Designer Notes ItM #5 - Constructs

I'm glad you're reading more about the development of Into the Mountain. I'm following up on post #4 about removing cards in deck-building. After that ground work, let's dive deeper into what's unique about this game, the constructs.

What are constructs?

I'll reiterate from post #4. There are effects in the game (the card simple gear, send a dwarf to the factory location in the mountain, the ability of advanced gear, some mountain tiles) which instruct you to build a construct. When you get that key word you may put a card from hand in front of you in the constructs area, then pay the costs located in "construct costs". For the rest of the game the card stays in front of you and can be used for its construct ability.

Why do you want constructs?

There are several reasons, some become more apparent after playing more times.

• The card is permanently removed from your deck.

• You can use the ability to help you. They range from drawing cards, building tunnels, providing resources, or gaining Thunderseal Ore (victory points).

• Having 3, 4, or 5 constructs is the requirement to recruit the dwarf from the gear guild.

• If you (or somebody else) funds the gearforge society, you can gain Thunderseal Ore by having the best constructs.

• Certain clans benefit from building and/or having constructs (Glofarick and Sintar).

• There are other effects which use constructs to gain Thunderseal Ore (one of the upgraded mines, and other constructs).

• To pay the tribute for some clans, you need constructs (at the moment just Sintar).

What makes constructs unique?

If you're reading this, it's very likely you've already played some type of deck-builder board game. Think of Dominion, Lost Ruins of Arnak, Aeon's End, Clank!, Dune Imperium, Star Realms, Valley of the Lost Kings. In every single one of the games I listed, you are able to remove cards from your deck. Some have rather straight forward ways of doing it, some are a little innovative. I feel that Valley of the Lost Kings does it well and Clank! I've only played Clank! once, but I believe the "clank" mechanic allows you to easily get rid of cards, but with a small drawback. In Valley of the Lost Kings, there's a mechanism called "entomb." This removes the card, but it goes to a special area. The cards then begin a set building mechanic. It's a clever mix of mechanics which also puts you in the very fun situation of balancing victory points and the functionality of your deck.

Into the Mountain also lets players remove cards, but the card stays and grants you benefits. I highlighted above how this pans out in the game. So far as I know while writing this, it's the only game that does this.

What's working well with this game design aspect?

I've been trying to focus more of the design and development on this part of the game. And it's starting to shine through:

• Players are getting the "feels good" from deck-thinning.

• Other aspects are leaning on this effect (listed above).

• Player get the engine-building experience. You're developing parts of you game that work well with other part.

• Player are feeling progression and feeling more powerful through the game.

What are issues with this game design aspect?

I have a vision of how this should feel and play, and it's not quite there yet.

• Some cards have a "samey" feeling of the play and construct ability. I.e. playing the card does the same thing as what the construct does.

• This archetype might not yet be balanced. Players in version 3 were always winning on building mines. In version 4, it's not yet clear.

• Players seldom build the stronger constructs. It's a clear benefit to remove the start cards, but players rarely want to remove the better cards.

• There aren't enough synergies on the construct abilities. I want this to feel more like engine building. A is ok, and B is ok, but A and B together are amazing.

• Some players complain there are too many constructs.

• Some player complain there are not enough constructs.

• Often the construct costs are the same as the costs to purchase the card.

Where do we go from here?

I'm confident this aspect of the game is part of what grants the "uniqueness" of the game. In further development I will always have constructs on my radar. Regarding the first issue, I really want to separate the feeling of the played cards and the constructs. Often when I revamp the ca. 80 unique cards, at some point my brain gets tapped on finding new ideas. I know it's an iterative design, but I want the final game to be very good. I might make some more recurring construct themes. I might make some more threshold effects (if you have X constructs, get some benefit).

Again, I'm very happy with where this aspect of the game has come and am excited about where it will go. I'll circle back to this aspect of the design in the future. I am enjoying writing more depth about game design, and hope I can write more about what future game designers or board game enthusiasts want to read.

I have several ideas about board game design topics for future posts. There are more specific topics I want to write about for ItM, but also games in general like the combination of theme and design, power arcs in games, mechanics, and more.

Thanks for reading and I hope to see you at the game table soon.

Cheers,

Kevin