In Part I, I wanted to give an introduction and overview before I got to the meat of the article--that being the question, "What *is* Ameritrash?" The term has become much like a Rorschach test; and the difficulty in narrowing down the essence of Ameritrash is compounded by differing views on exactly what that consists of. I've even heard it suggested that Ameritrash is defined solely by what it is not--that is, a game falls into the genre by virtue of the absence of certain elements rather than by a common pool of traits they all share. Lastly, you have a lot of different backgrounds coming at the definition, and those backgrounds are by players who either have tired of Euros or simply prefer a different type of game.

You've got RPGers, CCGers, plasticfest lovers, wargamers, Games Workshop fans, gamers who grew up on Axis and Allies...we are talking about a diverse grouping of characters, all attempting to file in, to define essentially the "Non-Euro" as it were.

And why not? It is human nature to classify, but more importantly, it is human nature to want to "belong". Many gamers are completely unique in their conformity (there's one to wrap your head around) and with the global community of the internet it is our natural tendency to seek out like-minded individuals. You don't think of the games you like as just being oddball offshoots or ancient dinosaurs...you want to group them, classify them, put them into a family if for no other reason than to legitimize them.

I can only speculate that this is why the "AT Movement" such as it is caught fire--even if the term is distasteful to some. As a gamer who is fond of American-style designs (or British, in the case of GW--but hey, that's a colony thing), you check out the premiere boardgaming site on the internet but maybe find the overall conversation isn't bent toward your favorite style games as much as you like. But suddenly, there's an explosion and a bright light--"Hey! They're talking about games that *I* like! Games I played when I was a kid! Heck, games we just played last Saturday!"

So, then, I want your help. All of the gamers who were drawn to this discussion because of a love for a genre of games, no matter your background, I want us to work together to see if we can define what exactly "Ameritrash" consists of. This is completely a feedback-driven exercise, and maybe we'll be proven wrong--maybe these games are defined more by what they aren't than what they are....maybe our previous definitions have been far too broad...or, perhaps we can hand-pick some elements, come to a consensus, and validate the genre. I honestly don't know.

Here are some common elements I see in games I personally define as "Ameritrash".



1. Luck

Is this the most common element? Probably. Most Ameritrash games have randomizers in the form of dice, cards, or both.

The flagbearer here is obviously a game like Axis and Allies, where casualties are determined by rolling fistfuls of dice. Maybe your tank assault will wipe out the enemy's infantry front, or maybe your forces will be repelled by their unexpected valor.

Luck is appealing to Ameritrash fans because of the inability to "solve" a game, to turn it into a rote exercise. Also, there's the element of drama caused by the uncertainty of the results. Maybe your warrior will land the killing blow. Maybe your space fighter will make a brave stand and take a few ships out with him. Luck can go too far, rendering the decisions you make moot, but Ameritrash fans seem to have a much higher tolerance for this element than a pure Eurogamer would.



2. Theme

All Ameritrash games seem to share a strong marriage of theme and mechanics. Of course, just about all non-abstracts have a "theme", but there's a disconnect in the mechanics of many Euros and what the theme is supposed to be about. Even in strongly themed Euros such as Amun Re it's easy to pick apart the elements of the game and pare it down to it's barest abstract elements.

The level of theme in Ameritrash games is often referred to as "chrome". After spending a while in the gaming community over the past two years, I've come to realize that a lot of gamers use the term to mean, "a game possessing more rules than I care to personally deal with."

Ameritrash games certainly do have more rules than a typical Euro, and that usually seems to be driven by building upon an abstract model until it can no longer be easily stripped down to those barest mechanics. Once you start trying to represent a theme, you have rules that are added solely in service of that theme. Why is there a real Queen and fake Queen in Star Wars: The Queen's Gambit? Because that's how it was in the movie. Why are Sam and Frodo moving towards Mordor in War of the Ring? Because that's how it plays out in the novel.

So we're not talking about theme in the general sense--such as "you're a provost--let's build some stuff and try to impress...somebody!"--but more of a theme that is defined and supplemented by rules. In both War of the Ring and Queen's Gambit, stripping away the theme is very, very difficult because the rules have been built and predicated on the theme being represented.



3. Conflict

Simply put, it's a pretty rare thing to have an Ameritrash game that doesn't have conflict as a central theme. Of course, this begs the question of the definition of "conflict". Some would see taking the Builder in San Juan so your opponent can't have it as being a form of conflict, but the nature of that conflict is so abstract--not to mention it is missing a key element in the form of "zero-sum conflict".

I guess that's a more accurate description of what I'm talking about--"Zero-Sum Conflict". In other words, you have something, whether it is territory, or cards, or buildings, or resources...and I can directly attempt to take or destroy those resources. It is conflict based around the idea that one of us benefits and the other suffers.

This usually takes the form of military or armed conflict, but not always. It is hard to deny the prevalency of that element, though. Even most fantasy games that feature conflict will involve it by sword or sorcery. However, some games manage to feature it in a political sense, a form of conflict and power that is not represented in game by military might...but if you really look at those systems, they are merely ways of introducing an additional element of military-like might into the game. Hey, you passed a vote that hurts me--but how did you do that? Ah...you had political "power", a numerical value that at it's heart could be shifted to a military strength and would still be applicable.

However it is featured, direct conflict is generally an important feature for a game to have to be classified "Ameritrash".



4. Production Values

This is one I usually catch a lot of flak for. I come at the Ameritrash angle as one who is a devout fan of plastic bits. I've never been as fond of cardboard chits as I have those lovingly detailed soldiers, dragons, tanks, barbarians, helicopters, and knights...

But that's from a narrow perspective that I came into the hobby with. I saw games with nice plastic (or sometimes pewter) bits as having that "toy factor" that separated the more serious war games with their lighter, thematic brethren.

Whether you share that view or not, it is clear that at least from a modern perspective, a game produced these days is hard to define as "Ameritrash" unless it has great bits that were forged from the need to heavily represent theme. This is a tricky notion, however; many companies have really stepped up their production quality over the past few years, to the point where you have multiple companies who are putting sturdy, beautiful product out there--and not all of it would be considered "Ameritrash". Take "Fire and Axe", the recent Asmodee reprint--that's a gorgeous production...but is that Ameritrash? Take Mall of Horror, also by Asmodee, with its tons of plastic zombies. Is that Ameritrash? It's even got the theme!

Also, there is the fact that German-style games have had amazing production quality for quite some time now, though such production is not always driven by a need to heavily represent theme. The cardboard tiles in most Euros are thick and sturdy, the wooden bits heavy and numerous, the boards well-mounted and artfully done.

Then you've got the fact that there are plenty of games who have fairly shoddy production values but obviously would fit into the "Ameritrash" definition in almost every other way. Take "Wrasslin'", the subject du jour of Michael Barnes' last blog entry. Flimsy cards, hilariously bad artwork, but no doubt at its core an Ameritrash-style title.

So this is certainly an entry that is in need of better definition. I do know that many hardcore Eurogamers look down upon heavily-themed plastic pieces, so that is a vote for the "not Euro" viewpoint of defining Ameritrash. And it's fairly clear that games can have bad production values but otherwise qualify and then there are games that have insanely gorgeous production values but be strictly Euro, or at best a hybrid.



5. Player Interaction

This may seem like a retread of Conflict, and to a small degree it is. The type of Player Interaction I'm referring to is often driven by the element of conflict, though not necessarily.

Let's go back to a Euro I do enjoy, San Juan. There have been games where I get frustrated because my opponent is pulling away from me and there's little I can do about it. I can take certain roles to try and ping him a little, but that's about the best I can do.

Worse, the game could be played in complete silence, with each player simply making an optimal decision based on what's in hand and what's in front of him at the moment. There's no interaction there, as my buildings will never interact with yours. There's no "dealmaking" because we have no currency with which to trade. I could suggest to you, "hey, take Builder before Bob gets an extra card", but you know...whee.

(And this if for a Euro I really like!)

Maybe what I'm really referring to here is the metagame, that sense of dealmaking, of interaction that is encouraged by what is going on in the game. This is usually because each player is empowered to directly affect the game in a profound manner at any given time. This desire to impact the game is mostly held in check by a desire to win in the long term--I could throw all my forces at Dave over there, but why? I'll end up shredded and easy pickings for the next vulture to swoop in. Wait, Dave is going to win soon? Or you're going to give me Trade Goods to cripple his flank?

Perhaps together we can influence the game to both our benefits...but under what terms should that happen? Can I trust you? Should I help you when the chips are down in hopes that you'll return the favor?

This sort of goes hand in hand with Luck as keeping every game session fresh, but more importantly keeping players invovled in the game. It's important to think that you can have an impact on the game at any given time, or else you aren't motivated to continue. This is a sometimes discussed issue with Euros that do not feature player elimination--yeah, maybe I can't be eliminated, but remind me why I should care to go through the last three turns of a game I'm clearly going to finish in last place?

Eliminate me if I have no power. Otherwise, let me use that power to interface and interact with my fellow players. After all, that's why we're boardgaming instead of getting lost in some random MMORPG, right? We want to laugh, to cheer when things are going great, to groan and gnash our teeth when the chips are down, to enjoy that thing that no AI will ever be able to give us--Player Interaction.





And Now...The Floor is Yours!



These are seemingly the most common elements that Ameritrash games share, but the above seems to cast quite a wide net.

I didn't even get into the whole wargame/Ameritrash divide, which is a tad controversial in itself. Wargames seem to share their own distinct set of qualities, and while many have much in common with Ameritrash titles, there are sharp enough elements to remove them from the category and put them in their own area, where they rightfully belong and can co-exist with each other. I could be wrong, but there are conventions in wargaming that are sometimes alien to Ameritrash fans, and there is the issue of relative rules complexity.

Ameritrash games seem to seek out a medium-weight ruleset--enough to reinforce theme, and enough to place it several levels away from abstraction, but no farther. Even that isn't hard and fast--there are plenty of Ameritrash games with rather thick and complex rulesets, such as Magic Realm.

That's why I'm looking for your feedback. What did I miss? Where did I go wrong? Do you agree with this assessment? Is the net too broad?

In Part III, I have a game or two in mind that I'm going to dissect using these criteria to specifically see where these categorizations fail. Your feedback will help shape that article. I look forward to seeing where this discussion goes.

< Prev		Next >

Articles - Analysis