Few games survive more than a dozen plays. Prehaps this is the most impressive accomplishment of games like Settlers and Puerto Rico: they are old games, but they have shown staying power. A new game is usually not much fun for me the first time. I have no idea what I'm doing, I'm just taking actions to learn. I rarely win. Subsequent plays are much more satisfying as I move along the learning curve, and have (or try to have) a cohesive strategy I'm trying to accomplish through the game. This is the sweet spot for me. I'm rapidly learning about the game, hopefully faster than my friends :) I'm able to plan and have these things work out as I plan! At some point I'm even able to figure out what my friends are up to.
I don't like to read strategy guides (although I have!) or other peoples takes on games. Don't get me wrong, I really like to win, but it isn't NEARLY as satisfying if we don't all start on an even playing field. For a few games, Brass comes to mind, I read a lot of material online. In retrospect, some of that advice was not good. It helped me understand some concepts, or just put words to concepts I hadn't quite put my finger on. But you can't teach someone how to be an elite player in a thread. It takes practice.
The more I play different games, the better I get at applying the things I've learned to the new ones. Because as creative as some of these games are, many of them use similar mechanics. Strategy concepts that apply to one often apply to others. But primarily, the way I get better (besides obsessing about the mechanics between sessions) is just practice. Playing the game. Each game has it's own learning curve, and we all move up it at different rates. In my view once everyone has plateaued, the game is dead. To put that another way, once the group stops benefiting from practice, we're done playing.
Brass is the game that exemplifies what you say (to me). There was a huge difference between the first times we played at your house and when we started playing it online.
ReplyDeleteIt also highlights one your points: For me Brass sort of died when I 'figured it out'. That is the challenge board games have: To keep players interested once they've figured them out.
Now, when I play Brass I can read people's intentions, and you play accordingly, but once you have done that the rest of the game has very little interest to me.
There is little chance to react to the reaction. There is very little back and forth and most of the strategy is decided early on. The rest of the game is implementation and that grows old eventually.
I am currently ranked 23rd @ order of the hammer and will kick your [br]ass Mr. Knows Everything About Brass.
ReplyDeleteNonono... I don't know everything about Brass. I know enough to understand that the strategy is set in the first part of the game and that it is hard to change it after that and still win.
ReplyDeleteSo... it is less fun to me. Less replayability past certain point. Which is what the article was about. I was trying to qualitatively pinpoint that 'certain point'.
see I completely disagree. Maybe not the winner, but often the 2nd place guy is the one who adjusts his strategery to the board.
ReplyDeleteand I knew you were scared of me.