From Cradle To Gravy: A lovely little card game where you eat your friends.

[TomTitTot]

So, due to an off-the-cuff remark from a close friend, I'm designing (alongside my Dystopia game) a cute little card game that involves heavy politicking and negotiation and cannibalism. I have her to thank for the title, which was originally a radio play she was writing.

This game is a party game designed for 4-8 players, the more the better. Every player is dealt three cards at the beginning of the game - he may not show these cards to any of the other players or he is unable to play cards during his turn (which makes him an easy target for the other players). The players then begin discussing who will be eaten. After lively discussion, each player writes one of the other player's names on a slip of paper and hides it. All players reveal their papers simultaneously. The player with his name on the most slips of paper is the Victim, and must immediately play one of his cards. The cards can mitigate his victimhood - for example, if he has a card that grants Ferocity (which ranges from +1 to +5), the attacking players must play a card that grants them higher Ferocity, or the Victim may choose one of his attackers and they are consumed.

Turns go like this...

0. Players that have not successfully consumed someone for two turns starve to death.
1. You may discard one card.
2. Draw to three cards.
3. Dinner discussion (Who shall we eat this evening?)
4. Reveal names.
5. Victim plays card. Attackers may play a card each in response, but it's not mandatory.
6. Dinner is served!

The Object: to be the last consumed. "Dead" players can still get a secondary success; when they have died by whatever means, they write on a slip of paper the name of the player they hope or think will win. They may influence the living players, but may not talk above a whisper and only to the players that were sat on either side of them while they were alive. Avenging spirits working against you are a bitch.

Still working out the cards. Have a few mechanics questions for you guys...

1) Does this seem somewhat balanced? There will be some wildcards in the deck that turn things upside-down, and I'll start typing up what the deck should consist of over the next week or two.

2) Would you be interested in playing this sort of game?

3) Are the required players (4-8) too much?

4) Is the "secondary success" and influencing play for dead players sufficient to keep interest for them, or is more needed?

Thanks in advance, guys.

[Osmo Rantala]

Seems like an interesting enough idea, to me at least, but I always find games where players may "die" (the ones where players may die I wouldn't touch with an eleven foot pole) and subsequently not partake fully in the game to be somewhat hard to swallow. Also, if you want the game to put some weight to politicking, as you said, then I think the players should have more chances to influence each other ("okay, I won't eat you, but only if you promise not to use that card X, that I know you have there, on me"; "okay, I can try eating Bill, but do you have anything to offer me..?")

Just throwing my two cents worth in, hope you find any of that helpful.

P.S. If you wan't a good example of a card game full of intrigue, politicking, backstabbing, things nobody was prepared for and a motherload of fun, I suggest you check out Illuminati from Steve Jackson Games, or INWO from the same company.

[Ken]

Hi-

Cute name; it took me three reads to realize that it wasn't grave. Funny.

The players then begin discussing who will be eaten. After lively discussion, each player writes one of the other player's names on a slip of paper and hides it. All players reveal their papers simultaneously. The player with his name on the most slips of paper is the Victim, and must immediately play one of his cards.

But only the attackers who chose the victim get to eat. Those who don't eat, start to sweat the whole starving thing. Do I have that right?

The player with his name on the most slips of paper is the Victim, and must immediately play one of his cards. The cards can mitigate his victimhood - for example, if he has a card that grants Ferocity (which ranges from +1 to +5), the attacking players must play a card that grants them higher Ferocity, or the Victim may choose one of his attackers and they are consumed.

Its hard to make a call without seeing this in play, but do you think another mitigating mechanic here may be more fun; like everyone votes again (but can't vote on the previous victim), or the player with the lowest ferocity loses, or maybe the victim chooses a new victim (and there is a struggle). Just pondering this. Thoughts?

As far as your questions go:

1) Does this seem somewhat balanced? There will be some wildcards in the deck that turn things upside-down, and I'll start typing up what the deck should consist of over the next week or two.

So far. Only playtesting will tell for sure. Sounds like a solid mechanic. Build it, play it, see if its fun. I think you've got enough game here to tweak things that don't work right without having to rebuild the whole game.

2) Would you be interested in playing this sort of game?

No. Sorry, not my cup of tea. Too gruesome for me, but chow on!!!

3) Are the required players (4-8) too much?

No. I think that is a great group size for something like this. Fun party game. Try it for Halloween.

4) Is the "secondary success" and influencing play for dead players sufficient to keep interest for them, or is more needed?

This game dynamic sounds really cute, but I'm not sure if there is a better way to answer this question than try it and see what the players think. Really, this sounds like more fun than actually being part of actual discussion.

Hope that helps. Good luck. Take care.

Ken

[contracycle]

Looks cool.  However with that many players you will need a lot of cards I think; with as many as 24 in hand and at least 8 and as many as 24 drawn per turn you probably need at least a hundred on the table or so, or to be able to complete the game in only a few turns.

Depending on what sort of situation you are considering, you might be able to add something like a starvation mechanic to go with card play, such that for example using Ferocity saves you from the pot in the early game but may make you weak and an easy target in the late game.  Or I guess that could just be on the cards, like a "secret stash" that exempts you from a days starvation.

[Satanman]

Adorable.

In reference to your Ferocity mechanic, would attacking players add the value of their Ferocity cards together to devour the victim, or would a single card with a higher value than that of the potential meal be the only way to eat him?

Question 1) The basic mechanics seem balanced as written, though I've read and played many card games that seemed balanced and enjoyable only to be turned sour by the revelation of cards that probably seemed irresistible to the authors but tilted the table too much based on their use or possible combinations. Also, depending on the answer to the above question the number of cards of each value in the deck could make a big difference to how play will resolve each round.

Question 2) I would love to play this game. Both the theme and the play look enjoyable to me, and I have a hard time resisting card oriented games.

Question 3) For this type of game, I think that this is the right number of players. I'd imagine that it would be most enjoyable for six or more, especially since players drop out as play continues.

Question 4) I like the ghost idea. There are usually other things going on surrounding party games in my experience and this would give a devoured player the opportunity to be half in and half out of the game world successfully. It might be coupled with a card or two that return a ghost to player status, just to keep things interesting.

[Simon C]

This seems like a demented mix of "Mafia" and "Cow", an incredibly obscure card game from New Zealand about being the last cow on the slaughter line.   As someone who's played a lot of "Mafia" (though we call it "Werewolf"), I've got a few pointers.

Allow cards to be played during dinner discussion.  Playing a card means you're less likely to have any ferocity cards, which might make you a more tempting target.  On the other hand, they can give you an advantage.

Allow hand size to go up to six or more.

Make cards that give dead people something to do.  For example, a card that lets a dead person vote one time, or that lets the dead person see someone's cards and then tell the card player whether to vote for them or not?

Ferocity cards should be played face down.  This should go in turns.  First the victim can play one or more Ferocity cards face down, then each attacker can choose to play one or not.  This makes it easier for the victim to escape, and makes the game longer, but it makes it a calculated risk for players who are trying to hoard Ferocity cards for when it's their turn.  It also increases the politics about who to vote for.

Make a card that removes a player from candidacy for one turn.  This can trigger sudden death (see below).

The end of the game, when there are two people left, should be "sudden death".  Both players take turns being the "victim", with no voting.  Whoever has hoarded the most ferocity cards will be the winner.

[LordKiwi]

How about this idea to increase the amount of politics...

Modify the starvation rules to give each player a pile of tokens that they loose one a turn. They can also spend them to run away from being eaten (pay the difference between your attacker's ferocity and your own). If you eat someone you get their tokens.

This adds the extra element of either picking on the weak or ganging up on a stonger player (to stop them winning in the long run), It'll also put a cap on the number of turns, since no new tokens are every introduced, which could stop it draging on.

John,

[Castlin]

What about building the starvation and eating mechanics into the hand sizes? If you eat someone you get their cards, and every turn you have to discard a card. If many people team up to eat one person, well, they must figure some way to split the meal (hand of cards). If you run out of cards, you stave to death.

Then make cards that vary in power according to how many other cards you have in your hand (from Hell's heart...), and let dead people play (certain?) cards out of the discard pile (maybe with alternate effects?).

Sounds fun. How long do you see a session lasting? Sounds like 15 minutes to me.

[Jarrod]

Modify the starvation rules to give each player a pile of tokens that they loose one a turn. They can also spend them to run away from being eaten (pay the difference between your attacker's ferocity and your own). If you eat someone you get their tokens.

This adds the extra element of either picking on the weak or ganging up on a stonger player (to stop them winning in the long run), It'll also put a cap on the number of turns, since no new tokens are every introduced, which could stop it draging on.

I really like this idea, because players who learn the pace of the game can effectively set the length of play. "Ooh, we've only got an hour til the film, let's only start with eight tokens." And such.

[David C]

Hmm, I might be interested in writing up some cards on notecards and playing this for Halloween. Just for theme, I'd probably rename it "Ghouls and Ghasts." Would you be alright with this?

Here's some suggestions I'm going to make, going through turn order.

0. All players discard one card, players with no remaining cards starve.
1. You may play cards facedown on other players. Only the player who plays the card and the person the card is played on know what the card does.
   
My first suggestion is to have cards that effect other players. 
For example, "Decoy."  If the player who played this card is "devoured" this turn, instead of being devoured, the person who this card is played on is devoured.
"Feast!"  If the player who this card is played on is eaten, the person who played it gets all of their cards.
"Teamwork" If the player who played this card eats this turn, both the player and the person the card is played on draw an extra card from the deck.

3. Dinner discussion (Who shall we eat this evening?)
4. Reveal names.
5. Victim plays card. Attackers may play a card each in response, but it's not mandatory.
6. Dinner is served!
The player who is devoured has their cards divided up amongst the players who voted them for dinner. Cards are passed out starting to the player on the devoured person's right.

My second suggestion is for there to be a second deck for the "Ghasts" or "Ghosts." The ghosts should serve just as important a role as the ghouls.

[Monkeys]

You could have cards which make the player less 'tasty' ie worth less points. Perhaps Ferocity cards also make players worth more points (because their meat is tenderised or something).

[TomTitTot]

Wow!

I'm glad that so many people like this idea - I'm continuing to monitor this thread and refine my ideas for the game, albeit slowly.

I've not responded thus far because, for the last two weeks, I have had the most horrible Flu humanly imaginable. Seriously. It's been a killer.

David C - Feel free to go ahead and do that! Please let me know how it goes over if you do play it!

I will respond to the body of suggestions (which have all been great, BTW) soon, and give my more recent thoughts as well!