Game: Terra

Image

chezzilla — 2008-06-16T22:33:47+00:00

Thread: Re: Poor card game with an environmental theme attempt

willdesigns — 2008-05-31T18:23:40+00:00

Ok, with the actual rules I give this game only a 4 because it rewards exclusively the selfish game. I made the following additions to the ruleset:

1) If the first card played on any unresolved crisis covers at least the half of that crisis the player will receive automatically 2 points or 1 point if it does not cover it. This is to promote the idea that awareness and good intentions reward.

2) If a player plays a card with a value that is bigger than the previous card on the same crisis he/she wins 1 point if the crisis is still unresolved. Or if he/she plays a 6 and the crisis is still unresolved. This is to promote the concept of doing the best you can even if you cannot solve everything by yourself.

With this changes I am ready to give it a 6. .

Image

jsper — 2008-02-17T10:42:54+00:00

Inside box artwork

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

sultanofchance — 2008-01-08T04:01:57+00:00

How about borrowing/twisting from "High Society"'s endgame rule. The person with the most hoarded points is out of the game - and the person w/the 2nd most wins (if the players were successful). This could show that the largest hoarder becomes a world pariah due to his selfishness and encourages less hoarding, but not stopping it.
Just a thought as I know this game (as is) wouldn't work with a few of our group's players.

Image

jsper — 2008-01-04T13:31:19+00:00

Back of the cards

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

Twinge — 2007-12-21T20:01:35+00:00

shawn_low wrote:
1) When a Crisis is revealed, players commit cards to combat the crisis FACE DOWN instead of face up. This way, there is incentive to put high cards to get the bonus instead of not bothering because someone before you places a 5 or 6 down.

Sounds interesting, but to do it correctly I'd think that each player would need a 'no bid' card in their hand too.

Thread: Re: Dealing with card clumps

bwingrave — 2007-12-03T02:42:41+00:00

I'm back with an update after trying the basic crisis card de-clumping variant (two piles each of crisis and solution cards, sorting neither by color). I taught the game to a group of 6 players, one of whom had played before. The extra deck preparation didn't take much time. The earth was not destroyed (the first time it's happened in the 6 attempts I've witnessed), and one of new players won. It did feel, to me, as though the crises were more spread out. So I'll be using this variant again in the future.

Thread: Re: Poor environmental game made of paper and wood.

willdesigns — 2007-11-19T05:37:40+00:00

HavocIsHere, thanks for the information. I am afraid in my country we have very poor legislations as well as almost everywhere in south america. Right now we are trying to stop the macro-corporations to keep deforesting the north of our country for the soy plantations, on our senate thing are going too slow mainly because of the corruption of the polititians that care so little about the people and so much about their pockets. I have learned of FSC with the XEKO card game that uses FSC wood for the box the game comes in and recycled paper for the cards. When I bought this game I expected something similar but I was very dissapointed that it wasn't like that. Please understand that if the game had a different theme things would have been different but since the theme is environmental problems I thought maybe the purpose of the game would be also to promote the use of recycled or environmentally friendly material. Haven't seen any graphic or text that refered to that.

generalpf, I am glad in Canada those measures are being taken care of. The truth is I would love to see games printed in recycled paper.

kostek), thanks for the feedback. I am afraid that, for me, the game could have provided some statistics to open the dialogue among the players. For example in a card related to an environmental problem, it could have read: "United States is the biggest emitter of CO2 with 5,762,050 thousand metric tonnes of carbon dioxide" or "Between May 2000 and August 2006, Brazil lost nearly 150,000 square kilometers of forest" or "Each year in the world as many as 50,000 species disappear"... etc. Surely this would have open the dialogue on the game table or even to go to the inquisitive idea: "Did you know that each person throws away approximately four pounds of garbage every day" or "We each use about 12,000 gallons of water every year" or "Every ton of paper that is recycled saves 17 trees" or "The amount of wood and paper we throw away is enough to heat 50 million homes for 20 years" or "It takes 90% less energy to recycle aluminum cans than to make new ones". And I would have made the game in a way it would reward the cooperative actions above the individual actions so players will be more inclined to work together for the same goal instead of keeping resources to win more from a crisis.

Nevertheless I know this is just a card game, but I was sold on the idea of environmental and social consciousness and expected much more from it, even more when I saw the UNESCO sponsorship.

Thread: Re: Poor environmental game made of paper and wood.

kostek — 2007-11-19T01:05:53+00:00

The game creates a deep tension between saving the planet and winning a personal, selfish victory. The game intends to simulate events in the world and underline the difficulties we face.

Whether or not that makes for a fun time is debatable, but I believe the system is a good simulation of reality. It's mostly a teaching tool, IMO.

Thread: Re: Poor environmental game made of paper and wood.

generalpf — 2007-11-19T00:48:38+00:00

Wood is a mandatory renewable resource in Canada and many parts of Europe. Not so in the USA. Would you prefer they were made out of plastic, which is made out of oil?

Thread: Re: Poor environmental game made of paper and wood.

HavocIsHere — 2007-11-18T23:09:01+00:00

Well, as a matter of fact, using paper does promote forestry which in western (european?) countries implies durable development (I do not know if durable development is good english, though). If you put trees down, you MUST plant new ones (I do not know if that kind of legislation is applicable in your country), and young trees eat much more CO2 than old ones.
So have a wooden-structure house, and buy wood.
There are labels proving that wood comes from these well-managed forests;
as you seems concerned by these things, here is some info:
http://www.nepcon.net/?gclid=CIXpu43B548CFQaHMAod0l5rZg
Have a look at PEFC and FSC
Deforestation of third world countries mostly happens because of agribusiness.

Hmm back to the game: as I am quite interested in all things environmental, this game was quite a huge disappointment, mainly because it did not work.
I did not wrote a review of give it a rating because I only played half a game, but that was more that I could take

Thread: Poor card game with an environmental theme attempt

willdesigns — 2007-11-18T21:06:29+00:00

As soon as I saw Terra I thought to myself: "It would be great to have a card game that so obviously has to be made of recycled paper"... I am still looking for the recycling symbol on the box and contemplating the wooden chips and board made of stock paper.

Components

108 cards, a scoring track, 12 wooden markers.

]]>

The cards are printed on paper, have nice iconographical drawings representing both crisis and possible solutions. Yes, Paper !!

]]>

The board is made of stock paper, with a cartoony drawing of the earth sieged by pollution and wars. Nope, nowhere it says anything about the materials being recycled.

]]>

Finally the wooden markers are, well circular wood pieces. Very creative indeed. Very ecological.

Objective

All the players must work in cooperation to save the planet from the socio-economical and environmental catastrophes that plague our world today. Of course when they lose the Earth loses and when they win the Earth wins... also some players win a better victory than others (Nope, I am not being redundant here, even if everyone wins there is a score that defines that some players have won more than others, a real deal of cooperation indeed ).

Gameplay

]]>

First you separate all the crisis cards from the solution cards only to deal 5 cards to each player so they do not get a crisis card on the first drawing, later you mix both types to have a common deck. I am sure this could have been done differently but this is how things are done with this game.

The first player draws a card from the common deck, if it is a crisis he plays it in front of all the players, if it isn't it is time for the next player to draw a card.

When a crisis is drawn the players might try to solve this by placing each 1 card of the same color as the crisis. When the sum of the numbers on the solution cards played match the number on the crisis card, that crisis is solved. But of course the designer didn't thought the players would like that alone and added a scoring system so players might play more strategically against each other instead of together. This way, the player that places the bigger number wins 3 points and the one that has randomly drawn the crisis card wins also 3 points.

If a crisis is not solved because the solution numbers are not enough it is left on the table for other steps to complete the problem.

On the third phase (1st one is drawing a card, second trying to stop a new drawn crisis) players might play solution cards from their hand to try to solve the crisis already on the table.

Here the designer again thinks players might want to greedily play for themselves and not for a common cause so he provides again the choice of keeping cards in your hand to benefit yourself from them at the right time. This way if a player plays the last card that solves a crisis he is awarded 5 points. Understand that this forces the players to choose to solve a recently drawn crisis for the possibility of 3 points or solve them later for the possibility of 5 points. Also the designer adds another possibility that is that a player separates a combination of solution cards only for the purpose to add their values when the game is over. This last possibility is only (as the rulebook says) for his own selfish, personal interest.

At the end of a turn the conditions of winning and losing the game are checked. If there are 3 full-blown crises in the same region of the word, or 4 full-blown crises of the same color around the world or a total of seven full-blown crises the players lose the game.

If there are no more cards on the common deck for the players to draw a card the game is over and the players win.

Conclusion

]]>

I had big expectations for this game and in the beginning I thought the pictures at BGG depicted an interesting system of playing a cooperative environmental game.

Nothing could be far from the truth:

First of all, all the cards and board are made of paper and nowhere in the box or rulebook it says they are made of recycled paper.

Second, it comes with wooden chips... yeap that are made from deforested trees that happens to be one of the crisis the players in the game need to solve.

Third the rules tempt the players with the idea of playing greedily only for personal benefit instead of focusing them on playing together to solve the problems that appear.

Also it doesn't promote the constructive dialogue at all, nowhere in the cards it define statistics or useful information to talk about, the promotion of the competition in the game makes it to go against the idea of cooperation, really a messy situation that can not be overlooked.

Personally I think the game doesn't accomplish any of the goals the makers define. Why ? Because a game that is suppose to promote the good will among the citizens of the world should do so by rewarding the common action not the particular one, the cards should have been made of recycled paper (like Xeko does), and wooden pieces in the game tells you definitely that the designer had no clue about what environmental conscience is. And please have in mind that my critic about this game is because this game is suppose to promote those things I mentioned. Maybe if they remove the theme from the game or the UNESCO sponsorship I wouldn't criticize it so much but of course I wouldn't have bought it in the first place.

For all this I gave it a 4 from 10 and a recommendation of not buying it if you are looking only for the environmental aspect.

Thread: Re: Reinforcing the Point: A Terra Classroom Exercise

AlexYeager — 2007-10-23T20:58:41+00:00

I did have two copies of the game. You could maybe get away with pairs, but I have a feeling that trying to play cards by committee would probably bog down the game (either one). I think you'd need to emphasize that cards need to be played quickly if you did play as pairs.

Alex Yeager

Thread: Re: Reinforcing the Point: A Terra Classroom Exercise

dpyoung — 2007-10-23T20:49:30+00:00

In the class room you had two copies of the game? Would it work with students in pairs or groups of three?

Thread: Re: Dealing with card clumps

Luke the Flaming — 2007-10-21T10:04:29+00:00

Personally, I consider Terra a game too light to bother with such an elaborate setup. But if it works for you, go ahead... and tell us how it went!

Thread: Dealing with card clumps

bwingrave — 2007-10-21T03:04:59+00:00

I've played Terra five times now (4p x 3, 6p x 2), and the planet hasn't survived once. During at least three plays, selfishness was definitely a factor in the outcome. But during the other two, I think it was clumps of crisis cards.

To give a little more detail: Two of the worst cases would be all the crises cards at the top or at the bottom of the draw pile. The players would be certain to lose the game. And it doesn't even have to be that extreme. If five or all six crises of a color are close to each other in the draw pile, it may not be possible to avert enough of them, even if no one is hoarding. It's also possible for players to draw crisis after crisis of a single color and hold no (or very small) solution cards of that color. This can lead to a "We did all we could have done" reaction to the game.

One way of dealing with this is to follow such a loss immediately with another play of the game. Terra is a short game, and the setup isn't lengthy.

Another possibility is trying to ensure that the crisis cards are spread out more evenly in the deck. Semi-randomizing the deck is a technique used effectively in games such as Leonardo DaVinci. Is it worth it to try it in Terra?

A simple and easy way of doing this would be to do the initial deal as normal, then divide the crisis cards into two small piles and the remaining solutions cards into two piles. Mix each small pile of crisis cards into each pile of solution cards, and then put one mixed pile on top of the other to form the draw pile.

To increase the chances of spreading out the crisis cards, divide them into more piles before mixing them into more piles of solution cards. Or divide the crisis cards by color and form small piles that each have half of the crisis cards of a color; then proceed as above.

Thread: Re: Question with 3 players

bwingrave — 2007-10-18T20:23:43+00:00

I've only played 3 games of Terra, so this isn't an exactly an authoritative answer -- just my thoughts.

I think it would be best to keep the pending crisis phase in. People may pass quickly and move the game on to the next phase. But if the players have hands that are near the 8-card limit, and/or the already-fullblown crisis pool is large, it may occasionally be both possible and necessary to deal with a crisis before it becomes fullblown.

An alternative would be to dispense with the pending crisis phase and reconcile yourselves to the fact that the game could end immediately when a crisis is put onto the table (depending, of course, on the crises already out there). This would seem change gameplay a bit: players must now attack the fullblown crises more quickly, rather than allowing them to linger.

A third way would be to add the pending crisis phase whenever the fullblown crisis pool already contains at least one of the following: 6 crises, 3 of a single color, or 2 of a single location.

Thread: Question with 3 players

wyldeoak — 2007-09-15T11:55:50+00:00

I played my first game last night, a 3-player game.

The impending crises seemed totally irrelevant as it is very hard to get enough points to solve it at that point. This may well be less of an issue with more players.

I just wondered if the impending crisis step could be skipped and always proceed to full blown crisis. Thus, making the game a bit simpler to explain, with no real changes in overall game.

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

wyldeoak — 2007-09-15T11:47:20+00:00

Tom Vassel has a thread which offers a variant:

http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/73961

In it Jeremy Avery offers: "my "UN embargo" variant.

The rules lay out very clearly the conditions for winning, then add that after determining if the players have won, the person with the most points is the Winner. So I add this rule: If the game is not won by the players, and a loss is incurred, every player counts the points they have hoarded plus the points left in their hands, and whoever has the highest total is the Loser."

But by adding this variant, any players who needed some reason to be more charitable, have it. It adds a neat dynamic to the game where players are jostling to make sure they don't hold back too much, but still try and look after themselves. The best part about this variant (well, besides helping make the scrooges more giving) is that is fits well thematically. If you look at the solution cards as resources that have been committed to the UN, and suddenly those resources are held back and hoarded, put into the pockets of greedy autocrats, surely there should be repercussions on the international stage!

I haven't tried it, but it seems like it may be helpful

Thread: Re: Checking end of game rule

wyldeoak — 2007-09-02T10:33:43+00:00

You're right!

I just got the game and noticed the difference in rules, but didn't stop to notice that 3 crisis X 6 regions = the 18 crisis cards.

Thanks for setting me straight.

Thread: Re: Checking end of game rule

LoneCleric — 2007-09-02T03:57:08+00:00

wyldeoak wrote:
The English version of the rules lists the end of game if: "Three full-blown crises in the same region of the world". However, the game summary card lists "social, military, environment, on same region"

I am assuming it is any three in the same region, not just a special combination of at least one of each type of crisis. That is that the rule book is correct and the card not.

Erm, unless I'm mistaken, there is one single card per type, per region. So if you have three full-blown crisis in the same region, you can be sure that it's "one of each"...

Thread: Checking end of game rule

wyldeoak — 2007-09-01T22:29:00+00:00

The English version of the rules lists the end of game if: "Three full-blown crises in the same region of the world". However, the game summary card lists "social, military, environment, on same region"

I am assuming it is any three in the same region, not just a special combination of at least one of each type of crisis. That is that the rule book is correct and the card not.

Thread: Reinforcing the Point: A Terra Classroom Exercise

AlexYeager — 2007-07-12T15:03:51+00:00

Terra, by the designer’s admission, is as much a demonstrative exercise as it is a “semi-cooperative” game. As Bruno Faidutti puts it, “the game actually sometimes feels more like blackmail than like unselfish collaboration.” Many players get discouraged at the difficulty in taking the game to completion because of the challenge of decreasing your own strength in order to keep the game from ending with all players losing.

In preparing to use the game as part of a middle school classroom program I administer, I decided to take a different approach. I chose to introduce the game as a largely cooperative game, changing very few rules in order to encourage players to keep the game running to completion. Then, once they have this positive experience with the game, I would change the rules back to as published. Would their experiences with the “kinder” version transfer to the normal version?

Week 1
The game was introduced with the following revisions to the rules:
- When a crisis is revealed (impending crisis), each player may play one card on it (per the original rules). However, ALL players who play cards receive 3 points if the crisis is averted.
- During Phase 3 (playing cards), you may play as many cards on crises as you want, scoring 1 point immediately for each card played.
- Players may only play sets (for 1 point per card) if there are no crises on the board.

There is still tension in the game, as the crises may not come up evenly with the Solution cards, but the game is FAR easier to complete this way, and with scores relatively even. It’s still important as part of the game explanation to emphasize the thematic elements of world problems, solutions and the possibility of the game (and, by extension, the world) collapsing. There’s a small amount of hand management, and some decision-making when players are able to play sets, but ultimately, the game only rewards players who are actively playing their cards to avert or solve crises.

My group of 12 5th to 8th graders had no problems navigating the world’s issues (more accurately, after one group had a disastrous first two rounds, which resulted in an almost-immediate game end). The kids enjoyed the game, and scores were tightly bunched together at the end.

Week 2
For this session, we talked briefly about cooperative games, and then I re-introduced Terra to the group with the “real” rules. I again talked about the thematic elements, and emphasized that only with group cooperation would the game go to completion.

Interestingly, only one group of the two was unable to finish the game. The “world collapses” group got slightly over halfway through the deck before the game ended. Predictably, the players sheepishly flipped over their high-value sets, and talk about how the need to win was much stronger in this version.

The other group completed the game, but in an unexpected way. The table was made up of 2 8th graders and 4 5th and 6th graders. A “superpower” scenario developed, where each of the 8th graders took turns trying to manipulate and threaten the other one, using the younger players as pawns and proxies. In the end, the older players had a commanding lead on their younger competition.

The children enjoyed the different versions of the game, and it made for an interesting discussion afterwards about the game’s real-life foundation. I expect to run this program multiple times in the future, and would be interested in hearing anyone else’s experiences with the game using these, or similar, rules. And, this program was made possible with the help and materials provided to me by Mark Kaufman and the folks over at Days of Wonder.

Thanks!
Alex Yeager

(Edited: Stupid missspelling in title, of all places...)

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T19:55:09+00:00

Board and 40+ Tokens - Unpunched

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T19:54:28+00:00

Upon opening the box...

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T14:32:46+00:00

Board Detail

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T14:32:28+00:00

Board Detail

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T14:30:56+00:00

Box Detail - Donation

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T14:29:46+00:00

Box Detail

Image

Von Cougar — 2007-06-06T14:27:15+00:00

Crisis Cards

Thread: Re: Discussion between players...

eafisch — 2007-03-18T14:02:13+00:00

This same question was debated in our little group. I'm for allowing table discussion, as it adds another dimension to play. Just like in the real world, nations can diplomatically act differently at different times in their own best interest. You can tell the truth, you can lie, you can decide not to comment.
So I vote for no ban on table talk.

Thread: Re: Discussion between players...

ldd23 — 2007-03-04T22:46:10+00:00

I think I'd allow any amount. But then when we play, we play it pretty competitive and you're never really sure if you can trust the other players.

Thread: Re: 2 Players????

luigi54 — 2007-01-15T08:34:57+00:00

Hi Chris
I just bought the game as well and tried to play with my girlfriend.
We started with 2 additional cards each and allowed to keep in hands 10 cards.
It works, although little bit boring, specially when no crisis card ic oming. in these cases, suddendly you can get 4 or even 6 crisis in a row then... good luck!!!javascript:emoticon(document.MESSAGEFORM.body,'')

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

shawn_low — 2006-05-16T07:29:24+00:00

7) Faidutti should futher develop the game and post new rules. He is usually very active in commenting about games but it's strange that he doesn't talk much about Terra...

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

jttm — 2006-05-08T07:33:13+00:00

5) If the players lose the game, each player MUST donate $100 to UNESCO.

6) Players can only hoard cards with values 1, 2 or 3.

Thread: Re: Some ideas for tinkering with the rules

shawn_low — 2006-05-06T02:57:20+00:00

Have you tried this variant? Does it work?

I've started a thread on how to counter selfish play here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/904861#904861

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

shawn_low — 2006-05-06T02:54:57+00:00

As suggested on Faidutti's website BUT not favoured by him.

4) If the world explodes, the player with the lowest set total (value of the cards set aside during the game) wins, or the player with no sets win. If there is a tie, the player with the lowest total of cards in his hand wins.

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

shawn_low — 2006-05-06T02:35:26+00:00

3) The first player contributing to the impending crisis can only either get 3vps for highest value OR playing the first solution card, not both.

This will encourage people to help solve a crisis even when the first player puts down a 6 point card (which immediately stops people from solving the problem).

Thread: Re: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

fortinm — 2006-05-04T22:00:12+00:00

2) The player who has the most "hoarded cards" points can not add these points to his/her total at the end of a successful game.

Thread: Thoughts on helping 'counter' selfish play.

shawn_low — 2006-05-04T16:35:41+00:00

So, we all know that the game implodes and ends with selfish play. Yet some gamers are unable to not play selfishly. My friend Jon and I had some thoughts about countering selfish play and I wanted to start a thread to post these 'variants'.

1) When a Crisis is revealed, players commit cards to combat the crisis FACE DOWN instead of face up. This way, there is incentive to put high cards to get the bonus instead of not bothering because someone before you places a 5 or 6 down.

Thread: Terra: Review

gschloesser — 2006-02-23T17:54:04+00:00

Days of Wonder
Designed by: Bruno Faidutti
3 - 6 Players, 20 - 30 minutes
Reviewed by: Greg J. Schloesser

EDITOR'S NOTE: This review first appeared in Counter Magazine #24

French designer Bruno Faidutti has teamed-up with Forum Barcelona 2004 and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) to produce a game that highlights the many crises facing today's world, as well as providing solutions to these problems. Further, the effort is not just an exercise in "feel-good" politics, as $1 dollar (or Euro) of every copy sold is donated to HOLOS, an organization which helps support the goals of Forum Barcelona. That, of course, may or may not be a good thing, depending upon your view of the organization. That, however, is a topic I will avoid in this review! Rather, I'll stick to the far-less-controversial topic of discussing the game and its merits.

Terra is a card-based game that forces an element of cooperation between the players in order to stave-off worldwide chaos. Throughout the game, military, environmental and socio-economic crises emerge throughout various regions of the world, causing players to scramble in attempts to defuse and solve these flare-ups. Players must cooperate in order to successfully eliminate these problems. However, there is a strong incentive for players to hoard away their resources, for if the world is saved (so-to-speak), then the player who has amassed the greatest amount of personal wealth emerges victorious. Ahhh ... capitalism!

The deck of 108 nicely illustrated cards contains 18 crisis cards and 90 solution cards. Crises come in the three different varieties mentioned above, each color-coded for easy identification. Further, each contains a number from 10 - 16, which is the difficulty or threat level of that crisis. The higher the number, the more difficult it is for the players to solve. Finally, each crisis affects a particular region of the world, which is clearly highlighted on the card.

Solution cards also come in three types corresponding to the three types of crisis. Solution cards carry a value of 1 - 6, as well as pleasant artwork depicting the type of solution or aid the card is providing. Unfortunately, the meaning behind many of the illustrations aren?t readily obvious, so players must constantly refer to the explanations in the rules to fully understand them. More on this later.

Completing the components is a round board depicting an imperiled world, with a score track surrounding the ailing globe. Each player also has scoring and matching identification token.

Initially, all of the problem cards are removed from the deck and players are dealt from 2 - 4 solution cards, depending upon the number of players. The problem cards are then shuffled back into the deck and play begins.

A player's turn is quite simple.

Phase 1: Draw a card. The player takes the top card from the deck. If it is a solution card, he keeps it in his hand and proceeds to Phase 3, skipping over Phase 2. If, however, the card is a problem card, the card is revealed and play immediately moves to Phase 2 as all players have the opportunity to help deal with the "impending crisis"{.

Phase 2: Impending Crisis. Beginning with the active player, each player has the opportunity to play an appropriate solution card to help solve this new crisis. A solution card must match the type of crisis (military, socio-economic or environmental) in order to be played. Players are NOT forced to help solve the crisis, but if the elect to do so, they may only play one card.

If the total value of all played solution cards equals or exceeds the threat value of the problem card, the crisis is solved and all of the cards are removed. There is great rejoicing and much merriment. The player who initiated the action to solve the crisis (i.e., the player who played the first solution card) receives 3 victory points. Likewise, the player who contributed the greatest amount of resources to help solve the problem (i.e., the player or players who played the solution card with the highest value) receives 3 victory points.

If, however, the total value of the solution cards played is less than the threat value of the problem, efforts at solving the crisis have failed. There is much grief, moaning and wringing of hands. All of the solution cards played in attempts to solve the problem are discarded and the problem becomes a full-blown crisis. The problem card is set beside the central board as an ever-present reminder to the players.

A check is now made to see if the game ends as a result of a collective "loss of control". This can occur if one of the following conditions exists:

a) Three full-blown crises in the same region of the world; or

b) Four full-blown crises of the same type around the world; or

c) A total of seven full-blown crises around the world.

If any of these conditions exist, the world collapses into utter chaos and folks head for their survival shelters. ALL players lose -- as does the world.

If the world does not collapse, then the active player returns to Phase 1, drawing another card and repeating this cycle.

Phase 3: Playing cards. After the active player has successfully drawn a solution card, he has the option of playing cards to any or all full-blown crises that he desires. The player may only play at most one solution card to each crisis. The idea here is to build-up enough points beside a crisis in order to successfully solve it, thereby removing that problem card from the game. The player who plays the final card which solves a crisis receives 5 victory points. Since only this player receives points, there is a persistent hesitancy amongst the player to play solution cards that will bring a particular crisis within range of one card being able to solve it (6 points). However, if players procrastinate in solving crises, things are likely to spiral out of control quickly and cause a complete collapse. A problematic, yet tasty dilemma. Of course, a player may elect to not play any solution cards, preserving his solution cards and maintaining a precarious world situation.

If the player does elect to play at least one solution card, he then has the opportunity to hoard some of his solution cards. These hoarded cards will be worth victory points at the end of the game IF the world is saved and does not collapse into chaos. So, there is a significant element of risk here. If a player hoards too many cards, he ability to help deal with arising crises will be significantly restricted. If, however, he does not hoard enough cards and opts to be a goodwill ambassador, he will likely lose the game. Striking a delicate balance is the key.

In order to hoard cards, specific 3-card combinations must be formed:

a) Same value, same color; OR

b) Same value, one color each; OR

c) Same color straight; OR

d) Three color straight.

If a player meets one of these requirements, he may place these three cards face-down in front of him. He can never retrieve these cards back into his hand, so deciding when to hoard is a critical element of the game. It also had a tremendous psychological impact on the other players, as if they see a particular player hoarding too many cards, they may opt to abandon efforts to solve world problems, fearing that if the world is ultimately saved, they will be the big loser anyway. I find this aspect of the game to be quite tense, exciting and clever.

Once a player has completed Phase 3, he must discard down to 8 cards, then the next player repeats this cycle. This continues until either the world collapses (as described above), or until the entire deck of cards is depleted. At that point, the players have successfully prevented the globe from spinning off its axis, even though there still might be some nagging problems persisting in various regions of the world. At this point, each player reveals their hoarded cards, tallying their numerical values and adding these totals to their total score on the track. The player with the most victory points is named "Friend of the Earth", is elected President of the U.N. and receives a Nobel prize. Not bad.

First, let's analyze Terra in terms of its advantages and flaws as a game. First, there is a large cooperation aspect. Players must cooperate in order to solve crises. Otherwise, things will get out of hand swiftly and the world will collapse into chaos, causing the game to end and all players to lose. No one wants to be blamed for causing the world to collapse; that doesn't look good on a resume. However, unlike Reiner Knizia's ground-breaking Lord of the Rings game, there are compelling reasons NOT to cooperate here. You see, if the players are ultimately successful in dealing with the various crises, the player who achieved the greatest number of victory points is victorious. So, there is an individual winner. It's not just a big "group hug, aren't we all happy?" affair. The main complaint I leveled against the Lord of the Rings game was that there was absolutely NO incentive NOT to cooperate. So, it simply became a matter of helping out as much as you possibly could each and every time. I simply didn't find that very exciting.

Terra certainly corrects this situation with a vengeance. Now, while there is a strong incentive to cooperate -- the world will likely collapse if you don't -- there is also ample reason to hold back a bit: you likely won't win if you are too generous in your support. Finding the correct balance between cooperating with your fellow players and selfish greed is one of the key ingredients of the game. And this is one mighty tasty ingredient.

There are numerous other choices and decisions facing a player. When a crisis first appears, the choice to play solution cards to help deal with the problem or not can be a tough one. Of course, there is the urge to conserve your cards in order to build the required sets. This selfish motive is confronted, however, with the fact that problems must be dealt with lest they spiral out of control. If the world already has numerous full-blown crises, the urgency to deal with an impending crisis is even greater. If a player does decide to help deal with a new crisis, deciding which card to play is also a major decision. The active player must decide whether to play a low valued card in order to entice others to participate in the solving of the crisis, or play a card with a mid-range value so that folks will see that he is serious about dealing with the problem. Playing a card with too high a value, however, might discourage others from participating as they may feel they will be unable to equal or exceed its value and thereby be shutout of any victory points earned from dealing with the crisis. Playing a "6" could easily discourage subsequent players from participating unless they, too, have an appropriate solution card with a value of "6". Very interesting choices, indeed.

Now, let's talk about a potential game-breaking tactic. If one or more players insist on playing completely selfishly, hoarding cards at every opportunity and refusing to contribute solution cards to help solve crises, the game can completely fall apart, ending in world collapse every time. This is particularly acute when playing with 4 or less players. With six players, it is possible for the other, less selfish players to still deal with the arising crises. However, if they are successful in this monumental task, in all likelihood the selfish player will accumulate the most victory points due to his excessive hoarding of solution cards. It is a lose-lose proposition.

There are two ways to deal with this potential game-breaking problem. First, thoroughly explain the nature of the game to all of the players before beginning. Let them know that cooperation is required of all players and that if one player plays refuses to cooperate, the game will collapse. Most sportsmanlike folks will understand this and play in the spirit that is intended. If this fails to work, however, an interesting variant has been proposed along the lines of that used in Reiner Knizia's High Society. That is, if the players are successful in saving the world, when the hoarding stacks are tallied, the player who hoarded the greatest value of cards is eliminated from contention. I think this is an excellent idea and I plan to use it in my future games.

One more matter deserves discussion. Both Bruno Faidutti and Eric Hautemont of Days of Wonder have commented that one of the main objectives of the game is to get people talking about various world crises and the potential solutions as espoused on the solution cards. The intent seems to be to cause lively and in-depth discussion amongst the players on these topics. Although other groups have reported that this has occurred, it failed to materialize in the seven games I've played so far. Oh, we did look-up the explanations of the solution cards in the rules and even chuckled over a few of them, but not once did we engage in detailed discussions over the merits of these solutions or other UNESCO programs. I certainly consider myself to be reasonably politically astute with some strong political and moral beliefs, but I really didn't feel the urge to discuss these matters with my game mates. I'd like to blame it on the fact that political discussions can often grow heated and cause bruised feelings, so I tend to avoid such topics when playing games. Perhaps that played a factor, but I think the overriding factor is that we simply wanted to play the game and not discuss its inherent politics. That may not be what the designer or manufacturer intended, but we had fun anyway!

I was very pleasantly surprised by Terra. There is a very good game here, evoking lots of banter: pleas for assistance, berating for failure to help solve a crisis, shock at the hoarding of an opponent, etc. The game is exciting, tense and lively, even if you don't dive into the shark-infested waters of political discussion. The one potential major flaw in the game is fairly easily dealt with, and the political motives behind the game are easily overlooked. Terra has got to be one of the biggest surprises for me in a long time. That's a good thing. Now, let's save the world!

Thread: Discussion between players...

Zooboo — 2006-01-31T14:50:38+00:00

This may be a dumb question, but the rules don't mention if players are allowed to talk about the cards they have in their hand. For example, I draw a blue crisis with a 10 on it. Since I have a blue 5 in my hand, am I allowed to ask the players if they can help me if I put it down on the table...?

How much discussion is allowed between the players?

Thanks for your help

- Eric -

Thread: Return to Terra

raolsson — 2006-01-23T19:54:58+00:00

Eight months after our original forays into Terra, our original gaming group plus three returned to the round scoring board of Terra for another go. Having read that one of the challenges in this game is to have enough players to topple the player who wants to end the game rather than see anyone else win, we hoped that six players would be enough. And perhaps it would have worked, had there been only one naysayer.

As a quick review, our gaming group tends to prefer the screw-you method of play, which makes a somewhat cooperative game like Terra a difficult one for us. In a horse race, there is only one winner. In Ticket to Ride, there is only one winner. In checkers, there is only one winner. You catch the theme here.

In Terra, there may be one winner or no one will win. The trick to the game (in my vast experience of five playings) is working with the group to make sure that no one gets too far ahead and then make sure you are the player who can take the lead before the 18th disaster shows up on the board.

Essentially, you are a team until the last few rounds. Only in our gaming group, certain members would not contribute to the greater good until it benefited them. As a result, both games ended in a rout. In both cases, we had seven full-blown disasters on the board when we got to the end.

I was in a good position because the player before me saw that we could only win through cooperation. I was also in a bad position because the two players who followed me would not place cards until they were sure they would get a return. Through two games, we only turned one small impending disaster back and solved five full-blown disasters.

Of the six players, three had played the game before, one had joined our group for the first time, and two were experienced gamers who had not played Terra before. Two of the newer players started playing the game too conservatively. With four players fully in it for themselves, there is no chance of making it to the final round.

I top-decked three large-numbered cards to collect points for three full-blown disasters, so at the time that the second game ended, I was in the better position to win. I only had one card at the end of the game, however, because I had made contributions to try to help the group.

We also picked an unusually high number of disasters in our first game. You should expect one in five, but we were running one in three, and with a two-card hand to start, that is not a lot of resources to work with.

I would be interested in reading more about how other people play this game. And I am sure we will return to it in the fullness of time.

Thread: Re: Musings on... Terra (#11)

mgringo — 2005-08-01T20:56:02+00:00

TomVasel wrote:

Mike's Rating: 3 out of 10

Our guest reviewer is…

Frank Branham is a game collector with a 2,700 game collection. Occasionally he gets it in his head to design a game and has had 4 published games, including Dia die Los Muertos..

Frank's rating... the evils of cut and paste?

Hey that was a good read. I haven't done very well with Terra myself. Lots of other games to play. I express my abhorrence of global warming with a Prius.

Thread: Musings on... Terra (#11)

TomVasel — 2005-08-01T20:33:53+00:00

Musings On… Terra

Tom Vasel: Lately, cooperative games have really hit the spotlight, especially the smash hit Shadows over Camelot. One game that hasn't received quite so much press, however, is the small game Terra. Designed by Bruno Faidutti and produced by Days of Wonder, Terra has a distinct theme (save planet earth!) as well as an unusual mechanic for a cooperative game - one person can win. The fact that a single person can win throws a monkey wrench into the playing of the game, because a selfish person can and will "throw" the game, simply because they believe if they can't win, nobody can. This is a rather dangerous philosophy to allow in a game, in my opinion.

Frank Branham: Well, yeah. It means that Terra does not fit into our concept of "game" at all. The rules state that there is either an individual winner, or a group of losers. The game is balanced so that it is fairly difficult to win even if everyone plays the game trying for any player at the table to win. If one or more players actually try to claim an individual win, the difficulty skyrockets and everyone loses. This is a nice political and social statement, but really does create a fundamentally broken game.

Tom Vasel: So Frank, are you saying that political statements have no place in gaming? I would. But regardless, don't you think the game has a value as a sort of litmus test for gaming groups - to find out people's true personalities?

Jeremy Avery: Fundamentally broken. Hmm. I can't agree with those words as they apply to Terra. I agree that something about the game can break, but I disagree that it is broken, especially fundamentally. In fact, the only way Terra can be broken consistently is if all the players are fundamentally selfish; and since all people are fundamentally selfish, let me further say that the players have to play fundamentally selfishly (which is slightly different from being fundamentally selfish, but making an effort to not be that way during the 30 or so minutes it takes to play Terra!) Now assuming those selfish people can restrain their selfishness to some degree, Terra DOES work, and becomes a very interesting game: one that (in my playings at least) does indeed allow for a reasonable shot at "completing" the game even though there is only one winner. How can you not like a game that requires all people to co-operate and yet only has one winner? With the right group (which I seem blessed to have no problem finding) Terra becomes an interesting tactical game where players are deciding which players to help and when, and when to ignore the group and get points for themselves. I find this game brilliant!

Frank Branham: But if only one person plays mostly selfishly, that player will almost surely be the winner, while the other players must sacrifice their positions to support him and not lose. This is why I say the game is "kind of" fundamentally broken. The rules claim there is a single winner, and if players actually try to win and not lose, the game seems to almost always collapse, and all players lose.

I actually believe political statements are entirely appropriate in games. Games are as much a medium as any other art form, and can and should express a lot of different ideas. Colony is another interesting example of a game with a fairly political message. The game is ok, and it carries warnings throughout the game text about the abuses and
horrors of expansionism, and exploit of native peoples.

The message in Terra is to me a little confusing. I think the idea is that nations should work together or very bad things will happen. But the game ignores more complex issues like how to deal with a selfish nation. They don't show the benefit of cooperation beyond the idea that someone wins. This weird dichotomy between the rules and how the game
works is quite interesting to look at and study, but not actually enjoyable to play.

Jeremy Avery: Okay so this is where I pop in again and say: I agree with you completely...

Because your last comments are right. Completely right in every way. BUT... that's what variants are for, right? I think Terra is nearly a great game. And with one rule change, I think it becomes a great game. If you can only have one Winner, why not have only one Loser? Here, for your consideration, is my "UN embargo" variant.

The rules lay out very clearly the conditions for winning, then add that after determining if the players have won, the person with the most points is the Winner. So I add this rule: If the game is not won by the players, and a loss is incurred, every player counts the points they have hoarded plus the points left in their hands, and whoever has the highest total is the Loser.

Now, the group I play with usually "wins" Terra because we all try and play in the spirit of the game. But by adding this variant, any players who needed some reason to be more charitable, have it. It adds a neat dynamic to the game where players are jostling to make sure they don't hold back too much, but still try and look after themselves. The best part about this variant (well, besides helping make the scrooges more giving) is that is fits well thematically. If you look at the solution cards as resources that have been committed to the UN, and suddenly those resources are held back and hoarded, put into the pockets of greedy autocrats, surely there should be repercussions on the international stage!

But it gets better. Whenever our group does "lose", we really REALLY (REALLY!) stick it to the Loser for being so selfish. It's all done in a lighthearted manner, but it's pretty funny to be playing Bohnanza later that night, then burn the Loser from Terra on a deal because he destroyed the earth and you "just can't in all good conscience let something like that slide". Not that the razzing has to spill into other games, but it sure is funny when it does!

Frank Branham: That's probably exactly what the game needs as a game.

But does that still work for its message? This is where I'm torn on exactly what Terra is telling us. The current game design seems to imply that if anyone does not cooperate, we are all screwed, and that there really is currently no reason to cooperate. And so what we have to really do is not to play the game, but fix the rules (and the system). The more I think about this, the game does really work at delivering its message.

And if Bruno and Days of Wonder consciously delivered a wonky game with these intentions, the messages could be a lot more clever than I've given it credit. But are people actually bright or would think enough about the topic to work that out?

I have noticed the same lack of penalties in Colony. The best way to win at Colony is to merrily grow, exploit, and watch native populations suffer under your rule. At the end of the game, there is a slight penalty for your exploitation, but not much.

Tom Vasel: I'm going to agree with Frank on this one. I've never pulled out Terra to have a fun game (at least, not after the first couple playings). Now I pull it out to see how a group will react to it. It's a way for me to peg people's personalities. On that level, it succeeds. Playing it as a game for fun is very risky, because one or two selfish people can ruin it for everyone else - meaning that the game degenerates from that point.

Jeremy Avery: This is soooo strange. Although I am finding this conversation interesting, I am completely befuddled as to this almost arcanely psychological approach to playing Terra. Although I admit the dynamic is one of the fun parts of the games, it is still a game. And a game that, when played with the right group of players (which for me is most of the groups I've played it with), is a neat tactical game of timing your points and trying to make temporary alliances in order to tag points for multiple players and get the game to succeed with your own self within striking distance of the lead. Sure, I think this works as a group dynamic exercise, but it works just fine as a game too. Better than fine in fact, I think this game borders on "great" status due to its unique approach to "co-op", its simple ruleset, and its neat socially tactical gameplay.

Frank Branham: I've tried to play it 4 or 5 times, and each time it has been ultimately completely frustrating, with us rarely making it close to the end of the game. When looking back on our plays, it really does seem to come down to the idea that our group cannot distinguish between themselves losing and all of the players losing. The game may go on fine for a bit, but as soon as one player begins to obviously hoard cards, our games have gotten more and more people to hoard cards.

A couple of the games had a player who began to hoard from the start, expecting the other players to carry him. Other games have ended with players who are behind just letting the world go to stop the leader from winning.

There is a game with some similar ideas as Terra called Vertigo. Vertigo has one of the things that Terra really needs, a UN with some teeth. The core of the game is that nations build factories to make more money to build more factories. The player, however, has a choice as to whether to build polluting or non-polluting factories. The UN can actively fine countries that heavily pollute if voted by the other players.

It would be the equivalent in Terra of allowing a vote of the other players to rip cards from a player's hand to help defeat a challenge.

Tom Vasel: Jeremy, what type of groups are you playing the game with? I found that the only group to survive getting nasty in a game was a group of cooperative kids. I have yet to meet a group of adults where at least one person (me included!) didn't try to win the game for themselves at one point, starting a spiral of self-destruction.

Jeremy Avery: I have yet to play this with kids, though I can see how it could work quite well. Actually, I've played this with quite a mix of different people: college-age kids from my Bible study, random mallrats at the gamestore, gamers at my local game group, and of all the participants, only two players killed the game. "Josh" (his real name) could (and does) kill every co-operative game he participates in, and one other player (who shall not be named) is hyper-analytical and competitive, and can't (refuses) to acknowledge the spirit of Terra and thus dooms us all to early defeats. I think the right approach is this: try and keep every one on an even keel and yourself within striking distance of the lead; any player who is falling behind is the one you want to make temporary alliances with so that they can make up some points while you deny them to your fellow leaders while pushing towards "winning"; try and win...and Win.

Tom Vasel: Well, for me it's simply a test of a gaming group, not a "fun" game really. One player got so upset at another player's selfishness that I was fairly alarmed and unhappy that I had suggested the game at all for that particular group. If a game causes problems like that - with no real way to resolve them (selfishness isn't really punished in the game), then why play it? And the theme didn't help matters either. Terra is a neat idea - in a perfect world. Sadly, that's not how life works.

Jeremy Avery: I truly am sorry that this game, so much fun for me and my friends, could instigate the type of incident you describe. And I agree with you that it is odd that Terra doesn't punish the players who are selfish...which is something I recognized during my second playing, and thus introduced the "capital 'L' Loser variant". Having said that, any co-op game can break the way you are describing. True, Terra is more 'selfish' than most co-op games, but I tell you true: I have been involved in some absolutely brutal games of both Lord of the Rings and Shadows Over Camelot where a player or two played completely for himself to the detriment of the win condition. One thing I think we can all agree on is that playing any game that has co-op elements requires players who can play to the spirit of the game. I am blessed to game with such people, so I can rate Terra an 8 out of 10.

Frank Branham: I just don't think it works very well at all. Simply the idea that other players are hoarding cards is enough to push the game into a death spiral.

I give it a 3 out of 10. I do really like the ideas and the premise, but I can't play it.

Tom's Rating: 5 out of 10
Jeremy's Rating: 8 out of 10
Frank's Rating: 3 out of 10

Tom Vasel is a game enthusiast currently living in Korea. He has written over 300 reviews, which can be found at www.tomvasel.com , and plays games solely to have fun. He writes a weekly game blog at www.Gamefest.com, also the home of his interviews with gaming notables, “Interviews by an Optimist.”

Jeremy Avery writes reviews for www.funagain.com, and is the designer of www.geocities.com/yahugaming - a web page devoted to helping people learn more about 'German' games.

Our guest reviewer is…

Frank Branham is a game collector with a 2,700 game collection. Occasionally he gets it in his head to design a game and has had 4 published games, including Dia die Los Muertos..

Thread: 2 Players????

rlddrummer — 2005-05-31T21:01:21+00:00

I recently got this in a game lot is there any way to play it with 2 people??

Thread: Session Report

raolsson — 2005-04-20T00:03:45+00:00

I have the great pleasure of participating in a lunchtime gaming group with two other members of the Geek, malloc and VuduJoie. Terra was a new type of game for us since it has a cooperative element and our group essentially operates by the rules of Screw-You gaming.

Terra is a game where the objective is to work with other players to save the world from problems. Each problem is represented by a card of between 10 and 16 points. You have a hand of solution cards that you can play on problem cards of the same color, green, blue, or tan. Once you draw a problem card, you place it in front of you and your fellow players try to address the problem by placing solution cards of the same color on the problem card and equaling or exceeding the number on the card. The first player to put a card down gets three points if you succeed, as does the player who puts down the highest card.

If you can’t, then the problem becomes a full-blown crisis and moved to the center of the board, all cards removed from it. Solve the problem at this stage and you get five points. Accumulate four problems of the same color, three problems from the same region of the world (as indicated on the card), or seven problems regardless of combination, and the game is over with no winners.

TomVasel does a much better job of describing the game in his review here:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/article/33525

After our cards were dealt, we had a few rounds of drawing solution cards before our first problem came up, a 16-point tan problem. When no one could put a solution card on it, this problem quickly escalated to a full-blown crisis, which I managed to solve a few rounds later for five points.

VuDuJoie picked up on this and managed to solve the next two five-pointers, with the two of us splitting a minor crisis for three points each. Malloc came in to grab a five pointer soon after, but by this time in our first venture out with Terra, we were already applying the rules of Screw-You gaming to a game where cooperation is the only way to succeed.

TomVasel comments in his review that the best game would be to have six players, and I can see where this would be so. VuduJoie was the first to be a little hesitant to put his cards on anyone’s minor crisis and we all followed suit. With the full-blown crises, we all hesitated to let the solutions rise to within six points of the problem card to prevent others from seizing the points. As a result, within half an hour, we had all lost the game as we accumulated seven full-blown crises.

While we all shared that glorious gaming moment where we recognized that while none of us had won the game, neither had anyone else, the challenge of the game became apparent. How does one win in a group where everyone is scheming to prevent a winner? Our gaming group will no doubt apply new strategies and bring our Screw-You gaming to a new level of deviousness, and I hope to cover that here in a future session report.

I found the game to be a fun one and look forward to playing it again.

Thread: Some ideas for tinkering with the rules

MurWiz — 2005-03-24T15:37:03+00:00

See my session report of 3-23-05 for my initial thoughts on this
game. As I see it, there are a few problems preventing this from being
interesting the *second* time you play it:

1. Solving an "impending" crisis (one just drawn) is hard in a small
game (less than 5 players). It doesn't take long to realize that if
the first player passes, most crises won't get solved (unless the
end-of-game depends on it!), because two or three players can't come
up with enough points. On the other hand, if player #1 plays a big
card, other players should pass to avoid giving #1 six points. A game
about solving world crises shouldn't have rules that encourages
everyone to ignore crises until they are fully-formed when you could
solve them right away. (Only six points are available for an emerging
crisis, with five awarded for full-blown ones. There should be more of
an incentive to solve all impending crises, not just the one that
will end the game.

2. Small cards are nearly worthless. Even discarded as sets, they just
don't score enough points. Playing them to the full-blown crises on
the table is a sucker play, because once you get the full-blown crises
to within 5 or 6 of solution, someone's going to jump on it -- unless
you are holding most of the 5s and 6s for that color, you have no way
to ensure that your 1 isn't just helping someone else.

3. Hand management is a challenge. If you have five cards in hand, and
you play two to the crises on the table, you could drop a set of
three, but then you won't have any cards in hand, and probably won't
work up to another set for a good part of the game.

So, based on just one play and a little thinking on the way to work
today, I'm contemplating some "advanced rules" to make this more of a
gamer's game, once people have played the original rules.

1. When an impending crisis is drawn, the process for playing cards to
solve it is modifed as follows: the first player may play a card or
pass, then the second player, and so on, as in the original rules. But
the process doesn't end until all players have passed. Cards are played
in front of the owning player.

If the impending crisis is solved, score as follows:

3 for the largest card(s) played
2 for the second largest card(s) played
1 for each player who played one or more cards (not per card), in
addition to other points.

(There is no bonus for the first card played.)

[This adjustment is a try to get more use from the small cards, and to
make it more likely that a crisis gets played on even if the drawing
player doesn't have a big card.]

If the impending crisis is not solved, score as follows:

3 for the largest card(s) played
2 for the second largest card(s) played

(Note that no points are awarded for playing one or more cards in this
case.)

Then, put the impending crises in the middle of the table. Discard all
cards except the last card played, which remains attached to the
crisis.

[Here, we reward players who made an effort, and they won't feel like
their big card was wasted.]

2. When a player draws a non-crisis card and proceeds to the "Step 3"
part of the turn, he may play any number of solution cards to
full-blown crises, but no more than one per crisis. However, after
playing at least one card, he has a choice of either:

a. Playing a set of cards as per the original rules.
b. Taking the top solution card from the discard pile into his
hand. (If there is no such card, then this choice is invalid.)

[This change is an attempt to make playing on the crises in the center
a little more strategic. Now you can play a small card, which probably
helps another player, but you get rewarded by replacing that card with
something that might be better. I thought about just making the reward
a single point, and I might try that, too.]

Thread: Session Report

MurWiz — 2005-03-24T15:02:09+00:00

Terra came out for the first time since I acquired it in a trade this month. I have to agree with the two previously-published reviews here: there's a fascinating little "personality test" wrapped up in a simple game. I played this with three people who were definitely not over-competitive, and all of us got at least a little bit into the theme of "save the world or we all die". Unfortunately, that didn't save us: we lost by having three crises up for Australia, with about 6 cards left in the deck (one of which was another crisis).

My wife was way out in front at the time, having managed to play the last card on each of about half the solved full-blown crises. We just couldn't score any decent amount of points on the "impending" crises; if the player of the card passes in a four-player game, odds are the second player is looking at a bad choice: play a high-powered card and scare off everyone else, or play a low-powered card and lose it when the crisis is not solved immediately.

There was also a bit of frustration: if you played out a couple of cards on full-blown crises, you emptied your hand, and likely would be out of the game for a while until you could draw up more cards (certainly you wouldn't be playing any sets soon). And for what gain? Playing a 4+ card on an "empty" crisis in the middle of the board is a no-gain proposition. You need at least two, possibly three or four more cards to solve it. If you are holding those cards, you can hope to "edge up" to a solution over the next several turns ... but it's just as likely that someone else could steal it away from you on the next-to-last round.

I have a few ideas I'd like to try; I'm going to post them in a separate article so they're easier to spot than buried here in a session report.

After playing, I rated this a "7" for the interesting situation it sets up for you with first-time players. But the second time with the same group, you need some "advanced" rules, else there won't be a lot of interest.

Thread: Re:3-player games

citizen k — 2004-11-19T14:14:51+00:00

Alan Kwan (#65430),

Good points Alan. But I've believe that the challenges with three players are the same as those with four or more. Namely, (1) can the players cooperate enough to achieve their common goals and (2) do a series of powerful crises occur in a short period of time.

The first issue is the heart of this gem of a game, and a large part of why I enjoy it. The second, is a situation that can spell disaster regardless of how well players are cooperating. Not a flaw in the game, but a statistically possible, worst case scenario.

I think when the game is played by three, it can be more sensitive to, what I'd call "unbalanced" cooperation among players. Your point about hording cards is well made, in three player games this temptation seriously impacts the ability of the players to truely cooperate.

It's all part of the beauty of this interesting game / social experiment.

Thread: 3-player games

Alan Kwan — 2004-11-15T01:23:34+00:00

Some people claimed that the game is too hard for 3 players. Actually, it is not at all. Just try it solitaire, playing all 3 sides of a 3-player game. If the players cooperate totally, the game is highly in favor of the players, and they'll win almost every time. In each suit, you have 97 points of solution cards vs. 76 points of crisis cards, or 60 points if you leave the 16's alone. So you have a lot more than enough to solve most or all the crisis cards.

The mechanism-imposed difficulties in the 3-player game (over a game with more players) are that, 1. The players start with only 12 cards among them; 2. The players have a smaller total hand capacity; 3. It is more difficult to solve an impending crisis. The impact of the first two is very minor. The last point is significant, but it is easy to adjust the players' play to deal with it: the players should avoid wasting cards on impending crisis, making an attempt only on what I call a 'red' threat (failure means game over) or a low-number 'yellow' one (one more card until end of world). In other cases, the players can well afford to let the crisis become full-blown, and then positively (and selflessly) contribute their cards to solving it, before it overwhelms the world in conjunction with newly drawn crises.

A more subtle point is that, because with 3 players the cards are divided among fewer hands, it becomes easier to form sets of 3, and thus more tempting to horde more cards.

A few solitaire runs should convince one that, although a game with fewer players has a slightly higher demand for cooperation and more traps for selfish players, the "players vs. system" survival game (the cooperative effort) isn't significantly harder than a game with many players. The perceived "higher difficulty" of a 3-player game is merely a result of the players not adjusting their style (and offer more to the common good) accordingly.

Thread: Session Report

citizen k — 2004-10-24T20:27:40+00:00

Played a couple games of Terra last night with my wife and our friends J & D.

From what I'd read here and elsewhere, I expected an interesting social experiment if nothing else.

In the first game, J kept drawing warfare crises, the result of poor shuffling perhaps. We just didn't have enough orange (or "red") solution cards to solve so many at once, and the game ended by the four of a kind rule.

Kudos to the group for giving it another try. The second game went much better. There was a healthy mix of selfless problem solving, crafty timing to the solution of full blown crises, and the occasional "hoarding" of cards.

In the end, the deck was exhausted and the winner determined by the hoarded card sets. I won due to the timely banking of a 4,5,6 straight in the last round. It was a bit of a gamble since there were six crises on the table, two of which where in South America. But up to that point I'd only banked a 1-1-1 set and a 1-2-3 straight, figuring that the higher cards would help me pounce on full blown crises for their 5 points.

Final scores Me 24, my dearest 21, J 16, D 14.

It was also interesting to see that up until the final scoring, we were in a dead heat, with everyone's scores within 3 points. I really saw everyone pitching in equally to help out, without going nuts and being too generous. The impending crisis phase is an interesting dynamic to see in action.

All-and-all we found Terra a fun and interesting game - just as I'd hoped. I'm not sure how often we'll pull it out, but as it's quick, interesting and novel - I think it'll see the table again soon.

Thread: Re:User Review

4Corners — 2004-08-08T21:42:03+00:00

Played this game for the first time, with 3 players, and found it both entertaining and as well, the world was saved (this point seems important based on earlier posts here). I managed to win quite handily basically by being greedy but not too greedy as Mr. Faidutti suggests. To sum up then, good simple game that also works well with 3 players.

Thread: Re:Session Report

bonkheadmom — 2004-07-01T23:09:20+00:00

MisterCranky (#42477),
Terrific report! My kids love this game and are just starting to figure out the selfishness part. They still give me exasperated looks when I try to point out when they make a play which gives someone else easy points. "But Mom, if we don't solve the crisis, everyone will lose". Duh...

Thread: Session Report

MisterCranky — 2004-06-29T23:12:04+00:00

Perhaps playing Terra in the CABS War Room at Origins was less conducive to saving the planet than other venues might have been--in any case, the Earth perished and everybody lost.

Present were Meg, Nick, Jeff, Josh, and a nine-year old whose name will be protected from online exposure. Suffice it to say that said nine-year old was the only person at the table who selflessly played his solution cards anywhere that he could without regard to his opponents' scoring opportunities. In the words of Jeff, who was perhaps the most outspoken cynic during the game, "you do realize you're just making it easy for other people to get points?" How sad that the young man answered "I know, it doesn't matter" and yet we all still went right down the tubes, due to the pointlessly selfish play of Meg, Nick, Jeff, and yours truly. Seven unresolved crises around the world served as a wakeup call to the four selfish adults, but unfortunately it was far too late for humanity.

What I find interesting about Terra, and the reason for this brief session report, is that Mark from Days of Wonder told me when I purchased the game from the DoW booth, "You will lose your first game. Everybody makes the same mistake, and plays too selfishly. Only kids immediately understand what they need to do." It was to test that hypothesis that I initially inquired of our youngest player if he'd like to try the game, and even though I had admonished all the adults previously of Mark's warning, in the fashion of Tiresias and Cassandra, Mark proved to be the only "winner."

Thread: User Review

TomVasel — 2004-04-18T17:23:07+00:00

Games are exciting and fun to play, which is why I own hundreds of them. Few games are exactly alike, and most games offer at least some variation to a common mechanic or theme prevalent in other games. But then there are those few games that are truly unique, and to which I cannot really put in the category of any other game. Early buzz on Terra (Days of Wonder, 2003 - Bruno Faidutti) expressed that this was, indeed, a very different game. For me, the Days of Wonder combination with Faidutti’s design was a sure winner, so I was extremely happy to get a copy of the game.

And after several playings, I find this game extremely unique. It plays very differently depending on what kind of group I’m playing with. I’ve come to the conclusion that the game is a test, a means of finding out exactly how your gaming group handles individual winning vs. group victory. One person can effectively destroy the game for all involved, and I’m not so sure that the game was intended for this, as it seems to suit the theme. Which, by the way, I’m not a big fan of -- but one cannot argue that the theme, saving the world from itself, is certainly conducive to the mechanics of the game. I enjoyed my playings of the game, and will bring it out again -- watching with interest exactly how the players handle themselves. It’s almost more of an interesting exercise for me rather than a competitive game.

A small board is placed in the middle of the table, showing a globe onset with problems, surrounded by a scoring track. This is the only function of the board, so it can be kept at the side of the table, etc. The game revolves around a deck of 108 cards, made up of 18 crisis cards, and 90 solution cards. The Solution cards only are shuffled, and a certain amount (2-4) dealt to each player, depending on how many are playing the game. The remainder of the solution cards are shuffled with the crisis cards to form a draw pile. Each player takes two tokens and puts one on the scoring track, and the other in front of them to show all what color they are. The youngest player starts, with game play proceeding clockwise around the table.

On a turn, the player first draws the top card from the draw pile. If it is crisis, the player must immediately play the card in front of him. There are three different types of crisis, each with an identifying color: blue, green, and tan (the rules call it red, but it’s no red I’ve ever seen.) Each crisis has a number showing it’s size, from 10 to 16, and a silhouette of the continent where the crisis is occurring. Players then can try to stop this “impending” crisis. Starting with the player whose turn it is, each player may play one solution card (numbered 1 -- 6) in the matching color of the crisis. If the sum of the numbers on the cards played does not meet or exceed the number on the crisis card, then the crisis turns into a “full-blown” crisis, and is placed in the center of the table. The solution cards played are discarded, and the game could possibly end at this point. Otherwise, the player then draws another card – which could be yet another crisis! If the sum of the numbers on the cards played on a temporary crisis DO meets or exceeds the crisis number, then the crisis is solved, and is discarded (along with all played cards). The player who was the first to play a solution card on the crisis receives three points, and the player(s) who plays the highest valued solution card also gets three points (it is possible for one player to get six points.)

Once the player draws a solution card from the draw pile rather than a crisis, they proceed to a phase where they can play solution cards from their hands. They can play one card per “full-blown” crisis, if they wish. These cards are placed near the card, where it helps “solve” the crisis. If the sum of the cards at that crisis is higher or equal to the crisis number, the crisis is solved, and the player who played the final card receives five points. Otherwise, the cards played stay permanently on the table (or at least until the crisis is solved). Either way, the player is allowed to stockpile (hoard) a combination of three of their solution cards. The can only do this if they have a specific set of three cards (all same value and same color, all same value -- one of each color, a “straight” of the same color -- ex: 2 3 4, or a “straight” with a card of each color). These three cards are then placed face down in front of them, not to be touched until the end of the game. A player may not hoard cards unless they have played a card onto at least one “full-blown” crisis.

The game can end in total failure for all players. “Full-blown” crises can end the game if...
- There are seven on the table at the same time.
- There are four of the same color on the table.
- There are three from the same continent on the table
A successful game, on the other hand, happens when the players manage to draw the last card from the deck. At this point, players add up the sum of any hoarded cards they have in front of them - and add this amount to their score. The player with the highest score is the winner!

Some comments on the game...

1.) Components: The scoring board is a model of a very nice component being included in a game where it really wasn’t necessary. Still, however, it looks excellent, and adds to the thematic aesthetics of the game. Most companies would have produced the exact same game in a less lavish way - but as usual, Days of Wonder insists on being the best. The game comes in a very sturdy, small box, but still much larger than most card game boxes. The tokens are wooden of each color, and a few chips are even there to help with scoring (I’ve never used them). The cards are of excellent quality, and the artwork is cartoon but very nicely done - has a very positive, clean look. The backgrounds are not only different colors, but have different patterns to help the color blind. I can tell you all I want that the components are excellent, but the fact that Days of Wonder is the manufacturer should automatically assure the reader that the components are of the highest excellence.

2.) Rules: The rule booklet comes in five languages, each printed on five fully-colored pages. The game is explained simply, with a few illustrations. There is also a description of the solution cards - which helped solve some arguments we had about what the people on the card were actually doing. (You know, that useful stuff gamers argue about.) The mechanics of the game are actually quite easy to teach and learn. The point of the game, and therefore the inherent strategies, on the other hand, are quite difficult for some to grasp. Strangely, the older the crowd I teach this to, the harder time they have with it. Hard core gamers seemed to have the worst time!

3.) Theme: I must be careful not to tread on any toes here, but I wasn’t a big fan of the theme. I do commend Days of Wonder for the fact they are contributing one dollar (or Euro) to the same cause the game is attempting to raise awareness about. Now, I will say this - as much as I wasn’t enamored with the theme, I certainly could not deny that it fit the game very well. One person’s selfishness could ruin the game for all - and isn’t that the lesson that the game is trying to teach?

4.) Cooperation: The game has a lot of cooperative elements in it - it’s impossible to win the game without a little help from others. The problem with this lies in the competitive nature of many players. When I played the game in my high school youth group, they all were a little selfish, but were determined that the world would not be destroyed! They really got into the theme, and were urging each other to stop the crisis, and win the game! On the other hand, the first time I played this with adults, none of them were willing to budge an inch to help each other, and as a result - all perished. This happened more than once, and the only time I won with a group of adults, they helped each other - but only grudgingly.

5.) Strategy: What an interesting dilemma this all makes! How far can a player go when being selfish. Hoarding a combo of cards in front of them sounds good in theory - and really helps them gain a lot of points at the end - but ONLY if all the crisis are averted. So if a player puts a set of three “6’s” in front of them, they are giving up their ability to really help stop the problems. In my playings, if more than 12 cards are hoarded, the game is probably going to be lost. The strategy comes from knowing when to hoard, and what to hoard.

6.) Diplomacy: There is also a bit of “I’ll scratch your back now, if you scratch mine later.” Players can negotiate to others about when they should play their solution cards. However, the diplomatic features of this game did not seem to play a huge role, and sometimes you’ll play with people who are just downright stubborn!

7.) Fun Factor: With kids, I had great, great fun! They enjoyed the game, the theme, and all cheered for the victor. One group of adults I played the game with also found it interesting. The other games were disasters, with some people really hating the game (usually being the players who caused the loss themselves). Some people just can’t have fun unless they are the winner, and therefore determine if they lose - everybody will lose.

8.) Players and Time: The game plays fairly quickly, and I recommend that the maximum players (six) be used. In this way, if one player is stubborn, the game could still be won, and there is more negotiation involved. The longest a game has gone has been forty minutes - and that was with a detailed explanation of the rules.

Please don’t take anything I said as any indication that I don’t like the game. Rather, I quite enjoyed it. I really enjoyed playing with the youngsters, but even with the adults, I found the game play fascinating. It is my goal to play the game with gamers, and get them to complete the game! (with me winning, of course). The way the game works is a fascinating study on each player’s behavior. Just how far will they go to win? Will they be helpful - and just how helpful? If anything, this game is an excellent litmus test for your gaming group, and if they pass the test - it can be a very fun time! The game has a reasonable price, and there’s a lot of fun involved, especially if you can get into the theme. Congratulations to Bruno and DOW for putting forth a peculiar, but fascinating game!

Tom Vasel

Thread: Re:User Review

RogMcK — 2004-04-18T16:49:04+00:00

faidutti (#27314),

This sounds like a fascinating (and uplifting) premise for a game. I commend you for designing it. The 'serious' gamers will have to reign in their selfish desires in order to bring the game to a satisfactory conclusion. The combination of selfish and co-operative goals strikes me as a fine metaphor for modern economic and political practices.

Like some other games, I think this one can teach us much about the characters of the people we game with.

It also sounds like a much better game for children than the 'screw everyone else' games like Monopoly. It's never to early to let children know that it's important to work together with others to achieve common goals.

Thread: Re:User Review

idoru — 2004-04-18T08:29:00+00:00

ntrolls (#26897),
I've not played this, but a look at the 2004 Newsletter of the Seattle Cosmic Encounter Wiki suggests an interseting way to play.

Every player donates $10 to a "kitty" at the game start. If someone wins, everyone gets their money back (and the winner gets bragging rights / a beer / envy of fellow gamers). If noone wins and the Earth is destroyed, the money is given to charity.

This encourages cooperation in you viscious gamer types (LOL)!

Thanks to Hale-Evans!

Thread: Seems interesting...

rochs77 — 2004-02-07T14:15:06+00:00

At first I was wary of this: the theme seemed a little strange, the cooperative/competitive aspect looked like it could easily be unbalanced, and the initial description of cardplay made it seem almost too simplistic.

I have since read the letter at the latest Games Journal, a few more reviews, and some more comments and I have to say that this game has piqued my interest. I would love to hear what more people have to say first, but my impressions at this point are very good.

It looks like there is a lot more to the card play than just playing to the different crises that pop up. You have to decide whether to help to solve the crisis, keep the card to gain points, or play to a full-blown crisis. The idea of everyone losing is interesting as well. I have not personally played a game with this mechanic before, so it is new to me.

If anyone has any comments on this game I would love to hear them.

Rich

Thread: Re:User Review

faidutti — 2004-02-05T21:37:15+00:00

You're right, they are indeed discarded. That's the whole point in solving impending crisis "in the egg" like we say in french - you must allow other players to score points with you if you want to be followed, and if you're too greedy, you lose your cards.

A few hints :

• With four players, better let the 16 points crisis get full blown, and concentrate on the lighter ones.

• Never start trying to solve an impending crisis with a 6, especially if it's worth more than 12 - this means 6 points for you if it's solved, it's very unlikely other players will follow you. Even if one has another 6, he won't play it thinking no third player will join.

• If you play a small card on a full blown crisis to ste a set of cards aside (yes, I know, it's bad), better play it on a low value crisis. Your going for the win, so you have to make the game last till the end, so concentrate on the crisis you have a chance to win.

• Don't hesitate to play a card on a full blown crisis even if you have no card trio to set a aside if you've clearly little chance to make a trio with this cards.

• Better set aside 2-3-4 or 3-4-5 than, say, 4-5-6 or 6-6-6. If you remove 18 points from the game, you secure the victory if the game ends, but you make it almost sure not to end.

All the game is in being greedy, but not too much.

I grant you it can be played as a player's game - meaning, it can be played to win.