Couple of things.
First, after the feedback from posting the rules to the game and a couple more playtests, I’ve gone and updated the current rules I have publicly available for No Honor Among Thieves. Things should be clearer, some edge cases have been added into the rules, and it is no longer possible for the game to get to a state of perpetual hellish limbo where players can’t do anything (good catch on that one during the last playtest, Jason).
You can find the latest edition of them fancy rules here. I’ve also posted a link to them on /r/tabletopgamedesign and BoardGameGeek, so hopefully I can get a wider set of eyes on them than this blog has. Some issues I am currently thinking about: whether fourteen pages is too long for a game rulebook, and whether I should rename the Objective cards to be more specific rather than the kind of bland names they currently have. It wouldn’t take too much, I think–Lord’s Manor instead of just Manor would make a significant difference. I’m also curious as to how the new set of Scheme cards I had printed up will work compared to the previous set, but that’s not really something I can learn from anything but playtesting.
Second, my non NoHAT news. This is something that I can’t say too much about due to the non-disclosure agreements I’ve signed, but I’m pretty sure they will let me say this much: I’m working on something for Shadowrun, in an official capacity rather than my usual ramblings. I’ll post more about that when I can, which according to this NDA will likely only be after it’s published. It’s nothing big, not one of their core book releases, but I’m excited about it all the same.
I’ll keep you posted.
Jake ,
I definitely think renaming the objective cards couldn’t hurt. Your example is spot-on: Lord’s Manor just feels more exciting to be up against.