F$@& Fixing Broken Games

Once we break a game, that game usually gets retired.  Since a primary motivation of mine is variety, that’s kind of a bummer.  Taking a game out of circulation is the same as not having it in the first place (practically speaking, or at least ignoring the replays it took to find out how to break it.)

This may be an ongoing series, so today I’m going to limit myself to some games we have previously reviewed:  Stone Age, Glenn Drover’s Age of Empires, and Fresco. 

[Editorial note:  Hoping to start discussion right now.  Not advocating we start play testing these right away, but if there is some support to give some fixes a try, I’m all for bringing games out of mothballs.]

Stone Age:

The problem:  Going 2^nd gives a tremendous advantage, and something along the lines of 75-80% of 2^nd players win the game.

Analysis of the problem:  Player 2 gets the highly desirable hut OR field on turn 1, then his choice of those spots on turn 2 (probably fields).  These spots are so much better than any other (tools, resource gathering and purchases) early on, that claiming them twice in the first two turns is game breaking.

So why, specifically is this game breaking?  This will probably require play testing (groan), but I feel it’s because of food upkeep.  Getting to the fields early and reducing your food upkeep, and limiting the amount of actions spent hunting is incredibly valuable. 

Proposed Errata:  I think the easiest thing to implement is to give players 1, 3 and 4 more food initially.  I am just spit balling here, but something like

Player 1:  2 extra food

Player 3:  3 extra food

Player 4: 6 extra food

Obviously this is going to require some testing, and the final numbers may change, but giving extra food like this buys non-player 2’s some time to get their infrastructure built up.

Age of Empires:

The Problem:  Inca Gold purchase.  Inca gold allows two first round purchases.  

Analysis:  Most first round purchases give more doobers (extra actions).  Even the generic actions are fantastic, when you get two of them.  Two specialty dudes?  Forget about it.

Proposed Errata:  Couple of ways to handle this.

First and easiest to implement, if Inca gold is drawn in the initial batch of purchases, it is replaced.

Second, make 1^st round purchase costs progressive.  $10 in round 1, $12 or $13 in round 2 or 3.   I think this might be more elegant, but it would require lots of testing.  Still means that Inca gold is worth buying, but some additional revenue is needed to really take advantage of.

Fresco:

The problem:  The combination of a generous money-VP ratio combined with reverse VP turn order.

Analysis:  Ok this is a  mess.  Money doesn’t count for VPs until end game, so the gold grinder is always last, thus gets to pick the ‘wake up times’ that allow him to keep the extra doober.  In addition, a players first doober in an action spot (excepting the gold grind spot) accomplishes the most; the economic term is diminishing returns and the mathematical term is learning curve.

Proposed Errata:  This one might not be saved, because the problems all intersect.  You can adjust the money to VP ratio from 2-1 to 3-1 or even 4-1, but that doesn’t address turn order or diminishing returns.  Resources are hidden, and you can unhide money and keep a separate tally of that to determine turn order, but that still doesn’t address diminishing returns.  Diminishing returns looks unsolvable unless you want to rewrite the game.  Like, add a dozen or so more paint tiles available for purchase (currently the game has all but one paint tile available in the buy paint phase) and/or change the VP totals in the paint the church phase (including the bonus for having the bishop nearby).

There I fixed it.

F$@& Bohnanza aka The Bean Game

Bohnanza

Plot:  you farm cartoon beans.

Goal: Earn the most money farming cartoon beans.  

Mechanics:  The key mechanic to keep in mind is to not sort your hand.  Beans must be planted in order, but can be traded from anywhere.

A turn consists of: 

1-      Planting a bean in a field.  You must plant one and you may plant two.

2-      Draw two cards face up.  You can claim or negotiate trades for these beans.  Any trades or claims are set aside to be planted in clean up.  Trades must include the active player, but that is the only restriction.  Future considerations are considered non-binding.

3-      Planting traded/claimed beans.  This happens game-wide, anyone who traded for a bean must plant.  Everything must get planted, but this can occur in any order.

4-      Draw 3 cards

Harvesting beans can be done at any time, with the restriction that a field with multiple beans in it must be harvested before a singleton.   There’s a ‘beanomoter’ at the bottom of each card telling you the value earned by harvesting.  Each bean has a different track, based on how many duplicates occur in the deck.   If you have met the requirements for getting gold coins, the appropriate number of beans are flipped over to the gold coin side and moved to your treasure stash.

A 3^rd bean filed can be bought at any time for 3 gold.

Tactics:  in general, the more beans you get into a field before harvesting mean better ratios for gold coins.  Or in other words, if a bean requires 4 duplicates to earn 1 gold coin, it is probably something along the lines of 11 or 12 beans to earn 4 gold.   Trade for what you have planted, but also trade for what is coming up in your queue.

Review:  This is another family gateway game to me.  It’s got a nice cooperative vibe, and easy to play once you stop trying to sort your hand.  It’s better than Carcass1 for nerdcore gaming, but if people  are really taking it seriously I start wanting to do something else.  9/10 for family and n00bs, 6/10 for gamers.

Tips: 

Cleaning up your hand with donations is occasionally important, but choose what you donate with care.  You can easily find yourself on a slippery donation slope where every turn you are just giving away assets, all in the name of cleaning up your hand.

Don’t be a jerk!  Screwing someone on a trade or not following through on FuCons can make you lose a trading partner.  Losing a trading partner can be devastating.

F*@% Cooperative Games

I like cooperative games, I think they can break the cycle of the confrontational style games that we play and add a lot more interaction than your typical game. Other games can accomplish some of the same goals, for example Dixit offers a lot of social interaction, and Race for the Galaxy and Galaxy Trucker have so little confrontation it's almost like playing solitaire. But cooperative games can do both.

There are a few different flavors of cooperative games.

1) Purely cooperative games where the players are all working together against a mechanic in the game (with a variance based on luck). In my limited experience, I have found the replayability is lower with these than highly ranked games. This is because once you understand the mechanic you are working against, it's a matter of how lucky or unlucky you are. With some tables, these games become fun for the loudest person, and pretty boring for the rest of the people who find themselves just following directions. Our table is pretty good about that, Ryan will occasionally remind me to let people play their own damn turn. Fair enough Ryan, fair enough :)

2) "One against many" style games where a group of players work together against one other player. In these rules the foil is playing with one set of rules and abilities and the group is using another set, typically playing a character like an RPG without the RP. These games tend to be pretty heavily tactics based, that tends to slow it down for use because we have to optimize as a group.

3) Traitor style cooperative games where the group is working together to accomplish some goals against a mechanic in the game (again, with a variance based on luck), BUT one or more players are traitors secretly working against the groups interests. Poor table talk rules can ruin this game. For example if players are allowed say too much about their hands, it can not only make the obstacles too easy to overcome but also make it easy to pick out the traitor who's not so forthcoming with information about their hand. And it's not like the traitor is able to speak up about table talk rules mid game. Games like this are won or lost by how you play when you are not the traitor. When you are not the traitor, you need to act a little erratically and you need to enforce the table talk rules. That way when you ARE the traitor, you can act erratically and enforce the table talk rules without arousing any more suspicion that usual :)

I actually write this because I'm looking for recommendations. Most of these games I've never played, or played only once. So here are some examples of cooperative games from the above list that rank in the top 250 on Board Game Geek.

Battlestar Galactica - ranked 18th - I've played this once. It was long, but I enjoyed the mechanics. Long is a big deal for me because if a game is not going well, I would often like to try it again. When a game is too long people even besides Darren are ready to move to something else. But the mechanics were good and the theme was strong and well executed.

Pandemic - ranked 37th - I've played this a couple of times. It can definitely be ruined by one person dominating the play.

Space Alert - Ranked 52nd - I have never played this, however it's ordered and due to arrive on Saturday. Apparently the rules are difficult to read, but I'm determined. This is one of Vlaada Chvatil's games, and he's quickly becoming the most interesting game designers to me because his games have such unique mechanics. I can't wait to try Space Alert.

Arkham Horror - Ranked 65th - Never played it. I understand the set up and break down are pretty intense, and it's like an all evening game. We typically play a half dozen games, not one. But really it has the look and feel of House on Haunted Hill which burnt me because of it's horrible editing, so I've not given it a chance.

Descent - Ranked 73rd - Tactical D&D. And an all night affair.

Ghost Stories - Ranked 120th - Never played this.

Defenders of the Realm - Ranked 136th - Never played this.

Fury of Dracula - Ranked 157th - Never played this, but it seems like it should be called the Hunt for Dracula, because Dracula is more than happy to leave the players be.

Last Night on Earth (reviewed by Tim) - Ranked 162nd - See Tim's Review!

Shadows Over Camelot - Ranked 200th - I played this quite extensively. The mechanics were initially fresh, but they've since become stale with replay. I believe it would benefit from adding the expansion, but I think I'm done with it. This mechanics are pretty far removed from the theme, there's little connection there. It could be applied to anything. I tried not to let that bother me though.

Forbidden Island - Ranked 248th - Never played this, but it was recommended to me recently. And at $15 and 30 minutes, it sounds right up my alley.

Comments or recommendations on the games listed above? Did I leave out something good?

Nerdy Friday recap - kicking it old school

Games played:  Clash of the Gladiators (2002), Settlers of Catan (1995), Bohnanza (1997), No Thanks! (2004) and Dixit (2008, the exception to old skool).

3 player Gladiators, congratulations Dennis, in his first game ever.  Sure luck was involved but he made some good stands and had good tactics!

Interlude:  Stratego.  Darren conceded to Mike because people showed up and we could move onto a different game.  Mike had more and better pieces than I did, but only 1 miner.  I have no doubt he would of eventually prevailed but it was probably going to take another half hour, at least.

4 player Bohnanza:  Good job Mike!  I did not finish last!

4 player Settlers:  WTG David!  Longest road and the 2-1 grain and sheep ports were quite valuable for him.  I did finish last.  But I picked first and that spelled d00m with how the settlements were placed.  Although I did have a quick start.

Simulcast 3 player No Thanks!:  I do not know who won.  But this was a fill in game for late arrivals whilst we finished Settlers.

6 player Dixit :  Mike again, and we got to use the Sonic Youth styled hint again.  Good times.

F$@& Gencon part 3: the plan fails

Gencon Survival Guide Part 3: Mishaps and cancellations

So you’ve browsed the event catalog and got all the things you want to do sorted out, and you have a full schedule and it comes time to buy the tickets.  So you’re driving along, driving along, driving along…

TRUCK TIRE!

Stupid internet connection, you got locked out of some events you counted on.  Or maybe that event gets cancelled at the show.  Here are some improvisational suggestions.

1)      Lurk.  A lot of events have no-shows, so spots will open up and the GM will take generics to fill out.  Some events the GM will take everyone who shows up.  It’s something to, but a lot of times everyone does show up so you wasted time getting a spot or have to play in an over booked event.  Over booked events generally suck BTW.   If it’s a skirmish game or something like Battlestations, getting a dozen or so players means that it takes FOREVER for it to be your turn.  I like the example of Desperado.  The first year I played it, only 8 players were at the table.  Everyone had a great time, and that’s because everyone got to do a lot.  The following years, the sessions were played with 15-20 people, and those were miserable.  Too much down time.

2)      Dealer’s room.  If the open time block is during dealer hours, this is fairly good choice too.  Most, if not all, of the booths will be happy to demo a game for you.  I avoid dealers room on Saturday because its ass to elbows crowded, and the wait time for demo’s is prohibitive.

3)      Rio Grande room.  Their new releases and some classics will be laid out for demo.  I spent a lot of time in there last year and thought it was a great service.  I found some games I liked (Artus and Olympos) and some that I didn’t like (Pantheon).  It does get crowded on Saturday too, and when they give away buffet food it’s even worse.  But as a boardgamer, this can’t be beat.

4)      Choose your own GM.  Ok that name is paraphrased.  There’s an event who’s description reads “Find a GM and an independent RPG, and start a 4 hour session”.  Or something like that.    I really like this event too, every 4 hours they start up a half dozen new sessions, it’s where I played “Fiasco”, and I really want to go back.  I think they will always accept generic tix.

F$@& Clash of the Gladiators

Clash of the Gladiators

Plot:  Do you like gladiator movies?  Fight as a gladiator team in an arena, defeating both animals and other gladiators.

Goal:  it’s a game about victory points.  Defeating an animal gets you 2 VPs and defeating a gladiator gets you 1 VP.  Additionally, last man standing gets 1 VP per surviving gladiator.

Mechanics:  Draft based game with special gladiator units.   Each unit is placed on a stand of 4.  Every move a player must either attack another gladiator stand or an animal.  Hits are determined by 6 sided dice.  3 spots are blank, 2 spots are ‘single star’ normal hits, and 1 spot is a ‘double star’ critical, which counts as 2 hits and can’t be blocked.  Number of dice thrown is determined by how many ‘swords’ you have and + 1 for the base, thus a minimum of 1 die and a maximum of 5 for a stand.  The ‘standard’ unit is a Sword Guy, which adds one sword to the stand.  Duh.  If a stand takes two wounds, it must remove a gladiator.  There are limited amount of special guys, 8 of each.  In 5 player all gladiators will be drafted, so Swords guys can be considered limited too.

 

Net Guys are useless against animals but against a gladiator stand they eliminate a gladiator from the ensuing conflict, before dice are thrown.

Prong Guys give a reroll to the stand with the most Prongers.

Spear Guys give initiative.  Usually initiative is given to the attacker but if the defender has more spears he rolls dice first.  This is important because combat is NOT simultaneous.

Shield Guys stop simple wounds at a 1-1 ratio.  So if a stand has 2 shield guys but 3 single stars are rolled, the stand still takes 1 wound.

Tactics:  This game is actually deeper than it lets on (but not by much).  Positioning and order in which you draft the gladiators is pretty important, because there are a lot of counters to various stand designs, and you don’t want to tip your hand.  The most sought after units are net guys and shield guys, and getting doubles of them on a stand make that a pretty powerful stand.  Try not to get doubles of spear guys and prong guys on the same stand, severe diminishing returns.

Review:  has it really been 10 years since we first demo’d this at the last Milwaukee Gencon?  This truly was the gateway game for NF.  Sure we had played Settlers, but this was our first sortie into the true designer board game genre.  For that reason, I still have a soft spot for Gladiators.  We don’t play it at all anymore, because we really explored all of the nuances and the luck involved makes the game chaotic.  Overall rating 5.5/10.  If someone requested I bring this to NF I would and would enjoy playing it, but I’m not going bring it up ever again.

F&*#, Why do I do this?

Some comments in the previous post led me to want to identify motivations for board gamers (maybe all gamers?)

Check all that apply.

There to win. Let me ask you a question, when you wrap a night of board gaming and you driving home...do you recap your performance? Some of us do.

There not to lose. Maybe you don't need to win, you just need to avoid last place.

There for confrontation. The folks who want to put their resources up against your resources, and crush you. Mano a mano!

Decidedly NOT there for confrontation. Don't come to get beat up on by their friends.

There to think. Euro/designer board games offer a nice challenge. A lot of the luck from the board games of our youth has been boiled out of these, which make them particularly enjoyable for problem/puzzle solvers.

There not to think. Just pushing around pieces, whatever. Whatever their list of motivations for coming, the game itself ranks low.

There to socialize. Some folks come to the game to hang out, see their friends, and eat chips.

Try new stuff. What's out there that I haven't played yet?

Play the old stuff. Prefer to play to same stuff they've been playing. After all, their finally good at those!

And the joker. Some people just want to see the world burn.

(demented and sad, but social)

I'll go first. Well I'm competitive, so I'll take some winning please. I've come a long way though, I *think* my friends will still like me even if I lose some games, although I'm still not completely confident. I am extraverted, so socializing for $1000 Alex. Juan pointed out that there isn't a lot of time for chatting when people are concentrating on their turns and such, but I have better luck than he does. First, it's my house, so I'm the first one here and the last one to leave. Plus, I don't mind starting a conversation with the guy next to me while I'm waiting. And if you start getting involved in the conversation while we're all waiting for you, I will admonish you! And the jokes, no matter how deep we are in the game, there is always time for jokes. I do like to try new stuff, but a new game every two weeks is about my speed. Any more than that isn't as much fun. Learning the game is work, playing it is the fun. Oh and I'm definitely there to think and puzzle through the game. I enjoy that part quite a bit, and as I've said before, I'll obsess over these games during the week.

How about you? And did I miss a category?