So... many... cards

This week we delved into the CRAZY world of healthy (?) snacks and quick'n'dirty card games.

Ever had organic gummy bears? They are yummy. We also had smartfood popcorn, cranberry trailmix and veggies. Of course, we're all still devastated that Luch's soy "ice cream" bars were accidentally left out of the freezer... or not.

The quick and dirty card games started with Falling! Still don't have a handle on this one. Either we're not playing right (seems likely) and/or the game is somewhat broken (again, likely). Our first 3 hands were chaos, and the last two had all players stuck holding cards they couldn't play until we landed. Anyway, all that took about 6 minutes...

Next up was Chez Geek. this was a pleasant surprise! Not a serious game by any means, and not one involving a whole lot of strategy, but here is a game that is just about getting a bunch of people together to laugh and have fun. Essentially, everyone plays roomates, each competing to be the most "Slack". Slack is accumalted by vegging out, sleeping, having great nookie, eating, drinking and having fun friends. Slack is frustrated by loud garbage trucks interrupting nookie, obnoxious aquaintances intruding on your space, and TV distracting you from a more "Slacktastic" endeavour. Every player has a different job and slack goal, and the mechanics essentially revolve around drawing and playing cards on yourself or others. Every turn you can call aquaintances to your or your roomate's rooms, and/or buy stuff or go places according to your finances and free time (your job constrains how much money and free time you actually have). our game saw plenty of nookie being had and interrupted (it should be noted that Tili consistently had the best nookie... Kozure you lucky dog). Probably my favorite card in the game is "Over enthousiastic guy", an aquaintance who goes from room to room congratulating anyone who does anything particularly "SlackWorthy". The game encourages the acting out of scenes, and there's quite a bit of laughing... always a good thing! My only criticism would be that it runs a little long for what it is, but that could easily be solved by having everyone agree to playing to a slightly lower goal. I'm not normally a guy who goes for theme over mechanics, but this one does what it does pretty well, and I enjoyed it quite a bit.

After that, we played Star Munchkin. We'd all played this one before. this is a game which essentially aspires to the same goal as Chez Geek... Funny, light, some competition but not much real strategy. It succeeds just about as well, but given the chance I'd probably play Chez Geek again first.

Next, we played Chrononauts. Again, we'd all played this one before. I felt a bit more comfortable this time, and didn't waste as much time trying to corelate the "patch" events with the trigger dates. It plays pretty smoothly once you are used to it. The outcome seems too random to make this a favorite of mine (it seems that "right time, right place" happens a lot, such as having other players trigger the right paradoxes, and not cancel certain patches, can often win the game). Quite chaotic in that sense, but still fun to play and defintely an admirable effort in game/ theme/ mechanic design.

We closed off by playing another round of Chez Geek. All in all, 9 games played in one evening! I can't remember who won any of them for sure, but I had a good time!

Chez Geek: 7

Easy

Conquest-A-Go-Go

So, last night was an evening of TWO rounds of Domaine, a chaotic game of Tigris and Euphrates, nice wine, chocolate, and of course Easy's spectacular venison stew!

Things were interesting this week, as we had a chance to explore strategies in a couple of games that we had played before, but are far from having mastered. First up was Domaine - this time we got the rules closer to correct than ever before, only messing up the endgame rule that one can't draw from the chancery after the last card is gone from the draw pile. That's fairly minor, considering some of the flagrant errors that we have made in the past on this one.

First time around, we were all fairly aware of what was happening on the board, but it didn't quite prevent me from completing an L^3G, which is Shemp lingo for the Large Late Land Grab, typically the winning maneuver in one of our games of Domaine. Second time around, we were all wise to this, and Ogami pulled off a new winning strategy, employing a central starting location and judicious use of Treaties/Alliances to keep others with more firepower (like yours truly) from encroaching on his region. Other notable strategies this game were Kozure's second place effort (attempting to control one resource laden side of the board), my mostly-failed attempt at using one soldier laden region to roll over other players, and Easy's disasterous attempt to control a resource scarce side of the board.

After these efforts, we moved on to Tigris and Euphrates, for the first time in more than four months. We mostly had a good retention of the rules, but strategies were foggy indeed. Easy easily displayed the most Snucular/Sneakular tactic, by causing conflicts between two other players, disrupting both of their tactics. That kept me, personally, off-balance and reacting most of the game. Luckily, last night off-balance, reacting, and judicious timing of the end game were sufficient to give me a win with 8 victory points. Easy recieved 7, Kozure 6, and Ogami less than that.

Seems to me that we will need to play this one a little more frequently if we hope to get more respectable final scores happening - on the up side, though, we are all fairly evenly matched. Definitely competitive, and definitely fun.

And the dinner? Let's just say that it was definitely the classiest we have had on a WAGS night, and is unlikely to be matched anytime soon - special thanks to Easy for the meat and Mrs. Shemp for the wonderful selection of vino. 'Twas bellisimo!

Bid-O-Rama

Bidding Based Game Madness - last night's session consisted of a longish 5-player game of Traders of Genoa, 1.75 rounds of Modern Art, a meat lasagna, and some x-tra crispy garlic bread.

mmmmmm, garlic.

The Tili playing = Shemp winning hypothesis recieved some supporting evidence, but is still far from a foolproof predictor of results.

mmmmmmm, results.

Well, actually, results will follow shortly; first, a commentary on Traders of Genoa. I continue to be confounded by the ceaslessly shifting character of ToG. It seems to me each time we play has a vastly different 'feel' to it - they are all enjoyable, but pacing and results vary a lot. I have a feeling that this is intrinsic to the mechanics of the game - the part of the board that any given turn takes place in is random, and the fact that everyone's conflicting agendas are in play means that the course of a turn is chaotic without being random. I think that this game definitely hits the sweet spot of "Variable, but not too Random". For further reference to this point, see Kozure's post about The Perfect Game. I also think that, as the social interaction is a vital and large component of this game (The Perfect Game Point 7), the shifting players and their shifting moods lead to a fairly wide variation in the "feel" of each session.

This was Tili's first time playing ToG, and she was definitely the most accomplished first time player that has showed up in our corner of the universe - I don't remember dollar values, but each played earned far more than in times previous. Collectively, our game ending scores broke the bank, so it seems that we are learning the game. I was able to pull it out in the end, following a strategery* of accumulating priviledges and delivering messages (coupled with total stinginess) to get a final count of 840 Florins. I believe that Easy place second in this one, as he was an order filling machine.

We had planned on playing Domaine, but there wasn't enough time to do that, so instead we pulled out the Modern Art deck and Chips - Easy gave us a heads-up about the distribution of cards (less esteemed artists have the greater number of works available), and we were ready to go. (Not too much was different from the last time that we played. We all seemed to absorb the lesson that it is usually better to take someone else's money for a painting that you are selling, rather than try to purchase it yourself, and had a fun first round, where I managed to pull out a victory.

The second game was slightly truncated due to a general sleepyness, and resulted in an Easy victory for Easy. This was thanks in part to a critical math failure on my part, choosing a profit of 40 G's over a profit of 60 G's, and giving the 60 G's to Easy. I believe that the margin of victory was less than 20, but I'm not positive. If that's true, though, I messed up on the Double Fixed Price auction of Krypto's work big-time.

Overall: a fun night of bidding games.

Next Week: Conquest-o-rama! Domaine followed by Tigris and Euphrates. Back-up quick game is still under consideration. We should try to play Domain by the proper rules, this time, eh?

The Quest for the Holy Grail... of Gaming

“Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,

but when there is nothing left to take away.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupery (1900 - 1944)

Like the Perfect Storm, the Perfect Woman/Man or the Perfect Hamburger, the Perfect Game is likely to exist only in the realm of theory and sweet, sweet dreams (well, not the storm, but you get the idea).

But that doesn’t stop us from theorizing about them.

Strangely, though I have found video games and movies which I find to be as close to perfect as is possible, I’ve not yet found a board game which seemed to succeed quite as well as those other media. Some come close, but at least for me, none seem quite ‘perfect enough’.

Obviously, the ideal will vary from person to person, and, perhaps more significantly, from gaming group to gaming group. The concept of “meta-gaming” – that esoteric atmosphere of groupthink which affects how any player games in a well known circle – has a marked effect on what games might “fly” and what games might not in any given group.
So, keeping in mind my own preferences, but also that of our own illustrious Weekly Amateur Gaming Society, here is my rough outline for the perfect game:

1. PLAYING TIME: Playable in 60-90 minutes – 120 minutes at absolute outside.


2. PLAYER LIMIT: Playable by 2-6 players, and scales well at all player numbers


3. DOWNTIME: Has low levels of downtime and low amounts of “move paralysis” – that is, the number of action options available to a player during any given turn or turn phase should be neither so numerous nor so complex as to be daunting.


4. BUILDING: Involves “building” in some way – creating and improving on something, so that you end the game with something “better” than you started. For example – more money, better city, more powerful character.


5. CONFLICT: Involves “conflict” in some way – either actual fighting or economic/qualitative/quantitative competition.


6. NOT TOO RANDOM: Minimizes randomness – players should never feel as though the luck of the die/draw is the only factor in success


7. SOCIAL INTERACTION: Involves enough player interaction that a social atmosphere is created, while avoiding interaction which otherwise slows down the game.


8. EASY TO TRACK: Minimizes calculation or the need for extensive record/bookkeeping – i.e. everything is at your fingertips or in front of you and does not have to be closely tracked by a complex process.


9. SCREW YOUR NEIGHBOUR: Gives the opportunity for “screw your neighbour” tactics – a way to play to thwart the plans of others, but in a manner that is otherwise avoidable by careful play and not overly frustrating.


10. DOWN BUT NOT OUT: A mechanic for dealing with the possibility of being knocked out of the game – that is, if someone is in a losing position, there is a way to fight back if carefully played.


11. LEADER REWARDS: A mechanic to address the standard “kill the leader” situation that rewards being in the lead without making being the leader unstoppable.


12. VICTORY CONDITIONS: A victory condition track (victory points or score) which permits the fun of being able to see how roughly how close other players are to each other (fostering competition) while maintaining some element of surprise.


13. THEME/FEEL: Game has a strong and interesting theme that is colourful but also relates to the game mechanic without bogging down the game. Execution of the mechanics of the game and the theme should mesh well at all levels. It should “feel” right.


14. REPLAYABILITY: Game should have enough “depth” that it can be played more than once – conversely, it could be simple enough that complex strategies are possible (like chess or bridge) even given relatively simple rules.

That’s all I can think of right now in terms of criteria. I’ll now analyze the top-rated/most-liked games in our group based on these points.

Puerto Rico – generally considered by popular opinion to be the best game out there. Going through the list, it’s successful on points 1-4, 6, 8, 9,12-14. Items 5, 7, 10 and 11 are less successful.

Pirate’s Cove – Does well in points 1-5, 7-9, 12-14. Only item 6 and 10 are not as well addressed. No one is ever knocked out completely, but if you fall behind, you’re probably screwed.

Tigris and Euphrates – This one is debateable, just because my mind doesn’t deal well with the more abstract strategy involved in some areas of this game. Points 1, 2, 4-6, 8, 9, 12-14 are done well. Point 3 (for me), 7, 10-11 are not as good.

Settlers of Cataan – Very popular world-wide, but very flawed. Points 1, 2 (sorta), 3-5, 7-9, 12-14 are good. Major drawback is point 6; 10 and 11 are less successful.

Bang! Done well are 1-3, 5-9, 11-13. A major, major drawback in this game is point 10. The other weakpoint in this game is almost complete lack of building/improvement – point 4 – and point 14, due to the non-fun of being forced to sit out.

Deadwood. Good: 1-4, 6-11, 13,14. Not so good: not so much conflict (5) and its generally hard to tell who’s winning (point 12) if the money is hidden, which it generally is.

Princes of Florence: Well done: 1-4, 8-14. Less well done: 5 (virtually no direct competition except in bidding, which might be enough), 6 (card draw at the beginning can make or break strategy) and 7 (no real need to talk to anyone except during bidding process)

El Grande: 1-2, 5-9, 11-14 are all good. Downtime/Move Paralysis (3) is a bit of problem for me in this game because of the depth of strategy involved. You never actually feel as though you’ve “built” anything (4), even though your kingdoms generally become larger. If you fall behind in this game (10), you generally stay behind, but the mechanic of the bid cards does permit a certain degree of comeback possibility if played correctly, so it’s half and half.

Civilization: (only included because I like it so much, but admit its flaws) 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 12-14 are done well. 1 is way out (6-8 hour play time), 3 can be a problem if you don’t pay attention, 6 is a problem with combat, 8 for resource difficulties (though they probably did as well as they could), 10 because if you’re out in this game, you’re OUT. 11 – big time kill the leader issues with this game, with no real tangible benefit for being the leader to offset.

Now – if I’ve forgotten a popular game in our group, let me know.

During the comments, I’ll look for suggestions and possible themes for a possible future “perfect” game. Feel free to throw out suggestions or additions/modifications to the list of “perfect” criteria.

We are All Bulldogs on the Pantleg of Opportunity

"All hail to the thief

But I'm not!

Don't question my

Authority or put me

In the dock

Cozimnot!

Go & tell the king that

The sky is falling in

When it's not

Maybe not."

2+2=5

from the album "Hail to the Thief"

Radiohead

As jackbooted blackshirts goose-stepped their way through the streets of Wellington, New Zealand, for the second time in the night, I decided it was time to reflect on the timely political commentary that doubled as a game in the form of Ideology: The War of Ideas.

Ideology, a first-time effort from designer Andrew Park and published by Z-Man Games, is a very compact game, both in terms of a well-written and bug-free ruleset as well as its physical box size. Once out of the box, however, the game both literally and metaphorically expands dramatically.

Ideology represents the 20th century conflicts between clashing “ideals” – Capitalism, Communism, Fascism, Imperialism and Islamic Fundamentalism. Each of the ideologies, controlled by 2-5 players, competes to obtain 12 points of global influence by bringing various regions under their sway.

Using military, economic and culture influence, drawn at the start of every turn during the resource phase, players may influence uncontrolled regions during the foreign influence phase, or initiate conflicts to eliminate enemy influence during the conflict phase. During the trade phase (just before foreign influence and conflict), players may discard influence card up to the number of regions controlled by the ideology. After trade comes development, wherein the players improve their holdings and develop advancements. After the dust has settled, a diplomacy phase follows, in which a very elegant method of determining political stance (peace, neutral, war) can have dramatic effects on the following turn. Finally, during the assessment phase, nations are increased in development and players check to see if anyone has fulfilled the end-game condition of 12 global influence points. If not, turn order is determined for the next turn and play continues.

The game seems initially complex, but gameplay is smooth and interactive. Ideology also often manages to mirror historical conflicts and situations (with the exception of the Fascist takeover of Hobbit-land above) with startling familiarity.

In two game sessions, the Soviet-Afghan war, a mini-WWII and the rise of dictatorships in South American made their appearance. Not to be confined to history, however, the games also saw Canada become completely Communist, a brief Islamic revolution in Japan, and a fascist invasion of Cuba.

In our first session, with Adolf Easy, Commie Shemp, Mullah Hapi and King Kozure competing, we failed to recognize the threat of the Red Menace’s iron curtain ability, and reacted too late to Mother Russia clasping most of Asia to its ample steel bosom. Communism reigned supreme in this world, comrade.

In the second, with our lessons squarely learned, somehow Shemp and Easy drew identical ideologies to the previous game, but with President Kozure and Emperor Hapi now making an appearance. The game was much more strategic this time, with an all-out “kill the leader” tactics much in vogue. Despite constant attacks and a very weary-looking Adolf Easy weathering union riots in Germany, the Fascists marched to victory. Shemp made frequent use of the totalitarianism special ability to stomp on the head of fledgling Capitalism in Canada. Capitalism, under the shaky leadership of President Kozure, managed only a dismal last-place finish, with Hapi and Shemp taking third and second respectively.

Overall, I quite enjoyed the game. Mechanics were tight but not confining, pacing was good without a lot of downtime, and the theme was well explored. My only quibble might be with the thin cardstock of some of the counters. I initially had a problem with the small size of the influence and advancement cards, but after actually playing the game, I realized that any larger and you would need a ping-pong table to play. As it was, even on Shemp’s medium-small dining room table, we had a tight fit. A minor drawback to a game debut which, in my opinion, is one of the strongest so far in my collection.

To kick off the evening, in honour of our theme, “Hail to the Thief”, we played a round of Taboo with US election-themed words. Chimpanzee, Pantleg, Pie, United Nations, Moral Majority, Fallujah, Al Gore, George W. Bush and other similarly loaded words, people and phrases made their way into the lexicon. A lot of fun that certainly put us in the mood for Ideology.