Just when I thought the game mechanics were solid, I went and made the single biggest change to Beta Break.
Spray cards are dead…kinda.
In preparation for yesterday’s playtest, I had a hard think about the role of Spray cards. My original intent with the card type–a type that can be held by the player and used at any time–was to introduce a bit of back-stabbery into the game. Create tension. Cause a feud. However, nobody cared. Of all the games in which Spray cards were included, they’ve only been used once. And that once was with reluctance, as in “I think Caleb wants someone to use this card, so I guess I’ll do it.”
Why doesn’t a Spray card work, when similar “instant” concepts work in a game like Magic the Gathering? There are two reasons, I believe.
Climbers want to climb something new. The Spray card forces them to climb the same problem state that had just been climbed.
A Climber is watching the wall, not their hand of cards. It’s much too easy to forget that you have a Spray card in hand when you are focused on watching your fellow climbers send a problem
But I couldn’t simply remove the Spray cards. This would leave only Beta Break and Eliminate cards. While this would still make for a fun game, it removes much of the surprise I want from each pull from the draw pile.
The solution was to repurpose the Spray cards as Beta Break augmentations. This means that two cards inform every problem state: a Beta card (previously a Spray card) and a Break card (previously a Beta Break card). With these two cards combined, the problem state possibilities expand enormously and lead to unique problems and constant joy. More importantly, this means that EVERY card drawn results in a change to the problem state.
The results were very positive. One play tester, who had been a part of the previous deck make-up, stated that this new version was more fun than the previous version.
You’ll also notice the design overhaul in the image above. While I’m not fully satisfied with the design, I do think this is a step in the right direction. The alignment of the card title text conveys how the two cards work in tandem to inform the problem state. However, I’m not sold on the imagery. While the abstract hold design is cool, it fails to contribute to the card in any meaningful way. There’s no affordance. I would love for the image to inform the card rule. This would be great from an accessibility perspective (for people who can’t read English) and would also help resolve disputes about the meaning of the card, should the card rule not be clear enough.
So, with the Spray darling murdered, then revived as a Beta-zombie, I had my fill of killing darlings, right?
No. One more.
Goodbye, flavor text.
This one was especially hard for me, as I want players to always be happy. I want every action to be joyful. The flavor text is meant to give waiting players something to smile about. “Well, since I’m not climbing right now, I might as well read what’s on this card.”
But nobody read the flavor text. People read the main text and then looked immediately at the wall. It's not like a tabletop game where, when idle, your eyes look down (to the cards). At the gym, idle eyes look to the wall.
In memoriam, here are a few of my proudest flavor texts (queue Ave Maria):
Card title: flag every move
Card description: you must flag (extend one leg out to the side or behind for balance) on every hand move.
Flavor text: Neil Armstrong only got one flag for his step
Card title: foot-emies
Card description: no foot-matching any holds
Flavor text: Will da' feet defeat da' feet?
Card title: disposable thumbs
Card description: no pinches. that means no using your thumb for grip.
Flavor text: Marmoset cosplay
Please tell me you chuckled at least a little bit.
10/4/2024 playtest overview
10/4/2024 playtest overview:
Game 1: 4 players
V grade: v1/v2, 12 handholds
Game 2: 3 players
V grade: v1/v2, 10 handholds
Overheard:
"You’ve got something with this"
What bummed them out?
Winning the game is confusing. A rule was created for a “match point” situation wherein two players remain, and one fails a send. The other player must then succeed the send to win. If they fail, both players remain in the game and the game continues as normal. Confusion arose regarding if health totals matter and also regarding situations where both players are consistently failing, and the game goes on and on and on.
There’s still a persistent issue with some card + problem combinations being impossible. This came up with the Version card “No left arm / No right arm.”
Proposed changes:
For Version cards, the climber should get to choose which version to use for their turn (rather than have the originally chosen version maintained during the entire game.
A card that protects a hold from being eliminated
Clear up the win state: The last person alive has to do the send that the person failed on. If that person also fails, then both climbers remain in the game and play continues as normal.
New Break card: must do a Gaston move
With some Break cards being helpful and some unhelpful, introduce a visual cue on the card to alert the player to which type they have drawn. This would prevent bated breath as the player reads the card to determine their fate.
Ruleset and cards used
Game 1 Deck Construction:
8 Eliminate cards
16 Beta cards (for 4 players, felt good)
16 Break cards (for 4 players, felt good)
Game 2 Deck Construction:
6 Eliminate cards
12 Beta cards (for 3 players, felt good)
12 Break cards (for 3 players, felt good)
The rules used in both games are impossible to document here as we both changed the rules on the fly and came to the game with undocumented rule changes (as the cards themselves had also changed since the last time). All that being said, I came away from the games satisfied with the new, updated ruleset (which, as of this post, is documented here).
Can't wait to play again.