Boardgame News.... with Bite.

Jeez - can we just get to page seven already?

EDIT- Oh. Hells. Yes.

Vlaada's "play for second" comment is weak sauce.

He is right about "eliminate all of your opponents" being obsolete, however. It has been nearly stripped even from modern AT design. Look at the new versions of Risk. If ANY game should have that as an object, it should be Risk. Nope. Not there.

I do have one decent game that still has it there. Caladea. But the last rev adds a variant so that the player stays in the game with:

1. Too few units to actually win.
2. Enough units to help screw over the person who took them out.

Genius.

MattLoter wrote:

So basically you're telling us that you don't really know jack shit about board games yet we should listen to your advice cause you're like random dude on the street consumer and then just repost comments from people that actually have something to say?

Sorry dude, but I think if you want people to give a shit you'll need to actually ya know, play some fucking games once in a while and form an opinion of your own.

Actually, I like it that Ryan is honest about his approach and honest about the germination of his ideas--as well as giving credit where credit is due (Michael and Sag, e.g.) It is all well and good for us to be having these conversations within our community--but Ryan is getting a wider audience, in some ways, than here.

But maybe its just the academic in me.

He is right about "eliminate all of your opponents" being obsolete, however. It has been nearly stripped even from modern AT design. Look at the new versions of Risk. If ANY game should have that as an object, it should be Risk. Nope. Not there

I don't think it's obsolete, but it's definitely unfashionable. And part of that is because of the influence of Eurogames and the idea that all players regardless of performance can continue to have a chance to win throughout a game leading up to and in some cases including the endgame stage.

You're right though, even in AT designs it's almost gone.

It begs the question...what player elimination were eliminated from wargame design?

BTW- competing for second...bullshit. Who the hell cares enough about winning a game to be concerned with coming in second. Either you win or you don't. Period. And who really cares about that in the final equation anyway?

Michael Barnes wrote:

BTW- competing for second...bullshit. Who the hell cares enough about winning a game to be concerned with coming in second. Either you win or you don't. Period. And who really cares about that in the final equation anyway?

SCREW SECOND.

Michael Barnes wrote:

BTW- competing for second...bullshit. Who the hell cares enough about winning a game to be concerned with coming in second. Either you win or you don't. Period. And who really cares about that in the final equation anyway?

Exactly. Playing the game should be fun, whether or not you win. Otherwise, competitive multi-player games are a waste of time, because only one player will win and everyone else will lose. Sure, winning is even better than just playing, but playing should be its own reward.

Good Grief! Way too much to read right now. But I saw one comment that said that I did exactly what I had complained about in Matt Thrower's recent article.

My response: Yes, I did. Deliberately too.

---

To Matt Thrower, Sag and Barnes: It was your excellent discussion points that were the basis and inspiration for this article. Credit where it is due. : )

---

Also: I don't write articles to win brownie points or write in the heavy-handed quest to be "right". If you want to find a writer who misguidedly and self-servingingly attempts to prove that he is 100% right on every single thing in life... well, I give you Steve Weeks.

I write to engender discussion in an opinionated but respectful way. And guess what?

You're all talking about it and enjoying yourselves today.

So: Mission Accomplished. : )

Ryan B. wrote:

If you want to find a writer who misguidedly and self-servingingly attempts to prove that he is 100% right on every single thing in life... well, I give you Steve Weeks.

Zing!

Player elimination doesn't have to be in every game. Tis true. But it should be one of many mechanisms that are in any good designer's toolbox and shouldn't be relegated to 'yesterdays news' status.

There's a place for player elimination if the theme calls for it. There are plenty of cases where it isn't needed or desired. It's as relevant as any other mech though.

The game I'm working on right now has either a player elimination, team elimination, or player traitor mechanism depending on the number of players and how they want to play. It's a competitive co-op. I thought about having it be all player or team elimination, but keeping someone in to stir the collective pot perfectly reflects the overall theme and the 'goals' of the players.

SmallWorld looks like a borefest after a few plays, but the dormant race mechanic does seem pretty cool to me. I wonder if it could be saved if they had more realistic troop movement and/or combat rules rather than what they used... The game would be longer, yes, but there doesn't seem to be a lot too SmallWorld as it exists now.

Apparently some people can't even stand the level of conflict in that game though, lol. It's the buzz on TOS right now.

The game would be longer, yes, but there doesn't seem to be a lot too SmallWorld as it exists now.

There's not a lot to it, but that's intentional. It's basically a kids' game, it's for ages 8 and up. In that context, I think the simplicity and unrealistic troop movement are just fine. If you start looking at it like it's a real fantays wargame, or a serious strategy excercise where you squeeze every possible VP you can out of every turn, it's not going to be any fun. So, y'know, don't do that.

ubarose wrote:

I'm no expert. I only own 29 games

How many games does someone need to own for their opinion to be considered valid, informative or useful?

Just asking.

Well, Uba I don't think I can really say. Everyone's opinion is just their opinion in the end. Does owning 50 games make you an expert? 100? 300? I think a lot of people get caught up in these so-called "credentials" for writing articles. I've been a columnist for BGN and Gamefest now for 5+ years. Does that make me an expert?

Do I need to be an expert on the boardgame mechanics of hundreds and hundreds of games to be able write intelligently about them? People will have differing opinions even about that.

For me, I tend to evaluate the merits of what is being said. To answer your questions:

When is my opinion "valid": I think all the comments from every one of you prove that it is in the eyes of the beholder. To some people the article was very valid... and to others it was not valid at all.

When is my opinion "informative": Really, I don't write so much to be informative. I like people discussing what I have written and learning from that discussion (me included). The article itself doesn't *make* the article. It's the reader's comments and engagement that makes the article. And there have been some great comments.

When is my opinion "useful": I think it useful if it stirs up intelligent discussion about the topic. But again, "useful" is user defined. : )

Always enjoy your ability to quickly come to a relevant point Uba!

Cheers. : )

Ryan B.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Thirty.

I'll buy a copy of either Puerto Rico, Caylus or Sagricola just for you, Sag. Then I've got 30. (LOL)

---

BTW, most of these forum conversations take place during the day... and by nightfall its dead.

Don't any of you guys have jobs? (LOL)

Ryan B. wrote:

BTW, most of these forum conversations take place during the day... and by nightfall its dead.

Don't any of you guys have jobs? (LOL)

Where do you think we're posting from?

A couple of things -- new wargames? No player elimination required! Capture the bunker or bridge or whatever, or get the little shields and you win the game, a tactical victory. It's pretty crazy sometimes. I was playing Battle Cry and had this incredible central position of dug-in rebels way in front of the remainder of my lines and I was just crushing my opponent. I had literally torn him in half. But he scored more victory conditions on the two edges and won the game. I almost hated to clean up the board.

Even in more traditional wargames player elimination doesn't really occur very often because they're two player and one player resigns before the last unit is removed. As often as not you run out of time or interest and declare a winner at the end. Some of the multiplayer games have it.

I think a lot of people get out of joint about it because of two titles -- Risk and Monopoly and the bad memories attached to getting knocked out by fate. Hardly worth damning the entire concept.

Playing for second place -- I do that. Once I'm locked out of first place I go for second. In any game I play I'm trying for the best possible finish and start the game looking for the win, but when it's out of reach I'll scramble like hell to come in second instead of third. I'm guessing that's what the rest of you do as well, though it doesn't sound that way based upon what you've written.

Unfortunately in a lot of modern games there's no real avenue for going all-in -- most have no high-risk/high-reward path. A game like Ticket to Ride allows you to draw six destination cards on your last two turns and hope for a miracle. That's a really good feature in the game. You'll almost assuredly die in flames, but that hell-bent-for-the-win option is there and keeps you emotionally attached to the action until the final turn. That concept isn't available in most of the newer stuff, though, being only so many ways to place your workers. Besides, a wild swing of points based upon a lucky draw is now frowned upon as "not sporting."

Sag.