Search, Ponder, & Play: A Review

Search, Ponder, and Play is a game published by Covenant Communications. It's based on Andy Looney's Aquarius (here). And when it was first published had quite a bit of controversy surrounding it (read about it here). The game is for 2-5 players and, because of the way the game can be played, can take anywhere from 15 minutes to 45 minutes.

How to Play
The gameplay is pretty straight forward, each player is dealt one of the Search cards (there are 5, one for each book of scripture: Old Testament, New Testament, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price). The card you are dealt determines your goal for that round. The goal is to get a total of 7 images, that match your Search card, to connect. I know, that doesn't make much sense, but it will in just a minute.

So, on your turn, you draw a card and then play a card to the table. Cards may be played as long as at least a part of the side of the card you play matches a part of the side of a card already on the table (you place it along side of that card, like in the picture below; you can see that the yellow has 4 images connected at the moment).

So, if you have the yellow Search card, then you'd need 3 more yellow images to connect to those 4 in some fashion or other. Your Search card stays hidden so that other players don't know what you are going after, but you can start to deduce what Search cards other players have as the game progresses.

There are also cards that let you, for example, pick up a card from the table, move a card on the table, or even switch hands with another player. These are the Ponder cards. The cards you play to the table, that have the different images on them, those are the Play cards. That's how you get the whole Search, Ponder, & Play!

The game also includes a pad of paper where you can list every player and the different Search cards they've won with. The rules suggest playing until one player has won with all 5 different Search cards, but for what the game is, that takes way too long. I mean, you might win one time with the blue and then be dealt the blue Search card again, yes, you might be able to switch Search cards in the middle of a round and win with another color, but it would just take too long, for me anyway, playing until someone wins with all 5 Search cards. Just playing as many rounds as you like, keeping track of who wins each one, that is easier for me to handle.

I'm giving it a 4 out of 5!

Overall, I think the game is easy to learn, quick to play, and contains a little strategy (like how you place cards on the table, making sure to leave a bunch of open sides of the color you are going after; the rules state that you can start blocking your opponents during the game, but that's only if you've been able to deduce what Search card they have, so that strategy might work in). Kids can also play the game, making it a nice family game. I recommend giving it a try if you haven't yet!

Buy from www.ldsboardgames.com

Game Instructions & Rulebooks

A few people have contacted me wanting to know how to get a hold of the rules for games. For example, I picked up the Bee Attitudes game the other day at DI and it didn't have the rulebook with it. I ended up contacting Covenant Communications, Phil Reschke, about how to get a copy. He replied with the rules attached (as a pdf file) and told me that if anyone is looking to get a copy of rules from games that they have published all they need to do is shoot him an email (PhilR@covenant-lds.com). They are happy to send the rules to anyone who asks for them.

Conversation with James H Fullmer

I recently was able to speak with James H Fullmer about his experiences with designing, illustrating, and publishing (via Covenant Communications) his two games, Book of Mormon Battles and Warriors of the Promised Land.



Download the conversation here.

I had a list of questions that we discussed. We didn't really read them out loud or anything, so here they are.

1. What made you first decide to design a game?
2. Was the idea Book of Mormon Battles from the beginning or did it sort of evolve to that as you worked on it?
3. How did the design process go? I mean, did you get some paper, cut it up, and mark them for cards, or how did it go?
4. When did Covenant Communications enter the picture? Did you contact them as you were working on the idea or more after you had it all worked out?
5. How did the whole relationship work with Covenant?
6. What was your process for the artwork (there are a lot of images in both games)?
7. What made you decide to go the second game Warriors of the Promised Land?
8. Was the process with that game pretty much the same as with the first?
9. Do you know the print run size for either game?
10. Do you know how successful the games have been (how many have sold)?
11. What did you learn from your experience that you would like to share with other "would-be LDS/Mormon game designers?"

This is my first dive into doing a podcast or recorded interview/conversation, whatever you want to call it. So I learned quite a bit about that. Plus I enjoyed meeting James (Jay as he prefers to go by) and learning about him and his experiences.

Hopefully this will be of benefit to someone besides me, but if not, I enjoyed it and found it enlightening.

Simplicity (and family-appeal)

So I think I was on to something when I was talking about simplicity (here). I was, of course, on the topic of designing and making the process a whole lot easier. But now I think it is more important. I got an email from Phil at Covenant Communications today and he said the following: "Right now they seem to be looking for games that aren't too complex and that appeal to the whole family."

A few things I want to say about this.

First, this came regarding the Armor of God that I submitted. I thought that the Armor of God was a pretty simple design. Like I said, it was the easiest time I've had writing the instruction/rulebook and it has been fairly easy to teach others to play. I just don't understand why it would be viewed as confusing or difficult to understand and play. Maybe my instruction/rulebook is confusing (I've had a few friends look it over and help me revise it).

Second, I guess this is why I don't like a lot of the currently available LDS/Mormon themed games. I try not to be too judgmental, but a lot of times it seems like they have pretty simple design and gameplay. Now, I'm sure they know a whole lot more about these things than I do, after all they are the ones actually producing and selling games. They are able to look at what has sold in the past and attempt to make predictions about future sales. Can this attitude ever be changed? Will LDS/Mormon people buy and play games that are a little more complex? Will they buy and play games that aren't as "party"-ish? Of course, I don't have the answers to these questions, but I think Settlers of Zarahemla is a good example. It is a little more complex and probably wouldn't be consider a "party" game. It's also a difficult comparison to make because it is a remake of Settlers of Catan. So it was able to sort of ride the coat tails of that game. People already kind of knew what they were getting.

Lastly, I'm sure it is important to market games to families, as many LDS/Mormons are in bigger families, but what about single LDS/Mormon people who get together to play games? Or how about newly-weds or those without children? Do they just not make up enough of the population of potential LDS/Mormon gamers?

With this, I'm not trying to tell the publishers and marketers that they don't know what they are doing. I mean, I've got no experience with that sort of thing at all. But I am a member of the church. I play games. My wife plays games. I have friends who play games. So, in my little experience in that realm, I would say that other type games would appeal to "us."

How do I get my games out for others to know about?

How do I get this blog out for others to hear about and read (if there are some who may be interested)?

This would be extremely important if I would like to publish them myself.

Armor of God

Update (5 May 2009): Well, I've known for a while, but am just barely updating this post. Covenant decided that the game is too complicated and only for 2 players. So, now I'm pursuing making this a Print n Play game like I had thought about doing a while ago.

Be the first player to arm yourself with all 7 pieces of the Armor of God!

The Armor of God is a card game for 2 or 4 players (2 players play against each other or, in a 4 player game, there are 2 teams of 2 players competing). Players compete to win, "arm themselves" with, the pieces of the Armor of God. This is done by playing point cards that match the piece of the Armor of God they are trying to win. These cards are played in ascending order. For example, a player plays a 4 Shield of Faith. Later he may only play 5 or above on that pile. This is done by playing 1 card per turn and then drawing to fill your hand.

There are "Arm Yourself" cards shuffled into the pile. Once a player draws one of these he spins (like a frisbee) the card into the center of the table. The numbered corner that points to that player determines which of the pieces of the Armor of God will be won. The player with the most points played on that piece, wins the piece. Once a player has won all 7 pieces, he wins the game.

Some cards are used to hinder your opponent's progress. Others are used to help yourself out.

This game has been submitted to Covenant Communications and I am awaiting their response (they have a basic prototype that we put together).

Theme, Mechanics, & Immersion

I just sent off the submission of The Armor of God to both Covenant Communications and Cedar Fort. I'll be waiting patiently to see what, if any, response I get from them.

Last night I read a pretty interesting article from The Games Journal about Theme, Mechanics, and Immersion of games (here). It really made me think about what I've got going in my games. All of my pondering was focused on Peril in the Promised Land as this is my favorite of the few games I'm designing/creating right now. Personally, Peril in the Promised Land has a great theme. I mean, who doesn't want to take the lead of an army of Nephite soldiers as they go into battle against the Lamanites under the Title of Liberty, seeking to recover their lost cities and freedoms!? It's the very popular good vs. evil theme. As Andrew Hardin points out the theme should do 2 things: 1) it creates an immediate sense of immersion and 2) makes game play easier. I've been working on making game play easier. I've cut rules, making things less complex and simpler to understand and follow. I've tried to get the rules to "connect" more to the theme, kind of making the rules seem logical in the given context of the theme.

The theme of Peril in the Promised Land also gets players immersed both mentally and emotionally, as discussed in the article. Firstly, players are mentally engaged in protecting themselves from the Lamanites, while at the same time they are trying to figure out how to go about recovering the cities that have been lost to the Lamanites. There are a number of possible strategies a player could choose. Options seem to be a good thing to keep players engaged and immersed as well. The emotional side comes in, which I think is very individual or person specific. This probably hits home more with members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as they are familiar with the Book of Mormon and the struggles between the Nephites and Lamanites throughout the book. Emotionally players can feel the tension that is caused by Lamanite actions and the need for your army to not only succeed, but to survive in the process.

Thinking about these things makes me wonder: Is it the theme that really attracts someone to a game in the first place? For me, a lot of times I think it is more the mechanics of the game that draw me in. For example, I enjoy Heroscape, but I first became interested when I saw it in the store and found that you could change the terrain, design it however you choose. I also wanted to play Settlers of Catan because of the hex-shaped board pieces that you set up at the beginning of play. Shadows Over Camelot appealed to me because of the cooperative nature of the game play. Maybe my question is way off. But, there are probably people who pick up a game because of it's theme. In the case of Peril in the Promised Land, I would want people to pick it up because of theme, but also because of mechanic. I want to attract people who think playing as Nephite generals in a war with the Lamanites would be fun, but also those who think playing a game where players cooperate against the game (the Lamanites) would be fun. In the end I think it is about theme and mechanics to begin with. That has to draw people into picking up the game in first place. After that, I think the author is right, it's all about immersion. Those themes and mechanics need to really immerse the players in game or the attraction of the theme or mechanic will be lost rather quickly.

The Armor of God

Since I received word from Covenant Communications about not wanting to pursue Peril in the Promised Land at all, I started working on a game that I had come up with a few months ago. It's a card game so it may fit better in their "less risk" category. I call it The Armor of God. Players compete to be the first to collect all 7 pieces of the Armor of God. It's got a sort of War feel to it, as players play point cards trying to have the highest point value associated with a piece of the armor and in this way "win" that piece. The pieces of the armor act like suits on the cards. I'm currently putting together the rules/instructions in a document that I will submit to both Covenant Communications and Cedar Fort per the suggestion of Bruno Faidutti (here). I'll also link to the document once I get it finished and off to them.

Here is the figure that I'll include in the document. I know it doesn't mean a whole lot removed from the rest of the rules, but those will be up tomorrow, right after I submit it all.

It Came to Pass: A Review

I got a hold of a copy of It Came to Pass this weekend and my wife and I played it a few times. I'm offering this short review as a result. Keep in mind that this is pretty much coming from the perspective of a would-be game designer/self-publisher, so it probably won't be like so called "normal" reviews of games.

First off, I started with the thought that the game was going to be a lot like Uno (I think this was the case because I read, I think on gameboardgeek, that the game was similar to Uno, and the guy who lent me the game also told me it was like Uno). This was a big mistake! I was reading the rules and thinking Uno the whole time. My wife and I had to consciously stop thinking it was going to be like Uno so that we could understand the rules. So we finally got over that and pretty much understood what we were reading. In other words, don't bring in preconceived notions of what the game is going to be like, it will hinder your understanding and perhaps enjoyment (even after learning how to play I was still comparing it to Uno).

Before I opened the tuck box and looked over the rules I read the outside. which can also be found on gameboardgeek:

A heart-pounding, card-slapping game of strategy and fun for Latter-day Saints.

Well, that seemed a little cheesy to me. I got a similar feeling when I read the back:

Get your hand ready, slide to the edge of your seat, and see if you dare to say, "PASS."

So much for first impressions.

Cards
The cards felt really nice. They were thick and had a very nice glossy/non-stick surface that made shuffling and dealing easy. (I can't wait to order from GuildofBlades to be able to compare the two.) Overall, the design of the cards was pretty basic. There are six different suits (colors in this case) and each suit contains numbers 2 through 10 and a Charity card and a Desolation card. The game can be played with just these cards (it's the Basic Gameplay). We, of course, didn't play this version. We were in for the "more excitement" that was promised when we were ready to move on and add the Option Cards (again, I got that feeling of chessiness). So basically, the front of the cards contained color and number or words (2 - 9, Charity, & Desolation). The backs of the cards have a nice looking logo, which comes from Mayan culture (the box also explains this). Overall, I thought, "how simple," and "I think I may be able to come up with similar designs."

Rules
The rules are explained on 2 "double-sized" cards included in the tuck box. This is another good job of keeping things simple. The rules are clearly explained, in a short and concise manner. It gave me hope that I can do the same with the rules/instructions for my own games. As I looked back over the rules, I noticed that some things are not explained; it's as if they are taken for granted; me, as the reader, should already know what I need to do. I guess that sometimes it's better to not try to explain everything in such great detail. As long as people are somewhat familiar with games in general, then they should be able to understand and play the game without having to read over too much detail. In other words, just include enough for people to play and don't worry about making sure each and every detail is covered in the rules. I guess I've got to find a balance (isn't it that way in everything we do in life?).

The whole object of the game is to build a hand of cards that contains the least amount of points. This is done by drawing and discarding. Here again I was comparing it to and thinking about Uno. In Uno you have to match either number or color, but in this game you can discard whatever card. It doesn't have to match what's already in the discard pile. The Charity card removes the point value of any other cards in your hand of that same color. Therefore, you can actually build a hand consisting of zero points. The Option cards add variation and fun. You definitely want to play with them in.

Conclusion
I give the game a 4 out of 5

I think the game is fun. The rules are simple. As with what others have said (here's a review of the game from boardgamegeek), I think it would be much more fun with 4 or more people. It was fun with my wife, but it didn't last long and we were ready to move on. (Little side-note: the Secret Combination card should probably be removed when playing with only 2 players.) I would bring this out with a larger crowd and would definitely enjoy myself. So, I would recommend it to others, larger groups, as a fun, party-type game.

Buy from www.ldsboardgames.com

A long story made, longer

It must have been in February that my wife and I played Shadows Over Camelot. I guess my (I should really say "our," as my wife helped an awful lot) development our game went rather quickly. By April I was contacting Covenant Communications in hopes of being able to submit the idea to them, which we were able to do in May. After the Spring semester was over we took a trip to southern Utah (we have family there that we wanted to visit). On our way down we stopped by Covenant Communications in American Fork and I sat down with Phil Reschke. His first reaction ws one of surprise of what I had. That was quickly followed with a concern for the 3D miniatures that I had and the number of components. I had gone to my local hobby gaming shop, Phoenix Games, and picked up some D&D minis that I was using. It just made playing a whole lot cooler, but this was not a requirement for publishing. Anyway, I ended up sending him the game about a week later so that he would be able to share it with the committee who makes the ultimate decision regarding new games. Two weeks later they still had not reviewed it, so we decided to wait until November, as they already had the 2 games selected that they would be pursuing for publishing (he told me that they do 2 to 3 games a year). That way they could consider it for next year. Well, here it is November and, after contacting Phil via email, I got the following response:


Hi Mike,

Yes, things have been very busy. I would say that given the current economy, we won't be taking any complex, multi-component, unknown games to market for this next fall. We'll probably focus our game efforts on lower cost, lower risk games that appeal to a bigger segment of our market. Thanks again for letting us evaluate your game. I wish you well in all your efforts.


Phil


Needless to say, I was quite disappointed. I mean, I've (my wife and I) been working on getting this ready for the last several months. We have made many changes, making things less complex, reducing the number of components, and using more "standard" kinds of components. I'm not sure what I'll do with this idea now. I've looked into self-publishing a little bit, but I've got more to research before I could make a decision there.

Last night, after I informed my wife of the whole situation, we decided that we had other games that are less component-heavy. So, I'll be submitting a card game idea that we've put together. Hopefully I'll have it all ready tomorrow or Thursday. I guess we'll see how it goes.

You live and you learn.