Memoirs of a Board Gamer

In my opinion, reminiscent pieces tend to be overly long, slightly boring, and pathologically self-indulgent. Recalling one of my favorite quotes

"When someone tells you something defies description, you can be pretty sure he's going to have a go at it anyway." --Clyde B. Aster

I figured I'd have a go at describing how I was unhappy with doing what I'd always done and wanted to be somewhere other than where I was at. Clear? Right.

I grew up in northern Indiana with parents that weren't gamers by any means and an older sister (7 years) who'd outgrown playing with her young annoying brother. My parents would play an occasional game of Euchre and when I got older, an occasional game of Uno when we traveled to my aunt and uncle's house.

My father did play chess and taught me how the pieces moved and for that I'm very thankful. He even went through a phase where he bought a stand-alone chess 'appliance' in which you programmed the difficulty level and physically moved your pieces on its attached board. As you unplugged and plugged your pegged pieces into the board it would register your movement, think a bit, and then light up lights to indicate where to physically manipulate the board to reflect its move. He played it pretty religiously until he determined that it was stressing him out. To this day, he shies away from playing boardgames of any complexity because he associates the stress he felt in the past with all boardgames in general. I'm also probably not going out on a limb to say that he feels that gaming is for him, at best, a frivolous activity.

My mother loved game shows and plays Euchre and other card games rather well. She's an avid crossword puzzle fanatic and loves word and number puzzles of all kinds. However, put a game of Carcassonne in front of her and she'll head for the hills.

I didn't play very many games growing up. I had the standard Christmas-fare Monopoly, Clue, and Battleship but I never played them with my parents. When I did play with friends, we rarely played them correctly with most games petering out after a few turns as we got bored and incorporated G.I. Joe or the loop of a Hot Wheels track into the game. By the time I entered high school, I associated games with stressful situations and I honestly had trouble handling being on the losing end for fear of appearing weak. I associated winning with being manly and strong (whatever that means) and it was better to avoid situations in which you might be proved inferior.

My wife is one of 9 kids and gaming held a much larger role in her early life than in mine. Her family played cards and other boardgames and with so many siblings around, it wasn't hard to find opponents. With so many sessions under your belt, the built-in competitive nature of siblings, and living on a farm where there wasn't a lot to do after hours, you quickly learn to either like or dislike games. Luckily, my wife came down on the side of liking games. When we were dating (high school sweethearts), we'd periodically play games and she'd drag me into them. I really disliked them. Hated them is a little strong but I really didn't want to have anything to do with them...especially in front of my girlfriend. How emasculating to lose! I know...pretty silly. I was only 16 and I didn't know much even though I thought I knew everything.

Fast forward 25 years and I've come to realize that it was all a silly misconception; a misalignment of perception. The toughest aspect for me to tackle was that games can be great fun and a rewarding experience...even when you lose. Winning or losing has nothing to do with perceived 'manliness'. I like to win and experience a small rush of adrenaline when I feel the game in my clutches (a rare event mind you) but I'm really in it for the social experience, the novelty of an interesting hobby, and the opportunities it creates for my children. My children are still young (10 and 12) and gaming provides a fantastic opportunity for bonding, enhancing mental skills, learning how to make decisions (and living with the impacts of them). Gaming gets us away from the computer and if we had a television in the house, it would get us away from that as well.

Like I said, these pieces tend to be overly long and boring but I highly recommend board gaming with your family and friends. Don't drag the stubborn mule that was me to the table but help show them that board gaming is a fun and rewarding experience even in the face of losing.

And so become yourself
Because the past is just a good-bye.
Teach your children well,
Their father's hell did slowly go by.
And feed them on your dreams,
The one they pick's, the one you'll know by.

---

Eurogames, Boardgames, Family, Kids,

I checked out Carolus Magnus from the CABS game cabinet last week allowing me to tick off another game from my list of wanna plays.

I read through the rules last night and while Sophie was off at piano lessons, Noah and I poured out the contents and run through a quick game. The OCD in me wanted to check that all of the pieces were there and after sifting through the 200 cubes I found that there was one extra red cube but 1 blue and 1 purple cube missing!!! The horrors!!!

We set out the initial 15 region tiles in a circle and then randomly populated them with a single cube taken from the initial set of 15 cubes (3 of each color - red, blue, purple, green, and yellow). Each of us took a set of the 5 turn-order 'bidding' chips and a set of 10 castles. We placed the yellow Emperor, rolled the dice to populate our initial 7 paladins (cubes) and began playing.

The bidding is pretty simple since you place a chip in the center of the ring of tiles and your opponent must place a chip of a different number. The player with the smaller number goes first and selects 3 paladins from his reserve of 7 and chooses to place them in his court and/or out onto the tiles. After placing cubes, the player moves the yellow Emperor clockwise from 1 to N tiles where N is the number on the bidding chip.

When the Emperor stops, you determine who has the most influence on the tile and if it has no castle, the more powerful player places a castle. You can 'attack' and take over regions if you land on a tile with castles and if you have more influence at the time of the landing. When two adjacent regions are controlled by the same player, the regions are automatically coalesced into a single region containing multiple castles.

The rules weren't very clear on this rule and you can see in the upper right corner of the image that there are two adjacent regions with white castles that should have been merged. BGG has a few debates about the merges being required but after digging around a bit, there was a mention that Leo Colovini verified that it is mandatory.

At the end of your turn you restock your reserve back up to 7 paladins by rolling the dice and selecting the colored cubes depicted (crowns are wild). Your court (bottom right in the image) allows you to line up cubes next to the colored dot and if you have the most cubes in the color, you capture the small cylinder declaring you the controller of that color. Being in control of a color is crucial when determining when castles can be placed and when regions can be taken over. Strategy recommendations say to keep your court supplied with cubes early in the game and towards the end game you can start loading up tiles to gather support from the fields during hostile take overs.

The winner is the first player to build all 10 castles or when there are 3 or less remaining regions (2-player game). In the case of the latter condition being met, it's the player with the fewest castles left that wins.

This was my first playing of the game but I really liked what I saw and felt. The play time is short (30-45 minutes) and it does strike a chord with my obsession with nice bits. I can feel the tension when determining how to bid given what your opponents have in their reserves and what chips they have left. Which cubes to select to play and where to play them also warms up the thinker...in a good way. Having to live with restocking from the dice roll is the only aspect of the game that has me a little worried. There may be variants out there to reduce the random aspects in this area but I might just play it a few times before I go digging for a solution to a problem that might not manifest itself for me.

---

Eurogames, Boardgames, Session Report

We did it again. In our first playing of Mesopotamia we played it with some incorrect rules.

1. After a tribesman delivers an offering token to the temple, the tribesman should be removed from play. He can be used again but he must be 'birthed' back onto the board by using the population action.

2. When you draw a volcano, you are allowed to place the tile on any open edge. BGG is down right now so I can't get a clarification on what should happen if you choose to place the volcano in the position where you intended to move.

I have no idea if playing correctly would have changed the outcome of the game but since I didn't win...I'm going to say it did. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

---

Eurogames, Boardgames, Game Night

There wasn't an overturned ammonia truck hampering attendees this week but there was some pretty severe weather and an active tornado watch in the area. I don't attempt to keep track of the number of attendees but I would estimate that there were close to 100 throughout the evening. I arrived at 7:00pm to a pretty full house and I had to wait until about 7:30pm to get in on a game. I packed a bag with China, Mesopotamia, Hansa, For Sale, and Samurai as a Plan B when/if we started standing around the game cabinet trying to figure out what to play. This meeting was very enjoyable and I didn't get home until 4:30 this morning!

First up was my copy of China designed by Michael Schacht for a 4-player game with one seasoned player, two new players, and myself with only one game under my belt. Due to the seating arrangements, the seasoned player was to my left and the new players weren't taking advantage of emissary opportunities and/or they would trigger a opportunity that couldn't be ignored. Because of this, I had to play a mostly emissary based strategy. Although I was last on the track for house scoring points I blew away the field by dominating the bottom half of the board for the emissary scoring. Although I can chalk it up as my inaugural win at CABS, to be honest, it was handed to me on a platter.

Next up was Alan's copy of Inkognito designed by Alex Randolph and Leo Colovini in cahoots with Venice Connection. I've played Inkognito several times and I was up for the deductive challenge. Nunzilla was particularly cruel with doling out the white balls but in the end I was able to declare the win by naming my partner and meeting my team's mission goal. In the gap between games we lost a player to a better opportunity opening up at another table but we were able to pick up a replacement player and we sat down for a back to back playing of Inkognito.

This time everyone knew the goals and their partners pretty early on but Nunzilla was not cooperating. At one point, a player told the following player (his partner), "you better not roll three whites"...and sure enough, he did. My partner and I both failed to roll a black ball to move the ambassador one silly space for the win, and finally the player to my left rolled what he needed to declare the win.

One of the players had to leave but we picked up another player and pulled out Maharaja designed by Wolfgang Kramer and Michael Kiesling. I was a little concerned during the rules explanation because the new player was spending a fair amount of time convincing his girlfriend (a CABS observer) that he wouldn't be long...it would be all right...we'll leave right after I'm done. Leaving in the middle of a game is just a big gaming faux pas and I felt like we were right on the cusp. In the end, it worked out fine.

Unfortunately, we handed one of the players the win by letting him hold onto the Role 1 card too long without jumping out ahead of the pack and going for a future city or choosing to manipulate the governor track. It was an oddly played game but still fun. Maharaja remains one of my favorites.

Now...the gem of the evening: Nautilus designed by Brigitte and Wolfgang Ditt. From what I understand, Nautilus is the only game this husband and wife team have designed and wow, to come onto the scene with a game like this is incredible. The game calls for players to build an underwater research station tasked with finding Atlantis. Players build habitation modules loaded with scientists, place research modules in various colors, move scientists around the station to activate the research modules, launch submarines into the deep, explore the trenches for treasure and signs of Atlantis. The game is classified as a Set Collection game but there is so much going on in the game that it seems a shame to stamp it as a Set Collection game. Money is so tight in the game that it has some of the same resource management aspects as something like Power Grid.

Each player has their own score board/playing mat that due to its layout snookered me into playing it like you would Ingenious. You have several aspects to your play mat (green - scientist movement, gray - sub movement, brown - sonar strength, blue - super sonar, black - treasure value) and throughout the game you move a marker for each aspect forward increasing your ability in that area (e.g. increasing your ability to move through the station or increasing the distance your sonar can 'see'). However, you get bonus points for that aspect if you are the most powerful player in that aspect. Being the most powerful is extremely important even at the expense of some other aspect which is very unlike Ingenious where you cannot ignore your lowest score.

Scoring in Nautilus is easy to calculate but somewhat unique. Your play mat is divided into two sections. On one side is the 'Ingenious'-like scoring track for the five aspects of play. On the other side, is the area where you place the treasures you've located with your sonar and subs. There is a special spot on that side as well that is filled in with a chit that numbers from 1-5 (see below). Your final score is the sum of your left side points multiplied by the sum of the points on the rights side of the mat.

Now, where does this 1-5 chit come from. While your subs are out finding treasure, they can uncover pieces of Atlantis. These pieces are numbered from 1-15 and those pieces, when found are placed on a small board near the main board (the small colorful board just below center on the left side of the image) . Players vie for having found the most number of pieces of Atlantis. Ties are broken by finding the piece with the largest value. At the end of the game, players grab the 1-5 chits based on how they faired in the Atlantis chip finding business.

Nautilus is a fascinating game. The play time is longer than I would normally gravitate towards but I really like it. I think it took us almost 2.5 - 3 hours to play but I really didn't notice it. There is very little downtime and it's rarely so clear what to do that you can't spend some time thinking about what to do next. The theme of Nautilus is very nicely integrated into the game (e.g. subs have a 3D movement component that allows them to 'fly' over the station). The integration of the trench depths into the cost of building a station is ingenious as is the use of octagonal tiles which force games to play very differently from one to the next. The various ways to score points keeps the mind humming trying to find the best approach to managing your money, your position on the play mat, your number of scientists free to move around the station, your position on the Atlantis board, and the position and strength of your three subs you've deployed.

---

Eurogames, Boardgames, Game Night

We had a very small group tonight. Gus was swamped at work and Mat and Tim couldn't make it. Keith was busy building a set for a play with his kids so that left Paul, Ken, Rich, and me. It worked out pretty well though since I got a chance to play all three of my new games!

We started out with For Sale designed by Stefan Dorra. I've recently reviewed the game and I'm still enamored by the simplicity of it yet the amount of angst that goes through your brain. It's not heavy by any means but still feels like there's more to it than say, 6-Nimmt, or God forbid, Fluxx. Unfortunately, my pictures pretty much sucked of us playing this game so I apologize for not having one. Card games are really hard to frame a useful shot. If anyone has any tips, please leave a comment. I'd appreciate it.

Next up was China designed by Michael Schacht (Coloretto, Hansa, Fist of Dragonstones, ...). I really liked this quick area influence game. The game plays extremely fast and I really like the different scoring mechanisms. Using emissaries and their cross region alliances was a nice touch. The point allotments for the completed regions (house placement) seems a relatively rare form of scoring. I enjoyed the tension caused by wanting to keep building more houses to get more points for a continuous road but at the same time you don't want to blow away your opponents in a region since that decreases the point spread between first and second.

Ken found it hard to get past the fact that the map didn't appear to resemble any China he'd ever visited. Having been to China for adoption reasons he should know. But, alas, we ignored him anyway and kept playing.

Next up was Mesopotamia designed by Klaus-Jürgen Wrede (Carcassonne). When I blogged about Amun Re I felt it was the most photogenic game I'd ever played but I may have found a contender for the title. Mesopotamia is simply a gorgeous looking game with a good game inside too. Phalanx and Mayfair have produced a very nice looking and high quality product. The interlocking tiles are an excellent hedge against accidental table-quakes, the wooden bits are top notch, and the real rocks are just darn cool.

The entire game was very enjoyable in that we all felt like everyone was in the running. I thought Ken didn't have a chance but he ended up winning. However, had Ken not been able to win on his move, then I would have won. And the same went for Paul and Rich. There's nothing more sweet than feeling like you needed just one more move to win...well besides winning that is. We did play with the correct rules that when you bring rock to the temple, the rocks go back in the supply. The written rules state that the rock should be taken out of the game. However, this was shown to be a translation error. It was not the intent of the designer to make rock such a highly prized commodity that it would dominate the strategy.

There is a downside to the game though. At least in our playing, the game brought out the worst in us in that there are more innuendos in this game than even Settlers of Catan. Having 'wood for sheep' ain't got nothin' on this game. In Mesopotamia, you need two tribesmen with rock for a holy erection. Two tribesmen and a stick allows you to go 'hut yourself' but that's okay because you can then give birth in that hut as long as two guys guard the door (and one of them wears the offering token as a hat). It goes on and on but I'll leave it at that.

It was a quite enjoyable evening even though it was a small crowd. Thanks guys for coming and see you next month.

---

Eurogames, boardgames, Game Night

I didn't make it to the CABS special 3rd meeting of the month and only had time to check in a copy of San Marco to the library. I left the mall at about 5:15pm and I think I just missed the ammonia truck that overturned near the mall. The interstate was shutdown while they cleaned up the mess and the mall was on evacuation alert. From the CABS newsletter, about 75 die-hard gamers still played but if I was going to miss a meeting, I suppose that was the one to miss.

This evening I didn't have much time for gaming. Unfortunately I missed the special 3rd weekend of CABS gaming this month. I did have just enough time to run up to the meeting to drop off the copy of San Marco I had checked out but then I rushed home.

With what was left of the evening I did manage to crack open my copy of For Sale. For Sale is an extremely quick card game that supports 3-6 players and only lasts about 15 minutes per game. It makes a great opener/closer for game nights or a game you can chat over when the in-laws are visiting.

The game, designed by Stefan Dorra and published by Uberplay comes in a very nice box. There are two decks, each with 30 cards. One deck is composed of pieces of 'real estate' numbered 1-30. The other deck of 30 cards depicts personal checks with values from $2000 up to $15,000 with a few voided checks thrown in worth $0. The only other component of the game is a pile of silver $1000 coins and a few gold $2000 coins printed on thick cardboard.

Your goal is to purchase auctioned property using the money you're given at the beginning of the game. Once you've purchased properties (everyone will have the same number), you sell them off and the player with the most money at the end of the game is the winner.

The game is played in two phases. In the first phase, property cards are turned face up and placed in the center of the table (one per player). The starting player bids a number of coins and bidding continues around the table. If you bid you must outbid the previous bidder. If you pass, then you take the real estate card with the least value left in the center of the table and you take back half of your bid rounded up. Bidding continues with properties being taken by those that pass. When only one player is left with the highest bid, that player takes the last card (the highest valued property) but must pay his full bid amount to the bank. You're not required to bid to obtain a card. In other words, you can immediately pass and take the lowest valued property for free. The last player to take the property card starts next round of bidding.

Bidding rounds continue until all of the property cards have been purchased. Any money you have left from this phase is held until the end of the game. Purchased property cards are held face down by the players and are used during the second phase of play.

The second phase begins by placing the deck of checks in the middle of the table and picking up your purchased cards forming your hand. Check cards are turned face up and placed in the center of the table in the same manner as the property cards during the first phase. After the checks are exposed, players select a property from their hand and everyone exposes their choice simultaneously. The checks are awarded to the players in the order determined by the value of the property.

When all of the properties have been exchanged for checks, the game ends. Players sum the value of their checks with any coins left from the first phase and the player with the most money is the winner. Ties are broken by the player with the most coins.

For Sale is a great filler and I really enjoyed playing it with my family. We played two games back to back with Lisa winning the first. Lisa and Sophie each had 61 (Lisa broke the tie with more coins left from the first phase). I had 60 to Noah's 47. Our second game proved Noah the winner with 72 beating Lisa by one coin. Sophie had 56 to my horrid 48 (be careful of those voided checks!).

For Sale is a great game...go find a copy and grab some friends.

---

Technorati Tags
boardgames, reviews, Eurogames

I'm a pushover from interesting mechanics and nice game bits. San Marco is an older Euro (2001), well respected, highly rated on BGG (7.39/10), designed by Alan Moon (Ticket To Ride, Elfen*, King of the Elves,...), very nice bits, and a very interesting mechanic called 'divide and choose'.

I'll be honest though, the bits are what initially caught my eye. The artwork for the map of Venice is very nicely done. The wooden components are standard Euro quality but the cool red Doge pawn and the little arched bridges make for a game that's very pleasing to look at. I've been interested in the game for years but never had the opportunity to get my hands on it. My recent increase in gaming activity led me to my recent joining of CABS which put me in direct contact with a copy that I could checkout from the library and take home and fondle.

I slept late after my late night of CABS gaming and awoke with high hopes and I planned my day carefully to carve out some time that evening to read through the rules and play a round or two. That night I opened the box, looked over the cool components, and sat down with the rules.

San Marco uses the 'divide and choose' mechanic throughout three 'passages' (i.e. uber-rounds). Each passage is made up an indeterminate number rounds each of which requires the players to take on roles where some players (distributors) draw cards, inspect them, and divide them into two offerings (i.e. piles of cards). Those players that were not distributors (i.e. decision makers), pick up the cards offered to them by their corresponding distributor, examine them and choose which group of cards they want to play the round with. The distributors then must play with the cards that were not chosen by their decision maker. So in short, distributors do the 'dividing' and the decision makers do the 'choosing'.

At first blush, this seemed like a really neat idea. I could envision lots of angst for the distributor trying to figure out how best to divide the cards into two offerings such that the decision maker would choose the one that the distributor doesn't want. But the distributor can't make an offering too enticing without sacrificing the additional capabilities that that player will have once the round begins. I envisioned that this must be mind boggling fun trying to examine what the decision maker can do with the cards. And then on the flip-side, as a decision maker I get to see what the distributor offered and see which offering is best for me given what the distributor will be left with.

Then...I started thinking some more.

So, how does the distributor role get chosen? You'd suspect some sort of round-robin approach where everyone gets a chance right? Well, that's not possible given the additional rule that as a round is played out, players can be dropped out until the start of the next passage. So the game design calls for the role of the distributor to be chosen at random. With four players you have two distributors and two decision makers. So...say I get stuck with being the distributor more than others. That could be good I suppose, if I'm a good distributor and if I like performing that role. Being distributor seems like a good way to at least feel like you're in direct control of the game.

What if I'm chosen to be a decision maker more than others. That could be good too I suppose if the decision maker isn't very good at breaking up the offerings. I can then force the distributor to play with the crappy offering. And even if the distributor is good, I still get first chance at choosing.

So far, it looks pretty good. But wait just a minute more...

What if I work really hard as the distributor but the decision makers keep choosing the bone headed offering (from their perspective)? In addition, how long is it going to take for the distributors to compose their offerings? That's got to be a tough decision and given the number of cards you've got a lot of options to run through in your head. And then, if that didn't take long enough, then after the offerings are exposed, then the decision makers will have to go through a period of card examination to determine which offering makes the most sense for them. With the group I play with, we'd be lucky to get through a single passage in 4 hours! And finally, it seems the game hinges on someone making a mistake. A single screwed up distribution and/or decision could turn the game.

I'm not saying that San Marco is a bad game. Honestly, I don't think that games themselves have the ability to stink. The game might not be appropriate in some situations but that doesn't mean it stinks. That said though, San Marco is the first game I've ever come across that was so highly rated and yet seemed so poorly aligned to my group and to my style and desire of play. The downtime would be horrendous for us. I cannot think of another Euro that I've read the rules to and immediately came to the conclusion that I didn't want to play it. The bits are so cool that I wish there was another set of rules to go with them.

San Marco may be right for your gaming group and if it is, then I'm glad that you've found some enjoyment in it. I, on the other hand, will toss it aside lightly...maybe even with great force.

---

Technorati Tags
reviews, boardgames, Eurogames

Over the last few months, I've found myself spending a lot of time on BGG. I've spent large portions of many evenings

1. Browsing games
2. Reading geeklists
3. Reading reviews and session reports
4. Checking to see if the images I uploaded had any more recommendations or comments
5. Checking back on lists I had commented on or added games to
6. Tending my Geeklist Chain

BGG had become my 'Bloglines' activity. What I mean by that is that when I didn't know what to do, I used to just bring up Bloglines. There are always links to follow, RSS feeds to catch up on, stupid crap to fill your mind with, etc. In other words, Bloglines is a great way to fill time with mindless farting around. If the last six months have taught me anything, they've taught me that I need to stop farting so much.

Well, let me put that a different way. I've read a few blog entries about 'fringe gaming'. For the life of me I can't find the reference. If it rings a bell to anyone I'd appreciate the link so I can give appropriate credit. I'm a fringe gamer. A gamer that spends more time reading and talking about games than actually playing them.

I'm seen as a gamer know-it-all by some of my friends, many people I work with, and my family. But when you get on BGG, you realize that you know very little in comparison to many members. It's quite a humbling experience to become involved with the site and to be, for lack of a better explanation, repeatedly reminded that your ideas and thoughts are almost infantile compared to those of the elite.

BGG is lead by the 'cool crowd', those that post a lot of insightful or funny content. They garner a lot of respect. Almost any geeklist and/or forum entry by one of these members will attract recommendations, active respectful discussion, and genuine dialog.

BGG is used by new members who the cool members tend to help through the process of becoming cool. For the most part, they're lead tenderly through the process, occasionally given a few hard knocks but in general they're wished well in their journey to geekdom.

There are the faceless masses that use the site but submit no content. We of course cannot see them. Only the weblogs know but we all know they're there...watching.

And finally, there are the Rodney Dangerfields of the site. Those that, try as we might, never seem to get plugged into the cool crowd, the funny crowd, or the crowd that everyone respects...the E.F. Huttons.

Even after almost 4 years of registered use, I find myself in that final group, not knowing enough to even break into the bottom feeders of the respected but also not sure I want to spend any more time than I already do learning about games. In the end, what's really the point of knowing a lot about games and/or knowing about some inane geeklist when I could be doing something productive.

I don't want to make surfing BGG yet another one of my hobbies. There's really no purpose in farting around on BGG when I could actually be playing games with my kids, working in my woodshop, reading a book, or maybe even something as adventurous as learning to play the violin. I'm not boycotting BGG by any means but I'm going to be making a conscious effort to be more purposeful in my usage rather than trying to catch up to the Joneses.