I'm also not a huge fan of the recent hidden movement, one player vs the rest games. I played the original Scotland Yard many, many times growing up and liked that there was a casual boardgame that wasn't based on the roll and ove mechanic. You could move freely around the map but needed to be efficient. I think the card based movement mechanic in FoD sounds great. Not sure if I'll enjoy the game as a whole, but I'll definitely try it out. Thanks for another great video :)
Related to the comment about the card border and symbol: I wish more games would take care to have similar borders on tiles that are part of the same stack. In Castles of Burgundy, for instance, you can see the color of each goods tile in the stack, because the color bleeds into the edge of the tile.
Which reminds me: Bruges also has a deck of cards where the backs are different colors (important for gameplay decisions). It comes with special deck holders, so the top cards won't jostle around and those beneath them. (they could have skipped those special holders if they kept the unique color in the CENTER of the card instead of the border, like you describe in Fury of Dracula)
The mechanic of Dracula flipping location cards if visited by players on the map (I hope I have understood it correctly - never played the game) makes me again question: "IS IT A SOUND PRACTICE TO DESIGN MECHANICS THAT ALLOWS PLAYERS TO CHEAT WITHOUT OTHERS HAVING ANY IN-GAME CHANCE OF FINDING OUT?" I am not talking about cheating by taking an extra resource or unfairly gaining information that should have stayed secret. I mean moments when the player is -basically- his only judge and witness.
+Filip Kevély It's a fair question to ask (in all caps, though? :) ). I think it depends on where the game will be played. For any game that isn't going to be played in an official tournament, sure, it's fine to trust the players to a certain extent. It's only when tournament play is a possibility that I think you have to eliminate all chances of cheating. Honestly, I don't think a Dracula player would have fun if the other players never knew anything about his/her location. That in itself is a pretty solid safeguard.
That's the beauty of board games in my opinion. Every board game allows players to cheat, but if you're playing with friends or family, in most cases no one cheats, because it's part of the fun. Board games make you feel bad for cheating. Have you ever tried cheating on a board game? How does it feel after winning? You feel stupid.. Stupider than cheating on video games. I don't know what it is but board games are inherently designed to make you not want to cheat because it's about having a good time.
From what you're describing, it seems like the Dracula player has to remember their previous 6 locations. When the hunters enter a location, Dracula has to remember if they visited that spot, and which one of the 6 cards it is. Otherwise, if they fumble around looking at them, they might reveal some info to the players ("Oh wait, this *isn't* a location I was in 6 turns ago, but since I wasn't sure, now they know I'm nearby")
+Ori Avtalion That's correct, they do. I got the sense from the Dracula player that this wasn't particularly difficult to do, probably because of how hyper-aware he was of our locations. He even used it as a bluff at times--he'd look under a few of the cards as if we were nearby, but we weren't anywhere close. :)
I can think of a game that I wish used the Fury of Dracula card back mechanic - Robinson Crusoe. Wonderful, wonderful, game but that would improve shuffling the ? cards into the Event Deck phenomenally. My only issue with the row of cards as you describe it is that it means that the Dracular player can accidentally cheat, if they forget where they were six turns ago. Does it do anything to address that? ETA: I'm not saying that games should make it impossible for players to cheat in; outside of games designed for tournament play, that players might cheat shouldn't enter the designer's mind, imo, since the solution to that is just not playing with those players. I'm simply saying that games should make it difficult to /accidentally/ cheat - in the same way that you point out that the inability to backtrack doesn't have to be a rule that Dracula has to remember because it's physically impossible for Dracula to backtrack due to the way the components of the game operate.
+Gizensha Fox Ah yes, that's a great point! It also helps that the cards are bigger in Fury of Dracula--I'm not sure if the symbol concept would work as well on mini cards, but it would be better than nothing. Sure, the Dracula player could accidentally cheat. I think that could happen in any hidden movement game (even with a record of their movements, it would be quite hard to pinpoint at the end of the game if they were telling the truth).
Jamey Stegmaier True, but at least with a paper record they have it explicit in front of them where the last six places they were were. Two decks and a screen seems unnecessary, though, and as you pointed out - it prevents them from accidentally backtracking when they can't.
I'm also not a huge fan of the recent hidden movement, one player vs the rest games. I played the original Scotland Yard many, many times growing up and liked that there was a casual boardgame that wasn't based on the roll and ove mechanic. You could move freely around the map but needed to be efficient. I think the card based movement mechanic in FoD sounds great. Not sure if I'll enjoy the game as a whole, but I'll definitely try it out.
Thanks for another great video :)
+Brent McLennan I had a very similar experience with Scotland Yard--perhaps it was just very fresh for its time.
Related to the comment about the card border and symbol: I wish more games would take care to have similar borders on tiles that are part of the same stack. In Castles of Burgundy, for instance, you can see the color of each goods tile in the stack, because the color bleeds into the edge of the tile.
+Ori Avtalion That's a great point, Ori! I could see this method being used in a myriad of ways to conceal stacked information.
Which reminds me: Bruges also has a deck of cards where the backs are different colors (important for gameplay decisions). It comes with special deck holders, so the top cards won't jostle around and those beneath them.
(they could have skipped those special holders if they kept the unique color in the CENTER of the card instead of the border, like you describe in Fury of Dracula)
The mechanic of Dracula flipping location cards if visited by players on the map (I hope I have understood it correctly - never played the game) makes me again question: "IS IT A SOUND PRACTICE TO DESIGN MECHANICS THAT ALLOWS PLAYERS TO CHEAT WITHOUT OTHERS HAVING ANY IN-GAME CHANCE OF FINDING OUT?"
I am not talking about cheating by taking an extra resource or unfairly gaining information that should have stayed secret. I mean moments when the player is -basically- his only judge and witness.
+Filip Kevély It's a fair question to ask (in all caps, though? :) ). I think it depends on where the game will be played. For any game that isn't going to be played in an official tournament, sure, it's fine to trust the players to a certain extent. It's only when tournament play is a possibility that I think you have to eliminate all chances of cheating.
Honestly, I don't think a Dracula player would have fun if the other players never knew anything about his/her location. That in itself is a pretty solid safeguard.
That's the beauty of board games in my opinion. Every board game allows players to cheat, but if you're playing with friends or family, in most cases no one cheats, because it's part of the fun. Board games make you feel bad for cheating. Have you ever tried cheating on a board game? How does it feel after winning? You feel stupid.. Stupider than cheating on video games. I don't know what it is but board games are inherently designed to make you not want to cheat because it's about having a good time.
From what you're describing, it seems like the Dracula player has to remember their previous 6 locations. When the hunters enter a location, Dracula has to remember if they visited that spot, and which one of the 6 cards it is. Otherwise, if they fumble around looking at them, they might reveal some info to the players ("Oh wait, this *isn't* a location I was in 6 turns ago, but since I wasn't sure, now they know I'm nearby")
+Ori Avtalion That's correct, they do. I got the sense from the Dracula player that this wasn't particularly difficult to do, probably because of how hyper-aware he was of our locations. He even used it as a bluff at times--he'd look under a few of the cards as if we were nearby, but we weren't anywhere close. :)
Dracula could just look at ALL the locations if he isn't sure.
I can think of a game that I wish used the Fury of Dracula card back mechanic - Robinson Crusoe. Wonderful, wonderful, game but that would improve shuffling the ? cards into the Event Deck phenomenally.
My only issue with the row of cards as you describe it is that it means that the Dracular player can accidentally cheat, if they forget where they were six turns ago. Does it do anything to address that?
ETA: I'm not saying that games should make it impossible for players to cheat in; outside of games designed for tournament play, that players might cheat shouldn't enter the designer's mind, imo, since the solution to that is just not playing with those players. I'm simply saying that games should make it difficult to /accidentally/ cheat - in the same way that you point out that the inability to backtrack doesn't have to be a rule that Dracula has to remember because it's physically impossible for Dracula to backtrack due to the way the components of the game operate.
+Gizensha Fox Ah yes, that's a great point! It also helps that the cards are bigger in Fury of Dracula--I'm not sure if the symbol concept would work as well on mini cards, but it would be better than nothing.
Sure, the Dracula player could accidentally cheat. I think that could happen in any hidden movement game (even with a record of their movements, it would be quite hard to pinpoint at the end of the game if they were telling the truth).
Jamey Stegmaier
True, but at least with a paper record they have it explicit in front of them where the last six places they were were. Two decks and a screen seems unnecessary, though, and as you pointed out - it prevents them from accidentally backtracking when they can't.