More thoughts…….

In the last post, I discussed the issue of how the Tribune should work – to make it mandatory based on who lost the policy round:

“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”

Thinking of this a little bit further I am not so sure this works fully. My problem being that this links directly to the policy round – and who wins that – however if the policy round is asymmetric (i.e each player will not have an even chance each round ) then this makes the Tribune round perhaps unfair.

My definition of unfair at this point means a player being effected by an event that they cannot have any input in creating. This makes for a game the player potentially does not buy into.

Taken to a end point – this means that a seperate round, and therefore mechanism needs to put in place for the Tribune round. In effect a completely new round of interactions to create the tribune needs to happen.

In a 3 player game this may start to make the game long winded – in a larger player game it would be ok – the normal group dynamic comes into play.

Hmm…………..I want a game that can be extended from 3 to 15 players in the same structure, I dont want to have to write and set up two complete different systems.

On a different note – whilst working on ‘The Hard and Calcined Earth’ game the discussion about the look and feel of the game physically has been started. Just vaguely, becuase we need to look and consider things a long time beforehand.

My idea is to use the French Tricolour in the design and format of the cards themselves.

The definition is:

“The three colours are occasionally taken to represent the three elements of the revolutionary motto, liberté (freedom: blue), égalité (equality: white), fraternité (brotherhood: red).

On the other hand, the French government website wrote that the white field is the colour of the king, while blue and red were the colours of Paris.”

So there you go!!