Hi there.
I run a blog with around 80,000 visitors a month. I was planning on linking to a post of yours ("XXX"), but couldn't access the story due to your subscription policy. Of course, I'm not going to subscribe to some local paper in YYY for a single relevant story when I live somewhere else in the world and visit hundreds of papers a day.
I'm just letting you know that I won't be linking to you on account of your subscription policy; I'm sure I represent hundreds of other bloggers who have run into the same issue but haven't bothered to inform you. If your policy works for your paper, more power to you. Just keep people like me a factor in your policy considerations.
All the best.
Yehuda Berlinger
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Friday, April 29, 2011
Session Report, in which Jessica wins some and loses some
The latest Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club session report is up. Games played: Boggle, Dominion, Tigris and Euphrates, Blokus Trigon
Only three players, which makes for a small game night.
Only three players, which makes for a small game night.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Indonesia, 7 Wonders, Acquire, Ivanhoe
Monday
Eitan, Emily, Nadine, and I played Indonesia. It was the first game for all of us, although Nadine and I had played through the first era once before.
We didn't finish this game, either; we had about one more round to go, so we didn't get to the last round where money scored is doubled. The money situation when we quit was fairly close, although I was behind and Nadine was in front. We also forgot that all bid money is kept for the player's score, and not returned to the bank. Otherwise, I think we got it mostly right. I'm still not sure about placing cities at the beginning of each era, as the rulebook is unclear on exactly how that works.
Anyhoo.
Indonesia is a straightforward economic game for 2-5 players, though it probably works best with 4 or 5 since it involves area control, competition for limited resources, and auctions. The board is a map of Indonesia with cities placed in various areas; more cities arrive as the game progresses. The game is played over several rounds, each of which has a number of phases: merge companies, acquire unclaimed companies, move up on one of the special tracks, and operate (expand your companies/ship goods).
Each company starts as a single business, available for free on the board, one per person per turn. You are limited in the number of companies you can hold based on how far you've moved up on the slots track.
There are two type of companies: shipping and production. The production companies produce any of four types of goods. Each city on the board needs a single good of each type; after a city receives one good of each type, it now needs two (additional) goods of each type, etc. To get goods, some production company has to create the good and some shipping company has to have a route between the production company and the city. The owner of the production company nets money for sending the good, but pays the owner of the shipping company some money for each space used to ship; the further away from the city, the more paid to the shipper. Shipping to a city is mandatory if the city needs the good and the company produces the good and the shipping company connects them. You may actually lose money shipping the good, paying more to the shipping company than you make in the sale.
Therefore, if you're producing, you want to be the one controlling both the production AND the shipping line between the production and several cities (letting other players ship what is needed to the other cities around the board) OR you want your production close to several cities so that you are not paying more in shipping than what you are earning for the goods. In fact, you want to be making more than double what you are paying to ship, or else the shipping company will be making more than you and win the game; and the shipping company will be making money on several players' turns.
Naturally, if you control shipping, you want to be the only one with a route between cities and far off production locations.
This is all very interesting at the beginning of the game, when there are not too many production companies and shipping lines do not extend too far, and you may influence the competition in the shipping companies to create routes for you. Unfortunately, close to the end of the game, this process becomes not only tedious (which would be bad enough) but foregone if the shipping company has become a monopoly. You can spend a half hour calculating just by how much the shipper is going to beat you. Our game was fairly close in terms of money near the end, but the remaining game play wasn't a matter of what good decisions were left to take; the decisions were trivial. It was simply a matter of calculating hundreds of additions and subtractions to arrive at the trivial answers. Which is not what I would call interesting.
The weakness lies in that mergers are a) forced, and b) irreversible. Once a merger is called between two companies, the company will be merged; the only thing left to determine is who gets the resulting company. Since merged companies can't be unmerged, and there are not sufficient shipping companies to provide any real competition once shipping companies merge, the rest of the decisions are about merging production companies - which holds some interest, but is also fairly trivial once the game is near completion, and operations - which are entirely trivial but cumbersome, as mentioned above.
Like other Splotter games, the game has some great ideas but needs to be refined just a bit more. The initial acquisitions and decisions about how to increase on the tracks is fun and challenging: do you go for more expansion, more slots, better shipping capacity, turn order? The goods delivery works well until about 2/3 of the way into the game. The mergers are half good - merging is a good mechanic, but it lacks the ability to defend against merging and to split merged companies. The choice of shipping vs production, and which goods to produce and when to merge rice and spice into a new good (meals) is good. The game overstays its welcome by 20%, and is unnecessarily complicated in terms of math and fractions ("the bid starts at 140 and increases in values of 7; you get 2/7 of the bid, and you get 5/7" "How much is 5/7 of 243?").
The map looks pretty, but is nearly non-functional with poorly demarcated borders between map sections and sections too small to contain the good markers, making a mess as production fields grow and goods get delivered to the cities. And, like many pick up and deliver games, there is an element of king-making when there isn't a monopoly.
Ok, so all of that is after one play. I made a huge mistake calling for the merger of two shipping companies, one of which I owned, when I didn't have enough money to top the high bid. Getting half the money in no way compensated for the loss of the company and its future monopolistic income, and so I pretty much lost the game at that moment. Perhaps all I'm saying is that a poor play(er) can lose or throw the game in an instant and then you'll be bored for the remainder of the game. Which is not necessarily a detraction for when the game is played between equal, experienced players. Just be sure that you like spending more time adding, subtracting, and dividing numbers than you do making actual decisions.
Tuesday
On Tuesday evening I made my first visit to the game club in Raanana. The club is run by Ellis, who made his first visit to my Jerusalem game club on Games Day on Passover.
Ellis has several hundred board games in his basement, most of them clean spanking copies of war games, but also a smaller shelf or two of Euro games (he has as many Euros as I have games altogether). Five of us played: Ellis, Jon (me), Abraham (former JSGC member who moved to Raanana), Peleg (who also came for Games Day), and H-something (forgot his name, starts with an H).
First up was 7 Wonders. First play for everyone except for me, and I had played only once. I mostly taught, with Ellis filling in the details (he actually had read the rules, while I hadn't).
7 Wonders looks like a big fat Civilization-like board game from the outside of the box, but in fact is as quick and simple as Fairy Tale or Dominion. It's a card game with 3 booster drafts of 7 cards each. Pick a card, play the card, pass the rest to the player on your left. The cards are all non-interactive: no attacks, no thefts, no special turns or actions, no nothing. Just plunk the card down and move on. The only interactive element is that, in some cases, a) the value of your card might depend on what one of your neighbors' has built, or b) you may only be able to play a card if one of your neighbors played some other card, first.
Each card either "produces" a resource, or provides points ala Ra: straight points, points in sets, points based on the cards you or your neighbor has played, points in comparison to how many cards of that type your neighbors have played (that's as far as combat goes in this game), or money to "buy resources" from your neighbors. If you don't have the resources that you need to play a card, you can pay a neighbor for that resource if they produce it (they don't lose it when you buy it; you just also get to use it). Cards are free if you already produce all the resources you need for the card, or if you've already played a card that precedes it in a kind of build path.
There are three "ages" (i.e. sets of 7 cards). Draft and build six of them, toss out the last. Do this three times. At the end of each age, compare the "combat" points and give out a few points. At the end of the game, give out more combat points (now actually worth something) and all the rest of the points. The winner has the most points.
Is it fun? Yes, it's fun. The game is balanced in many ways, many paths to victory. And, unlike other games where it simply doesn't matter which path you take, here your path is constrained based on the cards you are dealt and passed. You have a limited set of interesting choices, and your success is based partly on your neighbor having to choose whether to advance his own points and pass you what you need or block you, probably to his own detriment. Even his ability to block you is constrained: you can always start on a new path without losing what you've already played (maybe a little loss for switching, but not much), and each player can only play one of any type of card.
The game's shortcoming is, other than the lack of any interesting complications or confrontations, that as each player's tableau grows, you have to continuously check what your neighbors have played (only the two immediately on either side of you, not your opponents across the table) in order to know how they will benefit with what you pass them. You also have to continuously check your own tableau; you can play certain cards for free if you've already played other cards, but the information for this is based on the name of the card and a little reminder at the top and bottom of the appropriate cards. Until you get the game down, you will constantly refer back and forth between the card names.
In my last game, I concentrated on green card sets and didn't do spectacularly well. This time I concentrated on brown resources and still didn't do spectacularly well; in fact I mostly helped my neighbors. Peleg won by getting a decent set of just about everything. I don't know how.
We then played Acquire. First game for some of them, but Ellis and I had each played many times. Neither of us won, however; H-something did. Acquire remains a fun game, even after 50 years. I lost because I concentrated too much on outlying chains; I did well, with second place in several important chains. But I had nothing at all in the major end-game chain, and no cash for a few turns in mid-game.
Lastly we played Ivanhoe. First play for me, and I think second play for one of the other guys. I had never heard of it, but as soon as I saw that it was a card game designed by Knizia I had a pretty good idea of what I was in for: set collection or stacking, colored chips, little in the way of theme, a few action cards.
Ivanhoe is a perfect example of a Knizia game. There are five colors. One is led, and you either "fight" trying to beat all previously played sets until all but one player gives up, or you withdraw. If you win the round, you gain a chip of that color. If you win in purple, you can gain a chip in any color. Special cards affect cards already played during the round, white cards can be used for any battle, etc. Very light, entirely theme-less (overlaid with something about jousts and Ivanhoe, of course).
Ellis won before anyone else had collected more than a single chip, and I think only one other person had even managed to do that. Very luck dependent, which is ok for a light game, but this wouldn't be my first choice for a filler. I'd play again to see if I could do a little better, however.
Eitan, Emily, Nadine, and I played Indonesia. It was the first game for all of us, although Nadine and I had played through the first era once before.
We didn't finish this game, either; we had about one more round to go, so we didn't get to the last round where money scored is doubled. The money situation when we quit was fairly close, although I was behind and Nadine was in front. We also forgot that all bid money is kept for the player's score, and not returned to the bank. Otherwise, I think we got it mostly right. I'm still not sure about placing cities at the beginning of each era, as the rulebook is unclear on exactly how that works.
Anyhoo.
Indonesia is a straightforward economic game for 2-5 players, though it probably works best with 4 or 5 since it involves area control, competition for limited resources, and auctions. The board is a map of Indonesia with cities placed in various areas; more cities arrive as the game progresses. The game is played over several rounds, each of which has a number of phases: merge companies, acquire unclaimed companies, move up on one of the special tracks, and operate (expand your companies/ship goods).
Each company starts as a single business, available for free on the board, one per person per turn. You are limited in the number of companies you can hold based on how far you've moved up on the slots track.
There are two type of companies: shipping and production. The production companies produce any of four types of goods. Each city on the board needs a single good of each type; after a city receives one good of each type, it now needs two (additional) goods of each type, etc. To get goods, some production company has to create the good and some shipping company has to have a route between the production company and the city. The owner of the production company nets money for sending the good, but pays the owner of the shipping company some money for each space used to ship; the further away from the city, the more paid to the shipper. Shipping to a city is mandatory if the city needs the good and the company produces the good and the shipping company connects them. You may actually lose money shipping the good, paying more to the shipping company than you make in the sale.
Therefore, if you're producing, you want to be the one controlling both the production AND the shipping line between the production and several cities (letting other players ship what is needed to the other cities around the board) OR you want your production close to several cities so that you are not paying more in shipping than what you are earning for the goods. In fact, you want to be making more than double what you are paying to ship, or else the shipping company will be making more than you and win the game; and the shipping company will be making money on several players' turns.
Naturally, if you control shipping, you want to be the only one with a route between cities and far off production locations.
This is all very interesting at the beginning of the game, when there are not too many production companies and shipping lines do not extend too far, and you may influence the competition in the shipping companies to create routes for you. Unfortunately, close to the end of the game, this process becomes not only tedious (which would be bad enough) but foregone if the shipping company has become a monopoly. You can spend a half hour calculating just by how much the shipper is going to beat you. Our game was fairly close in terms of money near the end, but the remaining game play wasn't a matter of what good decisions were left to take; the decisions were trivial. It was simply a matter of calculating hundreds of additions and subtractions to arrive at the trivial answers. Which is not what I would call interesting.
The weakness lies in that mergers are a) forced, and b) irreversible. Once a merger is called between two companies, the company will be merged; the only thing left to determine is who gets the resulting company. Since merged companies can't be unmerged, and there are not sufficient shipping companies to provide any real competition once shipping companies merge, the rest of the decisions are about merging production companies - which holds some interest, but is also fairly trivial once the game is near completion, and operations - which are entirely trivial but cumbersome, as mentioned above.
Like other Splotter games, the game has some great ideas but needs to be refined just a bit more. The initial acquisitions and decisions about how to increase on the tracks is fun and challenging: do you go for more expansion, more slots, better shipping capacity, turn order? The goods delivery works well until about 2/3 of the way into the game. The mergers are half good - merging is a good mechanic, but it lacks the ability to defend against merging and to split merged companies. The choice of shipping vs production, and which goods to produce and when to merge rice and spice into a new good (meals) is good. The game overstays its welcome by 20%, and is unnecessarily complicated in terms of math and fractions ("the bid starts at 140 and increases in values of 7; you get 2/7 of the bid, and you get 5/7" "How much is 5/7 of 243?").
The map looks pretty, but is nearly non-functional with poorly demarcated borders between map sections and sections too small to contain the good markers, making a mess as production fields grow and goods get delivered to the cities. And, like many pick up and deliver games, there is an element of king-making when there isn't a monopoly.
Ok, so all of that is after one play. I made a huge mistake calling for the merger of two shipping companies, one of which I owned, when I didn't have enough money to top the high bid. Getting half the money in no way compensated for the loss of the company and its future monopolistic income, and so I pretty much lost the game at that moment. Perhaps all I'm saying is that a poor play(er) can lose or throw the game in an instant and then you'll be bored for the remainder of the game. Which is not necessarily a detraction for when the game is played between equal, experienced players. Just be sure that you like spending more time adding, subtracting, and dividing numbers than you do making actual decisions.
Tuesday
On Tuesday evening I made my first visit to the game club in Raanana. The club is run by Ellis, who made his first visit to my Jerusalem game club on Games Day on Passover.
Ellis has several hundred board games in his basement, most of them clean spanking copies of war games, but also a smaller shelf or two of Euro games (he has as many Euros as I have games altogether). Five of us played: Ellis, Jon (me), Abraham (former JSGC member who moved to Raanana), Peleg (who also came for Games Day), and H-something (forgot his name, starts with an H).
First up was 7 Wonders. First play for everyone except for me, and I had played only once. I mostly taught, with Ellis filling in the details (he actually had read the rules, while I hadn't).
7 Wonders looks like a big fat Civilization-like board game from the outside of the box, but in fact is as quick and simple as Fairy Tale or Dominion. It's a card game with 3 booster drafts of 7 cards each. Pick a card, play the card, pass the rest to the player on your left. The cards are all non-interactive: no attacks, no thefts, no special turns or actions, no nothing. Just plunk the card down and move on. The only interactive element is that, in some cases, a) the value of your card might depend on what one of your neighbors' has built, or b) you may only be able to play a card if one of your neighbors played some other card, first.
Each card either "produces" a resource, or provides points ala Ra: straight points, points in sets, points based on the cards you or your neighbor has played, points in comparison to how many cards of that type your neighbors have played (that's as far as combat goes in this game), or money to "buy resources" from your neighbors. If you don't have the resources that you need to play a card, you can pay a neighbor for that resource if they produce it (they don't lose it when you buy it; you just also get to use it). Cards are free if you already produce all the resources you need for the card, or if you've already played a card that precedes it in a kind of build path.
There are three "ages" (i.e. sets of 7 cards). Draft and build six of them, toss out the last. Do this three times. At the end of each age, compare the "combat" points and give out a few points. At the end of the game, give out more combat points (now actually worth something) and all the rest of the points. The winner has the most points.
Is it fun? Yes, it's fun. The game is balanced in many ways, many paths to victory. And, unlike other games where it simply doesn't matter which path you take, here your path is constrained based on the cards you are dealt and passed. You have a limited set of interesting choices, and your success is based partly on your neighbor having to choose whether to advance his own points and pass you what you need or block you, probably to his own detriment. Even his ability to block you is constrained: you can always start on a new path without losing what you've already played (maybe a little loss for switching, but not much), and each player can only play one of any type of card.
The game's shortcoming is, other than the lack of any interesting complications or confrontations, that as each player's tableau grows, you have to continuously check what your neighbors have played (only the two immediately on either side of you, not your opponents across the table) in order to know how they will benefit with what you pass them. You also have to continuously check your own tableau; you can play certain cards for free if you've already played other cards, but the information for this is based on the name of the card and a little reminder at the top and bottom of the appropriate cards. Until you get the game down, you will constantly refer back and forth between the card names.
In my last game, I concentrated on green card sets and didn't do spectacularly well. This time I concentrated on brown resources and still didn't do spectacularly well; in fact I mostly helped my neighbors. Peleg won by getting a decent set of just about everything. I don't know how.
We then played Acquire. First game for some of them, but Ellis and I had each played many times. Neither of us won, however; H-something did. Acquire remains a fun game, even after 50 years. I lost because I concentrated too much on outlying chains; I did well, with second place in several important chains. But I had nothing at all in the major end-game chain, and no cash for a few turns in mid-game.
Lastly we played Ivanhoe. First play for me, and I think second play for one of the other guys. I had never heard of it, but as soon as I saw that it was a card game designed by Knizia I had a pretty good idea of what I was in for: set collection or stacking, colored chips, little in the way of theme, a few action cards.
Ivanhoe is a perfect example of a Knizia game. There are five colors. One is led, and you either "fight" trying to beat all previously played sets until all but one player gives up, or you withdraw. If you win the round, you gain a chip of that color. If you win in purple, you can gain a chip in any color. Special cards affect cards already played during the round, white cards can be used for any battle, etc. Very light, entirely theme-less (overlaid with something about jousts and Ivanhoe, of course).
Ellis won before anyone else had collected more than a single chip, and I think only one other person had even managed to do that. Very luck dependent, which is ok for a light game, but this wouldn't be my first choice for a filler. I'd play again to see if I could do a little better, however.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Shabbat Gaming
Had my friends over for all of shabbat ... and his parents, and their daughter and her new husband. I slept on the couch. I also had Nadine over for both meals and we played games in the afternoon.
Nadine and I taught Dominion to the newlyweds. He had played a few games before, such as Settlers and Puerto Rico; he had played them at a friend's house in Beit Shemesh, a friend who had learned the games at my house when I had lived there. She played some bridge, taught to her by her father.
We used the base set: Village, Workshop, Bureaucrat, Feast, Gardens, Council Room, Festival, Market, Mine, Adventurer.
I've never been comfortable with a Gardens strategy. We all ignored it in the first game, instead concentrating on Village, Festival, Mine, Market, and so on. I tied for first with 28 points.
The second game, I decided to try Gardens; no one else did, so it worked spectacularly. I bought mostly kingdoms that gave additional cards, such as Workshop and Bureaucrat, and additional buys, such as Festival - I skipped Market and Council Room. I also got a few Villages, so that I could play the other cards more than once a turn.
The others continued as they did in the previous game, with a few more Bureaucrats and Council Rooms added in for good measure. The game ended when I had exactly 49 cards and 10 Gardens. Argh! Didn't matter. I had 55 points, and my nearest competitor had 38.
I saw my friends and the newlyweds playing Apples to Apples later in the day.
In the evening, my friend and his father and I played Cribbage, which was a very close game until I pulled off 16 point on the penultimate turn, leaving me five points from winning and first to play and score. I started by playing a 7. It was followed by an 8 and then a 9, whereupon I played my 6, for 4 points, and another point for the go, which was all I needed.
We then played a number of hands of three-player bridge.
Nice to have gamers of a different sort over once in a while.
Nadine and I taught Dominion to the newlyweds. He had played a few games before, such as Settlers and Puerto Rico; he had played them at a friend's house in Beit Shemesh, a friend who had learned the games at my house when I had lived there. She played some bridge, taught to her by her father.
We used the base set: Village, Workshop, Bureaucrat, Feast, Gardens, Council Room, Festival, Market, Mine, Adventurer.
I've never been comfortable with a Gardens strategy. We all ignored it in the first game, instead concentrating on Village, Festival, Mine, Market, and so on. I tied for first with 28 points.
The second game, I decided to try Gardens; no one else did, so it worked spectacularly. I bought mostly kingdoms that gave additional cards, such as Workshop and Bureaucrat, and additional buys, such as Festival - I skipped Market and Council Room. I also got a few Villages, so that I could play the other cards more than once a turn.
The others continued as they did in the previous game, with a few more Bureaucrats and Council Rooms added in for good measure. The game ended when I had exactly 49 cards and 10 Gardens. Argh! Didn't matter. I had 55 points, and my nearest competitor had 38.
I saw my friends and the newlyweds playing Apples to Apples later in the day.
In the evening, my friend and his father and I played Cribbage, which was a very close game until I pulled off 16 point on the penultimate turn, leaving me five points from winning and first to play and score. I started by playing a 7. It was followed by an 8 and then a 9, whereupon I played my 6, for 4 points, and another point for the go, which was all I needed.
We then played a number of hands of three-player bridge.
Nice to have gamers of a different sort over once in a while.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Games Day Session Report
The Games Day session report for the Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club is up. Games played: Age of Empires III, Antike, Citadels, Cosmic Encounter, Dominion x 3, El Grande, Genoa, Heroes of Graxia (pre-first look), Homesteaders, It's Alive x 3, Key Harvest, Lord of the Rings: The Confrontation, Notre Dame, Odds and Evens, R-Eco, Rock Paper Scissors, Settlers of Catan, Steam, Tigris and Euphrates, Tobago, Torres, Tribune.
25 participants, and a hopping Games Day.
25 participants, and a hopping Games Day.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Passover Gaming
Passover at my brother's.
During the seder we played my "Four Children's" game: I give each person a card with four neutral items (such as winter, spring, summer, fall) and they have to say which, according to them, corresponds to which of the four children. There are no wrong or right answers.
I've played this game for several years now, and I make new cards each year. I think it's time I get it published.
I also made cards with people, items, and books, where you have to act out the person (such as Moshe or Pharaoh) and the other players have to guess who you are and give you your item and book. The items and books are all humorous and midrashic.
The next day I taught Ben and kids to play Tobago. The kids totally didn't get it and they wanted to play again. Ben got it and naturally lost due to bad luck. And this is despite playing without the curses (which works just as well, perhaps better, than playing with them). I won with 45 points.
During the seder we played my "Four Children's" game: I give each person a card with four neutral items (such as winter, spring, summer, fall) and they have to say which, according to them, corresponds to which of the four children. There are no wrong or right answers.
I've played this game for several years now, and I make new cards each year. I think it's time I get it published.
I also made cards with people, items, and books, where you have to act out the person (such as Moshe or Pharaoh) and the other players have to guess who you are and give you your item and book. The items and books are all humorous and midrashic.
The next day I taught Ben and kids to play Tobago. The kids totally didn't get it and they wanted to play again. Ben got it and naturally lost due to bad luck. And this is despite playing without the curses (which works just as well, perhaps better, than playing with them). I won with 45 points.
Monday, April 18, 2011
Happy Passover, etc
My Hebrew birthday tonight.
I'm off to my brother's and I'm picking out the games.
Happy Passover.
I'm off to my brother's and I'm picking out the games.
Happy Passover.
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Session Report, in which I give first impressions on 7 Wonders
The latest Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club session report is up. Games played: 7 Wonders, Age of Empires III, Puerto Rico, Havoc: The Hundred Years War.
Binyamin wins every game (again), I lose every game, and I give an overview and first impressions on 7 Wonders. And we break out Havoc after not playing it for some time.
Earlier this week I played Scrabble with my daughter Tal and Jessica. We gave Tal only minimal assistance and she beat us both.
Binyamin wins every game (again), I lose every game, and I give an overview and first impressions on 7 Wonders. And we break out Havoc after not playing it for some time.
Earlier this week I played Scrabble with my daughter Tal and Jessica. We gave Tal only minimal assistance and she beat us both.
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Specialization is for Insects - Robert Heinlein
Not long ago, people stayed in one company and worked in one field their entire life: one profession, one workplace. The days of "one workplace" are gone, and recognition of this fact has been addressed by various professional and government organizations.
The days of "one profession" are also rapidly coming to a close. It's not only that we are living relatively long lives. It's that entire fields and professions are rising and declining at an increasingly rapid rate.
Professions such as programming, music publishing, journalism, marketing, and so on are going through radical upheavals. Even if you were to stay in "journalism", a profession that continues to be relevant, the skills and shape of what journalism is and does is in radical flux. You may as well be in a different profession today than the one you were in ten years ago.
What troubles me is not upheaval but the specialization in our universities. Today's educational model is the same one that existed 200 years ago, namely that a student picks a single field in which to get an education, with little thought to the future of the field itself. For a great amount of the four years spent in university, a student learns nothing but that field: half of the education consists of skills that are obsolete by the time the student graduates. The other half is obsolete when the field is no longer recognizable in its current form, or falls entirely by the wayside while some other new business concept takes its place.
But wait. Don't you want your doctor to have studied long and hard to perfect his special skill before he operates? Don't you have to learn through everything that has ever been written about a single topic before you can break new ground in that topic? Well, yes. It's not that people should stop learning a single topic deeply. It's that people should stop relying on a single field as a guarantee of an income.
Too often you hear about unemployed 40- or 50-somethings who despair of finding work "out of their field" because they have a single skill set and can't possibly learn a new one at their age.
We need to turn people onto the idea that acquiring new skills and being open to new passions are as important as learning the knowledge of a single field on a deep level. It is worth considering helping our students learn to be adaptable, to recognize opportunity, and to emphasize retraining as a matter of course, not a matter of desperation.
The days of "one profession" are also rapidly coming to a close. It's not only that we are living relatively long lives. It's that entire fields and professions are rising and declining at an increasingly rapid rate.
Professions such as programming, music publishing, journalism, marketing, and so on are going through radical upheavals. Even if you were to stay in "journalism", a profession that continues to be relevant, the skills and shape of what journalism is and does is in radical flux. You may as well be in a different profession today than the one you were in ten years ago.
What troubles me is not upheaval but the specialization in our universities. Today's educational model is the same one that existed 200 years ago, namely that a student picks a single field in which to get an education, with little thought to the future of the field itself. For a great amount of the four years spent in university, a student learns nothing but that field: half of the education consists of skills that are obsolete by the time the student graduates. The other half is obsolete when the field is no longer recognizable in its current form, or falls entirely by the wayside while some other new business concept takes its place.
But wait. Don't you want your doctor to have studied long and hard to perfect his special skill before he operates? Don't you have to learn through everything that has ever been written about a single topic before you can break new ground in that topic? Well, yes. It's not that people should stop learning a single topic deeply. It's that people should stop relying on a single field as a guarantee of an income.
Too often you hear about unemployed 40- or 50-somethings who despair of finding work "out of their field" because they have a single skill set and can't possibly learn a new one at their age.
We need to turn people onto the idea that acquiring new skills and being open to new passions are as important as learning the knowledge of a single field on a deep level. It is worth considering helping our students learn to be adaptable, to recognize opportunity, and to emphasize retraining as a matter of course, not a matter of desperation.
Thursday, April 07, 2011
Session Report, in which Mace scores 156 points in a game of Dominion
The latest Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club session report is up. Games played: Boggle x 3, Tribune, Settlers of Catan, Dominion/Prosperity x 2, R-Eco.
Two new people show up, one of whom may return on a regular basis. Mace scores over 150 points in a game of Dominion.
Two new people show up, one of whom may return on a regular basis. Mace scores over 150 points in a game of Dominion.
Wednesday, April 06, 2011
U.S. Toys & Games Catalog Exhibition in Israel, May 10, 2011
The U.S. Commercial Service will be hosting a meeting between U.S. toy and game companies and Israeli importers and distributors in Israel on May 10. This is the first event of its kind in Israel, to my knowledge.
I've applied for a press pass.
(source)
I've applied for a press pass.
(source)
Saturday, April 02, 2011
Games Day Event Planned at the JSGC
It's another Games Day at the Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club, 7/5 Hayarden St, on April 20 from 10 am to 10 pm.
The JSGC plays all types of board and card games, from classics such as Go, Scrabble, and Bridge, to modern day European and American games such as Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, and Twilight Imperium III. We teach new games to people of all ages, so don't be afraid to come if you don't already know the games.
You must have curiosity, good manners (no throwing tantrums or game pieces), and a modicum of intellect. Children must be under adult supervision at all times.
Please bring store bought kosher for passover snacks only to share. Membership for the half-year is also accepted at this time.
The JSGC meets almost every Wed, year round, at 7/5 Hayarden St, from 6:30 pm to 11:30 pm. We have had players aged 7 to 70; the average ages are 20s to 40s, men and women alike.
For more information, please call me at 0545-987034.
The JSGC plays all types of board and card games, from classics such as Go, Scrabble, and Bridge, to modern day European and American games such as Puerto Rico, Settlers of Catan, and Twilight Imperium III. We teach new games to people of all ages, so don't be afraid to come if you don't already know the games.
You must have curiosity, good manners (no throwing tantrums or game pieces), and a modicum of intellect. Children must be under adult supervision at all times.
Please bring store bought kosher for passover snacks only to share. Membership for the half-year is also accepted at this time.
The JSGC meets almost every Wed, year round, at 7/5 Hayarden St, from 6:30 pm to 11:30 pm. We have had players aged 7 to 70; the average ages are 20s to 40s, men and women alike.
For more information, please call me at 0545-987034.
Friday, April 01, 2011
Session Report, in which we take too long to play Shipyard
The latest Jerusalem Strategy Gaming Club session report is up. Games played: R-Eco, Shipyard.
Shipyard takes the four of us 3.5 hours.
Shipyard takes the four of us 3.5 hours.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)