First off, here is a course offered by Barnes and Nobles on learning to play D&D (link provided by Slashdot). Think we'll have one for board gaming any time soon?
A few sessions in November were missed since I was at BGG.con . As usual, these represent games played at the club, not my own personal playing. Session reports are always available at the JSGC website.
Alhambra - I enjoyed playing this game with Chris Brooks and the people at Sunriver Games. That might have deceived me into liking it more than it deserved. I hadn't realized just how little player interaction the game really has, not to mention how so much of the game is basically automatic. You always buy a tile if you can get it for exact change. In fact, the fact that the four tiles available are all bought with different currencies means that you don't even have to decide which tile to buy with your money. If you can buy it, you buy it. The only thinking occurs if you feel that you have to compete with someone for dominance in a certain color, in which case you choose which tile to overbuy - if you can. Urm. Have to play it a few more times, including at least once two player, to make up my mind.
Bridge - Played as a filler, occasionally. Lots of bridge clubs in Jerusalem.
Domaine - First play for all involved. I liked it, the group didn't. They didn't hate it, but they thought it was pretty dry. I don't know what to do with these guys.
Havoc x 2 - First plays. Everyone likes this game.
Lord of the Rings: the Confrontation x 1.5 - I played a game with a member and we enjoyed it, although it looks like white is going to have a tough time winning. I set up the game for two others and one of them was so appalled at the blind element that he refused to continue after the first move, calling it a terrible game. The other one didn't look too thrilled, but would have been willing to try it.
Modern Art - First play. Out of five players, three of us liked it; one didn't, but he doesn't like almost anything, so I won't count him; the other couldn't quite grasp the rules, but he is new to gaming. Will definitely hit the table again.
Puerto Rico x 2 - Still the king.
San Juan - Still a prince. Enjoyed as a filler by almost everyone.
Taj Mahal - Another club favorite.
The Menorah Game - People always enjoy it, but they don't request it as much as they request San Juan (other than my daughter and her friends). So it's hard to say, definitively.
Tigris and Euphrates - The club find this a little difficult, so they don't play it, But I love it, and a few of the members like it a lot.
Traders of Genoa - Most people find the game too long and wearying, even when we start the game with two less rounds. A few like it, and I'm one of them.
Yinsh x 6 - First plays. Everyone liked this a lot, more than Dvonn. I think that people felt that the initial set up of adding pieces to an empty board was less threatening than the Dvonn method of starting with a full board and narrowing (ignoring the setup phase of Dvonn which seems like a different game). Also, the "Othello" mechanism is more familiar.
Cheerio,
Yehuda
Sunday, December 04, 2005
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, December 02, 2005
Designers: Man or Mortal?
OK, so in this post I say that people shouldn't treat the designer as a god, and should instead feel free to fiddle with the game design. Which garnered the comment:
The rules are the rules are the rules... they are there for a reason and I don't understand the urge to immediately attempt to change/tweak or re-write them when a game doesn't play they way one might expect... Living rules and official errata are acceptable as it is the (usually) the designer or developer making the change.
And then in this post I present the designer as a haphazard god, which evoked the comment:
I don't think this is very far from the truth in some games. You can see places where randomness was mitigated by hands of cards and face up draw piles, and where luck was added to reduce AP and make the game less pre-programmed. In fact, it's rare to find a game where some mechanic doesn't feel like a "fix".
So is the designer god or isn't s/he? What's the idea?
Yehuda
The rules are the rules are the rules... they are there for a reason and I don't understand the urge to immediately attempt to change/tweak or re-write them when a game doesn't play they way one might expect... Living rules and official errata are acceptable as it is the (usually) the designer or developer making the change.
And then in this post I present the designer as a haphazard god, which evoked the comment:
I don't think this is very far from the truth in some games. You can see places where randomness was mitigated by hands of cards and face up draw piles, and where luck was added to reduce AP and make the game less pre-programmed. In fact, it's rare to find a game where some mechanic doesn't feel like a "fix".
So is the designer god or isn't s/he? What's the idea?
Yehuda
China Moon
Having accidentally acquired China Moon (I asked someone to pick me up a copy of China Moon but I really meant to ask them to pick up Blue Moon), I figured I might as well try it. I had some conflicting expectations.
First of all, it looked pretty simple and weird, what with rubber frogs moving around on a race track collecting flowers. Was this a children's game, basically?
On the other hand, it was from Bruno Faidutti, a very respected game designer. I have to say, I really respect him, too. He has an impressive list of games designed, many of them quite popular. He has a great website and is active in the online board gaming world. He also seems to be a great guy all around.
On the other hand, my only other experience with a Faidutti game is Citadels, a game that I don't really like. You don't know how much I hate the fact that I don't like it. I console myself with the following: I also don't really like Goa. Both Citadels and Goa are rated in the top 100 games (so to speak) out of millions, and the fact that I don't like them is not going to change the fact that everyone else does. I am VERY happy about that. I wouldn't want anyone else not to like something just because I don't. These games just have a certain mechanic that doesn't appeal to me, that's it.
Now I am about to try my second Faidutti game, with low expectations. Ugh. I would have preferred to have a few other of his more highly rated games to try first, so that I don't risk batting 0 for 2 with him.
So anyway, that is my mindset.
I am pleased to say that China Moon turned out to be a pleasant little game, and dare I say, even elegant.
The game has some minor random set up elements, and then has no luck. Each player moves 3 frogs exactly two hops each around an occasionally branching track, skipping over any spaces occupied by other frogs. At least one of the frogs you move may not be your own. When your frog lands on a flower you pick it up. When your frog lands on a spring you move again. When your frog lands on a "silly frog" you exchange flowers with another player. When your frog lands on a butterfly, you drop a flower. When your frog lands in the end zone you get one of the end zone flowers, in landing order. The game ends when the fourth frog is in the end zone. Flowers are worth 1,3,6,... for sets of the same color, with the very last flower a special one worth 4 points, and one black flower worth -2 point.
Pretty simple, really. The elegance comes from several different aspects. The rules are dirt simple, but the variable movement caused by obstructing frogs makes it a challenge to get where you want to go. Some other frog master is likely to find a way to send your frog down the wrong branch, run your frog into a butterfly, or cause you to jump over the flower you want, and then you can't go back and pick the flower up.
Also, the game moves forward pretty neatly. It is usually possible to catch up from a losing position. And the theme is fun.
There are a few less elegant aspects to the game. The start of the game is very crowded, and one player will typically fall behind in the track while others move forward. While this seems bad, it is not necessarily bad for your score, as you can often pick up dropped flowers by other players. It's just a little inelegant, as you are forced into playing a certain role. Off the top of my head, a board designed more like Sorry or Chinese Checkers might have worked better, where all frogs don't start from the same location.
Also, despite the variability of which color flowers are laid onto the flower spaces, you always want to take every flower you can (aside from black) so it doesn't really present much choice in that regard.
All in all, I was happy to play it and I will be happy to play it at least a few more times, especially with a different number of players. We played three player, myself, Rachel and Saarya, and Saarya won 8 to 7 to 6.
-----
In other news, I received my first GeekGold tip for a strategy article about T&E. Come to think of it, I really haven't posted much to the Geek recently. I am months behind in my session reports. I'll have to take care of that in my copious free time.
Oh, and somehow I just jumped to 160,000 on Technorati. I wonder how that happened.
Yehuda
First of all, it looked pretty simple and weird, what with rubber frogs moving around on a race track collecting flowers. Was this a children's game, basically?
On the other hand, it was from Bruno Faidutti, a very respected game designer. I have to say, I really respect him, too. He has an impressive list of games designed, many of them quite popular. He has a great website and is active in the online board gaming world. He also seems to be a great guy all around.
On the other hand, my only other experience with a Faidutti game is Citadels, a game that I don't really like. You don't know how much I hate the fact that I don't like it. I console myself with the following: I also don't really like Goa. Both Citadels and Goa are rated in the top 100 games (so to speak) out of millions, and the fact that I don't like them is not going to change the fact that everyone else does. I am VERY happy about that. I wouldn't want anyone else not to like something just because I don't. These games just have a certain mechanic that doesn't appeal to me, that's it.
Now I am about to try my second Faidutti game, with low expectations. Ugh. I would have preferred to have a few other of his more highly rated games to try first, so that I don't risk batting 0 for 2 with him.
So anyway, that is my mindset.
I am pleased to say that China Moon turned out to be a pleasant little game, and dare I say, even elegant.
The game has some minor random set up elements, and then has no luck. Each player moves 3 frogs exactly two hops each around an occasionally branching track, skipping over any spaces occupied by other frogs. At least one of the frogs you move may not be your own. When your frog lands on a flower you pick it up. When your frog lands on a spring you move again. When your frog lands on a "silly frog" you exchange flowers with another player. When your frog lands on a butterfly, you drop a flower. When your frog lands in the end zone you get one of the end zone flowers, in landing order. The game ends when the fourth frog is in the end zone. Flowers are worth 1,3,6,... for sets of the same color, with the very last flower a special one worth 4 points, and one black flower worth -2 point.
Pretty simple, really. The elegance comes from several different aspects. The rules are dirt simple, but the variable movement caused by obstructing frogs makes it a challenge to get where you want to go. Some other frog master is likely to find a way to send your frog down the wrong branch, run your frog into a butterfly, or cause you to jump over the flower you want, and then you can't go back and pick the flower up.
Also, the game moves forward pretty neatly. It is usually possible to catch up from a losing position. And the theme is fun.
There are a few less elegant aspects to the game. The start of the game is very crowded, and one player will typically fall behind in the track while others move forward. While this seems bad, it is not necessarily bad for your score, as you can often pick up dropped flowers by other players. It's just a little inelegant, as you are forced into playing a certain role. Off the top of my head, a board designed more like Sorry or Chinese Checkers might have worked better, where all frogs don't start from the same location.
Also, despite the variability of which color flowers are laid onto the flower spaces, you always want to take every flower you can (aside from black) so it doesn't really present much choice in that regard.
All in all, I was happy to play it and I will be happy to play it at least a few more times, especially with a different number of players. We played three player, myself, Rachel and Saarya, and Saarya won 8 to 7 to 6.
-----
In other news, I received my first GeekGold tip for a strategy article about T&E. Come to think of it, I really haven't posted much to the Geek recently. I am months behind in my session reports. I'll have to take care of that in my copious free time.
Oh, and somehow I just jumped to 160,000 on Technorati. I wonder how that happened.
Yehuda
Thursday, December 01, 2005
Session Report Up
Games played: The Menorah Game, Traders of Genoa, Taj Mahal, Havoc, Yinsh x 2, Puerto Rico, Tigris and Euphrates.
Eventful evening.
Yehuda
Eventful evening.
Yehuda
The 183,000 Technorati Blues
Matthew Gray complains about the lack of riches from Google's Adsense here. OK, he doesn't really complain about it, just notes it. I myself removed Google Adsense from my sites after they changed their policies in ways that made me unhappy, such as insisting that no other similar advertisements appear on the same page as theirs, as well as their liberal policies regarding disclosure of my financial information.
Sour grapes, really, since after many months I only stood to make $1.36 anyway, which I had to forgo when I canceled. If I had been making $100 a day, I suppose I could have lived with their policies.
Like the dirty word "profit" occasionally heard from game publishers, I don't think it's wrong for bloggers and so on to want to make money. On the contrary, I am spending a lot of effort to move into the game business full-time. I believe that the quality and volume of my game-related work would increase substantially if I didn't have to go out and make a living elsewhere. I do have a few major obstacles. Number one, I can't jeopardize my current income and profession, at least until I make a steady income elsewhere, or my wife does, or someone just forks it over to me. Number two, I won't do anything to aggravate my readers. While this is truly because of my high ideals and sense of community service, it may also have something to do with the fact that "losing a hundred readers" equals "losing all of my readers".
Of course, the main issue is that I have to provide something worth reading to my audience.
My Technorati ranking at 180,000 or so is sinking a few hundred each day, not because my blog is bleeding readers, but because other blogs are rising. I have a grand total of seven bloglines subscribers, compared to over a hundred for some more luminary game blogs. On the plus side, actual hits on my blog web page were high this month, partly due to my BGG.con reports.
Gone Gaming, the other site I write for, is ranked about 58,000 on Technorati, which is slightly more respectable. One might say that there is simply a limit as to how far you can expect a board game blog to rise in a blogsphere rules by Tech, News, Politics, Sports, Fashion, and Sex, but the truth is that some really weird blogs about esoteric subjects, like Shoes, are pretty high up the ranking. What do they have that I don't have?
Number 1: A lot of free time to write every day, mostly owing to the fact that they support themselves through their blog (note the vicious circle here).
Number 2: Nice pictures or charts. Exceptions to this are very rare.
Number 3: A sense of authority on what they write about.
Number 4: The "jeu ne sais quoi" - an appealing writing style and visceral ability to hook even readers who are not familiar with the subject.
Number 5: A few friends or loyal readers from bigger blogs, preferably at least one of the main ones, who have noticed them and linked to them.
That's the formula, give or take.
For myself, I am pursuing not only blogging but other avenues, as well. I have designed a game, I'm working on getting it published, and I'm working on other games. I have approached business initiatives on the feasibility of setting up a game store or cafe in Jerusalem (not until I can quit my job for a year). I run a game group and keep in contact with most of the gaming source in my country, and others around the world. And so on.
Success in what you want to do comes easy for some people. My wife is pursuing a PhD in Jewish texts as well as teaching, and she loves it. It's exactly what she wants to do with her life. The rest of us have to work a little harder. In the meantime, those of you who want to help me out can always donate to me via PayPal, if you so desire. Most of all, keep reading, keep linking, and keep the game world alive.
Yehuda
Sour grapes, really, since after many months I only stood to make $1.36 anyway, which I had to forgo when I canceled. If I had been making $100 a day, I suppose I could have lived with their policies.
Like the dirty word "profit" occasionally heard from game publishers, I don't think it's wrong for bloggers and so on to want to make money. On the contrary, I am spending a lot of effort to move into the game business full-time. I believe that the quality and volume of my game-related work would increase substantially if I didn't have to go out and make a living elsewhere. I do have a few major obstacles. Number one, I can't jeopardize my current income and profession, at least until I make a steady income elsewhere, or my wife does, or someone just forks it over to me. Number two, I won't do anything to aggravate my readers. While this is truly because of my high ideals and sense of community service, it may also have something to do with the fact that "losing a hundred readers" equals "losing all of my readers".
Of course, the main issue is that I have to provide something worth reading to my audience.
My Technorati ranking at 180,000 or so is sinking a few hundred each day, not because my blog is bleeding readers, but because other blogs are rising. I have a grand total of seven bloglines subscribers, compared to over a hundred for some more luminary game blogs. On the plus side, actual hits on my blog web page were high this month, partly due to my BGG.con reports.
Gone Gaming, the other site I write for, is ranked about 58,000 on Technorati, which is slightly more respectable. One might say that there is simply a limit as to how far you can expect a board game blog to rise in a blogsphere rules by Tech, News, Politics, Sports, Fashion, and Sex, but the truth is that some really weird blogs about esoteric subjects, like Shoes, are pretty high up the ranking. What do they have that I don't have?
Number 1: A lot of free time to write every day, mostly owing to the fact that they support themselves through their blog (note the vicious circle here).
Number 2: Nice pictures or charts. Exceptions to this are very rare.
Number 3: A sense of authority on what they write about.
Number 4: The "jeu ne sais quoi" - an appealing writing style and visceral ability to hook even readers who are not familiar with the subject.
Number 5: A few friends or loyal readers from bigger blogs, preferably at least one of the main ones, who have noticed them and linked to them.
That's the formula, give or take.
For myself, I am pursuing not only blogging but other avenues, as well. I have designed a game, I'm working on getting it published, and I'm working on other games. I have approached business initiatives on the feasibility of setting up a game store or cafe in Jerusalem (not until I can quit my job for a year). I run a game group and keep in contact with most of the gaming source in my country, and others around the world. And so on.
Success in what you want to do comes easy for some people. My wife is pursuing a PhD in Jewish texts as well as teaching, and she loves it. It's exactly what she wants to do with her life. The rest of us have to work a little harder. In the meantime, those of you who want to help me out can always donate to me via PayPal, if you so desire. Most of all, keep reading, keep linking, and keep the game world alive.
Yehuda
Wednesday, November 30, 2005
Boards, Spaces, and Pieces
In this post I examine the relationship between boards, spaces and pieces. One thing noticeably absent is any discussion of theme. I apologize in advance to all of you theme lovers.
Boardless Boards
A "board" doesn't have to be a specific board made for the game. The top of a table is a board for many games, such as most card games. One function of a pre-printed board is to assign locations for components. If you print a board for Bridge indicating the location of the alternate deck between rounds, the dummy's hand, the collected tricks, and the score pad and pencil, the game does not essentially change. The conventional locations for the components of Bridge are well known, so a pre-printed board is unnecessary. In addition, the location of these components is only a formality, not a requirement. It makes no difference if you store your tricks "here" or "there".
Board as a Player Separator
The board in a board game serves to divide people from each other. Most boards are located between the players. In Bridge, for example, the two partners are actually across from each other, i.e. with maximum board obstruction and distance, while opponents are only partially occluded by the board, being on your sides. On the other hand, in games such as Chess, Go, or Memoir '44, players or teams may be arranged on either side of the board, in which case the board serves as a dividing gulf between forces. In some cases, all players may be on one side of a board. Often this happens when the board itself functions as an adversary, such as Ra - where the game ends if the board spaces fill up - or Lord of the Rings - where all players act in cooperation.
Another reason to be on different sides of a table is to keep hidden items concealed from other players, or simply to be able to see and converse easily with the other players.
Board Spaces
One of the fundamental elements of a board is its creation of unique spaces. An empty table top, or a blank board, has only a single space. Unless the distances between players or the edge of the table are counted for some purpose, any area of the table is equivalent to any other area. Even in this situation, the game may have other defined spaces if each player has their own hand of cards or holdings.
The moment you place something on the table, the table area is now divided into areas. In the case of a board on a table, the simplest division is the area on the board versus the area off of the board. Both areas may sometimes be used during the game. Off the board might indicate a penalty space, such as when a player has to toss something onto the board and misses. Or it might be reserved for a storage space for board elements that are in "hyper-space", which I define as "any area off the playable board space and not in another uniquely defined space such as a player's hand or holdings". Items in hyper-space may, by definition, be moved freely to any other area in hyper-space with no effect on the game play. In essence the board itself exists within hyper-space, as it may be moved around with no effect on the game (assuming you do not knock the pieces over).
Consider Carcassonne. We ignore the scoring board, each player's meeple reserves, and the stacks of unused tiles, all of which are in hyper-space. The first tile placed on the table creates a number of unique areas. Four obvious areas are orthogonal to the tile in that they are distinct playable areas. Areas that abut these four areas orthogonally, either diagonal to the first tile or further away from the first tile, are potential future play areas which must also be considered. A placed tile contains within itself several playable areas specifically reserved for the other game pieces, the meeples, but not for placing other tiles. These spaces come into being the moment a tile is placed on the table. As spaces are created, players are forced to decide how to use these spaces to their benefit.
Polarity, a game of tossing magnetized disks, is another example. The board itself divides the surface into two areas: inside the circle and outside the circle. Once a piece is thrown onto the board, several more spaces are defined: on the piece, touching the piece, close to the piece, far from the piece but usefully between the piece and the edge, far from the piece but not usefully between the piece and the edge.
Now consider a blank sheet that you can use to create a new game. The first marking you place divides the game area into spaces. If you draw a line or edge, it may be dividing between one side and another side of this edge. If you draw a constrained space, such as a circle or square, the division may be between inside of this space and any other spaces. A pattern of constrained spaces describes the boundaries of each location.
Dynamic and Variable Areas
If the spaces on the table are created as you play then the board is dynamic. A dynamic board is one in which the areas are not wholly defined before the game begins. Note that the board in Carcassonne is not really dynamic, as the entire board is in reality a grid of tile sized spaces, the outlines of which are apparent the moment the first tile is placed on the table.
In addition to dynamic, boards may vary as the game continues if the spaces can merge or change shape topologically. If a space changes shape or size, but it's functionality is the same and its relationship to other spaces has not changed, it has not really changed at all as far as the game is concerned.
Space Relationships
The most intrinsic aspect of a space is that it is not any other space. For most games, spaces form relationships with other spaces. A set of spaces may form a series such as the movement track in a race game. Or they may define proximity and/or distance, such as hex areas in a war game. They divide territory, such that applicable traits of one space are different from that of another, such as what resources are available to you if your pieces is there. They may influence each other by proximity, such as "all spaces bordering a river".
Spaces define what pieces can occupy them and how. Continuing with Carcassonne, we have the infinite grid of squares in which to potentially lay pieces, the spaces on the score track which are moved according to piece placement within the grid area, and hyper-space, where all other elements of the game reside.
In a game of Bohnanza, there is the hand space of each player further subdivided into five spaces. Cards enter in a track and progress through these spaces until they leave the hand area into the player's table space. A player's table space is divided into four areas: three for planting and a money pile. There is no special relationship between the spaces in one player's table area, or between each player's table area; they exist within hyper-space somewhere. In addition, there are two spaces for the deck and discard pile.
And so on.
In many games, the space is specifically divided into where you may or may not place your pieces, as well as how you may move them, such as Checkers. In some games, pieces travel between player's hand spaces without ever hitting the board area, such as traded resources in Settlers of Catan.
It is worth noting that any game with a scoring track is essentially a race game. All of the things you are doing with your other pieces are meant to help you race your pieces around the scoring track - they are the fuel for your movement, so to speak. Some games have the pieces interacting directly within the scoring track, such as Crokinole and Rebound. It would be interesting to see family games that did this, e.g. "if your piece lands on the scoring track, use that as your new score".
Pieces and Spaces
Pieces, board elements, and spaces are somewhat interchangeable. In a game where you lay tile to create the board, are the tiles pieces, spaces, or part of the board?
One way to look at pieces is that they transform the spaces they are on. A Monopoly space with a house on it is different from a Monopoly space without a house on it. The meaning of the space has changed, and therefore the space itself has temporarily changed. When the spaces are not dynamic, the pieces are used to execute the abilities of each space.
Dice and so on are simply pieces. They are generally thrown in a hyper-space area, and by virtue of their position affect how you may move other pieces. In a spaceless board, each player generally has their own hand space, with the board acting as a general hyper-space for pieces in transition, such as temporarily storing played cards.
Summation
Whether you play games or design them, it is useful to be able to picture the world created by the interacting elements of board, space, and pieces. Happy playing.
Yehuda
Boardless Boards
A "board" doesn't have to be a specific board made for the game. The top of a table is a board for many games, such as most card games. One function of a pre-printed board is to assign locations for components. If you print a board for Bridge indicating the location of the alternate deck between rounds, the dummy's hand, the collected tricks, and the score pad and pencil, the game does not essentially change. The conventional locations for the components of Bridge are well known, so a pre-printed board is unnecessary. In addition, the location of these components is only a formality, not a requirement. It makes no difference if you store your tricks "here" or "there".
Board as a Player Separator
The board in a board game serves to divide people from each other. Most boards are located between the players. In Bridge, for example, the two partners are actually across from each other, i.e. with maximum board obstruction and distance, while opponents are only partially occluded by the board, being on your sides. On the other hand, in games such as Chess, Go, or Memoir '44, players or teams may be arranged on either side of the board, in which case the board serves as a dividing gulf between forces. In some cases, all players may be on one side of a board. Often this happens when the board itself functions as an adversary, such as Ra - where the game ends if the board spaces fill up - or Lord of the Rings - where all players act in cooperation.
Another reason to be on different sides of a table is to keep hidden items concealed from other players, or simply to be able to see and converse easily with the other players.
Board Spaces
One of the fundamental elements of a board is its creation of unique spaces. An empty table top, or a blank board, has only a single space. Unless the distances between players or the edge of the table are counted for some purpose, any area of the table is equivalent to any other area. Even in this situation, the game may have other defined spaces if each player has their own hand of cards or holdings.
The moment you place something on the table, the table area is now divided into areas. In the case of a board on a table, the simplest division is the area on the board versus the area off of the board. Both areas may sometimes be used during the game. Off the board might indicate a penalty space, such as when a player has to toss something onto the board and misses. Or it might be reserved for a storage space for board elements that are in "hyper-space", which I define as "any area off the playable board space and not in another uniquely defined space such as a player's hand or holdings". Items in hyper-space may, by definition, be moved freely to any other area in hyper-space with no effect on the game play. In essence the board itself exists within hyper-space, as it may be moved around with no effect on the game (assuming you do not knock the pieces over).
Consider Carcassonne. We ignore the scoring board, each player's meeple reserves, and the stacks of unused tiles, all of which are in hyper-space. The first tile placed on the table creates a number of unique areas. Four obvious areas are orthogonal to the tile in that they are distinct playable areas. Areas that abut these four areas orthogonally, either diagonal to the first tile or further away from the first tile, are potential future play areas which must also be considered. A placed tile contains within itself several playable areas specifically reserved for the other game pieces, the meeples, but not for placing other tiles. These spaces come into being the moment a tile is placed on the table. As spaces are created, players are forced to decide how to use these spaces to their benefit.
Polarity, a game of tossing magnetized disks, is another example. The board itself divides the surface into two areas: inside the circle and outside the circle. Once a piece is thrown onto the board, several more spaces are defined: on the piece, touching the piece, close to the piece, far from the piece but usefully between the piece and the edge, far from the piece but not usefully between the piece and the edge.
Now consider a blank sheet that you can use to create a new game. The first marking you place divides the game area into spaces. If you draw a line or edge, it may be dividing between one side and another side of this edge. If you draw a constrained space, such as a circle or square, the division may be between inside of this space and any other spaces. A pattern of constrained spaces describes the boundaries of each location.
Dynamic and Variable Areas
If the spaces on the table are created as you play then the board is dynamic. A dynamic board is one in which the areas are not wholly defined before the game begins. Note that the board in Carcassonne is not really dynamic, as the entire board is in reality a grid of tile sized spaces, the outlines of which are apparent the moment the first tile is placed on the table.
In addition to dynamic, boards may vary as the game continues if the spaces can merge or change shape topologically. If a space changes shape or size, but it's functionality is the same and its relationship to other spaces has not changed, it has not really changed at all as far as the game is concerned.
Space Relationships
The most intrinsic aspect of a space is that it is not any other space. For most games, spaces form relationships with other spaces. A set of spaces may form a series such as the movement track in a race game. Or they may define proximity and/or distance, such as hex areas in a war game. They divide territory, such that applicable traits of one space are different from that of another, such as what resources are available to you if your pieces is there. They may influence each other by proximity, such as "all spaces bordering a river".
Spaces define what pieces can occupy them and how. Continuing with Carcassonne, we have the infinite grid of squares in which to potentially lay pieces, the spaces on the score track which are moved according to piece placement within the grid area, and hyper-space, where all other elements of the game reside.
In a game of Bohnanza, there is the hand space of each player further subdivided into five spaces. Cards enter in a track and progress through these spaces until they leave the hand area into the player's table space. A player's table space is divided into four areas: three for planting and a money pile. There is no special relationship between the spaces in one player's table area, or between each player's table area; they exist within hyper-space somewhere. In addition, there are two spaces for the deck and discard pile.
And so on.
In many games, the space is specifically divided into where you may or may not place your pieces, as well as how you may move them, such as Checkers. In some games, pieces travel between player's hand spaces without ever hitting the board area, such as traded resources in Settlers of Catan.
It is worth noting that any game with a scoring track is essentially a race game. All of the things you are doing with your other pieces are meant to help you race your pieces around the scoring track - they are the fuel for your movement, so to speak. Some games have the pieces interacting directly within the scoring track, such as Crokinole and Rebound. It would be interesting to see family games that did this, e.g. "if your piece lands on the scoring track, use that as your new score".
Pieces and Spaces
Pieces, board elements, and spaces are somewhat interchangeable. In a game where you lay tile to create the board, are the tiles pieces, spaces, or part of the board?
One way to look at pieces is that they transform the spaces they are on. A Monopoly space with a house on it is different from a Monopoly space without a house on it. The meaning of the space has changed, and therefore the space itself has temporarily changed. When the spaces are not dynamic, the pieces are used to execute the abilities of each space.
Dice and so on are simply pieces. They are generally thrown in a hyper-space area, and by virtue of their position affect how you may move other pieces. In a spaceless board, each player generally has their own hand space, with the board acting as a general hyper-space for pieces in transition, such as temporarily storing played cards.
Summation
Whether you play games or design them, it is useful to be able to picture the world created by the interacting elements of board, space, and pieces. Happy playing.
Yehuda
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)