Archive for Mark Schlatter
-
Mark Schlatter
United States
Shreveport
Louisiana
-
I have been thinking recently about the pick up and delivery games I play with a focus on the determined and undetermined parts of each game. Let me show you what I mean:
First example: Railroad Tycoon. In RT, the topography is determined --- you know where all the cities, mountains, rivers, etc... are. The routes are not yet determined, but will be set by the players. The demand structure (who wants what where) is basically set at the beginning of the game by drawing cubes. You might have some cubes drawn later depending on cards or actions, but roughly 80-90% of the demand structure is set. So, overall, a lot is known. In some ways, RT is the closest (of the pick up and delivery games I play) to a perfect information game. Sure, you have hidden rail barons and random cards, but most of the game is open to all.
Second example: crayon rail games. I play Martian Rails and Iron Dragon (cause apparently I don't do crayola without a genre). Like RT, the topography is set, except for some random events. (I'm looking at you, space elevator!) The routes are not yet determined, but will be built by the players. The demand structure, however, is not nearly as open as in RT. While everyone knows who makes what where, who wants what where is randomly determined and segregated among the players. What I know has to be delivered may have no influence on what you do.
Third example: On the Underground. It's more route building than delivery, but you do have to move the passenger around. It's another game where the topography is set, but note that routes are much more determined by the map. You can't connect any station to any other station, and thus you don't have the same sense of freedom as in a crayon rail game. And the demand structure is open (we all see the cards), but changes quickly and randomly.
So all this leads me to Merchant of Venus. In MoV, the demand structure is set --- you know who wants which goods. The routes are set (except for telegates) and are not under the control of the players. But unlike the above games, the topography (who lives in each system) is not determined. What this means is that you have a pick up and delivery game with a strong exploration focus. You never explore in a crayon rail game, because the focus is on the route building stimulated by the asymmetric demand structure. But in MoV, you must explore first.
Now, there are some dangers to this mixing of mechanics. Because you have a random assignment of systems, it might be that one explorer might discover an ideal mix of systems to carry out deliveries. But, if that happens, everyone sees it. Moreover, the chit system for goods ensures that a highly profitable run can't be used forever.
But the example of MoV does prompt me to wonder: are there other pick up and delivery games where exploration has such a strong role? Can you leave even more of the game undetermined? Are there good pick up and delivery games which have undetermined topography and routes? And can you leave all three initially undetermined?
-
Mark Schlatter
United States
Shreveport
Louisiana
-
I've now played 7 Wonders three times (after observing a game once), and my thinking has definitely changed on the experience.
My first game was with 5 or 6 players, and my basic strategy was to maximize what I had using the card draws. The problem with that strategy is that your ability to change your circumstances decreases as the age progresses. Now, mind you - that's a regular occurrence in many games. You often reach that last turn realizing there's not much to do, and your only chance (if any) to win is based on your best choice of a very limited set of tactics. However, 7 Wonders is probably the first game I have played where you are so obviously limited in choices near the end of the game by the structure of the game itself. (That's the "low agency" referred to in the title.) I prefer a game where your choices open up as game plays progresses, and I found my first game fairly frustrating.
The other negative was the distributed scoring --- that is, the notion that your score depends on a number (seven?) of different factors. I can keep track of several score factors if I have some visual help (e.g., the VPs from shipping, buildings, and special buildings in Puerto Rico --- you can look around at stacks of chips and purple tiles). But even with the military tokens and wreaths, I find it hard to visually assess scores. Like Agricola (a game I dislike), you spend a lot of time scoring to find a winner as opposed to "seeing" a winner.
Okay, enough negativity. My second game was with five players, and I received Olympus as my civilization. That gave me a great short term goal: build the second stage of my wonder so I can have free builds (which I got in two of three ages). The result? More agency and a greater sense of involvement in the game. I also paid much more attention to the resources of my neighbors' neighbors (in the hopes of directing trade my way). Basically, if I can follow an economic strategy, I like to, and it didn't turn out badly this time.
Third game. Unlike the first two games, this game was with my regular gaming group and was only four player. And a neat thing happened --- as a group, we started tracking hands of cards as they traveled around the table. Basically, we were either checking how much we had screwed the person to whom we passed (e.g., Roger complaining that I had passed him a hand of two identical cards) or wondering how someone else would make the difficult choices (e.g., Jarrett started with a monster hand of purple cards). The result was much more social and much more interesting as a game.
I still get concerned about how much agency you have in the game, and I wish that the icon use was clearer (I haven't seen a game yet where a new player hasn't shown a card to someone to get an explanation). But I'm starting to see more I can do in the game and more ways to enjoy the game. (Probably a good thing, given my friends' interest in it.)
|
|
