The latest post on The Games Journal is about Risk and its descendants, and it is excellent, as usual. Which only serves to confirm my earlier comment that it is a hard job to produce unedited material with the same quality as edited material.
I'm back in Beit Shemesh for shabbat to see my parents. I will probably play some cards with my Mom, but other than that I don't know what to expect. Sometimes I end up playing with some of the teenage kids in the neighborhood. I brought Torres, Havoc, Modern Art, and something else. I also should have brought Puerto Rico to play with Rachel; it's been a while. I would like to try her on Caylus sometime next week.
In a BGG thread I explained again why I don't like St Petersburg, but only because someone asked me to. I really have no desire to convince anyone not to like a game that they like, simply because I don't like it. I guess my only purpose was to help someone whose tastes match my own and who is considering buying the game. They may save themselves some money.
Everyone knows that likes and dislikes are a funny sort of thing. In looking over why I don't like the game, the reasons that I give can be divided into two types: critical (objective) and subjective.
My critical reasons are those that serve to objectively evaluate the game design and its success or failure at achieving game balance. For instance, suppose that the game designer wanted to provide three strategic paths: path A, path B, or a mixture of both.
If I demonstrate that path B is either uninteresting or unachievable, then the only serious remaining strategy in the game is path A. Or, at least, the only interesting tension in the game is path A. Whether I demonstrate this or not, this is a critical assessment, which is, at least purportedly, objective.
Subjective reasons are where I say that I don't like this or that type of game mechanic, such as roll-and-move, or what have you. In fact, people may not really care if there are multiple paths to strategy in a game, so even if the game objectively fails in this fashion, it may not bother them.
These two types of reasons combine into one unhelpful mess of a numeric rating. That's why comments are so much more helpful than numbers. Or than "I really like this game!" But you know that.
This division between assessment types is no more nor less than the distinctions we make when evaluating anything, be it music, art, movies, food, and so on.
One evening about three years ago I tried to explain to my son this distinction. I said that I think that a particular (heavy metal) band is objectively talented and makes good music, but that I just don't like to hear it. It took him about a half a year before he could accept this, and I'm not sure that he really has. To him, there was music you like and music you don't, and nothing can be said to be objectively good or bad. No one ever says that something is good or bad except according to their own perspective, said he. Moral relativism is a big comfort to kids whose battle cry is "You can't tell me what to do! You're not the boss of me! Why do I have to do that just because you say so?!"
Alas for him, I don't believe in moral relativism. But I digress.
Is there a solid line between objective and subjective evaluation? Most people don't agree with my particular assessment of Saint Petersburg, and not only due to my subjective criticisms. It's possible that my objective criticisms are more subjective than I am willing to believe. Is it tautological that when people disagree about a criticism that it must be subjective? Or do we just fundamentally disagree on the conclusions? Have I simply not been articulate enough in my objective criticisms?
Yehuda
Technorati tags: board games, board game, moral relativism
Showing posts with label st petersburg. Show all posts
Showing posts with label st petersburg. Show all posts
Friday, May 19, 2006
Thursday, December 08, 2005
Shamelessly Tooting My Horn
(Written in order to cheer myself up)
My brother called me with his and his children's assessment of last Saturday night's gaming.
They thought St Pete was deeply flawed. The mechanics seemed ok, but the blue cards were not worth anything, the luck of the draw and too powerful cards swung the game, and the game was too short. They suggested doubling the value of blue buildings, eliminating some cards, and finding a way to make the game longer.
They thought Torres was ok and would like to try again, but they suspected that the game will tend to drag as people think about what to do (this was their first experience with an "action point" game).
The game they liked most was my Menorah game; they said it was short, easy to teach, but still involved some nice thought. However, they had some suggestions: the person who ends up getting a lot of low cards has a strong chance of winning, which is too luck driven - maybe I can change the card distribution to a bell curve? Also that they don't see that people will buy cards from the discard pile often. Also that maybe the soldiers could all be valued 6 but can be used to draw any card from a discard pile (i.e. even a higher valued one). And wouldn't it be nice to combine cards so that you don't end up buying useless cards.
As for his first complaint, the simple answer is to play with the advanced scoring rules. As for the last complaint, I pointed out that the possibility of useless cards is one of the central mechanisms to the decision making process in a good auction and changing that would wreck the game. As for the others, I'm willing to let him try them out and report back to me ;-) .
----
FWIW, I'm still number one on PR game.com (formerly www.puertoricogame.net). If I don't play any more games, I may stay there for a while, but others are creeping up in ratings and likely to overtake me soon enough.
----
Hey, you! I would be much obliged if all those of you to whom I link would be kind enough to link back to me, assuming you like my blog. We love eyeballs.
----
"Hey, Jon. Let's watch a movie."
Time to go ...
Yehuda
My brother called me with his and his children's assessment of last Saturday night's gaming.
They thought St Pete was deeply flawed. The mechanics seemed ok, but the blue cards were not worth anything, the luck of the draw and too powerful cards swung the game, and the game was too short. They suggested doubling the value of blue buildings, eliminating some cards, and finding a way to make the game longer.
They thought Torres was ok and would like to try again, but they suspected that the game will tend to drag as people think about what to do (this was their first experience with an "action point" game).
The game they liked most was my Menorah game; they said it was short, easy to teach, but still involved some nice thought. However, they had some suggestions: the person who ends up getting a lot of low cards has a strong chance of winning, which is too luck driven - maybe I can change the card distribution to a bell curve? Also that they don't see that people will buy cards from the discard pile often. Also that maybe the soldiers could all be valued 6 but can be used to draw any card from a discard pile (i.e. even a higher valued one). And wouldn't it be nice to combine cards so that you don't end up buying useless cards.
As for his first complaint, the simple answer is to play with the advanced scoring rules. As for the last complaint, I pointed out that the possibility of useless cards is one of the central mechanisms to the decision making process in a good auction and changing that would wreck the game. As for the others, I'm willing to let him try them out and report back to me ;-) .
----
FWIW, I'm still number one on PR game.com (formerly www.puertoricogame.net). If I don't play any more games, I may stay there for a while, but others are creeping up in ratings and likely to overtake me soon enough.
----
Hey, you! I would be much obliged if all those of you to whom I link would be kind enough to link back to me, assuming you like my blog. We love eyeballs.
----
"Hey, Jon. Let's watch a movie."
Time to go ...
Yehuda
Saturday, December 03, 2005
Weekend Gaming
Friday night: guests, their 6 year old son and a friend. The son taught his friend chess on our Star Wars: Attack of the Clones chess board (nifty looking, actually). Then I gave them a deck of cards to play War, and then I gave them Othello. This was during dinner, so I didn't have time to sit and teach them anything else.
Saturday lunch: at Nadine's house, afterwards we player Puerto Rico with Nadine's daughter, Ginat. I had difficulty acquiring a trade good, even though I bought an early Factory. Nadine also had Factory and four goods, while Rachel was massively producing with Hospice (we play that a colonist gets moved onto it the moment you buy it) and Hacienda. Ginat had a coffee monopoly for most of the game, but only a few game's worth of playing experience.
Somewhere near the end of the game either Rachel took a phase too many or I did something wrong and we became totally confused as to which round we were in, who was governor, and so forth. After some arguing, it looked like it might be my turn and I ended the game, feeling sure that more rounds wouldn't help me, although I did have Harbor. The game ended with Nadine at 51, me at 50, and Rachel at 47, with Rachel convinced that she may have won if we had gone one more round.
Saturday night: I visited my older brother David who doesn't get out of the house much because he has a perennially sick child. Every once in a while I show them some new games and they end up buying a few of them.
First up was my prototype, as in really my pre-prototype, because I hadn't had a chance to cut any more copies of my printed prototypes since I sold the last one on Game Night. We played twice, and Pini, David's eldest, won both games. David thought the "buy a card out of the discard pile" mechanism didn't happen enough, but I'm not sure if that's bad, and I'm not sure how I would change it without wrecking it, anyway. Anyway, they liked it, and I will be sending them a copy for Hanukkah.
Next was Torres, which they liked, although it was certainly a more complicated game. I won by a reasonable margin, but no overkill. Both David and his two kids did pretty well for a first playing.
Last was St Petersburg. I went into this knowing that the game had problems. I even tried to fix one of the major problems by having all blue buildings score an additional time at the end of the game. It didn't help.
I am convinced that this game is deeply and inherently flawed beyond fixing. It seems to me that the game is entirely determined by the order the cards flip up, and the amount of control that you have concerning this order, while not nil, is too slight to matter. I grabbed an Observatory first turn and walked off with the game without even a challenge. Whether the right Aristocrats will flip up, whether Aristocrat exchange cards flip up in a way that you can grab them, and the complete dominance of the Aristocrat cards - it's just not any fun.
Maybe, maybe the game can be fixed by changing the Aristocrat bonus to 2 pt/Aristocrat, instead of a progression. Frankly, I can't understand how this got out the door in its current form, let alone won Game of the Year. I must be missing something really obvious.
Yehuda
Saturday lunch: at Nadine's house, afterwards we player Puerto Rico with Nadine's daughter, Ginat. I had difficulty acquiring a trade good, even though I bought an early Factory. Nadine also had Factory and four goods, while Rachel was massively producing with Hospice (we play that a colonist gets moved onto it the moment you buy it) and Hacienda. Ginat had a coffee monopoly for most of the game, but only a few game's worth of playing experience.
Somewhere near the end of the game either Rachel took a phase too many or I did something wrong and we became totally confused as to which round we were in, who was governor, and so forth. After some arguing, it looked like it might be my turn and I ended the game, feeling sure that more rounds wouldn't help me, although I did have Harbor. The game ended with Nadine at 51, me at 50, and Rachel at 47, with Rachel convinced that she may have won if we had gone one more round.
Saturday night: I visited my older brother David who doesn't get out of the house much because he has a perennially sick child. Every once in a while I show them some new games and they end up buying a few of them.
First up was my prototype, as in really my pre-prototype, because I hadn't had a chance to cut any more copies of my printed prototypes since I sold the last one on Game Night. We played twice, and Pini, David's eldest, won both games. David thought the "buy a card out of the discard pile" mechanism didn't happen enough, but I'm not sure if that's bad, and I'm not sure how I would change it without wrecking it, anyway. Anyway, they liked it, and I will be sending them a copy for Hanukkah.
Next was Torres, which they liked, although it was certainly a more complicated game. I won by a reasonable margin, but no overkill. Both David and his two kids did pretty well for a first playing.
Last was St Petersburg. I went into this knowing that the game had problems. I even tried to fix one of the major problems by having all blue buildings score an additional time at the end of the game. It didn't help.
I am convinced that this game is deeply and inherently flawed beyond fixing. It seems to me that the game is entirely determined by the order the cards flip up, and the amount of control that you have concerning this order, while not nil, is too slight to matter. I grabbed an Observatory first turn and walked off with the game without even a challenge. Whether the right Aristocrats will flip up, whether Aristocrat exchange cards flip up in a way that you can grab them, and the complete dominance of the Aristocrat cards - it's just not any fun.
Maybe, maybe the game can be fixed by changing the Aristocrat bonus to 2 pt/Aristocrat, instead of a progression. Frankly, I can't understand how this got out the door in its current form, let alone won Game of the Year. I must be missing something really obvious.
Yehuda
Friday, November 04, 2005
BGG.con: Thursday, Nov 03
First off, I have to give thanks to everyone who has been so generous to me. I am the type of person who is unashamed to ask for favors that I know that I would happily give in return, and do when I am able.
Being here without a car, many people have offered me rides: Chris Trimmer, Jeff Coon, Eran Eldar. People have agreed to help me sell my stuff on Saturday morning when I can't be at the con, such as Aldie, Dan, and the guys at Sunriver Games. And one even offered me a place to sleep in the hotel on Saturday night. Amazing. Thanks also to my friends, David and Sharron Elkins, for hosting me all week. Thanks so much, and if you're ever in Israel, come stay by us.
The transportation authority gave me one more kick as I watched the bus go sailing by on my way to the bus stop and had to wait 40 minutes for the next. I got to the center about 11:00 .
My first stop was to greet Chris Brooks and meet KC at Sunriver Games. KC had done his own mockup of my game and had lots of ideas for more interesting scoring patterns. I hope to play some today to see if they enhance or just complicate the game. Also, he had more theme ideas; no one outside of Israel is enthused with the Hanukkah theme.
I stored my games to trade in their closet.
My goal was to play lots of games that I have on my want list to see if I really want them. I also just sat in for whatever game was around, however.
My first three games were a progression of train games: TransAmerica, Ticket to Ride: Europe, and Age of Steam. The last two are on my want list.
TransAmerica I played just to say that I played it. It was, as I expected, fairly trivial to play and basically determined by the set of cards you have. I got lucky with the cards and embarrassed both myself and my fellow players Chris and Rita by winning 0 to 11 to 12+ .
Next was Ticket to Ride: Europe. I played with a family: Darlene, John, and their son Kevin, and also Lewis (I really should know who he is, since I played several games with him all day). I understand that the routes are more balanced in this version (rather than Ticket to Ride) and the tunnel and train station mechanisms were added. I liked the game enough to consider it, and I thought the routes were balanced. There was also ample opportunity for screwage that most people didn't take advantage of in our game. I liked the train station mechanism. I really didn't like the tunnel mechanism, which is basically that when you complete a tunnel route, you flip cards to see if you need to pay more cards. Reminds me of the card flipping mechanism of Goa, which is my least favorite part of that game.
Scores: Yehuda 130, Darlene 125, Lewis 125, John 114, Kevin 84.
Then I got to play a game I was really looking forward to: Age of Steam. Joining me were Lewis, Jim, Jessie, and Alan. This was a great game and a tight game. In this particular game, the board was almost totally bereft of good shipping opportunities. I don't know how it is, but I got into "the zone" almost immediately, timing my cash and prospering well, although my train never got very large. My strategy was two-fold: spend no money on auctioning for first, and simply make do with whatever role you receive; and when in doubt: ship first, build an extra track, or upgrade your train. I know that some of the other roles are classically better, but given the lack of shipping opportunities, I figured that the money I save not having to issue shares, the extra tracks, and the gaining access to the goods before others, were keyS to victory.
I was right as it turns out, although if the game had lasted one more round I would have lost. Scores: Yehuda 50, Jim 49, Alan 49, Jessie 40, Lewis 33 .
Having won my first several games, I was anticipating a comeuppance, which happened, as I never won any other games today.
Let me just break for a moment to tell you a little about the site:
The con occupies the entire fifth floor of the south tower of the hotel. There are three main rooms: the registration/prize table room, where everyone got to pick a game; the main play area, decorated in great game cutouts and mobiles; and the business room, with stands by various companies, the game library, and lots of game demos.
When I registered, I got to pick a game, and I picked Primordial Soup, not knowing that it was on sale next door at $25. Still, I'm happy. Also included was a game sample by Dancing Eggplant games, which was a nice bonus.
There were some amazing setups. A huge Heroscape landscape, a huge Memoir 44 scenario taking up a few tables, and a huge Carabande track. There were also some Crokinole sets with BGG logos on them (sweet) and BGG.con T-shirts for sale.
There were so many games being played and so many games that I wanted to play, it was frustrating. The big game hit seemed to be Caylus, with people playing non-stop on three tables and lots of good feedback. People came up to me a lot saying how much they enjoyed reading about my disastrous trip to Dallas (... enjoyed?) and everyone was basically great and we all had a good time.
Since I have organized things before, I know that if everything seems to run smoothly, then a whole lot of people must have put in a whole lot of work. Amazing job, staff of BGG. Well done.
Back to me: I roped people into playing my Game Prototype several times. A few times people only liked it, because the tiles or players somehow didn't interact much, but most of the time people were enthusiastic. I think the real judge is if anyone goes to play it twice, or if people spontaneously go over to the table to play it (I left it on a table). I'm waiting to see if that happens.
I played Odin's Ravens with Jeff Coon, and wasn't expecting much, but it turned out to be pretty nifty with some replay value. A little too much in the luck department. I pulled ahead majorly at the start, but Jeff basically creeped up until we were both 11/11 and then we ended the game with him winning 18 to 14.
I also sat in on a demo of Chizo Rising, a collectible tile game. "Collectible" is a bad word to many gamers, but you can buy the prepackaged sets and pretend that the game is not collectible. The game plays by placing the tiles orthogonally to each other, yours facing you and his facing him. When you place four tiles such that they form a certain pattern you collect them. You can also ping tiles by attacking them. First player to collect 12 wins. He didn't really answer my question about how you keep your tile collection intact if your opponent is collecting your tiles during the game, since they are unlikely to stay properly oriented. Also, the game is supposed to play 3 and 4 player, and he was unable to explain how to prevent two players from ganging up on a third.
The game itself was sort of like Magic, with simplified combat. We played open tiles which detracted from the game, because I could see all of his "Instants". A game with hidden tiles might be better. I wasn't impressed enough on first playing to buy it, but I would try it a few more times to see how much deeper it can go.
Robo Rally is another long time "wish list" game. I like it the same way I like Cosmic Encounter - don't expect to play it like a strategy game. It is meant to be fun, and it is. Just be careful not to play with too long a track or it can get tiring, and halfway through one player's victory is already predetermined.
Marshall Phillips' Game Prototype was a game similar to Battle Line, where you have to play transports to match loads that are available. There were a few problems with the game which we discussed, but the core mechanic is good.
I really didn't think I would like Werewolf, but I owed it to myself to give it a try since my last experience was with non-gamers. We played with 11 people, and I was Seer. I started by hinting at who I though were the werewolves without trying to tip my hand, but I tipped it enough to be killed the first night. Afterwards, the villagers forgot to go after the people I was hinting about, and they ended in miserable defeat. Not my type of game, but nice people and lots of laughs.
I did get in one round of Crokinole, losing in a very close match with Chris Brua's wife (name?).
Lastly, I finally played a game that I actually know, St Petersburg. I taught it to Todd and Renee, trying to coax them as to the correct strategy, but I still trounced them. I don't even really like St Pete that much, since the game has several flaws which I believe could be fixed - the easiest way to fix one of the major flaws is to have all of the Blue buildings score one more time at the end of the game.
By that time it was almost 1:00 am and I was exhausted. Now I'm off to play a few hours before shabbat.
Yehuda
Being here without a car, many people have offered me rides: Chris Trimmer, Jeff Coon, Eran Eldar. People have agreed to help me sell my stuff on Saturday morning when I can't be at the con, such as Aldie, Dan, and the guys at Sunriver Games. And one even offered me a place to sleep in the hotel on Saturday night. Amazing. Thanks also to my friends, David and Sharron Elkins, for hosting me all week. Thanks so much, and if you're ever in Israel, come stay by us.
The transportation authority gave me one more kick as I watched the bus go sailing by on my way to the bus stop and had to wait 40 minutes for the next. I got to the center about 11:00 .
My first stop was to greet Chris Brooks and meet KC at Sunriver Games. KC had done his own mockup of my game and had lots of ideas for more interesting scoring patterns. I hope to play some today to see if they enhance or just complicate the game. Also, he had more theme ideas; no one outside of Israel is enthused with the Hanukkah theme.
I stored my games to trade in their closet.
My goal was to play lots of games that I have on my want list to see if I really want them. I also just sat in for whatever game was around, however.
My first three games were a progression of train games: TransAmerica, Ticket to Ride: Europe, and Age of Steam. The last two are on my want list.
TransAmerica I played just to say that I played it. It was, as I expected, fairly trivial to play and basically determined by the set of cards you have. I got lucky with the cards and embarrassed both myself and my fellow players Chris and Rita by winning 0 to 11 to 12+ .
Next was Ticket to Ride: Europe. I played with a family: Darlene, John, and their son Kevin, and also Lewis (I really should know who he is, since I played several games with him all day). I understand that the routes are more balanced in this version (rather than Ticket to Ride) and the tunnel and train station mechanisms were added. I liked the game enough to consider it, and I thought the routes were balanced. There was also ample opportunity for screwage that most people didn't take advantage of in our game. I liked the train station mechanism. I really didn't like the tunnel mechanism, which is basically that when you complete a tunnel route, you flip cards to see if you need to pay more cards. Reminds me of the card flipping mechanism of Goa, which is my least favorite part of that game.
Scores: Yehuda 130, Darlene 125, Lewis 125, John 114, Kevin 84.
Then I got to play a game I was really looking forward to: Age of Steam. Joining me were Lewis, Jim, Jessie, and Alan. This was a great game and a tight game. In this particular game, the board was almost totally bereft of good shipping opportunities. I don't know how it is, but I got into "the zone" almost immediately, timing my cash and prospering well, although my train never got very large. My strategy was two-fold: spend no money on auctioning for first, and simply make do with whatever role you receive; and when in doubt: ship first, build an extra track, or upgrade your train. I know that some of the other roles are classically better, but given the lack of shipping opportunities, I figured that the money I save not having to issue shares, the extra tracks, and the gaining access to the goods before others, were keyS to victory.
I was right as it turns out, although if the game had lasted one more round I would have lost. Scores: Yehuda 50, Jim 49, Alan 49, Jessie 40, Lewis 33 .
Having won my first several games, I was anticipating a comeuppance, which happened, as I never won any other games today.
Let me just break for a moment to tell you a little about the site:
The con occupies the entire fifth floor of the south tower of the hotel. There are three main rooms: the registration/prize table room, where everyone got to pick a game; the main play area, decorated in great game cutouts and mobiles; and the business room, with stands by various companies, the game library, and lots of game demos.
When I registered, I got to pick a game, and I picked Primordial Soup, not knowing that it was on sale next door at $25. Still, I'm happy. Also included was a game sample by Dancing Eggplant games, which was a nice bonus.
There were some amazing setups. A huge Heroscape landscape, a huge Memoir 44 scenario taking up a few tables, and a huge Carabande track. There were also some Crokinole sets with BGG logos on them (sweet) and BGG.con T-shirts for sale.
There were so many games being played and so many games that I wanted to play, it was frustrating. The big game hit seemed to be Caylus, with people playing non-stop on three tables and lots of good feedback. People came up to me a lot saying how much they enjoyed reading about my disastrous trip to Dallas (... enjoyed?) and everyone was basically great and we all had a good time.
Since I have organized things before, I know that if everything seems to run smoothly, then a whole lot of people must have put in a whole lot of work. Amazing job, staff of BGG. Well done.
Back to me: I roped people into playing my Game Prototype several times. A few times people only liked it, because the tiles or players somehow didn't interact much, but most of the time people were enthusiastic. I think the real judge is if anyone goes to play it twice, or if people spontaneously go over to the table to play it (I left it on a table). I'm waiting to see if that happens.
I played Odin's Ravens with Jeff Coon, and wasn't expecting much, but it turned out to be pretty nifty with some replay value. A little too much in the luck department. I pulled ahead majorly at the start, but Jeff basically creeped up until we were both 11/11 and then we ended the game with him winning 18 to 14.
I also sat in on a demo of Chizo Rising, a collectible tile game. "Collectible" is a bad word to many gamers, but you can buy the prepackaged sets and pretend that the game is not collectible. The game plays by placing the tiles orthogonally to each other, yours facing you and his facing him. When you place four tiles such that they form a certain pattern you collect them. You can also ping tiles by attacking them. First player to collect 12 wins. He didn't really answer my question about how you keep your tile collection intact if your opponent is collecting your tiles during the game, since they are unlikely to stay properly oriented. Also, the game is supposed to play 3 and 4 player, and he was unable to explain how to prevent two players from ganging up on a third.
The game itself was sort of like Magic, with simplified combat. We played open tiles which detracted from the game, because I could see all of his "Instants". A game with hidden tiles might be better. I wasn't impressed enough on first playing to buy it, but I would try it a few more times to see how much deeper it can go.
Robo Rally is another long time "wish list" game. I like it the same way I like Cosmic Encounter - don't expect to play it like a strategy game. It is meant to be fun, and it is. Just be careful not to play with too long a track or it can get tiring, and halfway through one player's victory is already predetermined.
Marshall Phillips' Game Prototype was a game similar to Battle Line, where you have to play transports to match loads that are available. There were a few problems with the game which we discussed, but the core mechanic is good.
I really didn't think I would like Werewolf, but I owed it to myself to give it a try since my last experience was with non-gamers. We played with 11 people, and I was Seer. I started by hinting at who I though were the werewolves without trying to tip my hand, but I tipped it enough to be killed the first night. Afterwards, the villagers forgot to go after the people I was hinting about, and they ended in miserable defeat. Not my type of game, but nice people and lots of laughs.
I did get in one round of Crokinole, losing in a very close match with Chris Brua's wife (name?).
Lastly, I finally played a game that I actually know, St Petersburg. I taught it to Todd and Renee, trying to coax them as to the correct strategy, but I still trounced them. I don't even really like St Pete that much, since the game has several flaws which I believe could be fixed - the easiest way to fix one of the major flaws is to have all of the Blue buildings score one more time at the end of the game.
By that time it was almost 1:00 am and I was exhausted. Now I'm off to play a few hours before shabbat.
Yehuda
Saturday, October 01, 2005
Weekend Gaming - Quickie
I played MGP#1 with the father of the boy I played with last week. Not a gamer. Never saw anyone play that badly.
Played St Pete with Rachel again. Nope, she still finds it uninteresting.
Played Scrabble with Rachel. She trounced me 427 to 348. She had 2 bingos, and I had a 75 triple word score.
Played St Pete with Rachel again. Nope, she still finds it uninteresting.
Played Scrabble with Rachel. She trounced me 427 to 348. She had 2 bingos, and I had a 75 triple word score.
Saturday, September 17, 2005
Weekend Gaming
St Pete ... ah St Pete. Notice that I keep talking about St Pete. That is because when I find a game, I like it or I don't. If I don't like it, I will play it one or two times to see if I missed something, and then get rid of it. If I do like it, I will play several times to see if it holds up and if there is room to get better at it. If there isn't, I get rid of it.
This is part of a long post, which I will save for some other time.
Anyhoo, I played with Rachel and Saarya. Like Gili in the last game, Rachel had trouble securing adequate income and was then totally out of it for the rest of the game. This is a surprise, as she has won a few of the last games. This "no way to catch up" is both a flaw and a benefit to a game, in my opinion.
A "flaw": who really wants to sit through a whole game where they don't have a chance? When I am out of it, I usually set a personal goal such as "get 60 points" and then I don't worry about winning. But I understand the frustration that others may feel in this situation. Rachel was very unhappy, and left the game on a sour note. I really should have let her quit, and I certainly would have if we had been playing two players. I should have, anyway.
A "benefit": this usually implies that experienced players will do better than inexperienced players. This is a good thing, indicating that the game has a strategy curve and depth.
Oh look, we're back at that post that I was saving for some other time. Let's keep on saving it.
The twin ideas, that players are not automatically eliminated early on and that players do better as their experience increases, are not incogruant, but finding that balance is tough. Name a few games that work this way. T&E? Settlers? Traumfabrik?
Other games played:
Three games of my game prototype #1 with Tal. Unbelievably, I discovered new strategy elements in the game. I am very happy with it.
Five games of Go with Tal on a 9x9. She has settled at a 6 stone handicap, but she doesn't really get the game, yet. Too bad.
Dinner Friday night at friends. I tried to show them how to play Zendo with cards without much success. And Tal insisted on trying to beat me at Spit again, at which she has never succeeded.
In other news, I have been working on a game that has gone through five incarnations now without getting to prototype status, since I still don't like some of the central mechanisms. It is a full weight game, something like T&E weight. It is based on my tri-colors mechanism idea (red/blue/yellow combining to make green/orange/purple).
Since I still couldn't get it to work the way I wanted, I decided to try something else to take a break from it. I came up almost immediately with a card game based on the idea. In fact, at first I added some complications but then I removed them. It's pretty simple, actually. Now I have an interesting looking game that takes about 3 minutes to teach and holds a lot of potential. Of course, it could still fall apart, but when I made a mockup and did some solo testing it seemed to hold up ok. It needs a bit more player interaction and a bit more player control. If I'm lucky, I'll have another game to show off at BGG.con .
Meanwhile, Saarya took Settlers and a copy of my game #1 to his sleepaway school with him. Apparently Settlers players are falling out of the woodwork to play with him. Where did they all come from and how come he has the only copy? He has also taught at least one person my game, which was well received.
He is working on getting a board game club going along with the school proposed chess club, or perhaps trying to merge the two. I am ready to step in once a week to run it, if he succeeds in arousing any interest. Probably I should call myself and talk to the administration. We shall see.
Yehuda
This is part of a long post, which I will save for some other time.
Anyhoo, I played with Rachel and Saarya. Like Gili in the last game, Rachel had trouble securing adequate income and was then totally out of it for the rest of the game. This is a surprise, as she has won a few of the last games. This "no way to catch up" is both a flaw and a benefit to a game, in my opinion.
A "flaw": who really wants to sit through a whole game where they don't have a chance? When I am out of it, I usually set a personal goal such as "get 60 points" and then I don't worry about winning. But I understand the frustration that others may feel in this situation. Rachel was very unhappy, and left the game on a sour note. I really should have let her quit, and I certainly would have if we had been playing two players. I should have, anyway.
A "benefit": this usually implies that experienced players will do better than inexperienced players. This is a good thing, indicating that the game has a strategy curve and depth.
Oh look, we're back at that post that I was saving for some other time. Let's keep on saving it.
The twin ideas, that players are not automatically eliminated early on and that players do better as their experience increases, are not incogruant, but finding that balance is tough. Name a few games that work this way. T&E? Settlers? Traumfabrik?
Other games played:
Three games of my game prototype #1 with Tal. Unbelievably, I discovered new strategy elements in the game. I am very happy with it.
Five games of Go with Tal on a 9x9. She has settled at a 6 stone handicap, but she doesn't really get the game, yet. Too bad.
Dinner Friday night at friends. I tried to show them how to play Zendo with cards without much success. And Tal insisted on trying to beat me at Spit again, at which she has never succeeded.
In other news, I have been working on a game that has gone through five incarnations now without getting to prototype status, since I still don't like some of the central mechanisms. It is a full weight game, something like T&E weight. It is based on my tri-colors mechanism idea (red/blue/yellow combining to make green/orange/purple).
Since I still couldn't get it to work the way I wanted, I decided to try something else to take a break from it. I came up almost immediately with a card game based on the idea. In fact, at first I added some complications but then I removed them. It's pretty simple, actually. Now I have an interesting looking game that takes about 3 minutes to teach and holds a lot of potential. Of course, it could still fall apart, but when I made a mockup and did some solo testing it seemed to hold up ok. It needs a bit more player interaction and a bit more player control. If I'm lucky, I'll have another game to show off at BGG.con .
Meanwhile, Saarya took Settlers and a copy of my game #1 to his sleepaway school with him. Apparently Settlers players are falling out of the woodwork to play with him. Where did they all come from and how come he has the only copy? He has also taught at least one person my game, which was well received.
He is working on getting a board game club going along with the school proposed chess club, or perhaps trying to merge the two. I am ready to step in once a week to run it, if he succeeds in arousing any interest. Probably I should call myself and talk to the administration. We shall see.
Yehuda
Sunday, September 11, 2005
St Pete Has Been Redeemed
Thank you Mikko for solving my big St Pete problem.
I just finished a 2 player game with my wife using the correct rules. Until now, after every phase I had been tossing out the second row and moving the cards down. This made a very high turnover in cards. The correct rule seems to be to toss out the last row only after every round.
What a difference. I had a ton more cash, which meant that buying buildings now became a possibility instead of a complete waste of cash. And the buildings didn't run out so darn quickly.
Instead, I have another little inelegance: in the second round when neither of us could buy any cards, we passed. And then NO aristocrats and NO traders came out that round. Eh. Is this normal? It seemed a little silly. I assume that this is less likely in a three or four player game. Maybe, if this becomes a regular thing in two players, each player could be allowed to choose a card on the table to discard if the table is full at the end of a phase. Will have to play more.
I still think that all cards should score one more time at the end of the game so as to make the last buys worthwhile. Again, a little inelegance, but not a major flaw.
In any case, the game just got a whole lot better.
Yehuda
I just finished a 2 player game with my wife using the correct rules. Until now, after every phase I had been tossing out the second row and moving the cards down. This made a very high turnover in cards. The correct rule seems to be to toss out the last row only after every round.
What a difference. I had a ton more cash, which meant that buying buildings now became a possibility instead of a complete waste of cash. And the buildings didn't run out so darn quickly.
Instead, I have another little inelegance: in the second round when neither of us could buy any cards, we passed. And then NO aristocrats and NO traders came out that round. Eh. Is this normal? It seemed a little silly. I assume that this is less likely in a three or four player game. Maybe, if this becomes a regular thing in two players, each player could be allowed to choose a card on the table to discard if the table is full at the end of a phase. Will have to play more.
I still think that all cards should score one more time at the end of the game so as to make the last buys worthwhile. Again, a little inelegance, but not a major flaw.
In any case, the game just got a whole lot better.
Yehuda
Saturday, September 10, 2005
Weekend Gaming
Friday night we were invited out. I stood around looking at my (meager) game collection to figure out what to bring. As happens so often, a game that I would not normally suggest in my group, or even want to play myself, takes on a new light when I think about bringing it to a non-gamer's house.
I wasn't sure if I would be playing with the adults, the children, or anyone at all, but I figured For Sale would fit the bill. I don't really like For Sale - I don't hate it, but it is not on my request list. I just don't feel that I have enough control to make it interesting.
So if I don't like it, why would it make a good game to bring? Because it is light, quick, and clever, and if people don't know any better, it gives them a look into the idea that there are other neat games around. Also, not having to think too hard gives the game a low entry barrier for play.
I ended up showing four of the boys how to play; they liked it, but didn't immediately ask to play again. Then two of the girls took the cards and looked through all of the houses on them.
I am also always ready to play Zendo, using any available household objects, and Opposites, a word game. I should build up a wider array of games to play on the spur of the moment.
Saturday Nadine finally got to play St Petersburg with us, and Rachel won again. I am solidifying my opinion that St Petersburg has some problems.
The first biggie is that the workers are almost always bought up - economically it makes sense, since they almost all go for 4 or less, so they are totally worth it. This means that ALL 8 buildings are flipped over, and the game ends in 4 rounds. That is ridiculous, and I'm sure not the intention. Either I have to figure out why other people who play this game are not buying all of the workers, or I have to limit the number of blue cards flipped.
The second biggie is the inelegant end of the game. Usually keeping the rules simple is best, but in some situations, like this one, it doesn't translate to a complete success.
I don't mind that you have to buy duplicate aristocrats in order to replace them, but if you don't have any, the last few phases are a big bore. In fact, about half the cards that flip up in the last round are a bore, and the lack of useful cards significantly favors the person going first on the last round. I would like to see a final bonus for all victory points one more time, so that items bought on the last round score. Did I miss that rule somewhere? Also, money left over should be something like 5 or even 3 per VP, not 10 per VP, which is effectively useless.
Yehuda
I wasn't sure if I would be playing with the adults, the children, or anyone at all, but I figured For Sale would fit the bill. I don't really like For Sale - I don't hate it, but it is not on my request list. I just don't feel that I have enough control to make it interesting.
So if I don't like it, why would it make a good game to bring? Because it is light, quick, and clever, and if people don't know any better, it gives them a look into the idea that there are other neat games around. Also, not having to think too hard gives the game a low entry barrier for play.
I ended up showing four of the boys how to play; they liked it, but didn't immediately ask to play again. Then two of the girls took the cards and looked through all of the houses on them.
I am also always ready to play Zendo, using any available household objects, and Opposites, a word game. I should build up a wider array of games to play on the spur of the moment.
Saturday Nadine finally got to play St Petersburg with us, and Rachel won again. I am solidifying my opinion that St Petersburg has some problems.
The first biggie is that the workers are almost always bought up - economically it makes sense, since they almost all go for 4 or less, so they are totally worth it. This means that ALL 8 buildings are flipped over, and the game ends in 4 rounds. That is ridiculous, and I'm sure not the intention. Either I have to figure out why other people who play this game are not buying all of the workers, or I have to limit the number of blue cards flipped.
The second biggie is the inelegant end of the game. Usually keeping the rules simple is best, but in some situations, like this one, it doesn't translate to a complete success.
I don't mind that you have to buy duplicate aristocrats in order to replace them, but if you don't have any, the last few phases are a big bore. In fact, about half the cards that flip up in the last round are a bore, and the lack of useful cards significantly favors the person going first on the last round. I would like to see a final bonus for all victory points one more time, so that items bought on the last round score. Did I miss that rule somewhere? Also, money left over should be something like 5 or even 3 per VP, not 10 per VP, which is effectively useless.
Yehuda
Sunday, September 04, 2005
Weekend Gaming
Friend of my son's:
Dvonn - too cerebral for him.
My Game Prototype #1 - he loved it, wants to buy it.
My wife:
Saint Petersburg - First game for her. I gave her fair warning about a) money, and b) aristocrats, but I slaughtered her with aristocrats. I can't seem to find any way to describe the game other than as a mid-way game between San Juan and Puerto Rico. In fact, I think the game would be improved by taking the phases in San Juan Puerto Rico style. Must try it.
Anyway, the intent of this game was to try yet again to hook her on a new game other than PR. I'm happy to say that she is willing to try again. I hope to boost that when Nadine comes over, as Rachel likes to play with Nadine. Saarya also likes it. Lots of warm fuzzy feelings, so far.
Let's see how long a shelf life it has. I'm already looking forward to an expansion.
Yehuda
Dvonn - too cerebral for him.
My Game Prototype #1 - he loved it, wants to buy it.
My wife:
Saint Petersburg - First game for her. I gave her fair warning about a) money, and b) aristocrats, but I slaughtered her with aristocrats. I can't seem to find any way to describe the game other than as a mid-way game between San Juan and Puerto Rico. In fact, I think the game would be improved by taking the phases in San Juan Puerto Rico style. Must try it.
Anyway, the intent of this game was to try yet again to hook her on a new game other than PR. I'm happy to say that she is willing to try again. I hope to boost that when Nadine comes over, as Rachel likes to play with Nadine. Saarya also likes it. Lots of warm fuzzy feelings, so far.
Let's see how long a shelf life it has. I'm already looking forward to an expansion.
Yehuda
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
St Pete
I've now played 4 player, 3 player, and 2 player St Pete, all without looking at the Geek for advice.
OK, sure, everyone knows that the Aristocrats are powerful, just like everyone knows that Jesters are the most powerful in Princes of Florence. In PoF, the result is that Jesters are bid up high enough to even out the difference. Here, this means that the other main strategy of buying buildings just isn't going to work except in fluky circumstances (I would have to say: 4 player and fierce competition for aristocrats).
Nothing in the games I've played has lent itself to fierce competitions, yet, however. We've all been pretty much playing solitaire. OK, sometimes you take a card I want, big deal. I am hoping that, like PR, as we get better, we will know more about what to take. Still, I can only feel that the game would be a tad better if a) there was some auctioning for the items (e.g. a third row for items not bought in the second row) and b) the turn sequence was chosen by the players, ala Puerto Rico, and c) VP's paid off one more time at game end, which basically fizzles right now.
Still enjoying the ride.
I just went and looked at the Geek. Seems like everyone is harping on the Observatory as a great buy. Makes some sense. I'll try it out next time. I'm still trying to figure out how to manage my money.
Yehuda
OK, sure, everyone knows that the Aristocrats are powerful, just like everyone knows that Jesters are the most powerful in Princes of Florence. In PoF, the result is that Jesters are bid up high enough to even out the difference. Here, this means that the other main strategy of buying buildings just isn't going to work except in fluky circumstances (I would have to say: 4 player and fierce competition for aristocrats).
Nothing in the games I've played has lent itself to fierce competitions, yet, however. We've all been pretty much playing solitaire. OK, sometimes you take a card I want, big deal. I am hoping that, like PR, as we get better, we will know more about what to take. Still, I can only feel that the game would be a tad better if a) there was some auctioning for the items (e.g. a third row for items not bought in the second row) and b) the turn sequence was chosen by the players, ala Puerto Rico, and c) VP's paid off one more time at game end, which basically fizzles right now.
Still enjoying the ride.
I just went and looked at the Geek. Seems like everyone is harping on the Observatory as a great buy. Makes some sense. I'll try it out next time. I'm still trying to figure out how to manage my money.
Yehuda
Saturday, August 27, 2005
Weekend Gaming
Fri night we went down to the neighbors and there were lots of kids. I remembered not to teach them Pit, and instead we played "I Doubt You" (you know, B******t).
We play by the rules that when someone is challenged, life continues as normal for the next player. In other words, if you played "9", then the next player still has to play "10" no matter what. This allows you to plan several turns in advance. I usually win with this method of playing, so I wonder if other people had experiences with different rules.
Sat afternoon I played St Petersburg, 3 player, my second game. Very nice game, but I am already seeing that the aristocrats are pretty strong, and the buildings much less so. I`ll have to play a few more times, but it might be good to simply give 3 points for each aristocrat, or cap it at 5 points each. The game is sort of halfway between San Juan and Puerto Rico in execution and strategy. Fun.
Meanwhile, I finished reading Dice Games by Knizia, and I'm starting Card Games by Sackson. You really learn about what Reiner considers fun in Dice Games. Half of the games are straight luck games with absolutely no decision making! A large number are casino games, and just a few are games like Yachtsee and Liar's Dice. Very funny.
Sackson, meanwhile, just lists the rules to a hundred card games he knows from around the world, and I have to say, some of these games look really good. As in 'might give bridge a run for its money' good, and I think bridge is so far and above any other card game I ever played that that is saying a lot.
The question remains: where the heck have these games been my whole life? While I was stuck playing Battleship and Hearts (which is actually 'Black Widow', according to Sackson), many of these games look as good as or better than hosts of Eurogames, but I never even heard of them. If I didn't have all of these neat new designer games to play, you can bet that I would be teaching people these games.
Yehuda
We play by the rules that when someone is challenged, life continues as normal for the next player. In other words, if you played "9", then the next player still has to play "10" no matter what. This allows you to plan several turns in advance. I usually win with this method of playing, so I wonder if other people had experiences with different rules.
Sat afternoon I played St Petersburg, 3 player, my second game. Very nice game, but I am already seeing that the aristocrats are pretty strong, and the buildings much less so. I`ll have to play a few more times, but it might be good to simply give 3 points for each aristocrat, or cap it at 5 points each. The game is sort of halfway between San Juan and Puerto Rico in execution and strategy. Fun.
Meanwhile, I finished reading Dice Games by Knizia, and I'm starting Card Games by Sackson. You really learn about what Reiner considers fun in Dice Games. Half of the games are straight luck games with absolutely no decision making! A large number are casino games, and just a few are games like Yachtsee and Liar's Dice. Very funny.
Sackson, meanwhile, just lists the rules to a hundred card games he knows from around the world, and I have to say, some of these games look really good. As in 'might give bridge a run for its money' good, and I think bridge is so far and above any other card game I ever played that that is saying a lot.
The question remains: where the heck have these games been my whole life? While I was stuck playing Battleship and Hearts (which is actually 'Black Widow', according to Sackson), many of these games look as good as or better than hosts of Eurogames, but I never even heard of them. If I didn't have all of these neat new designer games to play, you can bet that I would be teaching people these games.
Yehuda
Thursday, August 25, 2005
OK, So You're All Laughing at Me, Ha Ha
I thought that I was writing science fiction. Apparently, just barely.
I just noticed my coworker walking around with what looked for all the world like a NetMind ...
What the hell?
"Bluetooth," he says.
He shows me the phone in his pocket, although he says he could also leave it on his desk. Meanwhile, the rest of you probably already knew about this technology and were wondering why I thought this idea was so cool. Give me a break - I don't get to see the good stuff most of the time since it's not available in the places that I shop (i.e. supermarket, used clothes).
Slap some sub-vocalization on it, some IM software, some VoIP and vocal software, and there's your NetMind, give or take. Three years? Five? Two?
I got to play St Petersburg last night, as you would know if you read my session reports. It is one of my pure GeekGold acquires. I used to do these before this became popular on BGG. After the third trade, I came to the conclusion that approximately 10 GG = 1 USD. Now that GeekGold trades are in vogue, and without the benefit of my market pricing, I wonder what the consensus is. Weirdly enough, despite there being what seems to be a large supply of GG lying around, I think most people are getting better than my ratio. But I would like to hear from the masses. Send me your details and I will compile the results.
Yehuda
I just noticed my coworker walking around with what looked for all the world like a NetMind ...
What the hell?
"Bluetooth," he says.
He shows me the phone in his pocket, although he says he could also leave it on his desk. Meanwhile, the rest of you probably already knew about this technology and were wondering why I thought this idea was so cool. Give me a break - I don't get to see the good stuff most of the time since it's not available in the places that I shop (i.e. supermarket, used clothes).
Slap some sub-vocalization on it, some IM software, some VoIP and vocal software, and there's your NetMind, give or take. Three years? Five? Two?
I got to play St Petersburg last night, as you would know if you read my session reports. It is one of my pure GeekGold acquires. I used to do these before this became popular on BGG. After the third trade, I came to the conclusion that approximately 10 GG = 1 USD. Now that GeekGold trades are in vogue, and without the benefit of my market pricing, I wonder what the consensus is. Weirdly enough, despite there being what seems to be a large supply of GG lying around, I think most people are getting better than my ratio. But I would like to hear from the masses. Send me your details and I will compile the results.
Yehuda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)