they extend the experience or potential of the Game?: Only so far as the biscuit is a form of food? Yay I ate something!
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?: To eat a yo-yo.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?: None what so ever. The points are meaningless the actions of the game totally random and the winners could as easily be decided with an initiative roll.
Do the goals seem meaningful?: *insert crumbs here*
Gameplay
Did it take to long?: No the game played out its first permutation in under 3 minutes.
One team quickly took the lead
What was the experience like?: Bewildering and a little dull.
Was it fun? And why?: No Chaos dice doesn’t actually have any challenge to it players are granted no resources at all and have no sense of fate within the game. It is altogether too easy to stop caring about the outcome of the game.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?: Perhaps children or revelers suitably lubricated by alcohol would enjoy the experience and the reward at the end. In such situations the element of game play is not the strategy of the game itself but the interaction of people watching the random fate of the revelers. It requires an audience and players would become performers to the sport not gamers in pursuit of a victory.
What could have been improved?: The game lacks I feel only an interactive element..
The field itself isn’t inherently flawed and the game could be turned into an interesting strategic system by including an element of choice at any stage of the game. An example could be as simple as rolling the two dice and then deciding which one would be used for direction and which one would be used as range. In this manner the player would have to become familiar with the patterns of scoring in the game and could play the game with strategy.
What really worked about it?: The game reveals an interesting pattern of number generation that occurs because players may run transversely across the field and cross black and white tiles alternatively. Players may also move in lines diagonally across the field which results in them only crossing black tiles which accrues a large score or only crossing white tiles which gathers none.
This pattern seems fitting to the name ‘chaos dice’. I believe that it could be used successfully to create a strategic game.
The game I found fun towards the end. The objective to get first to 100 points but in my case it took 11 turns before I registered a score! Once I started getting the points on the board the game became a lot more enjoyable and I scored the big 25 points on 3 occasions to nearly come back and win.
Who would the game appeal to?
The game can appeal to all ages since it is logical and easy to understand.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
The game was relatively easy due to there not being to many rules and a simple scoring system to 100.
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
The game wasn’t physically or mentally challenging the scoring system was logical and there’s nothing to hard in rolling dice!
Does it have a steep learning curve?
There wasn’t any learning curve what so ever it was a game for fun purposes.
Would it be a game people came back to and play again to improve their skill ect?
No skill required the game is all about the luck of rolling the dice rather then actual skill.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
The rules behind the game were clear use the dice to depict the direction and how many spots you would go on the game board. Black scores 10 points red scores 25 points. First player to 100 points wins.
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Very easy to remember after a few turns you learn the direction and amount of spots to travel on the game board without a problem.
Are there enough or too many?
Rules were a fine amount.
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
No
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
Yes to score 100 points before your other opponents.
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Yes
Do the goals seem meaningful?
The goal is perfectly meaningful since it makes the game.
Duration
The duration is depicted on how lucky the individuals are rolling.
Did it take to long?
No the game was a decent length.
What was the experience like?
The experience was decent but it seemed somewhat repetitive
Gameplay.
Was it fun? And why/not?
The game was fun but I feel an extra dimension added in would of made it a little more exciting.
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
Well I guess it is a game which you would play to pass some time otherwise I wouldn’t play it more then once.
What could have been improved?
A little more dimensions in the game so it doesn’t seem to repetitive.
What really worked about it?
The fact that it wasn’t overly hard to understand.
Who would the game appeal to? (age groups, demographics)
This Game could be played by any person who is kind of smart enough. Player which like dice games would like this game.
Was it too hard? Or Easy? Why?
Was it physically or mentally challenging?
Does it have a steep learning curve?
Would it be a game people came back to play again to improve their skill etc?
The Game itself was not really hard. The Game was not really mentally challenging because it depended on your luck of your dices. So it was just a dice rolling game, where you had to follow the rules of the dices. There where two dices, a red and a black one. The red one told you what your movements were and the amount of the black one told you how many steps you could take. So if a red 2 means you hve to go left and you throw a black 3 you have to walk 3 fields to the left. The Gameplate looked as a Chest Game board except that there where 4 red squares in the center of that board. So when you landed on a black field, you obtained 10 points and when you reached a red one you received 25 points.
Rules
Are they clear, comprehensible, logical?
Are they easy to remember and follow?
Are there enough or too many?
Do they get in the way of playing the game?
It took me a while to get into it but then it was quite clear. The rules were not really hard to understand.
Magic Circle
Is a sense of the scope of the game established?
Is it over an appropriate area?
Is any special paraphernalia needed for it appropriate?
Do such items fit in with the theme of the game?
Do they extend the experience or potential of the game?
To play that game, you need to have at minimum 2 players, a play ground which looks like a chest play ground and two dices. A pen and paper to write down the points.
Goals
Do you know what the goal of the game is?
Do the game actions make sense in relation to the goal?
Do the goals seem meaningful?
The Goals of that Game were clear. The player who gained 100 points is the winner of the Game.
Duration
Did it take too long?
The Game ended when one player could achieve 100 points. In my case, the duration of the game was approximately half an hour.
What was the experience like?
Gameplay.
Was it fun? And why/not?
Would anyone play it if they weren’t being forced to?
What could have been improved?
What really worked about it?
It was quite fun but it wasn’t actually really an interactive live action game. You can play this game with just two players. You can also play this at home, what I think that it is quite boring. It was more fun when you actually play it itselfs. So you are the figure that has to move. So, you draw the Game ground outside and have really big dices. The player throws it and moves themselves those fields. I think this could be much more fun and it is more interactive. There could also more rules. It was just rolling the dices and act as the numbers were telling you what to do. There were no points of changes and so on. And especially when you were on a white field, it was really hard to get to a black field to obtain points. So at the end of the game, everyone could be the winner, because everyone was on a white field and couldn’t get to a black field. That was a little bit boring. In this Game there should be more commitment and more obstacles. And it should be more interactive.
Misc: Dice of Chaos
This game in my personal opinion was relatively boring and frustrating as it requires nothing but the luck of the dice to win. There was generally no skill involved.
It was very simple in visual design as of most board games which was acceptable as standard. Number of players was good as it was possible to play with more than 2 players.
I had arrived late but observed the game played by other members of my group, erland, paul and dan were playing. Paul was winning, and dan was getting very frustrated as every roll he ended up with 0 points.
Paul eventually won.
I do commend the members of Misc. group on the rules and concept of the game as it was very complex and had to be explained to me about 3 times before I fully understood how the game was played.
Post a Comment