Category: Games

Here is my new profile on boardgamegeek.com

I’m an architect in Las Vegas, with my wife and daughter.

I like asymmetry and systematic variety.  A saber and a box of chocolates.

This is the old one, a big sprawling mess and in serious need of editing.

I’m an architect now living in Las Vegas. I used to think I was into intense games, but I’m starting to make peace with the fact that I’m more of a fluffy gamer. I like games that become relatively mindless with practice (such as Tien Len or Mah Jong). I enjoy heavier games, but they aren’t “relaxing” in the same way (duh?). I can put up with a lot of luck in my games, most likely why I don’t mind Risk or Monopoly (played per original rules).

For what its worth, I just switched my rating system to the BGG standard. I don’t like the 10 point granularity, but I’ll live with it and I’m tired of trying to keep track my own stupid system. The only difference is for expansions, which are judged in how well they enhance the base game — which means I am kind of liberal with 10’s, even if I might not like playing the game or expansion all that much.

It has been was kinda rough over the years…there are games that I’m supposed to enjoy that have dropped down lower and lower. On that note, my Top 10 list takes “nostalgia” into account – I’ll acknowledge the fact I don’t think it’s a great game in my ratings. However making me feel warm and fuzzy inside is part of the top 10 calculus.

I have typically enjoyed elegant, streamlined, lighter games, but lately found myself interested in heavier games. I don’t mind a bit of randomness and chaos in my games, but I find myself liking it less and less. What I really love is controlled chaos, instead of pure strategy, I like directed improvisation. I think that is why I have enjoyed Troyes more than Caylus (I learned both games this year). A better example may be my love of climbing games such as Tichu and Tien Len. There are definitely times when you get dealt a crap hand and there’s nothing you can do about it, but in most games there is something you can do, even with a weak hand…or something you can screw up, even with a really strong hand. One thing I absolutely really dislike is having to plan too far into the future, chess being a prime example. This also includes most worker placement games such as Dungeon Lords, Glenn Drover’s Empires: The Age of Discovery, and Dominant Species all of which utilize the “place a bunch of workers first, then resolve everything at once” mechanism. Caylus gets a pass because of its elegance.

Things I dislike in games: lots of moving parts, memory, and simultaneous action selection where there are dire consequences for guessing wrong (ala Witches Brew or Dungeon Lords). I suspect that I like auction games way more than I ought and dislike worker placement games more than necessary. I appreciate games with a strong spatial quality…maybe something coming from my architecture background – and I certainly love sleek “elegant” game mechanics and interesting graphic design.

10 – I love it love it love it!!
9 – I love it love it!!
8 – I love it!
7 – I really like it!
6 – I like it!
5 – Meh.
4 – I don’t like it!
3 – I really don’t like it!
2 – I really really don’t like it!
1 – I HATE it!

After my daughter was born, I have not had many opportunities to attend gaming events, so my life is now centered on two player games. This made me rediscover some old games and look at them in a new light. It might not be the same experience with two, but they can be fine games in their own right.

This past week I drafted a conceptual toolkit for retrofitting multiplayer games to play well for two players. Not all the examples are super successful, but they were all successful enough for someone to propose on a forum, if not publish in the rulebooks.

The toolkit can be broadly divided into two categories, SETUP CHANGES and MECHANICAL REVISIONS.

SETUP CHANGES

One Less Chair: This most basic of this category, almost not worth mentioning, is to just deal one less hand, such as in Poker…or Glory to Rome, Dominion, Hanabi, etc.
Setup Mechanical Twist: Sometimes a game uses the same components and plays the same as the original game but includes a slight mechanical twist in the setup, for example, Spades for two which adds a drafting mechanism. Another example (though not for two) is in three player Tien Len where the last card dealt is thrown face up on the table and the player with the lowest card may trade for it.
More or Less: Some games pretty much use the same components but deal out a slightly different amount of goodies, such as money in Caylus or the amount of available goods in Puerto Rico. Pandemic:OTB reduces the quantity of event cards. Hanabi changes the quantity of hand cards between 4/5P games and 2/3P games.
Reduce Components: Sometimes you take out specific items from the multiplayer games as in Agricola, or in Hansa where you remove some colors of goods altogether.
Add Components: And sometimes you add something totally new, such as in China: Das Duell. The original Mamma Mia! plays fine for two, but I’ve found the game greatly improved by playing Mamma Mia Plus, where the the expanded card mix compensates for the reduction of players.
Modify the Map: And sometimes you change the board. Ticket to Ride does this by disallowing parallel track lays. Ra reduces the Ra Slot, TransAmerica only deals out the cards with the border. Power Grid reduces regions. Only one of each violet building is available in Puerto Rico.

MECHANICAL REVISIONS

Dummy Player: Though much reviled in general, it seems to work fairly well in some games. Dirk in Alhambra with is a primary example. Its also been proposed with positive reactions for Trias. And its been way too long since I played Nefertiti to comment knowledgably, but the official 2P rules in the expansion include a Dummy player. This unofficial Niagara variant proposes adding a third paddle (along with reducing the gems in the setup).
Play Two!: This is the other obvious drastic mechanical revision fro 2P games. There are some strong proponents of playing Puerto Rico with two boards and its even been tried in Chudyk’s new game Impulse. The official Hare and Tortoise variant also does this (in my opinion it is brilliant, but it is not liked on BGG). This was also proposed for Trias, as well as High Society with a slight twist when a bad card comes up. I guess you could say this is also the way you would modify the number of players in Scotland Yard, though its core essence is a two player game that was designed to accommodate multiple players.
Remove Mechanisms: Sometimes a mechanism is just unnecessary, Caylus dumps the turn order Mechanism.
Add Mechanisms: I don’t think its particularly successful in Bohnanza, Uwe essentially added a new phase in the game to simulate trading. Also not particularly successful is the variant of Acquire where you draw a tile during a merger to simulate a dummy banker (this differs the main “Dummy Player” tool because it is random and is an instant non-permanent effect). I haven’t played it myself, but a promising Dixit Variant has the storyteller selecting a card, drawing five more off the top of the deck and adding three to the tableau along with throwing in a random card. And I’ve heard two player Niagara is playable by merely adding the Beaver Mechanism that comes with the Spirits of the Niagara expansion.
Tweak Existing Mechanism: Fairy Tale has a billion variants proposed because the base two player game is unsatisfying. Most of them tweak the number of cards drawn and almost all of them involve discarding a card during each phase of the draft before giving the hand to your opponent. The most recently proposed Fairy Tale Variant involves drawing cards off the top of the deck each round. This unofficial variant for Basari (along with modifying the length of each round) does this by conflating the Jewels and Points actions to force more bartering.
Action Quantities: The official rules for Trias reduces the number of actions a player may take from four to three. And Puerto Rico gives each player multiple actions before the round ends (and the official variant is structured to create a particularly significant change by removing the craftsman angst).
Modify the Game Length: This was a simple variant proposed for Fairy Tale. And is also the source behind some of different variants for Puerto Rico, since the quantity of Colonists and VP’s affect the length and thus balance of the game. Love Letter changes the number of hearts you needs to capture before victory. And Troyes does this very neatly with their event card reveals.
Change the nature of the game: Dixit isn’t really that competitive so someone decided to make it fully cooperative.

I’m not particularly versed in boardgame theory so I’m certain there is a lot rough edges and maybe even a complete conceptual realignment in order before everything is said and done.

If I’m going to be playing primarily two player for the next few years, this might be fun to explore. I know there is a good two player game in the Bohnanza deck, just waiting to be designed.

Me, the Reviewer

I am a big Dixit fan. I’ve purchased six copies of this game, three that I have given away (a copy of Dixit 2 and Odyssey to my sister, and a copy of Journey to my game night host who introduced me to the game). I have not yet purchased Journey for myself, because I’m always playing the copy of at my host’s house.

I originally did a quick write up of how I think the family interacts and I thought I’d turn it into a slightly longer review. As an architect I think about this stuff way too much….

Initial thoughts that got derailed into the auxiliary stuff

For me the original Dixit is the granddaddy and I still think it has the best art (I am particularly fond of the Cat and Fishbowl). Because Marie is the artist for Dixit 2, I think the two make the best pairing. For any normal human being that is just about right. You don’t need more cards than that. Since Dixit bogs with more than 6 players, you really don’t need the extra chits that come with Odyssey either.

However, Odyssey’s score track is nice, and it is nice to be able to add a couple extra player bunny tokens if you want to have more players. However the voting placard stinks and we never use it. Instead we just use voting chits from Dixit 1, and if there are more players we use dice from other games (2+6=8).

Journey has the nice “feature” of adding more voting chits, unfortunately they used the same colors as in the original Dixit. That was an unfortunate oversight because they could have been really nice supplemental voting chits for 7+ players. Even so, we’ll still use the Journey chips if we have more than six players. And of course we completely ignore the stupid plastic pawns of Jinx.

So in summary we use the Odyssey score track and bunnies (since they sit better) with the Original Dixit and Journey voting chits. But really, who loves Dixit for the scoring?

We love it for the Art.

Journey has turned out to be an excellent expansion. If you are happy with your Dixit 1 and Dixit 2 cards and you don’t feel the need for more, then you should just stick with that pairing.

However, if you’re a Dixit hoarder like me, then you most likely purchased Odyssey. Because the penciller was a different artist, the Odyssey cards really stuck out like a sore thumb, even though Marie was the colorist. I also think the depictions in Odyssey was not open ended as the other sets, which is why I consider it to be the weakest of the bunch.

For Journey, they came in with with a completely different artist and art style. You might have a similar visual discombobulation if you slipped Journey into a 1+2 deck, but it works really well when you include it with Odyssey. The deck now has enough visual variety to eliminate the irritating uncanny valley-ness of the Odyssey cards.

As for Journey on its own. The cards are quite excellent, though quite different from Marie’s original art work since it is all digitally painted. That said, the colors are gorgeous, the art is beautiful, and the depictions are open ended like the first Dixit. Our first couple plays of Journey were as a standalone game and we were “oohing and ahhing” all the new cards. If I had to judge each deck individually I’d put it just a hair ahead of 2 but behind the original (my absolute favorite). However, if you were to get two decks, 2 pairs better with original.

Recommendations

My base recommendation would be for the original plus the Dixit 2. It is nice to have two decks worth of cards and they make an excellent pairing. Any other pairing would make for an uncomfortable visual dissonance.

If you want to add more cards, then you should get both Oddesy and Journey at the same time and really turn the deck into a variety pack.

If you want only one Dixit, then just start with the Original, it’s got great art and bunny meeples. What else do you need?

Postcripts

If you need to have the game tonight, I suggest you go to your local big box Target or Walmart. They’ll almost certainly have Journey and you can’t go wrong with that. Maybe Barnes and Noble would have the Original Dixit?

If you live with very conservative folks, I would recommend considering Journey because art is a less dark than that of original Dixit. This is quite subjective, but I remember someone watching us playing it a couple years ago and remarking how spooky it was.

My host got a copy of Dixit Jinx for Christmas. I’m excited to try out the game but I have not done so. As an architect who has been brainwashed into Modernism, I suspect that I will quite enjoy the abstract art of Jinx, but would not be surprised that people who loved the rich art of Dixit find Jinx disappointing.

Originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

This is an abstract game with two boards. The Action Board is a 2 by 2 square grid with four action spaces (Place (x2), Move, Remove). The Network Board is also a 2 by 2 square grid with the pieces are placed on the 9 vertices of the grid.

Each player has five workers to take actions and/or place on the network board. Each turn a player has two actions per turn (except for the first player who only has one action on their first turn). To take an action a player takes one of their workers from their supply and places it in an empty space on the Action Board and resolve the action accordingly. Instead of taking an action they may they may pass and must remove one of their workers from the Action Board (if they have any).

The three types of action on the Action Boards are:
Place one of the activating workers in the Network Board. Take the worker from either the General Supply or the “Place” Space just activated.
Move either player’s worker on the Network Board to an adjacent vertice or move either player’s worker on the Action Board to an adjacent space (do not activate the action under the moved worker).
Remove either player’s worker from either the Network Board or the Action Board. That worker is returned to the player’s general supply.

The game ends immediately when a player has three workers in a row on the Network Board.

I purchased this game because it was accidentally shipped to me and Time Well Spent Games gave me a discount to purchase it outright instead of paying me to ship it back to them. It seemed like a nice light game that would fit in my sister’s wheelhouse and so it became an early Christmas gift when we had a mini-family reunion this past weekend. Since my girlfriend was a non-gaming mood, I ended up playing lots of boardgames with my sister. After about thirty 2P plays of this game, I think I am qualified to say something about Nefarious as a 2P game.

Because my all the plays of this game were with my sister, so her preferences should be put up front. She and her husband (who did not come) are gamers, so she is perfectly capable at playing heavier games like Agricola, but she strongly prefers lighter games. Even a simple 2P abstract game like Let’s Catch the Lion was way too heavy for her tastes. She enjoyed Too Many Cooks (I think in part due to the art) but wasn’t totally enamored with it, nor with Indian Chief. Nor Parade, which can be a surprisingly thinky filler. I suspect No Thanks would have been played in regular rotation except we need a third player and my girlfriend was having none of that. The light Russian beating game Durak and Korean fishing game Go Stop both worked nicely as did Plato 3000 (which is a little too light for me).

As for me, I typically prefer slightly meatier fare, but if I’m having fun why not? My 10’s are typically fillers because the great ones are reliably good in any situation where as medium / heavier games require the right crowd and mood. That said, my current hotness is Container, In the Year of the Dragon, Nefertiti, and Troyes.

In Nefarious, each player is an evil genius trying to take over the world by creating new wicked inventions. Since this is a Eurogame, taking over the world means getting 20 VP’s before your opponents (of course!). Mechanically Nefarious is is a simultaneous action selection game where you collect money, draw invention cards into your hand, and gain VP’s by purchasing these cards in your hand and playing them to the table. You earn money by “Speculating” what actions your opponents will select (that is the only use of those minion meeples) as well as selecting either the “research “($2) or “work” ($4)actions. You gain cards into your hand by taking the “research” (one card) action. To play the invention cards to the table you “invent” them spending your money to get them into your tableau. Along with VP’s, most invention cards have instant effects on you and/or other players for good and/or bad

This is a very nice clean design. Everything in this game has their place and there are almost no “exceptions”. Minions do ONLY one thing (earn you money through speculation). Inventions get played to the table ONLY via the “Invent” action. You gain VP’s ONLY through invention cards in your tableau. Effects from invention cards are ONLY instant and are not permanent. Effects from inventions affect you or ALL players (no selective attacks against other players). Money and cards in hand are more fluid, but of course these are the two resources you have to manage well to win the game

The only thing that seems complicated is Invention Card effect resolution — but even then the rules are pretty clear. All players resolve invention effects simultaneously. Each player will resolve all personal effects (green arrow) first (from top to bottom). Then they will resolve effects from other players (red arrows) in player order relative to their own seat. It sounds complicated but it really isn’t. And of course in a 2P game this is completely not an issue.

Of course, such a nice clean simple game can get pretty dull pretty fast. Even so, I think the first two or three plays with the base mechanics was still quite fun. But right as we began to tire of it, we opened up the pile of 36 “twist” cards that selectively modify the game slightly and every game should be played with two of these. Some of them are pretty simple, like giving you more money to start the game or increasing the victory VP requirement but some of them can make things pretty wild, like making the effects of your invention happen twice or letting you take two actions a turn. We played the twist deck once through and with two cards played per game there are definitely a lot potentially cool twist combos still out there (though of course there are also a few boring ones also).

I’m by no means an expert Dominion player, but whenever I play with expert dominion players, they look at the table and they know what they want to do for the whole game, which thus essentially boils down to a shuffling exercise. There is a bit of that feeling in Nefarious once you get a little experience. At the start of the game you will you look at your hand, look at the twist cards, map out a strategy and execute. Ultimately, this is a race game to 20 points so messing around isn’t gonna get you anywhere but last place – and there isn’t that much game space to explore anyways. Maybe there is a bit more interaction with more players (I suspect the red arrow effects are a bit underpowered in a 2P game) but otherwise, it’s really is just a race to 20 points.

As fitting a lighter game, there is a decent amount of luck of the draw which can doom you. But even then, it isn’t about getting the killer card XYZ, but a case of a series of bad draws that do not interact well with the initial strategy you chose to start the game. The deck is nicely balanced which gives you room to do some optimization and well as make make mistakes which will doom you. Then again being doomed isn’t that big of a deal, after a few plays, we were knocking out a game every 10 minutes.

In short, Nefarious is a fun game and in the right crowd (such as say, hanging with your sister who doesn’t like heavy games).

But do I love it? Not really. I don’t hate it, but I just don’t see much more there to explore, and I don’t usually find myself in a context needing a light multiplayer game. The multiplayer aspect sounds fun, but after a lackluster attempt at King of Tokyo, I’m not sure a lighter, silly, interactive game of this type is going to be normally a right fit for me. Currently I rate it a 6, however I suspect that it may slip down to a 4 as time slips by.

That said, Donald X. has cemented himself as a top notch designer. His games don’t grab my attention, but he has two popular and critically acclaimed hits with Dominion and Kingdom Builder. For Nefarious he clearly wanted to design a lighter filler that was fun to play repeatedly. After thirty plays it’s hard to argue he did not succeed again, splendidly!

One more note: I know it sounds like taking hatred of paper money to an absurd level, but this game is greatly improved if you replace the cardboard money tokens with full size poker chips. Once you get used to it, it’s easier to keep track of money with white=1, red=5, blue=10. During the game there will be a lot of single dollars coming into your system. In a 2P game you’ll be getting 2 or 4 bucks almost every round just due to speculation via your minions. Furthermore if you “research” or “work” you’ll get either 2 or 4 bucks. That’s a lot of singles, and it is a lot easier with poker chips to keep exchanging the big red and white chips instead of fiddling with the smaller cardboard money tokens.

Originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

I am a huge fan of Mark Johnson’s podcast Boardgames to Go. He has one particularly epic episode on boardgames and themes. He just followed up with another episode where they “focus” on fantasy versus realistic themes. I use focus in quotes because it was a particularly disjointed episode, but if you are at all the type to listen to podcasts both are well worth your time.

The first podcast discussion had a lot of discussion of theme as metaphor and narrative, with them being plotted on an XY axis. Feldmafx did a nice little diagram of that graph.

While it feels like it makes sense, the graph doesn’t work once you try to locate games within the chart. Snoozefest proposed an alternate chart.

I also jumped in with my own chart trying to grapple with individual games on a narrative/mechanism slice of the world

In the end, no one ended up with an exciting model and the conversation just kind of died.

But this latest podcast got me thinking. Maybe the problem is that the word “narrative” and “metaphor” are confusing. What if we went to more easily grasped ideas of “modeling” and “setting”. Using an XY graph you would have Modeling, Abstract to Specific, and Setting would be Fantastical-None-Historical. As I write this, I realize this doesn’t account for the story telling aspect of gameplay.

Hmmm…back to the drawing board, but before I go here is a draft of what a chart might look like:

Originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

Well lets start with the easy stuff, the straight autobiography. I’m an architect in Houston, Texas, who grew up in California, Orange County, San Jose, and Berkeley. I went to school at Berkeley. After working a few years, I moved out to Houston for grad school and have been there since, even though we would like to move back. I live with my girlfriend and two rabbits. I waste a lot of time on picking up an dropping hobbies, currently, board games (and talking about them), Tai Chi, Harmonica, and Rock Climbing. Previous victims were an abortive attempt with the Banjo and Photography.

Boardgaming has been a recurring hobby in my life. I’m not sure where it got started, but I suspect it was because I grew up with very limited TV in the house. We had some computer games, but that was also quite restricted. I definitely read a lot and we played some boardgames. That said, it was just me and my sister so we didn’t play that much because she wasn’t so into heavier games. I remember playing a bit of Parcheesi and a little Rummikub and Egyptian Ratscrew. I think at some point my dad taught me Nine Men’s Morris, which I took to junior high and played a with a friend. I didn’t play a ton with my parents, but I played a little bit of Xiangqi with my dad and grandfather. I never got good at that game. I remember hearing about Weiqi (Go) but I don’t think they ever played it. The other game I learned from my grandparents was Mahjong, which is still one of my favorite games – though only with people who play at a HK style 3 point minimum.

Aside from that however, I didn’t get to play too much as I grew older because my parents (dissatisfied with both public and private schools) pulled us out to be homeschooled furing high school which limited the crowd I could hang with. During this time I came across Avalon Hill through the old chain Game Keeper. With a couple old junior high friends, I had limited play with Blackbeard, Civilization, PanzerBlitz, and Squad Leader. I still own them and the two that would still keep my interest are Titan and A House Divided. Even if I didn’t get much play I definitely picked up the “new game box” buzz and the joy of reading rules. Well actually I think the joy of reading came first, the rules were just really fun things for me to read – and not just the rules for designer games but all kinds of rules. In fact I find traditional game rules more interesting because the games are tied into a culture group. They provide a glimpse into another life.

My last couple years of high school I attended the local community college where I learned and played Thirteen between breaks. I don’t think this was my introduction to climbing games – I learned Big Two before that – but this is the beautiful game, just constantly flowing. Each deal and hand shaping up in front of you, a quick assessment and then the card play. Repeated again and again. I also learned the rules to Magic the Gathering, but I never really got into cardboard crack. I saw the expense of the game from afar and I didn’t have the funds!

College at Berkeley was a pretty quiet time for gaming. Architecture school is an intense experience, and I hung out with artists, chatting through the night about life the universe and everything. There were a couple forays into games, but the pressure to perform in school that kept me from really enjoying games. Maybe there was a level of misplaced Avalon Hill snobbery, so I didn’t even bother to try Settlers of Catan even though I had heard about it. I suspect I also avoided this popular game because I knew that a lack of funds would be a constraint and didn’t want to get sucked back into a world of shrink wrapped boxes, each promising a new gaming experience when I didn’t have any disposable income. I did make an impromptu chess set with spray painted bottle caps, which got a good amount of use with a couple studiomates. But I could never grasp the spatial nature of that game. My mind is wired for card games where there’s more of a back and forth and semi-expected ups and down. Chess games require long term look ahead and serious planning, neither of which I enjoy in my games. I like my games with tactical with twists and turns, as long as the game provides ways to pivot amidst the chaos.

I did have one abortive attempt at getting into Magic while at Berkeley. I heard about drafts and thought it would be a good way to play the game without going broke, but after one Friday Night Draft, I realized the amount of skill it required and I had no interest in getting that good at the game. I still do enjoy the general system, but not that much.

When I went to Rice for grad school, and the situation stayed the same – tight on cash and tight on time. However, Rice is a much smaller university, and with the claustrophobic environment, I needed to get out, spending my little bit of free time hanging out at a local gamestore. The kids were really into Magic, and I tried to get back into it, but once again the skill level was too much. I did meet a fellow student that had a shoebox full of cards, and we did have a lot of fun with that. I also tried playing Munchkin, which is actually a fun enough game with the right crowd, and Chez Dork which is a really fun game but I soon realized that if I wasn’t going all in on MtG, there just wasn’t much reason to hang out there and so I slipped back out of gaming.

During grad school I also met my girlfriend and we picked up a couple games, Trias and Carcasonne Hunters and Gatherers, but we didn’t play them aside from chasing her during a three year losing streak in H&G. I also picked up Alhambra around the end of grad school. I was still gun-shy about jumping fully into gaming due to the cost, but also because a lot of these games just aren’t that great for two. You’d think I’d have learned how to use BGG since I had joined this site almost as soon as it had opened, but the user interface on the site really is a major barrier to full entry, and even worse, every popular game invariably has a fairly convincing thread where someone states that game XYZ actually works great for 2P even if it really isn’t a good 2P game!

The one game that got regular play during that time was Cribbage. I have no earthly idea why I decided to learn the game, maybe just because it was a classic game and the convoluted rules made it an interesting challenge. But once we got into it, we were hooked. I doubt either of us were great at it, but I think we got pretty good playing by feel. Kind of like my climbing game obsession, I play the game but without counting cards, and that only gets you so far – but far enough to have a lot of fun.

And so it stalled for a while, until we picked up Ticket to Ride. Wow. That game caught fire. We played it maybe every other night, so much so that I burned out on it. I was starting to get hooked, I got more serious about BGG and I also found out about all the published game rules that are available online. This was so freaking cool for me cause I love reading them, but I was still constrained by our 2P requirement. So I pretty much just stuck with TtR which we played every other day all year until one fateful weekend in early 2009. My buddy from LA was going to come out to Texas on a business trip. At the last minute, her company canceled the trip and so I suddenly had a free weekend. It was the weekend of OwlCon – the annual gaming convention at Rice University. So I thought, well crap, for $18 I’ll get to try out some games, hopefully avoid buying some bad ones and maybe meet some people. I did. There isn’t much open gaming out there, but there is a little and I met a woman who told me about the Friday Night Group which happened to meet a few blocks away from my house.

And so its been ever since. I have my “church” on Friday afternoons….with plenty of gamers to commune regularly, I’ve become seriously addicted to this hobby.

I have no idea how long it will last, presumably as long as I have fellow players. If we end up moving then who knows, but interest has stayed at a fairly high level, except for when I went though a recent foray into indie story games which lasted until I realized my girlfriend was not into them. Once that happened, I was fully back on the BGG bandwagon. To me, there are few consumer purchases that are as gratifying as opening up a new box of games imagining and hoping for all the fun you’re gonna have. Even though I am so often disappointed (I’d be lucky if 1 out of 5 games was a hit), I just keep coming back.

Originally posted on Boardgamegeek.com

This was my contribution to the now infamous Why are not everyone playing Magic? thread. It got locked soon after, but I think I was on to something here. Most games don’t involve a pre-confrontation aspect, this one does. The key is to find a way of playing where you will enjoy both the pre-game and the cardplay without going broke.

And i have also been destroyed by a less skilled player in a magic tournament because he had a deck with better cards…

Apparos Achaparos

I’ve been destroyed by less skilled players in other games because they had a better dice roll :-) It is, of course, an acceptable preference to say, “I don’t mind if a game has major non-skill influences, but I do mind if they are financial rather than random.” This preference can still be exercised within the game of MTG by playing more restrictive formats, though, so it is still a matter of personal choice rather than game mandate.

astroglide

You mean i preferred to have my b*tt handed to me because i liked the constructed format? That is a terrible misconception!
What do you mean more restricted formats? Draft? i hate draft! Why should i be forced to play a version that i don’t like just to eliminate the implications of not affording to buy more expensive cards?
Still draft introduces even more luck in the game since you own 1 or very rarely 2 copies of each card in your deck and you have no idea how the boosters in the booster will behave (i mean you don’t have a clue what they contain).

Apparos Achaparos

Maybe I’m a bit slow if everyone else already “got it” but I just realized that we need to stop thinking of Magic the Gathering as a game, but as a Game System.

Off the top of my head there are Booster Drafts, Constructed Casual, Constructed Tournament, Preconstructed Purchased Decks, Type I, II, Vintage, Cube Drafts, and (my favorite) “shoebox” casual deck building. That’s just the two player versions with “normal” decks. The cardplay mechanics are all completely the same, but the “meta-game” (pool of allowable cards) are drastically different for each format. I propose that what we have been incorrect in calling different “pools of allowable cards” just different “meta-games of the same game”. Since most of us would agree that building decks is a big part (maybe the main aspect) of the enjoyment from MtG, then maybe we should consider each different format with a distinct sets of allowable cards as different games that share the same card-play mechanics.

This is the mirror opposite of traditional playing cards. A French suited deck of 4 suits with 13 ranks that blossoms into card games of totally different mechanics (Trick Taking, Bluffing, Fishing, Climbing, Rummy, etc.). In MtG, all the players expect the same mechanical card-play, but the deck construction differs drastically. The confusion of this thread is due to a disconnect between the pre-cardplay restrictions that each of us prefers. The passionate disagreement arises because we all feeling pressured to endorse all of the different possible deckbuilding games that come with this MtG system, when most of us only prefer a couple ways to constrain our deck building.

I certainly don’t give MtG an unqualified endorsement. I have no problems with paying an entry cost to get into MtG, just like purchasing any other board game. I also agree there are many fine deck building games within the MtG system. However I dislike our competitive consumerist culture, so I cannot endorse any version MtG game that taps into the players’ psyche to create an arms race that encourages people to spend significant amounts of real money.

Even though blowing lots of cash on cards may be perfectly normal for those that love the ultra-competitive game within the MtG System, such a fanboy should expect pushback on Boardgamegeek.com if they propose that “spending lots of money to acquire high powered game equipment” is a perfectly fine game mechanic. That’s just not reading the room.

However, there are different games that use Magic cards, some of which don’t require burning cash to keep up. These games with a restricted pool of available cards are incredibly fun (“lets make decks from my shoebox of cards!”). I’ve had more fun playing this type of MtG game than Dominion (I found the shoebox’s unstructured deck building “mechanic” a more creative activity than Dominion’s deckbuilding system).

However, I fear that as long as all the different Magic formats (games) continue to be combined and interchangeably in a polemical discussion, the participants will invariably spend the effort talking past each other.

PS. I don’t have a problem with people burning piles of cash on MtG, but it’s not for me. I don’t have a moral problem with gambling or even with the casino industry, but I know my addictive self well enough that I can’t go there. One of my best game nights was a Poker night at a friend’s house, and it was the night I realized I could never play Poker again.

P.S. I guess I was late to the party (though his definition of system is slighlty different) It’s not a game! It’s a System! Honest, I didn’t read his essay before writing mine!

I picked up a copy from Nekomado. The cost after shipping (airmail) was about $25 a game and it took exactly 3 weeks to arrive.

It was extremely well packaged – not a surprise if you’ve ever been to a Japanese supermarket. The shipping box itself was a little beat up, but inside the three games were “giftwrapped in bubble wrap. Lovely.

The game itself is exactly as “advertised”. The wooden pieces are nice and the board in fine shape.

Is $25 a bit much for a box with 8 wooden pieces (with stickers), a board, and two cardboard inserts to keep it from bouncing around? Yes and no. The art is cute as hell, the board does the job. It’s certainly nicer than my clumsy DIY set that never gets played. This will make a perfect present for my gamenight hosts and also my sister, so yes, totally worth it.

The rules are simple, you move your pieces one space according to the dots on the pieces. If the chick moves into the last row it can flip over to a chicken with additional movement. If you capture a piece, you can spend a turn dropping it anywhere on the board instead of moving a piece (a previously captured chicken comes back in as a chick and won’t get automatically upgraded if you drop it in the last row).

The goal is to capture your opponent’s Lion or to get your Lion to the opponent’s row (and not be immediately captured the turn after)

And how does the game play? I put it in a similar category as Nine Men’s Morris – a light two player perfect information abstract. I suspect it is too light for hardcore people who love the GIPF series or traditional abstracts. I shy away from such epic affairs, so this is a perfect fit. Simple to teach, cute art, and the gameplay is really fun. There are tough decisions, and the capture and drop mechanic makes for an “foreign” game experience for those of us who haven’t played Shogi.

Again, is it worth it? As I mentioned earlier, I made my own DIY set before jumping in and importing it from Japan, and I strongly encourage you to do the same. Or try out one of the phone apps out there. If you enjoy the game and would appreciate the better production, then yes, it’s a good value even if you have to import it from Japan. It’s not a steal, but certainly a fair exchange.

P.S. I also bought a children’s problem book when I got the games – physically it’s a nice little book, the graphics are well done and match game. However, the problems are so simple that you don’t get anything out of it that you wouldn’t learn in your first play of the game. Even so, it makes for a nice gift set.

This came at the end of a vigorous back and forth with a fairly stubborn conversation partner who was unwilling to explain what he meant by “good” with any definition more specific than “high quality” (and rants against relativists). It almost devolved into an exercise in futility, but turned out to be worth the effort because someone else jumped in and threw in some interesting ideas. It pulled the conversation out of its tailspin and it was good to be reminded that things aren’t that complicated, many thanks to mathaos42.

Although you both have likely achieved a higher degree of education than me I will still offer a suggested definition for potentially good art. I enjoy reading and visual arts, these are my relatively simple observations for how I understand what I read and view.

For me, good art meets three criteria (and employs them consistently within itself):

– Form/Technique – The work of art successfully implements the technique utilized in its creation. This could be a certain style of brush stroke or a syntax and writing style.

– Function/Concepts – Art should stimulate an emotional response and in some way speak to what it is to be here to be human. The intended message of art is important.

Form and function should inform one another, doing it ironically is fine. You can break the rules as long as you know them.

– Context/Culture – Some art is in a language I don’t speak. I would not recognize “good” abstract art but I accept it exists. I believe I am simply not educated in its language and part of the community. For me art builds on previous art, is influenced by the society it exists in and speaks to the context in which it was created. Art is a continuation of dialogue between the artist, their community, their peers and their predecessors. Good art may not be recognized by all but it is recognized by those fluent in the appropriate language.

Ultimately art is a medium for communication. Good art at least successfully communicates to those who are part of the intended culture and understand the context in which it is to be viewed. One of the fun
things about being human is that so much of our context is shared. While I don’t understand or appreciate abstract art due to my lack of desire to educate myself in its particular language I appreciate the Sistine Chapel and Shakespeare (with all respect to the great Russian writer). I also appreciate some art styles with less mass appeal, such as outsider art. Bad art exists. I know, I can create it. Art can also be good without my liking it.

What a great response! I had spent much of the conversation asking for a definition of art partly because I haven’t really been able to think it through clearly myself. I don’t know if the response would be unsatisfactorily relativist for the other guy, but I suspect this very closely mirrors my approach in “judging” a piece of art.

My summary if mathos42 posts would be:

1. Is a well crafted?
2. Did the artist say anything?
3. Does it touch the audience?

In response, I would simplify the list.

• Is it well crafted?
• Does it touch the audience?

For the first we judge the artist against their available tools, information, and contemporaries. We can judge their skill in producing the the art against their context.

For the second, we examine the effects their work has brought on this earth. Did it touch the people who the artist wanted to reach; does it touch people today? The stereotype of the unacknowledged genius reminds us that the initial reaction to a piece of work may be quite different from its long term legacy. The people of Shakespeare’s time clearly didn’t appreciate his genius as much as we do today – otherwise we wouldn’t be talking about missing plays.

The reason I would omit the middle criteria is because I feel that the artists’ intention is not important once they send it out in the world. The public statements of an artists might might inform the audience reaction, but only as one among the billion things that end up affecting the audience reaction. Ultimately, the reaction is owned by the audience.

There’s a story that Isaac Asimov mentioned in his book Opus 100

I once listened to a German philosopher discuss one of my stories in detail when he didn’t know I was in the audience. After his lecture I cam up to dispute the points he had made in his interpretation and presented him with what I felt was a blockbuster when I said, “After all, I happen to be the author of the story.”

“Oh,” said he, “are you Isaac Asimov? I’m pleased to meet you and I admire your work, but tell me – What makes you think, just because you wrote the story, that you know anything at all about it?”

I’ve never tried to forget that little lesson.

For what its worth, the other guy also agreed. He felt the 3 point criteria was just a long way of saying “high quality”. I’m still puzzled why he was so uncurious to work on developing a better working definition of “good” beyond the circular and inadequate phrase “high quality”, especially since he was trying to say there are things that are “universally good”.