The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion: Dark Ages
Total War
Mage Knight: Board Game
Fantastiqa
Libertalia
The Lord of the Rings: Nazgul
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
Eclipse
Mice and Mystics
Doctor Who: The Card Game
Lords of Waterdeep
Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
Dungeon Fighter
Android: Netrunner
Virgin Queen
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
Glory to Rome
Infiltration
Collapsible D: The Final Minutes of the Titanic
Dominion
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
Twilight Struggle
City of Horror
Snowdonia
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Goa
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective
Agricola
Among the Stars
7 Wonders: Cities
7 Wonders
The Swarm
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Arkham Horror
Village
Ora et Labora
Battles of Westeros: House Baratheon Army Expansion
Race for the Galaxy
War of the Ring
Trajan
Kingdom Builder
The Castles of Burgundy
Zombicide
Twilight Imperium (third edition)
Space Alert
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Hacienda
Battlestar Galactica
Ground Floor

On Gamer's Games

Wherein I Discuss Those Games Described As Gamer's Games
Recommend
29 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up

Mob Ties, Tigris & Euphrates, and Acceptable Levels of Direct Player Interaction

Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In case you have not seen I wrote a review of Mob Ties: A Million Gangland Murders. Please check it out if you have time!

One thing that playing Mob Ties, and also revisiting Tigris & Euphrates, has made me reexamine is my overall stance on acceptable levels of player interaction. In the past I have been a fairly strong proponent of games that are mechanically meaty yet still have fairly high levels of player interaction, games like Dominant Species, Eclipse, or the various 18XX, where you are putting together an intricate web of actions that can have a big effect on both your own position as well as that of other people. For the most part, I still am a fan of those sorts of games, but playing Tigris & Euphrates and Mob Ties has made me realize that I do have an outer bound on my tolerance for direct player interaction, and both of them are outside of it. The fact that Tigris & Euphrates is outside of this bound is particularly disappointing to me, as it was probably my first “favorite board game” once I started to truly engage in hobby board gaming, and now I have to accept the game is mostly not interesting to me anymore.

In Mob Ties, you have five pawns called mobsters, each of which has varying respect levels and capabilities. These mobsters are used to collect income, due to votes based on respect levels, and are also required to directly affect another player’s mobsters, through the playing of action cards that are used for attacks. The first part of this interaction, where you maneuver for votes and can threaten, bribe and cajole each other in order to work out deals during the various situations in which the game requires votes to determine results, is pretty neat. Unfortunately the card-based interaction pushes the game out of my comfort level. Since it is fairly easy to eliminate each other’s mobsters, and because you have so few of them, it is almost trivially easy to be knocked out of the game by someone else misreading the game situation and making a poor decision as a result of that. The elimination of mobsters is not in of itself a problem, it is the overall level of impact that the elimination has on your position that makes me uncomfortable.

In Tigris & Euphrates my problem is similar in that you can affect each other’s positions casually with a great impact on the overall game state, though in this case the casualness of the ability to affect each other’s position matters to me more than the overall impact of the effect. In Tigris it is incredibly easy, sometimes requiring little more than the placement of a tile or two, to start a conflict that will end up benefiting a third party much more than it helps either the instigator or their target. I have seen countless games won or lost based on these decisions to start external conflicts, as players do not think out the secondary consequences of their actions and give a big windfall to a third party.

It can be argued that in either instance that skilled play among all players can pretty much resolve these problems, and push them into an entirely new level of challenge and entertainment and that is true, but I am not part of a highly skilled group of players for either game, so that argument is invalid for my particular situation and getting to that point is simply not going to happen with Mob Ties thanks to a negative reaction from my local playing group. For Tigris & Euphrates I have pretty much ruined the game for any local play by playing it a couple of hundred times on-line, so I am probably going to simply not play it anymore, since there are other games that I find more enjoyable, even with groups that have mixed player skill levels.

So playing Mob Ties and revisiting Tigris & Euphrates has made me realize that while I like for players to be able to effect each other’s position in games with more than two players, I prefer to make it so they have to work to do so. Making it so that you need to work to have a big impact on someone else’s position is much more acceptable to me then being able to do so casually.

What are your own personal limits for player interaction?
Twitter Facebook
35 Comments
Subscribe sub options Wed Jan 18, 2012 3:30 pm
Post Comment
Weird Fox
United States
Finger Lakes
United States
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm not sure I have a coherent philosophy on the matter, but my preferences seem similar to yours. If I had to boil down my thoughts into a bumper sticker slogan, it would be "Disruption not Destruction." Games where an opponent can mess with your plans are OK, but games where they can trash you are largely not my thing.

That might be unique to multiplayer games, though. I do not mind destruction in 2-player, perfect information Abstracts (cheerfully called "capturing," usually, in that context). But once you start getting 3 and 4 players involved, particularly in longer strategy games, then I'm less OK with it. I'm really uncomfortable with kingmaking, and that just feels like a problem that gets encouraged (I'm not sure if that's the word I want) in games that prominently feature destruction.

The only exception to this I can think of is 18xx, where the destruction is largely (I feel) my own fault. I had all the information I needed right in front of me the whole time, and being stuck with a worthless company was an avoidable problem. I'm also less-than-enthusiastic about player elimination, though something like Age of Steam does it right for me -- if I'm eliminated, it's my own fault.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:12 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmm, I think your idea of 'skilled play' in T&E is a bit off. It seems like a pretty major part of the game to consider the consequences of triggering a conflict; in many ways that *is* the game. If you're not thinking about that, you're not really playing T&E at all IMO.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:22 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Brier
United States
Aventura
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So does this mean you're trading away Dominant Species?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:26 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe I was not clear but that is my problem with playing with less skilled players in Tigris & Euphrates. They do not understand the implications of triggering conflicts which results in a pretty high degree of chaos thanks to the ease in which they can affect other player’s positions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:28 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
verandi wrote:
So does this mean you're trading away Dominant Species?


Absolutely not. I think 18XX, Dominant Species, and Eclipse are all well within my comfort level, though perhaps Dominant Species is at the edge of it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:32 pm
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:31 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah, I get that. But understanding the implications of triggering conflicts seems like something players should grasp by their 2nd or 3rd play, not their 10th or 100th.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:32 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
john guthrie
United States
silver spring
maryland
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Maybe I was not clear but that is my problem with playing with less skilled players in Tigris & Euphrates. They do not understand the implications of triggering conflicts which results in a pretty high degree of chaos thanks to the ease in which they can affect other player’s positions.


T&E seems to almost invite a "let's see what happens" from many folks
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:34 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jason Reid
United States
New York
New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
In Tigris it is incredibly easy, sometimes requiring little more than the placement of a tile or two, to start a conflict that will end up benefiting a third party much more than it helps either the instigator or their target. I have seen countless games won or lost based on these decisions to start external conflicts, as players do not think out the secondary consequences of their actions and give a big windfall to a third party.


With great power, comes great responsibility!

As a rule, if a game gives players the power to drastically affect game state on a single turn, then I will only play that game with three players. 2p games are too zero-sum for my taste, so I choose to play at the lowest alternative player count available in order to dampen the chaos.

I'm also choosy about who I play those games with. But if I can effectively match the game to the gamers, then I find those brittle games to be wonderful experiences.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:47 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Who's the more foolish? The fool or fool that plays after the fool?
United States
DURHAM
North Carolina
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
grafpoo wrote:
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Maybe I was not clear but that is my problem with playing with less skilled players in Tigris & Euphrates. They do not understand the implications of triggering conflicts which results in a pretty high degree of chaos thanks to the ease in which they can affect other player’s positions.


T&E seems to almost invite a "let's see what happens" from many folks

Also the Hail Mary move to try and get something to shake out in their favor.

I always try to build out in such a way that I can break off from a conflict if I need to.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 4:51 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
Yeah, I get that. But understanding the implications of triggering conflicts seems like something players should grasp by their 2nd or 3rd play, not their 10th or 100th.


Oh, I see what you are saying. Maybe I should have said competent play instead of skilled play? You would be surprised at how long it takes people...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:01 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Oh, I see what you are saying. Maybe I should have said competent play instead of skilled play? You would be surprised at how long it takes people...


Competent play would do it. And yes, the lack of it can certainly ruin the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:07 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Tim Seitz
United States
Glen Allen
VA
Like water spilled on the ground, which cannot be recovered, so we must die. But God does not take away life; instead, he devises ways so that a banished person may not remain estranged from him. 2 Sam 14:14
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have a different reaction to T&E vs Dominant Species. I don't mind the chaos that player interactions can create, but I do dislike it when it can be directed chaos, to where it becomes collusive. Dominant Species is essentially a political game. Managing opponent perceptions is arguably more important than your strategy for selecting actions. T&E is different, and while there can be plenty of chaos, it's much more difficult for players to "gang up" on the better player and simply take him out of the game.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 5:54 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Kirk Thomas
United States
Kansas City
Missouri
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
T&E is an interesting choice for this discussion. My first reaction was, "no, the direct conflict is what makes it a beautiful game!" As I thought about it more, though, I realized that that is in the context of all players being competent. The vast majority of my gaming is either online, where you can always find competent opponents, or in my core gaming group. The characteristics Jesse is highlighting don't come up much in those two contexts. However, I have played T&E several times with "strangers" at conventions, and it almost always falls completely flat - people not understanding what's going to happen a turn or two in the future, people not "liking conflict" and avoiding it. I will probably always have a game or two of T&E going online indefinitely, but I'd never sit down with "strangers" to play again.

However, I love games with direct conflict, so I started thinking of how to answer Jesse's question. A lot of direct conflict isn't A blowing up B, but rather A getting to action X first and cutting off B from that option. While this seems different to me than the conflict in T&E, I also realize that I can't think of any game of this type that I would want to play with somebody who isn't at least competent at understanding the subtleties of the conflict and its impact, at least once I feel like I'm competent. The first couple of games of DS, I would have just been glad to get it on the table. Now, I'd only want to play with people who had a real feel for it.

So, I'm not sure I have a limit, or that I'd express it that way. I think there are a lot of games that quickly become unattractive to play when there is a mix of competent and not-so-competent players based on the impact that lack of competence has on the game in the area of conflict.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:26 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Tim Koppang
United States
Westmont
Illinois
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Maybe I was not clear but that is my problem with playing with less skilled players in Tigris & Euphrates. They do not understand the implications of triggering conflicts which results in a pretty high degree of chaos thanks to the ease in which they can affect other player’s positions.

In my experience, 18xx newbies can easily make decisions that will have tremendous impact on the strategy of others. I agree that it is much more difficult in 18xx to organize, for example, a company dump, but it is still very easy to lay track in a way that helps or hurts others in a significant way.

I guess I'm still unclear as to where you personally draw the line.

As for me, I agree with Tim. When the game becomes more about political manipulation of the other players, the game ceases to be about on-board strategy, and becomes primarily about managing relationships. Unless this sort of game is explicitly a negotiation game (e.g., Diplomacy), I tend to stay away.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:31 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Pilnick
United States
Santa Clara
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qwertymartin wrote:
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Oh, I see what you are saying. Maybe I should have said competent play instead of skilled play? You would be surprised at how long it takes people...


Competent play would do it. And yes, the lack of it can certainly ruin the game.

To be fair, competent play is required for the enjoyment of nearly any game. One person playing irrationally, in a game logic sense, has ruined numerous games for me. Most recently Dungeon Run and Cyclades.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:33 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
18XX may well be over the line, now that I think about it a bit more. I am in a unique situation in that I am vastly better at 18XX than many of my local opponents, to the point where weird decisions on their part only rarely cause me to lose. There typically is not another "competitive" person at the table for them to throw the game to, and instead it merely interferes with 2nd and 3rd place.

At BGG.Con I did play a game with several skilled players and several newbies and the newbies did screw up the game in the way you described. If I was not completely bored with 18XX for the first reason, it is quite possible that the reasons I describe in this article would be enough to make me disinterested in further play. As it is, I expect it may end up being a once or twice a year sort of thing rather than a game I play regularly... Maybe its time to sell the 18XX collection?

This is one of the reasons why our local group does not allow negotiation in games that are not explicitly negotiation games. I am also lucky enough to have a group that essentially learned Dominant Species together and are fairly skilled at it at this point, such that the actual leader is unclear enough that very little ganging up occurs. Also, we played with a variant that removes the action pawn marker cards, Blight, and Immigrants. With Blight gone we have found that few positions are truly irrecoverable, and we have had some excellent comebacks even after being devestated by some of the species-cube killing cards.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:41 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Escher0 wrote:
To be fair, competent play is required for the enjoyment of nearly any game. One person playing irrationally, in a game logic sense, has ruined numerous games for me. Most recently Dungeon Run and Cyclades.



True enough, but for whatever reason competent play at T&E seems to be far more difficult to find then in most other games, though that may simply be due to a statistical anomaly.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:44 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Joshua Patterson
United States
Chattanooga
TN - Tennessee
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think Through the Ages definitely fits into this category as well. The last time I played was a 3player game where I had basically lost within the first 30 minutes. Since this was TtA the game drug out another 3 hours.

What really solidified my thoughts on it was the realization on the last turn that I could play Kingmaker between the two other players. Left a really bad taste in my mouth.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:48 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Tim Koppang
United States
Westmont
Illinois
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
doubtofbuddha wrote:
True enough, but for whatever reason competent play at T&E seems to be far more difficult to find then in most other games, though that may simply be due to a statistical anomaly.

I imagine that is probably true. T&E is well-regarded and popular. Given that there are more people playing the game, it is likely that there are more poor players who only come to the game casually. That said, skillful T&E play is something to behold.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:49 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Absolutely. I greatly enjoyed it during my period of on-line play, I just burnt out of it eventually. I still greatly respect certain parts of the design, but I do not think it is a game I will be revisiting.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 6:51 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
James 3
United States
Atlanta
Georgia
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Maybe I was not clear but that is my problem with playing with less skilled players in Tigris & Euphrates. They do not understand the implications of triggering conflicts which results in a pretty high degree of chaos thanks to the ease in which they can affect other player’s positions.


i get your issue, but I'm not sure why you feel this way about T&E but not other games, for instance, Eclipse. It seems to me that in any 3+ player game, if 2 players get in a conflict, it almost always benefits the people NOT in the conflict the most. And unintended consequences can happen in pretty much all games.

In eclipse, i think its certainly possible for 2 players to go at war with one another and diminish each others fleets, but it often just makes them weaker for a counterattack by another player in later turns. Maybe the negative impact of this type of conflict in t&e happens more regularly than it does in other games like Eclipse, but it seems like shades of grey to me. am i missing something?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:09 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Dave Eisen
United States
Silicon Valley
California
mbmbmbmb

May I suggest T&E as a 2-player game? That's where it shines. I don't like it with 4 as the board can just change too much from turn to turn to make effective plans.

I see complaints about the 2-player version that players can hole up in their corners and not interact. That has very very much not been my experience. The presence of monuments makes aggressive action critical and a 2-player T&E game with 2 strong players leads to a controlled, planned, slugfest.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:34 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
This is a slippery slope, Jesse. Are we to see you extolling those paragons of low-interaction euros in the future, the Princes of Florences, the Trajans, the Walnut Groves, the...Cities?

Strangely, in your case, it appears you reached the brink of this slippery slope after clawing your way up to the very top. For most fanciers of the games listed above, they usually take one step forward with T&E, fall two steps back, and decline to face the challenge ever again.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:49 pm
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 7:45 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Foerster
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of the threads that I'm seeing in this conversation is that:

1) you're at the point in many of your games where pure strategy prevails. You're beyond the "exploratory" phase of many of your old favorites, where you try to figure out the interlocking mechanisms, etc. and, thus, when you play, you're going to tend to just get on with business and

2) you consequently see these games as a battle of wits, in that you've all relatively mastered many of the components of the game and the match becomes a contest of who has mastered them the most, or who can scrape just a bit more off of the margins for the win. New players, who have not mastered the mechanisms, will often leave too much on the margins for some other player, or somehow otherwise gift points to one of the veterans, thus obliterating what you want to get out of a game.

To me, this is more a gap between you and your group than you and any particular game (many of these are games that you, at one point, really enjoyed, and ones that are "classics" in their own right).

See, the thing is that any game with meaningful interaction is going to have to open itself up to all of these sorts of factors, simply by the addition of that additional variable.

You can interaction by relative value assessments, as in auctions ... as in Modern Art, where newbies can notably ruin the game by over- or (less damningly) under-bidding. Or interaction in conflict, as in T&E or Small World or whatever, in which a newbie can incorrectly value the payoff of a battle, or their chances of winning an engagement, etc. Or, more simply, the random placement of the new player (having not mastered the game) can inherently benefit certain players (famously, in Puerto Rico).

The alternative is just those sorts of games that are so heavily (and often incorrectly) characterized as multiplayer solitaire. Games like Loyang, Princes of Florence, many Feld designs (and you registered as a Feld detractor) in which the interaction is often spare and the game really is about optimizing and minmaxing in your own space unmolested, only to reconvene at the game's end and see who tallied the most points.

But see that's the thing ... most people don't want games like this. They don't want true near-multiplayer solitaire. The interaction's the thing but it becomes disappointing when you get to be Godzilla stomping through the other players' villages (if you're much more experienced) or if you and two other players are in a game-long Mexican standoff, waiting for the rook to kick the bucket out from the others.

It seems given that you're the most avid gamer among those you know (as am I), probably by merit of your being an (extremely active) member of this site. Thus, for nearly any game you bring out (that's been out for some time) you'll be the most experienced player. And even with new games, you're probably familiar enough with current gaming to grab onto the mechanisms more readily (playing A Few Acres of Snow, you will probably much more readily try thin deck strategies, given any experience you may have with Dominion, et al.). I'd wager that this will always be the case.

Solutions ... well ....

First, there's game churn, which I think you've somewhat come into. Bringing something new to the table will probably have everyone as evenly matched up as you're likely to find. Sure, before that first play you'll have probably pored through the rules and maybe done some mock solos and maybe you already "get" many of the mechanisms, but, still, you all have played the same number of times and are, probably, as closely matched as you'll be. The more you play a game (especially without others playing as well), the more dramatic the difference will become (and this is why gamers will go online ... to find opponents they can match up against, with the ironic consequence of often putting the nail in the coffin of future face-to-face plays of that game). So, play the new game several times until this disparity pops up, trade, and repeat.

Second, there's metagaming. A conversation about Dominant Species (will the best player always win?) asks, with the "fighty" nature of the game, and the Domination cards, etc. if DS is truly a strategy game, or if leader-bashing, picking on the rookie, card randomness, etc. can make the result more arbitrary than it ought to be. BGG user (and DS fan) curtc essentially folded all of these "meta" elements into the skill of playing the game. If leader-bashing, rookie-griefing, etc. are elements of the game, part of your skill in the game is metagaming such that you benefit. Don't be the leader until you can handle the bashing (rather, be poised to take the crown). Be the one griefing the rookie (not, however, if you want him to give it another go). Etc. Obviously, many strategy gamers hate resorting to this because it takes the game strategy out of the sterile environment of the design and introduces foreign agents (the other players) into the mix but, often, at the level of gaming you're probably at, this may be the single thing that distinguishes you from the other experts. Of course, such metagaming isn't always possible (you can't change your seat in Puerto Rico), and so questioning a game's viability in those circumstances is certainly reasonable.

My hope for a game isn't that there's a strategy out there to be discovered, refined, and ultimately exploited for maximal efficiency (with the winner being who throttles the strategy with minimal loss). Nor for a game in which there are "multiple paths" to victory that work in general isolation with perhaps cosmetic differences (10 points at game end! or, 1 pt, then 2 pts, then 3 and then 4 pts throughout the game!) and the game is again to execute your given strategy with minimal loss (aka your typical Feld ... and I'm a Feld fan!).

It would be for a game in which there are all sorts of mechanisms that get tangled in a rat's nest of just pure game and players have to continually jockey to control those mechanisms and keep going for the counter to the current scenario (also, hopefully, a game in which most players are contending, with the difference being who would most effectively manipulate the current "rules"). Reef Encounter, e.g., has elements of this, and I love this game. This way the game isn't just a sprint down some dominant strategy path, but rather some sort of fencing match or something in which there isn't necessarily haste to your strategy, but thought and analysis. Of course, this sort of thing is hard to implement.

In the meantime, though, you'll probably just have to comfortable cycling out old games for new ones, or stomach the metagaming parts of old favorites.
21 
 Thumb up
5.60
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 8:50 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I played Eclipse for the first time last week, and I must say it's got some brilliant design elements in it. It succeeds tremendously in providing all the good aspects of Twilight Imperium and eliminating most of the bad.

What I've noticed about Eclipse, TI3, and basically any game like that is that they come with a healthy (one might argue unhealthy) dose of metagaming. I suppose one could brush it off under the guise of "competent vs incompetent play," but in my experience you cannot get away from the metagaming aspect. A player might not attack their significant other, either because of the relationship or just because they don't want to hear about it all week. If you happen to be sitting next to the guy in your group who is non-aggressive, you can safely leave that border underdefended and pursue either aggression vs your other neighbor (who might well have 2 fronts to deal with), or just have to defend 1 front while exploring and teching up. After the game I felt similarly to when I play a 7 player game of 7 Wonders - I played my game, maybe even did the best I could, but did I win? I dunno, tell me what happened on the other side of the board. Oh, that guy won by 10vp, because nobody anywhere near him attacked him? nice.

I enjoyed my play of Eclipse a hell of a lot more than any session of TI3 I've ever played, and I could certainly see playing it again (maybe this can supplant my friend's annual TI3 game for his birthday for example). But all games like that are largely "not my thing" due to the metagaming issue. (extremely long play time is also a factor)

I think this discussion is relevant to your post because the amount of direct interaction like you discuss is tightly related to the amount of metagaming that can happen in a game.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:03 pm
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:01 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jason Waeber
United States
Batavia
Ohio
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My problem w/ our game of Mob Ties was primarily the variance in the cards. They vary widely in power level, and oftentimes if you draw poorly, you don't have the tools to interact profitably. There are really no incentives not to pull the trigger if you've got attack cards sitting in hand, and truth be told, none of the game mechanics incentivize "negotiation." Perhaps you can bluff, but the game is going to move at some point and whoever gets caught up in that first firefight, on either side, is in a rough position. The only thing the mechanics incentivize is consolidation and inaction, which makes for a lousy game IMHO.

Add to this the fact that there's nothing resembling a catch-up mechanism other than pity and hate-the-leader syndrome, and odds are the first guy to get kicked is going to get kicked hard enough that he's just done. The fact that you need to buy cards, and that they're quite expensive (and frequently pretty lousy) usually means that, once you're out, you're out.

IMHO T&E doesn't have this problem to the same extent. Odds are you are going to have times when you can't get the temples/whatnot to do what you need to, but the resources available are much equivalent. I haven't seen as many third-party windfalls as you seem to have, but in my experience, most attacks only primarily involve/benefit the attacker and target.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:30 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Buz
United States

Oklahoma
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
So, for the case of Urban Sprawl, would you say that it was the chaos inherent in the game design that put it outside your acceptable boundary or was it the chaos in player choices that dissatisfied you?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 9:43 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jimmy Okolica
United States
Washington Township
Ohio
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Interestingly, I reached the opposite decision for T&E vs. DS. Both are prone to meta-gaming and gang up on the leader. However, with T&E, it only happens among skilled players while with DS it can happen with noobs. The other point is that T&E is over in about an hour while DS takes over 2.

That said, I've never played T&E face to face (I've played hundreds of games online), so perhaps I've never faced the noobs you're referring of.

For me, a game loses major points if it is vulnerable to a "gang-up-on-the-leader" mentality, since I'm usually perceived as one of the strongest players in my group. That took a lot of the fun out of DS for me the few times I played it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Jan 18, 2012 11:42 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Claudio Campuzano
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
flamejuggler wrote:
doubtofbuddha wrote:
Maybe I was not clear but that is my problem with playing with less skilled players in Tigris & Euphrates. They do not understand the implications of triggering conflicts which results in a pretty high degree of chaos thanks to the ease in which they can affect other player’s positions.


i get your issue, but I'm not sure why you feel this way about T&E but not other games, for instance, Eclipse. It seems to me that in any 3+ player game, if 2 players get in a conflict, it almost always benefits the people NOT in the conflict the most. And unintended consequences can happen in pretty much all games.

In eclipse, i think its certainly possible for 2 players to go at war with one another and diminish each others fleets, but it often just makes them weaker for a counterattack by another player in later turns. Maybe the negative impact of this type of conflict in t&e happens more regularly than it does in other games like Eclipse, but it seems like shades of grey to me. am i missing something?

Actually, one of the things I love about T&E is how a well-prepared for conflict can make the subsequent weakness meaningless; with the growth points, a couple of temple points, and some kill points, you are probably ready to work other angles...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Jan 19, 2012 3:59 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Claudio Campuzano
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I was going to make some general comments, but Mr Foerster said them better than I could.
5 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Jan 19, 2012 4:09 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Claudio Campuzano
United States
Portland
Oregon
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As a general comment on gang up on the leader issues: I've never really seen this to be a problem in any good game; it tends more to be a problem in groups. If the group does not allow explicit negotiation, then ganging up on the leader will be the result of a collective perception of game state. If correctly perceived and dealt with, then the game state will change and the perception along with it. Fine and good. If a group chooses to negotiate explicitly, then the negotiation becomes a learning opportunity for those less skilled/experienced/competent and an opportunity for those more skilled to do some teaching in the nuance of game state understanding and management.

The problems arise in two areas: First, when the nature of explicit negotiations is of low quality. ('He's the leader!' 'No, he is!') And second when the game is insufficiently rich enough to stand up to a competitive analysis of game state - those game that are effectively bash the leader til the music stops.

I suppose there is also the potential for some players to be branded as the leader because of their history of winning a particular game or games in general. But isn't management of that fact or perception key to balancing any multiplayer conflict game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Jan 19, 2012 2:09 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
garygarison wrote:
This is a slippery slope, Jesse. Are we to see you extolling those paragons of low-interaction euros in the future, the Princes of Florences, the Trajans, the Walnut Groves, the...Cities?

Strangely, in your case, it appears you reached the brink of this slippery slope after clawing your way up to the very top. For most fanciers of the games listed above, they usually take one step forward with T&E, fall two steps back, and decline to face the challenge ever again.


Yes. I am getting this strange inclination to extol the virtues of Take it to the Limit

I am not even sure how much I have slid down anyway, as I think Andrew, below, is probably right.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Jan 21, 2012 3:50 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
andrewfoerster wrote:

In the meantime, though, you'll probably just have to comfortable cycling out old games for new ones, or stomach the metagaming parts of old favorites.


This is probably correct, and thank you very much for the post. If you ever end up at a convention with me I owe you a beer or glass of wine depending on what your preferences are.

In the past I largely had a group of gamers who either did not play nearly as much as me or were not as analytic about games as me, and it very much resulted in the situation you describe. However, I think through a combination of dedication and pure development some of the people I have in my group now are starting to get very good at the games we play and because 2011 has been pretty good for games we have also been able to play enough new games that my experience differential has been wiped out to some degree. I still win a lot at these games, but they are very competitive and tend to win at a more reasonable rate. Unfortunately, some of them are also discovery games that I have long since left behind, such as Tigris & Euphrates and have as such been reminding me of some of the problems of the past. And of course there are still some games, like Hansa Teutonica and Agricola, that certain players refuse to play with me because of my vast experience differential.

I will probably continue with the new game churn, because I like writing about gaming and because I like this steady perfection of my game collection that has been happening as I buy and sell games, but I am happier now with my gaming group then I have been at any point in the past.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:07 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jesse Dean
United States
Orlando
Florida
Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious predator on Earth!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
buzhannon wrote:
So, for the case of Urban Sprawl, would you say that it was the chaos inherent in the game design that put it outside your acceptable boundary or was it the chaos in player choices that dissatisfied you?


For Urban Sprawl it was absolutely the design. I did not find other player's choices to be that chaotic at all.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Jan 21, 2012 4:07 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Foerster
United States
Charlotte
North Carolina
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Jesse, I follow your blog pretty closely and so I'll be glad to take you up on the beverage (I'm amenable to them equally). I haven't gone down the rabbithole to go to any conventions yet, but I'm sort of itching to (it's sort of hard to cobble together a gaming group where I'm at).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Jan 21, 2012 7:52 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.