Preamble

This is a highly subjective review of the mechanics, scoring, emotions, number cryptology, and feel of the game. I'm assuming you have some familiarity with it. If you don't know anything about Tower of Babel, you might learn more by reading one of the other reviews. Tower of Babel has been around a couple years now and has amassed some collective experience and lots of strongly felt opinions, including negative. This review came about reluctantly because my BGG "personal comments" on this game became too long...

Reviewer Experience

I've played Tower of Babel a dozen times and enjoyed it every time...

What's to Love?

I love the rapid feeling of always doing something, I mean always, and the social aspect of the trading and the decisions relating to the three ways to score points. You're always doing something, and almost everything you do can earn you points, helping a positive feeling of play, while still being competitive.

Caveat - Variant Preference

First of all, the mixed-suit disks, which replace one 5 disk of each suit, help the game by giving it a little more trickiness and possibility. Players want these, their eyes get really small. Recommended.

(Official Variant. We ALWAYS use these, and forgot that they were even a variant.)

We use the increasingly common variants: we play without the special-action cards. Often I forget they even existed.
(Knizia didn't invent these. We don't use 'em.)

Also, when playing with 5 people, we follow this variant: "When it's your turn as builder you don't draw--except if you pass on your turn you do draw." (I learned of these variants via BGG - thank you!) The rational is that with 5 players, the economy of cards is more plush than optimal. Since everyone draws so often, each player quickly builds a large hand, making builds easier than with 4 or 3 players. So the easy variant removes 20% of the card economy from gameplay after the initial deal. It hurts a little in my heart not to draw after building, but it doesn't feel amiss to be low in supply after building a Wonder.

Mechanisms & Subjective Enjoyment

I enjoy set collection, and I like area majority - two objectives where you know what's going on easily, so can concentrate on the mechanics - and this game combines the both with trading too. Trading is social, can feel cooperative, and in ToB, dependably rewarding in one way or the other if your offer has value.

I appreciate the speed of the game with some player control over the ending moment, another meaningful decision. I love the dramatically escalating scores for Wonders, and the way the scoring imparts meaning and feel. If you like Knizia's style of games, you may already know very well how Knizia has a way of compressing feeling into a game through scoring mechanisms.

The Feeling Behind the Numbers

On the chart below, the first number is points awarded the majority holder. The second is the reward for second place. Any participation grants 3 points. You just have to show up.

Here's the scoring progression for built Wonders, in order from first to last...

_8-4 (3)
10-5 (3)
12-6 (3)
14-7 (3)
16-8 (3)
18-9 (3)
20-10(3)



It's simple: The majority scoring adds two; second place adds one. I like the aesthetic beauty of the numbers, the increasing propulsive force behind the simple progression, the player-motivating force of the widening gap between first and second place, and the "me-too!" constancy of not really 3rd place but the tiniest grudging card contribution to a build. I'm not a numbers guy, but I like seeing and feeling the magic of numbers at work here. I suspect that this is the kind of thing that some Knizia fans might be sensitive to, even those who don't dig Tower of Babel.

Number Drama

My point here is, the drifting values of the Wonder scoring impacts the game plots and builds drama, feeling, and meaning.

Cheers for Minimal Influence

Looking at the Wonder scoring numbers, maybe the impact of the growing gap between first and second influence is obvious. Let's dig down to the presumably most boring part of the scoring chart... 3rd place scoring. At 3 points for every Wonder built, 3rd place scoring seems stagnate and increasingly pathetic. But even a one card contribution to a Wonder garners 3 points, guaranteed; at a 1:3 ratio, minimal card contribution may be the most efficient way to earn points. (So often, the builder needs an offer of just one useful card.) Wonder builds are likely to need 10+ cards to complete, and may require Disk compromises. A minimal 3rd place contribution avoids the costly struggle for most influence, and doesn't make it cheap in card resources for your Rivals to build the Wonder. It's not vulnerable to tactic of Manipulating Ties (see below) either. So, while it's only 3 points, if you do it three times, that cost you only three cards for 9 points, and gained you the near equivalent of majority scoring in the first or second Wonder, while also presumably helping you build card strength to score big elsewhere. I'm saying there's more to it then just "coming in last".

Maneuvering Through Two Mechanics

Let's look at the Wonder numbers some more. I can't stop. Let say you have a majority going on an unfinished Wonder. It's "your" Wonder... "Hmmm... It sure would be nice to build later than sooner." Right... Can you manipulate the Wonder completion order? That's not easy. You're helping your rival to earn points, and you can't always sure "your" Wonder will in fact be completed, since you likely need good trades to do it... And how do you hold on to your majority on "your" Wonder?

Knizia links a goal like this with tricky opportunities, because this isn't just a game of area majority. There's set collection too. Oh, yeah... set collection. So maybe you can manipulate Rival interest in disks, to manipulate Wonder build orders and majorities..?

Area Majority v. Set Collection

Wonders... Disks.... Set Collection... Area Majority... Players in pursuit of a Wonder strategy are at a disadvantage because their situation is open information, while Disk collection is not. Players have to keep careful track of who takes what Disk, and try to remember it.

A full set of disks earns as much as the 7th Wonder majority. I've seen players score two sets of four disk suits - 40 huge points...

We better consider how that disk collection scoring works....

Disk Suit Scoring Chart
1 disk = 0 score
2 disks = 5 points
3 disks = 10 points
4 disks = 20 points

Let's go back to the question of trying to manipulate the build order of Wonders. It still could be worth it for your Rival to help you build a Wonder on your timetable if that means you give him/her a 3rd (with mixed suit) or better, 4th disk in a desired suit. My point is that I think you can maneuver grandly through the scoring mechanisms, but there's some kind of market forces at work and it will cost you...

The integration of the disk scoring with Wonders is a key part of what makes the game live. It's the old Knizia challenge of making us want to excel in two goals while making it nearly impossible (example: Medici ship v. commodity scoring).

The Disk/Wonder scoring integration is what makes the Trader so important in the game. He stands at the crossroads of the two mechanics. He casts a long shadow. He's not the dedicated spoiler some take him for, in my opinion. He's dynamic, tricky and vulnerable. We'll visit him again soon.

Babel Number Cryptology

A conspiracy detected, with hints of cosmic significance...

Wait a minute... Hold on.... See that? Do you notice something about that Disk scoring chart? No only does it mean that casual collection isn't likely to score you much, not only is the steeply sloped scoring also propulsive and motivating, the numbers make a shape... A shape that suggests conspiracy and mysterious significance... (Please work with me here, as it might not look right on your screen...)

0_____x
5____x_x
10__x_x_x
20_x_x_x_x

It's a pyramid - the scoring itself forms the shape of one of the Wonders!

Let's invert...

1
2 xxxxx
3 xxxxxxxxxx
4 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

See how the top layer is empty? Just like the Tower of Babel, the ziggurat structure of disk scoring values is unfinished. Formed this way, the disks scoring itself secretly forms the unfinished shape of the Tower of Babel...!

A Short Pause for Some More Crazy Talk

"It's like El Grande. Just toss out the Castillo, replace all the action cards with cards in 4 suits, add set collection of the 4 suits, tie 3 disks to each of the areas, and tie the area scoring to the removal of each area's 3 disks, and add card trading each turn with two scoring benefits."

Another Attempt to Describe Subtleties Including Limitations

Tower of Babel seems to have about the depth of Samurai (which I like) but less tied-down, slightly looser and therefore lighter feeling (good AND bad), but not chaotic. Along the same line, it's less good-painful (which I miss, the delicious brain agony) like Samurai and other Knizias, and more good something else. A list of "good something elses":

1. The mechanisms are fast.
2. Adds up to reliably short game, typically less than 1 hour.
3. The trading is social.
4. It rewards everyone's constant active participation with constant opportunity for scoring.
5. Constant opportunity for scoring means frequent scoring - thus it feels positive even when you're behind.
6. Really, there's no downtime, rare in a medium-weight game.
7. It's easy to wing it (good and also maybe bad) if you need to (eg, preoccupation, late hour, rites of Bacchus).
8. The three intertwined ways to score reward deeper effort.

The Scoring Fabric

The warp and woof of the game's main two scoring parameters (Wonder and disks) change depending on the distribution of the disks, which can pull the game toward a finish point of five builds or seven, push some Wonders and hold back others. Example 1: if one Wonder has three 3-disks assigned to it, it will almost certainly be a certain, easy, early, lower-scoring build. Example 2: If a Wonder has three disks of the same suit assigned to it, then players after that disk may make completing that Wonder difficult and tempestuous. Example 3. If a Wonder has three 5-disks on it, that's tough, man--it may never be finished.

I love how it's impossible to build all the wonders... The game clock, collection of all disks of one suit, must occur first. Theme, anyone?

Control & An Important Tactic

A lot of the control lies in the trade offers. I have the impression that some players are not aware that there are tactical coups you can do, forcing your competitors on a Wonder to tie and knock their Wonder earnings down to second place storing, or even way down to minimal scoring. This happens a lot in sessions I play. Once I managed to maneuver a three way tie, knocking everyone down to the 3 score on a later Wonder build. You have a lot of larger and smaller shades of opportunities to manipulate the scoring on a Wonder this way with what you offer and what you accept.

Traitor or Trader?


(Some call him the "Traitor", but he just wants to trade.)

Also, this may be obvious but I still see players resisting: it's important to accept other people's offers-with-Trader sometimes; if they're depending on the "generous offers spoiled by Trader" strategy, giving them a disk might not give them any points at end scoring, while their cards likely will increase or secure your Wonder scoring. Your Rivals will likely spend a lot of cards to earn majorities in later Wonders. It may be hard to say what is generous offer, what's stingy, and what's in between. Players develop different interests... It's true the "stingy offers further spoiled by Trader" sustain spoilage, but I've reluctantly accepted such offers once or twice because I was nervous about some other element. The Trader helps twist and further intertwine the scoring mechanisms.

The Role of Memory

Again, this is obvious but not often mentioned: memory (or paying attention) also helps - who's collecting what kind of disk? With the trade communication going on, lifting your eyes from the board, it takes some fluidity of concentration to keep track of other's disk collection.

If you don't have an idea who has what Disks, it's impossible know the impact of generous card offers with the Trader. Some people have great memories. I think it's not too hard to have a general idea, but it's hard to remember precisely. Maybe that's where this game escapes heavy calculation. Players easily refuse the Trader offer, although refusing mock-generous offers gives away "free" points. Maybe imperfect memory makes people even more suspicious of the Trader. Lately I've started accepting those mock-generous offers... the unexpected result was that they started accepting mine. Everyone is so generous in this game!

Detractors Have Some Cause

Some serious and dedicated gamers don't dig ToB. I have the impression they think it's too shallow, or they might think one strategy always wins. As I hope I have explained by now, I don't see it that way. But it is true that the game is lighter feeling, that control can feel elusive, and some don't enjoy that - seems like a fair criticism, and maybe that's more than just taste. But I feel differently.

Number of Players?

I think the game is tighter with three. But I enjoy it equally with four. With five players, it's not as tight, but I enjoy the social element more, and the fact that I'm always participating and scoring, and the reliable speed of the game even with five, relative to other five-player games. So count me in.

"You Forgot to Draw a Card"

It's hard for players to remember to draw a card each turn. You may hear this a thousand times: "Did you draw?" "Don't forget to draw." "Could you hand me a card?" "I forgot to draw last turn, can I have another card?"

One time when we played, we divided the deck in two to make it easier for people on the other side to draw a card. It helped, but you need to be mindful that the two decks are really one, and shuffle them together without fail. I don't know if this is a viable solution.

Components

I have mixed feelings about the artwork and components. The cards seem cheap, but actually they've held up very well so far in my copy.



The cards have trading and engineering themes on them. I like the style of artwork, with sunset purple and somber drab shades. I do like it, but I think it could be more exciting. Does the sunset and somber artwork make me feel anything related to the powerful meaning of the word "Wonder"?



Some, I admit. I recognize that many love the illustrations as they are. (I think the shoulders of the Colossus are a little wonky.) Furthermore, you might point out, some games with lots of colors make people dizzy and attract loud complaints. I grant your point. But here, I think the color tone helps remind me of Wonders failing. But what about Wonders going up, thriving? I think the ancient world was full of color that has been lost. (In contrast, I think some of the famous paintings and prints of the Wonders are fun.)



Moving on from aesthetics, what about functionality? I think the board design could be much better in a way that would improve the game experience. For one thing, the board could have been easily designed so that Wonders could face different directions (the basic idea behind the newer, radial Medici board). The players never all sit on one sit of the board.

Most importantly in my opinion, it's not always easy to quickly see exactly who has how much influence on what Wonder (thus discouraging relevant trade calculations, encouraging weaker play). I don't think the little building chips help. There's not terrible for practicality, and I appreciate the attempt to make them look like ancient buildings. If theme is their rationale for inclusion, I don't think they really help the theme much. We're building Wonders, each brick an Acropolis? It's not bad, but could be better. This is my conclusion: for their function, I think each Wonder should have a clear influence track of its own.

(Who's Ahead? Answer: Black and Yellow are tied.)

(Quick area assessment not too bad early in the game, but I think it could be better)

The lack of individual influence track is my number one constructive criticism about the game components.

Small Mystery May Be Nothing

(You can see the player order mechanism on the left)

I wonder if there's a mystery to the little track for the player columns that is supposed to indicate turn order? By any chance, as rumored, did Knizia originally design it for some other purpose? Or is it just a minor board design feature that for some gamers, doesn't groove? I'm guessing the latter, but I'd like to know if there's more behind that.

Financial Factor

These days you can pick up this game for around 20 bucks... That's a great game-enjoyment-to-dollar value, I think.

BGG & Tower of Babel

This game's rating have stayed around 7, decent but shy of excellence, and it seems to be fairly stable. Meanwhile, if I recall right, the ranking has slowly risen from the mid 400s to now the mid 200s. [BGG member Kane K.(Favre4MVP) predicted it in his Geeklist "Me and my Knizia".] So while proponents and detractors remain in their camps, you could say some general sense of appreciation is still growing. While many find the game mediocre, a large number of gamers here rate it higher than 7. However, at this time, I believe there's no microbadge for Tower of Babel, which might demonstrate some lack of enthusiasm. On the other hand, this is the 11th review of Tower of Babel on BGG in about two years. That shows a lot of enthusiasm.

Personal Conclusion

In my experience Tower of Babel appeals to a range of game player types as a least-common-denominator game choice that is still thoughtful. I think that fact, and the reliable less than an hour speed of this good middleweight game, plus the considerable quality of play that comes from little to no downtime, makes me want to play it more, so I'm giving it an excellent "9" rating, which could rise to a 10 after it proves itself with more plays.

I bought a copy and also made my components for the game.

This is a travel version (note influence track for each Wonder, and wooden tower-building score guide) and played in Italy & England - I packed this instead of a raincoat.