Our babies have come home

No the girls haven't been away, Daughter the Younger has never spent the night away from us, I am actually talking about the fact that the games we had on exhibit at the Melbourne Museum have come back home after a month. We have really missed some of them! Now if both the girls went away for a day or two we would miss them too and probably say the same thing.

Some of them weren't really missed that much, in fact a couple of them haven't even been played yet, but with many of them not having them in the house for a whole month we were definitely starting to miss them. For me this was especially the case for some of the games that were set up on display, but we couldn't touch them or play them. This was particularly so with Power Grid and Age of Steam since the expansions were sitting at home to be looked at and touched but we couldn't play them because the base game was at the museum.

This will go into a GeekList one day, but here is what we had on display, starting form the entrance of the exhibit and walking around through it.

Blokus (which was on a fair dinkum shop display stand which was lent to us by the Australian distributors),

Big display cabinet
Set up: Dicke Luft in der Gruft, Die Nacht die Magier, Plus & Minus, Frank's Zoo
Boxed: Mammia Mia, Gargon, Coloretto, Gang of Four, 6 Nimmt!, Wallenstein, Vinci, Ra, Princes of Florence, Puerto Rico, Saint Petersberg, Brittania, Civilization, Tigris & Euphrates, Goa, Turn & Taxis, Attika and Amun-Re.

Big Display Case One - Games that are good to look at
Set up: Power Grid and Big City.

Big Display Case Two - The Train Games
Set Up: Union Pacific and Age of Steam
Boxed: Ticket to Ride, 1830, Lunar Rails, The London Game

Big Display Case Three - Settlers
Set Up: Settlers of Catan
Boxed: Settlers of Catan the Card Game, Seafarers of Catan, Cities and Knights of Catan, The Starfarers fo Catan, Settlers of the Stone Age and Die Siedler von Nürnberg

Small Display Case - Pretty games
Set Up: Tier auf Tier, Sheer Panic and Hameln (pieces only)

On the Wall:
Sunda to Sahul and Shadows Over Camelot

The Hameln pieces were very kindly supplied to us by Fragor Games when we mentioned to them that we were displaying Shear Panic at the museum (we pre-ordered Shear Panic last year and managed to pre-order Hameln whilst there were still some left). Gordon and Fraser also lent us their Shear Panic sign which we put up behind the display case.

Since a reasonable percentage of our games were now under lock and key this reduced what we had left for demonstration purposes. We would like to thank Caterpillar Games, Ventura Games, Divide By Zero and Even Toys and Games for supply or lending us demonstration copies.

We ran demonstration sessions from 11-3 every Saturday and Sunday and also on Tuesdays and Thursdays for the last two weeks, which coincided with Victorian school holidays, a total of twelve sessions in all. A very big thanks to those who came in to help with the demonstrations sessions. Take a bow Kim, Vince, Doug, Gregor, Diana, Duncan, Francis, Giles, Kylie, Richard, Daughter the Elder, Daughter the Younger and Justine.

The games that we demonstrated, in the order the I wrote them down, were:
Make 'n Break, Blink, Carcassonne, Catch the Match, Halli Galli, I Have..., Apples to Apples, Apples to Apple Junior, Pick Picknic, Itchy & Scratchy, The Same Game, Settlers of Catan, Ticket to Ride, Sequence, Piggy Back, Spooky Stairs, Trans America, Othello, Sunda to Sahul, Cartegena, Gang of Four, Guillotine, Sherlock, Marrakesh, Tier Auf Tier, Number Chase and Snorta.

Teaching games at the museum was very different to other places we have taught games. At home, you know your audience and you pretty much have all the time you want. At a games club it is generally pretty much the same, plus you are usually teaching gamers. At the games night we ran at Daughter the Elder's school we didn't know how involved with games people were, but at least we knew they had chosen to come to a games night and we had quite a few hours of their time. At the museum some people were just doing the rounds and weren't interested in stopping, some people could stay a few minutes, some for a while and some for an hour or more. The level of games knowledge varied from which-one-is-Monopoly? to some people who had a few of the games on display or demo. The experience with games was very wide too, ranging from school aged children who didn't have any idea of taking turns and playing cards face up to others that could jump straight into games with minimal explanation. It reinforced to me that exposure to games really helps children learn games in general and also, depending on the game, things like mathematical skills etc. They also just pick up new games much more quickly too. I was quite surprised to see that Daughter the Younger had watched a few games of Marrakesh at home and at the museum and knew how to play it, without having been actively involved in a game or being taught it.

Sinice most of the people were just passing through and most of the people interested in playing were children the games that got the most play were children's games and/or games that can be explained in a few minutes. Some of the most popular included Make 'n Break, Spooky Stairs, Blink, Catch the Match, Tier auf Tier, Snorta and Piggy Back. A friend of ours who works in a games shop told us that the Australian distributor for Make'n Break was out of stock - very unwise, I believe that could have set up a pallet load outside the museum and sold them all without any problem at all. I think that the museum shop also missed an opportunity by not stocking any of the games that we were demonstrating.

I am sure that Daughter the Younger will be most peeved the next time we go to the museum and she doesn't get to play games for four straight hours!

We got nice comments from lots of the people who stopped to play and very good feedback from a lot of the museum staff too. We also received this email a few days ago "Just a note to say thanks for playing games at the melbourne museum over the holidays.My children had a great time and it inspired us to spend a bit more time together.I was able to locate 3 of the games at my local Games World , Catch the Match,Blink and Apples to Apples. As I said to the girl there I would never have bought them if I had not played them so thanks for the incentive. Great concept and I think all games stores should have some of these great mind using games out to play."

It was a busy, busy month, but well worth it. Now to find some spare time now that the babies have come home...

The Joy of Shopping

First, a reminder that at Charcon (the first game convention in Charleston, West Virginia), on Saturday, October 7, at noon, I plan to run A Game of Thrones mini-tournament. Fantasy Flight Games has generously donated a copy of the Storm of Swords expansion as a prize for the game. You can sign up for this competition by e-mailing the Charcon gnomes at events@charcon.org. Find out more information on CharCon at www.Charcon.org.

And now, today’s blog…


I once read a New York Times article in which the female writer claimed that she enjoyed the computer hack-and-slash game Diablo because it was all about shopping. She explained what she meant, but because I also had played the game (along with my wife) I already had experienced the joy of Diablo shopping. While it was fun to wade into tombs and dungeons and battle varieties of monsters, often the most satisfying part of the game was when I returned to town with my loot. After selling unwanted magic items and weapons, it was off to see what the various specialists offered in the way of armor, weapons, and magic items. I was particularly fond of magic items that sucked life or mana from enemies, and it was a happy day when I could upgrade my vampiric weapons.

Shopping is one of my favorite game mechanisms. Many of my most beloved games include shopping, and some of the most highly-rated games of all time (like Puerto Rico) have a shopping component to them.

Let me define what I mean by shopping so there’s no confusion. Shopping is the ability to pick and choose among weapons, defenses, tools, or special abilities within a game, and acquire them for some kind of price. Shopping is almost never about acquiring victory points (or at least not primarily about acquiring victory points). It is about obtaining the tools of victory.

In Arkham Horror, players can have their characters literally go shopping at the stores and magic shops of the haunted city. Players usually get a choice of three item cards; if the player can afford one, he can buy it for a price. There is a certain luck-of-the-draw with this mechanism, but usually at least one item is useful even if it isn’t exactly what the player was hoping to get. Characters can improve most of their abilities by acquiring the right weapon, tool, vehicle, or magic item.

I’ve only played Fantasy Flight’s Descent once, but I believe it includes shopping experiences that roughly mirror Diablo’s. After ransacking a dungeon, the player-character can teleport back to town, sell his swag, and then go shopping.

But a game doesn’t have to feature individual characters to include shopping. Shopping for buildings is a vital part of Puerto Rico, the economic development game. Each of the buildings gives a player a special ability that affects one of the phases of the game. These buildings also are worth victory points, but it’s the special abilities that make them so desirable. I particularly like the quarry--a building that decreases the price of buildings when I shop for them. And the construction hut is a building that makes it easier to shop for quarries. I’ve noticed that some of the items I most like to buy are the ones that help me with shopping.

What is the appeal of shopping? I think it is the seductiveness of improving one’s abilities coupled with the idea that you may be getting an advantage unavailable to other players. And both of these ideas are linked with the Western belief that happiness and fulfillment can be obtained from consumer spending. In real life, linking happiness with consumer goods can be a path straight to credit card hell. But within the game world, shopping may indeed be the path to salvation. Or at least, victory.

Are there certain guidelines for adding the shopping mechanism to a game that make it especially enjoyable? I think there are.

Items must have a cost. Parents have long noticed that children value a toy more if they’ve had to work and save for it. The same principle applies to shopping in games. It’s hard to value something that’s free. For some reason, I enjoy an object more if I get it by shopping and paying for it--rather than getting it assigned to me by a random event card.

Players must have a choice. Shopping in Arkham Horror would not be as satisfying if a player was given only one item to look at when visiting a store. To buy or not to buy is not nearly as agonizing as deciding between three different potentially useful items.

Items should be in limited supply. Even if the game contains dozens of items for sale, few of them should be identical. Scarcity adds value to items. And some items (legendary magic items, for example) should be unique. (In fact, we so expect legendary items to be unique that it can become funny when they aren’t. I’m thinking of the scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail when King Arthur arrives at the French castle and asks if they know anything about the location of the Holy Grail. The Frenchman played by John Cleese replies with something like: “Yes, we have two of them”).

Maybe my favorite shopping game is Martin Wallace’s Struggle of Empires. There are a couple of dozen improvement tiles available in SoE, and it can be very hard deciding which to acquire. Army Training makes your armies tougher. But Banking allows you to raise funds without getting stuck with so many of the dreaded Unrest markers. And logistics…

Well, you get the idea. My mouth waters just thinking about all the ways I could turn my empire into a lean, mean, fund-raising-without-unrest machine. The idea that I am getting special abilities that the other players aren’t is just so enticing.

There is even a strategy I read about on Boardgamegeek based on the improvement tiles. The general idea is too spend the first half of the game trying to snatch up as many tiles as possible. Once your empire is as strong as Popeye after a spinach banquet, you can conquer your way to victory with ease.

Sounded good to me. So I tried it. I ended up spending two-thirds of the game getting the improvement tiles, and by the end of the game there wasn’t an army in Europe that could defeat me. Unfortunately, I had waited too long before beginning the conquering part of the strategy. Other players had racked up so many points that I couldn’t catch up with them unless the game went into overtime. Which it can’t.

I know what I did wrong, but I suspect that the next time I play I could easily make the same mistake. The lure of the improvement tiles may be too strong to resist. So if you want an easy-to-defeat opponent, join me for a game of Struggle of Empires. While you’re conquering, I’ll be shopping.

IP, Morality, and the Gaming Industry

IP. Intellectual Property. It's theoretically what encourages creators to create, but here's a dirty little secret: it generally (and I speak for the United States here, but there's an increasing amount of conformity throughout the world) doesn't protect games.

You see, there's two types of IP of general interest to most publishers: copyright and trademark. And, as we'll see neither of them protects what's actually the core of a good game design.

(And before I get going, let me carefully note, I'm not a lawyer, but I have been working with this sort of stuff for a while.)

An Overview of IP

Copyright is the most general type of IP. It covers ideas that have been made substantial and concrete. The idea itself isn't copyrighted, but the specific way in which it's made real is. So, in The Settlers of Catan, the rulebook is copyrighted as are the artwork on the components and on the box. In other forms of media, entire short stories, novels, songs, and movies fall under copyright.

Copyright is really easy to get. Theoretically it magically appears as soon as you write/draw/create something. You can register it if you want, but that's mainly so that you can sue for damages.

Trademark is a sort of marketing protection. It most frequently covers a product name and/or a specific logo in which that name is used, but it can also cover other unique elements that distinguish your product. UPS, for example, has trademarked the color brown for package delivery. Other companies have trademarked things as weird as the specific shape of a box. When you look at trademark violations there's a core question of "Would this cause confusion with the trademarked item?" So, The Settlers of Catan logo and probably name is a trademark in certain areas of entertainment.

Everyone can mark something as a trademark, but to have a legal basis for suits you really need to register it, and that's a labyrinthine process that keeps lawyers and suits in Washington in a job. However, once you've done it a few times it gets easier.

You'll note in these discussions that we've missed a crucial element of game design: the actual game mechanics. They're not covered by copyright, because that only covers the concrete, which is to say the explanation of the mechanics in the rulebook, not the abstract mechanis themselves. Likewise, trademark clearly doesn't cover them.

And there's another type of IP to fill the gap: patents. Patents cover inventions that are new and original, and this is where game mechanics could fit in. The problem? The process to get them is even more complex and convoluted than what's needed to file a trademark. Rigorous and technical documents must be filed, and it can (and does) take years for a patent to be accepted or denied. Even then the patent office (in the US at least) is a hotbed of massive incompetence; they regularly give out incorrect patents, and so having a patent doesn't actually mean anything until it's defended in court.

Patents & Games

As a result of all of this, patents almost never get filed for games. Among other things, it's just too expensive.

I'm aware of the occasional aberration. Wizards of the Coast, for example, was granted a patent for certain aspects of CCG play after they released Magic: The Gathering. However, the rest of the CCG industry thought so little of the patent that Wizards wasn't really able to enforce it--but word is that it gave them the leverage necessary to pull down the Pokemon license when it came to the US.

Very small publishers patent their ideas sometimes too, but it's usually a sign of inexperience and a lack of understanding of the industry. The phrase "Patent Pending" on a gamebox is generally enough to get me to put it back on the shelf.

And, honestly, it's a good thing that patents aren't widely used in the game industry. Because, as I alluded to above, the whole system is utterly and totally broken and corrupt. If there was enough money in the tabletop gaming field to support patent work, someone would have patented "resources depicted as cards", someone else would have patented "the once-around auction as a game system", and a third person would have patented "rolling dice to generate a random event", and the whole Eurogames industry would have come to a grinding and total halt.

However, the lack of patents in the industry, and more generally the lack of anything actually protecting game mechanics, does cause problems in the industry.

Duplicating Games

The most loathsome result of this that I've seen is Covenant Communication's game Search, Play and Ponder, which is an exact copy (mechanically) of Looney Lab's Aquarius. This story was chronicled by Andrew Looney a couple of years ago in Wunderland. In short: the folks at CC took Looney's game, commissioned new art and rewrote the rules, but it's otherwise exactly the same, down to the card counts.

Looney wrote in a rant, "Intellectual property theft has been committed against myself". And, although that's clearly morally correct, legally it wasn't. I'm fairly certain the Looneys never filed a patent on Aquarius' mechanics, and the folks at Covenant Communications changed everything they were legally required to.

There's a good ending to that story: when the Looneys confronted Covenant Communications, the offenders offered to destroy their stock of the game. In the Looneys' last posting on the subject, they were trying to negotiate a license instead.

Much more insidious is an Italian game called Vive L'empereur. All reports seem to indicate that it uses Richard Borg's "Commands & Colors" mechanics, but places it in the Napoleonic wars. The publisher simply says that they "stand by their product" and makes no apologies for co-opting Borg's work. Unfortunately, it's probably entirely undercut Borg's ability to ever design a Napoleonic C&C game for the European market.

And, he has no options because of the bad integration of IP laws & games.

Barbarossa & Cluzzle

Which brings us, finally, to what got me started on this article: Klaus Teuber's Barbarossa and Dominic Crapuchettes' Cluzzle two similar games that on the other hand show that this sort of issue isn't black and white.

In Teuber's game each player make clay models, but they can't make them too good or too bad. If they're easy the player will lose points when they're guessed, and if they're hard they'll never get guessed (costing the player the opportunity to get points).

Players get points when their puzzles are guessed (as long as they're not guessed too early) and when they guess other puzzles.

Besides guessing you can also ask "yes or no" questions and request letters in an answer.

In Crapuchettes' game each player makes a clay model, but they can't make them too good or too bad. If they're easy the player will get just 1 point when they're guessed, and if they're hard they'll never get guessed (costing the player the opportunity get points).

Player get points when their puzzles are guessed and when they guess other puzzles.

Besides guessing you can also ask "yes or no" questions.

Now, there are a lot of differences in the details of gameplay. Barbarossa has fantasy theming and players get to take different actions each turn, depending on where their pieces land on a small board. In Cluzzle there's no actual board, and instead questions are asked in quick-fire 2-minute rounds. Crapuchettes also says that his Cluzzle is really directed at a different audience: it's an easier game with less rules.

Nonetheless when Crapuchettes recently asked me if I'd liked to review some of his games, I told him I wasn't comfortable doing so because of these similarities.

My viewpoint goes something like this:

1. Mechanics aren't generally protected by law.
   
2. But the tabletop gaming industry is a very small one, and it behooves its members to act politely and morally toward each other, because the industry doesn't have the money to file patents or talk to lawyers and we want to encourage our designers to keep designing.
   
3. When two games can be (correctly) summarized as similarly as the two summaries I offer above, that's too close for me.
   

Crapuchettes offered an interesting alternative point of view. He entirely understood the issue of patents & gaming IP, and said that he'd waited until a patent would have expired if Teuber had actually filed one before he released Cluzzle.

(This isn't actually true, by-the-by, but it's close. Teuber released Barbarossa in 1988, while Crapuchettes released Cluzzle in 2004. That's a 16-year difference. Before 1995 the U.S. length of a patent was 17 years after the patent's release, while since 1995 its been 20 years after the patent's filing. Because there is often a 1-3 year gap from filing to release, the two lengths were about the same thing. If Teuber had filed a U.S. patent in 1988 it would have expired somewhere between 2006 and 2008. Crapuchettes says that he thought that patents lasted 15 years at the time that he released Cluzzle.)

Since Crapuchettes actually went to the heart of IP by imagining a world where games could be protected he somewhat side-stepped the whole issue of morality & legality, and instead offered the question how should things be? In other words, when Teuber's theoretical patent expired this year or in a few years from now, would it then be OK for other people to entirely stripmine his game, even moreso than Cluzzle does?

Crapuchettes said the following in one of his emails to me:

"Do you know why patent law exists? It is to benefit the people. Allowing 17 years of exclusivity gets individuals to risk years of their life (as is the case with me) to invent things that are better than what currently exists. Ending that exclusivity and returning the idea to the public domain allows others to build upon these ideas. Why? Because it is in the best interest of people. If things did not return back the public domain, we would not have electricity, we would not have cars, we would not have running water, we would not have plumbing. In short, we would have nothing. We would cease to be a civilization."

He's right, that is the purpose of IP, and it's something I sometimes overlook because of my own strong interest in IP as a creator.

But, on the other hand, I'm still not convinced that it's fair in the gaming field. If Klaus Teuber were a writer, his work would be protected for an absurd amount of time (namely, for about 95 years, which is honestly too long). But, as a game designer instead he only gets 20 years, even if he could file a patent. This difference doesn't strike me as right--that a creative writer gets a lifetime of protection and a creative game designer doesn't because his games are considered "inventions" if they're protected at all. I still think that an industry of the size of tabletop gaming needs to protect its creators even (and especially) when the law doesn't do so adequately.

But I understand Crapuchettes' point, and I can see some validity in putting out similar games that nonetheless aren't direct copies (and Cluzzle isn't) as games age. Even when there's a whole lot of similarity.

It's overall a difficult question, and so I also open it up to you, the readers.

I like games

Yehuda

GAME STORE CONFIDENTIAL ~ Ameritrash vs. EuroSnootery

One of the more recent discussions on BGG highlights a running theme of contention in the loftier heights of board gaming guruism.

Face it. A site like boardgamegeek attracts more than it's share of folks who think that their choices, their level of discernment and their accepted (by them) degree of enlightenment in the world of games makes their pronouncements somehow more valid. BGG is a microcosm of the "real world", whatever that is, in that the more you say, the more you post, the more you repeat your own point of view, the more acceptance there will eventually be about what you believe.

And if you find a like-minded group of gamers who support your beliefs, then you become a gaming guru of sorts.

That's why I love BGG. It's as much fun as politics. In fact, it really is politics. Meaningless politics. Absurd politics. Politics that from an outsider's perspective is beyond silly and even... well... geeky. But it's nonetheless fine politics indeed.

Anyway, to get back to the discussion... a guy down in Georgia named Robert Martin coined a new term for a genre of games, most of them dating well back into the 80's and 90's but some not even published yet. He calls these games Ameritrash. By that I think he's being both sarcastic - taking a sucker punch at the EuroSnoots while getting crowd support - and he's being self-effacing. Humble even. What Robert has created with his list of Ameritrash games is a groundswell of public support for a wide range of games that have been specifically or generically panned by the oppossing EuroSnoot party on BGG.

These games run the gamut from luck-based dice fests to overproduced plastic horrors. They include the cheap and trashy and as well as games with purient levels of meanigless violence. According to Robert Ameritrash is such a broad catagory that games with rulebooks that would violate the Geneva Convention's torture standards (ASL) and games that essentially suck, but bring big bucks on eBay (Dark Tower, Titan) belong here. The last time I checked today there were 74 games on the list.

But there might as well be 7400 games there. That's because the whole concept of Ameritrash takes into account more than just copious numbers of dice and plastic pieces... the concept is all about what the games deliver in terms of a group of people, or even just two people, having a good time. The notion is that Euro games, well... many of the top rated Euros anyway, just plain aren't fun. At least not in the sense that Americans think of when they think of having fun with a board game.

So Ameritrash isn't just about games designed, produced and published in America by Americans. What it's really about is the style of game that sparks hoots of laughter, bloody "war" stories about game sessions that are retold even decades later, silly outcomes, last ditch efforts that worked... you know... the proverbial pulling a hat outta your ass at the last moment and winning the game. In the world of Ameritrash there is player elimination, king-making galore, dice results that make you want to vomit... on your opponents. Ameritrash games can often take 20, 25 or even 30 tedious moments to set up and once set up anyone rolling dice on the table itself is taking their life into their own hands.

Ameritrash games from SPI and Avalon Hill sparked the whole magnetic counter-clip and tin-sheet-on-the-wall industry that boomed in the 70's and died out in the 90's. I remember walking into the game room in the old Wargames West store in Albuquerque back in the early 90's and seeing a game of Victory in the Pacific plastered hugely on one of the walls. For all I knew the game had been going on for months and months. Now that's Ameritrash!

A few EuroSnoots appeared on the BGG list and were quickly dispatched by Ameritrash party members who added graphics of nuclear explosions to their responses. The general consensus seemed to be, "Hey! We aren't over on your Caylus or Medici threads telling you you're an uneducated, low-life numbnuts for wasting both time and money playing a frickin' game about asking some medevial King if you can kiss his ass while licking his shoes and oh, while I was there I built a house of stone so maybe you'll keep the Bailiff from being mean to me?"

And for the record, it seemed to me that most people from around the world who declared their love of Ameritrash also reated a number of popular Euros highly and (except for a few cases) didn't seem to see Ameritrash as an effort to put down Euros, just to make a distinction in style and to get a bit of attention that the world's most active board game site is a site that is friendly to game lovers of all types.

Check it out... it's a fun read:

http://boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/16485/page/1

Speaking of Ameritrash

I managed to get Jumbo-Tron, Bode and new Idaho resident Michael to come by Saturday night and play one of the featured games on the Ameritrah list. Fortress America.

I wanted to play for several reasons.... first off, I haven't played the game for well over ten years and I needed to determine if it was a keeper or eBay potential. Man... I had a great time. I think the invaders did too. Everybody showed up, I pulled th game out and there were no rules! Crap. I remembered then I had pulled the rules out several years ago, copied them and then sent them to a fellow gamer who had the game but no rules.

Thankfully, the board game world is safe because of BGG again. I logged on, went to the game entry and downloaded a pdf of the rules. By that time we needed to get rolling so we quickly set up and I promptly screwed myself over, mainly by not bothering to actually read the rules. I played America and I failed to get Partisan cards on my first turn and when I did get them next turn I onyl drew one. Eventually Michael or Jumbo happened to read that section of the rules and pointed out I should have been drawing two cards per turn.

Oh well. I was the only person who had played before so I acknowledged my dumbness by covering it up weakly, saying I just wanted to handicap myself so they would be turned off by me thrashing them. Ha! I got my butt kicked. Truthfully, I would have had a tough time even if I had the right amount of re-inforcement cards. Those three guys meant business. They decided to use their learning game to trash me rather than squabble over city and resource points. Bode did as well on my East Coast as I've ever seen and won by a handy margin.

Fortress America was enjoyed by all. Interestingly, Jumbo wasn't even born when Fortress America was published and Michale was about 2 years old. Any 20+ year old game that gets a thumbs-up from two people who grew up with Ninetndo's, Playstations, CCG's has proved itself as a classic.

My personal belief is that only a few popular Euro's will stand that test of time... Settlers of Catan being one of them. I suspect most of the auction-wood block-kiss-the-king's-ass Euro's will be distant memories, buried in a deep hole along with most Ameritrash that didn't pass muster on the long haul.

Winner's Circle Again

So we played this gem, torn board and all, again. A great game. Is this a Euro? I mean Knieza designed it. But it has an unforgiving die and the cards are random and man, their placement can cause real groans. We had a discussion afterwards and it centered around the realization that you really can play above the randomness with this terrific design and that using the blind-bid option is the way to go once you're familiar with the horses and the game's tendency to yield suprising and unexpected results.

Backgammon

Michael, who is a BGG member, mentioned a recent discussion about Backgammon. This led to me pulling my dusty old board out, realizing I couldn't find my stones (or checkers, whatever you want to call them) and ending up playing a few games with poker chips as a substitute.

Fellow gamers... if, like me, you haven't hauled Backgammon out for a dozen or so years... do so. I have played thousands of rounds of this superb game, mainly in the 70's and early 80's, and while I hadn't forgotten what a great game it is, the memories were indistinct... blurred and made hazy by decades of painting miniatures, invading Russia, killing Ogres, assaulting planets from space, building Magic decks and pushing those stupid little wooden blocks around.

Second Place for the Win

With a nail-biting, come-from-behind victory today in Caylus, it causes me to pause and reflect upon a common occurrence in Eurogames. Often, the best position to be in is second place. This isn’t true in every case, games with very little player-player interaction such as Puerto Rico can have a run away leader with very little penalty and two-player games are most often played with each player going flat out for the win from the start. As player interaction increases within a game, being the frontrunner as you near the final stretch of the game becomes less and less desirable. As in cycling, the front runner often has to accomplish everything on their own, while those coming along second or later can drift along and try to take advantage of first place while conserving their resources for the last mad dash. In games with moderate player interaction, such as Caylus or Settlers of Catan, being in a reasonable second place as the game enters the endgame is more desirable than being the actual leader. Once the endgame looms on players, they will often cooperate to “bash on the leader”. The thinking is something like this: “Sure, the second place player may be able to win, but I am SURE to lose if I don’t spend an effort to prevent that first place player from winning now. Perhaps something will come up later to take care of the player in second… “ In games with heavy player interaction, such as I’m the Boss or possibly Bohnanza, it is almost a given that the player in first place (or the person perceived to be in first place) will be hindered enough to prevent them from winning the game. Note that I’m trying to avoid the topic of kingmaking – where a player who has no possible chance to win the game but is in a situation to decide which of their opponents can win. I’m trying to focus in on situations where players are, for the most part, still in contention for winning and are willing to cooperate for what is perceived as the “good of the group”.

This entire attitude relies on a few factors. First, the game must have a minimum amount of player-player interaction. If there’s nothing your opponents can do to you, they won’t do it. Second, players need to be going for a game win rather than for an optimal finish. That is not always the same thing (and a topic that would fit well within an entire column.) Players in competition for first will typically be willing to penalize themselves a bit to bash on the leader in the hopes that they will be able to pass by and win. However, a very cautious player may give up the hope of winning and instead conserve all their energy to try to guarantee second place and let their opponents spend resources and effort in taking down the leader. Finally, if the players begin to separate themselves into various “packs” on the scoreboard, individual players may have their hands full fighting for a third or fourth place finish and decide to let the leader or leaders settle their own problems. This is one reason I enjoy face to face gaming far more than online board games. Face to face gaming allows me to read the other player’s attitudes and emotions to help me predict whether they would be more likely to join in on a round of bashing the leader and hoping for the win or whether they would rather hoard their resources and try to guarantee or possibly mildly improve their current position.

Now for the big question, how should this affect your game? Obviously, each game should be analyzed for the possibility of leader-bashing and it should play a part of long-term planning. Any game that has significant player interaction and consumable resources (cards, goods, actions, whatever) that can be stockpiled from round to round are good candidates for the second-place strategy. This is especially true if the stockpiled resources can be kept secret or at least out of sight . During the game, don’t let the leader get too far ahead, but also be aware of your other opponents. If there are only two people vying for first place, you will have a hard time convincing others to help knock down the leader, only to give you the win. Many deep strategy games have resources that are valuable at the start and nearly worthless at the end (money in Puerto Rico for example), and a good player will be able to determine when that value switches over from priceless to useless. Playing for second place can be very similar. An astute player may set themselves up to be in a friendly second place position to lull opponents into a false sense of security, right up to the point when it is time to race ahead for the win. Timing that transition from second to first is very important. Too soon, and you become a target, and too late and you will fail to catch up. Now, I’m not saying that you should pass by good opportunities if they are going to launch you into the lead. But once you are in the lead, you may need to adopt a less risky strategy. In Caylus, for example, it is usually not wise to try to take advantage of those buildings out there in front of the provost when you are in the lead, as nearly every other player will be willing to give up a small amount of resources (cash) to prevent you from advancing further into the lead. Keep in mind that a large part of multiplayer games are the actions of the other players. If you are in the lead, every other player at the board is going to need to pass you by before they can win, making you a juicy target for everyone. If you take the lead in the mid or late midgame, pour it on strong and don’t look back, but also manage your risks wisely and don’t give the other players an opportunity to shoot you in the back.

Musings from the museum

A short but rambling post tonight - mostly because we are now at the museum 4 days a week and I'm short on time.

What we are really noticing is the variety in the people who come through.

Variety in their attitudes to games:

* "Oh, look at all these toys!"
* "No, we don't have time for that stuff."
* "We love games"

Variety in their knowledge of games

* (Fraser swears he heard this) "That must be the new Monopoly" (looking at Power Grid)
* "We have a game called Junior Stratego, from about the 1960s. Was there ever a game called Stratego?"
* "Carcassonne ... we have that at home"
* "Settlers of Catan ... our friends love that game"

Variety in their ability to play games

This is the one I can't distill down to point form. We are seeing at first hand the incredible range of abilities that still constitutes "normal".

Whether it's the 3 year olds who find the matches in Catch the Match before their parents and siblings, or the 7 year olds who stare and stare and find nothing. Or the kids that take one look and decide it's too much like work, and run away.

We've had kids who thought Make 'n' Break and Tier auf Tier were too hard, and others that took to Blink like they'd been playing it for years. Today, we watched a group of six year olds whose maths wasn't up to Halli Galli - and a 10 year old who was in the same boat.

But we've also met the most lovely people and their fantastic kids, and really enjoyed gaming with them.

One family from Biggie's school came in on Thursday - they came to the family game night we ran, and played and enjoyed Ticket to Ride, so they came in specially to see the exhibit. The mother told me yesterday that they have since bought it for themselves and for another family, and some friends of theirs recently told them that they have bought it as well.

Another family came by today and played games - dad, 12 year old daughter and 10 year old autistic & intellectually disabled son. We found that the son enjoyed Make 'n' Break, as well as placing tiles in Carcassonne, while dad and daughter played a whole raft of games with us, including Blink, Apples to Apples and Tier auf Tier, and had a good look at Settlers too. They came back later for a game of Marrakesh, after meeting up with the family's mother as well.

We had a family last week, too, who reminded me of why we were doing the demos - they played games with us for over an hour, and by the end of it the kids were tugging at their parents' sleeves saying "you've played enough". They left the museum and went straight for a games shop to buy some of the games they had played with us.


And then we get home.

"I want to play a game," says Otto. "Actually, I want to play FIVE games."

And five games are played.


-Melissa

Ted Cheatham and the Road to Silk Road

First, a reminder that at Charcon (the first game convention in Charleston, West Virginia), on Saturday, October 7, at noon, I plan to run A Game of Thrones mini-tournament. Fantasy Flight Games has generously donated a copy of the Storm of Swords expansion as a prize for the game. You can sign up for this competition by e-mailing the Charcon gnomes at events@charcon.org. Find out more information on CharCon at www.Charcon.org.

And now, today’s blog…


I never expected to know a real game designer. But Ted Cheatham, the heart of the Appalachian Gamers Club, is seeing his first published game debut this week. Silk Road is medium-weight game based on the famous medieval trading route that ran from the Near East to China. I decided to ask Ted for an interview and see what the real story was behind the creation of this wheeling and dealing masterpiece.

KRIS: Ted, I know you’re a major history buff, and so I assume that Silk Road was inspired by books about this legendary trading route.

TED: Absolutely. The idea came to me after reading the Stephen Ambrose book “One Hump or Two: The Silk Road and Camels of Glory.” Plus, Through the Desert had just been nominated for the Speil des Jahres, and Knizia was making boatloads of dough.

KRIS: Yes, I see how that could inspire you. So how did the various game mechanisms evolve?

TED: Well, from my research I learned that about 1240 A.D., Arab caravan masters began storing goods in three-foot wooden cubes. Turns out, storage cubes are the perfect shape for loading onto camels. And within fifty years after the introduction of cubes, they started color-coding them according to what kind of good was stored in them. Helped a lot during inventory.

KRIS: Of course. So that’s what inspired you to use little wooden cubes as goods in the game.

TED: No. I stole that idea from Age of Steam. But once I learned that there had been real caravan cubes, I felt a lot better about it. And I insisted that the game cubes be exactly 1/123 the size of the real-world cubes.

KRIS: What’s the significance of that number?

TED: It’s the size of the game cubes.

KRIS: Er…Yes.

TED: It’s also fascinating that real caravans used an auction to determine which cities to visit.

KRIS: And so you imported that mechanism into the game.

TED: Well, I really started out with a piece of cardboard and a plastic arrow spinner. But some of the playtesters suggested an auction might be cool. Luckily, that turned out to be a perfectly authentic mechanism.

KRIS: So how did Bruno Faidutti become involved with the game?

TED: I was having a few problems with an early prototype. And I wrote to Bruno, mentioned that I was a fan, and asked for suggestions. I happened to have written to him at exactly the right moment. Bruno had just broken up with Ashley Judd, and he needed a new project to take his mind off things.

KRIS: And what are the advantages of working with Bruno?

TED: Bruno is an exemplary game designer. He tightened up the game, clarified the rules, simplified the scoring system, and provided a lot of great suggestions about the graphic elements. Plus, I got to meet Scarlet Johansson.

KRIS: Wow. How cool is that. So was the game always called Silk Road?

TED: No. The game went through a lot of name changes, as we experimented with different prototypes, and even different themes. At one time or another it was called Chic Sheiks, Humpty the Happy Camel, Corduroy Road, Union Pacific 2 (don’t ask), and Hey! That’s my Cube! I even experimented with a prototype based on the legendary Turkish pastry caravans. That one was called Through the Dessert.

KRIS: So let’s get to the question that everyone really wants answered. Will Silk Road have more plastic camels than Through the Desert?

TED: Are you sure that’s the question people really want answered?

KRIS: Pretty sure.

TED: I mean, Zev at Z-Man thinks people really want a fast-paced, resource-trading game that plays in under an hour.

KRIS: Plastic camels. Got any?

TED: The initial ratings on Boardgamegeek have been very positive. I’m pleased that almost everyone who’s played the game so far has ranked--

KRIS: So there’s no camels?

TED: Who cares if there’s camels! It’s a great game. With or without them.

KRIS: My guess is there’s no camels. Too bad. People loved ‘em in Through the Desert.

TED: Sure. This from the guy who prefers Railroad Tycoon to Age of Steam.

KRIS: What’s that supposed to mean?

TED: Face it. You prefer toys over substance. You can’t handle tough games. You love the second-raters.

KRIS: You’re crazy.

TED: Mister Go-Broke-On-Turn-Three. We had to bend the rules just to keep you in the game.

KRIS: Age of Steam has that tiny dark little board. It’s depressing.

TED: Bet you think Roger Moore was the best James Bond.

KRIS: No, I don’t. But that parachute scene at the beginning of Moonraker is the best action sequence in the whole damn series. You gotta give him that. Why are we talking about this?

TED: You’re threatened by Sean Connery’s virility.

KRIS: Well, at least I didn’t design a caravan game with a great big hulking camel smack in the middle of the cover—and then forgot to put camels in the game.

TED: Bet you like Kevin Costner more than Harrison Ford.

KRIS: Boy, I’m glad you didn’t design Axis and Allies. Open the box and--wow! No planes or tanks or ships. But there’s five hundred wooden cubes! Johnny’s really gonna have fun playing Rommel this Christmas.

TED: Bet you like Rene Zellweger more than Nicole Kidman. You’re drawn to the second rate. You feel at home there.

KRIS: What is this pathetic obsession with movie stars? Did you put them in Silk Road? The winner gets to add Nicole Kidman to his harem. The losers get eaten by Rene Zellweger.

TED: That’s it. Railroad Tycoon is going on the prize table. From now on, it’s Age of Steam or nothing, baby.

KRIS: For the last time: are there plastic camels or not?

TED: Buy the game and find out.

KRIS: Fine. Be that way.

TED: Fine. I will.

KRIS: Fine.

TED: Fine.

KRIS: If Roger Moore had designed Silk Road, there’d be plastic camels.

(Interview resumes two days later)

KRIS: Will we be seeing more games from you in the coming years?

TED: I hope so. I’ve got several prototypes in the works. One that is coming along is based on the annual Amish grain harvest competition. I call that one Sheaf Encounter.

KRIS: Of course.

TED: And I’m putting my parental experience to use in my latest prototype. Each player is a parent with three demanding kids. The parent who can satisfy the greatest number of childish demands by the end of the game is the winner. Right now it’s called Whine Handler.

KRIS: I can relate. Now, what about these rumors that you’ve got a secret project in the works?

TED: I can’t say too much about that. But it isn’t a secret that a certain high-profile rock group wants to do a remake of the classic animated Beatles’ movie Yellow Submarine. The movie studio sees lots of merchandising potential, and they’ve asked me to put together a game.

KRIS: And what’s that one called?

TED: U2 Boat.

Introductions

Howdy and hello to everyone reading this. This is my first entry for Gone Gaming, and I thank Coldfoot for inviting me to contribute to this blog. It’s hard to imagine that I could contribute anything useful, certainly no handy quotable lines, but I hope to have some fun writing and to occasionally mix in all that good fuzzy crap that makes my partner Annie drag me to chick flicks.

About my name, it’s officially "Smatt." Some people aren’t comfortable saying this. Sounds a little to close to "smack" and "splat." Some folks hesitate, certain that they just heard me say "Matt" and that their ears are playing tricks on them. At this point, I must say that I usually decline to correct them. I have better things to do with my time than correct almost every single person who crosses my path. If they do happen to pick up the subtle ‘s,’ they will often say things like "That is an interesting name" or "Very unusual." You will never hear people say that to someone named "Moustapha" or "Ilya," probably for fear of getting their asses kicked, but for some reason, they don’t hesitate to say that to someone named "Smatt." Such is life.

Smatt is a derivative of Steven Matthew. I picked it up in the Peace Corps from a clever Yaley named Marc Hoffman. I liked it; other people liked it; it stuck. Here I am today.

So what makes me qualified to write for Gone Gaming? Well, I suppose that at the core of the reason is that I like games (I love Annie; I like games - this is a very important distinction, and while slip-ups have been known to happen, a night on the couch is a gentle reminder of the subtlety of our blessed language). I like games so much in fact that I started making up my own puzzles for GAMES magazine in 2003. I didn’t like their policy of buying all rights, so I started freelancing to Knucklebones soon after. In the meantime, I got a puzzle on NPR’s Weekend Edition with Will Shortz (Name a bestselling non-fiction author with 7 letters in the first name and 7 in the last; drop the first three letters of the last name to get a bestselling fiction author, 7 letters in the first name and 4 in the last. Who are these authors?) and bothered our local paper the Missoulian about having game reviews and exclusive letterboxing clues for their readers. The Missoulian bit, and I’ve been writing game reviews ever since (I did the letterboxing clues for over a year. They were popular with a core group of people who were disappointed that I ended it. Now I just do the game reviews.) I am in the middle of something with Games Quarterly as well, but it’s too early to know where that is heading. And finally, I am the new store manager of World Games of Montana in Missoula, MT. It’s a lovely place, and if you’re in the neighborhood, come and see us.

The last new game I’ve played several times is "Bagh Chal" (or "Bagha Chal"), also known as "Tigers and Goats." It’s played on the lines/intersections of a four by four grid, though the board has a few diagonals thrown in for good measure. This is a two-player game in which each player chooses a side to play, either tigers or goats. The tiger player’s goal is to eat five goats by jumping them along any straight line if there is an empty intersection just beyond the goat (like in checkers). The goat player’s goal is to subdue the tigers; that is give the tiger player no legal jumping moves. The opening board has four tigers, one in each of the corners of the board. The goat player places his/her twenty goats one by one onto the board. The goat player may only place his/her goats onto the board during this time; he may not move a goat to save it. The tiger player may move and eat at will. Once all the goats have been placed, the player who meets his/her objective wins the game.

This game was oddly entertaining. I played four times, twice as the goats and twice as the tigers. I won three out of the four times. Playing both sides amounts to tricky abstract logic, but I prefer being the goat player. The game is definitely worth your time, and if you’re reading this blog, then you most definitely already have the pieces to play the game. If not, then think about finding a paper and pen for the board and twenty pennies for the goats and four nickels for the tigers. It’s still played today, so it might even help bridge the culture gap if you’re ever in Nepal or the surrounding area.

To sum up: first blog, named Smatt, possibly qualified, likes Tigers and Goats. I suppose I could have just said that to begin with.

Until next time gamers...

Smatt

Speaking of Hand Management...

as I was last time if you were paying attention, I’ve been playing San Juan with my husband lately. This is a perfect example of the tension and tough decisions that a hand management card game should offer. It has a large variety of buildings, each with their own ability to help you, combined with the need to discard some of those wonderful buildings as payment to build. This means that every time you play, you’re going to be faced with a unique challenge.

I find this game discloses the greedy nature in myself as I want to build almost all the buildings in my hand and am loathe to use any of them for building payment. This leaves my brain spinning in place in the early game while I bite my lip trying to say goodbye to a beloved building in favor of another building.

If you’ve played this game a lot, which I have not, you may have what you consider to be a perfect strategy, your perfect combination of buildings, but acquiring those cards isn’t a simple matter. This is also part of the fun of a good hand-management game since you inevitably must deal with whatever you are given and make your decisions accordingly.

In the last game I played, I was dealt good cards for mid-game play but they’re tough ones to build at the beginning—4, 5, and 6 card buildings. I had to pass on 2 consecutive building rounds, once because I had nothing I could build and the second time because it would have meant using every other card in my hand (and they were very nice cards which I had grown attached to J ). My formidable opponent, on the other hand, had 1 and 2 card buildings and I began to feel that I was in some serious trouble.

I finally made the sacrifice and said goodbye to a couple of my lovelies in order to build a tobacco production building but I was still 2 buildings behind. With the help of his buildings, I was never able to build when Richard couldn’t so stayed 2 buildings behind him the whole game. I thought I was doomed but in the end I won by one point.

This demonstrates another characteristic of a very good hand management game (or any game for that matter), the ability for anyone to win even if it looks like they’re behind. This is probably one of the biggest flaws in games like Monopoly and Risk, the inability to catch up and feel that you have a chance to win.

All of this brain-twisting goodness is wrapped up in a game that is simple to set up and teach, and plays in 45-60 minutes. If you’re looking for other good choices that fit into this niche that uses cards for more multiple purposes, try Oltremare or FrachtExpress (or its alternate version, Hellrail--Third Perdition).
~~~~~~~
To game, perchance to laugh.

Mary

FAQ for English version of Bridge

I am pleased to announce that a new English edition of the Wolfgang Kramer game "Bridge" (the original German name is "Sehnen Sich Metallsache Die Einen Körper Des Wassers Kreuzt") will be printed by Missouri River Games and should be available sometime next spring.

It has new box cover art and a few rule changes. I managed to obtain a copy of the FAQ that was created based on comments and questions from the playtesters. Here it is:

Differences between German and English editions

Q: What are the main differences between the English and German editions of the game?

A: The German edition has been simplified for the new English edition. The English edition should play in about 1 to 2 hours, where the German edition took up to 4 hours. We managed this by reducing the number of points needed to win and eliminating some of the time consuming mechanics, as well as streamlining the rules somewhat. I think English speaking fans will enjoy the new edition.

We eliminated the German advanced version of the game, as it was too complicated for most players; the basic German version is now the advanced English version. In the new basic English version, instead of an auction in phase 1, you draw five contracts from a deck of contracts, select one, and return the rest to the bottom of the deck.

We added the two and three player rules that were inadvertently left out in the German instructions. And we removed special bids such as "double" and "redouble", as these were confusing for most players.

Q: What are the two and three player rules?

A: For three players, you remove the "Club" nation from the game and play with only the three other nations. After the auction, the two non-winning auctioners play to prevent the winner from completing his political votes. As there's no partner, no hand is laid down.

The two player game is the same as for three players, except that the minimum bid starts at "3/Clubs ascendant" in the advanced version (remove all 1 and 2 level contracts from the contract deck in the basic version). When it is time for the third player to play a political leader, turn over leaders from the third player's hand until a legal card is revealed. If the third player has no legal leaders to play, the first card that was turned up is played.

Q: Was the game originally designed for two and three players?

A: The designer indicates that the game was originally designed for exactly four players, but that the German publisher insisted on adding two and three player rules for marketing reasons. Unfortunately, while they added the range of the number of players to the box, the rules themselves didn't manage to get into the box due to technical reasons. We found a copy of the rules shredded and buried in the designer's back yard under a Jerusalem cactus plant, and we restored them as the publisher tells us the designer really wanted.

Q: What happened to the "marker token" in the English version?

A: The "marker token" was only used in the advanced version of the game in the German edition. Since the German advanced version of the game was not included in the English edition, the token was not needed.

Q: What were the rules of the "marker token"?

A: The "marker token" was used in the advanced version of the German edition. The "marker token" was used to mark the location of the marker token. Whenever the marker token moved to a new location, you moved the marker token to the new location in order to mark the new location of the marker token.

Auction questions

Q: It seems that the first player has an advantage in the auction. Is there any way to balance this advantage?

A: The first player's advantage is not seen to be overly strong. Players are encouraged to rotate starting player in each voting year in order to offset any advantage the starting player may have.

Q: Can I continue to bid if I have already passed?

A: Yes, you may rejoin the bidding after passing.

Q: Can I name more than one ascendant nation at a time, for instance, "Four/clubs and spades?"

A: No, only one ascendant nation can be named at a time.

Q: Can I bid more than 7 / less than 1 in the bidding?

A: No, you can only bid between 1 and 7.

Q: The rules say "Leaders in the ascendant nation beat any leader in any other nation." Does that mean that in "no trump" leaders from any nation not lead beat any leader from the nation that is lead? In other words, is "No trump" considered a nation?

A: No, "No trump" is not a nation. No trump means that no nations are ascendant, not that all are.

Q: Can I bid the same ascendant nation as another player?

A: Yes, at a higher number of votes promised.

Q: Is the first person who mentioned the ascendant nation the auction winner, or the first person in the team who won the auction? I'm confused!

A: In the German edition, the auction winner was determined as follows: consider only the team containing the person who made the last bid in the auction. The first person of that team who mentioned the ascendant nation named in the last bid was the auction winner.

In the English version, we simplified this overly complex rule: the last bidder is now the auction winner.

Q: Can I bid Clubs as the ascendant nation if I have no Club leaders in my hand?

A: Yes, you do not need to hold any leaders of the nation that you name as ascendant.

Q: What happens if a player accidentally bids lower than he is permitted in the auction?

A: The player's bid is considered to be the minimum number permitted for the named ascendant nation.

Voting questions

Q: Do I have to play my highest leader in the current issue?

A: No, you may play any leader for the current issue. If you do not have any national leaders for that issue, you may play any leader from any other nation, although your leader played does not count (exception: a leader from an ascendant nation).

Q: Do I have to play a leader on each vote?

A: Yes, you must play a leader, even if it does not help you.

Q: What happens if an issue is being voted on, and two people play leaders of the ascendant nation?

A: The highest leader in the ascendant nation wins the vote.

Q: Do you keep your leaders after playing them, or are they discarded?

A: The leaders are discarded after playing.

Miscellaneous Questions

Q: What changes have been made to scoring?

A: The German edition used a complex table driven scoring mechanism. The English edition's scoring has been greatly simplified:

You get 10, 30, 60, ... points for a bid of 1, 2, 3, ... So a bid of 7 is worth 280 points. Extra votes secured above your promise are +10 points each. If you do not secure the number of votes promised, you forfeit your bonus and your opponents gain 10, 30, 60, ... points for each vote under what you promised.

Ascendant nation bonus:

Clubs---- x 1
Diamonds- x 1.5
Hearts--- x 2
Spades--- x 2.5
No Trumps x 3

This bonus applies to all scoring. Round all scores downwards to the nearest 10 points.

Q: What happens at the end of each round?

A: Move your scoring markers along the scoring track. Then remove the ascendancy token and votes promised token from the board. If no player has yet reached 500 points (1000 in the German edition), redeal the leaders and start a new round.


The publishers wish to thank our extensive team of American playtesters for their many hours of input and comments.

Yehuda

GAME STORE CONFIDENTIAL ~ The usual gang of Idiots

Keythedral

"Hey guys, we just did that wrong! It says each player, in order, chooses which number will produce commodities, but before the next player chooses, we all select where to put our worker for that number."

"Well crap! Let's pick them all back up and start over."

"Sheesh! Jon! We didn't play this way before."

"Sure we did DW...... I think"

"By the way, it says here in the rules once you acquire a Law Card you can't buy more crap."

- several tense moments of silence fill the room -

"Well, we'll play that way next time."

Caylus

"Errrr... do we have to replace our wood building in order to build a stone building?"

" I'm not sure, but there's lots of really colorful diagrams here."

"Let's ask Michael. You interrupt him this time."

"So how come we're almost done here and hardly anyone built any buildings?"

"I dunno, maybe we're moving the Bailiff too fast?"

"Well, all I want to know is how to get enough money to keep from ending up in last place."

"Okay, while you guys are figuring it out I'm going to smoke. Hey Shaun? Got any smokes?"

Warrior Knights

"Man, he must have been eating cookies dipped in ganja this morning... he's plodding thorugh the rules at a glacial pace."

"Really? Well, we played Warrior Knights already and it was pretty simple"

"Yeah? Well from what I heard you played the combat wrong."

"How can you play it right? There's 12 pages of rules just detailing combat!"

"Why are the other players eyes closed? Are they praying?"

"I don't think so, I think they passed out. Wanna go smoke?"

"Sure. Got any cigarrettes?"

Frank's Zoo

"Well this is pretty simple. Nice little game."

"Right, so now on the next round we add in the points for Lions, subtract the hedgehog points, add in the senior partner and junior partner rules... except for the odd man out, who doesn't get a partner and then we also have to keep track of who went out and in what order."

"Huh?"

"What?"

"There's no way a paragraph that big will fit on that tiny little rule leaflet."

"Here, let me read the rules...."

-15 minutes later-

"Then garbdled dzxfug into das gunniertthang jercutin blag erg dose mondo"

"Huh?"

"What?"

-15 minutes later-

"Well DW didn't actually get a point for going out last, here, it's right in the rules next to gurgel-boken ladel blogga-wiggin oui straaas-mochen qyxuito ergo."

"Huh?"

"'What"

"Hey DW! It's your turn! Get back in here!"

"Sure.... hey... nice weasel."

"That's not a weasel, it's hedgehog and that mosquito is actually an elephant."

"Ah. Did the same guy who translated Power Grid and Reef Encounter do this one?"

Winner's Circle

"Man, these rules are so easy?"

"Yeah, hey Jumbo, why not bet on this guy, if you get a saddle he does 20 spaces. Two of those and you win."

"Ha! Never happen."

"Yeah, this game is all about screw-your-buddy.... you don't have a chance."

"Well, I'm so far behind and since The rules say this round pays pays double, what do I have to lose?"

"Okay boys, whatever you do, screw Jumbo's horse over big time."

"Hey, look! I rolled a saddle! Cool. Twenty spaces."

"Nice. But it won't happen again."

-4 minutes later-

"Okay, since there's now only Jumbo's horse that both sucks and blows... except for the saddle... all you have to remember is don't roll a saddle."

"Woah."

"Dude. That horse got across in like two moves."

"Anyone got any smokes?"

Tsuro

"Okay Jason, how do you play this thing?"

"Here, I'll show everybody."

-7 seconds later-

"Wow. That's it?"

-3 minutes later-

"I win."

Things discussed in the 45 minute debrief while everyone waits for the Excedrin to kick in

~ Unacceptable belches
~ Grognards are Nerds
~ Origins of the term Euro-Snoot
~ The George R.R. Martin novels
~ Snowcrash
~ tarantula migrations in Big Bend Country, Texas
~ The winter I counted 117 dead deer between Pocatello and Mountain Home, Idaho
~ FLGS vs. Online buying
~ Games based on terrorism and why the Nuclear War card game, plus expansions, isn't worth $60
~ Why Risk sucks

5 Things I will never do again

1. Play Frank's Zoo
2. Bring Warrior Knights to a game day where Euro-Snoots are the majority
3. Sit next to an 11 year old gamer who has rubber bands, is on a sugar high and seems to have a neural disorder resulting in a syndrome we dubbed "Gamer Tourettes"
4. Walk normally.... as a result of the jutting, knife-edged, metal projections on Jon's cheapie banquet table
5. Play Caylus or Keythedral until I own the games and have read the rules myself

3 Things I will now do

1. Buy Tsuro
2. Make sure Jumbo and Shaun are always nearby with a steady supply of cigarettes... so I can continue to be a non-smoker
3. Enjoy myself as much as I did today, despite the lack of perfection in the games we played, the people who attended and the mistakes I made (leading to a winless day of great fun).

Ain't this why we call ourselves Game Geeks?

Ways to reduce your life expectancy as a partner

Tichu
o Pass partner a bad card after they call Tichu
o Call Tichu on 975 points
o After failing a Tichu call because the opposition had the Dragon and three aces say to your partner "Oh I thought you had those"
o Play over partner's high card when partner has called Tichu (except if you have the Dog and even then you should think twice)
o Wish for a card that you did not pass
o Wish for a card that you did not pass and lead a seven card straight forcing partner to play the middle seven cards of his nine card straight
o Lead the one when your partner has called Tichu and your right hand opponent has only one card left


Non-Tichu
o Trump partner's Ace, unless you only have trumps left
o Lead a suit when the opposition have already shown that they are void in that suit
o Overtrump partner's trump when trumps have not been led
o Bid a different bidding convention than the one you have agreed on
o Complement the opposition on the card play and offer to swap seats with one of them

Mmm Meeples taste like...

Build Your Own Game Convention (Part 2)

In the interest of promoting my local game convention (and in having a really easy blog today), here is another interview with Travis Reynolds, one of the powers-that-be behind this opportunity for West Virginia gamers (and others) to get together. Charcon starts three weeks from today (Friday, October 6) at the Charleston Civic Center, and will run for two days.

So, Travis, what's been happening since we last talked?

When did we last talk? What day is it? Where am I? Gosh, we have been really, really busy! We have put out our event catalog for public consumption. We have well over 100 games and the list is still growing. It includes a great variety. I have been spending a lot of time working with vendors, sponsors, the program and trying not to forget stuff.

Just this week we had some great developments. We did an interview for a statewide cultural newspaper called The Graffiti. Our article is not only in it this week, but we are the cover story! Plus, after years of treating our bodies like temples, Nick & I have finally been recognized with a full spread centerfold! A boys dream come true...

Another new thing is that we have incorporated. CharCon is now officially part of a non-profit company. The actual company is named West Virginia Hobby Gaming Association. We did that so that we would not be limited to only CharCon. So, CharCon becomes an event hosted by WVHGA and we can host others throught the year. Everyone who pays to be admitted to CharCon will automatically become a member of WVHGA. At this point, that does not mean much, but after CharCon is over, we plan to focus some attention on the organization and its growth.

Are you happy with the numbers of gamers who have pre-registered?

Yes and no. I would have liked to see more than what we have had (we have 13 at the moment). However, I could have easily seen us have a lot less that that. One of the brightest spots regarding pre-registration is having about half of them be from out of state! It’s great to see people from out of the area excited enough about attending to pre-register!

I know you've asked a lot of the big gaming companies for support. What has been the response?

The response has been great. I think I mentioned in the last interview that we spent a large chunk of Origins networking with vendors and game companies. That and lots of emails has paid off. We managed to wrangle support from Steve Jackson Games, Pinnacle Entertainment Group, Twilight Creations, Wizkids, Gale Force Nine, Battlefront, Fantasy Flight Games, The Fiend Foundry and The Evil Empire ©....errr...Wizards of the Coast. Plus, Ted Cheatham has managed to get support from both Rio Grande Games and Z-Man games. So overall they have been very supportive. They gave us lots of stuff we plan to use as both prizes and as items in our Silent Auction.

I've looked at your list of events, and I can see that there will be plenty of spectacular miniature action. And also some collectable card game events. But what about boardgames? What boardgame events can we expect?

Lots! For starters, the Appalachian Gamers will be on hand doing demo's of about 20 different games from both Rio Grande and Z-Man. Also, a variety of Steve Jackson games will be on hand. Plus we have tournaments planned in A Game of Thrones, Silk Road (with the creator even!), Munchkin and Zombies. There are also some other things being discussed that I expect to come together before show time. All in all, a very strong board game presence.

How can gamers sign up for these events?

Two ways: In order to sign up before the show starts, they need to visit www.charcon.org. There, they can get a copy of the Event Catalog, which will show them who, what, when and so on. Next, they will need to pre-register (which will end very soon, so they better hurry!). Then all they have to do is send an email to events@charcon.org and tell us what they want to sign up for.

The other option is to just sign up the day of the show on site.

By the way, I know the con is just two days. But how late will things go? Will they kick gamers out of the Charleston Civic Center at any given time?

Things will go right up until midnight each night. The city requires the Charleston Civic Center to make business shut down at midnight (or so they say), so CharCon will officially close for business at 12. That doesn't mean everyone is out and the doors are closed, it just means things will be shutting down and everyone needs to be getting ready to leave. One of the drawbacks of not being a hotel convention.

Same question as last time: what has been the most frustrating thing about putting together this con? What has been the most rewarding thing?

Lately the most frustrating thing has been dealing with stuff that I not only do not have time for, but shouldn't have to and don't want to deal with. Just petty things that draw my attention away from more important stuff, which only adds to my paranoia that I am forgetting something! I am hoping to reach a point of zen at which I can let all the irrelevant stuff wash over me...

The most rewarding by far was seeing our article on the cover of The Graffiti. We had no idea. It was quite a rush!

And what additional advice would you give to folks who would like to start their own local gaming conventions?

I can't reinforce enough to visit with your local Convention & Visitor's Bureau. Ours has been an invaluable resource. They issued a press release for us just this week and we are already seeing some additional media interest. Also, don't be afraid to ask local businesses and national folks for help. I'm not sure why, but basically none of the big game companies replied to my first email. However, when I sat down to send follow ups almost all of them replied to the second. Just shows that persistence is a key. Keep good notes and maintain a to-do list. Make sure to have very competent people doing the stuff you can't like website and print management.

Thanks Travis.

A GAME OF THONES at Charcon

At Charcon, on Saturday, October 7, at noon, I plan to run A Game of Thrones mini-tournament. Fantasy Flight Games has generously agreed to donate a copy of the Storm of Swords expansion as a prize for the game. Five or six gamers will compete in just one game of A Game of Thrones with the winner taking home the expansion. We will be using some of the expansion elements from A Clash of Kings (ports, fortresses, siege engines), and some of the expansion elements from A Storm of Swords. So if you have any interest in A Game of Thrones this will be an opportunity to win a copy of the new expansion, or at least an opportunity to check out how the new elements work in a full game. As Travis mentioned, you can sign up for this competition by e-mailing the Charcon trolls at events@charcon.org. Then just show up on Saturday and look for the guy with all the A Game of Thrones boxes. Please be on time or we may have to give your spot to someone on the waiting list.

And even if you aren’t interested in A Game of Thrones, stop by and say hello to me on Saturday at Charcon. If I’m not running the tournament, I’ll probably be demo-ing other games.

Last Year's Top 71 Games: 2005-2006

Last year at the start of September I wrote an article called Last Year's Top 70 Games in which I ranked the top 70 "new" games that I'd newly played that year, from best to worst. It was timed to followup the various awards for the year, and also to precede the new games out at Essen.

This year I've decided to continue that tradition by once more listing every newly released new game that I've played in the last year. For this definition I include any game released, for the first time, in a U.S. edition in 2005 or 2006 and which I played for the first time from 9/1/05 to 8/31/06. Unlike my reviews, in which I generally try and assess which games I think are best, philosophically, this list only includes my personal preference for and enjoyment of the games. I'm a casual-to-medium-weight gameplayer, so you'll probably get the best use out of this list if you match that category.

Oddly, I once more seem to have about 70 games fitting this category of play.

I've linked to reviews for each game when I have them, so click on the linked names for more information.

My Listing of 71 Games That I've Played

The average quality of the games seems to be about the same as last year. I think #1-10 are top-notch, #11-25 are generally worth buying (with the last couple being more iffy), and #26-50 are generally worth playing. Beyond that, the ordering is generally my most to least favorite.

1. Dungeon Twister - An almost-brilliant games of tactical play with superb fantasy theming.
   
2. Blue Moon City - A fine resource-management game that's a new mid-level Knizia entry, and his best since last year's Beowulf.
3. Kreta - A great, baroque majority control game. Why, why has no American company picked it up!?
4. Reef Encounter - A beautifully themed great game system, finally available in the U.S.
   
5. Beowulf: The Legend - A very good Knizia auction game that's right up there with his best.
   
6. Funny Friends - I'm afraid this unique auction game might eventually get old, but for now it's at the top of my list, though I'm sometimes afraid that it'll offend other players.
   
7. Thurn and Taxis - The play is a little repetitive but this is a great short game with fun brinkmanship and interesting play.
   
8. Havoc: The Hundred Year's War - This clever little Poker-like game continues to go up in my estimation the more I play it.
9. Three-Dragon Ante - A wonderful fantasy Poker variant who's only deficit is that it's not a constrained game: you instead play it till you're done, like normal Poker.
   
10. Ticket to Ride: Märklin Edition - This series has lost some of its personal charm to me through nearly 100 plays, but this is still the finest of the series and enjoyable to play if a bit fiddly.
    
11. Hacienda - A very enjoyable Kramer game that doesn't feel that innovative, but is made up of a lot of nice parts you've seen before.
    
12. Palazzo - Another Knizia auction, not as deep or interesting as his true classics, but still generally worth playing.
    
13. Mall of Horror - A great variant of the lifeboat game where you throw fellow shoppers to Zombies. Rargh!
    
14. Arkham Horror - A long game but beautifully thematic, and one that I have a lot of fun playing with my RPG group.
    
15. Caylus - An intriguing and strategic game that allows for great and thoughtful play, though it fails somewhat on a per capita measure of fun/minute, as it were. (E.g., the game's too long.)
16. Pickomino - A great press-your-luck game, ultra-light, but worth the 15 minutes any time.
    
17. Big Manitou - A great trick-taking game, with lots of angles and lots of originality.
18. PÜNCT - A great 2-player abstract with fun geometrical play.
    
19. Fairy Tale - One of the best fillers of the year, starting to lose a tiny bit of its appeal after 6 plays, but still going relatively strong.
    
20. Elasund: The First City of Catan - A nice Teuber resource-management game that personally strikes me as a bit slow and a bit dry.
21. Parlay - A very cool word game that would go much higher if I played word games more.
22. The Scepter of Zavandor - A bit longer than I'd usually play, but a fun, colorful resource management game.
    
23. Seismic - Not terribly original, but a fine cross between Carcassonne and Metro.
    
24. Ostia - An interesting auction & blind-bidding game that sometimes gets a little long.
25. Hey! That's My Fish! - A very amusing and quite strategic ultra-light filler.
    
26. Grand Tribunal - Some interesting Princes of Florence-like play once you get past the mistakes in the rules.
27. Il Principe - An interesting and thoughtful game that I suspect won't get much table time due to its length and complexity.
    
28. Marvin Marvel's Marvelous Marble Machine - Mirthful machinery makes many mug merrily.
    
29. Castle Merchants - A pretty neat game of card management and racing.
    
30. Dead Man's Treasure - I'm pretty certain this will fade fast, but for now this remains fine bluffing fun, as long as the game doesn't go too short.
    
31. Knights of Charlemagne - Yet another cute Knizian filler that I'm glad is finally available in an American version.
    
32. Ark - A thematic and clever game that I love but ultimately feel I have almost no control over victory.
    
33. Cleopatra and the Society of Architects - An interesting resource management game that's just a bit too big for its own good when all is said and done. And a little dry too.
    
34. Street Illegal - A pretty neat racing game played with cards.
    
35. Glory to Rome - A deep resource-management card game that's just on the other side of too complex for me to commonly play.
    
36. Camelot - A very amusing real-time game that I'd play a lot more often if I had a group that played this sort of thing.
37. Poison - Hearts-light in a big box. Nothing heart-stopping here, but nothing bad either.
    
38. Manila - An entirely OK risk management game that I'd be happy to play.
    
39. Tempus - Another resource-management game, but one that seems to get more staid the more I play it.
    
40. The Hollywood Card Game - A fine set-collection game who's only deficit is that it's entirely light.
    
41. Epic Dungeoneer: Call of the Lich Lord - Generally not my gaming fare, but I'm sure my RPG group would love an occasional play.
    
42. Conquest of the Empire II - I ultimately decided that, eye-candy aside, I preferred Struggle of Empires, and this game's very heavy weight (by which I mean mass) keeps me from ever bringing it to gaming.
    
43. Herocard Galaxy - An interesting game that's not quite my style.
    
44. 10 Days in Europe - Yet another 10 Days. Innocuous enough that I generally won't turn a game down.
    
45. Double or Nothing - Nothing wrong with it, but no spark either.
    
46. Mesopotamia - colorful resource-management game that was too repetitive, dry, and deterministic to be very exciting.
    
47. Palatinus - A weird and chaotic majority-control game.
    
48. Wallamoppi - A fast-action stacking game that I don't have anything against, but really doesn't meet my definition of playing games.
49. Travel Blokus - A fine abstract. My wife hates it and so it shall never be played.
50. Ice Pirates of Harbor Grace - An amusing American-style game that I'd have loved 10 or 15 years ago, but don't expect to play much again.
    
51. Sneeze - An entirely innocuous family game that I'd probably play if I were a family.
    
52. Lucca Citta - A sort of weird pseudo-set-collection game that I'd play, but which I didn't find at all exciting.
53. Treasures and Traps - A mostly harmless but entirely random fantasy-themed American game.
    
54. King of the Beasts: Mythological Edition - A Reiner Knizia game that's so light that it feels like there's nothing to it.
    
55. The Nacho Incident - An American game that utilizes many a German system (blind bidding, card management, bluffing, majority control), but which never entirely geled into a game.
    
56. Bone Wars - An American style set-collection game that was mostly flat for me.
    
57. Nature of the Beast - A fine pseudo-CCG game with great theming that nonetheless isn't really my style. My games generally ran too long.
    
58. Fuddy Duddy - A simplistic (family) set-collection game.
    
59. Architekton - Largely a failure, because it seems dry and simplistic.
    
60. Fjords - One of last year's wasted purchases because it feels like 25 minutes of setup for 5 minutes of game.
    
61. Harry's Grand Slam Baseball - A pretty cool game for its time period, but that's not now.
62. Desert Bazaar - Mostly harmless, but a great direction for Mattel to be moving in.
    
63. Hunting Party - A deduction game with some so-so components and some OK gameplay that doesn't really draw me back.
    
64. Antike - A long and sharp-edged indie game that could have been so much more.
    
65. Vampire: Prince of the City - A very American majority-control game that was perfectly fine for its class, but for me took way too long and was way too complex.
    
66. Siena - Painfully long and sharp-edged, with atrocious components. Sadly, there's an interesting game hidden inside.
    
67. Dwarf Stones - An uninspired, largely random American wargame.
    
68. UWO - A somewhat uninspiring game of 2-player combat.
    
69. Beetlez - A kid's game with almost nothing going for it.
    
70. Pepper - A cute card-matching game that falls apart in actual play.
    
71. Conquest of the Empire I - The original version of this game made me want to claw my eyes out because of the boring, long play.

Stats

So how did the various publishers do? Here's a comparison of my numbers last year and this year:

LAST YEAR Top 10 Top 25 2F-Spiele 0 0 Alea 0 1 Asmodee 0 0 Atlas Games 0 0 Days of Wonder 2 2 Fantasy Flight Games 1 2 Goldseiber 0 0 Hans im Gluck 2 2 Kosmos 1 2 Lookout Games 0 0 Mayfair Games 0 1 Phalanx Games 1 2 Pro Ludo 0 0 Real Deal Games 0 0 Rio Grande Games 3 6 Sunriver Games 0 0 What's Your Game 0 0 Wizards of the Coast 0 0 Ystari Games 0 0 Z-Man Games 0 2 Zoch Verlag 0 0

THIS YEAR Top 10 Top 25 2F-Spiele 1 1 Alea 0 1 Asmodee 1 2 Atlas Games 0 1 Days of Wonder 1 1 Fantasy Flight Games 2 3 Goldseiber 1 1 Hans im Gluck 1 2 Kosmos 2 3 Lookout Games 0 1 Mayfair Games 0 3 Phalanx Games 0 1 Pro Ludo 0 1 Real Deal Games 0 1 Rio Grande Games 2 8 Sunriver Games 1 1 What's Your Game 1 3 Wizards of the Coast 1 1 Ystari Games 0 1 Z-Man Games 1 3 Zoch Verlag 0 1

Here's some comments on the results:

• Companies will come and go from results like this. (In fact, I didn't even bother to list people who showed up last year but not this.) However some companies that went off this list are notable, particularly the fact that Amigo and Uberplay didn't make my top 25 this year, and they each had multiple entries last year. Amigo seems to have notable troubles getting anyone in the U.S. to carry their games, but that might be improving with their new Mayfair distribution of Intrigue and Weinhandler. Uberplay meanwhile mostly dropped off the face of the Earth when they started their new game-party business.
• The most exciting new company entry is What's Your Game. They've only put out 3 games thus far, and every one made my list in the top 25. Wow. On the other hand, they're all reprints.
  
• Asmodee is the other notable new-comer, with their new push on American games producing good results.
  
• Alea continues with their uninspired performance of late, making just one entrant into my top 25 and no top 10 games for the second year running.
• Of the American companies, Fantasy Flight is doing even better than last year and Z-Man is trending upward as I predicted. Mayfair also seems to be trending up, I think thanks to their new publication deals with Phalanx and Amigo. Rio Grande continues to be the top jobber on our side of the pond, despite any concerns about their self-publications.
  

And that's it for another year in gaming!

We've also recently reached our yearly anniversary here at Gone Gaming, and I've been getting a bit burned out on the weekly schedule. Thus with this article I'll be dropping back to biweekly and (I expect) concentrating a bit more on Views & Reviews.

So I'll see you all in 14!

From the Mailbag

Coldfoot,

What's the story behind ASL (Advanced Squad Leader)?

Jim5467

Jim,

ASL was actually invented by Joe, the supervisor down at the DMV. Joe is a long time civil servant. Not many people know this, but Joe retired as a clerk from the Supreme Court. He actually wrote most of the 1500 page decision in the original asbestos lawsuit. In his spare time Joe freelances writing environmental regulations for the EPA, and converting well thought out and sensible tax laws into meaningless gibberish for the IRS.

Joe once told me that he was originally commissioned by Steve Jackson to design a game that might best be described as a less complex version of Memoir '44. However Joe is incapable of designing anything less complex than workplace codes for OSHA. The project was cancelled after five years. Joe had just finished determining combat modifiers for Estonian mounted cavalry units with depleted hay reserves when the rug got pulled out from the project. Steve Jackson sold Joe's basic design to Avalon Hill which was later refined by Don Greenwood and sold as Advanced Squad Leader.

I hope I don't offend Joe, but if I an going to invest days studying rules just to play the most basic scenario, I'd rather study the tax code. Finding tax loop holes in order to save money, in order to buy games that are more fun than ASL, would be much more rewarding than studying ASL.

Coldfoot,

I'm thinking about starting a boardgame blog. I've already thought of a cool name (Linger Longer) and am ready to start raking in the big bucks as a full time boardgame blogger. What advice can you give me?

Omar in Dearborn

Omar,

Linger Longer? Ahhhhhhhhhhhh... OK.

Big Bucks? Well, the money isn't bad, but once you are in the spotlight don't let the fame go to your head. Most of the boardgame groupies are fickle friends who will dessert you as soon as the cocaine and smack run short.

The #1 rule of boardgame blogging is to never make anything up. Boardgamers are an intuitive lot and can smell a white lie a mile away.

Luckily this should never have to be an issue for bloggers. The groovy thing about blogs is that there are no deadlines to meet. You should have plenty of time to check your facts before posting. In fact the only boardgame blog I can think of with a daily deadline is over at Boardgame News.

Rick "Cronkite" Thornquist (the chief bottle washer at Boardgame News) is a solid reporter, but the word around the campfire is that he is a slave driver. Not only does he pay his bloggers next to nothing, but he penalizes them if they miss a deadline, and imposes a fine if their post is less than 2000 words long. That is why I usually take anything I read in the Boardgame News blog section with a grain of salt.

Sorry Omar, I'm getting far a field from the original question, just let me reiterate: 1> Take advantage of the groupies before your stash runs low. 2> Don't feel you need to make stuff up just to fill space. 3> Always apologize to Thornquist. Sorry Rick.

Dear Coldfoot,

What would you suggest as an appropriate means of distraction during games with lengthy "analysis paralysis," such as Civilization or (gack) Axis & Allies? The time between turns is interminable. I mean, it's a real snoozer. Brushing up on the game rules and errata are almost as boring. So is staring out the window, lining up the game pieces and picking at the wads of chewing gum under the table. I've thought about bringing my laptop or some needlework, but I didn't think this would go over well with the other players. How about a book?

Signed,
Bored enough to read Tolstoy

This question was actually handwritten and placed upon my kitchen table. The writer is obviously not a serious gamer. A serious boardgamer knows the difference between analysis paralysis and downtime.

My short answer is: If you can't run with the big dogs, stay in the kitchen and fix snacks for the big dogs.

Until next time: Keep those questions coming.

Bridge, by Wolfgang Kramer

Bridge, by Wolfgang Kramer
A game for 2-4 players

In ancient Greece, four kingdoms vie for political control of the land:

- The Clubs, masters of ancient warfare
- The Diamonds, traders and finaciers
- The Hearts, a nation of priests
- The Spades, an agricultural society

Each kingdom has an emperor, king-potentate, queen, prince, and ten other minor lords. Every year, these leaders gather at the senate at the great Council Bridge in ancient Greece, casting votes before the great overlord in order to implement their policies for the coming year.

Voting represents a great opportunity for the two teams of councilors to the great overlord. The councilors have secret ties to members in each of the kingdoms, and they promise votes to the great overlord. By establishing control over the families, the great overlord grants great rewards to the councilors. But beware! If you promise more than you can deliver, the great overlord gets angry and bestows favors on your political opponents.

Components:

1 gameboard depicting ancient Greece and with a scoring track
4 councilor tokens, 1 in each player color
1 ascendancy token
1 votes promised token
1 starting player token
52 political leader cards in 4 colors

Setup:

Place the game board in the middle of the table. Choose two teams of two players each. Teammates sit on opposite sides of the board. (See special rules for 2 and 3 players on page 4.)

Place the councilor tokens at the start of the scoring track. In a 2 or 3 player game, place any unused councilor tokens back in the box. Place the ascendancy and votes promised tokens beside the board (see diagram).

The game is played over a number of rounds. Each round has 14 phases: an auction phase and thirteen action phases.

Choose a starting player. Give that player the starting token. Deal thirteen political leader cards to each player.

The Auction Phase:

During the auction phase, each team promises to deliver a number of votes to the great overlord from the gathered leaders. You do not know on what issues the votes will be, but you know what leaders you directly control for that year!

The first player starts the auction by declaring the ascendant kingdom and the number of votes he promises to deliver, or by passing. All players then do the same, either upping the bid or passing. The auction is over when three players have passed the last bid.

See the accompanying diagram for an example auction ...

...

The winner commits to securing a minimum number of votes during the year. Failure to secure the votes will result in political gain for the auction winner's opponents in the senate. Place the votes promised token on the number of votes promised.

Secondly, the declared kingdom named by the winner rises to ascendancy. For the rest of this year, even the lesser members of this kingdom have higher ranking authority than any member of any other kingdom. Place the ascendancy token on the declared kingdom.

Thirdly, the winner gets to go last starting in the first action phase.

Fourthly, the winner's partner must reveal his or her political holdings, giving control over to the winner. This only happens after the first political card is played by one of the winner's opponents in the first action phase.

Exception: in the rare situation in which all players pass, redeal the political action cards and restart at the beginning of phase 1: the auction phase.

The Action Phases:

Each phase represents a vote in the senate. Each player must play one political card from his or her hand each vote in order to try to sway the vote. The first person to play a card determines the issue being voted on. For instance, if a leader of the military kingdom is played first, then the vote is about a military issue. All players must play leaders to try to influence the vote in that issue. If they have no leader of that kingdom, they must play a leader of another kingdom, but the leader has no power to determine the vote. The highest ranking leader of the issue at hand wins the vote.

Exception: if a player has no leaders relevant to the current issue, they may play a leader of the ascendant kingdom. In that case, the highest leader of the ascendant kingdom automatically over-rides the vote and wins. A player does not have to play an ascendant leader, if they have none, or if they don't wish to expend one.

Exception: After the first political leader is played in phase 2, the auction winning player's partner reveals his or her hand, as described on page 2.

The winner of a vote begins the next vote.

See the accompanying diagram for example play ...

...

The auction winner plays both his or her own political leader cards, as well as the cards of his or her partner.

At the end of thirteen votes, the voting for that year is over. If the auction winning team gathered all the votes promised, each receives a reward. Additional bonuses are rewarded if the auction winning team promised a minimum numbers of votes, or if they collected more than they promised. Additional bonuses are rewarded depending on which kingdom was raised into ascendancy (or none at all). If the auction winning team fails to secure the promised number of votes, their opponents gain a certain number of points for each vote the auction winning team failed to secure.

Move your councilor tokens forward on the scoring track. Choose new teams, and then mix and redeal the political power cards for the next round. The game ends when one person achieves 1000 points. The player with the most victory points at that time is declared the winner. If there is a tie, the player with the most number of leaders in the ascendant kingdom in the last year wins. If there is still a tie, the tie stands.

Variant: deal each player one emperor card before dealing the remaining political cards. This will create a more balanced, and tougher, play scenario.

Variant: each player may not play a leader of the same rank during a vote, if one has already been played, unless that player reveals that he or she has no other leaders to play.

An expansion to the game is planned that will add a fifth player, special event cards, and a traveling great overlord token which gives bonus points for certain issues when he is moved onto that issue's location on the board.

Yehuda

Edit: Added instructions for the tokens.

GAME STORE CONFIDENTIAL ~ 9/11, Battle Lore and cheap boards.

Sorry I missed you people last week. Blogspot can sometimes be difficult and whether it was my end of things or theirs, I could not access this fine (free) site for nearly 36 hours. My habit is to write my contribution either Sunday evening or Monday morning and since I didn't have anything available for the other Gone Gaming crew to post for me, last Monday was empty. My bad.

So today will just be a few random items and thoughts.

It's the 5th Anniversary of the terrorist attacks on The United States of America. While that has nothing to do with games, at least until the strange crew in the UK publish their Terrorist game next month, it was an event that has created an effect on pretty much everyone on the planet. In the past I haven't had a lot to say about 9/11 and I still don't have a huge amount to say, especially on a blog about board games. But I do have some very fond memories of the World Trade Center and they are somewhat connected to gaming.

In the 1980's I worked for a company that had a contract with Dean-Witter to train their stock brokers. Myself and a guy from LA traveled to New York every month for 3 days to train the newest batch of stock broker wannabes on how to use the telephone to conduct business. It was a great gig. Dean-Witter had their world headquarters on the 72nd floor of one of the Twin Towers and they lodged us at what was then called The Vista... the hotel connected to the WTC. Not only was the pay for me well above average, the lodgings were very high class and the people were fun to work with.

My habit was to call a great guy by the name of Eric Goldberg and have dinner with him at least once when I was in New York. Eric and a guy I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, Greg Costikyan, worked for West End Games. While most of my trivial experiences of those days have faded, which is what trivial memories do best, I remember one night when I met Eric and Greg at an excellent Mexican restaurant in the Village. During dinner Eric suggested that I should move to New York and take the job of VP Sales & Marketing for West End Games. They were prepared to offer me $60,000 a year.

That would have been a dream job... for a single man. But, I had a wife, two small children, a game store and a miniature business here in Idaho. Oh yeah, and a blind dog that I figured to be the best dog on earth. For $60K in 1980's dollars I think I could have struggled by... even in New York. The offer was similar to being flirted with by a very attractive and sexy woman and knowing there was nothing you would do about it because your wife was also very attractive and sexy... and very unforgiving if you stepped out of line.

It's still sweet to think about what fun it would have been to live in the best city in the world and work for a game company.

Game Boards

I dedicated almost 20 minutes earlier this week to a BGG search for complaints about board warpage that didn't involve Railroad Tycoon. Here's what I discovered - lots of boards and board-like components warp. Some from German publishers, some from French publishers and a fair amount from Rio Grande Games... wherever they print their stuff. So companies that use Chinese factories are not the only ones who have had problems. Eagle just drew the most heat. And to my way of thinking it was because they were an American publisher that produced games that were decidely NOT Euro games. And Railroad Tycoon drew heat because it is an Americanized version of a popular Euro.

What brings me back to boards? Why, Winner's Circle does. The fabulous new reprint of Royal Turf.

So there we were... Shaun, Lyle and Bode... having just finished playing Railroad Tycoon, a game where the board lays as flat as any board I have ever played on, I pulled out my spiffy new copy of Rio Grande's Winners Circle. The board looked like the Sawtooth Mountains. And I'm not talking some pititful little warpage here either. I am talking a game board that lifted off the table nearly an inch in the center.

Lyle started putting the cute little horsies out and they merrily slipped and slid right off the board. Sort of like the downhill racing scene in The Man From Snowy River... horses crashing down the side of a steep mountain and all. Well, I decided a gentle back-bending would work. After all, this is a Rio Grande product and Rio Grande is pretty much universally fawned over on BGG. So, in front of witnesses I gently bent back the offending board and it snapped one quarter section right off... with near surgical precision. They all silently looked at me, waiting to see if I would get angry or start ranting. I didn't. I looked closely at the board and the paper that "holds" the sections together. It's as cheap and weak as a piece of printer paper.

Oddly enough, I didn't see anything on BGG about Rio Grande making cheap boards. I suspect there is an unwritten "hands off" policy among many on BGG regarding Rio Grande Games. The owner, a guy named Jay Tummelson, seems to be fawned over and butt-kissed as much as anyone in the board game industry. I don't know the guy and while I'm certain he's a great person, I will attest that his company, in this case, has made a product that equals or exceeds the shoddy and inept nature of even the most reviled of American board game publishers. I didn't expect to find any negatives about Rio Grande's products anyway. That's because a few weeks ago someone started a thread about his BGG user profile wherein he rated several of his games very high (which is okay) yet rated several of Steve Jackson's and Days of Wonder's games very low indeed. The thread lasted only a day or so and BGG's admins locked it.

You tell me why? I think I know.

Battle Lore

So now everybody knows what Days of Wonder's BIGFOOT game will be. Personally, I am excited about this game. I have all the Command & Colors system games and I'm still convinced that Richard Borg has created the absolute best mechanics ever for light to medium board gaming goodness. The card-driven mechanics are so wonderfully teachable and just random enough to monkey with one's plans in any of the games. Intelligent planning and judicious use of units will usually reward the better player, yet the system has just enough chance in it to keep inexperienced players alive and give them much needed victories.

Again, going back to BGG, I noticed a thread complaining about Days of Wonder deciding to make a promo miniature for Battle Lore available only through game stores or their website. Apparently the deal is that online discounters won't get this particular model, which I think is Bigfoot, an Ogre or Giant or something.

Is this a good or bad thing?

Depends on how whiny and petty you are I guess. If you're a whiny little game puke who is unhappy unless you get something for nothing and also get your boots licked every time you spend $100 on games... then it's bad. That means you'll either pay up on eBay for the model, buy your game at a store or you'll go without the promo minature.

From my way of looking at it DoW is exibiting smart marketing. They certainly understand that online discounters tend to service a market that is different than the market retail stores service. When you buy online your bonus is saving a few bucks. If you buy BattleLore from a game store your bonus will be the promo miniature. If, like me, you buy from a store that also has a discount program then you get it all... a savings and the promo.

What is really cracking me up about BattleLore though is this... there are a lot of people bitching about the fact that the game is desgined to be "expandable". Apparently DoW will be releasing additional units and other accessories to the system starting in the Spring of 2007. So I've been reading some detractor's comments that DoW is going to do a Games Workshop or attempting to equal the HeroScape success. And these detractors are saying this as if it's a bad thing.

Huh?

Why is duplicating a successful marketing strategy bad? Some of the negatives are from BGG members who I know own all the "expansions" published for Age of Steam. That totals way over $100 for a crappy little railroad game. And these same gamers will probably buy any future expansion as well.

Expansions have been with us for decades now. It's not as if gamers don't want the games they love to expand... to access different themes, eras, units or settings... all while still remaining the same game they loved to begin with. That's why Games Workshop sells a couple of hundred million bucks worth of 40K and Warhammer products a year. Gamers want their games to be expanded. I know I do.

I own A Game of Thrones and the expansions. I own Age of Steam and two expansions. I own Command & Colors: Ancients and have pre-ordered the expansions. I have all the Memoir '44 expansions. I made an ungodly profit on eBay for Talisman and all the expansions. Selling off my huge collections of 40K and, Warhammer and Man O' War miniatures on eBay has been wonderful for me. In fact... I believe that expansions is what makes gaming profitable for publishers and, for most of us, fun.

If you like something then you want more of that something. When I fire up my Harley and go riding I always tend to think about what expansions I'd like to add to it. Life is like that. When something is good, then more of that something is potentially better.

Unless you're one of those people who believes there is such a thing as too much fun.

Have a great week folks... try not and have too much of anything good... your head might explode.

The Game of Life

Just how much gaming is too much? I love playing games of all types, so much so that it often encroaches into the rest of my life. At times, I find Life to be one big game. Something as simple as driving across town becomes a game to me. Each time I drive I will try to optimize my route from point A to point B in order to “win” the game. Simply finding the most reliable route is not enough, though. I can increase the complexity by trying to take into account time of day, whether the local university is in session, and other factors. I can even introduce luck into the equation, one direction might have a couple left turns and a stop sign or two, but the other route may be shorter but have several stoplights that can wreck havoc with a good run. Things can become even more complicated as I introduce optional side-routes depending on the situation. At one point, there are two traffic lights that can be bypassed by a stop sign and a bit of driving, if I note the stoplights will be red, I can peel off into the “alternate” route and gain a bit of time as long as traffic isn’t too heavy. If I get to my destination in pretty good time, I feel like a “win”. Little tiny wins can happen if I note a light is about to change to green and I break well before the stoplight so I can coast through right when it changes. As in any game, rules must be followed – no dangerous actions, obey the speed limits, etc… Although I will admit that at times I am glad there are no acceleration limits.

I think the main reason I view driving as a game is that I hate to do it. I find moving a little wheel around to get me to my destination a complete waste of my time. I’d rather be reading a book or playing a game. (Even in high school I would let my little sister drive me to school when I was a senior so that I could spend my time on more “worthier” pursuits. Some may enjoy the status given by driving yourself to school; I found it more useful to be chauffeured.) Trying to drive the “perfect route” gives me something to do while I am driving and (usually) shortens the time I have to drive. Of course, I do the same thing when I am walking around from place to place at school or on a campus – try to optimize my route, but I can still claim I’m just trying to shave off the time I spend “between” places. The main drawback occurs if I take the whole thing too seriously and get upset at losing my game. Being grumpy about arriving at my destination a couple minutes later than planned is no reason to be upset. Thankfully, I have a very short emotional reaction time and never stay upset for long.

This love of optimization comes into play in many of my favorite games. A game is much more attractive to me if I can analyze my actions once the game is over or even when I am away from the gaming table. Card games like Bridge or Spades are great examples of this. In a typical hand, each play can be analyzed to determine if I played the right card. At times, I will lose even if I play each card correctly, but I can console myself with the knowledge that I did the best I could. Other games, like Puerto Rico or Caylus, can offer up specific mistakes under post-game (even mid-game) analysis. They have enough complications that specific mistakes may be hard to identify, but a more general analysis of strategy can still be performed to see if I choose a poor overall strategy for the situation. This criterion is often the basis for me to dislike luck in games. I have no problem with luck in a game, I like Risk (the newer ones best), Axis & Allies, Bootleggers, and even Can’t Stop. However, a game that has a large amount of chaos (sort of uncontrolled luck) will typically rub me the wrong way. Take, for example, Poison. There are clearly opportunities for players to make mistakes, but (especially in games with more players) so much depends on what the other players do, that I can play a nearly optimum game and still lose. This wouldn’t cause a problem – I could console myself with the fact that I played as well as I did – but the chaos present in the game is such that it may be very difficult for me to decide if I did play an optimal game. If I can’t tell my good moves from my poor moves (bad moves are easy to spot), I don’t enjoy myself as much. Now, Poison is a game, and so by definition I would definitely be willing to play it – games = good. However, given the chance, I would prefer to play something else.

Now if I can just post this column onto the Gone Gaming site with a minimum of mouse clicks, I win…

Demonstrating games

Demonstrating games is very much on our minds this month, with 12 days of September's 30 committed to the museum. Rather than telling you even more about our fantastic display (come and see it!), I wanted to talk a bit more generally about demonstrating games to the public.

The first, and absolutely crucial, element of your game demo is not the games, but the people who are demonstrating. It's essential that your demo is well-staffed by people who are knowledgeable about games in general, and the games you are demonstrating in particular.

Specifically, they should know what skills are used in a game, what ages it is suitable for, and ideally roughly how much it is and where it can be bought (we have had a lot of queries about these last 2).

For us, in a non-profit environment, it was also important that our demonstrators not have a commercial interest in selling games. We didn't want to confuse the goals we had set for the event (interest more people in games, educate them about the range & types of games that were available) with commercial pressures. This also seems to have been a good policy decision as the people we chat to often ask whether we are selling the games.

Also, when people say "wow, cool, game demos, I will help" -- get them to write their names on a calendar then & there. It doesn't matter if it is 8 months before the event, just do it. We are having some difficulty finding people to staff the display, especially during school holidays. Today we had 3 people and we were stretched to the limit.

The second crucial element is the games themselves. As Fraser (in particular) is very fussy about the condition of our games, there was no question that our own copies of some games could be used. There are plenty that we are taking, but there were others where we approached the supplier to see if they could loan us a demo copy or donate one to the cause. Three local suppliers came on board, although we're going to need to speak to the one who invoiced us for them - maybe I'm being cheap, but we're already giving up 12 days (including 4 days when I would have been paid for work) to these demos, we don't want to spend money on duplicates of games we already own.

It was important to us that we have a good range of games to demonstrate. We wanted to really highlight games for families and adults, as well as having plenty for kids to do.

The third element is the rules to the games. I'm always wary of playing games with home rules, but when you're demonstrating there often isn't time to go through every single rule. Make sure that your demonstrators are not so married to the game's mechanics that they can't simplify it when needed. (Remember, I'm talking about demos to the general public, not to gamers). We need to remember that these people have come to visit the museum, not specifically to play games.

Some examples of rules modifications we have made:

• Transamerica - depending on how much time people have, we might eliminate all the blue cities from the board, or even all the blue and green cities. Apologies to readers who live in places that abruptly cease to exist. We also only play one round, then we explain that you can play as a series of rounds.


• Carcassonne - no farmers (again, you can explain them after they have played, if you want to). As we have it left out, we can explain the map building aspect first before we add meeples.


• Snorta - and other games - only play with the basic ruleset, not anything more complicated.


• Apples to Apples - and especially Apples to Apples junior - always have an adult be the judge.


• Ingenious - get them started placing pieces before you even try to explain the scoring.

The fourth element (probably more important than the rules, if truth be known) is the setup, or the layout of your demonstration area. We have two trestle tables, with an option of adding another although I'm really not sure where it would go.

A suggestion that came from Jon Power of York's Beyond Monopoly group, and that grew from our own experiences too, was that it's a good idea to actually have people playing a game - especially if they are willing to talk about what they are doing. We experimented today with Ticket to Ride with train cards face up, but quickly were sidetracked by other queries.

So one table contains a game in play, hopefully with gamers sitting around it. The other has a big pile of games, hopefully arranged in some way. You need one or two people who are *not* playing the demo game who can talk about and demonstrate the games as people stop to look.

One last point - try to have a tagline or something to say about every game. It doesn't need to be profound, but it seems to personalise the encounter for people:
"I like this because my kids can play it together and I don't really need to supervise."
"We went to Albury to play in the national championships for this game - the winner won a trip to Germany."
"I bought this the day after I first played it, I liked it so much."
"I think this should be in every primary school in the country."
"It plays in about 45 minutes, so it's great for after dinner."
"Our daughter used to trade her bedtime stories to play this game."
"Last time we played this, Fraser sneakily took my green route and then all the other players conspired to shut me out of Seattle, so I took a -22 on my longest route card and lost the game 123 to 156. Of course, that was using the first edition board that only scored up to 80 around the outside, and didn't have symbols on the route spaces."

Or maybe not :)



Don't eat the Meeples.

xx

Melissa

A Real Gaming Controversy

There isn’t much controversy in the gaming world. Much of what we think of as controversy is actually so mild-mannered that outsiders to the game world might not even dignify our squabbles with the C word. My friend Ted Cheatham recalls how he once called War of the Rings “Risk with cards” on Boardgamegeek. He soon felt like a victim of a fatwa as War of the Ring fans repeatedly denounced his ignorance and delusional thinking. But no one has sued Ted, or ordered him banished from Boardgamegeek. Ted remains an important member of the gaming community.

But over the last month or so a real gaming-world controversy has come to a boil, and it has shown us just how ugly such a thing can be. I am referring to the cancellation of the publication of the new Firefight Games wargame titled Resistance is not Futile.

Let me trace my growing awareness of the controversy so that you will understand exactly how much and how little I know about the matter.

Last week I saw on the Comsimworld website that Resistance is not Futile was available to be ordered from Firefight Games, a company that makes desktop-published wargames. Checking the website, I learned that the game was a simulation of the World War II battle that resulted when the Nazis tried to raze the Warsaw Ghetto. For those unfamiliar with the conflict, the Warsaw Ghetto was inhabited only by Jews, and their heroic resistance against the Nazi extermination plans has been the subject of both novels (Mila 18 by Leon Uris, The Wall by John Hersey) and movies (The Wall, 1981; Uprising, 2001).

I also checked the Firefight Games forum on Consimworld. To my surprise, I saw that there seemed to have been a hundred or more postings just on August 31. A quick glance at the postings showed that there was a heated debate going on about the appropriateness of publishing a game about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. I then started at the beginning of the Firefight Games forum with the intention of reading every posting on the subject. A genuine controversy in the gaming world seemed too good a topic for an essay for me to ignore. I read about one hundred or so of the postings before stopping for the day.

When I tried to resume reading the Consimworld Firefight Games forum on Tuesday, September 5, I saw that the forum had been shut down, and that Paul Rohrbaugh of Firefight Games had announced that he was no longer going to publish Resistance is not Futile. He also stated that he was considering legal action against people who may have made libelous statements about him.

I was stunned. What had been said that would cause the cancellation of the game? Well, we may never know, but I already knew the broad outline of the controversy from the postings I had already read.

The gist of those objecting to Resistance is not Futile is that no one should make a game about the extermination of the Jews. Although one player in the game will take the role of the heroic Jewish resistance, the other player steps into the shoes of the Nazis and will attempt to destroy every Jewish unit in the game. And some people very much object to a game in which any player’s goal is to further the cause of genocide.

The Firefight Games position is that the game was created specifically to honor the Jewish resistance. The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising has been the subject of novels and movies designed to honor the Jewish martyrs--so what’s wrong with a game that is trying to do the exact same thing? And anyone who is truly offended can simply refuse to buy the game.

One factor that probably separates Mr. Rohrbaugh and his critics is whether they think of the Warsaw Ghetto conflict as a battle or as an act of genocide. Mr. Rohrbaugh undoubtedly sees the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising as a military battle. And certainly it can be characterized as one. And what is so objectionable about making a game about a military battle? There are thousands of such games.

But those who object to the game consider the attack on the Warsaw Ghetto to be an act of genocide. And it certainly was that. And so it can be argued that making a game about the extermination of the ghetto is about as appropriate as making a game called Auschwitz.

I assume that the comments on Consimworld grew a great deal more heated than my brief summations can imply. But I am less interested in wild insults and broad accusations than the logic of the arguments that each side presents. No one is likely to dispute the legal right of Firefight Games or anyone else to make a game on any subject they please. But is a genocidal battle an appropriate subject for a game? Is Resistance is not Futile a tribute to the heroic resistance of an oppressed people, or an exercise in bad taste?

Randy Cohen, who writes a column on ethics for the New York Times Sunday Magazine, is fond of saying that “In ethics intentions count.” And I have little doubt that the intentions of Mr. Rohrbaugh are honorable. He has stated that the game was intended to honor the Jewish fighters, and I have no reason to doubt him. Even the title of the game refers to the Jewish point of view. If the game had been published, it could have been an educational tool that expanded knowledge of the Ghetto Uprising, and may have helped correct the idea that all Jews were passive victims of the Nazis rather than active resistance fighters. In short, I have a lot of sympathy for Mr. Rohrbaugh and his point of view.

But I am not convinced that those who disagree with Mr. Rohrbaugh are entirely in the wrong. I also believe that there are subjects that should not be the subject of a game. For example, it would be in bad taste for an American game company to make a game about any war in which our soldiers are currently fighting and dying. If I was the parent of a soldier fighting in Iraq, I wouldn’t like to see anyone playing a game called Insurgency in which one player gains points by blowing up American units with suicide meeples.

If the intentions of the designer are one factor that helps us decide if a game is in good taste or not, the other factor is time. Imagine a game called Disaster. In the game, players represent factions in a location that has been struck by a catastrophe. Each player must try to shepherd his own meeples to safety while hindering other players with nasty event cards.

Would this be an appropriate subject for a game?

Well, if the game is called Pompeii, the answer is yes.

If the game is called World Trade Center, the answer is no.

There already exist two or three games about the Pompeii disaster. I read one Boardgamegeek review in which the writer explained how much fun it was to send cardboard lava flows over other players’ meeples.

But imagine playing the hypothetical World Trade Center game. Would any American player be likely to chortle about playing a “Stairway Blocked” card on another player and dooming their meeples to die in the collapsing tower?

Obviously, time makes a big difference about how we feel about an historical event. Maybe some day there will be games about the 9/11 attacks, but I wouldn’t want to see them in my lifetime.

Some might argue that enough time has passed since the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising that it can be made into a game with little chance of offending anyone except hyper-sensitive crackpots.

But for some subjects, time makes little difference. There are some people who still refuse to play Martin Wallace’s Struggle of Empires because players can profit from slavery in the game.

My own thinking on that subject is somewhat confused. While I would hate to see a game called Slave Trader published, it seems to me that eliminating all references to the slave trade from a game about colonial empires would be whitewashing history. Mr. Wallace may have included slavery in his game to remind us of the brutality of European colonial policy.

And would gamers have objected to an event in Struggle of Empires called “Opium War” in which a player can enjoy huge profits after defeating China in a war? Somehow I don’t think that event would have caused as much controversy as the slavery issue. And yet Britain’s opium policy was nearly as evil as the slave trade, and surely created many millions of slaves of a different sort. Why are certain reprehensible acts taboo while others can be portrayed in games without generating controversy?

On page 5 of the Totaler Krieg Player’s Guide there is an essay by Alan Emrich on the evolution of this World War II game. Mr. Emrich tells us that the designers of Totaler Kreig once considered adding a Wansee Conference card to the German hand. The card would have required the Nazi player to initiate extermination plans against the Jews before being allowed to play his valuable Total War card. The designers thought that it might be a good idea to remind gamers exactly what the Nazis were all about. Of course, playtesters objected to this card, and no Holocaust card ever appeared in the finished version of the game. But imagine the protests that would have erupted if such a card had been included. And yet the designers’ intent was only to educate and remind gamers of brutal historical realities.

I admit that I would feel queasy playing a Wansee Conference card in any World War II wargame. And it would be very easy to mock the educational impulse that reduces the Holocaust to the play of a card. Such a simple mechanism would trivialize a monstrous event rather than add to our understanding of it. And yet I still admire the game designer’s impulse to attempt to deal with history as honestly as the format of the game allows.

Many will argue that the very purpose of games makes them an inappropriate format for dealing with sensitive material. On some level, games are always about fun. Unlike books or movies, we “play” games. Even people who can’t articulate why the idea of touching on the Holocaust in a game bothers them probably sense that there is a lightness of purpose about gaming that adheres to even the most serious and detailed historical simulation.

But even if gaming is essentially a hobby pursued for fun, I don’t see why game design has to be divorced from the impulse to educate—including the impulse to deal with serious material. Certainly, the designers of the most detailed historical simulations might argue that they have earned the right to deal with sensitive material because of their very seriousness. The men who designed the various editions of Totaler Krieg or Decision Games enormous War in the Pacific are very studious fellows who approach their games with as much or more seriousness as a doctoral candidate working on his thesis paper. I’m not sure what the best way would be for a World War II simulation to touch on the Holocaust, but there is probably a way that would be both sensitive and educational.

Why is it perfectly fine for anyone to play Axis and Allies--a game that simulates a conflict in which tens of millions of people were killed--and yet it is in bad taste to include in a wargame details that remind us just how some of these people died, and who did the killing? Are gamers somehow tainted when they play games which touch on genocide or slavery, and yet can emerge from playing a thousand ordinary wargames dealing with slaughter without any stain on their souls? I sometimes think that the line between what is acceptable in a game and what is unacceptable has more to do with habit and less to do with ethics than many of us would like to admit.

Or have wargames already corrupted my soul?

When making a logical argument, it’s not unusual for my mind to insist on pointing out the valid points of the opposing point of view. But on this issue, I find that my sympathies jump back and forth between the opposing camps. I hope that is a sign that the topic of political correctness in games is a complex one, and not merely a symptom of my wishy-washy thinking.

I wish I could come to some intelligent conclusion about this subject that would show gamers the way back to common sense and common ground. But I can do no better than to make lame and banal suggestions for patience and tolerance when dealing with combustible subjects, and with those who hold differing viewpoints. I hope that most of us will consider every individual free from bigotry until there is much evidence to the contrary.

I fear that we will be experiencing more of these sorts of controversies in the years to come.

By the way, those interested in learning more about the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising can find inexpensive used copies of the books and movies I mentioned on Amazon.com.

16 Short Faidutti Reviews

The November 2006 issue of Knucklebones magazine is out and it contains my first article for them, "Professor of Chaos", a biography on Bruno Faidutti and his games. I encourage you to take a look, and in the meantime here's a complementary article to whet your appetite: a short review of every one of Bruno Faidutti's English language games other than Knightmare Chess. (I'm not a chess fan.)

---

Boomtown (B+)

Publisher: Face 2 Face
Co-Authors: Bruno Cathala
Release: 2004
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10964.phtml

An auction game with majority control and logistical elements. This game shows off many of Faidutti's strengths. It's well-themed and it's got some funny elements. None of the elements are terribly innovative, but they combine together in a coherent, interesting method. Sometimes the game can feel a little repetitive & long, but when it goes fast it's great to play.

Castle (B)

Publisher: Blue Games / Descartes / Asmodee
Co-Authors: Serge Laget
Release: 2004
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10757.phtml

A card management game. Sometimes people deride Faidutti's games because they can be quite chaotic, turning on a dime, and I'll generally accept that as individual preference. However, some of Faidutti's games shine entirely because of their chaos, and this is one. All you're trying to do is empty your hand of cards, but the catch is that there's a limited play area for the cards, and each card has a special and wacky power which can influence the cards already played and those to be played in the future. The result is enjoyable just because the results can be so unexpected. And trying to figure out the right order to play your cards can offer up some nice strategy too.

China Moon (B+ to C+?)

Publisher: Eurogames / Descartes / Asmodee
Co-Authors: None
Release: 2003
Full Review: None yet.

An abstract movement game. This is the one Faidutti game that I've played but haven't been able to review yet. It's a clever abstract movement game where you're bouncing around cute little frogs, hopping over other frogs, and trying to collect points along the board. I've only been able to play 5 player thus far, and that game descended into total chaos. There was no ability to plan, and it felt like the results were largely random. I'm waiting to see if a fewer number of players plays better, and that's going to ultimately decide my final rating.

Citadels (A-)

Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Co-Authors: None
Release: 2003
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10836.phtml

A logistical game with elements of role selection and bluffing. This is generally considered Faidutti's masterpiece (thus far) and rightfully so. You draw cards and collect coins in order to build the city districts marked on those cards. The catch is the roles, one of which you get each turn, and which allow you to do various special things to propel yourself to victory. Some people get upset at the Assassin roles which stops another player's action and Thief role which takes their money, but if you don't like them stop taking the roles which cause you to be hit by these characters. You're only as much of a target in this game as you allow yourself to be.

Corruption (B-)

Publisher: Atlas Games
Co-Authors: None
Release: 1999
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11116.phtml

A blind bidding and bluffing game. This is a severely underrated Faidutti gem, I think mainly because of its early publication date and its uninspiring components. This is a pretty neat simultaneous auction game, where during each round of play you're trying to bid on a number of different awards, and you're doing so somewhat blindly. There's even a few "roles" which can be mixed in with your bids. It's quick, but it's thoughtful, and if you haven't played it (and you haven't) you should.

Democrazy (C)

Publisher: Blue Games / Descartes / Asmodee
Co-Authors: None
Release: 2000
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10963.phtml

A voting game. Over the course of the game you try and pass various votes to make your particular collection of resources more valuable than your opponents. I like the idea of a voting game, but the result leaves me a bit cold because it's so random and so chaotic that it feels like you don't have much real chance to strategize. This is a love-or-hate game, and I find that it goes over quite well for more casual players and quite poorly for more serious players.

Draco & Co. (C+)

Publisher: Blue Games / Descartes / Asmodee
Co-Authors: Michael Schacht
Release: 2001
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12224.phtml

An American take-that game. This is a neat Guillotine-like game where you're constantly trying to arrange the order of a set of characters (here, in a circle) so that you get the most money during periodic toasts. It's a very American game, with most of the plays involving fairly random cards that move characters this way or that. There's not a lot of strategy as a result, but the gameplay can still be amusing.

Dragon's Gold (A-)

Publisher: Blue Games / Descartes / Asmodee
Co-Authors: None
Release: 2001
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12207.phtml

A card management and negotiation game. This is another of Faidutti's masterpieces. You play a set of cards to kill dragons, but then more importantly must negotiate with the other players to divide up the dragon's loot afterward. The result is social, tense, and very enjoyable. If you don't like interacting with other people in a game, you'll hate it, but if you do you'll discover it's a best-of-class game because the negotiation is so fast-paced and cutthroat.

Fist of Dragonstones (B-)

Publisher: Days of Wonder
Co-Authors: Michael Schacht
Release: 2002
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10734.phtml

An auction game. This game is a pretty pure blind bidding game. Each round you bid on 10 characters which give you specific advantages, and you try to do so in such a way as to get dragonstones and convert them into victory points (through various special character powers). I've always found the game a bit overwhelming in its sameness--you play auction after auction--but I nonetheless enjoy it every once in a while.

Iglu Iglu (B)

Publisher: No U.S. Publisher
Co-Authors: Bruno Cathala
Release: 2004
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11135.phtml

A tile-removing tactical movement game with some majority control. This is the one Faidutti game I've reviewed that isn't yet available in an American edition, but it was just too cute to ignore. It's an action-point game where you spend moves to catch food and build igloos while an ice sheet slowly melts under you. It's thematic and it's got some innovative rules, the best of which is the slowly melting ice. For some reason it never gets a lot of play for me, I think because it's a bit complex (rulewise) for its light play.

Knock! Knock! (B-)

Publisher: Joly Roger Games
Co-Authors: Gwenael Bousin
Release: 2004
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12223.phtml

A bluffing game. You play face-down cards to other players, some of which are good, some of which are bad. Based on their limited knowledge of what you have in your hand, the other players try and let the good cards in and turn away the bad cards. This game is paper thin, with no depth, which is the reason for my B- rating, but conversely it also does a brilliant job of its core mechanics: bluffing. It's fast, furious, and funny, and if you're looking for a 15-minute bluffing game, this is it.

Mystery of the Abbey (B-)

Publisher: Days of Wonder
Co-Authors: Serge Laget
Release: 2003
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9375.phtml

A deduction game. This is a beautifully produced and beautifully themed game that fits into the same niche as Clue, but in a Medieval monestary. There's different rooms that you can move among which genuinely do different things and there's some chances for wild and crazy occurrences through various decks of cards. I've grown a bit less in love with the endgame the more I've played, because it seems like players always make a run to guess when they have most of the answers, then someone randomly wins. Still, the process of getting there is neat.

Queen's Necklace (B-)

Publisher: Days of Wonder
Co-Authors: Bruno Cathala
Release: 2003
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/9/9462.phtml

An auction and blind bidding game. You collect gems in (sort of) timed auctions, then three times per game you spend those gems in blind bids, hoping to put together the most gems of each type. I love most of the mechanics in this game, but don't like the fact that it places a very serious premium on card-counting: if you know what gems each player has you'll do much beter in the blind bids than if you don't. If you play in a group where everyone counts cards or no one does, this will work better than otherwise.

Terra (C+)

Publisher: Days of Wonder
Co-Authors: None
Release: 2003
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/10/10076.phtml

A cooperative game of card management and set collection. Crises are besetting the Earth, and all the players must play their cards to offset them, but each individual player will do better if he hoards his own cards into collected sets. I actually don't think this is a very good game, but it is a great conversation starter for issues of collective action.

The Hollywood! Card Game (B)

Publisher: Fantasy Flight Games
Co-Authors: Michael Schacht
Release: 2005
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11652.phtml

A card drafting & set collection game. This feels more like a Schacht design, in the Coloretto family. You draft cards using an entirely unique method and in doing so try and collect large sets of similar cards. It's an ultra light filler that doesn't have much to it, but in that category of 10 or 15 minute play is a perfectly enjoyable, but largely innocuous game.

Valley of the Mammoths (C+)

Publisher: Euro Games / Descartes / Asmodee
Co-Authors: None
Release: 1991
Full Review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12265.phtml

A wargame. This is Faidutti's oldest game that's on the American market. It's a very traditional wargame, but with lots of interesting nuisances, such as two seasons, fun event cards, and roaming animals which can be predator or prey. It's in a totally different class from Faidutti's other games, and would generally be considered too slow and clunky nowadays, but if you're still playing wargames, this one is worth a look.

---

With all that said, here's my personal ranking of the Faidutti games currently on the American market:

1. Citadels
   
2. Dragon's Gold
   
3. Boomtown
   
4. Castle
   
5. The Hollywood! Card Game
   
6. Iglu Iglu
   
7. China Moon(?)
   
8. Corruption
   
9. Fist of Dragonstones
   
10. Knock! Knock!
    
11. Queen's Necklace
    
12. Mystery of the Abbey
    
13. Valley of the Mammoths
    
14. Draco & Co.
    
15. Terra
    
16. Democrazy

The top 10 are the ones that I'm generally willing to play.

Cleopatra vs. Blue Moon City

I recently got to play both Cleopatra (2nd play) and Blue Moon City (1st play) in the same day. Blue Moon City I totally enjoyed; Cleopatra, I can do without. Why? The card play.

Your task in both games is to accumulate cards so you can build something but not all card management is created equal. In Blue Moon City, your choices can be so many and varied that your sense of tension is almost constant. This is due to the special actions that the cards can be used for instead of using them to build. I never felt that I had no good choices since cards let you change the color of other cards, move your token farther to get where you want to be, move a dragon somewhere convenient, use 2 brown cards as wild. Just because I have a hand of red but I’m not near the red buildings, doesn’t mean I’m stuck. Even near the end of the game when un-built buildings were spaced far apart, I wasn’t waiting for just the one right card as there were several ways I could manage the cards and my movement.

Cleopatra, on the other hand, feels stifling. There is so little control over the cards, both in what you get and what you can do with what you get. Everything you can build requires an architect so if you can’t get one you’re stuck. A couple of buildings require marble and lapis and again if you can’t acquire the necessary card(s), you have no where to go, no choices. There’s no trading, no discarding cards to draw new ones although you can go over your hand limit when you choose which pile of cards to take and hope something you need is in there, face down. Any special action card you play has the same risks—no guarantee of success and at least one corruption token. I understand that this game doesn’t quite qualify as a hand management game but rather a test of efficiency--build with the least amount of corruption--but to me, it lacks tension and fun. Towards the end of the game, I was just hoping someone would build the last thing just to get it over with.

I love card games and games that use cards to control your actions. When they’re done well, they should give you tough decisions and make you squirm when you have to choose. They should always give you an option, “an out”, somewhere to go besides sitting and waiting for that special card. Maybe I’m comparing apples and oranges but no game should make you feel like the end is dragging on so that you say a little prayer to the Goddess of Gaming to PLEASE, make it end!
~~~~~~~

I like to watch old movies while I’m busy around the house and one day I had on “It Happened One Night”. It’s funny how your mind goes leaping around from place to place and the next thing I knew I had linked the last word of the movie title with the first word of a game title. Go fig. Here’s the result of some movie-game title combinations.

It Happened One Nacht Der Magier
The African Queen’s Necklace
It’s a Wonderful Lifeboat
Dirty Dancing Dice
Hey! That’s My Fish Called Wanda
~~~~~~~
Home is where I stack my Games.

Mary

Encounter 6/9

Encounter

By Yehuda Berlinger. Copyright 2006, Yehuda Berlinger. All rights reserved.

(Chapters: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5)

Chapter 6: Mirror

In New York, Sarah dreams.

Sweat streams. Skin burns.

A dark New York haze coalesces into a young woman in Jerusalem, rising from damp rumpled sheets into shafts of sunlight and dust. Her black hair is framed in a golden halo.

Sarah emerges from the bedsheets, picks her white robe up off the floor and slips into it, tying the belt in a double bow. She opens her door, crosses the hall, and enters the bathroom, closing the door behind her.

On the back of the bathroom door is a full length mirror. Sarah drops the bathrobe and her underwear and looks at herself in the mirror. She turns her face left, and then right. She turns her hips left, and then right. Her image is blurry through sleepy eyelids. Her right hand reaches out to the mirror, where it meets the left hand of her mirror twin.

"Touch," she says to her twin.

As she turns around and starts the shower water, the mirror lightly ripples out from the contact point, and then stills.

Dream fog envelopes her body and then sweats down the brow of her body on Long Island. Sarah moans feverishly and turns in her bed. In Queens, she is softly snoring. Uptown, she is sleeping noiselessly. Downtown, a black hand caresses her pale cheek. She is smiling in her sleep, and her face is drenched as the water streams out of the shower and down her skin.

She scrubs herself healthy and pink, ignoring a calendar message about her AI paper. David Lanz restarts in her ear.

She steps out of the fog in dreamy mode, her mind too scattered to focus. Her movements are automatic. She dries, robes, and returns to her room. Her dressing is automatic. She doesn't know what she is wearing. She goes downstairs.

The living room floor is littered with her brother's friends who are sleeping half out of their black and gray sleeping bags. They are scattered across the floor like cocoons. Sarah recalls that one of them is supposed to be dead. Papers, pencils, game books, miniatures, and colored polyhedral dice dot the bridge table and the surrounding floor. She crosses the room with awkward steps, avoiding stepping onto anything, or anybody.

In the kitchen, Sarah packs a yogurt, plastic spoon, carrot sticks, and peaches, while she scrolls through the news. The U.S. Secretary of State will be leaving for Egypt today. A shooting in Bnei Brak, which may have been criminally motivated. Police are still on high alert for a terrorist attack in the capital. The weather will be seasonably average. She stuffs the food into her backpack next to some papers, zips the bag halfway up, and heads out the kitchen to the front door of the apartment.

She leaves the apartment building and walks to the corner, and around the corner market to the dingy bus stop. Two older women are seated at the stop. They speak to each other in Russian.

When the bus arrives, she enters first. She asks for, and receives, a transfer ticket, pays her shekels, and walks to the back doorwell of the bus. There is a pause while the old women slowly make their way onto the front of the bus. The bus driver lurches forward before they can sit down, knocking one of them off balance. One of the women begins to yell at the driver, to the amusement of the other passengers.

Sarah's hand grabs a pole as the bus turns towards the shuk, and grips a blanket as her head tosses right, and then left. She touches the arm stroking her face, right, and then left. She mutters in her sleep. She rolls over, and gets up as the bus stops. She gets off the bus, along with most of the passengers, those in the front struggling to get through a mass of people equally struggling to get on.

Sarah walks past the entrance to the shuk, passing vendors already yelling about their bourekas, sandals, watermelons. Women soldiers check bags and chat amiably. People in shabby coats sleep on the sidewalk, open tin cans next to their still bodies. The cans have priming coins in them. She continues to the bus stop that will take her to Hebrew University.

"Lady! Lady!" someone shouts in an Arabic accent. Sarah ignores the voice, as she ignores all Arabic voices. She is still more than a little scared of Arabs. Of personal violence, of robbery, of rape.

"Lady," says another voice, a woman's. She stops and turns her head to see a middle-aged Israeli woman with impossibly magenta hair pointing behind her. She turns fully around and sees a wrinkled Arab man with a bright white beard and a keffiyah. He is sitting on the sidewalk smoking a hookah, surrounded by trashy souvenirs. He is smiling with half a mouth of yellowed teeth and holding out some papers to her. Her papers, which have fallen out of her open backpack.

"Thank you," she manages in Hebrew to the outstretched hand and smiling face. She takes the paper, stuffs them into her backpack, and zips it. He waves his hand half a wave, looks at her with small black eyes and darkened skin, a deep bronze. She turns around and walks away, embarrassed.

Her bus stop is only five meters away. She turns to look at him once. He is still looking at her and smiling. She looks the other way. Standing next to her is a fat Haredi man in a long black coat. He also has dark skin, like the Arab's, and he is sweating. Behind him, on the inside wall of the bus stop, is a provocative poster announcing Madonna's upcoming concert in Tel Aviv.

The bus arrives. She hands her transfer to the bus driver and gets it back with the driver's punchmark in it. She heads to the rear doorwell again but then sits in an empty seat across from it. The dark Haredi man walks down the aisle toward her.

A Haredi woman stands in front of her, hand on a baby carriage. Three grubby children cling to her skirts. The baby is whimpering in the carriage like Sarah is whimpering in her bed. Her face suddenly frowns under the gentle arm.

She looks back at the dark Haredi. He stops in front of the woman and smiles, reaches into his pocket, and says something that sounds like, "Hello, mouse."

There is an unearthly noise and a flash.

Sarah wakes from a dream and into a nightmare.

Museum Exhibition - the final set up

Our Museum Boardgames exhibit in the Community Collections is up and running. Well, has been up and running for a little over a day. Therefore this post will concentrate on the last minute^H^H^H^H^H^H few days preparation and the setting up.

Melissa had contacted a few publishers and some local distributors about either promotional material and/or demo copies of games. Since we are planning on at between 8-12 demo sessions during the month we would prefer not to use our own copies if possible. The last school games night has shown that games can suffer somewhat in the hands of non-gaming children (and adults) who have not yet been taught that it is not good form to hold a card so it looks like a crumpled up tissue! A few things have been promised, a few are still in transit and a few have arrived. The ones in transit should arrive early next week and will be included.

The promotional material that arrived early included stuff from Don Bone for Sunda to Sahul which included a demo copy, spare pieces and some promotion boards that he had at Essen with him. We also picked up a display stand and a set of Blokus and some spare pieces.

Since Sunda to Sahul can also be played as a solitaire puzzle, we decided to do the puzzle and mount it on a board with some of Don's Essen material. Even though we had a detailed diagram of exactly where every piece went, it took Melissa and me around about two hours to put it together, and then Melissa had to glue the pieces to the board.

We had measurements of the various display cases that we had access to, so spent a while sizing potential candidates and logically grouping games together. Melissa then wrote up a bunch of blurbs to go with our displays which I printed off and got laminated.

Thursday night was finalising the lists and pulling out and boxing the games ready to take to the Museum, with Friday morning doing the ones we forgot on Thursday night.









Museum Ho - Good thing they had a trolley for us to unload things on to!

An empty cabinet waiting for games

A bunch o' games to be displayed

Starting to set up Power Grid

Finished setting up Power Grid and Big City in the background with their display cards.


Melissa set up Settlers of Catan, I don't think she was feeling very pro-red on Friday.

Union Pacific has more different colours of trains and bigger cards than Ticket To Ride so it got set up on display in the Train Games cabinet.

The Settlers case almost ready for sealing with normal Settlers set up and the rest of our Settlers collection, excluding 5-6 player expansions because they didn't fit. On the wall is the Sunda to Sahul display and some details about Settlers of Catan. We checked the things on the wall with a spirit level, so the camera must have been on an angle

Over here we have Shear Panic, Tier auf Tier and a bit of space left over for a special guest arrival who was not ready to be displayed on Friday.

There were complaints about the lack of Big City photos, so here is one for the record.

The bottom shelf of the display cabinet has die Nacht der Magier and Dicke Luft in der Gruft

The second shelf consists of Plus and Minus and Frank's Zoo on display plus a bunch of other card games.


The top shelf is bookcase games and almost bookcase games, games across history if you will. A full Alea bigbox set would look quite nice there, but alas we are a few short. There were a few others that we would have liked to put their including the Gibson's editions of Kingmaker and Escape from Colditz as well as the old Avalon Hill History of the World but the boxes are too big to play nicely with the others.

We were going to be getting a spare board for Shadows over Camelot for our wall mounting, but it hasn't arrived as yet. We hope it does, because we are not entirely sure how playable ours will be after hanging on a wall for a month :-)

Did we tell you that we have a very limited edition set of Trias?

After the setting up we, with the assistance of Alice from the Museum, put the covers back on the cases and carefully moved them back to the wall. Observant readers may notice the slightly different alignment of the big boxes of the Settlers family in this photo.

It took Melissa and I four and half hours to set up and install the games (there goes a game of Die Macher).

We are still intending for a selection of Scott Nicholson's videos to be showing, but the first DVD that was burnt had errors, so stay tuned.

If you are in the Melbourne neighbourhood, it is there for the month of September. Some more specific infomation including a map of where in the museum the exhibit is can be found here. The quick guide is through the entrance - turn right - up the escalators - turn left - turn right into the Australia gallery and it is in the back right hand corner.

Mmmm Meeples taste like...

Theme Delivery Systems and the Unconscious Imagination

How’s that for a pretentious title?

I usually check the Best of Boardgames website (http://boardgames.blogsome.com) every week to see what others in the hobby are saying. I noticed that two of the latest recommended writers had a bit to say about theme in games. I’m interested in theme for a variety of reasons, and so I’ve decided to throw in my two cents on this topic.

Anthony Simons has an essay about the relationship between theme and gaming mechanisms. Mr. Simons believes that theme must precede game development, and that mechanisms should evolve from the theme. He quotes Reiner Knizia as saying that theme comes first. This is surprising to me because some of Mr. Knizia’s games seem to be thinly-themed. But if a designer as prominent as Mr. Knizia thinks that theme is paramount, I take that as an indication that some mighty smart people believe that many games are really theme delivery systems.

Before we go any further, maybe I should define what I mean by theme. (Chris Farrell scolded me for not defining what I meant by a wargame-euro hybrid in my blog on that subject, and I think he made a valid point). I think of theme as the subject matter of the game. But this subject matter must relate to some separate reality in the real world or in some imaginary world. The more that aspects and mechanisms of the game embody the subject matter, the more richly themed a game is. The more that the aspects and mechanisms of the game reflect nothing but themselves, the more abstract we say the game is.

For example, Go may be one of the most important games of all time, but it is almost entirely an abstract game. Go may have started out as a simulation of warfare, but now we regard Go as merely a stone-placing game, a game that is about nothing but itself.

Contrast this with War of the Ring, a game about Tolkien’s fictional world of Middle Earth. The world that War of the Ring simulates may be a fantasy land that never existed anywhere except in the pages of Tolkien’s books, but it is a very detailed world that the game goes to great lengths to simulate. War of the Ring is very much a theme delivery system. Even gamers who don’t particularly enjoy War of the Ring often acknowledge that it does a good job of simulating the political and military conflicts of Tolkien’s world.

Note that being richly themed or thinly-themed has nothing to do with the overall quality of the game. Chess, Go, and poker are all thinly-themed games that will probably be popular for as long as mankind continues to play games. And a game may be richly themed but still be a lousy game. Or the theme may be shoe-horned into a game whose mechanisms may have little to do with the subject matter (Lord of the Rings Monopoly, Pirates of the Caribbean Monopoly). Or the subject matter may be of such little consequence that it adds little to the game’s appeal. I think Bean Trader is a decent light game, but I doubt that anyone plays it because they are dying to recreate the real-life excitement of bean-trading.

I believe that theme matters in games because players like to use their imaginations to participate in the worlds that games simulate. In a richly-themed game, we project ourselves into the game’s world in much the same way that we enter the world of a novel when we read it.

But I suspect that the gamer’s imagination is participating at a less conscious level than a reader’s imagination. When I read a good novel, I create the scenes of the story in my mind; I see the characters and hear their words. I am very conscious of the fact that my imagination is participating in the creation of the novel’s world.

But the process is somewhat different when I play a game. If I play Arkham Horror, and my character is attacked by an Elder Thing, I don’t picture the character firing his pistol at an alien horror in the streets of a New England town. I look at the abilities of the monster on the game piece, and then I calculate if my character should fight or flee. My conscious mind is more concerned with the odds of success than with imaginary participation in the action that the game is simulating. It may seem that theme in a game just doesn’t work on me in the same powerful direct way that a novel can.

But I don’t believe that my imagination is asleep just because my conscious mind is more concerned with strategies and plans than with vivid images of imaginary actions. Somewhere in my subconscious, my imagination is having a ball pretending to battle a Lovecraftian horror in a street lit by gunfire and forked lightning. Our imaginations want a chance to play, and if we give them the raw materials, they will snatch them like a starving dog spotting a discarded Big Mac. An observer watching a group of serious boardgamers may note that they look a lot more sedate than a group of goofy roleplayers who use silly accents to speak in character, and who swing their arms as if holding invisible swords. But I suspect that the imaginations of many boardgamers are no less active than those of the flamboyant roleplayers.

I have no solid proof of any of this, of course. And I am not a psychologist. But I think there is a good deal of circumstantial evidence that my thesis is true. For one thing, theme makes a difference in game sales. Why else would Lord of the Rings Monopoly even exist? If the essential game mechanisms are the same as original Monopoly, why would gamers be willing to buy a clone with a tacked-on theme unless their imaginations are so desperate to play that they value even a superimposed theme. Why would many gamers be willing to master complex sets of rules when there are so many wonderful easy-to-master games available? Isn’t it because some themes require complex rules, and gamers are willing to pay the price of complexity to get the themes they want?

Why would gamers buy the genre of game that seems the driest, most complex, and least visually interesting of all the subgroups of games? I am referring of course to wargames. Wargames are almost always heavily-themed games because they usually try to simulate a very specific conflict. But the level of complexity that exists in the wargame genre can often give a euro-gamer nightmares. Decision Games has just released their remake of the old SPI game War in the Pacific. This is a game that comes with seven maps and nearly 9000 pieces. I suspect that playing it would feel like fighting World War II in real time. Would any gamer attempt to play this monster if his imagination were not engaged on some level?

In the Sam Shepard movie Fool for Love the old coot played by Harry Dean Stanton announces that “I am married to Barbara Mandrell in my mind.” I suspect that many players of War in the Pacific are Admiral Nimitz or Admiral Yamamoto in their minds.

So who was the other writer recommended by Best of Board Games who touched on theme? It was Mike Siggins in his Gamer’s Notebook article for Fungain.com. Mr. Siggins shares my opinion of Arkham Horror although he probably expresses it with greater clarity than I could. Mr. Siggins notes that the game often resembles an inter-dimensional game of “Whack-a-Mole.” He also notes the overly-long playing time and problems with the end of the game. But despite these and other criticisms, Mr. Siggins feels the game redeems itself (at least partially) with a strong theme.

Yes, for many or most of us theme is the key. Brilliantly designed gaming mechanisms may help us love a game once we have it in our hands, but we wait with eager anticipation to receive the latest railroad game, or Civil War game, or World War II tactical slugfest. No one ever sat impatiently waiting for the mailman to deliver the latest innovation in card drafting or a new twist on the area majority mechanism.

Sure, you can claim that you play games solely as a test of skill or as an exercise in inter-active history. And you may push those cardboard chits across the hexmap in stony silence without a hint of emotion showing. But in your subconscious, you hear the rumble of panzer treads or the thunder of a cavalry charge.

As do I.