|
|
|
San Juan
» Forums » Reviews
San Juan: Not My Cup of Tea
Few times have I disagreed with the BGG rankings in the top 100. Two such games were LOTR: Confrontation and Carcassone, but now I have to add San Juan to that list. For me and two others who first played it, we thought it was OK at best, but with all three of us yawning and having little focus throughout our second game, it became apparent it wouldn't hit the table again any time soon. That disappointed me since I had read San Juan is a "little brother" to Puerto Rico (the #1 BGG rated game) so now I'm paranoid to touch PR. The premise of San Juan is easy enough. There are various roles you can select on your turn, which are represented on placards in the center of the table. They are reset each round. Based on the role you take, you (and others) can perform certain actions, such as drawing cards, building structures, collecting on your plants (as in factories, not vegetation), etc. Note that the person who selects the role gets a bonus. The cards have structures on them with a printed cost. You build these structures to earn victory points and generate more cards. But to build, you pay by discarding that many of the other cards in your hand. So you decide which cards to build and which are more disposable. For the player, this means *yawn*. Sorry about that. For the player, this means you want to maximize your card building and your selected role(s) in order to best *yaaaaaaaawn* Sorry, but just recalling this game is putting me to sleep. I also found this to be quite telling: Just over a month after our initial play, I asked my two friends if they'd try it again, but neither could remember it. I said, "San Juan... the card game where you start with an indigo plant... each round you choose a role... you buy more plants to generate more cards... you can build monuments to earn victory points that we score in the end..." Blank stares from both until I pulled it out, at which point they recoiled. I really enjoy strategy games, and I'm sure if I found just the right group I could appreciate such elements more, but I don't find it fun, and there are far too many other games I'd much rather play. What's odd is I usually enjoy Eurogames, but even though I was trying to earn victory points to win, I didn't care or feel invested. At a certain level it's mildly engaging, yet still bland. And although it's been ages since I've played Settlers of Catan (I've become fairly burned out on it) at least I can become mentally involved at earning points, even if I'd rather play something else. Yet San Juan doesn't even hold my interest. I also enjoy Citadels, which has similarities, such as selecting roles each round that affects your game play as you try to earn points and strategically build structures from the cards you hold. But something about San Juan felt dull and drab, and I'm not just talking about the color scheme... though that actually *is* quite drab, especially when compared to a game like Citadels. So if aesthetics are important to you, then San Juan will not appeal to you on that level. I can see why some would enjoy it, but I am surprised that it's rated so high. I can more easily see why Carcassone and LOTR: Confrontation appeal to some (regardless that I don't care for them) but I just don't see San Juan's allure. No big deal -- everyone has their own tastes -- but I'm surprised that it outranks Citadels. Now there are certainly things to like and appreciate about SJ: It has great replayability, offers plenty of options, is portable, easy to learn, and I could see how it would attract certain non-gamers. However, after a few more games with different people (I had to give it a fair chance) there were still no bites from anyone else, and it drives me nuts because I really want to like the game. I know I'll get few thumbs for this review because this is negative. After all, this is one of BGGs babies. But I cannot tell a lie: My group and I were very neutral on this game. We did not hate it, but neither did we enjoy it. By our second game that first night, it just felt like we were going through the motions and were praying waiting for it to end. And with others I played, although some saw the strategic element to it, and a couple even thought it had a certain elegance to it, no one has ever asked to play a second game. I'll close with a question I hope someone can answer: Since I found this game to be OK at best, will I most likely think the same of Puerto Rico? Or are they very different? I like to imagine that San Juan is to Puerto Rico as Hillary is to Obama, but maybe I'm being overly hopeful. (Uh-oh. Just lost some thumbs there too!) Editted for misspelling and a minor rules clarification.
Last edited on 2008-07-01 12:29:25 CST (Total Number of Edits: 2)
|
Halesowen Boardgamer
United Kingdom
Halesowen
West Midlands
|
Every one likes different game, so you're perfectly entitled to not like San Juan, I don't like Puerto Rico for instance, but from your review, it seems difficult to determine what it is you don't like (other than it's boring). One particular statement makes me wonder if you're playing it wrong. Quote:
Based on the role you take, you can perform certain actions, such as drawing cards, building structures, collecting on your plants (as in factories, not vegetation), etc.
Ignore me if I'm wrong, but you do realise that when one player picks a role, all the others also get to take the action. The role picker just gets a benefit for taking it.
|
Rich P
United Kingdom
Sheffield
|
No complaints from me about the review. It's good to read varying viewpoints. However, I think San Juan is a very different game to Puerto Rico, despite sharing some similarities. You should give it a try - you may be surprised by how different the experience is. Certainly don't write off one because of the other.
I love Puerto Rico, but I'll rarely choose to play San Juan. There's just not enough going on to hold my interest. I also hate throwing away potential, which is what it feels like when you have to discard cards in your hand to build other cards in your hand. I'm keen to give Race for the Galaxy a try to see if it adds enough to the San Juan base to be something I'll enjoy, or if it's just more of the same stuff that I don't like in San Juan.
|
Tim Mossman
United States
Montgomery County
Maryland
|
Your review seems perfectly fair.
Puerto Rico was a big hit with my group and is still a game I regard very highly (even if it's on temporary hiatus due to over-playing). However, San Juan just didn't provide an equivalent experience for me when I had a chance to try it. Nothing "wrong" with it - in fact, it's a really good card adaptation of Puerto Rico - it just didn't throw any sparks for me.
|
Mrs. Mystery Bob GEEK FEMALE 道 DŌ
United States
Florida
|
At least I'm not the only one!! I was reading through the rules that I downloaded from Rio Grande Games website (something I do when I am interested/considering a game). I found it VERY boring; the game did NOT sound exciting to me. Thanks for the review, at least I no longer feel like I'm in the minority or that there is something wrong with me!!
Great Review, BTW!!!
|
Joshua Harris
United States
Oshkosh
Wisconsin
|
woodnoggin wrote:
I also hate throwing away potential, which is what it feels like when you have to discard cards in your hand to build other cards in your hand. I'm keen to give Race for the Galaxy a try to see if it adds enough to the San Juan base to be something I'll enjoy, or if it's just more of the same stuff that I don't like in San Juan.
I'll tell you now, that if you hate throwing card away to pay for another, you will hate Race for the Galaxy too. I ALSO do not really like the "using good cards as money" aspect of both games. Funny though, I like San Juan BETTER than Puerto Rico. I feel more in control of what happens in my area, and less dependent on others messing with my plans. Plus is plays in about 1/3 of the time, which keeps my family happy.
|
Peter Mumford
United States
Seattle
Washington
|
I don't find this to be a very articulate review. You found it boring. About the only reason you give is that the colors are drab. That is true. What else? Can you be any more specific?
As for your last query, I prefer San Juan over Puerto Rico, but I see them as very different games. The biggest thing they have in common is the theme and artwork. For my taste, Puerto Rico has too many bits that shuffle around, doing not that much. I love the portability and simplicity of San Juan, and the nicely balanced numbers of the commodity market stack. I like the many card combinations, and how the interaction is subtle but effective.
One more point on San Juan. It plays very well with three. Have you played it with three yet?
With two players its clunky, because of the odd process of the governor getting two roles, and the other player getting one role, and then that passing back and forth. It works, but its clunky.
With four players, San Juan is less of a game. There are only five roles all together. Four will be chosen ever round. This almost guarantees that the builder, producer and trader will be chosen every round. It works, but it becomes somewhat boring and predictable. There is even less interaction (in a game with not that much interaction to start with).
|
|
|
Thanks for all the responses. It's good to know PR is a very different animal. Because while I like the mechanics of picking roles (I enjoy Citadels and am interested in Race for the Galaxy) SJ simply didn't do it for me. DaveD wrote: from your review, it seems difficult to determine what it is you don't like (other than it's boring). I agree, and that's what's driving me nuts. Because it has elements I like in games, as I listed in the things I appreciate about it, but for some reason the whole does not grab me and hasn't grabbed others I've played with. I agree with Tim's response: There's nothing "wrong" with it... it simply didn't create sparks with me. Quote: Ignore me if I'm wrong, but you do realise that when one player picks a role, all the others also get to take the action. The role picker just gets a benefit for taking it. Yeah, I knew that, but my wording doesn't convey it. I'll change it so it's not misleading to others considering this game. Thanks for the catch. Cornbread46 wrote: woodnoggin wrote:
I also hate throwing away potential, which is what it feels like when you have to discard cards in your hand to build other cards in your hand. I'm keen to give Race for the Galaxy a try to see if it adds enough to the San Juan base to be something I'll enjoy, or if it's just more of the same stuff that I don't like in San Juan.
I'll tell you now, that if you hate throwing card away to pay for another, you will hate Race for the Galaxy too. I ALSO do not really like the "using good cards as money" aspect of both games. Nice to know about Race for the Galaxy, although I actually didn't mind this aspect of SJ, which to me is simply a strategic element (painful as it might be sometimes) as it forced me to weigh my various and limited resources. But still, like I said, the whole just didn't grab me. *shrug* Hopefully Race will play out differently for me, if I end up nabbing it in the next few months. photocurio wrote: I don't find this to be a very articulate review. You found it boring. About the only reason you give is that the colors are drab. That is true. What else? Can you be any more specific? Well, I do feel I was articulate, but I'm sorry I cannot give you a more definitive "why". As I implied to Dave earlier in this post, I can't put my finger on it. It just felt bland to me and didn't suit my tastes. (Yes, it looks bland as well, but that's not my reasoning, so much as one aspect I wanted to note.) If it helps, I'll just say that I love seafood, but don't care for lobster (regardless that many others do). However, I can't give you a reason why other than I find it bland compared to other seafood. photocurio wrote: One more point on San Juan. It plays very well with three. Have you played it with three yet? With two players its clunky, because of the odd process of the governor getting two roles, and the other player getting one role, and then that passing back and forth. It works, but its clunky. That's interesting, because I've only played with three, which I had questioned as a possible issue, because I thought I read somewhere that it plays even best for two players. Ah well. Different strokes for different folks. 
|
Marcin S
Poland
Warszawa
EU
|
photocurio wrote:
With two players its clunky, because of the odd process of the governor getting two roles, and the other player getting one role, and then that passing back and forth. It works, but its clunky.
It seems clunky first, but in fact it is quite an elegant solution. The sequence is like this: Player A (gov), Player B, Player A (Gov's 2nd turn), (now the Gov changes), Player B (gov), A, B (Gov's 2nd turn), etc. - so you get alternating players A and B. Now if the Governor had only 1 turn, the sequence would be broken: Player A (Gov), Player B, (gov changes), Player B (gov), Player A, etc. You would come up with ABBAABBAA - every player having two subsequent turns. Now that's not gonna work.
|
Miguel
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
|
San Juan is, in my opinion, a very clever card game distillation of Puerto Rico. Like a previous poster, Puerto Rico annoys me (despite it being a very good game) because of all the bits and setup time. I was hoping San Juan would be a similar game without all the finicky bits. It is. However, I've now traded it away because ulimately it got rid of too much.
Specifically, the fact that they removed the entire shipping role and then removed all the possible interaction with the trader role means that the interplay between players has all but disappeared (in PR, both these roles compete for space on a board with limited space). Also, the removal of shipping has removed a potential path to victory... SJ really only has the building aspect of PR left. My problem is that my favorite aspect of PR was the way you needed to time your actions so that you could benefit without giving too much to your opponents.
Therefore, in my opinion Puerto Rico remains the better game, despite my issues with it. Whether you will feel the same depends on the reason for your dislike. If it's the lack of player interaction or the singular path to victory then you will also prefer Puerto Rico.
As an aside, I've now played two of the San Juan spin-offs: Race for the Galaxy and Glory to Rome. Race for the galaxy reinstates shipping, but the implementation is without interaction. It's method of choosing roles means there is more psychology involved, more variability between turns, but even less direct interaction than SJ. I prefer it because the added complexity makes for a more engaging experience for me, but it's still not a replacement for PR. Glory to Rome is far more interactive than either, with roles that allow players to steal cards from each other, but like San Juan it's strictly a building game. I should note, however, that Glory to Rome matches it's direct interaction with very powerful buildings to create a more chaotic game than SJ, RftG or PR. Again, not a replacement for PR, but a good game in it's own right (though I've only played it once, so that my opinion with a grain of salt).
Actually, I get the sense that if you like Citadels, Glory to Rome might be the right choice for you over Race for the Galaxy. If you like games like Princes of Florence, Caylus, Goa, Power Grid, El Grande, etc, there's a good chance you'd like Puerto Rico if you gave it a chance.
|
Andrew Schoonmaker
United States
Long Beach
California
|
JYoder wrote:
But something about San Juan felt dull and drab, and I'm not just talking about the color scheme... though that actually *is* quite drab, especially when compared to a game like Citadels. So if aesthetics are important to you, then San Juan will not appeal to you on that level.
I don't know, it brings back pleasant memories of the Quake palette ...  My reaction to my first couple of plays of San Juan was somewhat similar to yours: it felt like I had cards, took obvious moves in front of me for half an hour, and then we were done and somebody won. It has grown on me a bit since then, but it does still feel like a game over which I have less control than, say, Puerto Rico. The principal virtue of San Juan for me (aside from being a cute adaptation of many of the Puerto Rico mechanics) is that it plays in 30-45 minutes and can therefore be used as a filler (most of my recent San Juan games have been after a day of 18xx). Depending on what parts of San Juan you found "blah", you may or may not find Puerto Rico to be more to your taste. A previous poster mentioned that in Puerto Rico there's more screwing with other players' plans ... I'm not sure that this is true in my experience, but since there's virtually no hidden information in PR it's easier to see what the other players are setting themselves up for (in San Juan you can often make educated guesses).
|
|
|
agent easy wrote: Race for the galaxy reinstates shipping, but the implementation is without interaction. not so true. R4TG consume (similiar to PR shipping) forces other player to consider choosing the same role, otherwise they will get 1x VPs (since it's mandatory) and one that choose will have 2x VPs. you have to decide if to stay with different role or go for 2x VPs - thus you have to watch what others do.
|
|
|
EgorjLileli wrote: At least I'm not the only one!! I was reading through the rules that I downloaded from Rio Grande Games website (something I do when I am interested/considering a game). I found it VERY boring i was reading users' manual of 205 HP saab. very boring. i will newer buy such a car
|
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
|
JYoder wrote: I'm keen to give Race for the Galaxy a try to see if it adds enough to the San Juan base to be something I'll enjoy, or if it's just more of the same stuff that I don't like in San Juan.
*shrug* Hopefully Race will play out differently for me, if I end up nabbing it in the next few months. After reading your review, and seeing the other games you've rated (which would be improved by comments for each), I really think you'd be better off trying games outside of the Top 100 before trying (or worse yet - buying) RftG. It is basically San Juan in space - only more complex. There's no reason to think you'd enjoy it, if you and your group were cold to San Juan. Would you like Puerto Rico? Well, SJ is a good distillation of PR, and you SHOULD try PR someday, but I certainly wouldn't buy it first. There are so many games out there that are different than this group (and that you seem to enjoy, from your Nexus Ops, Ra, Runebound and Time's Up ratings) that it seems silly to restrict your group to the more popular ones that break the Top 100. Maybe you aren't a Euro gamer...? 
|
|
|
reapersaurus wrote: It is basically San Juan in space - only more complex. There's no reason to think you'd enjoy it, if you and your group were cold to San Juan. Would you like Puerto Rico? Well, SJ is a good distillation of PR, and you SHOULD try PR someday, but I certainly wouldn't buy it first. I like the theme better and appearance better with RftG, but if it basically plays the same, then you're right, I wouldn't care for it. But unfortunately, I don't have the option to "try before I buy" as others I play with don't bother to buy new games -- they simply wait for me to buy them, learn them, and teach them. reapersaurus wrote: After reading your review, and seeing the other games you've rated (which would be improved by comments for each), I really think you'd be better off trying games outside of the Top 100 before trying (or worse yet - buying) RftG. There are so many games out there that are different than this group (and that you seem to enjoy, from your Nexus Ops, Ra, Runebound and Time's Up ratings) that it seems silly to restrict your group to the more popular ones that break the Top 100. Maybe you aren't a Euro gamer...? Hmm. I'm not sure what makes you say this. 11 of my top 15 are in the top 100, which includes 7 of my top 8. And that includes Ra. Having you selectively pluck out a few doesn't really mean much. And obviously, with all those I own, I don't limit myself to the top 100, so again, I'm not sure what makes you say this. For the record, I don't consider myself a "euro-gamer" or an "ameri-trasher." For instance, two of my favorite recent additions are Saint Petersburg and Nexus Ops, which most here would place in one of the two camps, but I find such labels limiting, with both having an air of snobbishness to them. On a side note, I'll soon be getting Tikal and Louis XIV, hopefully this week. Both are in the top 100 and I believe are "eurogames". If you're curious, would you like me to weigh back in here in few weeks to give you my thoughts on them, just to see if your theory stands true...?
|
Becka Roolf
United States
Montpelier
Vermont
|
Quote: ...I've only played with three, which I had questioned as a possible issue, because I thought I read somewhere that it plays even best for two players. I've played with two and more, and like San Juan best for two. We always talk through our plays -- I'll be the trader. I'll trade Coffee for 3 and Silver for 3. OK, it's your turn to trade. As San Juan doesn't have a lot of direct player interaction, the running commentary keeps us both awake! 
|
John W
United States
Sacramento
California
|
JYoder wrote: Both are in the top 100 and I believe are "eurogames". If you're curious, would you like me to weigh back in here in few weeks to give you my thoughts on them, just to see if your theory stands true...? I'm just playing with you - maybe seeing a bit of someone who's not a slave to BGG ratings in you. Knock yourself out - stick to the Top 100, then move downwards to the slums when you've got your fill of pushing cubes.
|
|
|
reapersaurus wrote: I'm just playing with you - maybe seeing a bit of someone who's not a slave to BGG ratings in you. Yeah, and I'm just playing right back. reapersaurus wrote: Knock yourself out - stick to the Top 100, then move downwards to the slums when you've got your fill of pushing cubes. Well, I'm certainly not sticking to the Top 100. Since learning of BGG less than a year ago, I've purchased almost 20 games that aren't in the top 100 because of BGG reviews. If anything, I'm working my way up as I only have 4 (5 when Agricola ships) in the top 20. Though in the next few months (pushing into 2009) I hope to buy El Grande, Caylus, and maybe PR, so I can truly learn what it means to push those cubes.
Last edited on 2008-07-02 07:43:59 CST (Total Number of Edits: 1)
|
Lynette
United States
Richland
Washington
|
I gave your review a thumb for its honesty and point of view even though I love both SJ and PR.
One of the things I love about SJ is that there are many paths to victory, even after dozens of games I have not tried all the combinations I think of while playing it.
It is one of the best fairly quick portable 2-player games and it is easy to teach to new people. Where as PR is much more complicated and less forgiving of early mistakes to new people.
However I think in many ways they are very similar games. So I have no idea if PR will work for you or not. I suggest you try it with another group or at a convention before you buy it.
|
David F
United States
Emeryville
California
|
I can definitely see where you're coming from in your review. However, have you ever played San Juan with an experienced player? I find that many times when I learn a game together with newbies (i.e. nobody has played the game before), I often don't like the game, because I don't understand what's happening and they too don't understand what's happening. But I usually come around after I give it another chance with somebody who's played it a lot, because I then understand certain strategies that I (and everybody else) had missed, and the value of the game becomes clearer to me.
|
|
|
selwyth wrote: I can definitely see where you're coming from in your review. However, have you ever played San Juan with an experienced player? No, I never have. Maybe that'd make a difference. *shrug*
|
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
|
JYoder wrote:
Few times have I disagreed with the BGG rankings in the top 100. Two such games were LOTR: Confrontation and Carcassone, but now I have to add San Juan to that list.
I rate LOTR: Confrontation a perfect 10 and San Juan a nearly perfect 9. We obviously have different tastes! San Juan is great because (in rough order of importance): 1. It requires strategic and tactical thinking. 2. The better/more experienced player will win most times. 3. Genuine player (but indirect) interaction (just like PR). 4. Has a large (but not overwhelming) variety of options. 5. Relatively unforgiving of play errors (yes, this is a good thing - if you are playing with experienced players then there is very little room for error). 6. Fast play time (should be about 10 mins per player - if you are taking more then find some different players!). 7. Well themed. 8. Totally elegant design (lots of bits generally equals lazy designing and San Juan is at the extreme end of design efficiency). 9. Almost zero set up. I rank LOTR:TC a 10 for pretty much the same reasons (except the theme-ing of LOTR is so amazing I would put that feature higher up the order). ps. After a few games you will decide that the Chapel is overpowered. After a few more games you will decide that the Guild Hall is overpowered. After a few more games you will decide that the overpowered building is in fact the Library. Then its the City Hall. Then you will decide that all that matters is a good starting hand. Then you will decide that ...
Last edited on 2008-07-16 18:41:58 CST (Total Number of Edits: 3)
|
|
|
johnclark wrote: I rate LOTR: Confrontation a perfect 10 and San Juan a nearly perfect 9. We obviously have different tastes! No one's perfect, but I won't hold it against you. Thanks for your thoughts!
|
Peter Mumford
United States
Seattle
Washington
|
johnclark wrote: ps. After a few games you will decide that the Chapel is overpowered. After a few more games you will decide that the Guild Hall is overpowered. After a few more games you will decide that the overpowered building is in fact the Library. Then its the City Hall. Then you will decide that all that matters is a good starting hand. Then you will decide that ... LOL! Yup.
|
|
|
Posted Tue Jul 1, 2008 1:34 pm
