Hi again everyone.
Brian asked me if I could do an article again, so I am going to post about Caylus.
As everyone knows, lots of people think Caylus is an excellent game. I am obviously among them. I also, in my tradition of preferring 2 player (or 2 sided) games to games with 3 or more separate parties, love 2 player Caylus.
I was talking with the game's designer on BSW, and he mentioned that he designed the game for multiplayer, and 2 player was kindof added on. I was amazed by this, because the 2 player game works so well!
In multiplayer games, with reasonable players, the provost is rarely used to screw someone, unless it is very low cost (the last guy paying $1 to screw him out of an important space, or whatever). This is especially true in 3 player, where there isnt the gangup potential, of someone passing, and then three players after him agreeing to move it back 1 each, or something like that.
In multiplayer, playing at the edge of town adds this vague risk. You have to pass late, and there is a chance that some random other guy might pay money to try and screw you. Or maybe they might be reasonable and not spend their money hurting one opponent.
But in 2 player, the provost creates tremendous tactical opportunities, as now, hurting your only opponent is a direct gain for yourself!
I was talking to a local player in our Saturday game group, Sean McCarthy, who is SevenSpirits on BGG, about 2 player Caylus. Previously, he had played mostly 3-4 player, and was very good at it, while I had played mostly 2 player. We played two games of 3 player in our Saturday game group, and he beat me by 4 and by 1, each time teaching me critical things that were different about 2 player and multiplayer. For example, in 2 player, you will have enough favors to go strong in two favor tracks, and should go Build and Points or Build and Money. In multiplayer, you have enough favors to go strong in only one, with a few favors in another. Thus, you should probably go strong in Build with a bit in Money, or strong in Points with a bit in Money. (Because the Build track and Points track have the big rewards in the middle/end, and thus need concentration to be good, while Money is fairly good even if you only dabble).
Anyway, he mentioned that he had started playing 2 player games. I asked what he thought. He said they were awesome, and they were even more fun!
There you have it! Both of us had the same reaction to 2 player. It's more fun than with more players, though certainly the game is great for multiplayer as well. Of course, we both tend to prefer 2 player games anyway, so if you dislike all 2 player games, it probably isn't for you. Personally, I like partnership games, team games, 1 vs X games, and 2 player games best.
Now on to the strategy! I've analyzed the 2 player opening strategy a fair amount, so here is what I posted on BGG, about the 2 player Caylus Opening:
The Basics:
First of all, you need to know the strengths of the different favor tracks. Of the three non-points tracks, the build track is best, followed by money, then cubes. The points track is great in longer games that aren't highly resource short. It is only bad if the game goes very short, or its very resource light due to almost no production buildings. (More on that later).
You generally have enough favors in the game to go heavily on two tracks. Build + Points is usually best, and Build + Money is second best.
You use the build track to make buildings, mostly stone buildings and some residences. You make one wood building early, and you might use a later favor or two on prestige buildings, or more wood buildings for points if the stone buildings run out. But mostly its stone buildings and residences.
The first time you have the opportunity to make these buildings is once the second phase of the game begins. Thus, you want to end the opening phase with 2 favors placed in the building track, to be ready asap. You don't need more than this in the building track, because the extra wood building for the cost of a favor plus a cube isn't really worth it, and harms your ability to make stone buildings fast at the start of the middle phase of the game.
Thus you need 2 early favors to go to the build track.
The best way to get these early favors is castle builds, when you go first to the castle, and the bonus favor for making 2 batches. Ideally, you want to make 2 batches in the castle, getting a favor each time, plus a bonus favor. This is three favors. The excess third favor should be spent on either the money track or points track. Money if you are hurting on money at any time, points otherwise.
Alternately, if you build 2 batches at once on a turn your opponent build one first, that is ok as well, but it results in one less favor per person. You still need 2 build favors in this case, so be careful. Building another batch in the castle is ok, and get you a 4th total favor, which can be the second money or points track favor, however, this is only worth it if you still have some cubes to start the second game phase, so that you are not harmed in your ability to score favors and make stone buildings there.
Thus your goal in the opening:
Make 2 castle batches, each at a time when the opponent isn't in the castle (or maybe 2 at once when he is there before you). Take two build track favors and spend excess in money or points.
Additionally, end the opening with as much excess money and cubes as possible, hopefully more than your opponent. The best excess cubes to have are food and cloth, to be able to buy favors in joust, and build production buildings (and residences with cloth).
The opportunity cost of placing a worker in the opening
I did an opening analysis with SevenSpirits where we played the first couple turns several times, talked about every move, and then restarted.
We found several things:
The opportunity cost of a cube is $3. That is, when you play to a cube square, you are giving up a net $3 to do so.
This comes from: You either could've played to the $3 space if it is available, which would give you +$2 net. While playing to the cube yields -$1, for a change of -$3. Alternately, you could've passed. If so, you get $1, you don't pay $1, and your opponent doesn't get $1 for passing, for a net change of $3.
So it 'costs' $3 to make a placement.
Another example of this, is that once your opponent has passed, you can safely go to a space by paying $3. Again, you're paying $3 for a cube.
Thus, if you go to the gain $3 space, you are effectively saving yourself the opportunity to buy a cube on a future turn. Say, the cloth space is unsafe (near the provost). But one turn you take the $3 and get plenty of money, the next after your opponent passes you pay $3 to go onto it.
The expected gain of the person going first in the turn
Early in the game, the player going first in a turn should get a net gain of $1 over the other player. (Or a cube and -$2). This is because you can do an equivalent number of things as your opponent and then pass for a buck. Thus, if you gain more than this in a turn you go first, its good, if less, it was not good. The person going first on turn 1 gets this gain first, but then the opponent gets it next. I find the first player to have a small advantage in the game, but I think it is worth less than $1.
Provost Wars:
A provost war is where both players don't want to pass, because at least one player has placed in a 'risky' position, and the players want to move the provost last to control its final position. A 'risky' space is one that is less than 3 spaces behind the provost. The closer it is to the provost, the riskier.
Getting into provost wars is good for the player with more money and not the player with less money. (Counting who will be getting the $3 as part of their money). Once a provost war is initiated, if players wish to follow it to the end, then they find themselves (early on), with no good spaces left, and they start wasting money. Going to the castle is very good (if you will be able to guarantee you can do it), since thats a hard thing to fit in. Making a building is ok (if safe), if you have plenty of cubes. Trading a cube for $4 is breakeven, since a cube is worth 3 and the worker is 1 for a total of 4, but this sale of a cube for its purchase price might be important due to the provost war money drain. The inn is good if you are going to break your opponent in the war but still have some money.
I find that the person who has less money (unless both have a ton) should not continue the provost war. However, initiating a provost war is a great way to enable yourself to get an action in the castle or on the builder square if you want to.
For example, I have a reasonable amount of money, as does my opponent. I can build in the castle, but my opponent wont be able to. So after we take the safe cubes and $3, I take a riskier cube. My opponent takes provost mover (so as not to allow me to pass and get the safe cube without him being able to take the mover). Now I go to the castle. Normally, going to the castle has a cost of $3, since its 1 to go, loss of 1 for not passing, opponent gain of 1 for passing (because you did an extra thing). However, now my opponent cant pass without handing me back my cube placement. So he goes somewhere else. Now I pass.
Net: I spent $1 on the unsafe cube spot, $1 on the castle, I got a $ for passing, cost of $1. I get to go to the castle.
Opponent spent $1 on the provost mover, and $1 on the 'waste of time space'. He spends $2! I had a loss of $1 and get into the castle. Realistically, his waste of time play is probably valued at $1, so it's a net loss of $1 each, so we break even there. This was a way to get into the castle for free! (i.e. without the standard opportunity cost of $3).
Because the opportunity cost of getting the opportunity to build in the castle is generally $3, you want to look for chances to get in more cheaply.
My general valuation of things in the opening is:
Cloth or Stone: better than $3.
Other cube: probably worse than $3, but if you are getting no cubes you are screwed. So once you have plenty of money, you need to do this trade. You don't want to let your opponent get all the cubes, because then he easily gets castle favors and its hard for you. So often the cube is actually better than $3, if you have plenty of money. So if you would be starting the next turn at $6-8, the cube is probably not better, but if you would be starting with $10+, if probably is. (Note that if your opponent is really poor, its still better to take the money gaining opportunity, just to screw him).
Getting into the castle: In a normal circumstance, it costs $3 to be able to go build there. But what you want is to find opportunities to get in cheaper.
Opportunity to build with the Carpenter: In a normal circumstance, it costs $3, plus the two cubes for the build, and is not worth it. However, in a provost war, if the carpenter is safe, and thus your opportunity cost is $0 (just the two cubes), it is good if you have enough cubes to do this and still end up with 2 castle builds in the first scoring section. Put another way, if I could pay two early cubes for a building, with no loss of money or tempo, I would probably do it once. But its not usually worth it because you also give up money and tempo (the ability to get more money via passing first), to get the opportunity.
Inn: You would only go here if it was during a provost war, and your opponent was going to break or nearly break themself in the war.
Sell cube for $4: Its really a break even trade. Only go here in a provost war, if safe, where it is better than simply wasting $1.
Note that the existence of a 2 cube production building devalues the single cube spaces and makes money better. It suddenly makes the $3 better than the cube, in most cases (though the rare cube still could be better). This is because there is now a space that costs the standard $3 to go to, but yields 2 cubes not 1. However, it will be unsafe throughout the first scoring section. This means that if you have a money lead, but not a cube lead, you want to build a production building. Then you can convert money into cubes at a better rate, and devalue your opponents cubes. So if you passed up a cube earlier to take the $3, and you have $3 more than your opponent and he has +1 cube, it's great to build a production building. Conversely, the player with the cube lead and money disadvantage wants to build the sell cube for 6 building, as it allows a reverse sale back into money at a good gain.
Specific Opening Moves:
Since cloth and stone are better than $3 very early, if you can, place your worker on the safest cloth or stone space which is at least 3 back from the provost (i.e. it is safe).
If this is not available, place on the $3 space. (This is actually better than getting a food or wood cube, if those are the only safe cubes, because you can convert the $3 into a better cloth or stone cube later, in a turn the opponent passes first, by paying $3 to play to the space (and they move the provost first).
If all safe cubes and $3 space are taken, your options are to pass and gain money, or initiate a provost war. (If you are getting desperate, you can play to the castle, but you prefer to find a time when this doesn't cost you $3 to do)
The reason to initiate a provost war is because you want to make plays like castle or builder, at a time when your opponent is wasting moves, so you don't have to give up a $3 swing to do it.
Also, a provost war is good if you have more money than the opponent, because it can break him and amplify the money disadvantage. (Don't get into provost wars with less money, unless you still have plenty and your goal is to get into the castle cheap).
Once the provost war has begun, it now no longer is a $2 gain for your opponent to pass (they get $1 and you don't), and thus you can play to things like the castle or carpenter for a lower opportunity cost.
To initiate a provost war, play a worker to the unsafe cube that is the most safe. If you do this, you do not want to also be on the second most unsafe cube, because then you risk both cubes. For example, if you are on the safest and 3rd safest cubes, with your opponent on the 2nd safest, you are fine. They can only screw you out of the 3rd safest, without hurting themself. But if you are on the 2nd and 3rd safest both, you risk losing both in a war, so you don't want to do this unless you have more money and will win the war and that is your goal.
Now, your opponent can accept the war or decline. They decline by passing, thus gaining $1, denying you the $1 for passing, and you spent $1 on the cube. Thus, they get a net gain of $3 while you get a cube. They should do this if they are lower on money, but many won't. Another thing they can do is play on a cube more unsafe than you. Now, they are putting it back in your court, to make a provost war or decline.
They accept the war by going onto the provost-mover, threatening to deny you your space by pushing it back past your space, and then passing later than you to guarantee they can screw you.
Now you can go to the castle. If your opponent passes, then you gain a cube on them by winning the war, they get some money, but you get into the castle cheap. If they keep fighting, by making a 'wasted' (or mildly beneficial) move, then you pass. You lose the war, lose the cube, but don't break yourself, and you got into the castle cheap. If you have a money lead, you can keep fighting the war to drain their cash.
Look to initiate a provost war to get cheap entrance to the castle. Weaker opponents won't figure out what you are really doing, and will feel good that they 'screwed' you out of a cube, when in reality you gained on them. Also be on the watch for your opponent doing this tactic against you. If the war allows them cheap entrance into the castle, you should probably just pass, let them get a cube lead but get a corresponding money lead, and then look to convert the money to a cube later.
If a provost war drags on, the next best spaces after the castle are the carpenter (if safe, i.e. behind the cubes in question), the inn (if the war will break your opponent), and the sell cube for 4 space (if safe).
There is another way the war can go. Say that you and your opponent start by going on the two safest cubes. Next, you go on an unsafe cube, which is 2 back from the provost. Your opponent goes on the $3 square. You could now pass. Now, during the turn you spend $2, get $1 and will get 2 cubes, net $-1 and 2 cubes. Your opponent spends $2, gets $3 and a cube, net $1 and a cube.
You: -$1 and 2 cubes.
Opp: +$1 and 1 cube.
Total: You: 1 cube, Opp: $2. (Your cube is $1 better than his $2 gain, but you went first, so a $1 gain is expected)
Now, it comes to moving the provost. If you move it out 1 space, to ensure your cube, your net gain becomes -$2 and a cube, to his $1. Now, you are at breakeven for the turn, which is BAD when you went first!
If you don't move out the provost, your opponent can leave it as is, or spend $3 to deny the cube. If they spend $3, then the next result is a gain of $1 for you over them, the expected result.
Thus, you should NOT move out the provost in this case. The only time when you should is if you really need that cube, and/or you want the opening to move faster. But remember, that you are essentially losing $1 to your opponent in doing this.
Summary:
Playing to a cube square 2 back from the provost is fine, provided that you do not also have the second most risky cube. If you play right, it is at worst breakeven for you. It also might initiate a provost war which could benefit you.
Now, if you play to a cube space only one back from your opponent, it costs him only $2 to screw you if you pass first (if the provost war is declined). Thus, you result in a loss of $1, and thus this is bad.
Therefore, to successfully initiate a provost war without penalty to yourself, place a worker on a cube space 2 back from the provost, when you do not also have a worker on the second most risky cube.
You can also initiate a provost war against your opponent to try to deny his worker.
When not to initiate a provost war:
1) When you are significantly ($2 or more) poorer, and it might threaten to put you below a decent amount of money (below $7 to start a turn).
2) When your opponent has guaranteed cubes to build in the castle, and can use the war to get in there cheaply.
When to initiate a provost war:
1) When you wish to go to the castle cheaply, and have guaranteed cubes.
2) When you are richer (counting money to be gained this turn)
Best ways to initiate a provost war:
1) Place a worker on a cube space 2 back from the provost, while you do not also have the second most risky cube. 3 back is good also. 1 back probably isn't.
2) Take the provost mover when your opponent has placed onto a risky square, ESPECIALLY if he has the two riskiest workers.
What building to build:
When building an early building, build the one whose presence gives the most value to your current resources and the least value to your opponent's resources.
Factors of who will use the building aren't as relevant in 2er. You want the building whose EXISTENCE is better for you than them.
If you have more buildings, you'll end up getting more points off them than the other guy.
It's also important to have buildings you want, because a significant factor in their advantage is that you can pay $1 to go there if your opponent passes, so it makes it so your opponent cant pass and needs to keep doing things and then you pass and get $1 and they don't get $1, leading to advantage. Alternately, they can play to your (usually unsafe) building to deny this, and then you fight a provost battle (usually with even costs to each party) and get an advantage of 1 point.
Examples of what to build, to maximize the value of your resources and minimize your opponents:
You are ahead on cubes, but not ahead on money (or behind on money):
Build the sell a cube for 6 building. This increases the value of cubes and decreases the value of money.
You are behind on cubes of type X, and possibly behind on cubes in general, and are ahead on money: Build production building of type X. You want to be up on money because the existence of better production buildings changes the 'it costs $3 for a cube' dynamic. Also, this very good space in an unsafe space generates provost wars, which benefit whoever is richer.
Alternately, its good if you are behind on cubes, not ahead on money, but you both have plenty of money: you need the opportunity to regain the cubes you are down.
You are WAY ahead on money, but not way ahead on cubes: Build the buy 2 cubes of your choice for $2. Here you just make a space that is unusable to your opponent, but not to you. This is often worse than just a production building, however it has the advantage of taking any cube to build (that can matter, and is often the reason you do this), and it generates 2 more points initially.
You are way ahead on stone (at least 2, and they have 0), and not behind on cubes overall, and you are not behind on money, and your opponent has committed favors to the build track (you might have also) : Build the stone mason. Though in this case, sell cube for 6 may still be better. If you for some reason are failing to get 2 favors on the build track in the opening, while your opponent is getting them, then this becomes better.
You are way ahead on cloth (at least 2, and they have 0), not behind on cubes, and you have a reasonable amount of money to be able to pay extra for this and to get into provost battles for it: Build the lawyer. However, sell a cube for $6 may still be better. If you for some reason are failing to get 2 favors on the build track in the opening, while your opponent is getting them, then this becomes better.
Thanks for reading, I hope you enjoy it and improve your 2 player Caylus play!
Friday, February 24, 2006
Thursday, February 23, 2006
Anatomy of a Game: Blue Moon
Two weeks ago, Joe Gola published a review of Blue Moon, Reiner Knizia's customizable card game. It's been a game that's been on my mind lately too. This week I 'd like to take a step beyond Joe's introduction (for which, see his article, or else my own review of the game), and instead dig a little deeper to discover what really makes Blue Moon tick, starting with a look at how it really is a customizable auction game, not a CCG.Blue Moon as an Auction
In my overview of Reiner Knizia I made the contention that most of his games are actually auction games, but from the comments on that article I could tell that my point wasn't entirely clear. Fortunately, Blue Moon offers a terrific example of how an otherwise unique-looking game can be based on pure auction mechanics.
Most CCGs are "conflict" games. As it happens, I think that conflict-based games and auction-based games have a lot in common. Thus, it's not too surprising to me that many people look at Blue Moon and see the fighting rather than the bidding. However when you actually dissect the game design elements, I think it becomes a lot more obvious that Blue Moon falls onto the "auction" side of the equation.
To be precise, Blue Moon is a constrained English auction with open turn-based bids, and all payers. In English: the players take turns bidding, back-and-forth, and there are very specific rules for how their bids work. No matter who wins, each player has to discard then entire bid. Many of the bidding restrictions and other rules designed for the Blue Moon auction are somewhat outside of the norm for auction design, but nonetheless most of them can be found in at least a few other auction games.
The constraints of Blue Moon are very tight, and are the core of the gameplay. As in High Society and Beowulf (both Knizia designs), bids are made with discrete cards, and once you've put a card down you can't get it back. Unlike those games, there are even more constraints on your play: you're only allowed to play up to two cards to make your total bid, one general card which must always be played ("character") and one specific card which may be optionally played ("support" or "booster"). Here we can make comparisons to another Knizian auction with tight constraints, Taj Mahal, which likewise only lets you play up to two cards a turn, one "colored", which is required, and one "white", which is optional.
The bidding dynamics of Blue Moon allow for a gradual, but slowly racheting up method of bidding. As in Beowulf and the original For Sale you have two options: to call (bid the same amount) and to raise (bid a higher amount). Most auction games instead require constantly raising bids.
The payment method of Blue Moon, where everyone pays their bids, is slightly unusual, but seen frequently enough that it's got its own name, "the Poker auction". This refers to the fact that players keeping putting bids into a pot, then they all lose what they put in, not that Poker hands are being played. Knizia has used the design in Taj Mahal and (once more) Beowulf, while other notable auctions with very similar payment designs are Condotierre, Havoc: The Hundred Year's War, and the closed bid Fist of Dragonstones.
Finally we come to the truly unique element of the Blue Moon auction system: the turn-based bidding interactions. Effectively, Blue Moon's bidding constantly require geometric increases in bid value, even when you're "calling". This is because you have to constantly replace two of your bidding card types ("charcter" and "booster"), with only the third type ("support") remaining available throughout an entire auction. Thus, bidding exclusively with character cards, if you bid a "2", then a "2", then a "3", you'll have expended a total of 7 resources, rather than the 3 that would have been the case in just about every other auction game.
One other small variation in the Blue Moon auction system is the victory threshold. This is a brinkmanship gameplay element, where the value of victory in an auction doubles when a player has bid sufficient resources. In some ways it offsets the normal Rule of Gambling: that each bid is independent, and that you always have to bid based upon your current chances of victory, not what you've already comitted to the pot.
Overall, Blue Moon has tons that's uncommon or unique in the world of auction design, but when you break it down point-by-point, the ancestry still is fairly obvious. In particular, Blue Moon is similar in many ways to the design of Knizia's later Beowulf, with their shared constrained cards, call-or-raise auctions, and Pokeresque, everyone-pays results. They could easily be the same system, other than Blue Moon's constant, required rebids, and its unique, special-powered cards which draw it closer to the CCG world.
Playing Blue Moon as an Auction
By correctly understanding Blue Moon as an auction, you think about its strategy in some different ways.
I already mentioned the "Rule of Gambling", that you shouldn't stay in an auction if you can't win. There are, however, a number of elements that make this credo more complex in Blue Moon. First, as noted, the stake doubles if a player stays in long enough. Second, you're constantly drawing cards, and thus there's an opportunity to notably better your hand at any time. Third, if you can't do well in the current auction, you might not be able to do well in the next auction either (unless you're more powerful in the opposite "currency"--earth or fire--from what's being used at the current time).
Generally, you shouldn't stay in an auction if you can't win it, and this is especially true if you think you might have a better chance at winning the next auction, either through flipping the element or through discarding and drawing. This should stay foremost in your thoughts in Blue Moon, much as it would in any other auction game.
A second auction-related element that you need to think about in Blue Moon is whether you play low or play high. There are a few purposes to playing low in Blue Moon: to try and get a dragon for a lower expenditure of cards; to cycle low cards out of your hand; to bluff that you have a stronger hand than you actually do; and to build up enough cards to double the stakes. However, playing low also has its disadvantages: you may be giving your opponent a chance to cycle low cards too, which might be particularly useful to him if he just expended high cards in a victorious duel.
A third auction-related element in Blue Moon is the question of whether to call or raise. Much of this goes to the same points as the low-or-high question, but there are also times when it's particularly foolish to call, such as when an opponent is retrieving a character card that he could instantly replay. On the other hand, the higher your "jump bid", the more likely that a savvy opponent will simple bow out, under the theory that you just wasted a lot more money than he did--as if you massively overbid for a check in For Sale.
Playing Blue Moon as an auction game requires a few strategies that might not be immediately obvious, as raised by these various points. You may want to drop out of an auction even if you might be able to win, if you think your opponent bid a lot more than he needed to. You might want to bluff, and imply you have more power than you think you do (though because many players play this as a play-cards-till-I-can't exercise, the usefulness of this could be limited). And, you'll need to seriously think about dilemmas such as bidding-high-or-low or calling-or-raising, as a financial decision, not just a knee-jerk reaction based on what cards you have in your hand.
Blue Moon as Resource Management
At its core mechanical level, I'm pretty confident that Blue Moon is an auction game. However there's another way to look at it: as resource management. Instead of looking at the 6 auction cards that a player has in his hand at any one time, instead consider that each player starts off with identical resources: 30 potential cards. Thus, the ultimate goal is to manage your cost-benefit ratio better than your opponent. If you can gain more dragons than he does by expending the same amount of cards, then you win.
With this in mind, it's worthwhile to consider the composition of the first two Blue Moon decks:
| Hoax | Vulca | |
| Characters | 18 | 18 |
| Boosters | 3 | 4 |
| Support | 6 | 5 |
| Leadership | 3 | 3 |
| Fire Value | 57 | 69 |
| Earth Value | 44 | 45 |
The balance of currency cards (meaning the characters, support, and boosters) between the two decks, really lays out its basis as a resource-management game. The differentiation in currency values is a bit more surprising, but the Hoax deck more than makes up for this with retrievable cards and a few other surprises.
In understanding Blue Moon as a resouce-management game, you can address its strategy from a few different angles, not immediately obvious when thinking about auctions. Namely: are your actions forcing your opponent to spend more resources than you, and if so is that worth losing a dragon (perhaps temporarily)?
Blue Moon as a Card Game
Blue Moon has gotten most of its buzz as a customizable card game. I've saved the discussion of that part of its anatomy last, not because it's not notable, but rather because it's not necessarily the most notable element of the game.
Collectible Card Games of course first appeared with the release of Magic: The Gathering in 1993. There were built on the old trading card model, where cards had different rarities, and you bought a random assortment of cards, then starting building playable decks from those random assortments.
After the initial release of CCGs, two similar card-game types appeared. First were the card-games-that-played-like-CCGs, which were games with special-power heavy cards which were sold as singular entities rather than collectible games. These are mostly American beer & pretzels style games, like Den of Thieves or Portable Adventures, but also have appeared in Euro-designs, such as Jambo.
Slightly more notable is the sub-genre called "customizable card games", which tend also to be games sold in singular, non-collectible units, but which have multiple units that you can combine to form unique, customizable decks. Reiner Knizia has done two of these, Scarab Lords (2002), with sequel Minotaur Lords (2004), and Blue Moon (2004).
Much of the CCG aspect of Blue Moon is pretty standard. You can combine cards in a somewhat arbitrary manner to create a deck that you think will be better than your opponents'. You try and set up good combinations of powers when you do so. However what's really notable about the design of Blue Moon as a CCG is that Reiner Knizia correctly recognizes deck building as a metagame.
Traditional CCGs have used the Magic: The Gathering model, which absolutely balances all cards within the game, so that a player has no better or worse reason to include any card in his deck, other than how it might interact with his deck as a whole. This is typically done through resource costs. In Magic: The Gathering all cards have a casting cost; as cards grow more powerful this cost increases in absolute value, and also might increase in playing difficulty, by requiring multiples of a specific color of mana or multiple specific types of mana. Chaosium's former CCG, Mythos, also used a resource balance. Each card had a sanity value, that tended to run from -3 to +1. Cards with more sanity cost tended to more valuable, and those with sanity gains tended to be fairly weak.
Instead Blue Moon labels cards with a value, from 0 to 4 moons, which is not an in-game resource cost. These moons are used when deck constructing. There are limits on including higher value cards. Thus, there's no longer a need to balance every single card in-game, and deck construction elements are correctly moved from game to metagame, smoothing out the gameplay.
As an aside, Knizia further considered deck building as metagame in his previous CCG release, Scarab Lords. There deck reconstructions happened in between rounds of play from a set deck. It ultimately failed, however, due to a lesser variety in the deck, and the fact that the deck construction was entirely absent if you choose to play only one round of the game.
Concerns & Qualms
Overall, Blue Moon is an elegant, interesting game that combines elements of auction, conflict, resource-management, and (if you want) deck construction. I do ultimately have a few (minor) concerns with it, however.
First and foremost, the endgame is messy. Being forced out of a conflict due to running out of character cards, and then having to discard to end the game is very inelegant, and confusing for first-time players. I'm not sure why the game doesn't end when one player has drawn his deck and is out of character cards, which would be the same thing 90% of the time, and a more elegant, Knizian solution.
Beyond that, I ultimately have some concerns about how the deck construction for Blue Moon works, because I haven't actually done it yet. When the game was originally conceived, it was the decks of cards that were balanced, not the cards themselves. Thus when you move onto deck construction you're left wondering, "Why would I ever include Vetraskedas the Skeptic (Hoax/3/1/no powers) rather than Ledinemras the Monk (Hoax/4/1/no powers)." Clearly, you wouldn't.
My general assumption is that the power level of a Blue Moon deck will increase when you deck construct, but perhaps that's as it should be, because you want to reward good metagaming in a deck-construction environment. I'm planning to try it out later this year, and when I'm done I plan to return here with a few decks that you can use to try and crush your friends.
Until then, watch out for the Buka.
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
The Game Psychiatrist--The Substitute
Dr: Hello, you must be Mary.M: Hi, where’s Dr. Meepolous?
Dr: He had to be away for the week. I’m Dr. Boardbent. How are you doing today, Mary?
M: Well, Doctor, I think I’m losing my love for gaming.
Dr: Uh-huh, that’s good. Dr. Meepolous will be very happy to hear that.
M: ?? You don’t understand; I’m here because that’s a BAD thing. For the last 3 years, gaming has been a big part of my life. What will I do if I lose interest in it?
Dr: You will spend all that wasted money on something worthwhile. Gambling is a terrible addiction which takes your money and leaves you with nothing.
M: !! Gambling! I don’t gamble, I play board games! Are you sure Dr. Meepolous isn’t in the other room? Maybe this is just a test of some sort. Maybe I’m on TV!
Dr: Oh, board games. Yes. I see. Well, you could read a book or take a class in painting.
M: Doc, I hate to say this, but you’re really beginning to piss me off. Have you ever played any Euro-games?
Dr: Euro-games….hmmm…I played Monopoly once as a child and I used to play Risk in college.
M: That’s it?! THAT’S your idea of board games?! Oh, for the love of Knizia!! (heavy sigh) O.k., Doc, there are other games now; games that don’t take hours and hours to play and leave you feeling like the 9th puppy of an 8-teat dog. (Starting to pace the floor) These games give you decisions to make, get your brain working, give you strategic choices.
Dr: Risk has all those things, Mary.
M: You’re just messing with me, aren’t you? And how many games of Risk did you lose because the dice were siding with the other guy just when you REALLY needed them to come up with a lot of happy little pips on them?
Dr: Mm-hmmm. I see your point.
M: Here’s what I’m going to do for you, Doc, I’m going to bring in a couple of my games to show you. Are you going to be here tomorrow?
Dr: Yes. I have a free hour at 2:00.
M: Great. I’ll see you then.
{M to self: I can’t believe Dr. Meepolous had THAT guy sub for him.}
{Dr. to self: That was TOO easy. I hope she brings in Torres; I’ll play that with any number of players.}
~~~~~~~~
Flandern 1302—A Stagnant Game
I’ve played Flandern 1302 twice, once with 3 players and once with 4, the maximum number of players, and both times I’ve been less than impressed with it; it was, in a word, flat. I was left with the feeling that there should be a good game there but I couldn’t find it.
The board is set up with 6 areas depicting cities, each with 13 spaces to place your tiles in trying to get the majority in the city. Each player has the same hand of cards which include one card for each city that lets you build in that city, a card that lets you build in any city but doesn’t let that tile count until you play in that city again and remove the “under construction” marker, a card that lets you pick up your played cards, and three one-time-use “influence” cards which can give you the chance to play first.
Each player has a set of tiles that match the color of one of the cities but there are also tiles which match the remaining 2 cities. The gray tiles represent another guild vying for superiority in the cities and can be played by anyone. The church tiles can also be played by anyone and add points to the city’s worth when it’s scored.
All players choose a card (or cards, if you want to use your influence to go first) and they are revealed at the same time. The player who plays first is the one who played the most cards but most often all players will choose only 1 card so the start player goes first. If you chose a city card, you can place one of your tiles, one from the neutral guild, or one of the church tiles on that city. The only rules for placement of tiles is that it must be adjacent to a tile already placed and it cannot touch another tile of that color along an edge.
That’s the basics of the game. A city is scored when no more tiles can be added to it.
I can be tenacious when something bugs me so I’ve spent some time trying to figure out why this game doesn’t appeal to me or the other gamers I’ve played it with. My conclusion is that I like a game to have “movement”, the ability to change the board or expand it in some way. My favorite games have that: Magna Grecia, Through the Desert, Torres, Trias, Hacienda, Hansa.
So now I have an answer and my brain proceeds to apply it to this stagnant game. Instead of simply placing a tile on a city, let’s offer you the choice of moving a tile to another city. Now you can change the board and it forces another choice on you: where to put the piece to do you no harm and maybe screwing up someone else in the process. That could work.
The influence cards that let you go first are nice but going first isn’t important very often, at least that was the feeling I got. What if playing the influence card let you take a second turn in the city you chose? Now you can remove a piece from a city and replace it with another. Or you can place 2 tiles in a city in one turn and complete it for scoring. Now THAT’S what I call influence!
Would these changes make the game more appealing to us? I don’t know and it may be a while before I can convince the others to give it a try. There are so many very good games that I rarely get to play, do I even care to waste the time fiddling with this one? And would these changes now make the game even slower since you have more decisions to make? If someone decides to give this a try, I’d love to know what you think.
~~~~~~~~
Sites
For all of you who like to play games online, there’s a new PBEM site called MaBi Web which offers Hansa and Richelieu. I’ve played several games of Hansa and I’m very impressed with the graphics and implementation of the game. It’s easy to use and has all the features you want in an online game including letting you start your turn over again—almost a requirement in a game where you can play your turn in so many ways. The site is still in Beta testing so there may still be a bug or two but MaBi is very nice and quickly replies to any questions or problems.
I also want to let you know that I have started my own personal blog where I plan to talk about my gaming as well as other things that pop into my head. Come and visit me at Meeple Monologues.
~~~~~~~~
Until next time, keep your penguins on the ice.
Mary
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Session Report
JRR Tolkein:
The game was set in the deep basement of our little friend, Bandyburr. It was not a barren and sandy basement, nor a wet basement filled with all sorts of mildew and rubbish. It was a Bandyburr basement, and that meant comfort.
The basement was once the great basement of the old Miller family, or, as it was called at that time, "Miller's basement". The Miller's called it "The Cellar", or as we say in modern English "down the stairs". But the Miller family moved away when their pipe-weed ran out, and now the basement, and the house above it, was owned by the Bandyburr clan.
One late evening I sat on the steps with young Bandyburr in his eleventeenth year as he ruminated about his house and his basement. I blew my pipe, sending spheres of multicolored bubbles into the later evening air.
"Why, Gandalf? Why has it come to me? How come I have to live in this house with this basement? I wish it was someone else!"
I answered with a warm smile. "So do all who live in such a house, young Bandyburr. But ours is not to choose what house we live in, but to make the best of the house that has been given to us. You may yet be surprised at the role this basement has to play, for good or for ill."
PG Wodehouse:
"Ah yes, now where was I?" I said. My infernal bowtie!
"You were talking about the game, sir!" said Jeeves as he intervened to fix the tie. Dash it, what a chore it was to fix one's own tie!
"Was I? Oh yes I was! Quite clever of me, wasn't it?"
"Yes, sir. Very clever indeed, sir." The aforementioned tie was just about fixed, in the way that ties can be fixed if they so have a mind to be.
"What was I saying?"
"You were saying how the game was set up, sir."
"Oh, yes, I was. Very good. Good thing you reminded me." I smiled squarely at the mirror. What a tie!
"Yes, sir."
"So. Um... so how was it set up?"
Raymond Chandler:
How was the game set up? That was what the dame was asking me. I wanted to answer. But I could see that she wasn't asking about the Settlers game. There was a game being played, but it wasn't Settlers.
"Why should I tell you?" I played. My card hit the table face down, like my partner's body had hit the pavement. I knew by her straight flush that she hadn't been expecting me to keep my cards hidden. My ace in the hole. Some game, I thought. If I'm playing a game, I want to know what the stakes are. And if any of those stakes are aimed at my throat.
She wasn't talking. Well, she was talking, but she wasn't saying much.
She batted her baby blues and took an interest in her shoes. "Is that any way to talk to a lady?" she asked. Hell, no, I thought. But there were no ladies in here.
Ernest Hemingway:
I looked at the board. It was cardboard. Hexes. A good game. Full of lust and vinegar. My father used to play this game with me. We would go hunting. The smell of metal shot would hang in the air. A fresh blood kill, which meant fresh blood meat. I hated the blood, but the meat was juicy in my mouth even before we brought it home and my mother would sear it up. Then we would play as the searing smell of meat wafted in my nostrils.
The meat is gone, but the memory of the blood lingers on. I see it when I place the clay hex on the board with my straight unshaking fingers. The hard Spanish tequila sits near the board, drilling into my head as I remember the night when I last saw my Spanish hard-bodied girl, Maria Catanialla.
A.A. Milne:
"Here's how we play. We put the settlements on the board and then we get points. Did you get that, Pooh?"
"Pooh, are you listening to Rabbit?" asked Piglet.
"Yes, I was listening, but I didn't hear properly, because just as I was listening I got a rail from TransAmerica stuck in my ear. Could you just repeat that last part?"
"From where should I start?" asked Rabbit.
"From the part where I couldn't hear properly," said Pooh.
"And where was that?" asked Rabbit.
"From the time I got the rail stuck in my ear," said Pooh.
Rabbit threw his hands up in disgust. "Oh Pooh, you have very little brain." He huffed out of the room.
Robert Asprin:
"So you put the house on the board and it scores points," I said, not feeling too confident.
"It's a settlement, and yes, and it also gives you more resources," Aahz was smiling. When Aahz smiles, it doesn't make me feel any more confident. In fact, I felt like my confidence had just gone on a full-blown vacation.
"But you said it scores points," I said tentatively.
"Yes, that's right, kid. Now you got it."
"So how does it give you resources?"
"You roll the dice."
"You can roll the dice if you have a house?" I asked.
"No, you roll the dice, anyway." Aahz began to get that look.
"I don't understand." That was the wrong thing to say.
Aahz looked up at the sky and shook his head. "Of all the people in my game group ... " He looked at me. "Look kid, you gonna roll the dice or am I gonna bite your head off?"
Gleep!
Judy Blume
The boys were making fun of me because I didn't understand the game. It wasn't fair!
"Look at her! She put her house on the 11 - 3 - 2. What a loser!" Bobby laughed and laughed.
"Oh, shut up, Bobby!" I was nearly in tears. I stood up and ran out of the room, crying. I was so mortified! I wanted to die! Why did Mom and Dad have to send me to this game group? Why couldn't we stay in New Jersey?
And on top of that, my stomach was causing me pain. Maybe I was getting my period? What was that like? I wondered.
Elsa Holmelund Minarik
Little Bear put a wood down on the table. He put a brick down on the table.
"That's a wood," he said. "See? That's a wood. And that's a brick. That's a wood and a brick. I can play a road. I will play a road on the board. I will play a road right here."
Little Bear put a road down on the board next to his settlement.
"Very good, Little Bear. You played a road. That was very well done." said Cat.
Little Bear was very happy. He did a little dance.
Monty Python
Fetch me hither a development card, if you please.
I'm sorry, we're right out of development cards. Always get them later in the week.
Tush, tush, not my day, is it? Do you have any roads?
No sir.
Settlements?
Y........ no.
Cities?
No.
Ore?
No.
Brick?
Not today, sir.
I got it. How about wheat?
Not much call for it round here.
Not much call ...? It's the single most popular resource in the world!
Not round here, sir.
I see. So, what is the most popular resource 'round here'.
Wood, sir.
Wood, is it?
Yes, sir.
Wood, you say.
Staggeringly popular. It's our number one best seller.
I see. Wood. OK. .... Have you got any he asked expecting the answer no.
I'll have a look, sir. .... nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn No.
Dylan Thomas
This wood I cut
This wheat I shocked
This heavy brick I built upon
In town at night
So deep and dark
I raged and cried out in the dawn
My father still
So pale and wan
This earthy game was done and gone
His head I held
While whispr'ing I
Sleep now, sleep, for we have won.
Yehuda
The game was set in the deep basement of our little friend, Bandyburr. It was not a barren and sandy basement, nor a wet basement filled with all sorts of mildew and rubbish. It was a Bandyburr basement, and that meant comfort.
The basement was once the great basement of the old Miller family, or, as it was called at that time, "Miller's basement". The Miller's called it "The Cellar", or as we say in modern English "down the stairs". But the Miller family moved away when their pipe-weed ran out, and now the basement, and the house above it, was owned by the Bandyburr clan.
One late evening I sat on the steps with young Bandyburr in his eleventeenth year as he ruminated about his house and his basement. I blew my pipe, sending spheres of multicolored bubbles into the later evening air.
"Why, Gandalf? Why has it come to me? How come I have to live in this house with this basement? I wish it was someone else!"
I answered with a warm smile. "So do all who live in such a house, young Bandyburr. But ours is not to choose what house we live in, but to make the best of the house that has been given to us. You may yet be surprised at the role this basement has to play, for good or for ill."
PG Wodehouse:
"Ah yes, now where was I?" I said. My infernal bowtie!
"You were talking about the game, sir!" said Jeeves as he intervened to fix the tie. Dash it, what a chore it was to fix one's own tie!
"Was I? Oh yes I was! Quite clever of me, wasn't it?"
"Yes, sir. Very clever indeed, sir." The aforementioned tie was just about fixed, in the way that ties can be fixed if they so have a mind to be.
"What was I saying?"
"You were saying how the game was set up, sir."
"Oh, yes, I was. Very good. Good thing you reminded me." I smiled squarely at the mirror. What a tie!
"Yes, sir."
"So. Um... so how was it set up?"
Raymond Chandler:
How was the game set up? That was what the dame was asking me. I wanted to answer. But I could see that she wasn't asking about the Settlers game. There was a game being played, but it wasn't Settlers.
"Why should I tell you?" I played. My card hit the table face down, like my partner's body had hit the pavement. I knew by her straight flush that she hadn't been expecting me to keep my cards hidden. My ace in the hole. Some game, I thought. If I'm playing a game, I want to know what the stakes are. And if any of those stakes are aimed at my throat.
She wasn't talking. Well, she was talking, but she wasn't saying much.
She batted her baby blues and took an interest in her shoes. "Is that any way to talk to a lady?" she asked. Hell, no, I thought. But there were no ladies in here.
Ernest Hemingway:
I looked at the board. It was cardboard. Hexes. A good game. Full of lust and vinegar. My father used to play this game with me. We would go hunting. The smell of metal shot would hang in the air. A fresh blood kill, which meant fresh blood meat. I hated the blood, but the meat was juicy in my mouth even before we brought it home and my mother would sear it up. Then we would play as the searing smell of meat wafted in my nostrils.
The meat is gone, but the memory of the blood lingers on. I see it when I place the clay hex on the board with my straight unshaking fingers. The hard Spanish tequila sits near the board, drilling into my head as I remember the night when I last saw my Spanish hard-bodied girl, Maria Catanialla.
A.A. Milne:
"Here's how we play. We put the settlements on the board and then we get points. Did you get that, Pooh?"
"Pooh, are you listening to Rabbit?" asked Piglet.
"Yes, I was listening, but I didn't hear properly, because just as I was listening I got a rail from TransAmerica stuck in my ear. Could you just repeat that last part?"
"From where should I start?" asked Rabbit.
"From the part where I couldn't hear properly," said Pooh.
"And where was that?" asked Rabbit.
"From the time I got the rail stuck in my ear," said Pooh.
Rabbit threw his hands up in disgust. "Oh Pooh, you have very little brain." He huffed out of the room.
Robert Asprin:
"So you put the house on the board and it scores points," I said, not feeling too confident.
"It's a settlement, and yes, and it also gives you more resources," Aahz was smiling. When Aahz smiles, it doesn't make me feel any more confident. In fact, I felt like my confidence had just gone on a full-blown vacation.
"But you said it scores points," I said tentatively.
"Yes, that's right, kid. Now you got it."
"So how does it give you resources?"
"You roll the dice."
"You can roll the dice if you have a house?" I asked.
"No, you roll the dice, anyway." Aahz began to get that look.
"I don't understand." That was the wrong thing to say.
Aahz looked up at the sky and shook his head. "Of all the people in my game group ... " He looked at me. "Look kid, you gonna roll the dice or am I gonna bite your head off?"
Gleep!
Judy Blume
The boys were making fun of me because I didn't understand the game. It wasn't fair!
"Look at her! She put her house on the 11 - 3 - 2. What a loser!" Bobby laughed and laughed.
"Oh, shut up, Bobby!" I was nearly in tears. I stood up and ran out of the room, crying. I was so mortified! I wanted to die! Why did Mom and Dad have to send me to this game group? Why couldn't we stay in New Jersey?
And on top of that, my stomach was causing me pain. Maybe I was getting my period? What was that like? I wondered.
Elsa Holmelund Minarik
Little Bear put a wood down on the table. He put a brick down on the table.
"That's a wood," he said. "See? That's a wood. And that's a brick. That's a wood and a brick. I can play a road. I will play a road on the board. I will play a road right here."
Little Bear put a road down on the board next to his settlement.
"Very good, Little Bear. You played a road. That was very well done." said Cat.
Little Bear was very happy. He did a little dance.
Monty Python
Fetch me hither a development card, if you please.
I'm sorry, we're right out of development cards. Always get them later in the week.
Tush, tush, not my day, is it? Do you have any roads?
No sir.
Settlements?
Y........ no.
Cities?
No.
Ore?
No.
Brick?
Not today, sir.
I got it. How about wheat?
Not much call for it round here.
Not much call ...? It's the single most popular resource in the world!
Not round here, sir.
I see. So, what is the most popular resource 'round here'.
Wood, sir.
Wood, is it?
Yes, sir.
Wood, you say.
Staggeringly popular. It's our number one best seller.
I see. Wood. OK. .... Have you got any he asked expecting the answer no.
I'll have a look, sir. .... nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn No.
Dylan Thomas
This wood I cut
This wheat I shocked
This heavy brick I built upon
In town at night
So deep and dark
I raged and cried out in the dawn
My father still
So pale and wan
This earthy game was done and gone
His head I held
While whispr'ing I
Sleep now, sleep, for we have won.
Yehuda
Sunday, February 19, 2006
WHAT the "hey all"
I was just a-goofin' around the other day with a fellow "Geek" who happens to be over in 'Belgium', and this is "gwen" in case you're wondering. Anyways, WE were using that NEW "Google-TALK" as the "Geek" were a-'t`weakin' at the time. Guess WHAT? Oh, you'd NEVAR! and don't 'kid' yourself, so this is what I'd "arrived" upon for a 'notion' of OURS and that is to conduct "talking blogs" portions with 'guests' while you can SAVE a 'transcript' of THAT for later inclusion within your 'blog'! I also have to 'credit' our fellow 'blog`rs' of Melissa & Fraser & "biggie" & whomever else assisted upon this, with providing the LINK for the "audacity" feature, of which I have this now and will be working upon something else as well. You may wish to confine these to around 10-minutes in length in order to NOT overwhelm your own 'systems' with the FILE lengths. But you can decide upon that yourself as we certainly don't want to constrain anyone with what they would truly like to 'produce' eh? I'm sure that there are plenty of folks who would like nothing better than to "give a listen" where some "fave" game 'designer' of theirs was being "interviewed" for like the HUNDREDth 'time' or the like. Yeah, I'm being factitous about such since there ARE many others who ought to become "better known" and getting THEM into the "spotlight" would do wonders for their "self esteem", as well as those folks unfamiliar or desiring with learning MORE upon these people. I'm sure that some have more "hangers on" around their 'posterior' than there are "Klingons" around 'Uranus', of which I 'hear' that the "Starship Enterprise" is then akin to "Charmin" toilet paper in the 'ridding' of such. So where's the equivalent FOR them 'folks' about this? Oh well, I suppose that 'fawning' does have its merits as well as its detriments such as when "stalking" rears its ugly head. Alright then, there's a NEW "term" I'm 'coining' for them, as "Klingons" and NOT "in a good way" either. I'd also 'coined' such as another "term" for them "followers of OPRAH" with "D`oh!~prahs!" too, just so's you don't think that I'm 'picking' on just these. NONE will readily 'admit' to being such, since they're so caught up in their "followings" that they don't SEE it as thusly, just as "sheep" don't consider the 'shepard' as "one of them", and so we dearly hope!So what ELSE did we 'do' for the FUN of this? Well, for starters, then I wanted them to "give a listen" upon some music of mine and so I 'piped in' some tunes and either this was 'heard' through my 'mic' or it was 'drawn' from within and then sent on its way to them! They were jokingly referring to it all as GROG-'jukebox' since I was able to 'play' just about ANY 'song' that they wished to listen upon, and that I had available. For some of you, then you might want to put on your "headset" where you have this through your 'work station' in order to avoid the "wrath of BOSS!" if this were 'discovered' being utilized. We were wondering upon whether it would be possible to then 'play' in the CD-drive with something, and then being able for another to "listen" to that? This may have to become further "explored" upon, although with having that 'piped' through your speakers and then into the 'mic' ought to be easily enough done. Now, I can just imagine the reactions from the likes of those greedy, money-grubbing types such as the RIAA upon this, and you know what? That's right, I'll gladly take THEM into "court" for infringing upon MY 'rights' to "turn on" someone else to decent "music" and then allowing THEM the opportunity to obtain what it IS that they happened to 'discover' and LIKE, while hopefully they will then PURCHASE the "tunes" in a 'legit' fashion. So, I can 'see' where the I.C.C., and any "International" sort like that, would then become "involved" ON mine, and any other's behalves for just such an 'occasion'. I'd really like to see those-for lack of a better sub-genus 'species' denotation-'people' be taken to the cleaners and then financially "reemed" just as they've done for others. I won't begrudge the "artists" in obtaining what is 'due' them at all, as they should be duly compensated upon this in its entirety, while I don't care for the sort of "B.S." that this is dredging UP either. Hey, "fight FIRE with Nuclear Blowout" is what I'd advocate to teach them a very valid "lesson" in the matter. Alright then, enough of the "soapbox" denouement and onto other FUN stuff as well.
I'd been "going on" about that "Combat System" method of mine with many having some 'problems' in grasping the 'gist' of the matter, while I do apologize for "assuming" that 'others' are as "advanced" in their grey-matter processes as I believe myself to 'be'. The best method to getting that ALL 'across' is through "examples" provided, and some shall then be a 'given' for starters. Since I wish to create yet many others with this later on, then those will be obtained with a "subscription" for these so that you can pick & choose which ones happen to "catch your fancy" upon the topic or subject covered. I am concentrating upon the 'items' involved with this so that they are readily obtained, or already have been, and so that yet ANOTHER 'means' can be utilized with those. This initial "release" is going to be for a rendition upon the confrontation known as "The Battle of Waterloo" where this is just OF the "Battle" itself and NOT of the entire 'Campaign', although that might become a possibility once it becomes apparent to some upon the matter. The reason that I 'picked' this "title" is in tribute to the very 1st "Wargame" that I began my "grognard" gamings with. For the most part, then you'd just need to "print out" and perhaps 'mount' the components of the "gamemap" and 'Charts', etc. for it. Then we'll 'see' how this transpires for those who wish to have many other applications conducted in a similiar manner. I do intend for this to become a FREE offering to whet the appetites of any who care to partake of it, while I then would 'create' yet others from what many should expect to "contribute" in a more 'monetary' means to show their appreciation for the 'work' involved. I also have some other 'notions' of which I'd be willing to delve into after the "ball is rolling" for such, and it'll include "Expansions" as well to further enhance these, in a more aesthetically 'pleasing' manner.
Here's a "shout out" to "HAVE GAMES, WILL TRAVEL!" and a direct LINK for this:
"Have Games, Will Travel"
Give this a "look-see" or maybe even a "listen-hear" then will yas?
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Museum excitement - and an experiment
We had an exciting phone call a couple of weeks ago.
Late last year, I wrote to the Melbourne Museum's Community Collections program curator about our boardgames. They called to say that we have been selected to exhibit our games collection at the Museum for the month of September.
What this involves is really up to us - and up to what our gaming buddies can come up with. There's a smallish space with a couple of glass display cabinets and lots of wall space, as well as the opportunity to give talks or run workshops and supply handouts for people to take away with them.
We're in the very early stages of planning what we will do, and hoping to find lots of support from other gamers, both locally and internationally. Obviously, we will set up some games in the display cases, but we're stuck for how best to use the wallspace. Posters? Mounted game boards? Information sheets? Puzzles for people to do? Giant Meeple cutouts?
We don't see much point in giving talks (because wouldn't everyone rather get their hands on a game?), but are keen to set up some workshops where people can actually learn to play games, as well as getting some people to run demonstration games as well. September includes 2 weeks of school holidays, so family and kids' games will have to have a role somehow too. We hope to coordinate with local gamers to run workshops & staff the exhibit during the week as well as on weekends, if possible - and of course we're planning to have some handouts for interested visitors. The museum shop may also be interested in stocking some games, to tie in with the display.
A colleague asked me why we would want to do this, and I looked at him blankly. He elaborated: "What's in it for you?"
I don't really know what's in it for us; it just seemed like a really cool, fun thing to do. In the end, I just settled for explaining that gaming is an evangelistic hobby, and making new gamers is an end in itself. I don't think he understood, though.
Look for more (many more!) posts about this during the year - we are keen to make this a fantastic exhibition as it really could get a lot of publicity. If anyone has suggestions for activities, approaches, great exhibitions, etc, we'd love to hear from you.
Meanwhile, I tried something new this week - an audio post. Comment if you like it, let me know if you don't, but I hope it's enjoyable for you. I talk about my games played over the last week and overuse the word 'social', and there's a special sound clip for you too.
(Post file is about 1.8 MB in size, 7 and a half minutes long).
Until next time,
Melissa
Late last year, I wrote to the Melbourne Museum's Community Collections program curator about our boardgames. They called to say that we have been selected to exhibit our games collection at the Museum for the month of September.
What this involves is really up to us - and up to what our gaming buddies can come up with. There's a smallish space with a couple of glass display cabinets and lots of wall space, as well as the opportunity to give talks or run workshops and supply handouts for people to take away with them.
We're in the very early stages of planning what we will do, and hoping to find lots of support from other gamers, both locally and internationally. Obviously, we will set up some games in the display cases, but we're stuck for how best to use the wallspace. Posters? Mounted game boards? Information sheets? Puzzles for people to do? Giant Meeple cutouts?
We don't see much point in giving talks (because wouldn't everyone rather get their hands on a game?), but are keen to set up some workshops where people can actually learn to play games, as well as getting some people to run demonstration games as well. September includes 2 weeks of school holidays, so family and kids' games will have to have a role somehow too. We hope to coordinate with local gamers to run workshops & staff the exhibit during the week as well as on weekends, if possible - and of course we're planning to have some handouts for interested visitors. The museum shop may also be interested in stocking some games, to tie in with the display.
A colleague asked me why we would want to do this, and I looked at him blankly. He elaborated: "What's in it for you?"
I don't really know what's in it for us; it just seemed like a really cool, fun thing to do. In the end, I just settled for explaining that gaming is an evangelistic hobby, and making new gamers is an end in itself. I don't think he understood, though.
Look for more (many more!) posts about this during the year - we are keen to make this a fantastic exhibition as it really could get a lot of publicity. If anyone has suggestions for activities, approaches, great exhibitions, etc, we'd love to hear from you.
Meanwhile, I tried something new this week - an audio post. Comment if you like it, let me know if you don't, but I hope it's enjoyable for you. I talk about my games played over the last week and overuse the word 'social', and there's a special sound clip for you too.
(Post file is about 1.8 MB in size, 7 and a half minutes long).
Until next time,
Melissa
Friday, February 17, 2006
Big Head of Pointless Steam*
Gaming is another form of literacy, and can be acquired.
I was perusing the Boardgamegeek forums and I ran across that statement. With a little thought I could milk that statement for an entire series of blogs. I will not inflict that upon you, dear reader. Instead I will make a couple points and happily resume putting the stickers on my new copy of Commands and Colors. (For those of you keeping score I'm up to the cavalry units.)
Craniac made the above comment during a discussion about the Golden Age of Boardgaming.
I am a bona fide boardgame snob. When I see people playing Monopoly, Life, Sorry, etc. I cringe. I must feel the same way a wine snob feels when his date orders the house wine at a mediocre restaurant, the same way a beer snob feels when his coworker brings a half rack of Milwaukee's Beast to the company party, the same way an English professor feels when he sees his students reading Harry Potter or Danielle Steel.
I know I am not alone. There are many other boardgame snobs. Just because we are snobs are we clued into a higher form of literacy? It certainly is a grandiose thought. It could be wishful thinking.
Is it true? Is boardgaming another form of literacy? If it is true does that mean some games constitute literature and some pulp fiction?
Let us work backward. The second question is undoubtedly true. Monopoly, Sorry, Pictionary, Scene It, etc. are mindless diversions that have mass market appeal much in the tradition of romance novels or serial thrillers. They are the gaming equivalent of pulp fiction. They provoke little or no thought. They have no socially redeeming qualities. They sell very well.
If you are reading this blog you know that there are richly layered, multi-faceted, strategically challenging boardgames. There may be a breakout hit or two, but in general the public will never embrace our games. To much of the public Car Wars, Apples to Apples and Munchkin are insider games.
I'm looking at the top 50 games on BGG. How many of these games would be recognized by more than 5% of the general public? Go? Acquire at #59?
Those two are my best guesses, and only because those two games are old enough to have some name recognition even if the person in question hasn't played the game, not unlike having heard of, but never having seen "Gone with the Wind" and "The Jazz Singer".
The games in the BGG top 50 may not be recognized by the public in general, and may have some strategic depth, but does that mean that they have some socially redeeming value as would be implied by comparing them to literature?
A good game is certainly thought provoking and has characteristics that only reveal themselves with multiple plays, just as literature is thought provoking and has meaning that only reveals itself with study. Stratego and Boggle can be thought provoking, as is The DaVinci Code which is decidedly not literature. Stratego, Boggle and The DaVinci Code are only thought provoking in one aspect each. Stratego can be a challenging memory game. Boggle is a variable puzzle, it is challenging to find the most solutions in a short period of time. The DaVinci code is thought provoking in that it causes the reader to seriously wonder if there is a nugget of truth in what is otherwise a completely over the top premise. While it is true that the more you play Stratego and Boggle the better you get, neither game has numerous subtle strategies that are only apparent to a Stratego or Boggle master with 400+ games under his belt.
Puerto Rico on the other hand does have strategies that are only apparent to a master, or "Puerto Rico Jedi" to borrow a phrase.
But so does checkers.
I don't know. I have many more thoughts on the subject, most of which lead me to think boardgames are not another form of literacy. I won't inflict them upon you. If I have some spare time to ponder such things I might delve deeper into such matters at a later date.
CF
* Title lifted from this guy via Boggled Thoughts
I was perusing the Boardgamegeek forums and I ran across that statement. With a little thought I could milk that statement for an entire series of blogs. I will not inflict that upon you, dear reader. Instead I will make a couple points and happily resume putting the stickers on my new copy of Commands and Colors. (For those of you keeping score I'm up to the cavalry units.)
Craniac made the above comment during a discussion about the Golden Age of Boardgaming.
I am a bona fide boardgame snob. When I see people playing Monopoly, Life, Sorry, etc. I cringe. I must feel the same way a wine snob feels when his date orders the house wine at a mediocre restaurant, the same way a beer snob feels when his coworker brings a half rack of Milwaukee's Beast to the company party, the same way an English professor feels when he sees his students reading Harry Potter or Danielle Steel.
I know I am not alone. There are many other boardgame snobs. Just because we are snobs are we clued into a higher form of literacy? It certainly is a grandiose thought. It could be wishful thinking.
Is it true? Is boardgaming another form of literacy? If it is true does that mean some games constitute literature and some pulp fiction?
Let us work backward. The second question is undoubtedly true. Monopoly, Sorry, Pictionary, Scene It, etc. are mindless diversions that have mass market appeal much in the tradition of romance novels or serial thrillers. They are the gaming equivalent of pulp fiction. They provoke little or no thought. They have no socially redeeming qualities. They sell very well.
If you are reading this blog you know that there are richly layered, multi-faceted, strategically challenging boardgames. There may be a breakout hit or two, but in general the public will never embrace our games. To much of the public Car Wars, Apples to Apples and Munchkin are insider games.
I'm looking at the top 50 games on BGG. How many of these games would be recognized by more than 5% of the general public? Go? Acquire at #59?
Those two are my best guesses, and only because those two games are old enough to have some name recognition even if the person in question hasn't played the game, not unlike having heard of, but never having seen "Gone with the Wind" and "The Jazz Singer".
The games in the BGG top 50 may not be recognized by the public in general, and may have some strategic depth, but does that mean that they have some socially redeeming value as would be implied by comparing them to literature?
A good game is certainly thought provoking and has characteristics that only reveal themselves with multiple plays, just as literature is thought provoking and has meaning that only reveals itself with study. Stratego and Boggle can be thought provoking, as is The DaVinci Code which is decidedly not literature. Stratego, Boggle and The DaVinci Code are only thought provoking in one aspect each. Stratego can be a challenging memory game. Boggle is a variable puzzle, it is challenging to find the most solutions in a short period of time. The DaVinci code is thought provoking in that it causes the reader to seriously wonder if there is a nugget of truth in what is otherwise a completely over the top premise. While it is true that the more you play Stratego and Boggle the better you get, neither game has numerous subtle strategies that are only apparent to a Stratego or Boggle master with 400+ games under his belt.
Puerto Rico on the other hand does have strategies that are only apparent to a master, or "Puerto Rico Jedi" to borrow a phrase.
But so does checkers.
I don't know. I have many more thoughts on the subject, most of which lead me to think boardgames are not another form of literacy. I won't inflict them upon you. If I have some spare time to ponder such things I might delve deeper into such matters at a later date.
CF
* Title lifted from this guy via Boggled Thoughts
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Three Collaborative Designers: Faidutti, Colovini & Schacht
Back in December I wrote an article on three game designers, and I'll cop to lining up the usual suspects: Knizia, Kramer, and Teuber. They were easy to write about because I've played a slew of their games and I've played them many times.I always intended that article to be the start of a series, however, and I was even more excited about writing about designers who weren't quite as well known as the big three, because they've been less written about, and thus there's more opportunity to be clever, insightful, and original.
This week I've decided to write about three collaborative designers, who also happen to come from three different countries: Bruno Faidutti (France), Leo Colovini (Italy), and Michael Schacht (Germany). They also all appear pretty centrally on my Six Degrees of Collaboration chart, with Colovini & Faidutti being two of the larger foci in the chart. (Writing this article was actually what got me started on that chart, which then took on a life of its own.)
#1: Bruno Faidutti
Bruno Faidutti is familiar to many online gamers because he's a net.personality. His web site is entirely delightful. The ideal game library is nice enough, and when he's written something about a game I want to learn more about, I'll usually read it. However, it's his pages on his own games that I find particularly enjoyable. I especially enjoy his "histories", which talk about the development of his games.Faidutti has gotten a reputation as being "the chaotic designer". There's definitely a lot of chaos in his games: usually cards or tiles that turn a game upside down. However, as I wrote in my article on Schools of Game Design, I think that's a pretty strong element of French design in general. It's just Faidutti who happens to get tagged with this label because he's one of the most prominent French designers. I've seen some people who have entirely blasted Faidutti's games for their high chaos. Democrazy in particular is a game that seems to have come across badly to a lot of people. To which I'd say: get over it. Chaos is implicit in his games, and you should know that going in. (As an aside: Faidutti says that not all of his games are chaotic, but the non-chaotic examples that he offers, Babylone and China Moon, haven't been printed in the United States.)
My first instinct is to call Faidutti's games light; either in game-length or mechanic-weight they don't usually feel like they can sustain a night of gaming on their own. However, that's largely because so many of his designs are card games. Mystery of the Abbey and Iglu Iglu are both fine full-length games, while from what I've heard Valley of the Mammoths is if anything too long. Currently Bruno seems to be turning toward more big-box games, with Key Largo, Mission: Red Planet, and Silk Road all on the horizon, as well as the new Warrior Knights, which he had a hand in. But for now I'll stay with my statement of "light", as I can't really tell how heavy his upcoming games are.
Despite most of his games being card-based, Bruno does stretch the medium quite a bit. He's done quite a few auction card games, including Boomtown (which has simple, open auctions), Queen's Necklace (including a turn-based auction), and Fist of Dragonstones and Corruption (each of which has unique blind bids where everyone loses what they bid). Bruno's classic Citadels is essentially a resource-management game played with cards, while Democrazy is voting, Dragon's Gold is negotiation, and Knock! Knock! is bluff. Terra and The Hollywood! Card Game have more common, set-collection mechanisms, but that's a rarity among Bruno's designs.
As you might have guessed from last week's graph, Bruno's designs are usually collaborations. Despite that I personally think he's done his best design work on his own (Citadels, Corruption, Democrazy, and the very-interesting-though-not-a-good-game Terra), but some of his collaborations are strong as well. I enjoy his Serge Laget designs (Castle, Mystery of the Abbey) and his works with Michael Schacht (Fist of Dragonstones, The Hollywood! Card Game) the most.
My Reviews: Boomtown (B+), Castle (B), Citadels (A-), Corruption (B-), Democrazy (C), Fist of Dragonstones (B-), The Hollywood! Card Game (B), Iglu Iglu (B), Mystery of the Abbey (B-), Queen's Necklace (B-), Terra (B-).
Interviews: About.com (2000), Fairplay Games (2002), Interviews by an Optimist (2005)
Web Site: www.faidutti.com, Forums (French)
#2: Leo Colovini
Leo Colovini doesn't necessarily get a lot of press. For whatever reason, his games don't make big waves, and you'll rarely find them on any top ten upcoming lists for Essen or Nurnburg (though actually, his upcoming game, Masons, almost made my Nurnberg list last week because it looks neat). Nonetheless, he pretty consistently publishes games, and a lot of them get some pretty consistent play. Clans is one that I use as a very regular filler.Overall I'd call Colovini "the quiet designer". This isn't due to his personal nature (though perhaps he's quiet; I don't know), but rather the tenor of his games. I can frequently tell when a Colovini game is being played because an unnatural, deathly quiet falls upon the group, as they study their best moves and take them, all with no verbal interaction. I expect some people don't like the lack of conversation that his games seems to invoke, but at the same time it bespeaks the depth of analysis that his games allow. Related to all this, Colovini's games are very dry and abstract. Personally, I'd say moreso than anything that Reiner Knizia does, and I generally think that he's more "German" than most German designers.
Overall, Colovini's games fall into a strange category that I call the "serious filler". Most of his popular games play in 30-45 minutes, and they tend to depend upon just one or two mechanisms. In addition, there's not a lot of luck in the games, and there is a lot of ability to plan serious strategies, or else make brilliant tactical moves. Alexandros, The Bridges of Shangrila, Cartagena, Clans, Go West! , and Submarine all fit right into this category for me. (That's actually caused me some problems with The Bridges of Shangrila because of its large box size. I don't want to expend that much space in my game bag for something that's really a filler!)
Magna Grecia and Inkognito are exceptions to this general pattern of producing filler-length games. They're both longer and I'd feel more comfortable making them the focus of a game night--but they're also both collaborations (with Michael Schacht and Alex Randolph, respectively). Carolus Magnus, Colovini's dynamic majority-control game, skirts this line too, and it's one he designed on his own.
I've noted a particular game mechanism that's shown up in a few Colovini games: player-triggered scoring. In both Alexandros and Go West! players can take an action to trigger scoring for everyone, with the idea that you'll do so when you're in the lead. Thus far I've found it a very tenuous mechanic that I think puts too much weight on the players' shoulders. It's OK in Alexandros, but just barely works in Go West! It also seems to get shakier the more players you have in the game.
I've played quite a few more Colovini games than I've reviewed, but have given my best ratings of everything I'm pretty familiar with.
My Reviews: Alexandros (B), The Bridges of Shangrila (B+), Carolus Magnus (B), Cartagena (B-), Clans (A-) , Corsari (C-), Go West! (C+), Magna Grecia (B), Submarine (D+)
Interviews: BoardGameNews (2006)
#3: Michael Schacht
Completing our survey of European designers we come to Michael Schacht in Germany. He's produced pretty huge numbers of games, but less than a dozen that have gotten any amount of attention in the United States. That's partially because many of his games are independently published by his own company, Spieles aus Timbuktu, and thus never make it to this side of the Atlantic. I suspect Uberplay's recent copublications of a few Schacht Abacus Spiele games and Rio Grande's recent picking up of the Queen line are going to start increasing his profile here.I'd generally call Schacht the "connections designer", because he has a strange obsession with connectivity in his games. It's an interesting mechanic that's of course the heart of many railroad games, but which Schacht uses a lot more widely. So you have China's connected road scoring and the similar scoring in Architekton. You have valuable connected resources that you can buy in Industria and a directed graph at the heart of Hansa. Magna Grecia (codesigned with Colovini) is entirely about the valuations created by connections. I suspect you could use graph theory to figure out strategies in a lot of Schacht's games, and I've heard some comments that Paris Paris, another network-centered game, may indeed be solvable in that manner.
One major element of Schacht's output seems to be very light card games. The well-received Coloretto is a simple set-collection game, as is the more recent Hollywood! Card Game (with Bruno Faidutti). Richeliu (which is actually related to Web of Power), Station Manager, and Coloretto Amazonas (which isn't actually related to Coloretto at all) are more set-collection games, while Hispaniola is trick-taking.
Moving on to board games, Schacht put together short to medium-length boardgames, running about an hour, which nonetheless have a fair amount of good strategic complexity. It's somewhat similar to Colovini's output, but a little longer and a little less serious (as odd as that might sound). Some of Schacht's great time-to-strategy ratio probably comes from his emphasis on very simple systems that still have a lot of depth (much as with Knizia's designs).
The mechanics of Schacht's games cover a what's what of German game design, so we find tile-laying (Kontor, Isis & Osiris), majority-control (Web of Power, rethemed as China), auction (Fist of Dragonstones, Industria, Don, Mogul), and trading (Dscunke). Like Wolfgang Kramer, he really seems to enjoy covering a lot of ground.
Again, I've given my guesses at a few Schachts that I've played but not yet reviewed. Schacht is a designer that I'm likely to revisit when more of his games end up in wider distribution in the United States.
My Reviews: Architekton (C), China (A), Coloretto (A), Fist of Dragonstones (B-), Hansa (A-), The Hollywood! Card Game (B), Industria (B+), Magna Grecia (B+)
Interviews: About.com on Web of Power (2001), Gamefest (2004), Interviews by an Optimist (2005)
Web Sites: Spiele aus Timbuktu (w/connection-based navigation)
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
Gaming with a Grandma
One key to happiness – GAMES
I recently wrote about Gaming with a Grandson, relating some stories about my grandson. My wife and I were talking about gaming after that, and I mentioned remembering playing games with my grandmother. My wife suggested that might be the basis for another article, so here goes……
When I was in elementary school in a very small rural town in Oklahoma in the 1950’s, we lived a couple of blocks from one set of my grandparents (and across town from the other set). I walked to and from school, a route that took me past my nearby grandparents’ house twice a day. Most days, after school, I stopped at their house on the way home and stayed a while. Sometimes during these visits, grandma and I played games. They did not own any real commercial boardgames, and they did not play cards, but grandma taught me some games and some things about gaming.
The first game I recall learning from her was checkers. We played checkers a lot, although it has never been a favorite of mine. However, she taught me a checkers variation that I enjoyed very much. The game was called “Six Corner Kings,” and I believe she learned to play it a few years just before or just after 1900. I have looked for information about this game online, but have found no mention of it. If anyone reading this knows of a reference for this game, please let me know.
To the best of my memory, this is how Six Corner Kings is played. Using a regular 8x8 checkerboard, with a light square in the bottom right corner, both players place six checker kings on the board, in opposite corners. The kings are placed on dark squares in the player’s right corner, so they form two diagonal lines of three kings each, facing the same arrangement, diagonally, in the opponent’s right corner. The kings may move forward or backward, only diagonally on dark squares, normally one square at a time. A king may diagonally jump friendly kings (the same player’s kings) without removing them from the board, and multiple jumps are allowed. Kings capture (and remove from the board) opposing kings by jumping over them on a diagonal. Multiple jumps (with intervening open squares) may include both friendly and opposing kings, in any order, removing only the opposing kings. This allows some intriguing set-ups and trap plays. Jumps of opposing kings must be taken when available, including multiple jumps, but a player is not required to jump his own king, which may stop a multiple-jump move, if the player chooses. The object is to capture all the opposing kings.
Grandma was a whiz at this game; she probably played the game for over 60 years. We sometimes played many games of Six Corner Kings in one sitting.
She taught me dominoes, too. She only played a basic version, with scoring of combinations of 5 or multiples of 5. I had never seen dominoes played before she explained to me how to play this game. Interestingly, it was one of two games I played with my wife’s stepfather, much later in life, and he was a whiz at it, virtually always beating me. I also played with dominoes during lunch hours at work even later in life, playing a variation called “Shoot the Moon,” with six players on two teams. And, even today, our family occasionally plays “Mexican Train Dominoes,” but it was grandma who taught me the rudiments of dominoes.
The third type of game grandma played with me was one we made up (as have a great many people in this country, I’m sure) – States and Capitals. We each took turns naming a U.S. state, while the other person had to name that state’s capital. Oh, yes, there were only 48 states at that time. That game was a major reason for my long-term interest in geography, I believe.
Grandma’s game library and game interests were extremely limited, but we had many hours of fun playing those games together.
Beyond playing the games themselves, however, she taught me some things about gaming, not overtly, but subtly and by example. She did not play in a cutthroat manner, but played games for fun. I know she let me win a lot, until I realized what was happening and could compete well on my own. Then, she played to win, and any bad moves in checkers or missed scoring in dominoes had to stand. She laughed a lot during our game sessions, and the atmosphere was light and friendly, but still competitive. She would play checkers or dominoes anytime I suggested it, and she always congratulated me when I won. She displayed good sportsmanship (gamesmanship? gameswomanship?) at all times. She played until I was ready to quit, never indicating that she was too tired to play another game. She provided me with a gamer’s role model that could not have been better planned. I have realized only in recent years how much I learned about gaming from her, while playing only those two (or three) different games. I’ve also realized that she, even more importantly, taught me how to be a grandparent.
---- Gerald; near Denver, Colorado
aka: gamesgrandpa -- a grandpa who is a mile high on gaming
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Is it My Turn?
What is this thing called, anyway?
This is an old argument that goes back to roleplaying, second only to the confusion about the word "level".
The four most popular appear to be "turn", "round", "action", and "phase". There is no guarantee that anyone will use these words in the way you want them to be used. You could have several phases within a turn, or several turns within a phase.
Take two actions on your turn. Or is it three turns per round? Or three rounds per turn?
Does "round" imply that everyone gets a turn, and "turn" imply that only one person gets a turn?
Games and turns
Most games consist of a number of ... let's call 'em "turns" for now. However, not all do. A simple game of Pit is one turn for all players. In fact, you could say that there are no turns at all.
In games with turns you may have a fixed number of turns or a variable number, or both. A number of games now have the "until someone wins or N turns maximum" rule, which is a neat way of preventing a game from dragging on. Or dealing with a flawed game design.
Turn equality
In some games, each player has the same capabilities on their turn as every other player. Chess is a good example. One turn, one piece.
In other games, players may have unequal turns. On my turn I may be able to do X, Y, and Z, but on your turn you can only P and Q. This is usually due to having been assigned a certain role in the game, such as the Traitor in Shadows over Camelot, or the judge in Apples to Apples. In Cosmic Encounter it could be due to a variable player power.
Turn subdivisions
Sometimes it is hard to define what a turn consists of. In Apples to Apples, is a turn "each person gets to be the judge", or is it "one person judges and the other players play a card"? Is that one round with a number of turns?
Some games explicitly have unfairly balanced positions. They may say that multiple games are played with each player getting a chance to have a certain advantage or disadvantage. Is that one game with multiple turns, or multiple games?
And when dividing turns, you can end up with several types of divisions.
Phases
ASL is a classic example of this, as is Puerto Rico, Civilization, and so on. On each turn you do A and then B and then C, or you may be able to do A, B, and C in any order on your turn.
Action points
Tikal and Torres are famous examples, but so is Princes of Florence. There is no guarantee in any game that all people have the same number of points on each turn. In Goa, for example, some players earn additional action points through the auctions or other means.
Maybe in any game with resources, such as money or acquired cards, you can look at your holdings as action points. E.g. in Settlers of Catan you might have three wood action points, two brick action points, and a wheat action point. You get to play as many actions as you want or can by spending these points, or you can hold them over to the next round. In Power Grid you have as many actions as your money allows.
Sometimes they can be saved from one turn to the next, and sometimes action points are inherently variable (roll a die each round to see how many times you can play).
Task list
Similar to phases, you may have the opportunity to do certain things a certain number of times. For example, in Magic the Gathering you draw once, may attack once, may play a land once, and may play other cards multiple times.
Like action points, the game can make the available tasks variable or let you save them from one turn to the next.
Timed turns
A favorite of party games. In an odd contrast, also a favorite of tournament strategy games which give you an allotment of time you have to use for the entire game, such as Chess or Scrabble.
So there's more in common between Chess and Time's Up than you thought.
Turn Order
How do you take turns?
Simultaneous turns
Pit. Icehouse. Anagrams. Any game where all player's turns are simultaneous. Unless we're talking about sports, these games are usually loud and highly chaotic. Sports are less chaotic, but just as loud.
Responsive simultaneous turns
This would be any game where one player, or group of players, acts and then the other players act. Zendo is an example, where each player sets up a figure, then one player judges, and then this repeats. Or where teams take turns asking each other questions.
Alternating turns
Your classic turn taking game.
Alternating interruptible turns
Your classic turn taking game where other players have an opportunity to do something during your turn, such as Magic the Gathering (play instants) or Settlers of Catan (trade). These games are generally more involving than strictly alternating turns, unless the turns are short.
Alternating turn layers
Games where a turn is broken into various phases where all players act in sequence. It amuses me, so I will once again I will lump Puerto Rico and ASL together as good examples.
Fixed turn rotations
Not all games give each player a turn every N turns. This could be due to players earning or winning extra turn cards (Cosmic Encounter's Timegash), or due to a turn order changing mechanism (Puerto Rico, if you think of the phases as turns). Or in games where the winner of the round is "it" for the next round.
Variable number of turns
In some games you can only play if some conditions are fulfilled. In San Marco, you no longer play if you have accumulated a certain number of cards. In Goa, the player with the starting flag gets an extra turn to auction.
Of course, in some games you stop playing if you have been eliminated from the game. As bad as player elimination is as a mechanism, it is recommended that players stop taking turns when eliminated from the game only in games that actually include this mechanism.
Other player's turns
What do you do on other player's turns?
Think
If the turns are short, you may not have time to think much. If the turns are too long, you may not want that much time to think. If the game is chaotic, thinking on other player's turns may be irrelevant. The game state will have changed so much by the time it gets back to your turn that you'll have another think coming.
Interrupt
When the game allows, you can participate when it is not your turn, such as offering to trade during Settlers of Catan. Or, when allowed, you may be able to interfere with their actions. For example, guarding the goalposts in some dexterity game. Sadly, I can't think of any Eurogames that allow this.
Assist
I could mean either one of two things with this. Either give advise to the other player, which some people like and some don't.
Or, if the game allows, I could mean give assistance, such as throwing cards that help the other player or calling out guesses for your team during Charades.
So nu? Is it my turn, yet?
Yehuda
This is an old argument that goes back to roleplaying, second only to the confusion about the word "level".
The four most popular appear to be "turn", "round", "action", and "phase". There is no guarantee that anyone will use these words in the way you want them to be used. You could have several phases within a turn, or several turns within a phase.
Take two actions on your turn. Or is it three turns per round? Or three rounds per turn?
Does "round" imply that everyone gets a turn, and "turn" imply that only one person gets a turn?
Games and turns
Most games consist of a number of ... let's call 'em "turns" for now. However, not all do. A simple game of Pit is one turn for all players. In fact, you could say that there are no turns at all.
In games with turns you may have a fixed number of turns or a variable number, or both. A number of games now have the "until someone wins or N turns maximum" rule, which is a neat way of preventing a game from dragging on. Or dealing with a flawed game design.
Turn equality
In some games, each player has the same capabilities on their turn as every other player. Chess is a good example. One turn, one piece.
In other games, players may have unequal turns. On my turn I may be able to do X, Y, and Z, but on your turn you can only P and Q. This is usually due to having been assigned a certain role in the game, such as the Traitor in Shadows over Camelot, or the judge in Apples to Apples. In Cosmic Encounter it could be due to a variable player power.
Turn subdivisions
Sometimes it is hard to define what a turn consists of. In Apples to Apples, is a turn "each person gets to be the judge", or is it "one person judges and the other players play a card"? Is that one round with a number of turns?
Some games explicitly have unfairly balanced positions. They may say that multiple games are played with each player getting a chance to have a certain advantage or disadvantage. Is that one game with multiple turns, or multiple games?
And when dividing turns, you can end up with several types of divisions.
Phases
ASL is a classic example of this, as is Puerto Rico, Civilization, and so on. On each turn you do A and then B and then C, or you may be able to do A, B, and C in any order on your turn.
Action points
Tikal and Torres are famous examples, but so is Princes of Florence. There is no guarantee in any game that all people have the same number of points on each turn. In Goa, for example, some players earn additional action points through the auctions or other means.
Maybe in any game with resources, such as money or acquired cards, you can look at your holdings as action points. E.g. in Settlers of Catan you might have three wood action points, two brick action points, and a wheat action point. You get to play as many actions as you want or can by spending these points, or you can hold them over to the next round. In Power Grid you have as many actions as your money allows.
Sometimes they can be saved from one turn to the next, and sometimes action points are inherently variable (roll a die each round to see how many times you can play).
Task list
Similar to phases, you may have the opportunity to do certain things a certain number of times. For example, in Magic the Gathering you draw once, may attack once, may play a land once, and may play other cards multiple times.
Like action points, the game can make the available tasks variable or let you save them from one turn to the next.
Timed turns
A favorite of party games. In an odd contrast, also a favorite of tournament strategy games which give you an allotment of time you have to use for the entire game, such as Chess or Scrabble.
So there's more in common between Chess and Time's Up than you thought.
Turn Order
How do you take turns?
Simultaneous turns
Pit. Icehouse. Anagrams. Any game where all player's turns are simultaneous. Unless we're talking about sports, these games are usually loud and highly chaotic. Sports are less chaotic, but just as loud.
Responsive simultaneous turns
This would be any game where one player, or group of players, acts and then the other players act. Zendo is an example, where each player sets up a figure, then one player judges, and then this repeats. Or where teams take turns asking each other questions.
Alternating turns
Your classic turn taking game.
Alternating interruptible turns
Your classic turn taking game where other players have an opportunity to do something during your turn, such as Magic the Gathering (play instants) or Settlers of Catan (trade). These games are generally more involving than strictly alternating turns, unless the turns are short.
Alternating turn layers
Games where a turn is broken into various phases where all players act in sequence. It amuses me, so I will once again I will lump Puerto Rico and ASL together as good examples.
Fixed turn rotations
Not all games give each player a turn every N turns. This could be due to players earning or winning extra turn cards (Cosmic Encounter's Timegash), or due to a turn order changing mechanism (Puerto Rico, if you think of the phases as turns). Or in games where the winner of the round is "it" for the next round.
Variable number of turns
In some games you can only play if some conditions are fulfilled. In San Marco, you no longer play if you have accumulated a certain number of cards. In Goa, the player with the starting flag gets an extra turn to auction.
Of course, in some games you stop playing if you have been eliminated from the game. As bad as player elimination is as a mechanism, it is recommended that players stop taking turns when eliminated from the game only in games that actually include this mechanism.
Other player's turns
What do you do on other player's turns?
Think
If the turns are short, you may not have time to think much. If the turns are too long, you may not want that much time to think. If the game is chaotic, thinking on other player's turns may be irrelevant. The game state will have changed so much by the time it gets back to your turn that you'll have another think coming.
Interrupt
When the game allows, you can participate when it is not your turn, such as offering to trade during Settlers of Catan. Or, when allowed, you may be able to interfere with their actions. For example, guarding the goalposts in some dexterity game. Sadly, I can't think of any Eurogames that allow this.
Assist
I could mean either one of two things with this. Either give advise to the other player, which some people like and some don't.
Or, if the game allows, I could mean give assistance, such as throwing cards that help the other player or calling out guesses for your team during Charades.
So nu? Is it my turn, yet?
Yehuda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)