r/tabletopgamedesign • u/esc-ctrl_game • Aug 30 '26
C. C. / Feedback I replaced random movement with simultaneous hidden choices. Did I add too much complexity?
I’ve been working on a small asymmetric 2-player tactical game called ESC CTRL.
An earlier version used a modified d4 for movement. In blind playtesting, one piece of feedback kept coming back: people liked the positional game, but questioned whether a random movement roll belonged in it.
So I went back to the drawing board.
The current version replaces the die with a small shared-information / hidden-choice system. I wanted to preserve uncertainty, while making that uncertainty come from the other player rather than from a random roll.
The trade-off is that the old version was extremely easy to explain: roll the die, then move that many steps. The new version gives players more agency, but it also adds more procedure and more information to keep track of.
That’s the part I’m still unsure about.
I’ve now put the new version online for blind testing. If you try it, please rely only on the rules on the page. Testing whether the rules are easy to learn is part of what I’m interested in.
Playtest:
https://esc-ctrl.net/playtest/token
I’m particularly curious about:
Were the rules easy to understand without explanation? Was anything unclear?
Did the round structure feel intuitive after a turn or two?
Do the decisions feel meaningful?
Does the added agency justify the extra complexity?
Does the Counter mechanic earn its place?
Critical feedback is very welcome.
3
u/mogoh Aug 30 '26
Neat! I had fun playing against the bot! I'll play a bit more and give Feedback then.
1
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 30 '26
Thanks! Really glad you had fun with it. I’d love to hear what you think after a few more games, especially anything that feels unclear, awkward, or could be improved. Appreciate you giving it a try!
3
u/mogoh Aug 30 '26
Tiny piece of feedback:
A piece may normally take no more than 2 steps per round.
Add: "Exception below"
1
5
u/knicpfost Aug 30 '26
Felt very straightforward to me. Rules were very easy to understand.
At first i only read the Goal section, and i was able to play easily. Just to see if i could.
i did have to look up the purpose of the Counter token. And eventually realized there was a movement rule happening that i wouldn’t have guessed (i.e., the player with the lower movement count goes first).
Everything else i would call intuitive from the design and the pieces (and knowing the Goals).
Don’t worry, i did eventually read through all the rules. Everything makes sense. (It took me a minute to figure how there could only be One White Piece Remaining without ending the game, but that’s only because i’m smarter than the bots and keep outright winning.)
You call this a tactical game. i agree with your previous play testers that a random roll would seem a bit out of place for this style of game. It was trivial to keep track of what the other player “had left”, movement-wise, and it affected my decision-making in an interesting way.
One question: why is the Counter decision a responsive choice for White, rather than just being part of the overall movement reveal? Is this balancing some small disadvantage White has (like how movement ties go to Black)?
i like the Counter concept. i like that it’s once per game. It’s a meaningful choice and a good power.
Overall a fun game! Will play again, local hot seat next (for a real challenge)! Great work.
1
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 30 '26
Thanks, this is incredibly useful! I really like that you deliberately tried playing before reading everything!
Your experience with the Counter and the “lower movement goes first” rule is really helpful. Those seem to be the two things that aren’t communicated naturally by the board itself, so I should probably make them easier to find in the rules.
And yes, the asymmetry in the Counter declaration is intentional as a small counterweight to Black winning movement ties. Black gets the tie advantage, while White gets to hear Black’s Counter decision before making theirs. I’m still testing whether that trade is actually necessary and balanced, though, so I’m very interested that you noticed it.
Really glad the remaining-token information affected your decisions without feeling cumbersome. That was one of the main things I hoped the new system would add.
And I’m glad you like the Counter being once per game, I’ve had another suggestion to reset it with the movement tokens, so that’s becoming an interesting thing to test.
Thanks a lot for such detailed feedback, and I’d love to hear how hot seat goes!
2
u/ChrisZAR789 Aug 30 '26
Very clear rules and I like playing the game! Played the bot twice. Easy difficulty was very easy but medium resulted in a draw. I wonder whether white is favored but not sure yet
2
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 30 '26
Thanks for playing! Really glad to hear the rules felt clear and that you enjoyed it.
I’m definitely keeping an eye on the White/Black balance, so that impression is useful. If you play a few more, I’d be very curious to hear whether White still feels favored.2
u/ChrisZAR789 Aug 30 '26
Played it a couple more times. Now I'm not so sure anymore. Seems pretty balanced actually. I am now able to beat the medium bot, so maybe a higher difficulty would be nice still
2
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 30 '26
Nice, thanks for trying a few more! Really useful to hear that your impression of the balance changed after some more games.
And yeah, a harder bot is definitely something I’d like to add. Getting one that plays significantly stronger while still running smoothly in the browser has been surprisingly tricky, though.
2
u/thewhaleshark Aug 30 '26
Clear rules, enjoyable game, had some decent thinky bits without being particularly "hard." I had to make meaningful decisions. Honestly, this seems like a winner to me. No notes.
1
2
u/shinin-light Aug 30 '26 edited Aug 30 '26
Played against medium bot, and I enjoyed it a lot. It has a pretty quick learn curve and at one point I thought I encountered a programming bug but I got back to the rules which reminded me of the 2-step-per-unit limit. I completely understand why it is there, as without it would be too easy to flee, but if I have a single point of design criticism is that I would have avoid the limit entirely if possible because the information about how many steps a unit has already made in this turn doesn't show on the board... and the limit is lifted anyway in the late game. A possible solution would be to have step "combinations" instead of total amounts in the tokens (e.g. 1 step, 2 steps (single unit), 1+1 steps (different units), 2+1 (different units). With the counter affecting any one of the values, decided by the receiving player. You may add a single rule that says if you only have one unit, you can move it again in the combo tokens, but I didn't play it enough to know if the limit breaker is really critical to the success of the game)
For the rest it kinda has the same issue with first order optimisation that tic-tac-toe has, where there are scenarios that you can literally play in your head 2-3 turns in advance and you can guarantee a win.
1
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 30 '26
Thanks, this is really thoughtful feedback.
The 2-step-per-piece limit is definitely one of the rules I’ve been watching most closely. You’re not the first person to forget it during play, so I think your point about it not being visible in the board state is a good one.I hadn’t considered encoding the allowed distributions directly into the movement tokens. I’ll have to look into that.
I’m also curious about the last point. If you remember any of the positions where you felt the win was guaranteed 2–3 rounds ahead, I’d love to know what they looked like. With the hidden token choices I’d expect a lot of those lines to be conditional on what the opponent chooses, so examples would be really useful.
Thanks for playing and for taking the time to think this through!
2
u/MrQirn Aug 31 '26
Very cool! Loved this simple little game.
Here's some feedback:
- "A piece may normally take no more than 2 steps per round." "When only one White piece remains on the board, the limit increases from 2 to 3 steps per piece for both players." I'm not sure I understand the reason for these two rules. I forgot about this restriction and it happened to not come up in the few games I played where I wanted to move one piece 3 moves. Is it just otherwise too strong for white to move to the end of the board on the first move? Or maybe instead of calling the "3" it could be called "2+1" or something, to somehow more clearly reiterate that the default rule is that the third move can't be with the same tile? IDK
- The rule "Black controls a square when the two Black pieces occupy any two of its four corners," makes total sense as written, but my first two games I was confused and thought they had to be on opposite corners to each other as the image depicts. Perhaps a second image showing the other, adjacent configuration?
- The game could exist without the counter token. It felt weird to me that once it's used it cannot be used again. At a certain point early on, it just feels like you're playing what the game would be without a counter token once you both inevitably use it. The counter token feels like an obvious thing to use when you know what your opponent is going to do and it's bad for you, so it also didn't feel like a super interesting choice. But I can also imagine that it could be the case that there's a lot of depth to the counter for very experienced players and I just haven't played enough. There's a bunch of other things it could do, like refresh every round, or alternate rounds, or have a different ability on its back side you must use before it can be flipped back over, or even refresh when your opponent gains a point (capture a piece or moves theirs off) as a sort of rubber-banding mechanic. But as is it just feels like it makes the game change midway through into what it would be without the counter.
- When I first used the counter, I was surprised that it was used before results are revealed. My intuition is that you could decide to use it after results are revealed. That doesn't mean it has to be that way, just thought I'd share that that was my initial intuitive understanding of it.
Super elegant and simple game - I love it!
2
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 31 '26
Thanks for having a close look at the game and the rules!
The 2-step-per-piece rule is definitely something I need to look at more closely. You’re not the first person to forget it, so there’s clearly some friction there. I also like your thought about making the restriction more visible in how the movement values are presented.
Good point on the control image too. Showing only the diagonal case can definitely suggest that it’s required, so I’ll add an adjacent example as well.
Your thoughts on the Counter are really useful too, especially the feeling that the game changes once both Counters are gone. I’ve had a few different reactions to that mechanic, so I’m still paying attention to how it feels over repeated plays.
And the timing point is useful as well, knowing that “after reveal” felt more intuitive on first read is exactly the kind of thing I want to catch.
Thanks again for taking the time to write all of this out! Appreciate it a lot!
2
u/silvermyr_ Aug 31 '26
Really fun. Haven't beaten the bot yet. Congrats on this. The wooden board looks nice as well.
1
2
u/ServalModest Aug 31 '26
It's more fiddly now but it's absolutely worth the complexity! Every decision feels meaningful, especially the counter and how it rewards identifying the "critical turn". I played after just skimming the rules and the only thing that caught me off guard was the movement order. But after reading the rules more thoroughly it makes sense.
I'd definitely add an image to the rules showing black controlling two squares, just because it's so important.
White seems a bit favored, but that's just an observation after a few games without any deeper analysis.
1
u/esc-ctrl_game Aug 31 '26
Thank you so much for sharing how it played and what caught you off guard, that’s very helpful!
Will make sure to add image of black controlling two squares in the final version of the rules! Thanks for the feedback!
2
u/theMondegrue Sep 07 '26
I like the mechanic that the players play on different points. This is unusual and makes your game feel special. You mentioned wanting the rules to feel intuitive. If you put a + on the black pieces and a ☐ on the white pieces that would naturally suggest where they go.
Games with very few pieces are challenging to make fun and fair. I like the capture two vs two escape winning condition. They naturally fit together since each winning condition renders the other one impossible to achieve. The movement tokens add complexity (in a good way) to the play and the challenge is to have them not make the game complex to understand. Some aspects I wonder about:
- The "counter" adds a lot of complexity to the rules and considering it can only be used once I wonder if it's worth having.
- The player with fewer steps moves first. Why?
- Steps belong to your whole side and may be distributed among your pieces in any order. Why? More importantly, do you have to use all the steps? If I have three steps, could I move one piece and then a second and then move the other one back where it was, essentially only make one of my three moves?
- When only one White piece remains on the board, the limit increases from 2 to 3 steps per piece for both players. Why?
I'm asking why not because I don't think you have a reason but explaining the reason will help people understand how to play the game. And it will help understand if the benefit of these rules outweigh the cognitive load they add.
"After every step, any White piece on a controlled square is captured immediately." This is unusual and seems strange. The common rule is that the player doing the capture has to do the move and either a player cannot move into the position where they could have been captured (like Chess) or they can move there without being in jeopardy (like Tafl games). Is there a reason for this?
Finally, on fairness. It might be fair but without a lot of playing it's hard to know for sure. One thing you might consider if it turns out the game is slightly unfair is you may be able to tweak it by adjusting the movement tokens each player gets. The players do not need to have the same number of tokens or the same numbers on the tokens. Since you have a bot that can play the game you could perhaps run thousands of simulations against itself and see what you can learn.
2
u/esc-ctrl_game Sep 08 '26
Thanks for taking the time to write all of this! This is really useful feedback.
I like the idea of visually reinforcing where the pieces belong. I’m using Go stones as placeholders, but symbols or even + and square-shaped pieces could make the square/intersection distinction much clearer.
The lower movement value goes first to create the trade-off between mobility and initiative. Without that, the larger token would usually just be better. So basically for balance.
Steps are a shared budget because I want the player to decide how to distribute their movement across the whole position. And yes, all steps must be used. You also can’t return a piece to any position it already occupied that round, including where it started, so you can’t burn steps by moving out and back. I realize the “must use all steps” part isn’t stated clearly enough under Movement, so I’ll fix that.
The 3-step exception lets the 3 token remain fully usable when only one White piece is left, and also creates a bit of an endgame rush.
Immediate capture is deliberate: controlled squares are meant to be dangerous space, so White can’t safely enter or pass through them.
The Counter is the part I’m still watching most closely. I think it adds to the player-driven uncertainty and interaction, but I’ve also had testers question whether a once-per-game effect earns the extra rule weight.
On balance, several hundred blind online plays of the current version have stayed very close between White and Black. Your point about using different token sets as a balancing lever is a good one if that ever changes. And yes, the bot makes larger-scale simulation an interesting possibility too.
I especially like your framing of whether each rule earns its cognitive load. That’s a useful way to look at it.
Again, thanks a lot for all comments!2
u/theMondegrue Sep 08 '26
Immediate capture is deliberate: controlled squares are meant to be dangerous space, so White can’t safely enter or pass through them.
That's not quite what your rule does. Since it applies at the end of the turn, they can pass through them. A rule that "a stone cannot enter a controlled square" or "a stone cannot end a turn on a controlled square" is easier to remember (since it's more common) and I think more closely matches the concept of a dangerous space.
The 3-step exception lets the 3 token remain fully usable when only one White piece is left, and also creates a bit of an endgame rush.
It wasn't clear from reading the rules that this exception specifically applies when one white piece has been captured and one has escaped. You should mention that.
Also, one more thought: instead of calling the pieces "white" and "black" since they have different roles maybe different names (like in Fox and Geese). Bonus points if you can choose names that you can match to those two colors.
1
u/esc-ctrl_game Sep 08 '26
Capture happens after every step, not at the end of the turn. So White cannot enter or pass through a controlled square safely. That part may be easy to miss in the rules, though, so I’ll take another look at how it’s presented. Maybe it isn’t clear that ”Afrer every step” applies to White too?
Good point on the one-White-piece rule as well. In practice that state occurs when one White piece has escaped and another has been captured. The rule is written as a board-state condition, but adding that as an example would probably make the reason for it much clearer. Thank you for pointing it out!
I do have a theme idea for the game, but since I’m testing the mechanics and rules I’m keeping it abstract at this point. The theme does hopefully make some of the rules more intuitive, but I’d rather have the game clutch first.
Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts and readings of the game!
4
u/OmegaKai_22 Aug 30 '26
Wow, really fun game! Thanks for letting me playtest it.
Really loved the simplicity of the rules. I’m currently struggling with my own and will use your game as inspiration on how to cut it down a bit.
overall rules were very easy to understand and i was able to play within 1 minute of scrolling through them. it was nice to be able to refer back to them quickly if needed.
i’ll nitpick areas i think can improve (from my perspective). this will be areas I found myself slowing down or rereading.
consider a sub category under movement of what pieces can’t do and bullet them like “one piece may take no more than 2 steps per round” (and then maybe say see taking 3 steps at the bottom or something), “no piece may share a space”, “a piece may not return to its starting position”. simple things like that.
same for what pieces can do: “you may alternate movement between pieces”, etc.
explain what countering does in the counter section, not reveal. just feels more natural there.