That's true. Although you get 14 starting cards in Agricola as compared to 4 in RftG (after you discard 2). To get 0 good cards and 0 combinations of cards that have good synergy together would be extremely unlikely. I wasn't saying the two are similar games. I was using a personal example of a card game that is very well balanced despite apparent randomness via card drawing. I did this because the OP seemed to imply the card drawing aspect alone breaks the game, that a winner could be determined by that alone. As I only had one Agricola play under my belt, I decided to give another example (one which I have much more experience with) of a card drawing game which is balanced because the decisions one makes matter much more than the specific cards the players are dealt.

Of course I can, Chris. In fact, it's easy. Let's look at a four-player, play till you bust poker game. The players each begin with different amounts of starting cash. The amounts are $1000, $1001, $1002, and $1003. I can certainly argue that among players of like skill and experience, even though the only difference is the beginning cash totals, these differences will have next to no effect on the final result of the game.

To make it closer to the Agricola example, suppose that one of the players actually starts with $1200. But in order to add that extra $200 to his stash, he has to play one hand blindly and can't fold. Is his "advantage" worth the price he might have to pay to take it?

No one denies that a great hand of cards is an advantage in Agricola. What we're discussing is to what degree a typical distribution of cards affects the outcome. Brian said that yes, the deal has a "very good chance" to decide the game (his figures might even translate into "an extremely good chance"). Most of the rest of us disagree. But I see nothing at all inarguable about your contention that the opening deal has a very good chance of affecting the outcome. It comes down to the effect that cards have on the game and what the cost is to implement those effects. Much more data is needed than what you've provided.

Thanks for chiming in, Larry. When I find myself disagreeing with Bankler and Farrell, two of the better game analysts around, I begin to wonder if I'm being obtuse.

For me, the skillful play of Agricola's family game is interesting and challenging. While I usually now play with the cards, I view them as just an additional layer added to a vibrant game full of meaningful decisions and rammifications thereof.

How we can "handwave" away all of the skill needed to play the core game system, stretches my perceptions. Use of an action precludes another's use of that same action. To simply say none of this matters amongst players of equal skill denigrates a huge portion of what makes the game (for me) fun to play.

I'm not a great game analyst like Brian or Chris. For me I derive my pleasure at a more leisurely pace. Ten games in and I still have not played with anything but the E deck. I wouldn't mind trying the I deck soon, but want my opponents to have a chance to become familiar and comfortable with how the E deck cards work. I see no need to hustle through the decks.

I recognize everyone gets pleasure from games in their own individual way. I admit to being surprised by Brian's approach of calling a game of Agricola after dealing the cards; or after the first harvest. This isn't the way I derive pleasure from Agricola - I'm more interested in playing complete games and honing my skills. This isn't to say I have any corner on the truth. Mostly I'm surprised at how Agricola is being perceived by Bankler and Farrell.

No offense intended, but their "inarguable" reality isn't my reality. I may be wrong, but I'm having too much fun with Agricola to worry about much more.

Have fun,

Kevin Whitmore

Considering that cards are basically the only source of variation, this, of course, is true for truly identical players, all playing to the best of their abilities, but this is not the interesting question to me. The interesting question is: if you start slightly increasing or decreasing the skill level of those identical players, how much does their skill have to change before the better player can overcome weaker cards? Even though the cards may determine the winner in a perfectly balanced game, if one player plays slightly better than the other, I've found that it is quite possible to overcome a significantly weaker opening hand.

Moreover, even with the completely identical players, I propose that it would be difficult to determine which hand would win before the game is played out. Moreover, it is entirely possible that if you had four Davids playing against each other, hand #1 would win, while with four Dales (and the same hands), hand #3 would win. Different play styles favor different starting cards.

For myself, when I play Agricola, it certainly doesn't feel like a card game, nor does it feel like the cards determine the winner.

I should add that my comments apply only to the E deck. Because we've often had new players in our games, I haven't moved much past the E deck in almost 20 plays. It is possible that other decks are less balanced, and I'm pretty certain that if you combine the different decks in one game, you will have more imbalance issues. I don't do that. In fact, I've found that just the E deck offers a huge amount of variety, with great balance, and I'm only now becoming tempted to even try the other decks.

If you're saying that amongst players of like skill and high experience, the opening deal has a very good chance to decide the game, which I'm not arguing with, is equal to the statement Agricola is a 90+ minute card game, you've just proven that Puerto Rico is game of drawing tiles and Caylus or Chess are, in fact, no games at all.

Hmmm ... I think your inarguably ain't my inarguably.

Cheerio,
Maik

This is the core of this discussion, I think.

Having a certain number of equally skilled players is nice for argument sake, but it's completely impossible in real life. 2 different people will never be equally skilled at anything. It's not even possible to reach a skill level so high that it can't be improved. That's why I find very difficult to accept the "cards will decide the winner" arguments.

Sigh. All I am trying to say here is that you're not going to win this argument either by saying Brian is wrong, or by arguing percentages. The clear facts are that the cards dealt to the players form the core of the game for the player, and that there can be good and bad deals. Arguing over whether it's 5% or 15% or 30% is unproductive, in that we're ultimately just making up numbers here or extrapolating from our limited experience. The number is clearly not 0. It's almost certainly enough for most players to notice if they play enough. It's even possible it might be very large. There already seems to be agreement that at least one card can break the game. And besides, you can't have it both ways. If the cards add interest and variability they almost have to do this at the cost of some risk to game balance. Anyway, whatever the number is, in my opinion there are much more compelling arguments to be made to defend Agricola than fighting this particular battle, out of which you're going to get at best a draw.

You're going to win by arguing a different tack, by looking at the whole game and not just by taking this one minor detail and divorcing it from the whole rest of the game. I think the arguments are that the game has tactical interest or richness that is supported by the cards, that the variability in the card draw is tolerable given that it takes long enough to understand the combinations that the majority of gamers are never going to get to the point of mastery that the variance in the card deal is going to be the critical factor, or that the game gets re-playability and depth from the multitudes of cards that more than compensates for the fact that you can sometimes be hosed by the deal, or that the thematic strength of the cards adds value to the game that is worth the risk. I think these are the compelling arguments in Agricola's favor. I think if you focus solely on the cards and the issues Brian raises, that's an ultimately losing battle. But, again speaking as someone who hasn't played a ton of Agricola, I think looking at it this way is missing the forest for the trees. Sure, there can be good and bad hands. You're going to win a couple you don't deserve and be frustrated by lousy cards occasionally. This happens all the time in games. But I think there is more to Agricola than this.

I just got a chance to play this game twice (as folks are just getting their English games now). I must disagree with the above statement. In my second game I managed to pull nearly useless minor improvements compared with my opponents. With the exception of a card to give me a free boar I had cards that required 2 occupations, two that required three occupations, one that required 2 cattle (and directly invalidated a useful occupation I had), one that was only good for endgame (bonus victory points for getting a 5 or 6 room stone house). I had one other card I can't quite recall. One opponent managed to get a minor improvement that allowed him to plant two fields using it. By the first harvest he was already effectively feeding his family while others were still taking actions to grab food for that purpose. The game was taught to me using the K deck which others have already commented was probably a bad choice.

I would also argue that the occupations are balanced. I had the vet, would have given me a CHANCE of getting an animal. Meanwhile, someone else gets a Sheep Farmer (that may not be the correct name) that allows them to get an extra sheep whenever they take a sheep (a nice bonus) PLUS turn in three sheep for a boar and a cattle!!! Considering she had a breeding pair, she was able to quickly go from a couple of sheep to a very healthy supply of all of the animals. Likewise, I manage to pull the Acrobats which would allow me to use the Take a Grain or Plow a Field action if I use a specific space on the board and IF those other action spaces are still open after everyone has taken their actions. Meanwhile someone else has an occupation that gives them a clay whenever they take a clay and someone else had an occupation that grants them their choice of a grain or clay whenever they take reed and stone. Those are guaranteed bonuses, while my occupations were chances.

I am glad I had the opportunity to play the game though. I am trying to convince my wife to sell the game before we break the shrink.

I played in a game today where I would have killed for a hand as good as the one you describe having.

I have over 100 plays, and it was the worst hand setup I have ever had. Really.

I still won.

Experience matters. Cards don't.

I am David, hear me laugh maniacally.

In truth, I figured i had lost. I counted and recounted the scores 3 times, but i had indeed won by a single point. My stone house and lack of empty spaces saved me. I had 2 points from my Minors, and 1 from my Majors. I played only 3 occupations the whole game, and 1 of those was just so i could play one of those Minors.

Experience matters, though...

So what you are saying is that if you had been playing with more experienced players (not necessarily the exact same skill/experience level, but on the same plateau), you would have lost miserably and probably not had much fun doing it, all due to the luck of the deal?

You can read it that way if you want to, though I think it says more about you than me if that is the way you interpret my statement.

This is a great review. I've only played a couple games of Agricola so far and so far I really love it. I'm not quite familiar with it yet to effectively counter or even agree with all these points but my limited experience tells me you've made a number of interesting points. In particular:



This to me is very well observed and I suspect is very true. I wonder how the game would change if the VP awards for family members were eliminated.

-E

Eliminated may be a bit much, but perhaps just mildly downgraded to 2 VPs per member (or possibly 2VP for a member and 1VP for a newborn on Turn 14). I haven't yet played with this variant, but many locals seem to think it's a reasonable idea.