Decoys Cont.

The core mechanics of Decoys are solid. They truly invoke the themes of deception and perception. But the game wasn't exciting enough. Playtesters would nod their heads at the strategic possibilities and tell me, "You've got something here," but it didn't feel complete. The mechanics laid out long-term strategies, but I needed something to occupy player's minds on a more short-term level to keep them interested. 


I thought back to the Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy idea, I considered giving each piece a different ability that players would only be able to use if they chose it to be their Spy. It was the same game but with a 'character select' at the beginning. Though the abilities were a welcome and dramatic twist, it really didn't change the progression of play enough to make the game more exciting.

It was actually my mother that gave me the idea that solved this problem. She suggested introducing cards onto the field that players could pick up as they play. These cards would give players a one time use ability from the TTSS idea. These cards act as an important resource as they are up for grabs and will open up strategies for the player who collects them.

The TTSS abilities were too powerful to have more than one of each in a game though, and I was unsure how to introduce them to the board. I liked the idea of placing the cards on objective points as they were already a goal for players, but I didn't want to just have three cards on the field - how would I decide which of the nine objective points to put them on? I figured having one card on each of the three different objective numbers would at least keep a player's move ambiguous if they were to land on an objective they needed to capture that also had a card on it.

But taking that thought further, I realized I needed to put cards on all the objective points to make moves less obvious. But then what would the other six cards be if not abilities? Would they just be blank? No, they aught to be useful in some small way so that even if one player collects all the ability cards, the other won't be without some additional resource.

I concluded that the non-ability cards would grant the player one additional movement point when played. While a seemingly small bonus, when played properly these can be used to great benefit. It's also a rather elegant solution, as introducing a brand new resource on top of these ability cards could have made the game needlessly complex or strayed it from the core themes.

The abilities I did choose accentuate the core mechanics and offer a unique twist to their owner's strategies. These cards, which I call Gadgets, are one time use, and end the player's turn.

Gun: Allows the player to attack a piece without being adjacent to it. As long as there are no other pieces in the way, the Spy can attack the target from any distance, but not diagonally, like a Rook. So the two pieces have to be lined up on the same row of squares with no other pieces between them. This gives the player more leeway with where they can move their Spy. Since they do not have to worry about being close enough to a piece they think is their opponent's Spy, they can be free to use a more deceptive strategy while waiting for the right moment to strike.

Switch: The player pick's two of their pieces to switch places. This is a twist on movement, where a player can get one of their pieces across the board in one turn if they already have a piece there. It's a dramatic move, one that usually unnerves the opponent. But that drama also brings scrutiny, and poor use could easily reveal your intentions.

The Gun and Switch Gadgets have proven solid through playtesting. The third Gadget is one that I've been toying with. Originally, I wanted it to be something that enabled perception; If the gun is an extension of attacking, and the switch is an extension of movement, than I needed an extension of the player's perceptive skills. I considered what players already use to detect a Spy: the distinguishing marks on the pieces, their opponent moving each one in turn, the objective numbers in squares that a piece lands on, the history of their opponents moves, the proximity of a piece to the exit if it has been all around the board, and of course the body language of their opponent.

As the designer, the one aspect I have most control over are the objective numbers, but I had trouble coming up with a way to utilize them properly. What I came up with is underwhelming, and I'm still looking for a better solution:

Intel: The player asks their opponent if a certain number is their objective number. Their opponent answers truthfully. The idea here is that by singling out a set of objective points, whether the opponent answered yes or no, the player can make better judgment calls about which piece is their opponent's Spy.

The problem with Intel is that asking your opponent a yes or no question is boring. Switch is dramatic, gun is dramatic, Intel just kind of happens... Even though it reveals valuable information, its lack of a unique physical action makes it an under-used card by players.

So I tried coming up with alternatives, but couldn't think of another way to enable perception. I do have a few new cards, like Sabotage which lets you pick a new objective number for your opponent, and Sneak Attack which let's you make an attack without revealing your Spy, and while they all make for some interesting strategies, they don't really adhere to the perception/deception themes.

With GDC '13 a month away, I've been trying to refine Decoys as much as possible. Playtests have revealed much that needs tweaking, and blind-tests have proven that people can barely understand my rules! So yeah, I'd say I have a lot to work on.


In my next couple posts, I'll be talking about playtest impressions and my struggle to convince people to play, as well as posting a revised rule set with the cards that people will hopefully be able to understand! Thanks for reading!