fredag 12 september 2014

Analyzing: Kill Doctor Lucky

Introduction:
We in the Game Design program got an assignment, to analyze a board game that we chose in a group. The game my group chose is a game called Kill Doctor Lucky.

The game:
So, the game is about killing a man named doctor Lucky. You play as one of 3-7 people that has been invited to his mansion a stormy midsummers eve. The house is quite big, sporting 24 named rooms, 6 hallways and 2 stairways. Each room is connected to between 2 and 5 other rooms via doorways.



Since you absolutely hate the old man for one reason or another, so you decide to kill him. This is made quite difficult due to the fact that there are a number of other persons in the house with you and Lucky. Not to mention his trusty dog, which will alert anyone in the house in case you try anything.

As a murderer you most certainly don’t want anyone to know that it was you that killed the old man. To make things more interesting, the doctor seems to have hidden passages all over his home that he uses frequently to get around quickly. You however have no knowledge whatsoever of these hidden passages and must therefore move one room at a time. Should you step into a notable room you may find something that may help you kill the old man. Examples of these things you might encounter are: Ropes, Guns, Crepe Pans and cursed monkey hands. You may also, if you are lucky accidentally stumble upon one of dr. Luckys secret passages. Should you do this you could use this to get ahead of the old man and plan an ambush.

If you felt that the time was right for a murder attempt on the doctor, you had the ability to play a weapon card, which would increase the effectiveness of your attack by a number stated on the weapon card. Certain items also had some bonuses in specific rooms. The Crepe Pan was for example extra effective in the kitchen. When you had decided to make an attempt, your fellow players had the opportunity to stop your plans by using different kinds of distractions. Should their distractions work, the doctor escapes and you become even more angry at the old man than you previously were and gain a “Spite Token”. This token is a representation of the fury built up within you when the old man once again escaped your clutches. These spite tokens can be used in your next murder attempt to stay more focused on the task at hand than you previously were. Every spite token you use when attempting a murder will increase your murder value by one point.

The dog had three types of rules, one variant was that he followed the doctor around. The dog had no knowledge of the secret passages that the doctor was using, therefore he walked as if he was a player. If the dog had the doctor in his sight, the players couldn’t attempt any murder. You may also try to kill the doctors dog, should it become too troublesome and thwart your plans one more time than you are comfortable with. In this case everyone stepping into the room the dead dog is in will feel sorry for the poor creature and take a moment of silence for it.

The second variant of the dogs rules was that it knew if someone in the house had attempted a murder of his master and after each attempt getting angrier after each attempt. The level of his anger would be represented by spite tokens, the dog gaining one after each attempt. The players could then, if they choose to, gather some or all of the tokens from the dog. The tokens came at a quite hefty price though, you had to discard one of the cards in your hand for each token you took from the dog. If the dog reached dr. Lucky before you could reach it, the doctor used his extensive knowledge of the creature to calm it down. This caused all the dogs spite tokens to go back to the spite token pile, before anyone had the chance to get them from the dog. If two players were in the same room as the dog stepped into, the one who would make his move the soonest would have the chance to “buy” spite tokens from the dog first. After he got the tokens he wanted, the other player in the room had his chance to get what was left if he desired to do so.
Contrary to the first set of dog rules, the dog could not be killed with these rules, but neither could he alert anyone of the crime, so you could try to kill doctor Lucky in his presence if you chose to do so.

The third set of rules for the dog was a combination of the previous two. The dog could detect and stop you if you tried to kill the doctor when he was looking. If you had the opportunity to kill the doctor and failed, the dog would sense this and gain a spite token which you could later “buy” from him. The doctor could also calm the dog down in this version, removing all the spite tokens from the dogs possession. In this version the dog could be killed.

Round one:
The first round we in the group played was quite booring, since we were too many people to play with the first version of the rules. The games line of sight mechanic, which meant that you could see into several other rooms from the room you stood in made it extremely difficult to do anything useful to the doctor. Once you did get the chance there were 5 other players trying to foil you plans with failure cards, negating your attack damage. Another thing that made the round longer than it had to be was that everyone tried to stop each other more than they tried to win themselves. All the players tended to stick to one side of the house, keeping as many as possible within sight range. This was an extremely effective way of keeping your enemies from killing the old man. After about 3 hours of constant playing we started to go for the doctor instead of trying to stop the others so, we got more frequent attempts on the doctors life. The attempts and failures continued for a while until we, after almost 4 hours ran out of failure cards. Then the next player that attempted to take the doctors life finally succeeded. After this we decided to go home and try again the day after, without the dog.

Round two:
We sat down to play a second time as we had decided the day before, this time without the dog. We also removed approximately half of the failure cards to get more successful murder attempts. This time the round were very much shorter. It only took about 15 minutes for the doctor to meet his demise.  This made us realize why the dog was in the game, and why there were as many failure cards as there was. We concluded after the second round that we should add the dog again.

Round three:
The third time we played the game I was the one responsible for mixing the cards and since my short time memory are not the best in the world, I forgot that were only playing with half the failure cards so I accidentally mixed all of them in. This proved to be one of those things that seem to be mistakes but are a good thing in disguise. The game lasted somewhere between 30 and 60 min both thanks to my mistake and the switch of dog rule set. We chose to use the second set of rules for the dog when we played the game the third time, which hastened the doctors demise.

Good things:
The thing I liked best with the game was the Line of Sight mechanic. Giving the game a feel of flow, as the players move around the mansion. This will of course force the players to anticipate the movement of his/her fellow players, if he/she wishes to be successful in the game.
Another thing that I find interesting is the dog that walks around the house, following the doctor. This is mostly due to the extensive impact he has on the gameplay, prolonging it or shortening it by possibly hours. This depends, however on which set of rules you choose to use for it. The rule set when he just follows the doctor has the most impact, at least if you are quite a bunch of people that’s playing. The second variant also has a rather significant impact on the gameplay, but in the opposite way as the first variation. The first prolongs the game while the second one shortens it.
The final thing that I would like to mention is that certain weapons work differently in different rooms. For example, the cannon weapon card has a base damage of 3, but in the armory it does 5 damage instead.

Bad stuff:
The worst thing about the games mechanics is the possibility to utilize them to stay in certain rooms to block off extremely large parts of the map, making it impossible to kill the doctor there without anyone noticing. One thing that could have been used to counter this would have been the adding of more “Move cards” (moves the player or the doctor a number of steps) than there currently was. If there would have been more of them the gameplay would have been much more flowing.

Another thing that I didn’t like about the game is that if doctor walks into a room that you’re currently standing in, it automatically becomes your turn. This can be used to a players advantage by chaining multiple moves in a row to get ahead of the doctor. This would effectively give the player in question a wide variety of new cards that he/she could use to further the advantage the player had.

Target Audience:

I believe that this game was meant for families with kids the ages 13 and up. I base this conclusion on the fact that despite that it’s a game about something quite serious, such as murder and the planning of murder it’s quite colorful. The colorfulness suggests that it’s a game for younger kids but the high level of tactics required to win it says otherwise. Therefore I conclude that the optimal age for playing this game is 13 and up.

2 kommentarer:

  1. PART 1:

    Hi.

    Here comes my peer review of your analysis of the game "Kill Dr Lucky". Firstly I would like to say that it has a very nice flow, both when it comes to the order of titles and also the content under them. All information necessary to understand a statement or analysis has already been presented. All in all a very well structured analysis.

    One thing I noticed while reading your analysis is that the "Good things" and "Bad things" are written very subjectively; "The thing I liked best", "Another thing that I didn't like about the game" etc. I would've liked to have seen it from a more objective perspective. What sides of the game yields best results from a game design point of view?

    The best and worst parts very much depends on the amount of people playing, I think. We only played with a whole six players, and in this case I would actually say that the line of sight mechanic, or at least the WAY that it works, is the worst part. It is a smart mechanic, and I would argue that it is in fact the game's core, but it makes it take way too long. Even when everyone were spread out across the board and somewhat isolated, there was almost always someone watching you from afar. Possibly you could argue that the worst part and the problem is actually the fact that they allow you to be six players at all. One way that it could be fixed, would be if you could "close" some doors, when playing with a lot of players. I could only imagine how difficult it would be with the full seven players. Similarly, the dog made it even more difficult. If however you were to play with for example only 3 players, it could be TOO easy to kill Dr Lucky, and so I can see it's purpose. A general handicap that effects all players equal amounts. We also only tried the first variant of the dog's rules so I can not say anything about how you analysed the other ones. It seems though as if the one that we tried was actually the least beneficial and using the other rules could speed up the game!

    Personally, one of the biggest virtues of this game, I think is actually the slight role playing elements in it and it's quirkyness. For example, as far as we could see, the entire concept of having a silent moment, and mourn the dog did not actually have any effect on the gameplay. It was just there for fun. Also, we found it very fun to read all the distractions written on the failure cards and then imagine how that entire scene would look.

    SvaraRadera
  2. PART 2:

    The core system of this game I feel is, a bit like Chess, anticipating where Dr Lucky will go next (since he moves in a foreseeable pattern, unless moved by a move card), move accordingly, to create as many opportunities of murder as possible. For this, the player has to take into account the positions of the other players and their line of sight and how many move cards he/she has on hand. He/She can also, like you mentioned, plan to get alone in a room with Dr Lucky, making it your turn automatically, and then follow him. This not only gives that player more opportunities for murder, but assuming he/she only has to move once per turn to keep up (using the player's free move) it also gives him/her more and more cards. So the core system is anticipating, moving, and collecting cards.

    You did not actually mention which system you found was the most interesting either. I interpret this as if you think that the core system is the most interesting as well? If that is the case, I agree with you! Even if I found that there was a lot to keep track of as a player, the game is rather "small" and pretty much consists of just one system. There may be some smaller systems that you can figure out, but none would probably be as interesting as the core one.

    I would actually really like to try to play with fewer players and more rapid turns, since the major flaw that I saw was the extreme waiting some players had to do between turns. This was especially true, we found, when someone utilized the strategy of getting in the same room as Dr Lucky alone, thus "stealing" the turn. There were times when we skipped one or two players many times in a row, which was not very fun for them. Luckily, the scarcity of the "move" cards, interrupts chained turns from getting extremely long. A negative effect of this that we found, was that unless you were really lucky (no pun intended), you barely moved, and it was sometimes difficult to catch up with Dr Lucky. The strategy that most of us used instead, was to simple camp in a room to which Dr Lucky would eventually come to and hope that others had moved outside of the line of sight. Also, once a player whom had been skipped a few times finally got to play, they were usually unable to do very much, and it was harder yet to catch up to the chaining player.

    The target audience I agree is rather confusing, given the two main themes in the game; the colorful graphics and the jokey attitude against the somewhat morbid subject (you can even murder the dog, because it is "too annoying" or "in the way"). So yes, I agree that you need to be above a certain age for it to be appropriate and not accidentally teach kids that "it is alright to murder". One could possibly also say that it is for adults that are still young at heart.

    Overall, I think you did a good job with the analysis. For the next one you might want to think about things more objectively and remember to point out the core system and also the one that you found the most interesting!

    Good job//
    Oscar Mohlin

    SvaraRadera