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

Pulsipher Game Design

This blog contains comments by Dr. Lewis Pulsipher about tabletop games he is designing or has designed in the past, as well as comments on game design (tabletop and video) in general. It repeats his blog at http://pulsiphergamedesign.blogspot.com/
Recommend
20 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Thumb up

The Fundamental Differences between Board and Card Games and How Video Games Tend to Combine Both Functions

Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What are the fundamental functional differences between boardgames and card games? I’m not sure how important this question is from a game player’s point of view but it’s certainly important for game designers (even for video game designers). The obvious physical format is important, but now that we can convert physical non-electronic games to electronic formats the lines are less clear. More importantly, each type of game emphasizes or encourages different kinds of challenges and gameplay, regardless of the physical format.

It’s also possible to take a game that originated in one format and make something like it in the other format. I have done this with a dungeon delving game and even made a prototype version of Britannia using cards. I believe this happens a fair bit in the Eurostyle games. For example, San Juan is a card game based on Puerto Rico, and so is Race for the Galaxy. But as we’ll see many Eurostyle boardgames do not use a board in the traditional way, for maneuver and location, instead they use the board to keep track of other information. So what is the traditional way?

The most important difference between the two kinds of games is that card games are inherently games of hidden information and boardgames are inherently games of maneuver and location. (When I say location I mean the location of actual pieces, not a representation of some virtual commodity such as the amount of money you have or the amount of victory points. “Location” implies maneuver or placement.)

Card Games
By their nature cards make it easy to hide information. The information is often hidden from all the players, but commonly in card games one player has some information that none of the other players can access: the cards in his hand and what they can be used for and what they can do. Anyone who has played many card games has encountered this usage again and again.

There are exceptions. The traditional card game Bridge is unusual insofar as, after bidding, one player’s cards are revealed (the dummy). And this tells the Dummy’s partner what cards his opponents have, though not which individual opponent has which cards. Texas Hold ‘em is another card game where some of the information is revealed to everyone and only two cards per player are hidden from the other players. But Five Card Draw poker hides all the cards, sometimes even after the game ends.

Hobby card games such as Bang!, Atlantic Storm, Brawling Battleships, and Lost Cities have hands of cards but some cards are placed on the table so that they can affect everyone in the game.

Boardgames
Most really old traditional board games are games location and maneuver-mancala, chess, checkers, Nine Men’s Morris, Parcheesi, backgammon, Go, and Japanese/Chinese forms of chess. In some of these games there is only placement (and removal) of pieces, for example in Go. In others the initial placement is predetermined and the game is all about maneuver, as in chess or checkers. There are few games that include both placement and maneuver.

Notice that few of these old games use dice. Dice provide uncertainty within a range of possibilities, a kind of hidden information but not the same kind as we get with cards. Dice were the typical way to provide uncertainty before games could include cards. Handmade playing cards first entered Europe in the late 14th century. The technology to make uniform decks of cards did not exist until the invention of printing, so the really old traditional games do not use cards.

Card games are probably more popular than boardgames for a variety of reasons. First they’re less expensive, second they tend to take less time to play, third they can be more colorful than boardgames because of the artwork on each card. Most important perhaps, the hidden information tends to make it harder for a planner-style player to dominate play, introducing elements of uncertainty and chance that make it possible for a less calculating player, or perhaps I should say one who is less a classical/planner player, to win a minority of the time. Another way to put this is that casual players have a better chance of winning in hidden information games than in games of perfect information, most traditional boardgames being perfect information games.

Hybrids
It is possible to use cards to create the equivalent of a board, but then we have something that is functionally a boardgame not a card game. I have done this in two prototypes were my objective was to make a game with only cards as components (to simplify production), yet I wanted to have maneuver and location. Many games that now use cardboard tiles to create a board on the table would once have used cards for the same purpose. While we might think of these as boardgames, such as Settlers of Catan and Betrayal at House on the Hill, they could have been produced with cards, and in the latter game the tiles are used to hide information in the same way that cards hide information before they are drawn from a deck. Tikal and Carcassonne do the same kind of thing. Settlers uses the board for placement, Betrayal uses it for maneuver, Carcassonne uses the “board” as the unit of placement rather than placing pieces on a board.

In a boardgame location and maneuver tend to dominate play. Chess, checkers, backgammon, even Parcheesi, are games of maneuver. Hex and counter wargames are typically games of maneuver, though we also have combat and chance elements in dice rolling. Monopoly is not a game of maneuver because you have no control over where you go, but there is the element of location. In Tic-Tac-Toe (Noughts and Crosses) you don’t actually move pieces once you put them on the board but where you put them is vitally important.

Race games (getting to a finish line before anyone else) are generally about maneuver and location, whereas speed contests (something is timed individually and best time wins) are not.

You can introduce an element of hidden information into boardgames, of course. This is not new. More than a century ago we had a variation of chess called Kriegspiel where each player could only see his own pieces and a referee told a player when an opposing piece took his piece or checked his King. While the phrase “block games” tends to put one in mind of the wargames published by Columbia Games, the technique goes back at least to the game L’Attaque patented in 1909, more familiar in the copycat game Stratego. The Columbia games add dice and more complex boards to the equation but the key element is hiding some of the information that normally is exposed everyone in a boardgame.

Flat (cardboard/chipboard) pieces that are placed face down introduce another element of hidden information.

In contrast to typical boardgames, many Eurostyle games include boards that are not used for maneuver or even for location. The board is used to help keep track of other kinds of information. Player layouts for tracking amounts of virtual commodities are small boards. But even in games with larger boards, the board may not represent location or present opportunities for maneuver. Kingsburg is an example.

Actual warfare is a combination of hidden information and maneuver, among other things. Given the prominence of maneuver in warfare, it’s not surprising that board wargames are much more common than card wargames.

Games that are neither type
There are many games that are not primarily either hidden information games or location and maneuver games. Some Euro games that have lots of parts and cards and boards are primarily games of resource management– Puerto Rico for example. There is neither maneuver nor much hidden information, though there is uncertainty. Resource management depends on hidden information and uncertainty. Uncertainty can come from many places, but mainly comes from the players, hidden information, or dice or other random elements (which cards can also provide).

Auction games aren’t really either type, though they lean toward hidden information more than location and maneuver. You can argue that resource management comes down to set collection, just as auction games do.

Further afield we have games of deduction (which is largely about hidden information, though Clue/Cluedo includes location and maneuver as well). It might be nice if we could pigeonhole all games into a very few slots like “hidden information”, “resource management”, “location and maneuver”, and “auctions”. But I don’t think this is practical, at any rate I see too many exceptions to almost any set of categories at this point.

Collectible card games are largely about hidden information, though some have an element of location (cards face up on the table) just as some traditional card games do.

Tabletop RPGs involve both maneuver and hidden information in abundance. They are closer to video games than to either board or cardgames.

Competition in board and card games
It's fashionable in the hobby tabletop game industry to produce "Eurostyle" games that reduce direct conflict between players to a minimum. They are often more like puzzles that have been turned into speed contests, not games, and "multi-player solitaire" is a common description of many tabletop games. Wargames, on the other hand, emphasize competition and confrontation, of course.

Mark Johnson suggested in a recent "Ludology" podcast that card games are less competitive than boardgames. Is that so, and why? I think it is. Because boardgames are naturally about maneuver and location, they tend to involve more direct interaction than cards, where you can play cards onto the table and do very little to affect other players. Traditional boardgames tend to involve tearing down the opposition, not building up, you start with some pieces and lose them as the game goes along. (Even in Go, where you add pieces to the board, you're taking your opponent's pieces as well. Go is not much like other traditional boardgames, in any case.) Traditional card games usually involve building up sets or tricks. You start with nothing but a hand of cards and gradually build up your position.

In more-than-two-sided boardgames the system of maneuver and location often means that you are not able to attack/hinder all the opponents, because some are too far away. In more-than-two-sided card games you do have a player on your right and on your left, and the rules may allow you to attack only those players, or "anyone".

Video Games
We can ask what the nature of video games is in comparison to card and boardgames. First, it’s relatively easy to make a computer game where most of the information is hidden from the player or players, a card game characteristic. When you program a video game you have to deliberately decide to show information to the player, or he’ll know nothing.

That information can be shown on the equivalent of a board, though the board can be rather more complex than a physical board. Pac-Man is a quintessential game of maneuver, as is Space Invaders. Civilization uses a board, a square grid through Civilization IV and a hex grid in Civilization V (version V generally exhibits a greater influence from board wargames).

Many “strategy” video games appear to be games of maneuver, for example Starcraft and Civilization. Hidden information is also quite dominant. But there are so many layers of production and technology involved that these games are more about resource management than either maneuver or hidden information. When cut down to a simple version as a social network game, Civilization becomes almost entirely a resource management game.

A video platformer is a game of maneuver. An old-style text adventure game is a game of hidden information. Yes there is more to both, especially to the old-style adventures, but these are the major delineations.

The abstract game Tetris is a game of maneuver much more than a game of hidden information. Bejeweled is a game of location and maneuver insofar as you move gems in order to cause groups of gems to disappear. Shooters are games of location and maneuver as well as games of hidden information.

What video games are particularly good at is combining the two major elements of board and card games together as in shooters and real-time or turn-based strategy games.
Twitter Facebook
29 Comments
Subscribe sub options Tue Feb 7, 2012 1:46 pm
Post Comment
Patrick Carroll
United States
Carver
Minnesota
flag msg tools
"If a thing is worth doing, it is worth doing badly." (GK Chesterton)
badge
"That's how the light gets in." (Leonard Cohen)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice survey. I always find it interesting to break gaming into a few broad categories and examine it that way. I learned a few things here.

Just one small quibble regarding the history of card games: What you say is pretty much true if we're focusing only on Europe.
Quote:
Dice were the typical way to provide uncertainty before games could include cards. Handmade playing cards first entered Europe in the late 14th century. The technology to make uniform decks of cards did not exist until the invention of printing, so the really old traditional games do not use cards.

However, you neglected to mention dominoes. My research shows that dominoes probably originated in ancient China and predated playing cards by only a short length of time. Dominoes are basically dice adapted to be used like (what would become) playing cards. Both dominoes and cards made their way along the Silk Road and eventually up into Europe.

Unlike cards, dominoes can be made pretty easily. They're basically just tiny bricks or tiles. Prisoners have been known to make dominoes out of bone, wood, and other raw material.

And as far as gaming goes, dominoes work just like cards: they provide randomness and hidden information. Indeed, some card games (e.g., cribbage and hearts) have been adapted for play with dominoes. And "card dominoes" are also available--sets of 52 tiles marked like regular playing cards.

Interestingly, dominoes never died out after cards came along. Cards are lighter and often more convenient. But dominoes are more durable. They're especially welcome in the tropics, where humidity can make card playing awkward. Dominoes are good for playing on patios, on camping trips, at the beach, or anywhere. Oh--and for the fun of setting them up in rows and toppling them.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Feb 7, 2012 3:21 pm
  • Posted Tue Feb 7, 2012 2:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Nice post!

Quote:
It's fashionable in the hobby tabletop game industry to produce "Eurostyle" games that reduce direct conflict between players to a minimum.


But a reduction in "direct" conflict doesn't automatically mean a reduction in conflict or competition overall.

Runners in a race are competing against each other but they aren't throwing stones at each other trying knock the other one down. McDonald's and Burger King are highly competitive with one another, competing over a landscape of market share, territory, and advertising space ... but they aren't sending their pawns out to blow up their rivals' buildings. Many games (euro or otherwise) operate in a similar competitive space that does, as you point out, minimize direct conflict but nonetheless can be highly competitive in other ways.

On another note...

When you think of "eurostyle" games ... does that definition (for you) generally mean a lack of spatial elements (i.e. position + maneuver) in the game?

Quote:
There are many games that are not primarily either hidden information games or location and maneuver games. Some Euro games that have lots of parts and cards and boards are primarily games of resource management ... Puerto Rico for example. There is neither maneuver nor much hidden information, though there is uncertainty. Resource management depends on hidden information and uncertainty. Uncertainty can come from many places, but mainly comes from the players, hidden information, or dice or other random elements (which cards can also provide).


Based on the above, I'd say so (using your definition).

But, I think there are other aspects of "maneuvering" that aren't spatial in nature. Many games (eurostyle or otherwise) often have mechanisms for determining turn order (player order) which can vary from turn to turn. Player's must maneuver or position themselves in terms of resource allocation, action sequencing, or whatever else to take advantage of turn order. It isn't spatial, but it nonetheless requires a similar type of mental exercise.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Feb 7, 2012 3:10 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yes, Patrick, dominoes are an interesting case that I wasn't thinking of. Certainly more akin to cards than to boardgames.

Is Mah Jong a form of dominoes, or something else?

Oliver, six years ago I tried to define Eurostyle games here: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Essence.shtml

Sometime I'll revise that, as I've seen other elements in play.

No, most Eurostyle games don't include spatial maneuver, though in some location and placement is very important (tile laying games, for example).

I think I see games in terms of models and analogs of reality. So "maneuver" to me can't be separated from actual people/units moving somewhere.

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 2:51 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:

Oliver, six years ago I tried to define Eurostyle games here: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Essence.shtml

Sometime I'll revise that, as I've seen other elements in play.

No, most Eurostyle games don't include spatial maneuver, though in some location and placement is very important (tile laying games, for example).

I think I see games in terms of models and analogs of reality. So "maneuver" to me can't be separated from actual people/units moving somewhere.


I think that definition still mostly holds up, although I think the game length has been pushed over the past few years to be a little longer on average (90 minutes seems more like it today).

I don't know how extensively you've looked into it, but the so-called Hybrid games are really on the rise over the past 5-years (and even more recently). The hybrid games often take a basic euro-style set of mechanics and merge it with spatial elements and direct conflict. For example:

Antike (2005) fits most of the euro descriptions in terms of mechanics, yet players can directly attack each others assets, must carefully muster and position their armies, etc. Yet combat is all resolved using a diceless and non-luck based system.

Galactic Emperor (2008) is another space empire building game, which like Twilight Imperium (third edition) hignes on a role selection mechanic to drive turn order and player actions, yet of course also features direct conflict, territory, control, fighting, etc.

Cyclades (2009) is all about empire building in a mythological context. The game is really an auction game (bidding on god powers) and a euro for sure, but once you've gone through bidding, you forces can attack/takeover other people's islands and buildings.

Eclipse (2011) of course has a pretty heavy euro economic engine attached to a space conquest type game with a fair amount of direct conflict/takeovers.

I wonder to what extent these hybrid games all tend to be along the lines of civ-building, where there really is an opportunity to combine the euro-style economic and resource management mechanics with the territory control and direct conflict mechanics found in larger scale wargames?

EDIt: Some geeklists I found pertaining to hybrid games:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/33249/war-oriented-eur...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/31404/euro-games-that-...
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist/28874/hybrid-wargames

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:38 pm
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 3:25 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:
Oliver, six years ago I tried to define Eurostyle games here: http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/Essence.shtml

Sometime I'll revise that, as I've seen other elements in play.


I'd say these points define quite well the "German-style" or family games of the 1990s (with examples still being produced), but that in several areas the modern "Euros" that have emerged since around 2000 have trended away from these.

In particular, just looking at the highest-ranked games that are clearly
"Euros" (Through the Ages, Agricola, Puerto Rico, Power Grid, Le Havre, Brass, Caylus)

d10-1 all are significantly longer than an hour, usually around 2 hours
d10-2 none have rules I'd call simple, and you'd have a hard time teaching any of them to a non-gamer
d10-3 most of them offer many plausible choices each turn (in particular, worker placement games offer a much larger menu of actions than traditional 'German-style' games), and as a consequence downtime can often be lengthy

Although it doesn't apply to any of these games, there has been a major renaissance in the use of dice in Euro designs too.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 6:15 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
And let's again not overlook Tigris & Euphrates, a Euro published in 1997 that overflows with location and maneuver and direct conflict. I do wish Mr. Pulsipher would try T&E once.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 6:19 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
I'm wondering where Mr. Pulsipher puts the ludography of Martin Wallace:

2000 Way Out West
2001 Liberté
2002 Age of Steam
2003 Princes of the Renaissance
2004 Struggle of Empires
2005 Byzantium
2006 Perikles
2007 Brass
2008 After the Flood
2009 God's Playground
2009 Rise of Empires
2009 Steam
2010 Moongha Invaders
2011 A Few Acres of Snow

These are not hour-long, simple rules, pacific family games. Many make use of dice-determined combat.

2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:31 am
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 6:26 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Now that I think about it, when you play standard dominoes you have a game of location and placement, along with some hidden information.

T&E is certainly a matter of location and placement, as I recall. I'm not attracted to it because it is *abstract* placement and location, that is, I cannot in my mind associate it with anything anyone does in the real world. As with many Euros, it feels abstract.

When you try to generalize about a group of games that number in the thousands, how likely are the generalizations going to apply to the best games coming out of that category, such as the ones MartinG mentions? I think you have to generalize about the typical game, not about the extraordinary one, or there's no point in trying to define the genre.

Oliver, I have designed a number of games that try to combine some Euro aspects with wargames. Such that a player can win without resorting to war, but others tend to force war at times rather than accept a peaceful loss. One's been at a publisher for 6-7 years, I think I need to find an alternative.

I can't categorize Martin Wallace. But I think you could say many of his games are puzzle-like. (I haven't looked into it but I understand a "solution" was found for AfAoS.) And they feel very abstract (e.g. Rise of Nations), regardless of what they are supposed to represent.

Abstract games, for me, should admit to being abstract, and be (dare I say it) elegantly simple.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 8:41 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
When you try to generalize about a group of games that number in the thousands, how likely are the generalizations going to apply to the best games coming out of that category, such as the ones MartinG mentions? I think you have to generalize about the typical game, not about the extraordinary one, or there's no point in trying to define the genre.


On the contrary, I think a generalisation that doesn't apply to a single one of the totemic examples of the genre it purports to describe is a rather poor one!

I also do not think that the examples I chose are exceptional rather than typical of modern Euro design. I could keep on going down the list and find many, many more.

As I said, I think it's a fine generalisation of one strand of Euro design (the type mostly found in the Family Games subdomain). But to argue that all the examples of a rather different strand are 'exceptions to the rule' seems perverse.

Quote:
I can't categorize Martin Wallace. But I think you could say many of his games are puzzle-like. (I haven't looked into it but I understand a "solution" was found for AfAoS.) And they feel very abstract (e.g. Rise of Nations), regardless of what they are supposed to represent.


Odd. I find Wallace's games to be amongst the least 'puzzle-like' and the most thematic of the modern Euros.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:21 pm
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 8:54 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
lewpuls wrote:
T&E is certainly a matter of location and placement, as I recall. I'm not attracted to it because it is *abstract* placement and location, that is, I cannot in my mind associate it with anything anyone does in the real world. As with many Euros, it feels abstract.

Then consider my stud farm retheme for T&E:


At any rate, regardless of whether you're attracted to a particular game or not, it behooves you to be familiar with the very things you're purporting to discuss. Until you've played T&E, your opinions on Euros can hardly be taken seriously.

lewpuls wrote:
I can't categorize Martin Wallace. But I think you could say many of his games are puzzle-like. (I haven't looked into it but I understand a "solution" was found for AfAoS.) And they feel very abstract (e.g. Rise of Nations), regardless of what they are supposed to represent.

Again, you display a woeful lack of knowledge on a topic which you claim to speak with authority. Martin Wallace's games are the antithesis of low-interaction puzzle games. The recent AFAoS and its subsequent dominant strategy is a design flaw and not an intentional aspect of the gameplay. I assure you that Wallace is quite chagrined over the matter.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:12 pm
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:12 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
lewpuls wrote:
Abstract games, for me, should admit to being abstract, and be (dare I say it) elegantly simple.

Perhaps Patrick Carroll will chime in here on the unrealistic and abstract nature of wargames.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:18 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
Avatar
mbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:
(I haven't looked into it but I understand a "solution" was found for AfAoS.)

That was a bug, not an intended feature!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 9:47 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
@gg
The idea that I have to have played a particular game to understand a group of games is very self-centered. Perhaps that's the only way you learn. It isn't for me. Not everyone learns the same way.

I have played games for more than 50 years. I have never been one to just jump in and play a game, I want to really know what it's about (and read the rules, if it seems interesting enough) before playing.

*If* I had time to watch a game and talk to players beforehand to form a strong impression, I cannot recall ever playing a game and getting a very different impression than I did from observation. If that's true, do I need to play to know what I'd think of the game? No. If I'm going to write a detailed review, yes.

My brother's buddy watched D&D for years. Finally he decided to play (he was well into his 40s at the time, this is not a kid) and he became a *fanatic*. Somehow he was not able to foresee how he would react, or he might have played much sooner. Perhaps something like that has happened to some of you. It has never happened to me, and I doubt it ever will.

Are there lots of people who play a game once or twice, and still badly misunderstand it? Legions of them. Playing the game is no panacea.

And do I need to "know" (whether by playing or observation) every prominent game in a category in order to understand it? Hell, no.

Different strokes for different folks.



Whatever Patrick may say, we all know that all games are abstractions, just as all models are abstractions, just as language itself is an abstraction. Suppose we assume that some things are more abstract than others, otherwise there's no basis for discussion.

The question in my mind is, do the actions in the game have a clear analog to something you might do, or some institution might do, in reality? Choosing a role, for example, a different one each turn, has no analog in reality because no one actually does that. It is obviously abstract. A rondel limiting what you can do is clearly abstract, though you might be able to find a situation where it has a clearer analog with reality. Worker placement may not be so abstract, depending on the circumstances. And so forth.

I think we're in very different sample spaces about Wallace games. To me they still feel abstract, to you they don't.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 10:49 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Lewis Pulsipher
United States
Linden
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MartinG

Imagine a bell curve. The "totemic" games are surely outliers, out at one end of the curve. Generalizations must necessarily apply to the fat middle area of the curve, not to the outliers. Otherwise they wouldn't be generalizations of the category. The category is much too large for generalizations to cover every single part of the curve.

If you wish to say that generalization isn't worth doing, OK, though I disagree with you.

If you want to divide Euros into subcategories, I'm willing to hear what categories you choose. It is MUCH easier to tear down someone else's definition or generalization, than to create one.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 10:53 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
lewpuls wrote:
I think we're in very different sample spaces about Wallace games. To me they still feel abstract, to you they don't.

This isn't a matter of preferring different flavors of ice cream. You seem not even faintly familiar with the workings of Wallace's games, despite his being one of the most preeminent designers of the euro era with some of the most acclaimed titles in boardgamedom.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:01 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Martin G
United Kingdom
London
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:
Imagine a bell curve. The "totemic" games are surely outliers, out at one end of the curve. Generalizations must necessarily apply to the fat middle area of the curve, not to the outliers. Otherwise they wouldn't be generalizations of the category. The category is much too large for generalizations to cover every single part of the curve.


I understand that argument but I do not accept it. I don't think there is any reason why the outliers on the axis of community ranking should coincide with the outliers in length and complexity level. I posit that they're just the most prominent examples of a much larger pool of similar games, of which I'd be happy to name more if it helped. (Although I suspect you would revert to your usual position that specific examples are meaningless.)

Quote:
If you wish to say that generalization isn't worth doing, OK, though I disagree with you.


I don't wish to say that, and don't believe I've said anything to lead you to believe I do.

Quote:
If you want to divide Euros into subcategories, I'm willing to hear what categories you choose. It is MUCH easier to tear down someone else's definition or generalization, than to create one.


Did I not in fact enumerate two categories in my first post, and list the specific points on which my second category differed from yours? As for tearing down, I have twice now said that your definition works well for one subcategory of Euros.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:29 pm
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:05 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Eugene
Oregon
msg tools
Avatar
mb
I propose a geeklist: Euro-style Games Unfamiliar to Lewis Pulsipher.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Feb 8, 2012 11:18 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:
MartinG

Imagine a bell curve. The "totemic" games are surely outliers, out at one end of the curve. Generalizations must necessarily apply to the fat middle area of the curve, not to the outliers. Otherwise they wouldn't be generalizations of the category. The category is much too large for generalizations to cover every single part of the curve.


What's the bell curve based on?

Frankly, I don't think absolute rank (BGG rating/rank/etc.) is what's relevant for defining the genre. Rather, I think that it would be more insightful to generalize about the euro-games that represent the preponderance/majority of plays ... i.e. the euro games that people tend to play most heavily and continue to be play over the years. That probably lines up with the higher ranked eurogames nonetheless.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:31 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Justus Pang
United States
Houston
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:
Yes, Patrick, dominoes are an interesting case that I wasn't thinking of. Certainly more akin to cards than to boardgames.

Is Mah Jong a form of dominoes, or something else?


I consider Dominoes more akin to cards than boardgames. You could say that they typical "dominoes" game is a tile laying cardgame. But you are correct that the typical game of dominoes is defined by the hidden information, which puts it in the realm of cards.

However, I wish to note that Mahjong is much closer to a normal card playing deck than dominoes, even though both of them share the hard tile physical form factor.

When you say a card deck you are implying a set of cards that are broken up by suits which are then internally ranked according to the suit...ie Spades, Clubs, Diamonds, Hearts witn # 1-13 in each suit in a poker Deck. A majong deck is essentially like several poker decks shuffled together with some special joker cards thrown in.

A domino deck may seem similar, but it acts nothing like that, because you don't have segregated suits but you have numbers on each side. As such the tile "allegiences" are much more fluid and create a completely different feel. For maybe one of the best examples of this difference I highly, highly recommend that everyone who enjoys card games to try out Texas 42, which seems like a standard trick taking game but the cards act very oddly until you get your brain wrapped around the deck structure.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:36 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Justus Pang
United States
Houston
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
garygarison wrote:
I propose a geeklist: Euro-style Games Unfamiliar to Lewis Pulsipher.


Honestly, Lewis is so certain of his own opinion, I doubt anything he would experience would make him change his mind or even make him wonder if he may have misjudged the world of eurogames.

Then again this steadfast belief in the rightness of his position may be why he writes interesting, provocative essays about gaming, but I wouldn't hope for much more than that!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:44 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Oliver Kiley
United States
Ann Arbor
Michigan
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aaarg_ink wrote:
garygarison wrote:
I propose a geeklist: Euro-style Games Unfamiliar to Lewis Pulsipher.


Honestly, Lewis is so certain of his own opinion, I doubt anything he would experience would make him change his mind or even make him wonder if he may have misjudged the world of eurogames.

Then again this steadfast belief in the rightness of his position may be why he writes interesting, provocative essays about gaming, but I wouldn't hope for much more than that!


I do enjoy reading his essay's, and they certainly make me think (which is why I read them).

But what I don't understand is why he feels the need to continuously drag his attitudes towards eurogames (i.e. that they are more puzzle like than game like, generally lack strategic depth, have no conflict, etc.) into the conversation. This blog post would've been perfectly fine and insightful without dismissing "eurostyle" games as something less than a game. What's the motive?
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 12:54 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Margate
Florida
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Mezmorki wrote:
But what I don't understand is why he feels the need to continuously drag his attitudes towards eurogames (i.e. that they are more puzzle like than game like, generally lack strategic depth, have no conflict, etc.) into the conversation. This blog post would've been perfectly fine and insightful without dismissing "eurostyle" games as something less than a game. What's the motive?

I had exactly the same thought. Most of the essay is very informational and hard to argue against. But then he felt the need to stick a couple euro-bashing paragraphs in, despite them having nothing to do with the main topic. Is he trolling?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:19 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
M. S.
Canada

Ontario
Avatar
mb
peakhope wrote:
Mezmorki wrote:
But what I don't understand is why he feels the need to continuously drag his attitudes towards eurogames (i.e. that they are more puzzle like than game like, generally lack strategic depth, have no conflict, etc.) into the conversation. This blog post would've been perfectly fine and insightful without dismissing "eurostyle" games as something less than a game. What's the motive?

I had exactly the same thought. Most of the essay is very informational and hard to argue against. But then he felt the need to stick a couple euro-bashing paragraphs in, despite them having nothing to do with the main topic. Is he trolling?


Euro-bashing? I didn't get that impression. Are you trolling?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 1:48 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Kevin B. Smith
United States
Margate
Florida
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
red black wrote:
Euro-bashing? I didn't get that impression. Are you trolling?

Sorry. The "bashing", such as it was, was mostly in this paragraph (emphasis added):
Quote:
It's fashionable in the hobby tabletop game industry to produce "Eurostyle" games that reduce direct conflict between players to a minimum. They are often more like puzzles that have been turned into speed contests, not games, and "multi-player solitaire" is a common description of many tabletop games. Wargames, on the other hand, emphasize competition and confrontation, of course.

I'm reading this through the eyes of someone who has read several posts from LP claiming that euro games are more like puzzles than games, that they don't require much if any strategic thinking, that euro players don't care about winning, etc. If you haven't read his earlier posts, I can see where it wouldn't sound like bashing.

This post was quite mild compared to some of the others, which is part of why I didn't reply earlier. But it almost seemed like he threw in those references to earlier arguments (which were entirely irrelevant to the rest of this essay) just because he knew they would get a reaction...which they did.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 2:34 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Justus Pang
United States
Houston
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
peakhope wrote:
Mezmorki wrote:
But what I don't understand is why he feels the need to continuously drag his attitudes towards eurogames (i.e. that they are more puzzle like than game like, generally lack strategic depth, have no conflict, etc.) into the conversation. This blog post would've been perfectly fine and insightful without dismissing "eurostyle" games as something less than a game. What's the motive?

I had exactly the same thought. Most of the essay is very informational and hard to argue against. But then he felt the need to stick a couple euro-bashing paragraphs in, despite them having nothing to do with the main topic. Is he trolling?


Personally, I suspect its just a matter that his preferences don't match the "current hotness" and he is trying to justify his annoyance being out of style by tying broad-stroke cultural societal critiques together with the "puzzle-based" gaming that is popular today.

As far as trolling, well I guess its worked to keep me reading...both for his jabs and pavlovian responses by the rest of us! Unfortunately, I think this silliness often overshadows the interesting analysis that he has in rest of his blog posts! (as I admit have been completely guilty of in this response).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:53 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Cole Wehrle
United States
Austin
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lewpuls wrote:

Whatever Patrick may say, we all know that all games are abstractions, just as all models are abstractions, just as language itself is an abstraction. Suppose we assume that some things are more abstract than others, otherwise there's no basis for discussion.

The question in my mind is, do the actions in the game have a clear analog to something you might do, or some institution might do, in reality? Choosing a role, for example, a different one each turn, has no analog in reality because no one actually does that. It is obviously abstract. A rondel limiting what you can do is clearly abstract, though you might be able to find a situation where it has a clearer analog with reality. Worker placement may not be so abstract, depending on the circumstances. And so forth.

I think we're in very different sample spaces about Wallace games. To me they still feel abstract, to you they don't.


Certainly. Interestingly enough war has often been the source image where those abstractions are anchored. Consider the third Canto from Alexander Pope's Rape of the Lock(1717) wherein his female protagonist engages in a protracted "war."

Alexander Pope wrote:

The skilful Nymph reviews her Force with Care;
Let Spades be Trumps, she said, and Trumps they were.
Now move to War her Sable Matadores,
In Show like Leaders of the swarthy Moors.
Spadillio first, unconquerable Lord!
Led off two captive Trumps, and swept the Board.
As many more Manillio forc'd to yield,
And march'd a Victor from the verdant Field.


And it goes on like this for some time. For Pope the game of Ombre seems perfectly analogous to conquest both romantic and marshal. I would certainly venture that Tigris and Euphrates is better placed in its historical setting than a trump taking game would be in war, but I can certainly see how one could make a fine argument for either. Let's not forget that Reiner Knizia, by his own admission, thinks about setting very carefully and hardly "tacks" anything on. Of course, intentionality hardly matters, but in this instance I think he appraises his own work well. Any game with a scope like T&E must make sacrifices as to what areas of representation will "feel" more abstract. The construction of empires has been somewhat simplified (Ex. instead of playing a game of Agricola in order to place a blue "farm tile" you simply place the tile). But abstractions like that allow Knizia to emphasize moments of dynastic turmoil and positioning by providing a metric for both power and stakes with those tiles.

I think Martin Wallace works within the same paradigm. His games always begin with setting, and he works assiduously to recreate the pressures of both period and position. He has a way of reading historical situations and finding certain essential elements in the story that make compelling games. Along these lines Struggle of Empires is a fine example of this work and is even better when compared to Soldier Kings, another foray taking place at about the same historic moment which adopts the clunky machinery of the "grand strategic" war-gaming tradition. The latter game is entirely unfocused and though it does give some sense of the terms of engagement, Wallace's game is a much better representation.

lewpuls wrote:

If you want to divide Euros into subcategories, I'm willing to hear what categories you choose. It is MUCH easier to tear down someone else's definition or generalization, than to create one.


I'm not one for canonization or taxonomy but I'll take the bait. When I think of my collection I use three sorting tags which I've found quite useful. Difficulty, Emphasized Mechanics, and Setting. It's a curious thing to sit Ra and Civilization on the shelf next to each other. And, even more curious, to play each game in turn, thinking about the different abstractions each designer has chosen to make and the resulting mise en scène that manifests. I wouldn't say one game was more accurate than the other, only that they've made different decisions and each produce a different history. It's not so different from reading a history volume by Macaulay and following it sharply by something by Fernand Braudel.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Feb 9, 2012 8:06 pm
  • Posted Thu Feb 9, 2012 3:16 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Christopher
United States
Chicago
Illinois
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I do see the point made by other posters about how Mr. Pulsipher tries to "get that dig in" against eurogames in most of his posts, but the habit doesn't particularly bother me. I think a bit less homogeneity on this site is a good thing. I like hearing his insights from a lifetime of game design experience, and hearing from a detractor makes me think and see my own armchair design efforts through another lens.

lewpuls wrote:

T&E is certainly a matter of location and placement, as I recall. I'm not attracted to it because it is *abstract* placement and location, that is, I cannot in my mind associate it with anything anyone does in the real world. As with many Euros, it feels abstract.


On the other hand, this dismissal of T&E with "okay, it's location and placement, but it's abstract location and placement" seems a weak path to go down, considering that every game is abstract to one degree or another.

If the only abstraction you'll accept is that tiny dudes walking around and interacting with things on a board equals real dudes walking around and interacting with things in the real world, then it kind of gives eurogamers offended by the "puzzle" designation a chance to strike back by saying, "Well, apparently, you just like games that are toys-with-rules" (ie, toy soldiers).

5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Feb 14, 2012 3:42 pm
  • Posted Tue Feb 14, 2012 7:31 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Lacombe
Louisiana
msg tools
It was a dark and stormy night.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
aaarg_ink wrote:
lewpuls wrote:
Yes, Patrick, dominoes are an interesting case that I wasn't thinking of. Certainly more akin to cards than to boardgames.

Is Mah Jong a form of dominoes, or something else?


I consider Dominoes more akin to cards than boardgames. You could say that they typical "dominoes" game is a tile laying cardgame. But you are correct that the typical game of dominoes is defined by the hidden information, which puts it in the realm of cards.

However, I wish to note that Mahjong is much closer to a normal card playing deck than dominoes, even though both of them share the hard tile physical form factor.


Mah Jong is a normal card playing deck. There aren't two possible interpretations. That the question was even asked is insane.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Feb 28, 2012 5:38 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Justus Pang
United States
Houston
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
NateStraight wrote:

Mah Jong is a normal card playing deck. There aren't two possible interpretations. That the question was even asked is insane.


I quite agree, but sometimes people think of "normal playing decks" as french suited decks with 13 ranks in each of 4 different suits, so I was trying to be generous in my response. Because of the predominance of the french suited deck in the USA, I generally assume that people are referring to that deck when talking about "normal card games" in stead of games with "custom" decks such as well...most any light Knizia game like Poison or Lost Cities
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:04 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote

Subscribe

Categories

Contributors

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.