Who Am I This Time? (a guide on role selection)

"All the world's a stage, and all the men and women merely players."

Shakespeare wasn't talking about "players" in the gaming sense (at least, I don't think he was--who knows the mind of the Bard?), but today's Guide to Gaming topic--role-selection--serves as a bridge between Shakespeare's players (actors) and the typical players we talk about on this site (gamers), though not in the full-on RPG sense.

Role-selection, especially in Euro games, is a little more abstract than that, but it does allow players within the game to identify as, influence, or otherwise gain the support of powerful personages (roles) to accomplish game tasks. Role-selection isn't the most popular gaming mechanism out there, but as you will see, for the games that use it well, it offers quite a lot of tense decisions and replay value.

Let's Build A Tableau Together (A Guide to Tableau Building)

Categorizing mechanics can be a tricky thing as we recently saw in a series of articles about whether or not Settlers of Catan is a worker placement game (Here's the Point and Counterpoint to get you caught up).  Rigid definitions aside, it’s helpful to know what type of games are out there and once you’ve identified what you like there’s a multitude of other games that share similar mechanics. We’ll be picking out some of the most popular mechanics (or at least our favorites) and exploring how they work, what games use them successfully, and why we love them. This week let’s take a look at Tableau Building.

Rebuilding Another Medieval French City--In Style (a review of Tournay)

I know: the title of this review is probably not making you very enthusiastic about Tournay (another Medieval French Belgian town needs to be rebuilt?!), the leaner younger brother to geek darling Troyes , but hear me out. Tournay is different within the Medieval city-building genre, and it's significantly different from Troyes. While it's true that Troyes is more clever and maybe more enjoyable (that's debatable), Tournay remains in my collection while Troyes passed quietly out--unwept, unhonored, and unsung. Why is that? And why are comparisons to Troyes most likely inappropriate for this game? Check out my comments below!

Black Market Pier Pressure (a review of Santiago De Cuba)

[Editors note: The following is a Nemesis Review, featuring opinions from our in-house eurogamer, @Farmerlenny, and his deadly enemy the thematic space-loving @Futurewolfie.  Make sure to read both opinions to get a better overall picture of the game!]

A good lunch game is hard to find. A game that easily lands itself within an hour time frame often lacks the depth of longer, more satisfying gaming experiences, and games that go beyond the bounds of a lunch hour might force some players to sit out or work after hours to make up the time.

Enter Santiago de Cuba, a lunchtime Euro of black-market goods, supply and demand, and shipping. But the question is, is this a boat you want to be on? Find out below!

Know Your Role! (a review of Puerto Rico)

Puerto Rico was once the highest-rated game on Board Game Geek, and it currently occupies position #3 of all board games ever. But what with the recent reviewing "controversy" mentioned on BGG (and commented on by @Futurewolfie), how does one approach reviewing so stately a classic?

Well, at least on my end, being newer to the hobby, I approach Puerto Rico as a relative newbie, without the baggage of its longstanding reputation. So what did I think of this classic? Find out below!

FDQ: How Many Chances Do You Give a Game?

"Three strikes and you're out!" is a common system for deciding when enough is enough. Fifty pages of a book is supposedly a good gauge of whether the whole thing is worth reading. But then there are things that are "acquired tastes," supposedly worth the effort given enough time. What's the cut-off for board games? How many chances do you give a game before passing judgment? Answer in the comments!

@FarmerLenny answers:
The board game hobby is already pretty saturated, so it seems like the answer should be low. After all, if you don't like game X, surely game Y won't disappoint. Why waste your time on what you don't like when there's a clear better option available?

I don't feel this way, though, at least not all the time. I usually give a game more than one chance (the exception is if a game really fails to grab me or anyone else the first time), since one play is rarely definitive. Puerto Rico is a great example of this. The first time I played the game, I wasn't too enamored of it and didn't see what all the fuss was about. But my brother-in-law insisted that I borrow it, and after the very next play, I was hooked. I don't know about number-one-game-of-all-time hooked, but I recognize its merits.

Of course, with other games, multiple plays only confirmed my opinion, as with Glen More. And multiple plays can even sour an experience. I liked San Juan and Cosmic Encounter the first several times I played. It was only later that I realized those games are not really for me. I had a very high opinion of Eminent Domain when I first had it, but it has since left me feeling cold. All of this weighs on me as a reviewer: how many plays is enough to give a definitive opinion? And who's to say my opinion won't change later? There comes a time when you have to put fingers to keyboard; I try to make sure it happens when my opinion is set, but we all make mistakes, I'm sure.

Because of these things, I appreciate all the more the games that are still awesome, all these plays later.

@Futurewolfie answers:
There's really no definitive answers to this one.  However there is this; I am much more likely to give a game multiple tries if either 1. the theme interests me greatly or 2. one of my friends really likes the game.

Some games (such as, you know, Bacchus' Banquet - the worst "hidden identity" game I've ever played) are immediately unpleasant.  The game is clearly flawed, I have absolutely no fun playing it, and the theme isn't exactly interesting to me.  I'm not going to try that game again - unless one of my friends (read: @Farmerlenny)  really want to (fortunately in the case of Bacchus, no one did.)

Some games immediately spark my interest - even though I'm still learning the game, I can see the potential or I really love the theme or I enjoy the mechanics and see a lot of potential for depth.

Other games I dislike which may or may not be broken, but I just don't really have fun playing them or find the experience very frustrating.  Again if the theme really interests me (something in Space) or @Farmerlenny really likes it (Ra) I will give it more tries.

And then there are games which I enjoy but are kind of "meh" but I will give them a few shots to see if they grow on me.  And many of them do.  Dominion is one such example - I enjoyed it when I first played, but it wasn't until I really began to grasp the higher concepts and intricate strategies involved that I really began to appreciate it a lot.

FDQ: What Was Your Best Trade?

Board games are expensive, and many gamers don't get a chance to play every game they have anyway, yet there is still the desire for the new, the untested experience. This, of course, makes trading an attractive option. Which brings us to today's question: what was your best board gaming trade? Answer in the comments!

@FarmerLenny answers:
It's no secret that I am a board game trading maniac. Because my wife and I use an allowance system and I don't have a lot to invest in the hobby, I try to make my dollar stretch as far as possible. The way I do this is if there is a game that either I don't love or my friends aren't excited to play, after a short grieving period in the latter case, I trade it away.

I've landed some sweet trades. There was the time I traded BoomBlox: Bash Party (the Wii game) for Puerto Rico or Citadels for At the Gates of Loyang in a math trade. (Math trades, for those not in the know, are trades by computer algorithm; a more detailed explanation is here.) These were both trade ups in terms of value. But perhaps my greatest trade in terms of usability was the Settlers of Catan 5-6 player expansion (a game I still hadn't used after three years of ownership) for For Sale (a game I play all the time). I will also occasionally "trade" a game by selling it and using the proceeds to reinvest in the hobby. In that case, perhaps my greatest "trade" was Pirate's Cove for El Grande. In any case, my collection is often fluid because of the trades.

@Futurewolfie answers:
I'm definitely the kind of person that likes to collect and keep.  I have a few board games that haven't been touched in a while, but you never know when the right mood will strike.  At the very least, if the game is something different than anything else I own, it will probably stay for a while.

That being said, there does come a time when you realize a game just isn't going to hit the table, or it's too similiar to another game.  Dragon Parade was just never going to show up with my gaming group, and Android was too long to be worth it. At least we had our fun with Android, but I traded it away for the much shorter Shadows over Camelot, which was a win.  But really, that's all I've traded so far.

Still, I'm looking forward to this year's GenCon math trade (the same place I got rid of Android and Dragon Parade), which is a great way to pass on a game relatively risk-free and without having to pay shipping.  So if anyone's interested in Frag, Cave Troll, Tobago, or Wits and Wagers... those are all on my "to trade" list.

FDQ: What Is Player Interaction?

In recent twitter activity, the question came up as to what exactly player interaction is.

I've noticed that with certain games, some will praise it for subtle interaction while others will disdain it for being essentially "multiplayer solitaire." Aside from the fact that solitaire does actually have a two-player variant, how can one game be thought of so differently?

Okay don't answer that. That's not today's FDQ. Today's actual FDQ is, how do you define player interaction?

@Futurewolfie answers:
Honestly, to me player interaction comes in all different forms. It can be direct and impactful, or very very subtle. I think anytime the other players can do anything that affects the game for other players, that counts as player interaction. Regardless of how subtle it is, it forces players to keep at least some tabs on each other and react accordingly—and that's a form of interaction.

Case in point here is Dominion, which is sometimes called a "multiplayer solitaire" game. However, I disagree with this notion. Sure, you build your own deck and most of what goes into it is completely up to you. Other players have little chance of affecting your hand once your turn has started. However, attack cards aside, the central supply keeps all players connected. Sure, you could build a perfect deck and then buy up all the points if you were playing on your own. But the challenge comes from having to do it faster than the other players. Each time a player takes a province, not only does it push the game that much closer to ending, but it prevents any other player from getting that province, quickly dwindling the supply. Thusly players have to keep tabs on each other to make sure they don't wait too long. They have to react to the things other players are doing. And that's interaction.

If Dominion was, say, a turn-limited game, it would be much more solitary. Then you would simply attempt to build your deck in a specified amount of turns, regardless of what the other players were doing. I think there's a huge different there.

@FarmerLenny's answer:
I think player interaction is anything another player can do that forces you to change your plan. What typically passes for player interaction is conflict, where players are allowed to directly influence a player of their choice (an attack). I think there are other forms, too. For example, there is competition over choosing an action or role as in Agricola or Puerto Rico. There's the interaction of trying to read what your opponent will do as in Race for the Galaxy (though, admittedly, this game can be played without much interaction at all). There's the interaction of monitoring a common supply and trying to determine what your opponents are up to as in Dominion (granted, this game can be played without much interaction as well, especially if your goal is the baseline silver gambit). I don't think there's an ideal level of player interaction for any game (though there must be some; otherwise, what's the point of finding other players at all?); it's up to individual players. For me, I prefer games that avoid direct conflict and love games that find other ways for players to interact. My three favorite games—El Grande, Dominion, and Acquire—all cause interesting player interactions without direct attack. (Okay, there's some in El Grande. For some reason that game gets a pass.)

Gaming Weekends and First Impressions

Living as I do on the edge of civilization (or at least far away from the rest of my kin), I try to spend my birthday among family, and this year was no exception. I traveled to the exotic land of Nebraska to spend the weekend with my sister and brother-in-law, and true to Nebraska's landscape, there wasn't much to do except game. All told we fit in eleven plays of eight unique games (three of them mine, two already reviewed—El Grande and Eminent Domain—and our 7 Wonders review coming this week), four of which were first-time plays for me. I also got to try a new game I got for my birthday and attended open gaming at my local gamestore this past Saturday (I went with friends, so I didn't chicken out this time). Needless to say, this would be considered gaming overload for most, but I took it in stride, and now I'll give you my first impressions of all the new games I played.

(First plays of Midgard, Glen More, Puerto Rico, Resident Evil Deck-Building Game, Ra, and Stone Age)