Game: Masterpiece

Image

jarjar26 — 2008-08-07T13:44:32+00:00

Back - French Version (1970)

Image

Prodromoi — 2008-04-09T07:41:18+00:00

Box from UK 1987 Parker edition

Image

Prodromoi — 2008-04-09T07:40:36+00:00

Board from UK 1987 Parker edition

Image

fractaloon — 2008-01-31T03:39:04+00:00

Back of the 1970 box.

Thread: Re: Why buy paintings?

Tirerndil — 2008-01-14T19:17:45+00:00

chmollo wrote:
You do, however, get to choose which way to go on the board (according to my interpretation of the rules)

I think the reason you have this problem is you are misplaying a rule. You may only move clockwise around the board, not anyway you want (unless that is your house rule). If you only move clockwise then it becomes necessary to buy paintings to have any shot at winning.

I am glad to hear that there are still parents who will play games with their kids.

Image

FlavioRJ — 2008-01-07T13:59:04+00:00

Brazilian Edition - "Leilão de Arte" by Estrela (2006 edition box)

Image

Toynan — 2008-01-01T14:37:25+00:00

Back of the value cards

Image

Toynan — 2008-01-01T14:35:46+00:00

French caracters

Image

Toynan — 2008-01-01T14:25:06+00:00

All the paintings

Image

Toynan — 2008-01-01T14:22:39+00:00

Components

Image

Toynan — 2008-01-01T14:10:48+00:00

Back of the french board

Thread: Re: Why buy paintings?

Big Bad Lex — 2007-08-16T18:59:30+00:00

chmollo wrote:
I mean, where's the fun in that?

I take it you and the family have sorted the strategy in Snakes & ladders too? Well perhaps its time to move onto another more challenging game.

You seem to be asking alot of what is a child's game, the clue is, your 7 year old loves it. Don't look for clever strategies, you roll the die and move where fate decrees. Enjoy the nice paintings.

My favourite used to be the Duke of Wellington.

Thread: Re: Why buy paintings?

Guantanamo — 2007-08-16T17:21:57+00:00

Don't forget that someone could get 'forced' to sell a painting. There are a couple spots on the board where on certain numbers this can only happen. Also, because it's about increasing fortune too. The sell spots can be used to sell forgeries and cheap painting to increase your postion.

Buy, yeah I don't see much point in bidding above $300,000-$400,000 and most others don't either. The gamers actually have fun at this from time to time. Yes it's horribly random, but when you can get a game in in 30 minutes, it's a fun diversion.

Thread: Re: Why buy paintings?

Ringworm — 2007-08-16T15:38:24+00:00

A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.

Thread: Why buy paintings?

chmollo — 2007-08-16T14:28:14+00:00

When my kids want to play a game with dad this one comes out quite regularly, and, yes, so I guess it does seem to target the 8-10 age group. There doesn't appear to be too much avenue for strategy. Like Monopoly, this game is broken for me. You buy every thing that comes along at a reasonable price if you can afford it, and then you make money out of it - you hope. You do, however, get to choose which way to go on the board (according to my interpretation of the rules) and whether to bid more or less than $450 000, the average price for a painting. Seems to stifle any kind of extravagant bidding, as my 7 year old found out pretty quickly, although he did seem to have more fun than us by bidding unrealistically and winning paintings which he then sold for a loss. However, over time I have worked out a kind of sick strategy:
One quadrant of the track has "collect 500 000" and "Inherit a painting from the bank" squares. By hanging around this quadrant for the whole game, you can usually land on one or other of these squares once or twice, which really puts you significantly ahead financially. In fact, after just playing a game with my kids, I came up with a strategy for my next game: don't buy a single painting. I'm going to try that out and I bet I can still beat the kids!
Which leads me to the question: what kind of game is it that can lead to and reward (to be verified) such a negative play strategy? I mean, where's the fun in that?

Thread: Re: Masterpiece: Pretty Pictures, Pretty Lame

isaacc — 2007-02-11T04:23:41+00:00

Yes, I have this game as well. And, oh is it boring as soon as you realize this one fact: Because the values are assigned to paintings randomly, there is no point bidding higher than $500,000 (the values go from $0 [forgery] to $1,000,000). Because you are guessing at a painting's value, whether you will come out ahead or behind is entire a matter of blind luck. Bidding higher than $500,000 will, over the long run put you behind. If you come out ahead anyway, well then luck was with you this game.

As mentioned, after a game or two it is easy to pick up on clues as to whether a player has value or not in his hand.

That said, I do heartily recommend this game for 8 to 10 year olds as they seem to enjoy it anyway.

Thread: Masterpiece: Pretty Pictures, Pretty Lame

jollypirate — 2007-02-10T14:20:52+00:00

Okay, this review is for the 1970's version of the game. Perhaps the fixes made in the 90's helped make this a better game, perhaps I'll play it someday and weigh in on that topic. But...I doubt it.

Parts: This is a pretty game. The art cards are faithful reproductions and are really quite striking. As a way to give yourself a little cultural knowledge ala "So that's who painted that picture of the bald guy with the pitchfork who looks like Uncle John."...this game rates higher than any other art game I've played (namely Modern Art). If I saw another copy in a thrift store, I would buy it for up to $3, just to have the painting cards to just to include in letters to my friends.

Gameplay: This game doesn't suck. It just seems that way if (like me) you have the-other-art-auction-game taunting you in the back of your head the whole time. Granted, Modern Art is an EXCELLENT "modern" game in design and theme, and this is a Parker Brothers game from the 70's, but it hurts at times to be thinking that you could be playing a game that requires/rewards thinking.

Anyway, the board track is a circle and you roll and move in one direction to a space and then follow its directions. These vary from being able to buy a painting from the bank (or another player) for a set price, starting an auction for the top painting, starting an auction for one of your paintings (others pick which one), or collecting a set amount of money.

This illusion of choice and strategy in picking an action unfortunately acts to negate what is one of the more fun elements in the game: stealing a valuable painting away from another with a lowball bid. E.G. "Hrmmm...instead of selling to the bank, Marty chose to hold a private auction. That means he's got crap in his hand."

Paintings are assigned a random and secret (except to the winning bidder) value when they are first auctioned off. This value can range from 1 million to nothing (a forgery). This adds the bit of random fun in this game. Bidding for a painting only to have it turn up a forgery, and then being able to pawn it off to another player during a private auction...that sort of take-that shadenfreud.

It makes the game mildly amusing. But at least the game is short.

Stoopid Warning: "The dollar values which are associated with paintings in the Masterpiece game are not representative of their actual market value."

Overall: Not a terrible game, but really only bearable because of the artwork. If you're playing with 8 year olds, this is a sound choice. Opponents 12 and older should just graduate to Modern Art. 5

Thread: Re: A Saturday afternoon in the Dining Room with Masterpiece

scottgillispie — 2006-11-06T04:05:59+00:00

Nice review of a...well, not a "masterpiece", but I guess we can call it a classic.

My childhood copy went missing too, but my wife found a copy at a garage sale last year - need to pull it out some time...

Thread: A Saturday afternoon in the Dining Room with Masterpiece

skalchemist — 2006-11-05T17:50:24+00:00

TAKE HOME POINTS:
* Masterpiece is a game where the optimum course of action can always be calculated using relatively simple arithmetic; just don't bid over what you think the average value of the remaining value cards is.
* If EVERYONE played using the optimum course of action, the game would be horribly, horribly dull.
* If you have a copy of this game, its worth pulling out every once and a while with the kids. If you don't have a copy, only get one if you are a collector.

SESSION REPORT:
My wife found an old (1970) copy of Masterpiece in our basement that we had both forgotten about. It had belonged to her family when she was a kid. My younger daughter (age 9) was very excited about this, and desparate to play it, so we pulled it out on Saturday afternoon and decided to give it a go. I had never played before, and neither had my daughter, and my wife hadn't played in years.

I quickly read through the rules, and we set the game up. For those unfamiliar with the game, it involves buying and selling pieces of art that are printed on postcard size cards. The value of the piece is assigned by adding to the painting card a value card, with values ranging from $1M to $100K. There is a circular board on which each player moves a token. The spots on the board involve different actions that can be taken, including bank auctions (everyone bids for the next painting on the pile), private auctions (you auction off a painting of yours, chosen by another player), collecting cash, buying paintings from the bank at fixed price, selling paintings for their actual value or a fixed price, etc.

After everyone was familiar (or refamiliarized, in the case of my wife) we got started. It was not clear from the rules as to whether you always moved the same direction around the board or could go either direction on a die roll, so I said I thought we should allow either direction (adding a bit more decision making to the game).

As the game progressed, it quickly became obvious to me that there was ALWAYS a best action, from a probabilistic point of view, in any circumstance. Since the there are 24 value cards, with fixed prices, one can always calculate the average value of the remaining value cards. I'm not the greatest wiz at arithmetic, so I couldn't do this on the fly, but nevertheless, the game is about judging the worth of the value cards in play, based on those that have left the game.

However, if everyone played in this optimal fashion, I think the game would be very, very dull. I was playing in a very conservative fashion, and hence ended up with very few paintings during the course of the game. At one point, my wife said something like "your not getting into the SPIRIT of the thing...its about buying ART!" The fun of the game was actually in my daughter and my wife's spirited bidding for the paintings that came on the block.

In the end, though, conservative play won through. My two family members had a number of private auctions, in which they passed money back and forth to each other, while I played very conservatively and worked steadily to build my cash on hand. In the end, I had over $4M, while the other two had less than $3.5M each.

All in all, it was a pleasant way to spend an hour or so on a Saturday afternoon, but I'd much rather play Ticket to Ride.

Thread: Re: Changes in 1996 Edition

Onceler — 2006-04-06T08:53:09+00:00

Oh, forgot to add, mine has the original board design and box art.

Thread: Re: Changes in 1996 Edition

Onceler — 2006-04-06T08:51:35+00:00

There seems to be yet another edition between the 70 edition and the two mentioned above. Mine has a 1970 copyright, but may have been produced in the mid to late 70's. It includes grey rainbow (used toilet paper), rembrandt's father, american gothic, nighthawks, and others from the 70's edition, but mine also includes a few paintings not found in other editions, most notably, Marc Chagal, "The Circus Rider" and Pablo Picasso, "Sylvette". Mine does not include the Okeefe.

Thread: 3.95/5.0 DOnt let bad reviews fool you this one is a keeper

lazlotlomax — 2005-11-06T18:13:33+00:00

On the outset this game appears to be a game about art, and with the little bit of education the game gives you in that it could be unsatisfying. No one is suggesting that any of the prices in this game reflect real life.

This game is designed to be a bluff game. The winner is he who has the most assets at the end. THere are many ways to fatten your own wallets while bankrupting your opponent.

1. Getting a forgery and pumping it full of value cards so that eeveryone bids through the roof for it.

2, bidding aggresively on a painting that you know is worthless so others will pay to much for it.

3. Watching like a hawk others paintings and when the time comes put there paintings up for auctions that are worth the most nad steraling them at auction.

Me and my family play this game with boxing gloves and it can be just as aggressive as monopoly and just as tense as when I trick my wife into paying $15 million for a pitning i knew to be a forgery then tricking here into paying 8 mill for a pianting that I have that is worth only 3.

THe nice thing is this game can be played by the naughty or nice. However if the naughty play with the nice the naughty will be run over flat !!!!!

A great game also becuase it doesnt take that long to play with 4 players.

Thread: Session Report

garrylloyd — 2005-04-21T15:39:30+00:00

Players: John, Phil, Mark G, Mark K, Nige, Garry

Next up was Masterpiece which I have not played in years. Nige has very fond memories of this and astounded us with his recollection of all the character names.

This is a game about buying and selling works of art for a profit (hopefully). Players pieces move around the game board on the roll of a die and each space dictates what you do on that turn. These options range from collecting a sum of money from the bank (which Nige seemed very adept at doing), to buying a painting for a fixed sum of money from the bank or another player, to auctioning off a new painting or one owned by yourself, to selling a painting to the bank. Each painting has a concealed true worth, which only becomes known once you acquire the painting. Hopefully, you’ll find you paid less for it than its worth or you can persuade someone else to buy it to give you a profit or cut your loss. As the paintings circulate around the tables, the more you get to know or deduce about the paintings. The game ends once all the paintings in the bank have been sold or auctioned off, at which stage the true values of the paintings are converted to cash and whoever has the most money wins.

Early in the game, no-one has any idea what the true values of most paintings are, so the auctions are a shot in the dark. Once paintings are changing hands for the second time, you are helped by the fact that the first owner is unlikely to let a painting be sold on for much less than its true worth and will push up the auction price and this is a nice mechanism particularly if you build in the possibility of out-bluffing others in the auction. Towards the end there was a battle royal over the £1m painting (there is only one) and Mark G managed to wrest it from Mark K and force him to accept a loss of about £300k. Nige, however, showed us all that he has a bit of the Lovejoy in him and emerged with a pretty comfortable win.

What cannot go without mention though is the diabolical tactics of various players to gain a profit. Book-keeping is clearly not a strong-point in our club because all of us (I think) managed to try and swindle the bank at some stage in the game - albeit most of us claimed it to be unknowingly. However, John was the banker and the number of times we caught him putting money destined for the bank into his own stash suggests he is not as ‘Honest John’ as he would like us to believe. His ideas on making change for other players defied belief as he gratefully accepted a £1m note from Mark G and gave him two £50k notes in exchange. This blemish on his character will not be forgotten for many moons around these parts.

Result: Nige 3.7m, John 3.05m (probably incl. 100k-200k from the bank), Mark G 2.9m, Garry 2.5m, Phil 2.4m, Mark K 2.05m
Ratings: Nige 6, John 6, Mark G 8, Garry 5, Phil 5, Mark K 4

Thread: User Review

Shade_Jon — 2004-12-01T18:18:20+00:00

Masterpiece is a fairly old roll and move game that has not much kept up with the times, despite a reevaluation of the prices in the game by ten times their original amounts.

The slightly interesting in the game is a blind bidding mechanism on other player's paitings, for which there is geenrally an accepted average correct bid.

You roll the dice and move around a board. Each space you land in either gives you a free painting with a random valuation, allows you buy a paiting for a set amount, forces you to auctionoff a painting, or allows you to sell a painting for a fixed amount.

Naturally, the space you want depends on your current assets.

While the included paintings give a nice intoruduction to the some great works of art, aside from the painter and year, there is no other information given of any educational nature (in the versions that I bought), and the fluxuating prices give no inidcation of relative worth of the paintings in the real world, and, in fact, reduce the art to mere monetary terms.

A much better game for play purposes would be Modern Art.

Thread: Re:Changes in 1996 Edition

cbrua — 2004-01-11T18:54:18+00:00

Cavedog_pdx (#25466),

Thanks Nate. I didn't know there is a 1987 version! I only found out about the 1996 version by accident: I was at a friend's house and we played a game using his copy. It was different enough from my 1970 edition that I thought it worth mentioning.

--Chris

Thread: Re:Changes in 1996 Edition

Cavedog_pdx — 2004-01-11T04:12:56+00:00

cbrua (#25461),
I just went through all the pictures in my game. Apparently the 1987 version has American Gothic but it doesn't have Greyed Rainbow.

Thread: Re:Changes in 1996 Edition

Cavedog_pdx — 2004-01-11T04:06:08+00:00

cbrua (#25461),
I have the 1987 Parker Brothers edition and all these changes were made in that edition other than changing the artwork cards. I should upload a picture here to the geek when I get a chance.

Thread: Changes in 1996 Edition

cbrua — 2004-01-11T02:45:35+00:00

In 1996, Hasbro republished the classic 1970 board game Masterpiece. Instead of just a straight reprint, they took the opportunity to change a few aspects of the game. Here is a summary of the major changes made:

Artwork
The most noticeable change is the graphics: new box graphics, new board graphics, and new works of art for use in the game. Only 5 paintings are reprised from the 1970 edition of the game. Thankfully Greyed Rainbow (we called it "Used Toilet Paper" as kids) is not one of them, but neither is American Gothic or the centerpiece of the 1970 edition: Rembrandt’s portrait of his father. All in all, I prefer the 1970 edition's painting selections, but that is probably just because it brings back childhood memories for me.

Inflation
Prices have gone up since 1970…ten-fold, in fact. Paintings now range in value from $1,000,000 - $10,000,000 instead of $100,000 - $1,000,000. This change is reflected in changes to the board, value cards, and play money denominations.

Game Board
The most significant change to the game board is the reduction in the number of “Private Auction” spaces. There are 7 in the 1970 edition; there are only 4 in the 1996 edition.

All of the “Collect $xxx” spaces have been changed. In the 1970 edition they range in value from $100,000 to $500,000. In the 1996 edition they all have the same value: $3,000,000 (or draw an extra value card – more on that later).

There are several other minor tweaks: value changes by $50,000 (in 1970 dollars) here and there, an extra “must sell a painting to the bank” space, and so on.

Value Cards
Which brings me to the one major rules change in the game: painting values are no longer static. If a player wishes, instead of taking $3,000,000 from the bank when they land on a “collect” space they may draw the top value card and add it to a painting they own, thereby increasing its value. A forgery value card nullifies any other value cards that are assigned to that painting, however (a fake is still a fake). The number of value cards has been doubled in the 1996 edition to allow for this new rule and the distribution of the value cards has also been tweaked a bit but the average value is still about the same (~$425,000 in 1970 dollars).

Gameplay Impact
So what impact do these changes have on the play of the game? I think they improve it a bit. Private auctions were always the most brutal part of the game to me. The player on your left gets to force you to sell that high value painting you have and your competitors of course pay less than its market value, sometimes way less. Having fewer private auction spaces, therefore, is “a good thing” to me. It also lessens the churning of paintings between the players, helping to keep some hidden information in the game. It often happens in the 1970 edition of the game that all of the players know all of the values for each of the paintings in play because so many private auctions have occurred before any new paintings are purchased.

Being able to boost painting values is a nice touch. It enables you to bluff: adding value to a forgery in the hopes that your competitors will think it is worth something and bid on it. It also makes holding onto low-value paintings a more strategic choice: your $1,000,000 loser could suddenly be worth $11,000,000 in one play. It also alleviates the “perfect information boredom” of the 1970 edition: your opponents who may have seen the value of a painting before no longer know how much it is worth once you add a value card to it.

Of course none of these changes alter the essence of the game: if you hated Masterpiece before, you’re still going to hate it. In fact if you thought the 1970 edition was too random, these changes make it even worse for you. But if you found the 1970 edition of the game mildly amusing, or actually enjoyed it, it is worth your time to give the 1996 edition a whirl and see what you think. It may be even more to your liking.