Well I looked at the game – it works well but not really for a card game – so I am ruminating on changing the turn sequence to make things happen.
For instance, as a multi player game it is almost certain that someone will get sent to the Tribune and potentially eliminated each turn. In the context of the game this allows it to move along to its conclusion – a winner.
In a 3 player game, each player playing multiple characters in their political grouping – what internal dynamic is there to have players send each other to the Tribune and possible elimination? Not a lot.
Perhaps the Tribune phase should be made mandatory – and a player has to be sent there each turn?
The next problem of course is how the ‘victim’ is chosen? In a multi player dynamic the victim is usually chosen through a normal group filtering (the irritating one, the one that annoyed me last time, the one who looks like they might win etc).
Perhaps it needs to be game defined – the losing group of the time has to nominate one person to go to the Tribune? Perhaps the wining group of the time gets to choose?
Things to think about.
The state problems – there are 12 of these – and they provide the turn structure the game. In the multi player version the problems were pulled out in a pre-planned order. This provided an ability for the players to plan their game.
In a 3 player card game, that should aim to be replayed multiple times, it would fit to have these 12 state problems randomised – or in other words 12 separate cards shuffled each game.
This would mean the policies each grouping, and each individual would need to be reviewed – in terms of management of characters in the game.
That’s enough for the moment.