Ridere, ludere, hoc est vivere.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Intrigued by Incan Gold?
I just learned that my son Liam - the teenager who couldn't stop and who lost all his loot to the monsters in every round of our first game of Incan Gold - taught the game to his little brother and his friend yesterday afternoon, and the three boys had a great time playing it. So I guess that means he wasn't put off by the game after all. Good sign!
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Poor Man's Incan Gold
I read an entertaining review yesterday of Incan Gold (designers Bruno Faidutti and Alan Moon, publisher Fred Distribution's Gryphon Games). I really like risk management games (also known as "push-your-luck games"), even though I'm pretty bad at them. (I got eliminated early in the Can't Stop tournament at PrezCon, which my buddy Grant G. won.) In the case of Incan Gold, players advance into an ancient ruin to find and share treasure but risk encountering monsters that can force them to drop their loot and run. At any point, each player has an opportunity to take his share of the loot back to his tent, which guarantees that he keeps what he has but means that the players who continue get a bigger share of whatever additional treasure turns up.
I found the mechanics and components to be straightforward enough that I could recreate the gameplay (if not the artwork) with simple gaming components. From a normal deck of playing cards, I assembled the two jokers, the twelve face cards, and one each of black ace, two, three, four, five, seven, and nine, and red ace, three, four, five, and seven. Each player gets a different colored pawn, and a set of poker chips serves as gold treasure.
In my version of the game, the aces and number cards represent treasure. Black cards are worth their face value in gold (with an ace representing a value of one). Red cards are worth their face value plus ten (so that the red seven is worth 17). Jokers represent single artifacts worth ten each. Face cards represent monsters.
[What follows is a description of the rules of the game, but the review I read illustrated them nicely and with a touch of humor.]
The game consists of five rounds. Each round starts with the deck being shuffled and a card being turned face up to start the journey into the ancient ruin. If it is a treasure card, the players divide the loot equally. Now, players have two piles of money over the course of the game. One pile is their "loot bag," which is where they add found loot but is also what is at risk of being dropped if a monster scares them away. The other pile is their tent, which is where they dump their loot bag when they decide to leave the ruin and keep what they've found. Treasure in the tent can never be lost.
When treasure from a treasure card is divided evenly among the players, any remainder is left on the card. Each player now has an opportunity to decide to go back to his tent and keep the money in his loot bag, or to keep going deeper into the ancient ruin in search for more treasure. This decision is simultaneous among all the players. The way it is executed is that all players take their pawns and put both hands under the table. All players then place one closed hand on top of the table. When everybody is ready, all players open their hands. A hand with a pawn in it means that the player has decided to go back to his tent; an empty hand means that the player has decided to continue with the expedition.
If any players decide to go back to their tents, they divide evenly among themselves any treasure that had been left on any cards so far in the expedition. Then they move all the treasure in their loot bags to their tents, and they are done for the round. If any players decided to continue with the expedition, they place their pawns on the table next to the face up cards, and another card is drawn and placed face up alongside the last one.
If the card drawn is a face card and it is the first face card of that suit (spade, heart, diamond, or club), then nothing happens. Players again decide whether to continue or to turn back. If the card drawn is a face card and it is the second face card of that suit, then all players who are still in the expedition lose all the treasure they have accumulated in their loot bags, no one gets any of the treasure left on any cards, all the cards are shuffled into the deck, and the round is over. (Players that had previously left the expedition and returned to their tents suffer no loss.)
The Jokers represent special artifacts. When a Joker is turned up, poker chips representing ten gold are placed on the card. An artifact can't be divided among players, so if more than one player is still in the expedition, the ten gold stay on the card. Later, if exactly one player leaves the expedition and returns to his tent, he can retrieve the ten-gold artifact along with all the other treasure still on cards. If two or more players leave the expedition simultaneously, none gets the artifact (because they squabble among themselves), and it stays on the card.
A round ends when all players have returned to their tents or when a second monster (face card) of a suit is turned up and scares everybody out. After five rounds, the player with the most treasure in his tent wins.
My son Liam, my wife Kathy, and I tried out this home-made knock-off of Incan Gold yesterday evening, and Liam bolstered my working hypothesis on teenagers and risk assessment. He was always still in the expedition when the second monster of a suit came up, so he ended up with no treasure after five rounds. I ended up winning because I adopted a thumb rule of bailing out of the expedition when three different suits had turned up; in my mind, the risk of getting a second monster of any of those three suits was generally too high to justify hoping for more treasure. Often, I was the only one to leave the expedition, so that meant I got all the leftover treasure on the cards at that point for myself as well.
As I looked at the card distribution, I noticed that most of the treasure cards are prime numbers or at most the product of two prime numbers. I find that significant because the intent of the designer seems to have been to try to have some remainder to leave on the card after the treasure is divided among the players, at least more often than not. (There is no six-, eight-, 12-, or 16-gold treasure card, which would frequently divide evenly among a typical number of expedition members.) The interesting effect is that as the expedition progresses, the motivation to bail out becomes stronger; not only does turning back allow a player to keep what he has in his loot bag and avoid the risk of a monster, but it provides the added "carrot" of picking up some or all of the leftover loot on the previous cards.
I found the mechanics and components to be straightforward enough that I could recreate the gameplay (if not the artwork) with simple gaming components. From a normal deck of playing cards, I assembled the two jokers, the twelve face cards, and one each of black ace, two, three, four, five, seven, and nine, and red ace, three, four, five, and seven. Each player gets a different colored pawn, and a set of poker chips serves as gold treasure.
In my version of the game, the aces and number cards represent treasure. Black cards are worth their face value in gold (with an ace representing a value of one). Red cards are worth their face value plus ten (so that the red seven is worth 17). Jokers represent single artifacts worth ten each. Face cards represent monsters.
[What follows is a description of the rules of the game, but the review I read illustrated them nicely and with a touch of humor.]
The game consists of five rounds. Each round starts with the deck being shuffled and a card being turned face up to start the journey into the ancient ruin. If it is a treasure card, the players divide the loot equally. Now, players have two piles of money over the course of the game. One pile is their "loot bag," which is where they add found loot but is also what is at risk of being dropped if a monster scares them away. The other pile is their tent, which is where they dump their loot bag when they decide to leave the ruin and keep what they've found. Treasure in the tent can never be lost.
When treasure from a treasure card is divided evenly among the players, any remainder is left on the card. Each player now has an opportunity to decide to go back to his tent and keep the money in his loot bag, or to keep going deeper into the ancient ruin in search for more treasure. This decision is simultaneous among all the players. The way it is executed is that all players take their pawns and put both hands under the table. All players then place one closed hand on top of the table. When everybody is ready, all players open their hands. A hand with a pawn in it means that the player has decided to go back to his tent; an empty hand means that the player has decided to continue with the expedition.
If any players decide to go back to their tents, they divide evenly among themselves any treasure that had been left on any cards so far in the expedition. Then they move all the treasure in their loot bags to their tents, and they are done for the round. If any players decided to continue with the expedition, they place their pawns on the table next to the face up cards, and another card is drawn and placed face up alongside the last one.
If the card drawn is a face card and it is the first face card of that suit (spade, heart, diamond, or club), then nothing happens. Players again decide whether to continue or to turn back. If the card drawn is a face card and it is the second face card of that suit, then all players who are still in the expedition lose all the treasure they have accumulated in their loot bags, no one gets any of the treasure left on any cards, all the cards are shuffled into the deck, and the round is over. (Players that had previously left the expedition and returned to their tents suffer no loss.)
The Jokers represent special artifacts. When a Joker is turned up, poker chips representing ten gold are placed on the card. An artifact can't be divided among players, so if more than one player is still in the expedition, the ten gold stay on the card. Later, if exactly one player leaves the expedition and returns to his tent, he can retrieve the ten-gold artifact along with all the other treasure still on cards. If two or more players leave the expedition simultaneously, none gets the artifact (because they squabble among themselves), and it stays on the card.
A round ends when all players have returned to their tents or when a second monster (face card) of a suit is turned up and scares everybody out. After five rounds, the player with the most treasure in his tent wins.
My son Liam, my wife Kathy, and I tried out this home-made knock-off of Incan Gold yesterday evening, and Liam bolstered my working hypothesis on teenagers and risk assessment. He was always still in the expedition when the second monster of a suit came up, so he ended up with no treasure after five rounds. I ended up winning because I adopted a thumb rule of bailing out of the expedition when three different suits had turned up; in my mind, the risk of getting a second monster of any of those three suits was generally too high to justify hoping for more treasure. Often, I was the only one to leave the expedition, so that meant I got all the leftover treasure on the cards at that point for myself as well.
As I looked at the card distribution, I noticed that most of the treasure cards are prime numbers or at most the product of two prime numbers. I find that significant because the intent of the designer seems to have been to try to have some remainder to leave on the card after the treasure is divided among the players, at least more often than not. (There is no six-, eight-, 12-, or 16-gold treasure card, which would frequently divide evenly among a typical number of expedition members.) The interesting effect is that as the expedition progresses, the motivation to bail out becomes stronger; not only does turning back allow a player to keep what he has in his loot bag and avoid the risk of a monster, but it provides the added "carrot" of picking up some or all of the leftover loot on the previous cards.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Agony in Alexandros
Image courtesy of Rio Grande Games |
I really like Alexandros. It's not like any other game I know. The map depicts the extent of the empire of Alexander the Great in Asia, divided into equilateral triangles, a little over half of which are blank and the remainder each having one of five icons reminiscent of Hellenistic Greece - an urn, a horse, a lyre, a soldier, or a temple. Each player represents one of Alexander's generals, who seek to govern provinces in Alexander's empire and collect taxes. The player to collect the most taxes wins.
The game includes a deck of 55 cards, each of which features one of the five icons that appear on the board. Over the course of the game, Alexander will traverse and conquer his empire, and his path establishes boundaries of new provinces. Alexander's movements are influenced by the players to the extent that the available cards allow, so there is some opportunity to control where the province boundaries are set. Players each have four Macedonian guard pieces that can be used in combination with cards from their hands to conquer provinces once they are completely enclosed by boundaries. Players can elect to levy taxes, but when any player does so, all players get points for their governed provinces simultaneously. So it is important to try to govern the most profitable provinces (those containing the most blank triangles) before levying taxes. Provinces can also be taken from other players by card play. Guards can be removed from one province and, in a separate action, used to occupy another.
In our most recent game, I occupied a large province early on and started levying taxes to jump to an early lead. I committed guards to other, smaller provinces, while Kathy accumulated cards because there was little else she could do in the early stages. I continually levied taxes and increased my lead, and it looked for a while as though I was going to run away with the game. But with a big hand of cards comes a lot of options, and Kathy soon established a much stronger position. Around mid-game, she took one of my larger provinces and occupied a couple of others as well. Then she was the one to start levying taxes. The game end can be triggered when one player exceeds 100 points, and it was right around the 55-point mark that Kathy passed me and never looked back. I had spent so many actions placing guards and levying taxes early on that I never accumulated cards for any kind of hand strength, so I was in no position to catch up to her. She ended up beating me by over 20 points.
Alexandros provides a whole different game-playing challenge, and I can see that I still have a lot to learn in the way of tactics and nuance. I also hope to have an opportunity to play in a three- or four-player format, where I'm sure gameplay can get even tighter.
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Embattled in Battle Line
Image courtesy of GMT Games |
The main deck consists of six suits of ten ranks of "Troop" cards representing various troop types from the Hellenistic Greek period. The eponymous "battle line" consists of nine "flags" against each of which the two players each commit up to three cards in an effort to construct a superior "formation" and win the flag; three adjacent flags or five total win the game. The superiority of one formation (three-card set) over another depends on their pattern; a "wedge" formation (three-card "straight flush") beats a "phalanx" (three-of-a-kind) for example. Grant describes Battle Line as "nine hands of three-card poker," but I think that description sells the game short. The real genius of the game is that the deck is never re-shuffled. As a card is committed to one position in the line (i.e., one of the nine "flags"), that card becomes unavailable for any other position. The real skill in this game seems to come in knowing where to commit and where to keep one's options open. If I can prove that you can not come up with a better formation ("hand") than mine for a certain flag (based on cards that have already been played elsewhere on the table), then I win that flag immediately.
The game also has a ten-card deck of unique "Tactics" cards that can modify a position in the line to one's advantage. A player can choose to play a Tactics card in lieu of a Troop card, sometimes to devastating effect. Some Tactics cards are wild or semi-wild cards. Some allow shifting cards on one's own or one's opponent's side of the battle line. Some change the heirarchy of formations or conditions for winning a specific flag. The only limitation on playing Tactics cards is that you can't play one if you've already played more Tactics cards than your opponent has.
The fascinating thing is that Battle Line has a very martial theme, so I really didn't expect it to appeal to Kathy. She really didn't expect to get the hang of it, either, but was willing to try since she's such a good sport about trying new games. Well, apparently she got the hang of it just fine. All three of our sessions have been close (more or less), but her timing with Tactics cards is downright uncanny. More than a few times did I think that I had a flag won only to have her snatch it from me in the nick of time.
Next post: Another game with a Hellenistic theme - and another loss to my lovely wife. (What is up with that?)
Monday, March 28, 2011
Punked in Puerto Rico
Image courtesy of Rio Grande Games |
I'll blame the rum...
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Review: Chicago Cribbage
Chicago Cribbage is a 2007 title by Outset Media for two to four players. It requires a cribbage board (not provided) and familiarity with the traditional game of cribbage. It comes with its own deck of conventional playing cards plus 28 "Chicago Cards" that modify the game of cribbage. In a sense, Chicago Cribbage can really be thought of as a "cribbage expansion" deck.
Full disclosure: Outset Media gave me a review copy of Chicago Cribbage. No other consideration was given associated with this review.
[Since Chicago Cribbage is intended for players already familiar with cribbage, I refer to standard cribbage terms and rules without definition in this review.]
Artwork
And a rather handsomely printed deck of cards it is, too. The playing cards that come with Chicago Cribbage are designed with a font and art deco style reminiscent of 1920s Chicago. The face cards and aces feature mob characters and icons representing the period. Overall the game presents a rather nice look and feel just in the conventional deck of cards itself.
Gameplay
The real innovation in the game comes in the form of the additional "Chicago cards," which add a new dimension to the familiar game of cribbage. Each player starts with a fixed set of seven Chicago cards, each of which may be used only once in the course of the entire cribbage game. There are two opportunities during a hand of cribbage where a Chicago card can be put into play. The first is immediately after the deal (before players place cards in the crib), at which point any player may play a "Deal Again" card. The second opportunity comes immediately after the cut (when the "starter" card is revealed but before any play starts), at which point a player may play one of any of the other possible Chicago cards - "Cut Again," "Trade Hands," "No Fifteens," or "Reverse Counting."
As you might expect, "Deal Again," "Cut Again" (which forces cutting a new starter card) and "Trade Hands" can be played to change the cards that you have to work with. "No Fifteens" and "Reverse Counting" affect scoring of the current hand. "No Fifteens" affects all players (including the one who played it); when played, combinations that add to fifteen are worth no points - not when playing cards, nor when scoring hands, nor when scoring the crib. When "Reverse Counting" is played, all opponents hands (and crib, if the dealer is an opponent) score negative points, but one's own scoring is unaffected.
Impressions
At first, incorporating the additional Chicago cards takes some getting used to. The two opportunities to play Chicago cards come almost as interruptions to the normal flow of a cribbage game, at least at first to the conventional cribbage player. Once the Chicago cards become familiar, however, the opportunities to play them are anticipated and become a natural part of the flow of the game. We found that when a hand is first dealt, the first thought isn't, "what should I put in the crib" but, "should I play the 'Deal Again' card?"
Likewise, after the cut, players start to evaluate the cut and the cards in hand against one's remaining Chicago card options. A player holding several fives might benefit from a "Cut Again" in hopes of bringing up a face card as the starter. Or if an opponent has built a big lead, it may be time to play "Reverse Counting."
We found that the Chicago cards nicely mitigate card luck, which had been a rather significant factor in our previous conventional sessions of cribbage. A standard cribbage game requires some basic tactics to make the most of the cards that are dealt, but once dealt, the course of a hand is confined to the available cards. Chicago Cribbage adds several opportunities to make up for bad card luck - but only a few opportunities, so the player must apply them judiciously.
Timing of Chicago card play can be crucial. In one game, when my wife had built a big lead and I had the deal, I decided to wait to play "Reverse Counting" until she had the deal and the crib, when I figured the effect of the card would be greater. But instead she scored so high during my deal that she ended up within pegging distance of winning the game. Since "Reverse Counting" only affects hand and crib scoring (not pegging from card play), she was able to win the game on the next hand regardless of the card I played - a valuable lesson in timing.
We found that Chicago Cribbage is better suited to a full 121-point cribbage game, less so the shorter 61-point version. It takes the full length of a 121-point game to force careful consideration of when to play a Chicago card, since there are only one or two of each available, and each can be played only once. Most of them came into play over the course of a 121-point game, whereas they seemed underutilized and less tactically demanding in the shorter 61-point game.
One dimension that Chicago Cribbage adds is a certain poker-like element of trying to read one's opponent's reaction to his or her cards. If I'm dealt a hand and react too enthusiastically, I can expect my opponent to play "Trade Hands" to take advantage of whatever got me so excited. Similarly, if my opponent seems pleased with the starter card that is cut, I might consider playing "Cut Again" just to thwart whatever benefit he or she saw in that starter.
All of the games played for this review were in the standard two-player format, but Chicago Cribbage comes with enough Chicago cards to be played with three or four players as well (just as standard cribbage can be).
Summary
Chicago Cribbage is a clever addition of a new dimension to conventional cribbage. It spices up an old familiar game in a new and challenging way. Purists might object to introducing new gameplay elements to a time-honored standard (like some chess variants, for example), so I wouldn't recommend it for those who like their cribbage "just fine the way it is, thank you." For those who have played "the old cribbage" but find it a little dry and uninteresting, however, Chicago Cribbage provides a new element of strategy and thought, perhaps more in keeping with the kind of decision-making and gameplay that characterize more contemporary board and card games. I would especially recommend Chicago Cribbage if you have a cribbage board gathering dust in a drawer or closet and vague memories of enjoying cribbage but never recently including it in your list of, "so what should we play today?"
I should add that my wife and I are divided on whether Outset Media ought to consider offering Chicago Cribbage as a complete set, with cribbage rules and board provided. My wife feels that Outset Media could expand its customer base and broaden interest in cribbage by offering the game in a form that players can learn from scratch. For my part, I'm skeptical that the game would work as a way of learning cribbage itself; to me, the appeal of the product is in bringing new life to an old familiar game.
Chicago Cribbage is recommended for ages 10 and up (although Outset Media's "cribbage game" web page lists it as "8+"). Frankly, the age recommendation is irrelevant; if you are familiar with cribbage, you can play Chicago Cribbage.
Outset Media doesn't sell games from their website but refers customers to independent retailers across North America and provides a toll-free phone number to inquire about finding a local retailer. I did find that Chicago Cribbage is available at Amazon for $9.99.
Full disclosure: Outset Media gave me a review copy of Chicago Cribbage. No other consideration was given associated with this review.
[Since Chicago Cribbage is intended for players already familiar with cribbage, I refer to standard cribbage terms and rules without definition in this review.]
Artwork
And a rather handsomely printed deck of cards it is, too. The playing cards that come with Chicago Cribbage are designed with a font and art deco style reminiscent of 1920s Chicago. The face cards and aces feature mob characters and icons representing the period. Overall the game presents a rather nice look and feel just in the conventional deck of cards itself.
Gameplay
The real innovation in the game comes in the form of the additional "Chicago cards," which add a new dimension to the familiar game of cribbage. Each player starts with a fixed set of seven Chicago cards, each of which may be used only once in the course of the entire cribbage game. There are two opportunities during a hand of cribbage where a Chicago card can be put into play. The first is immediately after the deal (before players place cards in the crib), at which point any player may play a "Deal Again" card. The second opportunity comes immediately after the cut (when the "starter" card is revealed but before any play starts), at which point a player may play one of any of the other possible Chicago cards - "Cut Again," "Trade Hands," "No Fifteens," or "Reverse Counting."
As you might expect, "Deal Again," "Cut Again" (which forces cutting a new starter card) and "Trade Hands" can be played to change the cards that you have to work with. "No Fifteens" and "Reverse Counting" affect scoring of the current hand. "No Fifteens" affects all players (including the one who played it); when played, combinations that add to fifteen are worth no points - not when playing cards, nor when scoring hands, nor when scoring the crib. When "Reverse Counting" is played, all opponents hands (and crib, if the dealer is an opponent) score negative points, but one's own scoring is unaffected.
Impressions
At first, incorporating the additional Chicago cards takes some getting used to. The two opportunities to play Chicago cards come almost as interruptions to the normal flow of a cribbage game, at least at first to the conventional cribbage player. Once the Chicago cards become familiar, however, the opportunities to play them are anticipated and become a natural part of the flow of the game. We found that when a hand is first dealt, the first thought isn't, "what should I put in the crib" but, "should I play the 'Deal Again' card?"
Likewise, after the cut, players start to evaluate the cut and the cards in hand against one's remaining Chicago card options. A player holding several fives might benefit from a "Cut Again" in hopes of bringing up a face card as the starter. Or if an opponent has built a big lead, it may be time to play "Reverse Counting."
We found that the Chicago cards nicely mitigate card luck, which had been a rather significant factor in our previous conventional sessions of cribbage. A standard cribbage game requires some basic tactics to make the most of the cards that are dealt, but once dealt, the course of a hand is confined to the available cards. Chicago Cribbage adds several opportunities to make up for bad card luck - but only a few opportunities, so the player must apply them judiciously.
Timing of Chicago card play can be crucial. In one game, when my wife had built a big lead and I had the deal, I decided to wait to play "Reverse Counting" until she had the deal and the crib, when I figured the effect of the card would be greater. But instead she scored so high during my deal that she ended up within pegging distance of winning the game. Since "Reverse Counting" only affects hand and crib scoring (not pegging from card play), she was able to win the game on the next hand regardless of the card I played - a valuable lesson in timing.
We found that Chicago Cribbage is better suited to a full 121-point cribbage game, less so the shorter 61-point version. It takes the full length of a 121-point game to force careful consideration of when to play a Chicago card, since there are only one or two of each available, and each can be played only once. Most of them came into play over the course of a 121-point game, whereas they seemed underutilized and less tactically demanding in the shorter 61-point game.
One dimension that Chicago Cribbage adds is a certain poker-like element of trying to read one's opponent's reaction to his or her cards. If I'm dealt a hand and react too enthusiastically, I can expect my opponent to play "Trade Hands" to take advantage of whatever got me so excited. Similarly, if my opponent seems pleased with the starter card that is cut, I might consider playing "Cut Again" just to thwart whatever benefit he or she saw in that starter.
All of the games played for this review were in the standard two-player format, but Chicago Cribbage comes with enough Chicago cards to be played with three or four players as well (just as standard cribbage can be).
Summary
Chicago Cribbage is a clever addition of a new dimension to conventional cribbage. It spices up an old familiar game in a new and challenging way. Purists might object to introducing new gameplay elements to a time-honored standard (like some chess variants, for example), so I wouldn't recommend it for those who like their cribbage "just fine the way it is, thank you." For those who have played "the old cribbage" but find it a little dry and uninteresting, however, Chicago Cribbage provides a new element of strategy and thought, perhaps more in keeping with the kind of decision-making and gameplay that characterize more contemporary board and card games. I would especially recommend Chicago Cribbage if you have a cribbage board gathering dust in a drawer or closet and vague memories of enjoying cribbage but never recently including it in your list of, "so what should we play today?"
I should add that my wife and I are divided on whether Outset Media ought to consider offering Chicago Cribbage as a complete set, with cribbage rules and board provided. My wife feels that Outset Media could expand its customer base and broaden interest in cribbage by offering the game in a form that players can learn from scratch. For my part, I'm skeptical that the game would work as a way of learning cribbage itself; to me, the appeal of the product is in bringing new life to an old familiar game.
Chicago Cribbage is recommended for ages 10 and up (although Outset Media's "cribbage game" web page lists it as "8+"). Frankly, the age recommendation is irrelevant; if you are familiar with cribbage, you can play Chicago Cribbage.
Outset Media doesn't sell games from their website but refers customers to independent retailers across North America and provides a toll-free phone number to inquire about finding a local retailer. I did find that Chicago Cribbage is available at Amazon for $9.99.
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Progress toward release of my first title
While at PrezCon, I had the opportunity to meet with my publisher and hammer out the final details of the rules to my game. We nailed down some of the final wording, and in so doing I caught a mistake I had made in handling a case where a player's piece lands on another player. We were able to resolve that at the eleventh hour, so I believe the rules should be ready to go to press.
The only outstanding decision they have at this point is to choose between two manufacturing options for the board. They are very interested in making the right quality decision consistent with the target price point. The intent is to go to the printers in time for an April release.
I've got my fingers crossed.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Five friends and Seven Wonders
Last week our friend Jeff W. hosted Sheila D., Keith R., my wife Kathy, and myself for dinner, with the stipulation that I serve as "game sommelier." I brought several boardgame options but had a special desire to introduce the group to 7 Wonders (designer Antoine Bauza, publisher Repos Production). After a marvelous steak dinner prepared by master chef Jeff, we cleared the table and pulled out the game for a little run-through.
I enjoy 7 Wonders for a number of reasons. It's relatively easy to teach. The components are beautiful. All action is simultaneous, so you are never waiting for your turn. Everybody is in the game until the very end. There are several different ways to win. Once everyone is familiar with the rules, the game goes pretty quickly. And most of all, it's fun, with just enough strategy to demand some brainpower.
The process of explaining the rules of a game is a real skill, one that I feel I'm still developing. As I went over the rules to 7W, apparently I introduced some confusion regarding how to use resources to build structures and how to purchase resources from your neighbors. It took a while for everyone to realize that building a structure doesn't "consume" a resource production card, and buying a resource from a neighbor doesn't "transfer" that card from one player to another. So I still have some room for improvement as a game "explainer."
It's also important to get all the rules right. Previously, one rule that I had forgotten is that you can't build two of the same structure, like two Barracks, for example. My friend Keith Ferguson, whom I'd taught the game a few weeks ago, learned that the hard way in competition at PrezCon. During one tournament game, he ended up having to give up one of his redundant (and therefore illegal) structures for three coins. "Oh, sorry, man. Missed that rule....."
I enjoy 7 Wonders for a number of reasons. It's relatively easy to teach. The components are beautiful. All action is simultaneous, so you are never waiting for your turn. Everybody is in the game until the very end. There are several different ways to win. Once everyone is familiar with the rules, the game goes pretty quickly. And most of all, it's fun, with just enough strategy to demand some brainpower.
The process of explaining the rules of a game is a real skill, one that I feel I'm still developing. As I went over the rules to 7W, apparently I introduced some confusion regarding how to use resources to build structures and how to purchase resources from your neighbors. It took a while for everyone to realize that building a structure doesn't "consume" a resource production card, and buying a resource from a neighbor doesn't "transfer" that card from one player to another. So I still have some room for improvement as a game "explainer."
It's also important to get all the rules right. Previously, one rule that I had forgotten is that you can't build two of the same structure, like two Barracks, for example. My friend Keith Ferguson, whom I'd taught the game a few weeks ago, learned that the hard way in competition at PrezCon. During one tournament game, he ended up having to give up one of his redundant (and therefore illegal) structures for three coins. "Oh, sorry, man. Missed that rule....."
So back to our recent game last week: Jeff had the Temple of Artemis, Kathy had the Lighthouse at Alexandria, Keith had the Colossus of Rhodes, Sheila had the Pyramids of Giza, and I had the Hanging Gardens of Babylon. People got the hang of the game pretty quickly, and it was clear early on that Sheila was starting an arms race. I think she was worried about Keith's Colossus giving him extra military power in his second stage. As she put it later, she could understand the value of building up her military, so that was the approach she took. Her neighbors Keith and Kathy tried to keep up, and in so doing did some fair damage to Jeff and (especially) me. For my part, with the Hanging Gardens, I had built a number of scientific structures in pursuit of a "technology" strategy, but somehow - inexplicably - ended up in last place. Sheila's military superiority and completed pyramids won the day quite handily.
Jeff had mentioned earlier that he had a copy of Rail Baron (a 1977 Avalon Hill title designed by R.S. and Thomas F. Erickson), so after our game of 7W, we had him pull it out and teach it to us.
Learning Rail Baron took me back to the days when I played Avalon Hill games as a teenager. It was a remarkable contrast in standards of game design and production between two eras, and really two different markets in boardgaming between my early gaming days and today. In the 1970s, Avalon Hill tried to develop games as models of real-world decision-making. So the railroads in Rail Baron reflected actual railroad companies and routes at the height of the rail industry.
The early game of Rail Baron is a bit mechanical, as most routes are unowned and therefore traveled at little expense to the players. Destinations are largely determined at random, and so players roll dice and move until they reach their destinations and earn money. It is with the opportunity to invest in a railroad company or locomotive upgrade that the game begins to get interesting. Even so, the first few railroad company purchases are largely inconsequential, as it is relatively easy for opponents to avoid having to travel on your rail line and pay through the nose for passage.
It was rather late in the evening when we were each beginning to purchase our second or third railroad company, and we regrettably did not have the stamina we might have had in the 1970s to continue the game to its conclusion. But I could see, as we began to buy up all the railroad companies in the southeastern United States, that the next player to draw Miami as a destination would have to pay somebody for passage aboard that opponent's rail line, and that would be where the game would really get interesting. I was really intrigued at the notion of trying to dominate a region in the interest of forcing payment and gaining some return on the investment. We just never got to that stage in the game before we had to call it quits. Too bad, too; I was just starting to get my avaricious capitalist tycoon on.
Kathy described her impression of Rail Baron as something like railroad Monopoly, and I could see her point. The game progressed with gradual accumulation of property (indeed, the railroad company title cards closely resemble property deeds in Monopoly) and the opportunity to collect payment from opponents who were forced to travel on the rail lines you own. Although there is no property "improvement" in the obvious sense, there is still an opportunity to "monopolize" a region to guarantee payment when an opponent rolls a destination serviced only by railroads you own.
An aspect of the game that surprised me was the frequency with which it was necessary to look data up in tables - both to determine payment for destinations reached and to determine the next destination. I say it surprises me today, but it wouldn't have surprised me in the 1970s, and that fact opened my eyes to a facet of game design that has clearly changed over the years. Seldom do today's new titles require many table look-ups during the course of gameplay. For the most part, game data are either easily memorized or readily available on cards or on the board. It's hard for me to think of a game today - at least among those I typically play - that requires referral back to rules or tables the way that the strategy games of the 1970s did.
I remember Tobruk was notorious for requiring multiple dice rolls and table references with every weapon shot. I think some people reveled in that degree of realistic detail at the time - the extent to which armor and ammunition characteristics were so carefully modeled in a tactical game like that. Nowadays I wouldn't have that kind of patience, certainly not in a new game. But then again, I'm not the wargamer I used to be. I'm much more interested these days in games that are playable but still pose a mental challenge.
So, the question comes to mind: If I were to redesign Rail Baron today, how would I go about it? How would I preserve the general strategic sense of accumulating railroad companies to dominate regions of a transportation market without having to resort to detailed payment and destination tables? How would I improve the playability and approachability of the game while maintaining the capitalistic appeal of railroad investment?
Before I pursue that question very far, I have to be honest about the fact that I am rather unfamiliar with the state of the art of rail games today. Other than Ticket to Ride, I haven't played any of the recent rail game genre. The 18xx series has quite a following, and I would probably do well to research those games first, to see whether they haven't already answered the "Rail Baron of the 21st century" question.
Jeff had mentioned earlier that he had a copy of Rail Baron (a 1977 Avalon Hill title designed by R.S. and Thomas F. Erickson), so after our game of 7W, we had him pull it out and teach it to us.
Learning Rail Baron took me back to the days when I played Avalon Hill games as a teenager. It was a remarkable contrast in standards of game design and production between two eras, and really two different markets in boardgaming between my early gaming days and today. In the 1970s, Avalon Hill tried to develop games as models of real-world decision-making. So the railroads in Rail Baron reflected actual railroad companies and routes at the height of the rail industry.
The early game of Rail Baron is a bit mechanical, as most routes are unowned and therefore traveled at little expense to the players. Destinations are largely determined at random, and so players roll dice and move until they reach their destinations and earn money. It is with the opportunity to invest in a railroad company or locomotive upgrade that the game begins to get interesting. Even so, the first few railroad company purchases are largely inconsequential, as it is relatively easy for opponents to avoid having to travel on your rail line and pay through the nose for passage.
It was rather late in the evening when we were each beginning to purchase our second or third railroad company, and we regrettably did not have the stamina we might have had in the 1970s to continue the game to its conclusion. But I could see, as we began to buy up all the railroad companies in the southeastern United States, that the next player to draw Miami as a destination would have to pay somebody for passage aboard that opponent's rail line, and that would be where the game would really get interesting. I was really intrigued at the notion of trying to dominate a region in the interest of forcing payment and gaining some return on the investment. We just never got to that stage in the game before we had to call it quits. Too bad, too; I was just starting to get my avaricious capitalist tycoon on.
Kathy described her impression of Rail Baron as something like railroad Monopoly, and I could see her point. The game progressed with gradual accumulation of property (indeed, the railroad company title cards closely resemble property deeds in Monopoly) and the opportunity to collect payment from opponents who were forced to travel on the rail lines you own. Although there is no property "improvement" in the obvious sense, there is still an opportunity to "monopolize" a region to guarantee payment when an opponent rolls a destination serviced only by railroads you own.
An aspect of the game that surprised me was the frequency with which it was necessary to look data up in tables - both to determine payment for destinations reached and to determine the next destination. I say it surprises me today, but it wouldn't have surprised me in the 1970s, and that fact opened my eyes to a facet of game design that has clearly changed over the years. Seldom do today's new titles require many table look-ups during the course of gameplay. For the most part, game data are either easily memorized or readily available on cards or on the board. It's hard for me to think of a game today - at least among those I typically play - that requires referral back to rules or tables the way that the strategy games of the 1970s did.
Gunfire tables from Tobruk |
So, the question comes to mind: If I were to redesign Rail Baron today, how would I go about it? How would I preserve the general strategic sense of accumulating railroad companies to dominate regions of a transportation market without having to resort to detailed payment and destination tables? How would I improve the playability and approachability of the game while maintaining the capitalistic appeal of railroad investment?
Before I pursue that question very far, I have to be honest about the fact that I am rather unfamiliar with the state of the art of rail games today. Other than Ticket to Ride, I haven't played any of the recent rail game genre. The 18xx series has quite a following, and I would probably do well to research those games first, to see whether they haven't already answered the "Rail Baron of the 21st century" question.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)