Rules / Cards Used
See commit f5f032c for the rules / cards used.
- Played with a Hand Limit of 7.
- Undergraduate could search Deck for any idea.
- Professor could look at top 3 cards and rearrange.
(we didn't really play with personal objectives)
Players
Game Report
-
Got the Retraction Notices early in the game so they didn't have much of an impact.
-
Got a lot of A/B/C/D early in the game so there wasn't much blockage to Research. E/F/G only came up later.
-
Won comfortably in about 40 mins with lots of cards left in Deck.
-
Undergraduate never used their power to Search the Deck for any Idea.
-
Not much Tool use. Undergraduate used it quite effectively to overcome their role limitations.
-
The 'look at top 3 cards' mechanic was used effectively twice (once by the Professor and once from the Event) to arrange things so that Events had least impact on the game (i.e. Undergraduate took the Elsevier Subscription cancellation).
-
Had a few instances of people getting scooped (someone publishing an Insight just before someone else).
Overall Impressions
-
Player A found it initially confusing. Maybe understanding the terminology 'Research / Publish' etc would've made it easier to remember the rules. Had to keep being told what cost an Action and what didn't (drawing a card at start of turn isn't an action, Research and Publish are separate Actions).
-
Player B found it easy to follow the rules. Took awhile to get into but enjoyed it in the end. Really liked the collaboration aspect. Found it interesting to learn the different aspects of the scientific process even at a basic level. The lesson about Open Science making things easier really came through.
-
Personally I thought it all went a bit too smoothly. Felt too easy.
Detailed Feedback
-
The Hand Limit never came into play as no one ever had more than 5 cards in their hand so I don't think it's a problem.
-
Never really felt blocked. Undergraduate never even used Deck search ability (maybe just forgot but clearly didn't ever have a desperate need and still won comfortably).
-
Tools were used quite conservatively. It was never too difficult to keep track of the cost.
Suggestions for New Mechanics
-
I really want something to happen when someone get's scooped (another Player publishes and Insight they have before them). Not sure what though? Skip a turn because you are grumpy? Would show that fear of scooping is silly and damaging when you are all trying to get to the same end.
-
I still quite want to try a more binary approach to skills so you're not calculating the cost of Actions, you just can or can't. Also might encourage more Tool use.
-
I think having separate Personal Objective Cards would be quite a good addition as discussed.
-
I think having everyone Publish Restricted Access by default would've raised the stakes on the Open Access Publishing side.
Suggestions for New Content
- For the Objectives Cards, they should say the Group Objective (to remind everyone) and a Personal Objective. One of the Objectives Cards should not care about the Group Objective but the game should be set up such that it's actually really hard to for them to get their Personal Objective without helping everyone else (due to dependencies).
Rules / Cards Used
See commit f5f032c for the rules / cards used.
(we didn't really play with personal objectives)
Players
Played with my family. All non-scientists (apart from me).
Player A as Post Doc. Player B as Professor. Player C as Librarian. Player D as Undergraduate.
Game Report
Got the Retraction Notices early in the game so they didn't have much of an impact.
Got a lot of A/B/C/D early in the game so there wasn't much blockage to Research. E/F/G only came up later.
Won comfortably in about 40 mins with lots of cards left in Deck.
Undergraduate never used their power to Search the Deck for any Idea.
Not much Tool use. Undergraduate used it quite effectively to overcome their role limitations.
The 'look at top 3 cards' mechanic was used effectively twice (once by the Professor and once from the Event) to arrange things so that Events had least impact on the game (i.e. Undergraduate took the Elsevier Subscription cancellation).
Had a few instances of people getting scooped (someone publishing an Insight just before someone else).
Overall Impressions
Player A found it initially confusing. Maybe understanding the terminology 'Research / Publish' etc would've made it easier to remember the rules. Had to keep being told what cost an Action and what didn't (drawing a card at start of turn isn't an action, Research and Publish are separate Actions).
Player B found it easy to follow the rules. Took awhile to get into but enjoyed it in the end. Really liked the collaboration aspect. Found it interesting to learn the different aspects of the scientific process even at a basic level. The lesson about Open Science making things easier really came through.
Personally I thought it all went a bit too smoothly. Felt too easy.
Detailed Feedback
The Hand Limit never came into play as no one ever had more than 5 cards in their hand so I don't think it's a problem.
Never really felt blocked. Undergraduate never even used Deck search ability (maybe just forgot but clearly didn't ever have a desperate need and still won comfortably).
Tools were used quite conservatively. It was never too difficult to keep track of the cost.
Suggestions for New Mechanics
I really want something to happen when someone get's scooped (another Player publishes and Insight they have before them). Not sure what though? Skip a turn because you are grumpy? Would show that fear of scooping is silly and damaging when you are all trying to get to the same end.
I still quite want to try a more binary approach to skills so you're not calculating the cost of Actions, you just can or can't. Also might encourage more Tool use.
I think having separate Personal Objective Cards would be quite a good addition as discussed.
I think having everyone Publish Restricted Access by default would've raised the stakes on the Open Access Publishing side.
Suggestions for New Content