Undefeated

Well, Shemp pulled off another come-from-behind win in Macao, which makes it 5 wins for 5 plays for him. 100%. Undefeated.

Impressive... most impressive.

We also played In the Year of the Dragon (Easy won) and Jungle Speed (Bharmer and Easy won one each).

I had to content myself with two (close) second place finishes in the non-filler games.

Which brings me to the interesting question... which games are we, as members of this group, good at?

There are many games which I enjoy but I'm not necessarily good at. Power Grid, for example, I usually come in the middle of the pack (used to be middle-high end, but recent plays have left me lower than usual). Conversely, one of the games which I almost put in the "will not play willingly" category, Phoenicia, I actually had my own personal highest win rate for. What does it say about me that the game I win most often I happen to dislike? Fortunately, (or maybe unfortunately for my win record), Phoenicia has been traded away.

I think I've got a reasonably good win rate at Railroad Tycoon. I enjoy it, which usually assists in getting me to play better. I'm also usually pretty decent at Tikal.

As mentioned in previous entries, when El Grande was introduced to the group, I had a fairly high win ratio. Over time, that edge has been lost and now I'm frequently middling.

Shemp, as mentioned, is trending high wins at Macao.

This weekend, at TABSCON, I had the opportunity to play Race for the Galaxy with two people who play it a lot. I was creamed. Seriously creamed, twice in a row. Point spreads of something like 70 or 80 to my 30-ish. I felt like... well, I'd use some sports analogy here but I don't know sports teams well enough... the Nigerian Woman's Hockey Team up against Canada... or Canada's soccer team up against Spain. I thought I was not bad at RftG, but either I just had two seriously bad runs of luck, or those guys are super-geniuses. Now, granted, we were playing with two expansions, one of which I hadn't played before, but I was not in the running here.

One nice thing about going to places like TABSCON, it exposes you to playing skill levels outside your "regular" group. Generally I've found, much to my satisfaction, I do pretty well against other groups, save in games where it's obvious they play a particular game a lot.

I think it's clear, if you're a regular reader, that I'm not a "play only for the win" kinda guy. I try to win, for sure, but for me, it's the social atmosphere, friendly competition and sense of thematic engagement that draws me to board gaming.

But sometimes... sometimes... I just want that first place finish, dang it!

Hey WAGsters (or readers), what are the games that you're good at?

Killer Mechanics

My post a few weeks ago regarding Shadows over Camelot got me thinking about how specific mechanics can be so cool that they practically make the game. This is not to take away from the remainder of the system, but rather it's the kind of thing that takes an already great game and makes it excellent. I'll describe a few which I think deserve to be on this list and I'd like to hear from the rest of you on others I may have forgot...

Lord of the Rings:

This is the game that got me thinking on the topic. I feel that the Corruption track is a brilliant design... it's what differentiates this game from all other LotR games; the fact that Knizia went for the psychological aspect of the journey more than the physical one. As the hobbits get corrupted and Sauron approaches, a palpable sense of impending doom unites the players on the quest in a way that literal battle simulations do not. Genius.

Tigris & Euphrates:

The decision to make your lowest scoring colour your score makes the game. A small but important touch.

El Grande:

There are several very interesting mechanics here, but the two which stand out are the Castillo and the effect of the King on Caballero placement.

Power Grid:

The market for fuel is wonderful. If there had been a way to pull this off without the finicky upkeep, it would have been even better.

Ra:

The trading of the sun tiles is a fantastic idea... it adds a subtle but very important aspect tot he game. to a lesser extent, th destruction tiles are also a good way to make lots become worth different values to different people.

High Society:

No matter how much "stuff" a player has purchased, the poorest player at the end of the game loses. It's a small thing, but it changes the entire game from a straightforward money management game to a long series of perplexing decisions.

Puerto Rico:

The idea of picking a role for yourself AND for every other player every turn is quite interesting. What action would benefit yourself the most and your opponents the least? I describe this as the ultimate passive aggressive game!

Call of Cthulu RPG:

The system representing sanity is simple but very clever. The idea is that your stat for sanity is a percentage, and it's value goes down as you are faced with unspeakable horrors. Success rolls BELOW your current percentage prevent you from going insane when things get kind of ...creepy. I've been tempted to create entire RPG systems around this mechanic, I liked it so much! (if this has been done elsewhere, I don't know about it...)

*****

In conclusion, it becomes pretty obvious that Reiner Knizia is the king of "Killer Mechanics". If his games offer nothing else, they give us that (of course, they give much more...). Curiously, Princes of Florence, one of my favorite games, doesn't fit in this list very well... for me it's a very elegant assembly of mostly mundane mechanics.

Any others?

Attaching a Rating to Fun?

Sooner or later, as a collector or as an afficianado, you start to make the inevitable "lists".

Best game, worst game, top 10, top 50, etc., etc.

I just finished the exercise of rating all the games we've played as a group over at BGG. It's pretty hard - you realize how relative a lot of your preferences are and how souless a simple 1-10 rating can feel.

Some games are good for quick, silly rounds, others are good for long, brain-burning sessions. How do you attach a rating to fun?

I noticed while rating games at BGG that they use a system based on how often you are willing to play a game - which might skew the ratings if you're generally an enthusiastic player or otherwise quite jaded.

There are a few games in our repetoire that, while I appreciate their technical artistry and execution, I don't feel like playing all that often. In at least two major cases (Tigris and Euphrates and El Grande) I rated games a full point lower than the majority of BGG ratings just because I don't really enjoy them as much as others seem to do. In other cases, I've rated games higher than they probably deserve from a technical standpoint, just because they have sentimental or personal elements to them which evoke a more emotional rating.

So, my ratings are a combination of technical appreciation with gut feeling like/dislikes.

What's your personal system?

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.