Wednesday, December 22, 2010
...but also staying here.
If you've ever been to Bruno Faidutti's website (www.faidutti.com), he has a very cool feature called the Ideal Game Library, where he keeps track of games he thinks are worth having around. I intend to use this blog (or maybe eventually another website) to do the very same, except I intend to add a little more detail, in particular, I will have excerpts on why games were excluded (and if the game it isn't in either side, then I haven't played it yet). I'll list the parameters and whatnot after I begin the process of picking what games go where, and hopefully will have some convenient links to keep the whole thing organized. Actual game reviews will be on meepletown, and I'll link to them here. These will be more like rants. So this is the post just to say, keep checking back, there will be cool content here in the future.
Thursday, December 9, 2010
Moving to MeepleTown!
Starting next year, I'm going to write for meepletown.com, and posts here will show up about 2 weeks after that... so... see you in a bit. :)
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The problem with pure auction games.
Last weekend, I was finally able to get my first 5-player game of Cyclades in. Cyclades sure seems like a wargame, but the goal of the game is actually economic: be the first player to build two metropolises. Furthermore, to do any particular action in the game, you must win an auction for the Greek god that grants that action: you need Ares to move troops, Poseidon for ships, Zeus to get discounts, etc. It was a great game, easily my favorite of the night. It got me thinking why the very lauded bidding games of Reiner Knizia (Ra, Taj Mahal, Modern Art) have fallen a bit flat for me, and I think I have the answer.
In a game like Cyclades, after you win the auction, you are simply setting up the turn order and what options you have for your turn... but then you actually take turns, and through this process, you "feel" the benefit of the bid that you won. You tangibly utilize your bid on Ares by buying troops and taking over other islands, and after the turn is over, you have a bit more of an understanding of which god you need next and how much money you're willing to spend. It's a very good system.
On the other hand, in a game like Ra or Taj Mahal, when you win your bid, you collect some tokens or tiles, and then... that's it. Rinse and repeat. The only tangible way of understanding, or maybe I should say appreciating, the result of your bid is the resultant change in score. However, at least for me, that isn't the least bit satisfying. Especially since both of those games have static scoring. The only difference here is that in Modern Art, when popularity is determined for each artist at the end of the round, you can see if your gambits paid off as much as you thought they would. But that satisfaction is short-lived, and isn't tangible until the end of the round. Furthermore, it's something easily ruined by other players. Though your plans in Cyclades might be ruined later on, in the moment that you take your turn and perform your actions, you can feel the satisfaction of earning the right to those moves. (Well, I guess I should also add that in Ra, the benefit of gaining a new, higher sun in a bid is something that you will use to some satisfaction in the following round.)
I'm not trying to say that any of these Knizia designs are poorly designed, because these are probably the best in their genre. For me, though, there's no joy in bidding just to bid. I want to experience the benefit of the bid, directly within the game. And none of those three games give that feeling much at all. I wonder if Amun-Re is different.
In a game like Cyclades, after you win the auction, you are simply setting up the turn order and what options you have for your turn... but then you actually take turns, and through this process, you "feel" the benefit of the bid that you won. You tangibly utilize your bid on Ares by buying troops and taking over other islands, and after the turn is over, you have a bit more of an understanding of which god you need next and how much money you're willing to spend. It's a very good system.
On the other hand, in a game like Ra or Taj Mahal, when you win your bid, you collect some tokens or tiles, and then... that's it. Rinse and repeat. The only tangible way of understanding, or maybe I should say appreciating, the result of your bid is the resultant change in score. However, at least for me, that isn't the least bit satisfying. Especially since both of those games have static scoring. The only difference here is that in Modern Art, when popularity is determined for each artist at the end of the round, you can see if your gambits paid off as much as you thought they would. But that satisfaction is short-lived, and isn't tangible until the end of the round. Furthermore, it's something easily ruined by other players. Though your plans in Cyclades might be ruined later on, in the moment that you take your turn and perform your actions, you can feel the satisfaction of earning the right to those moves. (Well, I guess I should also add that in Ra, the benefit of gaining a new, higher sun in a bid is something that you will use to some satisfaction in the following round.)
I'm not trying to say that any of these Knizia designs are poorly designed, because these are probably the best in their genre. For me, though, there's no joy in bidding just to bid. I want to experience the benefit of the bid, directly within the game. And none of those three games give that feeling much at all. I wonder if Amun-Re is different.
Strategy Post: Dominion
I'll get around to talking about pure-auction games eventually, but today here is something I wrote a while ago about Dominion strategy (excluding anything that might change with the addition of the Prosperity expansion, which makes quite a difference.) I'm now up to 65% win-rate on BSW with close to 500 games, so I stand by the comments I made in this post, though most of them are beginner's tips.
I'm no master at Dominion, but after 250 plays on BSW with about a 60% win ratio (no idea if that is good), I've learned a few basic things I thought I'd share.
1.) The first few turns: Every time you play this game, you begin on the first two turns either with a 4/3 or 5/2 split of money. You will most likely buy 2 cards, then reshuffle your 12-card deck for turn 3. This game exponentially punishes early mistakes/rewards early advantages, so these turns are crucial. Here are the common things I see -
1a.) Buying two terminal actions: by "terminal" I mean actions that do not give extra actions. For example, say you bought a Woodcutter and a Smithy. When drawing 5 cards out of 12, you've got a decent shot at drawing both actions, and thus having one card just being dead in your hand. And even if it's not a HUGE percentage, say you just draw the Smithy. Then you play the Smithy, and now you've drawn 8 out of 12 cards - do you really think it is unlikely that you will now have the Woodcutter wasting space in your hand? On one of those turns (probably the turn with 3 money), you should have bought a Silver that you could actually use.
1b.) Buying a Village: Village is a great, and very stupid, card. It is so good, though, that people play it terribly and make it eve more annoying. Let's say you buy a Village and another action, or a Village and a Silver (since you could not buy a Gold in the first few turns, and you wouldn't buy a Copper or Estate, I'd think). Let's compare both scenarios to if you'd bought a Silver instead of the Village:
If you bought the Village and another action, and you draw them both, you play both and are very excited. Your hand consists of whatever you drew from the Village, the 3 other cards, and whatever happened from the action. The card you drew from the Village is either a Copper or an Estate. If the Village has been a Silver, you would have still played your other action, but the card you drew with the Village would be a Silver instead, which is better than either a Copper or an Estate. You blew it.
If you only draw the other action, it doesn't matter - UNLESS your action draws you into the now-unplayable Village, that you wish was a silver.
If you only draw the Village and don't draw into the other action, you are looking at a Copper or an Estate from the draw, that you wish was a Silver.
The other scenario, where you have a Village, and a Silver as your two buys is even more obvious: That Village, when first played, translates merely into another Copper or Estate.
So, to summarize, buying a Village before you actually have two actions to use it with (especially in the first two turns) is always worse than buying a Silver.
1c) Not buying a Chapel: If the Chapel is available, you should buy it immediately, even on your 3 with a 3/4 split. If you do not, and your opponent does, and they play it correctly, you will lose. I could rant forever about the Chapel, but safe to say that at least among the cards available on BSW, no other strategy can trump the Chapel, which is unfortunate, as it's the only "broken" card I've found in the game so far. This scenario is not as important as the other two.
2) In general, people undervalue Silver and Gold and overvalue their Coppers and Estates.
2a) Estates: These do not help you until the game is actually over. Depending on how many turns you take, you are denying yourself that many cards in your hand, over and over. It is prudent to trash these as soon as possible, whether it be with Remodel, Upgrade, Chapel, or whatever else. Now, if there is no good trashing card available, then you have to make do. Certainly in some scenarios you may try to get an advantage first - for example, in a set with the Baron, you may end up keeping them the whole time. And Islanding them may be better than Trashing them, depending on the setup. But in general, you have to realize these are a measily one point - and especially now that Prosperity adds ways to score points in more efficient ways (i.e. Monument), it's time to let go.
2b) Copper: Next to Estates and Curses, Copper is the worst card you can have in your deck! Buying extra Copper is a very common thing to do when you first play, but every Copper you add decreases the likelihood of drawing everything else, and almost everything else is better! I will sometimes buy Copper in the late game if it is becoming awkward and I keep drawing too many actions (due to my own fault) or too many Green/Curse cards (whether it be my fault or theirs), to try to even the distribution. And there are certainly cards that justify their purchase (Gardens, Coppersmith, Counting House). A corollary of this section is that you should never feel justified to utilize all your buys, or to even fully utilize your available Treasure. It is almost never correct to spend all extra buys, and to a lesser extent, it is not always correct to spend all of your Treasure just to feel like you maximized.
2c) Silver: Take a minute and look at the cards Chancellor, Woodcutter, and Swindler. They all give 2 coins, just like Silver, AND do something else. How is that fair to Silver? Is Silver a strictly worse card? No, because being an action is a DISADVANTAGE! You can run out of actions! You cannot run out of Treasure plays! The sooner you realize that your deck can only support a certain ratio of actions, the better. I make one caveat: Swindler is busted in the early game, so I would advocate buying that in one of the first two rounds, because it is so good then and so much worse later on. I would possibly even break my own rule above and buy two Swindlers in the first two turns, even though it is terminal.
2d) Gold: Things have changed quite a bit with Prosperity, but from at least the base set, Intrigue, and Seaside (Potions in Alchemy also make things awkward), I would say that Gold is a more powerful card than ANY of those action cards across all three seats. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Most every game I lose IRL in Dominion is because I am deceived by shiny new actions I haven't played with yet, and that's the curse of this game: People want to play with all the new cards, then do terrible, then hate the game because it isn't fun when you can't do anything (and is definitely an advantage of newer games like Ascension, where you can pretty much do whatever you want). I've said before Dominion is a game of discipline, and that's pretty much the key to the game.
I'm no master at Dominion, but after 250 plays on BSW with about a 60% win ratio (no idea if that is good), I've learned a few basic things I thought I'd share.
1.) The first few turns: Every time you play this game, you begin on the first two turns either with a 4/3 or 5/2 split of money. You will most likely buy 2 cards, then reshuffle your 12-card deck for turn 3. This game exponentially punishes early mistakes/rewards early advantages, so these turns are crucial. Here are the common things I see -
1a.) Buying two terminal actions: by "terminal" I mean actions that do not give extra actions. For example, say you bought a Woodcutter and a Smithy. When drawing 5 cards out of 12, you've got a decent shot at drawing both actions, and thus having one card just being dead in your hand. And even if it's not a HUGE percentage, say you just draw the Smithy. Then you play the Smithy, and now you've drawn 8 out of 12 cards - do you really think it is unlikely that you will now have the Woodcutter wasting space in your hand? On one of those turns (probably the turn with 3 money), you should have bought a Silver that you could actually use.
1b.) Buying a Village: Village is a great, and very stupid, card. It is so good, though, that people play it terribly and make it eve more annoying. Let's say you buy a Village and another action, or a Village and a Silver (since you could not buy a Gold in the first few turns, and you wouldn't buy a Copper or Estate, I'd think). Let's compare both scenarios to if you'd bought a Silver instead of the Village:
If you bought the Village and another action, and you draw them both, you play both and are very excited. Your hand consists of whatever you drew from the Village, the 3 other cards, and whatever happened from the action. The card you drew from the Village is either a Copper or an Estate. If the Village has been a Silver, you would have still played your other action, but the card you drew with the Village would be a Silver instead, which is better than either a Copper or an Estate. You blew it.
If you only draw the other action, it doesn't matter - UNLESS your action draws you into the now-unplayable Village, that you wish was a silver.
If you only draw the Village and don't draw into the other action, you are looking at a Copper or an Estate from the draw, that you wish was a Silver.
The other scenario, where you have a Village, and a Silver as your two buys is even more obvious: That Village, when first played, translates merely into another Copper or Estate.
So, to summarize, buying a Village before you actually have two actions to use it with (especially in the first two turns) is always worse than buying a Silver.
1c) Not buying a Chapel: If the Chapel is available, you should buy it immediately, even on your 3 with a 3/4 split. If you do not, and your opponent does, and they play it correctly, you will lose. I could rant forever about the Chapel, but safe to say that at least among the cards available on BSW, no other strategy can trump the Chapel, which is unfortunate, as it's the only "broken" card I've found in the game so far. This scenario is not as important as the other two.
2) In general, people undervalue Silver and Gold and overvalue their Coppers and Estates.
2a) Estates: These do not help you until the game is actually over. Depending on how many turns you take, you are denying yourself that many cards in your hand, over and over. It is prudent to trash these as soon as possible, whether it be with Remodel, Upgrade, Chapel, or whatever else. Now, if there is no good trashing card available, then you have to make do. Certainly in some scenarios you may try to get an advantage first - for example, in a set with the Baron, you may end up keeping them the whole time. And Islanding them may be better than Trashing them, depending on the setup. But in general, you have to realize these are a measily one point - and especially now that Prosperity adds ways to score points in more efficient ways (i.e. Monument), it's time to let go.
2b) Copper: Next to Estates and Curses, Copper is the worst card you can have in your deck! Buying extra Copper is a very common thing to do when you first play, but every Copper you add decreases the likelihood of drawing everything else, and almost everything else is better! I will sometimes buy Copper in the late game if it is becoming awkward and I keep drawing too many actions (due to my own fault) or too many Green/Curse cards (whether it be my fault or theirs), to try to even the distribution. And there are certainly cards that justify their purchase (Gardens, Coppersmith, Counting House). A corollary of this section is that you should never feel justified to utilize all your buys, or to even fully utilize your available Treasure. It is almost never correct to spend all extra buys, and to a lesser extent, it is not always correct to spend all of your Treasure just to feel like you maximized.
2c) Silver: Take a minute and look at the cards Chancellor, Woodcutter, and Swindler. They all give 2 coins, just like Silver, AND do something else. How is that fair to Silver? Is Silver a strictly worse card? No, because being an action is a DISADVANTAGE! You can run out of actions! You cannot run out of Treasure plays! The sooner you realize that your deck can only support a certain ratio of actions, the better. I make one caveat: Swindler is busted in the early game, so I would advocate buying that in one of the first two rounds, because it is so good then and so much worse later on. I would possibly even break my own rule above and buy two Swindlers in the first two turns, even though it is terminal.
2d) Gold: Things have changed quite a bit with Prosperity, but from at least the base set, Intrigue, and Seaside (Potions in Alchemy also make things awkward), I would say that Gold is a more powerful card than ANY of those action cards across all three seats. The sooner you realize that, the better.
Most every game I lose IRL in Dominion is because I am deceived by shiny new actions I haven't played with yet, and that's the curse of this game: People want to play with all the new cards, then do terrible, then hate the game because it isn't fun when you can't do anything (and is definitely an advantage of newer games like Ascension, where you can pretty much do whatever you want). I've said before Dominion is a game of discipline, and that's pretty much the key to the game.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Thinking for yourself.
I'm from the Midwest, and football is a big deal here (so is basketball). I've never cared for sports of any type, and the level of fanaticism in this area has always boggled me. I've tried to ask people why they like football, if they've processed through for themselves what the appeal is, and all I ever get is dumb-founded stares. It's just.. football is... you know... what you do. No one seems to really have an explanation.
It was the same for me in high school with music. My older, "cool" friends had me listening to crap like KoRn and Limp Bizkit because that was the fashion. Now that they're long gone and I've got the old thinking cap screwed on right, I can be comfortable listening to heavy metal or Sarah McLachlan, whatever the heck I feel like. Sometimes groupthink is the devil.
It's no different with boardgames. If you are getting into boardgaming, you've probably found BoardGameGeek, which is really the only respectable boardgaming site around. One thing you'll quickly find is that people on their love to make suggestions that are sometimes nonsensical all in the name of advocating their own favorite games. You'll also find that it's "uncool" to enjoy "Ameritrash" games, i.e. American-style games where you attack and eliminate each other from competition. You'll also find that ratings on BGG largely dominate public opinion and even game sales!
What I found myself is after really enjoying some new-to-me classics like Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne, I found myself a blind fan of Reiner Knizia simply because he was so lauded; I mean, his games must be good. And I do like many of them - Through the Desert is a favorite and I'm really coming to enjoy Tigris & Euphrates. But not all of his games are that good, and especially among the higher-ranked on BGG, I really did not enjoy Samurai and Modern Art, and I'm growing bored with Ra and Taj Mahal (more about auction games coming soon). And you know what? That's okay. Despite the fact that a negative review of such a game on BGG would be harshly criticized, as my wife-the-therapist says, "You have a right to your feelings." If you don't like it, good! If you like a game that "sucks," good! I've really enjoyed Lost Cities: the Board Game despite its low rating, and now I find myself looking at the game Senji, considering purchase. It looks great, the rules are intriguing, and I enjoy every other game I've played by either designer. The only thing holding me back (apart from the high price) is the negativity surrounding the game on the 'Geek. And it's about time I said screw 'em and judged for myself. You should do the same.
It was the same for me in high school with music. My older, "cool" friends had me listening to crap like KoRn and Limp Bizkit because that was the fashion. Now that they're long gone and I've got the old thinking cap screwed on right, I can be comfortable listening to heavy metal or Sarah McLachlan, whatever the heck I feel like. Sometimes groupthink is the devil.
It's no different with boardgames. If you are getting into boardgaming, you've probably found BoardGameGeek, which is really the only respectable boardgaming site around. One thing you'll quickly find is that people on their love to make suggestions that are sometimes nonsensical all in the name of advocating their own favorite games. You'll also find that it's "uncool" to enjoy "Ameritrash" games, i.e. American-style games where you attack and eliminate each other from competition. You'll also find that ratings on BGG largely dominate public opinion and even game sales!
What I found myself is after really enjoying some new-to-me classics like Settlers of Catan and Carcassonne, I found myself a blind fan of Reiner Knizia simply because he was so lauded; I mean, his games must be good. And I do like many of them - Through the Desert is a favorite and I'm really coming to enjoy Tigris & Euphrates. But not all of his games are that good, and especially among the higher-ranked on BGG, I really did not enjoy Samurai and Modern Art, and I'm growing bored with Ra and Taj Mahal (more about auction games coming soon). And you know what? That's okay. Despite the fact that a negative review of such a game on BGG would be harshly criticized, as my wife-the-therapist says, "You have a right to your feelings." If you don't like it, good! If you like a game that "sucks," good! I've really enjoyed Lost Cities: the Board Game despite its low rating, and now I find myself looking at the game Senji, considering purchase. It looks great, the rules are intriguing, and I enjoy every other game I've played by either designer. The only thing holding me back (apart from the high price) is the negativity surrounding the game on the 'Geek. And it's about time I said screw 'em and judged for myself. You should do the same.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Board Game Review: Mr. Jack
Mr. Jack is a two-player game designed by Bruno Cathala and Ludovic Maublanc, published by Hurrican and distributed in the U.S. by Asmodee. In the game, players take on the role of either the inspector, who is trying to deduce the identity of Jack the Ripper (think Clue), or of Mr. Jack, who tries to escape or remain hidden long enough for the inspector to lose. Imagine if Clue was a duel.
Here's a reminder of my scoring categories:
Components - Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility - How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth - Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme - Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun - Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it's over?
Components: Mr. Jack is played on a beautiful hex-based board depicting Whitechapel, with some nice cardboard tokens for lighthouses, sewer lids, and police cordons that move throughout the game. The characters are depicted on the board using wooden tokens with nice-looking stickers that you apply yourself. I would have preferred miniatures, but the tokens do well enough to add to the theme without upping the price of the game. The cards in the game are very thick, hard cardboard that are easily shuffled simply because there are only a few (2 decks of 8 each), and they work well for their purpose. My only complaints are small typos and poor grammar in the manual (though the designers nor the publishers have English as a first language so that's forgivable). One of my favorite things about the game is that really does invoke the feeling of a 1800's chase through London. However, at $42.99, they could have been just a touch nicer, or had the price a bit lower. 4.5/5
Accessibility: Anyone who's ever played Clue is going to understand the basic premise of the game. One of the best aspects of this game's accessibility is that many of the rules are listed symbolically on the board and cards, and they do an outstanding job. Often when we are playing, we say "What's that person do?... Oh, never mind, it's on the card." That being said, the trickiest part with learning the game is remembering all of the special powers of the available characters. Once you've got that down, the game plays very smoothly. As a 2-player game, it's a little easier also, because you don't have several players who need reminders of the rules. The only other annoyance is the ambiguity of Goodley's ability and what constitutes moving "closer" to him in some weird situations. Overall though, the game was very quick to learn for my wife and I both. 4.5/5
Depth: First, let me give a caveat. I rarely play as the inspector, and my wife rarely plays as Mr. Jack. I bought this game because my wife's favorite game is Clue, and now we can play something similar with just the two of us and I get to do something besides deduction (I don't really care for Clue myself). That being said, this game adds a whole new layer beyond the deduction (and whatever you could call the opposite of that for Mr. Jack - misdirection?) because of the importance of the character abilities as well as simply the movement on the board. You see, to narrow down who Mr. Jack actually is, at the end of each round, Mr. Jack must state whether he is seen or unseen, and the characters not matching that description are easily eliminated. Characters are seen if they are by lanterns or near one another. So the movement on the board becomes an integral part of the deduction, and those are two aspects of gameplay in Clue that were completely unrelated (other than being forced to use the room you landed in, but you were rarely able to control that). Although the cards available each turn have a random element, this game overall is one of very little luck, and will often come down to a miscalculation in tactics one way or the other. I've lost many games by forgetting about sewer movement, leaving myself wide open. We have played this game about 20 times and I'm positive we've barely scratched the surface of the strategies available. 5/5
Theme: As I mentioned above in the Components section, this game does a fantastic job of evoking the feel of London in the 1800's. The characters are well-drawn and have appropriate names and abilities that make them come a bit more alive. The premise of the game is that Mr. Jack is impersonating one of the detectives at the scene, and the others must figure out which person is not really who (s)he seems. However, from that point of view having both players move all the characters around doesn't really make sense, but it's a minor quibble. The game isn't as immersive as an epic game like Shadows over Camelot or Cyclades, but it does what it does very well. 4/5
Fun: Though I've played as the inspector a few times, I can't really say much other than how fun it is to play as Mr. Jack, trying to fool your adversary into suspecting someone else. It's great fun indeed, and more fun than I've ever had during a game of Clue. 5/5
Average: 4.2/5
Bias: 4.5/5
This is a great 2-player game, and you don't have to like Clue to like this. If you enjoy the theme, or simply enjoy the feeling of a chess match and wouldn't mind putting a psychological twist on it, then you would probably enjoy Mr. Jack.
Here's a reminder of my scoring categories:
Components - Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility - How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth - Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme - Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun - Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it's over?
Components: Mr. Jack is played on a beautiful hex-based board depicting Whitechapel, with some nice cardboard tokens for lighthouses, sewer lids, and police cordons that move throughout the game. The characters are depicted on the board using wooden tokens with nice-looking stickers that you apply yourself. I would have preferred miniatures, but the tokens do well enough to add to the theme without upping the price of the game. The cards in the game are very thick, hard cardboard that are easily shuffled simply because there are only a few (2 decks of 8 each), and they work well for their purpose. My only complaints are small typos and poor grammar in the manual (though the designers nor the publishers have English as a first language so that's forgivable). One of my favorite things about the game is that really does invoke the feeling of a 1800's chase through London. However, at $42.99, they could have been just a touch nicer, or had the price a bit lower. 4.5/5
Accessibility: Anyone who's ever played Clue is going to understand the basic premise of the game. One of the best aspects of this game's accessibility is that many of the rules are listed symbolically on the board and cards, and they do an outstanding job. Often when we are playing, we say "What's that person do?... Oh, never mind, it's on the card." That being said, the trickiest part with learning the game is remembering all of the special powers of the available characters. Once you've got that down, the game plays very smoothly. As a 2-player game, it's a little easier also, because you don't have several players who need reminders of the rules. The only other annoyance is the ambiguity of Goodley's ability and what constitutes moving "closer" to him in some weird situations. Overall though, the game was very quick to learn for my wife and I both. 4.5/5
Depth: First, let me give a caveat. I rarely play as the inspector, and my wife rarely plays as Mr. Jack. I bought this game because my wife's favorite game is Clue, and now we can play something similar with just the two of us and I get to do something besides deduction (I don't really care for Clue myself). That being said, this game adds a whole new layer beyond the deduction (and whatever you could call the opposite of that for Mr. Jack - misdirection?) because of the importance of the character abilities as well as simply the movement on the board. You see, to narrow down who Mr. Jack actually is, at the end of each round, Mr. Jack must state whether he is seen or unseen, and the characters not matching that description are easily eliminated. Characters are seen if they are by lanterns or near one another. So the movement on the board becomes an integral part of the deduction, and those are two aspects of gameplay in Clue that were completely unrelated (other than being forced to use the room you landed in, but you were rarely able to control that). Although the cards available each turn have a random element, this game overall is one of very little luck, and will often come down to a miscalculation in tactics one way or the other. I've lost many games by forgetting about sewer movement, leaving myself wide open. We have played this game about 20 times and I'm positive we've barely scratched the surface of the strategies available. 5/5
Theme: As I mentioned above in the Components section, this game does a fantastic job of evoking the feel of London in the 1800's. The characters are well-drawn and have appropriate names and abilities that make them come a bit more alive. The premise of the game is that Mr. Jack is impersonating one of the detectives at the scene, and the others must figure out which person is not really who (s)he seems. However, from that point of view having both players move all the characters around doesn't really make sense, but it's a minor quibble. The game isn't as immersive as an epic game like Shadows over Camelot or Cyclades, but it does what it does very well. 4/5
Fun: Though I've played as the inspector a few times, I can't really say much other than how fun it is to play as Mr. Jack, trying to fool your adversary into suspecting someone else. It's great fun indeed, and more fun than I've ever had during a game of Clue. 5/5
Average: 4.2/5
Bias: 4.5/5
This is a great 2-player game, and you don't have to like Clue to like this. If you enjoy the theme, or simply enjoy the feeling of a chess match and wouldn't mind putting a psychological twist on it, then you would probably enjoy Mr. Jack.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Five game expansions you need to own.
When I was first introduced to "serious" boardgaming via The Settlers of Catan, I was already a longtime Magic: the Gathering player, so it was somewhat of a natural segue - these games still rewarded skill, but my wife and friends would play them too! Furthermore, I wouldn't be blowing so much extra cash chasing down rare cards....
Unfortunately, that last part isn't entirely true. The expansion craze is over here, too. It's almost a sure bet that a successful game means some sort of expansion or spinoff, sometimes excessively so. However, sometimes the expansions can make a good game great, or make a mediocre game at least good. Here are five expansions you should own if you have the original games:
5.) Dixit 2. Although it sounds like a "sequel," Dixit 2 is actually 84 more cards for the original Dixit - just as many as the original! Dixit is a fantastic, creative party game, and I've yet to teach it to anyone who didn't like it. However, the original deck is a little small, and inside jokes can become automatic when you've only got a small amount of cards that you riffle through every game. This expansion literally doubles the re-playability of the original game, and includes artwork just as incredible as the originals. Though no rules are included, you could theoretically play Dixit 2 alone, but that would be even more dumb than playing the original alone now: they're so much better together.
4.) Carcassonne: Inns & Cathedrals. Keep in mind that Carcassonne has been around for about a decade now, and it's got a lot of expansions, most of which are crap. This is the original expansion, first just released under the name "Carcassonne Expansion." Maybe they thought they wouldn't print more, or maybe they realized that this is the expansion for the base game. An expansion should breathe new life into a game and offer new strategies without fundamentally altering the gameplay. It should still feel like the same game. Many of the other Carcassonne expansions fail in this regard, but that's where Inns & Cathedrals shines. The 18 tiles bring the base game closer to a respectable game length, which means you get more turns to make more decisions with larger numbers of players. The new "rules" in this expansion, for the actual inns and cathedrals as well as the mega-meeple, are ridiculously simple and yet open up whole new areas of strategy that were non-existent in the original. Roads become worthwhile, and when to gamble on the use of your mega-meeple becomes extremely interesting. As a nice bonus, there are meeples for a sixth player and tiles to keep track of how many times you've been around the scoring track. I'm much more suspect of the rest of the expansions for this game, even the much-lauded Traders & Builders, but this one should really be packaged as part of the base set because it is that important.
3.) Roll Through the Ages: The Late Bronze Age. After our first few games of Roll Through the Ages: The Bronze Age, my wife said something along the lines of "That's it? I was just getting started!" each time we played, and I felt the same way. The Late Bronze Age not only fixes that, but revises some of the development values and gameplay of the original game, while adding new options at the lowest price point possible for an expansion - free! You can download these new score sheets for free at rollthroughtheages.com. You have no excuse. If you felt like this game left you a bit wanting, you owe it to yourself to give the expansion rules a try.
2.) Ticket to Ride: USA 1910. After a few plays of the original Ticket to Ride, you will soon find yourself not only memorizing the ticket deck, but realizing that the only winning strategy is to make six-length routes from coast to coast so that you can score those giant 15-20 point tickets, and make a run for longest route while you're at it. This makes for some seriously boring gameplay. 1910 manages to change all that with an elegantly simple expansion, consisting only of more tickets, some rules, and a new bonus card (15 points for most completed tickets). The bonus card makes short runs more appealing, and the new tickets make for some interesting routes and hit many of the cities completely ignored on the original tickets (Las Vegas, Washington, etc) and the rules included three new ways to mix the tickets and the bonus cards. As a nice bonus, the expansion also includes a regular-size train card deck, so you don't have to shuffle those ridiculous tiny cards anymore. When you realize just how closed the strategic options in the original Ticket to Ride really are, you should give this expansion a whirl.
1.) Dominion: Prosperity. This game is just now hitting shelves "full time" although I first acquired my copy at GenCon. Although the first three expansions for Dominion give more options, they do so in a very confined way and don't make a strong case for new strategies. With Prosperity, the designers have finally caught on to what has made Magic so endlessly re-playable: breaking the rules! Now we have new basic cards, kingdom cards that are purely treasures, cards that cost 7, victory points outside of the deck, cards that depend on our opponents' understanding of the game state... This expansion blows the game wide-open, breathing new life in a game that was getting stale fast with the rush of more-of-the-same expansions. If you liked Dominion, but feel like you've "figured it out," you need this expansion.
Unfortunately, that last part isn't entirely true. The expansion craze is over here, too. It's almost a sure bet that a successful game means some sort of expansion or spinoff, sometimes excessively so. However, sometimes the expansions can make a good game great, or make a mediocre game at least good. Here are five expansions you should own if you have the original games:
5.) Dixit 2. Although it sounds like a "sequel," Dixit 2 is actually 84 more cards for the original Dixit - just as many as the original! Dixit is a fantastic, creative party game, and I've yet to teach it to anyone who didn't like it. However, the original deck is a little small, and inside jokes can become automatic when you've only got a small amount of cards that you riffle through every game. This expansion literally doubles the re-playability of the original game, and includes artwork just as incredible as the originals. Though no rules are included, you could theoretically play Dixit 2 alone, but that would be even more dumb than playing the original alone now: they're so much better together.
4.) Carcassonne: Inns & Cathedrals. Keep in mind that Carcassonne has been around for about a decade now, and it's got a lot of expansions, most of which are crap. This is the original expansion, first just released under the name "Carcassonne Expansion." Maybe they thought they wouldn't print more, or maybe they realized that this is the expansion for the base game. An expansion should breathe new life into a game and offer new strategies without fundamentally altering the gameplay. It should still feel like the same game. Many of the other Carcassonne expansions fail in this regard, but that's where Inns & Cathedrals shines. The 18 tiles bring the base game closer to a respectable game length, which means you get more turns to make more decisions with larger numbers of players. The new "rules" in this expansion, for the actual inns and cathedrals as well as the mega-meeple, are ridiculously simple and yet open up whole new areas of strategy that were non-existent in the original. Roads become worthwhile, and when to gamble on the use of your mega-meeple becomes extremely interesting. As a nice bonus, there are meeples for a sixth player and tiles to keep track of how many times you've been around the scoring track. I'm much more suspect of the rest of the expansions for this game, even the much-lauded Traders & Builders, but this one should really be packaged as part of the base set because it is that important.
3.) Roll Through the Ages: The Late Bronze Age. After our first few games of Roll Through the Ages: The Bronze Age, my wife said something along the lines of "That's it? I was just getting started!" each time we played, and I felt the same way. The Late Bronze Age not only fixes that, but revises some of the development values and gameplay of the original game, while adding new options at the lowest price point possible for an expansion - free! You can download these new score sheets for free at rollthroughtheages.com. You have no excuse. If you felt like this game left you a bit wanting, you owe it to yourself to give the expansion rules a try.
2.) Ticket to Ride: USA 1910. After a few plays of the original Ticket to Ride, you will soon find yourself not only memorizing the ticket deck, but realizing that the only winning strategy is to make six-length routes from coast to coast so that you can score those giant 15-20 point tickets, and make a run for longest route while you're at it. This makes for some seriously boring gameplay. 1910 manages to change all that with an elegantly simple expansion, consisting only of more tickets, some rules, and a new bonus card (15 points for most completed tickets). The bonus card makes short runs more appealing, and the new tickets make for some interesting routes and hit many of the cities completely ignored on the original tickets (Las Vegas, Washington, etc) and the rules included three new ways to mix the tickets and the bonus cards. As a nice bonus, the expansion also includes a regular-size train card deck, so you don't have to shuffle those ridiculous tiny cards anymore. When you realize just how closed the strategic options in the original Ticket to Ride really are, you should give this expansion a whirl.
1.) Dominion: Prosperity. This game is just now hitting shelves "full time" although I first acquired my copy at GenCon. Although the first three expansions for Dominion give more options, they do so in a very confined way and don't make a strong case for new strategies. With Prosperity, the designers have finally caught on to what has made Magic so endlessly re-playable: breaking the rules! Now we have new basic cards, kingdom cards that are purely treasures, cards that cost 7, victory points outside of the deck, cards that depend on our opponents' understanding of the game state... This expansion blows the game wide-open, breathing new life in a game that was getting stale fast with the rush of more-of-the-same expansions. If you liked Dominion, but feel like you've "figured it out," you need this expansion.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Hidden victory points and what I think about them.
I've played probably more than 50 "modern" boardgames at this point, and several of them have specifications that the scores of the players during the game should be hidden. At first I was strongly opposed to this idea... now I can see where it would make sense, but there are some games that don't need it, and some that could use it. Mainly, I think they should be hidden for a reason. Here are some reasons why they should be hidden.
The hidden points are an integral aspect of the gameplay. The best example of this is Dominion. Your score is hidden, quite literally, inside the deck you are building. You can try to mentally keep score, and it's easy to have a feel for who is ahead, but the game would drag horribly if players were constantly riffling through their deck to count the green cards. Similarly, the development cards that grant victory points in Settlers of Catan give the game a little bit of bluff, in a good way.
The victory points don't mean much until the game is over. An example here would be Through the Desert. You gain victory chips from water holes and oases, but much of the game's scoring comes from enclosures and the largest caravans which are tallied at the end, so if anything, face-up victory points could easily give you a false sense of who is winning, which would be detrimental to the gameplay. Any game with heavy end-game scoring would benefit here from hiding the in-game points.
The game plays more smoothly with them hidden. In a game like Tigris & Euphrates, where your victory cubes are rather complicated, it can be enough work to keep track of your own victory points, let alone total up everyone else's. Even so, in that game you still usually have a feel for who is winning (which is important). Another example would be the simple card game Loot, also by Knizia. In this case each "victory card" has a different value, shown by the number of gold icons on the card, and constantly totaling everyone's values would be cumbersome.
Here, on the other hand, are some reasons why they shouldn't be hidden.
Who's winning affects the strategy, and it should. This is my primarily complaint about Small World. The coins are hidden, and maybe they would be cumbersome to calculate, but that's only because of the method used for scoring - there's probably a cleaner method if you want the tokens to be face-up. However, in such a game, it is a logical strategic decision to hinder the currently winning player, and that strategy is inappropriately hindered by the guesswork required to tell who is winning. Maybe this guesswork is meant to be part of the gameplay, as an answer to the "bash the leader" problem, but I've never thought of it as a problem and this part of the strategy seems unrelated to the rest of the gameplay. Another example would be Reiner Knizia's Samurai, where which figures you go after is largely affected by the amount of figures of each type each other player has. This is made even weirder by the rules that they are not hidden only in the 2-player version of the game. Again, I'm assuming this is just to stave off analysis paralysis, but isn't analysis supposed to be part of the "strategy" of a strategy game?
Who's winning really doesn't affect the gameplay much. This is how I feel about Lost Cities: the Board Game. While the interaction is there, what you are trying to accomplish in a particular round relates only a little to who the current leader is, so the points being hidden is somewhat pointless. In fact, we first made the mistake of playing with them face-up, and now that they're face-down, it really hasn't changed the game at all, which makes the rule superfluous at best.
I'm sure I could write more on the subject, but my basic thought is that an extra rule like this needs to have a darn good reason.
The hidden points are an integral aspect of the gameplay. The best example of this is Dominion. Your score is hidden, quite literally, inside the deck you are building. You can try to mentally keep score, and it's easy to have a feel for who is ahead, but the game would drag horribly if players were constantly riffling through their deck to count the green cards. Similarly, the development cards that grant victory points in Settlers of Catan give the game a little bit of bluff, in a good way.
The victory points don't mean much until the game is over. An example here would be Through the Desert. You gain victory chips from water holes and oases, but much of the game's scoring comes from enclosures and the largest caravans which are tallied at the end, so if anything, face-up victory points could easily give you a false sense of who is winning, which would be detrimental to the gameplay. Any game with heavy end-game scoring would benefit here from hiding the in-game points.
The game plays more smoothly with them hidden. In a game like Tigris & Euphrates, where your victory cubes are rather complicated, it can be enough work to keep track of your own victory points, let alone total up everyone else's. Even so, in that game you still usually have a feel for who is winning (which is important). Another example would be the simple card game Loot, also by Knizia. In this case each "victory card" has a different value, shown by the number of gold icons on the card, and constantly totaling everyone's values would be cumbersome.
Here, on the other hand, are some reasons why they shouldn't be hidden.
Who's winning affects the strategy, and it should. This is my primarily complaint about Small World. The coins are hidden, and maybe they would be cumbersome to calculate, but that's only because of the method used for scoring - there's probably a cleaner method if you want the tokens to be face-up. However, in such a game, it is a logical strategic decision to hinder the currently winning player, and that strategy is inappropriately hindered by the guesswork required to tell who is winning. Maybe this guesswork is meant to be part of the gameplay, as an answer to the "bash the leader" problem, but I've never thought of it as a problem and this part of the strategy seems unrelated to the rest of the gameplay. Another example would be Reiner Knizia's Samurai, where which figures you go after is largely affected by the amount of figures of each type each other player has. This is made even weirder by the rules that they are not hidden only in the 2-player version of the game. Again, I'm assuming this is just to stave off analysis paralysis, but isn't analysis supposed to be part of the "strategy" of a strategy game?
Who's winning really doesn't affect the gameplay much. This is how I feel about Lost Cities: the Board Game. While the interaction is there, what you are trying to accomplish in a particular round relates only a little to who the current leader is, so the points being hidden is somewhat pointless. In fact, we first made the mistake of playing with them face-up, and now that they're face-down, it really hasn't changed the game at all, which makes the rule superfluous at best.
I'm sure I could write more on the subject, but my basic thought is that an extra rule like this needs to have a darn good reason.
Review - Lost Cities: the Board Game
Continuing with the trend of reviewing games that have a colon in the title, I'm going to take a crack at Reiner Knizia's Lost Cities: the Board Game. First, some background about this game. Reiner Knizia is a pretty famous designer, winning the German Game Prize (best gamer's game) no less than four times (Modern Art, Tigris & Euphrates, Taj Mahal, Amun-Re). He's also famous for a simple 2-player card game called Lost Cities, which, if you hadn't figured out already, he converted into a board game. However, in Europe, the game was given an abstract Celtic theme, dubbed Keltis, and had slightly different rules. That version went on to win the Spiel des Jahres (best family game of the year) in Germany, and led to several expansions and spinoffs. However, the Keltis rules are listed as variants for the American version of the game.
One more thing before I get to the review - here is the breakdown of the criteria:
Components - Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility - How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth - Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme - Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun - Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it's over?
Components: Let's start with the game board. It's extremely colorful, and evokes the theme of the game very well. A picture from BGG is given above. It's also extremely clean and utilitarian - you can clearly see the score chart for artifacts, where the treasures for the round go, and the score value of each space. The board is simply fantastic (and I like it much better than the one for Keltis).
The next thing are the wooden "meeples" in the game. These are very large and cut into the shapes of explorers, with one explorer bigger than the rest (for gameplay reasons). They look extremely nice, except that the colors are kind of awful - white, black, brown, or mustard-yellow. However, in their defense, purple and pink pawns wouldn't go well with the board or theme, and red/blue/green might not show up as well on the board when the colors match.
The last part of the components are the many cardboard chits given, and the box. The chits are great, except for one thing - victory points are supposed to be hidden face-down, but the different values have different physical sizes, so it's mostly obvious what you score is to an acute observer - fortunately this doesn't ruin the gameplay. The worst offender is the box insert - it's just a giant empty hole, with no spaces for cards, or chips, or anything. My copy now has an organizer from Hobby Lobby and a deck box, both of which I shouldn't have needed. The components look great during play, though, and I'm okay with a 4/5 here.
Accessibility: This game is extremely easy to play, which is one of Knizia's strengths - his games are an exercise in making a lot from a little. Each turn, you simply play a card, or discard a card, and then draw a new one, from the deck or the discards. Cards must be played in non-decreasing value, but you can skip numbers. While the consequences of which card you play can become very interesting, the actual gameplay is extremely basic, and you can still play the entire game as a new player without ever having to ask "Wait, what do I do?" on your turn. The only strange or fiddly rules are that you draw at the end of your turn, which isn't really convention for American card games, and that the last pawn to pass a bridge to end the round does not get any treasure or effect on the space where it arrives. But these are minor quirks, easily overcome, and the game gets a 5/5 here.
Depth: Before I say anything about the depth of the game, let me outline the differences in the rules between Keltis and Lost Cities: the Board Game. In Keltis, you play only 1 round instead of 3, and you may play your cards in increasing or decreasing sequence (but once you commit to an order, you must continue in that way for that card row). We continue to play 3 rounds, but after trying the increasing/decreasing Keltis rules (listed as a variant in the American rulebook), we have continued to play it that way. I have read complaints that this game has no choices, because the ones in your hand are obvious, but I feel that the Keltis variation makes your hand much more "open" - there are more options available for a given hand, and it's not so clear which one is right. On the other hand, the discard piles become less of an integral part of the game.
While most of the goal is to move your pawns as far along the paths as possible, one of the subtle player interactions comes from the artifacts in the game. You need these for points (you'll even go set without at least 5), but when someone claims an artifact, it is gone off the board, unlike the other special tiles. Thus, the game becomes a bit of a race for the artifacts, and the game's tension comes from things like "Should I wait for more cards to make this sequence longer, or go from a 3 to a 7 to make sure I get that artifact first?" The game has very much a push-your-luck feel, not a plan-an-overarching-strategy feel, so you should know what you are getting into.
The other player interaction is of course the discard piles. Each color has its own discard pile, and at the end of your turn, instead of drawing from the deck, you may take the top card of any discard pile, so you have to be very careful what you toss into the bin, as it may help one of your opponents. This part of the interaction becomes more interesting with more players, although it's still important in a 2-player game. This game is not Agricola or Puerto Rico, but I don't think players who find zero strategy in the game are seeing everything. 3.5/5.
Theme: Although accessibility is one of Knizia's strengths, theme is often cited as one of his weaknesses. This shouldn't be surprising, considering that I've already described the fact that this game has been given different themes (so have many of his projects). It's clear that in his mathematical mind, it's not that the theme creates the gameplay, it's that the math creates the gameplay, and that hopefully creates a theme. As a fellow mathematician, this probably bothers me less than most people. Fortunately, if Knizia has to depend on the components and the gameplay to provide the theme, they both do well here. As I've mentioned before, I enjoy the components, and they give off the proper Indiana Jones vibe. Where I feel the gameplay becomes thematic is in the fact that, as I said above, the game feels like a race to be the first to find the artifacts, or to get deepest into the temples, which is basically the plot of any similar-themed movie. Incan Gold, a game that is truly nothing but pushing your luck, has a similar theme as well, so it seems they go hand-in-hand. The theme is not complete immersion, but it works. 3.5/5.
Fun: Like I said, while playing, we find ourselves racing for the artifacts, and we also find ourselves staring at each other and gambling on whether or not the other has the cards they need to get there first. Laughter and groans ensure when our gambits fail or succeed. Somewhat because it's such a simple game, it is a light, enjoyable romp through some ancient temples. 4/5.
Average: 4/5
Bias: 4/5
Lost Cities: the Board Game is a step up from its predecessor (we never play Lost Cities anymore), and gives a great feeling of racing and pushing your luck. If you enjoy that kind of gameplay, and want a game of that style that looks nice and is easy to learn, give this game a try.
One more thing before I get to the review - here is the breakdown of the criteria:
Components - Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility - How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth - Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme - Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun - Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it's over?
The next thing are the wooden "meeples" in the game. These are very large and cut into the shapes of explorers, with one explorer bigger than the rest (for gameplay reasons). They look extremely nice, except that the colors are kind of awful - white, black, brown, or mustard-yellow. However, in their defense, purple and pink pawns wouldn't go well with the board or theme, and red/blue/green might not show up as well on the board when the colors match.
The last part of the components are the many cardboard chits given, and the box. The chits are great, except for one thing - victory points are supposed to be hidden face-down, but the different values have different physical sizes, so it's mostly obvious what you score is to an acute observer - fortunately this doesn't ruin the gameplay. The worst offender is the box insert - it's just a giant empty hole, with no spaces for cards, or chips, or anything. My copy now has an organizer from Hobby Lobby and a deck box, both of which I shouldn't have needed. The components look great during play, though, and I'm okay with a 4/5 here.
Accessibility: This game is extremely easy to play, which is one of Knizia's strengths - his games are an exercise in making a lot from a little. Each turn, you simply play a card, or discard a card, and then draw a new one, from the deck or the discards. Cards must be played in non-decreasing value, but you can skip numbers. While the consequences of which card you play can become very interesting, the actual gameplay is extremely basic, and you can still play the entire game as a new player without ever having to ask "Wait, what do I do?" on your turn. The only strange or fiddly rules are that you draw at the end of your turn, which isn't really convention for American card games, and that the last pawn to pass a bridge to end the round does not get any treasure or effect on the space where it arrives. But these are minor quirks, easily overcome, and the game gets a 5/5 here.
Depth: Before I say anything about the depth of the game, let me outline the differences in the rules between Keltis and Lost Cities: the Board Game. In Keltis, you play only 1 round instead of 3, and you may play your cards in increasing or decreasing sequence (but once you commit to an order, you must continue in that way for that card row). We continue to play 3 rounds, but after trying the increasing/decreasing Keltis rules (listed as a variant in the American rulebook), we have continued to play it that way. I have read complaints that this game has no choices, because the ones in your hand are obvious, but I feel that the Keltis variation makes your hand much more "open" - there are more options available for a given hand, and it's not so clear which one is right. On the other hand, the discard piles become less of an integral part of the game.
While most of the goal is to move your pawns as far along the paths as possible, one of the subtle player interactions comes from the artifacts in the game. You need these for points (you'll even go set without at least 5), but when someone claims an artifact, it is gone off the board, unlike the other special tiles. Thus, the game becomes a bit of a race for the artifacts, and the game's tension comes from things like "Should I wait for more cards to make this sequence longer, or go from a 3 to a 7 to make sure I get that artifact first?" The game has very much a push-your-luck feel, not a plan-an-overarching-strategy feel, so you should know what you are getting into.
The other player interaction is of course the discard piles. Each color has its own discard pile, and at the end of your turn, instead of drawing from the deck, you may take the top card of any discard pile, so you have to be very careful what you toss into the bin, as it may help one of your opponents. This part of the interaction becomes more interesting with more players, although it's still important in a 2-player game. This game is not Agricola or Puerto Rico, but I don't think players who find zero strategy in the game are seeing everything. 3.5/5.
Theme: Although accessibility is one of Knizia's strengths, theme is often cited as one of his weaknesses. This shouldn't be surprising, considering that I've already described the fact that this game has been given different themes (so have many of his projects). It's clear that in his mathematical mind, it's not that the theme creates the gameplay, it's that the math creates the gameplay, and that hopefully creates a theme. As a fellow mathematician, this probably bothers me less than most people. Fortunately, if Knizia has to depend on the components and the gameplay to provide the theme, they both do well here. As I've mentioned before, I enjoy the components, and they give off the proper Indiana Jones vibe. Where I feel the gameplay becomes thematic is in the fact that, as I said above, the game feels like a race to be the first to find the artifacts, or to get deepest into the temples, which is basically the plot of any similar-themed movie. Incan Gold, a game that is truly nothing but pushing your luck, has a similar theme as well, so it seems they go hand-in-hand. The theme is not complete immersion, but it works. 3.5/5.
Fun: Like I said, while playing, we find ourselves racing for the artifacts, and we also find ourselves staring at each other and gambling on whether or not the other has the cards they need to get there first. Laughter and groans ensure when our gambits fail or succeed. Somewhat because it's such a simple game, it is a light, enjoyable romp through some ancient temples. 4/5.
Average: 4/5
Bias: 4/5
Lost Cities: the Board Game is a step up from its predecessor (we never play Lost Cities anymore), and gives a great feeling of racing and pushing your luck. If you enjoy that kind of gameplay, and want a game of that style that looks nice and is easy to learn, give this game a try.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Review - Roll Through the Ages: the Bronze Age
I thought I would go ahead and do some reviews, and it seems like it would be more useful to do reviews of more recent games. I don't have any fresh off the boat from Essen, but Roll Through the Ages is a relatively recent release, and one I have played a lot recently with my wife. Keep in mind I have only played this with 2 players, but as a dice game, I don't see the gameplay changing much with different numbers of players. Here is a quick description of my criteria -
Components - Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility - How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth - Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme - Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun - Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it's over?
I'll rate each of these out of 5, then give the average as well as an overall biased rating.
Components: This game comes in a very nice box, the same that comes for all of the Gryphon Bookshelf Series, and it's the same size as a few Mayfair games such as Modern Art. Inside you have 4 wooden boards, 24 plastic pegs, a pad of scoresheets, and 7 wooden dice. At first I was not impressed with the components, but now I find I really enjoy how large the dice are, and the wooden boards are sturdy and useful. It would have been nice to include some pencils, or anything to make my main complaint justifiable: the price. A dice game, no matter how customized, should not have a list price of $35. Fortunately, you can get the game for under $25 at retailers like CoolStuffInc. Overall, I give a 3/5 for components, primarily because of the high price.
Accessibility: Anyone who's ever played Yahtzee is not going to have too much trouble learning this game. However, the game does have a few barriers to play. When I first read the rules and began to play with my wife, it was very confusing understanding the difference on the wooden board between the number of goods you have, and their value (listed below the peg holes). At first it seemed like the value was the actual number of goods, which is not correct. The other thing is that a few of the explanations on the scoresheet aren't as clear as they could be with a bit more text, and I've had to reference the manual just a few times to make sure I could really do a certain move. These are very minor complaints, though, and the game mostly feels natural, especially to anyone who's ever played Yahtzee, or any kind of civilization game. 5/5.
Depth: This again is kept in context with the fact that this is a dice game. And out of any dice game I've played, this is the one that feels like it has real decisions. Throughout your turn, a direction becomes clear for what you want your dice rolls to be, and though a lot of that is luck, the developments you make do much to mitigate that, and though there are rolls you didn't really want, there are rarely truly atrocious rolls (although they can happen). The primarily complaint is what I mentioned in my last post - the game ends just as it's getting good, and the end feels very arbitrary, especially for the original rules. Fortunately, you can find a print-and-play expansion on rollthroughtheages.com, which has expanded scoresheets with extra developments and some altered rules. This makes the game the proper length and expands the decision tree and the strategy of the game and immense amount. I wouldn't be opposed to a house rule that the game goes for one more round after the end-condition is met. Without the expansion, I would give this category a 3/5, but since it is free and readily available (and it's really the only way to play), I am comfortable handing out a 4/5 here.
Theme: You can only expect so much here for a pure dice game, but I feel about as much as possible is given. The wooden dice and boards give the feel of ancient history, as if this were a game of bones played by people long ago. I also feel that the names of the developments and shapes/names of the monuments add to the game as much as they possibly can, considering that it's just a scoresheet. There's probably something else that could have been added, maybe some kind of artwork on a board instead of plain scoresheets, but what is here is good. 4/5.
Fun: This largely depends on what you want out of a game. If you enjoy knocking each other out of the game or any kind of direct interaction, that won't happen much here, though you are allowed to trade resources. That said, this game excels in giving you the kind of enjoyment you get from "min/max" type decisions you might make in a cooperative RPG or a typical Euro game. Last time we played, my wife discovered the Commerce/Caravans combo, and I was quite impressed with that move. If you enjoy the feeling of building and expanding and "leveling up," that's exactly the kind of experience this game will offer. I enjoy the game, but I'm not bursting with joy when it's done. I'm just a 4-out-of-5-kind of happy.
Average: 4/5
Bias: 4/5
Roll Through the Ages won't be life-changing, but it's quick, easy to learn, and fun - a lot more fun than Yahtzee, or any other dice game I've ever played. If you like dice and you like to feel like you're accomplishing something while you play a game, then you should pick this game up - after you find it somewhere for cheap.
Components - Does the game look nice? Are the bits worth the money? Do they add to the game?
Accessibility - How easy is the game to teach, or to feel like you know what you are doing?
Depth - Does the gameplay allow for deeper strategies, or does the game play itself?
Theme - Does the game give a sense of immersion? Can you imagine the setting described in the game?
Fun - Is the game actually enjoyable? Do you find yourself smiling, laughing, or having some sense of satisfaction when it's over?
I'll rate each of these out of 5, then give the average as well as an overall biased rating.
Components: This game comes in a very nice box, the same that comes for all of the Gryphon Bookshelf Series, and it's the same size as a few Mayfair games such as Modern Art. Inside you have 4 wooden boards, 24 plastic pegs, a pad of scoresheets, and 7 wooden dice. At first I was not impressed with the components, but now I find I really enjoy how large the dice are, and the wooden boards are sturdy and useful. It would have been nice to include some pencils, or anything to make my main complaint justifiable: the price. A dice game, no matter how customized, should not have a list price of $35. Fortunately, you can get the game for under $25 at retailers like CoolStuffInc. Overall, I give a 3/5 for components, primarily because of the high price.
Accessibility: Anyone who's ever played Yahtzee is not going to have too much trouble learning this game. However, the game does have a few barriers to play. When I first read the rules and began to play with my wife, it was very confusing understanding the difference on the wooden board between the number of goods you have, and their value (listed below the peg holes). At first it seemed like the value was the actual number of goods, which is not correct. The other thing is that a few of the explanations on the scoresheet aren't as clear as they could be with a bit more text, and I've had to reference the manual just a few times to make sure I could really do a certain move. These are very minor complaints, though, and the game mostly feels natural, especially to anyone who's ever played Yahtzee, or any kind of civilization game. 5/5.
Depth: This again is kept in context with the fact that this is a dice game. And out of any dice game I've played, this is the one that feels like it has real decisions. Throughout your turn, a direction becomes clear for what you want your dice rolls to be, and though a lot of that is luck, the developments you make do much to mitigate that, and though there are rolls you didn't really want, there are rarely truly atrocious rolls (although they can happen). The primarily complaint is what I mentioned in my last post - the game ends just as it's getting good, and the end feels very arbitrary, especially for the original rules. Fortunately, you can find a print-and-play expansion on rollthroughtheages.com, which has expanded scoresheets with extra developments and some altered rules. This makes the game the proper length and expands the decision tree and the strategy of the game and immense amount. I wouldn't be opposed to a house rule that the game goes for one more round after the end-condition is met. Without the expansion, I would give this category a 3/5, but since it is free and readily available (and it's really the only way to play), I am comfortable handing out a 4/5 here.
Theme: You can only expect so much here for a pure dice game, but I feel about as much as possible is given. The wooden dice and boards give the feel of ancient history, as if this were a game of bones played by people long ago. I also feel that the names of the developments and shapes/names of the monuments add to the game as much as they possibly can, considering that it's just a scoresheet. There's probably something else that could have been added, maybe some kind of artwork on a board instead of plain scoresheets, but what is here is good. 4/5.
Fun: This largely depends on what you want out of a game. If you enjoy knocking each other out of the game or any kind of direct interaction, that won't happen much here, though you are allowed to trade resources. That said, this game excels in giving you the kind of enjoyment you get from "min/max" type decisions you might make in a cooperative RPG or a typical Euro game. Last time we played, my wife discovered the Commerce/Caravans combo, and I was quite impressed with that move. If you enjoy the feeling of building and expanding and "leveling up," that's exactly the kind of experience this game will offer. I enjoy the game, but I'm not bursting with joy when it's done. I'm just a 4-out-of-5-kind of happy.
Average: 4/5
Bias: 4/5
Roll Through the Ages won't be life-changing, but it's quick, easy to learn, and fun - a lot more fun than Yahtzee, or any other dice game I've ever played. If you like dice and you like to feel like you're accomplishing something while you play a game, then you should pick this game up - after you find it somewhere for cheap.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
User-controlled game-end conditions and why I don't always like them.
Tonight, I played a game of Roll Through the Ages: the Bronze Age with my wife (with the expansion rules). It was very clear she was ahead, as I had fifteen disasters, and she was churning out bonus points like no other and was about to finish a monument. However, I was able to use exactly enough workers to finish all the monuments left, thus ending the game before she further pulled ahead, and I ended up winning by a point. She was not happy. I thought that I myself was happy, but then realized I was not. The move felt cheap, even though I'd not done anything to intentionally mislead her or the game. I began to think a couple of other games where this has happened - Through the Desert, Ticket to Ride... and I realize that I strongly dislike user-controlled conditions for ending the game, and here's why.
1.) It becomes more difficult to formulate a strategy when you don't know how much time is left. Now, some games or more transparent than others (it is very obvious when your opponent can end the game in Through the Desert, and you can make a pretty good guess in Dominion), but for many of these games, you have little chance of knowing when your opponent can pull the "Game over!" trigger. If the point of playing these "advanced" board games is to exercise our skills in strategy, how can we do that if we are gambling on how long the game will be? If a game is meant to be a push-your-luck exercise, that's different. But strategy gamers often make a big deal out of minimizing luck in a game, and this is something that could be done differently. For example, I feel that Ticket to Ride and Roll Through the Ages could benefit from a set number of turns. I especially dislike that in Ticket to Ride, the person who denies everyone a further action gets to also have the last play of the game. On the flip side, even if the user-controlled ending isn't that bad, often I feel it could have been more with a set number of rounds - you can allow for more strategy when you can mentally allot your time (turns) as well as your resources.
2.) Game length is more random, and the game can become stale. Now I find myself thinking of the game Citadels, where the end-game can degenerate to abuse of the Assassin, Thief, and Warlord to keep the leaders down and away from building that eighth district. I'm more okay with it if each person's turn is going to advance the game state, or at least keep it from moving backwards - an example here would be Lost Cities: the Board Game. It's the same reason I usually shoo the robber away in Settlers of Catan when I roll a 7 - when the game is stuck in a rut, dragging it out just to eke out a chance of winning doesn't sound like a fun use of time. Certainly, like Citadels, any game where you can attack each other (Cyclades also comes to mind) can have the "bash the leader" problem: the game turns into making sure no one is winning, rather than focusing on winning yourself. Fortunately, Cyclades has a natural escalation that ensures that this cannot go on for too long. To a lesser extent, without attacks, Settlers of Catan has some of this problem - "Don't trade with her, she's got 9 points!"
3.) If it's user-controlled, it should be built into the mechanics. Out of all the games I've mentioned so far, the only game I can think of that depends on the user-controlled ending is Cyclades, as the goal of the game is to be the first to accomplish the task of building two metropolises. I'm not saying that a set number of rounds is always the best way to design a game, but if it seems that a user-controlled ending is better, then that should show up in the gameplay. The only other game above where that appears is Through the Desert, but I haven't worked through the game as a round-based game to decide which way is better. For every other game I've mentioned, the ending conditions feel somewhat arbitrary.
I'm not saying that having a set number of rounds is always the right solution (though it certainly often can be). I've played Magic: the Gathering more than any other game in my life (Dominion is probably now second), and Magic has an obvious user-controlled ending - kill the other person! However, that endgame is most definitely built into the mechanics, and how much "time is left" is measured as best as you can figure by your life total, and pushing your luck with your life total is most definitely meant to be a part of the game. Certainly the game can become stale when it reaches a.... stalemate... but that tends to simply make the comebacks that much more glorious.
I also feel like the "direction" of the endgame controls whether or not it feels natural. Specifically, when the end-game is triggered by the depletion of something tangible, it seems to make more sense in our head - whether it be a life total, or a hand of cards, or a pile of camels or provinces. In the cases where the game is an escalation of developments and points and routes and just a feeling of growth, stopping in the middle of the action doesn't make any sense psychologically. I'm sounding very negative about several games that I really like, but quite often at the end of Ticket to Ride or Roll Through the Ages, someone says "Wait, that's it?" and that's just not how the end of a game should feel.
-Derek
P.S. I'll be trying to update this more often, at least twice a week, maybe?.... No promises yet.
1.) It becomes more difficult to formulate a strategy when you don't know how much time is left. Now, some games or more transparent than others (it is very obvious when your opponent can end the game in Through the Desert, and you can make a pretty good guess in Dominion), but for many of these games, you have little chance of knowing when your opponent can pull the "Game over!" trigger. If the point of playing these "advanced" board games is to exercise our skills in strategy, how can we do that if we are gambling on how long the game will be? If a game is meant to be a push-your-luck exercise, that's different. But strategy gamers often make a big deal out of minimizing luck in a game, and this is something that could be done differently. For example, I feel that Ticket to Ride and Roll Through the Ages could benefit from a set number of turns. I especially dislike that in Ticket to Ride, the person who denies everyone a further action gets to also have the last play of the game. On the flip side, even if the user-controlled ending isn't that bad, often I feel it could have been more with a set number of rounds - you can allow for more strategy when you can mentally allot your time (turns) as well as your resources.
2.) Game length is more random, and the game can become stale. Now I find myself thinking of the game Citadels, where the end-game can degenerate to abuse of the Assassin, Thief, and Warlord to keep the leaders down and away from building that eighth district. I'm more okay with it if each person's turn is going to advance the game state, or at least keep it from moving backwards - an example here would be Lost Cities: the Board Game. It's the same reason I usually shoo the robber away in Settlers of Catan when I roll a 7 - when the game is stuck in a rut, dragging it out just to eke out a chance of winning doesn't sound like a fun use of time. Certainly, like Citadels, any game where you can attack each other (Cyclades also comes to mind) can have the "bash the leader" problem: the game turns into making sure no one is winning, rather than focusing on winning yourself. Fortunately, Cyclades has a natural escalation that ensures that this cannot go on for too long. To a lesser extent, without attacks, Settlers of Catan has some of this problem - "Don't trade with her, she's got 9 points!"
3.) If it's user-controlled, it should be built into the mechanics. Out of all the games I've mentioned so far, the only game I can think of that depends on the user-controlled ending is Cyclades, as the goal of the game is to be the first to accomplish the task of building two metropolises. I'm not saying that a set number of rounds is always the best way to design a game, but if it seems that a user-controlled ending is better, then that should show up in the gameplay. The only other game above where that appears is Through the Desert, but I haven't worked through the game as a round-based game to decide which way is better. For every other game I've mentioned, the ending conditions feel somewhat arbitrary.
I'm not saying that having a set number of rounds is always the right solution (though it certainly often can be). I've played Magic: the Gathering more than any other game in my life (Dominion is probably now second), and Magic has an obvious user-controlled ending - kill the other person! However, that endgame is most definitely built into the mechanics, and how much "time is left" is measured as best as you can figure by your life total, and pushing your luck with your life total is most definitely meant to be a part of the game. Certainly the game can become stale when it reaches a.... stalemate... but that tends to simply make the comebacks that much more glorious.
I also feel like the "direction" of the endgame controls whether or not it feels natural. Specifically, when the end-game is triggered by the depletion of something tangible, it seems to make more sense in our head - whether it be a life total, or a hand of cards, or a pile of camels or provinces. In the cases where the game is an escalation of developments and points and routes and just a feeling of growth, stopping in the middle of the action doesn't make any sense psychologically. I'm sounding very negative about several games that I really like, but quite often at the end of Ticket to Ride or Roll Through the Ages, someone says "Wait, that's it?" and that's just not how the end of a game should feel.
-Derek
P.S. I'll be trying to update this more often, at least twice a week, maybe?.... No promises yet.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Time to jump in
Ever since one of my friends introduced to me to The Settlers of Catan not even a year ago, "serious" boardgaming has become my new hobby. I've been a longtime Magic: the Gathering player, but that was something not only excessively expensive, but something I couldn't easily share with my wife. Boardgaming has mitigated both of those problems. What I hope to do here is share a bit of what I learn, create some new enthusiasts, and maybe score some free games to review...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)